Yes. our parliament has 349 seats, and parties get seats in proportion to the share of the votes (you need to get over atleast 4% of the vote to get into parliament).
In 2014, the biggest party (The Social Democrats) got 113 seats. The Christian Democrats got the fewest with 17 seats.
Be patient with me. Under Sweden proportional representation ... can a party select a candidate that never ran?
You mean if they can put a person in a seat that hasn't been "in the run" so to speak? No. The parties put people on the ballot, and they get in, in the order listed - this can be "overruled" by people indvidually voting a person up by checking one of them on the ballot:
... there are people who leave their party during their time in the parliament, and they stay put and are called "politisk vilde "political savage/untamed/on the lose".
It seems confusing. But remember all I do when I vote is select a candidate. The person with the most votes win. But I am going to do a little reading up. By the way great thread!!!
Think of it this way --
-- In Sweden we do not vote for candidates, we vote for parties. The Party decides on its people and forms a list, in the order they should get into parliament depending on the amount of seats the party wins.
The names chosen by the Party are listed on the ballots, so you can if you wish check a specific individual. This system has only been in place since 1998 though. And most people don't, they just vote for the party.
"The voter now (since 1998) has the opportunity - but not the obligation - to tick the person on the ballot paper that she wishes to be elected first by all, if, on the other hand, he does not select a candidate, the non-voting goes to the top of the list."
That's such a foreign concept to me: vote for the party and then they pick the person to represent you. Do you find that to be positive? So you get one vote? So this is very similar to our house of representatives where every candidate is up for reelection.
I never thought of it being a negative (or having the time to focus on what people making up the party, its mostly the party leader you see in debates etc), the order of the people is on the ballot and you can tick another choice of if you want to "upvote" someone. Do you think having only two parties in your "Parliament" as a negative?
You get one vote for the national election, one for county and one for municipality. Here are my three ballots, Yellow is National. Blue is County. White is Municipality:
here are my voting ballots in their envelopes and my voting card.
Every citizen get one sent to them, and you show it together with some kind of ID. The election day is on Sunday, but you can vote for like 2-3 weeks before, or mail your voting ballots etc.
Yes. our parliament has 349 seats, and parties get seats in proportion to the share of the votes (you need to get over atleast 4% of the vote to get into parliament).
In 2014, the biggest party (The Social Democrats) got 113 seats. The Christian Democrats got the fewest with 17 seats.
Be patient with me. Under Sweden proportional representation ... can a party select a candidate that never ran?
You mean if they can put a person in a seat that hasn't been "in the run" so to speak? No. The parties put people on the ballot, and they get in, in the order listed - this can be "overruled" by people indvidually voting a person up by checking one of them on the ballot:
... there are people who leave their party during their time in the parliament, and they stay put and are called "politisk vilde "political savage/untamed/on the lose".
It seems confusing. But remember all I do when I vote is select a candidate. The person with the most votes win. But I am going to do a little reading up. By the way great thread!!!
Think of it this way --
-- In Sweden we do not vote for candidates, we vote for parties. The Party decides on its people and forms a list, in the order they should get into parliament depending on the amount of seats the party wins.
The names chosen by the Party are listed on the ballots, so you can if you wish check a specific individual. This system has only been in place since 1998 though. And most people don't, they just vote for the party.
"The voter now (since 1998) has the opportunity - but not the obligation - to tick the person on the ballot paper that she wishes to be elected first by all, if, on the other hand, he does not select a candidate, the non-voting goes to the top of the list."
That's such a foreign concept to me: vote for the party and then they pick the person to represent you. Do you find that to be positive? So you get one vote? So this is very similar to our house of representatives where every candidate is up for reelection.
I never thought of it being a negative (or having the time to focus on what people making up the party, its mostly the party leader you see in debates etc), the order of the people is on the ballot and you can tick another choice of if you want to "upvote" someone. Do you think having only two parties in your "Parliament" as a negative?
You get one vote for the national election, one for county and one for municipality. Here are my three ballots, Yellow is National. Blue is County. White is Municipality:
here are my voting ballots in their envelopes and my voting card.
Every citizen get one sent to them, and you show it together with some kind of ID. The election day is on Sunday, but you can vote for like 2-3 weeks before, or mail your voting ballots etc.
Here are voting booths:
How racist.
?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Yes. our parliament has 349 seats, and parties get seats in proportion to the share of the votes (you need to get over atleast 4% of the vote to get into parliament).
In 2014, the biggest party (The Social Democrats) got 113 seats. The Christian Democrats got the fewest with 17 seats.
Be patient with me. Under Sweden proportional representation ... can a party select a candidate that never ran?
You mean if they can put a person in a seat that hasn't been "in the run" so to speak? No. The parties put people on the ballot, and they get in, in the order listed - this can be "overruled" by people indvidually voting a person up by checking one of them on the ballot:
... there are people who leave their party during their time in the parliament, and they stay put and are called "politisk vilde "political savage/untamed/on the lose".
It seems confusing. But remember all I do when I vote is select a candidate. The person with the most votes win. But I am going to do a little reading up. By the way great thread!!!
Think of it this way --
-- In Sweden we do not vote for candidates, we vote for parties. The Party decides on its people and forms a list, in the order they should get into parliament depending on the amount of seats the party wins.
The names chosen by the Party are listed on the ballots, so you can if you wish check a specific individual. This system has only been in place since 1998 though. And most people don't, they just vote for the party.
"The voter now (since 1998) has the opportunity - but not the obligation - to tick the person on the ballot paper that she wishes to be elected first by all, if, on the other hand, he does not select a candidate, the non-voting goes to the top of the list."
That's such a foreign concept to me: vote for the party and then they pick the person to represent you. Do you find that to be positive? So you get one vote? So this is very similar to our house of representatives where every candidate is up for reelection.
I never thought of it being a negative (or having the time to focus on what people making up the party, its mostly the party leader you see in debates etc), the order of the people is on the ballot and you can tick another choice of if you want to "upvote" someone. Do you think having only two parties in your "Parliament" as a negative?
You get one vote for the national election, one for county and one for municipality. Here are my three ballots, Yellow is National. Blue is County. White is Municipality:
here are my voting ballots in their envelopes and my voting card.
Every citizen get one sent to them, and you show it together with some kind of ID. The election day is on Sunday, but you can vote for like 2-3 weeks before, or mail your voting ballots etc.
Here are voting booths:
How racist.
?
that was confusing. When do you know the results? And who do want to win?
Yes. our parliament has 349 seats, and parties get seats in proportion to the share of the votes (you need to get over atleast 4% of the vote to get into parliament).
In 2014, the biggest party (The Social Democrats) got 113 seats. The Christian Democrats got the fewest with 17 seats.
Be patient with me. Under Sweden proportional representation ... can a party select a candidate that never ran?
