Talk:2016 Irish general election

Green Party

Some polls list the Green Party separately. Some include the Green Party as "Others". Should the table of poll results show the Green Party and, if so, how? One option is a separate column which spans onto Ind./Others for those polls with no separate Green result. Another option is to mention the Green result in the Ind./Others column for those polls with a separate Green result. AtSwimTwoBirds (talk) 18:48, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

This question will prove especially pertinent if either/both of Renua and the Social Democrats poll consistently on a par with the Greens. Culloty82 (talk) 18:38, 27 July 2015 (UTC)

Opinion Polls

It would be preferable if, when sorting Opinion Polls by source, the items were in chronological order. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.42.129.248 (talk) 02:19, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

The poll graph seems very misleading. Assessing polling figures, SinnFéin are have never passed Fine Gael's level's of support, whether in a single poll, or in a series of polls, and much less two month measurements, as the graph professes to do. I must therefore view the graph as a misleading entity. Perhaps it is best currently to remove it until a more well designed, thought-out one is designed, reflecting real polling data, whether across two month periods or not. Please refer to the German Federal Election page of the same purpose to see how the graph should be shown. Note that that document is on a 15 day reflection of polls. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Next_German_federal_election#Graphical_summary --104066481 (talk) 21:51, 2 November 2015 (UTC)

All sources are redirected to one site

Greetings! All sources seem to have been intercepted and directed to a personal blog instead of their specific news outlets. Why? Could this be fixed? Also is it reasonable to have an "others" column that now is reaching above one fifth of the population? I am sure that there are parties even bigger than the green party there.37.123.149.65 (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

I have fixed the sources to point to reliable ones rather than blogs. Snappy (talk) 17:52, 23 August 2013 (UTC)

One day earlier?

The date was previously given as no later than 8 April, which I've reduced to 3rd April because 8 April mixed up 5 years by law and 30 days from the Constitution instead of 25 days from the law. But I suspect it should possibly still be one day earlier, because both the 8 and 3 April dates assume that the Dail can be dissolved on March 9. It seems to me that should perhaps be March 8 (thus reducing April 3 to April 2) as if the Dail lasts from March 9, 2011 to March 9, 2016 it has arguably lasted 5 years and one day, though this is debatable because of the times of day, and because 'five years from the date ' could mean 'after the date' and thus 'not including the date'.

The exact wording of the law is as follows: 33.—The same Dáil shall not continue for a longer period than five years from the date of its first meeting.

The expressions 'no later than March 9' and 'no later than April 3' are not technically incorrect (because March 8 and April 2 are 'no later than', respectively, March 9 and April 3), but they are misleading if March 8 and April 2 are correct (dates that I have no wish to use since they may not even be technically correct). Arguably the whole thing should be scrapped as OR, but I think that's a bad idea that disimproves the encyclopedia as per WP:IAR, by depriving the reader of useful information for essentially trivial nitpicking pedantic reasons. Does anybody have any better ideas? Tlhslobus (talk) 05:21, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

a FG source says Kenny intends to have it on the 9th of April and RTE says you have to exclude holidays from the 25 day calculation http://www.rte.ie/news/2014/1218/667698-election-politics/

I've changed the latest date to 8th April.

It's a good faith change based on my multiple experiences as a returning officer in elections going back to 1977, so the question of excluded days has come up over time. That said, I haven't lived in Ireland for ten years, and interpretations may have changed. Id somebody knows better I'm perfectly happy to have the changes undone and I apologise for the change. It's something I'm very certain of, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.7.159.146 (talk) 12:42, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

Opinion poll reference URLs

I have reverted the recent reformatting of the opinion poll table. Reasons:

• It replaced the formatted references for poll results with direct external links. WP:EXTLINK discourages this, although this is by no means a blanket ban (and I have put similar links myself e.g. in List of addresses to the Oireachtas and Television licensing in the Republic of Ireland). In this case I think it is inadvisable for several reasons: these are substantive references rather than mere links to supplementary information; they link to a variety of websites rather than multiple pages of a single site; and, most seriously, many of the links are to news sites which may be subject to WP:LINKROT or rolling paywalls. The references system has bots and templates to mitigate the latter, and the new format takes these links outside that protective framework.
  • Was the intention simply to minimise clutter? As a step in that direction, I have separated out the opinion-poll references into a group="p".
• It eliminated some relevant footnotes.
• It violated WP:SCROLL.
• It eliminated sortability
• The "Lead" column is only appropriate for a two-party system.
• The color-coding of the lead party was previously reverted.

jnestorius^(talk) 12:58, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• 1). This is a perfectly valid point, but there's no reason references can't be used in the new format. It's not a justification for a blanket revert.

• 2). I contest the idea that those footnotes were relevant. The only information they impart is that PBP and the Socialist party have been polled once or twice (out of hundreds of polls) and each time registered 1%. Is this notable enough to merit mention? And even if it is, the notes could have been easily added back without a full scale revert.

• 3). WP:SCROLL isn't a blanket ban on scrolling tables, but I'm fine with making it not scrollable if it makes it hard to see on mobile. And, again, making the table unscrollable would be easy to do without a blanket revert.

• 4). I agree sortability is good. But this is an easy fix not requiring a blanket revert.

• 5). WP:OR. Says who? Lead columns have been used on all sorts of multi-party election articles on wikipedia. I can give you a long list.

• 6). I don't understand your point. It was implemented by two different people (three different people including me) and was reverted once in a different version of the table. I don't understand how this is a justification for reverting the color shading.

Based on your points, I've made a proposed compromise table that keeps the new cleaner format and streamlined coding (which I'm assuming you take no issue with because you didn't mention it?) and a). makes the table sortable and b). makes it not scrollable.

I am fine with you changing the direct links to references if you want, but oppose including the notes about the SP/PBP as they don't reach the threshold of notability (IMO.)

