Young voters did this, ironically enough, according to BBC World News. Young people struggling to get jobs after graduation think that right wing parties will fix that.
So as older generations are trying not to hand-off a burning planet to the young, the young are signing up for a burning planet under some delusion that right wingers will get them jobs. Schools have apparently failed to teach kids that the jobs they get under conservative governance are shit jobs -- lousy pay and lousy benefits.
The Nazi Party’s popularity increased in the early 1930s partly because of its pledge to do what no other political party had been able to accomplish: pull Germany out of the Great Depression and put Germans back to work.
Are the non-aligned a "party"that would rather not be named (on the right wing of things) or are they actually non aligned and would be better represented as being in the middle of this chart?
Different fractions, some of them are not aligned yet because they are new. However, for the biggest groups: 17 MEPs are the German AfD that was kicked out of the right-most group for being too Nazi, 11 MEPs are Fidesz (Orban) which is right-wing and the list goes on, so for the most part the position is mostly correct.
The 8 groups of colors you see on the graph are actually dozens and dozens of parties who group themselves into more compact coalitions depending on their broad ideology. This is actually no issue to get shit done and pass plenty of legislation.
What we actually don't like is that the far right groups (Conservatives and Reformists, and Identity and Democracy, and a third secret option) are growing even a little bit more, which increases the possibility of them actually passing the laws they want.
It's far from perfect, but the European parliament is vastly more functional than the American Congress, just based on the amount of legislation that is crafted, compromised on, and passed. These laws, which have to be adopted by all the countries in the EU, are the most prosocial and environmental in the world.
With these elections increasing the size of conservative coalitions, there will be more of a push against things like green regulations, immigration quotas, and support for Ukraine.
More conservatives are being elected because right-wing nationalist/populist parties across Europe are fanning the flames of anti-immigrant hate, the burden of inflation, and EU regulations that might squeeze the ability of farmers (or other laborers) to make a profit, in order to sell their Make (insert country name here) Great Again rhetoric and whatever religious/corporate/fascist power dynamics that rhetoric conceals.
Can someone knowledgeable here explain this projection in relation to green policies and carbon goals?
I assume they are now (even) less likely to be in form of mandates and we are moving towards 'capitalism (with a lil stimulus push here and there) will solve the problem it created'?
Tho maybe nuclear energy could also get a little bit more (re)renewed traction?
Also, the whole internet surveillance isn't going away now, is it?
The parties consistently voting in favor of green policies were Greens, Left and Socialdemocrats, with Liberals and independents varying wildly. Some decarbonization goals are still in place, but the new equilibrium may vote to revoke some of them and the actual laws to enforce them for good will likely not be passed.
The EU past a lot of actually good policy in the last term. Namely ban of fossil fuel cars 2035, limiting certificates for the EUs carbon market, new carbon market for transport and housing and a bunch of other laws, which actually have some positive impact. For the most part the EU parliament was not only in favour, but activly pushing for it being one of the most pro enviromental policy parliaments in the world. That is probably going to stop and they likely try to kill some of the laws passed. So the key in the future will be defence for most enviromental groups. The laws which have been passed will lower emissions, but not fast enough.
As for nuclear the EU is so far this year at 73.2% clean electricity. The large countries with a lot of fossil fuels are Poland, Italy and Germany. Of those only Poland is activly pushing for nuclear. The EU parliament is not able to force the other two to do that.
I think it is clear for most people that nuclear is not sustainable and only a short term solution. Now is actually a great opportunity to push for renewable energies also because it is important to get a foot into the market before China takes it all.
I don't think they really care if it's eco or not. It's a 20-30 year boondoggle during which time they can carry on burning fossil fuels while vetoing anything green under the pretence of "but the nuclear is already on the way".
And by the time the nuclear is built, it won't be enough (because of all the electric cars), so they'll carry on with the coal and gas anyway.
With the German Pirate Party loosing its seat a strong voice against surveilance is lost.
They also supplied NGOs with information directly from the legislative process, allowing them to act faster (and sometimes you have to be very fast to comment on minor changes with great effect) I hope somebody else at least partly takes on this role.
You could have told me this is is the current layout of Israel's Knesset and I would have believed you.
Proportional representation only looks good from the perspective of a spreadsheet. As soon as power dynamics enters the picture it doesn't look so good anymore.
The biggest problem with "first past the post" is the name. Politics works when people are able to compromise. Requiring that a representative is at least able to compromise enough to get the majority of votes in their community is useful for weeding out the weirdos who are incapable of compromise. Any democracy can become two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for dinner, but in a proportional representation this result is significantly more likely. There's no one in a the "Identity and Democracy" that has to compromise to get a few more votes to get past that post, right? Just as the Left and Green parties can have 100% uncompromising dedication to the causes they care about, so can the other side. And if that side forms a coalition, the concerns of minorities won't be addressed as minorities have zero power when not in the coalition.
Well, you never know... whatever coalition that forms after you vote might not be be as extreme right as the one that formed in Israel. Cross your fingers, and hope for a good outcome from the backroom deals to form a coalition that you have no say over. And if the worst happens and you have a far right coalition running the EU, at least the numbers line up on the spreadsheet and you got to vote for a niche party that didn't have to compromise!
