User talk:WolfgangPeterStyria

Forthcoming formation of a Coalition Government in Austria

Based on the success of his party in the 2019 National Council elections and the distribution of the remainder of the votes and seats, Sebastian Kurz is the enviable position of being able to choose his coalition partner. This gives him more leverage in the forthcoming negotiations that are expected to take several months. Because he does not depend on the support any one specific party, he can exact concessions from each one that wants to join the government.

Mathematically, there are three options of two parties forming a coalition government commanding a majority, based on the final vote count: OVP with the FPO, with the SPO, and the Greens. It is a forgone conclusion that the OVP will lead the next government under the Chancellorship of Kurtz, and that President Van der Bellen will ask Kurz, rather than any other party leader, to begin the process of exploratory talks to form a government.

A three-party coalition including the Greens and the NEOS has also been discussed, but the presence of the NEOS, a new liberal party similar to the FDP in Germany, would merely provide some additional votes in the parliament that would counteract the effect of possible defections of individual members of the two major parties in the coalition, and thus provide greater stability. While the NEOS did not garner enough seats to give the OVP a majority in a coalition, they could weaken the role of the junior coalition partner (the Greens) and reduce their leverage in the government.

A minority government by the OVP alone is also a possibility, with tacit support of one or more of the other parties in parliamentary voting. This is a fallback scenario, should coalition formation efforts with all parties fail.

Which coalition will form cannot be predicated with confidence because the election outcome is unprecedented in Austria in multiple respects. OVP leader Kurz's coalition government with the FPO was brought down by a vote of no-confidence, and yet he won a spectacular election victory while the scandal-ridden coalition partner tanked. Kurz emerged untainted and unscathed.

In terms of issues, Kurz co-opted the anti-migrant/anti-Islamic position of the FPO and managed to attract many votes that in the last election went to the FPO under party leader Heinz-Christian Strache, who has since been ousted, and announced his complete withdrawal from politics following the election. But the Green Party also did spectacularly well, especially in urban voting districts. In fact, it won the largest increase in parliamentary seas of all parties (26), although that is is in part due to its failure to meet the 4% threshold of all votes that is a prerequisite for proportional allocation of seats under Austria's particular version of a PR system. In term of votes, the Greens went from 3.8% to 13,9%. In terms of seats, from 0 to 26. Having had no representation in the most recent Parliament, the Greens are arguably ill prepared to assume governing responsibility, except for its leader Kogler, who is a seasoned politician. Nor are they eager to join a government led by Kurz, with whom they have many disagreements on policy. Doing so would inevitably require them to compromise on some of their positions, and undercut their ability to contest policies and legislative initiative the OVP will wish to pursue, having received an electoral mandate to shape the future of Austria for the next few years.

That said, an OVP-Green coalition is nevertheless a distinct possibility. It would mark the advent of a new era in Austrian politics. It would also attract attention at the European level and beyond, and could potentially catapult Austria to the forefront with respect to global warming and other pressing ecological issues.

Although the OVP is opposed to a carbon tax, global warming and green issues figure large on the political agenda. In a sense, there is a consensus at some level that the environment is a pressing concern, although there is disagreement over the proper policy measures to address the problem, and who will bear the consequences in terms of costs.

Sebastian Kurz is himself a representative of the young generation, with greater appeal to the disproportionately young voter segment that also tends to support environmental issues and the Green Party. He has also rebranded the OVP, which is one of the old parties (the Austrian version of the Christian-Democrats), has given it a "new" identity (“die neue Volkspartei”), and changed its signature color from black to turquoise to mark the break with the past. The SPO has not been similarly successful in rejuvenation, and has suffered greatly in the polls. In that connection, it should be noted that the voting age is 16 in Austria, and that the youngest cohort of voters thus makes up a larger percentage of the electorate than is true in other democracies. An OVP-Green coalition government might be a novelty internationally, if not a sensation, but the arrangement is not unprecedented at the provincial level in Austria.

