Template talk:Romanian legislative election, 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject Romania (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics 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.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.

PNT-CD&PNL, Minorities[edit]

I haven't heard of the Christian-Democratic National Peasants' Party's candidates. The party has a protocol with the National Liberal Party (signed prior to the leadership issue in PNT-CD).

About the minorities' parties: their presence in the Chamber of Deputies is not by default! There is a special threshold for such parties (if they do not pass the general threshold of 5%). So the number of deputies could change (i.e. less than 18). Furthermore, their presence in (or absence from) the Senate is not forbidden (mandatory). So, in theory, the minorities' parties can win seats in the Senate. (one can see that UDMR is represented in the Senate, as they obtained results higher than the minimum of 5%).

I made the changes in accordance with this comment.

--ES Vic (talk) 19:00, 3 November 2008 (UTC)

As far as I know, each National Minority is guaranteed a seat in the Chamber of Deputies (see Romanian ethnic minorities parties), no matter how many votes their representative parties get. Of course, if a representative minority party passes the 5% threshold, it would get additional seats, but then it should be listed separately in the table (as UDMR is). My reason for crossing out National Minority seats in the Senate is that they are not guaranteed a seat there. A national minority party that does obtain Senate seats (e.g. UDMR) would be listed separately in the table, but the "National Minority" group as a whole (Grupul parlamentar al minorităţilor naţionale) can never be represented in the Senate. Nevertheless, I don't mind the status quo. We can fill it in after the election results come back.
Finally, with regard to PNT-CD/PNL, I've also heard of that protocol but was unsure of what it actually entailed. So does this mean that the PNTCD candidates will be listed as "PNL" on the uninominal ballots, or are they more in an alliance with the PNL similar to the PSD+PC alliance? Thanks, Ronline 02:07, 7 November 2008 (UTC)
I will read the law more carefully next time. As far as I know, the national minorities' seats did change over the legislatures (in the 1996/2000 legislature there where 15 minorities). Anyhow, the data can be added after 30th of Novemner.
Regarding the PNL-PNTCD protocol, as a PNL member I know that the 15 PNTCD members will be listed on the ballots under the PNL sign, as (formal) PNL members. If they get elected, the protocol says thay will resign from PNL and rejoin PNTCD. So it is not a PSD+PUR (PC) type of alliance. I must admit that I have no idea on how things go with the PNTCD, as they have some internal problems regarding their leadership (R. Sârbu vs. M. Miluţ). I also know that the protocol (signed by Tăriceanu and Miluţ) is both legal and applied. Did this clear stuff up? --ES Vic (talk) 11:12, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

Here it is the law:
Romanian: [...]


pentru alegerea Camerei Deputaţilor şi a Senatului şi pentru modificarea şi completarea Legii nr. 67/2004 pentru alegerea autorităţilor administraţiei publice locale, a Legii administraţiei publice locale nr. 215/2001 şi a Legii nr. 393/2004 privind Statutul aleşilor locali



Alegerea Camerei Deputaţilor şi a Senatului



Constatarea rezultatelor alegerilor

Art. 47. – (1) După primirea dosarelor prevăzute la art. 45, respectiv a proceselor-verbale şi dosarelor prevăzute la art. 46, biroul electoral de circumscripţie încheie, separat pentru Camera Deputaţilor şi pentru Senat, câte un proces-verbal cuprinzând totalizarea voturilor valabil exprimate pentru candidaţii fiecărui partid politic, alianţă politică, alianţă electorală, organizaţie a cetăţenilor aparţinând minorităţilor naţionale şi pentru fiecare candidat independent, în toate colegiile uninominale de pe raza teritorială a circumscripţiei electorale, pe care îl înaintează în termen de 24 de ore la Biroul Electoral Central.

