Sweden election 2022

[GM Team Member and Senator WB]

what a mess. Very odd to me that it seems like unlike elsewhere Sweden actually is proving the old meme of "gen Z will be the most conservative generation!"

[H. Ross Peron]

It was clear from looking at the commune-level results that there were a good deal of #trendz this election, and that’s confirmed by this exit poll. To summarise (brackets show changes from 2018):

White-collar workers:
S: 32% (+3)
M: 21% (-1)
SD: 15% (+3)

Blue-collar workers:
S: 32% (-2)
SD: 29% (+5)
M: 14% (-)

Self-employed and farmers:
M: 25% (-4)
SD: 24% (+1)
S: 19% (+6)

What’s very striking is that the SAP’s share among working class voters has declined at every election since 2002, when it stood at 50%, meaning there’s been a decline of almost 40% over those 20 years.

What explains the 6 point with SAP among the self-employed and farmers?

[Clarko95 📚💰📈]

Election Authority warns that while they start counting absentee ballots on Wednesday, they may need all of Thursday to count as well, given the high absentee vote totals. Hence we may not get the almost-official result until Thursday.

Self-employed and farmers:
M: 25% (-4)
SD: 24% (+1)
S: 19% (+6)

What explains the 6 point with SAP among the self-employed and farmers?

Combination of gaining highly educated self-employed people in urban areas from the right but also gaining rural votes from C, as C neglected their traditional issues such as welfare services in the countryside, fuel prices, developing rural areas so they are attractive areas to move to, keeping open schools in rural areas, small business health, agriculture, Swedish food production, etc.

C bled votes to both S and SD in rural areas, in some places like Jämtland strikingly so.

[Ex-Assemblyman Steelers]

Aftonbladet has a neat election map, all the way down to precinct level.

Thanks for posting this, cool map!

Now I'm curious why The Left / V does so well in downtown Malmö... They get upwards of 45% in some places which is completely out of sync with other urban Swedish areas.

Degerfors still stands!!! Why is there Left party stronghold?

[mileslunn]

Among voters aged 18-21: M 26, SD 22, S 19.

https://twitter.com/indubioproreto/status/1569159936919371777

Idea Millennials and Gen Z lean left is more an Anglosphere phenomenon than global.  Outside Anglosphere its a mix and general trend is more non-traditional parties, not necessarily left or right.  Even in Anglosphere, UK is real outlier where Millennials/Gen Z massively favour Labour.  In US once you adjust for race and education, age gap largely disappears.  Democrat dominance of Millennials/Gen Z has more to do with fact less white and more educated.  In Canada that was more a one off in 2015 when Trudeau first won and yes Millennials then voted massively Liberal but in last two elections Conservative support amongst Millennials/Gen Z has only been 3-5 points lower than overall support and even there big gender divide with Conservatives winning males under 35 but losing badly amongst females under 35. 

In case of UK, when polled on issues age gap is much smaller than voter intention is so I think its more a reflection of Tories being in power for over a decade and younger voters feeling they are not getting ahead.  I suspect if Labour was in power for 10 years, it would be a very different story.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Can we go back to discussing Sweden please? Thank you.

[Logical]

Also notable is how every former Alliansen party has lost seats. Meanwhile the traditional Red-Green bloc has gained 6 seats despite #trendz.

[DL]

What is the "raison d'etre" of the Liberals in Sweden? What do they stand for that isn't already amply covered either by the Centre Party or the Moderates?

At one time they billed themselves as a socially liberal middle of the road party that would appeal to teachers and intellectuals - but now they have decided to support a government dependent on and at the beck and call of the neo-Nazis in SD - so they are now basically identical to the Moderates. Why do they exist at all?

The impression I get is still kinda serving that very small base of those too progressive for any other Right party, to fiscally conservative for C or M. But the real reason for existing still is to just get over the threshold. The right as a whole can't see them waste 2% of the vote, as polls during the off-season these days say, so voters act tactically.

