Provincial elections, held every four years, usually attract the least interest and therefore lowest turnout out of the three levels of government in the Netherlands. Provincial parliaments are said to have less power than councils, and certainly less than the national government. No “states rights” or the like here. However, provincial MPs have a very important task to carry out not long after their election: the election of the Eerste Kamer (Senate). The Senate has 75 members, and at the 2007 elections there were 564 members of the provincial parliaments. This was a reduction from 764 in the 2003 elections, increasing the threshold needed to win a seat.
Here’s the current state of play (based on the 2007 results, there may have been a few changes), with number of overall seats in provincial parliaments for each party followed by the number of Senators they have:
CDA: 151 (21)
PvdA: 114 (14)
VVD: 102 (14)
SP: 83 (12)
CU: 35 / 38* (4)
SGP: 13 / 16* (4)
GL: 32 (4)
D66: 9 (2)
PvdD: 9 (1)
Others: 13 (1)
TOTALS: 564 (75)
*CU and SGP ran joint tickets in two provinces which resulted in a total of three seats.
“Others” are almost always regional parties who frequently run on platforms of more autonomy for their province – the most successful of these is the Fryske Nasjonale Partij (Friesian National Party) in Friesland, which does not advocate for Friesland to become its own country as the name suggests, but is a strong proponent of Friesian culture and its language, which is recognised in its own right. They usually poll around 10% of the vote, which translated to 5 seats at the 2007 elections.
For a party breakdown by province, click here and scroll down to the pie charts near the bottom of the page. If you see any party acronyms you don’t recognise, that’s one of the regional parties.
Before I preview the elections on Wednesday, a quick explanation of how the voting works. While the provincial elections, where the people vote, use the usual list / PR system that local and national elections use, when it comes to provincial MPs electing the Senate, there is one important difference: weighted votes. The formula is: residents of the province divided by the number of provincial MPs times 100 equals the weight of one provincial MP’s vote. For example, lets say province X has 600,000 residents (i.e. not just voters, everyone living there) and 50 provincial MPs. 600,000 divided by (50 x 100) = 120. This number is then used when working out how many seats a particular party has won, using the usual d’Hondt PR system the Dutch use everywhere. Essentially, the weighted vote seems to ensure that the votes of some provincial MPs (where there is a higher MPs : voters ratio) do not count more than others.
The threshold for a seat in each province will be:
GRONINGEN: 2.33% (43 seats)
FRIESLAND: 2.33% (43 seats)
DRENTHE: 2.44% (41 seats)
OVERIJSSEL: 2.13% (47 seats)
FLEVOLAND: 2.56% (39 seats)
GELDERLAND: 1.82% (55 seats)
UTRECHT: 2.13% (47 seats)
NOORD-HOLLAND: 1.82% (55 seats)
ZUID-HOLLAND: 1.82% (55 seats)
ZEELAND: 2.56% (39 seats)
NOORD-BRABANT: 1.82% (55 seats)
LIMBURG: 2.13% (47 seats)
These elections are particularly interesting because the current government does not hold a majority in the Senate, which has the power to block bills. Given the numerous controversial policies of Rutte I, both the government and the opposition have a lot at stake here.
The wildcard factor will be the PVV. They decided not to take part in the last provincial elections, so are unrepresented in the Senate and all 12 provincial parliaments. This will obviously change, with Geert Wilders’ party polling very well. Expect big breakthroughs in provinces like Zuid-Holland and Limburg, PVV strongholds at the recent national elections.
All this focus on the national scene will make it hard for regional parties to push their agenda, and while their single seat in the Senate has been stable since 1995, this could be a test for them. The Friesian National Party will most likely continue to do well, but others may struggle in what will be presented as a battle between the left-wing opposition parties (PvdA, GroenLinks, SP, D66) and the right-wing governing parties and their allies (CDA, VVD, PVV, SGP).
In 2007, the CDA polled the highest in all the provinces bar four: Groningen and Drenthe (where the PvdA came out on top), and Flevoland and Noord-Holland (where the VVD garnered the most votes). Expect this to change radically this time around. I’d be surprised if the CDA “won” more than a couple of provinces – most likely the VVD and PVV will make inroads into other areas of the country. For the left-wing / progressive parties, D66 looks to continue its remarkable return from near oblivion, while the PvdA and SP are set for losses and GroenLinks looks to be fairly stable.
The most recent opinion poll by Synovate (24 February) predicts the following numbers in the Senate:
CDA: 10 (-11)
VVD: 16 (+2)
PvdA: 11 (-3)
SP: 8 (-4)
GL: 4 (–)
CU: 3 (-1)
SGP: 2 (–)
D66: 7 (+5)
PvdD: 1 (–)
OSF: 1 (–)*
PVV: 12 (+12)
50+: 1 (+1)**
* OSF = Onafhankelijk Senaats Fractie (Independent Senate Group), the combined list of the regional parties.
** The 50+ party focuses on issues relevant to senior citizens: aged care, pensions, etc. There have been several of these types of parties in the past, and while some have been successful in winning seats in parliament, they have never lasted very long.
The above poll has CDA + VVD + PVV at 38 seats, the smallest possible majority, giving them a clear path to implement the policies in the governing accord. However, one or two seats less and they would be relying upon the SGP, who will not necessarily be supportive of everything they do. Furthermore, the governing parties have not set up any list alliances (see explanation here) in the provinces, which is a particularly risky strategy to take, given that PvdA, GroenLinks and D66 are setting up as many as they can. What is means is that when the count has reached the last few seats, the progressive parties will pool their vote and act as one list, while the CDA, VVD and PVV will remain separate. The governing parties could potentially lose a seat or two in a number of provinces as a result of this, which could be the difference between them gaining a majority in the Senate, or falling just short.
So that’s a bit of an overview, hastily assembled. As usual, I’ll be liveblogging the results – coverage starts at 20:00 GMT on Wednesday 2 March.
Very interesting the provincial legislators elect the Senate, the US used to do something very similar, where state legislators would elect the federal senators, and not the people (through direct elections I mean). The “Tea Party” wants a call back towards that system (Which I oppose, at least in the method they propose).
The interesting thing at the moment is that the discussion about the Senate is not whether the current system is appropriate, but whether there should be a Senate at all. Parties, including GroenLinks (to my surprise and disappointment) are calling for it to be abolished. I have no idea why this is seen as a good idea, as the Senate still has a fairly key role in the system of checks-and-balances. The only problem I see is that the Senate cannot amend bills; it either rejects them, approves them, or sends a request back to the House of Reps for a specific amendment. But the HoR is not under any obligation to do anything with such an amendment. The Senate should have the power to amend – while coalitions result in pretty nuanced bills anyway, there’s always value in having a different group of people who aren’t in the spotlight as much reviewing legislation.
Bicameral legislators are good ideas I think (for national legislatures anyway). It’s interesting here in the US though, our Senate (federally speaking) has now become perceived as a sort of classical “House of Lords”, where any good (though I’d argue more borderline decent) legislation from the House goes to die or be gutted into irrelevance (plenty of examples exist of this, like the healthcare reform legislation, though frankly that was pretty bad when it got out of the House anyway…) The Tea Party proclaims that reinstating state legislators to be the ones that decide federal senate seats would fix this issue, but I find that very hard to believe, since most state congresses tend to be pretty corrupt nowadays as well (with some exceptions of course, such as Vermont).