You mean if they can put a person in a seat that hasn't been "in the run" so to speak? No. The parties put people on the ballot, and they get in, in the order listed - this can be "overruled" by people indvidually voting a person up by checking one of them on the ballot:
... there are people who leave their party during their time in the parliament, and they stay put and are called "politisk vilde "political savage/untamed/on the lose".
It seems confusing. But remember all I do when I vote is select a candidate. The person with the most votes win. But I am going to do a little reading up. By the way great thread!!!
Think of it this way --
-- In Sweden we do not vote for candidates, we vote for parties. The Party decides on its people and forms a list, in the order they should get into parliament depending on the amount of seats the party wins.
The names chosen by the Party are listed on the ballots, so you can if you wish check a specific individual. This system has only been in place since 1998 though. And most people don't, they just vote for the party.
"The voter now (since 1998) has the opportunity - but not the obligation - to tick the person on the ballot paper that she wishes to be elected first by all, if, on the other hand, he does not select a candidate, the non-voting goes to the top of the list."
That's such a foreign concept to me: vote for the party and then they pick the person to represent you. Do you find that to be positive? So you get one vote? So this is very similar to our house of representatives where every candidate is up for reelection.
I never thought of it being a negative (or having the time to focus on what people making up the party, its mostly the party leader you see in debates etc), the order of the people is on the ballot and you can tick another choice of if you want to "upvote" someone. Do you think having only two parties in your "Parliament" as a negative?
You get one vote for the national election, one for county and one for municipality. Here are my three ballots, Yellow is National. Blue is County. White is Municipality:
here are my voting ballots in their envelopes and my voting card.
Every citizen get one sent to them, and you show it together with some kind of ID. The election day is on Sunday, but you can vote for like 2-3 weeks before, or mail your voting ballots etc.
Here are voting booths:
How racist.
?
that was confusing. When do you know the results? And who do want to win?
The Election was yesterday, and the results are in. They are waiting for Wednesday though - for more votes coming from abroad etc.
The results so far are pretty absurd.
"The Allience" (rightwinged) did a better result than expected and are toe-to-toe with the "red-green block" (leftwinged).
Bot goth 40%, and the the racist party SD got 18%.
Right now, the "red-green block" has 144 seats, The Allience 143 seats. And SD 62 seats. So the red-green is only 0,3% bigger.
So, now the parties making up The Allience says that the prime minister and government should resign - and The Allience should be given the chance to form a government. Because they together are bigger then the government ( "The Left Party" is not officially a part of the government). The Social Democrats and The Green Party together got 32,7%.
The Prime Minster will not resign though, because of his party being the biggest and together with The Left Party they are, as seen above, 0,3% bigger.
It seems though, that he wants to break up The Allience and lure The Liberals and The Centerparty into the government - completely ditching The Left Party (which The Liberals and The Centerparty will never work with).
And if they can not agree across the aisle, to shut out SD - they will have to somehow work with SD to get the vote for the government/budget through in the parliament. Which both blocks have said they will not do, but the right-winged parties are a bit shakey on this as of late.
So it's a bit chaotic.
Here is the election breakdown:
The Red-green Block The Left Party - 7,9% (not part of the government, but supporting it) The Social Democrats - 28,4% (worst election for them ever, historically they have always been the biggest party) The Green Party - 4,3%
The Allience The Christian Democrats - 6,4% The Center Party - 8,6% The Liberals - 5,5% The Moderates - 19,8%
Racist Scum The Swedish Democrats - 17,6%
Party almost getting in last election (but now crashed). Feminist Initiative - 0,4%
Votes counted: 6 247 190
People eligible to vote: 7 495 927 Voter turnout: 83,3%
Here is The Swedish Democrats stance:
"Now, Jimmie Åkesson (party leader of The Swedish Democrats) sets the ultimatum to the other parties and opens up to force away Prime Minister Stefan Löfven.
"We will vote no to all governments that do not give us influence," he says."
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Yes. our parliament has 349 seats, and parties get seats in proportion to the share of the votes (you need to get over atleast 4% of the vote to get into parliament).
In 2014, the biggest party (The Social Democrats) got 113 seats. The Christian Democrats got the fewest with 17 seats.
Be patient with me. Under Sweden proportional representation ... can a party select a candidate that never ran?
You mean if they can put a person in a seat that hasn't been "in the run" so to speak? No. The parties put people on the ballot, and they get in, in the order listed - this can be "overruled" by people indvidually voting a person up by checking one of them on the ballot:
... there are people who leave their party during their time in the parliament, and they stay put and are called "politisk vilde "political savage/untamed/on the lose".
It seems confusing. But remember all I do when I vote is select a candidate. The person with the most votes win. But I am going to do a little reading up. By the way great thread!!!
Think of it this way --
-- In Sweden we do not vote for candidates, we vote for parties. The Party decides on its people and forms a list, in the order they should get into parliament depending on the amount of seats the party wins.
The names chosen by the Party are listed on the ballots, so you can if you wish check a specific individual. This system has only been in place since 1998 though. And most people don't, they just vote for the party.
"The voter now (since 1998) has the opportunity - but not the obligation - to tick the person on the ballot paper that she wishes to be elected first by all, if, on the other hand, he does not select a candidate, the non-voting goes to the top of the list."
That's such a foreign concept to me: vote for the party and then they pick the person to represent you. Do you find that to be positive? So you get one vote? So this is very similar to our house of representatives where every candidate is up for reelection.
I never thought of it being a negative (or having the time to focus on what people making up the party, its mostly the party leader you see in debates etc), the order of the people is on the ballot and you can tick another choice of if you want to "upvote" someone. Do you think having only two parties in your "Parliament" as a negative?
You get one vote for the national election, one for county and one for municipality. Here are my three ballots, Yellow is National. Blue is County. White is Municipality:
here are my voting ballots in their envelopes and my voting card.
Every citizen get one sent to them, and you show it together with some kind of ID. The election day is on Sunday, but you can vote for like 2-3 weeks before, or mail your voting ballots etc.
Here are voting booths:
How racist.
?
that was confusing. When do you know the results? And who do want to win?
The Election was yesterday, and the results are in. They are waiting for Wednesday though - for more votes coming from abroad etc.
The results so far are pretty absurd.
"The Allience" (rightwinged) did a better result than expected and are toe-to-toe with the "red-green block" (leftwinged).
Bot goth 40%, and the the racist party SD got 18%.
Right now, the "red-green block" has 144 seats, The Allience 143 seats. And SD 62 seats. So the red-green is only 0,3% bigger.
So, now the parties making up The Allience says that the prime minister and government should resign - and The Allience should be given the chance to form a government. Because they together are bigger then the government ( "The Left Party" is not officially a part of the government). The Social Democrats and The Green Party together got 32,7%.
