The next two months will see several elections in our allies/major democracies.
This weekend is the election in Spain for both houses of their parliament. In Spain, the lower house is elected by proportional representation on a provincial basis. While there is a nominal 3% threshold in each province, the (fifty) provinces range from one seat (in which whomever finishes first gets the seat) to thirty-six seats (in which case the threshold makes a real difference as it would take slightly over 2.7% to win a seat). In the Senate, most of the provinces get four seats. While voters directly elect most of the members of the Senate, the catch is that voters have one vote less than the number of seats (i.e. three votes in a province with four seats) which translates into the largest party getting three seats and the second-place party getting one seat. The regional parliaments also get to appoint the remaining fifty-eight members of the Senate. For this election, there are five national parties (ranging from two Democratic Socialist parties to a Trumpian nationalist party) and several regional parties.
There are three things to look at in the results from Spain. First, is there a natural majority for either of the two main blocs (the two Democratic Socialist parties vs. the two center-right party)? Second, how does the Trumpian (Vox) party perform? Third, how do the regional parties (which want increased local autonomy/independence) perform? From the traditional American foreign policy, we would prefer a result that creates a strong functional government capable of being a partner with us. Russia (and our current administration) would prefer a divided election result with strong performances by Vox and the regional parties pulling Spain further away from NATO and the European Union and potentially splitting Spain (one of the larger European countries) into several separate countries focused on their grievances with each other rather than building a strong Europe.
India on the other hand uses a first-past-the-post system. What makes India’s elections unique is that — unlike most countries in which the entire national election takes place on one day — India uses a staggered election system in which there are seven different election days (with each district assigned to a specific day). However, unlike our primary system, the only information released after each election day is turnout. As of this point in time, three of the elections days have already taken place with the last elections occurring on May 19. As has been the case in recent cycles, the election is a battle between two alliances of parties. (Usually small parties do well enough that the major parties need their alliance partners to from a government. In the last election, that was not the case.) The first is lead by the BJP Party which has traditionally taken a very pro-Hindu, socially conservative position. (While Hinduism is the largest religion in India, there are significant number of non-Hindus in India and the Hindu-Islam divide is a key factor in tensions with Pakistan.) The second is led by the Congress Party (which has, for seventy years been, for the most part, led by the Nehru-Gandhi family). The battle between these two factions define India’s problem. On the one hand, you have a party that is somewhat divisive and pushing back against modernism. On the other hand, you have a party that is essentially run by one family.
As with Spain, the main question is whether either alliance will win a majority of the seats. There are enough other parties running that have some regional strengths that a hung parliament is a possibility. The Congress Party is not as strong today as it once was, so a BJP led government seems most likely.
On May 18, the day before the elections conclude in India, there will be an election in Australia. Australia uses preferential voting for its House and the single transferrable vote method for its Senate. Thus, we will probably have the final results from India before we have the final results from Australia. However, the counting system used by Australia (in which each constituency does two counts on election night — one of all preference votes and the second a “snapshot” of the likely final two candidates) tends to do a decent job of identifying the likely winner in most constituencies as well as those which are “too close to call.”
Australia has been very weird for the past decade. In most British-type parliaments, if one party has a solid majority, the person who led that party at the last election will get a full term as Prime Minister. While, in theory, such a party can change its leader mid-term with the result that there is a new Prime Minister, that normally does not happen. However, in each of the last four parliaments in Australia, the Prime Minister has been removed by an internal revolt in their own party.
In the last election, the “Coalition” (the Liberal Party and the National Party which are effectively one party for most purposes) won a narrow majority in the House of Commons (76 seats). Almost all of the other seats went to the Australian Labour Party. However, five seats were held by third parties or independents. Another close election is likely. (With changes in district lines since the last election, a similar vote would result in 74 seats for the Coalition, 71 seats for the ALP, and six seats for third parties or independents.) Current opinion polls show a slight swing to the ALP in the two-party vote, but not necessarily by enough to give a majority of the seats in the House of Commons.
The use of the STV method for Senate elections has seen the rise of third parties in the Senate. After the last election, the Coalition only held 30 of the 76 Senate seats (to 26 for the ALP with 20 seats held by third parties and independents). Preferential voting has effectively kept Trumpian parties out of the House of Commons, but STV has resulted in these parties winning Senate seats.
As in the U.S., climate change and immigration are some of the major differences between the two parties. While the Coalition’s policies almost appear progressive compared to the positions taken by Donald Trump, the last six years of Coalition governments have seen little progress on climate change and are definitely hostile to the idea of accepting more refugees.
The last major elections of the next two months are the elections for the EU Parliament. In terms of elections, the elections to the EU Parliament resembles the U.S. of the mid-1780s. In theory, the EU Parliament is a powerful institution. But the mentality in most of the members of the EU is still national elections-centered. As a result, while the various national parties tend to form blocs with like-minded parties from other member states in the EU Parliament, these blocs have not yet become EU-wide parties that run candidates in elections for national and local elections. Additionally, the elections to the EU Parliament tends to be more a chance for voters to show support or opposition to their national government than a consideration of EU politics.
The elections will take place over several days in late May (different days for each country). Each country has the option of either using some form of proportional representation or STV with most opting for proportional representation. Each country also has the option of using a national ballot or using regional ballots.
As with the other elections, a key issue will be the strength of Trumpist parties. In 2014 (the last election), nationalist parties did very well. However, since then, these parties have either collapsed or gained strength at the national level. So there is a chance of 2019 seeing a backlash against these parties. However, Russia is strongly supporting the nationalist parties seeing the potential of using the EU Parliament to undermine the EU.
A complicating factor is the current status of Brexit in the United Kingdom. Because the United Kingdom has not yet left the EU, the UK will be participating in these elections. There will be members elected from the UK, but there will also be members-in-waiting from several other countries that will take their seats if and when the UK leaves the EU. And, as with other countries, the national politics in the UK are playing a role in the elections for the EU Parliament with different parties taking different stands on how Brexit should go. Voting for one of the Trumpist Brexit parties (the U.K. Independence Party or the new Brexit Party) is a way to show support for a “No Deal” Brexit while voting for one of the “People’s Choice” (i.e. a second referendum before actually leaving the EU) parties (Change UK or the Liberal Democrats or maybe Labour) is a way to show opposition to Brexit and a desire to hold a second referendum. And, of course, the EU Parliament elections (along with local elections later this week) are a way for voters to show their thoughts on the gross mismanagement of Brexit by the current Conservative government which may lead to the resignation of the current Prime Minister before the Brexit discussions are complete.
In short, the next 45 days will see how much the Trump-Putin project of promoting nationalism in the Western democracies has succeeded in undermining the consensus of the past seventy years. It is clear how this project benefits Russia, but how does it benefit the U.S.?
