2020 Austrian Presidential Elections

[A Former User]

Presidential elections in Austria are scheduled for the 3rd of November. The candidates standing are below:

1. Alexander van der Bellen
   
   The incumbent Federal President Alexander van der Bellen is on the center-left, supporting a gradual transition to socialism occurring over 30 years. However, his administration has been criticized for an inability to maintain the balance between the federal and state governments, as well as for an inability to deal with foreign affairs.

2. Sebastian Kurz
   
   Sebastian Kurz, the current vice-chancellor, is a centrist politician, supporting mild decentralization but also a crackdown on immigration as to, according to his manifesto, protect the liberal and democratic virtues of Austria. However, he is socially progressive, supporting same-sex marriage and abortion, and is an open homosexual.

3. Norbert Hofer
   
   Norbert Hofer is an open fascist, supporting an absolute monarchy and the creation of a social hierarchy, as well as a totalitarian state that demands political participation of its people. He argues that immigrants should be rounded up and deported or killed, and that interracial marriage be banned.

He also wishes to ban all religious except for Roman Catholicism, strengthen corporatist institutions, and make Austria unitary.

[A Former User]

Polling; Alexander van der Bellen replaced with Werner Kogler; Norbert Hofer replaced with Heinz-Christian Strache

As a result of his insanity, which is, according to doctors, unlikely to resolve by the election, the Federal President Alexander van der Bellen has been pulled from the ballot by the Nationalrat, replaced with legislator Werner Kogler.

In terms of politics, the two hold relatively similar views, believing in a gradual transition to socialism. However, Kogler is further to the left than van der Bellen, believing that utilities and other essential services must be collectivized immediately.

Kogler is likely to receive most of van der Bellen's voters; however, some may look to the two other candidates as a result of his alienating policies.

In addition, Hofer, after being arrested yesterday for "inciting violence" in a mostly-unknown event, has been stripped of his membership in the "ruling" class of Austria, made up of those with proficiency in the areas of law, political science, and other related subjects, by the State Council of the Ministry of the Republic, which argued that he "lacked the capacity to govern effectively or even sanely." He was replaced by Heinz-Christian Strache afterwards. Strache is fortunately not a fascist; however, many have argued that he is, as a result of his support for an "Inimican-style monarchy," for a bizarre form of "syndicalism" that, while retaining some socialist characteristics, involves "unyielding" obedience to the Sovereign and the nation, and for his opposition to any sort of activity that goes outside of "traditional morals."

As according to polling, overall van der Bellen/Kogler is polling the highest, at 34.2%. Kurz is second highest, polling at 32.9%. Hofer/Strache currently polls at an astonishingly low 12.1%, with the remainder being undecided.

However, based on statistics from past elections, about 3-5% of van der Bellen's support will likely go to Kurz as a result of Kogler's policies on nationalization, thus leaving Kurz in the lead. However, Strache, being one of the more moderate on the Austrian right, may attract some of Kurz's supporters, perhaps up to even 5% of them, especially when considered that he will be facing a parliament almost completely opposed to him on social issues. At the same time, Kogler may be able to attract those on the left who regularly abstain in elections, which could make up for what he likely will lose to Kurz.

Geographically, Kogler/van der Bellen poll best in the states of Vienna, Carinthia, and Burgenland; as for Kurz, his polling is most concentrated in Tyrol, Salzburg, and Vorarlberg. Strache/Hofer do best in Styria. The remainder of states are as of now polling roughly equally for each candidate.

There are, however, a number of surprising things here. Kogler and van der Bellen's polling is regular for socialist candidates, to whom these states are attracted to as a result of their large number of industrial and agricultural workers; Kurz's polling, in all but Vorarlberg, is the same for similar reasons, largely because of the wish for decentralization in these states. Vorarlberg is an anomaly; it usually goes to a liberal candidate. In the absence of one, however, the district was forced to turn to the next best option, which promised greater decentralization without the damaging of wealth - Kurz.

