Talk:Finnish presidential election, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Has Niinistö said anything about the NATO? I thought it was Henrik Lax who suggested it. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 80.222.20.12 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 11 September 2005 (UTC).

Niinistö keeps saying stuff like 'In my opinion, the option of joining the NATO should be left truly and neutrally open.' [1] He knows that saying directly that he wants to join the NATO would diminish his support, since most Finns are against that. His party has openly expressed that they're in favour of joining though. [2] Lax was able to propose that because he's nothing more than a fringe candidate anyway, while Niinistö seems to think he actually has a chance to win, and he doesn't want to ruin that by saying controversial things. - ulayiti (talk) 17:04, 11 September 2005 (UTC)
So why you wanted to keep that false information, that Niinistö want to Finland join NATO? Kahkonen 15:50, 8 January 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Left-Right polarization

Someone more capable and more versed in the matter should perhaps add an entry (or discuss here) regarding the possible polarization leading to a situation where there is a left-wing candidate and a right-wing candidate. I recall some commentators stating that this draws on the situation around and after 1918. Just my two €-cents. Scoo 13:13, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

But that's not happening, is it? There's still three main candidates, left, right, and centre. (Well, actually there's one main candidate and two candidates who would kill to be 'main candidates' but aren't.) Finland isn't gonna turn into a two-party state any time soon. - ulayiti (talk) 00:44, 26 December 2005 (UTC)
The previous election (2000), especially its second round, did have some left-right polarisation, and so will this one if there will be a second round. (Most supporters of Niinistö and Vanhanen would likely join forces against Halonen). But some left-right collision is commonplace in politics, and drawing analogies to the 1918 war seems rather far-fetched to me. --Jonik 07:12, 8 January 2006 (UTC)
Indeed, Vanhanen announced quite directly his support for Niinistö on the second round. The topic of right wing co-operation (center and national coalition) came up at least a year before the election. The main reason seems to be that the left wing parties had a common candidate and something of a history of co-operation, while the right wing parties had failed (at least to some extent) to co-operate in the previous presidential elections. But while the major parties have a history that goes back to early days of independence of Finland (with some name changes, though), I wouldn't say that left-right tension draws on the civil war.. -braid 16 January 2006
My initial wording was quite poor, didn't mean that supporters of either block would start to excercise "hostile persuasion tactics" with shotguns and axes and such, but rather a divide on a political level. Suppose its all in the nature of politics (somewhat silly nowadays IMHO). Scoo 15:28, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] And the winner is...

The winner will be Tarja Halonen. If it is anyone else I will give a picture of a drink to everyone who replies to this message. That doesn't mean I will have to vote for her, though. I will vote for Heidi Hautala as a matter of principle. — JIP | Talk 16:53, 12 January 2006 (UTC)

Wanna bet how many rounds she'll need? :) - ulayiti (talk) 16:55, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Two. She will be up against Sauli Niinistö, and win the second round by a landslide. — JIP | Talk 17:22, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Nah, not gonna happen. She'll get 52% of the vote in the first round. - ulayiti (talk) 19:17, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
Wikipedia is not Usenet, I have thought. Maybe is it. Halonen 46% in first round, Niinistö 26%. Second round: Niinistö 51% Halonen 49%. Kahkonen 21:20, 12 January 2006 (UTC)
With 61% of the votes counted, it looks like it's going exactly like I said, except that no one knows yet how the second round will go. JIP | Talk 18:47, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
100% counted, my forecast was almost exatly right... :-) Kahkonen 21:35, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Don't be too sure about that second round yet. At least myself I'll be voting for Halonen, just to try to keep Niinistö from becoming president. JIP | Talk 12:32, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Mathematically, the right wing candidates (i.e those announcing to vote Sauli Niinistö in the second round) got altogether a bit more votes than Halonen plus Green League (= the Left). Constanz - Talk 13:17, 20 January 2006 (UTC)

When all advance votes are counted and some votes of today (altogether some 50%), Halonen is winning and Niinistö is some 5 percent behind... 217.140.199.247 18:34, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Now over 80% counted, Halonen 52 and Niinistö 48 percent. All media predicts that Halonen wins, the remaining less than 20# of the votes will not change the situation... 217.140.199.247 18:41, 29 January 2006 (UTC)

Tarja Halonen is the winner, just like I predicted. The only thing I was wrong about was the landslide. It was actually quite a close call. JIP | Talk 06:20, 30 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Numbering

Why are the candidates numbered 2-9? I couldn't see any explanation in the article. --Bjarki 17:13, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

I was gong to ask thesame question. Is there a candidate #1? Circeus 17:22, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
In Finland the candidates are given a number starting from two. The numbers are randomly distributed. That number is used on the actual vote and written on the ticket. The reason the numbers start from two and not one is so that no candidate can use the it as a gimmick "1st choice" "number 1 candidate" etc. --Laisak 17:26, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
It also helps so that the vote counters do not have to interpret between 1 and 7. Lapinmies 17:59, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Okay, I've added the information to the article. Circeus 18:11, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
If that is true, why are numbers 6 and 9 both used? One alternate theory I once heard was that it prevented confusion between the number 1 and an older method where you drew a line onto the box of the candidate you wanted (see Punainen Viiva by Ilmari Kianto). JIP | Talk 18:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
JIP is correct in "viiva" story. However, as such use occurred over six decades ago, it is not relevant any longer as reason. However, we may say that it prevents from counting any scratch of pen as "1". And "7" is still relevant, as is to prevent any undue use of "number one". 6 and 9 apparently do not need anything more as the number is written on a line (inside a circle) and there also is a text, which all create a presumption that all writings are to be read as those are. 217.140.199.247 18:50, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
The "1 and 7" theory is not totally plausible: characters '1' and '7' are normally used in all other candidate numbers (and in some elections there may be hundreds of candidates, so there will be numbers like 117). 1 and 7 are distinguished by drawing the 7 with a horizontal line. See the example of how you're supposed to mark them. So I would think what Laisak said is the main reason for this convention of starting from 2. --Jonik 21:30, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Conan O'Brian

