Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
It is ok if most Swedes view the state as a good grandfather or uncle, we are aiming for the others. Our aim is not the majority of the votes it is to get more then 4 %.

We (right now) have 8754 members, and are thus bigger then the green party. I think we have a higher percentage of members that actually does something then most parties, but I have nothing really to back this up with. We do lack economic resources for big campaigns but we make do with what we got.

Our party structure is a wiki party structure, not to be confused with a weak one. And what shady people do you refer to? Do you mean people who write comments at suspect websites while hiding behind odd handles? :P

From campaigning it is quite clear that we have a substantial support among young voters, which not coincidentally matches our demographics in the party. Young tech-savvy voters are also not likely to be polled by the opinion polls as they make their sample calling oldfashioned telephones.

I am not sure how it will work out but I am sure that we will beat medias expectations.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Sep 6th, 2006 at 05:33:20 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Let me see if I get this right: you cannot get seats unless your list gets 4% nationwide or 12% in a single district, but then you have a top-up PR system, so 4% of the vote should translate into 4% of the seats. There are 349 seats, so if Piratpartiet makes it they will have at least 13 seats.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 6th, 2006 at 05:39:27 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Kind of yes. But here is the real answer of how seats are allocated for parliament:

The Equivalating(???) odd numbers method or the fun system for counting votes in Sweden. (translation from Swedish wikipedia entry)
Only parties who achieve at least 4% nationally participate in the distribution of seats in parliament. The exception is for a party which gets 12% in a district which gets to participate in distribution of seats in that district but not anywhere else.

Comparison numbers for the parties are computed. The party with the largest comparison number gets the next seat to be allocated for an election district. The first comparison number for all parties is computed by dividing their respective number of votes by 1.4. After a party has been allocated a seat by having the largest comparison number, a new comparison number for that party is computed by dividing their number of votes by 2*n+1, where n is the number of seats already allocated that party. This process is repeated until all seats in the district have been allocated. The locally fixed seats (the seats allocated to each election district before the election takes place) are allocated to parties according to this model. Then there are some number (39) seats allocated nationally to achieve proportionality. This is also done according to the above method. (Can't find which comparison numbers they start with for this? Do they add up the final comparison numbers for all the districts for each party?) Once these "national proportionality distribution" seats have been allocated to the parties, they are assigned to election districts by using the final comparison numbers from the first local allocation. Except if the party didn't get any seats in a district. Then its comparison number is set to the number of votes gotten, not that number divided by 1.4.

by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Wed Sep 6th, 2006 at 06:07:37 AM EST
[ Parent ]
And this system slightly overcompensates big parties, in effect the Social democrats.

But the answer to Migerus question is probably at least 14 seats (there has been some calculations in our forums).

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Wed Sep 6th, 2006 at 06:16:49 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Example, stolen from same wikipedia article as above:
5 seats to allocate:
Number of votesParty 1Party 2Party 3Party 4Party 5
Total24 65718 31211 97610 8248 137
Comparison number17 612.1413 0808 554.2867 731.4295 812.143
One seat
8 21913 0808 554.2867 731.4295 812.143
One seat
8 2196 1048 554.2867 731.4295 812.143
One seat
8 2196 1043 9927 731.4295 812.143
Two seats
4 931.46 1043 9927 731.4295 812.143
One seat
Total seats21110
by someone (s0me1smail(a)gmail(d)com) on Wed Sep 6th, 2006 at 06:25:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Wikipedia: Higher Averages Method
The highest averages method is one way of allocating seats proportionally for representative assemblies with party list voting systems.

The highest averages method requires the number of votes for each party to be divided successively by a series of divisors, and seats are allocated to parties that secure the highest resulting quotient or average, up to the total number of seats available. The most widely used is the d'Hondt formula, using the divisors 1,2,3,4... The Sainte-Laguë method divides the votes with odd numbers (1,3,5,7 etc). The Sainte-Laguë method can also be modified, for instance by the replacement of the first divisor by 1.4, which in small constituencies has the effect of prioritizing proportionality for larger parties over smaller ones at the allocation of the first few seats.

