Jump to content

Talk:German Bundesrat

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Aeroid (talk | contribs) at 10:35, 12 November 2023 (→Bremen: Reply). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

WikiProject iconGermany C‑class Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Germany, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Germany on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.GermanyWikipedia:WikiProject GermanyTemplate:WikiProject GermanyGermany articles
CThis article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Lower Saxony

Could someone please update the table and the diagram? Lower Saxony is now governed by a SPD/CDU government.Alektor89 (talk) 17:04, 26 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Old discussions

Wiki policy isn't to automatically translate every non-english word into english. It is to use the word used by english-language speakers. If a non-english word is in effect incorporated into english then it isn't translated. For example, Kaiser, Tsar, Taoiseach. Tánaiste, Dáil Éireann for the lower house of the Irish parliament, not House of Representatives, its literal translation.

Also contrary to what was asserted, in bicameral systems, the upper house does not have to approve legislation and does not have to be involved in the selection of a head of government. I have rewritten the relevant section to remove this inaccurate claim. FearÉIREANN 19:53 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Well done. :-) Still, you had a typo when moving the page. It's "Bundesrat", not "Bundestrat"; see my latest on Talk:Politics of Germany. djmutex 19:58 8 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Hmm...shouldn't we discuss the Bundesrat in Imperial Germany? john 05:37, 31 Mar 2004 (UTC)

I have (effectively) reverted the move by moving this article to Bundesrat of Germany. The argument FearÉIREANN makes above is totally correct. However more importantly Wilfried Derksen didn't try to achieve a consensus before moving even though there was already an objection registered on this page, which isn't on.
This isn't exactly a revert but was the best I could do because I don't have administrator access. But the two titles are virtually identical anyway.
Iota 03:27, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The composition section is confusing for English-speakers not familiar with German politics, could we add a brief definition for what a 'Land' is? I'd add it but I'm really not sure what would be the best translation.

I did some rewording, turning this passage

A law passed in 2002 with a split vote by the Brandenburg delegation was declared void by the German Constitutional Court.

into:

Conflict between delegation members may lead to a split vote, which would invalidate the respective state's entire vote. The delegates (or their leader) are not allowed to reconsider and cast a unison vote. A law passed in 2002 under such circumstances, with the Brandenburg delegation split, caused much controversy and was ultimately declared void by the German Constitutional Court.

I don't know whether this is clearly comprehensible, so I want to explain the situation back then:

In 2002, the Brandenburg votes were decisive in order to let a certain law either pass or to reject it. However, the two coalition partner found themselves on different sides of the fence. Their agreement would have called for abstaining, but the national leadership of both parties pushed the state leaders to move this way or that way: mainly Schröder's SPD pushed the minister-president Stolpe (SPD) to vote in favour of the law, while the CDU was satisfied with abstention, since that would have defeated the bill.

The Bundesrat assembled and the states cast their votes. The President of the house, Berlin mayor Wowereit (also SPD), asked each state for their votes. When he asked Brandenburg, minister-president Stolpe (SPD) answered "Yes!", immediately followed by his deputy Schönbohm (CDU) answering "No!". Wowereit declared that the vote cannot be split and asked a second time. Again Stolpe answered "Yes!", to which Schönbohm added "Mr President, you know my opinion!". Wowereit asked a third time. Again Stolpe answered "Yes!", while Schönbohm remained silent this time. After this, Wowereit declared that Brandenburg had voted in the affirmitive. This caused a row in the assembly, with shouting going back and forth. Then the vote continued, with all other states casting their votes without any difficulty. This way, the bill passed and was refered to the Federal President, who voiced his concerns over the procedure but signed it into law anyway. The CDU opposition, through some the states governed by them, brought the matter to the court, who ruled that the voting procedure was faulty, the Brandenburg vote invalid and hence the law invalid. (Later, a compromise between the parties was reached and a new bill passed without controversy).

If anyone thinks that my edit does not makes this clear, please don't hesitate to improve my wording. Str1977 21:12, 24 October 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Why not represent the states equally?