Strache and Hofer's polling is so consistent with that of previous elections that it is hardly even important. The state of Styria has long been a hotbed of radicalism, being more polarized than any other. The mix of far left and right that Strache appears to present, as such, is popular.

[A Former User]

Polling: Kogler's adoption of syndicalist principles, Kurz's "New Economic Course" shake race

Massive changes in policy on the behalf of two candidates have entirely changed the dynamics of the presidential race. Kogler's move to the left, for example, has siphoned voters from more radical sectors of society, causing his polling to rise by almost ten percent, largely taken from newly energized voters as well as from Strache, who many abandoned as a result of his support for authoritarianism, most shockingly a program in which marriages would be forced to fit extreme regulations, which the vast majority in Austria do not meet, or face immediate dissolution.

Kurz, too, has gained support. With a new economic policy, taken in large part from the Catholic social teaching, he has attracted a large section of the population that had previously refused to vote for him as a result of his seeming support for the "Austrian socialist" economic system.

Strache, however, has seen his polling reduce almost to zero. He currently sits at a shockingly low 0,1% of support, even as 95% of voters, compared to 79% of voters, are now decided.

Kogler now sits at 47,8% support, Kurz at 47,1%, and Strache, as stated before, at 0,1%.

Kogler has been endorsed by a number of newly formed parties, most prominently the Communist, Socialist, and Green Parties, the three parties that can be considered pro-socialist.

Kurz, on the other hand, has been endorsed by the Austrian People's Party, his own party "Our Austria," and most interestingly the Social Democratic Movement, which refused to endorsed Kogler as a result of his "extremism."

No one has endorsed Strache - national conservative parties have encouraged their supporters to abstent.

Kogler's support remains most concentrated in Vienna; however, throughout much of the country he has seen a massive rise, especially in Styria, which now appears to have a plurality in support of him. However, in the states of Carinthia and Burgenland, historic leftist strongholds, while he has continued to hold a majority, he remains stagnant, likely as a result of the Social Democratic Movement's endorsement of Kurz.

Kurz has experienced a similar rise, including in his strongholds of Tyrol, Salzburg, and Vorarlberg, and is approaching Kogler in Burgenland. Given that he has not experienced the same stagnation as Kogler anywhere in Austria, it is quite possible that he will win the presidency.

Strache, however, has dramatically plummeted. As news of his bizarre views on marriage spread, many of his most loyal supporters disavowed him, in all states he is polling near zero. With others now carrying more reasonable variations on his policies, few see any reason ever to return to supporting him.

[A Former User]

Austrian Presidential Debate

Cut screen to white room. The three candidates sit around a small black table. A gong sounds.

MODERATOR: Breaking with normal tradition, this debate will be without topic and moderation, save for in extreme circumstances. Candidates will initially speak in the order of polling: that is, Assemblymember Werner Kogler, then the Acting Chancellor Sebastian Kurz, and finally Assemblymember Heinz-Christian Strache. You may begin.

WK: Good day to all. Austria stands on a precipice, between normalcy and fascism. We cannot choose the latter; we must choose the former. We must reject the principles of hierarchy, of traditionalism, and of disgusting, extremist, and exclusive nationalism, and choose those of equality, progressivism, and internationalism. We must discard the so-called meritocratic class system that exists in Austria, must discard the oppressive concept of "class collaborationism," and replace them both with egalitarianism and pure democracy. Down with fascism; glory to socialism.

SK: Austria must take the middle path, between the centralizing ideology of fascism and the decentralizing ideology of socialism. Power must be exercised freely from below - from the family, the community, the small business - the organic components of society - in the form of organizations - the professional body, the national bodies, and so and so forth. The state must ensure that power remains with these bodies; that it is never usurped by businessmen, bureaucrats, or politicians. It must allow and aid the creation of an Austria for all, truly all.

