El Koronel Blimp waxed pathetic:

< If you are so sure of your impeccably wise convictions, then give us, repeatedly parrotized as stupid or ready for air travel to the US, some non-platitudinous idea of WHAT THE FCUK should be done about the state of affairs here in Latvia.>

Get on board the big airplane and head on Home, O Koronel! We will welcome you with open arms and the finest motherfcukers American taxpayers’ money can afford.

Tarmo the Nordic {sic} a.k.a. Gelge W. Twigg {sic} a.k.a. El Subcommandante {sic} a.k.a. You Heathen Rabbi {sic} a.k.a. Latvian Trimdie at Natick Mall {sic} a.k.a. Your Parrot {sic}

This is pointless. You have only one answer. Let us know when you de-orbit.

Sveiki!

“Does anyone else, perhaps Elisabete (once a Rītdiena supporter, if I am not mistaken) or the Inteliģentais Daugavpils grafomānis P/ (who often writes much, but then of much interest) have anything to say on the matter? Election reform in Muttsiestan? (as far as the political elite goes) “

Juri K, I don’t want to get into a protracted discussion about making fundamental changes to the election law, but I don’t understand why you believe that it would result in just a cosmetic change without significant consequences in the long term.  Any electoral law sets down the rules of the game for parties and candidates to get into positions of power.  Change the key components and over time this will affect the political landscape.

Many people agree that part of the problem with Latvia’s political culture is that power is concentrated in the hands of a few, making it all the more easier for oligarchs to control the parliament’s agenda.  What more rarely is mentioned (though sometimes it appears in the stenogrammas) is that the very structure of the current electoral law reinforces and helps maintain this concentration of power by allowing a single popular person to win as many as 5 seats in Saeima – one in each of the electoral districts – thereby bringing in 4 dark horses, who owe their political careers not to the voters, but solely to this ‘locomotive.’ Is it any wonder that the dark horses are merely button-pushers in Saeima, mindlessly & obediently voting as they’re told by their party bosses, regardless of the electorate’s opinion? 

In this last election 23 locomotives won 70% of the seats after the first round of counting, which is consistent with the results for the previous four elections. (Between the 5th-9th Saeima, 19-23 locomotives won 65-77 seats.) Another 28 candidates won a single seat on their own, and the rest – just under half of the parliament: 49 deputies – were ‘ievilkti’, i.e., drawn into Saeima by a locomotive.  If the experience from the previous elections holds true for the next one in 2010, only half of these ievilktie – let’s call them wagons – if re-elected will be able to do so without the help of a locomotive.  In the meantime what incentive is there for these wagons to address voters’ concerns rather than just continuing to please their bosses? 

Some commentators in Latvia, knowing that there is a 50-50 split – the parties controlling half the seats, the voters the other half – have correctly pointed out that some proportional list systems don’t give their voters even this much control over who gets into parliament.  This is true enough, but regional representation comes into play here, since no matter what degree of control is given to the electorate it must be *equal* for all voters no matter where they vote.  No other EU country provides its electorate with as many preferential votes (krustiņi un izsvītrošana) as there are candidates to be elected without ensuring the equality of votes by district.

Unfortunately in Latvia’s instance, votes cast for and against candidates in the three smaller electoral districts – Kurzeme, Latgale and Zemgale – are most definitely *not* equal to those from Rīga and Vidzeme.  In the last 5 elections, voters for Latvian parties in Zemgale have elected all of 9% of their first choice candidates, in Kurzeme - 12% and in Latgale – 30%.  In Vidzeme, voters get 81% of their first choice candidates and in Rīga – 50%.  In essence the voters in the smaller districts are second class voters whose sole function is to act as a conduit for the wagons.  These voters cast ballots for their preferred candidates, but in their place along come the wagons who do a piss poor job of ‘representing’ their interests in Saeima. 

Is it any wonder that the greater Rīga region (which includes huge swatches of Vidzeme all the way up the coast to Ainaži) has received the lion’s share of the EU development monies that were meant to equalize the impoverished provinces? 

