![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | You can help expand this article with text translated from
the corresponding article in German. (September 2012) Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
Why so much detail on the 11th term (1987 thru 1990)? MartinHH 22:34, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
How about listing the number of seats of each term, names of the president and vice-presidents, etc. as separate articles, say for instance "Bundestag,_11th_term_(1987-1990)" MartinHH 22:34, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The eagle coat-of-arms accompanying the article shows the eagle that is used for Germany in general. There is a special "fat hen" version of the eagle that is used on the letterhead of members of the Bundestag, hung in the parliamentary chamber, etc, and is especially associated with the Bundestag. But I don't know how to deal with graphics here. http://www.trendelkamp.com/adler.html or http://www.bundestag.de should help show what I mean, though. Bhuck 15:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
According to the naming conventions, the file should be named Federal Diet. Gangulf 18:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I meant the convention listed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): That means: names in the English translation and the original native name is placed on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. Rationale and specifics. The debate can be on the question if Bundestag is more commonly used in English than the translation. Gangulf 21:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that this section of the article
"One striking difference when comparing the Bundestag with the U.S. Congress is the lack of time spent on serving constituents in Germany. In part, that difference results from the fact that only 50 percent of Bundestag deputies are directly elected to represent a specific geographic district; the other half are elected as party representatives (see below). The political parties are thus of great importance in Germany's electoral system, and many voters tend not to see the candidates as autonomous political personalities but rather as agents of the party. Interestingly, constituent service seems not to be perceived, either by the electorate or by the representatives, as a critical function of the legislator. A practical constraint on the expansion of constituent service is the limited personal staff of Bundestag deputies."
needs some editing? I refer specifically to comments such as "lack of time spent on serving constituents" - it could easily be argued that the method of serving constituents is the point of contrast, rather than its presence or absence (i.e. as a collective rather than in terms of geographic region) - and "Interestingly, constituent service seems not to be perceived, either by the electorate or by the representatives, as a critical function of the legislator." Again, party representatives are elected to represent the German people as a whole, who are therefore their constituents. The implication (probably unintentional!) that a representative who is not directly elected by a specific region does not engage in constituent service seems inaccurate, because it's predicated on the definition of a constituency only as a group that constitutes a geographic location, rather than a political or ideological one.
Ziggurat 03:20, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
In the end -- the 50% is not true. Our german election system works that way: You have a primary vote for the direct candidate and a second vote for the list vote. The percentage and the power in the parliament is only estimated by the list vote (for the different parties). So if you win your district you go into parliament, but also canditates from the parties list (by nomination order) go into parliament until the percentage of the list vote is fullfilled (the so called Überhangsmandate). Due to this principle the number of members differs from vote to vote. So if you do a good job and the people vote for you (but maybe your party not), you go into parliament. But also small parties (like Green party or liberals) have a chance to go into parliament without winning a single district. You only have to get over 5% of the votes in list vote. To make the whole thing more complicated ... if you win a direct mandate you went into parliament (also if your party don't get 5%). But if your party wins 3 direct mandates you go into parliament with your percentage (even if your party is below 5% -- as far i can remeber this was only the case with the former communist party SED - now PDS). So sorry for my bad english, I hope somebody get the information and can put it into the article. -- 62.178.221.119 00:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I still don't get it though. As I understand it, there are sixteen Länder. And each Lander is split into many "constituencies". But then the article says:
"The 598 seats are distributed among the parties that have gained more than 5% of the second votes or at least 3 direct mandates. Each of these parties is allocated seats in the Bundestag in proportion to the number of votes it has received (Largest remainder method).
When the total number of mandates gained by a party has been determined, they are distributed between the Land lists. The distribution of seats between the parties in each Land is proportional to the second vote results: (Largest remainder method)."
So is there a fixed number of seats for each Land (the sum of which is 299)( I mean : a number determined BEFORE the start of the elections?) Evilbu 14:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
i doubt the following quote
My constituency's direct Member of Bundestag is in the local newspaper minimum 2 times every week at a local event, meeting, what ever... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.238.235 ( talk) 10:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it is not that complicated in principle:
Str1977 (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I took the liberty to remove a few of the categories that this article was placed into.
Removed categories:
sebmol 18:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
One MP left the Group of the Left Party an is now independent (Winkelmeier). Could anyone more experienced than me change the graphics? Thanks.-- 62.246.31.81 18:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyone out there?-- 62.246.67.188 14:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yep, no longer 614. Matthias Wissmann (CDU/CSU Fraktion) has resigned an there's no possible replacement per overhang seats in Baden-Württemberg: see [1] and [2]. I have edited List of Bundestag Members, but I think we need a major review of all Bundestag-related articles. -- Neigel von Teighen 13:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
612 now -- mafutrct ( talk) 19:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The name of the first president is wrong ! It was Erich Köhler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.34.252.245 ( talk) 10:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
In every german sources including the german version of this article I found that the Bundestag is, by no mean, the lower house but itself is the German Parliament. Please clarify? -- Tikar aurum ( talk) 19:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Apparently somebody has restored the references to a "lower house". It is an entirely alien concept to the German constitution, and there are never any -- formal or informal -- references in Germany itself to a "lower house" or anything remotely of the sort. I find it strange that some editors of this article keep restoring what seems to "remind" them of other countries but is in fact an entirely different thing. But I'm not going to engage in an edit war. Ebab ( talk) 06:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Jörg Tauss (MP for the SPD) left the SPD recently, becoming unaffiliated. Thus SPD now has only 221 MPs. Could someone change the infobox accordingly?
