Old World Politics

The primary goal of this site is to provide mature, meaningful discussion about the Vancouver Canucks. However, we all need a break some time so this forum is basically for anything off-topic, off the wall, or to just get something off your chest! This forum is named after poster Creeper, who passed away in July of 2011 and was a long time member of the Canucks message board community.

Moderator: Referees

User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9345
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Old World Politics

Post by Per »

Mëds wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 8:00 pm
Per wrote: Tue Sep 27, 2022 1:15 am These elections also show a problem with fptp elections, which they have in Italy. The three coalition parties, Brothers of Italy, Lega and Forza Italia agreed to back a single joint candidate in each constituency, whereas the centre and left parties did not do this and all had separate candidates. This has resulted in a resounding victory for the right wingers, despite only receiving 44% of the vote, as the other 56% were split on multiple separate candidates. In a proportional system they would not have won.

https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-63029909
Are the candidates on the 56% side of the vote all aligned just different parties in name? Or would it be like here in Canada where you have a small majority split between the NDP and Liberals? Two parties that are quite different in their platforms and goals yet simply uniting to oppress the right wing party and it's supporters?
Oh no, the 56% are split on various parties that include communists, socialists, centrists and the five star movement which is sort of... uhm... an anti-politics populist party? Centrist populists? I don't really know how to describe them. They're neither left nor right wing but very anti-establishment.

In Italy it is the three parties on the right that have joined forces to get higher representation than their respective results would grant them. Lega is mainly anti-immigration, originally they were secessionists and called Lega Nord; they wanted the prosperous northern Italy to declare independence from from the poverty stricken southern Italy, or at least not have their taxes pay for the failures down south. But they've also always stressed the anti-immigration part. And they probably would like a naval blockade preventing people from Sicily to enter the mainland as well, half-Arabs as they are...

Forza Italia is right wing populism at its finest. Berlusconi made a career in television, bought most of the Italian newspapers (and Milan FC) and then decided to make himself prime minister. He has been convicted of and served time for corruption and there was a bit of a scandal over his wife leaving him because of his 16 year old mistress. An Italian pre-cursor to Trump, I guess. Though not bad mouthing the press so much, since he owns most of it.

Fratelli d'Italia is more traditional fascism, nation-church-family but spruced up to feel more mainstream conservative. Meloni was a member of the MSI youth prganisation though, has praised Mussolini's politics and they still use the red-white-green flame as their party symbol, symbolising an eternal flame burning beside Mussolini's tomb.

I mean, they're three separate parties, but through not competing against eachother they managed to win most constituencies because the other rparties did not resort to that kind of tactics.

We'll see how it works out. They agree on a lot of issues but far from all. Fascism does have a corporatism element that wants to care for the poor, as long as they qualify through ethnicity and ideology, whereas the other two parties are more in your face "f--k the poor!" Also, both Berlusconi and Salvini have a history of sucking up to Putin, whereas Meloni has supported the Ukrainians all along.

On average, since WW2, Italian governments last 13 months, so don't be surprised if this one blows up as well. :look:
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 18169
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Old World Politics

Post by Topper »

Elections are no place for participation trophies
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9345
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Old World Politics

Post by Per »

Topper wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:28 am Elections are no place for participation trophies
I don't think anyone has suggested that.

There are basically three systems that I know of:

First past the post, used in eg the UK, USA, Canada, France and Italy
Tends to produce strong governments (except in Italy). Strong ties between representative and constituency.
Parts of the population lack representation. Sometimes leads to lower participation as some people feel they know which candidate will win regardless of how they vote. Sometimes you end up with a government that has received a majority in parliament despite not receiving a majority of the votes. Like in Italy right now.

Proportional, used in eg Germany, Scandinavia and Israel
Tends to produce weak minority or coalition governments. Weaker ties to the constituency, as some representatives are based more on the total result.
15% of the nation wide vote gives you roughly 15% of the seats. Thus every vote counts, even if you live in a district that leans in the opposite way of your views, which often leads to higher voter turnout. Renders gerrymandering obsolete as it doesn't matter on which side of a district line you live.

The ranking system used in Australia
You don't just vote for one candidate, you rank all the candidates in your constituency. After an initial count, they redistribute the votes for the candidate finishing last to the second choice on those ballots. They then elimnate the next guy and redistribute the votes to whoever the second choice was on those ballots (or third if both of the top two on that ballot already were eliminated), etc, until one candidate has more than 50%.
This is an intersting take, as no vote is wasted! Let's say you really like the Green Party guy, but you figure he probably won't win. In a traditional fptp system you may decide to instead vote for a candidate that has a better shot at winning, so you go for next to worst candidate, just to prevent the worst guy from winning. But in Australia you can actually vote for the guy you really like, and the vote is not wasted, because if he is eliminated in the first round, the vote goes to whoever you ranked second, and if that guy is eliminated your vote goes to your third ranking candidate, etc.

