Norwegian Parliamentary Election 2013

[eric82oslo]

This is a fascinating election, and I'd be interested in knowing the electoral geography in Norway and other Nordic countries and the history behind it. Why do rural areas(which, in most other countries, including my own tend to vote conservatively) vote for left-wing parties by such overwhelming numbers, while underperforming in urban areas?

In Norway there are really huge regional differences. Mainly three areas tend to vote massively conservative; the southern & western regions (which are traditionally overwhelmed by Christian conservatives) as well as Greater Oslos (mostly the richer suburbs + the rich, western part of downtown/city of Oslo). Most of the rest of Norway, including all of the north, tend to lean more or less left. The rural east and the entire north vote massively for the Labour Party, as well as, to a lesser degree, Socialistic Left and the remains of the Farmers' Party (today called the Center Party).

It's interesting to see trends usually start in the capital though. While the Progress Party started to rise in numbers, during the 80ies and 90ies, their domain was mainly in Oslo. They had very little support in the rest of the country. However, for each consecutive election, this started to change more and more. Today it's actually the opposite way around; the party has massive support throughout the country, but Oslo is close to be their worst showing in the nation. Thus, to look for trends, one should primarily focus on the votes in the capital. It will probably tell us a whole lot of what the future holds. The most recent trend is probably that the environmentalists of the Environment Party The Greens (Miljøpartiet De Grønne) has started to gain a hold in a selected few cities, predominantly in Oslo & Trondheim. Soon we will know if this trend will continue even in this election. Their sister parties have already enjoyed huge success in several European countries including Sweden, Germany and France.

[eric82oslo]

It is however still unclear what kind of government the country will have after the election. The most likely alternatives are (not ranked):

1. Høyre/FrP (Will probably happen if these two get a majority alone)
2. Høyre/KrF/Venstre (repeat of Bondevik II, though with Høyre in a much more dominant role. Could well happen if FrP has a poor result)
3. Høyre/FrP/KrF/Venstre (A strongish FrP, but without a majority for FrP+Høyre could see this happen)
4. Høyre alone

All other combinations are completely unlikely, as far as I can see.

Probably. The only exception might be if Labour would do an amazing election campaign, and end up With 10%+ more votes than the Conservatives. Then I guess Jens might try to propose to the centre, With some kind of Ap/KrF/Sp coalition, possibly even include Venstre. I can see KrF accepting it, but Venstre would probably not be too happy, despite them being a socially very liberal party, unlike KrF.

[eric82oslo]

So, what seems to be the likely narrative of this campaign from now until election day? Is it even  possible for the government to mobilize and close in on the opposition at this point, at least enough so to deny the Hoyre/FrP an overall majority? Or is this a done deal?

In the last few elections, Jens has been by far the best campaigner of the lot, so it should definitely not be impossible to close in on the lead. However the right has an ace in hand this time around which they didn't back in 2009, that they will appear much more united in the eyes of the electorate, which probably was what cost them the victory last time around.

[eric82oslo]

Here are the results of the 2013 Norwegian High School Election which was released just 4 hours ago. Practically every single high school in Norway take part in this quite unique kind of election, making some experts claim that it is the most profound/extensive school election or even non-official parliamentary election in the world. This year a near record number of students (mostly between the ages of 15 & 18) voted in the election; 178,000 students to be precise. That is only 1,366 votes less than in the record high turnout in 2009. All in all 81.1% of all students took part, the highest turnout ever. It is highly likely that the high turnout & the political commitment among this current generation of teenagers is due to the terrorist attacks in Oslo and Norway two years ago, which was aimed at the ruling political party, and in particular on their youth organisation.