Also, Peter Jahr (CDU) will leave the Bundestag until mid July for the European parliament, reducing the CDU to 222 seats. (His seat will not be refilled since it's an overhang seat). -- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 22:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Members of the German Bundestag shall be elected in general, direct, free, equal and secret elections. -- Espoo ( talk) 23:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I would never consider Germany a truly bicamerial legislative system, consisting of Bundestag as lower house and Bundesrat as upper house. First of all, not all bills need to be approved by both houses. For certain bills approval of the Bundestag is sufficient. The second issue is even more critical. The upper chamber is not a legislative body of elected representatives (e.g. USA representatives, delegates or senators), but consists of members of state governments (e.g. USA govenors). This is an obvious violation of separation of powers and certainly lacks the true representation of the people in the Bundesrat. Another weird fact of the Bundestag is, that the Bundeskanzler (leader of the federal government) is also a member of the Bundestag (USA representative). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.162.153.52 ( talk) 16:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
at this date, the current number of Abgeordnete is 620. [1] But I cant change the Graphic.
References
The relevant article in Wikipedia is States of Germany, yet the section Bundestag#Election here uses "Lands", which may be linguistically correct (although the corrent plural is "Länder"), but it becomes awkward with "Land lists" (Länderlisten) and it seems "states" or "federal states" is the common name in English and of course the one used in Wikipedia. -- megA ( talk) 19:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Now there are overhang seats (Überhangmandate) and additional balance seats (Ausgleichsmandate) to preserve the ratio between parties. Given the result of the election 2009 the Bundestag elected under the new system would have 671 members (598 regular + 26 overhang seats + 47 balance seats).-- Marnal ( talk) 11:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the lede of this article is not completely accurate. Specifically, the lines:
The lede of the German article clearly states:
Both lines in the German article use this source, which is the website for the Federal Agency for Civic Education, a government agency. I wanted to let anyone who wanted to weigh in before I changed the article to reflect the German article. Input welcome. Ljpernic ( talk) 09:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
German Federal Diet Deutscher Bundestag | |
---|---|
17th Bundestag | |
![]() | |
Leadership | |
Structure | |
Seats | 630 (incoming 18th Bundestag), 620 (outgoing 17th Bundestag) |
![]() | |
Political groups | 18th Bundestag (incoming)
|
![]() | |
Political groups | 17th Bundestag (outgoing)
Government (330) Opposition
|
Elections | |
Mixed-member proportional representation | |
Last election | 22 September 2013 |
Meeting place | |
![]() | |
Reichstag building Mitte, Berlin, Germany | |
Website | |
www |
I noticed that the infobox refers to the outgoing 17th Bundestag, but the diagram of seat distribution reflects the incoming 18th Bundestag, which has not convened yet. Should we clarify which one the diagram illustrates, or perhaps include both as the German Wikipedia has done? aoxiang翱翔 (user) (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
According to last Wednesday's official final results, the SPD gains another seat and will have 193 MPs in the 18th Bundestag, not 192. Please correct.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Bundestag. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I dont really know how to change this myself, but there are only 630 members now, as Katherina Reiche dropped out and wasnt replaced. Source for this is the website of the Bundestag itself, with a handy graphic https://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/plenum/sitzverteilung_18wp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.133.18.58 ( talk) 09:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I added that the Bundestag used to be the Nazi Reichstag and was also formed from the East German Volkskammer. The Volkskammer was merged into the Bundestag when the wall fell (see German reunification#Constitutional merger), but there's no info in the history section of this article or in the Volkskammer history about how they came together. Timtempleton ( talk) 20:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bundestag. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The image showing the party affiliations of the Bundestag members does not have the correct seat order. The liberals (FDP) are seated between CDU/CSU and AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.112.177.67 ( talk) 05:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bundestag. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Der Deutsche Bundestag fördert im Rahmen der Bundesagentur fuer Arbeit ("4.2.5. Gründungszuschuss") die Wirtschaftliche Existenzgruendung mit Stand Novemer 2018 mit bis zu €400.000.000 Euro [1] [2] [3] 192.121.232.253 ( talk) 14:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
References
Dear Dereck Camacho,
I have reverted your recent edit in the Bundestag article and wanted, to tell you the reasons: The diagram should do two things: It should show the political makeup of the parliament and the actual seating. The CDU and CSU are in fact two different parties, but in the Bundestag they join in one group (the CDU/CSU-group, often also called Union-group) and this is the only thing, which matters here. I think, the word "party" (Partei) does not appear once in the standing rules of the Bundestag, at least not with respect to the actual MPs and the session-procedures. The FDP-group is seated between the CDU/CSU-group and the AfD-group (although they are not happy with this), this is simply a fact. The four independent members should also not be shown seated together, partly because that would be misleading (three of them are fomer AfD-members -> right-wing/conservative and one is a former SPD-member -> rather left-wing) and because that's not the way, they are actually seated. The two AfD-members are seated behind the AfD-group and the former SPD-member is seated behind the SPD-group. Alektor89 ( talk) 12:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
If other articles have it that way, this is a reason to change them, not this one. Alektor89 ( talk) 23:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
From what parties are the people in the front from what I assume is the directorate? -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 10:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Alright here some drafts, identify as Draft A and B.
