Politics and Elections in the Netherlands: coalition agreement presented

[Diouf]

I think the Danish system manages to combine proportionality and a local connection in a very good way without getting the two-tier system of MPs in a Mixed Member system. Furthermore, the open list system, which all but one party uses, means that all MPs will have a personal mandate from the electorate, and not just due to their position high on a party list. I believe it is quite rare in the current Dutch system that lowly ranked candidates get enough preferences to jump up the list. Additionally, the system is very simple for voters as they only have to vote once and choose their preferred candidate.

The Danish system in short: The country is divided into multi-member constituencies with 10-20 seats depending on size and population. 75% of the seats are divided proportionally between parties in each constituency, the remaining 25% are distributed among eligible parties (won 2% nationwide, or won one of the first 75% seats) to ensure a nationwide proportionality. These seats are then distributed between each party's candidates in the constituencies based on personal votes.


I don't think that oft-occuring grand coalitions is a flaw of a democratic system. Eg. in Germany a grand coalition is consistently the most preferred coalition among the voters, so I would hardly consider it any democratic flaw if that becomes the outcome again. If the electorate do consider it a significant problem, then they will vote for the anti-establishment parties in an ever increasing way, which will eventually lead to them being a part of governing in one way or another.

Therefore, I also don't agree with the fact that establishment vs. anti-establishment is a "wrong kind" of policy competition compared to the traditional way of e.g. social democrat vs conservative. Issues like immigration, law and order, EU have taken on a larger and larger importance among voters, and on these issues the policy competition between anti-establishment and establishment is very significant. The anti-establishment parties have clear policy alternatives on these issues, that they could put in place as a government a la Trump. These very real policy differences also means that I'm not really sure that the establishment vs. anti-establishment battle will erode the legitimacy of the system. I don't have long term statistical material, but in a lot of elections recently, the presence of a large anti-establishment anti-immigrant party has raised turnout.

[DavidB.]

I'm very well acquainted with the Danish system and wholeheartedly agree with the idea that it does a stellar job at "generating" or facilitating real political competition while maintaining proportionality. The reason why I don't think the Dutch should switch to the Danish system is that I think Danish bloc politics is largely based on historical political reasons, i.e. a political divide mainly based on class leading to a strong left-wing bloc and a strong "civic" bloc; political competition in the Netherlands, however, has historically been defined by both class and religion, which is why we always had a big centrist party, the CDA (and its main predecessor, the KVP), that could pick either the VVD or the PvdA for government cooperation. We never had a distinction between left and right as sharp as in Denmark. Even if we implement the Danish system in terms of institutions, I'd doubt political parties would start to form two blocs in the Netherlands. (Of course I see and appreciate the amount of cooperation across the aisle in Denmark and wouldn't overstate the importance of the blocs in terms of policymaking, but it is clear Danish political competition is defined by them: if you're a left-wing voter and you disagree with the government's policies, you're not going to vote for a Blue Bloc party, and if the Red Bloc wins the election, the government is going to be a different one.) And without the blocs I wouldn't see how the Danish system would solve most of the problems in the Netherlands. I think we need an institutional feature to trigger this left-right polarization.

I totally agree that "the new divide" (green/alternative/libertarian vs. traditional/authoritarian/nationalist; globalist vs. anti-globalist; you name it) is relevant and legitimate and I think it may be totally natural for that divide to (increasingly) define political competition, but I don't think this is the same as political competition on the basis of "establishment vs. anti-establishment". I agree with your point that anti-establishment parties can absolutely increase the perceived legitimacy of the political arena and I generally have a positive view of those parties, don't get me wrong. Opposition is necessary. At the same time there has to be some balance between establishment parties and anti-establishment parties.

I don't think grand coalitions are a democratic flaw, but having too many of them without a clear ideological direction will eventually erode trust in politics if there are big differences in political outlook among the electorate. Of course your argument is that those parties would simply be voted out if these coalitions are unpopular, which seems fair, but I still think it's better for democracy in the long run to have governments with a clear direction.

[mvd10]

MMM seems like a good idea. Grand coalitions don't have to be bad, but I don't think it's healthy for a democracy if most coalitions end up being centrist 4 party coalitions with only minimal movements to the left or the right depending on the election result. There needs to be a real choice imo.

