Hey, man, I am an AMERICAN: I do not HAVE to know ANYTHING! 
- Edit 1
- Edit 1Before modification by Joel at 04/03/2012 11:54:26 PM
It is actively discouraged in much of the country, and some consider it grounds for revoking citizenship. 
I would guess very few if any. There are subtle differences between the various European monarchies in terms of how much power and/or influence the monarchs have, but I don't remember Norway being among the ones where they have more power.
I'm not sure if I told you this story before, but in Belgium, in the early nineties, parliament passed a law legalizing abortion in the first three months of pregnancy, and under some circumstances thereafter. Our king at the time was strongly Catholic and deeply opposed to abortion (it didn't help that he and the queen were unable to have children, and heartbroken over it), so he adamantly refused to sign the law, despite not exactly having any right to refuse. Parliament solved the problem in the end by essentially deposing him for a day, passing the law and then reinstating him. That's hardly something you can do for appointing a PM, though...
Yeah, I remember you mentioning that, but I was thinking in terms of the varying degree to which the royal prerogative is restricted, and how much its remaining extent is real vs. nominal. From what I recall reading, Gladstone was once unable to resume the office of PM simply because Queen Victoria detested him, so even as late as the Nineteenth Century Britains PM very much required the monarchs approval. As I understand things, the outgoing Norwegian PM recommends a replacement for the king to appoint, but whether rejecting that replacement would mean a constitutional crisis orsimply nominating another I can only guess. It is kind of bizarre to think of the king as the only citizen with NO franchise.
Like I said, nearly all Western democracies have constituencies like that, which almost inevitably favours regions with low population even if you don't have a system like Norway's (e.g. Canada, which has several provinces/territories with barely 30-40k of inhabitants, but obviously they can hardly avoid giving them a single seat at least, whereas Ontario and Quebec have far more inhabitants per seat than that).
It also favours political stability in the sense that it makes it less likely to have huge numbers of different political parties, and less likely to have huge differences in seat results between an election and the next, even if the popular vote difference is huge. There's a direct and obvious correlation between the average amount of seats per constituency and the amount of (viable) parties a country has. I'm really not a big fan of single seat constituencies, but the Dutch/Israeli other extreme hasn't exactly been proving its worth of late either, so something inbetween is probably best, alright.
Well, extreme positions are typically unwise, especially in politics. Your point on stability and multi-party viability is well taken (Isaac also referenced that in defence of Americas system, as you probably noticed.)
America does have a history of pivotal exceptions to the rule that regional single member districts deter multi-party states though. In the years just prior to the Civil War, regional differences over slaverys expansion fatally split the Democratic Party that had enjoyed single party national rule a generation earlier, and that dynamic resurfaced a century later when Strom Thurmond and, later, George Wallace carried several states as Dixiecrats. Progressive Republicans under TR and then Robert La Follette (both of whom wore the "Happy Warrior" moniker in succession) similarly undermined that party in the early Twentieth Century, and the combined appeals of both threatened Trumans 1948 election as much as the Republican nominee Thomas Dewey did. And, of course, without the Greens Gore would have easily won NH as well as FL, making either state an acceptable loss by itself (which would have been historic in that a president would have been elected despite losing 2/3 in FL, PA and OH.) Establishing strong regional bases from which to build national support—and recruit experienced candidates—is still the only viable option for American third parties. Failure to do that in the West, South and Midwest is probably what doomed the Reform Party whose spoiler effect was indispensable to Clintons election.
I know very little about Norwegian politics so I could well be off on a few points, but based on my knowledge of European politics in general, I think you're wrong. What you have to keep in mind is the particularities of the extreme right, and the distinction between the extreme right and the traditional right. The European far right parties, by and large, have mostly claimed the votes of the left, not of the right: the working poor, the lower-educated city folk. As it happens I read about the Flemish extreme right party's new economic policies just yesterday: they are attacking the more mainstream right for being too business-friendly and not defending the interest of the average Joe enough. The European far right is moderately right at best on economic issues, and in some cases perhaps even left-wing (always populist, but I don't think that surprises anyone...). The one far-right aspect they all have in common is their anti-immigrant nationalism, and then most of them (but not all, just look at the Netherlands) are rather conservative on social issues as well. But not economic ones.
