Talk:Elections in Germany

Untitled
From the article:
 * The Federal Diet (Bundestag) has 603 members, elected for a four year term, 299 members elected in single-seat constituencies according to first-past-the-post, while a further 299 members are allocated from statewide party

What about the other four seats?
 * See change in article?

Overhang mandates -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 09:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

Data Incorrect?
The data appears to be incorrect in the chart. It isn't holding up to the scrutiny of addition or multiplication with its variables. Can someone please confirm its accuracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.78.42.94 (talk) 01:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Numbering of elections
In Germany, the imperial elections to the Reichstag, the Weimarer Republic and Third Reich elections and the Federal elections to the Bundestag are seen as different things. So the numbering for the elections starts a-new in 1949 (in changed the federal election pages accordingly). -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 09:47, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

P.S.: As I suspected, there are people interested in numbering all elections that ever took part in the various legal forms Germany inhabited from #1 to #38 -- i.e. User:129.240.214.83 changed everything back, which I rolled back, because the Federal republic of Germany is the legal inheritor of the Weimar Republic and Nazi Germany, but is a separate legal entity. For me, numbering the elections from #1 in the German Empire to #38 in the FRG today is absolutely nonsensical. I really would appreciate to hear competent sources that say otherwise. -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 16:45, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

It is not different states! "Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist nicht 'Rechtsnachfolger' des Deutschen Reiches, sondern als Staat identisch mit dem Staat 'Deutsches Reich'". (ruling of the Bundesverfassungsgericht, 1973). Do you think the Bundesverfassungsgericht is a competent source? In any event, speaking of "Nazi Germany" as it was a separate state shows you are very unfamiliar with this subject.

The elections we are discussing are the elections at the federal level since the German nation-state was established in 1871. That it has changed constitutions two times since, doesn't mean we must start counting all over again. There is a clear continuity as a state since 1871 (for example in terms of law, Bürgerliches Gesetzbuch from 1900 is an example), and the BVerfG is also of this opinion. France is currently under its 5th republican constition. Starting counting everything anew for every new constitution will only be a mess and very unhelpful for the readers. History don't start in 1949!!

Calling the 2005 election the "16th German federal election" is extremely misleading, since the "16th German federal election" is the name of another election, namely the first election of 1924.

I am very disappointed that German users try to enforce their weird ideas first without discussing first. You show little respect for the English Wikipedia. It took me more than an hour to create the numbering system, and I don't like that people simply destroy and mess it up.


 * Before you start to do it again: the German Wikipedia uses "election to the first Reichstag", "election to the second Reichstag", ...; "election to the (what is it?) 15th Reichtstag and the 1st in the Weimar Republic", ... "election to the 1st Bundestag". That seems logical. Re the ruling of the Bundesverfassungsgericht: could you give me a link to the whole text? I doubt it helps this case (I do doubt it, because the only people insisting of the FGR being identical instead of legal inheritor in Germany are far-right ones -- I do not say you are one, but this insistence and the other changes to Croatia and to Beate Klarsfeld seem to point in a certain direction). So, what I really want to see is another source (English or German, doesn't matter) that counts German elections the way you want to count them. -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 17:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Got to love how some people take quotations entirely out of context. The ruling was about whether the GDR was a foreign country or not and states that the FRG is not a new, West German state, but a reorganization of a part of the German Reich (like the GDR). The German Reich on the other hand was not dissolved, but continues to exist although completely inable to act autonomously.
 * Even if standing by the definition that the FRG and the Reich are "identical", continuing the enumeration that way does not make any sense because the legal structure of the FRG is vastly different from that of the German Reich(s). While the Reich de jure continued to exist, its original structure is de facto dissolved, that's what "reorganized" means in this context. Putting the current elections in a context with those of the earlier "incarnations" of the German Reich only makes sense from a historical point of view (since the actual German Reich itself is no longer able to act on itself) and only makes an interesting aside.
 * The actual numbering on the other hand is based on the FRG alone (which, by the sound of the ruling, is actually more of a subset of the Reich).
 * I can see why some people like to question the legal status of the German Reich, but if you want to discuss it, try to find rulings that actually have something to do with the matter at hand.
 * For anyone interested, a detailed analysis of the ruling (in German) can be found at . Ashmodai 14:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Resources
How can I add a comment to this discussion?? According to the Bundestag: "Wahlperiode Die Wahlperiode, auch Legislaturperiode genannt, beginnt mit dem Zusammentritt des neuen Bundestages, der spätestens am 30. Tag nach der Bundestagswahl zusammenkommen muß. Mit dem Zusammentritt des neuen Bundestages endet die Wahlperiode des vorangegangenen Bundestages. Der 15. Deutsche Bundestag war am 22. September 2002 gewählt worden und am 17. Oktober 2002 erstmalig zusammengetreten. Damit endete die 14. Wahlperiode." etc. That means that Germany, today, counts only the elections that have taken place since the BRD came into existence post WW2. End of discussion!! I do not think that Wikipedia needs to suddenly apply different rules to the numbering of elections than a country itself uses - the country in question being surely the authority on the matter! As a compromise I guess it could be possible to include a sentence to explain that there were previous elections and a link to info on GDR, Deutsche Reich etc. OA

