Zompist Bboard Again

How do those primary elections in Argentina work?

They're kind of weird. Basically everyone is casting a single vote for president, which determines who from each party [EDIT: or coalition] is that party's nominee for the presidential elections, i.e., whoever from each party gets the most votes (and also if a given party doesn't cross the necessary threshold of votes, they don't participate in the general election, so it weeds out the really tiny, niche ones -- in this case, as you can see, it left 6 electoral coalitions and parties for the general election). But since everyone is voting at the same time, not just voting for who they want within a party, it also is a preview of the upcoming general election, and shows you who would have won and by what margin had the general election been held at that date. (As with the general election, voting in the primaries is obligatory.)

Ah, thank you! I'd been wondering how Macri could be a candidate now if he suffered a defeat in the primaries, but that explains it.

Whimemsz wrote: ↑Sun Oct 27, 2019 3:33 pm So there's presidential (and other) elections in Argentina today, which have not been mentioned yet. As is traditional, Argentina is in the midst of an economic crisis, which adds an extra little spice to the elections.

So, can we take it you've moved to Argentina? Or is this just an interest from afar?

Frente de Todos is the Peronist ticket, but "Peronism" in Argentina basically doesn't mean anything at this point.

In general, and not necessarily specifically at the moment, I'd say Peronism broadly equates to:
- popularism, claiming to be for the common man, changing opinion to match popular opinion, and opposing various bureaucrats and technocrats and ideologues from other traditions;
- nationalism, with a strong emphasis on the wonderfulness of Argentina and the importance of loyalty and identity;
- charismaticism, with a tendency toward personality cults (sometimes multiple competing personality cults);
- being Peronists (important not just due to party loyalty, but also because the non-Peronists have always been more transient, and particularly since the collapse of the UCR under Duhalde there's been very little party continuity among the opposition);
- a generally corporate attitude - even when they've been left-wing, they've usually been more about nationalising and working through the corporations, rather than working through trade unions and the like;
- lack of ideological unity - the inability of the Peronists to have a coherent ideology is a major selling point, and a difference between them and other parties, which generally at least try to stand for something.

For those that don't know, these traits have made the PJ (the main Peronist party, although there have always also been dissident Peronists as well) one of the world's most successful political parties. In particular, their internal disunity and lack of beliefs has allowed them to be an effective replacement for themselves whenever they become unpopular - so in the 1990s they were the laissez faire capitalists, and in the 2000s and 2010s they've been the socialists...

So in this election, for instance, yes, Frente de Todos is "the" Peronist ticket, but the VP candidate for their rivals is also a Peronist, who has in the past been an ardent Menemist Peronist (privatise the finance ministry!) and an ardent Kirchnerist Peronist (nationalise all the companies!)...

[meanwhile, another big part of Macri's coalition are the remains of the UCR, the ancient Argentine socialist party... so it's not just the PJ who shift around these days - since their collapse, their survivors seem to have tried to Peronise themselves by supporting both sides of elections.]

[*]Roberto Lavagna is a centrist whose basic position seems to be "can't we all just get along?"

For what it's worth, and just because it's a name I still recognise from back when I knew a little about Argentine politics - Lavagna's an economist, and was, military juntas permitting, a technocrat in the government from the 1970s through to the 2000s, under both Peronist and UCR administrations. He was the guy Duhalde turned to when everything went completely to shit, and as Economy Minister he was widely credited with stabilising the economy after the big catastrophe, and restructuring the national debt. This made him a big name in 00s politics, as basically the saviour of the country, and when Kirchner eventually sacked him he ran against Kirchner's wife in the 2007 election as the de facto UCR and dissident Peronist candidate.

I haven't been following recent Argentine politics, but I would assume Lavagna's pitch would still be economically sound (generally left-wing but pragmatic) technocracy and anti-corruption.