I think that the difference between PR and FPTP (or other majoritarian systems) is that in the former, compromise happens on the floor of the parliament, whereas in the latter, compromise happens in voters' minds.
In PR the compromises all happen in the backroom deal to form a coalition. After that they have the votes they need and don't really need to care about anyone that's outside the coalition.
In FPTP I can call my MP and complain. I'm not one out of tens of millions of votes, I'm one out of thousands of votes. A small group of people in a riding can make the MP pay attention because they could lose their job if they don't. We influence the MP, the MP influences the party. And the party needs to listen to the MP because the seat doesn't belong to the MP, it belongs to the MP. The MP could cross the floor, go independent, or even join another party, and the party loses a seat. The power dynamics flow up from the people. The people can remove the MP and the MP can take away a little bit of power from the party.
In PR, the MP exists only for show. After the election that party has X% of the vote and has X% of the seats. The job of the MP is dependent on sucking up to the party leadership. They will vote for or against what they're told to by the party leadership, so what's the point of them? Just have the party leaders there and when they vote for, X% of the vote is for the legislation. Or conducts it like a courtroom, the parties hire the best advocates they can find to read the rationale for voting for against a piece of legislation.
PR has legislative assemblies only to provide a show of representation, put people in those seats don't represent anyone except their party.
The proof is in the pudding. Israel, EU, both PR systems, both susceptible to far-right coalition politics. The UK on the other hand will soon have a center-left government while the rest of Europe will be under the far-right influence of the EU parliament. A hard Brexit was a mistake, but what's going on now only has the EU proving idiots like Boris Johnson and Nigel Farage to be right. I mean Nigel Farage ever being a MEP only proved what a clown show a PR parliament is.
I kinda like ranked choice, but there are downsides to it. It's more complicated to count votes but that's manageable. But there is something to be said for having vote counting be simple enough that there is no doubt about the winner.
Many people may have difficulty with thinking in any kind of abstract way. Yeah it seems relatively trivial just to number candidates from most favoured to least favoured, but a lot of people will struggle with this.
A system like France's run-off system for president seems ideal to me. It's simple and having some time between the first vote and the second vote to discuss and debate (and just think about) which of the final two candidates is the best is valuable. No need for abstract thought and counting the votes is simple and less likely to be disputed (though that can happen even in a simple system a la Trump).
But it's expensive to have two rounds of voting for every election on every level. So ranked choice works well enough when having two rounds of voting isn't feasible. I mean no system is ever going to be ideal, but gotta pick the best of the imperfect options.
Well you thought wrong. What even gave you that idea?
Recent and older scandals have proven, that the authoritarians in Austria, Czechia and Germany (probably elsewhere too) are receiving money and orders from Putin. They're not even nationalists in that sense, they just love fascism. Even trump with all his "America first" bs loves Putin. All enemies of democracy will work together to dismantle it.
That's the thing, you think that because they keep saying they like their country more than the others, a foreign leader who hates and want harms to their country would be their enemy.
The truth is (1) they get a boner for the authoritarian way Putin leads Russia and (2) Putin treats them well because he knows that strengthening those parties weaken the country they're in.
Also Putin hates EU, and they hate EU. The difference is that Putin hates EU because he knows that European countries are stronger together.
I'm literally crying looking at this. People are mad that there are 8.6% of nazis, meanwhile, over here in Russia, there's like 7.8% reps in the upper house and <4% in the lower who might secretly NOT be a nazi. The rest are pretty open about it.
What makes one a European?
I think we can be either more or less European; perhaps I should say that there may be more or fewer reasons for being recognized as such by others.
Jus sanguinis (right of blood)
Jus soli (right of soil)
Christian culture (I consider myself a cultural christian, although I am an atheist)
And why should Europe be only for Europeans?
I don't oppose legal immigration on a small scale. However, currently there are too many immigrants "refugees" . We need to say stop. Stop illegal immigration, stop Islam, stop criminals. And what are we currently doing? We are legalising illegal immigrants; What the heck?
What in the world are you talking about? I haven’t heard of any European countries where migrants have more or anywhere close to equal rights to citizens, not to say about financial, employment, or welfare access. So you’re pretty much full of so much shit. There are powerful systems in place to guarantee that a company is able to sponsor a visa only when there are NO qualified candidates available from within the country, and even then the process is extremely slow as to discourage companies from doing it, and most people being considered need to have strong education and qualifications. If by migrants you are primitive enough to only be referencing refugees or illegal migrants and the integration issues that a few countries experience from the late waves, you need to be a moron to believe that right wing politicians give a single shit about the problems that you experience. Either way, you are not in any way within a hundred miles from not being a first “class citizen in your country”. What you are is a bitter and mean dipshit who has so little humanity left in them that they are so obsessed with hurting others. So blinded by the need to hate that they have resorted to seeking psychopathic joy over other people’s misery, over “defeat” of those who are concerned about authoritarian, anti democratic parties. These parties’ main purpose is to deepen wealth inequality and corruption further and profit off of it, and further disintegrate the protections of the working class from corporate exploitation. Abandoning social democratic values fixes none of the issues that the European people are suffering from.