Date	Polling Firm	FG	Labour	FF	SF	Green	Others	Lead
9–12 Jun	RED C	22	4	18	22	2	30	0
3–4 Jun	MillwardBrown	20	5	20	26	2	27	6
23 May	European Election	22.3	5.3	22.3	19.5	4.9	25.7	0.0
23 May	Local Elections	24.0	7.2	25.3	15.2	1.6	26.7	1.3
19 May	MillwardBrown	20	6	21	23	2	27	2
12–14 May	RED C	25	8	20	20	2	25	5
28 Apr–1 May	RED C	25	11	21	18	—	25	4
19 Apr	MillwardBrown	29	6	22	20	—	21	7
19 Apr	Behavior & Attitudes	21	9	20	20	4	26	1
1–2 Apr	Ipsos MRBI	25	8	25	21	—	21	0
30 Mar	RED C	26	9	22	21	—	22	4
19–28 Feb	MillwardBrown	27	8	21	22	2	20	5
23 Feb	Behavior & Attitudes	30	9	19	18	—	24	11
23 Feb	RED C	29	11	22	16	—	22	7
15–23 Jan	MillwardBrown	30	12	26	16	1	15	4
19–21 Jan	RED C	27	9	23	16	—	25	4
9 Jan	RED C	28	10	22	18	—	22	6
2014
3–15 Dec	Behavior & Attitudes	30	11	21	15	3	21	9
12 Dec	Ipsos MRBI	30	9	22	21	—	18	8
24 Nov	RED C	29	12	22	15	2	20	7
16 Nov	MillwardBrown	27	9	24	21	1	18	3
4–6 Nov	RED C	25	9	24	16	2	24	1
26 Oct	RED C	29	9	23	17	—	23	6
16 Oct	MillwardBrown	27	9	27	19	2	17	0
1 Oct	Ipsos MRBI	26	6	22	23	2	21	3
28 Sep	MillwardBrown	28	10	27	19	—	15	1
10–17 Sep	Behavior & Attitudes	25	11	21	18	3	23	4
9–11 Sep	RED C	27	10	23	17	—	23	4
1 Sep	MillwardBrown	27	8	25	21	—	21	2
3–12 Aug	MillwardBrown	29	8	28	19	1	15	1
7 Jul	MillwardBrown	26	8	29	19	—	19	3
24–26 Jun	RED C	28	12	22	17	—	21	6
11–24 Jun	Behavior & Attitudes	27	7	24	16	3	23	3
11–12 Jun	RED C	30	10	24	16	—	20	6
10–11 Jun	Ipsos MRBI	24	9	26	21	2	18	2
18–30 May	MillwardBrown	27	11	27	17	—	18	0
20–22 May	RED C	26	11	26	16	—	21	0
4–16 May	MillwardBrown	23	12	26	19	1	18	3
22–24 Apr	RED C	28	11	25	16	2	18	3
30 Mar–10 Apr	MillwardBrown	24	12	27	16	2	18	3
11–26 Mar	Behavior & Attitudes	27	7	23	15	2	25	4
24 Mar	RED C	28	13	24	14	1	20	4
4–14 Mar	MillwardBrown	25	9	29	20	1	16	4
16–28 Feb	MillwardBrown	24	11	23	21	2	20	1
24 Feb	RED C	28	12	26	16	2	16	2
6–13 Feb	MillwardBrown	25	13	27	20	1	15	2
5–6 Feb	Ipsos MRBI	25	10	26	18	1	20	1
27 Jan	RED C	28	11	21	19	2	19	7
15–21 Jan	Behavior & Attitudes	26	11	24	19	3	18	2
7–9 Jan	RED C	29	13	21	16	3	18	8
2013
2 Dec	RED C	28	14	20	17	3	18	8
1–13 Nov	Behavior & Attitudes	30	12	22	14	3	19	8
28 Oct	RED C	34	13	19	17	2	15	15
18 Oct	Ipsos MRBI	31	12	21	20	2	14	10
23 Sep	RED C	32	14	18	18	2	16	14
4–9 Sep	Behavior & Attitudes	31	14	16	18	2	19	13
24 Jun	RED C	32	15	18	16	2	17	14
26 May	RED C	30	15	18	19	2	16	11
25 May	Ipsos MRBI	32	10	17	24	2	15	8
23–24 May	MillwardBrown	36	12	17	20	1	14	16
18–23 May	Behavior & Attitudes	33	14	16	17	2	18	16
18 May	RED C	32	13	18	20	2	15	12
14–15 May	MillwardBrown	34	15	16	17	1	17	13
13 May	RED C	29	13	19	21	2	16	8
29 Apr	RED C	32	14	17	19	2	16	13
16–17 Apr	Ipsos MRBI	33	13	14	21	2	17	12
11–17 Apr	Behavior & Attitudes	33	14	15	16	5	18	17
30 Mar	RED C	35	16	15	14	2	18	19
25 Mar	RED C	34	15	16	18	2	15	16
4 Mar	RED C	30	16	17	18	2	17	12
15–20 Feb	Behavior & Attitudes	33	13	16	20	2	16	13
29 Jan	RED C	30	14	18	17	3	18	12
12 Jan	RED C	33	16	17	14	2	18	16
2012
7–12 Dec	Behavior & Attitudes	29	12	18	19	3	18	10
4 Dec	RED C	32	15	18	15	1	19	14
25 Oct	Ipsos MRBI	36	19	15	15	1	14	17
23 Oct	RED C	31	17	14	16	2	20	14
16–18 Oct	Behavior & Attitudes	35	16	14	17	1	16	18
7 Oct	Ipsos MRBI	35	17	16	18	2	12	17
20 Sep–2 Oct	Behavior & Attitudes	34	16	16	14	3	17	18
25 Sep	RED C	33	16	15	15	2	19	17
30 Aug–14 Sep	MillwardBrown	40	20	10	11	2	17	20
4 Sep	Behavior & Attitudes	44	12	15	13	2	12	29
15–18 Jul	Ipsos MRBI	38	18	18	10	2	14	20
29 May	RED C	41	19	16	11	3	10	22
23–24 May	MillwardBrown	42	19	16	11	1	12	23
10 Apr	RED C	39	18	16	11	2	14	21
25 Feb 2011	Election Results	36.1	19.5	17.5	9.9	1.8	15.4	16.6

Do you find this to be an acceptable compromise? --4idaho (talk) 17:04, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

• Polling firm/references:
  • Since it was you who removed the references, I have a problem with you expecting someone else to reinstate them.
  • Red C has polled for several customers. These need to be distinguished as the polls are not comparable across customers.
• Sorting:
  • The Date column does not sort properly.
    • Assuming you can fix this while retaining the above format, the year headers should be above the relevant rows instead of below them (the table is not read from the bottom up).
  • The party columns do not sort at all.
• Footnotes:
  • I can accept the "lead" column as notable if you can accept the minor party figures as such.
  • Some footnotes explain how the given figures were derived, in cases where these do not correspond with the headline figures in the linked news article.

jnestorius^(talk) 09:05, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

• 1). I'll do the references. I was just hoping there was an easier way than putting them all in one at a time.

• 2). WP:OR. We're already talking about a table which includes, and inherently compares, different polls from different sources, which may ask questions differently or even have different methodologies. I don't totally disagree with you, but I think giving it its own column gives undue weight to this minor, and ultimately subjectively important, tidbit.

• If we were going to do something like that, and I think the table is fine the way it is, it should focus on methodological differences, not who commissioned the poll.

• 3). I'll think about this one. I don't immediately see an easy way to do it.

• 4). Circling back to #3, the year bars and the date format in the proposed new table make a lot more sense if it was scrollable. Since we decided not to make it scrollable, I'll just put the full date back in the column. That will fix the problem.

• 5). The party columns don't sort in the old table either…

• 6). Sorry, I can't see this as notable or informative.

• SP and PBP have only been polled once or twice out of hundreds of polls. Each time they drew only 1%. In a STV system it is, of course, possible for parties with 1% of the FPV to get seats. But does that really mean any time any party is polled and receives 1% of the vote it's notable?

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/Button_upper_letter.png

• Also, I'm a tad confused by the other footnotes. All polls have raw responses and then adjusted figures. Every single one of RED C's polls has adjusted figures. I don't really understand why there's a note about this?

