Talk Elections

Well, in the United States it's more of a coastal-liberal/inland-conservative divide as well as a north-liberal/south-conservative divide.

In Mexico they have a north-conservative/south-liberal divide.

(Yes, I know these are all generalities)

Anyone know patterns like this of other countries?
Also, it would be interesting to see the maps if anyone has them.

Generally, the UK has a north-leftist, south conservative pattern (don't kill me Al). In Canada it's kind of an east-west thing. Italy is a north-right, south-left type of split IIRC.

More like center-left, north and south-right. There's also been a quite major realignment in the 90s, with the North becoming more right and the south less so than formerly.

In Sweden, the North is heavily socialist (as in the conservative party getting single digits in many places). There are a few exceptions where the Centre Party does well, but that's pretty limited. The South then gets progressively more conservative.

Australia's a funny one actually.

Since, unlike the US as a whole what defines our politics is primarily economic issues, not social ones.

Plus there are vast tracks of land where the there is one representative for an area the size of western europe - but serves a population of only about 80,000.

Apart from those the cities are in a kind of ring system.

The centre of the cities generally tend to be more cosmopolitan and vote for the Labor Party (feeding off Green votes) then you move into the more affluent suburbs to the north, south, east and inner west who vote the conservative Liberal Party - then there's another block, this is particularly true for Sydney and Melbourne of what is known as the mortgage belt. These are people who were, more than likely raised in solid working class Labor voting families - who because of the Liberals ability to keep interest rates lower than under Labor (this IMHO was the SOLE reason Howard won in 2004), they vote Liberal even if they don't support Liberal social policy. The same is true for the "affluent" Liberal voters especially in Sydney's North Shore and Eastern Suburbs and Melbourne's inner East. They are usually very "liberal" on social issues, gay rights, immigration, arts funding amongst others - but since they keep taxes low, they vote Liberal.

Then there's the Liberals coalition partners the country based Nationals - who only win in Queensland, New South Wales and Northern Victoria.

Scotland had a south west north east divide, with the south west being more socialist and the north west more conservative. 'Had' being the important word.

In Austria, the west (Vorarlberg, Tirol, Salzburg, Upper Austria) is generally conseravtive, as is Lower Austria and Styria. For Salzburg this was the case until 2004, when the Social Dems won the governorship for the first time since WW2 ended. It was also the case in Styria when the SD won the election for the first time since 1945. Vorarlberg, Tirol, Upper Austria and Lower Austria always had Conservative Governors since WW2. Vienna has always been Social Democrat, Burgenland since 1964. Carinthia was long SD until 1989 when the FPÖ-candidate Jörg Haider became governor. He had to resign 2 years later after comments about the Nazi-Era. Then 8 years of conservative rule followed and then Jörg Haider again became Governor there. So, it´s a very mixed state. But in general you can say, North and Western Austria is conservative, while the South-East is more Social Democrat.

Lewis would know far better than I but in Germany it seems to be:
(Using Conservative and Liberal in the American sense)

Bavaria: Extremely Conservative, votes only CSU (CDU)

Southern former West Germany: Very conservative, though not as much as Bavaria.

Urban former West Germany: Strong SPD, FDP's (Libertarian) best area

Rural former West Germany: ???

Former East Germany: CDU weak to non-existant outside Saxony. Unsure what it was like before Sept. 2005 election, but now the Left Party (former Communists?) very strong there.

Berlin: Most Liberal place, along with Essen-Dusseldorf. Green Party's strongest area.

Poland:

Based on the October 2005 election, there is a clear divide between the Pro-European West half, and the Eastern half, which somehow I don't think is pro-Russian, but is not that enthusiastic about Europe and the EU. The current horrible Polish government won because of its strength in the East.

If someone could describe the political divides in France and Spain, I would be very grateful. France has a big election coming up in less than a year!

I don't know if Bavaria is extremely conservative, if so its only conservative socially. I've always believed that the CSU dominance was mostly because of regionalism and the general weakness of the SDP than because of any ideological beliefs.