Sebastian Kurz Page Addendum re: Nov. 11, 2019 Decision to Commence Coalition Negotiations with the Greens
On 7 October 2019, following his party's strong performance in the 2019 Austrian parliamentary election, Kurz was formally asked by federal president Alexander Van der Bellen to initiate the process of forming a new government. Kurz met with all of the other political parties for exploratory talks. He will sit down with Green Party leader Werner Kogler on 12 November 2019 to sketch out a blueprint for coalition negotiations, which are bound to be difficult. This follows both parties' decision over the weekend to pursue such an alliance, even though it would be a first in Austria's history at the national level, and even though it will require the parties to reach common ground on issues on which they have substantial differences, such as immigration and social policy.[1] Both parties are in accord on the urgency to confront global warming, but differ with regard to policy measures and allocation of burdens.[2]

A coalition with at least one other party was necessitated by the outcome of the September 29, 2019 elections: No party had won an absolute majority of seats necessary to sustain a single-party cabinet in power and provide the votes necessary to pass legislation in the National Council, the lower house of Austria's bicameral Parliament. The People's Party had previously forged coalition pacts and joint governments with the Social Democrats and the nationalistic Freedom Party (FPOe), both of which failed. When he announced his party's unanimous decision to work with the Greens on Monday, 11 October, 2019, Kurz cited government stability as a key consideration.[3] He expressed regret that the FPO had rebuffed him and had decided to assume the role of opposition in Parliament: he did not offer any reason why he and his party had decided against a revival of another "grand coalition" with the now much-weakened Social Democrats. Both the SPOe and the FPOe had suffered heavy losses in the elections.[4]

You are welcome to contribute
Hello,

I see that you are contributing, in large amounts, to 2019 Austrian legislative election and other articles related to Austrian politics. Just to make this clear: when I reverted your edit on Sebastian Kurz, I didn't mean to deter you from ever editing the article again, I actually meant what I said in the edit summary. I'm clarifying this, because some editors or group of editors tend to claim articles for themselves and disallow every edit they subjectively dislike (which is every edit). But please, whenever you edit an article, try not to add massive heaps of raw information – which commonly has a repellent effective on readers – but rather summarized, coherent, and redacted information, which also abides by the MOS (I've never read as well but at least I know its very basics). Furthermore, you should know that there was consensus among – let's just call them – 'Austrian' editors to avoid the use of the word 'federal' (such as in federal president, federal chancellor, federal ministers, federal government/cabinet), since it is often superfluous and not used by most sources. And avoid using words in their original language as addition or replacement if the word is clearly translatable, such as "Bundesland" (=(federated) state), "Wahlkreis" (=constituency), "Bundeskongress" (=federal/national (party) convention/congress/conference), "Basisdemokratie" (=Democracy), "Transparenz" (=Transparency), and so on.

Regards, Colonestarrice (talk) 10:23, 4 January 2020 (UTC).


 * Wolfgang responds:


 * Good to hear from you, Colonestarrice, and New Year’s cheers. I look forward to a cooperative editing relationship with you on Austrian politics pages in the future, if you are interested, and I thank you for your contributions to the community on behalf of the worldwide readership. Please keep in mind that Austrians are not the primary audience for pages on Austria in the English-language part of the Wikipedia.


 * When a contribution that I spent an hour or two to produce gets deleted lock, stock, and barrel on a particular page, I generally back off and take my talents elsewhere. As I see it, editing wars are rarely worth it objectively, and not worth my time on a personal level.


 * As for my own editing practices, I rarely delete other people’s stuff, but liberally rephrase and copy-edit material that is not written in good or even grammatically correct English. Since I am bilingual, but English-dominant, I feel that I can make a positive contribution that way. I started writing for a living after teaching for a living (at the college level) many years ago, having poured much red ink over student term papers and written exams; a largely thankless endeavor. That said, I regularly find myself having made spelling mistakes and other errors, and am thus aware of my shortcomings like most other folks. Much writing for Wikipedia is like doing a first draft, rather than finalizing a polished article for an academic journal; so the collective editing & correction process is much appreciated. Not so much wholesale deletions. When that happens, it tends to dampen the enthusiasm to further engage in the volunteer activity.


 * I would welcome discussion (on talk pages) of problems of German-English translation in the realms of comparative politics and political discourse/rhetoric. Literal translations are not always the best way to go, and often there is not one right translation, in part because of lack of functional/semantic equivalence, or different connotations of cognates in different political systems and cultures.


