Comments by "Luredreier" (@Luredreier) on "TLDR News EU"
channel.
-
1
-
1
-
@night6724 Right.
Norway uses a modified Sainte-Laguë method.
We used to have 19 "fylker" (regions), many of these have been merged recently, but the 19 electoral circles remains.
The first step is that each eligible voter and each square km of land in each electoral circle "votes" for that electoral circle using that method. (This is behind the scenes, we voters don't have to deal with this).
And the electoral circle with the most "votes" gets a seat, then in the next round they have to divide with a bigger number using the method described, so eventually seats starts being distributed to other electoral circles.
The circles with the fewest seats only have 4 seats each, the ones with the most has double digit number of seats out of the 150 available for this step.
I don't remember how much weight land has compared to people, but the idea is that any given rural town in a low population density area far away from the capital is less likely to be represented in our parliament any given year then a city with far more people is, so by distributing seats based on both land and people those low population density areas still has a reasonably high likelyhood of being represented any given year, meaning that there's someone in the parliament who knows how it is to live there and what problems they face, even if that means that areas with more people ends up with less representatives from their own area.
Once seats are distributed among the electoral circles the actual election can take place.
People vote for party lists.
Lists can overlap so someone can be in two lists at the same time.
And people can reorder people on the lists or add names from other lists.
But changes from the original list will only be counted if a significant number of them are changed.
Seats are distributed proportionally, again using the modified Sainte-Laguë method within these 19 electoral seats.
So if you get 25% of the votes in a 4 seat electoral circle you'll get 25% of the seats, aka 1.
If you have 10% of the votes there you'll get no seats, but in a circle with more seats you might get more representation.
Since seats are distributed according to both land and population the circles with a lot of land but few people will have more valuable votes in the sense that that you'll need fewer votes there then elsewhere to get a seat for any given party.
The smallest party represented in parliament this year had 0,2% of the total votes at a national level and still got a seat.
They where created to ensure that eastern Finnmark keeps a ER unit and a maternity ward, do people inna emergency or giving birth don't have to cross a mountain that often is unpassable in winter in order to get to a hospital with these facilities.
They managed to get enough local support to get 1 of the 5 seats in this electoral circle.
The conservatives lost theirs.
Of course this means that at this stage low population areas have more of a say in what parties are represented at this stage then higher population areas.
So each electoral circle also has a leveling seat.
But the leveling seats are not given bsed on the proportionality within each circle, but at a national level.
Since the parties already have seats awarded at the previous stage any party with more seats then they should have given their national popularity won't get leveling seats.
But parties who have fewer seats then they should given their number of voters st a national level will gain seats.
This is usually smaller parties that got close to getting a seat in the individual electoral circles, but didn't quite make it.
Although sometimes larger parties get some too.
Unlike the direct seats from the individual electoral circles these 19 leveling seats do have a electoral threshold of 4% of the total electorate voting for a party in order for it to be eligible for these 19 leveling seats.
Giving parties and their voters a incentive to reach that level.
This means that big parties can split if there's disagreements.
While smaller parties have a incentive to stay united.
And voters have a reason to make an effort to vote for the small parties even if they just have a few percent of the votes.
The communists had 1 seat last election, but got 5 this election, because they're above the 4% threshold.
My own party had 1 last year and got 3 this year with about 3,9% of the votes.
If we had over 4% we'd have at least one leveling seat awarded to us, possibly two.
My party had the fewest seats pr vote of any party represented in our parliament this year.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@paul1979uk2000 The difference is that in Norway and Switzerland those EU directives are implement by our own laws and legal agreements and we have the right to end change or refrain from adopt them at will.
Yes, there would be consequences.
But the important thing to note here is that when it comes to the desire for freedom Norwegians and Switz people have more in common with the Afghans then the Germans despite being similar to Germans and Dutch people culturally.
Afganistan has been under many empires through the ages and would presumably have had a chance to get more infrastructure in those times, but self determination was more important.
The same is true for us.
We would prefer poverty to being ruled by outsiders.
We're also pragmatic and both can and will work with and cooperate with them, but only as independent entities.
I'm saying 200 years because that's 3-4 generations, and that should presumably be enough to change our culture.
But as long as our young people has a memory of our current culture, even if that's just as stories from grandparents, a federal or unitary union just won't work.
A confederal one would.
Our cooperation with the EU right now works well in part because it's relatively confederate at the moment, for instance with a lot of laws being goals that needs to be achieved with the local governments deciding on the details.
But a federal model is a stated goal for the union, and that's a big part of why we voted against joining *twice*.
We don't mind open borders, free trade, free movement of people, shared financial responsibility or any number of other values that the union wants us to adopt, most of these are shared values with us.
