To install click the Add extension button. That's it.

The source code for the WIKI 2 extension is being checked by specialists of the Mozilla Foundation, Google, and Apple. You could also do it yourself at any point in time.

4,5
Kelly Slayton
Congratulations on this excellent venture… what a great idea!
Alexander Grigorievskiy
I use WIKI 2 every day and almost forgot how the original Wikipedia looks like.
Live Statistics
English Articles
Improved in 24 Hours
Added in 24 Hours
Languages
Recent
Show all languages
What we do. Every page goes through several hundred of perfecting techniques; in live mode. Quite the same Wikipedia. Just better.
.
Leo
Newton
Brights
Milds

2010 South Korean local elections

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

2010 South Korean local elections

← 2006 2 June 2010 2014 →

All 16 seats of Metropolitan Mayors and Governors
(All 3,991 seats of Provincial and Municipal leaders and Assemblies)
  First party Second party
 
Leader Chung Sye-kyun Chung Mong-joon
Party Democratic Grand National
Last election 3 seats
(1,080 seats)
12 seats
(2,345 seats)
Seats won 7
(1,484)
6
(1,623)
Seat change Increase4
Increase(404)
Decrease6
Decrease(722)

  Third party Fourth party
 
Leader Lee Hoi-chang Kang Gi-gap
Party Advancement Unification Democratic Labor
Last election -
(-)
0 seats
(81 seats)
Seats won 1
(172)
0
(142)
Seat change Increase1
Increase(172)
-
Increase(61)

Left top: Results of metropolitan mayoral and gubernatorial elections
Right top: Results of municipal mayoral elections
Left bottom: Results of provincial legislative elections
Right top: Results of municipal legislative elections
   GNP    DP    LFP    DLP    CKP
   NPP    PFU    PPP    FU    PPU    Ind.

The 5th local elections were held in South Korea on 2 June 2010.[1] The voter turnout reached 54.4%, the highest in 15 years.[2]

YouTube Encyclopedic

  • 1/1
    Views:
    2 773 573
  • Terrorism, War, and Bush 43: Crash Course US History #46