The Prime Minster will not resign though, because of his party being the biggest and together with The Left Party they are, as seen above, 0,3% bigger.
It seems though, that he wants to break up The Allience and lure The Liberals and The Centerparty into the government - completely ditching The Left Party (which The Liberals and The Centerparty will never work with).
And if they can not agree across the aisle, to shut out SD - they will have to somehow work with SD to get the vote for the government/budget through in the parliament. Which both blocks have said they will not do, but the right-winged parties are a bit shakey on this as of late.
So it's a bit chaotic.
Here is the election breakdown:
The Red-green Block The Left Party - 7,9% (not part of the government, but supporting it) The Social Democrats - 28,4% (worst election for them ever, historically they have always been the biggest party) The Green Party - 4,3%
The Allience The Christian Democrats - 6,4% The Center Party - 8,6% The Liberals - 5,5% The Moderates - 19,8%
Racist Scum The Swedish Democrats - 17,6%
Party almost getting in last election (but now crashed). Feminist Initiative - 0,4%
Votes counted: 6 247 190
People eligible to vote: 7 495 927 Voter turnout: 83,3%
Here is The Swedish Democrats stance:
"Now, Jimmie Åkesson (party leader of The Swedish Democrats) sets the ultimatum to the other parties and opens up to force away Prime Minister Stefan Löfven.
"We will vote no to all governments that do not give us influence," he says."
Wow...that's is quite chaotic. So it will take time to work out? So the SD, they are the racist party? got 17 % of the vote, wow...
Yes. our parliament has 349 seats, and parties get seats in proportion to the share of the votes (you need to get over atleast 4% of the vote to get into parliament).
In 2014, the biggest party (The Social Democrats) got 113 seats. The Christian Democrats got the fewest with 17 seats.
Be patient with me. Under Sweden proportional representation ... can a party select a candidate that never ran?
You mean if they can put a person in a seat that hasn't been "in the run" so to speak? No. The parties put people on the ballot, and they get in, in the order listed - this can be "overruled" by people indvidually voting a person up by checking one of them on the ballot:
... there are people who leave their party during their time in the parliament, and they stay put and are called "politisk vilde "political savage/untamed/on the lose".
It seems confusing. But remember all I do when I vote is select a candidate. The person with the most votes win. But I am going to do a little reading up. By the way great thread!!!
Think of it this way --
-- In Sweden we do not vote for candidates, we vote for parties. The Party decides on its people and forms a list, in the order they should get into parliament depending on the amount of seats the party wins.
The names chosen by the Party are listed on the ballots, so you can if you wish check a specific individual. This system has only been in place since 1998 though. And most people don't, they just vote for the party.
"The voter now (since 1998) has the opportunity - but not the obligation - to tick the person on the ballot paper that she wishes to be elected first by all, if, on the other hand, he does not select a candidate, the non-voting goes to the top of the list."
That's such a foreign concept to me: vote for the party and then they pick the person to represent you. Do you find that to be positive? So you get one vote? So this is very similar to our house of representatives where every candidate is up for reelection.
I never thought of it being a negative (or having the time to focus on what people making up the party, its mostly the party leader you see in debates etc), the order of the people is on the ballot and you can tick another choice of if you want to "upvote" someone. Do you think having only two parties in your "Parliament" as a negative?
You get one vote for the national election, one for county and one for municipality. Here are my three ballots, Yellow is National. Blue is County. White is Municipality:
here are my voting ballots in their envelopes and my voting card.
Every citizen get one sent to them, and you show it together with some kind of ID. The election day is on Sunday, but you can vote for like 2-3 weeks before, or mail your voting ballots etc.
Here are voting booths:
How racist.
?
that was confusing. When do you know the results? And who do want to win?
The Election was yesterday, and the results are in. They are waiting for Wednesday though - for more votes coming from abroad etc.
The results so far are pretty absurd.
"The Allience" (rightwinged) did a better result than expected and are toe-to-toe with the "red-green block" (leftwinged).
Bot goth 40%, and the the racist party SD got 18%.
Right now, the "red-green block" has 144 seats, The Allience 143 seats. And SD 62 seats. So the red-green is only 0,3% bigger.
So, now the parties making up The Allience says that the prime minister and government should resign - and The Allience should be given the chance to form a government. Because they together are bigger then the government ( "The Left Party" is not officially a part of the government). The Social Democrats and The Green Party together got 32,7%.
The Prime Minster will not resign though, because of his party being the biggest and together with The Left Party they are, as seen above, 0,3% bigger.
It seems though, that he wants to break up The Allience and lure The Liberals and The Centerparty into the government - completely ditching The Left Party (which The Liberals and The Centerparty will never work with).
And if they can not agree across the aisle, to shut out SD - they will have to somehow work with SD to get the vote for the government/budget through in the parliament. Which both blocks have said they will not do, but the right-winged parties are a bit shakey on this as of late.
So it's a bit chaotic.
Here is the election breakdown:
The Red-green Block The Left Party - 7,9% (not part of the government, but supporting it) The Social Democrats - 28,4% (worst election for them ever, historically they have always been the biggest party) The Green Party - 4,3%
The Allience The Christian Democrats - 6,4% The Center Party - 8,6% The Liberals - 5,5% The Moderates - 19,8%
Racist Scum The Swedish Democrats - 17,6%
Party almost getting in last election (but now crashed). Feminist Initiative - 0,4%
Votes counted: 6 247 190
People eligible to vote: 7 495 927 Voter turnout: 83,3%
Here is The Swedish Democrats stance:
"Now, Jimmie Åkesson (party leader of The Swedish Democrats) sets the ultimatum to the other parties and opens up to force away Prime Minister Stefan Löfven.
"We will vote no to all governments that do not give us influence," he says."
Wow...that's is quite chaotic. So it will take time to work out? So the SD, they are the racist party? got 17 % of the vote, wow...
Yes, up from 13% in the last election. And the one before that I think they had 5%, and that was the first time they got seats in parliament.
With their 17,6% they did however get less than people were expecting - 20+ %.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
0
Options
unsung
I stopped by on March 7 2024. First time in many years, had to update payment info. Hope all is well. Politicians suck. Bye. Posts: 9,487
Yes. our parliament has 349 seats, and parties get seats in proportion to the share of the votes (you need to get over atleast 4% of the vote to get into parliament).
In 2014, the biggest party (The Social Democrats) got 113 seats. The Christian Democrats got the fewest with 17 seats.
Be patient with me. Under Sweden proportional representation ... can a party select a candidate that never ran?
You mean if they can put a person in a seat that hasn't been "in the run" so to speak? No. The parties put people on the ballot, and they get in, in the order listed - this can be "overruled" by people indvidually voting a person up by checking one of them on the ballot:
... there are people who leave their party during their time in the parliament, and they stay put and are called "politisk vilde "political savage/untamed/on the lose".
