Proportional Representation: How the Dutch Electoral System Works (and the Pros & Cons) - TLDR News 

And from the 2025 elections forward you'll probably also get the choice to vote for a party instead of a candidate!

@Jeroen Arendonk they are in fact almost obligated to vote the same as the 'party' does

I like that one of the advantages of having so many parties is that, once you pick your favorite few parties, you know what you're getting from every candidate within that party.

Exactly, not forgetting you have those voter guides, that give a result based on what you find important. Most of those questionnaires take up to 30 minutes, but you get too see the Total result and the result for each question you answered. -------------------- For example: The Netherlands needs to leave the EU. Yes/NO/Neutral/or skip question. {if you choose skip, the answer will not be tallied up to the best choice result} They often include a selection if it is (( Not important, Neutral, Important, or VERY Important)) to make choices of those questions More important than others. If you vote YES. you will see the list of parties that agree to that choice. --------------------- Then based on that you can see the Party that you align the most with. {the downside is that most of those Questionnaires have 1 flaw is that you often at most get a 50-70% alignment with a certain party. Making that the best choice for you}.

@@memunist5765 you watched too much zondag met lubach

Not to mention that local issues are delegated to the provincial or municipal governments anyway. As for the whole "I don't know who my representative is" thing; I get that that's a worry if you're used to FPTP, but realistically, the Dutch system doesn't lose you 1 representative but gains you 149, because every member of parliament is obliged (within reason) to respond to anyone who writes to them, which means that you can actually choose who you want to address with your issues. Yes, it can be a member who lives close to you, but it can also be a member who's of the same gender, or one who's of the same cultural minority, or at least one who actually represents the party you voted for. I doubt that in Britain, many Labour voters in majority Conservative constituencies would really see the member for that constituency as 'their' representative, since they did not vote for their party and likely differ in opinion quite significantly on most issues.

@@rjfaber1991 Yeah, your "representative" needn't give a toss about you if their voter base is relatively secure and you're not one of them. It's not the great advantage it's often touted as being.

Yeah in Sweden the local parties keep sticking regional party ballots in our hands and most people are like "I have no idea who these people are , can I have a national ballot from your party instead"

@@herculeskoutalidis1369 Hyperbole also no he won't, just like most far right parties they've been dipping since the pandemic begun.

Also eerste kamer is more about the local vote, and tweede kamer is more about the national vote

Actually i would understand one point, as there is no majority possible with such and a voting system. Political parties have to come to an agreement to form a government and then compromise the previous position they have. As the results the decisions are in the middle ground of everything. But if i decide to send all the resources of the country to mars and you don't want to send anything then the middle ground of sending half of it is still stupid.

@@Charles-ed3vj In layman's terms: the coalition practically becomes a new party that reflects the overall winners of the election for instance: the neoliberal VVD and conservative CDA wanted to get rid of the advisory referendum, the progressive D66 compromised by introducing active organ donorship and testing state plantations on cannabis. none of the parties had this exact plan but it was indirectly the will of the majority of peoples thus the majority of people are represented.

@@choonbox I am not that sure of the representation of the majority. If a big law has to pass which is the will of the majority then the coalition will vote it but every party will have counterparts for giving their vote by passing new little laws that favour their political plan. As you pointed out the active organ donorship and the state plantation were not in the plan of the other parties and are approved mostly by the majority who voted for D66 in the first place as a result this is now allowed but this law wouldn't have passed if the D66 proposed it straight to the parliament.

@@Charles-ed3vj That's not how compromises work. It's more likely that you get your mission to Mars, but have to give up another big priority of yours. (Maybe you wanted to pay for the mission by cutting funding for education. But your coalition partner might want higher taxes on x instead. Or maybe they want something non financial in return: legal marihuana for example. (Or outlawing drugs. The opposite of what you like).

​@Ghouls'N'Roses I think you turned this into an argument about advisory referenda. The point was- everyone has to equally 'betray' their own voterbase. You have to realise- most European countries know no other system and we're mostly terrified to see our population split in two or three voting blocs. We can elect parties that primarily represent the elderly and retired, animal rights, EU federalists, Nexiteers, New Dutchmen/immigrants, education... heck there's even a party for pedophiles (yes, terrible I know) As stated before, you choose based on your ideals and not based on the odds of winning the election as you'll always know at least two other parties are needed to get a majority. The winners of the elections usually go into what we call "Formation", this is where the compromises happen. We call it the 'poldermodel', if a winning party can not compromise they can choose to be in opposition until the next elections until a government is formed that CAN make an agreement on some or more issues.

I absolutely agree with you, as somebody who's moved from Australia (proportionally represented Senate-relatively) to the US (dysfunctional shitshow Senate-absolutely).

@@nomadMik Oh don't even start me on US system

The UK has a lot archiac relics from the past in the system When u been doing aint broke don't fix for 300 yrs things are bounded to be a little outdated

@@moramento22 The US is a hell hole our system is so un Democratic in the US

That's because the D'Hondt method still intrinsically favours bigger parties. So in Poland PiS has been consistently getting under 50% of all votes while receiving over 50% of all mandates. There are other methods that favour smaller parties in proportional representation systems and I hope they will be selected in the future to prevent the current situation.

This points resonates so much with my experience, if you have multiple views on an issue why should someone get it all their way just because one percentage point. It really becomes the dictatorship of the plurality even before fears of the dictatorship of the majority.

I agree completely. Not saying proportional systems are without flaws or drawbacks, but I prefer them any day over majoritarian systems. It allows me to vote for whichever party program most closely represents my point of view, not worrying about whether my vote would be 'lost' by voting for someone or a party that is too small. And thus the layout of parliament can be a pretty accurate representation of the population's points of view.