He seems to be part of a little uproar in this election. I think that aspect should be mentioned. 209.33.36.146 21:23, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I've no time to do it now, but here's a citation for anyone who wants to get started: [3] Jacqui★ 19:18, 16 January 2006 (UTC)
Who are these strange people Niinisto, Myllymaki, Haapamaki and Jaaskelainen they speak of? JIP | Talk 20:02, 18 January 2006 (UTC)
I would definitely not call it an 'uproar'. Rather, it's a tidbit of trivia. I couldn't see that many Finnish people really letting the jokes of an American talk show host affect their political choices. And his main audience, the Americans, are not eligible to vote in these elections, of course. Web site hits don't count. --Jonik 21:45, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] The Famous Unelected One

I deleted the following:

Because there is no "None of the above" or "Reject" option on Finnish ballot papers people will often use names like Aku Ankka (Donald Duck) to protest the ballot.

Reason being the fact that this isn't relevant to just this particular election, it's, ahem, a dramatic force behind the Finnish democracy and should be discussed in some more generic article about Finnish parliamentary and presidential elections. Personally, I'm not so sure which one. It's past midnight here anyway and I'm all out of coffee. This topic would definitely warrant some scholarly research though, anyone aware of such? Something along the lines of "Qualitative study of rejected votes in Finnish presidential elections in the 1980s, Dr. Ernesti Isohuuhaa, University of Retuperä, May 2013?", except, you know, not being just a title of research I came up with but some actual reference? =) --wwwwolf (barks/growls) 01:06, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

I think that could go in either Politics of Finland#Political parties and elections or elections in Finland. Circeus 01:20, 16 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Inaccurate statements

"Heidi Hautala suggested that the President be completely stripped of all their powers relating to foreign affairs and foreign policy" is in my opinion an inaccurate statement. Hautala was in favour of restricting power of the president where she felt parliamentary responsibility (that e.g. the prime and foreign ministers should take) is needed. -braid 16 January 2006

[edit] Consideration

If Sauli Niinistö wins, then this will be the first time in the entire history of Wikipedia that an article will be moved to Category:Presidents of Finland that previously wasn't there. JIP | Talk 07:16, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Now we won't get to do that. But don't despair, it is very probable that we'll get to do that in 2012. The only thing preventing it would be Martti Ahtisaari deciding to run for a second term and winning. The law forbids Tarja Halonen or Mauno Koivisto for running for a third term, and presidents prior to them are dead. JIP | Talk 11:37, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Tidy up

I have tidied up the references, I'm not a fan of putting links directly into the body of the text of an article, and so have put all the links in the references section and have put in footnotes, as per footnotes style guideline. I removed a statement and reference to over 4 000 000 votes (it was expressed as suffrages, but this seems like a very outdated, even archaic way of expressing it) having been cast in the first round. This was referenced but cannot be true, the figures given in other places here (and from other sources) amounted to just over 3 000 000. I cannot believe that 4 000 000 people voted and that 70% voted, this would mean that the electorate is 5 700 000 people in total, and this would only represent adult Finns, there would be no children in Finland at all. It just occured to me that the 4 000 000 odd people may represent the electorate as a whole, but the article claimed these were suffrages which, according to the OED means votes. Can someone clarify this please? Then it can be put back in. Alun 07:18, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

4 272 537 Finns were entitled to wote. http://192.49.229.35/TP2006K2/e/aanioikeutetut/aoik_kokomaa.html -- Jniemenmaa 07:45, 31 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] colors in Fin-pres-2006.png

What is up with the picture Fin-pres-2006.png ?

Vanhanen has won in many municipalities, according to this map. There must be some mixup with the colors. Can someone correct this? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 128.214.152.10 (talk • contribs) .

I can't comment on whether or not the map is accurate or not, however I might add that IMHO the picture is of a somewhat less importance here, as it might confuse people, since Finland has not a electorate-type voting system (individual votes count directly), and should the result in any given municipality be for example 51-49% in Halonen's favour, we'd end up with a district marked in red. As such, a map that show "majority winners" is somewhat less useful here, and might be misleading. Scoo 14:28, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Vanhanen won the plurality (not necessarily majority) of votes in many remote rural municipalities that are big by area but small by population (and rural, and therefore more likely to vote for the Centre Party (which was formerly called the Agrarian Union)). That's why a big part of the map is coloured green. - ulayiti (talk) 16:35, 31 January 2006 (UTC)
Exactly, for example Vanhanen was the most popular in many countryside municipalities with a small population but Niinistö was second after Halonen in many urban municipalities with a large population. This isn't reflected on the map. --88.114.235.214 20:42, 14 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Law vs tradition

Candidate numbers in Finnish elections traditionally start from two, this used to claim that it was a legal requirement, now it states that it is merely tradition. These are nowhere near the same thing, and I cannot see how this is considered a minor tweak. Which one is correct? We should have a citation for it as well. Alun 12:10, 7 May 2006 (UTC)

It is a legal requirement on Finnish election law [4] Section 37, but it doesn't explain the reasoning behind it. --Laisak 12:44, 7 May 2006 (UTC)
As far as I know, it's always been like that, and the candidate numbers start from two even in elections that are not regulated by the election law (such as the board elections for clubs and societies). Maybe the article could state that it's both a tradition and a legal requirement, but the way it was put previously seemed a bit silly to me, so I changed it. - ulayiti (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2006 (UTC)