A change in the electoral law that got rid of the effects of locomotives would also inevitably have a ripple effect on the caliber of candidates on any serious party’s slate and to a certain extent on the party itself.  Other than in 1995 when the coalition of farmers (LZS), Christian democrats (LKD)and a now defunct Latgalian party (LDA) presented 96 candidates to the voters, there hasn’t been a single party that’s come close to presenting a full 100-candidate slate – much less the new 115 candidate limit.  From a party’s viewpoint this is entirely understandable: their chosen elite - on average: a quarter of the candidates - needs to run in more than one district, so they can be assured of being elected into Saeima.  But to put it bluntly: a lot of the also-rans look like ‘padding’ to me, window-dressing to make it seem as though a political party even exists.  In this last election, 55% of the candidates for the Latvian parties now in Saeima were in the minuses.  Not an insignificant number of these candidates had run in the 8th Saeima and were also crossed-out then.  Even worse, for the first time since 1995 we have a deputy in this Saeima who in November was sworn in, despite having his name crossed out by more voters than gave him plusses.  I personally found it bizarre how many post-election commentators talked about the political parties having ‘stabilized.’ Voters aren’t stupid, collectively hating more than half of the candidates on the slates. they expressed this viewpoint by crossing out their names.  Somehow this went right past your colleagues in the press. 

(Alas - to be continued below)

We all seem to understand the ‘one man - one vote’ concept, but odd that no one in Latvia questions why there isn’t an analogous ‘one candidate – one seat’ saying. (Granted, there’s not much recent experience of it in the west, since France banned the practice in 1889 and the Nordic countries in effect did so by the mid 20th century.) In the last election 67% of the winning candidates in Saeima stood for election in more than one electoral district (which is also close to the 64% average of the last 5 elections).  So 2/3 of the currently elected deputies were given more than one chance to win a seat in Saeima.  But why are these candidates ‘more equal than others’ as is said in Latvia?  Though it warmed my heart that some of the most amoral incumbents of the 8. Saeima didn’t hold onto their seats, why was Baķka given 4 chances to stand for election and Otter Woman – 5?

The long and the short of it is that banning multiple-district candidacies as part of a carefully structured law would force the parties to begin decentralizing their power structure and act more like political parties in the west where voters aren’t entirely locked out of the political process - if they choose to get more involved.  Instead of expecting voters to compete for the ‘right’ to elect the parties’ elite, candidates would have to compete for the electorate’s votes. 

Would this attract new and more capable people into the political landscape?  Don’t know.  But, what’s the chance of that occurring under the current ground rules?

Undeniably, the effects wouldn’t be felt before 2014 - or maybe even 2018.  But, I certainly have never maintained there was a wand that magically changes Latvia’s political culture, which inexorably will be a long process. 

Visu labu,

Elizabete

I get the reasoning, but I am skeptical. I think that the parties would simply re-deploy their candidates or simply find more candidates willing to align with the interests of those financing them, so instead of one national list, you would have several compliant regional lists. Perhaps in the long run, like the 2018 elections, some change may be discernible. In the mean time, people frustrated with politics here will withdraw, boycott the state (pay minimal tax legally or otherwise) or emigrate. These processes work faster than slow political change, so I don’t see much hope…

Liels, liels, liels paldies, Liize. Now that’s an argument. Puts the parrot to shame.

Andrejs

Elizabete, indeed, thanks…

And let us not forget the US history of “gerrymandering” electoral districts. I don’t know whether the Latvian regions are constitutionally fixed or could be manipulated.  You must also remember that this reform has to work against the grain of Latvian political (un) culture and practices since 1991.
Maybe what is needed is extraparliamentary opposition, people who simply reject and refuse to go along with ANY Latvian government and form local networks, NGOs, cooperatives, whatever. One could dream of a second Tautas fronte, but unlikely.

Scourge opined:

< Puts the parrot to shame.>

Not this parrot! In my humble opinion, she puts Scourge to shame.

El Koronel Blimp opined:

< One could dream of a second Tautas fronte, but unlikely.>

Unlikely indeed, given Scourge’s intransigence and your own reluctance to put your funny money where your genes are and head on home to the Homeland to face your deprogramming laike a man!

Tarmo the Nordic {sic} a.k.a. Gelge W. Twigg {sic} a.k.a. El Subcommandante {sic} a.k.a. You Heathen Rabbi {sic} a.k.a. Latvian Trimdie at Natick Mall {sic} a.k.a. Your Parrot {sic} a.k.a. RegionalMook {sic} a.k.a. Exlalaluluboggwoggistani Animalized Muttsie {sic} a.k.a. Wasted Bandwidth {sic}

Had to look this one up:

in·tran·si·gent also in·tran·si·geant(n-trns-jnt, -z-)
adj.
Refusing to moderate a position, especially an extreme position; uncompromising.

Interesting. Would this be the pot calling the kettle black?

All I meant is that Liize in her one post has done 1000 times more to advance the cause of true regional representation than the parrot has in his 1000 or more squawks. And if one was interested in advancing that goal he (or she) might want to emulate Liize and not the parrot.

