Washington AD Todd Turner has decided that he wants to pursue major renovations to Husky Stadium. Last December, renderings were released (see the Seattle Times) that show a brick-and-glass exterior. The Seattle P-I more recently reports that there are two options being presented to an ad hoc university committee: either (1) do the full renovation--probably $200 million or more, or (2) spend $70m on smaller projects to keep the stadium functioning. The project is more urgent right now because Sound Transit will be working on the light-rail line in the area and improvements to SR-520 from 2009 to the mid-2010s and it makes sense for all work to take place during the same timeframe.
Now, as much as I love the Dawgs... does it make any sense for public money to go to another great football stadium? Especially with the Sonics seeking public funding for a new arena as well? Husky Stadium being part of UW, it's my impression there won't be a whole lot of non-UW events taking place there... the renovations would eliminate the track... and Turner has admitted that a lot of fundraising has already been conducted for the new Legends Center, narrowing his base for the new renovations (not to mention, the team isn't too great these days).
I'd put the odds of success pretty low, and deservedly so. Still, I'd hope against hope they find a magnanimous donor who loves Husky football and hates academics (therefore ensuring that his/her football donations don't preempt academic donations)...
Sunday, March 25, 2007
Parliamentarism in Africa: or, why not?
A dispute between Parliament and President João Bernardo Vieira in Guinea-Bissau appears as though it will boil over. The three main parties in parliament--the former only ruling party PAIGC, the main opposition PRS of former president Kumba Yalá, and the other opposition party PUSD--have agreed on some sort of "pact of national unity," the main point of which, undoubtedly, is to dismiss the PM Aristides Gomes, a Vieira ally, and impose their own candidate on Vieira, who does not have his own party.
While Guinea-Bissau has (for no really good reason) been a long-time special interest of mine, the question this dispute raises is broader: why on earth have so few African countries tried a parliamentary system? Even as the continent converted to democracy in the 1990s, very few chose a parliamentary system.
A bit of history: essentially all the former British colonies started as parliamentary systems. Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Nigeria, Ghana, The Gambia, Sierra Leone, Mauritius, Botswana, the Seychelles--all adopted a Westminster-style system with first-past-the-post voting after independence. In almost all, the prime minister eventually decided he wanted to be president, the post of Governor-General was eliminated, and a parliamentary system became a presidential one, generally around the same time as opposition parties were also banned. This repeated over and over, from Nkrumah in Ghana to Kaunda in Zambia, Mugabe in Zimbabwe to Banda in Malawi to Kenyatta in Kenya. On the other hand, the former French colonies were presidential systems from the start, imitating the Fifth Republic.
And today, even as new constitutions have been drawn up or constitutions revised, parliamentarism remains untried except in a few cases. South Africa has adopted an essentially parliamentary system, as has Namibia; Botswana has retained its system since independence (though without a change in ruling party); Ethiopia has adopted parliamentarism, but its democratic credentials are very questionable, especially after 2005. The most notable attempted reform was Kenya, where Mwai Kibaki's National Rainbow Coalition swept to power promising to establish a parliamentary system (President Kibaki promptly discarded most of the promise, and the watered-down constitutional amendments were rejected in a referendum).
More countries have adopted proportional representation, though most are presidential democracies. Many of the French-speaking former colonies, in particular, have proportional representation (a by no means complete list includes Senegal, Togo, Benin, Burkina, Mali, and Niger). SA and Namibia also adopted PR, and Burundi and Rwanda use PR. The rest (especially the ex-British colonies) have retained FPP.
It seems as though ethnic politics could be one key reason for the leaning toward FPP. Parties which can win, regionally, in FPP among their own ethnic group have no incentive to let broader-based parties emerge as competitors and may prefer their guarantees under the existing systems. This does not explain the tendency toward presidential systems, however. One would think the advantages of a parliamentary system--in particular, nonfixed government service that allows for non-confidence votes--would carry the day at least in some cases, were democracy to be the primary objective.
