A thing that seems to “die” every other day, only to come back from the dead a week or two later.
It’s amazing what a deluded mind can convince itself of, as long as it reinforces the delusion.
We’re speaking of the “resounding defeat” of Geert Wilders (according to the increasingly desperate Prozi/Tranzi media) and his party in the recent Dutch elections, signaling a definitive stop to the populist surge and an end to this existential threat to multi-culti suicide in general and the E.U. in particular.
A “defeat” that gave him 5 more seats in the Dutch parliament and made his party the second largest in the nation.
Keep losing like that, Geert, and you’ll be in charge in absolutely no time at all.
It’s called a “defeat” since he didn’t become prime minister, grand poobah, whatever they call it over there.
Which, in a few succinct words, he was never going to be in the first damned place, barring a landslide that would have blown any previous landslides in recorded history clean out of the water. But, if you set the goalposts far enough away, you can never lose, can you?
To explain, we’ll have to go into the weeds of parliamentary systems, lest this starts sounding too much like trying to paint lipstick on a pig, a feat which even the Democrats are failing to do as we speak. Chelsea is still Chelsea, but we digress. We’ll stick to the Cliff’s Notes version because we truly don’t want to bore you, good L.C.’s all, to death.
We, as Americans, are used to a two party (uniparty, actually, but let’s leave this discussion for another time, it’s not like it needs further elaboration anyway) system, a “winner takes all” system. This means that we tend to view everybody except for the winner as an “also ran.” Whichever party gets the most votes are the winners, and the other party are Loser McFailureFaces until the next election. They’ve been soundly defeated, repudiated, rejected and cast out by the people.
Not so under a parliamentary system. For one thing, with parliamentary systems we’re not talking about two parties, we’re talking about at least a dozen, in quite a few cases several. The Dutch had, we seem to recall, more than two dozen of them to choose from this go around. But, more importantly, it’s not “winner takes all” like it is here. Everybody who gets to pass a minimum of percents of voters get to have seats in parliament, and that barrier is quite low. So it’s not at all uncommon for a parliament to have a dozen parties seated in it.
What this means, from the “winner vs. loser” angle, is that the winners are the ones who gain seats, and the losers are the ones who, well, lose seats, regardless of the final composition of parliament. It doesn’t much matter, as far as judging the winners and losers of an election goes, if the biggest party is still the biggest party if they end up losing seats while the opposition gains seats. It just means that the biggest party hasn’t LOST.
The biggest party in this case (if memory serves us) lost 8 seats and Wilders’ party gained 5, for a net shift of 13 seats. That’s a pretty big win for Geert “the loser” Wilders.
So who gets to rule under a parliamentary system? It’s complicated, but we’ll just stick with the most common here because it applies to almost all election outcomes: The biggest party snatches the Prime Minister seat, but not until they’ve managed to “build a coalition” with other parties represented in the government. Typically, this coalition will end up with the majority of seats, but it can happen that they just have a plurality among all of the coalitions forming after the post-election horse trading. Again, we’ll keep it simple and just say the coalition with a majority.
Of course, that means that the Prime Minister (again, usually from the party with the largest percentage of votes) isn’t really in charge since he’ll be governing with the consent of all of the ministers from other parties that he had to give ministerial posts in order to get them to join his coalition. Which, in turn, means that the government won’t get a thing done since he can’t possibly please all of them at once while still sticking to his party’s agenda. Personally, we think that the monarchs of feudal Europe came up with this system to make sure that the parliaments they created to keep the peasants from revolting every other week wouldn’t actually ever get in the way of them doing their monarch thing, but that’s just us.
Have we lost you yet? No? Good.
Coalition building? We’re glad you asked, even though your heads are probably hurting by now and asking that question is the last thing you’d want to do, but we’ve decided you did, so here goes.
That’s almost always done towards the middle of the spectrum in any given country, because including the fringes would alienate the rest of the crowd too much and thus make it impossible to gain that elusive majority of seats. The only exception being when the fringe is the winner, that is to say the biggest party after the election. And that’s why Geert Wilders’ party will almost certainly not be part of the coalition government once the horse trading is over. The winner in this election is on the same end of Wilders’ spectrum, but much closer to the middle, so that’s the direction they’ll go to build a government.
Regardless, be prepared to read headlines proclaiming that the fact that Wilders’ party isn’t in the government that ends up being formed as yet another victory for Prozi/Tranziism, all of which is utter nonsense.
Bottom line is this, now that you understand the parliamentary system a bit better: The winner, the real one, is the party who gains seats, the more the merrier (for that party).
To use an example from history without making any parallels between Wilders and Hitler (seriously, the two guys are on exact opposite sides of the political spectrum, the former being on the right and the latter being on the extreme left), the NSDAP won 2.6% of the vote in 1928. In 1930, they won 18.3%. Not even close to forming a government, but still the second largest party in Germany. That silly loser Hitler! His entire party soundly defeated, a harbinger of the end of Naziism in Europe, right?
Fortunately, Wilders is as far from being Hitler as you can be, the point here being that proclaiming his failure to grasp 51% of the vote (which never EVER happens under that system) is, at best, deeply retarded.
One of the things that caused the Dutch election to not be the total Wilders blowout that some had predicted was, actually, that the winner, Rutte, had edged towards Wilders agenda in the election, thus softening the smack in the face that he, Rutte, ended up receiving.
There’s a clear lesson there.
Unfortunately, for the Prozi/Tranzi swine, they utterly fail to see it, preferring, instead, their own sweet delusions.
Europe will blow up as long as the Prozi/Tranzi traitors keep refusing to do anything about the problem staring them in the face, which is that pretty soon, Europe won’t be Europe anymore unless something is done. And we know our former fellow Europeans and their history well enough to know that once or if they realize they’re cornered and it’s looking like curtains unless they take matters into their own hands since nobody in government is prepared to do it in a civilized fashion, the results won’t be pretty.
And they won’t be what the multi-culti pisslam-loving Prozi/Tranzis think they’re going to be.
The monster is waking up, and it tends to go a bit overboard when awakened.