The answer is easy: political science knows two systems: A) The Senate Principle - one state one vote B) The Federal Council Principle - votes by population relation The German Federal Council is NO Senate! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:638:607:205:0:0:0:30 (talk) 06:27, 1 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]


But the German system is a compromise between THE SENATE PRINCIPLE and THE VOTE BY POPULATION RELATION because the relation is modified. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.158.222.105 (talk) 19:48, 7 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]


I think the German Government hasn't done a good job by having population as a factor. The Australian Government will under-represent any new state that joins up, just like what's happening with the territories there. (Because the Senate has to have half of the House of Represetatives' membership, I think that the first six states will happily let newer states feed off them. :-)) Also, Washington DC doesn't have any representation in the Senate either. If you want a federation to work out properly, represent everyone equally in the upper house. Scott Gall 13:55, 26 April 2006 (UTC) PS: I've found out that the Excel calculation for the number of seats given to each Land is =IF([insert reference here]>7000000,6,IF([insert reference here]>6000000,5,IF([insert reference here]>2000000,4,3))). And if New Zealand became a Land, we'd get 4 seats in the Bundesrat.[reply]

Population

Bremen 664,000 North Rhine-Westphalia 18,033,000 Both having the same number of vote would not be considered as fair —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.212.87 (talk) 18:56, 4 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the German Constituion was under heavy influence from the Allies after WWII, so its more or less their fault that the Bundesländer have different numbers of members in the Bundesrat. In a true upper house every state should have one vote...or 2 whatever as long as they are equal. Since the Amount of population is already represented in the Bundestag (the lower house). Of course Northrhine Westphalia sends more people in the Bundestag than Bremen. But why should states with a large population also dominate the upper house. You dont need it then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.57.93.154 (talk) 14:59, 11 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

"true upper house every state should have one vote"
1st whats a "true" upper house
2nd why should it have one for every state/or every state equally represented ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.233.181 (talk) 16:39, 23 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Dear 84.164...,
I don't think such judgements are none of your business.
But to explain, the Bundesrat represents the states - it is needed for that, to to play out representation possiblities. States are NOT represented in the Bundestag which is dominated by national parties. In the Bundesrat, each state is represented according to its population. This is the traditionally German way since 1866 and nothing to do with allies. Also, the larger states do not really dominate the body if they don't agree with each other.
And yes, the Bundesrat is not a "true upper house" as it is not an upper house at all. It is a completely separate body, not a house of something else. Str1977 (talk) 14:25, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]
For precisely these reasons, I'm rather convinced that the idea was a German one in 1949. As, in fact, the whole constitution was, which can be seen in the fact that it was partly suspended from the beginning (in its reference to Berlin, e. g.). Noone knows whether there might not have been a monarchical confederation (which was, I guess, the stand of most of the 1944 conspirators) without Allied influence (a monarchy would have been totally impossible with them), but other than that and of course the happy fact of the liberation in the first place, Allied influence on the text of the Constitution did not go beyond the one or the other proposal, the one or the other correction, and that it had to be sent for signing. It was then accompanied by a "Occupation Statute" which stipulated other rules for the time being, e.g. no foreign policy (at first), no laws without Allied approval, etc.
Now what good is an upper house (well, not really, as Str1977 rightly said, but for convenience's sake) there for with unequal representation of states?
To represent them at all.
The Bundestag does not represent the states.
Other than other countries, we have a proportional election (with some modification to get constituencies on district level - not states - somewhat represented) which are intended to represent the political leaning of the whole German populace. Your attitude that "why else have an upper house at all" seems to stem from the assumption that the lower house comes from majority election too. Then, indeed, a proportional U.S. Senate might be just the House of Representatives all over again (though even then, election by constitutencies and election by the whole state would make a difference), but this is not the case in Germany. --2001:A60:15A0:6801:1F2:EFFD:BEF5:6F86 (talk) 13:44, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]
the answer is easy germany is a democracy and democracy means that the majority of the people decides, giving all states the same vote is undemocratic and unfair towards the population of the states with high population 2A02:908:4C4:2860:C952:37A6:C64C:1E16 (talk) 01:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Has there been a change in the seats allotted?

It has been nearly 30 years since I studied German government, but my memory (which could, of course, be faulty) tells me that no Land had more than five votes in the Bundesrat back then—that it was either 3, 4, or 5 votes each. Now this article says some have six. So I'm wondering:

1. Is my memory of the situation in 1978, per Bundesrat voting, incorrect?
2. If my memory is correct,
  • is the change to the current status the result of an amendment to the Basic Law, or
  • is the change the result of population growth, and some Länder have simply reached the new plateaus allowing them a larger vote,
3. And finally, if this last possibility is true, does the Basic Law allow for a Land to eventually have more than six votes?

I'd love to hear from someone who knows. Unschool (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not shure, but I think they've change it, after the reunification —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.240.182 (talk) 22:33, 17 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Hallo Unschool,

  1. No, that is, it is correct.
  2. (a) Yes, it is. Article 51GG was changed. (b) No, this is not the reason.
  3. The current article does not allow this. States with more than 7 mio. inhabitants get 6 votes. Such a statement includes states with 100 mio. inhabitants.