Both are very similar, the B has darker tones and locates the independents where they seat according to you, the A has clearer tones and locates the Independents as a faction. However the change can be made to locate the independents where they seat in the A. In both cases there will be a need to make the white background transparent but that is something is better done once everything is finished. Also is possible to add the Presidium in gray like here if I manage to find a better picture that can be use as template. Leave your opinions, if I don't answer soon is because I went to sleep for the next 8-9 houras hopefully. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 12:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Because if I drop the color in the dot it won't cover every pixel, and no, sorry but I oppose any attempt to use the regular arch. That was the origin of the problem, at least until there is a consensus that the FDP is more right wing than the CDU and other aspects that we already talk about. Otherwise if using a fancy diagram is the thing there is already a nice one in existence with even a logo, but it has the FDP on the "wrong" side according to you (like all diagrams have):
On the other hand this is also an option, and yes we already said not to place the directorate but I think it looks great and as the directorate's dots are actually gray and squares probably most reader would no be confused. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 14:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
PD: Btw check Draft A, I already change the location of the independents (refresh the page in case you don't see it) which I think it was the only different from Draft B apart from the tones. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 14:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Although I like draft A, I strongly oppose it's usage, until there is a tool, to update it quickly comparable to wmflabs (if you have the skills, or know someone who has, go in...I sadly do not). This article is fluent and will change every few weeks, months...because of that a handmade diagram is not a good solution, beautiful as it may look.
Maybe it would be nice, if some other users would join this discussion. Alektor89 ( talk) 21:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
German Bundestag German Federal Diet Deutscher Bundestag | |
---|---|
19th Bundestag | |
![]() | |
History | |
Established | 1949 |
Preceded by |
Reichstag 1933–1945 Volkskammer ( East Germany) 1949–1990 |
Leadership | |
Vacant,
AfD | |
Structure | |
Seats | 709 |
![]() schematic diagram of the seating order | |
Political groups |
Government (398)
Opposition parties (311)
|
Elections | |
Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) | |
Last election | 24 September 2017 |
Next election | Next |
Meeting place | |
![]() | |
Reichstag building Mitte, Berlin, Germany | |
Website | |
www |
And by the way (just in case, you continue to disagree), it would be nice, if you would source your assertions, what an arch in Wikipedia "does" and "does not" represent. I have already given you reliable and authorative sources for my standpoint (official Bundestag-publications). Alektor89 ( talk) 21:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Alektor89 do not refer to me in your summaries, that's rude and is agains WP policies. And allow me to correct you by the way. I do not hold a different view, arch-diagrams and even Westmister diagrams do not represent the way how parliament member seat, I really though you realized that after the many examples I gave you and the fact that you couldn't provide nor even a single example otherwise, which feel free to do if you want. You are the only person in the whole Wikipedia who thinks that as far as I'm aware off.
And just for the record, I think the chosen diagram is terrible, there were other much better options, let's hope other users indeed take part in the discussion, maybe we can came with a better choice, which isn't hard to be honest. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 14:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
If you are going to turn the state parliaments into how they are seated (something new for Wikipedia btw) you should do it in all cases and fit them accordingly, not just changing FDP's postion. And if you're not going to change FDP's postion in the election articles then the situation will be confussing. All because you want to see FDP "where it seats". Anyway, I would like to ask the opinion of some collaborators who know a lot about these sort of things and had worked a lot with diagrams @ Maho713: mand @ TV Guy:. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 19:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
To discussed the matter easily, I'll open this subsection. With Flourish I can change the style and form of "Draft A", here an example. As requested the rows are more symmetrical now, the dots can be bigger or smaller, the circle in the middle can be made more borad or the contrary, make it narrower, also the space between the rows can be wider or narrower (however I personally think the current space among the rows works), also the arch can be rounded (i.e. the gap between the Left and AfD can be narrow it down or the contrary), but similarly I think current is the best.
