Norwegian Parliamentary Election 2013

[Franknburger]

I assume the workers/immigrants live mostly in that North-East peninsula-looking part of the city ? Where also the FrP is strongest ?

And the upper middle class people in the SW part of Oslo ?

Yes, primarily. Though there is a big exception to the regular west/east split - the district of Nordstrand which is considered "the West side of Oslo East" (Østkantens vestkant), which is an upper-middle class area dominated by Høyre.

.
Let me guess - Nordstrand is demographically a bit older than the western suburbs, that's why pockets pf Krd support could still survive there.
I further assume that the oldest suburb is the one on the western bay shore, which is starting to turn over (traditional Hoyre voters gradually dying away, and being replaced by younger V & MdG voters).

Now, if somebody could point out to us where the University is located (my guess is to the west of the inner city, in that district where S & MdG are strongest), we have almost solved all the mysteries of these wonderful maps...  

B.t.w, Sibboleth, you don't feel like doing swing maps as well, don't you?

[Hash]

Results by municipality, by party and coalition



Party colours should be obvious, FrP won a few small towns and they're in purple (unfortunately a tad hard to see). KrF is yellow.

[YL]

I think I've seen it explained before, but Labour's strength in many inland rural areas (especially Oppland, Hedmark and Nord-Trøndelag, and extending to the head of Sognefjord) is a feature of Norwegian political geography which really stands out on those maps.

[minionofmidas]

Oslo correlations-
Ap and Fr!

Yes, that is quite notable.

You must be logged in to read this quote.

I fret to think what a parallel universe in which this would not be considered self-evident from the party descriptions might look like.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

I think I've seen it explained before, but Labour's strength in many inland rural areas (especially Oppland, Hedmark and Nord-Trøndelag, and extending to the head of Sognefjord) is a feature of Norwegian political geography which really stands out on those maps.

A lot of that is about class as many of these places are not exactly non-industrial (the various timber and related industries - sawmills, papermills etc -  being a major one, but also mining - or a history of it - in some areas and the occasional bit of really heavy industry: for instance, Årdal - the place you spotted at the head of the Sognefjord - is an aluminium smelting town), but also there's also political organisation and political tradition.

From an article written in 1962:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[Lurker]

Yes, primarily. Though there is a big exception to the regular west/east split - the district of Nordstrand which is considered "the West side of Oslo East" (Østkantens vestkant), which is an upper-middle class area dominated by Høyre.

.
Let me guess - Nordstrand is demographically a bit older than the western suburbs, that's why pockets pf Krd support could still survive there.
I further assume that the oldest suburb is the one on the western bay shore, which is starting to turn over (traditional Hoyre voters gradually dying away, and being replaced by younger V & MdG voters).

Now, if somebody could point out to us where the University is located (my guess is to the west of the inner city, in that district where S & MdG are strongest), we have almost solved all the mysteries of these wonderful maps...  

Yes, Nordstrand has one of the older demographics of Oslo (though not necessarily the oldest), though whether that is the reason for KrF's relative strength there I don't know.

As for the oldest suburb on the western bay shore - are you referring to this borough, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordre_Aker ?
Most of the University is located in that district/borough as well, in the more urban part of it.

[eric82oslo]

I assume the workers/immigrants live mostly in that North-East peninsula-looking part of the city ? Where also the FrP is strongest ?

And the upper middle class people in the SW part of Oslo ?

Yes, primarily. Though there is a big exception to the regular west/east split - the district of Nordstrand which is considered "the West side of Oslo East" (Østkantens vestkant), which is an upper-middle class area dominated by Høyre.

.
Let me guess - Nordstrand is demographically a bit older than the western suburbs, that's why pockets pf Krd support could still survive there.
I further assume that the oldest suburb is the one on the western bay shore, which is starting to turn over (traditional Hoyre voters gradually dying away, and being replaced by younger V & MdG voters).

Now, if somebody could point out to us where the University is located (my guess is to the west of the inner city, in that district where S & MdG are strongest), we have almost solved all the mysteries of these wonderful maps...  

B.t.w, Sibboleth, you don't feel like doing swing maps as well, don't you?

What you said is pretty much spot on.

Although MDG and SV are currently the leading academic parties, Venstre and even Rødt don't come all that far behind though. Venstre's sole problem is the fact that they're actually half-heartedly supporting a blue-blue government. That's why I, and most other academic people as well, have chosen to shy away from voting the (Social-)Liberal party in this election. I think, in fact, the vaste majority of university professors and thus like voted, like me, The Greens in this election. The second biggest university/academic party was probably Socialistic Left.

[Karlsen]

From an article written in 1962:

You must be logged in to read this quote.

[/quote]

Hello, new poster from Hedmark here!
Everything you quote is correct, but the most fascinating divide in Hedmark and Oppland I believe is the historical divide between "big farmers", who almost exclusivliy voted Farmers Party (Center), and Conservative (Høyre), and small farmes, "housmen", which was dependent on the "big farmers". The "housmen" was among the first norwegians to be radicalized in the last half of the 19th century, and has voted Labour ever since.

