Glad to see the election thread that Ehud and Ellis started is continuing. I have a few thoughts about the latest posts.

Regarding Siegfried Knittel’s interesting post about the differences between Koike and Abe’s thinking on economics, it is true that Koike is a follower of former PM Koizumi. However, we should not exaggerate the relationship between the two. Koike was a Diet member long before Koizumi became PM. She was first elected as a member of the Nihon Shintou Party back in 1993 (same district as Doi Takako). So while she was a Koizumi “assassin” in 2005 (and from a US perspective, a bit of a carpet-bagger, moving as she did from her previous election district in Kansai to Tokyo), she cannot be called one of the “Koizumi children” (those elected for the first time on Koizumi’s coat tails). While Koike maybe neo-liberal in her economic outlook, it’s not clear why that would lead her to raise taxes, as neoliberals generally oppose tax increases. Keep in mind that throughout his term Koizumi consistently refused to raise the consumption tax, and obviously Koike is running on a platform that calls for freezing the consumption tax increase until the economy has “recovered.”

Gill Steel gave a far better answer to Nick Fraser’s question about the parties’ appeals to young voters than I could ever give. Nonetheless, let me add two small observations. First, various political parties are making campaign promises that could be aimed at appealing to younger voters. Abe and the LDP in their election manifesto are calling for measures to reduce the costs of college tuition and the burdens of college loans, and to reduce the costs of private high school tuition. Meanwhile, Komeito is calling for making private high school tuition free, and reducing university tuition burdens. The CDP is also calling for making high school tuition free, and for reducing the costs of university education. While these policy promises might constitute an appeal to youth voters, they could also be considered an appeal to their parents, who bear most of the financial burden of university education in Japan (the bigger focus in the LDP manifesto is on making daycare free).

Second, Nick Fraser's question made me realize that in all my years teaching and being present on Japanese university campuses, I don’t ever once recall seeing a politician’s sound truck or rally on a college campus in Japan. I don’t know this to be a fact, but I suspect the draconian election law that limits political speech, especially during campaigns, may place limits on college campus visits. By contrast, once a leading Labor Party politician (then the Deputy Defense Minister) all but invited himself to my university class in Norway to give a speech during election time.

Finally, I am gratified to learn from Ian Neary and Robert Cerina that my back of the envelope guess about how the LDP would do in the election is not too far off from what appears to be a far more rigorous polling methodology. Given recent trends in polling I think the lower end of my previous estimate of LDP losses is more likely now. That said, I find it hard to believe that the LDP would receive 47% of the PR vote. That is far beyond where they are polling now, in the low 30s, and far beyond what they have ever received (they have topped out in the mid 30% range in 2014). The district vote also seems a bit high, as the LDP, combined with Komeito, has never topped 50%. Certainly, if the LDP does get this share of the vote, they would likely be expanding, not shrinking, their majority.

Best Regards,

Paul