Talk:Indian general election, 2009

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject India / Politics (Rated B-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Indian politics workgroup (marked as Top-importance).
Note icon
This article was a past Indian Collaboration of the Month.
WikiProject Politics (Rated B-class)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the project's quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject Elections and Referendums (Rated B-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.
B-Class article B  This article has been rated as B-Class on the quality scale.

Disconnect between result summaries[edit]

The two different summaries of the alliances final seats won agree, but the net gain/loss figues are quite different (e.g- both state UDA controls 262 seats, but one says they gained 41 seats and the other 79 seats). DavisGL (talk) 06:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

This is due to the fact that alliances from 2004 for UPA is different from 2009. We had UPA have 218 seats for the previous election. So winning 262, is a change of 44. The one in the table, is the addition of changes for parties within the coalition. I think we can take a consensus on which should be put on the infobox. I wouldn't mind either way.--Harish89 (talk) 02:53, 22 May 2009 (UTC)


why do you want to delete this article

Do you hate elections?,the next elections are going to be held in 2009 and information would come in a trickle.when the 2004 us prez elections happened i bet a 2008 one was created the very next day so whats wrong with having a future elections page that also of the worlds largest democracy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talkcontribs) 13:20, 2 June 2007

Nobody said anything about hating elections, but Wikipedia policy states that it is not a crystal ball. If information does "trickle in" it can have an article then. Useight 19:14, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
This article does seem pretty dubious. It consists of a single sentence. Is there not more to say about this subject now? If not, it seems likely that we shouldn't have an article yet. But maybe it should go to AfD. Herostratus 22:01, 2 June 2007 (UTC)
I removed the speedy tag from the article, as WP:CRYSTAL isn't a valid CSD criteria. Also, as per Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/2018_Winter_Olympics I'd say that there is precedent for keeping such articles; election is only two years away, and it is likely that parties/politicians have begun to prepare somewhat. If anyone want to delete this, take it through a proper AFD. Bjelleklang - talk Bug Me 02:01, 3 June 2007 (UTC)

Takinig in view the current political scenario the elections wont happen in 2009 but sooner.SO i propose to delete the article(i am the creator of this article) until elections are really a possibility as announced by the mainstream press. manchurian candidate —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talkcontribs) 08:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

It looks fairly well sourced now. --Joshua Issac (talk) 00:07, 30 December 2008 (UTC)

499 vs 543 Constituencies[edit]

//The elections for 499 out of 543 Parliamentary Constituencies in all the states, NCT of Delhi and Union Territory of Puducherry (except Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Manipur and Nagaland) will be held on the basis of the newly delimited constituencies as determined by the Delimitation Commission set up under the Delimitation Act, 2002[2]// --Based on election commission news letter, election will be held for all 543 constituencies in 5 phases (124+141+107+85+86). --Kurumban (talk) 16:27, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

(except Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Manipur and Nagaland) - these states/UT have total 39 seats. 543-39 = 504... not 499... Give the reason for 499 otherwise i will change it to 504 --Kurumban (talk) 16:07, 5 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Kurumban. Good question. I took that line verbatim from the official press release by the ECI. It means to say that NCT of Delhi, UT of Puducherry and all states except Arunachal Pradesh, Assam, Jammu & Kashmir, Jharkhand, Manipur and Nagaland will undergo elections under the new delimitation groups. This also excludes (implicitly) the remaining 5 UTs which have only 1 seat each. That brings it to 543-39-5 = 499 :-) Having said that, perhaps it might be worth rephrasing that statement, as many others are likely to get the same doubt that you did.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 09:26, 6 March 2009 (UTC)


Have they been formed already? I do believe many, if not most, parties join a coalition after the election results are out. If the coalitions have been formed, can we find some credible references (newspaper etc)? --ti 23:21, 9 March 2009 (UTC)

Hi Tejas. That has been the case until the last 2004 election when the NDA fought the election as a coalition. This time the UPA and the NDA are fighting the election as complete coalitions. They have named their Prime Ministerial candidates based on the coalition support. (See links/references in the PM candidates section). Hope this helps.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 23:53, 9 March 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the info Aditya! Also, good work on the article! --ti 14:18, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

eci-press-release citation[edit]

Hi all,

I have added a named reference to the press release by Election Commission of India. Most news articles seem to have scanned this publication for announcements of dates, constituencies, etc. And ofcourse it is the authoritative information for all election-related info.

