Talk:Opinion polling for the 2016 Spanish general election

I think the x-axis should be adjusted to end the 26th of June, since this is the date of the Election, not 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.47.233.9 (talk) 07:10, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Yep, I came to say the same thing. It would also make the chart more comfortable to read. --93.156.217.104 (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2016 (UTC)

I was thinking just the same, makes no sense that the axis go until 2020 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.1.6.52 (talk) 16:10, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

It is not accurate to add up the percentages for Podemos and IU in polls where that coalition does not appear. This is not pure mathematics and it is misleading. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.54.60.180 (talk) 14:06, 13 May 2016 (UTC)

PSOE poll

I think that we shouldn't include internal polls(Like the last one of the PSOE) in the poll of polls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.222.209.199 (talk) 11:44, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Depends on the internal poll. The latest one includes some technical data (i.e. sample size, leader ratings, etc) as well as more accurate percentage data for parties. Unlike other alledged "internal" polls, this one has also been published by nearly every major media in Spain. We don't know the pollster's name, but we have enough data to consider this as genuine. Impru20 (talk) 12:13, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Btw, this is the English wikipedia. You should all use English when writing edit summaries. For use of Spanish, go to the Spanish Wikipedia. Thank you. Impru20 (talk) 12:16, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

Internal polls have no credibility because they are made to benefit who makes. I propose to publish only those that make the pollsters — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.41.181.33 (talk) 12:31, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

That's a respectable opinion, but it's just that, an opinion. That's not how Wikipedia works, and you should prove and source that this poll is actually fake. Otherwise, current sources say otherwise. Impru20 (talk) 12:57, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

WTF? This is your opinion, Wikipedia doesn't works like way. You're the only one who wants to manipulate this page with fake polls. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 37.222.209.199 (talk) 13:26, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

May you please say:

1. Where is it said that this opinion is fake? There are several important media outlets (RTVE, El Mundo, Europa Press,...) reporting this. Surely this has enough notoriety and relevance to be included.

2. I can't think of any Wikipedia rule establishing what you say. Care to elaborate?

I've just visited the "Electomanía" Spanish website, and there's an user there saying that he's editing this page to remove the poll for the sake of it, and because he doesn't like the poll data it shows. Care to explain? Impru20 (talk) 13:43, 3 June 2016 (UTC)

If the statistics show the truth and the truth is against our ideology or our party, then the statistics are fake! Typical loony lefty! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.4.165.39 (talk) 09:20, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 June 2016

Please change the x-axis range, for the purpose of this page I think it would be better if it didn't extend to Jan 2020 but rather 26 June 2016 to make the changes in polling results clearer. 86.20.66.34 (talk) 11:01, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

The X axis spans until 2020 because this chart will be kept up to use for the next election (since essentially, the interlude between Dec 2015 and Jun 2016 has not spawned a 'true' new Legislature, as a result of no government being elected). Current chart X axis also reflects better party trends, whereas a much shorter axis would make them nearly unnoticeable (due to them being spread out in a much wider space). And further, this allows for the chart to be properly compared with previous elections' opinion polling charts (thus, ensuring consistency). Impru20 (talk) 11:22, 5 June 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is a Legislature . Where does it say it is not? Executive and legislative powers should not be confused. The parliment elected on Dec 2015 had full legislative powers. Even if we take your "not a real legislature" approach, these 6 months should be appended to the 10th legislature, not at the begginning of the 12th.--Piubrau (talk) 12:34, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

It is a Legislature, but a short-termed one which did not even resulted in the formation of a government. Thus my saying of it not being a "true" Legislature, since there was no elected executive power, and the legislative power couldn't exercise its full functions as many of them are dependant on the executive. And the current government can't exercise those, as it is in a caretaker role only and has its legislative initiative cut down. So, no, the parliament elected on Dec 2015 had not full legislative powers, since no new government was elected. Impru20 (talk) 12:51, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Could you please cite a source for that statement?--Piubrau (talk) 12:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

The Constitution (Source):

• Article 87.1. Legislative initiative belongs to the Government, the Congress and the Senate.
• Article 88. Bills will be approved by the Council of Ministers, which shall submit them to Congress, accompanied by an explanatory memorandum and the necessary background to rule on them.

The Government Law (Source):

• Article 21.

The caretaker government can not exercise the following powers:

• a) Approve the Draft Law on State Budget.
• b) Submit bills to the Congress of Deputies or, where appropriate, to the Senate.

The legislative delegations granted by Parliament shall be suspended for as long as the government is in caretaker functions following the general election.

As well as real life examples (Source): "Law 25 overcomes first procedure, but will not be approved without investiture".

