Talk:German federal election, 2009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Germany does not have a two-party system[edit]

It looks really weird to have this infobox. It makes it look like only two parties participate in the election. Sure, the chancellor has been from SPD or CDU so far, but this is not all that the election is about! It is about how the seats will be distributed among the 5 or 6 parties that will be in the Bundestag. In fact, it could be argued that the election is not about the chancellor at all, since the chancellor does not get elected directly. Note also that the German page does not have such an infobox. --KarlFrei (talk) 08:29, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

True. Yet you have to consider that there are more parties than just Democrats and Republicans in the U.S. presidential race, but still only one of these two has a serious chance to get elected (and thus, the infobox only shows Dem and Rep here). Also, in the Next United Kingdom general election there are more than just three parties, nonetheless there are only three (or two) candidates with serious chance to become the next Prime Minister (which is again why there are only three people shown in the infobox). There are dozens of other elections where Wikipedia handles this quite similar. It's only fair to assume we should do it the same with the German federal election, since only Merkel or Steinmeier will be Bundeskanzler by the end of this year. --bender235 (talk) 09:15, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
You are missing one very important factor here. The US and the UK have plurality voting systems, which makes it essentially impossible for a third party to survive long-term, let alone produce a ruler; in the long term, there will always be two parties (of course one party may disappear and be succeeded by another one). In contrast, in countries like Denmark, The Netherlands, and yes, Germany, the set of parties is much more fluid over time due to the proportional representation, hence the absence of infoboxes. Apart from the chancellor question, it is also very important what coalition is formed after the elections, and this is certainly not a binary choice. Like I said above, the chancellor is not elected directly. --KarlFrei (talk) 13:52, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
Could anyone report user "Karl Frei" due to vandalism, please? I wanted to undo his changes, but his vandalism cannot be corrected. I suppose "KarlFrei" is a member of the so-called FDP, which has hopes of becoming the second most successful party, so that they will be able to nominate a candidate for chancellery. That is why he permanently stresses the multiparty system in Germany. However, "KarlFrei" and his party will become bitterly disappointed in autumn. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:07, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. As the vandalism page states, "Comment on the content and substance of the edits, instead of making personal comments." My edits are made in good faith and I have explained them here on the talk page. Nobody has disputed my points after I replied to bender252. Note that for instance the German version of this page also does not have an infobox.

However, I am happy to direct you to the following page, where you can report vandalism. If it makes you happy to report me as a vandal, go right ahead! Good luck.

Finally, for the record, I am not German. --KarlFrei (talk) 09:17, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Does Italy have a two-party system? The page on their most recent national election,_2008 has an infobox very similar to this page's. Countries without two-party systems could still have an infobox showing their most popular candidates. For that matter, check out which has three candidates in its infobox. Ratemonth (talk) 13:57, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly, Ratemonth. Although Germany doesn't have a two-party system, there are nevertheless officially nominated chancellor candidates (Kanzlerkandidaten), namely by the two big parties. These two politicians are holdin "chancellor debates". You can find those "infoboxes" on German Wikipedia and even in school books. It's simply pesky that "KarlFrei" is deleting everything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:23, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
You can find these infoboxes in school books? I would love to see one of them! :-) Regarding Italy, the two main coalitions have 95% of all the seats. The Canadian infobox actually has five candidates - scroll further down... I would be happy with such a solution for the German elections page, if we absolutely must have an infobox.
My main point continues to be that these are not elections between Merkel and Steinmeier. Instead, these are Bundestag elections, and 600 members will be elected. Having an infobox with two candidates completely obscures the fact that all parties matter, in particular, the overall results will determine which coalitions will be possible. SPD nor CDU will attain an absolute majority on its own. --KarlFrei (talk) 06:48, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Can we improve the infobox to meet everyone's opinions? The same infobox is designed to handle more than two parties (example: Swedish general election, 2006). Adjusting the use of the infobox seems more efficient than deleting it. Willhsmit (talk) 17:28, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Wow, this Infobox is a bit mixed up. First of all, it lists Frank-Walter Steinmeier (instead of party chairman Franz Müntefering) as SPD leader, but party chairmen Claudia Roth and Cem Özdemir (instead of the "Spitzenkandidaten" Renate Künast and Jürgen Trittin) as Green leaders. You can't have it both ways. Either this box lists the official Kanzlerkandidaten/Spitzenkandidaten or it lists the party chairmen (it's easier with CDU and FDP because in these parties it's the same thing). And then it lists Lothar Bisky as Left Party leader but has a picure of Oskar Lafontaine above the name! I'm not quite sure who the "Spitzenkandidat" of the Left Party will be. It won't be Bisky, because he was just elected to the European parliament. Last election, Gysi and Lafontaine were the "Spitzenkandidaten". I guess they're going to do the same this time.