Transcription

Hi, I’m John Green, this is CrashCourse U.S. history and today we’ve done it! WE’VE FINALLY REACHED THE 21st CENTURY! Today, we boldly go where no history course has gone before, because your teacher ran out of time and never made it to the present. Also, if you’re preparing for the AP test it’s unlikely that today’s video will be helpful to you because, you know, they never get to this stuff. Mr. Green, Mr. Green? Awesome, free period. Yeah, Me From the Past, there’s no such thing as a free period. There’s only time, and how you choose to use it. Also, Me From the Past, we’re in your future, hold on I’ve got to take this stuff off it’s hard to take me seriously with that. We’re in the future for you which means that you are learning important things about the you who does not yet exist. You know about Lady GaGa, Kanye and Kim, Bieber, well you’re not going to find out about any of those things because this is a history class, but it’s still going to be interesting. INTRO So the presidency of George W. Bush may not end up on your AP exam, but it’s very important when it comes to understanding the United States that we live in today The controversy starts with the 2000 Election. Democratic presidential candidate Al “I invented the Internet” Gore was sitting Vice President, and he asked Bill Clinton not to campaign much because a lot of voters kind of hated Bill Clinton. The republican candidate was George W. Bush, governor of Texas and unlike his father a reasonably authentic Texan. You know, as people from Connecticut go. Bush was a former oil guy and baseball team owner and he was running as a Compassionate Conservative, which meant he was organizing a coalition of religious people and fiscal conservatives. And that turned out to be a very effective coalition and George W Bush got a lot of votes. He did not however get as many votes as Al Gore. But as you’ll no doubt remember from earlier in Crash Course US History, in the United States presidential elections are not decided by popular vote. They are decided by the Electoral College. So the election was incredibly close. It solidified the Red-Blue divide that has become a trope for politicians since. And in the end Gore won the popular vote by about 500,000 votes. However, Al Gore did not have the necessary electoral votes to become president. Unless he won Florida. Did he win Florida? I don’t even want to go there… In Florida the vote was ridiculously close, but George W Bush had a gigantic advantage which is that his brother, Jeb Bush, was the governor of Florida. So when it came time to certify the election Jeb was like, “Yeah. My brother won. No big deal.” But then the Gore campaign sued to have a recount by hand which is allowed under Florida law. But then Bush’s lawyers asked the Supreme Court to intervene and they did. Their decision in Bush v. Gore remains rather controversial. They ruled that the recount should be stopped, interfering with a state law and also a state’s electoral process, which is a weird decision for strict constructionists to make. However, one of the strong points of the United States these past couple centuries has been that sometimes we have the opportunity to go to war over whether this person or that person should be president and we chose not to. So regardless of whether you think the recount should have gone on, or George W Bush should have been elected, he was, and he set to work implementing his campaign promises, including working on a missile defence system that was very similar to Star Wars. And that was Ronald Reagan’s Star Wars, not George Lucas’ Star Wars. Man if we could get a federally funded new Star Wars trilogy that doesn’t suck that would be awesome. Anyway, in the first 100 days of his presidency Bush also barred federal funding for stem cell research, and he supported oil drilling in the Arctic National Wildlife Refuge. And speaking of environmental policy, the Bush administration announced that it would not abide by the 1997 Kyoto Protocol on carbon emissions and that didn’t go over well with environmentalists in the U.S. or in all of these green parts of not-America because they were like, “You guys made all the carbon.” To which we said, “This is America.” Libertage Bush also attempted education reform with the No Child Left Behind Act, which mandated that states implement “rigorous” standards and testing regimes to prove that those standards were being met. The No Child Left Behind Act is especially controversial with teachers who are great friends of Crash Course US History so we will say nothing more. Most importantly, George W Bush pushed through the largest tax cut in American history in 2001. Claiming that putting more money in Americans’ pockets would stimulate growth in an economy that had stumbled after the bursting of the dot-com bubble in 2000. Oh, it’s time for the Mystery Document? The rules here are simple. I guess the author of the Mystery Document, I either get it right, or I get shocked with the shock pen. Alright, what have we got here today. I’ve got a feeling it’s going to be a sad one. “It was a beautiful fall day, with a crisp, blue sky. I was coming in to work late that day; I guess I didn’t have first period class. It was only the second or third day of school. When I emerged from the subway, Union Square was strangely quiet, which only added to the beauty of the day. People were standing still, which is weird in New York under any circumstances, and looking down University Place towards lower Manhattan. Before I even looked I asked a passerby what had happened. She, or he, I really don’t remember, said that a plane had crashed into the Trade Center. Then I looked and saw the smoke coming billo wing out of the South Tower. I thought it was an accident, but I knew that this was not going to be an easy day. Well it’s obviously someone who was in New York City on September 11, 2001, but that only narrows it down to like 10 million people. However, I happen to know that it is Crash Course historian and my high school history teacher Raoul Meyer who wrote that account. This is the saddest I have ever been not to be shocked. So whether George Bush’s domestic policy would have worked is up for debate, but the events of September 11, 2001 ensured that foreign policy would dominate any discussion of the opening decade of the 21st century. That morning terrorists affiliated with al Qaeda hijacked 4 airliners. Two planes were flown into Manhattan’s World Trade Center, a third was crashed into the Pentagon in Washington and a fourth, also headed for Washington DC crashed in Pennsylvania when passengers overpowered the hijackers. Almost 3,000 people died including almost 400 policemen and firefighters. As Americans rushed to help in the search for survivors and to rebuild a devastated city, a shared sense of trauma and a desire to show resolve really did bring the country together. President Bush’s popularity soared in the wake of the attacks. In a speech on September 20, the president told Americans watching on television that the terrorists had targeted America “Because we love freedom […]. And they hate freedom.” This is another critical moment in American history where the definition of freedom is being reimagined. And we were reminded in the wake of September 11th that one of the central things that government does to keep us free is to keep us safe. But at the same time ensuring our safety sometimes means impinging upon our freedoms. And the question of how to keep America safe while also preserving our civil liberties is one of the central questions of the 21st century. At any rate, in the September 20th speech, the president announced a new guiding principle in foreign policy that became known as the Bush Doctrine. America would go to war with terrorism making no distinction between the terrorists and nations that harbored them. Bush laid out the terms for the world that night: “Either you are with us or you are with the terrorists.” But that dichotomy of course would prove to be a bit of an oversimplification. So on October 7, the United States launched its first airstrikes on Afghanistan, which at the time was ruled by a group of Islamic fundamentalists called the Taliban who were protecting Osama bin Laden, al Qaeda’s leader. This was followed by American ground troops supporting the anti-Taliban Northern Alliance in chasing out the Taliban and setting up a new Afghan government that was friendly to the United States. This new government did undo many of the worst Taliban policies, for instance allowing women and girls to go to school, and even to serve in the parliament. More women than girls in the parliament naturally. But by 2007 the Taliban was beginning to make a comeback and although fewer than 100 Americans died in the initial phase of the war, a sizeable force remained and in the ensuing 12 years the number of Americans killed would continue to rise. And then, by January 2002, Bush had expanded the scope of the Global War on Terror by proclaiming that Iran, Iraq and North Korea were an “axis of evil” that harbored terrorists, even though none of those nations had direct ties to the September 11 attacks. The ultimate goal of Bush Doctrine was to make the world safe for freedom and also to spread it and freedom was defined as consisting of political democracy, free expression, religious toleration, free trade and free markets. These freedoms, Bush said, were, “right and true for every person, in every society”. And there’s no question that the Saddam Hussein led Iraq of 2003 was not, by any of those definitions, free. But the 2003 invasion of Iraq by the United States was predicated on two ideas. First, that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction - chemical and biological weapons that they were refusing to give up. And second, that there was, or at least may have been, a link between Saddam Hussein's Iraq and the Al Qaeda attacks of 9-11. So in March 2003 the United States, Britain, and a coalition of other countries, invaded Iraq. Within a month Baghdad was captured, Saddam Hussein was ousted, Iraq created a new government that was more democratic than Saddam’s dictatorship, and then descended into sectarian chaos. After Baghdad fell, President Bush declared the end of major combat operations in Iraq, but troops soon found themselves trying to manage an increasingly organized insurgency that featured attacks and bombings. And by 2006 American intelligence analysts concluded that Iraq had become a haven for Islamist terrorists, which it hadn’t been, before the invasion. In fact, Saddam Hussein’s socialist government, while it occasionally called upon religion to unify people against an enemy, was pretty secular. Although fewer than 200 Americans had died in the initial assaults, by the end of 2006, more than 3,000 American soldiers had been killed and another 20,000 wounded. Hundreds of thousands of Iraqis had died in the conflict and the costs of the war which were promised to be no more than $60 billion had ballooned to $200 billion dollars. So that, and we try really hard here at Crash Course to be objective was a bit of a disaster. But let’s now go back to the domestic side of things and jump back in time to the passage of the USA PATRIOT act. Which believe it or not is an acronym for the Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism act of 2001. Oh, Congress you don’t pass many laws these days but when you do… mmhm…. there’s some winners. The PATRIOT act gave the government unprecedented law enforcement powers to combat domestic terrorism including the ability to wiretap and spy on Americans. At least 5000 people connected to the Middle East were called in for questioning and more than 1200 were arrested, many held for months without any charge. The administration also set up a camp for accused terrorists in Guantanamo Bay, in Cuba, but not the fun kind of camp, the prison kind, it housed more than 700 suspects. The president also authorized the National Security Agency to listen in to telephone conversations without first obtaining a warrant, the so-called warrantless wiretapping. In 2013 Americans learned that NSA surveillance has of course gone much farther than this with surveillance programs like PRISM which sounds like it’s out of an Orwell novel - I mean both like the name and the actual thing it refers to. Meredith would like us to point out that Prism is also the name of a Katy Perry album proving that we here at Crash Course are young and hip and with it. Who is Katy Perry? Oh right, she has that song in Madagascar 3. Sorry, I have little kids. The Supreme Court eventually limited the executive branch’s power and ruled that enemy combatants do have some procedural rights. Congress also banned the use of torture in a 2005 defense appropriations bill sponsored by Republican John McCain who himself had been a victim of torture in Vietnam. But the Defense Department did condone the continued use of so-called “enhanced interrogation techniques” like waterboarding. Which most countries do consider torture. But George W Bush won re-election in 2004, defeating the surprisingly weak John Kerry, who was characterized as a “waffler” on a number of issues including the Iraq war. Kerry’s history as a Vietnam protester and also terrible windsurfer probably didn’t help him much. Bush’s victory is still a bit surprising to historians admittedly at that moment the Iraq war seemed to be going pretty well. But during Bush’s first term, the economy, which is usually what really drives voters, wasn’t that great at all. A recession began during 2001 and the September 11 attacks made it much worse. And while the GDP did begin to grow again relatively quickly, employment didn’t recover, hence all the description of it as a “jobless recovery.” 90% of the jobs lost in the 2001-2002 recession were in manufacturing, continuing a trend that we had been seeing for 30 years. The number of steelworkers dropped from 520,000 in 1970 to 120,000 in 2004. And in his first term George W Bush actually became the first president since Herbert Hoover to oversee a net loss of jobs. Now I want to be clear that that’s not necessarily his fault as I have said many times before - economics are complicated. And presidents do not decide whether economies grow. But at any rate George W Bush was re-elected and went on to have an extremely controversial second term. Let’s go to the thoughtbubble. In 2005 several events undermined the public’s confidence in the Bush administration. First, Vice President Dick Cheney’s chief of staff was indicted for perjury and then House Majority Leader Tom “The Hammer” DeLay was indicted for violating campaign finance laws. Then in August 2005, Hurricane Katrina slammed into the gulf coast near New Orleans submerging much of the city, killing nearly 1500 people, and leaving thousands stranded without basic services. Disaster preparation and response was poor on the state, local, and federal levels, but the slow response of the Department of Homeland Security and Federal Emergency Management Agency was particularly noticeable as thousands of mostly African American New Orleans residents suffered without food or water. Damage to the city was estimated at around $80 billion dollars. And the Katrina disaster exposed the persistent poverty and racial divisions in the city. While the Katrina response probably contributed to the reversal of fortune for Congressional Republicans in the 2006 mid-terms, it was more likely the spike in gasoline prices that resulted from the shutting down of refining capacity in the gulf and increased demand for oil from rapidly growing China. Voters gave Democrats majorities in both houses, and Nancy Pelosi of California became the first woman Speaker of the House in American history. And then, in 2007, the country fell back into recession as a massive housing bubble began to deflate, followed by the near collapse of the American banking system in 2008. Thought Bubble, thank you once again for the tremendous downer. So, the Bush years are still in the recent past, and it’s impossible to tell just what their historical significance is without some distance. But the attacks on September 11 had far ranging effects on American foreign policy but also on the entire world. Under the leadership of George W Bush the United States began a global fight against terrorism and for freedom. But as always, what we mean by the words is evolving and there’s no question that in trying to ensure a certain kind of freedom we have undermined other kinds of freedom. We’ll get to the even messier and murkier world of the 2008 financial collapse next week. Until then, thanks for watching. Crash Course is made with the help of all these nice people and it exists because of your support through Subbable.com - a voluntary subscription service that allows you to subscribe monthly to Crash Course for the price of your choosing. There are great perks over at Subbable, but the biggest perk of all is knowing that you helped make Crash Course possible so please check it out, thank you for watching, thanks for supporting Crash Course, and as we say in my hometown, “Don’t forget to be awesome.”