It seems confusing. But remember all I do when I vote is select a candidate. The person with the most votes win. But I am going to do a little reading up. By the way great thread!!!
Think of it this way --
-- In Sweden we do not vote for candidates, we vote for parties. The Party decides on its people and forms a list, in the order they should get into parliament depending on the amount of seats the party wins.
The names chosen by the Party are listed on the ballots, so you can if you wish check a specific individual. This system has only been in place since 1998 though. And most people don't, they just vote for the party.
"The voter now (since 1998) has the opportunity - but not the obligation - to tick the person on the ballot paper that she wishes to be elected first by all, if, on the other hand, he does not select a candidate, the non-voting goes to the top of the list."
That's such a foreign concept to me: vote for the party and then they pick the person to represent you. Do you find that to be positive? So you get one vote? So this is very similar to our house of representatives where every candidate is up for reelection.
I never thought of it being a negative (or having the time to focus on what people making up the party, its mostly the party leader you see in debates etc), the order of the people is on the ballot and you can tick another choice of if you want to "upvote" someone. Do you think having only two parties in your "Parliament" as a negative?
You get one vote for the national election, one for county and one for municipality. Here are my three ballots, Yellow is National. Blue is County. White is Municipality:
here are my voting ballots in their envelopes and my voting card.
Every citizen get one sent to them, and you show it together with some kind of ID. The election day is on Sunday, but you can vote for like 2-3 weeks before, or mail your voting ballots etc.
Here are voting booths:
How racist.
?
Sweden clearly needs a lesson on civil rights. How do they demand an ID to vote? The nerve. Disgusting.
Yes. our parliament has 349 seats, and parties get seats in proportion to the share of the votes (you need to get over atleast 4% of the vote to get into parliament).
In 2014, the biggest party (The Social Democrats) got 113 seats. The Christian Democrats got the fewest with 17 seats.
Be patient with me. Under Sweden proportional representation ... can a party select a candidate that never ran?
You mean if they can put a person in a seat that hasn't been "in the run" so to speak? No. The parties put people on the ballot, and they get in, in the order listed - this can be "overruled" by people indvidually voting a person up by checking one of them on the ballot:
... there are people who leave their party during their time in the parliament, and they stay put and are called "politisk vilde "political savage/untamed/on the lose".
It seems confusing. But remember all I do when I vote is select a candidate. The person with the most votes win. But I am going to do a little reading up. By the way great thread!!!
Think of it this way --
-- In Sweden we do not vote for candidates, we vote for parties. The Party decides on its people and forms a list, in the order they should get into parliament depending on the amount of seats the party wins.
The names chosen by the Party are listed on the ballots, so you can if you wish check a specific individual. This system has only been in place since 1998 though. And most people don't, they just vote for the party.
"The voter now (since 1998) has the opportunity - but not the obligation - to tick the person on the ballot paper that she wishes to be elected first by all, if, on the other hand, he does not select a candidate, the non-voting goes to the top of the list."
That's such a foreign concept to me: vote for the party and then they pick the person to represent you. Do you find that to be positive? So you get one vote? So this is very similar to our house of representatives where every candidate is up for reelection.
I never thought of it being a negative (or having the time to focus on what people making up the party, its mostly the party leader you see in debates etc), the order of the people is on the ballot and you can tick another choice of if you want to "upvote" someone. Do you think having only two parties in your "Parliament" as a negative?
You get one vote for the national election, one for county and one for municipality. Here are my three ballots, Yellow is National. Blue is County. White is Municipality:
here are my voting ballots in their envelopes and my voting card.
Every citizen get one sent to them, and you show it together with some kind of ID. The election day is on Sunday, but you can vote for like 2-3 weeks before, or mail your voting ballots etc.
Here are voting booths:
How racist.
?
Sweden clearly needs a lesson on civil rights. How do they demand an ID to vote? The nerve. Disgusting.
Actually, they don't. If you don't have ID, another person can vouch for your identity at the poll.
Sorry it didn't work out for you this time.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
PS - Also, you can vote by mail in Sweden, something that the USA puts restrictions on (i.e. you have to have an approved reason). Wouldn't want to make voting too convenient.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
PS - Also, you can vote by mail in Sweden, something that the USA puts restrictions on (i.e. you have to have an approved reason). Wouldn't want to make voting too convenient.
All states will send an absentee ballot if requested. Only in 20 states is a reason required, not all. an example of a valid reason is being enrolled at an out of state college.
PS - Also, you can vote by mail in Sweden, something that the USA puts restrictions on (i.e. you have to have an approved reason). Wouldn't want to make voting too convenient.
All states will send an absentee ballot if requested. Only in 20 states is a reason required, not all. an example of a valid reason is being enrolled at an out of state college.
As I said, restrictions.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
Sweden Is What Happens When Liberals Let The Far-Right Set The Agenda
Sweden’s Social Democrats are one of the most successful political parties in modern history, winning the highest share of the vote in every national election for the past 100 years. But on Sunday, the once-dominant party scored its worst election result in generations. Its decline is a symptom of when liberal parties let radical-right populists dictate the political agenda.
The Social Democrats won a little over 28 percent of the vote, the most of any party but far short of giving their center-left bloc a majority. Meanwhile, the far-right Sweden Democrats won 17.6 percent of the vote in its best ever result. An exit poll showed that almost a fifth of the far-right voters cast their ballots for the Social Democrats the last election.
The result gives no party a clear route to forming a government, leaves the country politically fragmented and means that the ruling Social Democrats could potentially lose power.
The liberal party’s losses are at least partly self-inflicted. Faced with growing support for the Sweden Democrats, the Social Democrats focused much of their campaign on issues such as immigration and crime, where the far-right controls the narrative. And rather than countering the Sweden Democrats’ anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant rhetoric with a vision of their own, the liberals shifted to the right with proposals that included sending the army into neighborhoods with high crime rates.
“They adopted the [Sweden Democrats’] agenda because they were afraid of losing voters,” said Ulf Bjereld, a professor at Gothenburg University and an active member of the Social Democrats.
“It was a political mistake.”
The Sweden Democrats, which have origins in the neo-Nazi movement, have spent years telling Swedes that their country is in crisis. The party blames hordes of migrants for breaking the country’s beloved welfare state, bringing in crime and threatening Swedish identity.
That message has resonated with a growing number of people in recent years, as concerns rose over high-profile incidents of gang violence, an influx of refugees and regional economic inequality. Even some of their radical proposals and views found their way into the public debate. In June, a lawmaker’s comments that Jews and indigenous people don’t count as true Swedes received widespread attention. Similarly, the party’s proposal to only take in asylum-seekers from Nordic nations is a de facto ban on refugees that goes against Sweden’s history as one of the world’s most humanitarian nations.