So then, the question is--Who wants a fixed, independent executive, and why? The existing elites may be the answer. Perhaps the fixed presidential term creates more perceived stability. Remember, too, that the president is therefore responsible for most patronage, especially distribution of foreign aid and top jobs--and with weak political parties, he can form personal coalitions in the legislature to support him. Therefore, support flows to the president, who dispenses patronage, and elites do not have to worry about the party that they support losing a parliamentary election; support is transferred to the new president, and things continue as before.
Secondly, many (though not all) transitions were begun by existing strongmen. Rawlings in Ghana, Kerekou in Benin, Diouf in Senegal, Kaunda in Zambia, Banda in Malawi, Moi in Kenya, Museveni in Uganda, Kagame in Rwanda, Chissano in Mozambique, and others all hoped to win reelection to their positions in the new, more open system. Abolishing the importance of their own job was not on the agenda. (Again, the exception was Ethiopia, but we see how the possible threat to Meles Zenawi's rule turned out...).
In South Africa and Namibia, where PR-parliamentary systems were adopted, there has been less risk to elites--the winners were clearly known in advance (the liberation movements, ANC and SWAPO, have dominated despite highly proportional systems). If presidentialism is the side effect (yet also cause) of instability, perhaps as democracy starts to take root in some countries, insecurity diminishes, and (not necessarily linked) economic institutions become more secure, we will see a push for parliamentarism or at least the adoption of PR in some countries where FPP is still in charge.
As for Guinea-Bissau, donors (who must be called upon for anything relevant to happen) are, not surprisingly, uneager to fund a new election, so it seems likely that some sort of solution will be worked out. If not, of course, the military could always step in again.
While Guinea-Bissau has (for no really good reason) been a long-time special interest of mine, the question this dispute raises is broader: why on earth have so few African countries tried a parliamentary system? Even as the continent converted to democracy in the 1990s, very few chose a parliamentary system.
A bit of history: essentially all the former British colonies started as parliamentary systems. Zimbabwe, Zambia, Malawi, Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda, Nigeria, Ghana, The Gambia, Sierra Leone, Mauritius, Botswana, the Seychelles--all adopted a Westminster-style system with first-past-the-post voting after independence. In almost all, the prime minister eventually decided he wanted to be president, the post of Governor-General was eliminated, and a parliamentary system became a presidential one, generally around the same time as opposition parties were also banned. This repeated over and over, from Nkrumah in Ghana to Kaunda in Zambia, Mugabe in Zimbabwe to Banda in Malawi to Kenyatta in Kenya. On the other hand, the former French colonies were presidential systems from the start, imitating the Fifth Republic.
And today, even as new constitutions have been drawn up or constitutions revised, parliamentarism remains untried except in a few cases. South Africa has adopted an essentially parliamentary system, as has Namibia; Botswana has retained its system since independence (though without a change in ruling party); Ethiopia has adopted parliamentarism, but its democratic credentials are very questionable, especially after 2005. The most notable attempted reform was Kenya, where Mwai Kibaki's National Rainbow Coalition swept to power promising to establish a parliamentary system (President Kibaki promptly discarded most of the promise, and the watered-down constitutional amendments were rejected in a referendum).
More countries have adopted proportional representation, though most are presidential democracies. Many of the French-speaking former colonies, in particular, have proportional representation (a by no means complete list includes Senegal, Togo, Benin, Burkina, Mali, and Niger). SA and Namibia also adopted PR, and Burundi and Rwanda use PR. The rest (especially the ex-British colonies) have retained FPP.
It seems as though ethnic politics could be one key reason for the leaning toward FPP. Parties which can win, regionally, in FPP among their own ethnic group have no incentive to let broader-based parties emerge as competitors and may prefer their guarantees under the existing systems. This does not explain the tendency toward presidential systems, however. One would think the advantages of a parliamentary system--in particular, nonfixed government service that allows for non-confidence votes--would carry the day at least in some cases, were democracy to be the primary objective.
So then, the question is--Who wants a fixed, independent executive, and why? The existing elites may be the answer. Perhaps the fixed presidential term creates more perceived stability. Remember, too, that the president is therefore responsible for most patronage, especially distribution of foreign aid and top jobs--and with weak political parties, he can form personal coalitions in the legislature to support him. Therefore, support flows to the president, who dispenses patronage, and elites do not have to worry about the party that they support losing a parliamentary election; support is transferred to the new president, and things continue as before.
