Talk:2010 Costa Rican general election

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

Costa Rica Mid‑importance

	Costa Rica portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Costa Rica, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Costa Rica 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.Costa RicaWikipedia:WikiProject Costa RicaTemplate:WikiProject Costa RicaCosta Rica articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale.

Describing the PLN and other parties

143.89.188.4 has issues with my description of the PLN as "centrist" rather than left-wing, writing "being a member of a socialist international definitely makes it leftist or centre-left. considering that it is in a developing country it can probably be considered leftist." I have to disagree -- many Socialist International member parties are on the centre relative to other political forces in their country. In the case of Costa Rica, and in relative terms only, Acción Ciudadana can certainly be considered to the left of the PLN, whereas Movimiento Libertario and PUSC can be considered to the right.

The best compromise is probably to use the descriptions found on the page Politics_of_Costa_Rica -- that is, social democratic for the PLN, centre-left for the PAC, "libertarian" for PAL, and "Christian democratic" for PUSC.

The other changes I made on 8 Feb, which have also been reverted by 143.89.188.4, dealt mainly with phrasing -- they seemed perfectly innocent changes to me.

The Laura Chinchilla page is overflowing with POV material about one (as far as I know, fairly minor) aspect of her political beliefs -- someone should take a careful look at it...

Ksimons (talk) 23:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd consider PLN to be CR's center-left party, but politics often transcends the simplistic linear paradigm of "left" and "right" and I agree that just "Social Democrat" is best. Notably, the consensus on the Social Democrat page is that "Social democracy is a political ideology of the political left and centre-left on the classic political spectrum," _not_ "centrist" as you say, Ks. (It's also odd, because if indeed some factions of the SI (Socialist Int'l) were considered centrist by expert (and non-POV) sources, I'd have thought that some Wikipedian somewhere by now would be able to find an expert to state that...and yet I don't see the term "centrist" appearing anywhere on the Socialist International webpage (in contrast to various forms of "left" parties). Of course, you're free to look for such an expert's statement, I just have difficulty believing that with the breadth of contributors, no one yet has found such an expert (and non-POV) statement.) Chinchilla's page which described her as far-right on social issues _without_ sources seems to have been resolved; also her views on other issues have been added, but you should realize that: A.) the gay & church-state issues were big in CR recently, garnering up to 1/3rd the Assembly's vote (I wouldn't call that a "minor" issue), and B.) the Laura Chinchilla articles on both es.wikipedia and en.wikipedia were approx 2 sentences before her campaign late last year, and I'm sure her views on a variety of more issues should be expanded, with WP:DUE weight given to each. As it is, this page (Costa_Rican_general_election,_2010) gives WP:UNDUE weight to the presidential election, but I don't have the Assembly results or other details about Assembly campaigns.216.82.194.76 (talk) 09:50, 7 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Percentages are wrong in the "President election results" section

In the results table, the final lines state:

	Votes	%
Total valid votes	1,824,676	100.00
Null votes	29,825	1.603
Blank votes	6,530	0.351
Total votes	1,861,031	100.00
Total voters enrolled	2,690,550	N/A% turnout

If 1,824,676 (the total of valid votes) is 100%, then 1,861,031 (total votes) cannot also be 100%. Something is wrong here. --SciCorrector (talk) 17:37, 8 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is not wrong. The 100.00% valid votes is there because the candidates's percentages are based on the Valid votes total. Pristino (talk) 10:10, 15 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]