And if you want to see a reliable source for all that, here it is. Tomeasy T C 18:12, 3 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ringsdorff

Harald Ringstorff isn't the President of the Bundesrat. Since Nov 1. 2007 to 31. Oct. 2008 the President of the Bundesrat is Ole von Beust, the fisrt mayor of Hamburg and President of the Senate of Hamburg. Ringstorff is first Vice President of Bundesrat. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.166.160.227 (talk) 20:55, 28 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Chamber for European Affairs

Should this not be mentioned? I'd add it myself but I'm unclear from this text as to its implications: http://www.bundesrat.de/nn_11006/EN/organisation-en/europakammer-en/europakammer-en-inhalt.html?__nnn=true

Penrose method

The table in the "Composition" section has a column showing vote allocations if the Penrose method had been used. Is there a reason for this, because it seems like potentially original research simply by being analysis? 212.113.145.253 (talk) 01:15, 10 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Since there has been no response in two months, I am going to remove the column because I think it is OR. 212.113.145.253 (talk) 03:21, 16 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

The Bundesrat met in the same building as the Reichstag and Bundestag from 1871 until 2000?

The following was recently added:

  • "The Bundesrat met in the same building as the Reichstag and Bundestag from 1871 until 2000, when it moved into the Old Prussian House of Lords in Berlin."

Since the Bundesrat didn't exist from 1871 and the Reichsrat was dissolved during the Third Reich, I am not sure what this edit was intended to mean. --Boson (talk) 10:09, 7 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

A Bundesrat did exist in the German Empire, and was replaced by a Reichsrat only in the Weimar Republic. Though it might here be included in the meaning. In fact, you may rather freely exchange the components "Reich" and "Bund" through much of German history, only you'd need to explain yourselfs to those who don't know that and think you're doing something politically incorrect.
I don't know if the original sentence is correct, though.--2001:A60:15A0:6801:1F2:EFFD:BEF5:6F86 (talk) 13:47, 25 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

First, I wouldn't say you can exchange "Reich" and "Bund". As a general rule, if it's a "Reich" (Reichstag, Deutsches Reich) it is more centralized then if it's a "Bund" (Bundestag, Deutscher Bund, Bundesrepublik) Also up to this day the building where the "Bundestag" (parliament) meets is called "Reichstag[sgebaeude]". On the matter of where the Bundesrat/Reichsrat was seated, it is not entiraly untrue to say it was located in the same building as the Bundestag/Reichstag. During the period of the "Deutsches Reich" (1871-1918) and the Weimarer Republik (1918-1933) it was seated in the "Reichstag". It was then discarded during the "Third Reich" and reopened (1949) in the "Bundeshaus" in the provisional capital of West Germany (Bonn) where it shared it's seat with the "Bundestag". As due to it's non existance in the period of 1933 to 1949 one can say that, when there was a Bundesrat/Reichsrat it was seated in the same Building as the corresponding Bundestag/Reichstag in the period between 1871 to 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.225.32.20 (talk) 10:10, 31 October 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The first thing is actually wrong. The "Reich" wasn't an empire in theory, but just a federal state or even a confederation, consisting of a bunch of sovereign princedoms, which each had its own head of state, just like it is today in the Federal Repubric. The political system in Germany has in many points not changed since 1867, a centralized system has never been in force in German history (excluding the Nazi time of course).
The newly written constitution for the Reich was initially titled "Constitution of the German Confederation" and came into force under this title in 1871. In theory, the "Emperor" wasn't an official emperor either. In theory, the German federal state was formed by all the sovereign monarchs, and one of them (the Prussian King) held the federal presidency (Bundespräsidium) as primus inter pares, which was the same weak ceremonial title we know from the actual German Confederation. That's also why the Bundesrat was the highest political organ of the new German national state, much more important then the Reichstag, as it directly represented the opinion of the individual monarchs. It brought all the delegates from each sovereign territory together, just like in a classical confederation. (Actually, the importance of the theoretically weak little position of Chancellor derives from there, as the Chancellor was only formally presiding over the Bundesrat like a Speaker in English speaking countries, being a relatively unimportant office in theory and not even allowed to propose laws. Laws were proposed by the state/princedom delegates in Bundesrat. However, the Chancellor became very powerful in the end because it was combined with the Prussian Minister-President, who was able to propose laws in his Prussian function).
The presidency directly received the solely dynastic and theoretically meaningless title of an Emperor (while the constitution was full of the word Bundespräsidium, while the word Kaiser was only mentioned in one article), though initially he didn't even want that title as he saw himself as Prussian and prefered to be President of a federal Germany. However, Bismarck forced him to take that dynastic title only because the prestige that came with it made German unification much easier. So, the Federal Presidency and the German Confederation were renamed as German Emperor and German Empire – in only one constitutional article of many –, but that didn't change anything of the system of a federal state with equal monarchs – the title of Emperor not even being monarchical but an empty thing that was only filled by the person's position as Prussian monarch. (Proclamating William I to be German Emperor was constitutionally irrelevant – there wasn't even a coronation. Relevant was that he was automatically the head of state in his position as King of Prussia, but had (excluding military) the same rights as any other monarch in the Bundesrat by governing through his Prussian delegation – or rather let Bismarck govern through the powerful delegation and as presiding Chancellor at the same time.)
Of course, the things are different when you look at it de facto, and Prussia effectively dominated the federal state, simply because it was so large, but that was a theoretical look at it. --SamWinchester000 (talk) 08:15, 1 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bundesrat of Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bundesrat of Germany. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:37, 9 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Government / Neutral distinction doesn't make much sense

