Icelandic elections and referenda

[Rose Tinted Lane]

In 2010 an Assembly of 25 people was elected to review the constitution of Iceland. After some shenanigans regarding legitimacy and so on, they presented their conclusions in 2011. These resulted in the following questions being put to a non-binding referendum, which takes place on the 20th of October.

The referendum has six questions:

Do you wish the Constitutional Council's proposals to form the basis of a new draft Constitution?

In the new Constitution, do you want natural resources that are not privately owned to be declared national property?

Would you like to see provisions in the new Constitution on an established (national) church in Iceland?

Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution authorising the election of particular individuals to the Althingi(national parliament) more than is the case at present?

Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution giving equal weight to votes cast in all parts of the country?

Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution stating that a certain proportion of the electorate is able to demand that issues are put to a referendum?

[greatkingrat]

Oct 15, 2012 12:43:44 GMT Rose Tinted Lane said:

Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution authorising the election of particular individuals to the Althingi(national parliament) more than is the case at present?

I don't understand what this one means?

[Rose Tinted Lane]

Yeah it isn't the clearest question in the world. I think it is a question asking whether there should be a more clear mandate for individuals rather than parties. In a way I think it is in opposition to the question afterwards which is a question about equal votes. Both questions could be asked as a single item in the more obvious form:

Do you think it is more important to have equality of votes (PR) or direct individual constituency mandates (FPTP/AV)?

A mixed message on these questions could result in AMS being chosen by parliament.

[Rose Tinted Lane]

The results are in and the turnout was 48.9%.

1. Do you wish the Constitution Council’s proposals to form the basis of a new draft Constitution?

Yes: 66.3%
No: 33.7%

2. In the new Constitution, do you want natural resources that are not privately owned to be declared national property?

Yes: 82.9%
No: 17.1%

3. Would you like to see provisions in the new Constitution on an established (national) church in Iceland?

Yes: 57.1%
No: 42.9%

4. Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution authorizing the election of particular individuals to the Alþingi more than is the case at present?

Yes: 78.4%
No: 21.6%

5. Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution giving equal weight to votes cast in all parts of the country?

Yes: 66.5%
No: 33.5%

6. Would you like to see a provision in the new Constitution stating that a certain proportion of the electorate is able to demand that issues be put to a referendum?

Yes: 73.3%
No: 26.7%

In all questions but one did voters follow the recommendations of the Constitutional Council: in question number 3 on the national church. The Constitutional Council had not included a provision on an established church in their draft for a new Constitution.

The spin has already started with all interested groups claiming the results are a vindication of their own positions.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Additional context from the English-language paper to be found here:

grapevine.is/News/ReadArticle/Iceland-Says-Yes-To-New-Constitution
grapevine.is/Home/ReadArticle/The-Battle-Of-Iceland

As Grapevine articles go, they aren't that hipsterish. This being Iceland, that means they're merely absurdly hipsterish.

[East Anglian Lefty]

I'm not sure what the exact phrasing of the questions were, but from the English version I'd guess that particular is translating the word sérstakur. That would certainly suggest it's about independents rather than about gender.

[johnloony]

Oct 24, 2012 12:57:23 GMT Rose Tinted Lane said:

The results are in ....
Yes: 66.3%
No: 33.7%
Yes: 82.9%
No: 17.1%
Yes: 57.1%
No: 42.9%
Yes: 78.4%
No: 21.6%
Yes: 66.5%
No: 33.5%
Yes: 73.3%
No: 26.7%

Those aren't the results. Those are percentages. The results are the numbers of votes.
Luckily, the results are given by Wikipedia:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Icelandic_constitutional_referendum,_2012

[East Anglian Lefty]

Oct 26, 2012 10:52:57 GMT East Anglian Lefty said:

I'm not sure what the exact phrasing of the questions were, but from the English version I'd guess that particular is translating the word sérstakur. That would certainly suggest it's about independents rather than about gender.

Having checked this, I discover I was wrong and sérstakur did not feature. The exact wording of the question in Icelandic was:

Vilt þú að í nýrri stjórnarskrá verði persónukjör í kosningum til Alþingis heimilað í meira mæli en nú er?

The relevant word here is persónukjör, which translates as 'choice of individual'. So it looks like it's about moving away from a closed-list system.

[Rose Tinted Lane]

Thanks for the correction johnloony. Next time someone tries to give me "results" in percentage terms, I will be happy to inform them that those are in no way to be taken as results and are in fact merely a numerical representation of results taken through the prism of a fractional decimal apportionment.

Also, the exact figures were unavailable (or at least I could not find them - they certainly weren't on wiki) when I posted them.

The result in favour of an established church is perhaps most surprising - but possibly reflects the appreciation of Icelanders for the extent of the charitable and social programmes put on by the Icelandic church in the last few years and the fact that an established church is the status quo.

[timrollpickering]

Oct 15, 2012 13:31:37 GMT Rose Tinted Lane said:

In a way I think it is in opposition to the question afterwards which is a question about equal votes. Both questions could be asked as a single item in the more obvious form:

Do you think it is more important to have equality of votes (PR) or direct individual constituency mandates (FPTP/AV)?

I would have thought the equal votes question was about preventing malapportionment rather than about voting systems.

[East Anglian Lefty]

Yes. There are six constituencies in Iceland (Reykjavik North, Reykjavik South, South, South West, North East and North West), each electing a number of representatives to the Alþingi. However, there's fairly hefty malapportionment and this only leads to an adjustment of seat numbers when votes in one constituency are 1.5 times as valuable as in another constituency.

The malapportionment is deliberately designed to disadvantage the Reykjavik-area constituencies (RS, RN and SW) and to bolster the Independence Party's electoral prospects. It's notable that question 5 got the support of around 80% of voters in the urban constituencies, but it was in the 30s in the North East and North West.

[Georg Ebner]

In the local elections the IndependenceParty fell in the capital to 24.5% - a new record low. In the 2000ies they were in the 40ies, before 2000 around 50%.