Progressives win 158 out of 250 parliament seats

You guys are dumb. SNS has 65% of parliament votes... NOT 65% of serbia voted for them.

I dont know guys if I suck at math but 158 out of 250 is 63,2% while the news says 48,34 ?

There is no party in parliament that doesn't support eu and Kosovo independence

The good news is that, according to the international observers, the elections were probably the most democratic ever in the region. While it provides SNS and Vucic with an exceptionally strong mandate, they also will have nobody to blame for any failures. And not being able to blame somebody else is certainly a novelty in Serbian and Balkan politics.

Regarding the question about how 48% gets 158 seats.

Every party that does not pass the 5% threshold is disqualified, and they cannot even make a coalition after the vote. That leaves the parties that get more than 5 percent the opportunity to divide up all the seats according to the rest of the vote. If there are lots of small parties that fail to get 5%, than the bigger parties get more votes. It was designed so that fringe parties could not spoil the parliament, but it ends up benefiting the big parties. Some people think it isn't fair, but if you look at who was eliminated- LDP, DSS,URS they were all in power under DOS when this rule came in so they can't really complain.

In my opinion, and I realize no one asked me, but I like Canada’s system where the country is divided up into ridings according to population and there is an election for one seat in parliament in every riding. The party that wins the most ridings can form a government, or a coalition can be formed. That way every area picks the party, or independent they want. It guarantees local representation

Not very healthy, a parliament where one party got more than 60 percent of the votes. But I don't think it will stay like that in the next decade, and at least they didn't gain a 2/3 majority. One good thing is that the extremist parties Radicals, Dveri and DSS (maybe add LDP) fell below the threshold.

"That way every area picks the party, or independent they want. It guarantees local representation"
(marKo, 18 March 2014 15:38)

But that way, in theory, a party that wins, lets say with 55% in each riding, has 100% of the seats in parliament. Is this more democratic? I don't think so.

In my opinion, and I realize no one asked me, but I like Canada’s system where the country is divided up into ridings according to population and there is an election for one seat in parliament in every riding. The party that wins the most ridings can form a government, or a coalition can be formed. That way every area picks the party, or independent they want. It guarantees local representation
(marKo, 18 March 2014 15:38)


You've pointed out the best thing (the only good thing, actually) about the Westminister system and someone else has already pointed out the worst thing. Additionally, the westminister system is prone to gerrymandering - the government of the day setting the boundaries of the electoral districts according to how they think will be to their advantage - eg, conservative governments wanting the borders to include neighborhoods with higher average incomes and vica-versa.

You're right about one thing, though. In Serbia, while you have accurate, porportional representation, the partliamentarians are beholden to the party they belong to, not the people.

Westminister system and porportional system are opposite in a way. Where one is weak, the other is strong.

Serbia (indeed, every country) needs a system that strikes a balance between porportionality and direct accountability of parliamentarians to the electorate.

Questioner, that is mathimatically possible, but has never happened in Canada. A single party has won an entire province, but never the entire Country. I concede that it would be a problem if it did happen.
(marKo, 19 March 2014 03:29)

In 1984, Conservatives won 75% of the seats with 50% of the vote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1984


in 1993, the Conservatives won 0.7% of the seats with 16% of the vote and the Liberals, a 60% absolute majority with only 40% of the vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993

Absolute majorities are regularily won in countries with the Westminister system with 30-40% of the popular vote.


Don't pretend this isn't a problem :) It was identified as one in the 1800s.

Serbia (indeed, every country) needs a system that strikes a balance between porportionality and direct accountability of parliamentarians to the electorate.
(Danilo, 19 March 2014 09:44)

That's why an increasing number of countries have opted for a mixed model, in which a certain number of seats are allocated according to majoritarian, or Westminister, first past the post, with the remaining seats allocated according to a proportional formula. While the proportional system usually is better at making sure that the most popular policy alternatives are represented, the majoritarian system is better at establishing a stronger relation between the representative and the electoral district s/he represents.

Read the article properly "just curious" and then you'll be "curious no more". If you're "still curious" after the second reading then we'll explain the figures to you so that your curiosity is satisfied. Good luck.

all the parties that passed the census make up about 75% of the votes.

Questioner, that is mathimatically possible, but has never happened in Canada. A single party has won an entire province, but never the entire Country. I concede that it would be a problem if it did happen.

