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.

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...

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:

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.

And... I think that's it!

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.

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

The crazy optician

This guy (from Toronto) is just crazy. When the consumer advocate reporter comes to talk to him again, he... opens the door in his face, tries to punch him and throws snowballs at the cameraman, then barricades himself inside the store until the riot team arrives.

Apparently, he was:

• Making fake Oakleys and other brand-name glasses (when the reporter confronted him, blamed Oakley);
• Refusing to refund money for the above ("We don't do money back here");
• Performing eye exams, even though in Ontario, opticians are not permitted to do so ("Your eye doctor is probably going to say something like I'm not supposed to do this, but he's my competition").
  

Now he has reportedly changed the name of his business and tried to make it look like the neighboring one. The archive of old news videos about him is here.

Political typology

According to Pew's political typology, I am a "liberal." No surprise there...

It states that 17 percent of the public are liberals; 19 percent of registered voters are liberals.

Prodi's second fall, or the inane Italian electoral system

Romano Prodi has resigned today as prime minister of Italy, having narrowly lost a Senate vote on a nonbinding foreign policy resolution concerning Iraq (heh). Prodi needed 160 votes (a majority of members) to carry the day and got only 158.

While Prodi's Union coalition has a sizable majority in the Chamber of Deputies, in the Senate their majority is only two seats. This means that the Union has to rely on all its senators, including those from far left parties (the Communists and the Communist Refoundation). These parties often have very little in common with the centrist parties (such as the large, more centrist Margherita party or the smaller Italy of Values, among others). The Union coalition cannot cast these far-left parties aside, however, because the electoral system rewards relative majorities--to the extent that 55 percent of Chamber seats are guaranteed to the coalition or party that takes a relative majority. This electoral system was imposed by Berlusconi prior to the previous election in an attempt to manipulate the results.

However, the system is ridiculous. In addition to this 55 percent clause, seats are distributed proportionally to coalitions or parties in the provinces, to all coalitions receiving at least 10 percent nationwide and independent parties with at least 4 percent. Within coalitions, all parties receiving at least 2 percent are eligible, and the top party under 2 percent is also eligible. This is a recipe for allowing small parties to continue manipulating the larger ones--hardly a solution to one of the larger problems of the last electoral reform implemented in the early '90s.

Here's something radical: Why not an MMP or closed-list PR system with a 5% nationwide/3 SMD threshold (as in Germany)? Surviving parties would probably include the major parties of the center-left (Margherita as well as the Democrats of the Left, or a possible merger of those two), Berlusconi's Forza Italia, the rightist National Alliance, and the more centrist Union of Christian Democrats, plus possibly the Communist Refoundation and the regionalist Northern League. Yes, the smaller parties would be irritated, but given Italy's persistent instability, this solution is more than justified. [And yes, the Senate also needs to be reformed. In Italy's system where both chambers can hold the government to account, neither house should have an electoral law which disproportionately empowers small fringe parties.]

We may well see another electoral reform soon: President Georgio Napolitano, according to the NYT article, won't call elections until another reform has been enacted. Maybe this time it will finally be a logical one.

[The best overview of the history and intricacies of the system, so far as I am aware, is here.]

Ontario looks at MMP

Speaking of electoral reform... the Citizens' Assembly in Ontario has decided that mixed-member proportional (MMP) is its preferred alternative to the current first-past-the-post (FPP) system. See DemocraticSPACE (who also designed an MMP system for the purpose) and Idealistic Pragmatist.

Prince Edward Island's electoral reform attempt also would have implemented MMP. B.C.'s option, on the other hand, was for the single transferable vote (STV). [That option, for those who don't know, got 58 percent "yes" votes when it needed 60 percent, so wasn't adopted, but will be back on the ballot.]

This is one of the best aspects of federalism--different jurisdictions experimenting with policy; however, it does wind up being rather uncoordinated. It's certainly possible that we could see 10 different voting systems for 10 provinces, not that there's anything wrong with that. But the clamor is growing in Quebec, where there are three major parties and two growing alternatives, and New Brunswick just had a "second place winner" election in which the Liberals won despite losing the popular vote, so there are certainly other provinces that might be exploring other options.

If Ontario adopts MMP, there will definitely be a lot of pressure on the federal government to at least examine the idea of PR. (Note: the NDP introduced a motion for consideration of electoral reform, which will likely be ignored. But I always wonder why the NDP doesn't make electoral reform their #1 priority in any support deal. Yes, the short-term gains are uncertain, but one would think the long-term survival benefit is way, way bigger than in any other area. ATM fees, for instance... seriously?).

Taiwanese favor parliamentarism?

Interesting... according to a new poll, a strong majority of Taiwanese would prefer a parliamentary government to the current presidential system. This follows some scandals involving the presidency, and power struggles between legislature and president.

The question is whether this is a permanent feature of the Taiwanese system now or just reflects the unpopularity of President Chen Shui-bian. Unfortunately, there's not a lot more detail, so it's impossible to say from this survey.

II República: Portela quits, Azaña takes over

After the election, rumors circulated, according to Gil Robles, leader of the rightist CEDA, that he would retire from politics (see No fue posible la paz, 491-2); order began to break down in some areas as the President authorized Prime Minister Portela to declare a state of war; Calvo Sotelo and others suggested that a coup be carried out, but Franco and Portela declined; Gil Robles tried to talk Portela into staying in office until the second round was held and the Cortes met, but he refused.

Therefore, on February 19, 1936, as it became clear that the Popular Front had won the (last) elections in the Second Spanish Republic, Manuel Azaña, leader of the Izquierda Republicana, the most moderate of the Popular Front parties, was appointed prime minister by President Niceto Alcalá-Zamora. The government was comprised entirely of figures from Republican Left and the smaller Republican Union party, with no Socialist participation.