HCS: Nonsense appears to be everywhere today. Tell me, Assemblymember Kogler - tell me, why are traditionalism and hierarchy so terrible? They maintain discipline; they maintain the stability and unity of the nation; they allow for the survival of civilization itself. The democracy, the freedom that you speak of - they are but farces. They would leave us slaves of our desire, irrational, unthinking, animals. Certainly, I, too, advocate for a socialism of sorts; but it would be an expression of the national force, under the kind but authoritarian rule of a strong ruler. You, however, argue for a disorganized socialism that would leave us all monkeys, flinging our filth, our excrement, everywhere, as the poor Federal President did. As for the Acting Chancellor,
he spouts even more nonsense. I agree with him, of course, on most things; but he forgets the need for the state. The state, the expression of the constant national force, is necessary to balance the expression of these organic components, which otherwise would be here and there. However, his interests appear to work against him. He is a degenerate, one who engages in vulgar intercourse without purpose, one who rebels against the natural order, and yet he is for the natural order, that would exterminate him without any feeling. Or perhaps that is what he wants, to be exterminated, for he and his under-human ilk do not deserve to live, to suck upon the healthy like parasites. Given his apparent attitude toward his own disorder and degeneracy, however, this is likely untrue. The man wishes to normalize his terrible behavior, to make it accepted. Well, that will never be so! The patriots, the sane of Austria will never let it be so, will never let this degeneracy leach into our glorious society, our glorious civilization! One day, we will exterminate you all like the cockroaches you are!

SK: I don't believe that I agree with you on a single thing. Your ideology is vile; it is pure evil. I do not wish for people to die like you do, nor do I accept the bizarre hierarchy that you are attempting to push on your intended victims, the people of Austria. You have your slogan - work, family, fatherland, I believe; taken directly from the Gaulois fascists. Certainly, work is respectable, and should be a major consideration of any state; the family and the fatherland too. But you take it to a disgusting level, as those fascists did, and praise the unhealthy paternalism that exists in all three of these domains. No, all involved in work should have at the very least some say in it; all in the family should have some degree of control over its dynamics; and all in the fatherland should be involved in its governance. As for the latter part of the statement, all I can say is that you are the sickest man I have ever met. Families, which I assume you are referring to, can come in many, many forms. One can several children, or one child; one can have two male parents, two female parents, or two who are non-binary, a man and a woman, a man and a non-binary individual, one parent of any gender, and so on and so forth. It does not affect the basic purpose or the dynamic of the family; does not affect the rest of society. Regarding your last sentence; if it was your intention to make a pun, it certainly was not funny.

WK: There is a degree of hypocrisy here; the family is inherently a paternalistic structure. The parents ultimately have control over their children, and can limit their freedom quite greatly. You cannot claim to oppose paternalism while at the same time supporting the family, the most prevalent paternalistic institution of all. There must be more regulation regarding this; we must have more education on this subject. Individuals should understand how to parent; they should understand that they must take their children's aspirations at least partially into account, should understand that they can never gain total obedience, should understand, perhaps first and foremost, that their child is a living, breathing, human with thoughts and desires of its own.

HCS: Disgusting! You are all degenerates; the family is one man, one woman, and children. The man shelters the woman and cares for her; in return, she is entirely obedient to him. The woman, in turn, does the same for her children; they are also totally obedient to her. This is the natural relationship; it cannot be overturned, must be preserved perfectly. Whoever suggests otherwise should be put to death. In addition, you, Chancellor Kurz, do not appear to have any sense of humor. When I was younger, people had a backbone; they would laugh in spite of the insulting connotations. Nowadays, however, people are so scared to be insulted; they want to be right all the time; they believe themselves to be perfect in every way. Well, you are a perversion; you are a degenerate; you are the epitome of imperfection, the total opposite of perfection; you are a parasite, and must be put to death.

M: I would like to remind the participants that incitement of violence is illegal.

HCS: Violence is often necessary. Mold poisons those near it, and thus must be gotten rid of; the same must be done with degenerates, who threaten to poison and make sick our glorious society and civilization.