So, here are the actual votes cast in the 2013 Norwegian High School Election:

1. Conservative Party (Høyre) - 28.3% (first time they've ever won this election)
2. Labour Party (Arbeiderpartiet) - 23.3%
3. Progress Party [far right] (Fremskrittspartiet) - 15.6%
4. Liberal Party (Venstre) - 6.6%
5. Socialist Left Party (SV) - 5.1%
6. Piracy Party (Piratpartiet) - 4.3% (basically the same kind of party as their Swedish sister party, for those familiar with them, basically wants laws to warmly embrace internet piracy)
7. Farmers' Party/Rural Party (Senterpartiet) - 4.0%
8. The Green Environmentalists (MDG) - 3.7%
9. Red [far left] (Rødt) - 3.7%
10. Christian People's Party (KrF) - 2.9%
11. The Christians [extremely conservative Christian party] (De Kristne) - 0.6%
12. Retirees' Party (Pensjonistpartiet) - 0.6%
13. Coastal Party [basically a party for fishermen & their allied] (Kystpartiet) - 0.5%
14. The Democrats [very far right] (Demokratene) - 0.3%
15. The Liberal People's Party [ideology somewhere between Liberal Party & Progress Party, 2nd pro-marihuana party besides The Greens] (Det Liberale Folkeparti) - 0.2%
16. Norwegian Communist Party (NKP) - 0.2%
17. United Christians Party [basically the same as The Christians, perhaps slighly less conservative/reactionary/old-fashioned?] (Kristent Samlingsparti) - 0.1%

The remaining four parties aren't even worth mentioning, they got 0.1% of the vote or less.

And these are the biggest winners and losers compared to the 2009 Norwegian High School Election.

Biggest winners:

1. Conservative Party: +12.1%
2. Piracy Party: +4.3%
3. The Green Environmentalists: +2.4%
4. The Christians: +0.6%
5. Liberal Party: +0.6%

Biggest losers:

1. Progress Party [far right, the 2011 terrorist was a member of this party]: -8.4%
2. Socialist Left Party: -5.2%
3. Farmers' Party/Rural Party: -1.8%
4. Red [far left]: -1.1%
5. Coastal Party: -0.9%
6. Christian People's Party: -0.8%
7. Retirees' Party: -0.6%
8. The Democrats [very far right]: -0.2%
9. Labour Party: -0.2%
10. Norwegian Communist Party: -0.1%
11. United Christians' Party: -0.1%

Way more losers this time than winners in other words. Basically every single party on the left side of the political spectrum (possibly with the exception of The Greens, though they so far have refused to choose political side) experience a loss of voters. Only two parties witness shifts of more than 6% one way or the other though; the big winners of this upcoming election clearly, the Conservative Party, which is on its way to do one of its strongest elections since the early 20th century [it was one of the two original parties in Norway back in the 19th century]. And the big loser being Progress Party, though it has to be said that this is still a strong election for the party. It is just that the 2009 election was by far their strongest election in that party's history. However, it is worth noticing that the party did really terrible among high school youths in the nation's capital, Oslo, where almost every single strong political wind starts. They got only 7.9% of the votes in Oslo, which is their 2nd worst high school showing ever, only beaten by the even more mediocre post-terrorist attack 2011 election result (though that wasn't a parliamentary election, but a regional one). It was in Oslo that the Progress Party once got a strong hold back in the 80ies and 90ies. Now, it is also the first region where they are experiencing heavy losses. Not only among teenagers, but among voters of all ages. One reason might be that big city voters are far more tolerant than voters in smaller towns and cities. Another reason is of course that a huge percentage of the population of Oslo are immigrants themselves, or children of immigrants (about 30%, the highest in the nation). The Progress Party is the only major anti-immigration party in Norway, and have had a long history of using very racist rhetoric, although they have become far more moderate during the last few years. At least when it comes to use of rhetorics, perhaps less when it comes to actual policy decisions? (They are highly likely to be part of the new post-election government, so time might tell.) Also, obviously, the party's politicians, and its leader in particular, had to drastically change their communication towards voters in general after it was revealed that the 2011 terrorist was one of their own, or had been an active member of the party just a few years prior.

Here a picture from the Conservatives' high school election monitoring (with the most likely future prime minister in blue):

[eric82oslo]

12. Retirees' Party (Pensjonistpartiet) - 0.6%

So 0.6 % of Norwegian high school students plan to retire after their graduation?

Something like that I guess. Either that or one of their grandparents must be their best friend.

This is actually the worst showing the Retirees' Party has received among high school students in years and years, believe it or not.