Switzerland is an interesting example. Switzerland has an unique and fascinating political structure to begin with, with a seven-man government with a yearly rotating presidency among them, which is traditionally made up of all the major parties - two each of the three biggest ones, one for the fourth. That fourth party (the Swiss People's Party) was traditionally the kind of conservative rural party that you describe above; however, as Switzerland saw increasing numbers of immigrants and similar issues to the rest of Europe, primarily in the cities, the party shifted to become an anti-immigrant far-right party, gaining votes in the process until a second ministry seat could no longer be denied them (considering how they had become the largest party by far). However, the conservative rural branch of the party felt completely overlooked and increasingly unsatisfied with the borderline racism of their party leader. Then the other parties, in a brilliant if rather dirty surprise move, managed to get a member of the rural branch elected to the vacant ministry, instead of the party leader who was the designated candidate. The result was that the SPP broke in two, the rural branch electing to create a new party but maintaining its newly appointed ministry seat (and for a while even both of the old party's two seats). The SPP is still the largest party of the country, though - and even more predominantly urban in its voters now, obviously. The new rural party is, despite holding one of the seven government seats (and indeed the rotating presidency, this year), a small party with just over 5% of the vote.
Wow, I think I might actually be writing a longer reply here than your original post... shocking. To move back in the direction of relevance and summarize: the European far-right is indeed predominantly an urban phenomenon, though over time they have certainly grown to the point where they have a presence in rural areas as well. The conservative rural votes that you talk about do exist, but are generally solidly in the hands of the mainstream right and/or Christian-Democratic parties, or else small separate parties, like in the Swiss case I mentioned. In Norway's case they seem to be mostly in the hands of the Centre Party, based on a cursory look.
I see; that is definitely a big feature I was completely unaware of in the European right. I guess it makes sense; many Republicans have for decades sneered at the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party trumpeting its civil rights accomplishments despite slavish devotion to unions in many places saturated with open racism and sexism. The big difference is that an economically liberal right IS almost totally foreign to my experience. The closest America has ever come to that was Father Coughlins public populism and clandestine support for Hitler. His contemporary, Huey Long, is probably most associated with "American fascism," but, being elected governor and then senator in the Deep South despite railing against poll taxes and other racial inequality, he mainly illustrates the American rights confusion over the differences between communism and socialism vs. fascism.
I tend to, but should not, take for granted that supporting social programs that benefit urban and labor constituents precludes racist agendas. With the notable exception of Jews, multiculturalism strikes me as a more novel issue for Europe than in America, and the welfare state far less so. Partisan reflections of that are natural.
That's not even that much - the Netherlands have ten, Belgium had eleven until the last elections (now nine) though we're a special case and don't really count, Israel has thirteen.
Seven seems like a good number to me; five would probably be ideal, but any multipartisan environment favors the development of one or two niche parties catering to regional or other narrow interests. They are not terribly counterproductive if they align almost entirely with one of the broad major parties on all other issues. More importantly, they ensure issues vital but specific to key demographics receive recognition both directly, through their party, and indirectly, through the influence its kingmaking ability has on coalitions.
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.)
I would guess very few if any. There are subtle differences between the various European monarchies in terms of how much power and/or influence the monarchs have, but I don't remember Norway being among the ones where they have more power.
I'm not sure if I told you this story before, but in Belgium, in the early nineties, parliament passed a law legalizing abortion in the first three months of pregnancy, and under some circumstances thereafter. Our king at the time was strongly Catholic and deeply opposed to abortion (it didn't help that he and the queen were unable to have children, and heartbroken over it), so he adamantly refused to sign the law, despite not exactly having any right to refuse. Parliament solved the problem in the end by essentially deposing him for a day, passing the law and then reinstating him. That's hardly something you can do for appointing a PM, though...
Yeah, I remember you mentioning that, but I was thinking in terms of the varying degree to which the royal prerogative is restricted, and how much its remaining extent is real vs. nominal. From what I recall reading, Gladstone was once unable to resume the office of PM simply because Queen Victoria detested him, so even as late as the Nineteenth Century Britains PM very much required the monarchs approval. As I understand things, the outgoing Norwegian PM recommends a replacement for the king to appoint, but whether rejecting that replacement would mean a constitutional crisis orsimply nominating another I can only guess. It is kind of bizarre to think of the king as the only citizen with NO franchise.
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.)
Like I said, nearly all Western democracies have constituencies like that, which almost inevitably favours regions with low population even if you don't have a system like Norway's (e.g. Canada, which has several provinces/territories with barely 30-40k of inhabitants, but obviously they can hardly avoid giving them a single seat at least, whereas Ontario and Quebec have far more inhabitants per seat than that).
It also favours political stability in the sense that it makes it less likely to have huge numbers of different political parties, and less likely to have huge differences in seat results between an election and the next, even if the popular vote difference is huge. There's a direct and obvious correlation between the average amount of seats per constituency and the amount of (viable) parties a country has. I'm really not a big fan of single seat constituencies, but the Dutch/Israeli other extreme hasn't exactly been proving its worth of late either, so something inbetween is probably best, alright.
Well, extreme positions are typically unwise, especially in politics. Your point on stability and multi-party viability is well taken (Isaac also referenced that in defence of Americas system, as you probably noticed.)