Compromise is one of the great strengths of democracy. It means that everybody wins a little. If you can't compromise, there are some very fundamental disagreements that need to be worked out and the solution should _not_ be just to give all the power to one side instead, which is basically the solution given by majoritarian systems.

In my country, a political compromise is defined as a solution everybody is equally unhappy with. Works great, every time.

Hindenburg's compromise with Hitler gave the World the Second World War.

Give me one example. Because I never heard of such a scheme like ever

@@MrJimheeren an example of what?

@@DS9TREK a proportional system switching to a majority system

British government structure has paved the way for the most successful countries in the world.... UK usa Canada Australia New Zealand Singapore Hongkong. Please name an ex Dutch French or Spanish colony that is a successful country

@@Obi_boy I don’t think the form of government has much to do with it and more with the complete domination and destruction of the former inhabitants of those named countries. The American Indian, aboriginal, Maori and black South African were either wiped out or send to other places of their countries and replaced by white English folk who had full support of the motherland. Notice how you didn’t include India in you little list because India just like Indonesia by the Dutch and Ivory Coast and Mali by the French were just sucked dry for their natural resources and then left out to fend for themselves. It has nothing to do with your ancient form of government and everything to do with bigger guns

It does require a parliamentary system to work best, yes. Again though, it depends on which political values you think are more important. A presidential system better respects the separation of powers, but a parliamentary system is more democratic. There's arguments to be made for both sides, but I do feel pretty happy living in a constitutional monarchy with a parliamentary system and Party-List PR as its voting system. As my own valuation of different political values go, that's the best combination out there, so it suits my preferences perfectly.

As a Swede. we've got the same system as the dutch, a big problem is people look at Us elections and takes queues from it, the rhetoric has grown harsher and the tribalism worse recently which having an adverse effect on our democracy because as the end of the day they'll have to compromise.

@@DaDunge We've had the same here, but it's ultimately not that much of a worry, because as you say, the system forces them to come together eventually anyway. It's only really parties on the political extremes, who have no chance of finding coalition partners anyway, who seriously engage in the tribalism.

@@rjfaber1991 Neither presidential or parliamentary is more democratic.

Presidential systems can work really well with proportional representation.

Yeah, my first reaction! :)

Typical bri ish people

@@Maroon33 lol nice touch :)

😂😂😂

He was clearly trying to make a point with rounded and larger numbers so it’s easier for the average viewer to understand

exactly!

yeah exactly, would make the political process more engaging too

@@ilanlopez9826 You get to see ten people on the debates between the frontrunners, rather than just two views which may not align that well. You could easily dislike both of them and feel like nobody represents you.

@@robertjarman3703 for that you have primaries in us

@@regieegseg8588 They only appeal to their primary voters, not all of their potential supporters. And you don't get those who are opposed or have ideas different to that of the party as a whole on the same stage,

WORD

The big flaw of misrepresentation error is that it assumes that people who voted for a candidate of a party other than the party whose candidate was elected their MP are represented by other MP's of the party they did vote for. This is of course not how it's supposed to work. Arguably it's better to look at how many people are not represented by an MP of the party they voted for. For the UK that is presently 45%. For the Netherlands I believe it's no more than 2%.

As a Dutch "your vote might not count" doess feel appropriate. Because the smaller parties who more narrowly represent you, don't end up in the coalition and wield 0 power (theoretically this is not meant to happen but they are simply ignored in the House), and so people vote for the big parties just to have SOME level of influence on the policies of the government, but it feels like your vote is not very consequential for that reason, the big parties have no big policy differences. Also: all the eccentric people who want to change things get into a power struggle in the big party and so the big parties (who decide policy) aren't rejuvenated with new ideas, the brilliant change makers are kicked out, start a small party, and fail. Plus the kicked out change makers have to deal with a lot of hate from the bureaucacy because they "stepped out of line" and have a hard time then coming back to compromise with those figures who hate them. And if they ARE very successful after exiting the large party, you can just feel the jealousy and meanness from the so-called cartel towards them. For example, what Trump managed to do to reduce the time it takes to build a highway from 19 years to 1 year: such kind of initiatives are necessary in The Netherlands (reducing bureaucracy) and have been tried since the 1980s but always fail because changemakers don't make it.

@@johannesasfaw It might be caused by the idea that big parties should be the ones governing. A small party coalition with the small parties not demanding too much should work.

Actually if people vote for a party no matter the ideas this party has it should be represented in the parliament with a number of seats corresponding to the number of people who voted for them.

Look at Israel. They have a Dutch-like electoral system. But in order to build coalitions, major parties must seduce fringe parties, and these have a tremendous amount of leverage because of their being necessary to a majority.

The second largest party is an extreme right party tho

@@Dishyg They're dickheads, but they're not extremists. They're in coalition with one of the extremist parties, though, and they have an unfortunate influence. I'm honestly having a hard time telling the Nats and One Nation apart these days.

@@nomadMik pvv is literally an extremist party

Agree

STV is better, for a whole variety of reasons.

@@jonathanwetherell3609 STV is proportional representation. Lists are also proportional, just a different way of doing it.

@@robertjarman3703 STV is not proportional at all. It is a means of selecting a compromise candidate, one that is generally acceptable to the majority.