[eric82oslo]

Isn't the Progress Party in Norway the equivalent of the Sweden democrats in Sweden who are considered plutonium and taboo to have any dealings with...as far as I can tell the only real difference is that Progress got into parliament longer again Norway so I guess people have been lulled into accepting them as a civilized party.

In my opinion Progress Party used to be far more right wing than Sweden Democrats were at their most extreme (and pre parliamentary-entrance, when they too were really racist like Progress Party used to be). However, post-22/7, Siv Jensen (leader) and most of her staff have not deared to utter really racist stuff in the immigration debate anymore as they used to do almost daily pre-22/7.

[eric82oslo]

The Norwegian FRP is in my opinion the least right-wing off the Scandinavian far right parties. FRP started as a tax protest/populist party in the seventies as the Danish FRP did. The danish FRP became the more nationalist and anti muslim. The swedish SD however grew out of the racist and extreme right BSS and Sverigepartiet. They call themseleves social conservatvie but many off the grassroots are still nationalist and there is a conflict there. The finnish PS is populist and somewhat nationalist but not that hardcore. Both PS and DF are memmbers off the Euroskpetic EFD but the Swedish SD is cooperting with the French FN and would join a far right group in EP.

From left to right
FRP (Norway) PS (Finland) DF (Denmark) SD (Sweden)

Very well explained. Though I'd probably list DF to the right of SD, despite SD's more racist roots.

And Frp used to be way, way to the right of Dansk Folkeparti during the 90ies and early 2000s, basically all the time while Carl. I Hagen remained as the Pia Kjaersgaard in devil. He was basically her guardian devil for a couple of decades. After Siv Jensen took over, the racist rhetoric started to decline, but it wasn't until the terrorist attack by their own political sympathiser that their rhetoric started to take a completely different form. It's okey for people to have short memories, I don't judge them for that. The Final Party Leader Debate tonight was extremely interesting. Extremely interesting because I've never ever ever seen Progress Party that defensive and out of the place before. Every single party from Red to the Conservatives kept attacking Progress Party for 2 hours straight, and Siv Jensen had absolutely nothing to say for her own defense.

[eric82oslo]

The Norwegian FRP is in my opinion the least right-wing off the Scandinavian far right parties. FRP started as a tax protest/populist party in the seventies as the Danish FRP did. The danish FRP became the more nationalist and anti muslim. The swedish SD however grew out of the racist and extreme right BSS and Sverigepartiet. They call themseleves social conservatvie but many off the grassroots are still nationalist and there is a conflict there. The finnish PS is populist and somewhat nationalist but not that hardcore. Both PS and DF are memmbers off the Euroskpetic EFD but the Swedish SD is cooperting with the French FN and would join a far right group in EP.

From left to right
FRP (Norway) PS (Finland) DF (Denmark) SD (Sweden)

Very well explained. Though I'd probably list DF to the right of SD, despite SD's more racist roots.

For that matter why not a "grand coalition of Labour, Hoyre and Ventre"

Because Scandinavia isn't Austria or Germany. Grand Coalitions only happens here if there's a World War. You know stuff like this DL, you've lived in Scandinavia for God's sake.

This is ridiculous. Of couse a grande coalition could be just as happening here as everywhere else. The only thing stopping it is that the Scandinavian Labour Party has been way, way, way stronger in Norway, Sweden and in parts in Denmark than in almost any other country in the world. That's what's stopping a centre-centre-government from forming. And only that. Don't keep telling your head ridiculous reasons okey?

[eric82oslo]

If we look att the Nordic nationalist and rightwing popolust parties and their economic policies we have to change the scale. The dansih DF is almaost socialdemocratic in their economic policies. The finnish PS is alsmot leftwing. The Swedish SD is centrist, som welfare policies but also decreasing taxes. The FRP is almost libertarian.

The economic scale
PS (Finland) - DF (Denmark) - SD (Sweden) - FRP (Norway)

I completely 100% agree with you that Frp is by far the most right wing nationalist party in the Nordic countries. It's hard to say which is the least nationalist/right wing, but it's certainly not Frp or Dansk Folkeparti. In other words it has to be either Sverigedemokratene or the Finnish party which I don't know a whole lot about unfortunately. The latter party that is. Sverigedemokratene is like a facial massage compared to how Frp used to be during the 90ies.