-----

On the primaries: it's basically an unsophisticated form of Double Simultaneous Vote a la Uruguay: you vote for a candidate, but that vote is simultaneously a vote for a party, so you're voting both for that party against others (although since the threshold is so low that doesn't really matter) and for a candidate within the party.



------

Speaking of which: it's the Uruguayan elections coming up as well. Traditionally, the competition is between the right-wing Colorados and the Blancos, but the left-wing Frente Amplio finally got its act together and has been in power since 2005 - but Presidents cannot serve consecutive terms, so there will definitely be a change.

Annoyingly, Uruguay now has presidential primaries*, so we know the contenders: the Frente (and specifically the Socialist Party) will be represented by Danial Martínez, the Mayor of Montevideo and a former engineer; their chief rivals, the National Party (originally the Blancos) has chosen Luis Alberto Lacalle, son of a previous President, and great-grandson of one of an earlier party leader. Lacalle lost the last election as the National candidate, and his father lost the election before that as the National candidate. The Colorados have gone for Ernesto Talvi, a Macedonian-Cuban-Turkish-Jewish economist, but the question may be whether he's beaten into fourth place by the far right. Martínez is solidly ahead in the polls, but he'll probably have to fight a run-off.


*annoyingly because the full DSV system was so beautiful. You just had to vote for your local MP; that vote would also count as a vote for the senatorial candidate your MP candidate supported, and THAT vote would also count for the presidential candidate your senatorial candidate supported, and THAT vote would also count for the top-level alliance your presidential candidate supported, and the presidency went to the candidate with the most votes from the top-level alliance with the most votes. One vote could automatically decide everything! It may not have been entirely sensible, but it was very elegant.
Now the system remains for the congressional elections, but the presidential election is separate, which means the 'parties' (which are actually alliances of smaller parties and factions) have to hold primaries to pick their candidates. So instead of one vote, you now have to have four votes spread out over three polling days (primaries, first-round presidential at the same time as legislative, and then second-round presidential)...

Update: Frente Amplio won 49.45% of the vote, so they need to have a run-off, but it's pretty clear they'll win (the Nationals got under 32%). And I was wrong before: there was no chance of the far-right beating the Colorados, because although they were neck and neck with them in the polls, I hadn't noticed they hadn't bothered actually registering to compete in the election, despite selecting a candidate and everything.

Meanwhile: the Peronists did indeed win in Argentina, 48 to 40 (Lavagna got 6). Macri is the first Argentine president to lose a re-election bid, although that's in large part because unpopular Presidents are usually either removed from office in a coup d'etat, or forced to resign, or just not re-nominated by their parties due to the lack of party loyalty. Indeed, Macri would have been only the third president to be re-elected (after Menem and Cristina Kirchner) (Yrigoyen effectively ruled for three terms in a row, but his second election was theoretically won by a puppet of his own choosing).

Speaking of German elections, I have German citizenship but I'm not sure whether I am able to vote in Germany. I suspect not, because I have no address there, but I would like to check. Although it might be better to ask the embassy rather than the ZBB

If you have German citizenship, you can get through the embassy a postal ballot for the constituency the place you last were registered belongs to, and so participate in the federal, state, and local elections in the respective constituency. If you never were registered at any address in Germany, I don't know whether you can participate, better ask the embassy. What Germany doesn't do is let people vote directly at the embassy, like e.g. France does.

Ah so theoretically I could have voted in the Thuringia election because that was even the first ever place I voted. But, with the speed the post goes at here (I usually get post from the UK about a month after sending), it likely would have arrived too late.

I oppose anyone from any faction of politics who looks at Peron and says that's a guy to follow, left right or whatever else.

As for Canada, I wonder if the new results will make Trudeau reconsider his earlier switch against proportional represenation, which would ensure Liberals and NDP don't work as spoilers to each other.