Therefore: if you are using any information from this article, you can simply use

<ref name="eci-press-release"></ref>

instead of readding the citation information again! --ti 15:08, 10 March 2009 (UTC)

Cool. This is exactly what I was looking for, but didn't know how to do it. Still early days for me with wikipedia updates. Without this, I used to look for multiple sources so that I didn't reuse the same source everywhere. A lot cleaner now. Thanks Tejas!
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 08:32, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

need to add criminal candidates[edit]

atleast 10% of lok sabha candidats have criminal background.plz add it —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talkcontribs) 05:13, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

New map?[edit]

Hi. We urgently need a new map of the new delimitation of constituencies, so that the results can be graphically presented afterwards. Any takers? --Soman (talk) 13:23, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Do we have geodata for such a map? I created an SVG for the 2004 election results, using data from ECI website. But I could not find the updated boundaries. --ti 18:59, 22 April 2009 (UTC)
There is a map at . --Soman (talk) 12:43, 12 May 2009 (UTC)
There is a map here depicting the current results Gaurav1146 (talk) 17:10, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

"Avg Turnout" column in "Polling schedule for each state/UT" section[edit]

Hi, I do not think that anyone has published the average turnout for each state so far. Usually the ECI publishes this information only at the end of all phases of the election.

The average turnout shown now seems to be just the average of the turnouts in the different phases, but this is not the real average turnout as each phase has a different number of electors. The real average turnout is the total number of voters across all phases divided by the total number of electors across all phases.

I would suggest to remove this column until we have official numbers released by the ECI.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 02:36, 26 April 2009 (UTC)

This has been since resolved as the ECI has now published the official figures.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 17:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Results by states and territories[edit]

This section in the article cannot respresent the correct information. In India, there will no one single party that will win the entire state. Multiple parties will win multiple seats in each state. So this table can not be used.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 06:20, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Ignore this question. I see a similar format was used for the previous election as well. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aditya.krishnan.82 (talkcontribs) 06:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

edit protection[edit]

need to add edit protection from vandalism.As the results are out many edits will be done which would conflict and cause confusion—Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talkcontribs) 06:25, 16 May 2009 (UTC

I have removed the {{editprotected}} template because it is intended to be used to request an edit on a fully protected page. If you want to request protection to be applied to this page, I'd recommend filing a request at WP:RPP. ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 07:09, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
Also, when posting messages on talk pages, please be sure to sign your messages using four tildes (~~~~). ダイノガイ?!」(Dinoguy1000) 07:11, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

first since Nehru?[edit]

Article says:

Manmohan Singh, who is the first Prime Minister of India since Jawaharlal Nehru to win re-election after serving a full five-year term.[4][5]

This seems misleading. Indira Gandhi became PM in 1966, won an election the next year, and then won again in 1971. So I guess the election was held after four years, rather than five, but that seems really hair-splitting. john k (talk) 21:38, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

She didnt want to complete that term (67-71) and called for early elections. --Like I Care 22:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)
That is a good point. But it is significant, that we have had close to 17 prime ministers, and Manmohan Singh and Nehru so far have been the only prime minister to win back to back elections, with one serving their first term to the full extent.--Harish89 (talk) 03:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
But this is just a really weird criterion. In Britain, for instance, tons of people have won multiple elections - but very few recently have actually waited the full five years to call an election. Thus the last one to serve a full five years and win an election in 1950. Prior to that, it was Lord Salisbury in 1900. In Canada, which has the same five year limit, it last happened with Mackenzie King in 1940 and again in 1945. The key factor here is not politicians' ability to get re-elected, but whether or not they decide to wait out their whole parliament, or call elections early. john k (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
well, the comparison isnt evidently between countries, rather, just within India. Considering how Indian political system has entered into coalition politics and the difficulty with which each government carries itself through to the goal post. --Like I Care 05:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
This is true enough, but kind of serves to emphasize Gandhi's achievement as much as Singh's and Nehru's, no? Note that, in spite of India's greater political fragmentation than Britain or Canada, this has happened more recently in India (1962) than in Canada (1945) or Britain (1950). john k (talk) 19:04, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Numbers of votes and Percentages[edit]

I hope that the actual numbers of votes and the percentage of the votes received by each party will be listed in this article. The actual numbers of votes are the real indication of the support each party has in the electorate, rather than the number of seats.Stephen711 (talk) 02:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the actual number of votes polled will be available - I don't think it has ever been made available. All we can list is the vote share of the ruling and opposition combines, since that's pretty much the only figure that makes out to the press. And, as always, that shall be done only when it is reported widely in the press, so speaks rohith. 12:34, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Those numbers are made available in the Statistical Reports. See The Election Commission usually publishes those a few months after the elections. If you can't wait, there's always the possibility of adding all constituency results manually ( --Soman (talk) 16:12, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Addition of the Third Front to Infobox[edit]

Do you guys think it is a good idea to add the Third Front in the Infobox as a third party, with the leader being the Prakash Karat of CPI(M), due to the fact that the third front played a crucial role in this election. Even though it did poorly in this election, I think that throughout the campaign, it was a three-way race rather than a two way race.--Harish89 (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

guess it should be. --Like I Care 05:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
We need to rethink putting up the Third Front in the infobox. Of the original UNPA parties, SP,TRS, AGP and INLD joined other coalitions even before the polls began. BSP has now extended support to the UPA and the other parties like JD(S) and TDP seem to leave the alliance soon, thereby making the tally of 74 seats misleading. Moreover, both NDA and UPA had declared their PM candidates, and Mr. Karat was far from being an official choice. My point is, that while it wasn't a two-way contest, it could be assumed that there was a great possibility of either LK or Manmohan Singh being PM. Looking at it from a purist perspective, I agree we should let the entry remain. But then we should add Mayawati, Sharad Pawar, Jayalalitha...the list would be endless. Awaiting your reply. Cheers --Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
The problem with the Third Front of 2009 is that it is not exactly the same as the UNPA which disbanded in 2008. But at the same time, a large number of the parties in the Third Front are from the erstwhile UNPA. And I definitely disagree with the idea of having Prakash Karat as the representative of the TF in the Infobox for the same reason that we have Manmohan Singh and not Sonia Gandhi on there. Prakash Karat was never in the running to be PM and neither were Mayawati or Sharad Pawar officially PM candidates. I wonder if we can have the TF as an entity with no PM candidate? Not clean or appealing, but perhaps a compromise between removing TF completely and being misleading w.r.t the leader?
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 11:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
It's not appealing I agree, but this infobox is a style borrowed from the US Presidential Elections and is bound to be a misfit in our context. We put up two photographs for the benefit of the foreign reader; But I think the third entry should be taken off altogether. Reading the number of seats between the two big alliances, its obvious that there are other parties in the fray- we needn't account for all 543 seats in photographs. Still waiting for harish89's reply. Aditya, we can discuss this further. Cheers. --Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree. We should remove it. We also have a precedent from the 2004 election where only the UPA & NDA have been displayed despite the Left Front playing a far more pivotal role in 2004 than the 3rd Front have played in 2009. The only reason I suggested to retain it is because over the last 3-4 months, the 3rd Front has been added to & removed from the Infobox multiple times.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 09:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
I disagree. Having just UPA and NDA in the infobox is misleading, this is the first election, where there was a formidable third alliance, which was organized. There hasn't been a third force, in indian elections for a long time. In 2004, the left front ran while supporting congress, so they weren't really a third alliance. This year, they fought for a non-BJP and non-Congress government. In response to someone saying the style is like the US presidential elections, I disagree. Its more of the UK/Canada elections, where we have parties that get a significant share of seats in the parliament, rather than single leaders. The 74 seats, represents pre-poll alliance, not what happened after the election. We still cannot be sure with 262 seats with UPA, but that should be the number in the box, no matter what happens after the election, bc those are the official election results. I strongly believe that the third front proved to be an important alliance in this election, even though they were defeated, and removing them, does not paint an accurate picture of the election.