I'll delete the current Government / Neutral / Opposition distinction from the infobox and other spots. It is misleading rather than helpful. This version of the article had an image showing all the parties in the Länder governments. That was more accurate, but also confusing due to its complexity. From 1949 up until ca. 2000, looking at the Bundesrat as pro or contra the federal government often helped understand or even predict its decisions, but those days are gone. The political landscape has gotten more diverse, largely due to the growth of the Left and the Greens. The Länder that are governed by the same parties (Union and SPD) as the Bund often vote against it anyway. Currently, Union and SPD lead 14 of 16 Länder, and they are part of the government in the remaining two, but that doesn't affect the voting behavior of each Land in the Bundesrat much. It's more complex than a simple government / neutral / opposition scheme. We won't be able to explain the complexities and vagaries of the German political system in the infobox. It's better to have no image of Bundesrat seat shares than a misleading one. -- Chrisahn (talk) 22:10, 20 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I do not agree with this proposal. I will state my reasons later on, as I am heavily involved in other buisiness at the moment. Please no edits, before a consensus is reached. Alektor89 (talk) 07:59, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please provide recent (from the last ten years or so) reliable sources that support making this distinction. Otherwise, I will revert your edits. Please also discuss this at de:Bundesrat (Deutschland), where I removed basically the same unsourced and misleading information. -- Chrisahn (talk) 15:17, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
A couple of relevant quotes:
"Dennoch ist der Einfluss der Parteien im Bundesrat geringer als im Bundestag. Dies liegt unter anderem daran, dass es wegen der zwingenden einheitlichen Stimmabgabe der Länder keine Fraktionen gibt. Zudem sind Koalitionsregierungen üblich, bei denen häufig einer der Partner auf Bundesebene im "anderen Lager" steht – nämlich in der Opposition. Weiterhin ist zu berücksichtigen, dass im Bundesrat die Interessen der Länder auf Bundesebene im Vordergrund stehen. Das bindet alle Länder ohne Rücksicht auf parteipolitische Fronten zusammen." -- Official Website of the Bundesrat
"Doch hat sich das politische Konfliktpotenzial zwischen Bundesrat, Bundestag und Bundesregierung aufgrund der deutlich veränderten Parteienlandschaft erhöht. Aus dem früheren Dreiparteiensystem – bestehend aus CDU/CSU, SPD und FDP – ist durch das Hinzukommen von Bündnis 90/Die Grünen, der Linken und zuletzt der Alternative für Deutschland (AfD) ein Parteisystem mit vielfältigen Koalitionsvarianten und -optionen geworden. Das erschwert die Konsensbildung im Gesetzgebungsprozess. Was daraus folgt, ob mehr Blockaden oder Formationen neuer und wechselnder politischer Mehrheiten, lässt sich noch nicht absehen." -- Official website of the Bundestag, 2019
"Außerdem haben sich die Mehrheiten im Bundesrat oft als ziemlich wechselhaft erwiesen, weil die Länder bisweilen Interessen haben, die sich nicht decken mit der Strategie der Bundesparteiführungen." -- Süddeutsche Zeitung, 2011
"Da aktuell zehn verschiedene Koalitionsmodelle in den Ländern existieren ..., ist die Mehrheitsfindung im Bundesrat in der Regel auf einen komplizierten und langwierigen Prozess des Ausgleichs zwischen den Interessen der verschiedenen Länder, aber auch der im Bundestag vertretenen Parteien gekennzeichnet. ... Auch wenn die Vermutung nahe liegt, dass die Oppositionsparteien des Bundestages auf diese Weise versuchen, die Gesetzgebung der Regierungsmehrheit zu blockieren, so lässt sich eher das Gegenteil beobachten: In der Regel stehen die Interessen der Länder vor denen der Parteien, sodass es auch immer wieder vorkommt, dass Mitglieder der Landesregierungen gegen die Positionen ihrer Parteikollegen auf Bundesebene stimmen. ... Auch an der oben bereits erwähnten Mannigfaltigkeit der verschiedenen Regierungskoalitionen im Bundestag lässt sich exemplarisch erkenn, dass die Zeit klarer Lagerbündnisse („rot-grün“ gegen „schwarz-gelb“) schon seit längerem vorüber ist und sich die Kräfteverhältnisse der Parteien in Deutschland stark verschoben haben." -- Sächsische Landeszentrale für politische Bildung
"...aufgrund der Großen Koalition im Bund gibt es im Bundesrat jedoch ohnehin keine klassischen Blöcke von Regierung und Opposition." -- Bundeszentrale für politische Bildung, 2014
-- Chrisahn (talk) 18:03, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
With regard to the sources I quoted above, I deleted the content trying to distinguish "government" and "opposition" support in the Bundesrat again. Please do not add it again until there are enough reliable sources supporting that distinction. See WP:BURDEN: "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material... The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. ... Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source." Thanks. -- Chrisahn (talk) 18:23, 29 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Hey Chrisahn! First of all, thank you for your commitment to improve the quality of wiki articles about politics in Germany, something that is urgently needed, even though there is still a lot to do. In this specific case I would like to answer your last message in four parts:
1). About the procedure: If you want to fundamentally change an article, you need a consensus in the community. To reach a consensus it is not enough to suggest a change, wait a day and then edit. We do all of this as a hobby, and it may take some time for a substantive debate. Nobody except you has had anything to say about the current form of the article for a long time, so you have to assume that not everyone immediately agrees with you. Please keep this in mind in the future, otherwise you will, I'm afraid, get into trouble because of edit-warring and that doesn't have to be the case.
2.) You are right in the point that sources are essential for the quality of an article. But let me mention your sources here in the order in which you indicate them: The first source actually says very explicitly that a distinction government/opposition/neutral is still of (some) importance. The second does not contribute anything to the topic, but only says that the formation of a majority in the BR has become more difficult. This may be true (it does not correspond to my impression, see below), but it does not speak against the basic principle of differentiating between government, opposition and neutral. The same applies to the third and fourth sources. Source no. 4 seems(!) to support your assumption, but it basically says (if you read the complete text!) only that the BR not only (!) consists of government and opposition block, but that there is also a considerable neutral block, which is indispensable for a majority formation at the moment(!).