America does have a history of pivotal exceptions to the rule that regional single member districts deter multi-party states though. In the years just prior to the Civil War, regional differences over slaverys expansion fatally split the Democratic Party that had enjoyed single party national rule a generation earlier, and that dynamic resurfaced a century later when Strom Thurmond and, later, George Wallace carried several states as Dixiecrats. Progressive Republicans under TR and then Robert La Follette (both of whom wore the "Happy Warrior" moniker in succession) similarly undermined that party in the early Twentieth Century, and the combined appeals of both threatened Trumans 1948 election as much as the Republican nominee Thomas Dewey did. And, of course, without the Greens Gore would have easily won NH as well as FL, making either state an acceptable loss by itself (which would have been historic in that a president would have been elected despite losing 2/3 in FL, PA and OH.) Establishing strong regional bases from which to build national support—and recruit experienced candidates—is still the only viable option for American third parties. Failure to do that in the West, South and Midwest is probably what doomed the Reform Party whose spoiler effect was indispensable to Clintons election.
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 know very little about Norwegian politics so I could well be off on a few points, but based on my knowledge of European politics in general, I think you're wrong. What you have to keep in mind is the particularities of the extreme right, and the distinction between the extreme right and the traditional right. The European far right parties, by and large, have mostly claimed the votes of the left, not of the right: the working poor, the lower-educated city folk. As it happens I read about the Flemish extreme right party's new economic policies just yesterday: they are attacking the more mainstream right for being too business-friendly and not defending the interest of the average Joe enough. The European far right is moderately right at best on economic issues, and in some cases perhaps even left-wing (always populist, but I don't think that surprises anyone...). The one far-right aspect they all have in common is their anti-immigrant nationalism, and then most of them (but not all, just look at the Netherlands) are rather conservative on social issues as well. But not economic ones.
Switzerland is an interesting example. Switzerland has an unique and fascinating political structure to begin with, with a seven-man government with a yearly rotating presidency among them, which is traditionally made up of all the major parties - two each of the three biggest ones, one for the fourth. That fourth party (the Swiss People's Party) was traditionally the kind of conservative rural party that you describe above; however, as Switzerland saw increasing numbers of immigrants and similar issues to the rest of Europe, primarily in the cities, the party shifted to become an anti-immigrant far-right party, gaining votes in the process until a second ministry seat could no longer be denied them (considering how they had become the largest party by far). However, the conservative rural branch of the party felt completely overlooked and increasingly unsatisfied with the borderline racism of their party leader. Then the other parties, in a brilliant if rather dirty surprise move, managed to get a member of the rural branch elected to the vacant ministry, instead of the party leader who was the designated candidate. The result was that the SPP broke in two, the rural branch electing to create a new party but maintaining its newly appointed ministry seat (and for a while even both of the old party's two seats). The SPP is still the largest party of the country, though - and even more predominantly urban in its voters now, obviously. The new rural party is, despite holding one of the seven government seats (and indeed the rotating presidency, this year), a small party with just over 5% of the vote.
Wow, I think I might actually be writing a longer reply here than your original post... shocking. To move back in the direction of relevance and summarize: the European far-right is indeed predominantly an urban phenomenon, though over time they have certainly grown to the point where they have a presence in rural areas as well. The conservative rural votes that you talk about do exist, but are generally solidly in the hands of the mainstream right and/or Christian-Democratic parties, or else small separate parties, like in the Swiss case I mentioned. In Norway's case they seem to be mostly in the hands of the Centre Party, based on a cursory look.
I see; that is definitely a big feature I was completely unaware of in the European right. I guess it makes sense; many Republicans have for decades sneered at the hypocrisy of the Democratic Party trumpeting its civil rights accomplishments despite slavish devotion to unions in many places saturated with open racism and sexism. The big difference is that an economically liberal right IS almost totally foreign to my experience. The closest America has ever come to that was Father Coughlins public populism and clandestine support for Hitler. His contemporary, Huey Long, is probably most associated with "American fascism," but, being elected governor and then senator in the Deep South despite railing against poll taxes and other racial inequality, he mainly illustrates the American rights confusion over the differences between communism and socialism vs. fascism.
I tend to, but should not, take for granted that supporting social programs that benefit urban and labor constituents precludes racist agendas. With the notable exception of Jews, multiculturalism strikes me as a more novel issue for Europe than in America, and the welfare state far less so. Partisan reflections of that are natural.
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. 
That's not even that much - the Netherlands have ten, Belgium had eleven until the last elections (now nine) though we're a special case and don't really count, Israel has thirteen.
Seven seems like a good number to me; five would probably be ideal, but any multipartisan environment favors the development of one or two niche parties catering to regional or other narrow interests. They are not terribly counterproductive if they align almost entirely with one of the broad major parties on all other issues. More importantly, they ensure issues vital but specific to key demographics receive recognition both directly, through their party, and indirectly, through the influence its kingmaking ability has on coalitions.