Talk:April 2019 Israeli legislative election

Head's up

There's a coalition crisis and Bibi's threatening to call an early election. Best to start thinking about what to do about it.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:27, 19 March 2017 (UTC)

I'm going to start a "Background" section on this article. P.S. the date on your signature is several days into the future... David O. Johnson (talk)

There seems to have been a mini surge of single-purpose accounts adding promotional material, new photos etc to MKs' pages. Perhaps a sign that elections are expected soon... Number 57 15:30, 15 March 2018 (UTC)

2019

At what point does it become too late to hold the elections in 2018, meaning they are certain to be held in 2019? I guess we may well have passed that point given that there are only 6-7 weeks left in the year. Number 57 20:34, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

I'd say it's too late already; elections are expected to be held from March to May of 2019[1]. I think it's best to wait for an official confirmation of the date before the article is moved, though. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:53, 16 November 2018 (UTC)

Old background

Is there any reason to keep the paragraph about the conscription bill? That coalition crisis never amounted to anything and is now completely irrelevant to the next election; it's just one of many inter-party disputes that have been claimed at one time or another to put the coalition in danger.

(I should note that, regardless, the sentence about the no-confidence motion submitted by the opposition is irrelevant to the story and should be removed; the coalition would have retained a majority and voted down the bill even if Lieberman had left. The threat to the coalition actually came from Netanyahu stating he would rather dissolve the Knesset than continue with such a narrow majority.) The only reason I'm not removing it myself is because that would require rewriting the paragraph, which would be a waste since I'm proposing it be removed in its entirety anyway.) Kimpire (talk) 11:39, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

I think it's still relevant background that there had been an earlier threat of early elections. I guess it does need to be reworded as per your statement though. Number 57 11:45, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Tzalash or HaYemin HeHadash? Or The New Right?

Now that it's been officially approved, which name should we use for Bennett's new party in infoboxes and tables? Tzalash is the name of the party, while HaYemin HeHadash is the name of the Knesset faction. On the one hand, the fact that we use Zionist Union and not Labor would seem to imply the latter; on the other hand, the Zionist Union is a distinct entity because it is made up of more than one party, while HaYemin HeHadash is not (yet). Kimpire (talk) 10:14, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

See New Right (Israel), created on 29 December 2018. The name in Hebrew and transliterated appears in the lead sentence. That page, at present, includes an explanation that the connection with the defunct party Tzalash is some electoral registration technicality and needn't be connected with the Shaked/Bennet/Mu'alem party. -- Deborahjay (talk) 11:22, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

New Right as per the name of the party. Deborah is correct about Tzalash, as previously discussed. Number 57 19:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Number of seats held by parties following Knesset dissolution

Once the Knesset was dissolved, does that mean the number of seats held for different parties changes to zero (do we make that change on all Israeli party articles)? On a similar note, what about the different alliances that are running? Should we go with the seats that their constituent parties held in the previous Knesset or should we put the number of alliance MKs as zero? David O. Johnson (talk) 19:27, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

What part of the article are you talking about? Number 57 22:22, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

This one: [2] David O. Johnson (talk) 22:37, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

I've changed it to "Seats at dissolution". However, I think the table will be redundant once the results are in. Number 57 22:58, 22 February 2019 (UTC)

New informarion

Shouldn't we modify the table so that rather than show the current parties holding seats, it would show the parties and coalitions as well as the new ones which are effectively being in competition for this upcoming election? Because currently, as an uninformed reader, I would for example be believing Yesh Atid and Jewish Home are competing alone, while they are in fact parts of new coalitions, White and white, and Union of right wing parties, of which I don't learn the existence. Same for The new right, as split from Jewish Home. And I wonder why there's a lone independent shown among parties, while not being informed she did create a new party. In short, as it is, I find it a bit misleading, and showing the upcoming competitive parties would make more sense, in my opinion. What do you think? --Aréat (talk) 12:36, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

The infobox in the upper right has the answer to your questions. It presents the parties that are running, as opposed to the outgoing Knesset factions. (Which is an argument for removing Hatnuah from the list, now that I think about it; it should only appear in the table, not in the infobox. I shall make this change momentarily.) Kimpire (talk) 12:46, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I agree the table should list all the competing parties. Cheers, Number 57 12:49, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

