Talk:1993 Russian government referendum

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.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Russia: History / Politics and law Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.
	This article is supported by the politics and law of Russia task force.

"All four questions were approved by a majority of voters"

What? Only the first two! — Preceding unsigned comment added by BountyFlamor (talk • contribs) 23:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, the first two and the last. I've updated it. Number 5 7 11:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Question III result correct?

Is the result provided for Question III correct? this source provides a different result, in which no quorum was met (the required 50% voter turnout/participation for a quorum was not reached).SecretName101 (talk) 01:56, 13 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Including "% of electorate for" in the table for Questions requiring only simple majority

@Number 57: I think that the info shall be included, as the % of the electorate that voted in favour of a Question is a relevant info per se (it helps evaluating the popular support of a proposal). As a reader, this is an information I would like to have, as, for example, it helps me inferring that the ruling of the Constitutional Court was essential for the success of the first two Questions, that would have otherwise been rejected. I see no reason not to provide the reader of this info.

If your objection is that including the numbers in the table could create confusion, since they are uncorrelated with the Approved/Rejected/Quorum not met column, I think we could add a note/annotation to stress that, so to avoid any possible misunderstanding. What do you think? Ripepette (talk) 10:33, 24 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree and don't think it is useful to include when it isn't relevant – it is not included as standard in referendum articles and is almost only used when it is relevant due to a quota requirement.

A similar example is Swiss referendums, some of which have a requirement for a majority of cantons in favour. The cantonal vote is only listed for questions where there was a cantonal requirement (see e.g. 1993 Swiss referendums).

If a reader is really interested in this figure (which I doubt many will be), it is pretty easy to work it out for themselves. Number 5 7 00:43, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]