The far-right party further benefited from establishment parties’ lack of attention to its rhetoric. That silence, experts say, created an information vacuum that the Sweden Democrats filled with anti-migrant, ethnonationalist views
“If nobody is talking about stuff that people see as problems, the only answers and understanding that they’re going to have are the ones offered by the populist parties. That’s what you basically had in Sweden,” said Sheri Berman, a professor of politics at Barnard College.
The far-right’s claims, experts say, often did not match reality. Although Sweden has real struggles with regional inequality, social change and increasing violence, overall crime rates have dropped, the country is witnessing the highest economic growth in decades and income has increased across the board. The number of killings has risen in recent years, but there were still only 113 murders last year out of a population of nearly 10 million people, and there have been similar peaks since the government began reporting those statistics in 2002. As for Sweden Democrats’ warning of the “Islamization” of Sweden, the average Swede vastly overestimates the percentage of the population that is Muslim.
When the Social Democrats finally did address public concerns over immigration and crime during the campaign earlier this year, the party mimicked many of the talking points and policies of the far-right. The government’s finance minister suggested refugees seek another country in which to claim asylum, while Prime Minister Stefan Löfven announced that the country would crack down on criminals, and the party declared that emergency border security laws from the height of the refugee crisis would be kept in place indefinitely.
But embracing more conservative policies backfired ― support for the Social Democrats dropped even further, and one member of the Swedish parliament resigned from the party in protest.
“A strategy that was tried to win back voters from the Sweden Democrats meant that the Social Democrats fell even more,” said Bjereld.
“The parties who have been true to their ideological grounds ― they are the only parties who have raised in support.”
That same scenario has played out similarly in countries across Europe, where traditional left and right parties have employed similar strategies to regain voters from populist parties, largely without success.
“What happens is that xenophobia, racism, anti-immigration ideas become more recognized and legitimate ... because the big parties, the power-holding parties are jumping on them,” said Emilia Palonen, an expert on populism at the University of Helsinki.
“These mainstream parties should be bringing in new issues, new excitement into politics, and instead they’re following.”
Rather than copying the far-right’s emotional appeals toward identity and its criticism of the state, mainstream parties should offer voters fresh alternatives, Berman said.
“[If] center-left parties can’t come up with a better narrative, a better set of policies, a way of making this work, then they are screwed.”
PS - Also, you can vote by mail in Sweden, something that the USA puts restrictions on (i.e. you have to have an approved reason). Wouldn't want to make voting too convenient.
All states will send an absentee ballot if requested. Only in 20 states is a reason required, not all. an example of a valid reason is being enrolled at an out of state college.
PS - Also, you can vote by mail in Sweden, something that the USA puts restrictions on (i.e. you have to have an approved reason). Wouldn't want to make voting too convenient.
All states will send an absentee ballot if requested. Only in 20 states is a reason required, not all. an example of a valid reason is being enrolled at an out of state college.
As I said, restrictions.
correct, very very light restrictions.
Not light if in more than half the states one needs to have one of a fairly restrictive list of excuses to vote by mail. There’s no reason not to allow voting by mail for anyone qualified to vote.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
PS - Also, you can vote by mail in Sweden, something that the USA puts restrictions on (i.e. you have to have an approved reason). Wouldn't want to make voting too convenient.
All states will send an absentee ballot if requested. Only in 20 states is a reason required, not all. an example of a valid reason is being enrolled at an out of state college.
As I said, restrictions.
correct, very very light restrictions.
Not light if in more than half the states one needs to have one of a fairly restrictive list of excuses to vote by mail. There’s no reason not to allow voting by mail for anyone qualified to vote.
Christ bro, did some dude naned Uncle Sam break up with you in college and leave you at the alter? In every thread you continuously point out anything negative about the United States. Are you writing some sort of thesis? Are you gathering evidence to defend your doctorate? It is constant and grows old. Yeah the us has problems like everyone else in the world but no other country is quite like us. In this thread we are talking about Swedish government and how they vote and your comparison is....well in America votes like to this! What does one have to do with another? how about the article I posted about neo nazis in the Swedish government? Everyone wants to compare the current US administration to Nazi germany but there aren’t any nazis in the god dam us congress. Where is your opinion there? You constantly pick and feed facts to portray the us on the level of North Korea.
And on the flip side, you have all day to vote. if it is that important to you then you ll find the two minutes out of your very hectic day and vote. Absentee ballots are yet another way to appease the lazy. (Unless you have a legit excuse which some states ask for)
PS - Also, you can vote by mail in Sweden, something that the USA puts restrictions on (i.e. you have to have an approved reason). Wouldn't want to make voting too convenient.
All states will send an absentee ballot if requested. Only in 20 states is a reason required, not all. an example of a valid reason is being enrolled at an out of state college.
As I said, restrictions.
correct, very very light restrictions.
Not light if in more than half the states one needs to have one of a fairly restrictive list of excuses to vote by mail. There’s no reason not to allow voting by mail for anyone qualified to vote.
Christ bro, did some dude naned Uncle Sam break up with you in college and leave you at the alter? In every thread you continuously point out anything negative about the United States. Are you writing some sort of thesis? Are you gathering evidence to defend your doctorate? It is constant and grows old. Yeah the us has problems like everyone else in the world but no other country is quite like us. In this thread we are talking about Swedish government and how they vote and your comparison is....well in America votes like to this! What does one have to do with another? how about the article I posted about neo nazis in the Swedish government? Everyone wants to compare the current US administration to Nazi germany but there aren’t any nazis in the god dam us congress. Where is your opinion there? You constantly pick and feed facts to portray the us on the level of North Korea.
You mean a thread on the AMT got derailed...that never happens here...lol
And on the flip side, you have all day to vote. if it is that important to you then you ll find the two minutes out of your very hectic day and vote. Absentee ballots are yet another way to appease the lazy. (Unless you have a legit excuse which some states ask for)
If you are allowing vote by mail ... then why not online as well.
Yes. our parliament has 349 seats, and parties get seats in proportion to the share of the votes (you need to get over atleast 4% of the vote to get into parliament).
In 2014, the biggest party (The Social Democrats) got 113 seats. The Christian Democrats got the fewest with 17 seats.
Be patient with me. Under Sweden proportional representation ... can a party select a candidate that never ran?
You mean if they can put a person in a seat that hasn't been "in the run" so to speak? No. The parties put people on the ballot, and they get in, in the order listed - this can be "overruled" by people indvidually voting a person up by checking one of them on the ballot:
... there are people who leave their party during their time in the parliament, and they stay put and are called "politisk vilde "political savage/untamed/on the lose".