Conclusion: I'll put the references in and fix the date column when I have time. Thoughts? --4idaho (talk) 12:04, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• Not all polls list the Greens, but enough do to make a column worthwhile. Even fewer list other parties, but where they do that is always notable. Smallness is a continuum; rather than Wikipedia making a judgment call as to how small is too small to list, let the polling companies make that call. This avoids OR. More information is better, even if a footnote makes the table less pretty. I make it three out of 85 polls in the table that give figures for the SP. There may be others; I haven't checked all the references.
• The fact that you are confused by some footnotes is hardly a sufficient reason for removing them. These footnotes are to explain the derivation of numbers given in the table and not immediately obvious from the source references.
  • Others figure of 24% includes 3% for the Green Party is there to prevent an editor miscorrecting "Green 3 Others 21" to "Green N/A Others 24". This danger is real because the lead of the original Sunday Times news article, and the RTE article in the references, only give "Others 24%" without mentioning the Greens.
  • The footnote that you allude to, "Independents and other parties" had 19% of the core vote, adjusted to 22% excluding undecided voters. The Green Party was 2 percentage points of the 19% core vote corresponds to this:
    • source core: Green 2%, Others (ecl Green) 17%;
    • source adjusted: Others (incl Green) 22%
    • table: Green 2%, Others 20%.
• It cannot be OR to state the name of the commissioning organisation, given that it is given not just in the organisation's own report, but also in secondary news reports by other organisations. I fail to see how it gives undue weight either, if the same information is given for each row in the table. By all means move the columns to a less prominent position on the right of the table; we could use abbreviations to save space. The point is that by combining the polling columns and date with sortability, readers can extract a subseries of just one organisation's polls, which are more closely comparable than the overall series. That is useful.
• Rather than publishing a half-baked version, if you worked on it in your sandbox then you could take all the time you need.
• The party columns don't sort in the old table either -- mea culpa.

jnestorius^(talk) 14:09, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• 1a). I see your point. I'll use efn notes to make it less clunky, but I'm fine with keeping the minor party figures in.

• 1b). Information can be imparted to editors without making it visible. For example, try editing this page and looking after this colon:

• Notes like this can be hidden directly in the table next to the relevant figures. This is a much cleaner and less confusing way of imparting information like this, that is only relevant to editors.

• 2). My point is it's WP:OR to say two polls by the same company, but commissioned by different outlets, can't be compared. And if there is a way to sort pollsters like that, to allow more direct comparisons, it should be focused on methodological differences between the pollsters. If two pollsters use the same methodology and ask the same questions, it doesn't matter who commissioned the poll. I don't see who commissioned the poll as a very relevant way to sort polls.

• 3). My version of the table was not "half-baked." It was the way I thought the table should be. Wikipedia is about compromise. If someone else has a different opinion than me, I'm happy to talk it out and see if there can't be an amicable solution -- even if the result isn't 100% what I think might be the best way to do it. This is a fundamental principle of a collective project like wikipedia. And compromise is not about one person being wrong and one person being right. Please be respectful of other people's opinions. --4idaho (talk) 17:50, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

• I apologise for the inflammatory term "half-baked". Let me try again. You originally objected to my original revert on the basis that it would have been better to preserve its good parts while adding a further edit to remove its bad parts. The question then is whether that makes more sense than reverting and having a substitute edit with just the good parts. This depends on how easy the respective edits are. I think we agree now that fixing up the dates and references is not as simple as you originally implied. I think it would be easier to back out and redo whatever good parts of the original edit (removing the percent sign, adding the colour highlights, maybe some stuff I din't notice).
• References are not there solely for the benefit of editors. They are also for readers. A reader might be just as confused by the figures apparently not tallying wwith the sources, so a hidden HTML comment is inadequate. I accept that, if you did not understand the purpose of the footnote, that suggests it is not as clear as it needs to be. But the solution is to rephrase it, not to remove it.
• I am not saying "two polls by the same company, but commissioned by different outlets, can't be compared": that would be not just OR, but plain wrong. Comparability of polls is not an all-or-nothing question. It is not OR to recognise that a serious media outlet works harder to make its own polls comparable with each other than with other media outlets' polls. A column that allows users to exploit this if they want to (or not if they don't) is a good thing. If you want to an an extra column with details methodology, be my guest, but the source data may be harder to track down, and you are more likely to end up violating WP:SYNTH.
• I quite agree about compromise and discussion. That is why we are editing this Talk page. jnestorius^(talk) 12:44, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Possible Opinion Poll Copyright problem?

I'm no expert on this, but I note that we are quoting opinion polls usually without mentioning the commissioning newspaper or organisation (such as Paddy Power for some of the RED C polls). I note that this omission rarely or never happens when a Newspaper or RTE mentions a poll. I think I also remember that the Irish Times used always say that you could quote an Irish Times/MRBI poll provided you mentioned "Irish Times/MRBI", though that may well have changed since I stopped buying The Irish Times over 10 years ago. So can anybody clarify whether this is an issue that needs fixing? (I've 'fixed' it for the 2 polls that I've added or amended). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:25, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

A further complication is that most of our links are just urls, often to sources other than the commissioning organisation - if these links die it becomes even harder to find out who the commissioner was (especially with RED C which hasn't always the same commissining organisation - sometimes Paddy Power, sometimes Sunday Business Post, etc). Tlhslobus (talk) 03:30, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

See the lively discussion in the preceding section of this Talk: page. Compare this reverted edit on 14 June 2014 and this unreverted edit on 23 December 2014. I have restored the separate Poll and Commissioned-ny columns and removed the Margin column. Also made the Date column sortable. jnestorius^(talk) 12:38, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Trivia removed

I've removed these footnotes. They seem like trivia, unless a noteworthy external source has drawn attention to them. (Additionally, I think in an emergency the Oireachtas could postpone an election indefinitely.)

• The current constitutional position is less restrictive. Article 16.5 of the Constitution of Ireland requires that the same Dáil shall not continue for more than 7 years, but allows for a shorter period to be fixed by law (which is currently fixed at 5 years). Article 16.3.2 of the Constitution of Ireland requires that a general election for members of Dáil Éireann must take place not later than thirty days after the dissolution (whereas the law currently only allows 25 days). So in theory, or in some emergency, the Oireachtas could amend or replace the Electoral Act 1992 to postpone the election for up to another 2 years and 5 days, or up to 8 April 2018.
• Saturday 2 April 2016 is coincidentally the last of the symbolic centenary dates for the 1916 Easter Rising from Easter Sunday 27 March 2016 to Easter Saturday 2 April 2016.

jnestorius^(talk) 14:58, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

I have reverted the above good faith WP:BOLD change per WP:BRD:.

• The actual Constitutional position isn't 'trivia'. Leaving it out misinforms the reader about the true legal position. The bit about an emergency is simply explaining what that Constiturional position means in practice for the benefit of the unfamiliar reader, and ought to be non-contentious (and has not caused any contention before now). As for the decidedly non-RS opinion that a Government can postpone the election indefinitely in an emergency, it cannot do so legally (at least not without a referendum), so if necessary the word 'legally' can be added to the note. Similarly "So in theory, or in some emergency," could be re-worded as "So in theory, for instance in some emergency,". And if someone really insists, one might even add at the end "Any further postponement would legally require a constitutional referendum".

As for references, it was, for instance, mentioned in a Seanad debate in July 2013:

http://oireachtasdebates.oireachtas.ie/Debates%20Authoring/DebatesWebPack.nsf/takes/seanad2013071100042?opendocument

Senator Fidelma Healy Eames: That definitely needs to be clarified because I could see a massive choking up of the business of the House as a result of that. The Minister of State should clarify that matter, as well as telling us where that model came from.

