Talk:Croatian parliamentary election, 2015

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Elections and Referendums (Rated Start-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Croatia (Rated Start-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon Croatian parliamentary election, 2015 is within the scope of WikiProject Croatia, a collaborative effort to improve the quality and coverage of articles related to Croatia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
Start-Class article Start  This article has been rated as Start-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 

Name of enhanced coalition[edit]

"Croatia is growing" is the motto of the new and enhanced coalition, that includes SDP, HNS and HSU, as well as Labourists, ZP and the "authentic" Agrarians. But I have seen no source as to this being their name. Until someone presents such a source, I am returning it to Kukuriku, the name of the article.--Batmacumba (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have already done that. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Croatian parliamentary election, 2015[edit]

Someone should change the name of the article to: Croatian parliamentary election, 2015 ; I really don't know how to do that, tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg, done. United Union (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
tnx, :* --Tuvixer (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)


Electoral systen[edit]

The info about the electoral system that has been placed in the first part contradicts info further down - either there is 5 or 10 constituencies and the incorrect info should be removed. It should also be properly and unequivocally sourced.--Batmacumba (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

There are 10 constituencies in Croatia, plus one constituency for national minorities and plus one for diaspora, so there are in fact 12 constituencies, but it is common practice to say that there are 10 constituencies plus two. --Tuvixer (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)
Well, thats how it was in 2011, but the info about an electoral reform under "Electoral system" in the article contradicts this. If you are sure this info is still valid and have sources to back it up you should remove the incorrect info, or preferably rephrase it and explain why the reform didn't happen (what I was interested in was not a description of the system - but someone rewriting this part of the article to a coherent, accurate and properly sourced text).--Batmacumba (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the text beneath because it contradicted other info and had not been updated and therefore was confusing.

"The electoral system will likely see some changes compared to the last four elections. In December 2010, the Constitutional Court of Croatia decided to inform Parliament that it is necessary to update the electoral unit definitions according to current population data, in accordance with the provisions of the 1999 Law on electoral units. It was too late to change the system for the 2011 election cycle, since electoral laws cannot be changed less than a year before the election. Therefore, the next election will occur with boundary changes to accommodate shifts in the population.[1] Minister of Public Administration Arsen Bauk announced major changes in the composition of the geographical electoral units. It is expected their number will be reduced from ten to five. They would follow the borders of Croatian counties with each encompassing several counties. This means they would not be roughly equal in size, as was the case before, but rather each district would give a different number of MPs, in proportion with their population. The population would be determined by census numbers, rather than the number of registered voters as was the case before. Two non-geographical districts, which give 3 seats for diaspora and 8 for minorities, would remain unchanged. 140 members would still come from the five geographical districts meaning the total number of seats would still be 151. Proportional representation would still be the method of electing members, however it is not clear whether the D'Hondt method would remain and whether there would be an introduction of open lists.[2]"

But it should preferably be rewritten by someone knowledgable and put back in - what happened with all this?

Things that needs to be clarified regarding the electoral system[edit]

We have several unanswered questions: 1) electoral units following county borders with different number of deputies/or still same size for all? 2) districts determined on census numbers or registered voters? 3) open lists or closed lists? 4) Still D'Hondt? 5) How is the preferential voting system going to work? Official source that describes the system?--Batmacumba (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

1) still the same
2) no
3) preferential voting system with proportional representation
4) yes
5) one preferential vote, and a 10% threshold on the list --Tuvixer (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
2) "No" doesn't make sense as answer to the second question (not a yes/no question). What do you mean?
5) If there is only one preferential vote, it isn't what you normally call preferential voting, but just a form of open list. How does the 10% threshold work? (it would be best if you tried describing it in the relevant section in the article.
We need a source for all this. Could you find one? --Batmacumba (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)
2) it is both no
5) It is preferential voting because the voter can chose to vote only for a party or a coalition, or for a person on a party/coalition list. If one candidate collects 10% or more votes for that list he is moved to the first place on that list, and so on. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
Preferential voting as you describe it isn't really preferential voting, but just a variation of open list (you can always vote list in an open list election). Of course you can argue all open list systems are preferential, but that is not the way it is usually used. So I think I will change that to open list and just describe how it works. Districts were previously determined by number of registered voters (with a roughly equal population distribution in all districts) if they are unchanged that is still the case. There was a proposal to change this to census numbers (giving among other things increased weight to areas with many children). If they are unchanged from last time it is basically still based on registered voters (it just seems odd if there has been no update with limited redistricting to make them roughly equal - are you sure about this?). Can you get a source? It is a part of the article that is important to be source because it is technical stuff.--
It is preferential voting, ok, you write as you think and I will correct you, ok? Yes it is still the case, there were no changes. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Batmacumba (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No of course it isn't "OK", edit wars and silly confrontations should be avoided and things discussed properly. Not sure why you take that attitude. You didn't address the source situation, which is the biggest problem. Were can we get sources?--Batmacumba (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)
I was not threatening. You did a good job. It seems that in Croatian language we call preferential voting for what is in English open list. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)
I have tried to describe it more accurately. A main argument against using the term "preferential voting" is that it is very imprecise and only links to a disambigutation page (such as this one ;-) ), whereas all the relevant info is on the open list page. Please help address the remaining questions and help find a source (it must be relatively easy to find one for a Croat)--Batmacumba (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Comparison to the Swedish system[edit]

