Talk:2014 Serbian parliamentary election

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

Opinion polls[edit]

I have a significant amount of opinion polls that have been released in the last few years. They're online, so I will slowly over the next several days put them up. (Lilicneiu (talk) 03:13, 31 January 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Sorry, I've just entered polls I have saved, and then saw your comment. Hope it is all OK. Jdjerich (talk) 16:44, 3 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I think that I have some more. Thanks for setting up the table. (Lilicneiu (talk) 13:45, 4 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
I have quite a few more polls to add. But in the meantime something happened. The former president Tadic has formed a new block or someting. Already it is on the opinion polls, [1] , I am wondering how can it be listed in the table? It will probably get some other name in the near future. But for now... maybe simply BT? Or simply Tadic? (Lilicneiu (talk) 01:19, 7 February 2014 (UTC)).[reply]
I would suggest waiting until his "list" is published by the RIK. Buttons (talk) 02:15, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Agree on that, should wait for the "list" to be officially announced, and then add a column in the table. --Jdjerich (talk) 17:36, 7 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed Infobox[edit]

I have temporarily removed the election infobox until its controversies can be discussed here and a consensus agreed upon regarding its contents.

So far I see two issues:

Issue N. 1 - MP numbers
The way it is promoted (and stood the last time) is opponent to logic, making no sense whatsoever, and is also incorrect. It just blatantly copy-pasted MPs of electoral lists in the 2012 parliamentary election, completely regardless of their actual composition. Coalitions change, in Serbia perhaps even more than often; just like that it is illogical to attempt to make some sorts of comparisons based off different coalitions. Let's say SNS' el. list wins now like the most recent polls expect, 117 and DS 30 MPs. And let's hypothetically say that DS joins a common list with SNS at the 2018 parliamentary election, and it wins some 123 seats. What do we do then? Do we just pick whatever largest components took part in the previous election and base off their list? That would mean that the change would be +5 MPs. However that is a false positive, because the electoral list would actually lose power, i.e. be weaker (with a decrease, i.e. -30, down from 147). And that would also mean that DS' MPs were, literally, "ghosts seats" apparently devoured by a logical fallacy due to the lack of a coherent and consistent principle.

This is currently the case with pretty much all of the electoral lists; the total MP calculation of the SNS-SDPS-NS-SPO-PS list is 84 seats (55+9+8+4+2+1+1+1+1+1+1), however the current table shows an erroneous figure based on SNS' last election results. In this election, the list which SNS submitted is a coalition with the Social Democratic Party of Serbia (9) and Serbian Renewal Movement (8), neither of which were its coalition partners. Rather, SDP S was a coalition partner of the DS, while SPO was in a coalition with LDP. This means that if SNS-SDPS-NS-SPO-PS wins, as Factor Plus recently put it, a total of 117 MPs, it'd say that the increase is by 44 seats, based off the false 73 (2012 Tomislav Nikolić's coalition electoral results), rather than a more correct figure. There can be no understatement how this is improper, creating a chaotic mess in which the electoral infobox introduces ghost MPs for a heap of political participants - by calculating the changes for DS off of 67 (which includes SDPS) and LDP off 19 (which includes SPO). This effectively messes up the calculation in the end, in a way doubling their mathematical components, with both DS and LDP losing ghost seats of the two parties (making SDSP' component an incorrect figure of 18, and SPO's a similarly doubled calculation figure of 8).

I could go on an on choosing from the plethora of examples, not knowing from where to start from - from the fact that none of the other three national minority parties (Democratic Party of Macedonians, Party of Vlach Unity and Roma Party - although the last has recently decided to unilaterally endorse SNS-SDPS-NS-SPO-PS) that won in their coalition with SNS in 2012 a single MP are now in coalition with it, or the fact that Rich Serbia (that also got 1 MP) this time is not in a coalition with LDP and SPO, but DS, or maybe that the Greens of Serbia (that received 1 MP in coalition with the DS in 2012) have this time not confirmed their coalition, but will rather go along with the recently-broken-off NDS - but one thing is clear, and that the approach that is currently being promoted defies basic mathematics and the principles of logic.

Issue N. 2 - URS leadership
The United Regions of Serbia were founded and officially registered as a political party in no earlier than 2013. Therefore Mlađan Dinkić cannot be a leader earlier than that, and for the sake of consistency, it is my opinion that we shouldn't base it off of an electoral list of a coalition led by G17+ that had existed in the previous election, just like we don't calculate together MP seats of political parties that in the meantime joined others (but where distinct at the time of the last election).

My two cents. ElectPartei (talk) 13:16, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The infobox election template has room for both current seats and seats won at the last election. See this article for an example: Next Greek legislative election. --4idaho (talk) 19:32, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Sure it does. The dispute is what figures to precisely include. Serbian politics is, unlike Greek, painted by a myriad of political alliances, that seldom remain the same in a single election. Right in this moment as we write, a total of thirty-three political parties (including one in formation) have their presence in the National Assembly of the Republic of Serbia, which is if I am not mistaken three times more than the case with the Parliament of the Hellenes. To this should also be added that four NGOs are also represented in the Serbian parliament.
This complicates a bit the numbers of seats... ElectPartei (talk) 23:45, 18 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Number 1: I see this only as it is said on infobox - "Last elections", not Goverment or parliamentary majority after the elections. My opinion is that it has to remain that simple in infobox, and then we can (and we should) explain what the situation after the elections was (what were the coalitions) on the other place in that Election page.
Number 2: We all know in Serbia that URS is successor of G17+ and that URS participated in Elections 2012. So it is not new party de facto. They were coalition but with all elements of party. Only formaly they established in 2013. But that should not be the most important. They are not new, we all know them for 3 or 4 years. (User:Nikgudz) 01:39, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I absolutely agree with Nikgudz's opinion, and I want to say this:
1)::There's absolutely no logic in claiming that present coalition around SNS also participated in the last parliamentary election. Previous coalition around SNS won 73 mandates in 2012, not 84, as ElectPartei wants to show with his preferred version of infobox. Parties of Vuk Draskovic and Rasim Ljajic weren't members of the 2012 SNS coalition, that is a fact. It is irrational and incorrect to add their mandates, which they obtained as members of different (non-SNS) coalitions in 2012, to mandates which SNS won.
2)::As for URS, their establishment as a party in 2013 was only a formality. They were founded in 2010 and gradually superseded G17+. They already had de facto party structure when they participated in the 2012 elections. Being part of Serbian political life since 2010, they certainly aren't a "new party".
From my point of view, previous version of infobox (which stood until today) should be reinstated. --Sundostund (talk) 02:47, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
1) I am not trying to say at all that the present coalition in which SNS participates, also existed in its form back in 2012. AFAIK, that is precisely why it would be incorrect to place a figure of 73; a solution would be to list in the infobox in the "previous election" the three various components (one in Tomislav Nikolic's coalition, another in Boris Tadic's and the third in Cedomir Jovanovic's), when discussing SNS-SDSP-NS-SPO-PS in precise. It is how all the previous Serbian elections infoboxes were presented, including the previous (2012) one, until someone recently changed it simplifying it but through oversimplification introducing this confusion, also creating a disparage between the seats changes present in the infoboxes and in the respective election results tables; I had attempted to revert to the earlier version, but some other users opposed my changes and restored this new one. The way that those whom I do not agree with promote, introduces a significant confusion because the reader would in some occasions think why did this party lose votes but actually gain seats and vice-versa. To explain more of this, refer to my upper example of a hypothetical SNS-DS coalition - what would the changes be based off? Of SNS...or DS? Or much more logically, the accumulated result? ElectPartei (talk) 02:29, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I really understand what you want to say but I think it will make confusion worse. It's much better for it to be explained somewhere else on the page, but not in the infobox, and therefore I agree with the Sundostund and (User:Nikgudz) about infobox questions. Regarding the issue of URS again I think it's better to leave them as "old party" because they have already participated in the elections 2012. Thank you for opening this discussion. I hope it will be helpful. (User:Lukitrans) 08:00, 19 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
History of the Low Countries
Frisii Belgae
Cana–
nefates 		Chamavi,
Tubantes 		Gallia Belgica (55 BC–c. 5th AD)
Germania Inferior (83–c. 5th)
Salian Franks Batavi
unpopulated
(4th–c. 5th) 		Saxons Salian Franks
(4th–c. 5th)
Frisian Kingdom
(c. 6th–734) 		Frankish Kingdom (481–843)—Carolingian Empire (800–843)
Austrasia (511–687)
Middle Francia (843–855) West
Francia
(843–)
Kingdom of Lotharingia (855– 959)
Duchy of Lower Lorraine (959–)
Frisia


