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.
I think its best off staying at the current title. "national" and "by entity" are somewhat contradicatory as you can't have "national" elections for a non-country such as the UN. Number57 12:33, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree on the "national" bit for the UN. Perhaps other wording?
But the Aland and Samoa are more open that way. (pseudo-national, if you like)Lihaas (talk) 13:09, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
I'm not keen on the World Bank/UN elections as normal citizens don't vote in them. The only exception I would make would be EU elections - perhaps a separate section at the end for them.
Regarding Aland, American Samoa etc, I'm not in favour of including them - what would be the cut off point for sub-national elections? Would we then include Scottish elections, German states, French departments? Number57 16:38, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
But the supranational ones, as mentioned, dont haveto be popularly elected. They are the biggest entities there.
Scotland, etc do have some national status. German Lander and French departmanets have none whatsoever on eany platform.
Anyways, it seems the indirect elections should be there. In what manner. Link to the recent election with the year in somewhere?Lihaas (talk) 21:37, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes, but my point is that the supranational elections aren't "real" elections; they're just a vote amongst members - it's like shareholders of an organisation voting for a director, not the general public. That's why I'm also reluctant to put the indirect ones in here - i.e. they're not actual elections in the common sense of the meaning. Number57 21:58, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
For the World Bank i could see, but not so much fo r the UN.Lihaas (talk) 10:25, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Really all elections are votes by the members, if you think about i.t.
Anyways, lets get3O?
hink we can defo add the indirect elections as tidier. Just change the BG colour if need be. Its also on the electoral calendars.Lihaas (talk) 16:35, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Still not sure - why are they in the electoral calendars if they aren't proper elections? Number57 20:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
But it is. Elections do NOT have to be popularly elected, by definitionLihaas (talk) 21:43, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
In many cases, these indirect elections are simply parliamentary votes. I think it's best to leave this article for proper public elections. Number57 23:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
How about a column for who won the election/plurality and a different colour background for incumbent/non-incumbent win. + Also to use flagicon and link the country to the "Elections of.." page?Lihaas (talk) 10:23, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
I agree with the link to "Elections in" articles, but not with the colouring - it could get very complex - there's a difference between beating an incumbent and an election where the incumbent doesn't win. As for parliamentary elections, there can be no clear winner and coalitions built with parties that didn't win the highest number of seats (e.g. East Timor in 2007, Israel in 2009) etc etc. Number57 11:16, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
True, We could name the prez/prime minister though?Lihaas (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Not a good idea - this isn't necessarily related to the elections (e.g. they can change without an election if a government is ousted etc). Number57 20:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
They COULD BUT they were elected as a result of this. Remember thsi is not the list of current heads.Lihaas (talk) 21:39, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I think we need to keep the list as simple as possible - why add more detail and complicate things? Adding another two columns would almost certainly make the table too wide to view on a single line. Number57 23:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
o use "Elections in..." link with gflag and not to add columns.Lihaas (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Do we really need to mention titles on every alphabet? Bit overdone. top and bottom should suffice, much as in large tables of opinion polls.Lihaas (talk) 16:34, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Yes - as we have three columns, I think it's necessary for readers to be able to see the headers all the way down the table. It also breaks up the table nicely into groups of countries beginning with the same letters. Number57 20:19, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
Itssilly for the likes of Q butgoodfor S.
The same is done on opinion polls that godown far. No tidying and readers see from the beginningLihaas (talk) 21:40, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
But given the complexities of this table (particularly the split between bicameral and unicameral parliaments, which involves the latter two columns merge or split as appropriate), I think it's necessary to have the headers. Number57 23:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
per latest change tooday, which eases accessibility/readailityLihaas (talk) 03:01, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
Not resolved - doing that makes the individual tables for each letter different widths, which looks awful. Number57 08:44, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
How about a column for the most recent on in each ocountry? Newsworthy to be posted on a collated list for easy access.Lihaas (talk) 21:41, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
I don't think this is a good idea. Some countries do not hold referendums, and they are not held on a regular basis like elections. Again, this needs to stay as simple as possible. Number57 23:15, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
The current table headings are "President" and "Parliament". Since not all countries use those terms (and some are monarchies), I think it would be better to head the table with "Head of State" and "Legislature". - Presidentmantalk · contribsRandom Picture of the Day (Talkback) 12:23, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
One could equally argue against Legislature because that is what some countries call their parliament (e.g. Liberia) - the terms are interchangeable. In addition, all countries that elect their head of State have a president - hence the greyed out boxes and comments for Monarchies. Number57 16:33, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
And the next sentence (which for some reason you have failed to reproduce) is "More generally, "parliament" may simply refer to a democratic government's legislature". Number57 21:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
I dont think President man's suggestions are a bad idea, could work. However, im not doing the grunt work to change them ;)Lihaas (talk) 03:04, 20 August 2012 (UTC)
I, too, fully agree with Presidentman. In fact, I came here to make basically the same comments and was checking to see if someone beat me to it. I have lived in the United States all of my 50+ years, and I have never heard or read anyone ever refer to the U.S. federal legislature as a parliament. We call it Congress. I have been under the impression for a long time that countries with parliaments are led by prime ministers, especially in constitutional monarchies. The bottom line is we do have an upper house and a lower house in our legislature, but we do not have a parliament. Also, the U.S. has never had a direct election of a President (except, perhaps, when some of the states were led by presidents while the Articles of Confederation were in effect). A disturbingly high number of voters in the U.S. believe they are electing the president when they go to voting booths every fourth November, but their votes actually determine which slate of electors their state will appoint to vote in the real presidential and vice-presidential elections six weeks later.