I can understand why some people might still vote for the Liberals to keep them above the 4% hurdle...but my question is why do they exist at all? Why don't they just fold as a party? If the reason for them to exist is to give socially liberal but fiscally conservative people a party to vote for - doesn't the Centre party already offer that and C is not selling its soul by agreeing to the formation of a government that includes neo-Nazis.

[It’s so Joever]

Arguably the most #Trends results map Sweden has ever had. A sea of blue across the south, except when there is a city.

I am still confused why the North votes SD, is it because of Sami voters, is it like Northern MN where it's more because of unions?

[Secretary of State Liberal Hack]

What is the "raison d'etre" of the Liberals in Sweden? What do they stand for that isn't already amply covered either by the Centre Party or the Moderates?

At one time they billed themselves as a socially liberal middle of the road party that would appeal to teachers and intellectuals - but now they have decided to support a government dependent on and at the beck and call of the neo-Nazis in SD - so they are now basically identical to the Moderates. Why do they exist at all?

The impression I get is still kinda serving that very small base of those too progressive for any other Right party, to fiscally conservative for C or M. But the real reason for existing still is to just get over the threshold. The right as a whole can't see them waste 2% of the vote, as polls during the off-season these days say, so voters act tactically.

I can understand why some people might still vote for the Liberals to keep them above the 4% hurdle...but my question is why do they exist at all? Why don't they just fold as a party? If the reason for them to exist is to give socially liberal but fiscally conservative people a party to vote for - doesn't the Centre party already offer that and C is not selling its soul by agreeing to the formation of a government that includes neo-Nazis.

Parties have a lot of legacy and people tied to the brand. They die slowly.

[Vosem]

What is the "raison d'etre" of the Liberals in Sweden? What do they stand for that isn't already amply covered either by the Centre Party or the Moderates?

At one time they billed themselves as a socially liberal middle of the road party that would appeal to teachers and intellectuals - but now they have decided to support a government dependent on and at the beck and call of the neo-Nazis in SD - so they are now basically identical to the Moderates. Why do they exist at all?

The impression I get is still kinda serving that very small base of those too progressive for any other Right party, to fiscally conservative for C or M. But the real reason for existing still is to just get over the threshold. The right as a whole can't see them waste 2% of the vote, as polls during the off-season these days say, so voters act tactically.

I can understand why some people might still vote for the Liberals to keep them above the 4% hurdle...but my question is why do they exist at all? Why don't they just fold as a party? If the reason for them to exist is to give socially liberal but fiscally conservative people a party to vote for - doesn't the Centre party already offer that and C is not selling its soul by agreeing to the formation of a government that includes neo-Nazis.

I think I would probably have voted L at this election (but maybe M, not sure), but the answer to your question is that political parties virtually never fold; it's the same as why the New Democrats and Liberals in Canada don't merge. L has a history going back to 1902, and at this point there are entire generations that have spent their whole lives in the party; it's not going to go away that easily. Also, it's long since been observed in politics that the whole is never as great as the sum of its parts; two parties merging always end up with less support than the two would separately, in pretty much any nation. (Except Italy). Socially liberal but fiscally conservative politics in general would be weaker if L decided to merge into C or M.

[DavidB.]

The impression I get is still kinda serving that very small base of those too progressive for any other Right party, to fiscally conservative for C or M.

Can we please please call this something like "economically liberal" in any European thread? Otherwise I'm afraid my head will explode.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

I am still confused why the North votes SD, is it because of Sami voters, is it like Northern MN where it's more because of unions?

Northern and central Sweden is very industrial, so northern MN is the right idea. In the far north (Norbotten) you have a lot of mining for example.

It's also, not as rural as it might appear. Don't get me wrong, there a clearly very left-wing rural areas in the North, but if you look at Norbotten, the most left-wing region in the country, 37% of the population lives in the two major settlements of Luleå and Piteå at the coast. 

EDIT: Also SD is always only used for Sweden Democrats. The Social Democrats are abbreviated S or SAP. I understood what you meant from context, but you might end up making a lot of people confused by mixing up S and SD. 

[Oryxslayer]

I am still confused why the North votes SD, is it because of Sami voters, is it like Northern MN where it's more because of unions?

