Dutch Election-- Will this look like Canada's next election

[maryjane48]

*removed*

facts are bigotry lost in holland fredom won

[The Green Barbarian]

*removed*

facts are bigotry lost in holland fredom won

I should have amended this sentence to read:

that can handle the economy properly and also find a middle ground between opening borders unconditionally to people who have no interest in assimilating and who is willing to stand up to block-heads who scream "XENOPHOBE!" and "BIGOT!!!".

[hobbyguy]

GB - You mean like our Liberal government who resisted calls for increasing our immigration quotas to 450,000 and left it at 300,000? (The refugee target went from 55,000 to 40,000).

I do not agree with the open border policy of the EU. It is one of those policies that looks really good on paper, and is a target for the EU that makes sense in the long run, but has been hastily and poorly implemented. In its implementation it fails to recognize that countries can only absorb "x" amount of immigrants without social upheaval issues. They needed to graduate the system over time, monitor for issues - and be smart enough to back off when the warning lights started to flash yellow. Nor did they properly address the immigration from outside of the EU.

It isn't utopian, but immigration is an issue that requires generational change time frames. Even in Canada, which is far more adapted to immigration than Europe, it takes generational changes. Otherwise you run into ugly issues like we had with the Chinese head tax, the Komagata Maru etc.

Some folks are quite open to multicultural society, and some not so much. That means that pragmatically, as opposed to theoretically, you need to give them time to adjust.

Part of that is recognizing that you need to avoid economic displacements and deal with them if they occur. If Wally Worker loses his job to automation, and he sees an immigrant now has a good job programming the robots that replaced him - you have a problem. Wally Worker is likely to view that immigrant negatively and blame immigration for his job disappearing rather than automation. Business, especially publicly traded corporations, and governments (to some extent) have largely abrogated their responsibilities in that regard.

In most cases the response from governments has been minimal and more lip service than real action to solve the problem. The Obama administration response, for example, was to extend unemployment benefits. Big deal. That maybe keeps Wally Worker in KD for a few more months - then what? Go $50K into debt to go to school to learn to program robots IF that is possible and feasible for Wally? Then graduate and find the robot programming jobs are all filled (or gone to [insert low wage country here])?

The end result is that Wally Worker is left feeling that he is forgotten and abandoned by society around him.

The real problem is the lack of corporate ethos, and the lack of will among politicians to tell corporations that they must indeed take responsibility for displaced workers.

If you don't do that - then you provide an opening for ugly thinkers like Geert Wilders to exploit.

"To act with an eye to personal profit will incur a lot of resentment."

"It is a disgrace to remain poor and without rank when the way prevails in the state; it is a disgrace to be wealthy and of noble rank when it does not."

Two quotes from Confucius.

[sobrohusfat]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39287689

Geert Wilders lost, far fewer seats than predicted earlier.

High election turnout resulted in Liberal and left parties outpacing the right wingers.

No wonder the Republicans in the US are all about voter suppression... the higher the turn out, the worse the right wingers do!

Note also that Australia's wannabee Trumpeter party, "One Nation", got smoked in Western Australia elections.

Two for two post Trump for sanity! Liberal and Labour party wins!

Your analysis is missing/omitting something no?...

Rutte's VVD Party won 33 seats...down from 41

Wilders' Freedom Party won 20 seats..up from 12

hmmm... a higher voter turnout and the VVD loses seats? paints just slightly different picture from the one you give.

[maryjane48]

not realy because they have a co alition system . the bigots wiĺl be left to twiddln thumbs . the french racist lapen should take note .

[hobbyguy]

Earlier predictions were that Geert and crew would get as many as 35 seats. They got 20. They got only 13% of the vote. At a lower turnout, very good odds that their percentage of the vote would have been higher, and that would have lead to a much higher seat total in the proportional system.

Of note here is that the Dutch proportional representation system is why Geert and crew even appear to have any legitimacy in the elections. In our system with that vote percentage they might win 2-5 seats. That is a bit of a lesson for the left here that are whining about the broken promise of proportional representation - be careful what you wish for. 28 parties splitting the vote - yikes!