I think this has to do more with traditional support from Catholics for the CDU. I believe I have heard that alot of the voting trends within Germany are based more off of tradition and how people traditionally vote for parties than on issues. This may hold true in Baden-Wurttemburg. Saarland is strongly SDP, IIRC, and is heavily industrialized. It was also Die Linke's best state outside of the East, if only because of Oskar Lafontaine.


Well that follows the same pattern as just about every other country. Urban areas and large cities vote for the left. The FDP also has always been a traditionally Protestant party thus that explains that its traditional strongholds are in Northern Germany which is majority Protestant.


CDU, or in Bavaria CSU, heavily IIRC.


No, no, not really on the CDU. Outside of Saxony they also have a rather large amount of support, for the East, in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern, where Merkel is from. They are currently the largest party, in the state elections, in Thuringia, Sachsen-Anhalt, Saxony, and they are currently second in Mecklenburg-Vorpommern. The only major areas where the CDU is weak is in Brandenburg and Berlin. Brandenburg has the largest support for the PDS in the East and in Berlin the CDU has been wracked by scandals.


Well East Berlin has voting patterns similar to surrounding Brandenburg and West Berlin seems comparable to Western cities, though with a larger base of support for the Greens.

Of course Lewis knows much more about this than I do. I only know what Wikipedia and Deutsche-Welle tells me. ;)

Wouldn't call it Pro-European but definitely economically right. Most developed area in Poland.


It's definitely not pro-Russian. I think if any politican in Poland was pro-Russia he would get lynched. It's more Rural, more socially conservative, more populist, less developed. But as for a pro-anti-EU breakdown it doesn't really work since most Poles seem to fall into the Euroskeptic mold.

[qupte]The current horrible Polish government won because of its strength in the East.[/quote]

Yeah the identical twins; both of them complete dolts.

I don't know much about the local state of the parties. I just knew the 2002 and 2005 federal elections. I know Merkel is from the East but in general elections Former East Germany is the CDU's weakest region (except Saxony of course).

When you say Bavaria's voting pattern is due to regionalism, does that mean it considers itself somewhat seperate from Germany? A relative of mine has been to Munich and that region a few times and he said Bavaria is like a German Texas: everything is big, bombastic and conservative, and the culture is somewhat different.

The dominant geographical division in England is the Severn-Wash line (ie; an imaginary line drawn from the mouth of the Severn, up to the Wash on the North Sea coast). England north of that line is, generally, industrial, blue collar, socially conservative and Labour voting, while England south of that line is affluent, white collar and Tory voting. There are o/c various other divisions within each half, but they tend to be based more along class or ethnic lines than anything strictly geographical (geology features quite strongly though).
O/c Northern England is rather different to the more affluent Midlands, and rural areas like East Anglia (which is just weird) or the South West (which has a large LibDem vote; a mix of traditional Liberals and regional protest voters) are not especially similer to the South East.
But as a general guide, North/South works pretty well.

Wales is more regionally divided than England (largely due to geography; you won't find much flat land in Wales) and, in a political sense, the main regions are:

1. North East Wales: is a mixture of industrial (old and new), seaside and rural areas. Hardly anyone speaks Welsh there. Overall leans Labour (and has done since the '60's or so).
Labour are (suprise, suprise) strongest in the industrial areas, but have a decent vote in the more decayed seaside resorts (such as Rhyl) and in a lot of the rural settlements (in national elections anyway; locally they are Indie or, sometimes, Plaid. Until the '80's the Liberals did very well in them). The Tories are strongest in the more upmarket seaside resorts and in some rural areas (while being very weak in others. I suspect religious geography may come into that).

2. North West Wales: is a very rural area and is strongly Welsh speaking. It is a traditional stronghold of both Calvinism and Nationalism and is forever associated with David Lloyd George.
Plaid are strongest in agricultural areas (especially the Lleyn peninsula and S./E. Meirionnydd) but can poll well in most places, while Labour is strongest in the old slate quarrying communities and the University city of Bangor (and in this part of the world, Labour tends to have a soft-Nationalist lean to it). Ynys Môn (Anglesey) is o/c a case apart with some genuinely strange politics to it's name.
The other parties don't matter a great deal, but the Tories do best in what affluent and anglicised areas there are, while the LibDems are a mere shadow (not even that really) of what the Liberals used to be.

