Belgian Elections, 10 June

[afleitch]

The 'Fortuynist' Lijst Dedecker seems to be doing well; 6.5% in Flanders and 11.2% in West Flanders, it's strongest area.

[minionofmidas]

Despite having, basically, pissed off every Belgian with a fraction of sanity left - including the Walloon Christian Democrats? I find that hard to believe. Heck, now that the Liberals have gotten rid of much of their right wing, you'd think we might get left-right polarized governments in Belgium.

Yes, remember that this is Belgium, the only part of Italy north of the Alps. .

[freek]

The 'Fortuynist' Lijst Dedecker seems to be doing well; 6.5% in Flanders and 11.2% in West Flanders, it's strongest area.

And also quite underestimated in the opinion polls.

[Bono]

Despite having, basically, pissed off every Belgian with a fraction of sanity left - including the Walloon Christian Democrats? I find that hard to believe. Heck, now that the Liberals have gotten rid of much of their right wing, you'd think we might get left-right polarized governments in Belgium.

You mean because of his comment that Walloons are too dumb to learn Flemish?

[minionofmidas]

Despite having, basically, pissed off every Belgian with a fraction of sanity left - including the Walloon Christian Democrats? I find that hard to believe. Heck, now that the Liberals have gotten rid of much of their right wing, you'd think we might get left-right polarized governments in Belgium.

You mean because of his comment that Walloons are too dumb to learn Flemish?

Not just that; the two parties have also drifted somewhat apart on actual issues.

[Bono]

Despite having, basically, pissed off every Belgian with a fraction of sanity left - including the Walloon Christian Democrats? I find that hard to believe. Heck, now that the Liberals have gotten rid of much of their right wing, you'd think we might get left-right polarized governments in Belgium.

You mean because of his comment that Walloons are too dumb to learn Flemish?

Not just that; the two parties have also drifted somewhat apart on actual issues.

You mean decentralization--I know Leterme is a strong advocate of greatly increasing it, for which I like him--or something else?

[freek]

As usual in the last years, there is also some speculation about asymmetric coalitions, meaning a government where a Flemish party is in the government whereas their Walloon counterpart is not or vice versa.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

Have there been any parties that actually tried appealing to both Walloons and Flems that actually managed to get seats from both?

[minionofmidas]

Have there been any parties that actually tried appealing to both Walloons and Flems that actually managed to get seats from both?

In practice? Yes, three of them - the Socialists, the Liberals, and the Greens. [/slight exaggeration - there ARE differences between the Walloon and Flemish sister parties in these cases as well, and until recently the Christian Democrats were perfectly analogous.]

[freek]

Have there been any parties that actually tried appealing to both Walloons and Flems that actually managed to get seats from both?

There are hardly any parties left, that haven't split in 2 parts. The largest one is the PVDA - PTB, the Belgian Labour Party. They are the largest Belgian Communist Party, and in total won about 1% of the vote, not even close to a seat.

[Hash]

It looks like MR beat PS for first in Wallonia...

[minionofmidas]

Near-final results:

Nationally
Christian Democrats 18.5 (+2.2)+ 6.1 (+0.6)%, 30 (+9)+10(+2) seats
Liberals 11.8 (-3.5) + 12.5 (+1.1)%, 18 (-7) + 23 (-1) seats
Socialists 10.3 (-4.7) + 10.9 (-2.1)%, 14 (-9) + 20 (-5) seats
VB 12.0% (+0.4), 17 (-1)
Dedecker 4.0%, 5
FN 1.9% (+0.0), 1 (0)
Greens 4.0 (+1.5) + 5.1 (+2.0)%, 4 (+4) + 8 (+4) seats

Liberals have pipped Christians Democrats by a seat, actually, though they polled slightly fewer votes. Socialist mushroom growth in Flanders has proved unsustainable, Liberal mushroom growth in Wallonie has not. Liberal losses in Flanders mostly attributable to Dedecker.