If the parrot would be interested in debate I’d ask him, same as my domu biedrs and national treasure, a very valid question. Not to argue, not be intransigent and not to even snigger (simply because I’d like to hear his thoughts on the topic) I’d ask him how does he think regional representation would resolve the issue of Riga (for example) having disproportionate regional power? And what other steps does the parrot think should and could be taken. But alas, the parrot is only interested in being a parrot, so I won’t ask.

Andrejs, Intransigent Scourge

Scourge looked it up:

< in·tran·si·gent also in·tran·si·geant(n-trns-jnt, -z-) adj. Refusing to moderate a position, especially an extreme position; uncompromising.>

And then Scourge expressed interest:

< Interesting. Would this be the pot calling the kettle black?>

No. Refusing for years on end, no matter how the matter is presented, to acknowledge the fundamental importance of regional representation as an absolute prerequisite for representative democracy is intransigence. The Parrot’s not giving up Scourge as a lost cause is NOT intransigence but indulgence. Not calling the kettle black, calling Scourge Scourge.

< If the parrot would be interested in debate I’d ask him, same as my domu biedrs and national treasure, a very valid question. blablabla I’d ask him how does he think regional representation would resolve the issue of Riga (for example) having disproportionate regional power?>

Your “very valid question” has been asked many, many times and answered many, many times. The disproportionate power of Riga is not so disproportionate as to be a trumping argument on your part for being intransigent against recognizing the issue of constitutionally required regional representation in parliament. You and your friend El Koronel Blimp The National Treasure both seem to think that the disproportionate power of Riga entitles Riga to its disproportionate power, period, and the only hope for democracy is to wait for Father Time in a Limited Sense to bring your fellow muttsies to their senses or back home to the Shiny Homeland On the Hill which awaits them, of course, with open arms.

< And what other steps does the parrot think should and could be taken.>

The Parrot thinks that one step that should be taken is for El Koronel Blimp The National Treasure to come on back home to the Homeland. Another step is for Scourge to stop mongering the Global War of the Willing while taking time out to ask “very valid questions” about representative democracy as a concept.

Tarmo the Nordic {sic} a.k.a. Gelge W. Twigg {sic} a.k.a. El Subcommandante {sic} a.k.a. You Heathen Rabbi {sic} a.k.a. Latvian Trimdie at Natick Mall {sic} a.k.a. Your Parrot {sic} a.k.a. RegionalMook {sic} a.k.a. Exlalaluluboggwoggistani Animalized Muttsie {sic} a.k.a. Wasted Bandwidth
{sic}

http://zagarins.net/kjl

No. Refusing for years on end, no matter how the matter is presented, to acknowledge the fundamental importance of regional representation as an absolute prerequisite for representative democracy is intransigence. The Parrot’s not giving up Scourge as a lost cause is NOT intransigence but indulgence. Not calling the kettle black, calling Scourge Scourge.

Scourge has not problem with being called a Scourge. Scourge has no problem with being called a warmonger. Scourge has no problem playing Attila to the Parrot’s Mahatma. Scourge can live with that.
But the Parrot’s continual insistence that Scourge is somehow in opposition to the fundamental importance of regional representation is just plain silly. Always was.

Scourge

Scourge allowed as how:

< ... the Parrot’s continual insistence that Scourge is somehow in opposition to the fundamental importance of regional representation is just plain silly. Always was.>

Of course. Sorry. To agree that such a thing is utterly irrelevant or 3JTTM Yuck Yuck is indeed not opposition. What I meant was, of course, that Scourge & Co. have refused for years on end even rhetorically to lend their support to the idea that regional representation on the national level is fundamentally important to representative democracy (even in a country like Latvia, where the capital city dominates the countryside.)

By the way, I should add that it is not simply the geographic regionality of representation that matters, but that individual members of parliament be answerable each to their own distinct electorates - not simply to the entire nation. In other words, a resident of Riga should be able to register in and vote for a region other than Riga if he or she chooses. (This is in anticipation of another “very valid question” that keeps popping up like pop the weasel: what about those people who care for their ancestral homes or summer homes more than they care for the place where they have to live in order to make a living. For example, I am only allowed to vote in Riga, even though I do not even own an apartment in Riga.) But that is really beside the point. The point is that the existing constitutional provisional for regional elections ought not be allowed to be circumvented by the parties ballotting their candidates in multiple lists. This makes the act of voting almost utterly meaningless because the country inevitably every time gets to be run by an unprincipled coalition of representatives answerable to no one other than their higher-ups and the big money in the Bank of Latvia. This is much more like the good old USSR rather than any sort of wild capitalism!. Of course, if your opinion is that the people of Lalaluluboggwoggistan are just as muttsie on the grassroots level as in the power elite, then, yes, the whole idea is 3JTTM Yuck Yuck, hardly desrving any sort of support, even if outright opposition would not seem politically correct.

