Swedish election, 2018: Political Impasse, Löfven loses confidence vote

[Devout Centrist]

A good result for the Social Democrats and a substantial underperformance for SD and somewhat for V. The next couple weeks will be very interesting indeed.

[Mopsus]

I think is important to note that Sweden has a long story of refugees inflows, for example, between the 70s and 80s the country received thousands of chilean (political reasons in the 70s and mainly economic in the 80s). People like Harald Edelstam saved more than a thousand people from Pinochet's regime. There is also a link about chileans in Sweden.

https://www.thelocal.se/20170505/the-forgotten-story-of-swedens-chilean-refugees

Beautiful country, never change please.

That isn’t at all important to note.

"A country's history and culture don't matter and shouldn't be preserved" - Mopolis

I actually didn’t vote for any of the left parties in the poll.

[Tintrlvr]

Demographic breakdowns: https://www.svt.se/special/valu2018-valjargrupper/

Results by bloc by age:
65+: Red Green 42; Alliance 38; SD 19
31-64: Red Green 38; Alliance 40; SD 21
22-30: Red Green 41; Alliance 42; SD 14
18-21: Red Green 38; Alliance 45; SD 13
Total: Red Green 41; Alliance 41; SD 18

Also the Moderates won voters between ages 18-21 outright. Why does Sweden have the really odd pattern where support for bourgeois parties is correlated with youth of all things? Most every country is the opposite.

It's not an odd pattern - in continental Europe this is a common feature (although most common for traditional centre-left support to be positively correlated with age, and not necessarily the centre-right inversely).

Left being strongest amongst younger voters seems to be more a thing in the English speaking world but less so outside.  True far left parties do better amongst younger voters, but many right wing also do well also.  Even in Asia, parties on the right do better amongst younger voters so idea of young favouring left wing parties seems to be largely limited to English speaking countries excluding Ireland (Canada, US, UK, Australia, and New Zealand, UK the most extreme example of all them).

Also wasn't always that way in English speaking world.  In both Canada and the US, at least parties on the right did quite well amongst Generation X when they were in their 20s, while its more amongst millennials they've struggled so could be that usually children vote differently than their parent's generation did.

I don't know that I'd say it's most true in the UK. It's a relatively recent phenomenon everywhere, but there are clear elections where the pattern started (2004 Presidential election in the US, 2016 Brexit referendum in the UK), and the UK example is much more recent. US vs. UK age gaps also seem to be similar (though it is true that the age gap in the US is partially a gap in race/ethnicity among young voters as compared to older voters - I suspect that's also true to some extent in the UK but perhaps to a lesser degree).

Anyway, totally agree that more or less no real age gap, or S in particular doing best among older voters, is not very surprising. (I'd be shocked if MP did best among older voters, though!) My understanding is that, outside of the Anglophone countries, it's a combination of traditional favoring of social democratic policies by older voters combined with a view that the left are the guardians of elder-care and social safety net for the elderly policies.

[mileslunn]

Demographic breakdowns: https://www.svt.se/special/valu2018-valjargrupper/

Results by bloc by age:
65+: Red Green 42; Alliance 38; SD 19
31-64: Red Green 38; Alliance 40; SD 21
22-30: Red Green 41; Alliance 42; SD 14
18-21: Red Green 38; Alliance 45; SD 13
Total: Red Green 41; Alliance 41; SD 18

Also the Moderates won voters between ages 18-21 outright. Why does Sweden have the really odd pattern where support for bourgeois parties is correlated with youth of all things? Most every country is the opposite.

It's not an odd pattern - in continental Europe this is a common feature (although most common for traditional centre-left support to be positively correlated with age, and not necessarily the centre-right inversely).

Left being strongest amongst younger voters seems to be more a thing in the English speaking world but less so outside.  True far left parties do better amongst younger voters, but many right wing also do well also.  Even in Asia, parties on the right do better amongst younger voters so idea of young favouring left wing parties seems to be largely limited to English speaking countries excluding Ireland (Canada, US, UK, Australia, and New Zealand, UK the most extreme example of all them).

