|
I'm going to need some help understanding a mathematical thing about voting participation. Let's boil it down to a very specific example, although my problem is more general: My voting district, Berlin-Neukölln, has an overall voting participation of 68,5% (140.803 out of 205.629 eligible voters). Yet I can't find a single Wahllokal whose individual participation is anywhere even close to that number. Take a look at this map: http://berlinwahlkarte2013.morgenpost.de/ . If you click on "Viele Wähler" on the bottom, you'll get the 25 Wahllokale with the highest participation, one of which is in Neukölln (center south). It's number is 62,8%. Most places in Neukölln are around 50%. Then how does the overall number even work? If most Wahllokale are hovering around 50% participation and a select few go as high as 62,8%, then surely the overall number should be somewhere between those numbers, right? Or am I missing something?
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 15:21
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
Briefwahl?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 15:24
|
|
|
Maybe Briefwahl?
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 15:25
|
|
|
Oooh, you two are very likely right. I didn't think of Briefwahl.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 15:37
|
|
|
Smirr posted:I'm going to need some help understanding a mathematical thing about voting participation. Let's boil it down to a very specific example, although my problem is more general: This tool is fascinating, thanks for that! Do you know what's up with central Marzahn? Literally all of the ten best NPD districts are clustered there. And  at the Piraten scoring ~10% in Friedrichshain, I guess fedoras and MLP shirts must be very prevalent there then?  Fake edit: And what about that single district in Neukölln where the MLPD got 6.7%? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 16:13
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Fake edit: And what about that single district in Neukölln where the MLPD got 6.7%? 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 16:22
|
|
|
Smirr posted:I'm going to need some help understanding a mathematical thing about voting participation. Let's boil it down to a very specific example, although my problem is more general: Whoa, this is the coolest thing. There are apparently 3 more AfD assholes in at my bf's Wahllokal than Piraten. Which is slightly disheartening.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 16:26
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:This tool is fascinating, thanks for that! Do you know what's up with central Marzahn? Literally all of the ten best NPD districts are clustered there. And That NPD stronghold is Hellersdorf, actually. A friend of mine is from there, and according to her there's quite simply a shitload of Nazis there. Sometimes it's as easy as that. And the MLPD district in Neukölln has me ing as well. The weirdest part is that the direct candidate of the MLPD got 0 votes there. He's literally the only direct candidate who got no votes in that district. I've been down there more often than I like, and believe me, there aren't actually that many potential MLPD voters there. If I had to guess, I'd say some people decided that it would be hilarious if they all voted MLPD. No idea what they did with their first vote though.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 16:39
|
|
|
Zeit Online gives a short breakdown on which demographic voted for which party. Choice quote on AfD demographics. Apparently the young and educated are more likely to vote for them than the old and unemployed. quote:Unterdurchschnittlich war ihr [The AfD.] Ergebnis bei den Arbeitslosen und formal Niedriggebildeten. Ihre Hochburgen sind die süd- und ostdeutschen Bundesländer. In insgesamt sieben Ländern schaffte sie den Sprung über die Fünfprozenthürde.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 17:57
|
|
|
I am entirely unfamiliar with the German political process. Looking at the Wikipedia page showing the election results, it appears as if the left-leaning parties have enough seats to have a coalition. Is there a legal reason that this cannot happen or does SPD just refuse to partner with Die Linke, and vice versa? Or some other reason?