 * Take, for example, the term Bundesrat. Means different things even in German, if you look at both Switzerland and Austria. For CH, see here:


 * https://www.admin.ch/gov/de/start/bundesrat/mitglieder-des-bundesrates.html


 * “Federal Council” is okay as a translation, but adding a context/country-specific explanation to it would be even better. That’s obviously an option when you are an author or journalist, rather than merely a translator. For a scholarly exposition of the problems inherent in translation, see: Werner Koller, Einfuehrung in die Uebersetzungswissenschaft, 8. Auflage. A. Francke (2011).


 * To use another example, on the page on Bundespraesident van der Bellen, it makes sense to point out that the Austrian president is the head of state, and differentiate that office from head of government (Chancellor), given that in many other countries—most notably the US-- the President is the chief executive that performs both roles. My point here is that the writing (some of which involves translation, given the subject matter) should consider the intended audience and their frame of reference and understanding. I would rather add an explanation/elaboration in a pedagogical vein, as opposed to simplifying matters to the point of dumbing down the content to grade-school level.


 * Let me also thank you for your reference to the Wikipedia style guide. My focus is on producing high-quality content on subject matter I am familiar with as a political scientist (and to help copy-edit corresponding pages to improve readability in English), but I will take a look at it.


 * WolfgangPeterStyria (talk) 20:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)


 * (Sorry for the late response, replying is no prowess of mine)


 * I welcome your invitation to a cooperative editing relationship and look forward to a good and effectual collaboration as well. In my opinion Austria is severely underrepresented in the English language Wikipedia, even significantly smaller countries maintain a substantially larger representation, thus I sincerely welcome any sort of aid at this point.


 * I also thank your for sharing this general information about yourself. I do think revealing this general – not private or deeply personal – information about oneself helps in understanding why one acts the way they act, and thus may even prevent potential edit wars, content disputes or other forms of conflicts; it additionally assists in humanizing the Wikipedia community and its individual editors, which may render the volunteer work more sympathetic. To me personally, I'm an Austrian (as you may have guessed already) of maternally French decent, making me trilingual. I acquired about 60% of my current English vocabulary through the English Wikipedia. And I've Asperger's, which may also be noteworthy.


 * The aforementioned other 'Austrian' editors were User:Kramler and User:Damvile. I initially shared an unpleasant past with them, scarred by intense edit warring and content disputes, which lasted for more than half a year. Until I could finally revolve these conflicts and better my relationship with Kramler, through a week of daily phone calls. Then however, Kramler turned on Damvile, which hurt his sentiments and made him leave, and Kramler quit barely a month thereafter. Yes, it was that dumb. Regardless of that part, we still found the time to frame some productive norms, such as avoiding the use of 'federal', not using succession numbers, and so on. The point is, I genuinely understand your response to these sort of conflicts, they are indeed rarely worth one's time, so I would sincerely recommend settling such disputes instantaneously when they arise (on the respective talk pages as you suggested already) to prevent such dumb phase.


 * As you may have noticed already, I'm concentrating the bulk of my efforts on the Sebastian Kurz article (this was probably not English), since I can't sustain the entirety of Austrian politics on the EN WP on my own, I decided to instead focus on its de facto chief executive. Which brings me to ask of your opinion regarding this proposed new article, it's a marginal draft in its current form but people still get the idea. The plan is to rename First Kurz government and Second Kurz government to Composition of the first Kurz cabinet and Composition of the second Kurz cabinet, respectively, and to make them mere lists of cabinet members. The content you added to Second Kurz government could then be incorporated into the "First cabinet" subsection of the proposed new article. The reasons for that are: 1) The articles are called "cabinet" and not "government", to expressly differentiate between the executive branch body comprising the highest-ranking executive officers (=Cabinet) and the whole governing system of a polity (=Government) 2) You could direct Kurz cabinet and cabinet of Sebastian Kurz (currently redirects to a disambiguation page) to the proposed new article. I think to have everything, including the cabinet composition and actions, in two big First Kurz cabinet and Second Kurz cabinet articles would be too confusing. So the proposed new article is best idea I've come up with to this point, but perhaps you or someone else has a better idea. Either way, let me know what you think.


 * And I couldn't help but notice that you're newcomer, so if you have any questions regarding WP (which is a common editor abbreviation for Wikipedia by the way), feel free to ask.


 * Regards, Colonestarrice (talk) 20:01, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

The Greens lead
Dear Wolfgang,

I reverted your recent additions to the lead of The Greens – The Green Alternative as I believe they went far against both Wikipedia's style guide for lead sections and the policy of verifiability on Wikipedia.  — Ruyter (talk • edits)  14:33, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Wolfgang responds (to all):

While I am an oldie with respect to Comparative Politics, I am a newbie as WolfgangPeterStyria on Wikipedia.