And yes high turnouts matter. Even in the Canadian election of 2015 Harper and crew lost an insignificant number of votes from previous results - but got trounced in terms of number of seats. Harper really did not lose any votes. But 2.8 million more votes were cast - and that dropped the percentage of votes for the Conservatives by 7.7%.

Those types of results really put paid to the notion that right wingers like to portray - which is that they are the "silent majority". They really aren't, they are a vocal minority. But they are far more politically active (and likely to vote) than centrist voters who tend to have busy lives and less time to be involved.

The same is true of the far left. Except that the far left tends contain a lot of less motivated individuals - as the far right would characterize them - too busy rolling the next joint - and then, "aw man, too much hassle to vote. I got the munchies".

On the flip side, Rutte's more centrist part was forecast to get as low as 22 seats, but got 30 - and without gaining seats from the other centrist and left center parties (who held their own). At the height of "Trumpism" last summer, it would have been Wilders 37, Rutte 24. I have to wonder if the first few weeks of the Trump administration, and persistent Russia influence notions did not help Rutte.

Boy, I sure wish we could get 80% turnout in our elections!

[The Green Barbarian]

The same is true of the far left. Except that the far left tends contain a lot of less motivated individuals - as the far right would characterize them - too busy rolling the next joint - and then, "aw man, too much hassle to vote. I got the munchies".

Actually you are being far too kind to these losers.

[blueliner]

Let's see . Oil companies .. pay billions in wages and taxes . Employ many millions . Useless free loading welfare bums . Employ no one pay no taxes and do nothing

But they VOTE FOR LIBERALS

[Glacier]

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-39287689

Geert Wilders lost, far fewer seats than predicted earlier.

High election turnout resulted in Liberal and left parties outpacing the right wingers.

No wonder the Republicans in the US are all about voter suppression... the higher the turn out, the worse the right wingers do!

Note also that Australia's wannabee Trumpeter party, "One Nation", got smoked in Western Australia elections.

Two for two post Trump for sanity! Liberal and Labour party wins!

Riiight. Voter turnout was up the USA, and Trump won. Voter turnout was up the UK, and the Conservatives defied the polls and won.

High voter turnout does not always favour the left. Sometimes it does, but sometimes it favours the right. It all depends on who the "disenfranchised voters" go for.

[hobbyguy]

US federal election turnout was poor. There was no enthusiasm for HRC, and there was for Donnie. The small increase in turnout went all Donnie's way.

The Brexit vote analysis shows that the "remain" side was complacent, and the "leave" side were not. The analysis I read shows that "remainers" did not get off their duffs. Virtually all off the increase in turnout went "leave". The "remain" made the mistake of assuming they would win.https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit

The Dutch election was a much turnout than even Brexit, and the results show that moderate, liberal and left voters came out in strong numbers, having learned from Brexit and Trump.

You also have the rising factor of seeing what happens when someone like Trump wins. That is a big motivator for moderate and left voters. Donnie's politics of fear are creating a lot more motivation on the other end of the political spectrum.

[Glacier]

US federal election turnout was poor. There was no enthusiasm for HRC, and there was for Donnie. The small increase in turnout went all Donnie's way.

The Brexit vote analysis shows that the "remain" side was complacent, and the "leave" side were not. The analysis I read shows that "remainers" did not get off their duffs. Virtually all off the increase in turnout went "leave". The "remain" made the mistake of assuming they would win.https://www.bloomberg.com/view/articles/2016-07-04/the-2-8-million-non-voters-who-delivered-brexit

The Dutch election was a much turnout than even Brexit, and the results show that moderate, liberal and left voters came out in strong numbers, having learned from Brexit and Trump.

You also have the rising factor of seeing what happens when someone like Trump wins. That is a big motivator for moderate and left voters. Donnie's politics of fear are creating a lot more motivation on the other end of the political spectrum.

I think we're in agreement on the overarching premise that high voter turnout could mean more votes for the left, or more votes for the centre or more votes for the right... or more votes for all of the above. It really depends on the situation.