So we should reverse the two tables? List Knesset factions that currently hold seats in the infobox, and the parties that are running in the table in the text? I think that's backwards - the infobox should be about the election, not about the outgoing Knesset. "This lists parties that currently hold seats" should be removed. Kimpire (talk) 13:06, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

As it stands, the infobox has to contain the parties that currently hold seats as it has an in-built note stating that. You need to change the infobox template itself to remove that line if you want to show contesting parties. However, if we do that, I think we should list all parties contesting the election in the infobox. Number 57 13:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Hmm. That presents a problem. The infobox is designed for all legislative elections, not for Israeli ones where the entities that have seats in the Knesset are called "factions" and the entities competing in the election are called "list" and neither of these are the same thing as a "party".

I wouldn't want to change the infobox for everybody, nor am I enthused about the idea of creating our own. But I still think the factions in the outgoing Knesset are irrelevant to the election; we should be listing party lists in contention. Right now it's very misleading, because it lists parties (Yesh Atid, Jewish Home, Hatnuah, Independent) that are not in contention for this election, which is what people who open this article are expecting to find. We should return it to the way it was before, with Blue and White listed and Yesh Atid and Hatnuah not listed. (And even though there are 47 parties, I think it's clear enough when it says "This lists parties that currently hold seats" that we're leaving out the parties that don't, and those will be listed at length later in the article.) Kimpire (talk) 14:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

If the line "This lists parties that currently hold seats." is removed from the infobox, it solves the problem. I wouldn't have any objections to this, and I don't think it's a problematic change. But until it is removed, we'd be misleading readers to have Blue & White etc in the infobox. Number 57 15:19, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's all that misleading - the only problem is the word "parties" as opposed to the word "lists", which is an idiosyncratic feature of Israeli politics that isn't shared in other legislatures. I also think it's equally misleading for the infobox to prominently list at the top of the page about the election several parties that aren't running in it. Kimpire (talk) 16:15, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Numerous countries have list-based elections. This isn't unique to Israel at all. Number 57 16:35, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

True. Then perhaps we should use the infobox used in such elections, instead of this one which doesn't quite fit our system? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Finnish_parliamentary_election looks like a good one. It includes examples of parties who didn't run in the last election yet have seats. Kimpire (talk) 16:48, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

This infobox was actually originally designed for Israeli elections (and then widened for use for other countries with similar systems). This was because the one used on Finnish elections doesn't work for elections with large numbers of parties winning seats (it can't do more than nine, and doesn't really work as a summary if you have more than three parties listed). .

Anyway, to stop this going round in circles, I've removed the text from the infobox template, so you can go ahead and add all the contesting parties without there being an issue. Number 57 17:01, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Ah! I didn't know that. Thanks very much. Kimpire (talk) 18:17, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Results table

Recent editing suggests that the aim is for the results table to eventually only include parties that pass the threshold. Can I suggest the results table should include the full results? We can have a line to indicate the threshold, but other election articles include every party standing. Bondegezou (talk) 15:37, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

It should indeed include the full results, just like every other Israeli election article. Number 57 15:45, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Since seats are allocated based on the percentage of votes distributed among the parties that passed the threshold, the table should include both the raw percentage as well as the percentage of the votes among the parties that passed the threshold. GoLatvia (talk) 10:49, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think that's necessary or particularly useful. Number 57 10:57, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

• Comment - note that the results currently are not final - there are approximately ~200,000-300,000 absentee (double-envelope) ballots to be counted - what's final at this moment is only voting at the normal ballots. This should be mostly done on Friday (12 April), and affects the electoral threshold (in this case - mainly a question regarding the party with 3.11% of the vote which is off by 0.14%) - and also the actual seat allocation (per bader-ofer and transfer agreements). [3][4] Should we mark the results as provisional in the article? Or pending absentee ("soldier") ballots? Icewhiz (talk) 11:03, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
  • Yes, I've changed the section heading and added a note re absentee ballots. Usually we add a % counted figure at the bottom next to the source – is this available? Number 57 11:09, 10 April 2019 (UTC)
    • Not really. They counted all the normal ballots. For the absentee ("soldier") ballots they do not release figures - just vague estimates on their progress and when they expect to finish. The main central electoral commission receives a pile of double envelopes, and then checks whether the voter voted in his original polling station (or voted at multiple absentee ("soldier") ballots). If he did - it gets chucked. If he didn't - it gets tallied as part of his normal polling station (on top of its reported result - tallied locally). AFACIT/AFAIK they don't even release precise post-election numbers on the absentee ballots - they get tallied as normal ballots - you can only guesstimate the number off of their progress (e.g. the difference from the tally at the end of the normal count vs. the total count with the absentee ballots). Unlike other systems - in the Israeli system (as opposed to systems with a registered mail vote) the absentee vote is ad-hoc - eligible voters (namely regular/reserve service or hospitalized - diplomats, prisoners, and seamen have less of a choice) can chose their voting method (double-envelope at multiple possible locations, or at the home polling station) spontaneously on the day of the election (or a few days before - starts prior) - and the election committee reconciles this. Icewhiz (talk) 11:22, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Party list dispute