Please help optimize the formatting and/or add more footnotes for this currently hot topic, for which unfortunately I have not yet had enough time, and rearrange the sections and headers as you deem most useful for the intended audience. If you find any errors of fact, kindly correct them by all means.

Here is the slightly revised material to facilitate a better understanding of Austrian Greens within the context their country's political history forWolfgangPeterStyria (talk) 19:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC) the non-Austrian English-language readership:

FIRST CONSERVATIVE-GREEN COALITION GOVERNMENT IN AUSTRIA (sworn in January 7, 2020)

This novel type of a political alliance is the result of protracted coalition negotiations with the New Austrian People's Party (Die Neue Volkspartei, better known under its initials as ÖVP) under Sebastian Kurz, following the September 2019 parliamentary elections. In that election the conservative ÖVP emerged with the largest number of votes (37.5%) while its scandal-ridden former coalition partner--the right-wing Freedom Party (FPÖ)--was rebuffed, and the Green Party achieved its best national election result ever with almost 14% of the popular vote, which gave it 26 seats in parliament, compared to zero in the outgoing parliament.

In the national parliamentary elections of 2017, the Greens had failed to surmount the 4% threshold requirement for the proportional allocation of seats under Austria's election system and were not represented in the National Council at all. The party was rebuilt by Werner Kogler, under whose leadership the Greens achieved their best national election result ever. Kogler now serves as Vice Chancellor in the new Kurz-led Conservative-Green coalition government, in which the Greens have primary responsibility for environmental policy, social welfare policy, and justice (internal security).

From protest politics to an environmentalist party

Unlike the ÖVP and the SPÖ, the two traditional center-right and center-left parties that dominated Austria in the early decades after 1945, the Austrian Green Party is of more recent vintage and has its origin in extra-parliamentary movement activism and protest. It was founded in 1986 under the name "Green Alternative" (Grüne Alternative), following the merger of the more conservative Green party Vereinte Grüne Österreichs (United Greens of Austria VGÖ, founded 1982) and the more progressive party Alternative Liste Österreichs (Alternative List Austria, ALÖ, founded 1982).

Since 1993, the party has carried the official name Die Grünen – Die Grüne Alternative (Grüne), but refers to itself in English as "Austrian Greens", a pragmatic solution to the Umlaut "ü" problem in English. There are still differences between the former members of the old Alternative and VGÖ factions within the party, reflected in the divergences in political strategy and policy issues of the national and state parties.

Green Ideology and Policy Priorities

Apart from ecological issues such as environmental protection, the Greens also campaign for the rights of minorities and advocate a socio-ecological (ökosozial) tax reform, which involves the use of government tax policy not only for redistributive purposes, but the creation of incentives and disincentives to alter the behavior of consumers and other economic actors in ways that are more environmentally sustainable. Use of gas guzzlers ("Stinkers") is therefore to be taxed more heavily while public funds are to be used to expand the public transport network and incentivize the use of public transportation by reducing fares. Terrestrial mobility is to be favored over air travel.

“The ideology of the Greens beyond single-issue environmentalism”

Leaving aside their commitment to environmental protection, which brought them into existence as a political force in the first instance, and has now shifted to measures to combat climate change, the philosophy of the Austrian Greens might be described as humanistic and universalist, as opposed to being rooted in religion (ÖVP), in nationalism (FPÖ), or in class-based politics (SPÖ). The Greens are clearly a conviction party, more than a party that represents a particular segment of the population in terms of economic status or interest, such as business, agriculture, or labor. The Greens are typically described as centre-left in English-language coverage, but they do not fit neatly into the left-right spectrum because do not share the Marxist legacy that describes traditional parties of the political left in Europe.

In the early decades of the Second Republic, politics in Austria was characterized by a duopoly of power exercised by the ÖVP and the SPÖ, and the associated politics of Proporz and “Postenschacher” (divvying up the plums in all areas of public of life in addition to sharing political power in the government narrowly speaking). Having its roots in the working class struggle in the early stages of capitalism, and in Marxism as a political gospel as the counterpart to the People's Party's Catholicism, the SPÖ evolved into a mainstream social-democratic left-of-center party after Austria again attained full sovereignty when the Allied occupation ended in 1955. The Greens originally emerged as a protest movement against the political status quo and took direct action against policies of the center-left government of the SPÖ, which had embarked on the pursuit of nuclear power as part of its energy policy.