It sounds like a "most open list with quota", which is the one used in Sweden.

"The 'most open' list system is the one where the absolute amount of votes every candidate receives fully determines the "order of election" (the list ranking only possibly serving as a 'tiebreaker'). When such a system is used, one could make the case that within every party an additional virtual single non-transferable vote election is taking place."

"In elections in Sweden, the 'most open' list is used, but a person needs to receive 5% of the party's votes for the personal vote to overrule the ordering on the party list. Voting without expressing a preference between individuals is possible, although the parties urge their voters to support the party's prime candidate, to protect them from being beaten by someone ranked lower by the party."

So basically most open list only taking effect when a quota is met (if so, how are ties decided?)

Is the above an accurate description? (please dont answer "no" if it isn't, but elaborate).--

It is accurate. Ties are resolved by the position on the list. It was a problem of language, we in Croatian call preferential voting what the English speaking people call open list. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Batmacumba (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible vandalism[edit]

Thewanderer, please stop your disruptive edits to the article, and please stop edit warring. Go here on the talk page and present your opinion here before you edit the article. Please stop edit warring. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The article currently has several glaring inaccuracies. I have added sourced info, which you have removed twice without reason. This has nothing to do with my opinion - I'm not editorializing anything, there are basic structural problems as the article stands. How am I edit warring?Thewanderer (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
The election date has not yet been announced. Wait with your edits, ok? Because you can't add speculation to the an encyclopedia. It will be changed when the time comes. Please stop edit-warring. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
That is silly and arbitrary logic. All polls are performed on the basis of the SDP- and HDZ-led coalitions. There is no speculation here. The election is happening in weeks.Thewanderer (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Sure, but "in weeks" is not an accurate date. The President will announce the date on Monday, so just wait until she has done so.--Batmacumba (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
That is my point, but he is ignoring that, just pushing for his own changes like he OWNs the article. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)
Obviously I don't own this article. If you have any sourced info to counter anything I've added, you are most welcome to update it. This article has had several inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Why should Kukuriku be listed in the infobox (which has since been renamed for these elections), while the HDZ coalition (known officially as the Patriotic Coalition) should not? Theoretically Kukuriku/Croatia is Growing coalition could collapse before the election is called if you are so deeply concerned about the official deadlines for submitting electoral lists.Thewanderer (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Just wait for the time and do not make disruptive edits to the article, and please stop edit-warring. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you'll have to read my comment again. These are not disruptive edits. They are sourced edits reflecting the polls and the campaign which has been ongoing prior to the "official" campaign time (as is normal and has been seen in prior Croatian elections). We need to find consistency and accuracy based on current sources.Thewanderer (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Names of coalitions[edit]

Party names should be the electoral coalition, not the main party. See the Portuguese legislative election, 2015 for an example, where PM Pedro Passos Coelho is listed with PàF as his party, not PSD. Also, use short form - not the full name. It is already described in the article, that they are coalitions, and who are in them and you can also simply get that info by using the link.--Batmacumba (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Successful Croatia[edit]

According to this official source, Coalition Successful Croatia consists of People's Party - Reformists, Forward Croatia! - Progressive Alliance and independent candidate Darinko Dumbović (Mayor of Petrinja). Should we list him also in the Coalitions table?

Party colors on maps[edit]

Which ones are better in your opinion? Lighter (1st and 3rd map) or darker colors (2nd and 4th)? Darker are the ones used on meta party color templates. I think a darker blue suits HDZ better and that SDP should have a bit darker red. Tzowu (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

By all means you can use the 2nd, the results will be the same as on that map. xD --Tuvixer (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)