Talk:2017 Mongolian presidential election

Source

How official and reliable is that iKON. mo source? It has 2nd and 3rd in reverse compared to the first prognosis.--Batmacumba (talk) 08:35, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Blank votes

The %s have been repeatedly changed to include the number of blank votes. This is not in line with psephological norms (where only valid votes count towards the percentage - see e.g. how they're presented on Psephos where they add up to 100%, although somehow have been calculated wrong), nor is it consistent with the rest of the Mongolian election articles. Number <ufont color="green">57 11:00, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

The norm is to not count the blank votes because a candidate need to gather 50%+1 votes to win and deducing the percent of blank votes may make it look like no one did. That is indeed a standard, but Mongolia doesn't follow it. Blank votes are counted, and it is possible that no candidate win an absolute majority because of it, even in the second round. The election then has to be redone. It is very important to add it because this very fact was used as tactical voting in the second round by the third candidate calling for voters to cast blank votes with the intent to have the election recalled. See the french article for sources, notably the articles 97.9 and 99.2 of the electoral law (in english) and the fourth source's "Legal Framework for the Second Round" paragraph (also in english). Previous articles are just being wrong all the same, I guess, or the electoral law was recently modified..--Aréat (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I think we should definitely mention it in the text as it is quite unusual to have a second round in which no-one could win. However, I don't think we should change the results table as currently it is in line with reliable third-party sources like Psephos and Dieter Nohlen's books. I propose something along the lines of this be added to the electoral system section to point this out:

"The General Election Commission includes blank votes in its calculations of the proportion of the vote won by each candidate; as a result, it is possible that no candidate wins a majority of the vote in the second round. If this happens, the entire election is annulled and fresh elections would be held.

Number 57 12:49, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I disagree. If the electoral law say of blank votes that "the vote shall be counted in the number of votes cast, and in this case the ballot paper is deemed to be valid", then it should be shown as such, there isn't valid votes more valid than the others. Besides, the elected candidate here won very narrowly, with less than 8000 votes, and writting that he got >55% doesn't provide the reader this information accurately. Finally, if no candidate did reach the 50% quorum, would we still show him as having let's say 53% of the votes, yet write that he failed to gather an absolute majority? We shouldn't make things confusing only because the situation isn't as usual. In my opinion, the sources you provided, while well known, are bound by inertia, or maybe aren't aware of this particularity.--Aréat (talk) 13:38, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I don't think your last comments can be considered a valid reason; Nohlen is one of the world's foremost scholars on elections and the books are extremely comprehensive, detailing the facets of the electoral systems in different countries. What they do do is present the results consistently across all countries regardless of deviations from the norm like this. IMO, this is what Wikipedia should be aiming to do too. Number 57 14:58, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Your own personal page list a lot of interesting trivia about such deviation to the norm. Elections usually don't have more voters than registered ones, yet it happened in 1970's DRC. Should Wikipedia hide that fact because it's not the norm? Here we have an official counting of blank votes as valid votes, with sources showing it as such and backed by the writtings of the electoral law. Nohlen is an amazing source for elections results, particularly the old ones, but here they seem to be wrong. Unless we have some indication of them being aware of Mongolia's unique election count, I believe they should be considered as not, and thus an unreliable source on this election.--Aréat (talk) 17:25, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't hide the DRC result (you can see the results table that shows turnout of 100.3%), so I am not sure why you are mentioning this. Anyway, the Nohlen book does note anomaly (from p489: "With regard to this traditional electoral experience the Constitutional Court decided in June 1996 that unmarked ballots should be added to the valid votes"), yet still chooses to present the results in the normal way. So for your purposes, it is still a reliable source. Number 57 17:44, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I mentioned the Congolese election because it is a deviation of the norm yet still show the result as it is. We ought to do the same with Mongolia here. Anyways, thanks for the info on Nohlen. It look like we have conflicting sources, then. I believe we should use the government ones, backed by the OSCE.--Aréat (talk) 18:37, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

I still don't understand your point on the DRC issue; turnout is typically calculated by dividing votes cast by number of registered voters – the turnout on the DRC article is calculated according to that norm even though it gives an odd outcome; meanwhile Vote percentages achieved by the candidates are typically calculated by dividing their vote share by the total number received by all candidates – this is done here. Saying you'll reject the Nohlen source if it doesn't take into account the blank votes issue, and then rejecting even though it does is a pretty poor show. Being academic, specialist and secondary, The Nohlen book is at the top of the hierarchy in terms of preferred sources. Number 57 18:53, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

As I said, I mentioned the DRC because the election results were unusual, yet shown on wikipedia. Similarly, the Mongolian election result is unusual, yet should be shown on wikipedia nonetheless. My arguments on Nohlen are consistent : I said they were wrong, and put forward the possibility that it could be because they're not aware of Mongolia official counting. It seem as you said that they are aware of it, I aknowledge it, and go back to my original statement which I never denied : they're simply wrong. Finally, I believe the preferred sources on the electoral process of a country should be the electoral law of that country, and the preferred source on its elections the official results given by its government. The very own sources of the data given on this article, from the GEC, show the blank votes as being count in the percentages.--Aréat (talk) 19:09, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

It would be shown through the text I've proposed adding to the electoral system section. The GEC is a primary source and secondary sources are preferred (Nohlen's books sometimes mention that Electoral Commission data has errors in it, which they've corrected (I've had to do this a few times myself for recent elections)). Number 57 20:27, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

There should be both your text and the proper results, in my opinion. As previously said, doing so allow the reader to see the full effect and purpose of the third candidate's call for blank voting, as well as how close to being nullified this election was. Something a blankless result happen to hide. The OSCE report is a secondary source which confirm these results including the blank vote. Shouldn't a combination of both primary and secondary sources be followed instead of only a secondary one?--Aréat (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Again, it's the issue of presenting results according to psephological norms and consistency across the topic area. We can also mention the closeness of the threshold in the prose in the results section if this will appease you. If not, then perhaps we should seek wider input from WP:E&R because you're not going to change my mind and apparently I'm not going to change yours nor get you to accept a compromise of having it in the text. Number 57 21:13, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

We have to be consistent in such matters, and if the importance of the blank votes is emphasized in the text I see no problem in presenting the numbers in the usual manner.--Batmacumba (talk) 21:48, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

OK, I have added it to the text in both the electoral system and the results section. Number 57 22:02, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

Then we have to make it clear on the page that the data presented on this wikipedia's article is false. The winner didn't gather 55 % of he valid votes but 50,6 %, for blank votes are valid votes in Mongolia. Which of course isn't consistent as it is an unique feature, but it doesn't make the 55% information less false. --Aréat (talk) 22:51, 30 July 2017 (UTC)

References