There are dangers in having a unicameral parliament. It would be dangerous for the Irish people to proceed to abolish the Seanad without first ratifying definite proposals in the Dáil. It would be as easy for us to put through a Bill to reform the Dáil in advance of the Seanad's abolition. The Government should be doing that in order to demonstrate its good faith on this issue.

For example, our Constitution allows the Irish people to only have a general election every seven years. Therefore, a general election need not happen for seven years.

Senator Diarmuid Wilson: In the event of a national emergency.

• As for the 1916 anniversary, we have the folowing:

----------------http://www.newstalk.com/Parade-to-mark-99th-anniversary-of-1916-Rising

Parade to mark 99th anniversary of 1916 Rising takes place in Dublin

5 Apr 2015

Ruairi Casey

Meanwhile the Tánaiste says no decision has yet been made on whether next year's general election will be held well in advance of the 1916 centenary celebrations.

Taoiseach Enda Kenny is mandated to go to the people in April next year, which is likely to clash with the 100 year anniversary of the Rising.

However, there has been much comment about whether the election should be held earlier in the year, to avoid any cross over between politics and the celebrations.

Joan Burton says there has been no decision on a date for the election, and the Government's focus for the 1916 centenary lies elsewhere:

(Also, for whatever it's worth, there's also lots of SF stuff about the government running scared of the centenary, etc), such as:

--------------http://www.independent.ie/regionals/sligochampion/news/government-embarrassed-by-1916-centenary-says-kenny-31138935.html (Incidentally 'Kenny' in that headline is not Enda Kenny, but SF councillor and Dail candidate Martin Kenny)

and

-----------------http://www.irishcentral.com/news/irishvoice/Sinn-Fein-ready-to-lead-government-in-year-of-1916-Centenary.html

Sinn Fein ready to lead government in year of 1916 Centenary

Kate Hickey @irishcentral March 12,2015

Thus there seems nothing trivial about the anniversary in this context. If anything there is probably too little about it at present, and to remove the reference entirely does a serious disservice to unfamiliar readers.

Tlhslobus (talk) 07:02, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Easter Rising: OK, point added. The theoretical seven-year limit should be mentioned in Elections in the Republic of Ireland and/or Irish general election timetable; it should not be mentioned here as there is no suggestion of the current statutory limit being changed before 2016. As for emergency, see Constitution Article 28.3.3°.

Nothing in this Constitution other than Article 15.5.2° shall be invoked to invalidate any law enacted by the Oireachtas which is expressed to be for the purpose of securing the public safety and the preservation of the State in time of war or armed rebellion, or to nullify any act done or purporting to be done in time of war or armed rebellion in pursuance of any such law.

Thanks, point accepted. Please feel free to proceed as you see fit. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:21, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

Can we restore the opinion poll lead column, please?

The lead column was removed some time ago, seemingly based on the claim that it is only relevant in a two-party system. It is not at all obvious to me that that is correct - on the contrary, I often find it useful (and therefore relevant) info for all sorts of reasons, and I suspect I'm unlikely to be the only reader who finds it useful. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:57, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

And I suspect it will get even more useful as we get closer to the election.Tlhslobus (talk) 04:49, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Note: If it made things clearer, we could put an asterisk or a footnote beside the percentage of whichever party came second, thus indicating that this was the party which was being led by X%. Tlhslobus (talk) 04:44, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Number of parties in infobox

For the number of parties in the infobox, where does it specify a maximum number in Wikipedia rules/guidelines? It's been discussed before (see above) with no conclusion. Why do not limit ourselves to arbitrary numbers because some editors thinks so? Snappy (talk) 18:25, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Your title to this section and your phrasing of the question demonstrates why you have entirely missed the point. This is not about arbitrary numbers, it is about being consistent accross wikipedia, it is also about the summary box being just that; a summary. These articles always have full results tables lower down, to include every single party as a rule would violate the wikipedia policy against duplication. I have made reference to other articles whereby this argument has been done to death, for example please see the archived pages of Talk:United Kingdom general election, 2015 and Talk:European Parliament election, 2014 (United Kingdom) amongst others. Basically, its not about setting numerical limits, it is about including parties whose result is of signifgicance to the outcome. 1 seat is not significant, arguably 5 seats is not significant but depending on the circumstances and the previous result, potentially it could have been. Thanks 2.98.38.127 (talk) 18:39, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I have not missed the point. I asked where the guidelines for limiting the number of parties in the infobox. You have not provided any, so it appears there are none. A discussion on another article talk page, does not mean it applies elsewhere, it only applies to that article. For it to apply in general, it would become a guideline, which appears not to be the case. User:2.98.38.127 thinks there should be a limit on the number, and that is their opinion, not Wikipedia policy. Also, can 2.98.38.127 stop edit warring while this issue is under discussion, I have restored the consensus version.

You clearly have not read any of those talk pages. They are not my own opinion and your statement appears to be a deliberate attempt to misrepresent things. a) no one is trying to "limit" party numbers,it is about the info box being a summary. b) it was discussed on those talk pages that this would be the standard criteria for election info boxes and that is where there is a consensus, you have presented no consensus. c) My edit only made this articlemore consistent with other articles already on wikipedia. d) May i suggest you actually read the links you asked forinstead of continuing to edit war 2.98.38.127 (talk) 19:11, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Also, Spanish general election, 2015 has 6 parties, United Kingdom general election, 2015 has 4 parties, Catalonian parliamentary election, 2015 has 6, and Scottish Parliament election, 2016 has 5. It appears there is no consensus on this issue, so stop trying to force one, where it doesn't exist. Snappy (talk) 19:00, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

See Talk:Irish general election, 2011. Snappy (talk) 19:10, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Your above answer is yet another example that you are deliberately trying to misrepresent the argument as you are bringing arbitrary numbers into it and that is not what this is about. It is simply about the election box being a summary, not a breakdown of the full result which would be a violation of wikipedias policy on duplicate content 2.98.38.127 (talk) 19:19, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Australian federal election, 2013 contains 4 parties, 2 of whom have only 1 seat. Where is this guideline/policy on the infobox being a summary with no content duplication allowed? Snappy (talk) 19:22, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This looks like another article that will need to be changed to ensure that there is consistency and that the info box is serving as a summary box and not as a means of duplicating information on the same page (a violation of wiki policy). Can I just point out though, the number of parties in one elections info box and comparing them to another demonstrates that you are indeed missing the point, it is about it being a summary, we have a full results table below in all these articles. You really are missing the point 2.98.38.127 (talk) 19:27, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I get your point alright, its just I don't agree with your arbitrary implementation of what you think are Wikipedia guidelines, but in fact are just your own POV. A discussion on a UK politics article does NOT mean the result gets applied to every wikipedia politics article. It gets applied to *that* article and perhaps to similar ones. If you want to change them all, then there needs to be a Wikipedia wide policy or guideline, which there clearly isn't in this case. Currently, we have people who think the infobox should have only 3 or 4 parties and other people who think it shoudl have 6, 7 or 8. There is clearly no consensus on this issue, so stop trying to force your pov on these articles. Snappy (talk) 19:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

This must be the hundredth time we've discussed this, but it remains an example of why using infoboxes prior to elections is a bad idea (per NPOV). As usual, I suggest either getting rid of it, or using {{Infobox legislative election}}, which can accommodate lots more parties in a more succinct manner. Number 57 21:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

