posted 06-13-99 10:15 AM ET        

If you chose not to vote, but had the opportunity to do so, please post to this effect.

If you didn't vote because you were not eligable to do so (due to age or being a non-EU citizen), please post what you would have voted for.

You can find links to the homepages of the different parties here.

posted 06-13-99 03:13 PM ET            

This is the first time that I have voted for any non-mainstream party, primarily because I felt my vote might actally count. Perhaps proportional representation does have something going for it, contrary to my previous belief. (On the other hand, the Green Party might get some members, and that would be pretty dreadful.)

posted 06-13-99 04:12 PM ET            

Why? Because I object to the impersonal approach of the proportional representation system. While I admit that it is a fairer system on a national level, it's appalling at a regional level. I have no say in the selection of my individual MP. What kind of representation is that? I'm casting a blind vote with no idea whether the personal ideology of my MP will have any resemblance to my own. No thanks.

posted 06-14-99 03:57 AM ET            

Hugo: Abbreviations are fine, but with the euro elections there simply are too many languages to keep track...

GUE/NGL - the left wingers including germany's SED follow-up and Italy's rifondazione ?

ARE - ?

posted 06-14-99 06:40 AM ET            

The maybe biggest problem: Even of the 45-50 % who actually voted, I guess a large majority does not know what they elected... European Parliament ? Ehm... (a poll said that in the UK, 69 % of voters had no idea what the EP is, does etc).

posted 06-14-99 01:56 PM ET            

Roland: GUE/NGL= Gauche Unie d'Europe/Nordic Green Left (A collection of Communist and left-wing parties, one of three groups to the left of the Socialists. The other two are the greens (some issues only) and the ARE)

posted 06-14-99 04:01 PM ET            

PPE: European people's party. The Conservatives and Christian Democrats.

ELDR: Euorean Liberal, Democrat and Reform party. Somewhere in between the above two.

I-EDN: Independants for a europe of nations. Anti-EU Party, mostly Danes, I think.

UPE: Union for Europe. Right wing federalist/liberal party.

ARE: European Radical Alliance. Mixed bunch of parties, from nationalists to federalists. At least they are all radicals, and reasonably left wing.

V: The greens. Mid Left-Wing Ecology Party.

The Groupless: Fascists, mostly. Everyone hates them.

and, finally:

posted 06-14-99 06:08 PM ET            

Are European politics radicalized as much as they appear to be? For instance, how do the Greens, Communists, and Groupless compete (might as well group them together--no personal offense intended Hugo)? Do people take them seriously at all? Maybe I'm just used to plain, old, boring, "reliable" U.S. politics...

If I could vote, it would probably be PPE. It seems like they have the center, whatever that is. Seems more like an unorganized mish-mash of parties. What's a Federalist? Does this mean most Europe governing functions are devolved to the states? What's a Liberal in this context? Is it a hard-core socialist? How can you be a Nationalist in the European context? Is it that they are anti-Europe?

posted 06-15-99 04:15 AM ET            

Ok, here's an attempt for answers, answers, answers...

Are European politics radicalized as much as they appear to be?

I don't know how they appear to you. The political center (social democrats, liberals, EPP) have about 70-75 % of the seats. Now while the center of US politics is more to the right, you also have "radical" wings, just that they are in the big party platforms while they form their own parties in Europe, mainly as a result of proportional representation.

For instance, how do the Greens, Communists, and Groupless compete? Do people take them seriously at all?

IMNSHO, by serving up simple populist answers without having a clue...

Maybe I'm just used to plain, old, boring, "reliable" U.S. politics...

The situation described in my last sentence, then, just for the entire political spectrum ?

If I could vote, it would probably be PPE. It seems like they have the center, whatever that is. Seems more like an unorganized mish-mash of parties.

Not sure what you mean there - the parties are more organised than in the US where they are just platforms selling about anything.

What's a Federalist? Does this mean most Europe governing functions are devolved to the states?

Federalist is the wrong term here as it has a destinct meaning, especially for the US. You're right that they have a more national agenda.

What's a Liberal in this context? Is it a hard-core socialist?

Classic liberal, not US style, more center-right. Free market economy, deregulation, lower taxes (though the UK libdems are a bit more to the left on that issue), liberal on social issues. About the right wing of the democrats or the left wing of the republicans.