3.) I don't know how intensively you deal with German domestic politics and constitutional theory, and I don't want to play the "teacher" here, but in fact the BR currently functions like this: Due to the different coalition models in the states, federal governments have rarely had a majority in the Bundesrat since the 1990s, but they don't need one either. On the one hand, according to the constitution, a government only needs a majority in the Bundestag (parliament). On the other hand, in practice it is very seldom the case that the government needs a majority in the BR for a concrete law, because since the last federalism reforms only a few laws are "subject to approval". Laws "not requiring approval" are passed if there is no active majority in the BR against (!) them (i.E. if there is no oppositon majority in the BR). If the government wants to pass a law that requires approval (an example that has been relevant several times in recent years is the classification of third countries as safe countries of origin), it usually happens that the state governments of the government-bloc vote in favor and "neutral governments" with one other party are added - in practice, in the last years these have mostly been the Greens in the end, while governments with the participation of the FDP and The Left have tended to play no role. Conversely, the fact that there is no opposition majority in the BR was very important because it is currently almost impossible to block a "law not requiring approval" in the BR. Here again, the distinction between government/opposition/neutral is of considerable important.
4). You will rightly object that my "expertise" (that's what I call it now) is not a source. So I point out the following: In my opinion, the article "Konflikt und Konsens im Bundesrat" by Klaus Stüwe (in: APuZ 2004, https://www.bpb.de/apuz/27910/konflikt-und-konsens-im-bundesrat) is highly instructive for the functioning of the BR - even if the party landscape may have changed again in the last 16 years: The "problem" described by Stüwe has become even more acute as a result, if at all, and has made the distinction between state governments that support the federal government, opposition-delegations that block it and those, who are possibly willing to compromise (as they are neutral) even more important.
Conclusion: We can discuss all this here with pleasure and I am also prepared to take a lot of time. But we should wait with the edits until A) we have a consensus and B) ideally even more users have contributed their point of view. Until then I will restore the status quo ante and ask you to refrain from further hasty edits. That would be edit-warring, as I said. Alektor89 (talk) 19:30, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
PS.: To submit a possible compromise: I could imagine to add a note in the box, stating that the division in Government/Neutral/Opposition is established praxis but unofficial. Would this be acceptable to you? Alektor89 (talk) 19:51, 1 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You seem to misunderstand how Wikipedia works. The key point is: You have to provide sources for any claim you want to add to the article. Maybe you didn't read WP:Verifiability. Here are the relevant parts again (emphasis mine):
In the English Wikipedia, verifiability means other people using the encyclopedia can check that the information comes from a reliable source. Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Even if you are sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it.
All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable. All quotations, and any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material. Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed.
All content must be verifiable. The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and it is satisfied by providing an inline citation to a reliable source that directly supports the contribution.
Attribute all quotations, and any material whose verifiability is challenged or likely to be challenged, to a reliable, published source using an inline citation. The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article.
You should also read WP:No original research.
Again: You have to provide sources. If you want to add the claim that Lower Saxony is "pro-government" in the Bundesrat, you have to provide sources for that claim. If you want to add the claim that Saxony is "neutral" in the Bundesrat, you have to provide sources for that claim. Quoting WP:BURDEN again: The cited source must clearly support the material as presented in the article. (A sixteen year old source making general claims about the Bundesrat is useless in this regard.)
Quote: The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material. The burden is on you. You have to provide sources.
Quote: Any material that needs a source but does not have one may be removed. That's what I did. I followed the rules. You are breaking the rules. Stop it.
You seem to think that something can stay in the article when there is consensus among editors that it is true. If you think so, you are wrong. That kind of consensus doesn't matter. Quote: Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors. Again: You have to provide sources.
Please stop breaking the rules. If you want to add these claims about "government" / "neutral" / "opposition" to article, YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE SOURCES THAT CLEARLY AND DIRECTLY SUPPORT THESE CLAIMS.
That's all. DO NOT ADD THESE CLAIMS AGAIN WITHOUT SOURCES. YOU HAVE TO PROVIDE SOURCES. — Chrisahn (talk) 16:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
What about this source? https://www.bundesrat.de/SharedDocs/texte/16/20160518-wahlen-in-rp.html It is from 2016 and the Bundesrat itself and clearly says with respect to the new Rhineland-Palatinate government: "Durch den Wechsel von Rot-Grün zur Ampel-Koalition verbleibt das Land im sogenannten neutralen Block. Dieser umfasst alle Länder, an deren Regierung sich mindestens eine Partei beteiligt, die im Bundestag in der Opposition ist. Die Länder der großen Koalition vereinen derzeit 20 Stimmen im Bundesrat auf sich. Für die absolute Mehrheit sind mindestens 35 Stimmen notwendig." -> "The change from red-green to "traffic light coalition" means that the country remains in the so-called neutral block. This block includes all states in whose government at least one party participates that is in the opposition in the Bundestag. The countries of the grand coalition currently have 20 votes in the Bundesrat. For an absolute majority, at least 35 votes are required." I could link tons of those here. Alektor89 (talk) 09:34, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
If you give me 1-2 days, I will write a Chapter in the article about the custom of gov/neutr/opp-bloc separation and source it ad nauseam. As of now, the status quo ante was restored. Alektor89 (talk) 09:38, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

