Talk:2005 Norwegian parliamentary election

message: I have done some calculations at my website of the election results, which show that the combined right-wing parties polled more votes than the combined left-wing parties, yet the left won the elections with 88 seats to 81. This shouldn't happen in a pure PR system like Norway's. I can only surmise that there is a bias in the electoral system in favour of the northern counties where the left is strongest. Is this the case? Adam 12:14, 15 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The 150 district mandates are distributed across the counties according to a system where the counties receive one point per inhabitant and 1.8 points per square kilometer. In addition there is a levelling mandate in each county. Jens Stoltenberg claims his side polled the most votes, by including the votes for the Red Electoral Alliance for his side. --Samuelsen 12:44, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: This includes the levelling mandates. --Samuelsen 13:40, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: If you take Frp's votes into consideration, then you also have to count in RV's votes. Then the left wing did indeed get most votes. A + SV + Sp + RV got 1,299,315 votes. The right wing, Frp + H + V + Krf got 1,289,269 votes. Other minor parties got the last 50,529 votes. The voting system, where Oslo votes is worth less than Finnmark votes may be unfair in some ways - but, if all votes were worth the same, then Oslo would get about 25% of the parliament, while the area of Oslo is only 0.1% of the country's total area. That would probably have been even more unfair. SAB 19:16, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

text: This is the result of a conscious political choice. The laws concerning the parliamentary elections is but one of many political areas in which Norway actively seeks to incite and uphold activity and settlement in rural parts of the country. Zerblatt 23:20, 19 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This page claims a turnout of 77.1% while Politics of Norway gives 76.7% Anyone knows the correct number? Fornadan (t) 13:12, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: says 77.1 %. --Samuelsen 16:07, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Turnout 

message: I'm not sure if I'm allowed to do this, because I've never come across or participated in such a web page before, but I just wanted to comment really. I feel that Adam was simply observing a fact, that individual votes in Oslo have less than half the value of rural votes in the north of Norway. He is entitled to the opinion that this is anti-democratic. (It so happens that in the case of this election, the victorious alliance had the majority of votes as well as seats, but it could also happen that this not be the case). I'm not sure I necessarily agree with his concern, however. I think that cultural issues, population issues etc are valid factors to be considered. It is probable that the agriculture argument is still valid in Norway and that, as time goes on, when it needs to change, Norwegian people will campaign for it themselves. 
I am Irish, and have only a few words of Norwegian, by the way!
No, the victorious alliance did not have the majority of votes as well as seats. They have fewer votes but more seats. Adam 11:45, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gentlemen, gentlemem...... 

message: Well, the disproportionate amount of seats to the rural districts is to protect their viability, and being a kind of insurance against majority tyranny. Maybe matematically and principally evry vote should count the same. Then again, by what right does Oslo-people decide what happens to Finnmark? It's a complicated issue, and not so black/white as some contend. I think the system works fine, as Norway is big, sparsely populated with serious regional differences. And ususally, the percentages are more correct than here, and even here, it's not far off. It was just a very tight election. 129.177.76.173 10:47, 29 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No political system is without flaws. The Norwegian electoral system reflects the viewpoints of the population of Norway and is generally accepted. How come accepting this is "arrogance" and makes the system undemocratic? The system reflects what the population of Norway want, it would be undemocratic if it did not reflect this. Cybbe 17:29, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

text: What makes you think that your opinion is right, while an entire nation is wrong? You must have an unrealisticly high degree of self-esteem. SAB 08:44, 30 September 2005 (UTC)

text: First, please use proper indenting. Second, you should remember that the Norwegian election law is made by a democratically elected parliament, which is by far a more democratic process than if one Australian should dictate our laws. Third, this is not the correct forum for a dicussion like this; I think we should stop here. SAB 12:23, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Undemocratic? Depends on how you look at it

message: Wikipedia isn't a message board for the discussion of your personal opinions. So if you have problems with the current article, could you please give concrete examples of what you don't like? Fornadan (t) 11:40, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: The article is fine, as long as a neutral word (disparity) is used for explaining the difference between actual vote count and representation. SAB 12:27, 30 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: To no one in particular