Jump to content

Talk:2013 Chilean general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit]

[1][2][3][4][5](Lihaas (talk) 02:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Nice find. There are lots of material that could help expand the article, but since it's gonna get an awful amount of edits (I suppose) in the next few days, it might be better to wait until the eventual runoff happens so I can start actively working here. Küñall (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No probs. Ill add stuff I find here so someone who knows beter can add to it.(Lihaas (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Verdasco

[edit]

He is apparently running for prez, why is itnot here?(Lihaas (talk) 16:45, 15 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

He used to be running for president, but lost the Nueva Mayoría primaries against Michelle Bachelet. José Antonio Gómez and Claudio Orrego also lost these primaries. On the other hand, Andrés Allamand lost the Alianza primaries against Pablo Longueira, who later withdrew the nomination. Küñall (talk) 17:27, 15 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, lets mention all this in the article as notable.(Lihaas (talk) 15:23, 17 November 2013 (UTC)).[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

In accordance with other WP articles about presidential elections around the world, I think that this article should have only an infobox for the second round, and not a separate one for the first round. The first-round infobox is redundant to the result table further down in the article. Infoboxes are only designed to provide a quick, at-a-glance overview, not to repeat large parts of the content of the actual article. For the question who becomes president, only the outcome of the second round is relevant, not if some minor candidate won 0.9 or 1%. Moreover, a second infobox makes the head of the article look overladen, instead of giving it a clear and appealing layout. Lastly, to be completely accurate, we would have to add three more infoboxes: for the House of Deputies, the Senate and the regional councillors. But I strongly disagree (edited) with having an article with four or five infoboxes. --RJFF (talk) 14:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Number 57 16:37, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I meant I disagree with having four or five infoboxes. It would be far too many. --RJFF (talk) 19:09, 20 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I knew what you meant :) Number 57 09:02, 21 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I don't like the way this has worked out. The article is about the general election, for all offices, but the infobox is about the presidential runoff. Shouldn't these be handled as two separate elections, each with its own article? And shouldn't this article either have an infobox that relates to the substance of the article, or be broken out into multiple articles? - Jmabel | Talk 21:46, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
No, there is no need for two separate articles – we have plenty of articles dealing with general elections (e.g. Ghanaian general election, 2012, Malagasy general election, 2013 etc). What perhaps needs to happen is for the infobox to be amended to be able to show both parliamentary and presidential results - that should be brought up at Template talk:Infobox election. Number 57 21:54, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in previous years, stand-alone articles for each election were created... Küñall (talk) 22:13, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Probably because the creator(s) were not aware of how things were usually done elsewhere. Number 57 22:35, 15 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
As Chile is a presidential republic and the elected president's political camp also won a majority in both houses of congress (no split or hung parliament), the international focus was on the outcome of the presidential runoff. Therefore I think it is just to have the presidential and not the deputies' and senatorial election infobox in this article. --RJFF (talk) 15:55, 18 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm. The U.S. is also presidential, but consider United States presidential election, 2012, United States Senate elections, 2012, and United States House of Representatives elections, 2012. Three separate articles, each with an appropriate infobox. Not to mention dozens of more detailed breakdowns like United States House of Representatives elections in Iowa, 2012. - Jmabel | Talk 07:01, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, but they are arguably content forks because of the sheer size of the articles. Anyway, the infobox at Zimbabwean general election, 2013 possibly gives an idea of how it can be combined - presidential results at the top of the infobox, then a graphic representation of the parliamentary results underneath. Number 57 09:51, 22 December 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Results table

[edit]

There is a discussion around the format of the results table. I believe it is important that we keep null and blank votes separate, as they both represent different things. Some countries do not provide separate results for these, but in Chile they do, and we should respect that. The other issue is the coloring of cells. Should it be used only in the title, or be applied to highlight the totals as well? Let's resolve these here before reverting each other's edits. Thanks. Pristino (talk) 21:32, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

