Guess we did not read far enough. - Edit 2
Before modification by Joel at 03/03/2012 10:39:29 PM
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.