6 - Democracies - Part 1

Summary

This script explores the concept of democracy, tracing its origins to ancient Greece and examining its evolution into modern forms. It contrasts direct and indirect democracy, highlighting the importance of participation, competition, and liberty. The discussion delves into the balance between civil rights and civil liberties, using examples like the Westborough Baptist Church to illustrate the tension. The script also covers the historical development of democracy, from the Magna Carta to modern electoral systems, comparing single-member districts and proportional representation, and discussing their impact on representation and governance.

Takeaways

• 🏛️ Democracy originates from the Greek words 'demos' meaning people and 'kratos' meaning rule, embodying the concept of 'power to the people'.
• 🌍 The implementation of democracy varies, with direct democracy being rare and indirect democracy being the norm where people vote for representatives.
• 🗳️ In democracies, there is an emphasis on participation, competition between parties, and liberty, with liberal democracies particularly promoting these aspects.
• 🏢 Social democracies, such as those in Scandinavia, prioritize collective welfare over individual rights, differing from liberal democracies.
• 🏫 The central themes of democracy include public participation in elections, accountability of officials, legal limits on government authority, and guaranteed rights and freedoms.
• 📜 Civil rights focus on equality for all residents or citizens, whereas civil liberties emphasize individual freedoms, with different states focusing on one over the other.
• 🚫 In some European countries, it's illegal to deny the Holocaust, reflecting a balance between civil rights and civil liberties to prevent incitement of hatred and violence.
• 🗣️ The ACLU supports the protection of free speech, even for controversial groups like the Westboro Baptist Church, to uphold the principle of the marketplace of ideas.
• 📊 Different electoral systems like single-member districts (SMD) and proportional representation (PR) aim to balance participation and effective governance.
• 🌐 The plurality SMD system can lead to a two-party dominance and discourages voting for smaller parties, as votes for losing candidates are considered 'wasted'.
• 📈 The majority-based SMD system can allow extremist candidates to advance to the second round of voting, as seen in the 2002 French election with Jean-Marie Le Pen.

Q & A

What is the origin of the word 'democracy'?

The word 'democracy' comes from the Greek word 'demos' meaning common people and 'kratos' meaning rule or power, essentially meaning 'power to the people'.

How did the concept of democracy evolve from its Greek model?

The Greek model of democracy was a direct democracy limited to free men, excluding women and slaves. Over time, democracy has evolved to include various forms such as direct and indirect (representative) democracies, with a broader participation from the populace.

What is the difference between direct democracy and indirect democracy?

Direct democracy involves citizens voting on issues directly, which is rare today, with Switzerland being a notable example. Indirect democracy, the norm, involves citizens voting for representatives who then vote on their behalf.

What are the key elements of a liberal democracy?

A liberal democracy emphasizes participation, competition between parties for real choice, and liberty with various freedoms such as speech, movement, and assembly.

How does social democracy differ from liberal democracy?

Social democracies, like those in Scandinavia, favor collective welfare over individual rights to a certain degree, unlike liberal democracies which tend to promote individual liberties more strongly.

What are civil rights and civil liberties, and how do they differ?

Civil rights refer to the promotion of equality for all residents or citizens, while civil liberties are about the promotion of freedom. Some states focus more on political liberties, like the United States, while others focus more on civil rights, like Scandinavia.

Why is Holocaust denial illegal in some European countries?

Holocaust denial is illegal in countries like Austria, Belgium, and Germany to prevent the incitement of hatred and violence. It's a balance between protecting civil liberties and ensuring civil rights for all.

What is the 'marketplace of ideas' principle mentioned in the context of the Westboro Baptist Church?

The 'marketplace of ideas' principle suggests that all ideas, even odious ones, should be allowed to be expressed and debated openly. The belief is that good ideas will prevail and bad ones will be publicly criticized and rejected.

How did the Magna Carta influence the development of democracy?

The Magna Carta, signed in 1215, limited the power of the king and guaranteed certain rights for free men, creating a proto-legislature. It established the rule of law and the idea that no one, not even the monarch, is above the law.

What is the difference between single-member district (SMD) and proportional representation (PR) electoral systems?

SMD systems, either plurality or majority-based, elect one representative per constituency with the most votes. PR systems translate votes into seats based on the proportion of votes each party receives, allowing for more diverse representation.

Why might a voter be hesitant to vote for a third-party candidate in a plurality SMD system?