I'd recommend: Replace Roth and Özdemir with Künast and Trittin. List the Left Party leader either as "To be determined" or as Gysi/Lafontaine (with the correct pictures please). And if it is done this way I say there should be some footnote which explains that those are not the party chairmen, but the Kanzlerkandidaten/Spitzenkandidaten who lead their respective parties in the election campaign. --Der_Hans 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Sorry about this. I made some mistakes in extending the infobox. Thanks for fixing them.--KarlFrei (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I would also say that the third paragraph of the article is badly written. First of all, it's not Wikipedia's job to say what future events will be likely or unlikely... especially if no source is quoted for this assessment. In addition, the most recent Infratest poll had CDU/FDP at 50% and SPD/Greens/Left at 47%, and the most recent Emnid poll even showed them at 49% to 47%. The race ist still fairly close in some of the polls. Does a average lead of about 4% for CDU/FDP really make the outcome "likely" at this point? For comparison: Exactly four years ago (mid-June 2005), Infratest polled the CDU at 46% and the SPD at 28%. The actual election result of 2005: 35% for CDU and 34% for SPD. Right now, CDU+FDP are actually polling slightly worse than they did the same time around four years ago. And they didn't win a majority last time. So what exactly makes a CDU/FDP win "likely" at this point? And this all under the assumption that we can the trust the polls in the first place. Infratest's final pre-election poll of September 2005 had the CDU at 42%... seven (!) points better than the actual election result a week later. This first sentence of the third paragraph simply screams Crystalballing.

I would also delete the mentioning of the Left Party being the "successor" to the SED:

  • It's not this article's purpose to describe the individual parties' history. For that we have a own article on the German Left Party, the SPD etc.
  • Strictly speaking, the Left Party is a merger of the SED's successor party and the WASG, a party founded by disgruntled former SPD members.
  • In the context of the respective sentence, it implies that the SPD doesn't want to form a coalition with the Left Party because Left Party traces its roots back to the SED. That's not entirely true IMO. Among the main reasons are the Left Party's opposition to the military intervention in Afghanistan, the Left Party's criticism of the European Union, and the SPD hatred of Oskar Lafontaine (and vice versa).

And last but not least, I would add a comment that a continuation of the current Grand coalition is not out of hand. This is based on the Greens' opposition to "Jamaica", the FDP's reluctance (to put it mildly) to join a "Traffic light" coalition and some comments in the media that another Grand coalition is possible (mostly for the aforementioned reasons). --Der_Hans 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I have now reduced the third paragraph to a simple enumeration of possible coalitions, this is probably better. --KarlFrei (talk) 08:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

The new "info" box is SCHEISSE!!![edit]

Has anyone read what I wrote?

Yes I have. Did you read what I wrote?

Merkel and Steinmeier are officially called Kanzlerkandidaten (chancellor candidates). The politicians of the other three parties are Spitznkandidaten (front-runners), meaning they are at the top of the election list of their respective party. However, they will not become chancellors after the election, since - yes, Karl Frei - the CDU/CSU and the SPD will get a majority on their own. Every other possibility is too theoretical.

Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. Let me try to explain some of the German parliamentary system to you, since you may be unacquainted with it. What is going to happen on September 27 is that (at least) 598 Bundestag members will be elected, as stated in the infobox. The Bundestag is currently comprised of five parties, and this is expected to remain the case. These five parties are (now) listed in the infobox.
A few weeks or months later, the new Bundestag itself will hold elections for chancellor. I agree with you that the winner of those elections will be Merkel or Steinmeier. But what is at stake in the elections that we are discussing on this page is the new composition of the Bundestag, which will determine not only the new chancellor but also possible coalitions after the elections etc. Hope this helps! --KarlFrei (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
That's very nice that a non-German wants to explain the German parliamentary system to a German studying politics. Before I go on discussing, I'd like to know what nationality you are, Karl Frei.

I'll undo the current info box when find some time.

You should be careful about that - somebody might report you for vandalism! :-) --KarlFrei (talk) 09:01, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

A further problem of the info box is the missing differentiation between candidate and party leader. Can anyone fix this problem?