I don't really see any downside to the Australian system, except that it takes a lot more computing.


And of course the Swiss need to be special. They let each canton decide on what system to use.
Six cantons use fptp and 20 use proportional.
Effing weirdos, the Swiss.
Up till 1971 women weren't allowed to vote at all, and the canton of Appenzell-Innerrhoden actually held out till 1990!
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 18169
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Old World Politics

Post by Topper »

Per wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 8:24 am
Topper wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:28 am Elections are no place for participation trophies
I don't think anyone has suggested that.
Winner and the rest are participants.

Oddly though, I do support proportional representation like the US Electoral College solely because it divides the National Presidential vote along State lines. I wouldn't object to it being on County lines.
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
UWSaint
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1065
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Old World Politics

Post by UWSaint »

Topper wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 10:07 am
Per wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 8:24 am
Topper wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:28 am Elections are no place for participation trophies
I don't think anyone has suggested that.
Winner and the rest are participants.

Oddly though, I do support proportional representation like the US Electoral College solely because it divides the National Presidential vote along State lines. I wouldn't object to it being on County lines.
The electoral college isn't proportional representation. Its still first past the post, but with political geography defining posts and assigning value to that state's electorate's votes.

The US's constitution retains an area-based representational theory (the Senate -- 2 senators per state) as well as a population-based representational theory (the House of Representatives, each representative being elected from a similarly populated district) for its legislature. Initially, the theory underlying this was that the states as well as the people remain sovereign. Senators were presumed to provide dyadic representation -- to advance state concerns while being part of the national government. (Even representatives, because they are selected from a contiguous area, are incentivized to consider unique area-based interests in addition to national interests). Practically, this was due to a concern that the more populous states would use the federal government to run roughshod over the less populated states.

Personally, I don't like proportional representation, especially when "pure" or where the multiple members are based on very large areas. Members--especially those chosen from party lists--are beholden less to their constituents and more to their party. It also means candidates don't matter. It might translate to better substantive national-issue representation, but representation should (IMO) be about more than that. There are place concerns beyond party platforms, there are constituency concerns where there's a value to a voter having a single representative who will help them respond. And there is great value to getting leaders who are not simply the most reflective of a party (the top of the party lists), but resound with the people. Parties, in my view, tend to elevate more of the same but not individuals who can disrupt or transcend. (Not that disruption is always good, of course, but the idea of voting for your government in the first place means responsiveness to a constituency that's not satisfied with the group in power when they are voted out).

As for the Australian system, its being tried out in some US states and smaller units of political geography. Per, if you can't see anything wrong with that, then you are not being very imaginative. Its a system where the only vote is "against" a candidate, and where the winner may be the "first choice" of half (or fewer) the first choices of others. It might work for selecting the "least unpopular," but not for selecting the most popular.

There are pros and cons to any system of representation, and there are legitimate arguments that many different systems are the best at translating the people's vote into the government. These different systems can yield different outcomes with the same electorate. We don't have consensus as to what representation means or how to make representative government, which is sort of remarkable given the advanced stage of this kind of government, but what's more remarkable is how little people really think about these things. Usually when people talk about changing how elections work or how a legislative assembly is comprised, they do it because they think their party will do better under the new system and its not any deeper than that.
Hono_rary Canadian
User avatar
Topper
CC Legend
Posts: 18169
Joined: Wed Sep 15, 2004 8:11 pm
Location: Earth, most days.

Re: Old World Politics

Post by Topper »

UWSaint wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 11:07 am
Topper wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 10:07 am
Per wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 8:24 am
Topper wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:28 am Elections are no place for participation trophies
I don't think anyone has suggested that.
Winner and the rest are participants.

Oddly though, I do support proportional representation like the US Electoral College solely because it divides the National Presidential vote along State lines. I wouldn't object to it being on County lines.
The electoral college isn't proportional representation. Its still first past the post, but with political geography defining posts and assigning value to that state's electorate's votes.
College votes allocated to States on census data (proportion of the national population).
Over the Internet, you can pretend to be anyone or anything.

I'm amazed that so many people choose to be complete twats.
User avatar
UWSaint
MVP
MVP
Posts: 1065
Joined: Thu Jul 14, 2011 5:37 pm

Re: Old World Politics

Post by UWSaint »

Topper wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 11:43 am
UWSaint wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 11:07 am
Topper wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 10:07 am
Per wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 8:24 am
Topper wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:28 am Elections are no place for participation trophies
I don't think anyone has suggested that.
Winner and the rest are participants.

Oddly though, I do support proportional representation like the US Electoral College solely because it divides the National Presidential vote along State lines. I wouldn't object to it being on County lines.
The electoral college isn't proportional representation. Its still first past the post, but with political geography defining posts and assigning value to that state's electorate's votes.
College votes allocated to States on census data (proportion of the national population).
Kind of (its population share (the number of congressional districts per state) + 2). But proportional representation generally refers to party representation as a share of votes received by that party.
Hono_rary Canadian
User avatar
Meds
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13355
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Old World Politics

Post by Meds »

Per wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 8:24 am
Topper wrote: Wed Sep 28, 2022 3:28 am Elections are no place for participation trophies
I don't think anyone has suggested that.

There are basically three systems that I know of:

First past the post, used in eg the UK, USA, Canada, France and Italy
Tends to produce strong governments (except in Italy). Strong ties between representative and constituency.
Parts of the population lack representation. Sometimes leads to lower participation as some people feel they know which candidate will win regardless of how they vote. Sometimes you end up with a government that has received a majority in parliament despite not receiving a majority of the votes. Like in Italy right now.

Proportional, used in eg Germany, Scandinavia and Israel
Tends to produce weak minority or coalition governments. Weaker ties to the constituency, as some representatives are based more on the total result.
15% of the nation wide vote gives you roughly 15% of the seats. Thus every vote counts, even if you live in a district that leans in the opposite way of your views, which often leads to higher voter turnout. Renders gerrymandering obsolete as it doesn't matter on which side of a district line you live.

The ranking system used in Australia
You don't just vote for one candidate, you rank all the candidates in your constituency. After an initial count, they redistribute the votes for the candidate finishing last to the second choice on those ballots. They then elimnate the next guy and redistribute the votes to whoever the second choice was on those ballots (or third if both of the top two on that ballot already were eliminated), etc, until one candidate has more than 50%.
This is an intersting take, as no vote is wasted! Let's say you really like the Green Party guy, but you figure he probably won't win. In a traditional fptp system you may decide to instead vote for a candidate that has a better shot at winning, so you go for next to worst candidate, just to prevent the worst guy from winning. But in Australia you can actually vote for the guy you really like, and the vote is not wasted, because if he is eliminated in the first round, the vote goes to whoever you ranked second, and if that guy is eliminated your vote goes to your third ranking candidate, etc.

I don't really see any downside to the Australian system, except that it takes a lot more computing.


And of course the Swiss need to be special. They let each canton decide on what system to use.
Six cantons use fptp and 20 use proportional.
Effing weirdos, the Swiss.
Up till 1971 women weren't allowed to vote at all, and the canton of Appenzell-Innerrhoden actually held out till 1990!
The problem with the Australian system is that a party can grab more representation than they should actually have. This the (or similar to) model that Trudeau's Liberal party wanted to implement here in Canada because they look at the parties and they know that the majority of Conservative voters would rank the Liberals ahead of the NDP and Greens, and likely ahead of the Bloc as well. They also know that most supporters of the NDP and Green parties will rank the Liberal party ahead of the Conservatives. This means that they would end up with majority government's on a regular basis. They also know that many people who do not want the Liberals in power whatsoever would still rank their ballot without thinking it through rather than simply check box off their one or two options and leave the Liberal option blank.

This also doesn't actually represent the voters properly either, I mean, I would never in a million years endorse a candidate from the Liberal or NDP party (barring some massive changes to their platform and leadership), but this system could mean that my vote is actually going towards someone I do not want it going toward, even in as "consolation prize" kind of event.

It's a terrible system because it allows for parties to actually finish second or third in 1st choice rankings and yet win their riding.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9345
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Old World Politics

Post by Per »

Sitting Latvian PM poised to remain in charge, pending if he can forge a new coalition, which he is confident he can.
Parties aimed at Russian speakers did not do well.

https://www.france24.com/en/europe/2022 ... r-setbacks
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9345
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Old World Politics

Post by Per »

Liz Truss has had to back paddle on her proposal to lower taxes for the rich in Britain, but most of her so-called mini-budget, which sent the pound plummeting and made the IMF issue a warning to Britain, in a manner usually reserved for third world countries, remains in place.

Polls show that if there were to be held an election now, Labour would win by a landslide.

Image

Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9345
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Old World Politics

Post by Per »

The city of Kotka just removed the last statue of Lenin in Finland. Earlier this year statues of Lenin have been removed in Helsinki and Turku as well. All three were gifts to Finland from the Soviet Union. It's not being demolished though, they just moved it to a local museum. Makes more sense to have it there than in a city square.

The reason the Soviets had a habit of gifting the Finns statues of Lenin is probably because he lived on and off in Finland during his years in exile before the revolution.

With the ongoing atrocities in Ukraine, more and more people have complained about the statue to the city council and eventually they decided to remove it.

