In the Debate the day after the election, Fredrik Solvang showed the election results on the screen. The picture only showed support for the parliamentary parties on a national basis. The opposition outside the Storting was not made visible, not even as “Other”. In the programme, considerable concern was expressed over the low voter turnout – in the county council elections as low as 57.5 per cent nationally. In addition, one must take into account that 50,000 of those entitled to vote either voted blankly or had their ballots rejected. Solvang’s summary with only the Storting parties is a presentation of what 50.6 per cent of those entitled to vote had chosen. In the Norwegian Electoral Directorate’s national overview of the county council elections (as of 16/9) only the Storting parties are presented, but here the column “Other”, which makes up 9.8 per cent, has been included. “Other” is the fourth largest party, but it is clearly irrelevant who “Other” is composed of. In my opinion, both news’s and the Directorate of Elections’ presentations show a lack of respect for those who stood for election for the parties that are not represented in the Storting and for their voters. It fits into an image of making parties that are not already represented in the Storting invisible. This is a pattern that has existed for a long time. The opinion polls only show the Storting parties and “Other”, even though “Other” is far larger than most of the Storting parties. And even when parts of “Other”, such as the Industrial and Business Party (INP), are as large as many of the parliamentary parties, they are hidden away in the “Other” column. Of course, “Others” are not allowed to take part in party leader debates or be visible in the media, and the voters get no insight into what thoughts “Others” have about social development and why they stand for election. It should be pointed out, however, that until 1981 news carried out party leader debates and party interviews with all parties that ran for parliamentary elections, even with parties that received less than one percent of support. And at the Danish parliamentary election in the autumn of 2022, Danmarks Radio held a party leader debate with all 14 parties that stood for election, including parties with less than 1 percent support. The most paradoxical thing came in the next episode of “The Debate”, Thursday 14 September. Then Fredrik Solvang wanted to know what the Industrial and Business Party (INP) stood for, since the INP had received a support of more than 3 percent. Informing the voters about what the INP stands for three days after the election is to highlight that news has not carried out its social mission of informing the voters about the alternatives before the election. It is felt to be completely irrelevant to inform voters about INP when the election is over. The Organization for Cooperation and Security in Europe (OSCE), to which Norway is a member, follows the development of democratic institutions and elections. They point out in their guidelines that publicly owned media have a duty to inform voters about the various alternatives in an equal way. However, the OSCE is very concerned about the Norwegian electoral system, where voters have little influence on who is elected. The OSCE believes that individuals must be able to stand for election regardless of party. Today, a person must be nominated by a party to be eligible for election. It is therefore only a small circle of party members who decide which people are elected. The low turnout is not a new phenomenon. At the county council elections in 2011, 2015 and 2019, turnout was 58.4 per cent, 54.8 per cent and 59.5 per cent respectively, roughly the same as this year’s 57.5 per cent. Why is voter turnout so low? Is it because almost half of those entitled to vote feel that the elections are irrelevant? Could it be because they are not informed about alternatives other than the parliamentary parties, and that they feel that they have no real influence over who is elected? In the school elections, which are supposed to be an education in democracy, the Norwegian Directorate of Education has recommended in its guidelines that schools limit participation in debates to nine parties, coincidentally as many parties as have already been elected to the Storting. If the democratic training is to exclude half of those who stand for election as irrelevant, we must expect that over time the voters will experience Norwegian democracy as irrelevant and without the possibility of real influence. Do the school debates provide room for new ideas or is it only a presentation of the parliamentary parties’ broiler factories? If turnout is to be higher, voters must feel that their vote matters, and they must have information about all the options. The Storting is responsible for ensuring that voters are informed about all options so that they can make informed choices. Today, we have an election system that ensures that those already elected are re-elected, and we have state-funded media that ensure that the challengers are made invisible. Many have lost trust in our politicians after repeated scandals, but it will be even more serious if they lose trust in the whole system – and then experience that Norway is no longer a real democracy.
ttn-69
Is news a threat to democracy? – Speech