@@jonathanwetherell3609 Majority? What are you talking about? In a nine seat STV district, you need only 10%+1 to be elected. Even with 3 seats it's only 25%+1. It's much more likely that you will elect someone of your preference, even on first preference, over two thirds of Irish voters tend to get someone they favour on first preference, and this would go higher if you sum up those who at least got someone of the party they liked. STV produces low Gallagher index numbers too, like the last Irish election for instance. It can be pretty accurate

That also exists in the Netherlands. It is just 0.6%. In other words, if you do not get enough votes for a single seat you do not get a seat.

fun fact about electoral thresholds and representation... in sweden, you can get represented if you get either 4% nationwide or 12% in a district... in denmark, i know its 2% nationwide plus getting the electoral quota in 2 of the 3 super districts used for levelling seats and also winning a district seat 😁

​@@lieuwestra Yes, which is exactly how it should be. If a party reaches the full quota for one seat, it should get one seat. These higher electoral thresholds are undemocratic.

"so the amount of candidates really isn't an excuse" ...I'd think it's more about the physical ballot design. With so many candidates, you could save a LOT of paper using a write-in space (at the cost of how legibly people write).

@@Stratelier the thing is counting a red dot is way faster and easier then reading the name and then counting also bed writing could make the amount of non counted votes higher

The Republican Party in the US has turned so far to the right over the past few years, it throws this whole theory into the dustbin. The Conservative Party in the UK has likewise shifted to the end of the spectrum, especially since Brexit, and Labour under Corbyn wasn't moderate either. Besides, much like the powerful US presidency (replicated all throughout Latin America as the first step towards dictatorship), the majority system is _extremely_ volatile to hostile takeover in countries with less than impeccable traditions of pluralism. If a nation has just emerged from a civil war or a sever eeconomic depression, the proportional system is the only way to ensure that radicals in either camp remain at least somewhat placated before better institutions have been put in place.

@@yarpen26 I think that latter point is an excellent one to make. People sometimes criticise PR for giving parties on the political extreme power, but I'd argue that's actually a good thing. Firstly, the system virtually guarantees that while these parties have seats in parliament, they will rarely or never be able to form coalitions, but secondly, the people who vote for these parties will exist either way. Either you give them a voice in politics (which PR does), or you stifle it (which FPTP does), which effectively creates a ticking timebomb, because as we've seen with Trump, with Brexit, and several other examples, one day these extreme movements, if left without a voice, will become strong enough to hijack a major political party, and then you really are in trouble, because then they will have genuine power.

Yeah, collitions _made in advance,_ ie. you're more or less stuck with them, and _forced_ to vote for the second worst of the two largest, since _not_ doing so is equivalent to not voting at all and not stopping the _worst_ of the two getting it. Tactical voting distorts the will of the people dramatically. In a sane system, you can vote for a party you more or less agree with and have a reasonable chance of them getting into the Legislature, even if they don't form a majority coalition or the government. Parties can form _different_ coallitions based on changes within the party and how many votes the parties all got. You're not forced to vote for and legitimise both the parts of the party you agree with and the parts you vehemently disagree with. Take the US currently: The Republican party _can't_ split in two, because both halves know that, with the Republican votes split between them, they would not be able to win _any_ election for the foreseeable future. If they could split and both get representatives into Congress relative to how many voters they had, the more moderate (for the US) half could then form a coallition with the moderate (for the US) half of the Democratic party. I think these two halves would be much happier with each other than how things currently stand, but forming a third party is political suicide, so it won't happen.

@@yarpen26 I wouldn't say the US presidency is particularly powerful.

@@IkeOkerekeNews It is, especially in foreign affairs, a US president is virtually an unchecked dictator. Nowhere in Europe would you be able to get anything like the Muslim ban through without having to go through the Parliament first.

Italy makes one big mistake. They don't take enough time to form a government. It SEEMS an advantage to have an agreement in 100 days with no endless negotiations. But it isn't. The agreement is very thin, and only on a few important issues. So later on, parties will argue on every single issue, making the government unstable. We in the Netherlands negotiated a lot of issues in those 225 days, so less reason to argue later on.

@@barthuneker5027 italian goverment also have to have majority in both chambres (which is rare as far as democratic constitutions go...), so in every senat election the gaverment fall

@@cyrilmrazek6649 That's no different in the Netherlands though. The members of the First Chamber (the indirectly elected 'senate') are less closely tied to their party than the members of the Second Chamber (the directly elected 'parliament'), but many otherwise hopeful formation attempts have still fallen on the issue of not having a majority in the First Chamber.

Here in Italy supporters of a majoritarian system claim that it would would make the political system more stable. It was interesting the listen to a very different POV

@@cyrilmrazek6649 I don't think that's the problem. The problem here is that we can't really choose MPs, the party does (currently only a part, but all of them were chosen by parties in the past). This means that we can't punish "traitors", aka people who change party during the legislature, when election come. Parties don't punish them either because they are useful. Also, if you look at the policies, you see very little differences between governments during the same legislature, in fact when a government collapse and a new one is formed most of the ministers don't change or they just swap competences to reflect the new balance of power.

Let's also not forget that the Netherlands has a robust network of local governments which decide about local issues. You have provinces for the medium level things, municipalities for the very local, and water boards for water at a scale between those (of course the Netherlands has a special layer of local government concerned only with water). All of the layers from EU to municipality hold elections that function fundamentally the same: you vote for a candidate of a party list, seats are assigned to the list proportionally to the share of the vote the list got, if the candidate you voted for got more than a defined fraction of the number of votes a list must get to be given a seat they get promoted to the top of the list in order of votes received, otherwise they get bumped down by anyone lower on the list that got promoted, then seats awarded to the party list are awarded to candidates on the list in this order until no more seat remains. All elections are held on a 4 year cycle except for EU elections which are on a 5 year cycle, with municipal elections held on the same day in all municipalities except those that have merged shortly before and have already held a recent election, and provincial and water board elections held together but on strictly separate ballots on the same day in all provinces and water boards. This makes these elections also very much cause for national awareness, giving people more reason to participate.

Sorry, I don't believe that last part. That's only true if "local" means "short-sighted".