Edible Hat fucked around with this message at 18:14 on Sep 23, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 17:59
|
|
|
SPD are being idiots and Die Linke are being quite unwilling to compromise on stuff.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:02
|
|
|
Edible Hat posted:I am entirely unfamiliar with the German political process. Looking at the Wikipedia page showing the election results, it appears as if the left-leaning parties have enough seats to have a coalition. Is there a legal reason that this cannot happen or does SPD just refuse to partner with DIE LINKE, and vice versa? Or some other reason? It should also be mentioned that 1. The East German branch Die Linke is the successor party to the SED (Socialist Unity Party, the communist governing party of East Germany), which makes them unelectable (on the federal level) for many West Germans. The SPD is governing several East German states together with Die Linke, because the East German branch is seen as being quite sensible and rather moderate. 2. The West German branch is an offshoot of SPD rebels, who were dissatisfied with the SPD being too far to the right for their liking. There is a huge amount of bad blood between both parties here, with the former SPD Chairman Oskar Lafontaine being the leader of these rebels. He was one of the two chairmen of Die Linke, but he retired for medical reasons. The West German branch is also full of radical left elements, with big fights periodically erupting between the moderates (mostly from East Germany) and the fundamentalists (mostly from the west) over party policy and personnel. 3. Die Linke has several positions that are just not viable. Leaving NATO AND abolishing out armed forces? Crazy. They also make several promises about welfare that they cannot hope to pay for, even with their proposed taxes on the rich. So red-red-green coalition is very unlikely at the moment, and even if they would form a government I very much doubt they could survive the full four years.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:17
|
|
Torrannor posted:It should also be mentioned that There is also the problem of the SPD leaders publicly declaring they won't form an coalition with the Linke, which is why quiete a few people voted for the SPD because they wanted a great coalition. 2009 the SPD tried to form a red-red-green coalition in Hessen after giving similar promisses. This ended in a desaster because 4 SPD members did not vote for the new government and in the new elections that followed CDU/FDP won again.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 18:52
|
|
|
Does anyone know how to find out/calculate how many people on a Landesliste will get into Bundestag? A former neighbour of mine is in the Top 10 on the Landesliste for the Greens in Hessen and I'd like to know if she made it. The website of the Greens has not been updated yet (:-(
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:07
|
|
|
You can look for her here: http://www.bundestag.de/bundestag/abgeordnete18/alphabet/index.html That's everyone that made it.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:13
|
|
|
goethe42 posted:Does anyone know how to find out/calculate how many people on a Landesliste will get into Bundestag? Or you can look here: http://www.bundeswahlleiter.de/de/bundestagswahlen/BTW_BUND_13/ergebnisse/gewaehlte/land/liste_gewaehlte_6.html The top 5 got in.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 19:16
|
|
|
I would keep this guy as far away from any executive power as possible, especially in the defense ministry. He even looks the part. 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 20:41
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:I would keep this guy as far away from any executive power as possible, especially in the defense ministry. He even looks the part. How is that not an artist name
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 20:50
|
|
|
I posted a graphic showing the deviation from the national mean by voting district in 2009. The 2013 version is now available.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 20:51
|
|
|
waitwhatno posted:I would keep this guy as far away from any executive power as possible, especially in the defense ministry. He even looks the part. Personally I'm just hoping that this guy made it into the new Bundestag 
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 20:52
|
|
|
System Metternich posted:Personally I'm just hoping that this guy made it into the new Bundestag It would be a black day for the geringelten Haubentauben if he wasn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 21:02
|
|
|
ArchangeI posted:It would be a black day for the geringelten Haubentauben if he wasn't. I'm sure he made it. And even if not he could always marry a girl 40 years younger than himself and have her be a member of the Bundestag instead.
|
|
#
?
Sep 23, 2013 22:10
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:The West German branch is also full of radical left elements, with big fights periodically erupting between the moderates (mostly from East Germany) and the fundamentalists (mostly from the west) over party policy and p When you say moderates vs fundamentalists do you mean actual leftists vs centritsts who fully believe in market liberalization and bank bailouts? Because in Portugal that's the main difference between the left and the center left; one of them actually believes in something that the right doesn't. And congratulations on the win CDU, i'm sure the rest of Europe is anticipating the next four years 
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 00:23
|
|
|
No, it is very much "Communists who think the Stasi was necessary and good" vs. "leftists who think that getting a minimum wage law passed takes precedence over debating how best to achieve the glorious revolution". I certainly never heard anyone of Die Linke say anything about bank bailouts being great. And frankly, the bailouts are still hugely unpopular in Germany. The liberals see it as an unnecessary infrigment on the ~free market~, and the left sees it as socializing loses while the profits are privatized.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 00:42
|
|
|