(2) După primirea proceselor-verbale încheiate de către birourile electorale ale circumscripţiilor electorale, potrivit alin. (1), Biroul Electoral Central stabileşte partidele politice, alianţele politice, alianţele electorale şi organizaţiile cetăţenilor aparţinând minorităţilor naţionale care îndeplinesc pragul electoral, separat pentru Camera Deputaţilor şi pentru Senat. Pragul electoral reprezintă numărul minim necesar de voturi valabil exprimate pentru reprezentarea parlamentară sau de colegii uninominale în care candidaţii partidelor politice, alianţelor politice, alianţelor electorale sau ai organizaţiilor cetăţenilor aparţinând minorităţilor naţionale au obţinut majoritatea voturilor valabil exprimate, calculat după cum urmează:

a) pentru Camera Deputaţilor, 5% din voturile valabil exprimate pe întreaga ţară, pentru toate partidele politice, alianţele politice, alianţele electorale şi organizaţiile cetăţenilor aparţinând minorităţilor naţionale;

b) pentru Senat, 5% din voturile valabil exprimate pe întreaga ţară, pentru toate partidele politice, alianţele politice, alianţele electorale şi organizaţiile cetăţenilor aparţinând minorităţilor naţionale;

c) pentru Camera Deputaţilor şi Senat, prin îndeplinirea cumulativă a condiţiei obţinerii a 6 colegii uninominale pentru Camera Deputaţilor şi a 3 colegii uninominale pentru Senat, în care candidaţii partidelor politice, alianţelor politice sau electorale şi organizaţiilor cetăţenilor aparţinând minorităţilor naţionale se situează pe primul loc, în ordinea numărului de voturi valabil exprimate, chiar dacă acestea nu au îndeplinit condiţiile prevăzute la lit. a) sau b);

d) în cazul alianţelor politice şi alianţelor electorale, la pragul de 5% prevăzut la lit. a) şi b) se adaugă, pentru al doilea membru al alianţei, 3% din voturile valabil exprimate pe întreaga ţară şi, pentru fiecare membru al alianţei, începând cu al treilea, câte un procent din voturile valabil exprimate pe întreaga ţară, fără a se putea depăşi 10% din aceste voturi.

(3) Pentru organizaţiile cetăţenilor aparţinând minorităţilor naţionale care nu au îndeplinit condiţiile prevăzute la alin. (2) şi care au dreptul conform legii la reprezentare în Camera Deputaţilor se stabileşte un coeficient electoral la nivel naţional reprezentând numărul mediu de voturi valabil exprimate necesare pentru alegerea unui deputat, pentru a determina acele organizaţii ale cetăţenilor aparţinând minorităţilor naţionale care pot avea reprezentanţi în Camera Deputaţilor.

(4) Coeficientul electoral la nivel naţional se stabileşte prin împărţirea numărului total de voturi valabil exprimate la nivel naţional pentru alegerea Camerei Deputaţilor la numărul de colegii uninominale constituite la nivel naţional pentru alegerea Camerei Deputaţilor. Are dreptul la reprezentare organizaţia cetăţenilor aparţinând minorităţii naţionale care a obţinut cel puţin 10% din coeficientul electoral. Se declară ales acel reprezentant al organizaţiei cetăţenilor aparţinând minorităţii naţionale care a obţinut cel mai mare număr de voturi.

(5) Rezultatul operaţiunilor prevăzute la alin. (2)–(4) se transmite de către Biroul Electoral Central, pe bază de proces-verbal, fiecăruia dintre birourile electorale de circumscripţie.

Some observations and comments[edit]

How should parties be listed? The way they are currently listed is not consistent. If we are to order them by the Senate, shouldn’t that be in the first column? Also, shouldn’t the ethnic minorities parties be listed at the bottom? My two other points are rather minor, concerning the plus-minus signs and the em dashes. For the first, “±0” is the same as “0” and no sign is needed. This might confuse casual readers (or not, I really don’t know). Additionally, I think a distinction needs to be made between zero and the em dash. Zero means no change or no seats. The em dash means that it does not apply. I placed an em dash for the seat change for the ethnic minorities parties because the seats they get are fixed. – Zntrip 01:56, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

The plus-minus sign is intended to show that no change occurred; I usually prefer ±0, and we've mostly used that in other templates (or at least I think so...?). Fair enough, we can put an em dash for the minorities, but usually we also put an em dash if the party has not been in parliament before and is not in parliament now.
Regarding the order, I'd say we'll have to used a mixed system -- order them by seats first, then by votes, and if there's a strong difference between CoD and Senate votes, use the average to establish an order. As the PNDC has on average much more than the PSR, due to their "good" Senate result, I'd order them higher up. Will that be okay? —Nightstallion 07:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. – Zntrip 22:25, 3 December 2008 (UTC)


