Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Do you have proportional representation?

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:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

unsung said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Do you have proportional representation?

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.

?

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

unsung said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Do you have proportional representation?

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."

Spiritual_Chaos said:

unsung said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

mcgruff10 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Spiritual_Chaos said:

Meltdown99 said:

Do you have proportional representation?

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.

?

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

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. 

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.”

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

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.

mcgruff10 said:

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)

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

mcgruff10 said:

oftenreading said:

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. 

mcgruff10 said:

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)