One thing I'm not really clear on is the economics of the CDU. I understand they're not extremely liberal on economics, but they are more liberal than the SPD, now and historically, right? Are there, or were there factions within the party that drew support from labor or otherwise left wing elements, or has that strictly been the realm of the SPD? Like does the CDU oppose minimum wage laws categorically, but simply can't get the votes to prevent it, or do they actually support a minimum wage increase? This is more of a historical question than anything. It just seems weird to me that Germany ended up with a fairly strong social democracy despite the SPD not being in actual power for very long. I guess as an American it's hard to conceive of anything but bitter hatred and political no mans land between the two main parties. edit: vvvv I think the FDP has always been an elite gently caress you got mine party populated by business lobbyists and whatever the contemporary equivalent of a Paulite libertarian was. I don't think it really fits in that broader demographic analysis very well. I'm not German though, so feel free to correct me anyone icantfindaname fucked around with this message at 02:57 on Sep 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 02:25
|
|
|
Also an American here: Does this have anything to do with the CDU's Catholic history? Catholic social teaching, etc. I'm also wondering if the liberal FDP is heavily Protestant or not.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 02:44
|
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:Also an American here: Does this have anything to do with the CDU's Catholic history? Catholic social teaching, etc. I'm also wondering if the liberal FDP is heavily Protestant or not. The FDP is probably secular as gently caress by now. Protestants in Germany, being mainly Lutherans, are pretty anti FYGM. To understand the CDU you have to understand the idea of Volkspartei. It is a core term in German politics and basically means that this party should offer something to every single member of the electorate, no matter their class, gender, sexuality, age or creed. Both the SPD and the CDU claim this status for themselves, and de facto Die Linke is a Volkspartei in the east. So the CDU most definitely has a caucus that comes from a labor background (and they are pushing hard for a minimum wage right now, especially to secure the SPD as a coalition partner). It also has a caucus for small business owners, large business owners etc. Hell, there are unions close to the CDU. Catholicism definitely played a role, but the CDU is christian, not catholic (which seperates them from their earlier iteration, the Zentrumspartei of Weimar and Imperial Germany). Nowadays they are actually trying hard to reach out to Muslims when they realized that most Muslims are socially conservative as gently caress. Minimum wages in Germany are a complex topic because there is a de facto minimum wage provided by a law making "immoral" wages illegal, plus the unions have a ton of pull in many areas and have secured minimum wages in their sector (often for union and non-union workers), so the CDU can always point to that and shout "free market wooh". ArchangeI fucked around with this message at 04:04 on Sep 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 04:01
|
|
icantfindaname posted:One thing I'm not really clear on is the economics of the CDU. I understand they're not extremely liberal on economics, but they are more liberal than the SPD, now and historically, right? Are there, or were there factions within the party that drew support from labor or otherwise left wing elements, or has that strictly been the realm of the SPD? Like does the CDU oppose minimum wage laws categorically, but simply can't get the votes to prevent it, or do they actually support a minimum wage increase? The German welfare state goes back to Bismark in the 19th century. Because he hated socialists/SPD so much he not only outlawed in the so called Sozialistengesetz but also introduced the first form of social security, to take away their hot button issues. This is later continued by the CDU in the BRD and is called "Rheinischer Kapitalismus" or "Soziale Marktwirtschaft". The CDU has its own form of minimum wage where the unions and employers of certain branches of industry sit together and decide upon a minimum wage for that branch. Its also important to note that the SPD was far far more left in the early days of the BRD aiming for a socialist country. Today we would probably label them communists.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 06:48
|
|
|
Another ignorant American  jumping in here. Have you guys EVER had a one-party minority government, or has the government always been formed out of coalitions of more-or-less ideologically-allied parties?**This isn't a perfect description- I understand that at one point the SPD formed government with the FDP.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 06:55
|
|
|
Gen. Ripper posted:Another ignorant American We never had a minority government on the federal level. And minority government on the state level is very rare, although it does happen. To the second question, we usually have coalitions of ideologically aligned parties. This is logical if you think about out. Both parties must make something called a Koalitionsvertrag, which is a formal (and written) agreement on what laws the coalition intends to pass. Since both parties must get some of their positions into this agreement, it is easier if they are not on opposite grounds ideologically. The situation in the first few decades after the war was also a bit different than today. There were only 3 parties in parliament, the CDU/CSU, the SPD and the FDP. The FDP was a member of most governments at that time, since neither of the big parties could govern alone (after a very brief time at the beginning where the CDU had a majority in parliament). That meant that the FDP could choose the party they wanted to govern with. And althoug the CDU was closer to the FDP on many levels, at certain times they found that they could get a better offer from the Social Democrats than from the Conservatives, and so they took it. But today, if the more right wing parties of CDU/CSU and FDP can govern together, they will generally do it, and if the more left wing parties of SPD, Greens and Die Linke can govern together, they will do this as well, although Die Linke is only a viable coalition partner in the six East German states. If neither have a majority, there can be other combinations. We had a CDU/FDP/Greens coalition and a CDU/Greens coalition recently, although not on the federal level. Since there is only the CDU as a center-right party in the Bundestag now, they must of cause form a coalition with a more left wing party. And Germans generally expect them to do this.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 07:33
|
|
|
Torrannor posted:We never had a minority government on the federal level. And minority government on the state level is very rare, although it does happen. And to extend on that, the last single party rule what one term of Adenauer and over 50 years ago.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 07:39