Tarmo the Nordic {sic} a.k.a. Gelge W. Twigg {sic} a.k.a. El Subcommandante {sic} a.k.a. You Heathen Rabbi {sic} a.k.a. Latvian Trimdie at Natick Mall {sic} a.k.a. Your Parrot {sic} a.k.a. RegionalMook {sic} a.k.a. Exlalaluluboggwoggistani Animalized Muttsie {sic} a.k.a. Wasted Bandwidth {sic}

http://zagarins.net/kjl

Sveiki!

„In other words, a resident of Riga should be able to register in and vote for a region other than Riga if he or she chooses. (This is in anticipation of another “very valid question” that keeps popping up like pop the weasel: what about those people who care for their ancestral homes or summer homes more than they care for the place where they have to live in order to make a living. For example, I am only allowed to vote in Riga, even though I do not even own an apartment in Riga.) But that is really beside the point.”

Juri Ž, I don’t think the issue of using a voters’ registration roll is beside the point at all!  You may or may not remember, but Latvia was forced to create such a roll by the EU when we had our first election for European Parliament representatives in 2004.  Initially, CVK planned to use this roll not only for the 2005 municipal elections, but for the Saeima elections last autumn, as well.  But, that went the way of the wind.  Why?  The real reason is that too many candidates are used to telling family, friends and supporters to vote in a specific district where they don’t necessarily live in the winter or summer, but where the candidate has the greatest chance of winning – or at least being pulled in by a locomotive.  This informal gerrymandering has also been mentioned on the floor of the Saeima.  If the electoral law were changed and a significant number of candidates for Saeima had to be elected on their own steam, I don’t have any doubt that this practice would increase.  Guaranteed.  Using a voters’ registration roll must be made mandatory.

Cimdars, the head of the electoral commission, has come under fire by political scientists for allowing informal gerrymandering and defended it last year on Domburs’ program by calling it our ‘tradition.’ And he’s quite right, since not only in our time has Zīgerists managed to get elected by doing so in 1993 (transporting rīdzinieki to Jelgava), but in the 1st Republic this regrettable practice was widely used, too.  It wasn’t until the 1931 election when the Baltic German party - quite legally - transported literally thousands of people to Vidzeme, which gave them an extra seat in Saeima, that Skujnieks, then head of the electoral commission, declared it to be a mistake in his publication of the election results.  This clearly destroyed proportionality, since how many deputies are elected from each district is determined by the number of voters who live in its boundaries.  If on election day voters may cast ballots in another district, then proportionality becomes a farce.  Skujnieks’ intention had been to correct the law prior to the next election, presumably by reinstituting a voters’ roll, as had been used for electing the Satversmes sapulce. 

Voters are allowed to register for municipal elections anywhere they own a home (and/or property, if I’m not mistaken), so that’s no longer an issue.  The lame counterargument to using a voter’s roll has been that voter participation would decrease.  Nonsense.  In this era of computers, there is absolutely no reason why voters can’t vote in any precinct convenient to them.  They just need to be handed ballots for their district, which is an administrative question that doesn’t require a rocket scientist to solve.

I’ve mentioned before that I think it would be good for CVK to determine whether Latvia’s economic migrants in western Europe would be willing to vote if they didn’t have to live without a passport for a few weeks in a foreign country.  I recall that a survey a year and a half or so ago conducted in Ireland indicated that some wanted to vote not in Rīga’s, but rather their home district, and that’s also a valid issue to explore.  If the 100.000 or so voters abroad suddenly voted and were added to Rīga’s numbers, that too would destroy proportionality, if they’re already registered in other provinces.

Juri K, Latvia’s electoral districts aren’t constitutionally fixed to the four provinces plus Rīga.  But, as noted above, informal gerrymandering is already alive and well in Latvia under the current set of rules. 

Visu labu,

Elizabete

Elizabete opined:

< I don’t think the issue of using a voters’ registration roll is beside the point at all!>

It may be an important point, but it is beside the point of our civic responsibility to ensure that the parties in an election each present their separate and distinct list of candidates in each of the five separate and distinct voting regions. Period.

Tarmo the Nordic {sic} a.k.a. Gelge W. Twigg {sic} a.k.a. El Subcommandante {sic} a.k.a. You Heathen Rabbi {sic} a.k.a. Latvian Trimdie at Natick Mall {sic} a.k.a. Your Parrot {sic} a.k.a. RegionalMook {sic} a.k.a. Exlalaluluboggwoggistani Animalized Muttsie {sic} a.k.a. Wasted Bandwidth {sic}

http://zagarins.net/kjl