It has been discussed many times before, but there appears to be no consensus for criteria for inclusion in the infobox summary. I've looked at {{Infobox legislative election}} per your suggestion, and I think thats a really good idea. Its clear and uncluttered, and only contains the relevant information for a summary; and the inclusion criteria is clear - parties that won seats. IMHO, the {{Infobox election}} has become quite cluttered with many of the fields like Images, Leader since, Leader's seat, and Swing being unnecessary. The IP above was quite strident about the Infobox election being a summary but of late, its become a bloated one. I'll try the Infobox legislative election on some Irish elections, hopefully it wont cause any problems. Snappy (talk) 17:50, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Similar problems have arisen on the 2007 and 2011 election pages. I have reverted "Snappy"'s changes to infoboxes and put my thoughts on the talk pages of both those articles. There seems to be a lot of talk about 'consensus' but it appears to be a 'consensus' of one - "Snappy". To ensure consistency with the infoboxes for every Irish election from 1918 to 2002, I have reverted to the large-style infobox. 86.147.208.85 (talk) 15:54, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

There aren't any problems there, just a better infobox. Snappy's changes were positive. Number 57 15:59, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

Its not just me and Number 57, the emerging consensus on wikipedia for election articles is use Infobox legislative election, see Next United Kingdom general election. Yes, I have been replacing the infoboxes on Irish general elections, its called being WP:BOLD. I agree with User:Number 57, it makes sense to replace all of them. Snappy (talk) 17:45, 7 October 2015 (UTC)

I'm sorry, gentlemen, but I have to query what this emerging consensus is. If it has been discussed somewhere, please do point me to it. As far as I can see, there is a good case for doing it for "Next election" pages as one doesn't know what leaders the parties might have at a future election.

But there certainly does not seem to be any consensus on doing this for past elections. If I look at the articles for the most recent past elections for Australia, the UK, France, Germany, Canada, US House, US Senate, New Zealand, Northern Ireland and practically every other country, and for all previous elections, the standard larger infobox is being used.

If there has been a discussion somewhere where, specific to Ireland, a consensus has been reached that for Irish elections this slimmed down infobox should be used, again please point me at it. As it is it looks like a unilateral decision that is detrimental because it loses a lot of information (such as leaders seats, and numerical votes cast), leaves half the Irish election pages using this slimmed down version and half not, and is out of kilter with practically every other election page on this site. 86.147.208.85 (talk) 08:27, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

There are no rules or guidelines on Wikipedia that every election box for every country must use the same template. It's a summary box, the current one which has grown bloated over time with stuff like leaders seats and leadership election, so a new slimmed down one is replacing it. Snappy (talk) 17:36, 8 October 2015 (UTC)

Can someone explain what's the point of having parties such as Renua Ireland, Social Democrats and WUAG in the infobox? As of currently, only Fine Gael, Labour, Fianna Fáil and Sinn Féin are polling in significant numbers in opinion polls, and of the others, only AAA-PBP and Green Party (which, btw, is not in the infobox) have ever reached 5% since 2011. I see that the reason behind their inclusion has been seat allocation, but I think it's just disproportionate to show a party that in 2011 won 1 seat and 0.4% of the overall vote and it's not even present in opinion polls (the same goes for Renua, Social Democrats and, potentially, AAA-PBP).

It's not a custom or requirement in Wikipedia to include every party present in Parliament in the infobox (and it frequently is not done so), which is intended as a summary only. Also, it could potentially violate WP:UNDUE, as sources most frequently only mention the four largest parties and the others have not any significant support. Impru20 (talk) 15:11, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

I agree and I've been bold again, and reduced the number of parties to the 4 largest: FG, Lab, FF and SF. If this infobox is supposed to be a summary then it shouldn't be listing all parties. Feel free to revert! Snappy (talk) 15:48, 10 October 2015 (UTC)

This is well and good so long as there is some point in the article in which all parties and their current, and 2011 election, positions are noted. This is not the case. The addition of such info would be welcome; but not necessarily in the infobox. Marplesmustgo (talk) 21:01, 13 October 2015 (UTC)

I've added a 'Current distribution of seats' table for now. This can be replaced by the Results table after the election. Snappy (talk) 16:20, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

That's actually a quite satisfying solution. Impru20 (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2015 (UTC)

Parties included in opinion poll table

Think given they've been consistently polling higher than the Green Party(and even Labour once) I think it was right to break AAA-PBP out of the Ind/Others column and give them their own. Question is when do we do the same for Renua and the Social Democrats? Noticed most recent poll has SDs on 3%(higher than the Greens) and Renua has polled at 2% several times. I'd propose if both can manage to stay at 2% or more in the next few polls they should be given their own columns? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.162.22 (talk) 23:06, 22 November 2015 (UTC)

With the SDs again polling 3% in today's Red C poll, it's the fourth consecutive occasion that they have matched or exceeded the Green rating, so they now appear to merit their own column. Should Renua consistently reach 2% next year, they can be added then. Culloty82 (talk) 19:50, 3 December 2015 (UTC)

SDs back down to 1% in B&A poll... would love to get consensus on this though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SGlennonB (talk • contribs) 04:06, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

I wonder if someone with the necessary technical ability could add something like the chart here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015#Opinion_polling that might make it easier to add the smaller parties. I think it is also much easier to take in the movement of parties in visual form. --Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 18:35, 21 January 2016 (UTC)

Agree, that does look very clean for a multi-party election, colours can go to the side also. Culloty82 (talk) 22:04, 30 January 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks to Impru20 for adding a graphical representation of the opinion polls. --Boreas74 ^{You'll catch more flies with honey} 12:01, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Date

On a random point, does anyone know what the shortest possible period between a dissolution and election day? — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 13:21, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

17 days not including Sundays. Electoral Act 1992, Section 96 - "shall be taken on such day as shall be appointed by the Minister by order, being a day which (disregarding any excluded day) is not earlier than the seventeenth day or later than the twenty-fifth day next following the day on which the writ or writs for the election is or are issued,". Excluded days are Sundays and public holidays. The next general election could still happen in 2015, though its very unlikely. Snappy (talk) 15:08, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

Agreed. — Blue-Haired Lawyer ^t 20:26, 28 November 2015 (UTC)

2 years 5 days later

Footnote #3 states the following:

• The current constitutional position is less restrictive. Article 16.5 of the Constitution of Ireland requires that the same Dáil shall not continue for more than 7 years, but allows for a shorter period to be fixed by law (which is currently fixed at 5 years). Article 16.3.2 of the Constitution of Ireland requires that a general election for members of Dáil Éireann must take place not later than thirty days after the dissolution (whereas the law currently only allows 25 days). So in theory, or in some emergency, the Oireachtas could amend or replace the Electoral Act 1992 to postpone the election for up to another 2 years and 5 days, or up to 8 April 2018.

However, since this election can currently take place no later than 8 April 2016 using the 25-day limit, wouldn't an extra "2 years & 5 day" limit equal 13 April 2018 rather than 8 April 2018? Can someone explain the math to me & if it should be 13 April 2018 can we agree that it needs to be changed? Brucejoel99 (talk) 21:16, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Also, what I think is happening here is that the original "8 April 2016" date is taking excluded Sundays and Bank Holidays into account while the "8 April 2018" date isn't &, if Sundays and Bank Holidays become excluded, the latest hypothetical date in the footnote should therefore be 13 April 2018. Brucejoel99 (talk) 21:18, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

This is how I calculate it:

Constitution of Ireland, Article 16

5 The same Dáil Éireann shall not continue for a longer period than seven years from the date of its first meeting: a shorter period may be fixed by law.