There's been a similar trend throughout eastern Europe, removing or demolishing Soviet monuments, ever since the Russians attacked Ukraine.
Well, I guess Poland got rid of most of theirs years ago... :roll:





Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9345
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Old World Politics

Post by Per »

Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Meds
MVP
MVP
Posts: 13355
Joined: Mon Jul 11, 2011 8:50 pm

Re: Old World Politics

Post by Meds »

Per wrote: Sat Oct 15, 2022 7:49 am
This is a great example of the difference between left and right sides of the aisle.

The EU is a fairly liberal, and largely leftist thinking, conglomerate. They are all about high ideals and warm fuzzy speeches.

Russia is a rather conservative bear that is firmly rooted in its thinking. They don't give a shit about happy idealistic speeches and values.....they just go and do what they want.

Until the western world wakes up and sees that the wolf at the door isn't going to go away without some fists getting bloody the wolf is just going to do as he pleases until the door is broken down and he's sacked the house.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9345
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Old World Politics

Post by Per »

Mëds wrote: Sat Oct 15, 2022 4:08 pm
Per wrote: Sat Oct 15, 2022 7:49 am
This is a great example of the difference between left and right sides of the aisle.

The EU is a fairly liberal, and largely leftist thinking, conglomerate. They are all about high ideals and warm fuzzy speeches.

Russia is a rather conservative bear that is firmly rooted in its thinking. They don't give a shit about happy idealistic speeches and values.....they just go and do what they want.

Until the western world wakes up and sees that the wolf at the door isn't going to go away without some fists getting bloody the wolf is just going to do as he pleases until the door is broken down and he's sacked the house.
Tell that to Elon Musk. His ”peace plan” was meeting almost all of Putin’s objectives, rewarding him for his illegal, unprovoked and unjust war, while suggesting that Ukraine should give up part of their territory as well as their self determination. Chamberlain at his worst.

Meanwhile, the Finns… sure Sanna Marin is a social democrat, but the Finns have no illussions when it comes to Russia. They have fought them three times since their independence. Reminds me of back in the 80’s. Reagan was president of the USA and Mauno Koivisto of Finland. Some American diplomat was telling a Finnish diplomat that they were too soft on the Russians. Eventually the Finn got fed up and told him off: ”Our president has personally shot and killed six Russians. How many Russians have your president killed?” :lol:

As for the EU, it’s a mixed bag. In Italy the fascists just won. Poland, Hungary and Slovakia have extreme right wing governments as well. Sweden just elected a conservative government, as did Latvia. Sure, there are socialists in power in eg Spain, Finland, Germany and Denmark, and then there are liberals in eg France.

If you look at the European Parliament there is no clear majority for anyone, but they don’t appoint a government, so they don’t need to form coalitions. The EU is basically governed by the European Commission, which consists of one commissioner from each member state, appointed by the government of that country. But in many important decisions a vote in the European Council is needed, which consists of the heads of government or state from the member states. Some matters, like the budget, need an unanimous decision, so they tend to drag out, but more and more issues can now be decided by a qualified majority, which requires that at least 15 of the 27 member states, representing at least 65% of the European population, vote in favour of whatever measure is suggested by the Commission.

Image

The dark red represents the Party of the European Left, normal red Social Democrats, green is for the Greens, light blue (Renew Europe) is the liberals, dark blue (EPP) ”normal” conservatives, like eg the German Christian Democrats and the Swedish conservatives, the greenish blue (ECR) is more hardcore conservatives. The British tories originally belonged to the EPP, but that group is very pro-Europe, so they felt uncomfortable and switched to the ECR for the last ten years or so. Yet another nuance of blue is the ID group, mainly consisting of nationalists. And finally unaffiliated parties that do not belong to a pan-European group. At present roughly half of these are the Italian 5 star movement. They are hard to put a finger on. Their leader is a comedian. They are definitely populists, but neither left nor right wing - or perhaps a bit of both? It’s like lower the taxes and increase the handouts, and ignore all treaties wekve signed. They also usually refuse to cooperate with other parties.

Anyway, the President of the European Commission, Ursula von der Leyen, is a German Christian Democrat, and as such member of the EPP group. So it is the conservatives that are at the helm.
Last edited by Per on Mon Oct 17, 2022 9:18 am, edited 1 time in total.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
User avatar
Per
MVP
MVP
Posts: 9345
Joined: Fri Jul 15, 2011 7:45 am
Location: Sweden

Re: Old World Politics

Post by Per »

I had to check… the von der Leyen commission has 10 EPP members, 9 social democrats, 5 liberals, two independent and one from the ECR (Poland).

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Von_der_L ... epartments

So, whereas von der Leyen herself is conservative, the members of the commission has all sorts of political affiliations, which means there has to be all sorts of compromises to find common ground. Thus I’d say most of its politics end up being rather centrist.
Whatever you do, always give 100 %!
Except when donating blood.
Post Reply