STOP ADDING UNSOURCED CONTENT. YOU ARE BREAKING THE BASIC RULES OF WIKIPEDIA. If you keep adding unsourced content, I will report you at WP:ANI.

Thanks for finally providing a somewhat useful source. That's progress. The source is four and a half years old though. I tried very hard to find more recent sources on bundesrat.de making similar claims. I couldn't find any, and I don't think you will be able to find "tons of those", but maybe there are some. I'm looking forward to discussing them. But you have to follow the rules: No disputed content in the article without sources. — Chrisahn (talk) 11:22, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Once again. I don't know how familiar you are with the functioning of german federal politics, but the perception that there are (de facto) a pro-government bloc, a neutral bloc and an opposition bloc (as struturing principle, so to say), is quite common, both in publications of the Bundesrat itself (which I have given an example of) and in the media. Take the following examples (I have only taken examples from the last 10 years):
  • https://www.n-tv.de/politik/Im-Bundesrat-aendert-sich-einiges-article11803036.html (2013) Title(!): "Neutraler Block wird immer größer", "Die Länder mit großen Koalitionen kommen derzeit auf 18 der 69 Stimmen im Bundesrat. Dazu gehören die jeweils vier Stimmen Berlins, Sachsen-Anhalts und Thüringens sowie die jeweils drei Stimmen von Mecklenburg-Vorpommern und aus dem Saarland. Schwarz-Rot könnte aber auch die drei Stimmen des SPD-regierten Hamburgs sowie die sechs Stimmen Bayerns mit seiner CSU-Alleinregierung für sich verbuchen. Somit käme Schwarz-Rot auf insgesamt 27 Stimmen. Für eine Mehrheit in der Länderkammer werden 35 der 69 Bundesratssitze benötigt."
In case you are not yet convinced and want something more scientific, I would recommend
So, this is what I found in a very quick google-search. How should we proceed? Alektor89 (talk) 15:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Most of your sources are seven years old. Only one (Schmedes) is relatively recent.
We could proceed by adding a few paragraphs (or a section) to the article explaining that the perception of well-defined blocs in the Bundesrat (government, neutral, opposition) used to be quite common, but currently isn't. Both claims can easily be supported by many reliable sources.
The Bundesrat itself changed its stance after about 2016/17. The most recent mention of "neutraler Block" or "Block der Großen Koalitionen" I could find in the Bundesrat's Textarchiv is this: [1] (May 2017, i.e. before the last Bundestagswahl). Since 2017, they generally talk about "diversity of coalitions", "no clear majorities", "the Bundesrat remains colorful" instead, e.g. [2] (Mar 2017), [3] (May 2017), [4] (Oct 2018), [5] (Oct 2018), [6] (Aug 2019), [7] (Oct 2019), [8] (Nov 2020).
Most importantly: Several articles published by the Bundesrat since 2017 explicitly state that there are currently no clear political camps or blocs in the Bundesrat:
  • "Grund ist eine nie dagewesene Koalitionsvielfalt in den 16 Landesregierungen, die eine klassische Lagerbildung im Bundesrat nicht zulässt." [9] (May 2017), [10] (May 2017), [11] (Oct 2017)
  • "Die aktuelle Koalitionsvielfalt in den 16 Landesregierungen lässt eine klassische Lagerbildung nicht zu." [12] (Jan 2018)
  • Bereits jetzt sind im Bundesrat 13 verschiedene Regierungskoalitionen der Länder vertreten, die keine klassische Lagerbildung zulassen. [13] (Jan 2019)
When the Bundesrat itself clearly states that there currently are no conventional political blocs in the Bundesrat, Wikipedia definitely shouldn't make that claim either.
In a nutshell: Adding several paragraphs or a section about this subject would definitely be useful and relevant. But simply stating that there currently are certain Lager or Blöcke in the Bundesrat would obviously be wrong. We could mention that some still make this distinction (e.g. Schmedes), while many others reject it.