Also wasn't always that way in English speaking world.  In both Canada and the US, at least parties on the right did quite well amongst Generation X when they were in their 20s, while its more amongst millennials they've struggled so could be that usually children vote differently than their parent's generation did.

I don't know that I'd say it's most true in the UK. It's a relatively recent phenomenon everywhere, but there are clear elections where the pattern started (2004 Presidential election in the US, 2016 Brexit referendum in the UK), and the UK example is much more recent. US vs. UK age gaps also seem to be similar (though it is true that the age gap in the US is partially a gap in race/ethnicity among young voters as compared to older voters - I suspect that's also true to some extent in the UK but perhaps to a lesser degree).

Anyway, totally agree that more or less no real age gap, or S in particular doing best among older voters, is not very surprising. (I'd be shocked if MP did best among older voters, though!) My understanding is that, outside of the Anglophone countries, it's a combination of traditional favoring of social democratic policies by older voters combined with a view that the left are the guardians of elder-care and social safety net for the elderly policies.

In the case of Canada and New Zealand could also be due to progressive parties, Labour in New Zealand, Liberals in Canada having relatively youthful leaders so it would be interesting if in Sweden, the Social Democrats choose a younger more charismatic leader.  I believe the Danish Social Democrats have a younger leader so be interesting to see how it breaks down by age there.

Also part of it could be universities and colleges.  In North America at least, they are very strong left wing echo chambers whereas I am not sure if that is the case in Europe as well as also in the English speaking countries the right tends to be more ideological and you usually lack a more moderate centre-right party so its quite possible if you had multiple parties on the right instead of just one, the more moderate one would do better amongst younger voters.

[Velasco]

A good result for the Social Democrats and a substantial underperformance for SD and somewhat for V. The next couple weeks will be very interesting indeed.

I feel some relief because the result is not as bad as some predicted, but the fact is that SD performed strongly (albeit below inflated expectations) and the SAP got its worst historical result. Luckily Sweden is not lost, at least by the moment. However, populists and extremists are on the rise and represent a real threat for the whole continent.

[Skill and Chance]

Demographic breakdowns: https://www.svt.se/special/valu2018-valjargrupper/

Results by bloc by age:
65+: Red Green 42; Alliance 38; SD 19
31-64: Red Green 38; Alliance 40; SD 21
22-30: Red Green 41; Alliance 42; SD 14
18-21: Red Green 38; Alliance 45; SD 13
Total: Red Green 41; Alliance 41; SD 18

Also the Moderates won voters between ages 18-21 outright. Why does Sweden have the really odd pattern where support for bourgeois parties is correlated with youth of all things? Most every country is the opposite.

It's not an odd pattern - in continental Europe this is a common feature (although most common for traditional centre-left support to be positively correlated with age, and not necessarily the centre-right inversely).

Left being strongest amongst younger voters seems to be more a thing in the English speaking world but less so outside.  True far left parties do better amongst younger voters, but many right wing also do well also.  Even in Asia, parties on the right do better amongst younger voters so idea of young favouring left wing parties seems to be largely limited to English speaking countries excluding Ireland (Canada, US, UK, Australia, and New Zealand, UK the most extreme example of all them).

Also wasn't always that way in English speaking world.  In both Canada and the US, at least parties on the right did quite well amongst Generation X when they were in their 20s, while its more amongst millennials they've struggled so could be that usually children vote differently than their parent's generation did.

I don't know that I'd say it's most true in the UK. It's a relatively recent phenomenon everywhere, but there are clear elections where the pattern started (2004 Presidential election in the US, 2016 Brexit referendum in the UK), and the UK example is much more recent. US vs. UK age gaps also seem to be similar (though it is true that the age gap in the US is partially a gap in race/ethnicity among young voters as compared to older voters - I suspect that's also true to some extent in the UK but perhaps to a lesser degree).

Anyway, totally agree that more or less no real age gap, or S in particular doing best among older voters, is not very surprising. (I'd be shocked if MP did best among older voters, though!) My understanding is that, outside of the Anglophone countries, it's a combination of traditional favoring of social democratic policies by older voters combined with a view that the left are the guardians of elder-care and social safety net for the elderly policies.

The fact that there are basically no religious young people in NW Europe (and there haven't been enough to contest control of the government in many decades) seems relevant here.  That changes the meaning/platform of both the political right and left dramatically vs. in the US where there is still a substantial bloc of devout Millennials.

[Antonio the Sixth]

Welp, that's what I call a clusterf**k

[mvd10]

Demographic breakdowns: https://www.svt.se/special/valu2018-valjargrupper/

Results by bloc by age:
65+: Red Green 42; Alliance 38; SD 19
31-64: Red Green 38; Alliance 40; SD 21
22-30: Red Green 41; Alliance 42; SD 14
18-21: Red Green 38; Alliance 45; SD 13
Total: Red Green 41; Alliance 41; SD 18

Also the Moderates won voters between ages 18-21 outright. Why does Sweden have the really odd pattern where support for bourgeois parties is correlated with youth of all things? Most every country is the opposite.

I guess M doesn't have a socially conservative profile unlike some other European conservatives, and C and L are the kind of parties that do well with young voters anyway. And I think SAP has a stronger hold on the working-class than many other social democratic parties, which makes it much more of a working-class party, and that might make it less appealing to young middle-class voters? European social democrats usually are on the older side and the Greens (the obvious option for young lefties) were decimated. With older voters you still have some ancestral social democrats I suppose lol.

Anyway, this is going to be rather hard. Alliance government with SD support without negotiating with the SD is going to be hard. M and KD might be somewhat open to working with SD (though only SD outside support I guess) and together these 3 parties probably will vote down a left-wing government. Those 3 parties are bigger than the left-wing bloc, which means L and C would have to vote for the left-wing bloc instead of abstaining and I also can't see them doing that. Atleast that's my understanding.

[Sir Mohamed]

Glad the see the right wingers underperformed. But 18% is still too much.

What are the odds for a so called "grand coalition"? Together with one of the two green parties, there is a solid majority.

[parochial boy]

Demographic breakdowns: https://www.svt.se/special/valu2018-valjargrupper/

Results by bloc by age:
65+: Red Green 42; Alliance 38; SD 19
31-64: Red Green 38; Alliance 40; SD 21
22-30: Red Green 41; Alliance 42; SD 14
18-21: Red Green 38; Alliance 45; SD 13
Total: Red Green 41; Alliance 41; SD 18

Also the Moderates won voters between ages 18-21 outright. Why does Sweden have the really odd pattern where support for bourgeois parties is correlated with youth of all things? Most every country is the opposite.

I guess M doesn't have a socially conservative profile unlike some other European conservatives, and C and L are the kind of parties that do well with young voters anyway. And I think SAP has a stronger hold on the working-class than many other social democratic parties, which makes it much more of a working-class party, and that might make it less appealing to young middle-class voters? European social democrats usually are on the older side and the Greens (the obvious option for young lefties) were decimated. With older voters you still have some ancestral social democrats I suppose lol.

The 18-21 subsample is probably so small as to be meaningless in terms of block votes. The most obvious pattern is the left-right split is pretty constant through all age groups; except C and V massively overperform with younger voters; and SAP, SD and KD overperform with older voters.

Obviously M's performance is a bit of a blow for my Big Theory, but then again, they did quite poorly in University towns like Lund or Uppsala (look at the results in a studenty area like Fjärdingen for instance) - whereas V and  C (and even SAP) did quite well.

[Diouf]

Expressen writes that in 2014, the counting of additional votes on Wednesday meant that the Social Democrats dropped 0,2%, while the Moderates and Greens each gained 0,1%. We also still seem to be missing the results from two polling places in Stockholm

[Ethelberth]

Finally, Gotland got a Centre MP after 1991.  It has been their best constituency but due its smallness they have not got a MP. During nineties there were two socialist MPs on the farmers' island.

[Gustaf]

Jesus, a lot of awful hot takes in this thread. To clear up a few things:

1. Youth vote in Sweden has no clear profile over time, it swings a lot and I Think is often anti-incumbent. A win of this size for the centre-right in the Group is still somewhat surprising to me.

2. There has been tons of misinformation and confusion not just here but also in the media at large about what is likely to happen with government formation. To be clear, the current government is not surviving. Like, that is certain and it does not matter at all whether the Red-Green ends up the bigger bloc or not. And SD will not be part of the government. There are 3 broad possibilities on the table:

A) S remains in power, drops the Greens and rules either outright together with or with support from C and L, or some combo that includes the Greens or other centre-right parties. V cannot be part of such an agreement because the centre-right wouldn't accept it. This is Löfven's preferred option. It is not something any other party wants though, especially because ruling with S has historically been brutal for a right-wing party.

B) The Alliance forms a government. This is the Alliance's preferred option. Their calculation is that when push comes to shove SD would vote for them over the Red-Greens so they can force Löfven's hand and make S support them from the outside. S of course do not want this because accepting it basically means giving up power forever.

C) A government consisting of a subset of the Alliance that can make themselves broadly palatable by dropping parties toxic to some other people. This could either be C/L to make SD more inclined to support it or M/KD to make the left parties more supportive.

I think A is very unlikely and B probably most likely. That's also what the betting markets were saying before the election.

3. Small parties get counted slower but they basically got no votes (total other was like less than 2%). SD gaining in Klippan is probaby because Klippan is a traditional Nazi stronghold.

4. I haven't had time to dive into results properly but I think the broad trend is Sweden is one where the left is losing ground in rural areas, especially to SD, while gaining in urban areas.

[jaichind]

Back to Center-Left 144 Center-Right 143 SD 62 with 2 precincts outstanding.    I guess there are some room for the Center-Right to gain enough votes in the absentee ballots to draw to a tie with Center-Left.

[Diouf]

A) S remains in power, drops the Greens and rules either outright together with or with support from C and L, or some combo that includes the Greens or other centre-right parties. V cannot be part of such an agreement because the centre-right wouldn't accept it. This is Löfven's preferred option. It is not something any other party wants though, especially because ruling with S has historically been brutal for a right-wing party.

B) The Alliance forms a government. This is the Alliance's preferred option. Their calculation is that when push comes to shove SD would vote for them over the Red-Greens so they can force Löfven's hand and make S support them from the outside. S of course do not want this because accepting it basically means giving up power forever.

C) A government consisting of a subset of the Alliance that can make themselves broadly palatable by dropping parties toxic to some other people. This could either be C/L to make SD more inclined to support it or M/KD to make the left parties more supportive.

I think A is very unlikely and B probably most likely. That's also what the betting markets were saying before the election.

The thing counting against B is that it will require either Löfven (or the two small left wing parties) or Åkesson to make a big mistake. As you say for S it will set a precedent leading to eternal opposition, and for Åkesson, it would be a historical humiliation to let C and L sit in government after this election campaign.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

The exit poll data that's been poured over doesn't look to have been adjusted to take into account the differences between the exit poll and the actual results*, so, you know, be careful my dearies.

_{*Mind you there are issues with doing that... often the reason for serious error would in fact be a wrong 'reading' of the electorate, poor samples etc...}

[jaichind]

I am curious what the impact of SD's growth from 2014 has on the dynamics of government formation.  Meaning, in theory, if SD's vote share in 2018 stayed the same as 2014 but still with the two blocs (Red-Green and Alliance) at a virtual tie, would not the difficulties in government formation be the same as today ?