Frisian
Freedom
(11–16th
century)
County of
Holland
(880–1432)
Bishopric of
Utrecht
(695–1456)
Duchy of
Brabant
(1183–1430)

Duchy of
Guelders
(1046–1543)
County of
Flanders
(862–1384)
County of
Hainaut
(1071–1432)

County of
Namur
(981–1421)
P.-Bish.
of Liège

(980–1794)
Duchy of
Luxem-
bourg
(1059–1443)
 
Burgundian Netherlands (1384–1482)

Habsburg Netherlands (1482–1795)
(Seventeen Provinces after 1543) 		 

Dutch Republic
(1581–1795)
Spanish Netherlands
(1556–1714) 		 
 
Austrian Netherlands
(1714–1795)
 
United States of Belgium
(1790)
R. Liège
(1789–'91)
     

Batavian Republic (1795–1806)
Kingdom of Holland (1806–1810)
associated with French First Republic (1795–1804)
part of First French Empire (1804–1815)
   

Princip. of the Netherlands (1813–1815) 		 
Kingdom of the Netherlands (1815–1830)
Gr D. L.
(1815–)

Kingdom of the Netherlands (1839–)
Kingdom of Belgium (1830–)

Gr D. of
Luxem-
bourg
(1890–)
Choosing something that is essentially incorrect over the truth just because it is simple is never a good solution. Here's an example of a template that's a bit complicating, but correct. Now we could simplify that, at the expense of reliability, but what would really be the point? Just refer also to the EU template; overly complicated yet clear in its own complication.
So am I to understand also that the seat changes should not reflect solely the changes which are a result of winning more or less votes (or naturally a result of changes in the electoral system), but also due to changes of structures of coalitions between the two elections? Also, if I understand you correctly, the changes should based off by counting the single largest constituency within the coalition? Even if we agree on that as a rule (regardless how that may seem improper), there is a number of obstacles in its implementation - let me illustrate with an example: take a look at the previous election article. It shows a loss of five seats for the URS coalition, down from 21 in 2008 (while at the same time the Infobox shows that DS decreased by a total of 35 seats, despite its actual fall is just 4 seats). But the G17+-led coalition ran on DS' list back in 2008, and was a minor partner. So how could we use calculation in that case and virtually all others not? It would only make sense if we put +16 (i.e. all seats), because it did not participate independently in the previous election.
The 2003 election is another great example of incoherent data. I does count the data for the DS and DSS from back the DOS coalition, but it does not do so for the case of SPO-NS, just skipping their MPs altogether making it seems as if all were won and as if it had nothing at the previous election within the DOS...so, one principle for these two parties and another for others? Just because they had individually the largest number of seats within the coalition..?
This complete lack of a consistent approach leads to double standards even within a single Infobox; meaning that the only last remaining reasonable solution is to outright delete the infobox because it serves everything but its purpose in the article, confusing the reader with the chaotic mess of information rather than making anything clear. I'll remind once again; sometimes, oversimplification is the cause of confusion (rather than a solution).

