3 ms·

With the exception of Hungary, the graphs don't look to me like a "swing to the right" so much as a "swing to the margins"; the centrist parties are losing vote

With the exception of Hungary, the graphs don't look to me like a "swing to the right" so much as a "swing to the margins"; the centrist parties are losing votes to both "far right" and "other" parties.

scotty79 10y ago
I'd say there are more exceptions. Every country seems to be bit different in who loses to whom. In Poland left-wing parties lost mostly to centrist parties, and right wing party just gradually gains support since its first rise to prominence.
FloNeu 10y ago
As Austrian, i am really glad about outcome of yesterdays election - still it was a really close one. And you are right - freedom party is far right imho - but they down-play that them selfs and gain a lot votes from people who are upset about the fact that the two big center parties didn't get any shit done in the last few years. And they have gotten good in playing that - just look at trump - telling the rage people what they want to here - even if it sounds irrational or are plain lies - just seems to work.
deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
evgen 10y ago
As a a simple example, here in the UK the current Labour leadership is a throw-back to hard-left Labour and UKIP continues to gather support on the right. The current center-right Tories have enough support to govern and it looks like it will be at least another election cycle before center-left Blairites are in a position to challenge. Like US politics, sometimes changes at the upper levels can simply be the avalanche effect from a few shifts at the edges of the electorate.
Scarblac 10y ago
And _in principle_ I'd say that's a good thing. If all we have is a bunch of parties crowded around the center, there isn't anything left for voters to choose. I just wish they picked different margins to swing to...
- cperciva 10y ago
  If all we have is a bunch of parties crowded around the center, there isn't anything left for voters to choose. Yes and no. The median voter theorem suggests that voters' choices were accounted for as parties put their platforms together -- effectively, voters chose, but not when they thought they were choosing. I just wish they picked different margins to swing to... I think there's a problem caused by voters swinging to margins, no matter which margins they swing to: It increases the gap between the voters and their government (either because extremist voters don't like a moderate government, or because one group of extremists hate a differently-extreme government), which diminishes public confidence in the state. Much like a lack of confidence in the justice system, a lack of confidence in the state tends to have very negative consequences, as people "take matters into their own hands".
  - vlehto 10y ago
    But there is always only so many topics any one party and median voter agrees on. Many don't really adopt party identity and live by it. So having only few big parties is likely to cause distrust to political parties in general, because nobody accurately represents you. Which ought to translate to distrust to goverment as the big players have the power.
    - cperciva 10y ago
      nobody accurately represents you Does it help if you have someone who accurately represents you, but she is marginalised within the legislature and has no chance of ever being part of the government? If anything, I'd expect that to make you trust the government even less.
  - Scarblac 10y ago
    Note that I'm from a country where there are always 10+ parties in parliament, and governments are always formed by coalitions. The median voter theorem assumes 2 parties trying to get a majority. Their standpoints get watered down a lot already after the election when they need to negotiate coalitions, I'd prefer if they were further apart beforehand so it would be easier to make the choice.
IkmoIkmo 10y ago
You're right, the charts don't show that. But the charts don't tell the actual story. Which is that all centrist parties have shifted right in their policy positions and rhetoric. The charts only show power shifts between parties, but ignore shifts within parties. There's a lot of centrist parties that were rooted in Christian values for example, that were reasonable on e.g. refugee issues in the 20th century (which were much more significant than today, by the way), that now want to amend laws, retract long-standing treaties, create walls and border fences, disallow schooling/work/status for those refugees who do get welcomed so as to send them right back asap in god knows when Syria recovers from being a failed state, paired with hints of xenophobic rhetoric akin to a far right party. Yet they're still deemed centrist parties, and would not show it on the chart. And that is precisely because the far right is on the rise, and the rest of the political spectrum is adjusting and compromising their stance, so as not to lose votes. That's a very clear shift to the right. Like take the Netherlands, it shows a drop in the right-wing PVV's size since 2010 (forget for a moment that the party's currently leading in the polls). You'd think, alright no shift to the far right here at all. What it doesn't tell you is that the current biggest party (a non far right wing, right wing party) has shifted much more to the right. Like recently we saw it's 2nd in command claim refugees were visiting the Netherlands to get plastic surgery, breasts corrections, face lifts etc... I mean this guy is just a ridiculous demagogue, instilling fear into the Dutch population that Syrian refugees aren't actually running away from a gruesome war, but are merely looking to exploit our medical system to get plastic surgery, it's insane. If you'd have set this about jews during the holocaust there'd be no discussion, you'd recognised as a clear far-right fascist. And this is the biggest party's 2nd in line, straight out the playbook of a far right-wing demagogue. Now this party isn't far-right for all intents and purposes, but it has very much shifted towards it on various policy positions and rhetoric, as have many centrist and right wing parties. And none of that shows up in the charts.

scotty79 10y ago

I'd say there are more exceptions. Every country seems to be bit different in who loses to whom. In Poland left-wing parties lost mostly to centrist parties, and right wing party just gradually gains support since its first rise to prominence.

