Finland election, 2015

(Revised and extended, 19 April, 9:30 a.m. PDT)

Finland has a parliamentary election on 19 April. The Center Party, which fared usually poorly in 2011, is leading all polls. But leading polls in Finland can mean under 25% of the vote.

An article in the Canberra Times captures a little of the flavor of Finland’s candida-centered open-list system and large number of parties:

The scene was a street market in an outer Helsinki suburb. Beside stalls selling long worms of coloured candy, and soft toys, and root vegetables, were the stands erected by four or five political parties. Outside each stood at least half a dozen candidates, including our interviewee, handing out their own personal campaign leaflets and engaging, when a voter showed the slightest interest, in vigorous political discussion.

Finland’s electoral system is, to an outsider, of mind-boggling complexity. The Helsinki district sends 22 members to the 200-member, single-chamber national parliament. Each party’s share of that total is proportional to the total votes cast for all its individual members.

The four major parties in Finland can each expect to send between four and six members to the national assembly from the Helsinki district. But which four or six? In Australia, party power brokers decide who tops the list of senatorial candidates, and who gets relegated to an unwinnable place on the list. In Finland, that’s decided by the number of votes each individual candidate garners.

The Finnish voter is faced with more than 50 candidates in any one district. There’s a list posted in every polling booth, where each candidate is assigned a number. You write one number, and only one, on the ballot paper. You are choosing, with that one vote, which party you prefer, and which candidate you want that party to send to the Parliament.

Even if the article does not say “open list”, it is a good (and too rare) example of a news piece at least acknowledging the different process of voting.

This election also marks the first under a somewhat revised electoral system, as Yle News notes:

A reform in electoral districts means that the 2015 elections are substantially different from those of years past – what was hitherto four constituencies have now been been merged into two separate constituencies. [Justice Ministry’s election chief Arto] Jääskeläinen estimates that counting in these new South-East Finland and Savo-Karelia constituencies will take a little more time than usual.

“Substantially different” is a bit of an overstatement, as there were fifteen districts, and only four of them are affected. The country’s mean magnitude thus increases from 13.3 to 15.4, which is hardly a major increase to what was already a quite highly proportional example of districted PR.

Of course, increasing the district magnitude for the voters in these former four is a substantial change for them. These were among the districts in which alliance lists were most common, as smaller parties would forge joint lists with larger ones to reduced wasted votes. (The parties in such alliances in low-magnnitude districts would run separately in the districts with higher magnitude.)

Yle News will carry live results after polls close at 8:00 p.m., Finnish time. They also have posted English-language interviews with the party leaders.

5 thoughts on “Finland election, 2015

  1. > “In Australia, party power brokers decide who tops the list of senatorial candidates, and who gets relegated to an unwinnable place on the list. In Finland, that’s decided by the number of votes each individual candidate garners.”

    Sadly ironic, this contrast: a party-list system that gives voters a freer choice, and MPs more democratic legitimacy from direct election, than a nominally STV system.

    Seeing how the major parties (with some help from the larger minors) have turned STV in mainland Australian States into an inordinately complex, rigidly controlled and only semi-proportional version of party lists, it’s not surprising that electoral experts like Colin Hughes and Antony Green have advocated open lists for upper house PR elections, while those less expert in electoral systems fall in love with MMP. The only people who seem to like this butchered hybrid are Irish career politicians and Blairite British party managers. STV’s light has been hidden under a very thick and murky bushel. Well, done, Australia.

    • I am surprised to learn that I am one or both of an Irish career politician or a Blairite British party manager.

      I am equally surprised but much happier to note that the NSW legislative council again demonstrated that individual preferences cast by electors can make a difference to the result.

  2. Isn’t Finland also unusual among Nordic countries not have any adjustment seats to ensure national proportionality, and the threshold is only the district magnitude of the multi-member seats? What is the reason for no adjustment seats?

    Doesn’t an open party list system like that of Finland cause members of the same party to compete for one another? Does it fragment the party system or is each parliamentary party fairly discipline because of parliamentarianism and early elections?

    • Iceland, Denmark, Norway, Sweden, and Estonia all have two-tier compensatory systems of some form. So Finland is indeed unusual among its “peer group”. A two-tier system was under consideration in Finland in 2015, but was rejected. Instead they simply increased the average magnitude a little bit by combining two pairs of smaller districts, a change that takes place with this election (and is mentioned in an update I added to the main post).

      Yes, of course, open lists by definition mean candidates of the same list compete against one another. I have seen data on party cohesion in European legislatures and Finland is a little lower than most, but not so much as to make one stand up and say that open lists undermine the parties.

      By the way, the proposed two-tier system would have eliminated the joint lists (apparentement), which are such a typical feature of the Finnish electoral system as we have known it.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s