Talk:2018 Costa Rican general election

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

Yellow color[edit]

It seem there's both the broad Front and the National restauration party using the bright yellow color here, which may lead to some confusion. Should we change one?--Aréat (talk) 18:29, 23 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

That's a common problem as the two parties identify themselves by yellow mostly. In Spanish we use FFEF00 for BF and FFFF00 for NR, sometimes FFFF78. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 04:30, 24 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think FFFF78 is the best choice for National Restoration, it's different enough from Broad Front so no one will get confused. But on the issue of similar colors, Costa Rican Renewal and the Social Christian Republican use nearly the same color and those parties in a parliament diagram would be pretty much right next to each other and that can cause a lot of confusion. ~Maho713
In Spanish I'm using dodgerblue for PRC, albeit darkblue/navy has been the historical usage, the flag was changed recently and now uses a clearer tone. It's kind of hard to choose colors for Costa Rican parties, I've struggled with that for long time lol, it has a lot of parties and most colors repeat. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:17, 27 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

No update?[edit]

Do someone know if there's any reason the counting process seem to be frozen at 94%?--Aréat (talk) 02:20, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Beats me. The process finished weeks ago. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:12, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Often CEC counting websites freeze shortly before the final results and then we have to wait for the final results to be published separately, either by the CEC or a constitutional court. Not sure how it's usually done in Costa Rica. Number 57 22:45, 14 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

IDESPO "poll"[edit]

This is not a statistically valid poll. Even those who conducted it clearly state that the results can not be generalized, and admitted sampling bias. For example: "Durante la presentación a la prensa Neri López, Directora IDESPO, intentó ser enfática en que los datos del estudio no se podían generalizar a la población total de Costa Rica. [...] Este estudio tiene la característica de haber sido realizada a teléfonos fijos. [...] Las personas con teléfono fijo no se distribuyen igual al resto del electorado." (During the press conference, Neri López, the IDESPO director, tried to emphasize that the data from the study cannot be generalized to the total population of Costa Rica. [...] This study has the property of haven been conducted on fixed telphones. [...] People with fixed telephones are not distributed equally among the electorate." [Emphasis added.]) Source (in Spanish)

I am removing this poll from the results because of this sampling bias. Wilford Nusser (talk) 23:15, 1 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I oppose the removal, the poll is statistically valid as a sample, no poll can be generalized to the entire population. For that matter then we would have to review all polls, including those of Opol and UCR. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 00:42, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, there are statistical methods to compensate for sample bias. This poll made no attempts to make those adjustments (those conducted by OPol and CIEP do make them), and IDESPO themselves actually went to great lengths to highlight these shortcomings. This looks more like political support than any attempt at reasoning on your part. Wilford Nusser (talk) 00:44, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear Wilford Nusser, accusations as such are a violation of Wikipedia's policies including Wikipedia:Assume good faith and Wikipedia:Etiquette I suggest you to refrain from them or I can report you. Also I found curious that an IP made the exact same edits soon after, I'm thinking in asking a sockpuppet investigation if it happens again.
Back on topic, the poll is still valid as a meassure for the area it was taken. Nor Opol nor CIEP take into account the vote of ticos overseas for example, thus their sampling is also not the entire electorate. So, how can we put some polls and some not even as all have similar flaws? --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, this kind of attacks are not allowed either. If you apologize I will refrain from filing the report. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:09, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Dear YOU. You just made TWO accusations in your edit history comments; first of vandalism when my reasoning is perfectly clear to anyone who reads the above; second of a sockpuppet when an IP in Panama reverted your edit, while I'm in Washington DC. Furthermore, you have an edit war strike in your history. I have NEVER been warned for ANYTHING here. Go ahead and file your report, because no apology is forthcoming.
The technique used to compensate for these shortcomings is usually RESPONSE WEIGHTING. IDESPO reported raw results, and this is never the way valid poll results are presented. NEVER. Do you know what that word means? Wilford Nusser (talk) 01:11, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If you are not going to follow Wikipedia:Etiquette fine. I will make the report. For the rest we'll wait what other non-rude users say. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:14, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I filed one in response. We can both play this game, but you are clearly the one in the wrong here, on all accounts. Wilford Nusser (talk) 01:15, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Just for you, Dereck Camacho. Pay special attention to the part on coverage bias, which specifically mentions the main problem with this poll: Fixed telephones create a large bias in polls. Wilford Nusser (talk) 01:30, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I won't revert you, don't worry, I do think you should have waited to see other users' opinions first. I would like to see what 5, Aréat and User:Maho713 think for example. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:32, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Oh boy I knew this poll would cause trouble. First off, I feel greatly appalled at Wilford's extreme stance on this issue. While I do understand the concerns over this poll, the use of aggressive language in what is supposed to be a civil debate on an opinion poll shows lack of tolerance and competence on defending your stance on the invalidity of it. Second, if you pay close attention to all past polls in Costa Rica --not only of the 2018 election, but going back to 2010 and 2014-- you'll notice that polls here aren't constant and while in one poll a candidate may have a lead of 10+ points, in another poll published the same day this same candidate may be in second place or with a slim advantage.
If you check my contributions you'll see I work mainly with the "Results" section, be it with the creation of tables, graphics or maps; I can assure you that electoral discrepancy between different sections of the country isn't new and it possibly won't go away in the next election. The fact that Idespo's poll was used using phones doesn't discredit the work of the National University. After all, every single opinion poll conducted here has to be evaluated by the Supreme Electoral Court (TSE) in order to avoid biased polls. If they allowed the publishing of this poll, then it must not be biased. The TSE does an incredible job at mantaining elections in Costa Rica free, equal and unbiased, there's a reason why Costa Rica is considered one of the oldest electoral democracies in the American continent, after all.
If Idespo's poll is to be completely removed, then we should remove Opol's polls as well, as they've been formally accused by the Citizens' Action Party of being biased in favor of National Restoration Party.
Dereck, Number 57, Aréat and I have worked a lot on this article and while we warmly accept anyone who comes forward to help us and point things out, we won't accept anyone that attacks our integrity and tries to discredit our work as biased in favor of a candidate or party. Wilford's claims are nothing but utter nonsense and I find myself completely flabbergasted at his use of verbal violence. Maho713 (talk) 02:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Coming here after reading the Spanish article's talk page. I have a proposal that might be "salomonic", why don't leave Idespo's poll, but clarify that is not representative of the entire electorate? Whether with a side note or a dash. As others pointed out, Idespo is registered in the TSE, is a serious polling agency and the main "controversy" is that the study wasn't to meassure the entire country, only those with certain type of phone. It migh help to avoid edit waring and please all sides. However, is indeed fair to mention that Opol's polls have also been call into question. --TV Guy (talk) 02:43, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Maho713 I'm not talking about someone's accusation that this poll was biased. I'm talking about IDESPO's own assessment of the validity of the poll. The statements they made in the El Mundo CR article that I linked above clearly indicate that they themselves do not view this as a valid general poll. Respondents to the poll primarily voted for Carlos Alvarado in the first round; the next largest group voted Alvarez; and only the third largest bloc voted for Fabricio Alvarado. One would have to be willfully blind not to see how this clearly biases the results in favor of PAC. They revealed the problems with the methodology in their own press conferences. OPol's methodology is likewise public record and has no such deficiencies.
Furthermore, if you look at how this discussion started, you see that I made a clear case without use of the invective language that Dereck initiated with his accusations of vandalism and sockpuppetry. (He also reported this to administration who, while being slightly critical of my reaction, defended my position.)
But whatever. I see that I am facing an entrenched group of editors with a clear political agenda. I won't revert this again; we'll all be in a better position to assess its (in)accuracy after April 1. --Wilford Nusser (talk) 02:55, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I think this accusation of bias against all of us is pretty daring. We have tried our best to be fair and neutral, we included Fabricio in the polls' table ass soon as he started to grow (he wasn't included originally when he had marginal support), why add him in the infobox long before the election, we took effort in adding his picture, and with all candidates we all were as fair and impartial as possible. Now we are accused of political agenda just because we disagree regarding a poll. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:24, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The bad news about this poll continues to come out. IDESPO never intended for it to be published, according to Nery López, the institute's director. She was convinced to publish the results by Gerardo Zemora, a pro-PAC UNA journalist, despite repeated assertions that this was not meant to be a public opinion poll. He organized the press conference, and from the very beginning the data was presented as a limited study, not a general poll. El Mundo CR (Spanish). Every relevant point is a direct quote from the IDESPO director, and this is one of many news organizations that have covered this story, so please don't cite a yellow-journalism rag like Diario Extra again to call El Mundo "biased." If this poll remains in the list, I must concur with TV Guy. It needs an asterisk with a clear explanation that it is heavily biased towards people in the GAM, and that the IDESPO director considers it an "academic exercise," rather than a "poll." --Wilford Nusser (talk) 16:00, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: More sources: Le Prensa Libre (Spanish) -- IDESPO admits this poll should not have been published
Radio Monumental (with audio, Spanish) -- Original source of Lopez's comments regarding Zemora's pressure to publish
El Guardian CR (Spanish) -- Poll was meant to study education and economic levels, not second-round voting intention. IDESPO will not conduct further polls by fixed telephones.
How many more do you need? I've got dozens. I'll be adding these to the "Polling and voter behavior" section this afternoon. --Wilford Nusser (talk) 17:06, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Speaking of which, according to the TSE, quote: "UNA cumplió con requisitos para publicar encuesta" (UNA fulfilled requirements to publish poll", source Radio Monumental:

El Tribunal Supremo de Elecciones confirmó este viernes, que el Instituto de Estudios Sociales en Población (IDESPO), de la Universidad Nacional, cumplió, en "tiempo y forma," con los requisitos para publicar su última encuesta.

El martes, la entidad dio a conocer un sondeo que otorga a Carlos Alvarado del PAC un 52% de la intención de voto, contra 28% de Fabricio Alvarado. Los datos son muy diferentes a otras casas encuestadoras como Opol y el CIEP de la UCR.

El Director de Registro Electoral, Héctor Fernández, confirmó que el IDESPO entregó la ficha técnica el mismo día de la publicación, como lo indica la ley, y que la primera revisión está en orden.

Hasta este medio día, el TSE tenía dos quejas recibidas al número 800-elector, pero no denuncias formales.

So if you add something to voters behavior's section just make sure is not original research (e.i. your opinion on the subject matter), otherwise I will add the citation needed template in every single affirmation that has no second hand sources behind. And don't forget to add the TSE's position on the matter.
And I hope we are clear that no original research would be tolerated and everything you add need to have reliable sources that confirm the text added. I want to be emphatic about it. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 23:10, 2 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I am fully aware of the policy on original research. I source everything. I didn't write any of the articles I cited. And yes, the TSE did say IDESPO complied in "tiempo y forma" but that literally means that no investigation into methodology was done. They will not unless a formal complaint is registered, which has not happened yet. Interesting that you neglected to include that in the quoted portion.
In fact, we see Nery Lopez now REPEATEDLY telling journalists that this was not meant to be a poll of voting intention; that she didn't intend to release the results of that particular question; that they SHOULDN'T have been released; and that this was meant to be an academic exercise and not a poll. I think I've heard her say it in at least 4 different interviews now. Meanwhile, this Zemora character continues to hide from his phone when reporters call him...
There's another poll with VALID polling methodology that was released today (30 minutes ago, more or less), and -- surprise, surprise -- it is consistent with the polling that has taken place pretty much ever since 4 February. And this poll covers all provinces, not just the GAM; and supporters of all candidates in proportion to the way they actually voted, not mostly PAC voters and relegating those who voted PRN in the first round to a terciary role.
I'm thinking of a subheading under Polling and Voters' Behavior on "Polling Controversy," where the objections of PAC to OPol can also be noted (with sources). I'm not interested in making this a one-way criticism. --Wilford Nusser (talk) 01:39, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
EDIT: By the way, stop referring to yourself as "we". It sounds arrogant and pompous. --Wilford Nusser (talk) 01:42, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Unless I see any complain from Maho713, User:TV Guy or other users, I'll keep referring to our position as we, as several of us disagree with you, no one to this date have supported your position. And yes, do as you wish as far as you follow the policies to the letter. And let's see what you do when CIEP's polls appear next. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 01:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
First of all, stop talking to me like you have a position of strength with regard to "following policies to the letter." I already do that without your advice. You've already tried to report me once and the admins universally came down on my side of the issue, and that should be public knowledge to all involved here.
Second, I have no horse in this race. I live in the United States, not Costa Rica. I do, however, see this as an interesting political phenomenon, because this issue swelled to a head only after the CIDH decision to attempt to override national sovereignty and the MASSIVE demonstrations on the following day. Your political stance, however, is clear by your edit history, coincidentally on issues that Alvarado Muñoz and PRN happen to oppose.
Third, CIEP uses a reasonable methodology (and an interesting one, since its sample is longitudinal). I think their results are reasonably trustworthy, as political polls go. If you expect me to oppose its inclusion after seeing its results, then I think you might be projecting motives onto me.
Finally, it looks like another IP user has come down on my side of the issue. Not to mention the majority of the Costa Rican press. I don't care about the opinion of a coalition of keyboard warriors. --Wilford Nusser (talk) 02:01, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
All these forum-like speach is a waste of time. Just apply the policies and the consensus of the majority of users, and that's it, other than that I really don't care what you do. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 02:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Discussion of the issues is exactly what the Talk pages are for. While you might see discussion with those who disagree with you as a "waste of time," I see it as a beneficial pillar of Wikipedia. I have spent a minimum of time addressing you specifically, and when I did, I tried to restrict it to your talk pages. But since you wanted to make that discussion public, I will dutifully oblige. So while on the topic of Wikipedia policy, you violated it by calling a good-faith edit "vandalism" and by accusing me of "sock puppetry" without evidence. And the admins responded to your report by saying that you have a fundamental misunderstanding of WP:consensus (in addition to WP:AGF), so it's interesting that you use that word again. --Wilford Nusser (talk) 02:29, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, yes, the admins sided with you, I know you're happy about it you said it like four times already lol. Relax, again apply Wikipedia:FORUM and stop changing topic. I don't have a problem because you disagree with us, I have a problem because you seem to be arguing for no reason, no one is telling you not to add whatever you want about the controversies, just make it according to policies and be happy. I really don't see why are you so upset when no one is even arguing. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:11, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I'm starting to get tired of this discussion doing nothing but beat around the bush. Instead of siding with one side or another I'll propose somthing that hopefully will please both sides:
There are enough sources that can help us create a "Controversies" section. This section could cover all the controversies surrounding this election, like Juan Diego Castro's statements, the Cementazo, parties like Workers' and Costa Rican Renewal not declaring their funds to the TSE on time, and of course, polls. Not only should the polls subsection cover the discrepancies between polling companies, but also the makeshift ones created on Facebook that garnered the TSE's attention as they weren't regulated and due to Facebook's weird Live feed polls people could spam votes.
You guys are doing nothing but arguing over irrelevant issues. After all, isn't our purpose to cover this election with the highest quality standard? Arguing on the "Talk" tab is nothing but a waste of time. So, what do you think about my proposal on a "Controversies" section? It'll help people understand not only why polls make little to no sense and it'll shed some light on the issues surrounding this election. Maho713 (talk) 19:25, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Well according to him inmy talk page it's all because I hurt his feelings and you're all my "little collective", let's hope he already bent enough, talk pages are not place to get emotional. Curious thing is that no one was saying he could not add whatever he wanted in a controvery section but even so he keep arguing. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 20:32, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This seem like the best solution. Thanks for defusing the talk page.--Aréat (talk) 21:37, 3 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Opolazo[edit]

Wilford Nusser, Dereck Camacho, Maho713 and Aréat: It seems that Opol’s polls were the results of brivery from National Restoration’s campaign. The scandal is known as Opolazo and according to La Nación’s investigation, all of Opol’s polls from the second round period were paid by RN to show Fabricio as frontrunner. Do you think we should remove them? --TV Guy (talk) 02:47, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah I saw that... Thankfully Dereck Camacho has covered that in the main article, but I do feel that the Opolazo might affect our coverage on opinion polls because many polls come from that firm. Out of the twelve polls published during the runoff, seven were from OPol; thus that'd render the section on polls too empty to be reliable. I don't support removing the polls as a first option, but if it has to be done, so be it. Instead, I support we mark those polls with a superscript signaling a note at the end of the table and have it say "The validity of these polls is questioned due to..." and explain the situation. But, if we have to remove the polls and make a complete do-over of the "Polls" subsection in order to maintain the integrity of the whole article, I won't object.--Maho713 (talk) 03:30, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I agree, I think a simple note for the reader might be enough. In Spanish we did reduce the number of Opol's polls in the table long before the scandal but mostly due to space, because they were too many and say more or less the same. Tho now we know why. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 04:57, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
I think leaving them with a note is the way to go. It would allow the reader to be aware of the manipulation and see by themselves the fake trend that was put forward. --Aréat (talk) 10:49, 28 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Alright, can any of you add the note? The ones more familiar with the polls may do a better wording. --TV Guy (talk) 10:03, 30 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Green color for National Restoration[edit]

Hi, I was wondering why this image uses light green to represent the results of the National Restoration Party? Bu checking the party's emblems and flag it uses yellow and blue, not green. Maybe color experts Maho713 or Dereck Camacho know? --Carachos (talk) 13:58, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That should be ask to user @DrRandomFactor: who makes these amazingly well done, pretty and very informative electoral maps. However if I had to guess I would think that is the combination of the two RN's official colors; yellow and blue, which makes sense considering that both yellow (for PAC and FA) and blue (for PUSC and like five other parties) are already used. Costa Rican parties tend to repeat colors a lot and actually it has been a subject of discussion before, assigning colors is kind of hard and we are still on that. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:04, 13 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_Costa_Rican_general_election&oldid=1196753298"