Bougainville voting for independence is a forgone conclusion. I'm interested in what they'll do once independent. Do they bear a grudge against Australia? Do they bear a grudge against Israel for selling arms to Papua New Guinea during the civil war? Will they have a policy on West Papua?

Does that mean you think PNG will let them go? This is a part of the world I know little about ... to be honest, I was reading Wikipedia's article on Rotokas and clicked a few links to find the page that I linked.

Yes. The PNG agreed to the referendum years ago as part of a peace agreement.

Israel news:
The New Right party split. The moderate faction, which kept the name, is making a joint faction in the Knesset with Likud. The other faction is resuming its old name (as in February this year, so ancient history already) Union of Right Wing Parties.

mèþru wrote: ↑Sun Nov 10, 2019 10:59 am Israel news:
The New Right party split.

Which one of the groups resulting from various older splits is that?

The moderate faction, which kept the name, is making a joint faction in the Knesset with Likud. The other faction is resuming its old name (as in February this year, so ancient history already) Union of Right Wing Parties.

Where are Bennett and Shaked now?

mèþru wrote: ↑Wed Oct 30, 2019 4:39 pmAs for Canada, I wonder if the new results will make Trudeau reconsider his earlier switch against proportional represenation, which would ensure Liberals and NDP don't work as spoilers to each other.

Do you expect rationality from a PM that has been more about PR than coherent policy?

I'll respond to Raphael's post tomorrow. I don't know how to respond without doing a recap of all of the splits and mergers among the non-Haredi religious right in the last few decades and it is quite a story

I would like a Spanish speaker to translate this interview to English for me: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GOvFzOP2wfw

Okay I'll skip most the pre-2000s stuff

The National Religious Party, originally founded as centre/centre-left religious party in 1956, over time shifted to the right. Tkuma (a far-right religious party) and several other parties both religious and secular that are viewed as hardline on issues relating to settlemnts and the conflict formed an alliance named the National Union. The National Religious Party and the National Union first ran on a joint list in 2006. At the time, Naftali Bennett (religious) and Ayelet Shaked (secular) both had recently left the high tech industry to work for Netanyahu within Likud. In 2008, Tkuma and Moledet (another National Union far-right party) decide to form a new party with the NRP, called The Jewish Home. The other parties in the National Union objected as they saw the Jewish Home as being too religious, and Ahi, a religious party in the group, also objected as they were formed by NRP dissidents. In the chaos, every party except Tkuma left the National Union, which continued to exist as an alliance with a joint list with the Jewish Home. An alliance with a single member: Tkuma. In 2012, Bennett and Shaked left Likud and joined the Jewish Home. Bennett won then the primaries for the Jewish Home leadership. Then in 2013 the National Union dissolved without the dissolution of Tkuma, which was still running jointly withh the Jewish Home which it was both part of and independent of simultaneously. In 2018, Bennett, still leader of the party, left with Shaked and another MK to form the New Right, which was supposed to be a party of both the secular and religious right. The Jewish Home, Tkuma and Kahanist party Otzma Yehudit subsequently formed an alliance for the April 2019 elections called the Union of Right Wing Parties. Otzma Yehudit then left in June 2019 over a dispute on recommendations of ministers to the cabinet. In July 2019, the Union of Right Wing Parties decided to make an alliance with the New Right called Yamina (which just means "Right"). On October 10, Yamina dissolved. On November 8, Bibi announced that the New Right and Likud will be operating as a join faction.

Thank you, mèþru! Does that mean that Bennett is a Likudnik again now?

For now I guess. Who knows? Politics in Israel is very volatile.

I suspect Bennett and Shaked are doing this s one of them can run in the next Likud primaries.

Yeah - Bennett's main goal is clearly to become Prime Minister some day. His original plan was to built some other right-wing party or alliance of parties and lead it to the point where it would challenge the Likud for the position of largest party on the Right. That project has clearly failed (at least for now), so the most promising Plan B is probably going back to the Likud with the hope of becoming leader there some day.