Another highest average method is called Imperiali (not to be confused with the Imperiali quota which is a Largest remainder method). The divisors are 2,3,4 etc. It is only used in Belgian municipal elections.

Spain uses the D'hondt method, which is the one most biases to favour large parties, with a 3% threshold at the constituency level and no top-up for overall proportionality.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman
by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Wed Sep 6th, 2006 at 08:29:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Great Britain (not Northern Ireland) uses the d'Hondt system in European elections, with small seat magnitude constituencies (3-10 seats) and no attempt at proportionality on the national level.

Combining the above with ordered party lists where the voters cannot affect the order of candidates on a list, it is about the worst proportional election system which could have been introduced. It is however better than first past the post.

How does the Swedish electoral system decide which candidate on a list is elected? Is it up to the parties or do the voters decide the order of individual candidate as well as choosing a party?

by Gary J on Wed Sep 6th, 2006 at 09:57:09 PM EST
[ Parent ]
The parties decide the order of the candidates on the list, but voters can override that by marking another candidate than the default ones.  

For example, one can mark number 18 and that one will then be prioritised. A candidate needs like 10 % of the votes that a certain party gets in a certain area to override the party list order.

Peak oil is not an energy crisis. It is a liquid fuel crisis.

by Starvid on Thu Sep 7th, 2006 at 08:42:46 AM EST
[ Parent ]
Thanks for the explanation. Sweden has a better system that the British PR one, which is as it is because Labour did not want its candidates to compete against each other.
by Gary J on Thu Sep 7th, 2006 at 02:47:15 PM EST
[ Parent ]
I think it is 8% in elections to riksdagen and the EU parliament, and lower limits to local assemblies.

It should be noted that fixed (and rather high) limit in percentage of the votes has produced some odd results. Consider if one party takes one seat in an area and another takes ten. It is then more likely that the small partys one seat will be filled by someone who has got marked up then it is that the big party gets any candidate marked up. At least this has been the experience in Sweden. How come? Simple, because the limit is high it is seldom candidates reach above it and when there are many prominent candidates (like in the big party) it splits the marks over many candidates.

I would prefer the finnish system were (IIRC) that you place your vote on a candidate, that vote also falls to respective candidates party, seats are distributed to parties according to PR and then party seats are filled with candidates in accordance to number of votes.

But mostly I prefer to have a good and strong referendum instrument like in Switzerland. Then I guess what way you chose the parliament would not matter as much.

Sweden's finest (and perhaps only) collaborative, leftist e-newspaper Synapze.se

by A swedish kind of death on Thu Sep 7th, 2006 at 04:57:53 PM EST
[ Parent ]
Great Britain (not Northern Ireland) uses the d'Hondt system in European elections, with small seat magnitude constituencies (3-10 seats) and no attempt at proportionality on the national level.

Combining the above with ordered party lists where the voters cannot affect the order of candidates on a list, it is about the worst proportional election system which could have been introduced. It is however better than first past the post.

This is the system used in Spain, and the consensus is also that it is a really bad system. First of all, the constituency is the province, electing anywhere between 1 and 34 seats. This leads to overrepresenting small constituencies. Then the D'Hondt system favours large parties, and we have closed party lists.

Currently my preferred voting system is an additional-member system with single-transferable vote. Combining this with open party list for the top-up seats would be the best of all worlds.

Nothing is 'mere'. — Richard P. Feynman

by Migeru (migeru at eurotrib dot com) on Thu Sep 7th, 2006 at 04:10:08 PM EST
[ Parent ]
In my experience (having not lived in Sweden for 7 years - wow, where did the time go?), privacy,  civil rights, etcetera is too much work for the average Swede. (Vegetable/Muppet show jokes here).

I don't mind the "all for one" spirit still evident in many places, but there has to be room for individuals as well. (And, no, the right doesn't have any kind of solution to that either. They just want a different kind of top-down controlled society.)

Looking to the future, does anyone know how long it took the greens (MP) to get in? Two-three elections?

by Number 6 on Mon Sep 18th, 2006 at 06:50:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Display:

Top Diaries

Occasional Series