After all, Germanic speaking people with similar values are a big block within the union.
The problem is more one of principle of where the power originates.
And of how there's details about life in regions that central governments just never gets right.
Central governments are dominated by people from population centers, people from good farmlands, big cities, areas that's flat and "cultured".
These areas simple has a different history from us and different living conditions.
Privatized mail services or public transportation works well in areas with high population density allowing lowlanders to play with fancy theories about market economics and the principles of free markeds.
It's a bit harder to make that work in areas that has too low a population to make those things economically viable based on the realistic price of sale of these services.
There's no incentives left for quality of service, only for cost cuts at the expense of quality and finding loopholes in the various government schemes to finance the whole thing.
Fewer trains post delivered on fewer days etc.
But for the nation as a whole these services while not used enough to justify their cost as companies does make sense for a nation as a whole due to enabling extraction of resources that would otherwise be unavailable, and also services that would otherwise be unavailable.
Nordic countries work under the assumption that everyone should have certain services and quality of life that would not be see as making sense commercially.
Just look at what kind of service that's available in Nuuk, Tórshavn, Kautokeino/Guovdageaidnu and so one and so forth.
We value our rural areas, and we will intentionally run at a loss at times that wouldn't make sense in a EU context.
These things are a big part of why we despite our intense individualism and regionalism still have functional nations of the sizes that you see.
Norway, Sweden, Denmark and so one, even Iceland would otherwise have been split up into many different nations a long time ago.
Switzerland has similar issues but solve those in part through their Canton system.
In these regions the natural country size is basically equal to a Swizz Canton.
Or in Norways case one or a few valleys joining together into a nation, or possibly a fjord.
And the long fjords might even be split up since people at the coast near the mouth of the fjord probably live very different lives from those further inland and have different needs.
The oil money helps, but honestly that plays a minor role in everything.
It all only works because we have electoral systems where people in rural areas are about as common as people from more urban areas in our government and legislative body.
We're more likely to have a civil war over the topic then to join the EU.
We've already had several governments that has fallen because of the union.
And our elite has learned that you don't try to join the EU if you want to stay in power.
The EEA is a compromise solution that works for us
No one is happy with it of course like with all good compromises.
But it's preferable to total chaos.
Honestly we'd probably be better "EU citizens" outside the union then we'd ever be within.
Many of us want a shared army with the union (in addition to the separate ones), to counter threats like the Russians.
Many of us want free movement of goods, services, money and people, but it needs to be on our terms, with the local possible compromises.
Giving our urban population the goods and services while the rural people gets the protectionism needed for our farms that can't compete with the lowlands due to a shorter season and worse farmlands, our fishermen wants to sell to the union and are more open to it then our farmers but it's still easier to get a sustainable compromise within the country or in bilateral deals with the union then when it's done at a union wide basis where countries far away that wouldn't be severely affected by overfishing and where people are more desperate for a income are the voter wants higher quotas then the fish actually can sustain.
And where the laws only relatively recently closed loopholes that lead to the dumping of tons of fish into the sea with no consequences to the quota despite huge numbers of fish dying.
We still have lands radiated after Chernobyl.
Temperatures that doesn't exist in the mainland continent.
And mountains and fjords that makes infrastructure difficult and cultures distinct.
We'll join the EU in many projects out of our own free will, from outside the union.
But the only way we'll actually join the union itself permanently is either if the union changes and either become more confereralized or tiered with optional tiers of involvement for members.
Or if there's a huge shift in our culture, a type of cultural shift that just takes generations to happen.
If we somehow by a miracle managed to join the EU right now it would be a disaster making Brexit seem like peanuts.
Long term, as in 7-8 generations down the line I can absolutely see us as a EU member.
But not now...
1
-
@paul1979uk2000 The cost is high, no doubt.
But lower then it would have been as an actual EU member, as scrapping them as a member would entail leaving the whole of the EU just like the UK just did, while scrapping laws currently can be done without breaking any agreements with Europe and has even been conceded as permittable by the EU.
The EU might not like it but they're required to accept our veto by the terms of the agreement.
And yes, there's a implied and unofficial agreement about us not using it.
But even the fact that it is our choice not to scrap said EU laws is more important then any involvement in making said laws ever can be.
It's all about self determination.
And yes, if we ever gets to a point where we scrap so many laws that the EU find themselves wanting to end the EEA agreements or if they want to punish us for our actions that's of course within their rights and would be a problem for us.
But still, us having that fundamental power to veto them and making our own laws is important to us.
More important then forming those EU laws in the first place.
And furthermore the EU laws we follow are still formally made legally valid through the power of our parliament not by the EU.