Ok, Orly Levy left Yisrael Beitenu where she became an independent, she then founded her own party, Gesher. I agree the party is new, but she lost her seat on her party’s list, not on Yisrael Beitenu’s. The same goes for the United Right, 3 MPs quit the United Right to form the New Right and they gained parliamentary status in the 20 Knesset session. They are in another party, they lost their seats on their own list, not their former party. 108.52.209.4 (talk) 22:26, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

The +/– column is for changes compared to the last election, not the situation immediately before the elections. These parties are new compared to 2015. Hence why Kadima is marked as a new party in the 2006 results table (despite the fact that it had 14 seats going into the election) and Hatnuah in the 2013 results table. Number 57 22:31, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Your not even listening to me. I put a note saying that The New Right and Gesher are new parties, which looks like you did not read. My note specifically stated that the parties were new, but they gained parliamentary status, meaning their party was allowed in the Knesset. It would make much more sense that they lost MPs not their former affiliations. 108.52.209.4 (talk) 22:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

I am listening to you. The problem is what you're trying to do is not how we usually present election results. The seat change figures are against the last election, not the situation immediately prior to the elections. Therefore Yisrael Beiteinu is shown as being down one seat and the United Right down four. Number 57 11:23, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Let me state that I concur with Number 57 here. Bondegezou (talk) 11:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yisrael Beitenu initially had 6 seats. One MP left and became an independent, then formed Gesher and got approved parliamentary status. Gesher is responsible for their own seat, they are not dependent on Yisrael Beitenu. The same thing for the New Right, they got status as well, they are independent, they are not dependent on the United Right. 108.52.209.4 (talk) 19:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

That doesn't really make any sense. The parameter in the infobox is for the number of seats won at the last election. See details at Template:Infobox legislative election#Parameters. Number 57 21:26, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Mass text messages, cameras, rhetoric

I know this is likely controversial so in a collegial spirit I figured I'd bring them to the talk page first:

1. Both Likud and Kakhol Lavan (with rather different tones) sent mass text messages to millions [[5]]. Some Likud messages had defamatory content about Kachol Lavan allegedly making "deals" with "the Arab". Kachol Lavan may have been aimed at absorbing votes from other left wing parties saying "every vote that doesn't go to Gantz goes to Bibi". Likud also said "only Likud, only Bibi". Likud was fined by the election commission for this [[6]]... but the behavior continued into the next day.

2. Likud apparently distributed cameras to hardline supporters to "monitor" "problem" Arab communities [[7]] and this became a legal scandal as well [[8]].

I won't pretend I'm impartial on these matters and right now I'm a bit "amped" as the election is coming to it's close, so I figured it best to wait for the green light to add this in a matter that is acceptable to various sides here. Give me a ping. Cheers, --Calthinus (talk) 18:35, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Coverage of both seems appropriate to me. Bondegezou (talk) 19:24, 9 April 2019 (UTC)

Both should be OK, might require expansion/refinement, but should be included. In regards to (1) - it is fairly routine and run of the mill in Israeli elections in the past decade (even local municipal elections) and other sources might disagree with Haaretz on the POV of the text messages (e.g. focusing on potential deals with the Arab parties vs. several other message the Likud sent out) - but the large scale sending of text messages (which are allowed per Israel's SPAM law which exempts political parties...) is well covered. In regard to (2) - this isn't hardline supporters - but election monitors (who tend to be hardline supporters and/or paid for the day - e.g. TOI you are citing is focusing on the paid aspect) - which all Israeli parties can place in all polling stations (in addition to the official electoral commission of each polling station - which is appointed per a party key according to the last election results in the locale). Election monitors at locations opposed to the party (e.g. Meretz/Labour in Haredi enclaves, right-wing parties in Arab enclaves) also generate routine coverage each election (alleging fraud, alleging intimidation of the monitors, alleging the monitors intimidate, etc.) - however I think equipping them (in an organized fashion) with cameras (bodycams?) is new this time - and definitely received quite a bit of coverage during election day. Icewhiz (talk) 06:08, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Insert this somewhere