In a plurality SMD system, voters may hesitate to vote for third-party candidates because they fear 'wasting' their vote. Since only the candidate with the most votes wins, voting for a candidate with less support can seem pointless.

How does the majority-based SMD system affect the chances of extremist candidates?

The majority-based SMD system can allow extremist candidates to advance to a second round if they can consolidate a significant minority of votes, as seen with Jean Marie Le Pen in the 2002 French election. This system can potentially give a platform to extremist views.

Outlines

00:00

🌍 Introduction to Democracy

The paragraph introduces the concept of democracy, derived from the Greek words 'demos' meaning people and 'kratos' meaning rule, symbolizing 'power to the people'. It discusses the evolution of democracy from ancient Greece and Rome, where it was limited to certain classes, to modern forms that emphasize participation, competition, and liberty. Direct democracy is rare today, with Switzerland being a notable example, while indirect democracy is the norm. The paragraph also distinguishes between liberal democracy, which promotes participation and competition, and social democracy, which leans towards collective welfare. The importance of civil rights versus civil liberties is highlighted, with examples of how different countries prioritize one over the other, such as the United States focusing on civil liberties and Scandinavia on civil rights. The discussion also touches on the balance between freedom of speech and the need to prevent incitement to hatred and violence, using the example of Holocaust denial laws in Europe.

05:03

🗣️ Civil Rights vs. Civil Liberties

This section delves deeper into the distinction between civil rights and civil liberties. Civil rights aim to promote equality for all residents or citizens, while civil liberties focus on individual freedoms. The United States is highlighted as a country that emphasizes civil liberties, in contrast to countries like those in Scandinavia that focus more on civil rights. The paragraph also discusses how different states balance these rights and liberties differently, using the example of the Westboro Baptist Church, which, despite its controversial views, is protected under freedom of speech in the United States. The American Civil Liberties Union's (ACLU) stance on protecting free speech, even for unpopular opinions, is mentioned, emphasizing the 'marketplace of ideas' where bad ideas are countered by good ones rather than being silenced.

10:03

📊 Electoral Systems and Participation

The paragraph discusses the evolution of democracy and the importance of participation through voting. It mentions the Magna Carta as a foundational document that limited the power of the king and established the concept of rule of law. The paragraph also covers the expansion of suffrage, or the right to vote, over time, with New Zealand being the first to grant women the right to vote, and the United States following in 1920. It discusses various approaches to encourage participation, such as mandatory voting in some countries. The paragraph then explains different electoral systems, including single-member districts (SMD) with a plurality or majority basis, and the implications these systems have on representation and governance. The SMD system tends to favor a two-party system and can lead to wasted votes, while majority-based SMD systems can allow for more representation but still tend to favor a few dominant parties.

15:04

🏛️ The Impact of Electoral Systems

This section compares different electoral systems, focusing on how they affect the representation and moderation of political views. It explains that a plurality SMD system tends to favor mainstream candidates due to the 'median voter theorem', where voters are less likely to waste their votes on extremist candidates. However, a majority-based SMD system can allow extremists to gain a foothold, as seen in the 2002 French election where Jean Marie Le Pen, an extremist candidate, made it to the second round. The paragraph also discusses the implications of these systems on governance and the potential for a diversity of views that can hinder effective governance. The comparison between the two systems highlights the trade-offs between representation and moderation in democratic systems.

Keywords

💡Democracy

Democracy originates from the Greek words 'demos' meaning people and 'kratos' meaning rule, indicating a system where power is vested in the people. In the video, democracy is discussed as a form of government where citizens have the power to make decisions directly or through elected representatives. The script contrasts direct and indirect forms of democracy, highlighting the importance of participation and choice in democratic systems.

💡Direct Democracy

Direct democracy is a system where citizens participate in decision-making without intermediaries, such as voting on policy issues directly. The script mentions Switzerland as a champion of this method, where citizens can vote on a wide range of issues, showcasing a form of democracy that emphasizes direct citizen involvement.

💡Indirect Democracy

Indirect democracy, also known as representative democracy, is the most common form where citizens elect representatives to make decisions on their behalf. The video script explains this as the norm, where people vote for someone to represent them and then those representatives vote on specific issues.

💡Liberal Democracy

Liberal democracy is a type of democracy that emphasizes individual liberties, freedoms, and the rule of law. The script describes how liberal democracies promote participation, competition, and liberty, but are not necessarily laissez-faire in economic terms, indicating a balance between individual rights and collective welfare.