It seems confusing. But remember all I do when I vote is select a candidate. The person with the most votes win. But I am going to do a little reading up. By the way great thread!!!
Think of it this way --
-- In Sweden we do not vote for candidates, we vote for parties. The Party decides on its people and forms a list, in the order they should get into parliament depending on the amount of seats the party wins.
The names chosen by the Party are listed on the ballots, so you can if you wish check a specific individual. This system has only been in place since 1998 though. And most people don't, they just vote for the party.
"The voter now (since 1998) has the opportunity - but not the obligation - to tick the person on the ballot paper that she wishes to be elected first by all, if, on the other hand, he does not select a candidate, the non-voting goes to the top of the list."
That's such a foreign concept to me: vote for the party and then they pick the person to represent you. Do you find that to be positive? So you get one vote? So this is very similar to our house of representatives where every candidate is up for reelection.
I never thought of it being a negative (or having the time to focus on what people making up the party, its mostly the party leader you see in debates etc), the order of the people is on the ballot and you can tick another choice of if you want to "upvote" someone. Do you think having only two parties in your "Parliament" as a negative?
You get one vote for the national election, one for county and one for municipality. Here are my three ballots, Yellow is National. Blue is County. White is Municipality:
here are my voting ballots in their envelopes and my voting card.
Every citizen get one sent to them, and you show it together with some kind of ID. The election day is on Sunday, but you can vote for like 2-3 weeks before, or mail your voting ballots etc.
Here are voting booths:
How racist.
?
Sweden clearly needs a lesson on civil rights. How do they demand an ID to vote? The nerve. Disgusting.
I don't see the problem. We don't have to register to vote, we just bring our ID (driver license, Id-card or passport) and the "voting card" that every citizen get posted. You have to somehow prove who you are... and "everyone" in Sweden has some kind of ID.
Is it an issue in the states with having to bring ID? Do the citizens of the US not have IDs?
And on the flip side, you have all day to vote. if it is that important to you then you ll find the two minutes out of your very hectic day and vote. Absentee ballots are yet another way to appease the lazy. (Unless you have a legit excuse which some states ask for)
In Sweden, with our election day this year being on Sep 9 - you had since Aug 22 to vote. So the polling stations are open for over two weeks. Most people going on the actual election day, do it out of tradition and to honor our democracy in a more ceremonial fashion. Not because that is the only day to vote.
We also always put our elections on a sunday, to make it as easy as possible for the most amount of people to go. With most people working weekdays.
How long do the polling stations stay open for an election in the US? And is it on a Sunday or a regular weekday? And what is this thing about having to "register to vote"?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Sweden Is What Happens When Liberals Let The Far-Right Set The Agenda
Sweden’s Social Democrats are one of the most successful political parties in modern history, winning the highest share of the vote in every national election for the past 100 years. But on Sunday, the once-dominant party scored its worst election result in generations. Its decline is a symptom of when liberal parties let radical-right populists dictate the political agenda.
The Social Democrats won a little over 28 percent of the vote, the most of any party but far short of giving their center-left bloc a majority. Meanwhile, the far-right Sweden Democrats won 17.6 percent of the vote in its best ever result. An exit poll showed that almost a fifth of the far-right voters cast their ballots for the Social Democrats the last election.
The result gives no party a clear route to forming a government, leaves the country politically fragmented and means that the ruling Social Democrats could potentially lose power.
The liberal party’s losses are at least partly self-inflicted. Faced with growing support for the Sweden Democrats, the Social Democrats focused much of their campaign on issues such as immigration and crime, where the far-right controls the narrative. And rather than countering the Sweden Democrats’ anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant rhetoric with a vision of their own, the liberals shifted to the right with proposals that included sending the army into neighborhoods with high crime rates.
“They adopted the [Sweden Democrats’] agenda because they were afraid of losing voters,” said Ulf Bjereld, a professor at Gothenburg University and an active member of the Social Democrats.
“It was a political mistake.”
The Sweden Democrats, which have origins in the neo-Nazi movement, have spent years telling Swedes that their country is in crisis. The party blames hordes of migrants for breaking the country’s beloved welfare state, bringing in crime and threatening Swedish identity.
That message has resonated with a growing number of people in recent years, as concerns rose over high-profile incidents of gang violence, an influx of refugees and regional economic inequality. Even some of their radical proposals and views found their way into the public debate. In June, a lawmaker’s comments that Jews and indigenous people don’t count as true Swedes received widespread attention. Similarly, the party’s proposal to only take in asylum-seekers from Nordic nations is a de facto ban on refugees that goes against Sweden’s history as one of the world’s most humanitarian nations.
The far-right party further benefited from establishment parties’ lack of attention to its rhetoric. That silence, experts say, created an information vacuum that the Sweden Democrats filled with anti-migrant, ethnonationalist views
“If nobody is talking about stuff that people see as problems, the only answers and understanding that they’re going to have are the ones offered by the populist parties. That’s what you basically had in Sweden,” said Sheri Berman, a professor of politics at Barnard College.
The far-right’s claims, experts say, often did not match reality. Although Sweden has real struggles with regional inequality, social change and increasing violence, overall crime rates have dropped, the country is witnessing the highest economic growth in decades and income has increased across the board. The number of killings has risen in recent years, but there were still only 113 murders last year out of a population of nearly 10 million people, and there have been similar peaks since the government began reporting those statistics in 2002. As for Sweden Democrats’ warning of the “Islamization” of Sweden, the average Swede vastly overestimates the percentage of the population that is Muslim.
When the Social Democrats finally did address public concerns over immigration and crime during the campaign earlier this year, the party mimicked many of the talking points and policies of the far-right. The government’s finance minister suggested refugees seek another country in which to claim asylum, while Prime Minister Stefan Löfven announced that the country would crack down on criminals, and the party declared that emergency border security laws from the height of the refugee crisis would be kept in place indefinitely.
But embracing more conservative policies backfired ― support for the Social Democrats dropped even further, and one member of the Swedish parliament resigned from the party in protest.
“A strategy that was tried to win back voters from the Sweden Democrats meant that the Social Democrats fell even more,” said Bjereld.
“The parties who have been true to their ideological grounds ― they are the only parties who have raised in support.”
That same scenario has played out similarly in countries across Europe, where traditional left and right parties have employed similar strategies to regain voters from populist parties, largely without success.
“What happens is that xenophobia, racism, anti-immigration ideas become more recognized and legitimate ... because the big parties, the power-holding parties are jumping on them,” said Emilia Palonen, an expert on populism at the University of Helsinki.
“These mainstream parties should be bringing in new issues, new excitement into politics, and instead they’re following.”
Rather than copying the far-right’s emotional appeals toward identity and its criticism of the state, mainstream parties should offer voters fresh alternatives, Berman said.