  Raam Balad: 4 seats

  Hadash Taal: 6 seats

  Meretz: 4 seats

  Kulano: 4 seats

  Labour: 6 seats

  Blue and White: 35 seats

  Likud: 35 seats

  Shas: 8 seats

  United Torah Judaism: 8 seats

  Yisrael Beityno: 5 seats

  United Right: 5 seats

IsraeliIdan (talk) 17:52, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 11 April 2019

I was in the middle of updating the table when someone decided that the updated official results from the governement weren't good enough. Saxophonemn (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC) Instead of asking for proof, it was reverted where there was no reference, not only did I provide the reference - https://votes21.bechirot.gov.il/ I was thrown out. Saxophonemn (talk) 08:38, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

 Not done. Your (malformed!) edit includes the New Right as having won seats, which your source does not. El_C 09:24, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Your assumption is very malformed that there is a threshold which gives 4 seats. The seats have actually not been allocated yet. If you follow the D'Hodt method with the vote surplus agreements you get the numbers in the Knesset. Of course this is all already references in the page. Currently the voting is being challenged for lots of mistakes, so it's actually premature to have any numbers other than the percentages. Further much of the chart was put together with already outdated information. The rush to put up results was foolish in that the numbers need to be changed every few hours. The last official count is from 8:42 AM Israel Summer Time. So anything else is just hearsay.Saxophonemn (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I never said any such thing. Read my comment again. It's terse and to the point. El_C 10:07, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

You're confusing me, be as specific as possible and less curt. The issue that you bring is that there is no reference for the New Right having 4 seats. However you have to seem to be using a different standard if you don't ask why regarding all of the other allocations. If you look at the link that is used for the box, which is the same one I used (because it's the only one that matters) you don't see any seats allocated. So where are those numbers coming from? Please try to explain yourself for the sake of clarity, as I have. Saxophonemn (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Better yet the Hebrew Version of the page has the New Right listed!Saxophonemn (talk) 10:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

The Hebrew Wikipedia is not a reliable source. These are: "Ynet" (3 hours ago), Walla (1 hours ago). El_C 10:28, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Yes you found pages with either old data, or about the recount. However none have the official number. Your use of google translate isn't giving me much to work with. You still haven't explained why the official numbers don't count or why there is an actual source for the mandates.Saxophonemn (talk) 10:33, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

One hour ago is not old for Wikipedia. And I don't need to use google translate, as I read faster in Hebrew than I do English. I'm not sure I understand your question, however. El_C 10:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

OK, great so at the bottom of the page when it actually linked to the votes and mandates it was using much older data from a few days before. Further most native Israelis don't really know how the mandates are divided so it's understandable that you are mistaken. I've already had the honor to vote here three times, and I have made spreadsheets that have been accurately been used to calculate the mandates. The status of the news, as of now, is that NR wants a recount and the official tally has been suspended, after all of the double sealed ballots have been counted. The data from the main table on the bottom is outdated as well. You still haven't explained to me how having over the threshold according the official counts doesn't qualify for the 4 seats.Saxophonemn (talk) 10:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Your own source does not list them as having won seats—neither can we. El_C 10:51, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

El C, isn't https://votes21.bechirot.gov.il/ a reliable source for you? And I had it in my edit summary for the vote counts update, so your statement No source for "update" is outright false. --194.29.32.132 (talk) 10:35, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

It's a fine source. It does not list New Right as having won seats, however. El_C 10:37, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Which source listed gives anyone seats? You seem to have two standards one for the allocations >0.02% and one for one <0.02%. Please explain! Winning seats is no longer dependent on achieving the threshold? At the point where there are results that is the case. Until the results are sealed this is all not much of anything.Saxophonemn (talk) 11:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Fine, then please restore the vote counts which I had updated, without mentioning New Right's seats. These were in separate edits. --194.29.32.132 (talk) 10:40, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Unprotected. El_C 10:48, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