How can you be a Nationalist in the European context? Is it that they are anti-Europe?

Some are. Of course, people can elect anti-european parties in the EP election. It's a democratic election, being pro-EU is no precondition to run...

Hugo:

posted 06-15-99 01:41 PM ET            

"Not sure what you mean there - the parties are more organised than in the US where they are just platforms selling about anything."

Nice try. There are two levels of national politics: congressional and presidential. Congressmen march to the beat of their own drummers, platform and the party be hanged. Presidential politics resemble old-style coalition building. A party's platform is meant to help coalesce the desired coalition (at 50%+, or ~44%+ in Clinton's last two races). In many other countries, the coalition for governing is built at the bargaining table after elections.

posted 06-15-99 01:55 PM ET            

Are European politics radicalized as much as they appear to be?

I think the main difference is that proportional representation systems allow fringe parties to have large proportions of parliamentary seats. I mean, how many non-republican or democrat senators are there in the US? None. If the number of senators was assigned though percentages, the anwer might have been different... Secondly, the EU parliament is special because such a low percentage of voters actually make it to the polls. This means that only those with a truly burning engagement in politics actually vote. This, if anything, benefits fringe parties.

For instance, how do the Greens, Communists, and Groupless compete (might as well group them together--no personal offense intended Hugo)? Do people take them seriously at all?

Grouping them together is indeed awful, since they are all very different and with different levels of respect. To begin with, the groupless (ie. Italian Fascists and French Nationalists) Have very little respect at all. Everyone across the mainstream political spectrum hates their guts, from Conservatives to Communists.

The Leftists are treated very differently in different countries. In Sweden and Finland (the NGL) the parties are treated as normal political parties, and they are: They mostly advocate the policies that the Social Democrates had thirty years ago before they moved to the right. They are most certainly not populistic, but rather unpopular with the rich and companies (wonder why... ) In southern europe, the Communists are slightly less respected, especially in France and Italy. Spain is the exception as they still remember the civil war. In germany the PDS is generally despised. In England the communists are as much a fringe party as they are in the US.

The Greens are a really mixed bunch. Don't make the common mistake that all Green Parties have a one-question outlook- Quite the opposite sometimes, when they aren't even concerned with the environment anymore. The green parties of europe are very different from one another. From the German Greens who are a large, respectable and well-working political party, with deep bases in the Environmental movement, the peace movement and the mid-left, to the English Greens who are mostly pagan nutballs. Two issues greatly divide this group: Drugs and the EU. Many green parties support drug liberalisation, while others hate it. The group is also devided with extreme eurosceptics bundled with federalists (see below).

If I could vote, it would probably be PPE. It seems like they have the center, whatever that is. Seems more like an unorganized mish-mash of parties.

It's due to the fact that you have 15 separate countries with 15 separate political spectrums. As you can see with the Green and Communist parties above, party ideologies are widely different within a group. Whatever you say, the US is pretty homogenous culturally.

What's a Federalist? Does this mean most Europe governing functions are devolved to the states?

A federalist is just what he/she sounds like. He/She wants to federalise europe. The ultimate aim of a federalist is to have todays nations as states within an equavilent of the "united states of Europe". Fedralists push for things that go towards this goal: common currency, taxation, defence, etc.

What's a Liberal in this context? Is it a hard-core socialist?

Not at all. The "liberals" are neo-liberals living by the mistaken notion that equality comes from "freedom". The real liberals achieved their aims 75 years ago when everyone nominally achieved equality before the law. Liberalism has since stopped progressing and instead ventured upon the dangerous backward-striving path of neo-liberalism. Right-Centre is about right.

(Note: The exception to the above is the LibDems in Britain. However, it's not hard to be to the left of Labour...)

How can you be a Nationalist in the European context? Is it that they are anti-Europe?

posted 06-15-99 05:15 PM ET            

It's down to my mistrust of them. I think that any executive body that serves a population greater than 1,000 people is going to be deeply flawed. The use of the proportional representation in the Euro elections just increased my sense of alienation from the proceedings. That's why I didn't vote.

posted 06-16-99 04:41 AM ET            

Roland, some of those answers were not just misleading, they were plain wrong. Lets see my perspective on the same questions.

I fail to see much disagreement there. Care to explain what's wrong with my points ?