The industrial towns in Hedmark, Åmot in Østerdalen in particular, was communist strongholds in the interwar years up intil the 60's.  

[Franknburger]

As for the oldest suburb on the western bay shore - are you referring to this borough, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordre_Aker ?
Most of the University is located in that district/borough as well, in the more urban part of it.

I was actually referring to Frogner, though Nordre Aker is even making more sense result-wise. Frogner should probably display quite an internal East-West split, with the East being more urban (green-leftish) and the West quite suburban (Hoyre).

[Viewfromthenorth]

As for the oldest suburb on the western bay shore - are you referring to this borough, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordre_Aker ?
Most of the University is located in that district/borough as well, in the more urban part of it.

I was actually referring to Frogner, though Nordre Aker is even making more sense result-wise. Frogner should probably display quite an internal East-West split, with the East being more urban (green-leftish) and the West quite suburban (Hoyre).

To a certain extent yes, because east Frogner is home to many students. But at the same time, the eastern half is known for being packed with "old money", which means that difference is evened out a bit.

[Franknburger]

As for the oldest suburb on the western bay shore - are you referring to this borough, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nordre_Aker ?
Most of the University is located in that district/borough as well, in the more urban part of it.

I was actually referring to Frogner, though Nordre Aker is even making more sense result-wise. Frogner should probably display quite an internal East-West split, with the East being more urban (green-leftish) and the West quite suburban (Hoyre).

To a certain extent yes, because east Frogner is home to many students. But at the same time, the eastern half is known for being packed with "old money", which means that difference is evened out a bit.

I could imagine east Frogner being a bit similar to this place (the English article is a bit crappy, if you understand German, try out that version, plus this article).

[Filuwaúrdjan]

but the most fascinating divide in Hedmark and Oppland I believe is the historical divide between "big farmers", who almost exclusivliy voted Farmers Party (Center), and Conservative (Høyre), and small farmes, "housmen", which was dependent on the "big farmers". The "housmen" was among the first norwegians to be radicalized in the last half of the 19th century, and has voted Labour ever since.

Interesting. Would smallholder or tenant farmer be the right translation, or is it implicitly both? Or is it more like agricultural labourers who are also smallholders?

[minionofmidas]

A husman is a tenant horticulturist who pays rent in labour. Or in other words, a laborer who is "payed" not with money, but with a small parcel of land to build his house on and till. Similar arrangements existed in Eastern Germany, of course. Conditions might vary, but usually such people were de facto serfs.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Thanks (and that explains everything else as well). Does he actually own his own house or is it a tied cottage? You know those weren't abolished (legislatively) for farm workers here until the 1970s?

[minionofmidas]

Ah, there is one thing to remember.
The Norwegian landlord - the 'big farmer' mentioned above - would usually be of a very different class from the British gentry you're thinking of right now.
http://sfj.no/sff/sffarkiv3.nsf/0/30729B9E479CA3DBC125765500262274?OpenDocument
http://archiver.rootsweb.ancestry.com/th/read/NORWAY/2005-02/1108237149
http://rayson.us/Genealogy/Norwegian_Life.html

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Given the obvious issue of land quality I was sort of assuming something like that but, yeah...

[FredLindq]

Any news regarding guvernment formation?

[joevsimp]

Any news regarding guvernment formation?

negotiations stating tomorrow I think in a "secret location" in Oslo

[eric82oslo]

The number of female parliamentarians will not increase from the last 4 year session and will still linger below 40%. Only two parties will have a majority female group; the Rural Party with 70% female representation and the Labour Party with 28 females against 26 males. The Progress Party will have the most conservative multi-member parliamentary group with nearly 80% men to represent them. Now how sad and old-fashioned isn't that?

My expectation was that the female representation would actually increase, since the Progress Party did a considerably worse election than both 2009 and 2005, however that did not turn out to be the case. When will the parties stop to almost always nominate a male politician as their number 1 choice in the 19 regional "fylker"?

I think three things could aliviate this situation and turn the female representation closer to where Sweden is at the moment (45% or higher):

1. The reduction in the number of fylker from 19 to for instance 15, 12 or 10. Some have even suggested a number as low as 5 to 7, though then called "regions" instead of "fylker".
2. A law which would make it illegal not to divide each electoral list into 50% of each sex, unless there was some specific reason for why it shouldn't apply to a particular party (you could argue that a Feminist Party should be allowed to be represented by 100% women for instance, or that a Youth Party should be allowed only to endorse youth candidates).
3. The threshold is still an issue. The Green Party obtained almost 3% of all votes in this election, yet got only one of their politicians elected to the parliament. With a threshold of 2% or lower, The Green Party would automatically have gotten 4 members in the parliament. As the vast majority of Green politicians are in fact female, we could be absolutely certain that their parliamentary group would not consist of 100% male members like the situation will be now.

[DC Al Fine]

The number of female parliamentarians will not increase from the last 4 year session and will still linger below 40%. Only two parties will have a majority female group; the Rural Party with 70% female representation and the Labour Party with 28 females against 26 males. The Progress Party will have the most conservative multi-member parliamentary group with nearly 80% men to represent them. Now how sad and old-fashioned isn't that?