💡Social Democracy

Social democracy is highlighted in the script as a form of democratic government that favors collective welfare over individual rights to a certain degree. It is exemplified by Scandinavian countries, where there is a focus on providing social services and promoting equality for all citizens.

💡Civil Rights

Civil rights refer to the promotion of equality for all residents or citizens within a state. The video script uses the example of the civil rights movement in the United States, which aimed to give everyone equal access to opportunities, facilities, and institutions, illustrating the concept's focus on equality.

💡Civil Liberties

Civil liberties are about the promotion of individual freedoms, such as freedom of speech and movement. The script contrasts civil rights with civil liberties by discussing how some states, like the United States, focus more on these liberties, emphasizing the protection of individual freedoms.

💡Holocaust Denial

Holocaust denial is mentioned in the script as an example of where the balance between civil liberties and civil rights becomes contentious. It is illegal in many European countries to deny the Holocaust, reflecting a prioritization of civil rights over civil liberties to prevent incitement of hatred and violence.

💡Electoral System

The electoral system refers to the mechanisms by which citizens elect their representatives. The video script discusses two main forms: single-member districts (SMD) and proportional representation (PR). These systems determine how votes are cast, counted, and translated into seats, affecting the diversity and representation within a government.

💡Plurality System

A plurality system, also known as 'first-past-the-post,' is an electoral system where the candidate with the most votes in a constituency wins, even if they do not secure a majority. The script explains how this system can lead to wasted votes and a tendency towards two-party dominance, as seen in the US and UK.

💡Proportional Representation

Proportional representation is an electoral system where the proportion of votes a party receives is reflected in the number of seats they are awarded. The script suggests that PR systems can lead to more diverse representation in government, contrasting with the plurality system.

Highlights

Democracy originates from the Greek words 'demos' meaning people and 'kratos' meaning rule or power.

Amand Lau in South Africa symbolizes 'power to the people' in the context of uprisings against apartheid.

Greek and Roman models of democracy were limited to certain classes of people.

Direct democracy is rare but exemplified by Switzerland where citizens vote on issues directly.

Indirect democracy is the norm where citizens vote for representatives to vote on their behalf.

Liberal democracy emphasizes participation, competition, and liberty.

Social democracies, like those in Scandinavia, prioritize collective welfare over individual rights.

Democratic states stress participation in elections, public accountability, legal limits on government authority, and guaranteed rights and freedoms.

Civil rights focus on promoting equality, while civil liberties emphasize freedom.

The United States is highlighted as a country that focuses more on civil liberties.

Scandinavian countries are noted for focusing more on civil rights, such as the right to work and housing.

Different states balance civil rights and liberties differently, with implications for freedom of speech.

Holocaust denial is illegal in several European countries, reflecting a balance towards civil rights over civil liberties.

The Westborough Baptist Church is an example of an organization that would be banned in states favoring civil rights over civil liberties.

The ACLU defends the right to free speech, even for unpopular opinions, as part of the 'marketplace of ideas'.

The 'marketplace of ideas' theory suggests that bad ideas will be countered by non-bigots in societies valuing civil liberties.

Electoral systems are designed to balance participation and effective governance.

Single Member District (SMD) systems can lead to wasted votes and a lack of representation for minority parties.

Majority-based SMD systems require a majority vote for a candidate to win, often leading to a runoff election.

Plurality SMD systems tend to favor a two-party system and discourage voting for third parties.

The majority SMD system can allow extremists to gain a foothold, as seen in Jean Marie Le Pen's 2002 French candidacy.

Proportional Representation (PR) systems are not discussed in the provided transcript but are often contrasted with SMD systems for their representation of a broader range of political views.