[Dutch Conservative]

1. The problem
...
 A threshold won't solve this: the problem is not that we have too many small parties, but that there are no large parties anymore, meaning that too many parties have to be willing to sit in the government with each other.
...

So here's an idea for a Mixed Member Majoritarian (MMM) system.

(Another idea would be a 50-seat "Greek bonus" for the winner of the election.)

Thanks for this excellent and interesting post. I have two questions:
1. Exactly why wouldn't a threshold solve the problem? The small parties together count for a lot of votes. A threshold, say 5%, would eliminate those parties in a few elections and those votes will go to one of the larger parties. In the long term parties like 50plus or GroenLinks will become smaller and disappear. They can come back, but it gets harder. Power and votes will concentrate in a couple of strong voting blocks: progressive liberals, social-democrats, nationalist liberals and christian conservatives. Something like that. The left/right balance is about 50/50 right? (I think historically a slight advantage for the right). The minority vote would still be heard but then within the parties. That way people will have an extra incentive to become an active member, because they can influence the course of the party (which isn't the case right now, because the parties are so ideological fixed and there is a party for every voting sub-group).
2. I still don't really understand the MMM-system. Wouldn't people vote the same for their two votes? E.g. vote VVD 'downticket'. How would that solve anything then? I think I'm missing something here

[DavidB.]

1. With a 5% threshold like in Germany, only CU, GL, SGP, PvdD and 50Plus would be out based on the 2012 election (though fewer GL voters going for the PvdA tactically might have caused GL to reach the threshold; CU and SGP would just run a joint list and get in). In 2010, assuming CU and SGP would run a joint list, only PvdD would be out. Looking at the current polls, on the basis of which the political landscape would be an absolute mess and a coalition with five or more parties might be necessary, only the PvdD would be out (and FVD, VNL and DENK wouldn't stand a chance); all the others would still be in, and a coalition with five or more parties would still be necessary. So the problem is very clearly not the number of small parties or the number of seats small parties get, but rather the fact that we have a lot of mid-sized parties with 10 to 25 seats.

A 10% threshold would be a different case, and probably cause a major redefinition of the current party landscape. This is almost unheard of in actual democratic countries, though, and because of the fact that a lot of parties wouldn't be able to reach the threshold (which goes against Dutch history) while they do not really impede the coalition formation process right now and adding to the discussion in meaningful ways, this would not have my preference.

2. The idea would be that people can give a "sincere" vote for the list yet will vote tactically for the direct FPTP vote. Some may vote tactically for the list vote too, which would basically lead to the same effect as we saw in 2012, but that's no big deal. Smaller parties will still reach the 1% threshold (now 0.67%, of course). As for the FPTP vote, if you know you're in a PvdA-VVD swing district and your preference is GL, will you vote GL or PvdA for your direct vote? I think people will soon enough understand they have to vote tactically in such races in order to have their preferred candidate win the election. The first election may be a mess because it's unclear who the viable candidates are, but in subsequent elections parties can form coalitions (I could see VVD-CDA candidates contesting seats in Friesland or Groningen, where the PvdA is strong) and the electable alternatives will be clearer. Since this system is not proportional, the outcome of the 100 FPTP seat vote will be lopsized, giving a bigger mandate to the winning party and improving governability.

And even if people vote the same for their two votes, the result will not be the same. On the basis of the 2012 election VVD and PvdA would win almost all FPTP seats. The lead of both parties would be have been larger and the VVD would probably have been able to form a government with CDA and D66 rather than with the PvdA.

[parochial boy]

The trouble with any sort of FPTP voting though, is the emergence of a viable third (or more) party can have a real randomising effect.

thinking of places that have forms of FPTP voting but several major parties (Canada, Scotland and the Swiss Council of States come to mind), you quite regularly get seat allocation that is quite distorted from the popular vote.

I guess the PR side would mitigate that to some extent, and I tend to agree that parallel voting looks like the best system; but is there not a risk that you have France style parties forming alliances for single member constituencies (eg GL, PS, PvdA all standing one combined candidate) which would leave you with de facto grand coalitions at the end of the day?

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The Netherlands with PR = a smaller, flatter, richer India. The fragmented nature of society that produces the sort of insane kaleidoscopic elections that cause Concern would not go away just because the electoral system has altered!

[Dutch Conservative]

The trouble with any sort of FPTP voting though, is the emergence of a viable third (or more) party can have a real randomising effect.

thinking of places that have forms of FPTP voting but several major parties (Canada, Scotland and the Swiss Council of States come to mind), you quite regularly get seat allocation that is quite distorted from the popular vote.