The only thing I can't do is the space among the groups but that can be solved by creating a ghost group between the real groups and erase it manually like Alektor did. Although if that space is not strictly necessary I recommend overlook it as it would save time and effort. So a temptative option would be this. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 12:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Alektor89 If you want to change the diagram again, which I remind you should be done after consensus is reached as it was a controversial subject already discussed before. Fine. I would suggest to use this one, which is the one used by far in most languages and is updated. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 14:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Alektor89 would this diagram be ok? I found it in Commons. --
Dereck Camacho (
talk)
17:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Looking at this edit by Alektor89, I am not certain whether we give the correct information in the infobox, which somewhat mixes group (Fraktion) and party membership. For the CDU/CSU group, we show party membership. For the Linke group, we don't ( Anke Domscheit-Berg is a group member, but not a party member). Non-inscrit links to Independent politician, implying these people do not belong to a party, but several of them indeed are members of either Liberalkonservative Reformer or DIE PARTEI. If we emphasise group membership over party membership that much, we still shouldn't call these people "independents". I don't have a particularly good suggestion what we should do, but I think there should be better ways to do this. (There are other possible choices: United States Senate displays party membership instead of caucuses. But of course these things carry rather different connotations in the US and in the German political systems). Does anybody have suggestions how to display this more accurately? — Kusma ( t· c) 15:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
German Federal Diet Deutscher Bundestag | |
---|---|
19th Bundestag | |
![]() | |
History | |
Established | 1949 |
Preceded by |
Reichstag (Nazi Germany) 1933–1945 Volkskammer ( East Germany) 1949–1990 |
Leadership | |
Structure | |
Seats | 709 |
[1]
[2]
![]() | |
Political groups |
Government (398)
Opposition (311)
|
Elections | |
Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) | |
Last election | 24 September 2017 |
Next election | On or before 24 October 2021 |
Meeting place | |
![]() | |
Reichstag Mitte, Berlin, Germany | |
Website | |
bundestag |
Hey Str1977, the point is: There is a difference between 'independent' and 'non-inscrit' (german: Fraktionslos). An independent is a politician, who is not member of party per WIKI-definition ( Independent politician). A non-inscrit is a politician sitting in a parliament, who may or may not be member of a party, but is no part of a group/faction of that parliament. (As a matter of fact, a group/faction-member can be an independent, for which there are to my knowledge many examples in the history of the Bundestag and many other german parliaments). The current situation is a case in point: There are 4 members, who do not belong to a faction/group, but two of those are no independents, as they are members of political parties. We have to somehow reflect on that. Alektor89 ( talk) 06:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
References
I think that the Bundestag article, should include that the interim government led by Merkel, should be labeled as a caretaker government until the new one is inaugurated. [1] It makes sense and this format was used back in 2017, when Merkel was negotiating Jamaica and the Grand coalition. [4] - FellowMellow ( talk) 13:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
References
In history it says tag and in brackets (day) This is not correct, tag means Diet, from the old word meaning people. This is translated as a false friend. /info/en/?search=User:EmilePersaud 06:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud ( talk • contribs)
As technically an external link, it is usually placed in the "External links" section, but it is currently in the "See also" section. I'd like to come to a consensus about moving it. — DocWatson42 ( talk) 08:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I oppose showing the CSU separately in the diagram and showing parties with colours that do not have parliamentary group status in the Bundestag. This could very quickly give the impression that the CSU has something like an independent status in the Bundestag, which is simply not the case. Its MPs are fully part of the Union parliamentary group - the CSU has no right to its own vice-president, no committee representation, no separate speaking time, CDU and CSU act as one party in the Bundestag. And a diagram should reflect this fact (German Wikipedia does so too). I have always been of the opinion that the best possible solution is to show all CDU/CSU MPs in black in the diagram (since they form a single block in parliamentary procedure) and to break this down by indenting the political groups below. By the way, that's how it was before the graph extension failed. So I would be in favour of returning to that - regardless of whether with dots or pie charts: Colours for official parliamentary groups ("Fraktionen"), all non attached members in grey. Alektor89 ( talk)
The Bundestag has changed its voting system. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundestag-stimmt-fuer-umstrittene-wahlrechtsreform-nach-hitziger-debatte-a-5c05ff7e-ea42-4be7-8cf5-67e7a7402342 Now it can't be more than 630 Mandats. But it's not in the article. It will be used at the next election 2025 if the Bundesverfassungsgericht doesn't forbid it. Here's an article in English language: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-passes-law-to-shrink-its-xxl-parliament/a-64471203 Geltopak37 ( talk) 19:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
It does not make any sense showing the BSW as a political party. it is just a verein/association. the main wiki page of it also says that but on the picture of the seats of the bundestag in the info box a small dark purple circle inside of the purple circle and "BSW" would be interpreted by some people as if the bSW would be a party. it is not yet a party. It should be like on the german page of the Bundestag where the 10 members of the left are "Parteilose". Moctezuma1466 ( talk) 16:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Now this may sound silly, but I think the Chairs (the ones people sit on) should be discussed in the English Wikipedia article as well. It may seem weird, but the Chairs of the Bundestag have been object of some Questioning and Importance, as the German Article to them ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figura_(B%C3%BCrostuhl)) may show. Of course, it could also be handled in a seperate Article, but i dont think that would be fitting with their lack of Importance in the wider world.
They do provide a great Insight into the Bundestag though, for those interrested in the day to day of it. Have a Nice day. TheDestroyer3 ( talk) 23:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The chairs in the German Bundestag are permanently installed according to parliamentary groups after a federal election. The plenary hall is additionally illuminated by a mirror system that redirects daylight from the dome into the hall.
— German Wikipedia, translation by Google,
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | You can help expand this article with text translated from
the corresponding article in German. (September 2012) Click [show] for important translation instructions.
|
Why so much detail on the 11th term (1987 thru 1990)? MartinHH 22:34, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
How about listing the number of seats of each term, names of the president and vice-presidents, etc. as separate articles, say for instance "Bundestag,_11th_term_(1987-1990)" MartinHH 22:34, 20 Jan 2004 (UTC)
The eagle coat-of-arms accompanying the article shows the eagle that is used for Germany in general. There is a special "fat hen" version of the eagle that is used on the letterhead of members of the Bundestag, hung in the parliamentary chamber, etc, and is especially associated with the Bundestag. But I don't know how to deal with graphics here. http://www.trendelkamp.com/adler.html or http://www.bundestag.de should help show what I mean, though. Bhuck 15:20, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)
According to the naming conventions, the file should be named Federal Diet. Gangulf 18:56, 4 Jan 2005 (UTC)
I meant the convention listed at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (use English): That means: names in the English translation and the original native name is placed on the first line of the article unless the native form is more commonly used in English than the English form. Rationale and specifics. The debate can be on the question if Bundestag is more commonly used in English than the translation. Gangulf 21:39, 7 Jan 2005 (UTC)
Does anyone else think that this section of the article
"One striking difference when comparing the Bundestag with the U.S. Congress is the lack of time spent on serving constituents in Germany. In part, that difference results from the fact that only 50 percent of Bundestag deputies are directly elected to represent a specific geographic district; the other half are elected as party representatives (see below). The political parties are thus of great importance in Germany's electoral system, and many voters tend not to see the candidates as autonomous political personalities but rather as agents of the party. Interestingly, constituent service seems not to be perceived, either by the electorate or by the representatives, as a critical function of the legislator. A practical constraint on the expansion of constituent service is the limited personal staff of Bundestag deputies."