Voter turnout by region

Region Electorate Turnout %
Seoul 8,211,461 4,421,491 53.8
Busan 2,849,895 1,410,809 49.5
Daegu 1,928,835 886,317 45.9
Incheon 2,096,853 1,068,735 50.9
Gwangju 1,064,913 530,688 49.8
Daejeon 1,127,547 595,718 52.9
Ulsan 838,805 462,339 55.1
Gyeonggi 8,761,840 4,538,591 51.8
Gangwon 1,190,509 742,105 62.3
North Chungcheong 1,183,811 695,977 58.8
South Chungcheong 1,595,587 902,299 56.5
North Jeolla 1,442,805 856,846 59.3
South Jeolla 1,504,902 967,573 64.3
North Gyeongsang 2,122,905 1,260,726 59.4
South Gyeongsang 2,506,393 1,550,538 61.8
Jeju 424,098 276,134 65.1
Total 38,851,159 21,166,886 54.5
Source:투표진행상황

Provincial-level elections

The ruling GNP was able to win 4 out of 7 mayoral seats but suffer by massive landslide on the gubernatorial election winning only 2 out of 9 seats. On the other hand, DP was able to capture 2 mayoral seats and swept 5 out of 9 gubernatorial seats. The LFP won Daejeon while two independent candidates won gubernatorial seats in South Gyeongsang Province and the other in Jeju Province.

Metropolitan city mayors

City Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates
Seoul Oh Se-hoon GNP 2006 Incumbent re-elected.
Gwangju Park Gwang-tae DP 2002 Incumbent retired.
New mayor elected.
DP hold.
  • Green tickY Kang Woon-tae (DP) 56.73%
  • Chung Chan-yong (PPP) 14.48%
  • Chung Yong-hwa (GNP) 14.22%
  • Chang Won-seop (DLP) 7.53%
  • Yoon Nan-sil (NPP) 5.89%
  • Cho Hong-kyu (PDP) 1.12%
Daegu Kim Bum-il GNP 2006 Incumbent re-elected.
  • Green tickY Kim Bum-il (GNP) 72.92%
  • Lee Seung-cheon (DP) 16.86%
  • Cho Myung-rae (NPP) 10.20%
Daejeon Park Sung-hyo GNP 2006 Incumbent lost.
New mayor elected.
LFP gain.
  • Green tickY Yeom Hong-cheol (LFP) 46.67%
  • Park Sung-hyo (GNP) 28.50%
  • Kim Won-woong (DP) 23.28%
  • Kim Yoon-ki (NPP) 1.53%
Busan Hur Nam-sik GNP 2004 Incumbent re-elected.
Ulsan Park Maeng-woo GNP 2002 Incumbent re-elected.
  • Green tickY Park Maeng-woo (GNP) 61.26%
  • Kim Chang-hyun (DLP) 29.25%
  • Noh Ok-hee (NPP) 9.48%
Incheon Ahn Sang-soo GNP 2002 Incumbent lost.
New mayor elected.
DP gain.

Provincial governors

Province Incumbent Party First
elected
Result Candidates
Gangwon Kim Jin-sun GNP 1998 Incumbent retired.
New governor elected.
DP gain.
Gyeonggi Kim Moon-soo GNP 2006 Incumbent re-elected.
North Gyeongsang Kim Kwan-yong GNP 2006 Incumbent re-elected.
  • Green tickY Kim Kwan-yong (GNP) 75.36%
  • Hong Eui-rak (DP) 11.82%
  • Yoo Sung-chan (PPP) 7.20%
  • Yoon Byung-tae (DLP) 5.60%
South Gyeongsang Kim Tae-ho GNP 2004 Incumbent retired.
New governor elected.
Independent gain.
North Jeolla Kim Wan-ju DP 2006 Incumbent re-elected.
  • Green tickY Kim Wan-ju (DP) 68.67%
  • Jeong Woon-chun (GNP) 18.20%
  • Ha Yeon-ho (DLP) 6.30%
  • Yeom Kyung-suk (NPP) 4.28%
  • Kim Dae-sik (PDP) 2.52%
South Jeolla Park Jun-young DP 2004 Incumbent re-elected.
  • Green tickY Park Jun-young (DP) 68.30%
  • Kim Dae-sik (GNP) 13.39%
  • Park Woong-doo (DLP) 10.90%
  • Kim Kyung-jae (PDP) 7.39%
North Chungcheong Chung Woo-taik GNP 2006 Incumbent lost.
New governor elected.
DP gain.
South Chungcheong Lee In-hwa Independent Acting Governor Lee Wan-koo resigned December 4, 2009.
New governor elected.
DP gain.
  • Green tickY Ahn Hee-jung (DP) 42.25%
  • Park Sang-don (LFP) 39.94%
  • Park Hae-chun (GNP) 17.79%
Jeju Kim Tae-hwan Independent 2006 Incumbent retired.
New governor elected.
Independent gain.
  • Green tickY Woo Geun-min (Independent) 41.40%
  • Hyun Myung-gwan (Independent) 40.55%
  • Goh Hee-bum (DP) 18.03%

Provincial-level councilors

Summary

PartyConstituencyProportionalTotal
seats
+/–
Votes%SeatsVotes%Seats
Democratic Party6,849,71735.083287,252,19035.1032360+228
Grand National Party7,755,54739.722528,229,97139.8336288–269
Liberty Forward Party681,0243.4938936,9574.53341New
Democratic Labor Party653,7153.35181,519,3647.35624+9
Participation Party364,0931.8631,374,9516.6525New
New Progressive Party185,3800.953647,3463.1303New
Future Hope Alliance123,3790.631379,7371.8423New
Party of Future Union183,3850.941159,5030.7701New
Other parties86,8350.440164,3490.8000
Independents2,644,10213.543636+22
Total19,527,177100.0068020,664,368100.0081761+28

Constituency seats

Region Seats DP GNP LFP DLP PPP NPP FHA FU Ind.
Seoul 96 74 22
Busan 42 37 5
Daegu 26 25 1
Incheon 30 21 5 1 1 2
Gwangju 19 18 1
Daejeon 19 4 15
Ulsan 19 11 6 2
Gyeonggi 112 71 36 1 1 1 2
Gangwon 38 12 20 6
North Chungcheong 28 20 3 4 1
South Chungcheong 36 12 5 19
North Jeolla 34 33 1
South Jeolla 51 45 2 4
North Gyeongsang 52 44 1 1 6
South Gyeongsang 49 2 35 4 1 2 5
Jeju 29 16 9 1 3
Total 680 328 252 38 18 3 3 1 1 36

Proportional representation seats

Region Seats GNP DP DLP LFP PPP PPC
Seoul 10 5 5
Busan 5 3 2
Daegu 3 2 1
Incheon 3 1 2
Gwangju 3 2 1
Daejeon 3 1 1 1
Ulsan 3 2 1
Gyeonggi 12 6 5 1
Gangwon 4 2 2
North Chungcheong 3 1 2
South Chungcheong 4 1 1 2
North Jeolla 4 1 2 1
South Jeolla 6 1 4 1
North Gyeongsang 6 4 1 1
South Gyeongsang 5 3 1 1
Jeju 7 3 2 1 1
Total 81 36 32 6 3 2 2

Municipal-level elections

Municipal Mayoral elections map by party
GNP DEP LFP DLP PFU FU Ind.

Municipal-level mayors

Summary

PartySeats+/–
Democratic Party92+53
Grand National Party82–73
Liberty Forward Party13New
Democratic Labor Party3+3
People's First Union1New
Party of Future Union1New
Independent36+7
Total228–2

By region

Region Mayors DP GNP LFP DLP PFU FU Ind.
Seoul 25 21 4
Busan 16 13 3
Daegu 8 6 2
Incheon 10 6 1 2 1
Gwangju 5 4 1
Daejeon 5 1 1 3
Ulsan 5 3 1 1
Gyeonggi 31 19 10 2
Gangwon 18 4 10 4
North Chungcheong 23 16 1 6
South Chungcheong 18 1 11 6
North Jeolla 14 13 1
South Jeolla 22 15 7
North Gyeongsang 12 5 3 3 1
South Gyeongsang 16 3 4 7 1 1
Total 228 92 82 13 3 1 1 36

Municipal-level councilors

Summary

PartySeats
ConstituencyProportionalTotal+/–
Grand National Party10871601247–375
Democratic Party8711541025+120
Liberty Forward Party9522117New
Democratic Labor Party9025115+49
Participation Party17724New
New Progressive Party22022New
Future Hope Alliance12719New
Party of Future Union10111New
People's First Union202New
Creative Korea Party101New
Independent305305+77
Total25123762888
Source: ··군의회의원선거정당별 당선인수기초의원비례대표선거정당별 당선인수

Constituency seats

Region Seats GNP DP LFP DLP NPP PPP PPC FU PFU CKP Ind.
Seoul 366 183 173 3 4 2 1
Busan 158 93 28 9 3 2 2 1 20
Daegu 102 70 4 2 2 1 5 3 15
Incheon 97 46 43 4 2 2
Gwangju 59 44 10 2 3
Daejeon 55 11 21 23
Ulsan 43 25 13 2 1 2
Gyeonggi 363 177 165 8 2 2 1 1 7
Gangwon 146 90 36 20
North Chungcheong 114 44 45 12 2 11
South Chungcheong 152 50 34 60 2 6
North Jeolla 173 119 3 1 4 46
South Jeolla 211 146 14 2 49
North Gyeongsang 247 162 1 2 2 1 5 2 72
South Gyeongsang 226 136 12 20 4 3 51
Total 2,512 1,087 871 95 90 22 17 12 10 2 1 305

References

  1. ^ Foundation, The Korea International Broadcasting. "한국을 대표하는 글로벌 방송! The World On Arirang!". June 2 Local Elections Voter Turnout : ARIRANG.
  2. ^ [6·2 국민의 선택] 투표율 54.5%… 15년만에 최고, 조선일보

External links

This page was last edited on 13 May 2023, at 14:36
Basis of this page is in Wikipedia. Text is available under the CC BY-SA 3.0 Unported License. Non-text media are available under their specified licenses. Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. WIKI 2 is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wikimedia Foundation.