3. Mid Wales: is another very rural area. Unlike the North West, Mid Wales is strongly English speaking, and it's traditional Liberalism (the big "L" kind, certainly NOT the little "l" kind) has somehow managed to last out the 20th century. There is also a strong Tory vote (especially in Radnorshire), while Labour and Plaid are of little importance (Montgomery is the only constituency in Wales to have never had a Labour M.P).

4. West Wales: again... is a rural area, but is politically very mixed. The LibDems are strongest in Ceredigion (both in the University/resort town of Aberystwyth and in some agricultural areas), while Plaid is strongest in a Welsh speaking rural area centered on Carmarthenshire (but extending into southern Ceredigion), which was the first constituency to elect a Plaid M.P (back in the '60's). The Tories are strongest in parts of anglicised Pembrokeshire ("Little England, beyond Wales"), while Labour does best in areas with coastal industries (such as Pembroke Dock) and in an agricultural area inbetween Carmarthen and Pembroke.

5. The Valleys: is a very, very industrial area, based around a large (and largely former) coalfield north of Cardiff. It is socially conservative (almost to the degree that North West Wales is) and strongly Labour (to the point that the only people Labour have had trouble with at Westminster level since the '20's have been various Independent Labour groupings... and the Communists for a few years). Tory candidates here are expected to pay their deposits out of their own pockets. Some don't get it back either.
Plaid are a factor (of sorts) in local (and Assembly level in '99 only) politics and in the western fringes of the area.
Swansea is, for the most part, politically like the Valleys... with the exception of parts of the western half of the city, which are much more like Cardiff than anywhere else.

6. South Coast: not an entirely accurate name but... anyway, this area is centered around Cardiff (a socially mixed (and by Welsh standards affluent) city that grew up as a port, but is now an administrative and service centre and is politically fairly mixed...
Labour is strongest in various coastal industrial towns and cities (the largest of which is Newport) and the working class parts of Cardiff (ie; the south and west of the city). The LibDems are strongest in the centre of Cardiff (which is actually middle class and suburban for the most part. It also has a Uni or two), while the Tories are strong in the northern suburbs of Cardiff and in the various commuter towns and villages west (ie; Vale of Glamorgan) and east (ie; eastern Monmouthshire) of Cardiff. Plaid are a somewhat surreal element in local politics, but that is it.
Needless to say, sod all people here can actually speak Welsh, but amusingly a lot of people in Cardiff lied about this to the last Census.

Do please note that these rough regions do not correspond very well with electoral or administrative boundaries.

Canada is very complicated. It goes by province.

BC:
Kind of an extension of the US Pacific coast. The coastal areas are left leaning, while the interior is more right wing.

Albera: All of it is Conservative federally, and provincially only Edmonton, and downtown Calgary are not that Conservative.

Manitoba  and Saskatchewan: Rural areas are conservative while the cities are left leaning. Northern areas are Liberal (lots of natives)

Ontario: Northern Ontario is very left wing. Union cities and more trendy downtown areas vote NDP while most other cities and the suburbs vote Liberal. Outer suburbs and rural areas vote Conservative.

Quebec: Anglophone areas vote Liberal and Conservative. The rest vote BQ. Working class areas especially. Separatists will vote Conservative in more rich areas.

New Brunswick: Francophone areas and the cities for Liberal, rural areas vote Conservative

Nova Scotia: Halifax metro is where the NDP has its support provincially and to a moderate extent federally. Conservatives do well in the rural areas, and the Liberals do well in some rural areas and in Halifax (mostly federally).

In PEI, Liberals are best in Charlottetown provincially. The rest votes Conservative provincially or Liberal federally.

In Newfoundland, rural areas vote Liberal and the Avalon peninsula (with St. Johns) votes Conservative.

The terrirories are mostly left wing, and only parts of the Yukon support the Conservatives.