Northern and central Sweden is very industrial, so northern MN is the right idea. In the far north (Norbotten) you have a lot of mining for example.

It's also, not as rural as it might appear. Don't get me wrong, there a clearly very left-wing rural areas in the North, but if you look at Norbotten, the most left-wing region in the country, 37% of the population lives in the two major settlements of Luleå and Piteå at the coast.  

To add on to this, I hate to paint things with very broad brushes, but this is one case where such things apply. There are really only three reasons why people choose live in the earth's extremes - deserts, mountaintops, frozen wastes - if they have the opportunity to choose and live elsewhere:

1) Tradition. "My parents and their parents and their parents lived here and so shall I." Does not exclusively apply to native/indigenous/minority groups, though they are a large component. Abandoning community is a big ask, especially in a part of the world where such ties are strong. Usually votes left for identity, the necessity of local government access and services, or community related reasons.

2) Money. Usually obtained through resource extraction. Oil workers align right, miners usually left and pro-union. If transitory, where no single group of residents wants to be there for more than needed, against whatever will demand more of them than the contract asked.

3) Military. Self-explanatory and usually votes Right.

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

The results in rural areas are really dire for the Centre Party. The result, 6,7% isn't the party's worst results compared to other elections, the party did worse in 1998, 2002, 2010 and 2014, however that's thanks to good results in the cities. If you look at the rural areas that has always been the party's strongholds, it's dismal.

In several of the more rural constituencies, such as Kronoberg, Kalmar, Scania North East and Jämtland the party has not won seats for the first time ever. Instead the party has kept its seat in Malmö, which it won as recently as the last election and which would be the first to go away in a normal bad year for the party. Furthermore in Stockholm city, where the party as recently as 1998 didn't have a single seat in, C have kept three seats. Coupled with very disappointing local election results, there is quite a bit of anger among the party membership.


I wouldn't be surprised if Lööf has resigned as party leader by the end of the year.

[mileslunn]

I am still confused why the North votes SD, is it because of Sami voters, is it like Northern MN where it's more because of unions?

Northern and central Sweden is very industrial, so northern MN is the right idea. In the far north (Norbotten) you have a lot of mining for example.

It's also, not as rural as it might appear. Don't get me wrong, there a clearly very left-wing rural areas in the North, but if you look at Norbotten, the most left-wing region in the country, 37% of the population lives in the two major settlements of Luleå and Piteå at the coast.  

To add on to this, I hate to paint things with very broad brushes, but this is one case where such things apply. There are really only three reasons why people choose live in the earth's extremes - deserts, mountaintops, frozen wastes - if they have the opportunity to choose and live elsewhere:

1) Tradition. "My parents and their parents and their parents lived here and so shall I." Does not exclusively apply to native/indigenous/minority groups, though they are a large component. Abandoning community is a big ask, especially in a part of the world where such ties are strong. Usually votes left for identity, the necessity of local government access and services, or community related reasons.

2) Money. Usually obtained through resource extraction. Oil workers align right, miners usually left and pro-union. If transitory, where no single group of residents wants to be there for more than needed, against whatever will demand more of them than the contract asked.

3) Military. Self-explanatory and usually votes Right.

If you plot right vs. left in relation to population density you get more a U shape then straight line less dense is more right wing.  Its just that outside Canada, Norway, Sweden, and Finland you don't really have much of those sparsely populated areas.  North of Norway, Finland and Canada all generally go left so I think living in a cold harsh climate, people rely more on government services.  I also noticed that municipalities with highest tax rates are mostly in the North too.  Average municipal rate is 32%, but in Southern Sweden most are in the 29-32% whereas in the North most are 34-35% so probably due to logistics, things require more government funding so people favour parties that will favour an activist government vs. smaller (Yeah I know Sweden right is not your small government like in English speaking world, but still talking relative)

[DavidB.]

Some very specific questions to our Swedes:

1. Why is SD so strong in Dalarna compared to surrounding regions?
2. What's the deal with Gotland? Left-wing overperformance, SD weak, etc.
3. What would be a good explanation for SD's relative weakness in Västerbotten (also compared to Norrbotten)?