My expectation was that the female representation would actually increase, since the Progress Party did a considerably worse election than both 2009 and 2005, however that did not turn out to be the case. When will the parties stop to almost always nominate a male politician as their number 1 choice in the 19 regional "fylker"?

A party supported mostly by older men ran mostly old men on it's candidate list. Not too surprising. What does surprise me is that SV is majority male and Centre is majority female. I would've expected the opposite. can someone enlighten me why Centre runs so many/SV runs so few female candidates?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Farmers wives.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I think three things could aliviate this situation and turn the female representation closer to where Sweden is at the moment (45% or higher):

1. The reduction in the number of fylker from 19 to for instance 15, 12 or 10. Some have even suggested a number as low as 5 to 7, though then called "regions" instead of "fylker".

That's bogus. Sweden has 29 constituencies. So the number is hardly the issue.
The problem is that the parties don't put women at the number one spot.
Sure you can try to "solve" the problem by some awful affirmative action law, but if the parties think it's a problem (which they of course should think) they should look over their internal party structure instead. Sweden has been able to reach 48% women in parliament without some lazy legislation to fall back on.

Thankfully I don't believe we'll see such nonsense from this new government. If we're really lucky they might even repeal the horrible affirmative action law already in place against company boards.      

Can someone enlighten me why Centre runs so many/SV runs so few female candidates?

I can't speak for SV, but the Nordic Centre Parties has always been on the forefront when it comes to female politicians. There are several reasons for that, which I unfortunately can't go into much detail about, but too make a long story short women in the Scandinavian country side has always had a stronger position tan those living in towns and cities, and the farmer parties often had a strong network for female members, as Al pointed out, often Farmer's wives (and/or daughters) 

[Viewfromthenorth]

It is complete bull to argue that reducing the number of fylker (which, by the way, have other responsibilities than being electoral districts, you realize) will increase the number of women in parliament.

It is also complete bogus to argue that forcing parties to run 50% women will improve the situation. I admire the Labour Party for doing it, but I've seen what kind of trouble it can lead to for them as well.

The real reason for there being fewer women than before in Parliament is quite simple - in most fylker, each party can only pick up a single representative. And there are more men heading the lists than women. That's not gender discrimination unto itself.

If people are so concerned about there not being enough women in parliament, they need to get the parties to vote for more women at the top of the lists!

[Franknburger]

I can't speak for SV, but the Nordic Centre Parties has always been on the forefront when it comes to female politicians. There are several reasons for that, which I unfortunately can't go into much detail about, but too make a long story short women in the Scandinavian country side has always had a stronger position tan those living in towns and cities.

I could imagine that strong female position having long historical roots, maybe dating back to the times when men were away all summer for ..eh.. business.. on foreign shores. Frisia is similar in these respects, and you also find such a pattern in the Cossack areas of Ukraine and Southern Russia (the Cossacks were free of serfdom and had the right for local self-administration, in exchange for military service for the Tsar, which often kept away men all summer from their villages).

[eric82oslo]

It is complete bull to argue that reducing the number of fylker (which, by the way, have other responsibilities than being electoral districts, you realize) will increase the number of women in parliament.

It is also complete bogus to argue that forcing parties to run 50% women will improve the situation. I admire the Labour Party for doing it, but I've seen what kind of trouble it can lead to for them as well.

The real reason for there being fewer women than before in Parliament is quite simple - in most fylker, each party can only pick up a single representative. And there are more men heading the lists than women. That's not gender discrimination unto itself.

It's not complete bull to argue for fewer fylker, when you argue the exact same thing indirectly. You say that the main reason for the low female representation is that in most fylker, each party can only expect at most one member of parliament. Well, if there were let's say only 5 or 10 fylker, that would no longer be the case. Then, instead, most parties could expect, on a good day, to achieve 2, 3 or even 4 members of parliament from most fylker. Thus the awful female representation would all of a sudden be history, more or less. Normally I would argue for more members of parliament instead, but then we would need a new Storting, I'm afraid. Today's parliamentary hall was only made for 150 members and we've already extended it with 19 beyond that. There is hardly place for any more expansion.

It's also the truth that women in general have considerably higher education than men in general. At least in Norway that's the case. Thus it's actually a threat towards the democracy itself that we mostly elect men. We want the best men and women to represent us, right? Not only the best men. Scientists can assure us that men and women think totally different cause their brains are very different. Thus it's a double threat to democracy that only one way of thinking has the vast majority of members of parliament. Imagine if we had almost 50-50, like Sweden already amazingly do. However the big difference between Sweden and Norway is that in Sweden almost every single party, from the leftist parties to the Conservatives, think exactly like the Norwegian Labour Party (and other leftist parties of Norway), and nominate 50% of each sex. In Norway, that custom has so far not been extended to the Conservatives and Progress Party (two of the three main parties) and I'm not sure if the Christian Democrats have changed their policy on the matter yet either? It's only a matter of time before the changes will come though. In 10-15 years it will all look very different even in Norway, I'm sure.