Humanities desk
< August 16	<< Jul \| August \| Sep >>	August 18 >

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is a transcluded archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

August 17

State leaders continuously reelected in fair elections

What state/country leaders have been reelected multiple times in fair elections owing to consistent genuine popular support? By "multiple" let's say three or more times (except FDR). Thanks. 212.180.235.46 (talk) 12:41, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In the U.S., no President has served more than 2 terms except FDR. Records of heads of state would be a good place perhaps to start looking for longest serving heads of state who survived multiple elections. --Jayron 32 12:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Angela Merkel (though of course most voters in German federal elections did not vote for her individually). AnonMoos (talk) 12:52, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, and that's the thing right? In many parliamentary systems, the functional political leader of the country (Prime Minister, Premier, Chancellor, etc.) is not directly elected to that post; they are a member of the national parliament who is elevated to the role in a second election nominally by the parliament itself, but functionally by the majority party or coalition in that body. In the UK, for example, it is common enough for a Prime Minister to get their post completely separate from a general election; Boris Johnson, Theresa May, Gordon Brown, and John Major (four of the last six PMs) all became PM after the preceding PM resigned, and not after a general election. In terms of "winning" three consecutive general elections in the UK, the last to do so was Margaret Thatcher, and before her only Robert Jenkinson, 2nd Earl of Liverpool and Robert Walpole served as PM through more elections, being 4 each. William Pitt the Younger also served through 3 elections. --Jayron 32 13:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

At least in the modern era in the UK it's not "completely separate from a general election." If there is a party leadership contest, this is typically done before a general election, so that the electorate gets to vote for a party representative, knowing who will become PM if that party wins. Mechanisms for choosing the leader vary between parties. Whether that's really true "democracy" is another question. Occasionally, of course, things don't happen in that order. Martinevans123 (talk) 13:11, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The process is completely separate, as can be seen for 2 reasons. 1 - there are party leadership contests for parties not currently in Government, so in this case there would not be an election except by chance. 1 - there have been many leadershop changes of the party currently governing with no general election soon after. Examples include Alec Douglas-Hume, Jim Callaghan, John Major, Gordon Brown, Teresa May and even Boris, who called an election about 5 months after being elected leader.--Phil Holmes (talk) 14:02, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

As I noted already, four of the last six PMs became PM completely outside of a general election. Including the last two. So yes, going back as far as the 1990s, most of the modern Prime Ministers became Prime Minister initially through an internal party process, and not due to a general election. There were later general elections during their terms, but they still did not assume the office because their party won an immediately preceding general election. --Jayron 32 14:57, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would be interested to see the proportions, across all parties, for the last 100 years. I have not made the effort to do the sums. Perhaps it's just the way I have perceived party leader elections during my lifetime. Party Conferences are another factor, I guess. Martinevans123 (talk) 17:35, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's easy enough to reconstruct. Going back to 1920, the prime minister and how they got the post the first time are: 1) David Lloyd George (Resignation of previous PM, no intervening election) 2) Bonar Law (election) 3) Stanley Baldwin (resignation) 4) Ramsay Macdonald (election) 5) Stanley Baldwin (election) 6) Ramsay Macdonald (election) 7) Stanley Baldwin (election) 8) Neville Chamberlain (resignation) 9) Winston Churchill (resignation) 10) Clement Atlee (election) 11) Winston Churchill (election) 12) Anthony Eden (election) 13) Harold Macmillian (resignation) 14) Alec Douglas-Home (resignation) 15) Harold Wilson (election) 16) Edward Heath (election) 17) Harold Wilson (election) 18) James Callaghan (resignation) 19) Margaret Thatcher (election) 20) John Major (resignation) 21) Tony Blair (election) 22) Gordon Brown (resignation) 23) David Cameron (election) 24) Theresa May (resignation) 25) Boris Johnson (resignation). So there you go, 25 distinct Prime Ministerial terms, 12 of which began with the resignation of the prior office holder, and 13 of which began after a general election. That's as close to 50/50 as you can get with an odd number. --Jayron 32 17:50, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Many thanks Jayron, for spelling it out. None seems quite as bizarre and unfair as the current situation. But the electorate have spoken. Even if they didn't quite know what they were saying... Martinevans123 (talk) 20:32, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

A case of "be careful what you ask for, you might just get it?" --Jayron 32 15:46, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