SK: What is degeneracy, in your opinion? I don't often think about it; but I would say that it includes things closer to pedophilia and necrophilia than what you are suggesting. Degeneracy is exploitative behavior that physically harms another or oneself. It is a sickness of sorts; however, as a sickness, it must be treated. However, I know that this will have no effect on your terrible opinions; it seems that you firmly believe that degeneracy is anything you don't like. I actually am quite sad for you; all of these things that you hate live rent-free in your mind, and you are forced to live through them every waking moment....no, every moment - they likely feature in your dreams as well. I couldn't imagine living in such a way; it would be a Hell of sorts. And yes - you are partially right - it wasn't as funny as it could have been because you were comparing me to vermin and threatening to kill me. But then again, it wasn't a good pun in the first place. Try to do better next time.

WK: Quite honestly, I didn't expect to see such a sickening display of ultra-conservatism. I agree completely with the Acting Chancellor on this. But again, I must ask to the Chancellor, how can you support the family while rejecting paternalism?

SK: On the family, I have views similar to yours. Children must be taken into account; they must have a valued voice within the family. Certainly, the parents do have a responsibility to impart the basic values of citizenship to their children, as well as to aid their way to maturity; but this cannot be done in an overly...dictatorial way, so to speak.

WK: What are these "basic values of citizenship?" Hatred of refugees? Parents exist only to allow children to mature; they should not be forcing their own principles on the impressionable. To do so would be manipulation, and thus would be unethical and disgusting. As I said before, while children are not fully mature, they remain independent. As we protect the autonomy of adults, so should we children. In addition, I wonder if you believe that these principles should be applied to the economy and to politics. I, for one, do not. Individuals are capable of making sane and rational decisions in both fields; at the same time, they better than anyone else know the needs of themselves as well as their own communities. It is, as such, at least from my view, better to leave these matters to them and them alone.

SK: Basic values of citizenship include responsibility and respect for other views, among others. In essence, the basic tenets of liberal democracy. As for my position on refugees, I do not understand why you believe I hate them. They deserve compassion; but we cannot allow them to do as they wish. Many of them come from backward countries where it is perfectly okay, for example, to rape women. In other cases, they are politically crazy, for lack of other words. Look at these people from Eastern Haane. Their country has imploded; I am not even sure whether it remains viable as a state anymore. Should we really allow these people to cause havoc? We must limit their numbers, and admit only those in dire need. However, we must also treat the root problem - the situations that create refugees in the first place. We must encourage the stability and wellbeing of other European states. As for the economy, that is true, and I agree with it. However, we cannot allow for total democracy in this subject. While workers do deserve to have influence over their work, they should not be able to tamper with its overall goal, set by the initiator of the work - the owner of the business in question. As for politics, no, not at all.

WK: Refugees are people. They deserve basic rights. We must show compassion to them, and we must treat them as we would our own citizens. They are not in some way permanently flawed; they are sick, so to speak, and must be healed, made well again, something which we as a nation are perfectly capable of doing. You are sick for suggesting the opposite - that these people are somehow less than human, that they are internally, permanently flawed. You seem to think the same for non-business owners - they are somehow so stupid as to change the very purpose of a given project, stupid enough to need control from above. They are not, and it is plain for all to see. Workers can manage their own affairs. But again, we must continue discussing the family. Let us not go off track.

HCS: You are all sick. Refugees should not be admitted; they would permanently damage our glorious culture. We have already fallen down a hole of decadency and degeneracy; how worse would it become if we were to allow outsiders in? They must not be allowed in; those within must be expelled. At the same time, I cannot comprehend your opinions regarding paternalism. Paternalism is the basis on which all society has been formed. People desire order, desire to be controlled, for without order and control, they become animals, as I said before. This is true for the family, for the business, and for politics.