I think the main difference is that proportional representation systems allow fringe parties to have large proportions of parliamentary seats. I mean, how many non-republican or democrat senators are there in the US? None. If the number of senators was assigned though percentages, the anwer might have been different...

In a non-PR system the fringes tend to integrate into the big parties and will find constituencies where they can succeed. With a PR-system, the christian coalition or the left wing of the democratic party would have their own fringe parties, but that does not change their political "quality".

They are most certainly not populistic, but rather unpopular with the rich and companies (wonder why... )

That's a matter of opinion, and I gave my opinionated view, labelled with a "IMNSHO" and a smiley.

The Greens are a really mixed bunch... Two issues greatly divide this group: Drugs and the EU....

And Kosovo/NATO and economic policies, to name two other biggies...

Whatever you say, the US is pretty homogenous culturally.

I would have thought it's a lot more split culturally. But politically, the mainstream is very broad dancing around the same golden calfs...

A federalist is just what he/she sounds like. He/She wants to federalise europe. The ultimate aim of a federalist is to have todays nations as states within an equavilent of the "united states of Europe". Fedralists push for things that go towards this goal: common currency, taxation, defence, etc.

That's the standard US/UK meaning; yet federalism is also about the distribution of powers on two layers of government, and can also mean more power to the lower layer. In our national politics, a federalist wants more power for the states vs the federation, opposing the centralists.

Not at all. The "liberals" are neo-liberals living by the mistaken notion that equality comes from "freedom".

No... we are just fighting the idea that freedom comes from total equality.

The real liberals achieved their aims 75 years ago when everyone nominally achieved equality before the law. Liberalism has since stopped progressing and instead ventured upon the dangerous backward-striving path of neo-liberalism. Right-Centre is about right.

Liberalism is the way forward. With overregulation and nanny-state advocates still abound, there is still enough work for a classic liberal to be done.

(Note: The exception to the above is the LibDems in Britain. However, it's not hard to be to the left of Labour...)

Good point... why isn't new labour in the EPP ?

Nationalists are Anti-Europe. Left-Wing Anti-EU activists are pro-europe, Anti-EU (The EU is just 1/3 of europe, after all.)

Depending on your defintion of "Europe", it's 50-80 % of the people. And there are left-wingers who are against european integration; those anti-EU, but pro-europe have no alternative to offer, and will be flushed down the toilet of history.

Dan:

Could you specify the "liberal on social issues" part?

My take on this: The state shouldn't overregulate the economy just as it shouldn't overregulate your bedroom. For example, liberals don't want the state to stuff down "family values" people's throats, or entangle the state with religion etc.

Nice try.

Hey, I thought that was my line ?

There are two levels of national politics: congressional and presidential. Congressmen march to the beat of their own drummers, platform and the party be hanged. Presidential politics resemble old-style coalition building. A party's platform is meant to help coalesce the desired coalition (at 50%+, or ~44%+ in Clinton's last two races). In many other countries, the coalition for governing is built at the bargaining table after elections.

The parties are more organised, but we have more parties which are unorganised among each other. Don't think we have a different view there ?

What's this "proportional representation" anyway?

You don't vote for a candidate, but for a list of candidates. Every constituency has several seats, in the most extreme case, there is only one constituency for the entire electorate. If you have 500 seats, about 0,2 % of the vote would be enough for a list to get a seat. The system is hardly anywhere realised in that extreme way; eg in germany, there's a 5% clause to get seats and its mixed with a first-pass-the-post-system...

Ever heard of the Delphi Effect? That's why I'm not worried...

posted 06-16-99 07:24 AM ET            

Anyway, I vote for the danish liberal party, who won the danish election and now has 5 of the 16 danish seats in EP. (ELDR)

posted 06-16-99 08:18 AM ET            

UK independence: 1 (Noisy)
United left: 1 (Hugo; Trappist and Harrison left, but didn't vote; John III ?)
Liberal: 4 (MikeH, Tolls, Dr Who, Roland)

Forgot anyone ?

posted 06-16-99 12:41 PM ET            

The french one: One seat perconstituency, but if no candidate makes more than 50 %, the two frontrunners go to a second round of voting.

The german one: half of the seats are voted for like in the US/UK system (with your first vote); the overall number of seats is distributed by PR (your second vote), but the candidates from the lists are only used to fill the gap between direct elected MPs and the overall result. Destortions are handled by awarding additional seats.