The legislative power can't function normally while the government is in caretaker functions, as part of the legislative initiative belongs to the executive power (which is prohibited from exercising it while as caretaker). For example, no budget could be approved under those conditions. There have been attempts at passing bills through the Congress in this short-termed "Legislature", yet those were always destined to fail and were not approved. Impru20 (talk) 13:20, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

If you read carefully, that is limiting the executive role to propose laws to parliment, not the parliment's power to initiate a legislative process and approve the law. The congress approves the State Budget, but submitting it belongs to the government. In summary, the articles you cited are limitations to the legislative initiative of the government (submitting law proposals to be debated and approved/rejected by the legislative power) and not limitations to the legislative power itself. I think no law was passed in this legislature, but had there been consensus among the representatives, they had all the power to do so. In your example about the so-called "Law 25" the reason it didn't continue its normal process is the new elections, not the lack of government.--Piubrau (talk) 14:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Part of the legislative's functions depend on the executive. If the executive is prohibited from exercising them, then Parliament can't exercise its full powers, as you stated. Parliament can indeed initiate a legislative process, but the government election process effectively prevents any law that is proposed from being approved before deadlines are fulfilled. The budget is one of the most important laws in a country, and its legislative process can't be initiated without a fully functional government in power. The Congress can't approve a State Budget if it isn't submitted by the government first, and a caretaker government can't do that.

So what I did post to you effectively shows that your claim that "The parliment elected on Dec 2015 had full legislative powers" is false. It can't approve a State Budget. It can't even approve a single law due to the legislative process taking more time than the legal time established for forming a government (and that has happened, as I did show to you). It can't even properly exercise its government control functions (check this, with Rajoy's cabinet rejecting that Congress had any power to control it due to it being a caretaker executive). So no, the elected Parliament in 2015 did not have "full legislative powers", as it was severily limited in its functions as a result of the caretaker government. Impru20 (talk) 17:38, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You made it very clear that there are limitations. But those are a consequence of the limitations to the executive power or the short time frame of this legislature, not limitations to the legislative power. It's be like saying my money has no value because the shop is closed. You found articles limiting the executive powers. Care to find something similar related to congress and senate? Let me give you an example: If Pedro Sanchez hadn't accepted to undergo an investiture session, the 2-month countdown wouldn't have started and the congress would have all the time they need to pass all the laws they agree on.

But let's not stick to whether "full powers" is an accurate description of the situation. The point is that this is the 11th legislature, officially and to all effects. Shorter, yes. With no president, yes. No laws passed, yes. Still a legislature (you can check both the Congress and Senate websites, as well as any Wikipedia page on Spanish Legislatures). In fact, candidates, parties, electoral subsidies... Everything is new and different than 2015 elections and 2020 elections. You don't want to have a separate graph for it? Fine. Just say so, don't say it's not a true legislature.

And, like I said before (and you managed to ignore), if you really want to consider this period as some sort of appendix to another legislature, it should be added to the end of the 11th, not at the beginning of the 12th.

That been said, do as you please.--Piubrau (talk) 08:23, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

I see that you have created a page for each legislature, just like I suggested 3 years ago and you rejected saying it wasn't a "'true' new Legislature". I'm happy to see you have finally checked the authority on how to count legislatures instead of focusin in the definition of full powers.Piubrau (talk) 13:45, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2016

Por favor cambiar la columna de posición a 2º ya que es la fuerza mas votada despues del PP segun todas las encuestas y se deberia reflejar como tal. 85.86.44.27 (talk) 03:27, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Request not in English. — JJMC89 (T·C) 03:39, 6 June 2016 (UTC)

Translation: Please, change the order of the columns [to put UP] as 2nd, since it's the most voted (sic) party after PP according to all the polls, and it should be reflected as such. (I think he's talking about UP, although he doesn't mention it in the original in Spanish...)195.55.86.197 (talk) 09:12, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Opinion polling is not ordered according to opinion polling ranking, but according to the previous election's real results. While it could be discussed if the sum of Podemos+IU at 24.4% could be considered as "second force" in the 2015 election, fact is that those two parties did not ran together for it. As such, UP results are shown in Podemos' place (thus, ranked third), as that's the place achieved in 2015 by the coalition's largest partner. Impru20 (talk) 11:31, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template.  ^B E _C K ^Y _S A ^{Y L} E _S  23:40, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

Figures in poll of polls

The graph of the poll of polls shows a bold line. It would be interesting to see the current calculated average for each party.--Piubrau (talk) 12:23, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Graph for seat projections

Similar to the poll of polls vote estimation graph, it would be interesting to have a seat projection poll of polls graph. Specially since the seat allocation of the Spanish electoral law has proven to be decisive when it comes to reach pacts to form government.--Piubrau (talk) 12:29, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, because not all opinion polls give seat projections. Thus, you would give undue weight to opinion polls that give seat projections by excluding those which don't. Besides, I think no opinion polling article for any country in the world uses a "seat projection" chart anyway. Impru20 (talk) 12:47, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You would give the right weight to all polls that include seat projections. The vote estimation graph includes polls that don't have data for all parties. I don't know whether other countries use it, but someone has to be the first.--Piubrau (talk) 12:56, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

That's not the point. You'd be including only those polls that do make seat projections, while you would ignore those that don't. In the actual general election results, vote percentages are translated into seats. That's for all cases. Thus, opinion polls that show only vote percentage but not seat projections don't mean that the vote percentages they show would not translate into seats if those were the actual result. They would, but they just don't show it. However, you would be including only those polls that do show seat projections despite the fact that all opinion poll's results would translate into seats in real life. Thus, by including only some polls, you would be undue weighting those polls over others.