4 of the 7 electoral districts in which SLD polled more than 50% of the vote in 2001 were on Poland's western border. The other three were Lodz, Bydgoszcz and Sosnowiec (where they were over 60% IIRC). Last year Sosnowiec was the only above 20%, but I think all those nearing that number were in the west of Poland.

Yes absolutely. Bavaria is like the South or Texas. While it is conservative it sees voting CSU as a statement of Bavarian pride, IIRC. Bavaria has a different culture, different dialect, and a different history than Northern Germany. It didn't come under Prussian control until 1871, when the German Empire was founded, and almost remained its own independent entity. I think the CSU plays off of that protraying itself as the party of Bavaria and the party of Bavarian "exceptionalism" in a way.

Except that, to a remarkable extent, anywhere in Germany is "like the South or Texas" in that respect.

Basically.

The country votes for the coalition..with exceptions (high % aboriginal areas, some but certainly not all mining towns, etc. It really depends on the town you're in, but basically the bush is conservative, especially outside the southeast-but the coalition gets higher percentages in the southeast, because the bush in VIC and NSW is more economically conservative then up north and over west. Plus, as I said before, aboriginal votes. Big towns (Newcastle, Ballarat etc.) with a strong industrial/union presence, vote ALP.

The cities...The inner city is left wing. The middle suburbs split-working class, generally ALP; Upper class-generally Liberal. Both vote primarily on economics; it could even be said that they are socially opposite the parties they vote for in many areas. A good example of this is the seat of Prahran, in eastern Melbourne, held by Peter Costello. High Green vote feeding off into the Liberals. The middle class ones are voting ALP in Melbourne and Liberal everywhere else-this was particularly seen in Perth last election (aided by the lack of Beazley of course).

The outer suburbs are different again. Lots of lower-middle-classers, with historic tendancies to the ALP, are voting for the Liberals. These guys are known as 'Howard's battlers' or if a bit better off, 'aspirational voters'. The mortgage belt which won Howard certainly 2004, and helped a lot in 1996 and 2001. 1998 was just weird, so... Even then, the mortgage belt differs. In Sydney, south of the harbour it still votes ALP; north of the harbour always Liberal. In Melbourne, northeast always ALP, eastern suburbs generally Liberal.

But then there's state piolitics, where the same people vote ALP because they like education and healthcare focusses alongside their low interest rates. This was especially seen in the last Victorian election, when the normally solid light blue eastern suburbs all went crimson red. I'm quite a fan of comparing the differences.

ANYway, basically.

East Coast:More conservative the further north you go

Center: More conservative the more inland you go

West: More conservative the further east you go

(But even then, they are all wrong, so, basically, The easiest is, for the whole country, 'the further you get from aboriginal areas, inner cities, union towns, and hippie zones you get, the more conservative')

Oh yeah.
Indonesia - Java: PDI-P and numerous post-reformasi parties
Bali: PDI-P
everywhere else: Golkar

Cambodia - Phnom Penh: Sam Rainsy Party (corrupt ultra-pro-Americans)
everywhere else: Cambodia People's Party (corrupt postcommunist)

Malaysia - areas of opposition strength in the North and in Kuala Lumpur

Thailand - areas of opposition strenght in the Far South (bordering on the areas of opposition strength in Malaysia ;D ) and to a lesser extent in Bangkok
 

IE, the (relatively) hardcore islamic areas.

Nah, just plain and simple the islamic areas.

I phrased it that way because of Malaysia.

Oh. Well, Malaysia has two opposition parties, one islamist, one proamerican, but nonetheless loosely cooperating at election time. The Kuala Lumpur seats are all of the "western" party, in the north the two are about equally represented.

You should use the country-appropriate terminology.  As pretty much everywhere outside the US, Mexican leftists would be horrified if you were to call them liberal.  "Liberal" in this context means pro-market, anti-sociallist, technocratic, though, possibly relatively secular.   None of the leftists in Mexico are "liberals" (and not many of the rightists are, for that matter).

I guess, in Mexico the division is:

1. pro-business conserative/old-time priista North
2. ultra-conservative right-wing Catholic North-Central heartland (Bajio),
3. leftist/populist South
4. leftist metropolitan Mexico City
5. highly mixed South-Central area around Mexico City (with rightist and leftist areas interspersed in a chess-board fashion: mostly conservative cities and leftist/populist smaller towns and country areas)
6. ambiguous-to-conservative Yucatan peninsula.