And yes, Hans, Die Linke. is the legal successor to the SED. That's no political assessment, but a fact. Even Lafontaine has already announced that. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 22:11, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, Renate Künast is at the top of the Greens' candidate list in Berlin. And Jürgen Trittin has actually the second spot on the Greens' candidate list in Lower Saxony (after Brigitte Pothmer). In addition to that, they were "officially" nominated by a Green federal convention to be the "Spitzenkandidaten" for the Bundestag election. Just with the "Kanzlerkandidaten", the "Spitzenkandidaten" are merely informal positions which are nowhere found in the constitution, the electoral law, or the party statues. While "Spitzenkandidaten" won't become Chancellor, they're de facto candidates for cabinet minister spots (even vice chancellor, if their party becomes the second-largest party in a coalition government). I would also like to point out that the Wikipedia page on the Bundestag election of 2005 lists Joschka Fischer as the "leader" of the Greens... despite the fact that he wasn't the Green party chairman in 2005, but the "Spitzenkandidat". --Der_Hans 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd just like to add that I appreciate the work that KarlFrei has been doing here, and that I wish that our anonymous editor would express his or her disagreement with something other than foul-mouthed personal attacks. I don't think there's any rule that infoboxes only include candidates that have a possibility of being heads of government after the election. --Jfruh (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
I'd just like to add that I don't appreciate the "work" that KarlFrei has been doing here. The "anonymous editor" would like to know when he is supposed to have used "foul-mouthed personal attacks".
If you really want to add more front-runners than only the two Kanzlerkandidaten, then I'll suggest adding the Spitzenkandidaten of all about 30 parties which are going to take part in the election. Everything else would be illogical. According to Karl Frei's logic, there also had to be more than only two candidates in the infobox for the article about any presidential election in the USA.
Well, let's see. I think "SCHEISSE" is pretty foul-mouthed, and your fixation on KarlFrei's politics -- you at first accused him of being some kind of FDP partisan -- and nationality are attacks on him personally, not a discussion of hi his contributions. And constantly referring to his additions as "vandalism" is also an attack -- something isn't vandalism just because you don't agree with it.
As for the infobox, it's pretty well accepted that only the big five parties are going to have parliamentary representation after the election, so that seems a logical place to draw the line. These infoboxes aren't writen in stone, so if it turns out that one party doesn't make it into the parliament, or a sixth party does, that can be added later. Certainly a third-party candidate that was polling well would probably be added to a US presidential election infobox -- check out the '92 election infobox, which includes Ross Perot. --Jfruh (talk) 07:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

The Left[edit]