Here's another source: "Eine irgendwie geartete Mehrheit gibt es in der Länderkammer nicht mehr." [14] (Tagesspiegel, Apr 2016)
P.S.: It might be interesting to pin down since when there are no well-defined blocs anymore: 2014 (BPB)? 2016 (Tagesspiegel)? 2017/18 (Bundesrat)? But it's probably not that important. Wording like in recent years might be good enough.
P.P.S.: By the way: How familiar am I with German federal politics? Well, I've only lived in Germany all my life and followed poltics closely for almost forty years, so... probably not very familiar. ;-) – Chrisahn (talk) 19:51, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, first some thoughts to your interesting points: The thing is that the blocs are of course a bit less relevant, if a Union/SPD grand coalition governs on federal level, as this automatically makes the vast majority of state governments "neutral". So I think, the point in time, the blocs became somewhat less relevant (from today's perspective) was in fact the formation of the 2nd grand coalition unter Merkel in 2013, which was renewed in 2017/18 (as you know of course, living in Germany like me ;), just for other users potentially following the discussion – the same goes for the following in part...). The blocs could, not necessarily but possibly become more relevant again, if after the next election in less than one year another coalition is build, which I think, is very likely, as no one in Union or SPD really want's another grand coalition. Let' just take the (in my opinion [I could be wrong]) most likely coalitions and the current composition of state governments (which can of course change, as there are mulitple state elections scheduled for the next year and the year that follows!).
  • Union/Greens/FDP. In this scenario Government: 21, Neutral: 48. Results of state elections next year and in 2022, though, could potentially grant this formation a majority, for example if Union/Green[/FDP]-governments are installed in Berlin [quite likely] (+4), Mecklenburg-Vorpommern (+3) [a bit of a long-shot, if we look at the polls, but more likely than in Saxony-Anhalt, and who knows?], Rhineland-Palatinate (+4) [possible] , Lower Saxony [2022] [possible] (+6), Saarland [2022] [very likely] (+3) -> this would bring them to 41 [and if not, there are more promising states voting in 2023]
  • Union/Greens (in case, the FDP will not be needed for a "Jamaica-coalition"). In this scenario there would be a pro government bloc holding 11 votes, a neutral bloc with 58 votes and no opposition bloc, but expect the more Union/Green state governments to be in office one year from now, which should grant this coalition 20 or more votes in the BR.
  • More interesting (but maybe a bit less licely): the SPD/Greens/Left scenario: As of now: Government: 14, Neutral: 43, Opposition: 12. A SPD/Left/Greens coalition in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern after the 2021 state election [somewhere between possible and quite likely] would change this to 17–40–12; in 2022 a SPD/Greens-coalition in Schleswig-Holstein could change the balance to 21–36–12.
These being the three most likely, there is one formation, which would hold a considerable number of votes in the BR and could even have a path to an outright majority (Jamaica), [something which was rare, even in the "good old days"] ;), one which would likely not need that many states from the neutral bloc (Union/Greens) and one, which would likely see the return of the opposition-bloc (SPD/Greens/Left). But this is of course all guesswork and remains to be seen. I would be content with adding another section in the article, which explains the "blocs", mentions the changing relevance of this distinction (especially during grand coalition-governments on federal level), show the diagram there ~"if the bloc-distinction is adopted, the current majority-position in the BR looks like this..." and leave it out of the "box". OK? Alektor89 (talk) 22:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Copyedit queries

