The wife did find that article, I think, because I remember her mentioning the king has no vote (which I still think is kind of lame, since all he does is appoint a nominated PM; still not clear on just how much right of refusal he has.)
It's really just a matter of entering "Norway" and "election" into Wikipedia, you know.
Incidentally, some of those articles seem to be mentioning that Oslo is in fact biased against with regards to seat distribution, in the sense that the thinly populated peripherical regions get considerably more seats relative to their population than Oslo does - apparently the far right feels that that's costing them seats.
Yeah, I saw several things that looked surprisingly relevant to discussions of whether Americas Electoral College is justified or even sensible. For eksempel:
The first bolded section makes it sound like they combined the priority of representation by population and area, which makes sense for a unicameral legislature. The second bolded section is one of several arguments wads made against the Electoral College: That WY receives far more electors per resident than NY (though, as I noted at the time, this is offset by awarding those electors as block and the fact NY has far more electors than WY, particularly given that the NYC "tri-state area" covers much of NJ and CT.) A similarly familiar element is
Good news and good news for me. Not only does the federal government contain local representation, it goes out of its way to do so. Further, the parliamentary structure resembles the intent if not form of Americas to a degree somewhat eerie. Rather than preferring our system for offering more local representation, I am more inclined to consider what we could steal from Norway toward that goal (particuarly given how disconnected DC is from everywhere else these days.)
Unless Norway is completely inverted compared to America (and this is far from the first time I have noticed eerily similarities) I think right wing claims under-representing Oslo disenfranchises them are more like excuses. By and large, the left tends to support and the right oppose the welfare state all but designed for large and dense urban areas, and education, with its liberalizing influence, is less vital in rural ones. It is hard to imagine how increasing representation in the metropolitan area that contains about 25% of the country would do anything but hurt the right.
I could be projecting my American perspective too much though; as I understand it, the Progress Party (which I would associate with the recently resurrected "progressive" label America used a century ago) is the far right, the Right Party is moderate and only Labor is the mainstream left party I would expect it to be. With seven parties in Stortinget compared with the three to which I am accustomed (one of which is socialist Bernie Sanders' single seat) my frame of reference is obviously very foreign. Of course, since I will never be able to vote here I guess it does not matter.
We had little luck looking it up ourselves, and I am far too fried mentally now to try again just this moment (else I would be replying to Isaac also.)
It's really just a matter of entering "Norway" and "election" into Wikipedia, you know.
Incidentally, some of those articles seem to be mentioning that Oslo is in fact biased against with regards to seat distribution, in the sense that the thinly populated peripherical regions get considerably more seats relative to their population than Oslo does - apparently the far right feels that that's costing them seats.
Yeah, I saw several things that looked surprisingly relevant to discussions of whether Americas Electoral College is justified or even sensible. For eksempel:
Each inhabitant scores one point and each square kilometer scores 1.8 points. This calculation is done every eight years. This practice has been criticised because in some larger counties with sparse population a single vote counts more than in other more densely populated counties. Others claim that counties with a scattered and sparse population situated far away from the central administration should have a stronger representation in the Parliament.
The first bolded section makes it sound like they combined the priority of representation by population and area, which makes sense for a unicameral legislature. The second bolded section is one of several arguments wads made against the Electoral College: That WY receives far more electors per resident than NY (though, as I noted at the time, this is offset by awarding those electors as block and the fact NY has far more electors than WY, particularly given that the NYC "tri-state area" covers much of NJ and CT.) A similarly familiar element is
The rural additions: Sparsely populated constituencies get more mandates than the population would suggest. This is to maintain a representative feeling in the national assembly and to prevent urban votes overrunning the rural votes, but has lately been heavily criticised for being undemocratic and not mathematically fair.
Deja vu all over again, eh?Good news and good news for me. Not only does the federal government contain local representation, it goes out of its way to do so. Further, the parliamentary structure resembles the intent if not form of Americas to a degree somewhat eerie. Rather than preferring our system for offering more local representation, I am more inclined to consider what we could steal from Norway toward that goal (particuarly given how disconnected DC is from everywhere else these days.)
Unless Norway is completely inverted compared to America (and this is far from the first time I have noticed eerily similarities) I think right wing claims under-representing Oslo disenfranchises them are more like excuses. By and large, the left tends to support and the right oppose the welfare state all but designed for large and dense urban areas, and education, with its liberalizing influence, is less vital in rural ones. It is hard to imagine how increasing representation in the metropolitan area that contains about 25% of the country would do anything but hurt the right.
I could be projecting my American perspective too much though; as I understand it, the Progress Party (which I would associate with the recently resurrected "progressive" label America used a century ago) is the far right, the Right Party is moderate and only Labor is the mainstream left party I would expect it to be. With seven parties in Stortinget compared with the three to which I am accustomed (one of which is socialist Bernie Sanders' single seat) my frame of reference is obviously very foreign. Of course, since I will never be able to vote here I guess it does not matter.
Honorbound and honored to be Bonded to Mahtaliel Sedai
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
Last First in wotmania Chat
Slightly better than chocolate.
Love still can't be coerced.
Please Don't Eat the Newbies!
LoL. Be well, RAFOlk.
This message last edited by Joel on 03/03/2012 at 10:39:29 PM
Now That Romney Is Officially the Republican Presidential Nominee: Pick the President!
29/02/2012 08:29:02 PM
- 1239 Views
I agree Romney will be the candidate.
29/02/2012 08:54:52 PM
- 638 Views
I would say the math favors Romney over Obama, but it will probably be close either way.
01/03/2012 03:37:52 PM
- 684 Views
I have never understood the point of the Electoral College.