As for the Left Party, the PDS, the WASG, the SED and whoever else... I fail to see the relevance to mention the history of any party in this article. This is not an article about the Left Party. And like I said before, the SPD doesn't want to form a government with the Left Party because of disagreements over foreign policy (and probably conflicts over economic policies between the SPD's right wing and the Left Party) more than anything else IMHO. The SPD doesn't usually attack the Left Party for tracing its roots back to the SED... the Left Party gets attacked by the SPD its party platform and the Left's supposed populist rethorics--Der_Hans 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I really was under the impression that the main stumbling block to a pan-left coalition was the party's institutional history -- that the SPD was afraid that Western voters in particular would not forgive them for allying with the ex-SED. (If I'm not mistaken all the Red-Red state-level coalitions have been formed in Eastern states.) It's true that there are significant policy differences between the Left and the SPD, but then there are also significant policy differences between the SPD and the CDU/CSU, yet they have managed to stay in coalition for the last four years. In particular, because we discuss other possible coalition permutations (including the higly unlikely Jamaica coalition), it seems glaring and odd that we don't discuss reasons why none of the potential coaltions include the Left; if you were reading the article without any background in German politics, presumably the first thing you'd wonder is why a Red-Red or Red-Red-Green coalition isn't discussed. But sources should be found to offer explanations, and I shall see if I can find them. --Jfruh (talk) 12:55, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, the fear of a backlash because of the Left Party's history could be one of the reasons. Then again, the SPD tried to form a government with the Left Party in the West German state of Hesse... until this failed because of resistance from some members of the Hessian SPD's right wing. However, the Hessian SPD (and their then-leader Andrea Ypsilanti) is generally more left-wing than the federal SPD. So, another reason might be that Frank-Walter Steinmeier (and party chairman) Franz Müntefering are simply not from the leftist wing of the party. Even when it comes down to the issues, Steinmeier probably prefers the CDU over the Left Party.
However, I agree that coalitions with the Left Party are still somewhat considered to be a taboo in Germany. One reason may be the Left Party's origins. Another is that there are some very left-wing people with some more radical views in that party TODAY (and not just in the pre-1990 SED). A third reason is that some people in the Left Party have an uncritical view of life in East Germany back then. A fourth reason is that other parties accuse the Left Party of being irresponsible populists who are making unrealistic political demands which can't be possibly fulfilled. This is combined with a criticism of Oskar Lafontaine who is seen by some as a loose cannon and a narcissistic and irresponsible populist. And a very important difference between coalitions on the federal level and the state level is that you have to make foreign policy on the federal level. The Left Party has become increasingly critical of the European Union, while all the other parties (maybe with the partial exception of the Bavarian CSU) are very much pro-EU. The Left Party also opposes any kind of military intervention in foreign countries, especially Germany's involvement in Afghanistan. And finally there's the question whether the Left Party even WANTS to govern. I think their general position on that is something like: "yes, provided the SPD adopts positions closer to our own, especially in foreign policy and economic/social policy".
It's probably a combination of: Left Party originates from the SED + Left Party has a too positive view of pre-1989 East Germany + politial positions of the Left Party are often too left-wing, too radical, too populist and/or too unrealistic + you can't trust Lafontaine enough to form a government with him + Left Party has fundamentally different ideas with regards to foreign policy.
The question is: How do you put this explanation into one or two sentences..? "Other parties often accuse the Left Party of being populist and unfit to govern?"; "The Left Party is criticized by other parties for being far too left-wing and having an too uncritical view of the former East German regime?"; "The Left Party's positions on foreign policy are too different from those of the other major parties?" --Der_Hans 17 June 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 16:35, 17 June 2009 (UTC).
Hmm, now that I'm looking at the text of the article, I can see that we still note explicitly that the SPD intends to exclude the Left -- I thought that had gotten eliminated in the shuffle. Just mentioning it is the key, I suppose, as we don't really talk about the ideological implications of the other potential coalitions. I can see that getting into the details of coalition politics might be a bit much at this stage, but if the major players make public statements about the suitability/unsuitability of certain coalition permutations in the run-up (or aftermath) of the election, then we should probably try to add those here as this article inevitably expands. --Jfruh (talk) 17:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Two leaders smaller[edit]

In the interest of neutrality, I think the sizes of the pictures of the Left/Green co-leaders in the infobox should be decreased to give them a similar combined size to the single leader pictures of the other parties, in order not to give undue weight to these parties.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 22:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, but...[edit]

It's typical for articles of this sort to have polling data. Anyone with access to German polls, please add the numbers! --Jfruh (talk) 14:35, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Well known are the ARD-DeutschlandTREND by w:de:Infratest dimap and the ZDF-Politbarometer from w:de:Forschungsgruppe Wahlen. Both are published as so called "w:de:Sonntagsfrage" in german public funded television periodly/weekly every time, not only in election years. Other institutions such as the Allensbach Institute and for some private funded television channels the Forsa institute publish own polls in election seasons - federal or state elections. The data is easily accessible through:
However, both of this polls are reliable and independent sources, but they show tendencies rather than results. It would be much better to write a text about the influences, tendencies and their developement over the time of election campaigns than showing (in a static form meaningless) data.
--Martin H. (talk) 21:49, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Parties in infobox[edit]

A user keeps adding the NPD to the infobox, they have no seats so I don't see why they should go in but not say, the seventh or eighth party. The page on the previous election only includes those parties which had previously won seats at federal level. Other election infoboxes e.g. the Spanish, British or Irish don't even do that, including only the main two or three parties. Per past precedent I've reverted this. Valenciano (talk) 21:58, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

It's extremely unlikely at this time that the NPD will end up in parliament. Since this is Wikipedia, nothing is set in stone; if by chance they make it into the Bundestag after the election, obviously they should be added at that time. --Jfruh (talk) 02:26, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

The best solution is to include all parties that are currently represented in the Bundestag. Urban XII (talk) 14:10, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Not the 17th federal election[edit]

Please don't replace the lead (German federal election, 2009) with "17th German federal election". It's not the 17th federal election to be held in Germany. Strictly speaking, it's the 41st federal election to be held in Germany including parliamentary federal elections and the presidential elections in 1925 and 1932 (not including indirect elections). The 17th federal election was the German federal election, December 1924. Urban XII (talk) 15:29, 27 September 2009 (UTC) NO!!!!! Federal only aplies to the Federal Republic (since 1949) older was were national or 'Reich'(empire, realm,...) elections14:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Voting Results[edit]

For the CSU the article stated "with the CSU receiving a record number of votes in Bavaria". Well either someone is just dramatically inaccurate here (record for lowest numbers?) or the article is subject to CSU-leaning vandalism. I changed the text accordingly. Para-OZ (talk) 02:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Why does the CSU have around 20 more seats than they would do under PR (according to the second vote)? This needs explaining.-- (talk) 13:30, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

They haven't. They had only 3 (now 2) seats more than they would have under PR (45/44 vs. 42), namely overhang seats. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:58, 11 May 2011 (UTC)
My apologies, I meant the CDU.-- (talk) 19:32, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

Pirate Party in infobox?[edit]

It seems a little strange to me to include the German Pirate Party in the infobox, when they didn't win any seats. If they are included, why not any of the even smaller parties? What's the policy for including parties in the infobox? Robofish (talk) 16:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I agree. There's no clear policy on which parties to include in election infoboxes but looking at previous elections, precedent is on the side of keeping parties to a minimum. Since the Pirate Party didn't win any seats at this election or at the previous election there doesn't seem any good reason to include them. Yes, they had an MP in the previous legislature but he'd defected from the SPD and lost his seat. Valenciano (talk) 19:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
I also agree they should be removed from the infobox. EnemyOfTheState|talk 20:15, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
BTW, I also disagree with the inclusion of the current map in the infobox. It implies a single-winner voting system by district, but that is not the case at all. EnemyOfTheState|talk 22:26, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The Pirate Party has been included because it had a member in the prior Bundestag. Normally, parties are added to the infobox if they are represented in the legislature before or after the election. -Rrius (talk) 22:38, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The solution agreed upon was to include the parties that were represented in the Bundestag at the time of the election. The Pirate Party had one member of the Bundestag at that time (they still have, actually). Urban XII (talk) 00:40, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Sorry but I don't see any such agreement. As for parties being represented in infoboxes if they have seats on or before the election. This hasn't been the precedent that I've seen. Have a look at United Kingdom general election, 2005, German federal election, 2002, Spanish general election, 2008 or Italian general election, 2008. In each case only the largest parties which won seats are included. There definitely doesn't seem to be a precedent for including a party that won no seats either at the previous election or at the current election in question. Valenciano (talk) 08:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Jörg Tauss, the so-called member of the Pirate party, did not officially represent that party in the Bundestag these past couple of months. He resigned as a member of the SPD and was able to hang on to the seat as an independent. (Happened before, see Möllemann). No, the Pirates do not belong here as they are insignificant for the results.Alandeus (talk) 11:16, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

How he became a member of the Bundestag is irrelevant. Fact is, he was a member of the Pirate Party, thus he represented his party. It has happened before that MPs have changed party, in the 70s several SPD MPs joined the CDU/CSU and thus became CDU/CSU representatives. Urban XII (talk) 14:00, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Möllemann didn't join a different party, but remained an independent/non-partisan MP. The relevant comparison is other policicians who have switched party, which has happened before. Urban XII (talk) 14:02, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
The previous switches were official switches to that other party. Tauss does not officially represent the Pirates; neither he nor the party actually make that claim (e.g. see Again: No, the Pirates do not belong here. Alandeus (talk) 14:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
Can I also add that in the UK General Election pages, it is common practice for the smaller parties who had multiple members elected to be excluded from the infobox, so I don't see where this precedent for including all parties with 1+ members comes from. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 22:13, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Britain is different because it often has more parliamentary parties than there are options in the infobox. Since I don't speak German, I have to rely on the "Piraten Partei" banner at the top of his page, and Google Translate, which seems to have trouble with what is probably the key sentence: "Aus diesem Grund bin ich auch aus der SPD nach fast 40 Jahren Mitgliedschaft am 20.6.2009 ausgetreten und unterstütze künftig die Piratenpartei." -Rrius (talk) 23:07, 30 September 2009 (UTC)
Translation: "For this reason, after a membership of almost 40 years, I have left the SPD on June 20, 2009, and will from now on support the Pirate Party." KarlFrei (talk) 07:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Seats before[edit]