Secondly, many (though not all) transitions were begun by existing strongmen. Rawlings in Ghana, Kerekou in Benin, Diouf in Senegal, Kaunda in Zambia, Banda in Malawi, Moi in Kenya, Museveni in Uganda, Kagame in Rwanda, Chissano in Mozambique, and others all hoped to win reelection to their positions in the new, more open system. Abolishing the importance of their own job was not on the agenda. (Again, the exception was Ethiopia, but we see how the possible threat to Meles Zenawi's rule turned out...).
In South Africa and Namibia, where PR-parliamentary systems were adopted, there has been less risk to elites--the winners were clearly known in advance (the liberation movements, ANC and SWAPO, have dominated despite highly proportional systems). If presidentialism is the side effect (yet also cause) of instability, perhaps as democracy starts to take root in some countries, insecurity diminishes, and (not necessarily linked) economic institutions become more secure, we will see a push for parliamentarism or at least the adoption of PR in some countries where FPP is still in charge.
As for Guinea-Bissau, donors (who must be called upon for anything relevant to happen) are, not surprisingly, uneager to fund a new election, so it seems likely that some sort of solution will be worked out. If not, of course, the military could always step in again.
Saturday, March 24, 2007
Ice cream for girls?
From Sweden, it sounds like there's a sordid new corporate plot...
This does pose an interesting question (if not an original one), especially for an American like myself who is used to anything and everything being marketed. The sorts of statements above are a rather quintessential example of the Nordic model to me. What is the greater good? Free production despite possible social consequences, or the maintenance of identified limits to preserve society? I think I know what most Americans believe...
According to GB, the 'Girlie' ice pop signals a "sense of summer", "star status" and "a disco feeling".It seems likely to fail, however, as its fate is already known:
The Swedish Consumers Association however uses an entirely different word: "gender-profiling".
"Girlie, GB's new ice pop, is pink and has make-up inside the stick. It says a lot about what GB thinks about girls and how they should be," said the association in a statement.
"I question whether there is a demand [for the ice pop]," said [Consumers Association] secretary general Jan Bertoft.Well... if there is no demand for the ice pop, why even try? Let alone market other products of its type? If it were to succeed, what would be next? Pink backpacks? I shudder to think about it...
This does pose an interesting question (if not an original one), especially for an American like myself who is used to anything and everything being marketed. The sorts of statements above are a rather quintessential example of the Nordic model to me. What is the greater good? Free production despite possible social consequences, or the maintenance of identified limits to preserve society? I think I know what most Americans believe...
Tuesday, March 20, 2007
Finland: SDP gets the boot?
Finland has held elections. Unfortunately, due to vacation, work and the previously mentioned car accident, I don't have time to analyze at great length. A previous post briefly discussed some issues in the election. It appears that the SDP (Social Democrats) campaigned more from the left in this election and there was some tension between the coalition partners.
The big winner in this election was the conservative (economically free-market) Kansallinen Kokoomus (translated as National Rally or National Coalition). The Finnish electoral system is open-list PR in regions; the leading vote-getter nationwide was Kokoomus's popular Sauli Niinistö in the large Uusimaa constituency (the suburbs of Helsinki). Overall, Kokoomus gained 10 seats and increased to 22.3% of the vote, its second-largest percentage since WWII (the largest coming in 1987, after which Kokoomus entered the government for the first time in the postwar era).
The big loser was the SDP. The party took 21.4% of the vote, its lowest share since 1962, and goes from 53 to 45 seats. PM Matti Vanhanen's Suomen Keskusta (Finnish Center) lost vote share but remains the largest overall party.
Regional voting patterns remained as usual: the Kokoomus was not really a presence in the north, but won a smashing victory in the south, taking over 30 percent in Helsinki and over 25 percent in the major Uusimaa and Varsinais-Suomi (Turku area) constituencies. Meanwhile, the Keskusta, as usual, did not figure even in the top three in Helsinki and managed only 12 percent in Uusimaa, but swept central and northern Finland, taking 43 percent in Oulu and Lapland. The best party at keeping a nationwide presence, the SDP, did so, but lost vote share mildly almost everywhere.
