1 Posted by Bryan on 10 June 2010 | Permalink

Well, the polls were pretty accurate except for the under-counting of embarrassed PVV voters, who were unwilling to reveal their PVV preference even to a pollster.

That said, is there any chance Rutte explores the "forbidden" coalition? No clear mandate for any party and if Cohen really entered the race to block Wilders, the PvdA joining VVD and CDA is the ultimate block move. I know such a move ordinarily would be impossible to consider, but is there any chance the leadership of PvdA might discuss it under the cover of "we must save the Republic from Wilders".

2 Posted by Q. Pheevr on 10 June 2010 | Permalink

Given how many people voted for PVV, I don't think it would make political sense for the three main parties to try to paint Wilders as being so much of an affront to civil society that he justifies the forbidden coalition--especially for VVD, which has the highest risk of losing voters to PVV in any case.

I think the best choice is Purple-Green. If the collective will of the electorate has *anything* coherent to say, it's that it's time for CDA to spend some time out of government. VVD, D66, and GL have all gained seats, while PvdA has stayed relatively stable. I guess the main danger would be that Wilders would outshine CDA in opposition, and thus gain even more seats next time, but none of the other possible coalitions looks any better to me.

3 Posted by Alejandro Moreno on 10 June 2010 | Permalink

From reuters.com:

"More security, less crime, less immigration, less Islam -- that is what the Netherlands has chosen," Wilders said.
(http://www.reuters.com/article/idUSTRE6585MQ20100610)

If only he didn't say "less Islam," he wouldn't seem like such an idiot.

@Q. Pheevr: Nice. I like your coalition assessment. Its potential consequences would be scary, though.

4 Posted by Sander on 10 June 2010 | Permalink

Looking at the raw numbers of votes (with 99.6% counted, and the remaining 0.4% of overseas voters ignored for the moment), I don't see why the PVV is reported everywhere as winning 24 seats. They have by far the lowest remaining number of votes after winning 23 "whole seats", and don't get a "restzetel" if I interpret the "kieswet" correctly. Instead, that seat goes to the SGP. (No, seriously! Because of their "lijstverbinding" with the CU, they'd actually get 3 seats. (Which I remember one poll predicting at some point, and you pointing out that that would be totally wrong. *g*))

Is all the media just misreporting after each other, or am I making some fundamental flaw somewhere in my calculations? Please check my numbers?

http://pastebin.com/2s6keT6E

(I don't think the overseas numbers would change anything either. The kiesdeler would go up by ~200 votes, but that wouldn't change the whole number of seats anywhere, and then of those remaining ~35k votes, PVV would need to get 10k votes more than GL+PVDA to get the sixth "restzetel".)

5 Posted by ppk on 10 June 2010 | Permalink

Agree with Q Pheevr re forbidden coalition.

Sander, you're using the system of largest remainders for rest seats, while you should use the largest averages. See The Rules of the Game.

6 Posted by Sander on 10 June 2010 | Permalink

Ah, the 19 seats in "indien het aantal te verdelen zetels negentien of meer bedraagt" is the total number of seats, not merely the number of rest seats. I was already wondering about that, but didn't think about the same system being used for local elections and it thus applying to the total.