"Due to a bug in the Central Elections Committee website, the displayed data indicated for several hours (including at this time of writing) that New Right was just above the threshold with 3.26%, but officials said that was a mistake." [1] ShimonChai (talk) 10:49, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

I thought it was that they stopped reporting, I know the news is saying that it fell. This is turning into a circus.Saxophonemn (talk) 10:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

• Hanging chad - My assessment of the sources - is that this won't be resolved either way (in or out) for "New Right" for a week+. The result is simply too close to call - the election committee has had various bugs this election (both odd results on individual stations, and now the wrong overall count), the "new right" are going to appeal, their opponents are going to appeal, they will try to strike votes, find votes, whatever - being so close (currently under at 3.22% (since the voting comm got the total vote wrong (and still has it wrong on their website - 3.26% - [9])), and previously over) to 3.25% - it's going to take some time to be final. I would suggest we place an asterisk (*) next to "New Right" and clearly explain just how close this is - until there is a final certified post-appeal result. Icewhiz (talk) 11:19, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

According to the updates they're leaving the last results up from 8:45 local time and will release official numbers on April 17.Saxophonemn (talk) 17:21, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Final Results Held Off Until April 17

According to the main reference from the Central Election Committee, the final results won't be announced until April 17. Since that is the case, that puts the New Right over the threshold. There is a lot of back and forth as to whether the voter irregularities have cause them to move around as such it would seem reasonable to either rename the mandate column with a qualifier that the numbers on based on the New Right not making it into the Knesset, adding an additional column if they pass the threshold, or leaving the numbers out.Saxophonemn (talk) 17:25, 11 April 2019 (UTC)

Lieberman and Gaza

See here: The Times of Israel and The Daily Sabah. I couldn't decide whether this was significant enough to include in the article, so I'll leave these sources here. 2607:FEA8:1DE0:7B4:988:EB38:D09D:4C1E (talk) 09:40, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

Annotating the line in the results table

Below is the conversation from my talk page in case anybody else would like to add to this conversation that hit an impasse and ended in a nasty edit war. Calling on any editor to add their input below the box to help resolve the edit war. GoLatvia (talk) 00:56, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Copied from User GoLatvia's talk page for reference only. Please add to the discussion below the box
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Please read this liveblog which shows that New Right have not won seats (particularly the 12:46 update (four hours after the latest CEC website update). Cheers, Number 57 15:05, 11 April 2019 (UTC) I don't want to edit-war with you, because in the next day or two things will settle, but you cannot display the New Right with 3.26% of the vote below the threshold. Regardless, please restore the text "Parties listed below did not pass the electoral threshold of 3.25%" for the thershold line. That should not be controversial. GoLatvia (talk) 15:52, 11 April 2019 (UTC) I agree it's a mess. I was thinking about removing figures from the percentage column temporarily, but assumed someone would reinstate it as it would look empty. If you agree that's a decent temporary solution, please go ahead and do that. I don't think that text is necessary, and it isn't included in other results tables (see 2015 or 2013). Number 57 15:57, 11 April 2019 (UTC) The text adds clarity as to what the line means. I am puzzled as to why you object to it. GoLatvia (talk) 15:58, 11 April 2019 (UTC) It's unnecessary, and isn't used in other articles. Please stop adding it – respect WP:BRD and start a discussion on the talk page if it is really an issue. Thanks, Number 57 15:34, 18 April 2019 (UTC) This is the WP:BRD discussion, and your argument of WP:OTHERSTUFFDOESNTEXIST doesn't quite cut it. We can add this description to the other articles. Please stop edit warring. GoLatvia (talk) 15:37, 18 April 2019 (UTC) We don't need to add this to other articles, as it's simply unnecessary. Number 57 15:40, 18 April 2019 (UTC)

To restate my views above, this is unnecessary and the annotation should be removed from the article again as there is clearly no-one in favour of it aside from GoLatvia. Number 57 07:11, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