The main disproportionality is the 9 seats won by the Swedish People's Party--as usual, the party's vote is concentrated on the Gulf of Bothnia and particularly in the Vaasa constituency, where it won 20 percent. The SFP won more seats than the Christian Democrats despite fewer votes as Finland has no national compensatory pool.
Finally, the only party to significantly gain, besides the Kokoomus, was the mildly nationalist/populist True Finns party, which got 4 percent of the vote and 5 seats this time around.
What is the end result? Contrary to polls, the SDP lost significantly and KOK gained. The Swedish People's Party will probably stay in government, as it always does, but it looks like the SDP could get booted out for the first time since the KESK/KOK government of 1987-91 and Finland might take a somewhat more free-market turn. Either way, Vanhanen will remain prime minister.
Brief results at Parties and Elections in Europe; more complete results at the Ministry of Justice; there has been some interesting discussion at a blog called Finland for Thought, though be aware that it's written by expats in Finland and generally biased toward the rightist parties.
The big winner in this election was the conservative (economically free-market) Kansallinen Kokoomus (translated as National Rally or National Coalition). The Finnish electoral system is open-list PR in regions; the leading vote-getter nationwide was Kokoomus's popular Sauli Niinistö in the large Uusimaa constituency (the suburbs of Helsinki). Overall, Kokoomus gained 10 seats and increased to 22.3% of the vote, its second-largest percentage since WWII (the largest coming in 1987, after which Kokoomus entered the government for the first time in the postwar era).
The big loser was the SDP. The party took 21.4% of the vote, its lowest share since 1962, and goes from 53 to 45 seats. PM Matti Vanhanen's Suomen Keskusta (Finnish Center) lost vote share but remains the largest overall party.
Regional voting patterns remained as usual: the Kokoomus was not really a presence in the north, but won a smashing victory in the south, taking over 30 percent in Helsinki and over 25 percent in the major Uusimaa and Varsinais-Suomi (Turku area) constituencies. Meanwhile, the Keskusta, as usual, did not figure even in the top three in Helsinki and managed only 12 percent in Uusimaa, but swept central and northern Finland, taking 43 percent in Oulu and Lapland. The best party at keeping a nationwide presence, the SDP, did so, but lost vote share mildly almost everywhere.
The main disproportionality is the 9 seats won by the Swedish People's Party--as usual, the party's vote is concentrated on the Gulf of Bothnia and particularly in the Vaasa constituency, where it won 20 percent. The SFP won more seats than the Christian Democrats despite fewer votes as Finland has no national compensatory pool.
Finally, the only party to significantly gain, besides the Kokoomus, was the mildly nationalist/populist True Finns party, which got 4 percent of the vote and 5 seats this time around.
What is the end result? Contrary to polls, the SDP lost significantly and KOK gained. The Swedish People's Party will probably stay in government, as it always does, but it looks like the SDP could get booted out for the first time since the KESK/KOK government of 1987-91 and Finland might take a somewhat more free-market turn. Either way, Vanhanen will remain prime minister.
Brief results at Parties and Elections in Europe; more complete results at the Ministry of Justice; there has been some interesting discussion at a blog called Finland for Thought, though be aware that it's written by expats in Finland and generally biased toward the rightist parties.
City frustrations
Some cities are apparently well run.
And then there is the Houston website.
I will leave the complaints about potholes, random road closures, and other such infrastructure troubles (as well as overall cluttered unsightliness, pollution and socioeconomic problems) aside for now. I want to discuss the website, the portal through which people connect to the city.
Houston's website is here. Note something about the drop-down menus on the front page. Yes, they go behind the pictures. They've been doing that for a while now.