As pointed out in our previous discussion, standard practice is not to separate blank and invalid ballots elsewhere even when they are available (it's more common than you think - for instance they were available for the Azeri elections but we did not separate in the results table) and title bars are (as the name suggests) for use in the top row, not at the bottom - that's what the bold function is for. If you are against reverting edits, please restore the versions of the parliamentary results tables as they first appeared and before any editor reverted them. In addition to the unwarranted separation of vote types, the coding is much worse as it introduces unnecessary characters and also has a pointless width limiting paramater that forces some of the rows where parties have long names to be two lines deep). Thanks, Number 57 21:45, 22 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
a) Code: Those "unnecessary" characters are there for clarity; you may not need them, but I assure it makes editing a lot easier for other people.
b) Table width: The table's width limit is there to avoid the table becoming too wide, which is what happens due to the text at the bottom of the table. The table looks fine here, but it may be necessary to increase the width if it is causing the problem that you mention in your web browser.
c) Colored totals: From what I've seen in other articles, coloring the totals row is pretty extended here on Wikipedia, see for example: European Parliament election, 2009. In my opinion, it improves clarity.
d) Null/blanks: These type of votes have political meanings, they do not mean the same and therefore should not be combined as if they had no separate significance. In other countries with different electoral systems the difference between these two may be irrelevant; this is not the case with Chile.
Comment: If there is no consensus or compromise, I believe we should call for a Third opinion. What do you think? Pristino (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If Chilean electoral law differentiates null and blank votes, it is not up to Wikipedia editors to simply disregard these nuances. Our presentation of the result has to be as accurate as possible. If this differentiation exists in other countries or not, is irrelevant. --RJFF (talk) 21:27, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
To respond to the points:
(b) The bottom line should not be in the tables full stop - it's not a result stat.
(c) That example is not representative of normal election results - it's not even a proper results table. Look at normal national election results from this year (Argentina, Czech Rep, Luxembourg, Cameroon, Guinea etc). Given the sheer number of election articles, I'm sure there are a handful with alternative tables, but we need to be striving for a consistent format, rather than allowing editors only interested in elections in one country create different tables to match their personal preference.
(d) I think the question of the difference between null and blank ballots is what difference does it make to the overall result? What is the legal difference between the two?
Number 57 21:31, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
(b) The line at the bottom of the table is temporary, to inform readers about the nature of the results. Final results should be ready in early December. Then, we can delete the line.
(c) In all of those cases, it was you who first added those types of tables using that format you're trying to push in this article. Besides, in the Argentina election, the totals are colored in all the other results tables, which were there before you started editing that article.
(d) A blank vote (no preference) may mean the person is undecided or did not want to vote in that election (voting in Chile is voluntary, but there might be several elections being decided at the same time, and the person who chooses to vote must vote in all of them). A null vote (two or more preferences) may indicate the person does not know it must vote for a single candidate (ignorance), or that it voted for two or more candidates in protest. Pristino (talk) 23:20, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Conclusion: You're trying to convince us that there is a standard for presenting election results in Wikipedia, when in fact it was you who invented that type of table layout and now you're trying to edit every Wikipedia article to conform to that "standard". Pristino (talk) 23:26, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who added the tables (because there are so few members of WP:Elections and referendums I tend to add the results to a significant number of articles) - the point I'm trying to make is that we need a consistent format across Wikipedia, and this is the format that most election articles are in.
I still don't see why the blank and invalid ballots are legally different - the difference between the two has no bearing on the results does it?
PS - you don't need to tell me on my talk page every time you respond here. I have a watchlist! Number 57 23:51, 23 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I think it is difficult to understand, because "blank votes" and "null votes" are Spanglish translations of voto en blanco and votos nulos. Correctly translated, they are (1) None of the above votes and (2) invalid or spoilt votes. I think, if we use the accurate English terms, it becomes more clear what is meant and why they should be differentiated. The former are valid votes, but not expressed for any candidate, the latter are invalid votes. --RJFF (talk) 16:37, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Very helpful, thanks. In that case, I wonder why the "voto en blanco" are not included in the valid votes by the electoral authorities? Number 57 16:47, 24 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
In Chilean law, a voto en blanco (blank vote) is NOT a valid vote. A valid vote (voto válido) is one in which a single candidate is marked. Null/blank votes are both invalid (no válidos) and not taken into consideration when calculating voting percentages. Thus, in order to win an election a candidate must obtain 50% plus 1 of the valid votes. In the 1980 constitutional referendum, blank votes were counted as "Yes" votes, but this is not the case now. The point of separating null and blank votes is because of their symbolic or political (not legal) significance. Pristino (talk) 03:37, 25 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 12 external links on Chilean general election, 2013. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:51, 5 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2013_Chilean_general_election&oldid=1196636291"