Last election 226 seats 222 seats 61 seats Seats before 222 221 61 Seats won 239 146 93

What is the difference between "last election" and "seats before"? Do parties lose seats in by-elections as in the UK? LaFoiblesse 2009-09-29 16:15 (GMT)

They can lose seats by by-election, but it looks like they just lost seats by attrition. That is to say, Christian democrats and socialists left (or in one case became a member of the Pirate Party). -Rrius (talk) 20:23, 29 September 2009 (UTC)
There were no by-elections. Most seats were lost due to MPs on overhang seats dying or leaving parliament, some other MPs left their party and became "fraktionslos" (non-affiliated).--Roentgenium111 (talk) 14:09, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up article[edit]

Perhaps it's worth creating an article specifically about the next cabinet formation, like this article: 2006–2007 Dutch cabinet formation ? JACOPLANE • 2009-09-29 22:02

This isn't expected to be an exceptionally difficult formation. There will almost certainly not be the sort of exploratory rounds as seen the in Dutch case (or the 2007–2008 Belgian government formation). The CDU/CSU and FDP together have a majority, no one is even talking about any other coalition possibility, and the coalition agreement will almost certainly be agreed upon within the month. -Rrius (talk) 22:15, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

misuse of the word "federal?"[edit]

I would have to say that Federal is used imporperly here in two ways. First, "federal" refers only to the type of govnerment, having NOTHING to do with a government's national seat. Second, if any house in Germany could be called the "federal" house, it would be the Bundesrat. The representatives are sent from each of the Landers and as such, actually represents federalism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:36, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

I disagree. Bundestag literally translates to "Federal Diet", so it's quite appropriate.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 19:06, 11 December 2010 (UTC)


There's nothing here about turnout. I found it by cross-checking this site, which says:

  • Germany - May 2009 - Voter turnout as percent of those registered: 99.9%

Is this true, and if so, how? :) Their listed source is International Foundation for Electoral Systems, but when I checked up on that, I saw Registered Voters: 62,168,489 (September 2009).

(This page says 43,357,542 people voted. Demographics of Germany#Demographic statistics and policies says there's approx. 70,698,840 people older than 15. Discounting people in the age group 15-17, this still wouldn't stack up.)

So it's around 69.7%? --Joy [shallot] (talk) 11:47, 2 November 2010 (UTC)

This site had the voter turnout statistics for Germany wrong. (I already sent them an e-mail about it.) They made an error when they took the data from the original source of their table. The 2009 general election in Germany had a turnout of almost 70 %. (Wouldn't it be great if the Amricans could get up like this today?) This 99.9 refers to the election of the Federal President (Christian Wulff) that was held in June this year in the Bundestag just by parliamentarians of the upper and lower house, not the general population. Alandeus (talk) 14:31, 2 November 2010 (UTC)
The turnout was actually 70.78% according to the German article. Only if you exclude invalid votes does the turnout fall below 70%. Still, it was the lowest turnout ever for a German general election.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:05, 11 May 2011 (UTC)

File:Oskar Lafontaine.jpg Nominated for Deletion[edit]

Image-x-generic.svg An image used in this article, File:Oskar Lafontaine.jpg, has been nominated for deletion at Wikimedia Commons in the following category: Deletion requests March 2012
What should I do?

Don't panic; a discussion will now take place over on Commons about whether to remove the file. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion, although please review Commons guidelines before doing so.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.

To take part in any discussion, or to review a more detailed deletion rationale please visit the relevant image page (File:Oskar Lafontaine.jpg)

This is Bot placed notification, another user has nominated/tagged the image --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 01:02, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Results by state: how many constituency seats went to each party in each land?[edit]


in the section [1] on "results by state", it is not mentioned whether or not it refers to constituency votes or list votes. Moreover, it would be nice if we could give the number of constituency seats each party won in each land, but it seems those numbers are not that easy to find (unless you add them all up yourself) Evilbu (talk) 11:23, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

Now I finally found it : [2], perhaps I will incorporate it later. Evilbu (talk) 11:41, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

No mention of electoral system.[edit]

I think we should include the electoral system somewhere in the infobox, I was on this page to check what they use but couldn't find it. --ThatJosh (talk) 17:02, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on German federal election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:53, 15 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on German federal election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

As of February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete the "External links modified" sections if they want, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{sourcecheck}} (last update: 15 July 2018).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:31, 15 October 2017 (UTC)