In the context of Austria's multiparty system today, and in consideration of the principles and policy positions of the Greens in light of a changing Europe-wide policy agenda, the term centre-left remains problematic.

A better term to describe the Green might be progressive and future-oriented across the board.

The Greens are clearly "liberal", ie in favor of individual rights and liberties, on social issues, but confusion often arises from the term liberal as applied to economics, an area in which the Greens are more like Social Democrats in that they favor government regulation to curb the excesses of free-market capitalism and its deleterious consequences for the common good and for the socially weak. Greens are egalitarians both with respect to non-discrimination and minority rights (including refugees and other non-citizens) and with respect to economic equality, which is to be achieved through re-distributive policies, including taxation and other policy measures, such as pension reform. In the area of social policy, the Greens advocate for the less-well-off and the socially disadvantaged, with special concern for women, who, on average, live longer, do not have the same employment history as men, and have historically been the primary care providers for the young and the elderly.

In terms of electoral performance, the Greens draw their support disproportionately from urban areas and from the younger cohorts in the electorate. The founding generation, however, including Kogler and Van der Bellen, are aging. Although the ÖVP is a much older party, it has successfully reinvented and rebranded itself as the New People's Party under the youthful leadership of Sebastian Kurz, at 33 years of age once more the youngest Chancellor and head of government in Europe.

Green success in Austrian politics

Prior to assuming responsibly for governing Austria by entering into the coalition with the ÖVP in 2020, the Greens achieved another major milestone: election of one of their own to the position of head of state.

Alexander Van der Bellen is the first president from the Greens. In that capacity, he had the duty and honor to swear in the first contingent of Green ministers on 7 January 2020, following the announcement of a coalition pact of ÖVP and the Greens by Sebastian Kurz and Werner Kogler on New Year's Day. Van der Bellen urged the new government to act as a red-white-red government for the benefit of all Austrians; a reference the Austria's flag and a word play on the signature colors represented in the novel coalition: Green and Turquoise (Türkis), the color of the New People's Party under Sebastian Kurz, previously known as the Blacks ("die Schwarzen").

The significance of green and other colors in the palette of Austrian party politics

In Austria, the association of colors with political parties predates the arrival of the Greens on the political landscape (or on the Danube riverbanks, to be more location-specific) in the 1980s. Colors are routinely used in Austrian political discourse and media coverage as short-hand references to parties and their members and are also used in the parties' promotional materials. U.S. reader should note that "red" historically stands for Socialist, Social-Democrats, and Communists in Europe (all three of them), in addition to the Republican Party in the US. Blue is not only the color of the Democrats in the US, but also of the far-right and anti-foreigner Austrian Freedom Party (FPÖ) in Austria.

The appearance of two red stripes in the Austrian flag, however, is of much older blood-drenched provenance. Finally, the term green is also used in reference to one of Austria's constituent states, Styria, thanks to its ample pine woods. Styria is referred to interchangeably as Die grüne Mark or the Green Heart of Austria. Vienna, by contrast, is known as red, but this characterization refers to its distinguished history as the focal point of worker's struggle and as a hotbed of Socialism, now in the much mellowed-down form of Social Democracy (SPÖ). WolfgangPeterStyria (talk) https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:WolfgangPeterStyria&action=edit&section=4 WolfgangPeterStyria (talk) 19:07, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

Ein paar Tipps
Hallo, ich sehe, du machst dir hier viel Mühe, aber teilweise auch unnötig, daher ein paar Tipps für den Anfang:


