Talk:2024 Georgian parliamentary election

GD Leadership

@Zlad! Your claim that Kobakhidze is the leader of Georgian Dream, even though he officially isn’t, is just your subjective view. The fact that Kobakhidze is Prime Minister doesn’t back this up. I understand that he holds much more significant political weight, but by that logic, Ivanishvili, as honorary chairman and the literal puppeteer of GD (lol), has the most influence. Adding Ivanishvili, however, would create another issue, if we go that route, we’d also have to replace Bokuchava with Saakashvili, which doesn't seem fair in my opinion. To make the most sense, we need a compromise, and that should be Garibashvili. 70P53D (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Not at all. Prime Minister has way more weight than the chairman. Who we put as leaders are supposed to in a way act as party's PM candidates. I'm not exactly 100% sure on the rules, but I think this is how it is.

You may tag some more experienced editors to hear their opinion out as well. Zlad! (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Kobakhidze is the incumbent prime minister and even though in the party structure gharibashvili is superior, atm kobakhidze holds more political power, therefore he should be shown as the leader, same as how Gakharia is listed as GD leader on the 2020 election page. Nickknee (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It's all about who you want to be presented in the infobox (and tables) as "leader". Is that the party chairperson as registered at the election commission (the party registration for the elections) - in that case it is Irakli Gharibashvili. Is it the leader (nr. 1) of the partylist - in that case it is Bidzina I. What happens now is pick n choose a random figure - sure, in this case not really random, but the PM. But what happens in the infobox is a juggle of which person we consider the leader for that party based on a weight. Georgian media has the tendency to mention many party prominents as "leader" - not "the leader" but "a leading figure". And that we don't need here. Make a straight choice: #1 of the list or the party chair. Labrang (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think for ruling parties we should always show the PM, but I agree with the way we do others. I think Bokuchava is undoubtably the leader of Unity, Gakharia as well for ForGeo, Khazaradze has been shown to be the one singular leader of SG (especially confirmed after his negotiations with Gakharia), but with CfC I see no possible way to narrow it down to a singular leader. The only compromise we can go for is listing the party's n1 - Nana Malashkhia, which is 1 - absurd on many levels, 2 - completely unnecessary as it is common to see multiple people being listed in the infobox as the leader when naming just one would be misleading. Even if we were to narrow it down to the coalition's biggest party - Ahali, even that has two chairman! I don't see either Gvaramia, Melia, Japaridze, or Khoshtaria or any grouping of them rising to the role of a singular leader, they unlike all of the above mentioned coalitions seem to be a collective affair. If anything it seems like (to me) that maybe Gvaramia has the most weight out of the four comparatively, but nothing concrete. Zlad! (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead length

While I appreciate the vast amount of information in the lead (especially compared to the lackluster 2016 and 2020 election articles), per WP:LEAD the lead section of an article should be "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article, in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" and furthermore that "[t]he length should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic" with a good indicator of length being the fact that "leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words." This article's lead section is currently sitting at over 800 words. Taking into account that the election results and any other important information regarding the election's aftermath will need to be added, the lead clearly is too long.

Shortening the lead would mostly involve reducing the amount of information presently devoted to certain party's stances/leadership as well as commentary on the EU and authoritarianism. For other examples on what this type of lead should look like, see this year's Panamanian, French, Indian, and UK elections. I would also suggest taking out or at least paraphrasing the numerous quotes in the lead, as those are typically not conducive to a summary style. Additionally, there are over forty citations in the lead at the moment. While citations in the lead are acceptable, this amount indicates that redundant citations are present and should be trimmed, per MOS:LEADCITE. Yeoutie (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Coalition for Change main color

What should the main color of CfC be? Sources differ and they either use green or orange.

Radio Tavisufleba, for example uses orange - [1]

While, OC Media uses green - [2]

Since its contentious I'll revert back to green, but I support changing it to a color most frequently used by different sources. Zlad! (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

GORBI polls are.. suspect.

Why are we adding these polls that always give Georgian Dream an insane ammount of favorability 2 days before the election? Either they need to be removed or they need to be marked as biased in favor of Georgian Dream. I find it bogus the party can jump from 30% to 60% so quickly. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 14:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Gorbi's polls are pure crap. That is undeniable. However, it's also true that Edison and Savanta are skewed to the opposition. Adding Gorbi into the averages helps paint a more realistic picture. Also Gorbi, sadly, is a reputable organization to the gullible international audience however laughable that may not be to a Georgian. Zlad! (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Calling Edison skewed is doing no justice to their trackrecord. As documented, they have a good record for the exit polls in Georgia during multiple elections. This year the exit poll was 13% off, which has become part of suspicions the elections were fraudulent. Labrang (talk) 09:16, 15 December 2024 (UTC)

Is it really the right results list that's displayed?

The indicated source for results redirects towards the "electronic results" of CEC website, which gives approximately the same results as the Wikipedia article presents. However, the "election results" right on the left of the "electronic" give a report rate of 63%, while the other give a 72% as I'm writing this. "Electronic results" can be seen there: https://results.cec.gov.ge/#/en-us/election_57/el/dashboard ; "Election results are here": https://results.cec.gov.ge/#/en-us/election_57/tr/dashboard. --- Plus, when I check the "Data according to majoritarian election districts and election precincts", the "election results" include some abroad offices, which the "electronic results" don't show. I believe the "electronic results" only include the votes casted by electronic machines, while the "election results" give a global result (although some offices that are in "electronic results" aren't showed in "election results", which is why there is less votes in the "election results"; I believe they will be also included later on). --- I may be wrong, and the "electronic results" may be the official results displayed, but I find it mundane, since abroad results seem like they'll be only included in "election results". Plus, it makes sense for me: a fraction of votes casted won't be electronic. --- I preferred to talk about it there instead of doing any change in the article and in the given source. PFBaguette (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Electoral map needs to be added

It is necessary to add an electoral map so that it is visible who won in which region. 212.58.102.132 (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you mean electoral district. Region would be too large of a unit. The electoral district outcome is certainly indicative for election anomalies and should be shown. Labrang (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

What is point of results map when many like country's president is saying it was fraud and "Russian special operation"? Not sure neutral way to present official "results" when they may not be "real" results.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Like I said - it would also be illustrative for the claims of fraud in the rural areas, showing areas where GD got nearly 90% of the vote. There are publications describing all this. In either way this is a useful addition as has been done on pages of previous elections. But it's up to others. My hands are out. Labrang (talk) 08:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Minor spelling error

In responses section the word dully is used when duly is the correct spelling. Please amend. 2A00:23C8:4287:8901:816:AF56:9199:107A (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done I just condensed what France stated and removed the direct quote. The page is long enough as is and the quotes are extending it. Bremps... 01:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)