I had a car accident today (got rear-ended by a guy on the interstate while stopped in traffic). Apparently, here the police don't come out... you go to a substation with the info to file the report. I don't know if that's common in larger cities so I have no comment on it. I went to the website to search for a station close to me (actually, I googled "Houston Police Department" and wound up at the police website, which is part of the main website). Note first that the police website uses a rather unattractive older template (only the front page of the website has really been changed). The left sidebar scrolls even though it doesn't take up the entire page, and it is unclear whether it refers to the police or the entire city (I'm pretty sure it's the latter).
I then spent a long time trying to find the listings of police stations. You'd think one of the top choices would be to know this. But no... although you can view crime statistics, there's no link for "find a station." At length I did find it (through the "Contact HPD" button--here it is). Note that the listings state that the storefront in Neartown is open 24 hours. So, of course, I drove there, and it is open 6 am to 10 pm. I arrived around 10:08 and will have a return trip early tomorrow morning.
Right.
For reference, here are some other cities which seem to have decent web designers... Seattle, New York, Chicago...
In this day and age, if you're a U.S. city and you don't have a good website, what are the odds of things being better once you actually get there? This complaint might seem petty, but as you might guess it's part of a pattern of rather greater frustration.
And then there is the Houston website.
I will leave the complaints about potholes, random road closures, and other such infrastructure troubles (as well as overall cluttered unsightliness, pollution and socioeconomic problems) aside for now. I want to discuss the website, the portal through which people connect to the city.
Houston's website is here. Note something about the drop-down menus on the front page. Yes, they go behind the pictures. They've been doing that for a while now.
I had a car accident today (got rear-ended by a guy on the interstate while stopped in traffic). Apparently, here the police don't come out... you go to a substation with the info to file the report. I don't know if that's common in larger cities so I have no comment on it. I went to the website to search for a station close to me (actually, I googled "Houston Police Department" and wound up at the police website, which is part of the main website). Note first that the police website uses a rather unattractive older template (only the front page of the website has really been changed). The left sidebar scrolls even though it doesn't take up the entire page, and it is unclear whether it refers to the police or the entire city (I'm pretty sure it's the latter).
I then spent a long time trying to find the listings of police stations. You'd think one of the top choices would be to know this. But no... although you can view crime statistics, there's no link for "find a station." At length I did find it (through the "Contact HPD" button--here it is). Note that the listings state that the storefront in Neartown is open 24 hours. So, of course, I drove there, and it is open 6 am to 10 pm. I arrived around 10:08 and will have a return trip early tomorrow morning.
Right.
For reference, here are some other cities which seem to have decent web designers... Seattle, New York, Chicago...
In this day and age, if you're a U.S. city and you don't have a good website, what are the odds of things being better once you actually get there? This complaint might seem petty, but as you might guess it's part of a pattern of rather greater frustration.
Sunday, March 11, 2007
My short absence
I haven't posted for a while... unfortunately the (my job-related) real world has impinged somewhat on my ability to comment here.
For the next week I will be on a needed vacation on the beaches of San Diego--highs projected in the low 70s. So I will have little to say about elections in the meantime, but look forward to returning a bit rejuvenated!
For the next week I will be on a needed vacation on the beaches of San Diego--highs projected in the low 70s. So I will have little to say about elections in the meantime, but look forward to returning a bit rejuvenated!
Sunday, March 04, 2007
Ruling parties easily win in Estonia
Estonia's ruling coalition of the free-market Reform and agrarian/centrist Center parties has easily won the parliamentary election, taking 60 of 101 seats (their smaller partner, the People's Union, secured 6 seats, down from 13). Center had previously been the largest party in the coalition, but their place will be taken by Reform, the party of PM Andrus Ansip, which surged from 19 to 31 seats. The new Green Party entered parliament with 6 seats and the Social Democrats saw a not-entirely-expected surge (if the polls were to be believed) to 10.6% of the vote and 10 seats.
Again, this will change little, but likely Center and Reform will now govern alone, and Ansip seems guaranteed to return to the prime minister's office.
The quick breakdown:
Reform (free-market liberal) / 27.8%, 31
Center (centrist/liberal/agrarian) / 26.1%, 29
Res Publica-Pro Patria (conservative) / 17.9%, 19
Social Democrats / 10.6%, 10
Estonian Greens / 7.1%, 6
People's Union (conservative/nationalist) / 7.1%, 6
Results are available in English from the Estonian Electoral Commission, with regional breakdown in Estonian.