needs some editing? I refer specifically to comments such as "lack of time spent on serving constituents" - it could easily be argued that the method of serving constituents is the point of contrast, rather than its presence or absence (i.e. as a collective rather than in terms of geographic region) - and "Interestingly, constituent service seems not to be perceived, either by the electorate or by the representatives, as a critical function of the legislator." Again, party representatives are elected to represent the German people as a whole, who are therefore their constituents. The implication (probably unintentional!) that a representative who is not directly elected by a specific region does not engage in constituent service seems inaccurate, because it's predicated on the definition of a constituency only as a group that constitutes a geographic location, rather than a political or ideological one.
Ziggurat 03:20, May 19, 2005 (UTC)
In the end -- the 50% is not true. Our german election system works that way: You have a primary vote for the direct candidate and a second vote for the list vote. The percentage and the power in the parliament is only estimated by the list vote (for the different parties). So if you win your district you go into parliament, but also canditates from the parties list (by nomination order) go into parliament until the percentage of the list vote is fullfilled (the so called Überhangsmandate). Due to this principle the number of members differs from vote to vote. So if you do a good job and the people vote for you (but maybe your party not), you go into parliament. But also small parties (like Green party or liberals) have a chance to go into parliament without winning a single district. You only have to get over 5% of the votes in list vote. To make the whole thing more complicated ... if you win a direct mandate you went into parliament (also if your party don't get 5%). But if your party wins 3 direct mandates you go into parliament with your percentage (even if your party is below 5% -- as far i can remeber this was only the case with the former communist party SED - now PDS). So sorry for my bad english, I hope somebody get the information and can put it into the article. -- 62.178.221.119 00:42, 6 November 2006 (UTC)
I still don't get it though. As I understand it, there are sixteen Länder. And each Lander is split into many "constituencies". But then the article says:
"The 598 seats are distributed among the parties that have gained more than 5% of the second votes or at least 3 direct mandates. Each of these parties is allocated seats in the Bundestag in proportion to the number of votes it has received (Largest remainder method).
When the total number of mandates gained by a party has been determined, they are distributed between the Land lists. The distribution of seats between the parties in each Land is proportional to the second vote results: (Largest remainder method)."
So is there a fixed number of seats for each Land (the sum of which is 299)( I mean : a number determined BEFORE the start of the elections?) Evilbu 14:11, 25 July 2007 (UTC)
i doubt the following quote
My constituency's direct Member of Bundestag is in the local newspaper minimum 2 times every week at a local event, meeting, what ever... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.164.238.235 ( talk) 10:36, 3 July 2008 (UTC)
Actually, it is not that complicated in principle:
Str1977 (talk) 09:09, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
I took the liberty to remove a few of the categories that this article was placed into.
Removed categories:
sebmol 18:45, 27 August 2005 (UTC)
One MP left the Group of the Left Party an is now independent (Winkelmeier). Could anyone more experienced than me change the graphics? Thanks.-- 62.246.31.81 18:18, 1 April 2006 (UTC)
Anyone out there?-- 62.246.67.188 14:15, 28 April 2006 (UTC)
Yep, no longer 614. Matthias Wissmann (CDU/CSU Fraktion) has resigned an there's no possible replacement per overhang seats in Baden-Württemberg: see [1] and [2]. I have edited List of Bundestag Members, but I think we need a major review of all Bundestag-related articles. -- Neigel von Teighen 13:34, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
612 now -- mafutrct ( talk) 19:14, 27 January 2009 (UTC)
The name of the first president is wrong ! It was Erich Köhler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.34.252.245 ( talk) 10:03, 23 October 2007 (UTC)
In every german sources including the german version of this article I found that the Bundestag is, by no mean, the lower house but itself is the German Parliament. Please clarify? -- Tikar aurum ( talk) 19:25, 8 July 2008 (UTC)
Apparently somebody has restored the references to a "lower house". It is an entirely alien concept to the German constitution, and there are never any -- formal or informal -- references in Germany itself to a "lower house" or anything remotely of the sort. I find it strange that some editors of this article keep restoring what seems to "remind" them of other countries but is in fact an entirely different thing. But I'm not going to engage in an edit war. Ebab ( talk) 06:00, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
Jörg Tauss (MP for the SPD) left the SPD recently, becoming unaffiliated. Thus SPD now has only 221 MPs. Could someone change the infobox accordingly?