Transcripts

welcome back now we go from

non-democracies to democracies so

democracy comes from the Greek word

demos meaning common people and CIA

meaning rule or power so what we're

saying is power to the people so uh the

the second picture that you see down

here is actually amand Lau in South

Africa uh that means power to the people

in in the uprisings that led to the fall

of

aparte uh of course the Greek model up

on the top is a fairly poor model the

Greeks had direct democracy but no women

or slaves could actually get involved it

was basically the same with the Romans

it was for the upper classes

only implementation of democracy varies

we've got direct democracy uh very rare

but people actually vote on issues

across the board we have elements of

that here um the Swiss are the champions

of that method uh we've got indirect

democracy which is the norm where people

vote for someone to represent them and

then they vote for you on specific

issues uh but in all democracy there is

a stress on participation in terms of

voting in elections in particular on

competition in terms of uh between

parties so that you've got a real Choice

um and on Liberty so we've got various

freedoms like speech movement assembly

Etc liberal democracy is the very kind

that promotes participation competition

and Liberty um they're not necessarily

liberal I.E hands off with respect to

economics so we're not talking about

that sort of liberalism social

democracies in Scandinavia for example

uh which favor Collective welfare over

individual rights to a certain degree um

would be a case in point highly

Democratic states so the central themes

uh within democracy are that the people

participate in elections that there is

public accountability of elected

officials and that there are limit legal

limits placed on the government's

Authority and finally that certain

rights and freedoms are

guaranteed usually within a constitution

or a set of laws in the British

case so we'll start by talking about

civil rights versus civil

liberties uh understandings of these

really help determine what sort of

government structure we're talking about

so Civil Rights refer to the promotion

of equality for all the residents or

citizens in a state civil liberties are

about the promotion of Freedom some

states focus more on political rights uh

or on more on political Liberties um so

the civil Liberties a great case of uh

country that focuses more on civil

liberties would be the United States um

Scandinavia would be a set of countries

that deal more with civil rights the

promotion of equality okay the right to

work the right to housing um these are

more about civil rights than civil

liberties our own Civil Rights Movement

was giving everyone equal access to

opportunities to facilities to

institutions so that's one way of of

remembering what that

is different states balance rights and

Liberties differently some believe that

freedom of speech should occur at all

costs others believe that you have to

limit it where uh it it could incline

people towards hatred and violence so in

the name of protecting everyone equally

uh a great case of this uh the second

point on the slide here is Holocaust

denial it is illegal to deny the

Holocaust in a range of European

countries Austria Belgium the Czech

Republic France Germany Lithuania Poland

Romania Slovakia

and this has been a source of very

interesting clashes in the European

Union uh Great Britain which is much

more Pro Liberties than pro-s thwarted a

2005 EU effort to criminalize Holocaust

denial across the entire political

system in other words all the EU

countries Germany interestingly is the

one that introduces again in 2007 a year

after a British historian was jailed in

Austria for his denial

so um

this is this is an interesting case um

but we'll talk a little bit about the

rationale here so certain

anti-democratic groups and parties have

been banned in Europe where they focus

more on civil rights than on on civil

liberties on our side an interesting Cas

is the Westborough Baptist Church of

Topeka

Kansas uh they've LED somewhere between

20 and 25,000 demonstrations of radical

homophobia especially at gay funerals

and weddings um they're also

anti-Semitic IC they're anti-catholic

they're anti-protestant they're racist

there aren't a lot of people these

people like here's a quote from the

website the WBC engages in Daily

peaceful sidewalk demonstrations

opposing the homosexual lifestyle of

Soul damning Nation destroying filth we

display large colorful signs containing

Bible words and sentiments including God

hates [ __ ] [ __ ] hate God AIDS cures [ __ ]