And then some. Be Very Careful What You Vote For. Martinevans123 (talk) 15:51, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In which states is are ministers competitively elected by the parliament? In Westminster, as I misunderstand, the head of state appoints someone to form a cabinet, and that person becomes prime minister upon vote of confidence by the parliament. —Tamfang (talk) 01:19, 20 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Category:Lists of state governors of the United States would be a place to start researching U.S. state governors in case you wanted that. Many states have term limits as well, limiting how many consecutive terms a governor may serve. --Jayron 32 13:34, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Urho Kekkonen was President of Finland who served four consecutive terns between 1956 and 1982. Note that the Constitution of Finland was reformed starting at the end of Kekkonen's last term, reducing the power of the presidency, introducing a two-term limit and combining a popular vote with the electoral college system which had kept Kekkonen in power. He wasn't always terribly popular, but in the Cold War, Finland lived under the threatening shadow of the USSR and he was believed to be useful in keeping Moscow sweet, while other candidates were thought likely to rock the boat. "And always keep ahold of nurse / For fear of finding something worse". Alansplodge (talk) 14:01, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Purely for my own amusement, a look at List of prime ministers of Italy shows that there were 29 premiers of that country during Kekkonen's tenure :-) Alansplodge (talk) 14:30, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Consistent genuine popular support" is a tough thing to gauge. Did Fidel Castro have consistent genuine popular support? Did William Lyon Mackenzie King? --jpgordon^{𝄢𝄆 𝄐𝄇} 17:19, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Mackenzie King's Liberal Party was defeated rather badly in the 1930 election. They did regain control in 1935 and for the next three elections, but I wouldn't call their support "consistent". He served during World War II, and few of the major world democracies changed leadership during the war itself once things got going. It probably was a special case, and King's fortunes waxed and waned as any does. --Jayron 32 17:37, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Lee Kuan Yew may be a candidate, with 8 consecutive election wins and 31 continuous years as Prime Minister of Singapore (after which he stepped down, though he continued in lesser ministerial offices for a further 25 years). {The poster formerly known as 87.81.230.195} 2.123.25.153 (talk) 19:27, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In Australia, the winner by a long way is Sir Thomas Playford IV, who was Premier of South Australia for over 26 years continuously (1938-1965) and led his party to 8 election victories on the trot, failing on the 9th. -- Jack of Oz ^{[pleasantries]} 22:51, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Of course, if you really want to look for politicians popular enough to be elected many times, you want to consider lower levels of government. Hazel McCallion in Mississauga comes to mind, and Édouard Herriot in Lyon, France. (Hmm, his infobox needs fixing.) But they were excluded by the terms of the question, so I don't need to have posted this. --174.89.49.204 (talk) 00:22, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In terms of U.S. governors, Terry Branstad has the longest service, but did his in two stints, as did most of the people on the 50 longest serving governors in U.S. history. The longest consecutive streak with no breaks seems to belong to Arthur Fenner of Rhode Island and Albert Ritchie of Maryland, each with 15+ years of service in a row. Branstad actually beats that with a 16 year run in his first stint, followed by a 6 year run later on. --Jayron 32 15:54, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What is considered best by mainstream economists deflation (NOT hyperdeflation) or Hyperinflation?

What is considered best by mainstream economists deflation (NOT hyperdeflation) or Hyperinflation? 2804:7F2:594:4C46:1A9:6F7A:B358:2544 (talk) 16:05, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Neither are desirable, as both cause significant economic disruption. Deflation encourages hoarding and discourages consumer spending, while hyperinflation devalues the currency itself. It's kind of like asking whether you want to die by firing squad or guillotine - you're still gonna be dead either way. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 16:08, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah basically this. Both are bad. Deflation might be "less bad" in the short term but they're both going to wreck your economy. I suppose if the question is "which is easier to correct" a better answer might be forthcoming, though it probably depends on the degree of deflation versus the degree of hyperinflation, how you define those terms, and the economic controls available to the relevant economy. 199.66.69.67 (talk) 16:14, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I’m going to favor deflation, for the simple reason that it can be just a fraction of a percent drop in prices, whereas hyperinflation is — by definition —- very large movements. Now, if you want to compare “equal” price movements, then inflation is the one we know how to beat into submission. DOR (HK) (talk) 18:29, 17 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Deflation is considered terrible because it makes everyone stop spending money. Economic policymakers tend to aim for around 2% annual inflation from what I hear. 2602:24A:DE47:BB20:50DE:F402:42A6:A17D (talk) 14:57, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Consider this: after the Lost Decade (Japan), which is generally considered the worst and longest case of deflation in the past 100 years, Japan was basically fine -- a wealthy society with a good democracy and a stable society. But basically every country that has faced hyperinflation in the past 100 years, society has been wrecked. --M @r ē ino 16:26, 18 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Good, solid point. It helps (a lot) if your deflating economy also has a contracting labor force.DOR (HK) (talk) 01:37, 19 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]