I sort of agree with you, but there is something to say for local representation. Sweden has a proportional election system with a local component (basically, you calculate representation from each region according to the election results in that region, plus a number of floating seats used to make sure the national representation is in accord with the national results). But the local representatives are mostly just button-pushers, and don't really have a mandate to promote local issues. For most things, this is good, but it does lead to a things mostly being decided from the point of view of the capital. An easy example has to do with airports. In Stockholm, Arlanda is the main international airport, and the national government wants to support this. But for a large portion of the country's population, it's much easier to get to Copenhagen Airport (which is right on the border with Sweden), but from the national government's POV that's a competitor, and they're wholly uninterested in doing anything that would support CPH. I think that if the representatives in parliament and government had a stronger local component, there would be a more diverse perspective on national issues. But I definitely wouldn't want to go as far as having a first-past-the-post system.

100% agree, could not disagree with my MP more. I feel much more represented by MPs that may have constituencies hundreds of miles away. In the age of the internet and national/international politics, local representation is pointless.

Exactly.

Quite agree. But since you copied Yannick, let me copy my comment I left him as well, to give the majority system another kick in the teeth, since coalitions being made in advance has several huge disadvantages, which can lead to parties not being as moderate as they could be: Yeah, coalitions _made in advance,_ ie. you're more or less stuck with them, and forced to vote for the second worst of the two largest, since not doing so is equivalent to not voting at all and not stopping the _worst_ of the two getting it. Tactical voting distorts the will of the people dramatically. In a sane system, you can vote for a party you more or less agree with and have a reasonable chance of them getting into the Legislature, even if they don't form a majority coalition or the government. Parties can form _different_ coalitions based on changes within the party and how many votes the parties all got. You're not forced to vote for and legitimise both the parts of the party you agree with and the parts you vehemently disagree with. Take the US currently: The Republican party can't split in two, because both halves know that, with the Republican votes split between them, they would not be able to win any election for the foreseeable future. If they could split and both get representatives into Congress relative to how many voters they had, the more moderate (for the US) half could then form a coalition with the moderate (for the US) half of the Democratic party. I think these two halves would be much happier with each other than how things currently stand, but forming a third party is political suicide, so it won't happen.

@@MalloonTarka Quite well said

@@Lordblow1 Thank you!

I agree with you. With most of their criticisms I was thinking "but that's a *strength* "

Yeah it's an dumb argument. Even if extremists are voted in they don't have a big enough base to govern or make an big influence it only makes them represented because there are people who believe that and they should have a right to be represented if they have enough votes for a seat or 2

Foreigners about Dutch politics; "Trump won. WiL wIlDErS bE tHE WinnEr? WiLl He bE thE BIggEsT parTy?" Dutch people; "Not relevant, no one will work with him even if he is the biggest" Foreign news after Wilders gained 10 seats; "YaY pOpuLism In EurOpE is StOpPed"

@@Christian-mt5jx Also every big societal change is an extreme position first, so having the chance to introduce such ideas to politics is not nessecarily a bad thing. Think of the green parties who were considered extreme in the 90s but are in my opinion a good extension to the European political range while in the US they have no chance in the current system.

What is Democracy only right wing . Don't forget in Democracy people are masters ..

some, maybe. but those party's are unlikely to actually win. and if they do, they will have to create a coalition rendering them harmless. (also in the Netherlands we consider the GOP extreme)

hold on were you joking, did I just woosh

@@Leonium797 Yeah i think he was sarcastic here

@@Leonium797 you did

@@Leonium797 That's what the /s means.

He just couldn't find enough cons for the video haha

Also, you do sort of know which parties are aledgeable to form the coalition. That doesn't mean that they will or won't be in it, but you know which parties get a shot at trying.

I might theoretically have a person I vote for, but I wouldn't have known them at all coming into the voting booth and they wouldn't know me either, so why should I really say and feel that they're truly representing me? But I can see how it may not be better in FFTP countries (which I don't have experience with).

Exactly. So, they get a voice, which is good, as they represent a certain proportion of the electorate that has a right be represented, but them actually getting governing powers is rare, and when it does happen, requires compromise.

Not always. In 2010, we go an extremist party supporting the minority govt

@@countdown4725 hence “rare”. We also have FvD at the provincial level in a governing position.

@@countdown4725 They weren't the only ones who could have done that, and they didn't form part of the executive but merely would vote against a motion of no confidence. The government could easily have gone to other parties as they picked and choose if they needed to get support for a given bill that the extremist didn't support.

@@countdown4725 and look how that turned out. when Wilders dropped his support it was the first, and maybe the biggest reason why he lost any chance of ruling with the VVD since then, even as the second largest party.

Too bloody right!

The big con is everyone voting for the largest party to make sure the second larges party (a far right extremist party) won’t come to power so we’re stuck with the same conservative PM

@El Dimos Karam there is no communist party in our government. Just nazis

@@Dishyg I’m not sure. Have you ever checked the SP-programme?

@Ghouls'N'Roses lmao they absolutely aren’t communist

Not if you have 4 or 5 members per constituency. Constituencies group in regions, so regional sentiments and problems get a say.

@@elwynjones763 In the netherlands you can vote for parties within your own city. these manage your cities say in things. Then there is the elections for your province, which also decides the senate. The national government is national, so should do whats best for the country.

A politicians role us to think of all people in the country and not only people/voters in a specific region/city.

Exactly, and if regional issues do get overlooked it is super easy to set up a political party that does pay attention to voters that feel left out.