I am curious because all sorts of non-Swedish news headlines all speak have something like "Populist Right SD surge upends Swedish government formation."  But to me the real problem here is not that SD vote share grew but the two blocs in contention for power are at a near tie which would be a problem no matter what if SD held the balance of power.   In 2014 the Red-Green bloc was clearly bigger so it made sense that power followed to them.  Now the the two blocs are at near parity and there is the issue of the ruling bloc losing votes/seats from 2014 which creates an image of "government of losers" if the continued.  That seems to me the crisis and not the SD surge.  Now if SD where to go above 20% and come in second or even first then that would be a different story.

Any insight that I am missing about the dynamics of government formation ?

[DavidB.]

Well, SD's rise at the expense of both blocs has caused the collapse of traditional bloc politics (because neither can even come close to winning an outright majority anymore), with cross-bloc cooperation (or cooperation with SD...) now being necessary to uphold entire governments. In terms of bloc politics the result isn't different from 2014 - the difference is that the Alliance is no longer willing to allow the Red-Greens to govern based on the fact that they received a plurality of the vote.

[Gustaf]

The tie between the blocs isn't super relevant. All the opposition parties campaigned explicitly on rejecting the sitting government. And the government lost 40-60 which is a landslide.

SD upsets government formation because they are willing to topple governments in order to gain influence.

The reason I Think my option B is the most likely is that it has the strongest math. Sure, neither S nor SD want it but what can they do? It's not like they can provide a stronger government alternative. What SD has said is that they can't accept a government where C rules the immigration policy (or something like that). I expect C won't have much influence on an Alliance immigration policy.

[DavidB.]

How did you vote, Gustaf? Center?

[Ethelberth]

Junilistan? Does it exist anymore?

[mgop]

after this election quasi left is officially dead in germanic part of europe

[jaichind]

The tie between the blocs isn't super relevant. All the opposition parties campaigned explicitly on rejecting the sitting government. And the government lost 40-60 which is a landslide.

SD upsets government formation because they are willing to topple governments in order to gain influence.

The reason I Think my option B is the most likely is that it has the strongest math. Sure, neither S nor SD want it but what can they do? It's not like they can provide a stronger government alternative. What SD has said is that they can't accept a government where C rules the immigration policy (or something like that). I expect C won't have much influence on an Alliance immigration policy.

But what you are saying that most reasonable outcomes of this election would have led to a crisis.  Because is seems no matter what the level of support SD might have the following equation would be true

ABS[Red-Green minus Alliance] < SD

Even if Red-Green beat Alliance by, say a solid 5%, we can reasonable expect even a bad election night for SD would see SD at above 5%.  The same would be true if it was the other way around.

It seems to me which bloc is bigger would make a big difference.  Either
a) Someone makes a deal with SD to abstain  OR
b) Someone makes a deal with SD for a positive vote
c) Some sort of anti-SD grand alliance

b) Seems hard and would lead to all sorts of problems.  But the "someone" that can pull off a) would be for naught if the other non-SD bloc can outvote you.

If c) is the way to go then the large bloc can make the claim that it should form the government with outside support from the losing bloc which is what seems to have taken place in 2014.

What would be funny is if the absentee vote leads to the two blocs to be at an exact tie.

[eric82oslo]

Do we have any info yet on how people voted on election day versus those who voted ahead of time?

[Diouf]

The reason I Think my option B is the most likely is that it has the strongest math. Sure, neither S nor SD want it but what can they do? It's not like they can provide a stronger government alternative. What SD has said is that they can't accept a government where C rules the immigration policy (or something like that). I expect C won't have much influence on an Alliance immigration policy.

They can prevent it from taking office. SD's alternative is a M-KD-SD cooperation (which would have more seats than Allianse government, so would be stronger). S' alternative is a cross bloc cooperation with a majority (so also stronger). And even if they couldn't present a stronger alternative, they could certainly present one which would be more favourable to them. It would be a crazy mistake from SD to let an Allianse government take over. All other options would be better for them. Either they get a government they prefer better (M-KD or M), or a government is formed where they have no blame/responsibility. And if possible, it would be an even crazier mistake if S lets an Allianse government come to power.