I guess the PR side would mitigate that to some extent, and I tend to agree that parallel voting looks like the best system; but is there not a risk that you have France style parties forming alliances for single member constituencies (eg GL, PS, PvdA all standing one combined candidate) which would leave you with de facto grand coalitions at the end of the day?

Exactly my fear. I think people will use both votes strategically, so it wouldn't change anything really.

[DavidB.]

The trouble with any sort of FPTP voting though, is the emergence of a viable third (or more) party can have a real randomising effect.

thinking of places that have forms of FPTP voting but several major parties (Canada, Scotland and the Swiss Council of States come to mind), you quite regularly get seat allocation that is quite distorted from the popular vote.

I guess the PR side would mitigate that to some extent, and I tend to agree that parallel voting looks like the best system; but is there not a risk that you have France style parties forming alliances for single member constituencies (eg GL, PS, PvdA all standing one combined candidate) which would leave you with de facto grand coalitions at the end of the day?

This is a valid concern, though the problem is either the randomizing effect (for instance, parties regularly winning seats with 30 to 35% of the vote) or the formation of electoral coalitions in single-member districts that render actual coalition formation more difficult -- not both at the same time, of course. I tend to think the former problem would be more serious, but as you yourself say, it is mitigated by the PR vote and may be solved through the emergence of said electoral alliances. The latter problem isn't necessarily a problem and may solve yet another issue with Dutch politics: that most politicians are terribly unexperienced and tend to leave parliament at 52 in order to get a well-paying job in the private sector. The increase of electoral volatility has exacerbated this trend, with a terribly high number of incumbent MPs getting ousted every election. The formation of electoral alliances would render MPs more independent (since open primaries are rare, MPs are terribly dependent on their party in this country) and would mitigate the effects of volatility in the PR vote on the issue of "high MP turnover" (because popular MPs may get re-elected no matter what). If MPs are expected to express their preference for a certain coalition in advance, coalition formation wouldn't necessarily be impeded by this system (though I have to say I'm not that well acquainted with the downsides of the French system). And if district MPs are to become more independent, that would be perfectly in line with the pre-WWI situation in this country

Exactly my fear. I think people will use both votes strategically, so it wouldn't change anything really.

But this is a different issue. If people vote tactically for both votes that would still change everything. Let's look at the 2012 result (where people voted tactically for VVD or PvdA) and assume the PR vote would remain the same, but let's also assume people vote tactically for the FPTP vote. So let's say the FPTP vote in every district is identical to the PR vote (which wouldn't happen irl, but let's do this for the sake of argument). The FPTP vote would still lead to a very different outcome due to the nature of the system, with VVD and PvdA winning almost all districts (while they only won slightly over 50% of parliamentary seats in the PR vote). If in district X the VVD comes first with 35% of the vote, that would be equivalent to 35% of the national seats in a PR system, but under FPTP they win the seat (equivalent to 100%) and the others don't (0%). So even if people vote exactly the same way under FPTP, the outcomes will be different and the current issue will be solved, though parochial_boy's remark about the undesirability of having an MP win a district with less than 35% of the vote is very valid -- but that may be solved due to the fact that MPs will run as, for instance, VVD-CDA or PvdA-GL-PvdD candidates.

[DavidB.]

Votematch 2017 was launched at noon. Since it doesn't appear to be available in English, I translated the statements.