“[If] center-left parties can’t come up with a better narrative, a better set of policies, a way of making this work, then they are screwed.”
Yes, it had its origins in the neo-nazi movement of the early 90s (coming to life due to Sweden helping a lot of asylum seekers from the Balkans). They are pieces of shit, and I'm ashamed people are falling for the populism and the Trump-ness but -- I don't think their policies are anywhere near as shitty as your Republicans. If you look at the actual politics.
So parties having their history in racist and neo-nazi movements here have more sound politics than the Republicans in the US. Worth thinking about?
And didn't you vote for Trump? The Swedish Democrats want to stop immigration from certain countries - how is that different than building a wall and not wanting immigrants from "shithole" countrie?. And your guy won the presidency. Our racists got 17% and won't be able to shape the politics.
So "yikes" is correct, but if you look in the mirror... the US is way more YIKES-y.
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I think the "Blue" Alliansen has a good chance of winning tomorrow. When the votes are coming in from people living abroad. Many that's moved abroad have been very disappointed in the politics held that they've left the country.
I think the "Blue" Alliansen has a good chance of winning tomorrow. When the votes are coming in from people living abroad. Many that's moved abroad have been very disappointed in the politics held that they've left the country.
Aftonbladet stated that if the spread between the parties is similar to in 2014, it would affect nothing.
It's also two mandat/Seats they need to win.
I also doubt many moving abroad do it because of political reasons -- but please point me to a source stating that many people have moved abroad in these four years because of the politics?
Maybe it's just wishful thinking?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
I think the "Blue" Alliansen has a good chance of winning tomorrow. When the votes are coming in from people living abroad. Many that's moved abroad have been very disappointed in the politics held that they've left the country.
Aftonbladet stated that if the spread between the parties is similar to in 2014, it would affect nothing.
It's also two mandat/Seats they need to win.
I also doubt many moving abroad do it because of political reasons -- but please point me to a source stating that many people have moved abroad in these four years because of the politics?
Maybe it's just wishful thinking?
Maybe, let's see tomorrow. The situation in Malmö for example, did you know many Jews has left the country because of harassment from Muslims ?
PS - Also, you can vote by mail in Sweden, something that the USA puts restrictions on (i.e. you have to have an approved reason). Wouldn't want to make voting too convenient.
All states will send an absentee ballot if requested. Only in 20 states is a reason required, not all. an example of a valid reason is being enrolled at an out of state college.
As I said, restrictions.
correct, very very light restrictions.
Not light if in more than half the states one needs to have one of a fairly restrictive list of excuses to vote by mail. There’s no reason not to allow voting by mail for anyone qualified to vote.
Christ bro, did some dude naned Uncle Sam break up with you in college and leave you at the alter? In every thread you continuously point out anything negative about the United States. Are you writing some sort of thesis? Are you gathering evidence to defend your doctorate? It is constant and grows old. Yeah the us has problems like everyone else in the world but no other country is quite like us. In this thread we are talking about Swedish government and how they vote and your comparison is....well in America votes like to this! What does one have to do with another? how about the article I posted about neo nazis in the Swedish government? Everyone wants to compare the current US administration to Nazi germany but there aren’t any nazis in the god dam us congress. Where is your opinion there? You constantly pick and feed facts to portray the us on the level of North Korea.
Someone’s a little sensitive here.
I was responding to unsung’s comment about voter ID. If you don’t thinks it’s relevant, you don’t have to keep arguing your point.
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
I think the "Blue" Alliansen has a good chance of winning tomorrow. When the votes are coming in from people living abroad. Many that's moved abroad have been very disappointed in the politics held that they've left the country.
Aftonbladet stated that if the spread between the parties is similar to in 2014, it would affect nothing.
It's also two mandat/Seats they need to win.
I also doubt many moving abroad do it because of political reasons -- but please point me to a source stating that many people have moved abroad in these four years because of the politics?
Maybe it's just wishful thinking?
Maybe, let's see tomorrow. The situation in Malmö for example, did you know many Jews has left the country because of harassment from Muslims ?
What constitutes "many"?
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
And on the flip side, you have all day to vote. if it is that important to you then you ll find the two minutes out of your very hectic day and vote. Absentee ballots are yet another way to appease the lazy. (Unless you have a legit excuse which some states ask for)
Many people have responsibilities they keep them from getting to a polling place during the day, like caring for frail elderly parents, or several children, or working multiple jobs, and do not have transportation. Since voting is supposedly a valued activity, why does the government want to put unnecessary roadblocks in the way of voting, particularly ones that preferentially disadvantage low income or otherwise marginalized people?
my small self... like a book amongst the many on a shelf
What relevance does this have to people moving/living abroad?
Would like to know what "many" constitutes, with you stating that "many" has moved away from sweden and you are also stating that these jews and other Swedes moving abroad would be voting blue? Show me numbers on this, Aftonbladet states that if the voting abroad is similiar to in 2014 it will not affect the results.
Seems like you just blurt out (biased) things without any real knowledge of or information on the matter?
In that case, it seems both unnecessary and very much something from the far-right/Trump playbook -- "people are saying..."
Post edited by Spiritual_Chaos on
"Mostly I think that people react sensitively because they know you’ve got a point"
Comments
The results so far are pretty absurd.
"The Allience" (rightwinged) did a better result than expected and are toe-to-toe with the "red-green block" (leftwinged).
Bot goth 40%, and the the racist party SD got 18%.
Right now, the "red-green block" has 144 seats, The Allience 143 seats. And SD 62 seats. So the red-green is only 0,3% bigger.
So, now the parties making up The Allience says that the prime minister and government should resign - and The Allience should be given the chance to form a government. Because they together are bigger then the government ( "The Left Party" is not officially a part of the government). The Social Democrats and The Green Party together got 32,7%.
The Prime Minster will not resign though, because of his party being the biggest and together with The Left Party they are, as seen above, 0,3% bigger.
It seems though, that he wants to break up The Allience and lure The Liberals and The Centerparty into the government - completely ditching The Left Party (which The Liberals and The Centerparty will never work with).
And if they can not agree across the aisle, to shut out SD - they will have to somehow work with SD to get the vote for the government/budget through in the parliament. Which both blocks have said they will not do, but the right-winged parties are a bit shakey on this as of late.
So it's a bit chaotic.
Here is the election breakdown:
The Red-green Block
The Left Party - 7,9% (not part of the government, but supporting it)
The Social Democrats - 28,4% (worst election for them ever, historically they have always been the biggest party)
The Green Party - 4,3%
The Allience
The Christian Democrats - 6,4%
The Center Party - 8,6%
The Liberals - 5,5%
The Moderates - 19,8%
Racist Scum
The Swedish Democrats - 17,6%
Party almost getting in last election (but now crashed).