Electoral Act, 1992 - 33.—The same Dáil shall not continue for a longer period than five years from the date of its first meeting.

9 March 2011 - First meeting of 31st Dáil

9 March 2016 - Last possible meeting of 31st Dáil

Section 96 of the Electoral Act 1992 states:

"(1) A poll at a Dáil election—

(a) shall be taken on such day as shall be appointed by the Minister by order, being a day which (disregarding any excluded day) is not earlier than the seventeenth day or later than the twenty-fifth day next following the day on which the writ or writs for the election is or are issued,

For the purposes of the Act an "excluded day" means a day which is a Sunday, Good Friday or a day which is declared to be a public holiday by the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973, or a day which by virtue of a statute or proclamation is a public holiday

Excluded days:

13 March - Sunday

17 March - St. Patrick's Day - Public holiday

20 March - Sunday

25 March - Good Friday

27 March - Easter Sunday

28 March - Easter Monday - Public holiday

03 April - Sunday

10 April - Sunday

So, if the Dáil were dissolved on a 9 March 2016, and the writs for elections issued by the Clerk of the Dáil on that day, then the latest date for polling would be 11 April 2016 (25 days after, excluding Sundays, Good Friday and public holidays)

25 days from 9 March 2016 plus excluded days above is: 11 April 2016.

As for the extra 2 years and 5 days in an emergency, that date is then 16 April 2018. If I have made an error. please let me know. Snappy (talk) 22:17, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Historical speculation

I have restored parts of the historical speculation previously deleted . The pure speculation by Wikipedians is obsolete and should not be preserved; but the media speculation remains noteworthy. It illustrates that the date of an election is chosen by politicians to maximise their own advantage. Choosing not to hold an election on a particular date is the dog that didn't bark. jnestorius^(talk) 12:44, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Some of that content is still relevant, albeit abbreviated now we have the actual dates. Bondegezou (talk) 13:21, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've re-restored the Twickenham story. @Snappy:, if you think it doesn't belong, please explain why. It appeared in many papers and several ministers addressed it. jnestorius^(talk) 09:37, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Complete twaddle, but if you want to degrade the article by leaving in rubbish and speculation, go right ahead. Snappy (talk) 17:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Independents 4 Change

If the criterion for the Claire Byrne debate was that a party have three TDs, why were Independents 4 Change, with 4 TDs, excluded? Was it an oversight by RTÉ or did it fail some additional criterion, e.g. recency of establishment? Independents 4 Change seems to have little actual existence beyond a logo and a listing on the Dáil registrar of parties; not even a website AFAIK. Broughan doesn't name it on his posters. Nevertheless, it might have won the High Court case that the Green Party lost. jnestorius^(talk) 10:36, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting point. (It was also pointed out that if a second Healy-Rae does get elected, they could form a larger grouping than the Greens come next election... ;-) Regards, Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:23, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Opinion polls

Further eyes would be welcome at Opinion polling for the Irish general election, 2016. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 19:26, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Independent Alliance

Should the Independent Alliance be broken out from the Independents group? They are running 20 candidates in the election.[1] Although they are not a registered political party, they are a distinct group. They have a website, facebook and twitter accounts. It might be interesting/useful to track them by 1st pref votes. Spleodrach (talk) 18:01, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

Quite possibly - they're a sizeable group. There's also Independents 4 Change, with 4 TDs. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 20:43, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I4C is a registered party and is already listed in the table.

• Unregistered parties/groups running candidates include:

• People's Convention (4 candidates in Cork)
• Healy-Raes (2 candidates in Kerry)
• Christian and Jobs Action Party (1 candidate in Meath West)
• First Independent Mayo (2 candidates in Mayo)
• Any more? I don't think RSF are running anybody?

• Possibly also worth subdividing AAA–PBP into its two components
• Also some pledges signed by multiple groups; not worth putting in table but worth mentioning in article

• Right2Change
• Public Banking Alliance

jnestorius^(talk) 08:10, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

"No doctor, no village" has Michael Harty in Clare [2] and Jerry Cowley in Mayo [3] jnestorius^(talk) 12:29, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

The reason I suggested the Independent Alliance for separation is that they already have 5 TDs, 2 Senators and 13 councillors, which makes them a sizeable group, bigger in the Oireachtas than I4C and AAA-PBP. Spleodrach (talk) 18:45, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Since there were no objections, I've gone ahead and broken out the Independent Alliance in the table. Spleodrach (talk) 14:04, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I would have objected, had I seen this! Unlike Independents 4 Change, the Independent Alliance are not a registered party. They are officially just Independents or Non-Party. I would, however, highlight their results, as those for New Vision were on the 2011 election page. Jnestorius's response read to me like an objection, rather than further suggestions. --William Quill (talk) 22:15, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

On the contrary, I am all for adding as much relevant information as possible. Wikipedia is not bound by Irish electoral law and so under no obligation to lump all independents together (and if we were, we should be calling the "non-party" rather than "independent"). It would be useful to subdivide candidates not in registered parties (and AAA-PBP) into relevant unregistered parties or alliances (while preserving the aggregate figure in its own row). See Spanish general election, 2015#Overall rows "Podemos" and "Parties with less than 0.1% of the vote" for an example of the layout. jnestorius^(talk) 12:06, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

While not bound by it, I would take Irish electoral law as a good place to work from, so that we present the official results, which will form the basis of the new Dáil. I would still have given Independent Alliance information, just not in the official table. However, I concede that I'm in the minority here. On this basis, I like the format on the Spanish result page jnestorius linked. Perhaps we could list the Independent Alliance within the Independent category, on pressing Show. This would give the reader of this page accurate information, distinguishing it from the similar Independents 4 Change. It's relevant to Wikipedia readers to indicate in some manner that Paul Gogarty will be on the ballot as an Independent (or Non-Party, though we needn't use that awkward phrase), whereas Joan Collins will be on the ballot as Independents 4 Change. I'd also support listing parties with no seats and less than 1% of the vote as in the Spanish example, so that FN, IDP, CPI and UP don't clutter up the page. William Quill (talk) 14:48, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if 1% is the appropriate cutoff. That can wait till after votes are counted next Saturday, when there may be an obvious gap to use. jnestorius^(talk) 14:53, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I'd favour putting the micro-parties in their own "Show" section. I think the criteria for inclusion (or exclusion) should not be based solely on percentages but also (and more importantly) if they get seats in the Dail. Spleodrach (talk) 17:08, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh yes, that's what I meant by "no seats and less than 1% of the vote". If it satisfies either of these barriers, I'd list it. But you're right, we can leave that one till the weekend! William Quill (talk) 20:25, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Retiring Incumbents

These people have nowt to do with the election, they retired from the last Dáil not 'from' this election. Propose move of entire section to 31st Dáil where I already copied it and delete. It was handy before the kickoff.

See Members_of_the_31st_Dáil#Retirements Wikimucker (talk) 22:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Oppose, its useful to have on this page. Let's see what others think. Spleodrach (talk) 06:34, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Errors and problems in results table and infobox

1) The sum of the votes is 183 greater than the final total - Identity Ireland's 183 votes are seemingly being double-counted, perhaps by also being included as Independents.