Flanders (not sure how defined here):
CD 29.6 (+3.8)
VB 19.0 (+1.1)
Lib 18.8 (-5.4)
Soc 16.3 (-7.2)
Dedecker 6.5
Greens 6.3 (+2.4)

Wallonie
Lib 31.1 (+2.7)
Soc 29.6 (-6.8)
CD 15.8 (+0.4)
Green 12.7 (+5.2)
FN 5.6 (+0.0)

Constituencies:
West Flanders (16 seats)
CD 34.2 (+0.4) 6 (0)
Lib 16.6 (-5.1) 3 (-1)
Soc 16.4 (-8.5) 2 (-2)
VB 14.4 (+0.3) 2 (0)
Dedecker 11.3 2
Greens 5.8 (+2.6) 1

East Flanders (20 seats)
CD 26.7 (+3.3) 6 (+2)
Lib 24.1 (-6.6) 5 (-2)
VB 18.6 (+1.8) 4 (0)
Soc 15.8 (-6.2) 3 (-2)
Greens 7.2 (+2.7) 1
Dedecker 6.2 1

Antwerp (24 seats)
CD 29.3 (+5.2) 8 (+3)
VB 24.1 (+0.0) 6 (-1)
Soc 16.5 (-5.3) 4 (-2)
Lib 16.0 (-7.2) 4 (-2)
Greens 6.9 (+2.4) 1
Dedecker 5.4 1

Limburg (12 seats)
CD 32.6 (+6.6) 5 (+2)
Soc 20.2 (-12.5) 3 (-1)
Lib 18.4 (-3.9) 2 (-1)
VB 18.5 (+2.8) 2 (0)
Dedecker 4.1 0
Greens 4.1 (+1.7) 0

Louvain*
CD 28.5 (+4.2) 2 (0)
Lib 20.4 (-8.3) 2 (0)
Soc 19.6 (-5.1) 1 (-1)
VB 15.8 (+0.9) 1 (0)
Greens 8.2 (+3.0) 0
Dedecker 5.8 1
Using the French spelling because I'm too lazy to look up the Dutch or English spellings, and noone would recognize the German spelling (Löwen) I used in my notes.
This seat distribution makes no sense at all, btw. Shouldn't the Dedecker seat actually go to the Socialists?

Brussels - Halle - Vilvoorde (22 seats)
Liberals 22.7 + 9.1 (-2.3) (French wing listed first for all camps. Change for total camp) 6 (0) + 2 (-1)
CD 9.4 + 12.1 (+4.2) 2 (+1) + 3 (+1)
Soc 13.7 + 4.8 (-5.4) 3 (-1) + 1 (-1)
Greens 9.1 + 2.7 (+4.0) 2 (0) + 1 (+1)
VB 9.5 (-0.8) 2 (0)
Dedecker 1.9
FN 1.9 (-0.4)
I thought there was a five-percent threshold? Why the Flemish Green and Socialist seats?  Is it enough to poll over 5% of the Flemish vote total?

Actually, I got a "working theory" for the oddities in these two constituencies - there's some complicated formula that distributes seats first across the whole of Flemish Brabant and then redistributes them east-west for purposes of who gets elected exactly. Not sure how that would work exactly, but it would explain things - the relation between the Flemish Greens' and Dedecker's percentages in the two areas is almost identical, and I guess both were initially allocated one seat, with Dedecker taking marginally more actual votes in Louvain than in BHV, the Flemish Greens' taking marginally more actual votes in BHV.

Walloon Brabant (5)
Lib 44.8 (+3.0) 2 (-1)
Soc 18.0 (-6.3) 1 (0)
Greens 15.9 (+6.5) 1 (+1)
CD 13.9 (-0.3) 1 (0)
FN 3.3 (-0.8) 0

Hainault (19)
Soc 34.5 (-9.6) 7 (-3)
Lib 26.8 (+4.8) 6 (+1)
CD 14.1 (+2.0) 3 (+1)
Greens 10.4 (+4.0) 2 (+1)
FN 7.9 (+0.7) 1 (0)

Namur (6)
Lib 32.9 (+4.7) 2 (0)
Soc 26.0 (-7.5) 2 (-1)
CD 16.9 (-1.4) 1 (0)
Greens 14.8 (+6.2) 1 (+1)
FN 5.0 (-0.2)

Liege (15)
Soc 32.1 (-3.5) 6 (0)
Lib 30.5 (-0.2) 5 (-1)
CD 14.2 (-0.9) 2 (0)
Greens 13.6 (+6.0) 2 (+1)
FN 4.5 (-0.3)