-- (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree with the above comment, I think its important that third front be included in the infobox. They represented an alliance, that wanted to form non-BJP, non-Congress government. Even though they were defeated, they were a formidable alliance, just like the NDA and UPA. On the point that it is obvious that there are other parties, the point of adding the third front isnt to point out other parties, but they was another alliance. This is significant, because they tried to run an election, with a common manifesto, that could present something different from the other alliances. This is also the first election, that we have had a formidable third front (pre-poll alliance). The other elections, like in 1977, 1989, 1996, were third fronts that grew out of post poll alliances. If we do not include the third front in this election, it would be out of line with other elections. For example for the 1996 indian election, I added the United Front to the infobox, bc. previously it had BJP has the leading party. I think viewers who look at the page, would be confused on why Deve Gowda was elected prime minister, and where he got the seats. Thats why i added the post poll alliance to the box, to explain the number of seats that went to the alliance, w/o Congress, and how they were able to form government. In this election, no one was sure that NDA or UPA would be largest alliance, bc of powerful parties under the third front. It is worth noting, that they were not just loose parties that tried to fight the election, but they formed an alliance, and tried to contest on par with UPA and NDA. --Harish89 (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
In terms of leader being Karat, I see that there is a problem between leader and PM candidate. If someone could edit the actual template and add PM candidate as one of the items, then the confusion would disappear. I put Karat, because the left front were the first to start the third front, just as congress was first to start UPA, and bjp was first to start NDA, and I am by no way indicating that he is the PM candidate. Since we have Manmohan Singh as the leader, I was thinking that if the PM candidate is declared then he should be the leader of the alliance, if its not then the party/alliance leader should be the leader. I dont mind if we can remove karat as leader, and dont put up a leader, but i think its important to put up the third front.--Harish89 (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Okay, due to confusion on leaders, i have included all of them. Is this a fair compromise, in terms of leaders/PM candidates?--Harish89 (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I think that the multiple leaders makes it very confusing. From UPA & NDA perspective, we definitely should have only 1 leader - the PM-candidates. The 3rd Front makes it a challenge since each of the leaders have been touted as PM candidates (unofficially) at various times. I'll try to see if there is any news article where the 3rd Front may have nominated a convenor or chairperson, and if so, we could use that person as the leader of 3rdF. In the meantime, I think we should revert back to the single leader display.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 02:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I see the problem. I wish the template was personalized for Indian elections, where it included PM candidate instead of leader, and had coalition instead of party, and included entries for pre-poll alliance and post-poll alliance seats. As far as my knowledge on third front, they didnt want a leader to represent third front, bc they were afraid they might be projected as PM candidate. I put Karat because his left front had the most seats, and the left front, started the third front. We can remove the third front from infobox, if we cannot get a consensus, on leader/PM candidate and just note the prescense of third front in the article.--Harish89 (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
How about we leave the TF in Infobox, but don't have any leader or photo? It might not really look very good, but that does convey the most accurate picture... It shows that a 3rd pre-poll alliance played a big role in the campaigning phase but this alliance didn't present any leader to the Indian voter.
As for the Alliance, I too think that it is something that we should have. I have placed a request for it at: Template talk:Infobox Election. Lets try getting some votes in there?
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 07:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Whoa. Seems like I missed a long discussion. I vote that the entry can stay, without a photograph and with updated no. of seats (thats 68) Cheers --Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
I've added the alliance parameters to Template:Infobox Election and added the information into this article. I'm still not convinced that we should have Mr. Karat as the face of the TF. Do we have a consensus on what to do with the TF entry?
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 16:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I think what we have right now is perfect. I know its tough to represent the third front, since they consist of many big name parties. Since Left Front ended up with most seats, with the TF, i think its appropriate to have Karat and CPM, as the leading party of third front, since they were more of a national party than other parties. It is also appropriate since CPM and Left Front, were the ones who started the third front, just like congress was with UPA and BJP was with NDA. Even many media outlet, represent the third front, as the left front alliance, due to the fact they were able to get 59 seats, in the last election, being the 3rd largest so-called alliance in the last election. --Harish89 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