Feminist Initiative - 0,4%
Voter turnout: 83,3%
Here is The Swedish Democrats stance:
With their 17,6% they did however get less than people were expecting - 20+ %.
Actually, they don't. If you don't have ID, another person can vouch for your identity at the poll.
Sorry it didn't work out for you this time.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/sweden-happens-liberals-let-far-144611261.html
Sweden Is What Happens When Liberals Let The Far-Right Set The Agenda
Sweden’s Social Democrats are one of the most successful political parties in modern history, winning the highest share of the vote in every national election for the past 100 years. But on Sunday, the once-dominant party scored its worst election result in generations. Its decline is a symptom of when liberal parties let radical-right populists dictate the political agenda.
The Social Democrats won a little over 28 percent of the vote, the most of any party but far short of giving their center-left bloc a majority. Meanwhile, the far-right Sweden Democrats won 17.6 percent of the vote in its best ever result. An exit poll showed that almost a fifth of the far-right voters cast their ballots for the Social Democrats the last election.
The result gives no party a clear route to forming a government, leaves the country politically fragmented and means that the ruling Social Democrats could potentially lose power.
The liberal party’s losses are at least partly self-inflicted. Faced with growing support for the Sweden Democrats, the Social Democrats focused much of their campaign on issues such as immigration and crime, where the far-right controls the narrative. And rather than countering the Sweden Democrats’ anti-Muslim, anti-immigrant rhetoric with a vision of their own, the liberals shifted to the right with proposals that included sending the army into neighborhoods with high crime rates.
“They adopted the [Sweden Democrats’] agenda because they were afraid of losing voters,” said Ulf Bjereld, a professor at Gothenburg University and an active member of the Social Democrats.
“It was a political mistake.”
The Sweden Democrats, which have origins in the neo-Nazi movement, have spent years telling Swedes that their country is in crisis. The party blames hordes of migrants for breaking the country’s beloved welfare state, bringing in crime and threatening Swedish identity.
That message has resonated with a growing number of people in recent years, as concerns rose over high-profile incidents of gang violence, an influx of refugees and regional economic inequality. Even some of their radical proposals and views found their way into the public debate. In June, a lawmaker’s comments that Jews and indigenous people don’t count as true Swedes received widespread attention. Similarly, the party’s proposal to only take in asylum-seekers from Nordic nations is a de facto ban on refugees that goes against Sweden’s history as one of the world’s most humanitarian nations.
The far-right party further benefited from establishment parties’ lack of attention to its rhetoric. That silence, experts say, created an information vacuum that the Sweden Democrats filled with anti-migrant, ethnonationalist views
“If nobody is talking about stuff that people see as problems, the only answers and understanding that they’re going to have are the ones offered by the populist parties. That’s what you basically had in Sweden,” said Sheri Berman, a professor of politics at Barnard College.
The far-right’s claims, experts say, often did not match reality. Although Sweden has real struggles with regional inequality, social change and increasing violence, overall crime rates have dropped, the country is witnessing the highest economic growth in decades and income has increased across the board. The number of killings has risen in recent years, but there were still only 113 murders last year out of a population of nearly 10 million people, and there have been similar peaks since the government began reporting those statistics in 2002. As for Sweden Democrats’ warning of the “Islamization” of Sweden, the average Swede vastly overestimates the percentage of the population that is Muslim.
When the Social Democrats finally did address public concerns over immigration and crime during the campaign earlier this year, the party mimicked many of the talking points and policies of the far-right. The government’s finance minister suggested refugees seek another country in which to claim asylum, while Prime Minister Stefan Löfven announced that the country would crack down on criminals, and the party declared that emergency border security laws from the height of the refugee crisis would be kept in place indefinitely.
But embracing more conservative policies backfired ― support for the Social Democrats dropped even further, and one member of the Swedish parliament resigned from the party in protest.
“A strategy that was tried to win back voters from the Sweden Democrats meant that the Social Democrats fell even more,” said Bjereld.
“The parties who have been true to their ideological grounds ― they are the only parties who have raised in support.”
That same scenario has played out similarly in countries across Europe, where traditional left and right parties have employed similar strategies to regain voters from populist parties, largely without success.
“What happens is that xenophobia, racism, anti-immigration ideas become more recognized and legitimate ... because the big parties, the power-holding parties are jumping on them,” said Emilia Palonen, an expert on populism at the University of Helsinki.
“These mainstream parties should be bringing in new issues, new excitement into politics, and instead they’re following.”
Rather than copying the far-right’s emotional appeals toward identity and its criticism of the state, mainstream parties should offer voters fresh alternatives, Berman said.
“[If] center-left parties can’t come up with a better narrative, a better set of policies, a way of making this work, then they are screwed.”
In this thread we are talking about Swedish government and how they vote and your comparison is....well in America votes like to this! What does one have to do with another?
how about the article I posted about neo nazis in the Swedish government? Everyone wants to compare the current US administration to Nazi germany but there aren’t any nazis in the god dam us congress. Where is your opinion there? You constantly pick and feed facts to portray the us on the level of North Korea.
Is it an issue in the states with having to bring ID? Do the citizens of the US not have IDs?
In Sweden, with our election day this year being on Sep 9 - you had since Aug 22 to vote. So the polling stations are open for over two weeks. Most people going on the actual election day, do it out of tradition and to honor our democracy in a more ceremonial fashion. Not because that is the only day to vote.
We also always put our elections on a sunday, to make it as easy as possible for the most amount of people to go. With most people working weekdays.
How long do the polling stations stay open for an election in the US? And is it on a Sunday or a regular weekday? And what is this thing about having to "register to vote"?
So parties having their history in racist and neo-nazi movements here have more sound politics than the Republicans in the US. Worth thinking about?
And didn't you vote for Trump? The Swedish Democrats want to stop immigration from certain countries - how is that different than building a wall and not wanting immigrants from "shithole" countrie?. And your guy won the presidency. Our racists got 17% and won't be able to shape the politics.
So "yikes" is correct, but if you look in the mirror... the US is way more YIKES-y.
It's also two mandat/Seats they need to win.
I also doubt many moving abroad do it because of political reasons -- but please point me to a source stating that many people have moved abroad in these four years because of the politics?
Maybe it's just wishful thinking?
I was responding to unsung’s comment about voter ID. If you don’t thinks it’s relevant, you don’t have to keep arguing your point.
I honestly don't know but I found this diagram.
Would like to know what "many" constitutes, with you stating that "many" has moved away from sweden and you are also stating that these jews and other Swedes moving abroad would be voting blue? Show me numbers on this, Aftonbladet states that if the voting abroad is similiar to in 2014 it will not affect the results.
Seems like you just blurt out (biased) things without any real knowledge of or information on the matter?
In that case, it seems both unnecessary and very much something from the far-right/Trump playbook -- "people are saying..."