FloNeu 10y ago

As Austrian, i am really glad about outcome of yesterdays election - still it was a really close one. And you are right - freedom party is far right imho - but they down-play that them selfs and gain a lot votes from people who are upset about the fact that the two big center parties didn't get any shit done in the last few years. And they have gotten good in playing that - just look at trump - telling the rage people what they want to here - even if it sounds irrational or are plain lies - just seems to work.

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

evgen 10y ago

As a a simple example, here in the UK the current Labour leadership is a throw-back to hard-left Labour and UKIP continues to gather support on the right. The current center-right Tories have enough support to govern and it looks like it will be at least another election cycle before center-left Blairites are in a position to challenge. Like US politics, sometimes changes at the upper levels can simply be the avalanche effect from a few shifts at the edges of the electorate.

Scarblac 10y ago

And _in principle_ I'd say that's a good thing. If all we have is a bunch of parties crowded around the center, there isn't anything left for voters to choose. I just wish they picked different margins to swing to...

cperciva 10y ago
If all we have is a bunch of parties crowded around the center, there isn't anything left for voters to choose. Yes and no. The median voter theorem suggests that voters' choices were accounted for as parties put their platforms together -- effectively, voters chose, but not when they thought they were choosing. I just wish they picked different margins to swing to... I think there's a problem caused by voters swinging to margins, no matter which margins they swing to: It increases the gap between the voters and their government (either because extremist voters don't like a moderate government, or because one group of extremists hate a differently-extreme government), which diminishes public confidence in the state. Much like a lack of confidence in the justice system, a lack of confidence in the state tends to have very negative consequences, as people "take matters into their own hands".
- vlehto 10y ago
  But there is always only so many topics any one party and median voter agrees on. Many don't really adopt party identity and live by it. So having only few big parties is likely to cause distrust to political parties in general, because nobody accurately represents you. Which ought to translate to distrust to goverment as the big players have the power.
  - cperciva 10y ago
    nobody accurately represents you Does it help if you have someone who accurately represents you, but she is marginalised within the legislature and has no chance of ever being part of the government? If anything, I'd expect that to make you trust the government even less.
- Scarblac 10y ago
  Note that I'm from a country where there are always 10+ parties in parliament, and governments are always formed by coalitions. The median voter theorem assumes 2 parties trying to get a majority. Their standpoints get watered down a lot already after the election when they need to negotiate coalitions, I'd prefer if they were further apart beforehand so it would be easier to make the choice.

IkmoIkmo 10y ago

You're right, the charts don't show that. But the charts don't tell the actual story. Which is that all centrist parties have shifted right in their policy positions and rhetoric. The charts only show power shifts between parties, but ignore shifts within parties. There's a lot of centrist parties that were rooted in Christian values for example, that were reasonable on e.g. refugee issues in the 20th century (which were much more significant than today, by the way), that now want to amend laws, retract long-standing treaties, create walls and border fences, disallow schooling/work/status for those refugees who do get welcomed so as to send them right back asap in god knows when Syria recovers from being a failed state, paired with hints of xenophobic rhetoric akin to a far right party. Yet they're still deemed centrist parties, and would not show it on the chart. And that is precisely because the far right is on the rise, and the rest of the political spectrum is adjusting and compromising their stance, so as not to lose votes. That's a very clear shift to the right. Like take the Netherlands, it shows a drop in the right-wing PVV's size since 2010 (forget for a moment that the party's currently leading in the polls). You'd think, alright no shift to the far right here at all. What it doesn't tell you is that the current biggest party (a non far right wing, right wing party) has shifted much more to the right. Like recently we saw it's 2nd in command claim refugees were visiting the Netherlands to get plastic surgery, breasts corrections, face lifts etc... I mean this guy is just a ridiculous demagogue, instilling fear into the Dutch population that Syrian refugees aren't actually running away from a gruesome war, but are merely looking to exploit our medical system to get plastic surgery, it's insane. If you'd have set this about jews during the holocaust there'd be no discussion, you'd recognised as a clear far-right fascist. And this is the biggest party's 2nd in line, straight out the playbook of a far right-wing demagogue. Now this party isn't far-right for all intents and purposes, but it has very much shifted towards it on various policy positions and rhetoric, as have many centrist and right wing parties. And none of that shows up in the charts.