The general election came a month ahead. This time, it seems that the unfamiliarity of the politicians, which shows a lot to be seen every election season, is less talkative. Maybe Corona19 will have a big impact. However, the 2020 general election seems to draw a shame in the history of Korean democracy. A representative political community dedicated to proportional representatives, the so-called 'proportional party', is preparing to go to the front of the election. It has been only three years since the 'democracy after the candlelight' was achieved.

It was already announced last year. At the time, the people witnessed the National Assembly of Animals. The door of the legislative body was broken with the so-called 'Paru'. The 'Linked Proportional Representation System' has become a hot topic. After the twist and turns, from this general election, a member of the National Assembly will be elected as a linked proportional representative system.

Linked proportional representation system. The content is very complicated. We stamp local politicians and political parties that support them in the elections of the National Assembly. As our politics were operating in a de facto bipartisan composition, it was often the case that if we circled a small party other than the ruling party and the first opposition party, it would simply become a death ticket (resignation, discarded vote). It was good for large parties. The interlocked proportional representation system allows the number of proportional representative seats to be taken more than now if the seats in the district receive at least a lot of party votes. Small parties are advantageous and large parties are relatively unfavorable.

Accordingly, the 1st opposition party responded as a 'proprietary party'. You don't give a proportional representation, you create a small party, and you drive a candidate for a proportional representation here. The proportional party is a party that will disappear after the election. The ruling party was upset. I knocked on the calculator, and the power was amazing. Whether they were so embarrassed that they have been so insulting so far, they just changed their name to be a 'proportional coalition party' by joining forces with each other, but they are also proportional parties.

One month in the general election, a fact check with data, or 'Proportional Party' is a profit or loss? In this general election, where the first edition of the linked proportional representation system was held in earnest, today, we will analyze the predicted number of seats and analyze the method of politics 'tajja'.
Let's figure out what the outcome would be if we had a general election right now. However, the system is very complex. There are so many things that are literally 'linked' so I'll put the following prerequisites.

<Conditions for the application of a linked proportional representation system>
1. It is assumed that seats in the current district are 'maintained' in this general election.
2. Since the Future Korean Party and the National Assembly decided not to give out a regional ward, the regional ward would be treated as '0 seats'. The number of seats is put into an independent position and set to 253 seats in the district.
3. The party vote rate reflects the recent Real Meter poll (Week 1 of March). However, for convenience, the shaman of the poll is treated as a abstaining vote.
※ Party support rate: Democratic Party 42.9%, Future Integration Party 29.8%, Justice Party 4.3%, National Assembly Party 4.6%, Socialist Party 4.0%, etc.

The results vary depending on the premise, so the total number of seats itself is meaningless. You don't have to worry about the number of seats in the district because they are tied up. Please pay attention to the proportional representation 'increase or decrease'. The result came out like this.

<If you count the seats in the current state?>
The total number of future unification and future Korean parties is 27. More than half of the 47 seats are outstanding.

If the future unification party held the election without creating a future party, the proportional party, what would be the result? Let's look at the result of assuming there is no future Korean party.

<If the Future United Party did not create a future Korean party?>
The number of seats for proportional representatives that the Future United Party can obtain was only six. But if you create a proportional party, you get 21 more seats. It's a shame that one seat is regrettable.

By the way, if you make a proportional party even to the Democratic Party, what are the results? In other words, it is the result of assuming that the 'proportional coalition party' recently formulated by the Democratic Party is disorganized to form a proportional party on its own.

<What if both the Democratic Party and the Future Unification Party form a 'proportional party'?>
In addition, the Democratic Party has a proportional Democratic Party (tentative name) with 24 seats. Again more than half. This would be a small party damage. The Justice Party has 2 seats and the proportional representative is 4 seats now, but it is received less than now.

What would happen if the Progressive Party joined forces as the Democratic Party plans to create a proportionally united party? This requires a bit of explanation, but both the Democratic Party and the Justice Party do not offer proportional candidates, but rather create proportional proportional candidates to produce proportional candidates. At the end of the election, each elected proportional representative will be divided by each political party.

The Justice Party has yet to plan to participate in the Proportional Union Party, but the assumptions of the Justice Party participation are as follows.

<What if the justice party participates in the proportional party?>
Let's write the results of the above 4 calculations from A to D as the number of cases.

Proposal A: As of now, only the future unified party will hold an election with a proportional party.
Proposal B: The opposition parties will agree dramatically and hold elections without a proportional party.
Proposal C: Against Democratic Party A, the Democratic Party also creates a proportional party and holds an election.
D: The Democratic Party and the Justice Party are opposed to A, and the election is held as a proportional united party.

The number of seats by number in each case is reorganized.
Based on the number of seats that each party can get, I have written the preferences from A to D from 1 to 4 ranks.
Proposals A, B, and C are the most avoided by each party. In game theory-like 'prisoner's dilemma'-psychological avoidance of 'worst' is the main premise of rational choice. If so, D is not the best for everyone, but it may not be the worst for anyone, but it may be the result of a rational choice that is evil for everyone.

Let's look at it from a 'utilitarian' perspective. It is a way of calculating the sum of complaints and seeing the compromises in the least amount. Choose the one with the least amount of complaints. The sum of the ranks of each party's ranks in D, that is, the sum of complaints is the smallest, so D could be a 'utilitarian' result.

Of course, all of these processes are the result of prioritizing 'just need the ticket'. 'The problem of right and wrong' was never considered.
But where does the politician go back to the calculations and the formulas?

The Future Unification Party has argued that the introduction of an interlocking proportional representation system creates a 'satellite party' like Albania and distorts public sentiment. When you type the search term 'Satellite Party' in the National Assembly minutes system, the words you spit out come out. By the way, the satellite party that distorted the public sentiment was made leading.

The Democratic Party, which was criticized by the satellite party for damaging democracy, was different, but the essence was different. I will do it. Mindfulness is distorted, democracy is retreating, and a few words are spoken, making this again. My face is all hot.

In the back of the French Revolution, the history of its glory, there was a revolutionary named Robespierre. What he mobilized to complete the revolutionary spirit of freedom, equality and humanity was the purge of blood, the so-called 'horror politics'. German philosopher Hannah Arendt criticized Robespierre as "for freedom, a politician who destroyed freedom."

Both giant parties brought out a 'satellite party' that betrayed democracy, saying it was for democracy. The definition of the democratic process has faded. I'm not sure if 'betraying' democracy for democracy is really a 'dog gain' from the perspective of our community. Perhaps Korea's politics, whether eighty, left or right, progressive or conservative, are transfused with Robespierre's philosophy.

As data, we will examine the effect of the proportional party on our tax through the fact check, the proportional party, and whether the proportional party is a gain or loss, and in the next part, the sentencing subsidies shared by each party.

P.s. If you subscribe to the newsletter service of the SBS News Data Journalism Team 'Mabujajak', 'Mabuja News', you can receive much more edge news. There are a lot of high-quality news ahead of the general election. During this general election, SBS News Fact Check Team 'Actually' will also participate. Subscribe to Mabu News (https://page.stibee.com/subscriptions/56136).