[eric82oslo]

I’m not sure about FrP. But it seems like their best results are in rural areas.

Frp is the new Senterpartiet, more or less. The ignorants vote for them, everyone else try to escape them as if they were the black death.

[eric82oslo]

eric82oslo, I find your hatred and descriptions of FrP completely irrational. FrP are considerably more moderate than they were in, say, 1989. Them entering government will likely be about as harmless as SV entering government was in 2005. Dansk Folkeparti is in my view to the right of FrP. And, lastly, there are educated people who vote for FrP as well (albeit not many).

Educated doesn't mean non-egoistic. Of course there are educated people out there who are extremely narcisistic and self-loving.

[eric82oslo]

I notice that KrP & Venstre are making decent gains. Do they take votes mostly from Hoyre, or Frp?

Not actually sure. Both parties are appealing to the "want a new government but are really afraid of FrP" segment, which is probably going to be quite successful. I'd guess mostly Høyre, though KrF may appeal more to rural and working-class voters who would otherwise vote FrP.

Yeah, KrF seems to be doing an amazingly horrific election in the Bible Belt of Southern Norway, only getting around 8%, while they almost always get between 20% and 25% there. It's quite clear that almost all of the Christian voters in the south have deserted the party in favor of Frp, which is the only other big Norwegian party which still advocates Christian conservative and ridiculous values like hating on gays.

[eric82oslo]

If I am not mistaken, the election is tomorrow. How about a bit of preliminary information such as

- Poll opening and closure
- When will the first projections be available? How precise are they typically?
- Around which time can we expect to have fairly stable results?
- Websites where live results will be reported
- Regions/ constituencies to look out for (bellweathers etc.)

Thanks in advance.

There are a few news and records available this year already before the election officially closes tomorrow.

1. A new record of early voters has been set. This years number of 842,400 early voters - which make up almost 25% of the entire electorate, is a vast improvement from the past record sat in 2009, being about 180,000 votes higher than that one. This will make the early projections, to be released by NRK when the election halls close down at 9 o'clock CET tomorrow, even more reliable than ever before. New of the year is that NRK will no longer organize an election day poll, as analysis from the 2009 election showed that already then, with fewer early voters than this year, the early projections were in fact closer to the actual result than the various election day polls released by various media outlets.

2. In addition to the early votes cast, in 12 municipalities across the country, voters have been able to cast their vote through internet. This is the very first time this has been possible in a parliamentary election, although it was already tried out in a similar amount (10) of municipalities in the 2011 local elections, with very satisfying results and a high turnout. Preliminary results point to a very high turnout this time around as well in the 12 municipalities in question. The biggest cities/municipalities taking part in this trial this time are Sandnes (together with Stavanger Norway's 3rd most populous city), Fredrikstad (together with Sarpsborg Norway's 5th biggest city), Ålesund (Norway's 10th largest city), Bodø (2nd largest city in Northern Norway), Larvik, Mandal and Hammerfest (historically Norway's northern-most city). The remaining 5 municipalities taking part are just minor towns/municipalities.

3. 9 out of the 19 election regions, the so-called "fylker", which is the second highest administrative level (similar to US states), have experienced either a gain or a loss of parliamentary representatives compared to the 2009 election. Oslo has gained 2 new members; up from 17 to 19, making it very lucrative for smaller parties like The Greens and Red to compete for votes in the capital. The other 3 "fylker" with a gain of one member each are Akershus, Hordaland and Rogaland. All 4 among the most southern of the Norwegian "fylker". Similarily, all 5 "fylker" losing parliamentary members this time are among the more "northern" of Norway's fylker, clearly indicating that we're seeing a rapid shift of where people are chosing to settle. Many towns in the north are becoming more and more deserted while Oslo at the same time is seeing an unprecedented growth. The 5 fylker experiencing a loss of members (1 each) are Troms, Nordland, Nord-Trøndelag, Sogn og Fjordane and Hedmark. All 5 traditionally strong regions for the governing Farmers' Party/Rural Party (Senterpartiet), at the same time as Oslo is by far the party's weakest fylke. This might imply that Senterpartiet might do an unusually bad election, even worse than the polls have been suggesting. The parties most likely to benefit from these changes are the minor parties like Red, The Greens, Liberal Party and Socialist Left, as well as the Conservative Party due to having a strong hold in the big cities of Oslo, Bergen (Hordaland) and Stavanger (Rogaland), as well as the Oslo suburbs in Akershus. A parliamentarian member from Oslo is almost certain for The Greens at this stage. Two members from the capital are also quite possible in fact. They also have about a 50% chance, if not more, of obtaining a member from Hordaland. Green representatives from Akershus and Sør-Trøndelag are also definitely possible, although slightly more remote possibilities. Red is very likely to get a member from Oslo.