In terms of urban/rural divide it is also non-monotonic. In general you have:

1. Leftist giant Mexico City
2. Right-wing conservative almost all other major cities
3. Leftist and/or populist smaller towns and rural areas

Electoral behavior is guided in Argentina basically by income and education (which, of course, are also related): as these get higher, the lower the tendency to vote peronist, and viceversa. So major cities are generally non-peronist, while their (poorer) suburbs and smaller cities are more peronist.

The non-peronist vote is not uniform, either. The richer areas in big cities go for center-right non-peronist options, but they generally loose to center-left non-peronists supported by the middle class. The three main cities (Buenos Aires, Rosario, and to a lesser extent, Córdoba) usually choose this last type of mayors.

40% of the national vote is concentrated in Buenos Aires and its suburbs, so presidential elections are mostly decided there. In the city peronists rarely get over 25%/30% of the vote, but their vote share increases as the distance from the city grows: in the poorer suburbs they could get over 65%/70%.

Kirchner was the gobernador of Santa Cruz, wasn't he? Geez that place needs work. Still, it's beautiful.

Where abouts do you live? I presume BsAs, which is a pretty cool place, although I never left the Capital federal. My favourite major city in Argentina was Cordoba, though; my least favourite Corrientes.

Well, Santa Cruz is just fine economically. I think only around 200.000 people live there and they have plenty of oil, so... I think unemployment is less than 4%, lowest in the country. Of course, I can´t imagine myself living in such a boring (and freezing cold) place...

That´s right, I live in Buenos Aires. ¿Cordoba? ¿Really? As for major cities I´d say Rosario, Mendoza or Salta are cooler.

Didn't go to Salta, didn't like Mendoza (open sewers=major negative).

Rosario was pretty funky. I was there twice; the first time for a week, the second for two days. It's got a nice CBD/centro to walk around, and the river is pretty cool; I was particularly enarmoured with my day sitting on the beach on the river, with a plane overhead constantly repeating an ad for "New Yorrrrk Shopping-el mejoooorrrr de Rosario, Provincia de Santa Fe.....New Yorrrrk Shopping...."

The Monument to the Flag is the most impressive phallic symbol i've ever seen, as well, although el obelisco comes close. I find the fact that you have a massive tower devoted to a flag, that has no flag flying on top of as oddly comforting...that said, the plaza and surrounding buildings were pasted with flags, possibly because of the World Cup.

Anyway, I really liked the Riverside, and I was staying in an area of Rosario known as 'Barrio Pichincha' which was a bit out of town (40 minutes walk along the river, maybe 30 minutes direct) which was a bit run down, but still pretty nice. I discovered you could buy a 2-bedroom house there for $30,000 pesos, which is a pretty attractive price for me...that's about $10,000 USD which is a car over here :S

Anyway, Rosario was pretty cool, and I could def. live there, but it didn't really have any sizzle. It was plain, comfortable and friendly, but Cordoba was laid back and crazy, hectic and slow...Cordoba is a kind of place where everything is in the right-now, and as a tourist that's a great thing. Maybe as a resident Cordoba would suck, but it's a great place to visit.

I hadn´t realized our two main cities have big phallic symbols as monuments. It´s.... a bit disturbing...

Not because I´m porteño myself, but I think no other city here matches Buenos Aires. Except for having a river, maybe, which would be nice (the city is built in such way that the you barely notice the Rio de la Plata).

And for Rosario, those who knew it some time ago say it has improved a lot recently. I dare to say this in a US forum, but... the socialists have ran it quite well for the last 16 years.

Possibly so, also I have to admit the souless apartment buildings everywhere were a bit depressing.

Nothing compares to Buenos Aires in size and importance, and also in diversity, but... sure it was nice, but it isn't really a city that suits me all that well I suppose. I much preferred Montevideo, which is like a smaller, safer, friendlier, better preserved, equally-priced BsAs with beaches, less obvious landmarks and a worse nightlife. Although Uruguayo pizzas SUCK, it was a pretty funky town; I was surprised so few Argentinos had ever gone there.