I did some googling myself in regard to the decision of the Bundesverfassungsgericht mentioned above:
 * The decision is decision number 2 BvF 1/73. It was mainly a decision about the relations between the FGR and the GDR (see for example FES, in German language)


 * This decision is used by reactionary politicians to suggest that (1) the FRG and the German Reich are one and the same state (especially by people who do think part of today's Poland should be part of Germany), or (2) that the FRG is not the legal inheritor or the same state, but that they are the "Reichsregierung in Exile" (see ;, both in German language)


 * de:Deutsches_Reich has to say something on the matter, that is:


 * "Staatsrechtliche Fragen


 * Das Bundesverfassungsgericht stellte am 31. Juli 1973 bei der Überprüfung des Grundlagenvertrags mit der DDR fest (2 BvF 1/73):


 * Das Deutsche Reich existiert fort, besitzt nach wie vor Rechtsfähigkeit, ist allerdings als Gesamtstaat mangels Organisation, insbesondere mangels institutionalisierter Organe selbst nicht handlungsfähig. Mit der Errichtung der Bundesrepublik Deutschland wurde nicht ein neuer westdeutscher Staat gegründet, sondern ein Teil Deutschlands neu organisiert (...). Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland ist also nicht "Rechtsnachfolger" des Deutschen Reiches, sondern als Staat identisch mit dem Staat "Deutsches Reich", - in bezug auf seine räumliche Ausdehnung allerdings "teilidentisch", so daß insoweit die Identität keine Ausschließlichkeit beansprucht. (...) Sie beschränkt staatsrechtlich ihre Hoheitsgewalt auf den "Geltungsbereich des Grundgesetzes"


 * Die Bundesrepublik Deutschland könne also nicht als Nachfolgestaat angesehen werden, sondern sei vielmehr als Staat identisch mit dem Staat Deutsches Reich und nicht dessen Nachfolger. Damit wird eine staatsrechtliche Identität, die 1866 mit dem Norddeutschen Bund begann, unter der Bezeichnung Bundesrepublik Deutschland fortgeführt.


 * Davon bleibt aber unberührt, dass, von einer politisch-historischen Perspektive aus betrachtet, das Reich mit der Niederlage im Zweiten Weltkrieg im Jahre 1945 untergegangen ist.


 * Mit der Wiedererlangung voller staatlicher Souveränität durch die abschließende Erklärung des Zwei-plus-Vier-Vertrags von 1990 wurde die (erweiterte) Bundesrepublik Deutschland endgültig das, was zuvor bereits das Deutsche Reich (von 1871) gewesen war: ein (klein-)deutscher Nationalstaat, der (als wesentlichen Bestandteil der europäischen Friedensordnung) die Nachkriegsordnung mit seinen Grenzen anerkannt hat. Das Gleiche gilt für die (neue) Republik Österreich mit dem Staatsvertrag von 1955."

My conclusion: even if the de iure one could argue that the FRG and the German Reich are one and the same state, de facto (what the German Wikipedia article terms "political-historical perspective"), only some strange right-wing organisations today try to use this for legitmating their goals. -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 19:15, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Ganz im Gegenteil. Right-extremists argue that the current German state is not identical with the German state founded in 1871, and refer to it as "BRD" instead of "Germany" (also communists used "BRD" as a propaganda name for Germany). It is a legal and mainstream fact that the German state currently existing is the same as the one established in 1871. Those suggesting something else constitute the extreme minority, whether they are right-extremists or left-lextremists.


 * As I said: some right-extremist argue the one way, some argue the other way. Following the "KRR FAQ" linked above, the contemporary relevance of the 1973 BVerfG decision is minimal. What is more important -- and at least from my point of view much more logical -- is to use the strong cuts between German Reich, Weimar Republic, Third Reich and the two German states as heuristic for numbering the elections. It is the same system the German Bundestag it using -- the elections were for the 16th German Bundestag, not for the 38th German federal parliament. You showed the BVerfG decision, but what you did not do was to show an external source numbering the elections the way you did (including the non-numbering of fake Nazi elections and so on). What historical or political -- not judical! -- authority does it that way? -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 21:34, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The Deutsches Reich ceased to exist in 1945, as did the Holy Roman Empire in 1806. The Bundesverfassungsgericht can only give recommendations regarding the interpretation of the constitution (Grundgesetz). The above quote is not a ruling, it is bits and pieces of a legal opinion, which is not itself legally binding. If anyone is interested, the ruling itself concerned the constitutionality of the de:Grundlagenvertrag, which the court decided was legal (the complaint had been brought forward by the Bavarian govt.). --213.54.215.33 10:21, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