So a bottom up power structure.
We need to be a separate legal entity.
That's not going to change in many generations.
The actual laws we follow is less important then who sign them into law.
Yes, we're currently following EU law practically to the letter, but it is we who are choosing to do so, not Brussel, and that matters to us.
As long as the EU laws in question are not unreasonable that's a arrangement we can live with.
But there's a growing number of EU laws that has worked poorly for us and that is causing frustration here.
At some point things will have to change.
And that change will most likely come in the form of some new renegotiated deal with the EU where we'll give up something else and get something in return.
That's also going to be a compromise of some kind.
The Brexiters are unrealistic.
There is an unequal power balance at play.
And even if there wasn't there's always some given and take in interantional agreements, compromises.
Where neither side are entierly happy.
The same applies to us.
We're not going to get our freedom for free.
We'll have to make some sacrifices or other in order to get them.
But we also have some cards up our sleeves too that the EU wants.
So it won't be entierly one way either.
Like I said, it'll be some give and take.
And honestly I have faith in Norwegian negotiators.
We're not in a rush with changing the EEA.
I think we probably should start negotiations with the EU about a future deal to replace it together with Iceland, Liechtenstein, Switzerland and the UK, although I don't know if including the EU in the final deal is a good idea or not as they want different things then us.
We'll have plenty of time.
We've had negotiations that took 50+ years with the Russians.
Negotiating with the EU for 50-60 years is perfectly fine, and we'll be happy with having the EEA agreements in the meantime.
And we'll integrate further with the EU too in other areas.
Our voluntary integration with the EU in a number of other areas is helping foster good will, that might help during those negotiations.
As for the current EEA agreement.
While we don't have voting rights in the EU we do have a right to be consulted with regards to EU laws that impact us if I don't remember wrong.
So it's not like we have zero impact on the laws.
The EU can of course still pass said laws after we express that a law is undesired by us, but at least the EU lawmakers have to be aware of our point of view when making said laws.
That's more then a lot of areas in Europe that's within the EU can say.
1
-
1
-
@bobsmith5441 No, the middle of Europe is further north then you seem to think.
In my view the border of "north" goes between the Shetland and Orkneys that's within Northern Europe and Mainland Scotland, Southern Denmark, etc that's all in west or central Europe.
The traditional area of Slesvig might qualify as northern Europe.
Arguably parts or the whole of southern Slesvig could be considered either central or north European depending on how you look at it.
Frisians, Scots speakers, low German speakers are all speakers of a east Germanic language, and also have a different cultural and historical background then northern Europe.
They're all also geographically south of all of us.
Lithuania, Latvia, the Netherlands, mainland Scotland, Ireland, England, Wales and Germany all belong outside northern Europe.
Estonia is northern European, but isn't really considered nordic by most.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@castor3020 It's not unstable at all.
Sure, they can agree that they don't want the current goverment in power.
But force them to come up with a viable alternative before the old goverment is ousted (no new elections).
And also to avoid having a majority against you you'll need a supporting party that may not be a part of your goverment.
They'll vote alongside your goverment on some legislature, and keeps you in power in return for your support on some of their most important issues, but since they're not a part of your goverment they're also free to critizise you and vote against you in parliament on a individual case by case basis.
Let's say that you have 9 parties in goverment, 4 on one side, 4 on the other and 1 in the middle supporting one of the two sides after negotiations.
As long as you don't behave too badly and that party in the middle is getting more out of supporting you then deposing you then you'll stay in power.
And the only way you'll get ousted is by someone presenting a viable alternative that can take over right away anyway, something that requires negotiations.
Also, parties that keeps backstabbing eachother will find it harder to get support from other parties in parliament, so too much backstabbing is discouraged since you end up with less overall political power that way.
You also keep the same election results all the time, and have a smooth transition of power without much costs etc.
As for the elections themselves, since people are used to just changing goverment on the fly it's smooth, and the old goverement stays in power till a viable alternative can be made during the election too, so no instability during the negotiations either.
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
@ollonet9965 You do know that American right wing media and youtube personalities are lying about Sweden feeding you half truths and full lies, taking information out of context to try to present a narrative that runs counter to the actual data in many cases, right?
Besides Americans have a tendency to think that things are black and white when they're usually way more nuanced...
Also, all of the nordic countries are provably better places to live then the US.
Both in the past and present.
We have more millionairs and billionairs pr capita then the US, more people achieve the "american dream" of improving their lives here then in the US, we live longer, are generally better educated, after health care expenses we pay about the same or less then them in total expenses etc, etc, etc...
(Not to mention what people who have lived in both regions says about their experiences there, just look them up, they're all over youtube)
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1
-
1