WK: I admit that I wish to see the abolition of the family as it is. It is an unhealthy, exploitative structure; it must be replaced with something better. I do not know the details of what is to come, for it has not yet come; it will develop as we take apart the other exploitative structures of capitalism. You may call me sick, a degenerate, disgusting, but that does not matter. The family is an obstruction to true social justice, it must be removed.

SK: If this is what your equality is, then I am fine being called a paternalist. In my opinion, the parent and the business owner are guiding hands; they do not coerce, do not force, but simply guide. Without them, there is a greater looseness; society will not totally collapse, but it will become much more disordered.

WK: So! You adopt the disgusting rhetoric of Strache!

SK: No. Certainly not. You stand for total disorder, he stands for total order; I stand between. He stands for centralization, you for decentralization, I stand between. We must adopt a moderate ideology, one able to balance the interests of all, of the family and the community and the small business, but also of the nation as a whole, and so and so forth.

WK: How might this balance be effected? By a strongman leader, all-powerful, all-knowing? I wouldn't be surprised if it were, given the amount of fascist rhetoric you have coopted.

SK: The balance will be effected through intermediatory bodies, between the state and the people. In the economy, these will be shared between owners and workers, solving disputes between the two, uniting them in solidarity, providing for their general welfare; with the families, they will serve a similar role, between parents and children. I have not coopted any fascist rhetoric - I walk in the tradition of progressive corporatism, which they coopted. I have been questioned enough - now I will question you. What would be the form your syndicates take? I have described the form my guilds, my associations will; why don't you do the same.

HCS: Again, again, again. Shut up! I cannot hear more of this!

WK: The syndicates will be composed of workplaces, democratically governed. All will be discussed at the bottom; solutions will rise through a number of nested councils before reaching the top. The final solution will descend again, approved by all councils below it. Simple, unlike your byzantine system.

HCS: You took this from me.

WK: I did not. You promoted a distorted version of it, involving total obedience to an autocratic, allpowerful leader. Your version was perverted and evil; mine serves all democratically.

HCS: Enough! Enough! Enough! You all! All of you are insane! Insane! Insane! You have taken all this from us! You! Kurz! You took your economics from Hofer, poor Hofer, who was taken away...You! Kogler! You took it from me! And you will pay!

Strache brandishes a pocket knife

M: Now, now! Let us not get too hasty!

BACKGROUND: Turn it off! Turn it off! TURN IT OFF!

Feed cuts to black

[A Former User]

Exit Polling: Kurz, Kogler neck and neck

After a disastrous debate, during which former candidate Heinz-Christian Strache was arrested and disqualified from the election for inciting violence and attempting to murder another, voter apathy continued to rise. Many were disappointed with the general performance of the candidates, who, during the extremely short duration of the debate, appeared unable to concentrate on a single topic, moving back and forth. At the same time, they appeared all too eager to attack rather than to explain their policies, which often changed within the span of five minutes. For example, Kogler initially claimed to support the family before claiming to wish to abolish it, while Kurz claimed to oppose "paternalism" before only ten minutes later speaking strongly for it. Worst of all was Strache, who claimed that hierarchy was necessary, only seconds later advocating for socialism.

"They all seemed quite drunk...I will abstain," said an individual who wishes to remain anonymous.

According to current exit polls, an average of 28% of voters have abstented; the remainder appears to be split almost equally between Kurz and Kogler, now the only two candidates standing.

Polling firm	Kurz	Kogler	Abstent
Unique Research	35,6	36,4	28
Market	34	33	33
Research Affairs	38	39	23
Peter Hajek	37	35	28

Current Exit Polls

Polls across Austria are soon to close; results will be published in due time.

[A Former User]

FINAL RESULTS: 05/11/20

Results were not reported by state; as such, only the national vote will be given.

38,7% - Kogler
37,9% - Kurz
23,4% - Abstain

Assemblymember Werner Kogler is thus to be the next President. Due to the extraordinary circumstances surrounding this election, he is to be inaugurated on the 7th of November.