Also, Peter Jahr (CDU) will leave the Bundestag until mid July for the European parliament, reducing the CDU to 222 seats. (His seat will not be refilled since it's an overhang seat). -- Roentgenium111 ( talk) 22:50, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
Members of the German Bundestag shall be elected in general, direct, free, equal and secret elections. -- Espoo ( talk) 23:24, 8 January 2011 (UTC)
I would never consider Germany a truly bicamerial legislative system, consisting of Bundestag as lower house and Bundesrat as upper house. First of all, not all bills need to be approved by both houses. For certain bills approval of the Bundestag is sufficient. The second issue is even more critical. The upper chamber is not a legislative body of elected representatives (e.g. USA representatives, delegates or senators), but consists of members of state governments (e.g. USA govenors). This is an obvious violation of separation of powers and certainly lacks the true representation of the people in the Bundesrat. Another weird fact of the Bundestag is, that the Bundeskanzler (leader of the federal government) is also a member of the Bundestag (USA representative). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.162.153.52 ( talk) 16:06, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
at this date, the current number of Abgeordnete is 620. [1] But I cant change the Graphic.
References
The relevant article in Wikipedia is States of Germany, yet the section Bundestag#Election here uses "Lands", which may be linguistically correct (although the corrent plural is "Länder"), but it becomes awkward with "Land lists" (Länderlisten) and it seems "states" or "federal states" is the common name in English and of course the one used in Wikipedia. -- megA ( talk) 19:30, 24 February 2012 (UTC)
Now there are overhang seats (Überhangmandate) and additional balance seats (Ausgleichsmandate) to preserve the ratio between parties. Given the result of the election 2009 the Bundestag elected under the new system would have 671 members (598 regular + 26 overhang seats + 47 balance seats).-- Marnal ( talk) 11:25, 17 September 2013 (UTC)
I think the lede of this article is not completely accurate. Specifically, the lines:
The lede of the German article clearly states:
Both lines in the German article use this source, which is the website for the Federal Agency for Civic Education, a government agency. I wanted to let anyone who wanted to weigh in before I changed the article to reflect the German article. Input welcome. Ljpernic ( talk) 09:30, 25 September 2013 (UTC)
German Federal Diet Deutscher Bundestag | |
---|---|
17th Bundestag | |
![]() | |
Leadership | |
Structure | |
Seats | 630 (incoming 18th Bundestag), 620 (outgoing 17th Bundestag) |
![]() | |
Political groups | 18th Bundestag (incoming)
|
![]() | |
Political groups | 17th Bundestag (outgoing)
Government (330) Opposition
|
Elections | |
Mixed-member proportional representation | |
Last election | 22 September 2013 |
Meeting place | |
![]() | |
Reichstag building Mitte, Berlin, Germany | |
Website | |
www |
I noticed that the infobox refers to the outgoing 17th Bundestag, but the diagram of seat distribution reflects the incoming 18th Bundestag, which has not convened yet. Should we clarify which one the diagram illustrates, or perhaps include both as the German Wikipedia has done? aoxiang翱翔 (user) (talk) 12:47, 10 October 2013 (UTC)
According to last Wednesday's official final results, the SPD gains another seat and will have 193 MPs in the 18th Bundestag, not 192. Please correct.
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on
Bundestag. Please take a moment to review
my edit. If necessary, add {{
cbignore}}
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{
nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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).
Cheers. — cyberbot II Talk to my owner:Online 15:07, 25 August 2015 (UTC)
Hi, I dont really know how to change this myself, but there are only 630 members now, as Katherina Reiche dropped out and wasnt replaced. Source for this is the website of the Bundestag itself, with a handy graphic https://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/plenum/sitzverteilung_18wp — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.133.18.58 ( talk) 09:25, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
I added that the Bundestag used to be the Nazi Reichstag and was also formed from the East German Volkskammer. The Volkskammer was merged into the Bundestag when the wall fell (see German reunification#Constitutional merger), but there's no info in the history section of this article or in the Volkskammer history about how they came together. Timtempleton ( talk) 20:39, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bundestag. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 06:16, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The image showing the party affiliations of the Bundestag members does not have the correct seat order. The liberals (FDP) are seated between CDU/CSU and AfD. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.112.177.67 ( talk) 05:18, 24 November 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Bundestag. 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).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 19:11, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
Der Deutsche Bundestag fördert im Rahmen der Bundesagentur fuer Arbeit ("4.2.5. Gründungszuschuss") die Wirtschaftliche Existenzgruendung mit Stand Novemer 2018 mit bis zu €400.000.000 Euro [1] [2] [3] 192.121.232.253 ( talk) 14:01, 3 January 2019 (UTC)
References
Dear Dereck Camacho,
I have reverted your recent edit in the Bundestag article and wanted, to tell you the reasons: The diagram should do two things: It should show the political makeup of the parliament and the actual seating. The CDU and CSU are in fact two different parties, but in the Bundestag they join in one group (the CDU/CSU-group, often also called Union-group) and this is the only thing, which matters here. I think, the word "party" (Partei) does not appear once in the standing rules of the Bundestag, at least not with respect to the actual MPs and the session-procedures. The FDP-group is seated between the CDU/CSU-group and the AfD-group (although they are not happy with this), this is simply a fact. The four independent members should also not be shown seated together, partly because that would be misleading (three of them are fomer AfD-members -> right-wing/conservative and one is a former SPD-member -> rather left-wing) and because that's not the way, they are actually seated. The two AfD-members are seated behind the AfD-group and the former SPD-member is seated behind the SPD-group. Alektor89 ( talk) 12:19, 6 January 2019 (UTC)
If other articles have it that way, this is a reason to change them, not this one. Alektor89 ( talk) 23:18, 7 January 2019 (UTC)
From what parties are the people in the front from what I assume is the directorate? -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 10:18, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Alright here some drafts, identify as Draft A and B.