As for Trump's election, you're right that it was not a huge surge in votes over 2012. There were over 7.5 million more votes cast, but most of the increase can be attributed to a growing population. Still, voter turnout was up slighting (0.4%), though down from 2008.

I'm not sure we can say that all 7.5 million voters went with Trump. Texas, Arizona, and California saw a huge surge in Democrat votes, and it stands to reason many of these were new voters. Trump was a very polarizing figure, and turned-off a lot of voters. Some reacted by voting Clinton, Johnson, or staying home. Still others reacted by voting Republican for the first time, especially among centrist blue collar workers.

[The Green Barbarian]

I think we're in agreement on the overarching premise that high voter turnout could mean more votes for the left, or more votes for the centre or more votes for the right... or more votes for all of the above. It really depends on the situation.

As for Trump's election, you're right that it was not a huge surge in votes over 2012. There were over 7.5 million more votes cast, but most of the increase can be attributed to a growing population. Still, voter turnout was up slighting (0.4%), though down from 2008.

I'm not sure we can say that all 7.5 million voters went with Trump. Texas, Arizona, and California saw a huge surge in Democrat votes, and it stands to reason many of these were new voters. Trump was a very polarizing figure, and turned-off a lot of voters. Some reacted for voting Clinton, Johnson, or staying home. Still others reacted by voting Republican for the first time, especially among centrist blue collar workers.

Great post Glacier. The hypothesis that big turnouts equals leftist wins at the polls is about as dumb as saying that Republicans are into voter suppression.

[hobbyguy]

http://www.greatfallstribune.com/story/news/local/2017/02/22/gop-leader-opposes-mail-ballot-special-election/98278038/

Rep. Jeff Essmann, R-Billings, chairman of the Montana Republican Party wrote Tuesday in an email to fellow Republicans that while he believed it Senate Bill 305 was introduced on behalf of many county commissioners who want to reduce the cost of a special election to replace Rep. Ryan Zinke, the bill will have long-term negative impacts to the future election prospects of Republicans at all levels in Montana.

Essmann said Democrats would have an “inherent advantage due to their ability to organize large numbers of unpaid college students and members of public employee unions to gather ballots by going door to door.”

So making it easier to vote, makes it harder for Republicans to win? More votes equals bad for Republicans. That's what Essmann is saying. He was therefore trying to kill a bill to make the voting easier, and a lot cheaper for the taxpayer.

Hmmm... that sounds like a right winger afraid of high voter turnout to me. He wants to limit the vote to make sure a Republican win. Voter suppression - nah, couldn't possibly be on his mind...

[Glacier]

Hmmm... that sounds like a right winger afraid of high voter turnout to me. He wants to limit the vote to make sure a Republican win. Voter suppression - nah, couldn't possibly be on his mind...

Are you saying that Democrats are mentally *bleep*, and thus at a disadvantage when the rules become so onerous so as to be as hard as Canadian voting where you have to show ID?

[hobbyguy]

By the way, although generally a moderate, I probably would have voted for Brexit if I was a Brit. Perhaps not for the same reasons as some, but because of policies coming out of Brussels.

As to moderate and left leaning voters who don't vote changing political landscapes by pulling them away from the right wing, here is another view: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-would-it-look-like-if-everyone-voted-in-the-us-2016-11

"a recent Gallup poll, 65% of Democrats and 76% of Republicans said they "will definitely vote" tomorrow." (Trump won the electoral college with some very close wins.)

But it isn't monolithic:

"For example, voters are more conservative than non-voters on laws relating to reproductive rights. On laws relating to universal healthcare, voters are more liberal than non-voters."

"For example, as noted by Flash Forward's Rose Eveleth, there's considerable evidence that the wealthier you are, the more likely you are to vote. Candidates would probably cater less to a wealthier demographic if they knew that people from all levels of economic status planned to cast their ballots."

I think that last one relates to the Sanders supporters. I wonder if they bothered to vote?

At any rate, the general notion is that if that if everybody voted, the results would tilt in a liberal direction.