4. Aftenposten, Norway's biggest news paper, released an article this evening which said that Statistics Norway had looked at the 2009 results and found out that Gjerdrum in Akershus - in the middle of Oslo and the Oslo suburb of Lillestrøm at one end and the national airport Gardermoen at the other extreme - was the county/municipality closest to the national results in 2009. They were also second closest in 2005 and third closest in 2001. It is a municipality on the verge between the urban and rural divide, which might explain why it's currently regarded as the utmost bellweather county of Norway. The article: http://www.aftenposten.no/nyheter/iriks/Her-bor-valgprofetene-7304142.html#.Ui0uufI4VYc

5. It's not exactly a news, yet the Norwegian election system for the national parliament is heavily undemocratic in one aspect; the fact that not only the population of each region/county/state/fylke decide how many members each fylke will get, but also the size of each fylke. This is a huge contrast to many other Western countries, including the US and Australia, where only the population of each congressional county decides the outcome of elections (like in elections for the House of Representatives in the US). This makes for very odd and uncomfortable outcomes of parliamentary elections. While Finnmark, the least populous fylke, has only 53,000 voters in this election, the capital Oslo has 435,000 eligible voters. This means that Oslo has 8.2 times as many voters. Yet Oslo has "only" 19 members of parliament, while Finnmark has as many as 5. This again means that Oslo only has 3.8 times as many members. In other words, a vote in Finnmark is worth more than double of a similar vote in Oslo. This is not exactly democracy in action, and does of course favor the rural parties (mostly Senterpartiet) heavily, but also the big, national parties (traditionally Labour, in this election also the Conservatives, although to a slightly lesser extent as they're still considered more of an urban party). More on these changes here: http://no.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stortingsvalget_2013#Endringer_f.C3.B8r_valget

This is the number of members awarded to each fylke in the 2013 election:

Oslo: 19
Akershus: 17
Hordaland: 16
Rogaland: 14
Sør-Trøndelag: 10
Østfold, Buskerud, Møre og Romsdal, Nordland: 9
Vestfold, Oppland, Hedmark: 7
Vest-Agder, Troms, Telemark: 6
Nord-Trøndelag, Finnmark: 5
Sogn og Fjordane, Aust-Agder: 4

However, if each vote had counted equally in all parts of the country, meaning that geographically tiny fylker like Oslo and Vestfold had not get punished as they are today, the number of members would instead have looked like this:

Oslo: 20 (+1)
Akershus: 18 (+1)
Hordaland: 16 (almost 17)
Rogaland: 14
Sør-Trøndelag: 10
Østfold: 10 (+1)
Buskerud: 9
Møre og Romsdal: 9
Nordland: 8 (-1)
Vestfold: 8 (+1)
Hedmark: 7
Oppland: 7
Telemark: 6
Vest-Agder: 6
Troms: 6
Nord-Trøndelag: 5
Aust-Agder: 4
Sogn og Fjordane: 4
Finnmark: 3 (-2) [in fact they would only get 2.5, which I decided to round up to 3]

In other words, the three northernmost fylker would lose 3 members, while Oslo, Akershus, Østfold and Vestfold would all gain one member each. In fact one more fylke would have to give up on one of its members, but I'm not quite sure which one it would be. Doesn't feel fair to punish the smallest one of them all, Finnmark. The easiest solution would probably be to increase the number of members with one or a handful.

