Talk:2013 Pakistani general election

Bilawal Bhutto / PPP

This article incorrectly states that the PPP is participating in the election and that Bilawal Bhutto is it's leader. The party that is registered with the Election Commission of Pakistan is the PPPP, and under Pakistani law, no person who is not eligible for election to the National Assembly can have a leadership role. Therefore, neither Bilawal Bhutto (due to his age), nor Asif Zardari (due to his position as President) can legally have a leadership position in the PPPP. I believe the President of the PPPP is once again, Amin Fahim. Plus the PPP have confirmed that Bilawal Bhutto will not have any campaigning role. http://dawn.com/2013/03/26/bilawal-leaves-pakistan-not-to-lead-ppp-election-campaign/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.182.75.114 (talk) 00:47, 28 March 2013 (UTC)

Using the more commonly used PPP is fine, people can click to the PPP article to get the full detail on all the name changes, but your point about its official candidate should be worked into the article, somewhere... Jztinfinity (talk) 05:05, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Re-drafting

Following the final results, this page requires heavy editing to make the information more effective and to the point, while removing the tinges of partisan tilting in some pieces in the writing. It is absolutely essential to scan this page and fix the grammar and other mistakes.Un.autre.monde (talk) 14:24, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

Not just because of the final result - this article contains so many incorrect statements it is not worth editing. I cannot believe the idiot which claims that the ECP awarded contracts to EVM suppliers or that the ECP introduced reforms before elections etc Potjernik (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2015 (UTC)

Rigging by PTI

This should be mentioned:

Reports of rigging in favour of PTI from Karachi NA-242

http://tribune.com.pk/story/547512/reports-of-rigging-in-favour-of-pti-from-karachi-na-242/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.56.248 (talk) 10:48, 11 May 2013 (UTC)

Karachi's irregularities definitely need to be covered, there is plenty of news on it. If I get some time later I may make an effort at it. Jztinfinity (talk) 05:03, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Too many reports of rigging and we can not just mention one and not others. There should be a policy. Can't just mention one. --yh (talk) 14:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

PTI's association and help by ISI

Here pti candidate admits himself:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhX_ILtbOus

and

http://www.firstpost.com/world/pakistan-polls-is-nawaz-sharifs-victory-really-good-news-for-india-773931.html

this should also be mentioned as both are relevant events. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 39.47.244.201 (talk) 09:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

This is a propaganda piece, not a reliable source to be quoted if a party is supported by a specific entity or not. We need to maintain the quality and authenticity of the article. --yh (talk) 14:07, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Party Position

The PTI is the NOT the first party. The PMLN is. The PPP is the second and PTI third. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.56.14.42 (talk) 18:48, 14 May 2013 (UTC)

Fixed. Faizan -Let's talk! 09:05, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Electoral system

Nowhere does the article state what system is used. I presume it's FPTP but I don't know so I didn't add it but someone who knows more than me might want to. Tombomp (talk/contribs) 11:57, 17 May 2013 (UTC)

This site here says that 272 members of the National Assembly of Pakistan are elected by plurality vote, which, I guess, is a type of FPTP. But I don't know much about electoral systems. --Wahj-asSaif (talk) 16:30, 17 May 2013 (UTC).

There is a need to insert into the opening paragraph a sentence to the effect that the elections were for the 272 seats in the National Assembly (including reserved seats for certain categories), as well as separately for the provincial assemblies. And, yes, the FPTP electoral system needs to be described. Rif Winfield (talk) 10:36, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

You guys really think that there is a need to describe the election type here in this article, keeping in mind that this article is about "General Election 2013". If the same system has been used in the previous elections then the all the articles about previous elections should also be expanded to include this information. --Wahj-asSaif (talk) 00:34, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Election or Elections

Recently an editor edited the sub-section "Reactions" under the section "Results" and replaced the word "elections" wherever it occurred with "election". Which form is the right one? If both are right, which most probably is the case, then which form should be used where? --Wahj-asSaif (talk) 01:39, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Without even looking, I'm guessing that editor was Lihaas? I've tried several times to explain it to him that "elections" is more common when referring to this kind of event, but unfortunately it doesn't sink in. If you look at the direct quotes in that section, almost all of them use the plural. Number 57 12:06, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

Now I've looked, I was right. The editor in question also insists on changing UK to U.K., which is patently wrong. *sigh* Number 57 12:08, 19 May 2013 (UTC)

I have had this thought and checked which one is right. Since it was election for 5 assemblies, 1 national and 4 provincial, hence the word 'elections' should be used. --yh (talk) 00:28, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

Bilawal's picture for PPP

Bilawal was too young to become the PM on election day and was not even present for election day. SHould we still use his picture as party leader. I am neutal just raising the question so we can talk about it. The Determinator p t c 02:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

"By province and territory" table

What is the table headed "By province and territory" supposed to represent? It doesn't represent the number of members elected to the National Assembly. It gives Khyber Pakhtunkhwa 99 seats, for example, when it only has 35. Unless the meaning of this table is clarified, it should be deleted. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:26, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

I think they are the Provincial assemblies. Number 57 11:28, 23 June 2013 (UTC)

Swing

The swings are completely messed up. The swing for PMLN is written to be 55.7% which is wrong and mathematically impossible. When one clicks on the citation, it leads to the NA website which clearly shows that PMLN has a 55.7% share of the seats instead of a swing of 55.7%. Look at all other election pages and comprehend the fact that the swing of a party is the increase or decrease in percentage share of the vote. Please correct these deeply flawed statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.101.93.174 (talk) 22:53, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Undue Weight in the Lede for Rigging and Inconsistencies in the Rigging Section

After reading this article, I was surprised by the heavy weight given to the paragraph on alleged rigging and fraud conducted in the elections. This weight, in my opinion, does not properly reflect its size or importance within the main article. I think that it should be reduced in the lede or, at least, broken up into multiple paragraphs. As it stands, I feel that the second paragraph's weight does not represent a neutral point of view.

There are some odd problems in the rigging section. First, it is written in point form, which is not standard on Wikipedia. Second, the titles of the sub-sections seem inappropriately named, since some 'incidents' are alleged by the sources used, not confirmed. Finally, the writing style is a bit confusing and seems to focus on commenting on the issues instead of maintaining neutrality. I think that someone with more knowledge on the topic in this article should:

• Convert the bulleted lists into full paragraphs.
• Remove the alleged incidents included, rename the sub-sections to 'alleged', or include paragraphs only focused on the speculations.
• Rewrite the style of the paragraphs to conform to a more neutral point of view.

If no one comes to make these changes, then I will attempt them myself. 69.158.38.12 (talk) 08:06, 1 September 2014 (UTC)