There is no party in parliament that doesn't support eu and Kosovo independence

Not very healthy, a parliament where one party got more than 60 percent of the votes. But I don't think it will stay like that in the next decade, and at least they didn't gain a 2/3 majority. One good thing is that the extremist parties Radicals, Dveri and DSS (maybe add LDP) fell below the threshold.

The good news is that, according to the international observers, the elections were probably the most democratic ever in the region. While it provides SNS and Vucic with an exceptionally strong mandate, they also will have nobody to blame for any failures. And not being able to blame somebody else is certainly a novelty in Serbian and Balkan politics.

"That way every area picks the party, or independent they want. It guarantees local representation"
(marKo, 18 March 2014 15:38)

But that way, in theory, a party that wins, lets say with 55% in each riding, has 100% of the seats in parliament. Is this more democratic? I don't think so.

all the parties that passed the census make up about 75% of the votes.

Regarding the question about how 48% gets 158 seats.

Every party that does not pass the 5% threshold is disqualified, and they cannot even make a coalition after the vote. That leaves the parties that get more than 5 percent the opportunity to divide up all the seats according to the rest of the vote. If there are lots of small parties that fail to get 5%, than the bigger parties get more votes. It was designed so that fringe parties could not spoil the parliament, but it ends up benefiting the big parties. Some people think it isn't fair, but if you look at who was eliminated- LDP, DSS,URS they were all in power under DOS when this rule came in so they can't really complain.

In my opinion, and I realize no one asked me, but I like Canada’s system where the country is divided up into ridings according to population and there is an election for one seat in parliament in every riding. The party that wins the most ridings can form a government, or a coalition can be formed. That way every area picks the party, or independent they want. It guarantees local representation

I dont know guys if I suck at math but 158 out of 250 is 63,2% while the news says 48,34 ?

You guys are dumb. SNS has 65% of parliament votes... NOT 65% of serbia voted for them.

Read the article properly "just curious" and then you'll be "curious no more". If you're "still curious" after the second reading then we'll explain the figures to you so that your curiosity is satisfied. Good luck.

Questioner, that is mathimatically possible, but has never happened in Canada. A single party has won an entire province, but never the entire Country. I concede that it would be a problem if it did happen.

In my opinion, and I realize no one asked me, but I like Canada’s system where the country is divided up into ridings according to population and there is an election for one seat in parliament in every riding. The party that wins the most ridings can form a government, or a coalition can be formed. That way every area picks the party, or independent they want. It guarantees local representation
(marKo, 18 March 2014 15:38)


You've pointed out the best thing (the only good thing, actually) about the Westminister system and someone else has already pointed out the worst thing. Additionally, the westminister system is prone to gerrymandering - the government of the day setting the boundaries of the electoral districts according to how they think will be to their advantage - eg, conservative governments wanting the borders to include neighborhoods with higher average incomes and vica-versa.

You're right about one thing, though. In Serbia, while you have accurate, porportional representation, the partliamentarians are beholden to the party they belong to, not the people.

Westminister system and porportional system are opposite in a way. Where one is weak, the other is strong.

Serbia (indeed, every country) needs a system that strikes a balance between porportionality and direct accountability of parliamentarians to the electorate.

Questioner, that is mathimatically possible, but has never happened in Canada. A single party has won an entire province, but never the entire Country. I concede that it would be a problem if it did happen.
(marKo, 19 March 2014 03:29)

In 1984, Conservatives won 75% of the seats with 50% of the vote

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1984


in 1993, the Conservatives won 0.7% of the seats with 16% of the vote and the Liberals, a 60% absolute majority with only 40% of the vote.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canadian_federal_election,_1993

Absolute majorities are regularily won in countries with the Westminister system with 30-40% of the popular vote.


Don't pretend this isn't a problem :) It was identified as one in the 1800s.

Serbia (indeed, every country) needs a system that strikes a balance between porportionality and direct accountability of parliamentarians to the electorate.
(Danilo, 19 March 2014 09:44)

That's why an increasing number of countries have opted for a mixed model, in which a certain number of seats are allocated according to majoritarian, or Westminister, first past the post, with the remaining seats allocated according to a proportional formula. While the proportional system usually is better at making sure that the most popular policy alternatives are represented, the majoritarian system is better at establishing a stronger relation between the representative and the electoral district s/he represents.