Update: More detailed thought on the electoral system (also in my first post) from Dr. Shugart at Fruits and Votes, and, via F&V, an interesting blogpost by Dr. Josep Colomer on the participation of electoral-systems expert Dr. Rein Taagepera in Estonian politics.
Again, this will change little, but likely Center and Reform will now govern alone, and Ansip seems guaranteed to return to the prime minister's office.
The quick breakdown:
Reform (free-market liberal) / 27.8%, 31
Center (centrist/liberal/agrarian) / 26.1%, 29
Res Publica-Pro Patria (conservative) / 17.9%, 19
Social Democrats / 10.6%, 10
Estonian Greens / 7.1%, 6
People's Union (conservative/nationalist) / 7.1%, 6
Results are available in English from the Estonian Electoral Commission, with regional breakdown in Estonian.
Update: More detailed thought on the electoral system (also in my first post) from Dr. Shugart at Fruits and Votes, and, via F&V, an interesting blogpost by Dr. Josep Colomer on the participation of electoral-systems expert Dr. Rein Taagepera in Estonian politics.
Saturday, March 03, 2007
My political compass
I found my political compass... I'm a social libertarian and on the economic left... again, no surprises!
Economic -3.75, Social -4.41
That puts me next to Gandhi, Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Good place to be in, I guess. Most world leaders, policy-wise, come out in the economic-right and social-authoritarian quadrant (that is, the opposite one from me). Interestingly, none of the "economic right" i.e. more neoliberal leaders are at all on the "social libertarian" side of the bar, though I suppose it could be a matter of where you put that bar.
I'd also be curious to know where world leaders stand personally, without political constraints...
Economic -3.75, Social -4.41
That puts me next to Gandhi, Mandela and the Dalai Lama. Good place to be in, I guess. Most world leaders, policy-wise, come out in the economic-right and social-authoritarian quadrant (that is, the opposite one from me). Interestingly, none of the "economic right" i.e. more neoliberal leaders are at all on the "social libertarian" side of the bar, though I suppose it could be a matter of where you put that bar.
I'd also be curious to know where world leaders stand personally, without political constraints...
Estonians vote
Estonia is electing a new Riigikogu (Parliament) tomorrow, March 4. One of the more interesting sections in the country's riveting Electoral Law is the following:
Yep--e-voting. Now, one can also go in and cast an in-person advance vote on these days (though not 24 hours). Overall, 19.1 percent of electors have already voted, compared to 14.5 percent last time around (I don't think they had the online option in 2003).
Meanwhile, section 62 of the same law explains the distribution of seats, which is rather complicated. Really, what it comes down to is: an open-list d'Hondt system, with one vote per elector. I think. As follows:
As for the actual parties...
Polls show the Center Party leading with the Estonian Reform Party in second. These are the two main parties in the current center-right (liberalish) government. Currently, Reform provides the prime minister, Andrus Ansip, despite being behind the Center Party in seats. The party which won the last election by a wide margin, Res Publica, is trailing despite a merger with another conservative party, Pro Patria. Finally, the Social Democrats, the new Green Party and possibly the conservative/agarian People's Union (the last party in the current coalition) should fill out the parliament.
Estonia is generally known for low taxes, an enterprising attitude, taking initiative online (as is clear with E-voting), and being irritating to Russia (as recently). None of this will likely change whenever the new government takes office.
Section 38 (2) 3). Advance polls shall be held from the sixth day to the fourth
day before election day by electronic means. Voting opens on the sixth day
before the day of election at 9.00 a.m. and lasts on 24-hour basis until the
voting closes on the fourth day before the election day at 8.00 p.m.
Yep--e-voting. Now, one can also go in and cast an in-person advance vote on these days (though not 24 hours). Overall, 19.1 percent of electors have already voted, compared to 14.5 percent last time around (I don't think they had the online option in 2003).