[Swedish Rainbow Capitalist Cheese]

Also, things are not too cheerful in the Left Party either.

They entered the campaign season high on life expecting to win their best election results in 20 years, so their numbers declining was quite shock to them. One of their MP:s, former environmental spokes-person Jens Holm and the prolific former MP Rosana Dinamarca, has already criticized the party leadership publicly  for a campaign that focused too much on winning blue-collar men by watering down their environmental policies and down-playing their support for immigrants and racial minorities.

The leadership in turn is defending itself by blaming the Social Democrats for surrendering to centre-right on crime, energy and immigration and not bringing up traditional left-wing issues like welfare, healthcare, and labour protection as well as saying that a lot of Left Party supporters voted for the Greens to save them from falling out of parliament.

Nooshi Dadgostar will probably be fine despite all of this, but I'd count on some of her key allies in the party and some other grandees will get the chop within the coming year.

[Helsinkian]

North of Norway, Finland and Canada all generally go left

North of Finland does not go left. It's Centre Party territory, and the Finnish Centre is very much a bourgeois party notwithstanding its current coalition with the left.

[njwes]

North of Norway, Finland and Canada all generally go left

North of Finland does not go left. It's Centre Party territory, and the Finnish Centre is very much a bourgeois party notwithstanding its current coalition with the left.

But is the north of Finland particularly "bourgeois" socio-culturally?

[mileslunn]

North of Norway, Finland and Canada all generally go left

North of Finland does not go left. It's Centre Party territory, and the Finnish Centre is very much a bourgeois party notwithstanding its current coalition with the left.

But is the north of Finland particularly "bourgeois" socio-culturally?

I thought Centre party dominated more the central rural parts while Lapland is strongly Social Democrat and while not exactly same it seems rural areas where you can still farm lean right while rural areas that are mostly forests and too far north to farm go for S.  Be interesting in both Canada, Norway, Finland, and Sweden to see map of voting patterns compared to arable land as could be wrong but kind of have hunch things swing left once you get above point where it is suitable for farming.  Just a guess, but an educated one.

[Frodo]

Looking at the election results, does anyone see them as an endorsement (or not) of Sweden's decision to join NATO earlier this summer?  Or is that not a factor?

[Antonio the Sixth]

Asking again:

Do absentees usually lean one way or the other in Sweden?

[Helsinkian]

North of Norway, Finland and Canada all generally go left

North of Finland does not go left. It's Centre Party territory, and the Finnish Centre is very much a bourgeois party notwithstanding its current coalition with the left.

But is the north of Finland particularly "bourgeois" socio-culturally?

I thought Centre party dominated more the central rural parts while Lapland is strongly Social Democrat and while not exactly same it seems rural areas where you can still farm lean right while rural areas that are mostly forests and too far north to farm go for S.  Be interesting in both Canada, Norway, Finland, and Sweden to see map of voting patterns compared to arable land as could be wrong but kind of have hunch things swing left once you get above point where it is suitable for farming.  Just a guess, but an educated one.

In Finland, the Centre Party is the leading party in all sorts of rural areas. In 2019, the Social Democrats were only the fourth biggest party in Lapland, and the fifth biggest party in the Oulu electoral district (the second-northernmost district): https://vaalit.yle.fi/ev2019/en/regions/13 (Lapland), https://vaalit.yle.fi/ev2019/en/regions/12 (Oulu)

BTW, I used the word "bourgeois" in the sense that it is used in Finnish (and I think in Swedish, too) politics where it means generally "non-leftist" (but usually excluding right-wing populists and the far-right).

[Vosem]

Looking at the election results, does anyone see them as an endorsement (or not) of Sweden's decision to join NATO earlier this summer?  Or is that not a factor?

The two parties that switched positions -- mainstream left Social Democrats and far-right populist Sweden Democrats, who were anti-NATO before 2022 but became pro-NATO in 2022 -- both made large gains, so you could take the results as an endorsement of the decision, but it wasn't a key difference between the blocs and I don't think the campaign was 'about' that call in any sense.