If it was up to me, I would have made three major changes to the current electoral system in Norway:

1. Reduce the number of fylker from today's 19 to a more managable 10. Then you could merge the smallest fylker like Finnmark, Sogn og Fjordane and Aust-Agder with their neighbours. It would drastically heighten the number of members from each fylke and thus make the process more democratic almost everywhere.
2. Get rid of the "mountains and fjords deserve a vote as well". Only actual human beings should be able to have a say in democratic processes. Thus Oslo should be just as valueble as Finnmark. In USA, the equivalent would be that Washington D.C. residents or voters in NYC should have just as much say in the electoral process as Sarah Palin and her Alaskan compatriots.
3. Reduce the threshold from today's 4% to only 1% or the very maximum 2%. In fact, the threshold shouldn't have to be any higher than 0.7% in fact, since there are as many as 167 parliamentarians in the Norwegian "Stortinget".

[eric82oslo]

Higher turnout is likely both due to the right being energized and due to the Labour Party mobilizing heavily at the last minute.

Also due to July 22 (youth turnout increased by 10 percentage points in 2011, I think from 50% to 60% or something like that), the fact that the High School Election showed the highest turnout ever recorded, the fact that it's easier than ever to cast a vote (due to the new e-election and a longer early voting period than ever before; 2 full months) and the fact that all major newspapers in Norway (about 20) have held an intense campaign for at least a month urging everyone to use their voice and vote (nothing like this has been tried out before, at least not on this massive scale & cooperated effort; they've also been clever using tons of humour and a professional PR company to get their message out).

[eric82oslo]

Any word on turnout so far ?

The turnout differences between regions are really wild in this election. From less than 51% in Oslo to incredible 81% in Akershus, which is basically the suburbian Oslo + a little bit more. For the nation as a whole, the turnout so far has been pitched to disappointing 71% only. It seems like the turnout is really horrific in most of the big cities like Oslo, Bergen and Stavanger. I have no idea why the differences are so huge. It's true that immigrants vote much less frequently than other groups, but even in Oslo, immigrants make up only 17% of all eligible voters. Another difference is of course that voters/inhabitants in the big cities are on average much younger than inhabitants in suburbia and other regions. A huge amount of the eligible voters in Oslo are younger than 40 years. It's a fact that younger voters turn out much less frequently than their older counterparts.

[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.

[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.

[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.

[eric82oslo]

So, reduce the amount of an administrative unit with actual functions other than being electoral districts to achieve better gender balance in Parliament. Sounds entirely logical to me.

Once again, it's much easier on everyone if people who are concerned about this can go to the party meetings and help nominate women at the top of the lists.

Basically every party and politician seem to think that 19 fylker is way too much anyways. It's not some kind of revolution. The big question is not if the number of fylker should be reduced, but rather if they should be reduced or abolished altogether. The Conservatives and Progress Party seem to prefer an abolishment, while most other parties rather prefer bigger regions to substitute today's fylker. Personally I'm for a continuation of fylker, but I would like to see a reduction in the number. Preferably to about half of what it is today. I also think that the number of municipalities should be reduced with about 200%. Today we have 428 of them I think. I don't see why we would need more than about 100. The municipalities would be run much more efficiently and most of them would save so much money. Plus there would be so many other benefits as well.

[eric82oslo]

Why did the MDG do so well in this election? Why did the people who switched to the MDG in this election not vote for Venstre or the SV?

Because MDG had much more fresh and modern solution to old-fashioned and some new, issues? I don't find it strange at all. Had I not voted MDG, I would either have voted Rødt, SV or Venstre. My big issue with Venstre was their blue-blue-alliance, basically making it 100% impossible for me to vote for them. Similarily I hate both Centre Party and Labour Party and have no respect what so ever for the new party leader of SV, which basically makes it next to impossible for me to vote SV. So my vote was extremely simple. Either to vote MDG or to vote Rødt for the very first time. The chance was more than 90%, honestly even way more than 95% that I would vote MDG. Which I did. I've never ever ever been more proud of a political choice I've made, even not my non-significant vote for Obama in 2008.