Meanwhile, section 62 of the same law explains the distribution of seats, which is rather complicated. Really, what it comes down to is: an open-list d'Hondt system, with one vote per elector. I think. As follows:
- Mandates are given to any candidate meeting the simple quota in his/her constituency;
- Then, mandates are given to political parties that meet the national 5 percent threshold according to the simple quota divided by that party's total votes, with an extra 75 percent of the simple quota counting as enough for a seat or another seat, and factoring in that some candidates may have already won seats, and the seats go to the most-voted candidates;
- Then, mandates are distributed on a nationally compensatory basis between the same parties, according to d'Hondt (except that the multiplier is 2^0.9, 3^0.9 and so on). Candidates are given mandates on the order that they appear on the national list, if they got at least 5 percent of their simple quota (which shouldn't be horribly difficult). If not, the highest vote-getter gets that compensatory mandate.
As for the actual parties...
Polls show the Center Party leading with the Estonian Reform Party in second. These are the two main parties in the current center-right (liberalish) government. Currently, Reform provides the prime minister, Andrus Ansip, despite being behind the Center Party in seats. The party which won the last election by a wide margin, Res Publica, is trailing despite a merger with another conservative party, Pro Patria. Finally, the Social Democrats, the new Green Party and possibly the conservative/agarian People's Union (the last party in the current coalition) should fill out the parliament.
Estonia is generally known for low taxes, an enterprising attitude, taking initiative online (as is clear with E-voting), and being irritating to Russia (as recently). None of this will likely change whenever the new government takes office.
Wednesday, February 28, 2007
Finland gears up for new elections
The current Finnish government, which includes the Finnish Center (KESK), the Social Democrats (SDP), and the Swedish People's Party (SFP), has served out a full four-year mandate, and faces elections on March 18. Currently, KESK and SDP are running neck-and-neck in the polls.
Finland uses an open-list constituency PR system; parties therefore take advantage of the drawing power of star candidates, but the system is proportional within the constituencies and generally fairly proportional overall. In Helsinki and the surrounding Uusimaa area, the conservative National Coalition (KOK) and the SDP run strong, while the north and center of the country are dominated first and foremost by the KESK, which still has strong ties to its roots as the Agrarian Party. The other principal parties are the Greens (VIHR) and the Left (VAS) or ex-communists.
One issue that seems to have arisen in this campaign is a guaranteed minimum income (possibly as a replacement to some of the various welfare provisions). The Greens have backed this and it appears that the Center has given this idea support as well; the SDP is opposing it.
In the end, it looks like PM Matti Vanhanen, the most popular leader, might pull out a victory (i.e. plurality) for KESK and enable himself to stay in the big chair. Otherwise, SDP's Eero Heinäluoma will take over. Either way, it looks like the KESK-SDP coalition will remain in power for another four years.
For profiles of the top candidates, there is an article at Virtual Finland.
My personal contributions are these pictures from Helsinki, 2004:
The National Coalition (KOK) campaign booth outside the department store Stockmann
The headquarters of the Social Democratic Party, Helsinki
Finland uses an open-list constituency PR system; parties therefore take advantage of the drawing power of star candidates, but the system is proportional within the constituencies and generally fairly proportional overall. In Helsinki and the surrounding Uusimaa area, the conservative National Coalition (KOK) and the SDP run strong, while the north and center of the country are dominated first and foremost by the KESK, which still has strong ties to its roots as the Agrarian Party. The other principal parties are the Greens (VIHR) and the Left (VAS) or ex-communists.
One issue that seems to have arisen in this campaign is a guaranteed minimum income (possibly as a replacement to some of the various welfare provisions). The Greens have backed this and it appears that the Center has given this idea support as well; the SDP is opposing it.
In the end, it looks like PM Matti Vanhanen, the most popular leader, might pull out a victory (i.e. plurality) for KESK and enable himself to stay in the big chair. Otherwise, SDP's Eero Heinäluoma will take over. Either way, it looks like the KESK-SDP coalition will remain in power for another four years.
For profiles of the top candidates, there is an article at Virtual Finland.
My personal contributions are these pictures from Helsinki, 2004:
The National Coalition (KOK) campaign booth outside the department store Stockmann
The headquarters of the Social Democratic Party, Helsinki
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