1. We should implement a binding referendum with which voters can take down laws that have been passed by parliament.
2. There ought to be a "civil draft" for youth, who then have to serve in the army, with the police or in the healthcare sector.
3. In order to prevent name-based discrimination, job applications with the government and public bodies should take place anonymously.
4. Group insult on the basis of race, religion or sexual orientation should no longer be punishable.
5. Cultivation and sale of marijuana should become legal [cultivation is illegal, sale is currently decriminalized but technically not legal, DavidB.]
6. Early conditional release of prisoners should be ended. Prisoners should carry out their full sentence.
7. The corporate profit tax should be lowered.
8. The highest earners should be paying more taxes.
9. The period of time in which one can conclude multiple temporary contracts on the job market should become more than two years. [Currently, employers either have to give you a non-temporary job or fire you after two years. This measure would lead to increasing labor market flexibility.]
10. The pension age should become 65 again [it is now gradually going up to 67].
11. All freelancers/independent contractors should have to insure themselves for becoming unfit for work and for healthcare costs.
12. The student loan system should be abolished; student grants/subsidies should return [they were abolished some two years ago, meaning that students now have to take loans unless their parents pay for their expenses].
13. More money should be allocated to arts and culture.
14. The Netherlands should close its borders for Muslim immigrants.
15. Asylum seekers' children who were raised in the Netherlands should have the right to stay here [even if their parents cannot].
16. The government should ban municipalities from giving shelter to illegal immigrants.
17. The mortgage interest tax deduction should not be encroached on even more.
18. Housing corporations should build more cheap social rental housing. Therefore, the tax they pay over rental housing should be scrapped.
19. Schiphol Airport should be allowed to grow.
20. The government should not tax owning a car, but rather tax the number of kilometers car owners drive.
21. More money should be allocated to building new roads.
22. All coal power plants should be allowed to stay open for the time being.
23. Meat should be subject to the high VAT tax of 21% [rather than the low one of 6%].
24. Elderly people who think their life has completed should be allowed to get help in ending their lives.
25. Copayments in the healthcare sector should be abolished, even if this means health insurance premiums will go up.
26. A national healthcare fund [similar to the NHS in the UK] should be implemented, so we can do away with the system of private insurance companies.
27. Defense expenses should go sharply up in the coming years in order to comply with NATO's 2% rule.
28. A European army should be created.
29. The Netherlands should increase spending on development aid for poor countries.
30. The Netherlands should leave the European Union.

Enjoy!

https://tweedekamer2017.stemwijzer.nl/#intro

[Dutch Conservative]

If in district X the VVD comes first with 35% of the vote, that would be equivalent to 35% of the national seats in a PR system, but under FPTP they win the seat (equivalent to 100%) and the others don't (0%). So even if people vote exactly the same way under FPTP, the outcomes will be different and the current issue will be solved, though parochial_boy's remark about the undesirability of having an MP win a district with less than 35% of the vote is very valid -- but that may be solved due to the fact that MPs will run as, for instance, VVD-CDA or PvdA-GL-PvdD candidates.

Now I understand! Thanks. It would be interesting to see how and where parties are concentrated.  I guess parties with a broad appeal will have a disadvantage and parties with a strong geographical base will benefit.

[Zinneke]

I honestly don't understand why the Dutch here are complaining, when they have a test lab downstairs from them that has reduced the common national interest (which is what is being voted for here, the formation of a unitary parliament representing every strand of the Dutch people, including the ones I dislike, like the SGP) to constituencies. It has been an unmitigated disaster in Belgium.

The issue of governance is a non-starter for me. Yes, the NL has had a lot of government collapses, but the NL is not a France, UK or Germany where you need a 1-2 party majority in order to govern such a large economy and military capability. Furthermore, parties that collapse governments in the lowlands always tend to suffer : LPF collapsing Balkende 2003, PvdA 2009, PVV 2012 then Open Vld here in Belgium. De Croo Jr basically ended his political career by collapsing Leterme I. In the NL, both VVD and PvdA knew this term that they had nothing to gain from a government collapse, with both projected to have a net seat loss. Eventually kids grow up.

The issue of distance between politics and citizens : name me one other country in Europe where a citizens movement like Leefbaar movement can turn itself (albeit through personalisation) into the 2nd political force of the country. Also, this is a phenomenon recorded in FPTP countries like the UK : ''Westminster Bubble'', ''Brexit is a bloody nose for the elite'' etc. Most of the MPs in the UK parliament still voted with the party whip rather than what their constituents wanted in one of the most divisive referendums in history. This is everywhere, the electoral system has nothing to do with it.

Simply having elected representatives from your constituency will just lead to regionalism, which leads me to my next point. As evidenced in Belgium and Spain, its not just regionalist parties that profit from electoral districts, its the mainstream behemoths too, who consolidate their bases and/or compete with the regionalists by surrounding their economic program with regional-based promises (''Bring back the coal mines to Wallonia'' - ''PSC-PSOE are the only ones who will keep the Francoists out of Catalan law''). THe D'hondt system combined with the electoral districts in Belgium has created micro-regionalist interests, and essentially created quasi-confederalism when negotiating our government formations in what is still supposed to be, constitutionally at least, a federal country.