You are correct but look just at that history Benelux states infobox. No one has the desire to read it when it's presented so confusing... So I would rather agree with users above. Not many informations in infobox because there are other pages about government and explanations below infobox which will instruct the reader closer to the situation after the elections. I also think that is unnecessary writing in the infobox which party won seats within the coalitions (in brackets). For that kind of informations we have text below picture representing parliamentary seats. I don't know much about URS so I won't say anything about that issue. (User:AmbElmer) 12:18, 21 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I completely disagree with you on the Benelux case; its clarity precisely lies within its (at first glance) complication.
So let's just then simply avoid the "seats before" and just have the infobox without that info. It would only be simpler that way even more (also avoiding confusingly misleading data). ElectPartei (talk) 15:19, 24 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, we can't just cut out the "seats before" section. Its an important part of every election infobox, and it must be present here too. I still think, as I stated above, that we must include only seats which previous coalition won in previous election (previous SNS coalition won 73, not 84 mandates in 2012)... As I can see, ElectPartei is the only user here which is opposed to that interpretation. However, I'm ready to put back the infobox without the seats before section until a final consensus about that is reached here. I'll do that right now. --Sundostund (talk) 14:28, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Hopefully, soon there will be a clear consensus here on which interpretation to use for the "seats before" section, and we'll be able to include it too. --Sundostund (talk) 14:33, 25 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral lists[edit]

The article should include a sourced list of all electoral lists, with their official titles as per submitted to the Republic's Electoral Commission. Or in effect, the appearance of (the text on the) the ballot paper...

Infobox - other parties[edit]

Why is Boris Tadic's party deleted from the infobox? He will pass the census for sure (just being realistic). — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiNameBaks (talk • contribs) 15:26, 12 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Links[edit]

>> Serbians head back to polling booths(Lihaas (talk) 18:01, 16 March 2014 (UTC)).[reply]

Preliminary results[edit]

4 coalitions and 3 minority parties in parliament: Source

Coalitions around:

Minorities:

Final results coming soon. Buttons (talk) 23:47, 16 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Increase/Decrease[edit]

SNS-led coalition
2012: 87 seats (73 SNS-NS-PS + 9 SDPS + 5 SPO-DHSS)
2014: 158 seats
There is an increase of 71 seats
DS-led coalition
2012 (without SDPS, LSV and DHSS): 52 seats (51 DS and Greens + 1 DSHV)
2014: 19 seats
There is a decrease of 33 seats
New Democratic Party
2012: only 6 from LSV and Greens
2014: 18 seats
There is an increase of 12 seats — Preceding unsigned comment added by Serb1914 (talk • contribs) 20:50, 20 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Just a small addition and correction; SPS-PUPS-JS didn't win the same amount of MPs but one less; 43 - 1 MP is of the Movement of Veterans that broke off coalition after the Belgrade-Prishtina agreement and since then on is in coalition with the DSS.
And as for DS, DS won 49 seats in 2012 and DSHV 1. That is a total of 50, +1 Rich Serbia (that ran along in a different coalition), meaning 51 in total. 51 - 19 = 32. It appears me that you have mistakenly counted the Greens in your calculation, which are today known as "New Democratic Party - Greens" (as you correctly included in Tadic's calculation). --ElectPartei (talk) 12:19, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, you're right.--Serb1914 (talk) 15:05, 23 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates[edit]

Suggest removal of the candidates section. Poorly written and organized, contains elements of original research, speculation, past information unrelated or unencyclopedic to the current article topic. Buttons (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

It may be poorly written, but I think it's a bit harsh to say that it is poorly organized (though it could use some work). I took days of search and translation for it; most of the sources within the article stem directly from it. I apologize for my language skills, which might be the cause of it being unencyclopedic, but that can simply be improved (perhaps you could contribute?), but there is no original research, speculation or unrelated past information as far as I can see. ElectPartei (talk) 00:10, 29 March 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Disputed tag[edit]

@ElectPartei:: just adding bare {{disputed}} does not help anyone. I know there is a dispute how to interpret results from earlier elections in the infobox, but I haven't seen an honest attempt at dispute resolution other than edit-summary bitching and drive-by tagging by either side.

Also, the fact that the list names were listed uppercase on the ballots does not make such styling official, or binding to Wikipedia. We use reliable sources for facts and spelling, not for text style. For that, MOS:CAPS states that "Wikipedia avoids unnecessary capitalization." in the very first sentence. No such user (talk) 13:21, 3 April 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 14 external links on Serbian parliamentary election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

checkY An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

  • 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.

☒N An editor has determined that the edit contains an error somewhere. Please follow the instructions below and mark the |checked= to true

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 11:40, 22 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Serbian parliamentary election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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: 18 January 2022).

  • 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.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 19:05, 22 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2014_Serbian_parliamentary_election&oldid=1196670336"