How do the more touristic Andean areas vote, and also Missiones? (Neuquen-Bariloche-Esquel etc.)

Misiones has elections coming up to reform the province´s constitution. It´s been traditionally the most bipartisan province of all, with peronists (PJ) and radicals (UCR) getting repeteadly over 90%. Now that the radicals are in shambles and the peronists have split, the two main parties are Frente para la Victoria (the label adopted by peronists that support Kirchner), led by governor Rovira, and some huge opposition alliance called FUD. This alliance is solely united in their opposition to allowing unlimited reelection to the governor. Even the church is in this alliance, which es very rare (I think it´s the second time in Argentine politics that a priest runs in an election). Polls show Rovira leading by 5-10%. Unlike most provinces, the capital (Posadas) is not much less peronist than the rest of this (very poor) province.

Neuquén politics, on the contrary, has been dominanted for decades by a provincial party (MPN). The MPN has mostly been close to the peronists, and in fact its origin lies there (when peronism was forbidden, some "neo-peronist" parties were created). Its electoral map is quite diverse, though, and hardcore left parties grew in areas where privatization of the gas company led to high unemployment. The center-left FREPASO also got very good results in the 90´s, and elections used to be very competitive between MPN, FREPASO, PJ and UCR. Today MPN is clearly the largest party, although the capital is still ruled by the UCR.

Bariloche always seemed strange to me, since it has a large population of german origin (and I´d say, pro-nazi simpathies) but FREPASO got great results there in the 90´s. As a middle class city, however, that choice was more understandable. In the last governor´s election the radical candidate won there.

As for Esquel, I have absolutely no idea. It´s a really small city, though. The only election I remember there was a referendum called to allow the construction of a mine there, which was defeated by a large margin.

This is a great site, with lots of data and maps: http://towsa.com/andy/index.html

New poll for Misiones´ election (http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/709/2053/1600/678.jpg) gives Rovira an 8% lead. The pollster is fairly reliable, although he´s close to Kirchner. Rovira is not doing very well, considering he´s got Kirchner´s support (he even went there last week) and the president is getting a (barely believable) 75% in the province: http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/709/2053/1600/348.jpg

those images don't work for me.

Rovira will still win, though, won't he?

Is there anything on the horizon to cause FplVictoria concern?

Well, it´s an 8% lead (this said by an FpV pollster) and it´s still a few weeks before the election, so victory for FpV is not guaranteed. The FUD has support from the left, the right, the church, the capital (Posadas) mayor (a former ally of him, who still supports Kirchner), even from the two labor federations, CTA and CGT, which (especially CGT) are close to Kirchner at the national level. Rovira must have done something wrong to create this massive lineup against him... And an 8% lead, considering you´re being supported by an extremely popular president, it´s sub-standard, to say the least.

The latest development is really strange: as I said, FUD´s top candidate is a priest. He asked for retirement last year (he´s 75, or something like that), and the Vatican decided to accept that... only yesterday. This was seen as a gesture from the Vatican, meaning that they don´t oppose Kirchner. Of course, it might just be a coincidence, but who knows, it may end up hurting FUD.

ShjzohMartin (Argie pronunciation ;)), what's news now re: Missiones?

Hehe, we do pronounce the "y" in an unusual way... Well, us porteños do, but not in Misiones actually (they pronounce it more like an "i").

Elections were held last sunday, and defying most polls, the opposition to Rovira´s re-election plans won fairly easily (56-43). Rovira´s performance in Posadas, the main city, was disastrous: 66-34. Here are the stats, map, histogram, etc.
http://towsa.com/andy/totalpais/misiones/2006cc.html

There are many reasons for his defeat. First, trying to change just one article of the constitution (the one that forbids unlimited re-election) is stupid, he should have wrapped that within a larger reform. And second, the last couple of days of his campaign were a display of machine politics rarely seen (even in a country, and a province, were machine politics is common). And middle class urban voters don´t like to see those things.