NL has the least worst system. 1 man, 1 vote, low threshold. for a parliament that represents the national interest. Makes elections like these with everything to play for worth reporting on too.

EDIT : German system a close second, but it still allows for stuff like the CSU.

[Diouf]

Votematch 2017 was launched at noon. Since it doesn't appear to be available in English, I translated the statements.

Enjoy!

Got VVD 67%, CDA 60%, Pirates 50%

Lowest GL 23%, NonVoters 23%, GeenPeil 23%

Pretty much as expected. Had a bit of doubt about the mortgage deduction. Is it correctly understood that an agree to that question would mean that the tax deduction is not reduced, i.e. benefitting wealthy property owners who can get bigger tax deductions due to expensive mortgage interests?

[DavidB.]

Pretty much as expected. Had a bit of doubt about the mortgage deduction. Is it correctly understood that an agree to that question would mean that the tax deduction is not reduced, i.e. benefitting wealthy property owners who can get bigger tax deductions due to expensive mortgage interests?

Yes, you understood that correctly, though it wouldn't only benefit wealthy property owners (afaik it has been restricted over a certain amount of money already, though I'm sure mvd10 can tell you more about this) but also ordinary middle and upper middle class homeowners. Also, not further reducing it is the status-quo, so no one will get a bigger tax deduction than is now the case.

[IceAgeComing]

These are always hard when you don't know the specifics behind the issues mentioned: got 82% SP, 79% PvdD, 75% GroenLinks, then a three-way tie at 71% between PvdA, DENK and Artikel.  Going through the parties I've heard of who I can tell apart from their logos: 64% D66, 61% Pirates, 54% 50+, 46% ChristenUnie, PVV 25% (), CDA 25%, VVD and SGP 18%.  David, that sound right?

[SATW]

66% VNL
63% PVV
57% VVD

[DavidB.]

These are always hard when you don't know the specifics behind the issues mentioned: got 82% SP, 79% PvdD, 75% GroenLinks, then a three-way tie at 71% between PvdA, DENK and Artikel.  Going through the parties I've heard of who I can tell apart from their logos: 64% D66, 61% Pirates, 54% 50+, 46% ChristenUnie, PVV 25% (), CDA 25%, VVD and SGP 18%.  David, that sound right?

Yeah, sounds correct to me

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

Link is not working.

[DavidB.]

Link is not working.

The servers appear to be overloaded again. Happened a few times earlier today. Apparently everybody is trying to access it now.

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

Ok, its working. What does the answers mean? Probably this is "agree, not sure, disagree" but I want to be sure.

[DavidB.]

Ok, its working. What does the answers mean? Probably this is "agree, not sure, disagree" but I want to be sure.

Oh, yeah: agree, neither and disagree.

[Hash]

animals 81%
Artikel 78%
GL 75%
SP 72%
d(e)nk memes 72%
PvdA 72%
D66 69%

[DavidB.]

animals 81%
Artikel 78%
GL 75%
SP 72%
d(e)nk memes 72%
PvdA 72%
D66 69%

P sure none of those beat April Ludgate (though I love the Animals).

[MAINEiac4434]

Animals: 81% (surprising)

Artikel: 71%

PvdA: 68%

D66: 68%

GroenLinks: 68%

SP: 68%

Denk: 68%

VP: 62%

Pirates 61%

PVV is one of my last parties, behind even SGP.

[Grand Wizard Lizard of the Klan]

Thanks.


Artikel 1: 60% (would never vote)
Socialistische Partij: 60%
50PLUS: 53%
DENK: 53%
ChristenUnie: 50%
Piratenpartij: 50% (ugh, disgusting)
NIEUWE WEGEN: 50%
Partij voor de Dieren: 50%
Partij van de Arbeid: 47%
GroenLinks: 47%
Lokaal in de Kamer: 43%
De Burger Beweging: 43%
Partij voor de Vrijheid: 40%
Vrijzinnige Partij: 40%
Christen-Democratisch Appèl: 37% (my heart is broken)
Democraten 66: 33%
Ondernemers Partij: 27%
Forum voor Democratie: 27%
Staatkundig Gereformeerde Partij: 27% (I am shocked that so low, probably because there were little questions about social issues or they are very free-market oriented)
VoorNederland: 20%
Niet Stemmers: 17%
GeenPeil: 17%
Libertarische Partij: 13%


I am confused.