@@elwynjones763 Regional sentiments are represented by the 1st Chamber (our version of the House of Lords) as well as provincial and municipal government. All our representatives are elected directly under Proportional Representation, except for the 1st Chamber, which is elected by the "States-Provincial", a collective of the provincial governments we've elected. The main problem with FPTP is that it creates an adversarial bipartisan system (a big left-wing block vs a big right-wing block, with only a handful of small regional/special interests parties which generally hold very little influence) where whichever side wins gets to pretty much do whatever they want. A jester passing the scepter back and forth between his left and right hand and anyone from Center-Left to Center-Right constantly have to pick "the lesser of two evils". As for the UK's system specifically, with 1 MP per constituency: Not everyone within a constituency has the same interests and views. It varies greatly from far-left to far-right. A great example is Brexit. What should an MP vote in regards to Brexit if roughly half their constituency is for Brexit and roughly half is against it? And who represents the other half? Let's say he votes for Brexit, what kind of Brexit will he seek? How many of his Brexit-supporting constituents will not get what they wanted(/voted for)? In conclusion, a society's political views and interests are broad and varied. Why would a group of people spread out over multiple constituencies be better served being represented by someone they disagree with because their local candidates didn't win, rather than being able to pool their votes nation-wide so that their views will actually be represented (proportionally)? Isn't a core principle of democracy the equality of its citizens? How can all citizens be equal if their votes don't even weigh the same. Nono, then I prefer our proportional system. Where my vote is worth the same as every other, and I only need 65.000-80.000 people to agree with me (depending on voter turnout) for us to have influence on policy, rather than hoping the party I'm in favour of having the biggest vote share in my local region so I have representation this election cycle. And where our political parties have to compromise with eachother to form a plan(/mandate) and thereby a Coalition. A shitshow like Brexit can't happen here unless we have an actual majority. Unlike the UK, where 37% of the electorate initiated the process and ~46% of the votes in the 2019 election led to a 56% majority in seats. So even IF Nexit-advocating parties get enough seats combined to form a majority, if they can't come up with a unified compromise on how they're actually going to do it, they won't be able to form a Coalition government and the issue will literally just be shelved until the next election cycle. Giving people 4 more years to contemplate the consequences and discuss our country's future.

Pretty sure "ver van mijn bed-show" doesn't translate, but I did chuckle reading it... The thing with local representation is that it only really matters if the national parliament also decides local matters. In the Netherlands those are all delegated to the provincial and municipal governments (in fact, many would argue we've overshot the mark in recent years with delegating matters to the municipalities), so it doesn't fundamentally matter. Any policy solely affecting Twente will be made in municipalities in Twente, not in The Hague.

From what I believe.. in the US "your" representative is actually a big thing. You can call your local representative with complaints etc and if enough people do it it can actually have some effect. I have heard of representatives changing their mind on certain issues after their voters called with worry. This is harder if not almost impossible to do in a proportional democracy like the netherlands. But the dutch system is still better in my opinion. Although I believe some democracies have a great balance between the two (New Zealand if I remember correctly)

@@drafmine4526 In the Netherlands you can contact any member of parliament, regardless of whether they're local to your area or not, and they legally have to respond to whatever you're contacting them about. So in many ways, the Dutch system doesn't lose you 1 representative, but gains you 149. I'd say that with certain issues, it's better to be able to choose a representative that is of the same gender or age group or cultural minority as yourself, rather than just being tied to the one option who happens to be local to your area.

@@rjfaber1991also the idea of a local representative is deceptive. If a constituency has both a group of socialists and a group of conservatives living in it then a single representative can never represent both groups because you can't be a conservative and a socialist at the same time. In a proportional system both the socialists and the conservatives have representatives in parliament. It doesn't matter whether that specific representative is from your hometown or not because they are elected to represent the views of their voters regardless of their hometown.

@@PyrusFlameborn All true.

@Jeroen Arendonk the fact that we have to compromise might be a risk to the parties politics and promises, but it does allow for more peoples influence to be felt in the same government. Thereby involving more people to a lesser degree, than less people to a bigger degree. Which in a diverse country ran by a proportional represenation government is really neccesary. So I totally agree with what you say as it isnt really that important in the long term. Sure some are legit cons but I would rather have proportional representation than the mess that the USA has. As that promotes polarization and political instability and unrest, forcing people to chose one of either sides.

@Jeroen Arendonk Compromise can be interpreted both ways to be honest. On one hand its a Pro because it avoids a big party getting too much power, and gives that power to the smaller parties. On the other hand its a Con because for that same exact reason, it can prevent the winning party from really carrying out all the plans that people voted for.

I agree

The point of compromise occurs in majoritarian systems too, but it occurs within the main parties. However, the nature of these compromises is also winner-takes-all. This means that, in contrast to the dutch PR system where such debates are institutionalized, protecting the minority parties, FPTP parties tend to smother their internal opposition. Furthermore, the presumption under FPTP is that such 'compromise' is always successful. As we can see from the last few years, both Labour (for and against Corbyn)and Conservatives (for and against Brexit) are fragmented and ensuing continuous infighting has exhausted both parties, preventing clear policy directions and decisions from being made.

I think your argument is extremely invalid and badly explained. Xxx a Dutchy.

Absolutely. My whole adult life my vote has never counted - I've always lived in constituencies where my preferred candidate/party had no chance of winning. For me, voting has been a complete waste of time. Why don't more UK people care about this?

@@LCD72 Did you know that Wales and Scotland both have proportional representation? The National Assembly for Wales and of Scotland both have PR voting systems, so it seems whoever was involved in setting up those systems did know and care about PR! Only Westminster remains first-past-the-post.

G E K O L O N I S E E R D comments everywhere

@@drafmine4526 I actually colonised (GEKOLONISEERD) a part of this comment section, because im dutch

It always has been ;)

True: I am Dutch myself! Nederlander hier!👍🇳🇱

je hebt helemaal gelijk

Oh and this vidio is Gekoloniseerd (colonised)

Make that provinces and municipalities. 'Counties' don't really come into it, and if you were to follow the logic behind that name in the British system, you'd end up with counties that are as large or larger than even the current provinces. After all, all of Holland used to be a single county prior to the Burgundian unification of the Low Countries, and Zeeland (minus Zeelandic Flanders) was a county too.

And there they use the d'Hondt method as well. The only election which can be called different in some way is for the Upper Chamber. There the general public doesn't get a direct vote -- instead, the people elected in the provincial elections get to cast a vote; and their votes aren't equal (votes from people in large provinces count for more than votes from people in smaller provinces).

@@AbiGail-ok7fc Whats even the point of the 2e kamer, if the democratically chosen parliament passes a law why would it need to get voted on again

@@themightycat7238 The 2e kamer is the directly elected one. Historically, the Senate (1e kamer) was the body of representatives appointed by the king, after that the representation that was based in the provinces (which is meaningless, because of party politics). Nowadays the idea is thst the senate is less politically hectic than the parliament and also tends to be populated by older politicians (i.e. less testosterone), so it's a good idea to let them have one, last look (like a four eyes principle).

Yes! The restzetel system almost always benefits the larger parties unfortunately.

@@Roanmonster That is not unfair. Would you prefer the biggest rest method and the Alabama paradox ?

@@Javeec Uhmm no, just see who's closest to a seat in absolute sense, not based on the average of all of their seats

@@Roanmonster you're saying no and Yes at the same time, unless I misunderstood

Yes exactly. Glad someone cleared that up

Preach!!

Many americans don't want democracy because they think is mob rule.

@@gf4913 Why do they think that? It the literal opposite

@@WhatIsYourCard : With a coalition government where consensus needs to be reached in order to create a government no lofty ideals can dominate. Your reference to communism escapes me.

UK and US are mostly called a beacon for democracy by themselves. There are many issues with gerrymandering, even in UK something similar is in place. This is not to say every other country is better, I simply don't like this self-congratulatory attitude.

You are correct. In my country, MPs are almost forced to vote along party lines anyway, no matter what what their own electorate would wish for.

The solution of the problem would be introducing the following electoral system: 1. All parties get their seats proportionally. e.g. if party X gets 10% of all votes for a parliament with 100 seats, it'll get 10 seats 2. The country is divided into constituencies. For party X, that gained 10 seats, the country is divided into 10 constituencies. Each constituency contains the same number of party X voters. For party Y, that gained 2 seats, the country is divided into 2 constituencies, with the equal number of party Y voters living there. 3. In each constituency the respective party announces candidates that run for the seat. Then the voters elect their representative amongst these candidates. Every area of the country would be covered with as many constituencies as parties that made it into the parliament. For example, party A is the biggest, so it gained the largest number of constituencies. In each of them the people can choose their party A-representative. Party B, that gained only one seat, will get a single nation-wide constituency, where people can choose the only party B-representative. This system would be proportional and it would contain single member constituencies, so that regional interests can be represented. Furthermore, EVERY representative would be voted in a single member constituency, unlike the Mixed-Member-System.

that would become a very long video. we have 37 parties that are on the ballot for the 17th of March. I am in to politics here in the Netherlands and even I can't keep up with all these parties.

@@sirBrouwer yeah, i'm kind of obsessed with Dutch politics at the moment so I get that but maybe they could do just the parties currently in parliament

@@dylanlcreser But then they would miss out on a few of the most idiotic parties: BIJ1 (Modern communists and radical anti-racism), PNVD (also known as Pedophile Party) or JezusLeeft (JesusLives, vaguely approves conversion therapy).

@@WritingGeekNL Unfortunately so :( but maybe just the parties that sometimes poll above the threshold? So including BIJ1, CO, JA21, & Volt?

@@dylanlcreser So what is it you would like to have explained? Their general political leanings? Opinions on certain subjects? As stated by another above, there are so many parties, it would take a lot of time to do a sort of explanation on them.. But if you have specific questions, I/others here could help you out

Seriously tho, giving up some of your own points really isn't inherent to this system, it's what coalition parties make of it. D66 didn't HAVE to vote against the referendum, the coalition could have found other majorities for that. And if they didn't, well, maybe they should'nt have been against it...

@@Roanmonster you are right, but I was thinking more about forming a “regeerakkoord”.

@@MetDaan2912 yes me too! My point is, if they couldnt agree on the referendum, why did it have to be in there?

@@Roanmonster Probably because it was a very important issue for one of the parties who would not take part in the government without clarifying that matter. They probably paid with some other concessions that other parties demanded, too.

Yeah, I feel more involved in national than local politics anyway. Maybe in bigger countries it makes more sense because regions have strong economical and cultural differences. If I live in the south of the netherlands I can still feel represented by someone from the north or more urbanized west.

Looks at Italy...

I mean, they're fairly chaotic lol

*Quickly glances at Belgium*

@@Vii905 The largest party being in the government shouldn't be a requirement. That idea only arises when you start treating politics like sports and talk about winners and losers, while in a democracy none of that matters, and the only requirement is for the government to be able to count on the support of the majority of the elected parliament. That's not to say the other issues aren't valid concerns by the way; I just wanted to address the one issue there.

If a coalition ie. compromise can't happen, that means that there are some very fundamental disagreements. You need to work those disagreements out, not give all the power to one side.

