Kishida reelected prime minister in Diet vote

"Give the people bread and circuses."

Here is the circus...

Suga resigned after only a year in office as his popularity plunged over criticism of his handling of the coronavirus pandemic and his insistence on holding the Tokyo Olympics despite concerns of a virus surge.

No no no, he resigned because he was too tired to go through an election whilst battling the pandemic. Right?? ...

Although not a few posters at here JT community downgrade Japan ruled under one party as if it is almost the same as CCP China, this is the result of democratic process defeated the opposition which include even active communist party which other democratic Western nations do not really have.

There is Kishida in the diet not wearing a mask and not quarantined after his trip from the UK – truly one rule for the few and another rule for the many!

He wasn’t wearing a mask at the climate conference in the UK either…

@kennyG: Yes, you are correct that this is a functioning democracy, but at the same time, many people are jaded about the political-gift-giving, the cynicism, the political dynasty phenomenon, and the richness of behind-closed-doors politicking.

A lot of the politicking behind closed doors are about the transfer of tax monies from economically active zones -- cities, especially Tokyo -- to the countryside. The needs of the countryside areas are disproportionately catered to, in exchange for very reliable pro-LDP voting patterns there, while residenys of big cities see less economic benefit considering their tax contributions. Haven't you heard about a certain blet train station in Niigata that is longer than the town limits? Or gorgeous city halls in economically inactive areas?

Calls for a celebration. Not.

kennyGToday  08:10 pm JST

.. this is the result of democratic process

Could you explain how it's "democratic" when one party can win a majority of the seats in the legislature in spite of getting far less than half of the votes.

There is Kishida in the diet not wearing a mask and not quarantined after his trip from the UK – truly one rule for the few and another rule for the many!

> He wasn’t wearing a mask at the climate conference in the UK either…

Absolutely, what an absolute shyster.

China constitute no threat too the US mainland from an invasion, lots of Chinese leaders are just insecure, why oppress dissidents, unless, you suffer from an psychological inferior complex,

Good. when will we get the checks??

Simon FostonNov. 10  09:57 pm JST

kennyGToday  08:10 pm JST

.. this is the result of democratic process

Could you explain how it's "democratic" when one party can win a majority of the seats in the legislature in spite of getting far less than half of the votes.

Single-seat constituency system（US, UK,Canada...) is democratically introduced system and being used either alone or with Proportional representation system（Japan, SK, Germany...) in many other countries as you know. DPJ became a ruling party in 2009 based on the same system with far less than half of the voters (if your "far less than" is being compared to absolute number of voters including who did not vote)

kennyGToday  02:36 am JST

"Could you explain how it's "democratic" when one party can win a majority of the seats in the legislature in spite of getting far less than half of the votes."

Single-seat constituency system...

Yes, I know all that. You haven't explained what's democratic about a party that the majority of voters didn't vote for winning a majority of the seats.

DPJ became a ruling party in 2009 based on the same system

I might have guessed that you would mention them. Do you think I believe that was okay?

He has been elected democratiquely, there is nothing to argue with that.

Every eligible japanese citizens can choose his candidate or let the others choose for them. This is fine.

In my oberserver's opinion as a foreigner, what could be discussed is:

1) Opposition unable to trigger sufficient approval

2) Establishment (Media, Big corporation, Religious, ...) museling proper and healthy debates.

But the end game is not my business.

Open MindedToday  05:27 am JST

He has been elected democratiquely, there is nothing to argue with that.

Obviously he was democratically elected Prime Minister by the Diet and he won a big majority in his own constituency, but he didn't need to. Just getting more votes than any other candidate is enough, even if it's not a majority. That might be democratic when there are basically just two parties to choose from, but not when there are more.

In my oberserver's opinion as a foreigner, what could be discussed is:

1) Opposition unable to trigger sufficient approval

2) Establishment (Media, Big corporation, Religious, ...) museling proper and healthy debates.

I would add:

1) the vote value disparity between urban and rural areas that strongly favours areas where the LDP traditionally does well.

2) loopholes in the Political Funds Control Law that allow politicians to basically receive private donations from businesses as heads of local party political organisations.

3) the high cost of running as candidates in elections which favours candidates with political funds passed down from their fathers and grandfathers.

Foston

Yes, I know all that. You haven't explained what's democratic about a party that the majority of voters didn't vote for winning a majority of the seats.

That is the result of technical aspects inherent in such system which was democratically chosen, which is what makes entire picture democratic. That is all. This single-seat, multiple seats, proportional representation, all have pros and cons. Democratically selected system does not have to be perfectly proportionate to valid vote ballot counts of each party. Is that enough? otherwise, which country is perfectly democratic in your definition?

kennyGToday  03:10 pm JST

That is the result of technical aspects inherent in such system which was democratically chosen, which is what makes entire picture democratic.

In other words a democratic decision was made by the legislature to maintain a voting system that is undemocratic.

Democratically selected system does not have to be perfectly proportionate to valid vote ballot counts of each party. Is that enough?

If the winner of an election doesn't represent a majority of the electorate, i.e. most of the people, I see nothing democratic about it.

otherwise, which country is perfectly democratic in your definition?

What happens in other countries has no bearing on Japanese politics and is therefore irrelevant.

Foston

In other words a democratic decision was made by the legislature to maintain a voting system that is undemocratic.

That depends on the definition of and your definition of "democratic".

If the winner of an election doesn't represent a majority of the electorate, i.e. most of the people, I see nothing democratic about it.

It doesn't have to be a majority of, being most, i.e, the highest counts goes with democratically chosen system.

> What happens in other countries has no bearing on Japanese politics and is therefore irrelevant.

Relative thinking is very often important. Again, pros and cons exist for whichever system

Election system itself is the result of democracy isn't it? while the world now could be questioning the wasteful cost of democracy itself against whatever as opposite systems are defined . I wouldn't blame those claiming that such small parties which cannot even get a few seats should be completely excluded by the election system to stop feeding them for decades by bloody taxpayer's money. Who would care their life-time political performance? I personally do not want to see NHK whatever party, and Fukushima-Mizuho Party are being fed by our Bloody Tax

kennyGToday 05:27 pm JST

Foston

"In other words a democratic decision was made by the legislature to maintain a voting system that is undemocratic."

That depends on the definition of and your definition of "democratic".

I think it refers to decisions made by majorities. That's what happens when legislatures pass new laws or, as in this case, re-elect the prime minister. However, it's not what happens when voters elect legislators under the first past the post system.

It doesn't have to be a majority of, being most, i.e, the highest counts goes with democratically chosen system.

I think it does. Otherwise politicians have a vested interest in catering to the needs of the voters who are most useful to them, not all of the people that they are supposed to represent.

What happens in other countries has no bearing on Japanese politics and is therefore irrelevant.

Relative thinking is very often important

It's important when people are trying to deflect foreigners' criticisms of things in their countries that are totally messed-up, e.g. LDP supporters making excuses for a broken electoral system that continually returns the LDP to power. Personally, I don't care about how they do things in other countries, and if a so-called democratic process does not reflect the wishes of most of the people I think it should be fixed, even if that means the party that I support loses most of the time.

I think it refers to decisions made by majorities. That's what happens when legislatures pass new laws or, as in this case, re-elect the prime minister. However, it's not what happens when voters elect legislators under the first past the post system.

I think it refers to decisions made by people many of whom also want political stability, continuity, relative promptness in decision making.

I think it does. Otherwise politicians have a vested interest in catering to the needs of the voters who are most useful to them, not all of the people that they are supposed to represent.

That happens at multiple-seat constituency system too where minor party tries to fix a percentage to gain.

It's important when people are trying to deflect foreigners' criticisms of things in their countries that are totally messed-up, e.g. LDP supporters making excuses for a broken electoral system that continually returns the LDP to power. Personally, I don't care about how they do things in other countries, and if a so-called democratic process does not reflect the wishes of most of the people I think it should be fixed, even if that means the party that I support loses most of the time.

That is a questionable assertion in front of the fact LDP stepped down to the opposition in 1993 and in 2009

under the same system. If CDPJ had gained the electorate's trust more , for example, the representation in the House would not have been skewed this much. That is it. Democracy exists here too even if it doesn't reach to your ideal definition.

kennyGToday  09:01 am JST

I think it refers to decisions made by people many of whom also want political stability, continuity, relative promptness in decision making.

If so there's no need for elections at all.

"I think it does. Otherwise politicians have a vested interest in catering to the needs of the voters who are most useful to them, not all of the people that they are supposed to represent."

That happens at multiple-seat constituency system too where minor party tries to fix a percentage to gain.

Most Diet seats are for single-seat constituencies and the minor parties have very little chance of actually getting into government and pander to those minorities that vote for them.

That is a questionable assertion in front of the fact LDP stepped down to the opposition in 1993 and in 2009

Obviously it's not impossible for another party to take power. Just very difficult.

