• Quick note - the problem with Youtube videos not embedding on the forum appears to have been fixed, thanks to ZiprHead. If you do still see problems let me know.

Election Time: Denmark

Kerberos said:
86% is a decent turnout, slightly higher than the last election. We haven't dipped under 80% since WW2 IIRC.
Click to expand...

It's actually closer to 90% than 80%:

Election | Percentage
2005|84.4%
2001|87.1%
1998|86.0%
1994|84.3%
1990|82.8%
1988|85.7%
1987|86.7%
1984|88.4%
1981|83.2%
1979|85.6%
1977|88.7%
1975|88.2%
1973|88.7%
1971|87.2%
1968|89.3%
1966|88.6%
1964|85.5%
1960|85.8%
1957|83.7%
1953(2)|80.6%
1953(1)|80.8%
Source

It's most fair to count elections since 1953. That year, we got a new constitution (Grundlov) as well as a one-chamber parliament (it was two before).

Pardalis said:
86% ?!!! You people are sick! :p
Click to expand...

What, too low?
 
mbp said:
I'd like to believe that the majority of Muslims living here are firmly behind democracy and secular law, but can we really know?
Click to expand...
I'd like to believe that the majority of people from Jutland living here are firmly behind democracy and secular law, but can we really know?

... I guess we'll just have to take their word for it.

Hans
 
chran said:
The results are in!

Anders Fogh Rasmussen (AFR) is able to continue leading the country. His block, with the support of a Faerose mandate and New Alliance, has 95 seats in the Parliament (a majority), while the social democrat block has 81 seats.

New Alliance, the party expected to be the "deal breaker" and change the political landscape in Denmark, only managed to get 2.8% of the vote, securing only 5 seats. AFR's Liberal-Conservative block thus has a majority even without NA's mandates.

End result: Back where we started.

The voter turnout was 86.6%

BBC Story
Click to expand...
Of course, even without having to have Pia and Naser in the same room, AFR has a bit of a juggling act ahead of him. Not much slack for anything. The opposition will be poised for him to sneeze.

Hans
 
MRC_Hans said:
Of course, even without having to have Pia and Naser in the same room, AFR has a bit of a juggling act ahead of him. Not much slack for anything. The opposition will be poised for him to sneeze.

Hans
Click to expand...

Or blink. :p
 
So Rasmussen won again? :

2007 election

At 11.30 pm on 13 November 2007, the day of the election, Anders Fogh Rasmussen claimed victory on the basis of almost complete results.[1]. By the morning of 14 November 2007, after results from the Faroe Islands and Greenland, Rasmussen's centre-right coalition had obtained the 90 seats required for him to become prime minister. He will thus become the longest-ruling liberal prime minister of Denmark[2].

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anders_Fogh_Rasmussen#2007_election
Click to expand...
 
Yup. Some of us are suspecting* that he called the election just to go for that record (first PM from that particular party to retain the seat for three terms).

* No, not really.
 
Last edited:
ThatSoundAgain said:
Yup. Some of us are suspecting* that he called the election just to go for that record (first PM from that particular party to retain the seat for three terms).

* No, not really.
Click to expand...


To be honest - I have no Idea about the current political developments
and issues in Denmark, but since he's such a popular person, it sounds as
if he might be a good choice anyway - in contrast to the rest of the pack.
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
To be honest - I have no Idea about the current political developments
and issues in Denmark, but since he's such a popular person, it sounds as
if he might be a good choice anyway - in contrast to the rest of the pack.
Click to expand...

Well, his popularity is not universal, and I don't know where you get your info about the other party leaders. Like in Germany, only a few are realistic candidates for establishing and leading a government, so this time around there was only one real alternative from the other block. Given her track record - next to none - I can't see Fogh's supposed popularity as the prime deciding factor.

As it stands, we still have a PM who is partly responsible for the mess in Iraq. I find it distressing that that stunt didn't cost him (at the very least) his chair, and that this election could be won on relatively minor issues. (ETA: And the last one, too.)

Now, Fogh is one Faroese from having his work really cut out for him. That, I'd have liked to have seen. Should be fun watching how his old supporters and his new ones get along, though.
 
Last edited:
Oliver said:
To be honest - I have no Idea about the current political developments
and issues in Denmark, but since he's such a popular person, it sounds as
if he might be a good choice anyway - in contrast to the rest of the pack.
Click to expand...

So, you think the not-very-popular guy is not the good choice?

(angelic smile)
 
mbp said:
Fogh certainly isn't partly responsible for Iraq. There can be no doubt that Bush would have gone ahead without any Danish support. He was partly responsible for the Danish involvement, but the opposition can't get much traction out of that because the social democrats themselves voted for some of it and because we're no longer there.
Click to expand...

WRONG! Get your facts straight, bubba.

Social Democrats did not vote for the war. 31 voted against and had the 21 absentees been voting we wouldn't have started a war with America and broken our constitution, which states that Denmark cannot legally engage in war outside direct defense of our territories or under a UN mandate.

Here's the transcript of the vote: gk2003.dk/downloads/0691_001.pdf

But the government wants you to believe there was popular support for the war as they wanted you to believe Saddam being a threat to Danish security which is as far fetched as believing in Santa Clause - maybe someone should put up a million dollars to anyone who can prove that little fairy tale (we were subjected to the same nonsense regarding WMDs as the Americans).

Btw, the Danish prime is being sued by a growing group of people (now 3500+) for the constitutional breach that Iraq is. He is trying his best to stay out of court and has had the case dismissed once on the grounds that the plaintiffs have no personal interest in the Iraq war. Problem is, several of the plaintiffs are parents to soldiers who were killed in Iraq. I'd say, as would most people that these parents have a very direct interest in whether some one sends their sons to their deaths in a war that was illegal by Danish law. Really, imho, every citizen in Denmark has a direct interest when our Prime breaks our constitution.

For some reason, Iraq was hardly mentioned during our election. Embarrassed anyone?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom