Jacob Christensen

What the … !?! A journalist declares that the election campaign will not be presidential? What is happening here?

(Political scientists usually respond to the “this will be a presidential campaign”-statements by journalists by pointing out that a) Denmark unlike the US has a parliamentary and not a presidential style of government and b) the two largest parties at best poll between 55 and 65% of the total vote)

And just a quick note about Ny Alliance’s candidate list: Many chiefs, not so many indians. Could be a problem.

Day 1 – 2, originally uploaded by jacobchristensen.

Not that that much happened yet. One question to consider could be if the new free (i.e. advertising-based) papers will play a role in the campaign.

(Oh, and for a serious news junkie like me it’s nice to have access to three broadsheets and a number of other media for the week)

• Gmail får stöd för IMAP – guide till hur du aktiverar det
  (tags: mail osx software gmail)

Just a reference to a comment about the expected turn-out. First we should note that turn-out in Danish general elections is traditionally very high (we are talking about 82 to 87 per cent of the electorate actually voting – on the other hand ex-pat Danes as a rule are not eligible to vote) and there have not been any signs of a general tendency towards a fall in turn-out during the past decade.

But turn-out may be lower this time due to the local government reform which will mean that there are fewer polling stations this time compared to the 2005 elections. Johannes Andersen from Aalborg University predicts a fall in turn-out especially among older voters (that could hit the Social Democrats and the Danish People’s Party).

We have the first polls – and they are a little interesting: Gallup (Berlingske Tidende) sees the government keeping its majority with the DPP and UL out of the Folketing while Vilstrup (Politiken) sees UL over the 2% limit and Ny Alliance as the party deciding the majority:

Here are the numbers with the 2005 election as reference

Party – 2005 – Gallup – Vilstrup

Unity List – 3,4 – 1,7 – 3,9 (interesting difference)
Socialists – 6,0 – 10,8 – 10,9
Social Democrats – 25,9 – 26,4 – 25,8
Social Liberals – 9,2 – 6,4 – 7,2 (party split)
New Alliance – n.a. – 3,8 – 3,9 (pulling SLP and Cons voters?)
Liberals – 29,0 – 27,6 – 27,0
Conservatives – 10,3 – 9,6 – 8,2 (losing voters to NA?)
Danish People’s – 13,2 – 12,1 – 11,9
Centre-Democrats – 1,0 – 0,5 – n.a (likely not to contest this election)
Christian Democrats – 1,7 – 0,7 – 1,4

Some hour ago, the Danish Prime Minister called a general election for Tuesday, 13 November 2007. As luck would have it, I’m pretty much off-line during the coming one-and-a-half week which means that I will not be blogging regularly about the campaign but I will offer you some points for discussion:

1. This is indeed a “snap” election: 13 November is less than three weeks away. As the Danish election register is completely computerised and automated, this is not a problem for the electoral rolls, but some parties (i.e. Ny Alliance) may have difficulties in registering candidates.
2. This electoral term was only two years and nine months. Unusually short for a government with a stable parliamentary majority (it is a minority government but the Danish People’s Party has been the regular supporting party)
3. This will be the first general election after the local government reform which was implemented on 1 January 2007. As part of the reform, the constituencies were redrawn and even if this should not affect the distribution of seats between parties, it could affect the chances of individual candidates. (Information in Danish from the Ministry of the Interior: a) New division of constituencies, b) calculation of constituency and supplementary seats under the new division)
4. Opinion polls have been jittery during the last six months: Indications are that the Liberal-Conservative coalition has an advantage but that it may need both Ny Alliance and Danish People’s Party to form a majority after an election.
5. Potential jokers: a) The Unity List – how will the debate over Asmaa Adbol-Hamid affect the party’s electoral chances? b) Ny Alliance – will the new party be able to field candidates and present a credible platform in less than three weeks?

If you read Scandinavian and want the inside dope, I’ll point you at Jarl Cordua (Jarls blog) and David Troels Garby (Dansk-Politik.dk) as the most all-round interesting bloggers. Real insiders, or people with lots of money can try Altinget.dk.

The main parties are here (also in Danish):

• Unity List / Enhedslisten
• Socialist Party / SF
• Social Democrats / Socialdemokraterne
• Social Liberals / Det radikale Venstre
• New Alliance / Ny Alliance
• Liberals / Venstre
• Conservatives / Det konservative Folkeparti
• Danish People’s Party / Dansk Folkeparti

As said above, I can’t promise regular blogging – and I’m not a political journalist anyway – but I promise to return if only as the Wednesday morning quarterback on 14 November.

• James Surowiecki Tax Evasion: Online Only: The New Yorker
  (tags: economics economicpolicy taxation usa)

The Danish media are at it again: Politiken, Berlingske Tidende, DR, TV2.

Well, we shall see, but to refer to myself then an election in November 2007 would be unusually early given that the government has a stable working majority.

This map published by Foreign Policy is a bit intriguing to me: Why do Danish children appear to have better teeth than their Swedish counterparts? Are Swedish dentists more zealous than Danish, does immigration play a role or what is going on?

American politics can be interesting, especially when European actors try to mimic the discussion on the other side of the Atlantic.

Consider what I would call the “overdog underdog argument”: When the elite (in itself a questionable concept) tries to present itself as authentic populists acting against “the elite” – you know, George W. Bush as “the guy you would have a beer with”. The case in point is when a right-wing commentator tries to present the Democratic party as the rich people’s party and complain about the media’s silence on this fact. Obviously yet another case of “Mainstream Media” bias.

As it is, staticians have been on the case and shown that there are two interesting connections at work here:

1. “Rich people” are more likely to vote for the Republicans than the Democrats
2. “Rich states” are more likely to vote for the Democrats than the Republicans

Or to quote Andrew Gelman: The media doesn’t mention fact that the Democratic Party is “the rich people’s” party, because it isn’t. The state/people dynamics are still interesting both analytically and in political practice but if the Democratic Party is anything then it is still the party of economically successful states.

And by the way: Bush43 would never offer you a beer. You would have to pay for yourself – and for him.

A couple of extra links: Larry M. Bartels on the “Kansas question” and Paul Krugman’s summary of that argument. If you’re looking for something, it’s plain ole racism.