Both are very similar, the B has darker tones and locates the independents where they seat according to you, the A has clearer tones and locates the Independents as a faction. However the change can be made to locate the independents where they seat in the A. In both cases there will be a need to make the white background transparent but that is something is better done once everything is finished. Also is possible to add the Presidium in gray like here if I manage to find a better picture that can be use as template. Leave your opinions, if I don't answer soon is because I went to sleep for the next 8-9 houras hopefully. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 12:57, 8 January 2019 (UTC)
Because if I drop the color in the dot it won't cover every pixel, and no, sorry but I oppose any attempt to use the regular arch. That was the origin of the problem, at least until there is a consensus that the FDP is more right wing than the CDU and other aspects that we already talk about. Otherwise if using a fancy diagram is the thing there is already a nice one in existence with even a logo, but it has the FDP on the "wrong" side according to you (like all diagrams have):
On the other hand this is also an option, and yes we already said not to place the directorate but I think it looks great and as the directorate's dots are actually gray and squares probably most reader would no be confused. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 14:27, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
PD: Btw check Draft A, I already change the location of the independents (refresh the page in case you don't see it) which I think it was the only different from Draft B apart from the tones. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 14:37, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Although I like draft A, I strongly oppose it's usage, until there is a tool, to update it quickly comparable to wmflabs (if you have the skills, or know someone who has, go in...I sadly do not). This article is fluent and will change every few weeks, months...because of that a handmade diagram is not a good solution, beautiful as it may look.
Maybe it would be nice, if some other users would join this discussion. Alektor89 ( talk) 21:12, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
German Bundestag German Federal Diet Deutscher Bundestag | |
---|---|
19th Bundestag | |
![]() | |
History | |
Established | 1949 |
Preceded by |
Reichstag 1933–1945 Volkskammer ( East Germany) 1949–1990 |
Leadership | |
Vacant,
AfD | |
Structure | |
Seats | 709 |
![]() schematic diagram of the seating order | |
Political groups |
Government (398)
Opposition parties (311)
|
Elections | |
Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) | |
Last election | 24 September 2017 |
Next election | Next |
Meeting place | |
![]() | |
Reichstag building Mitte, Berlin, Germany | |
Website | |
www |
And by the way (just in case, you continue to disagree), it would be nice, if you would source your assertions, what an arch in Wikipedia "does" and "does not" represent. I have already given you reliable and authorative sources for my standpoint (official Bundestag-publications). Alektor89 ( talk) 21:41, 9 January 2019 (UTC)
Alektor89 do not refer to me in your summaries, that's rude and is agains WP policies. And allow me to correct you by the way. I do not hold a different view, arch-diagrams and even Westmister diagrams do not represent the way how parliament member seat, I really though you realized that after the many examples I gave you and the fact that you couldn't provide nor even a single example otherwise, which feel free to do if you want. You are the only person in the whole Wikipedia who thinks that as far as I'm aware off.
And just for the record, I think the chosen diagram is terrible, there were other much better options, let's hope other users indeed take part in the discussion, maybe we can came with a better choice, which isn't hard to be honest. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 14:21, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
If you are going to turn the state parliaments into how they are seated (something new for Wikipedia btw) you should do it in all cases and fit them accordingly, not just changing FDP's postion. And if you're not going to change FDP's postion in the election articles then the situation will be confussing. All because you want to see FDP "where it seats". Anyway, I would like to ask the opinion of some collaborators who know a lot about these sort of things and had worked a lot with diagrams @ Maho713: mand @ TV Guy:. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 19:37, 10 January 2019 (UTC)
To discussed the matter easily, I'll open this subsection. With Flourish I can change the style and form of "Draft A", here an example. As requested the rows are more symmetrical now, the dots can be bigger or smaller, the circle in the middle can be made more borad or the contrary, make it narrower, also the space between the rows can be wider or narrower (however I personally think the current space among the rows works), also the arch can be rounded (i.e. the gap between the Left and AfD can be narrow it down or the contrary), but similarly I think current is the best.