You may want to file an RfC to see what other editors think, since we haven't heard from anyone aside from both of you. El_C 07:21, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a spectacularly minor issue over which to be having an edit war! I have no strong feelings either way. However, if pushed, I prefer with the annotation. Bondegezou (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's that minor an issue; if it's allowed here, it'll be used as justification to spread it to hundreds of other articles. I will invite views at WP:E&R. For those joining the discussion, this is the edit in question. Number 57 17:14, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I don't thinks such an excessively explanatory text has its place on a result table. Text there should be kept to a minimum. I don't find it confusing to leave the line without text, but if it happened to be deemed so, I would rather have it removed altogether than add the text. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 17:29, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

This issue is currently solved elsewhere in Wikipedia by using a line with no text when a threshold needs to be added (it's done this way for elections in Spain, Germany, Norway, Sweden, etc), which leaves a smooth outline. I see a full annotation as somewhat excessive and possibly too distracting from the actual results. Impru20^talk 17:56, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

Agree with the above – explanatory text is superfluous, a line should suffice as long as the actual electoral threshold is noted in a section discussing the electoral system for a given election. Mélencron (talk) 18:35, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

I think it's fine just as a line but the text isn't a problem either. I see no reason why this should have bearing on what other articles do. Reywas92^Talk 20:50, 20 April 2019 (UTC)

A different way to annotate

I think this way of annotating is distracting. There is a better way. In the results table for the article 2003 California gubernatorial recall election, the table requires 154 entries due to the sheer number of candidates. In that election, there is only one winner, but to separate out the top candidates from the rest of the field, editors of that article put the rest of the field in a collapsible table titled "Complete list of all other candidates". It therefore seems that the most natural way to annotate the line separating the parties who passed the threshold from those who did not is use a similar collapsible table with a title such as "Other parties who did not pass the threshold". I think using such a collapsible table also sends the subliminal message that the parties who did not pass are less notable. Banana Republic (talk) 15:22, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

I think something that drastic is only required in extreme cases like the one you mention (and even that looks a bit of a mess as the columns are all different widths – Spanish ones used to be done much more neatly (see e.g. here, but it caused some issues in certain browsers.

Also, I don't think it's actually useful to hide those crossing the electoral threshold, and it's certainly not the case that parties failing to do are less notable – a party on a certain side of the political spectrum narrowly failing to cross the threshold can be a major part of an election result, if it tips the balance one way or another. Number 57 16:05, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Parties who failed to pass the threshold are by definition less notable on the results as they did not achieve the goal of getting seats in the parliament. I agree that they may have influenced the election, as they may have siphoned votes away from other parties who did pass the threshold, but that belongs in the written analysis, not in the results table.

Regarding the fact that the columns don't line up in the results table of the article 2003 California gubernatorial recall election, I don't think that's much of an issue. The tables are intended to be viewed separately. In fact, the hidden table is not intended to be viewed except by readers who are interested in complete and in-depth information. Banana Republic (talk) 16:47, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

So, if we do go to repeat elections...

...what will be the title of each article? :) Kimpire (talk) 06:38, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

• "April 2019 Israeli legislative election" and (e.g.) "September 2019 Israeli legislative election". Number 57 12:18, 27 May 2019 (UTC)

I've already started two stubs (next election and polling), but the latter has a problem with a talk page. Usually when I do something like this, (false alarms happen all the time) someone reverts. however, the Knesset has already voted on first reading and I know about two polls already published. so I guess we should start. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:36, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Given the shocking state of the articles you created (both of the English and the article formatting), I'm concerned there is a basic WP:COMPETENCE issue here. Number 5 13:57, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Suuure....I disagree with what you said entirely, but it really isn't worth arguing about. The circumstances of the possible upcoming election weren't even NOTICED by most of you guys.Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

If you disagree that an article with no categories or reflist template, uncapitalised headings and actually writing "This is a stub" is basic incompetence, then there is a serious issue. Other editors should not have to clean up mess like that. Number 57 18:58, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't see the purpose of your argumentative/combative comments. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:01, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

I agree with David O. Johnson on this one. Let's not bite the newcomers, Number 57. Arglebargle79, we appreciate you being bold and taking the initiative to create a new article. To answer your question: IF new elections take place in the same year, we'd follow the same naming conventions we used for the 1974 British elections or the 2012 Greek elections. Since new elections haven't been announced yet, let's go with Next Israeli legislative election. In fact, most of that information could be added to the bottom of this article around Government formation. Bkissin (talk) 20:32, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