|
|
|
So what's wrong with the Greens? I've seen German posters here say to the effect that they're dysfunctional and full of drama. Can someone explain that? Also, how do people view Gerhard Schroeder? BrutalistMcDonalds fucked around with this message at 07:53 on Sep 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 07:51
|
|
|
icantfindaname posted:One thing I'm not really clear on is the economics of the CDU. I understand they're not extremely liberal on economics, but they are more liberal than the SPD, now and historically, right? Are there, or were there factions within the party that drew support from labor or otherwise left wing elements, or has that strictly been the realm of the SPD? Like does the CDU oppose minimum wage laws categorically, but simply can't get the votes to prevent it, or do they actually support a minimum wage increase? Die Linke has been the first party to propose minimum wages for years, then the SPD and Grüne picked up on it in the opposition when they realized that this and a couple other topics would seperate them from the center-right parties especially the SPD was seen as a junior version of the CDU during the great coaltion days and the time after that so proposing minimum wages for all branches was seen as a good opportunity to sharpen their "social" profile Merkel is pretty good at picking up on popular trends (ie "Energiewende") so it was only a matter of time for the CDU to accept minimum wages for selected branches Omi-Polari posted:Also, how do people view Gerhard Schroeder? we call him "Putins Gasableser" ("Putins gas meter reader" because of his job at Gazprom after his Chancellor days were over) Teron D Amun fucked around with this message at 08:14 on Sep 24, 2013 |
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 08:11
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:The German welfare state goes back to Bismark in the 19th century. Because he hated socialists/SPD so much he not only outlawed in the so called Sozialistengesetz but also introduced the first form of social security, to take away their hot button issues. This is later continued by the CDU in the BRD and is called "Rheinischer Kapitalismus" or "Soziale Marktwirtschaft". The CDU has its own form of minimum wage where the unions and employers of certain branches of industry sit together and decide upon a minimum wage for that branch. This here. The SPD is the only party that predates the current German state, in fact the SPD is one of the oldest parties in the world, celebrating their 150th anniversary this year. They were genuine communists in their first decades. After the conservative Bismark created one of the first modern welfare systems, it became an integral part of the country. The SPD became the strongest power in Germany after the first World War, capturing a plurality of votes in every election until 1932. They were the bedrock of democratic Germany, and the decline of the Weimar Republic is closely connected with the decline of the Social Democrats and their democratic allies. But even the Nazis never threatened to abolish the welfare state, that would have cost them popular support. And since the CDU was never opposed to the welfare state as well, there was no time in German history that parties opposed to the welfare state were in power. There is a broad consensus in our society in support of the welfare state. Even the liberal FDP, which arguably is similar to the libertarians, is not in favor of fully privatizing our health care. They only favor more competition between the private insurers and the non-profit public insurers. Right now only persons making more than 52,200 € a year even have the option to choose private insurance, all other must enroll in one of the public insurers. The FDP wants to abolish that restriction, but they don't even dream of privatizing our whole health care system. A similar position to abolishing the Great Society and the New Deal would condemn them to political insignificance in Germany. There is also a difference between US unions and German unions. If you are interested in this, you could look up Co-Determination, which mandates that workers representatives have quite a bit of influence in firms above a certain size. And is it really surprising that the birthplace of Karl Marx and Friedrich Engels has a strong tradition of social(ist) democracy?
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
Just to tone down the "they used to be communists" talk a little bit: While it's true that the SPD were very much genuine leftists when they started, they mellowed out considerably very soon. Just remember that the reason they're one of the oldest parties is partly that they were considered to be too toothless to be banned during the early days of the nazi regime. After the Reichstag Fire Decree, all communist parties, publications, associations, etc. were banned. The SPD was the only "leftist" party that was allowed to carry on, after having shown themselves to be good little Bürgers when they voted for the German entry into WW I in 1914, against the decision of the 2nd Internationale.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 11:03
|
|
Omi-Polari posted:So what's wrong with the Greens? I've seen German posters here say to the effect that they're dysfunctional and full of drama. Can someone explain that? The Greens had proposals to raise the taxes (not popular) and even the idea to create a veggie-day once a week, on which you would be unable to eat meat in canteen for public employees. This lead to the impression that they are for the Nanny state to a degree even most Germans are unconfortable with. In addition to that reports and documents surfaced that showed that they supported the legalization of adults having sexual relations with children up until the end of the eighties, something even more Germans were not comfortable with. Their leader, Jürgen Trittin, was implicated in those demands. On the other hand you have the "Realos" or Bildungsbürger greens, especially in Baden Würtenberg where they have a Green head of government, who are less radical leftist and want the greens to be more centrist with the core topic of enviroment and energy politic. After the election those Greens where very fast to demand a course correction away from the left and are arguably the proponents of a Black/Green coalition. Gerhard Schroeder is seen as a great Chancellor by the Right, who did the necessary reforms to make Germany fit for the 21st century by a lot of Germans, but the left of the SPD and the whole "die Linke" hate him because they think he ruined Germany and they want to reverse his reforms.