I think he has listened too much to his Dutch viewers. The Dutch want at least have a feeling something is changing during the elections. However, PR isn't giving that feeling often. At least 30% of the electorate wants some form of populist right-wing government. However, this has failed for like 40 years or so. Biased centrist D66/LibDem judges trying to puy right-wing politicians in jail (Janmaat is the only one successfully jailed, Wilders and Baudet not yet), arrogance of parties at both ends of the political spectrum to form coalitions and even an assassination of the populist right-wing (Marxist) politician Fortuyn by the radical left-wing animal rights activist Volkert van der Graaff is preventing change. And that's necessary. For example: There's the intention to reform the taxation system for like at least 10 years. That's not happening, because there's no clear political direction in which it should be reformed into. This means we still have to deal with an extremely complicated system designed by the Labour Party to keep people at work in the TCA during the crises of 2008-2015. It isn't necessary anymore, but we're unable to reform it. There's also the issue of people getting the fraudster stamp for no reason. Due to the fact the centrist parties are never going away, civil servants have enough power to not change anything and destroying tens of thousands of lives. The Hague is unable to tackle this issue, because Rutte/the Rutte doctrine is giving the civil servants enough space to not inform Parliament nor journalists. Then there's the issue of the housing crisis. Everyone wants to do in their own way. So nothing is going to happen and the status quo is maintained. The same can be said of the energy sector. Centrist politicians are giving away windmill energy to datacenters of Google, Microsoft and Facebook while these are built for getting Dutch households off Groningen natural gas. There's no accountability, so people are going to freeze to death within a few years. This system is only working great for our infrastructure, but governance is more than just infrastructure.

I agree. It also didn't mention the Dutch have local elections. So that's why there is no MP election system. Not one of their best fact-checked videos .

@@hendrikdependrik1891 Fortuyn started as Marxist he was not when he got shot. And you really think people are going to freeze to death. Why do you think that.

It's not contradictory since you can have both an extreme party (campaigning for extreme policies) in power without the extreme policies in the coalition agreement. Even though I disagree with your calling it contradictory, I agree with your view that he could've spoken more about the benefits. He gives himself the limit of approximately 10 minutes though, which I disagree with but it's mostly RU-vid's fault for the algorithm. I do feel like people in general understand the benefits more than the downsides too so I can see both sides of the argument even if I believe the solution is just to make a longer video.

@@hendrikdependrik1891 And how exactly, do you think that electing non-centrists is going to change ANY of that? Because I can tell you right now, no party is going to fire massive numbers of bureaucrats -- you need their knowledge to run the country.

"Smaller radical parties in FPTP democracies can have way more influence than they'd ever have in a PR democracy because the larger parties have to worry about the vote being split and thus having to bend over backwards to appeal to the more radical end of their base." Hear hear. Write this on a plaque and shove it under the nose of every person arguing that a majority system creates more moderate parties.

A party can demand some of its policies to become government policies when joining a coalition, but has to compromise in other areas. No man rules alone after all.

Like they also have in NZ

@@transcrobesproject3625 Yeah, but this system originates from Germany anyway :P

@@naruciakk sure, just mentioning it has been adopted outside of Europe too. And also that, though rare, you can also get single party rule when you have the right dynamic.

@@transcrobesproject3625 Yes, but to get single party rule you often need an electoral threshold, both in German MMP (although I don't know if there are implementation of this system without a threshold) and in PR with constituencies.

@@naruciakk I think the threshold is the biggest weakness of the German system. I get that Germany, with its particular history, is more apprehensive than most countries about getting fringe parties on the political extremes into parliament, but I'd argue Germany has thrown the baby out with the bathwater there, as the marginal benefit of excluding fringe parties comes at a real cost to proportionality.

Good point

It wasn't even intended as such, first design was similar to the house of lords but became a parliament of the kings picked men. Then with Thorbecke and the constitution this was moved to the provincial representatives. At which point it kinda functioned like that but indirectly as you say. However when they changed it in 1922 so the number of seats would also be proportional. It's a weird mangled historical artifact, it's supposed function changes with who's talking, the one I hear most is something like a check on the quality of legislation. (not disagreeing with you, just expanding)

@@Infected_Apple Totally agree. That it is intended as a quality check is indeed another commonly said idea. I do support reform of our senate (it should be direct, at least). But I'm not sure what to do about it exactly. I don't really like abolishing it, as is commonly suggested. That would only amplify the problems with our lower house. The recent scandal showed once again that they are too often just rubber-stamping proposals by the government (because it is formed by the lower-house majority). The senate does that to a lesser extent.

@@upgradeplans777 Yeah I wouldn't know exactly what is best either, I like there being a senate and tying it a bit more to local consideration. It just isn't really working as is. To be honest the biggest problem with the seante is that it's often a side gig for people with a lot of other interests. This being both because it's way less often in session as well as it being less in the spotlight. But I think that would be the easiest accomplished and most important sort of reform, and direct election at the same time as the provincial elections (extra ballot).

"For example we have an party alliance system that can help scoop up those remaining seats." Not anymore. This was eliminated on December 1, 2017.

@@AbiGail-ok7fc I didn't know that! This will be the first lower house election without it then. In my estimation it seemed to make the election outcome a bit fairer, but I can't remember that it ever affected more than 1 or 2 seats.

i feel that one of the best systems becuase you don't only get the dividing in the election but also the unifacation in the coaliton making stage

Well, the US has a basically two-party FPTP system, and its Congress has achieved very little in decades, compared with most proportionately represented parliaments I'm aware of. So I don't think slowness is a real factor. And honestly, decisions about legislation, that affect people's day-to-day lives and liberty, shouldn't be rushed anyhow.

It's good, I wouldn't worry about how long it takes. Single Transferable Vote is better tho ;) the one we have in Ireland

@@orrinnirro STV still requires constituencies though, so it doesn't remove the risk of gerrymandering. It's not a bad system, and certainly a lot more democratic than FPTP, but I don't think it beats Party-List PR.