UPA Photo: Manmohan or Sonia?[edit]

I'm just wondering about the photo on the main page. Manmohan Singh is not really the leader of the UPA, despite being prime minister. Sonia Gandhi is the UPA leader, so shouldn't she actually be the one with the photo on the front page? --Mezaco (talk) 01:22, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I see your point, but I think in terms of context of Indian elections, it is better to put the prime ministerial candidate as the leader, since he will be the leader of the country, and the leader of the coalition/party, should only be put, if they have not declared the prime minsterial candidate, like in 2004 election, that is why vajpayee was put as leader in previous elections, even though advani was the leader.--Harish89 (talk) 01:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Harish89. Once a coalition has designated a PM-candidate, he/she becomes the face of the UPA. In 2004, Congress did not announce a PM-candidate and hence the 2004 article has Sonia Gandhi's picture rather than Manmohan Singh's even though Manmohan later became the PM.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 08:45, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

criminal cases![edit]

according to an article in Times of India, 150 MPs elected have criminal cases against them including 73 with serious criminal charges. guess we should include this as well. --Like I Care 04:05, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

Being elected does not prevent these cases from coming to trial. It will be interesting to see how many of the charges are prosecuted, and how many result in convictions. Has anyone followed up on the outcome of such charges in the past? Fconaway (talk) 16:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
depends on the merit of each case and the individual's political clout. some in the past seem to have been barred from running for office. Wives of criminal-turned-politicians trailing in Bihar --Like I Care 16:51, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

stop censoring.I added a article about the criminal candidates and it was removed.Wy are you hiding the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 03:39, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

who is removing the tainted mps article.Why dont you want to have it in the article?. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Manchurian candidate (talkcontribs) 15:43, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Looks like its still there under another name? MPs with pending criminal charges and this gives the summary of the candidates with such charges who got elected in 2009.
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 04:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

2008 Lok Sabha Vote of confidence[edit]

I noticed that the this section was removed. I thought it was appropriate for this article, because if the congress were to lose the vote of confidence, we would have had elections last year. Even if it doesn't have a section on its own, it should at least go under the background of the election, since the reason, congress were to complete its full 5 terms, and have this election, is because they barely got the vote of confidence last year. Any thoughts?--Harish89 (talk) 02:50, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I dded this back to a background, dotn know why it was removed (and not discussed here), but add back the relevant materialLihaas (talk) 09:25, 18 September 2010 (UTC)

Article Rating[edit]

This article is currenly rated as "C". Does anyone know what is needed to improve the rating of the article? Is there a clear path for an article?
Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 17:00, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

One has to add this article for reviewers to assess. I have added this article for assessment. Hopefully this article can get a higher rating. The 2007 presidential election article for India, got a B rating, I am sure this article is much better.--Harish89 (talk) 04:54, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Leader's seat in Infobox[edit]

The article shows Manmohan's Singh's seat as Assam (Rajya Sabha) whereas for Prakash Karat it shows did not contest. This is a bit misleading as it may give the impression to a foreign reader that Manmohan Singh contested the election. Shouldn't we have did not contest for both of them. Gaurav1146 (talk) 07:46, 29 May 2009 (UTC)