2) The sum of percentages is 101.88%, far too high to be due to 'rounding errors'.

3) Decimal places are inconsistent both within the table (some are 1 digit, some are 2 digits) and between the table and the infobox - this looks especially odd when 0.05% at least appears to get rounded down (conventionally it should be rounded up) for FF and SF percentages in the infobox.

Tlhslobus (talk) 07:16, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Re item 3 above, I suggest 2 decimal places should be used throughout - it's more accurate and more informative. Tlhslobus (talk) 07:32, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

I suggest one decimal place: it's distracting to have two decimal places when the final figure (representing one in 10,000) has no real relevance. Bondegezou (talk) 08:19, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

The final figure is often relevant - in 3 cases below it avoids having to give the meaningless 0.0%. It also can give a better idea of the size difference between small parties, or parties whose votes are close (in the last European elections it was needed to show that FF had beaten FG, and 1 decimal place was used to conceal that fact (presumably not deliberately, per WP:AGF). Tlhslobus (talk) 09:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

It can also better show the change in a party's share of the vote where that change is small, or where one wants to know was that more or less than a quarter (or third or whatever) of its vote.Tlhslobus (talk) 09:38, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Based on votes given in our table, correct percentages seemingly should be:
FG 25.47
FF 24.31
SF 13.82
Lab 6.60
AAA-PBP 3.94
SD 3.00
GP 2.71
RN 2.18
I4C 1.47
WUA 0.35
DD 0.30
WP 0.15
CD 0.09
FN 0.06
IDP 0.05
CP 0.01
II 0.01
IA 4.16
IND 11.32
which adds to 100.00.

These figures assume the total of 2,136,405 is correct and that Independents should be reduced by 183 from 242016 to 241833 due to Identity Ireland being double counted.

However I'm reluctant to put in these percentages, as they differ from those given in the cited articles by RTE and the Irish Times, and I don't have any way of checking that our vote totals are correct, as I don't see those figures in the cited sources. Does anybody know where those figures can be reliably seen? Tlhslobus (talk) 09:30, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Instead of "0.0%", we can write "<0.1%". If a party got that few votes, it really doesn't matter whether it got, say, 0.02% or 0.03%. Likewise, if two parties got the same vote share to the nearest 0.1%, then they've tied. We don't need to keep adding decimal places just to distinguish them. The table includes the actual number of votes anyway.

If you write "25.47", then the reader's eye is drawn to the last figure, the "7", which tells you nothing of interest. We give raw vote numbers for those who want them; the %age column should be an easy-to-read summary. Bondegezou (talk) 10:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Using the same logic we might as well remove the first decimal place too. The reason we don't is probably because it's needed to know a major party's vote to within a percentage of that vote (1% of 25% being 0.25%), and to get a better idea of the margin of victory or defeat and of the change since the last election. By that logic we should have 1 decimal for parties with 10% or more, 2 decimals for <10%, 3 for <1%, and so on, which really would get unreadable, and arguably also goes against WP:MOS, or arguably not, depending on how we interpret "unless different precisions are actually intended" ("The number of decimal places should be consistent within a list or context (The response rates were 41.0 and 47.4 percent, respectively, not 41 and 47.4 percent), unless different precisions are actually intended."). Meanwhile having to use a calculator and 2 different election articles to compensate for the loss of the 2nd decimal place can be a major and rather infuriating inconvenience, as I know from experience, just to compensate for some speculative theory about how some people's eyes work. Maybe we can have 1 decimal in the infobox, and 2 in the table, though I'm not sure that's especially helpful either. However the inconvenience to me of continuing this discussion is more than seems worth it, so I give up. Meanwhile the more important matter that some of our data is clearly wrong is not getting fixed. Tlhslobus (talk) 22:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

There's also no figure for spoiled votes, which may or may not be part (but not all) of the problem.Tlhslobus (talk) 22:39, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Meanwhile, as I've given up on 2 decimal places (see above), I'm going to accept and implement Bondegezou's 1 decimal place (and <0.1, omitting % as MOS says leave % out of tables) as the consensus position. This will fix some (but not all) of the problems mentioned here.Tlhslobus (talk) 23:00, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Done that; now I'm going to 'correct' IND to the calculated 11.3% since 13.0% is clearly wrong (probably partly due to including I4C's 1.5% figure, though that should leave 11.5% rather than the calculated 11.3%, so there's a still unexplained 0.2% discrepancy from RTE's 13.0, which my figures suggest is actually too large to be simply due rounding errors, altho a superficial look might suggest it was just a rounding phenomenon).Tlhslobus (talk) 23:21, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Done. Somebody else has already fixed the above-mentioned 183 votes problem, hopefully correctly (and cetainly the way I was going to fix it). So that now just leaves the above mentioned 0.2% discrepancy (possibly a non-problem tho it would be nice to have that confirmed), and perhaps also the lack of a figure for spoiled votes. Tlhslobus (talk) 23:33, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

About results! 1) Fine Gael won 48 seats + 1 seat it has had (Ceann Comhairle); 2) There are now only 12 "independent", the 13th is Seamus Healy, who is the member of Workers and Unemployed Action and is shown in the table separately; 3) 2 seats in Longford-Westmeath are still vacant (http://www.irishtimes.com/election-2016/longford-westmeath). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Olek Bokhan (talk • contribs) 11:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Seat change number

The results table appears inconsistent as to whether the seat change number is with respect to the last election, or seats at the end of the last Dail. Bondegezou (talk) 00:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

To elaborate, the Change column has a footnote saying it's the change from the last election, but the numbers given for FG, FF and Labour are compared to the outgoing situation, not the last election. The number for Independents (up 3) then matches neither a comparison with the 2011 election (which would be down 2) or with the outgoing situation (which would be up 2). I suggest all numbers be changed to the comparison with the last election, the usual metric used. Bondegezou (talk) 17:43, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi @Bondegezou:, the seat change number for Irish general elections has always been from seats before election not seats won at last election, look at the info boxes from the articles for the 2011 and 2007 election, so for consistency I've changed the figures to reflect that. Ranníocóir (talk) 14:28, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

If it's just the case for the last few elections, that could easily be changed for those pages, with a few minutes' work. There are a few arguments for comparing with the last election, rather than seats at dissolution. The last election was when the voters last had their say on the composition of the Dáil, so changes in seats should reflect this. TDs moved around a fair bit during the last Dáil, but voters had no say on it. Comparing to the dissolution also gives a disproportionate weight to by-elections, given their midterm status, and with their 50% quota.

Take a few constituencies for instances. In Dublin West, the same four parties returned one TD in 2011 and in 2016, but interpreting it as in increase to FF at the expense of AAA-PBP misinterprets the parties' underlying strength their. Similarly for Dublin Bay South/Dublin South-East: Fine Gael got two seats in both 2011 and in 2016, to interpret the 2016 as in gain for FG gives the impression of that the support for the party has got stronger there in the last five years. Then there's Galway West, with a seat vacant at the dissolution of the Dáil, after Brian Walsh resigned on health grounds. But it's misleading to interpret Naughton winning a seat there as a gain for FG.