Luxembourg (4)
Lib 30.4 (+0.0) 2 (0)
CD 29.6 (+1.8) 1 (0)
Soc 21.3 (-5.0) 1 (0)
Greens 11.6 (+4.5) 0
FN 3.7 (+0.1)

[afleitch]

The Belgian system makes it almost impossible for me to choose what Flemish/Walloon party to support

[Bono]

Final seat distribution:
CD&V 25 seats
N-VA 5 seats
MR 23 seats
VB 17 seats
VLD 18 seats
PS 20 seats
SP.a 14 seats
cdH 10 seats
ECOLO 8 seats
LDD 5 seats
Groen 4 seats
FN 1 seats

I wonder what happened to Spirit. Did their cartel arrangement change, so they weren't able to elect anyone?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The relatively good Socialist result in Liege is a little odd. Voters there not care so much about corruption scandals in Hainault as elsewhere?

[minionofmidas]

The relatively good Socialist result in Liege is a little odd. Voters there not care so much about corruption scandals in Hainault as elsewhere?

Voters there are glad to see that Walloon Socialists outside Liège can be almost as corrupt as inside it?

[freek]

I wonder what happened to Spirit. Did their cartel arrangement change, so they weren't able to elect anyone?

The cartel sp.a-Spirit lost so many votes, that it seems all Spirit candidates were not elected.

edit: Spirit leader Geert Lambert is elected in the Senate, all Chamber seats are lost.

[freek]

Near-final results:

Louvain*
CD 28.5 (+4.2) 2 (0)
Lib 20.4 (-8.3) 2 (0)
Soc 19.6 (-5.1) 1 (-1)
VB 15.8 (+0.9) 1 (0)
Greens 8.2 (+3.0) 0
Dedecker 5.8 1
Using the French spelling because I'm too lazy to look up the Dutch or English spellings, and noone would recognize the German spelling (Löwen) I used in my notes.

It's Leuven in Dutch, and English as well.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

The 5% threshold was declared unconstitutional for BHV by the Belgian Constitutional Court some time ago.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

Yes, you are right, but only for the Flemish parties. There is a similar system for French-language parties in BHV and Walloon Brabant. Or actually, parties have the freedom to choose to combine their lists in 2 electoral districts, either combine the lists for Leuven and BHV, or combine the lists for BHV and Nivelles/Nijvel (Walloon Brabant).

I looked up how Belgian electoral law works in this case, and roughly translated it works as followed:

Step 1: In every district (BHV, Leuven, Nivelles), the number of votes for the lists are used to calculate how many seats every list at least receives in a district. For examply, in Leuven district (7 seats), if a party receives between 2/7th and 3/7th of the total number of votes, it receives at least 2 seats in Leuven. Also, for every party the D'Hondt quotient (# of votes / seats + 1 ) is calculated.

Step 2: The number of seats allocated this way are added up for all three districts. There are still seats remaining, these are allocated on a provincial level. The number of votes for combined lists of a party (if they decided to combine) are added up, as are the number of seats for a party in different districts. The remaining seats are then allocated over the parties using the D'Hondt system. If a party won at least 5 seats in the 3 districts, its votes are at first divided by 5+1=6, then by 7, 8, etc.

Step 3: Distribution of the seats allocated in step 2 over the districts. At first, seats won by parties only taking part in 1 district are allocated, starting with the party with the highest D'Hondt quotient in Step 2.

Then the seats for parties taking part in 2 districts are distributed, starting with the party with the highest quotient in Step 2. The seat will go the district where the party has the highest D'Hondt quotient (calculated in Step 1). If there are no seats left in that district, it goes to the next district. If in that district also no seats are left, the seat is lost for the party. The same goes for parties not having enough candidates to fill all their seats in a district. These seats are allocated over the parties in that district, using D'Hondt.

This system of list combinations is basically how the electoral system worked in Belgium. Only since 2003 the seats are distributed on a provincial level only. Before 2003, every province was divided in one or more electoral districts, each with a fixed number of seats. That it is still used in Brabant has the same reason as the absence of the 5% electoral barrier in BHV. It was struck down in the same ruling of the Constitutional Court.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Umengus]

Probably a christen-democrat/liberal coalition. I hope that socialists will be rejected in the opposition.