29/02/2012 11:39:11 PM
- 687 Views
You don't think like a politician then
01/03/2012 12:38:36 AM
- 730 Views
I certainly hadn't considered much of that. I'm glad you posted it. *NM*
01/03/2012 07:15:03 AM
- 309 Views
I also have not seen most of that mentioned in the popular vs. electoral debate.
01/03/2012 02:34:31 PM
- 614 Views
a bit simplistic and unrealistic
02/03/2012 11:44:02 PM
- 657 Views
When illustrating a point realism is not required and simplicity is a plus
03/03/2012 03:04:26 AM
- 671 Views
I have a couple quibbles.
03/03/2012 05:23:46 AM
- 699 Views
Oh, certainly, I'm over-generalizing but I was already getting long-winded
03/03/2012 06:52:04 AM
- 661 Views
What a bunch of waffle!
03/03/2012 10:47:19 AM
- 799 Views
Also I don't like this refrain that implies only the POTUS vote matters
03/03/2012 03:29:58 AM
- 816 Views
IMHO, parliaments choosing prime ministers is LESS democratic than the electoral college.
03/03/2012 05:57:41 AM
- 619 Views
Re: IMHO, parliaments choosing prime ministers is LESS democratic than the electoral college.
03/03/2012 07:02:30 AM
- 656 Views
*is learning*
04/03/2012 09:49:42 PM
- 647 Views
Re: *is learning*
04/03/2012 09:56:16 PM
- 660 Views
Re: *is learning*
05/03/2012 12:08:08 AM
- 699 Views
You could imitate the French.
07/03/2012 10:40:16 PM
- 628 Views
That seems... unlikely....
08/03/2012 03:03:54 PM
- 635 Views
It does, doesn't it?
08/03/2012 06:11:08 PM
- 831 Views
After I thought about it more, I realized France and the US are not so different in that respect.
08/03/2012 08:51:03 PM
- 610 Views
More similar than the other major Western democracies at least, agreed.
08/03/2012 09:32:55 PM
- 587 Views
I did not realize lack of a parliamentary majority dictated his cabinet.
09/03/2012 12:27:31 AM
- 667 Views
I don't know much about Norwegian politics, but you seem to be wrong.
03/03/2012 06:18:08 PM
- 667 Views
Do you happen to have that link, please?
03/03/2012 06:46:31 PM
- 549 Views
Sure.
03/03/2012 06:58:07 PM
- 721 Views
Guess we did not read far enough.
03/03/2012 10:38:07 PM
- 668 Views
Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics...
03/03/2012 11:49:44 PM
- 869 Views
Hey, man, I am an AMERICAN: I do not HAVE to know ANYTHING!
04/03/2012 11:46:57 PM
- 891 Views
Re: Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics...
05/03/2012 06:56:24 AM
- 671 Views
The thing is, regions often have national relevance far greater than their populations would suggest
05/03/2012 10:21:26 AM
- 620 Views
Re: Yeah, you have to know a few things about European politics...
08/03/2012 07:11:12 PM
- 621 Views
Many valid reasons, including those Isaac cited.
02/03/2012 02:26:37 AM
- 768 Views
Most states are ignored anyway
02/03/2012 11:56:12 PM
- 845 Views
Only because and to the extent they have already committed themselves.
03/03/2012 03:41:39 AM
- 692 Views
Why would we do something logical? Dude, you're utterly ridiculous. *NM*
05/03/2012 04:53:38 PM
- 364 Views
I'm kind of sad- does this mean Santorum won't be providing wonderful sound bites anymore?
01/03/2012 02:22:31 PM
- 612 Views
Romney or Obama, either way, America loses. *NM*
02/03/2012 01:10:26 AM
- 438 Views
Hard to dispute that either; six of one, half a dozen of the other.
02/03/2012 01:38:07 AM
- 589 Views
I'd agree hope and change was extremely unrealistic
02/03/2012 11:58:57 PM
- 585 Views
Well, you know my story there; I voted for Obama and got Hillary (at best.)
03/03/2012 01:43:20 AM
- 604 Views
Update: Despite rules requiring they be split, the MI GOP is giving Romney BOTH statewide delegates.
02/03/2012 11:10:56 PM
- 695 Views
Romney is damaged
02/03/2012 11:27:33 PM
- 601 Views
Obama is rather damaged also; it will probably come down to FL and OH, yet again.
03/03/2012 02:23:53 AM
- 704 Views
I'm hoping for Rubio as VP... then FL probably won't matter
03/03/2012 04:28:08 AM
- 592 Views
You should put that on your license plates.
03/03/2012 06:41:34 AM
- 715 Views
And what are you basing all of this on?
03/03/2012 09:54:06 PM
- 703 Views
The closeness of several states when Obama was far more popular, and UTs heavily Mormon neighbors.
03/03/2012 11:44:06 PM
- 650 Views
Wrong
04/03/2012 08:08:56 AM
- 776 Views
Higher turnout magnifies the Mormon effect.
04/03/2012 08:08:09 PM
- 813 Views
Your reasoning is flawed and if you can't see it there is no hope for you
05/03/2012 11:39:04 PM
- 720 Views
Yeah, I think we had that conversation already, several times, in fact.
07/03/2012 05:36:45 AM
- 555 Views
Do you have any knowledge of statistics at all?
07/03/2012 09:04:15 PM
- 715 Views
I hate this message board
07/03/2012 09:06:30 PM
- 510 Views
It would probably help if you deleted the stuff from two, three posts back?
07/03/2012 09:25:40 PM
- 627 Views