I'm going through it bit by bit over a week or so. I'm not German, so I rely on experts here to check that I haven't introduced falsehoods. Problem is that the text is often unclear. I'm doing my best, but need your help. Tony (talk) 06:38, 8 October 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Title "Deutscher Bundesrat"

Hello, I would like to question the title of the article (and the institution). According to German Wikipedia, the name of the council in German is only "Bundesrat". "Deutscher Bundesrat" was only used officially up to 1952. Maybe some people still call it "Deutscher Bundesrat" because of the analogy "Deutscher Bundestag."

Google tells me that only some newspapers or private citizen once used "Deutscher Bundesrat". Bundeszentrale redirects to "Bundesrat." Therefore, I suggest to change the title of this article. Kind regards, Ziko (talk) 17:45, 8 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Just as a comment: There are several other institutions also called "Bundesrat", as is evident in the fact that Bundesrat currently is a disambiguation page between them. If the title here were to be changed, that would somehow have to be accomodated. Daranios (talk) 09:14, 9 January 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Bremen

Bremen is shown both in the parl. diagram and in the table below to be composed of the SPD, Greens and The Left. Yet, on the Bundesrat website (https://www.bundesrat.de/DE/bundesrat/laender/hb/hb-node.html), there are no Left delegates for Bremen directly. So shouldn't the pink stripe on the diagram be removed? Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 15:50, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

It doesn't matter much who the delegates are All delegates for a given state have to vote the same way. If the Bremen delegates vote against the wishes of the Bremen Left party, this would most likely put an end to the current Bremen state government.
In practice, states abstain in case of disagreement between their governing parties. For that reason, it is far more important which parties are in government in a state than which parties their delegates belong to. —Kusma (talk) 16:03, 2 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]
Seats are not assigned to parties in the Bundesrat. They represent the state government, however its elected and which parties are part of the coalitions. The state government sends its delegates and they all (should) vote the same. Aeroid (talk) 10:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

West German and German Capital City

The article talks about the old "West German" capital being Bonn. This article is about the Bundesrat of the Federal Republic of Germany (Germany). Is there any reason why this country's capital is described as the "West German" capital. West Germany is modern Germany. So, why not just call Bonn the old "German" capital? CicolasMoon (talk) 01:15, 11 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Because there were two "old" Germanys prior to the "new" Germany!? Germand Democratic Republic (GDR, DDR, "East Germany" -> Captial: Berlin (east)) and Federal Republic of Germany (FRG, BRD, "West Germany" -> Capital: Bonn). "West Germany" not only is correct here, but necessary to not marginalize East German history. From 1949 to 1990 two political systems and two Germanys existed.
"Old" Germany could mean MANY polictical bodies in the past 1000 years in west/entral Europe. Berlin hast just been capital in such an entity carrying "German" in its name for about 150 years, including 50 years in the "other old" Germany. Aeroid (talk) 10:28, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:German_Bundesrat&oldid=1184747039"