Sweden held a parliamentary election on September 9, 2018. Here is the wikipedia page showing the results. Eight parties won seats, under Sweden’s proportional representation system.
Sweden held a parliamentary election on September 9, 2018. Here is the wikipedia page showing the results. Eight parties won seats, under Sweden’s proportional representation system.
Sweedon doesn’t use proportional representation for their unicameral assemble of 349 seats.
Their system sets thresholds between 4% to 9% for the 349 seats.
If they used proportional representation then the total votes divided by total seats would be the threshold and so that figure for provide a threshold of .28 of 1%, not 4% to 9% like they just used in 2018.
A 4% to 9% threshold would be for districts of 10 to 20 names, but their national assembly has 349 names so there is no way to say that they use proportional representation.
I would call their election not proportional.
Theirs seem to use plurality voting which doesn’t give proportional results and they do not ranked choice voting which is required for pure proportional representation with which the United Coalition requires.
Two parties recieved far more than the .28% threshold, the Feminist Initiave and Pirate Parties, but they won no seats.
These two parties (plus another 16 or so parties with less than 500 votes) should be keen to point out that the election wasn’t proportional.
Official results on Weds 12 Sep 2018.
Basic PR —
Party Seats = Total Seats x Party Votes / Total Votes
100/349 = 0.2865
— pending Condorcet
—
Sweden – Another FATAL regime due to the *parliamentary* structure —
Same HACKS having legislative and executive powers
ZERO learned from the 1933-1945 Hitler regime.
Nonpartisan AppV for exec/judic offices – pending Condorcet
good grief two of the usual posters posting their nonsense.
Sweden does have a propositional system and saying it doesn’t is just plain wrong. The overall result is very proportionate to the national vote achieved by each party. Not all seats are allocated to the regional constituencies and that allows the final seat allocation to be topped up. And many countries with PR have some sort of threshold to reach before a party can get any seats. It means a party has to work to get in the votes.
And having a mix of legislative and executive functions is not a fatal flaw of the parliamentary system. It actually enhances accountability. Imagine President Trump having to stand in congress and actually answer questions once a week like a Prime Minister does on any topic thrown at them. Or having a Cabinet Minister stand up and have to justify the legislation they want passed and actually vote for it. No buck passing between the executive and the legislature on who was to blame.
Party bosses typically call anything proportional representation but the total open seats are 349 so 1/349=.28% so to be considered proportional the names must be elected by .28 of 1% but the threshold they used was 4% to 9% which is far more than ten times the threshold of .28%.
Don’t call it proportional representation when it clearly is not proportional.
Wikipedia has been very poor in their reports and people calling Sweden PR are wrong. Including those updating Wikipedia with regard to proportional representation.
Party bosses typically call anything proportional representation but the total open seats are 349 so 1/349=.28% so to be considered proportional the names must be elected by .28 of 1% but the threshold they used was 4% to 9% which is far more than ten times the threshold of .28%.
Don’t call it proportional representation when it clearly is not proportional.
Wikipedia has been very poor in their reports and people calling Sweden PR are wrong. Including those updating Wikipedia with regard to proportional representation.
Before the figures on Wikipedia were deleted I was able to determine that two parties got more than 1/349ths of the votes but they were denied a single seat between the two.
So how can we say the results were proportional representation when the Feminist Initiative Party and the Pirate Party were blocked after garnering far more than 1/349th of the votes?
The reason why is because they do not use proportional representation.
Good comment ChrisC. (The other posting so far are, as you say, “usual nonsense”.
ChrisC is not interested in protecting the same rights for women, he makes it clear that he objects to not only the Feminine Iniative Party but also the Pirate Party, from receiving their fair share of seats in the Swedish Parliament.
He writes the math off as “nonsense” when it is reported that 1/349ths of the vote should have elected their seats.
To me the truth is that these citizens of Sweden did garner enough votes to be elected under proportional representation and that his chauvinistic, degrading attitude towards the math, is a typically poor reaction we see in pluralistic elections every day.
His position strikes me as rude, since the dry math tells me that under PR the candidates in question should have been elected but we’re not. His position is hostile to women and that’s why us men need to try harder to help protect women from people like him.
The men of the United Coalition are uniting to protect female politicians not to degrade them with false math and lies.
I wonder if someone could make a chrome/firefox extension that would just not show comments by certain people.
That would be great to have a program that would automatically block people who themselves call for censorship in political debate.
My personal opinion is that I am pleased that some dialogue is happening with regard to proportional representation.
I am not complaining about those who complain that some people excersize free speech but I do feel pretty odd about people complaining.
I can see debate about mathematics or ballot access, and I myself do belittle those who interpret the math incorrectly.
But for those making personal attacks and requests for political censorship in such conversations really doesn’t reflect well on them as persons, as they are ones who are not interested in free speech and freedoms to discuss the issues at hand.
If they can’t handle having information about election math being discussed without calling for some to be silenced then maybe they should consider joining some censorious communist country like China where maybe their appreciation for censorship could be addressed.
Everyone wants ballot access and election freedoms increased not decreased, so the calld for censorship by them here with regards to ideas about making elections more fair under pure proportional representation seem really very odd to me.