thank God for AIDS [ __ ] burn in hell God

is Not mocked [ __ ] are nature freaks God

gave [ __ ] up etc etc oh there's America

is doomed the world is doomed God blew

up the troops uh they're not crazy about

American troops because uh they allow

for homosexuals in their

ranks so this gives you an idea of what

sort of organization we're talking about

now this is clearly the sort of

organization that in a state that that

Pride that that that uh favored civil

rights over civil liberties would not

exist illegally okay so in Europe much

of Europe This sort of uh this sort of

organization would be banned in order to

prevent violence they would say um

hatred in America we take a different

Tack and here um coming from the ACLU

which certainly does not support any of

the things that uh the Westboro Baptist

Church does but what they say is that we

need to protect free speech in response

to an attempt by New Jersey legislators

to restrict free

speech in this case the limit uh the

rights of westbo Baptist Church of uh

activists to hold their demonstrations

the ACLU reacted with this quote our Le

legislators desire to silence the WBC is

understandable but it also reflects an

unwarranted disregard for freedom of

speech and a loss of faith in the

marketplace of ideas and this is key the

marketplace of ideas in countries that

value civil

liberties back to the quote we are not a

nation that pushes bad ideas underground

we are a people who believe in allowing

ideas even Odus hurt ones to get out and

we do not hesitate to give a good public

tongue lashing to ideas that deserve it

okay so this is the idea that non bigots

will essentially counter the bigots and

make the system

work uh this shows how it's supposed to

play out so the bigots we've got the KKK

marching um and if any of you have ever

seen a KKK March what you find is that

the non- bigots uh the the anti the own

ER Marchers usually outnumber them by

large

margins incidentally the KKK actually

recently protested against West burough

guys in June of 2011 I thought that was

interesting um but all this brings up

the question of what's the best balance

excuse me civil rights and civil

liberties trying to balance these it's

matched with a question of of what's the

best system you know what's the best in

terms of the democratic system in

particular um the oldest uh is indirect

democracy see

republicanism um the focus is on

separating powers and having people

represented through elected officials so

modern democracy is representative it's

indirect with the exception of

Switzerland in particular and other

countries that occasionally allow for

direct um uh direct democracy in certain

cases we could trace modern democracy

back to England which is incidentally

the land with no

Constitution um no

forced King John way back in the 13th

century to sign the Magna Carta in 1215

what this did is it limited the rights

of the king who was forced to consult

with Barons these Nobles on particular

issues especially taxes it created a

Proto

legislature it guaranteed all

Aristocrats had due process and thus

some civil rights for example um they

could they could complain and and not be

imprisoned so what this meant is the

king bound himself and his quote hair

forever to Grant quote to all free men

of our kingdom the rights and Liberties

that were described here the King was no

longer Above the Law this is a first

where the Monarch limits himself it

didn't end end the Monarch's dreams but

it created new expectations from people

from the people RIT large more and more

of whom gradually were included in the

definition of freemen as as the the

British case evolved which we'll talk

about more in in a couple weeks um and

we had violent resistance when the king

tried to overstep his bounds English

settlers to America actually brought

copies of the Magna Carta and much later

use this document in their fight okay so

parts of our Constitution are straight

out of the Magna Carta the magn Carta

what it did is it provided for rule of

law individuals are subject to the same

system regardless of power regardless of

position now M the Magna cartter was

really about aristoc largely but over

time the Notions of participation in

democracies have expanded today there

are lots of ways that you can

participate uh you can Lobby interest

groups Lobby all the time you can write

letters to to your Congressional

officials to the executive branch we can

hold protests demonstrations rallies um

the most the most obvious one is voting

which is designed to limit the abuse of

power and increase representation you

don't like them vote them out hold them

accountable it's about accountability

suffrage is the right to vote for adults

um which has been slow and coming New

Zealand was the first to give women the

right to vote the US gave them the right

to vote in 1920 France allowed women to

vote in 1944 towards the end of the

war uh other categories we've got we've

had discriminatory uh literacy tests in

the US through the 1960s that were

efforts to to curb the participation of

African-Americans um in some cases you

actually have mandatory voting some

states like Australia Belgium Britain

will actually fine you for not voting so

there are different approaches to to

this participation make it mandatory

make it voluntary whom to allow to

participate electoral systems are

designed to balance the need for

participation and effective governance

these are the rules that decide how

votes are cast how they're counted how

they're translated into legislative or

uh executive seats okay if we're talking

about

the a presidential

system and again what they they're

trying to do is they're trying to make

it uh so that you've got an adequate

representation but not so much

representation that it allows for such a

diversity of views that you can't

actually govern and we'll get we'll come

to that in a couple

minutes there are two main forms of

electoral

systems single member districts and

proportional representation there are

also various mixes which we'll talk

about when we look at some specific

specific countries the plurality SMD

system is the first pass the post Winner

Takes all system it's the one where once

you the running candidate get a

plurality more than any other candidate

uh then you win so if there are only two

candidates and you get 50% plus one then

you win um there is in this system one