I added the columns representing the percentage of seats for the parties in each chamber. I find that relevant do prove that the current electoral system in Romania keeps the votes percentage in the seats percentage. The table that resulted is kind of tight. I suggest the splitting of this template into the two redirect templates that already exist Template:Romanian Senate election, 2008, and Template:Romanian Chamber of Deputies election, 2008. To see how it looks like, see my sandboxes, @ User:ES Vic/'Template:Infobox Legislature' redesign, and User:ES Vic/Încă o zonă lego.

--ES Vic (talk) 19:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

I'm all for splitting it up. – Zntrip 22:26, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
I disagree with the splitting up. The Romanian electoral system is such that there is usually no major difference between Chamber and Senate results. Thus, having two separate tables effectively duplicates the results. Furthermore, having the two side by side makes it much easier to get a general idea of the election result, which is what a summary table like this should do. I agree that there should be a column representing percentage of seats, not only percentage of votes. Percentage of seats is significant when considering coalition agreements and parliamentary majorities. The column I would remove is the change in seats, for two reasons. Firstly, the electoral system now is different to the former one, and thus the "change in seats" represents not only changes in the popularity of the party, but also changes in the electoral system. Secondly, the Chamber appears to now have more parliamentarians than before (+2). I also propose reordering the columns in the following order, from left to right:
  • Votes
  • Votes % (called just "%")
  • Seats
  • Seats % (called just "%")
  • Seats gain/loss (called just "+/-")
Thanks, Ronline 23:36, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
It doesn’t duplicate the results at all. I can’t even find any other example of an election result table having results from more than one house anywhere. I do agree that the column headings can be shortened, but the table would is still be tight and that will not even be an issue if it were split. Additionally, if we split it to two tables, the “Chamber of Deputies” and “Senate” headings could be changed to “Votes” and “Seats” with the number, %, and change for each. – Zntrip 03:40, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Meh, many South American election results templates have both houses in the same template. I'm not quite sure whether I like the split or not, personally. —Nightstallion 10:51, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
Well, the two houses do have the same role, and they do take important decisions as a whole (Romanian: Camerele Reunite), and the election system does not differ from one House to the other. But still, the table is too tight and none of the columns is redundant. Although the election system has changed, it does keep the proportionality of the seats, thus the +/- column is relevant. If the vote will be for keeping the current format, how about changing the text size? --ES Vic (talk) 12:18, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I still think we should split it. I'll do it no one still objects. – Zntrip 20:55, 4 December 2008 (UTC)
I still object to the vote split. I agree that none of the columns are redundant, but as a basic design principle I'm in favour of trying as hard as possible to minimise the number of tables and to convey information as cohesively and simply as possible. Smaller text would be an option. On my 1280 x 800 screen, the table doesn't really seem too tight at all. Ronline 13:19, 6 December 2008 (UTC)
We should always go with the least redundant option, in my view, so I'm with Ronline here: no split. Dahn (talk) 03:49, 8 December 2008 (UTC)

Change in seats - sources[edit]

Hi. I'm just wondering what source was used for the seat change column. Are the 2008 number of seats being compared to the composition of the Parliament before the election, or the composition of the Parliament immediately after the 2004 election? Given the high rate of political migration in Romania, this would be a significant change. The reason I'm asking is because the seat change numbers don't seem to concord with either the number of seats after the 2004 elections or the number of seats upon dissolution. One other note: the seat change column for the Conservative Party should be filled in. Furthermore, does anyone know how the seats were allocated between the PSD and the PC? It appears to me that the PC got significantly less seats this time around than in 2004 (during the PSD+PUR coalition). Thanks, Ronline 06:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I took the data from the Chamber of Deputies website and the Senate website. They are quite up to date, and show the present political configuration. So the seat change is shown with respect to the end of the legislature seating (November 208). --ES Vic (talk) 17:06, 11 December 2008 (UTC)