If CDPJ had gained the electorate's trust more , for example, the representation in the House would not have been skewed this much. 

In the single-seat constituency elections the CDPJ got about 30% of the popular vote and about 20% of the seats. The LDP got 48% of the vote and 65% of the seats. That's what's really skewed. No system is perfect but I see no justification for such an imbalance whatsoever.

Simon FostonToday  12:40 pm JST

kennyGToday  09:01 am JST

I think it refers to decisions made by people many of whom also want political stability, continuity, relative promptness in decision making.

If so there's no need for elections at all.

You seem warping.

"I think it does. Otherwise politicians have a vested interest in catering to the needs of the voters who are most useful to them, not all of the people that they are supposed to represent."

That happens at multiple-seat constituency system too where minor party tries to fix a percentage to gain.

Most Diet seats are for single-seat constituencies and the minor parties have very little chance of actually getting into government and pander to those minorities that vote for them.

I was talking about before 1990's and technical aspects of multiple-seat.

That is a questionable assertion in front of the fact LDP stepped down to the opposition in 1993 and in 2009

Obviously it's not impossible for another party to take power. Just very difficult.

Still it happened and what makes it difficult is not due to the system itself

If CDPJ had gained the electorate's trust more , for example, the representation in the House would not have been skewed this much. 

In the single-seat constituency elections the CDPJ got about 30% of the popular vote and about 20% of the seats. The LDP got 48% of the vote and 65% of the seats. That's what's really skewed. No system is perfect but I see no justification for such an imbalance whatsoever.

Winner takes all, a rule chosen by many democratic countries. 　CDPJ or any opposition should just do win.

kennyGToday  06:03 pm JST

Simon FostonToday  12:40 pm JST

kennyGToday  09:01 am JST

"I think it refers to decisions made by people many of whom also want political stability, continuity, relative promptness in decision making."

"If so there's no need for elections at all."

You seem warping.

If most people want stability and continuity they'll want the same people to stay in power, and keep voting for them. So, no need for elections. Odd, then, that in a lot of other countries power changes hands pretty often.

I was talking about before 1990's and technical aspects of multiple-seat.

Why, if Japan doesn't have that system any more? I suspect those minor parties don't even exist any more.

Still it happened and what makes it difficult is not due to the system itself

It is in part. Without solid majorities politicians from other parties are more vulnerable to voter backlash and small swings back to the LDP.

Winner takes all, a rule chosen by many democratic countries.

I've only ever heard that expression being used to refer to how the US presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in a state gets all its Electoral College votes. Which other democratic countries have anything similar?

https://webronza.asahi.com/business/articles/2021102000005.html

You read Japanese don't you?

It's not that clear what I'm supposed to be reading.

The opposition, especially the biggest one should have solid majorities(?) or a plurality of solid supporters

then.

Yes they should, but the system allows politicians to be elected by very narrow margins. If opposition parties lose popularity and the LDP gets its act together that puts them at greater risk than if they win by at least 51%, especially in constituencies the LDP held previously and have strong local organisations.

I rather used the expression for plurality voting as contrasted with proportional representation system

https://ballotpedia.org/Winner-take-all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting

The wikipedia entry indicates that the term is used when the winning party gains all the seats in an area, not just one, as is the case with the US Electoral College:

"The term "winner-take-all" is sometimes also used to refer to elections for multiple winners in a particular constituency using bloc voting, or MMDP. This system at the state-level is used for election of most of the electoral college in US presidential elections."

If most people want stability and continuity they'll want the same people to stay in power, and keep voting for them. So, no need for elections. Odd, then, that in a lot of other countries power changes hands pretty often.

The same people could stay in power only if it is the result of periodical election, sure.

I was talking about before 1990's and technical aspects of multiple-seat.

Why, if Japan doesn't have that system any more? I suspect those minor parties don't even exist any more.

https://webronza.asahi.com/business/articles/2021102000005.html

Still it happened and what makes it difficult is not due to the system itself

It is in part. Without solid majorities politicians from other parties are more vulnerable to voter backlash and small swings back to the LDP.

The opposition, especially the biggest one should have solid majorities(?) or a plurality of solid supporters

then.

Winner takes all, a rule chosen by many democratic countries.

I've only ever heard that expression being used to refer to how the US presidential candidate who wins the popular vote in a state gets all its Electoral College votes. Which other democratic countries have anything similar?

I rather used the expression for plurality voting as contrasted with proportional representation system

https://ballotpedia.org/Winner-take-all

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting