2015 Canadian Election

[Aggicificicerous]

And if one party achieves a 51% majority in the government, then 49% of the country isn't represented. That's something which will always pop up in a democratic system, regardless of whether or not you utilize a PR or plurality system (or anything in between). PR systems make one-party majorities less common, but consolidated coalitions do exactly the same thing; once a party or voting bloc has achieved a majority in the government, everyone else can go fuck off, because they can't stop legislation from passing.

If one party achieves a 51% majority, it can usually force bills through the House of Commons, but the remaining 49% of the house is still there. This is especially tenuous if there is a coalition, which STV often leads to. Having seats in the House of Commons important.

[Camicon]

The Bloc is a special duck, because Quebec is a special duck. PR would enable secessionist parties in other provinces (like Alberta and the Atlantic provinces) to gain ground and start fucking around. Above, I outlined why the Bloc had some moments of strength under FPTP. And if you're going to put an electoral threshold in place, one that actually works and isn't just pissing into the wind, then PR's one big strength (giving smaller parties and candidates a voice) is shot to hell.

Source? Evidence? Please.

That's what PR systems do, take a look at any country which utilizes a PR system and if there are regional tension in the country you'll find parties that define themselves along those lines (provided they can break the electoral threshold). Unfortunately, I can't point you to any scientific evidence for something that hasn't ever happened in Canada, so you're stuck either with the opinion of a polisci grad you've spent the last while talking to, or some random journalist. Until it happens, everything is speculation; it's simply a matter of what speculation you trust the most.

And STV is the poster-child of PR systems. Why would you think that it lies somewhere between PR and plurality (not majoritarian) systems, when it is a PR system?

It isn't pure PR, and it doesn't loosen regional representation, like MMP does.

And if one party achieves a 51% majority in the government, then 49% of the country isn't represented. That's something which will always pop up in a democratic system, regardless of whether or not you utilize a PR or plurality system (or anything in between). PR systems make one-party majorities less common, but consolidated coalitions do exactly the same thing; once a party or voting bloc has achieved a majority in the government, everyone else can go fuck off, because they can't stop legislation from passing.

There is no proof that IRV will prevent 39% majorities. There is evidence that it actually makes it worse.

See above. A majority government, be it a single party or a coalition, will also produce this problem. It is always a potentiality in democratic systems, regardless of how that system operates.

See above, however in PR, usually the government routinely gets greater than 50% of the support, for example the current coalition government in Germany received 66% of the vote in the last election.

So by "pure" PR, you're referring to party-list? Because that's the only kind of PR system anyone uses, aside from STV.

IRV cannot produce majority governments with a minority of the popular vote. When the only way a candidate can win a riding is with more than 50% of the popular vote in their riding, it is mathematically impossible for a majority government to be formed with less than 51% of the popular vote. What the hell are you smoking? Is Trudeau rolling out his legalization plan in secret, or something?

Then Germany isn't representing 34% of their electorate, oh the humanity. [/sarcasm]
That's the argument you're trying to sell. Majority governments don't represent the people that didn't vote for them. If you're opposed to a 51% majority on principal, why are you not opposed to a 66% majority by that same principal?

And if one party achieves a 51% majority in the government, then 49% of the country isn't represented. That's something which will always pop up in a democratic system, regardless of whether or not you utilize a PR or plurality system (or anything in between). PR systems make one-party majorities less common, but consolidated coalitions do exactly the same thing; once a party or voting bloc has achieved a majority in the government, everyone else can go fuck off, because they can't stop legislation from passing.

If one party achieves a 51% majority, it can usually force bills through the House of Commons, but the remaining 49% of the house is still there. This is especially tenuous if there is a coalition, which STV often leads to. Having seats in the House of Commons important.

But irrelevant if you're in the minority. The Official Opposition can't really do anything to stop a majority government, they can't push the interests of their constituencies into legislation unless the majority government is in agreement with them.

[Ardoki]

Source? Evidence? Please.

That's what PR systems do, take a look at any country which utilizes a PR system and if there are regional tension in the country you'll find parties that define themselves along those lines (provided they can break the electoral threshold). Unfortunately, I can't point you to any scientific evidence for something that hasn't ever happened in Canada, so you're stuck either with the opinion of a polisci grad you've spent the last while talking to, or some random journalist. Until it happens, everything is speculation; it's simply a matter of what speculation you trust the most.

Actually no. You're wrong.
If the minority is spread out like the rest of the population, proportional representation would give them proper representation. However if they are concentrated, like in Quebec and Scotland, they can be over-represented in the legislature (like what Atlanticatia said here).

Minorities have the right to proportional representation.

[Camicon]

That's what PR systems do, take a look at any country which utilizes a PR system and if there are regional tension in the country you'll find parties that define themselves along those lines (provided they can break the electoral threshold). Unfortunately, I can't point you to any scientific evidence for something that hasn't ever happened in Canada, so you're stuck either with the opinion of a polisci grad you've spent the last while talking to, or some random journalist. Until it happens, everything is speculation; it's simply a matter of what speculation you trust the most.

Actually no. You're wrong.
If the minority is spread out like the rest of the population, proportional representation would give them proper representation. However if they are concentrated, like in Quebec and Scotland, they can be over-represented in the legislature (like what Atlanticatia said here).

Minorities have the right to proportional representation.

Is that so? Where is it stated that minority groups have a right to proportional representation in the government of whatever country they are living in? And what minority groups are we talking about? Ethnic? Cultural? Religious? Do transgender individuals count? What about people with physical disabilities, or mental illnesses? How about homeless people? Senior citizens?

Proportional representation is not a right. It is an electoral system. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. If proportional representation produces unstable governments and fractious coalitions which ultimately harm the state, and the well-being of the citizens in it, then it should be discarded. If first-past-the-post provides a state with healthy economic growth, if it encourages the promotion and protection of civil and political rights, if it increases the quality of life for the people that live there, if it makes the state a responsible and accountable member of the international community, then it should be maintained.

Politics are a tool by which we try to make life better. People have a right to engage in politics. What they do not have is the right to engage in one particular form of politics that you think is "better" than every other kind. That's a ridiculous assertion, and beyond arrogant.

[Kincoboh]

So by "pure" PR, you're referring to party-list? Because that's the only kind of PR system anyone uses, aside from STV.

Yes, like in Israel. The systems that are being put forward by orgs like Fair Vote are not that.

IRV cannot produce majority governments with a minority of the popular vote. When the only way a candidate can win a riding is with more than 50% of the popular vote in their riding, it is mathematically impossible for a majority government to be formed with less than 51% of the popular vote. What the hell are you smoking? Is Trudeau rolling out his legalization plan in secret, or something?

Sadly not, though I could talk about this stuff lucidly even after I smoked a few spliffs

Then Germany isn't representing 34% of their electorate, oh the humanity. [/sarcasm]
That's the argument you're trying to sell. Majority governments don't represent the people that didn't vote for them. If you're opposed to a 51% majority on principal, why are you not opposed to a 66% majority by that same principal?

The difference being is that the people who voted in the election actually voted for their first choices. I don't want my third choice to be elected! It's that simple. I don't understand why you would rather have someone who is possibly your third choice to get in and represent you. IRV isn't proportional, and it produces the same wonky results that FPTP does. Let me repeat this: people are still not properly represented in IRV where in PR they are, and there is no excuse to not properly represent people.

Is that so? Where is it stated that minority groups have a right to proportional representation in the government of whatever country they are living in? And what minority groups are we talking about? Ethnic? Cultural? Religious? Do transgender individuals count? What about people with physical disabilities, or mental illnesses? How about homeless people? Senior citizens?

I don't think he was specifically mentioning a particular group, but I would assume that it would be a group of people similar to separatists in Quebec, which you think is a good idea to disenfranchise, despite the fact that IRV and FPTP actually give them more seats than they should get.

Proportional representation is not a right. It is an electoral system. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. If proportional representation produces unstable governments and fractious coalitions which ultimately harm the state, and the well-being of the citizens in it, then it should be discarded. If first-past-the-post provides a state with healthy economic growth, if it encourages the promotion and protection of civil and political rights, if it increases the quality of life for the people that live there, if it makes the state a responsible and accountable member of the international community, then it should be maintained.

And yet, all evidence points to the opposite of both examples you provided. If we are going by evidence based policy that makes life better and a better civil society, all the evidence points toward PR as a way to make that happen.

[Camicon]

Then Germany isn't representing 34% of their electorate, oh the humanity. [/sarcasm]
That's the argument you're trying to sell. Majority governments don't represent the people that didn't vote for them. If you're opposed to a 51% majority on principal, why are you not opposed to a 66% majority by that same principal?

The difference being is that the people who voted in the election actually voted for their first choices. I don't want my third choice to be elected! It's that simple. I don't understand why you would rather have someone who is possibly your third choice to get in and represent you. IRV isn't proportional, and it produces the same wonky results that FPTP does. Let me repeat this: people are still not properly represented in IRV where in PR they are, and there is no excuse to not properly represent people.

Is that so? Where is it stated that minority groups have a right to proportional representation in the government of whatever country they are living in? And what minority groups are we talking about? Ethnic? Cultural? Religious? Do transgender individuals count? What about people with physical disabilities, or mental illnesses? How about homeless people? Senior citizens?

I don't think he was specifically mentioning a particular group, but I would assume that it would be a group of people similar to separatists in Quebec, which you think is a good idea to disenfranchise, despite the fact that IRV and FPTP actually give them more seats than they should get.

Proportional representation is not a right. It is an electoral system. It is a means to an end, not an end in itself. If proportional representation produces unstable governments and fractious coalitions which ultimately harm the state, and the well-being of the citizens in it, then it should be discarded. If first-past-the-post provides a state with healthy economic growth, if it encourages the promotion and protection of civil and political rights, if it increases the quality of life for the people that live there, if it makes the state a responsible and accountable member of the international community, then it should be maintained.

And yet, all evidence points to the opposite of both examples you provided. If we are going by evidence based policy that makes life better and a better civil society, all the evidence points toward PR as a way to make that happen.

I never said IRV is proportional.

It does bear noting that I was incorrect in saying that IRV cannot produce majority governments with a minority of the popular vote. It is technically possible, if a party were to win 51% of the available seats with exactly 51% of valid ballots from those ridings, while simultaneously receiving little to no support in every riding they lost. Majority governments could theoretically be formed on minimum of 51% of 51% of the popular vote, or 26.01%. Given Canada's political landscape this would never happen, but like I said, it bears noting.

Anyways, it's a fallacious argument to say that IRV or FPTP doesn't "properly" represent the electorate. Those electoral systems do not proportionally represent the electorate, but provided the electoral system is strictly followed, the electorate will be properly represented. The requirements for "proper" representation are set by the electoral system itself, not by you or anyone else.

Like I said before, refusing to be represented by anyone but your first choice strikes me as being very childish. Even in PR systems, those candidates which actually have a chance of being elected are not going to do exactly what you want on every single issue. Voting is, at it's heart, an act of compromise; you and a bunch of other people agree to let someone else represent you in the government, because direct democracy doesn't work on anything but the smallest scale. I am not opposed to the idea of compromising on a single candidate that is the least offensive to everyone in my riding.

I'd rather let Ardoki clarify what exactly he meant, but regardless, my point remains. Not every group you could care to define has the "right" to representation in the government (the only way to actually do that would be via direct democracy, which would be an epic clusterfuck in every single possible way). And do not try to strawman me, and say that I support disenfranchisement; not electing your preferred representative to the government does not mean you are disenfranchised.

To your last point, Canada routinely places in the top rankings on any kind of life quality index you could care to name. So no, not "all evidence" points towards PR making things universally better in society. That aside, you seem to have missed the point that I was illustrating in the first place. PR, like FPTP is simply a system; it is not inherently better, nor is it inherently worse.

[Razgriskm]

Pre-Election polls: Justin
Post-Election polls: Conservative

Ya nerds finally got how much of a deadbrain he is AFTER you voted him in? Agh whatever man.

[Kelinfort]

Pre-Election polls: Justin
Post-Election polls: Conservative

Ya nerds finally got how much of a deadbrain he is AFTER you voted him in? Agh whatever man.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion ... l_election

[Zoice]

Pre-Election polls: Justin
Post-Election polls: Conservative

Ya nerds finally got how much of a deadbrain he is AFTER you voted him in? Agh whatever man.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion ... l_election

Looks like he's doing pretty well. Hooray!

EDIT: Oh, thread poll. I didn't vote so I hadn't seen the results up there.

[Razgriskm]

Pre-Election polls: Justin
Post-Election polls: Conservative

Ya nerds finally got how much of a deadbrain he is AFTER you voted him in? Agh whatever man.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion ... l_election

https://i.gyazo.com/ac5f6e115495ee834c4 ... 8069d4.png

Don't be daft, I'm talking about the threat poll.

[Camicon]

Pre-Election polls: Justin
Post-Election polls: Conservative

Ya nerds finally got how much of a deadbrain he is AFTER you voted him in? Agh whatever man.

You're mistaken. The thread poll has been like this as far back as October.

Someone made a bunch of puppets to skew this poll, and artificially inflate Harper's support.
*snip*

[Razgriskm]

Pre-Election polls: Justin
Post-Election polls: Conservative

Ya nerds finally got how much of a deadbrain he is AFTER you voted him in? Agh whatever man.

You're mistaken. The thread poll has been like this as far back as October.

About as plausible of someone inflating poll numbers anywhere. Not really at all.

[Camicon]

You're mistaken. The thread poll has been like this as far back as October.

About as plausible of someone inflating poll numbers anywhere. Not really at all.

The numbers for Harper jumped more than 100% in about an hour, and continued to climb so that they matched or outstripped the numbers for Trudeau and Mulcair ever since. So, unless you think that's a total coincidence... in which case I have a bridge just over here that I think would go perfectly in your living room.

[Kelinfort]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion ... l_election

https://i.gyazo.com/ac5f6e115495ee834c4 ... 8069d4.png

Don't be daft, I'm talking about the threat poll.

NDP was in the lead before.

[Razgriskm]

https://i.gyazo.com/ac5f6e115495ee834c4 ... 8069d4.png

Don't be daft, I'm talking about the threat poll.

NDP was in the lead before.

Yes, we saw how the NDP worked out.

[Camicon]

NDP was in the lead before.

Yes, we saw how the NDP worked out.

I question whether or not you actually understand why the election results turned out the way they did.

[Faustian Fantasies]

Could somebody explain to me the most pressing issues in Canadian government and what policies each political faction would pursue to address them?

[Razgriskm]

Yes, we saw how the NDP worked out.

I question whether or not you actually understand why the election results turned out the way they did.

Because people are cowardly and opted to vote for the party they would chose second because they thought the conservative party was doing it wrong. Then immediately we have a prime minister walking around in bluej's and an obey hat calling out "Because it's 2015" with a crew(cabinet) of friends who are diverse and equally male/female like a crappy Disney show cast. Yes I understand exactly why people voted for them, because they want the world to burn.

[Kazirstan]

I question whether or not you actually understand why the election results turned out the way they did.

Because people are cowardly and opted to vote for the party they would chose second because they thought the conservative party was doing it wrong. Then immediately we have a prime minister walking around in bluej's and an obey hat calling out "Because it's 2015" with a crew(cabinet) of friends who are diverse and equally male/female like a crappy Disney show cast. Yes I understand exactly why people voted for them, because they want the world to burn.

Want some fries with that salt?

[Camicon]

Could somebody explain to me the most pressing issues in Canadian government and what policies each political faction would pursue to address them?

What you're asking for is a helluva lot of time and effort to put together, and I say this as a Canadian polisci grad (because, perhaps?).

Here, here, and here. Those are the websites for the Liberal, Conservative, and NDP parties, respectively. Spend a bit of time reading through each one and you should get a feel for the answers to your questions.

I question whether or not you actually understand why the election results turned out the way they did.

Because people are cowardly and opted to vote for the party they would chose second because they thought the conservative party was doing it wrong. Then immediately we have a prime minister walking around in bluej's and an obey hat calling out "Because it's 2015" with a crew(cabinet) of friends who are diverse and equally male/female like a crappy Disney show cast. Yes I understand exactly why people voted for them, because they want the world to burn.

You are wrong on many counts. Too many to really bother going through individually, but I shall endeavour to in two broadly themed paragraphs.

Voters went to the polls intending to vote out the Conservatives (and Stephen Harper, particularly), and certainly some feeling that the Tories have been mismanaging the country played into that; however, boiling their choices down to that one aspect is both misleading and myopic. The election really was one of choice. Unlike our brothers and sisters to the south, where the two parties of their bipolar political environment are interchangeable on a great many issues, there is not nearly as much overlap between the Conservatives, Liberals, and NDP (yes, even between the Liberals and NDP). The Liberals ran on a platform which presented to voters a different direction than what the Conservatives did on every single issue (and no, offering a different direction does not mean said direction was diametrically opposed to that held by the Tories). So, you are wrong: voters did not elect the Liberals because they were cowards that think the Tories were wrong.

The ad hominem attacks against Prime Minister Trudeau are entirely pointless, for a number of reasons: everybody wears blue jeans, I don't believe anyone thinks it is egregiously inappropriate for our PM to do so (and, of course, you would have to reconcile that opinion with the fact that Harper wore blue jeans plenty while he was PM); to my knowledge Trudeau has never worn an "OBEY" hat, and I would feel confident in saying that he never has because that fashion trend is not one that was picked up by his generation; Trudeau's "Because it's 2015" remark was a response to a journalist asking Trudeau why he was going to ensure his cabinet was diverse, with the remark in question implying "that's a stupid question: we are civilized people and it is way past time that this happened"; continuing that thought, every single person on Trudeau's cabinet is as qualified for their position as every single member of Harper's cabinet was for theirs (more so in some cases, such as Minister of National Defence Harjit Sajjan), so to call them a "crew" is both ridiculous and immensely disrespectful. As an aside, given that you seem to be intent on attacking our new Prime Minister over his youth, consider that Stepehen Harper was a scant two years older than Trudeau when he was first elected (46 compared to 44). Implying that Trudeau's government is incompetent, because he isn't grey and wrinkled, is a special kind of stupid.

I honestly can't imagine why you think the Canadian electorate would vote en masse for someone they think is going to destroy everything that hold dear, unless you are assuming that everyone has some kid of hard-on for (including but not limited to): Islamaphobia, racism against First Nations, xenophobia, restricting civil rights, blown military budgets, criminalizing marijuana, retributive justice, counterproductive foreign policies, regressive taxation, climate change, and pointless economic austerity. If you want my opinion, it seems like you're projecting.

[Razgriskm]

He's an immature child, I'm not attacking his age I'm attacking his attitude, he behaves like a millennial and his answer to the diversity question was an easy example. The question was asking, "Why would you make it 50/50? What if one women was better for the job but you had to say 'Oh sorry, already met the women quota. Maybe next time.'" And he responded with a snarky remark and flailing his baby arms around like he knew what he was talking about.

The spectrum Canada is leaning toward has led to what we see in Sweden, the possibility of being classed as a third world country. When I look at his policy I can see it isn't with the Canadian people in mind. An example being his pushing for taking refugee's, pulling military air support from the middle east (Endangering our soldiers there, now with no support if they ever get attacked while training in foreign bases) and crookedly shrugging any criticism off as "It's 2015/2016" It may be the current year and some people may think that this is the magical year where nothing can go wrong, but they are wrong. The state of affairs as they are today are more volatile then they ever have been in history, national socialist parties are becoming popular in Greece, Britain, Norway, and to a smaller extent France for obvious reasons.

For people to be more occupied with legalizing another malicious substance that can be abused like alcohol or concocted drugs then to worry about a coming overturn, religious fanatics in the middle east and a Russia that is waking up from its slumber is daft. Time will easily prove my point, so I'll leave it at that.

As for uhh ad hominem, I hardly see how questioning his character isn't relevant. And yeah pretty much, I don't respect the cabinet, because they don't respect someone who asked a question on TV. They can trip and fall off their ego for all I care.

[Camicon]

He's an immature child, I'm not attacking his age I'm attacking his attitude, he behaves like a millennial and his answer to the diversity question was an easy example. The question was asking, "Why would you make it 50/50? What if one women was better for the job but you had to say 'Oh sorry, already met the women quota. Maybe next time.'" And he responded with a snarky remark and flailing his baby arms around like he knew what he was talking about.

The spectrum Canada is leaning toward has led to what we see in Sweden, the possibility of being classed as a third world country. When I look at his policy I can see it isn't with the Canadian people in mind. An example being his pushing for taking refugee's, pulling military air support from the middle east (Endangering our soldiers there, now with no support if they ever get attacked while training in foreign bases) and crookedly shrugging any criticism off as "It's 2015/2016" It may be the current year and some people may think that this is the magical year where nothing can go wrong, but they are wrong. The state of affairs as they are today are more volatile then they ever have been in history, national socialist parties are becoming popular in Greece, Britain, Norway, and to a smaller extent France for obvious reasons.

For people to be more occupied with legalizing another malicious substance that can be abused like alcohol or concocted drugs then to worry about a coming overturn, religious fanatics in the middle east and a Russia that is waking up from its slumber is daft. Time will easily prove my point, so I'll leave it at that.

As for uhh ad hominem, I hardly see how questioning his character isn't relevant. And yeah pretty much, I don't respect the cabinet, because they don't respect someone who asked a question on TV. They can trip and fall off their ego for all I care.

You are entirely wrong. The question was: "Your cabinet, you said, looks a lot like Canada. I understand one of the priorities for you was to have a cabinet that was gender balanced. Why was that so important to you?". You also seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding of how creating a cabinet with an eye towards gender equality and ethnic diversity would actually go, because nobody with half a brain is going to take someone unqualified simply because of some arbitrary characteristic. However, it is a scientifically documented fact that, of two individuals who are equally qualified in every way shape and form, where they differ only in that one has a male name and one a female name, the individual with the female name is at a statistically significant disadvantage. Affirmative action (essentially what Trudeau did when making his cabinet) is a counterbalance to that discrimination.

If Canada is leaning towards a Swedish model, that's not really a bad thing. Sweden is ranked: 17th in income per capita in purchasing power parity; 12th in the Human Development Index; 10th on the Global Competitiveness Report and the Global Peace Index; 4th in happiness, on the Corruption Perception Index, and on the Democracy Index, and 1st on the Press Freedom Index. Also the "First- Second- Third-World" designations were used to indicate what sphere of influence a state fell into during the Cold War (First for American aligned states, Second for Soviet aligned states, Third for non-aligned states). As such, they are now irrelevant and outdated terms in which to speak about the current status of a state.

Taking in refugees is a laudable action, and contrary to what some right-wing idiots say does not actually make anyone less safe or secure. We don't have any combat troops in Syria or Iraq right now anyways, and halting our entirely ineffective bombing runs is an intelligent decision. Western powers have been trying to bomb their problems away in the Middle East for decades, longer than I've even been alive, and it isn't working. Yes, things are volatile in a region that is halfway across the world and not at all a direct threat to Canada, but the world is actually fairly peaceful right now. Much more so than it was during, oh, I don't know, either of those World Wars in the 20th century (correct me if I'm wrong, but events within the last century are considered to be "in history", yes?).

Marijuana is far less harmful than alcohol. The scientific evidence is in, has been for years, and all you're doing now is stewing in wilful ignorance. Properly regulating marijuana would provide a new revenue stream for our government services, take money out of the hands of organized crime, create jobs, ensure that only quality product makes it to market, and ensure that those individuals who need it for chronic maladies are able to access it with ease.

Ad hominems are fallacious arguments. Trudeau's character and that of his cabinet is not necessarily irrelevant in all circumstances, but you're attacking them in order to discredit their positions and actions. That does make it irrelevant.

[San Frelli]

Pre-Election polls: Justin
Post-Election polls: Conservative

Ya nerds finally got how much of a deadbrain he is AFTER you voted him in? Agh whatever man.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Opinion ... l_election

Damn, that's a huge political honeymoon phase.

[Razgriskm]

I suppose the UN is using outdated terms then
http://en.europenews.dk/Sweden-to-becom ... 28028.html

"According to UN projections, Sweden will be a much poorer country by 2030, much worse than what anyone in the Swedish government indicates.

The UN report HDI (Human Development Index) predicts a significant decrease in Swedish prosperity, unlike their Nordic neighbors, who will retain their top positions and even strengthen them globally in the long run.

In 2010 Sweden had the 15th place in the HDI rankings but according to UN forecasts, Sweden will be #25 in 2015, and in 2030 on the 45th place. "

[Geilinor]

I suppose the UN is using outdated terms then
http://en.europenews.dk/Sweden-to-becom ... 28028.html

"According to UN projections, Sweden will be a much poorer country by 2030, much worse than what anyone in the Swedish government indicates.

The UN report HDI (Human Development Index) predicts a significant decrease in Swedish prosperity, unlike their Nordic neighbors, who will retain their top positions and even strengthen them globally in the long run.

In 2010 Sweden had the 15th place in the HDI rankings but according to UN forecasts, Sweden will be #25 in 2015, and in 2030 on the 45th place. "

Sweden was 14th in 2015. The prediction wasn't meant to be accurate, the UN was using experimental numbers.