GDR elections
I just noticed -- shouldn't the (in-democractic) elections in the GDR also be mentioned? (And what numbers do they get, if we use the numbering system of the anonymous user: 25a, 25b, 25c ...?). -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 18:51, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * We have already left out the joke votes in 1935 and 1936 (I think) when the Nazis received 100 % because all other parties were dissolved/banned. The votes in the SBZ had nothing with Germany to do. Contrary to the Federal Republic of Germany, the GDR did not claim to be identical with the German state founded in 1871, which is usually referred to as Germany in English.


 * I'm not convinced by that line of argumentation. If the reunion makes any sense, the history of both German states -- the FGR and the GDR -- should be represented in this table. And I also think the Nazi Germany elections were all other parties were banned should be named. They were not democratic -- but if I read an encyclopedic article about elections in Germany, I also want to know about Nazi Germany's elections, GDR elections and so on. If this is not possible because then the "full identity" argumentation (that is not part of the BVerfG-decision cited above) would break into pieces, this is no reason that convinces me. And about the semantics: the History of Germany article and timeline includes the GDR history -- should this be changed, also? -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 21:13, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * The templates for German politics is for the political institutions of the Federal Republic of Germany, i.e. the legitimate German authorities, not Soviet puppet governments. The SBZ has nothing with Germany (The Federal Republic of) to do. In 1990 there was only a reunification of the territory that used to be controlled by the GDR with the German state (the Federal Republic of Germany). The Federal Republic of Germany is not a successor of the GDR, and after the GDR was dissolved in 1990, there is no continuity.


 * I am very disappointed by all the damage you are doing to articles related to German politics here. I will revert you until you stop changing the correct numbers into misleading revisionist numbers.


 * Dear anonymous Norwegian, or whoever: The question is: who is doing the damage, and what are the revisionist numbers? I only will revert you three times a day ;-) I am still not convinced by the legalist argumentation. The GDR existed from 1949 to 1990, and it would be encyclopedic to inform about the GDR, too. Maybe one could break-up this article into a description of the current election system and in a history of elections. But I see no reason why the de-facto existance of the GDR (seen as illegal by some people or not) should not be mentioned. BTW: I hope some third parties will have a look on this before it escalates into a full-blown edit war. -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 21:48, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * It would be encyclopedic to inform about the GDR in the GDR templates. The GDR claimed to be a new state, whilst the Federal Republic of Germany is claiming to be the direct continuation of the state established in 1871. I see no reason not to respect that.


 * I think elections which were not democratic in any event does not belong in the template, as they were not real elections. The elections of 1935 and 1936 are very rarely included when speaking of German elections.


 * Still you are quoting no sources, only your POV. Mine is different. -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 22:02, 21 September 2005 (UTC)


 * I have already quoted the relevant source (BVerfG). If we are going to start counting everything anew for new constitutions, we will have to do the same for France and other states. I don't think it is helpful for our readers, which should be our main concern.


 * I do not see the relevance of the BVerfG decision from 1973 to "what is the best way of numbering elections"? I find it much more clearer (even to our readers) if we number elections as they would numbered in the country where they take place. And the last election was the election to the 16th Bundestag, not the 38th or 39th or 40th German federal election. At least according to Bundestag, Bundeswahlleiter and other official sources in Germany. -- till we &#9788; &#9789; | Talk 09:38, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

Method of counting
Can I request a section that details how the votes are counted, and other practicalities of conducting the election? Or if that's covered in another article, a link would be good Kisch 23:15, 26 August 2006 (UTC)

GDR 1990 election
I know this was discussed somewhat above -- 4 years ago -- but I was wondering if anyone would object if I created a separate page for the GDR's last (and only free) election, which took place in 1990. Right now the data from that election is sort of hidden away on the People's Chamber page, when it would be useful to have the election results themselves be linkable. My proposed title would be East German election, 1990, unless someone has a better idea. --Jfruh (talk) 19:50, 24 July 2009 (UTC)


 * Ooops, I see the article does exist: East German general election, 1990. Should be linked to more thoroughly, I think. --Jfruh (talk) 03:35, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Chronological order
There is a reason why all this article is upside down? This article is part of an encyclop[a]edia, THE ENCYCLOPEDIA, and not a curriculum vitae, a TV/media report, or a blog where topics are displayed in reverse chronological order (with newest entries first). Thanks! –p joe f (talk • contribs) 17:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree, they should be in forward order, newest-at-the-top.—GoldRingChip 03:29, 22 November 2015 (UTC)