@Bkissin: They've been editing for more than three years – I left them this message in 2017. The fact that they're still making basic errors two years later is not good. Number 57 20:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

My comments were about Arglebargle79; they have something of a history of being combative. David O. Johnson (talk) 20:39, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

OK, I wasn't aware of either of these circumstances. Thank you David O. Johnson. Thank to you too Number 57, though I would love for our tones to be civil when working with other users, even if they are combative. Arglebargle79, while it's great that you want Wikipedia to be the first to break the news of possible new elections, but let's work together to create articles that are actually encyclopedic in their writing style. The current content on the article looks very informal and slapdash, like it was hurried through to be the first. Bkissin (talk) 20:48, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

How does the article look now? I've added some more context. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:35, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks a lot better! Thank you David O. Johnson. Just because Wikipedia is a collaborative project and editors can fix our errors does not mean that we should not strive for quality the first time around. Lines like this is a stub or polling has already begun are not the type of professional tone that we are known for, and we shouldn't aim to be speedy at the expense of quality writing. Additionally, we have tools like the Sandbox for testing out the technical stuff, and stub templates are easy to find on this website. In the end there is nothing wrong with letting those who know more expand a stub, but relying on someone else to do the heavy lifting and clean up our own mistakes because we wanted to be the first to create the article and break the news doesn't endear us to other users, which is I think part of Number 57's original concern. 57, correct me if I'm wrong. Bkissin (talk) 13:57, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

It looks great! Number 57 you are as wrong as I can be. Stub have been listed as stubs for the entire history of Wikipedia. Some articles start simple, and are added to by those who know more about the technical stuff. Election articles, especially, are revised again and again many times in the same day, and that leads to better quality articles. What’s wrong with thatArglebargle79 (talk) 00:26, 29 May 2019 (UTC)

the September article

Okay...unless Bibi can get a government by TOMORROW, there's going to be another election. How do we know this? Well, the deadline's tomorrow, and a majority already passed the first reading of the snap election bill. This means that it isn't some airy-fairy WP:Crystal nonsense. We need an article so I put up a stub. Now 7 thinks it better to revert than to go forward, like he did with the polling article. That's worse than useless. Not only is it a complete lack of WP:COMPETENCE, it just gets people mad and starts useless edit wars. Can someone please go here: [10] and start making a chart? and start working on the tables for the main election page? That would be helpful, something that someone calling me and others names is NOT. It's possible that Bibi may pull it off, but the polling chart is still necessary as there are actual polls out there. Wikipedia is a cooperative process, and we need to start somewhere. Let's start on the right foot, okay?Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:33, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Actually not. If he passes the bill tomorrow, yes (though it may be challenged on a legal basis, and I've been under the impression that plenty of Likud MKs are liable to have the flu tomorrow night, bedridden at their third cousin's twice removed house (with their phone lost), should the bill actually come up for the final vote). However the default course of action is that the president gives the presumptive job to someone else - who then has 28 more days. If number 2 fails - then 61 MKs can nominated a 3rd candidate who has another 14 days. In short - plenty of time (and dealing) left. Icewhiz (talk) 16:43, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Prime minister before/after

I actually do think Netanyahu should be labeled as prime minister after the April elections. After all, he still is the PM, and will be until the next elections are held in September. Even if (for the sake of argument) Gantz wins after September, it wouldn't be correct to list Gantz as the winner of *this* election, right? Kimpire (talk) 08:28, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

Netanyahu is still PM, and all the ministers of the prior government are still ministers (and IIRC they can't easily resign, and replacements for them can't be appointed). This holds until a successful government forms (possibly in September - though at this rate....). Icewhiz (talk) 08:32, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

We can enter different text there so it doesn't need to relate to a PM. I've just changed it to "After elections: No government formed, fresh elections called". Cheers, Number 57 09:15, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

While accurate, I'm concerned about continuity across pages. Might I recommend putting Netanyahu but adding (interim) or some such qualifier? Kimpire (talk) 11:10, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think continuity is an issue here. This is an unprecedented situation in which no government has been formed – therefore there's no need to match previous elections. We do something similar in other cases – see e.g. 1997 Serbian general election where there was no outcome of the presidential election. Number 57 11:12, 30 May 2019 (UTC)

• I added a note that Netanyahu remains incumbent (to clarify that the PM position is not vacant). M . M 12:04, 30 May 2019 (UTC)