"someone has to be the first" Or maybe not. There's not a requirement to "be the first" at doing something, actually, so I don't think that's a valid argument. If no one has ever done it, maybe it's because no one did find it useful to do it. I don't find it useful at all here, as well as what I have said above above undue weighting. Impru20 (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

For some reason, you chose to ignore my point about polls that don't include all the parties in their answers. Apparently it's ok to compare estimations from a poll with 4 options and from a poll with 7 options. And apparently the poll of polls chart does not give extra weight to some polls in the case of last 3 parties in the table.--Piubrau (talk) 15:08, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

"Someone has to be the first" is not a reason to do something. What I meant is that "nobody else has done it" is not a valid argument for not doing it. If we take your other argument, the current graph should be removed (if we want to be consistent). There's maybe a third reason: "because I don't want to"--Piubrau (talk) 15:16, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

You're comparing different things there. The vote estimation chart includes all opinion polls, we don't deliberately exclude anything. If an opinion poll chooses not to show results for a party, that's their call, but we're not excluding that poll. If we make a seat projection chart, however, we'd be deliberately excluding those polls we know that exist but that don't show a seat projection for any party. For instance, you would have a seat projection chart reflecting something different than the vote estimation chart, because they would not comprise the same opinion polls in both of them. You would be deliberately excluding polls from the seat projection chart, something you are not doing for the vote estimation chart, just for the "casual" fact they did not make a seat projection for that specific poll.

"nobody else has done it" is a consistency argument. No one has considered that a seat projection chart is useful, and indeed the creation of one would be problematic. What would you do for periods where no seat projection is given by any poll? That's not something infrequent in Spanish opinion polling. What would you do with opinion polls from a given pollster not showing seat projections, if that pollster does show seat projections in other polls at other times? How would you determine the trend lines for opinion polls that show seat ranges? There're a lot of consistency, undue weighting and original research issues resulting from a seat projection chart. That's why no one has ever done it before, and that's why it's a valid argument. I did consider the idea in the past, and the difficulty in properly achieving a useful chart was the main reason preventing me from even taking it seriously. You would need something like what happens for Israeli opinion polls, where all polls show seat projections and no seat ranges are given, for something consistent to be spawned. Impru20 (talk) 17:30, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

See? Long periods without seat projections is a reason. Difficulty is a reason. But "nobody has done it before" is not.

I still don't see your point with the weights, though. Of course it will show something different than vote estimations, because the data is not the same, because votes don't directly translate into seats, and many other reasons. I don't see why we'd be excluding any data. We'd be using all the available data to create a second graph. Same as the polls in one table and the other are different, data in both charts would be different. If that poll decided not to provide seat projections, we're not excluding them or giving them less weight. It just doesn't exist. All the data in that table will be represented and duly weighted, just like you do with the vote estimation table. Maybe I can't explain myself, maybe there's a point I'm not getting, but I don't understand what we'd be excluding.--Piubrau (talk) 08:39, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Excuse me, but it was you the one which said "someone must do it first" as if it had to be a reason to do it. I just commented how for other countries such charts have been discarded or not even been considered for a series of reasons.

The first is lack of consistency. You'd be having two different charts showing data not comparable to each other. A casual reader would tend to think that the seat projection shown in the new chart reflects the translation in seats of the vote estimation chart, which wouldn't be the case even if all opinion polls showed seat projections (which is not ecñven the case here). Thus, lack of consistency, which would only confuse people.

Also note how not even all polls from a same pollster do necessarily show seat projections. This could also affect trend line calculations due to a lack of data at some points, adding to the confusion.

This, coupled to the fact that decimals can't be applied here. How do you represent trend lines and how do you calculate averages? For instance, a party can win 120 or 121 seats, but winning 120.5 or 120.4 seats is impossible, and you can't represent that in a chart without OR issues. Adding to this the already explained fact of some pollsters giving seat ranges (which seat number do you take to make the calculation?).

I understand what you try to say, but I believe it can't be applied here. And I say that because I already considered the idea in the past and made my own attempts myself at trying to figure out how to make such a thing. Result is that a seat projection chart is much more complicated to elaborate than a vote estimation one, and that it brings far more issues than solutions it could provide. Impru20 (talk) 10:27, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Those are very good reasons. "Nobody has done it" and "undue weights because we'd be excluding polls" - that were your first reasons - didn't sound very satisfying.

Thanks for your effort and good work--Piubrau (talk) 10:38, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Hey Impru20, check out your user page ;)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Logotipo EAJ-PNV.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:09, 15 November 2019 (UTC)