|
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 11:19
|
|
|
GaussianCopula posted:The Greens had proposals to raise the taxes (not popular) and even the idea to create a veggie-day once a week, on which you would be unable to eat meat in canteen for public employees. This lead to the impression that they are for the Nanny state to a degree even most Germans are unconfortable with. In addition to that reports and documents surfaced that showed that they supported the legalization of adults having sexual relations with children up until the end of the eighties, something even more Germans were not comfortable with. Their leader, Jürgen Trittin, was implicated in those demands. "Raising taxes" was not popular because the right successfully copied the american way and simply willingly lied about the actual proposals, making the masses believe that it would mean regular middle class people would actually pay more taxes, while a) much like tea party members in the US many people most scared of the proposals are not even actually members of the "middle class" and b) taxes would have only gone up for people that are way ahead of the actual middle class. And as far as the pedo-files  goes, the actual involvement of Trittin was that he was named ViSdP (Verantworlicher im Sinne des Presserechts)in a single publication in the early 80s that contained the collected demands of the local green chapter. Our press laws mandate that a single person is named ViSdP, regardless of how many authors and opinions that publication includes. It's still a massively stupid thing to even have parts of your party to propose, but it's still a massive difference from how it's being framed as "Trittin advocated pedophilia" by their political enemies, especially considering that this was "uncovered" by the research into this complex that the greens commissioned themselves. You don't see the FDP lift a single finger to do something similar, no matter how many of their former JuLi's get found out to have espoused the same ideas at the same time, and no one in the CDU/CSU has ever felt sorry about how they were staunch proponents of raping their wife's without repercussions. (The rape laws contained the phrase "außerehelich" which meant that you could not be raped in marriage, and attempts to get the laws changed as late as the 80s were denied by the CDU/CSU because they argued it would lead to women just using it as an excuse to get abortions. We all know how these sluts first ask to be raped and then want their free bonus abortions.)The whole laws around morality and sexuality were deeply hosed up for a long time, and there was a very justified movement to reform them (that ultimately led to many very significant and positive reforms) coming from the left, the greens included. A bunch of pedophilia advocates successfully managed to bandwagon onto the campaign, without ever getting any of their points executed in reality. Commissioning an external investigation into the extents of this subversion is a good way to deal with it, using it to create half truths to smear your political enemy isn't.
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 11:56
|
|
|
The pedophilia story shows how wrong the "slippery slope" argument is. Society has come a long way from what we used to be, and nowadays, it seems finally within reach that homosexual lovers may one day experience the same protection by the state that heterosexuals have. But our perspective on pedophilia has not changed in the same direction I am quite sure. If at all, pedophilia seems to have become even more stigmatized (not that I have any statistics available).
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 14:47
|
|
|
More inforgraphics, this time about "Wählerwanderung", i.e. voters changing parties between this election and the last one (or staying with their choice): http://www.zeit.de/politik/deutschland/2013-09/Wahlergebnisse-Bundestagswahl-CDU-Merkel
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 16:29
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 15:26 |
|
|
botany posted:Just to tone down the "they used to be communists" talk a little bit: While it's true that the SPD were very much genuine leftists when they started, they mellowed out considerably very soon. Just remember that the reason they're one of the oldest parties is partly that they were considered to be too toothless to be banned during the early days of the nazi regime. After the Reichstag Fire Decree, all communist parties, publications, associations, etc. were banned. The SPD was the only "leftist" party that was allowed to carry on, after having shown themselves to be good little Bürgers when they voted for the German entry into WW I in 1914, against the decision of the 2nd Internationale. You got that wrong. Before parties were abolished completely, the SPD was the only party banned by the Nazi government. They never bothered to legally ban the communists because crushing them was so obviously going to happen. The SPD also has the distinction of being the only party in parliament to vote against the Enabling Act ("You can take our lives and our freedom, but you can never take our honor"). Yeah, clearly they were complete pushovers
|
|
#
?
Sep 24, 2013 16:40
|
|