Maybe those who are offended by Demo Reps and my math should take the time to address the threshold that both Demo Rep and I agree with that should have been in Sweden to be:
1 / 349 = .28
Since he and I seem to agree on that number, but several people have written that Sweden’s official threshold of “4% to 9%” is correct.
So what is the threshold for Sweden’s election to be proportional representation?
Is it .28%?
Is it 4%?
Is it 9%?
Demo Rep and I both have agreed to the .28% but all I hear from some is that we should be blocked.
Why? Was our figure so offensive to you that a censor needs to step in and give you support by deleting our figures?
What is your figure?
All I read from a few is that our posts should be blocked but they never specified any particular number other to defer to the State of Sweden with whom Demo Rep and I both agree that the state is not counting votes under proportional representation.
Please, take the time, show us how and why two parties are being blocked from electing seats under the so-called PR system that you say is correct.
My math tells me that parties were blocked even though they reached the threshold of proportional representation.
Both the parties in Sweden garnered more than 1/349ths of the vote, but you agree with the Swedish government, they need not win a seat in a 349-seat assembly.
Please explain how your party list system justifies that they get no seats.
What’s wrong with the Pirate and Feminist Initiative Parties? What in your mind justifies the results where they get no seats? Also, what us your justification that two posters commented that they do in fact deserve those seats but you want us silenced. Why?
The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elective, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.
Federalist 47, Madison
—-
Too many pre-skoool math and history M-O-R-O-N-S on this list to count.
NONSTOP CHAOS in various *parliamentary* regimes
— Sweden, UK, France, Germany, Spain, Italy, Israel, Japan, etc.
— which gangster party HACK gets which top exec office.
Took about a mere 700 years for the Brits to create an *independent* UK Supreme Court
— ie NOT having the appointed HACKS in the UK House of Lords being the final/top judicial body.
One of the FEW things preventing TOTAL Civil W-A-R in the USA is the defective Separation of Powers in the USA and State regimes.
How about put the MONSTER Trump in the gerrymander Congress and in SCOTUS ??? — see what happens
— Think Stalin and Hitler in 1930s — aka KILLER tyrants.
—
PR and nonpartisan AppV
For the usual nonsense math M-O-R-O-N-S on this list —
the ANTI-Democracy math in the USA/State/Local regimes —
1/2 or less votes x 1/2 rigged pack/crack gerrymander districts = 1/4 or less CONTROL =
EVIL/VICIOUS party HACK OLIGARCHS- since 1776.
Much worse primary math – esp. if no incumbent.
REAL minority rule — perhaps 5-15 percent.
Much worse minority rule before 1964 SCOTUS gerrymander cases.
PR came along in 1820s-1840s —
too late for the entrenched gerrymander oligarchs.
One result – the mass murder Civil WAR I in 1861-1865 –
750,000-1,000,000 DEAD on both sides.
More crops of left/right monster oligarchs from 1865 to 2018.
Also –
TOTAL Separation of Powers —
majority party (If any) / coalition = TOTAL responsibility for laws.
—
NONPARTISAN exec/judic = TOTAL responsibility for law enforcement.
Way too difficult for the many brainwashed pre-skooool legal structure MORONS on this list who love to have to have *ALL POWERFUL* killer monarchs – Stalin, Hitler, Mao, Castro, Saddam, Putin, etc.
@GO Ogle,
If the Swedish Parliament had 3490 members it could be even more perfectly proportional. Or perhaps 35,000 or 350,000 or even 7,495,927 members it could be even more perfect. Don’t you know that mediocrity is the enemy of the perfect?
101 is enough to *represent* all *larger* factions – in national/state legis bodies.
Perhaps 25 in very large local city regimes.
The USA H. Reps became a mob scene in 1873 after the 1870 Census and 14-2 math.
PR and AppV
—
Direct Democracy will have to wait for 100 percent secure evote systems
— akin to WAR order comm systems
— zillion bit encrypted
@DR,
You know how they leave the voting machines open in the House of Representatives for 15 minutes for everyone to vote. They could do the same in an assembly of 7 million members, but for a longer period, say 24 hours, so members could stop by their local voting hall. Good enough is the enemy of the perfect.
After using the ranked choice voting system for twenty-three consecutive years, I do flavor “the bigger the better” in cases to enlarge under pure proportional representation because it continually lowers the threshold for everyday people.
But 100 and 1000 are nice round numbers too, the laws of supply and demand, also play a major role when the United Coalition is looking for a cap.
In 2014 we used 1000 as the cap but now we’re finding 250 is a more suitable cap on assembly size.
JR-
NONSTOP security on the evote system in the USA H Reps – using physical keys ???
JO-
obvious odd number 3 or more to avoid ties — must have overall majority for action.
The Sweden wiki links to
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gallagher_index
regarding wasted votes.
Demo Rep, we are not fearful of ties under pure proportional representation so two-member districts are fine.
Should ties happen then all names/items are elected until a future vote breaks the tie.
Regarding the Gallagher method, I don’t need it, the Hagenbach-Bischoff method already showed me that Sweden doesn’t use proportional representation.