The only thing I can't do is the space among the groups but that can be solved by creating a ghost group between the real groups and erase it manually like Alektor did. Although if that space is not strictly necessary I recommend overlook it as it would save time and effort. So a temptative option would be this. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 12:11, 11 January 2019 (UTC)
Alektor89 If you want to change the diagram again, which I remind you should be done after consensus is reached as it was a controversial subject already discussed before. Fine. I would suggest to use this one, which is the one used by far in most languages and is updated. -- Dereck Camacho ( talk) 14:56, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Alektor89 would this diagram be ok? I found it in Commons. --
Dereck Camacho (
talk)
17:50, 27 October 2020 (UTC)
Looking at this edit by Alektor89, I am not certain whether we give the correct information in the infobox, which somewhat mixes group (Fraktion) and party membership. For the CDU/CSU group, we show party membership. For the Linke group, we don't ( Anke Domscheit-Berg is a group member, but not a party member). Non-inscrit links to Independent politician, implying these people do not belong to a party, but several of them indeed are members of either Liberalkonservative Reformer or DIE PARTEI. If we emphasise group membership over party membership that much, we still shouldn't call these people "independents". I don't have a particularly good suggestion what we should do, but I think there should be better ways to do this. (There are other possible choices: United States Senate displays party membership instead of caucuses. But of course these things carry rather different connotations in the US and in the German political systems). Does anybody have suggestions how to display this more accurately? — Kusma ( t· c) 15:52, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
German Federal Diet Deutscher Bundestag | |
---|---|
19th Bundestag | |
![]() | |
History | |
Established | 1949 |
Preceded by |
Reichstag (Nazi Germany) 1933–1945 Volkskammer ( East Germany) 1949–1990 |
Leadership | |
Structure | |
Seats | 709 |
[1]
[2]
![]() | |
Political groups |
Government (398)
Opposition (311)
|
Elections | |
Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) | |
Last election | 24 September 2017 |
Next election | On or before 24 October 2021 |
Meeting place | |
![]() | |
Reichstag Mitte, Berlin, Germany | |
Website | |
bundestag |
Hey Str1977, the point is: There is a difference between 'independent' and 'non-inscrit' (german: Fraktionslos). An independent is a politician, who is not member of party per WIKI-definition ( Independent politician). A non-inscrit is a politician sitting in a parliament, who may or may not be member of a party, but is no part of a group/faction of that parliament. (As a matter of fact, a group/faction-member can be an independent, for which there are to my knowledge many examples in the history of the Bundestag and many other german parliaments). The current situation is a case in point: There are 4 members, who do not belong to a faction/group, but two of those are no independents, as they are members of political parties. We have to somehow reflect on that. Alektor89 ( talk) 06:49, 12 January 2022 (UTC)
References
I think that the Bundestag article, should include that the interim government led by Merkel, should be labeled as a caretaker government until the new one is inaugurated. [1] It makes sense and this format was used back in 2017, when Merkel was negotiating Jamaica and the Grand coalition. [4] - FellowMellow ( talk) 13:48, 25 November 2021 (UTC)
References
In history it says tag and in brackets (day) This is not correct, tag means Diet, from the old word meaning people. This is translated as a false friend. /info/en/?search=User:EmilePersaud 06:17, 6 December 2021 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by EmilePersaud ( talk • contribs)
As technically an external link, it is usually placed in the "External links" section, but it is currently in the "See also" section. I'd like to come to a consensus about moving it. — DocWatson42 ( talk) 08:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)
I oppose showing the CSU separately in the diagram and showing parties with colours that do not have parliamentary group status in the Bundestag. This could very quickly give the impression that the CSU has something like an independent status in the Bundestag, which is simply not the case. Its MPs are fully part of the Union parliamentary group - the CSU has no right to its own vice-president, no committee representation, no separate speaking time, CDU and CSU act as one party in the Bundestag. And a diagram should reflect this fact (German Wikipedia does so too). I have always been of the opinion that the best possible solution is to show all CDU/CSU MPs in black in the diagram (since they form a single block in parliamentary procedure) and to break this down by indenting the political groups below. By the way, that's how it was before the graph extension failed. So I would be in favour of returning to that - regardless of whether with dots or pie charts: Colours for official parliamentary groups ("Fraktionen"), all non attached members in grey. Alektor89 ( talk)
The Bundestag has changed its voting system. https://www.spiegel.de/politik/deutschland/bundestag-stimmt-fuer-umstrittene-wahlrechtsreform-nach-hitziger-debatte-a-5c05ff7e-ea42-4be7-8cf5-67e7a7402342 Now it can't be more than 630 Mandats. But it's not in the article. It will be used at the next election 2025 if the Bundesverfassungsgericht doesn't forbid it. Here's an article in English language: https://www.dw.com/en/germany-passes-law-to-shrink-its-xxl-parliament/a-64471203 Geltopak37 ( talk) 19:00, 25 October 2023 (UTC)
It does not make any sense showing the BSW as a political party. it is just a verein/association. the main wiki page of it also says that but on the picture of the seats of the bundestag in the info box a small dark purple circle inside of the purple circle and "BSW" would be interpreted by some people as if the bSW would be a party. it is not yet a party. It should be like on the german page of the Bundestag where the 10 members of the left are "Parteilose". Moctezuma1466 ( talk) 16:00, 5 November 2023 (UTC)
Now this may sound silly, but I think the Chairs (the ones people sit on) should be discussed in the English Wikipedia article as well. It may seem weird, but the Chairs of the Bundestag have been object of some Questioning and Importance, as the German Article to them ( https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Figura_(B%C3%BCrostuhl)) may show. Of course, it could also be handled in a seperate Article, but i dont think that would be fitting with their lack of Importance in the wider world.
They do provide a great Insight into the Bundestag though, for those interrested in the day to day of it. Have a Nice day. TheDestroyer3 ( talk) 23:08, 27 February 2024 (UTC)
The chairs in the German Bundestag are permanently installed according to parliamentary groups after a federal election. The plenary hall is additionally illuminated by a mirror system that redirects daylight from the dome into the hall.
— German Wikipedia, translation by Google,
Cite error: There are <ref group=lower-alpha>
tags or {{efn}}
templates on this page, but the references will not show without a {{reflist|group=lower-alpha}}
template or {{notelist}}
template (see the
help page).