 * 1) Dass du hier gerade auf deiner eigenen Benutzerdiskussionsseite große Beispieltexte schreibst, wird dich nicht weiterbringen. Wenn du Test-Edits für Änderungen machen willst, würde ich dir eine Sandbox empfehlen. Siehe hierzu Help:My sandbox - Mit Special:MyPage/sandbox kannst du eine eigene Sandbox erstellen.
 * 2) Im Vergleich zur deutschen Wikipedia gibt es in der englischen Wikipedia eine andere Kultur. In der deutschen Wikipedia wird es nicht so eng gesehen, wenn an den offensichtlichsten Dingen, die sich erschließen lassen, keine Fußnoten hängen. In der en.Wikipedia gibt es hingegen einen großen Kreis von Benutzern, der sprichwörtlich alles entfernt, was nicht Stück für Stück mit Fußnote belegt ist. "Original Research" wird hier regelrecht verteufelt (meines Erachtens oft ein bisschen übertrieben) Du kannst somit nicht wie in einer wissenschaftlichen Arbeit etwas selbst erschließen. Hier wird darauf bestanden, dass jedes einzelne Wort, das du hinzufügst, durch eine angegebene Fußnote belegt ist. Hierzu empfehle ich dir, insbesondere die Seiten No original research und Verifiability Mal anzusehen.
 * 3) Das andere Problem mit deinen Änderungen besteht darin, dass du die Struktur grundlegend geändert hast und prinzipiell eine Riesen-Einleitung erstellt hast. Was du zu "Green Ideology and Policy Priorities" geschrieben hast, solltest du dann beispielsweise mit einer Ebene2-Überschrift an passender Stelle einbinden, beispielsweise hinter dem letzten Ebene4-Abschnitt, der zum Ebene2-Abschnitt "History" gehört. (Beispiel: == Green Ideology and Policy Priorities == ) Siehe hierzu beispielsweise de:Wikipedia:Wie gute Artikel aussehen Außerdem solltest du die Einleitung nicht ohne Angabe von Begründungen im Edit summary grundlegend ändern.
 * 4) Grundsätzlich wäre es besser, wenn du den Artikel mit kleineren Schritten änderst und somit einfacher nachvollziehbar ist, welche Änderungen du auf der Grundlage von welchen angegebenen Referenzen und Begründungen vorgenommen hast.. Du kannst hier auch eine Fußnote mehr als einmal im Artikel angeben. Siehe hierzu Help:Footnotes --2003:C3:4F46:F977:452D:DBD8:8CB2:E850 (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2020 (UTC)

DANK FUER DIE RATSCHLAEGE UND HINWEISE

Thank you for all your helpful suggestions. I think I am going to take a break to start my academic paper on the subject matter of the Conservative-Green Coalition Government, and to review the wiki resources for which you gracefully provided links at leisure.

If you or some other volunteer can muster the time and willingness to rework my draft (all or some of the material on the talk page above that was previously deleted), some international Wiki readers might appreciate the additional information. As it happens, there is considerable international interest in the first-time participation of the Greens in an Austrian government (in addition to enduring interest, if not obsession, with right-wing party politics in Austria), as reflected in prodigious press coverage. Indeed, it’s overwhelming, trying to keep up with ORF and Austrian/German press coverage, as well as with coverage and commentary in leading English-language papers in the US and UK. WolfgangPeterStyria (talk) 17:38, 10 January 2020 (UTC)

Drittes Ermittlungsverfahren
Hello, Wolfgang. Thank you for your help on the 2019 Austrian legislative election talk page. I have a question, though. Using the data from the election, can you tell me how the remaining seats are allocated when you get to the "drittes Ermittlungsverfahren" or third investigation/reading? I am aware they use the D'Hondt method, but I'm not sure how to use that calculation once you get past the local and state constituency allocations of seats. You could use one party's vote total as an example to explain it to me. Thanks! --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:05, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Wolfgang responds: Unfortunately, I don't have the actual data in terms of votes and quota (Wahlzahl). Here is the reference to the election statute itself: https://www.ris.bka.gv.at/GeltendeFassung.wxe?Abfrage=Bundesnormen&Gesetzesnummer=10001199 Bundesrecht konsolidiert: Gesamte Rechtsvorschrift für Nationalrats-Wahlordnung 1992, Fassung vom 15.01.2020. The third-stage allocation is dealt with in § 107. Caveat: The states have their own elections laws and they differ in some details. WolfgangPeterStyria (talk) 17:51, 15 January 2020 (UTC)


 * Well, if you ever find this information out, let me know. I've been wanting to use an example to see how the "investigations" are done from local, regional to national.  --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:33, 28 January 2020 (UTC)


 * "The third-stage allocation is dealt with in § 107." To be clear, I read this section, and still don't understand.  Can you show how many seats were left after the regional and provincial seats were allocated, and then the formula you use to calculate who gets the "left-over" seats? --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:03, 4 February 2020 (UTC)