I was under the impression that you contest for both seats in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha. The only difference is people elect you in Lok Sabha and Rajya Sabha members are indirectly elected. But if people feel that did not contest is misleading we could just put none.--Harish89 (talk) 23:15, 29 May 2009 (UTC)
The article is about elections to the 15th Lok Sabha. The Rajya Sabha has a different tenure (6 years) and a different election schedule. So, I am not sure if putting only the Rajya Sabha seat is correct when the article is about the Lok Sabha elections. But at the same time, he is eligible for Prime Minister's post by being a Rajya sabha member. I think we could mention did not contest as well as Member (Rajya Sabha) in the Leader's seat section (like this revision [1]). Gaurav1146 (talk) 09:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
That makes sense, but if we put Rajya Sabha member, it is self explanatory that he does not have a Lok Sabha seat. On terms of "impression to a foreign reader Manmohan Singh contested the election", he did the contest the election as PM. If we put did not contest, that might confuse the reader even more. Prakat does not have a seat, or has contested for a seat as an MP (Lok Sabha/Rajya Sabha), so thats why I thought it was appropriate to put did not contest. Since the infobox has leader's seat, I don't think it particularly has to be Lok Sabha seat, even though it is Lok Sabha election. We have further clarified it by saying its a Rajya Sabha seat, since he needs to be an MP, to be the PM.--Harish89 (talk) 19:10, 30 May 2009 (UTC)
I feel in the current context the Leader's seat should refer to the Lok Sabha seat. As for "contest the election as PM" , in a parliamentary system the Election commission does not conduct the election for the PM. The elections are held for individual constituencies which Manmohan Singh did not contest. But as you said did not contest can be confusing, I suggest how about if we use did not contest Lok Sabha elections , Member (Rajya Sabha).We might provide more details about this in the Prime ministerial candidates section. Gaurav1146 (talk) 04:38, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
Based on our discussion and your first reply, I have changes the Leader's Seat for Prakash Karat to None. If by Leader's seat you are not referring to the 15th Lok Sabha seat contested by the Leader, it makes sense to put None instead of did not contest. Though I still feel that the leader's seat/constituency should refer to the seat in Indian general election, 2009.Gaurav1146 (talk) 06:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Too many tables?[edit]

I feel the article has a few tables too many - particularly the tables on the UPA/NDA/TF constituents, results by party and results by state. These make the article extremely cumbersome and unwieldy, and as a result it may not conform to WP guidelines on article length and summary style (particularly since sub-articles exist for each of these). IMHO, a few of these tables should go. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 09:19, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have removed a few tables, moving the information to the respective sub-articles in some cases. A lot of work still remains to be done - I think the section on 15th Lok Sabha is quite unnecessary on this page, particularly since it focuses only on the Council of ministers (too many tables there as well). We still have to work top get this article to a more manageable size, and for that we need to copyedit and format the page, and remove extraneous information wherever necessary. I will be working on this page to help and improve it. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 04:48, 14 June 2009 (UTC)
I moved the deleted 15th Lok Sabha to the Lok Sabha page. Please make sure that if there are additional information that needs to be removed from the main page, if possible move it to a separate page.--Harish89 (talk) 19:20, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Prime Ministerial Candidates[edit]

I think the above section is unnecessary and could be merged with the preceding section on Campaigning. Any thoughts? Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 16:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with it. It could also be merged under coalitions. We could also add a few things about PM candidates that the Third Front indicated they would support. Like for example, when the AIADMK got in trouble for mentioning Sharad Pawar as a PM candidate, if the Third Front were to support Congress after the election.--Harish89 (talk) 17:29, 9 July 2009 (UTC)
Good idea - I'll merge it with Coalitions. Regards, SBC-YPR (talk) 17:50, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Web / Technology in this Election[edit]

Is it worth mentioning about the increase in use of technology / web in this election. Jaago_re, BJP's adsense campaign, SMS / mobile campaign by parties, sites like , google's(translated) / ECs voter list search considering this is the first indian election with significant web/technology presence. Thoughts welcome Srikanth (speak) 19:01, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 5 external links on Indian general 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.

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 17:32, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Indian general 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Question? Archived sources still need to be checked

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:41, 21 July 2016 (UTC)