representative per constituency so you

can uh take a circle and divide it up

into a bunch of pieces

and each one of those would be a a a

constituency a district and there's only

one representative that comes out from

this so so going back to our example if

this candidate beats the other candidate

what that means is that all the other

votes are wasted okay um so if someone

gets uh 51% and the other guy gets 49%

well the the person who got 51% first

passed the post the winner is going to

win and the guy who got 49% is going to

lose and that means that all those

votes are people who are not going to be

as you know in their eyes adequately

represented okay this is a fairly rare

system we have it in the US we have it

in the UK uh in Canada India Nigeria not

so many

countries so there are some major

disadvantages of this system in terms of

representation you can have similar

percentage of the votes for different

parties but one can win many more seats

if they win more districts for example

you can have national elections in 30

districts let's say there are 30

districts in in a state and by state I

mean a

country so in this state you have 30

districts in each one the big party

let's just call it big party Big B big p

gets 51% of the seats and the sad party

big S big p gets 49% of the seats

ultimately the sad party has no

Representatives the big party has them

all okay so for representation you're

literally literally in a in a in a sense

disenfranchising uh nearly half the

country another problem with this system

is is that it tends to be more risk

averse there's a disincentive for

greater pluralism for example new

parties people are unwilling to vote for

unknowns from small parties because

that's throwing their vote away okay how

how many people vote for the the green

candidate in our country okay so the SMD

system is more likely to be a two- party

dominated legislature you go for someone

who has a

chance same thing with the presidential

elections so Ros perau scored big in

1992 uh and I can't remember I should

have this but I think it was around 20%

or so but that was that was a miracle um

most people didn't want to and have not

before and did not after want to waste

their votes on a third party candidate

because they thought this person has

very little

chance so how does the majority

based system uh this SMD sorry how does

this SMD uh system remedy this well

you've got a majority based SMD system

in this system you've got two

rounds uh the winner has to have a

majority more than 50% not just a

plurality and they can get this in the

first round but it's much less likely so

um more people are going to take a

chance on the first round on a small

Party candidate with the assumption that

probably no one's going to get more than

50% in the first round anyway and then

during the second round which is a

runoff round you can vote for the least

of of two evils or whoever you want who

made it into the second round you can

also have voters rank order their

candidates those candidates with the

fewest first preferences are are

sequentially eliminated until finally uh

one has the majority um the problem is

that with a majority based SMD system

you're still talking about lots of uh

votes that are ultimately wasted and a

couple parties tend to dominate

so we can compare the Electoral systems

a majority SMD system is good for is

good for better for representation than

a plurality SMD system okay but a

plurality system is better uh for

moderation there's something known as

the median voter theorem that extremists

are weeded out because people are afraid

of wasting their vote we might support

extremists but we think oh hardly

anyone's going to vote this extremist

candidate into power and so well let's

just vote for the next best option which

is a mainstream candidate so this is a

median voter theorem candidates are more

likely to go mainstream you're less

likely to have extremist

candidates because people are are going

to be afraid to waste their votes on you

so where a majority SMD system loses um

and the picture you see here is that of

Le Pen's 2002 uh

candidacy so France's election back in

2002 you always have some extremists in

on elections they usually have no chance

in a plurality SMD system as I just said

it's hard for them to get any votes

because people are afraid of wasting

their votes in France and many others

where you've got a majority based SMD

system not plurality based this becomes

immaterial and so here Along Comes Jean

Mar Leen a right-wing head of the

national front who had among other

things advocated for the forced

isolation from Society of all people

infected with HIV accused various French

leaders of being puppets of Jewish

interests lamented the French World Cup

team for not being white enough not an

accurate reflection of French society

campaigned on xenophobia and an

anti-muslim

message now there were lots of

contenders for the French presidency but

the biggest ones were the incumbent who

was at that time prime minister lonel

zopen and Jacques

sherak uh the incumbent prime minister I

shouldn't say not the incumbent

president of course um trailing after

that was this leader of the national

front Jean Marie Leen um now the results

of the first round zopen and sherak

split a bulk of the vote among the

mainstream voters they took that

mainstream and they split it meanwhile

Leen Consolidated his right-wing votes

so what happened is Jacques sharak got

19.9% zopen got

16.2% and Leen got

16.9% okay so uh because jopan and Shak

split the mainstream vote this extremist

with only 16.9% of the vote managed to

get

into uh the second round this led to a

huge rally by the anti- rightwing

including enormous protests in political

consolidation of the mainstream and in

the second round of the elections sharak

got 82% of the vote and Leen got just

17.8% of the vote but remember Leen

would have never gotten where he did

without this two round majority SMD

system and this had major implications

for internal the internal and external

image of France and it caused a lot of

soul

searching the smmd majority system uh is

also done in parliamentary and other

elections one person ultimately gets all

the votes but there's more room for

others to

contend uh so um before we go on I will

I will change it because I've been

talking for a long time so uh on to PR

in just a moment