As for consistency with other election pages, who wants to go back and work out for all elections from 1923 what the seat composition was at the time of dissolution? I think the Seats last time row gives the information you're seeking to present, in showing the immediate impact of the election on Dáil composition. As consistency across the whole of Wikipedia matters too. I notice that the Greek legislative election, September 2015 shows Syriza as having a decrease of 4 seats, rather than an increase of twenty, as would be the case if the seats Popular Unity had from defections between January and September were taken into account. William Quill (talk) 11:19, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Reliable sources usually give the change from the last election. That's also standard on UK election articles. Bondegezou (talk) 12:27, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know it's a standard almost everywhere on Wikipedia. (If it were just a UK standard it would not be relevant, as the Republic of Ireland is not part of the UK, and fiercely opposed to any suggestion that it is).Tlhslobus (talk) 13:11, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I will add to this – the seat change figure is almost always compared to the previous election (which is also more useful a comparison). Number 57 19:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I support this idea. The seat comparation should be made with respect to the previous election, OR (seeing as the constituency boundaries have changed since 2011) with respect to the notional seat results in 2011 with the 2016 boundaries, if available (this is done in other FPTP single-member constituency systems, such as the UK, when boundary changes are done). That could be another possibility. If not available, the comparison with the actual 2011 results would be the most accurate and faithful. Impru20 (talk) 20:14, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Independent Alliance redux

@Kwekubo: has been removing Independent Alliance from results on the grounds that it "is not a political party". If, per the earlier discussion, the IA label is worth mentioning in the summary, it should also be listed in the details. While the template parameter name is "party", I see no advantage in taking such a strict view of its significance. It is at least as real as Independents 4 Change and AAA-PBP apart from the technicality of not being registered. I have added an "unregistered" parameter to {{STV Election box candidate2}} to accommodate this. jnestorius^(talk) 14:42, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The Independent Alliance is in many ways comparable to the United Left Alliance and New Vision from the 2011 election, as an unregistered political grouping of candidates including independent candidates. It should be treated similarly: the IA should not be listed in the main table, but details of their results should be given in the results section. I feel Identity Ireland should also be broken out for the main table. --Kwekubo (talk) 15:12, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

New Vision is in fact included on relevant articles, and rightly so. United Left is somewhat different, more analogous to Right2Change in that it encompassed parties as well as independents, which makes it harder to fit into the current template system; but more information is better, and both United Left and Right2Change could at least be footnoted. jnestorius^(talk) 15:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Jnestorius, we should not take such a narrow view of the difference between a party and a grouping. The IA ran on a separate and distinct platform, they should be grouped separately. We should be give readers more information not less. Spleodrach (talk) 18:17, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

What an absolute majority is

Bastun Ok, I rise the issue here in order to avoid a possible edit warring. Keep in mind the difference between what an absolute majority technically is and how majorities could work in practice. An absolute majority is 50%+1 of total seats in any given parliament. That is, for the current case of Ireland, that would be 158/2+1=80. For UK elections, where the Speaker also has to observe neutrality, majorities are still calculated like this, and a party is not considered as having reached a majority unless it commands at least 326 seats (and not 325, as it would be the case if we were to exclude the Speaker). That doesn't mean that, in practice, the fact that the Ceann Comhairle has to observe neutrality may raise difficulty for opposition parties blocking any prospective 79-seat strong government (note that this would also happen for vacant seats), yet the threshold of absolute majority would still technically be set as 80, with a 79-seat strong government not being in majority.

Also, you can't disregard the Ceann Comhairle from the absolute majority count given the fact that the previous CC is counted in the infobox within a party's numbers. And given that the Ceann Comhairle may vary throughout the duration of a parliamentary term, you can't discount him/her from his/her party either, as once he/she stops being CC he/she will return to his/her party (as was the case in this election, for example, where the CC was from FG until a new one from FF was elected). Impru20 (talk) 10:42, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

This is not the UK. (There was, in fact, a war to establish that fact). The CC (who is elected prior to the election of a Taoiseach and the resulting formation of a goverment) does not count. (158-1)/2+1 = 79,rounded. You could Google this. Please self revert on this and the other two articles. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 15:59, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Well, I'm pretty sure an absolute majority is calculated the same in the UK than in Ireland, Italy, France, Spain, or wherever. You take the total seats of a given chamber and calculate the 50%+1 for it. You can't discount the CC, specially when the infobox does not do this and includes the CC within the party in which it was originally elected. The fact that the CC is neutral is absolutely irrelevant for the calculation, as it is done on the basis of the total number of seats. Pure maths. Plus, I already Googled it and couldn't find where it is said than an absolute majority in Ireland is equal to what you suggest. Nor did anyone else for years, it seems, since all Irish election articles have been using the same system than every other election article in the world for ages until a single IP user decided that it had to be changed (sometimes even giving wrong data for some articles).

You're obviously mistaking the majority needed for the formation of a government with what an absolute or overall majority is. Check this. As it explains, it says how for the formation of a government just 79 seats would be needed. But, keep reading when it says this: "Fianna Fáil emerged from that election [1987] with 81 seats, three seats short of an overall majority". 81+3=84. If you check the 1987 election article you'll see how the Dail had 166 seats at the time, and that 84 is the result of applying the 50%+1.

Of course, as the CC is neutral, a government may be formed with the support of 79 seats (as it'd be impossible for a tie to happen in that case). But 79 is not equal to an overall majority. Thus, a government may be formed with 79 seats, but in votes on legal issues requiring of an absolute majority, 79 seats are not enough, because those are not an overall majority.

You must differentiate:

Majority required for the formation of a government: you can discount the CC here, as it is not needed. For the 2016 case, it'd be 79.

Overall or absolute majority: not the same than the majority required for the formation of a government. 50%+1 of all seats. For 2016, it'd be 80.

Some votings requiring of an absolute majority to be passed would need 80 votes. 79 would not be enough.

As a result I'm obviously not changing a correct calculation for one that's obviously wrong. Impru20 (talk) 17:12, 9 July 2016 (UTC)

Map of Results

The Map of the results, has a mistake, Fianna Fáil won 44 seats not 45. In Dún Laoghaire, Ceann Comhairle Seán Barrett was automatically re-elected, Fianna Fáil did not win a seat here.--185.31.97.28 (talk) 23:06, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Irish general election, 2016. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160226095035/http://www.finegael.ie/manifesto/manifesto.pdf to http://www.finegael.ie/manifesto/manifesto.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160305031426/https://greenparty.ie/manifesto/ to https://greenparty.ie/manifesto/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160423183115/http://www.renuaireland.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/RENUA-Manifesto.pdf to http://www.renuaireland.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/01/RENUA-Manifesto.pdf

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) 05:56, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Irish general election, 2016. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150516102148/http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1992/en/act/pub/0023/ to http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/1992/en/act/pub/0023/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140110193447/http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/en/act/pub/0007/ to http://www.irishstatutebook.ie/2013/en/act/pub/0007/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160419230355/http://www.live95fm.ie/news/kieran-o-donnell-privileged-to-have-served-as-limerick-city-td/24956 to http://www.live95fm.ie/news/kieran-o-donnell-privileged-to-have-served-as-limerick-city-td/24956
• Added {{dead link}} tag to https://www.veooz.com/news/bKVKHV5.html

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) 16:48, 16 November 2017 (UTC)