@@rjfaber1991 fuckin Gerrymandering. The north of Ireland is "Gerrymandared" as fuck. I don't think it's a problem in the South as our constituencies are bound to traditional county/city constituencies. Everyone who lives in Tipperary for example, vote in Tipperary.

Moreover it's not as if someone living slightly farther away from me cannot represent me. I'd like to vote for someone who is educated in issues I find important, which has very little to do with the area I live in.

I absolutely love the fact that you manage to combine the worst parts of PR and FPP in one country. It really gives a more 'factual' basis for our jokes

Interesting 🤔 I never knew.

Not even the Healey-Rae clan? 😂

5 members is bit big for a constituency the golden mean should be 3. And the point is any of them can be deposed. Doesn't matter if the party leaders party gets 50% of the national vote if they don't get the seat in their own constituency they don't en up in parliament.

@@DaDunge But then you run into other problems: false majority governments, difficult for 3rd parties to get elected, easier to gerrymander.

@@diegoarmando5489 Actually third parties can always be elected in STV since there is no spoiler effect. And keeping it at 3 rather than 2 means that one of the two big have to add up to twice a smaller party to keep them out. As for gerrymandering the rules for districts should be set in stone. They should follow administrative boundaries as a standard and when administrative districts have to be divided or combined it should be done in a fashion which creates the most compact district possible. The shortest possible circumference.

@@DaDunge No. Mathematically, you need at least four seats per constituency to avoid the possibility of gerrymandering. We use a combination of four and five seat constituencies because of that, and there's also a constitutional requirement that constituency borders should follow county borders where possible, which helps minimise the opportunity for it too.

I love your comment about not having huge ballots. 😂🤣 It made me jump to the conclusion that thát must be the reason Finland still has forests and here in NL we don’t... 🤪🤣

@@peternouwen Actually we have that aswell this year I believe. Every parted listed and then alot of numbers for each candidate

Hi Kim, multi seat single transferable vote as in Ireland leads to local representatives but a fairer distribution of elected representatives than "First past the post". I'm a bit of a fan of this system. It was originally adopted as it is particularly fair to a widely dispersed minority. It was feared that Protestants that were a small minority all over the country could never get anyone elected under FPTP. Turns out that this minority just joined the major parties rather than establishing a special one. PR-STV means that someone on 15% of the first preference vote (for example) has a decent chance of getting a seat in a 5 seat constituency (say). So they then represent both the geographic constituency and their party.

@@louisfinegan5530 thanks!

Wasn't there a video once about the Dutch Trump?

Let's hope Geert Wilders wins this time, otherwie there will be no more beautiful Dutch people in the Netherlands by 2050....

@@herculeskoutalidis1369 what's wrong with you?

@@DavidLudwig96 what is? :)

@@herculeskoutalidis1369 Ah yes, the cardinal priority of every serious country: Winning the beauty contest.

It would require the UK to admit that other nations have managed to figure out a better form of government. :-D Honestly, coalition governments are pretty much the same all through continental Europe. The details of the system do vary, but we prefer having elections shift the balance of power in parliament instead of flipping back and forth like UK and US. Also, there is way less division between voters of different parties since most of them can work together on many topics.

You have the green party and liberal Party richt?

@@pawernielsbroek3971 I think you didnt get the joke. But in all honesty yes we do have other partys but they are so both poorly funded and have so few members that supporting them is more than Worthless. In fact many areas do not recognize them at all just the main 2

The most common excuse in America: I'm too dumb for anything more complex than a coin flip AND my opinion is always the best one. Top notch joke.

Somehow in this 'Complex' system 82.6% of voters actually did vote. So either Dutch people are really smart, or it really isn't that complicated...

And the welsh ones

And the northern Irish

@@landmarkfilly54 The Welsh Election are on March 6th if I recall correct. I'd really like to see that but it would, for now, belong on the TLDR UK channel.

@@tsareric1921 It's May 6th, but yeah... For now

@@landmarkfilly54 Sorta annoyed they not next year. I don't move over there till September this year so I won't get to even see the process. I would say vote but my googling says you need to become a resident and that takes 5 years.

The "lijstverbindingen" were abolished a while ago.

@@rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr Oh, didn't know. Guess I missed the debate about that one (happens if you live abroad for too long). Still, it was an interesting feature :)

Result in 2021: The SNP got 49.61% of the seats for only 40.34% of the party votes. Hmm... If you're going to use MMP (AMS) you need a higher percentage of party list seats than Scotland has and those party list seats should be allocated at a nationwide level, not regional. Germany has the best model of MMP, except for their 5% electoral threshold. That said, what Scotland does is a heck of a lot better than the Westminster system.

It also provides consistency which is god for the economy. The ministers don't so much run the country as they are a check on the power of the bureaucrats.

I am not even Dutch and I know that you have to have an obligatory G E K O L O N I S E E R D

Zeg makker

Kokosnoten zijn geen specerijen!

@@akumabito2008 Nee ze zijn

I personally would hate a FPTP system as it leads to a two party system with no compromises and honestly neither party needs to care what voters want because there is no alternative anyway so you are just forced to vote for the lesser of two evils. I do feel something must be done to prevent ending up with 150 single seat parties. And while we are at it, having 150 paid people sitting in a room voting according to party lines makes no sense either. So I suggest a round table with 10 non-partisan representatives who vote on everything, where the weight of the vote of each of these 10 is determined by the percentage of votes they got. In addition to ranked choice voting so the opinions of people that didn't make it to the top 10 candidates are not completely lost. The cabinet posts are chosen by majority vote by these 10 people, and without political parties these are just experts from the field.

Yup, america is stuck in a childish game of picking sides. While half the country doesnt vote. They need to change up their system

Blatant propaganda