Talk:1913 Dutch general election

This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles Netherlands This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

According to the results table, the SDAP has 1 more seat than it actually would have had. Indeed, counting the number of SDAP MP's in the table of results by district, only 16 MP's from the SDAP were elected, with the 17th MP being independent Christian-Historical MP for Ommen, C.J.A. Bichon van IJsselmonde. This is corroborated by the results from the Kiesraad, and would give the SDAP only 16 seats, with 1 independent seat going to Bichon van IJsselmonde source

According to the source used in the results table (the Nohlen & Stöver book), the SDAP won 15 seats and the Liberal Union 22. The Kiesraad source gives no party affiliations as far as I can see. The results table/infobox should not be amended until there is an agreed source clearly stating the SDAP won 16 seats.

In addition, the map has other inconsistencies with the results, having 21 seats for the LU vs 22 in the source, and nine for the CHU vs 10 in the table. Perhaps the independent CHU candidate mentioned in the newspaper is actually counted in the 10 in the Nohlen book. Number 57 10:34, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The seat totals shown in the map do appear to correspond to the Kiesraad source, which I also used for the results by district table. Party affiliations can be seen when hovering over the newspaper icon next to candidates' names. Alternatively you can refer to the Huygens database of electoral districts. Luxorr (talk) 11:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ah ok. This is a bit odd, as I checked another election compendium source (The International Almanac of Electoral History) and it has the same figures as Nohlen... Number 57 13:19, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The only possible explanation I could find is that they considered the November 1913 by-election in Amsterdam III, won by Pieter Otto (Liberal), as part of the election. By-elections held directly after the general election are generally considered part of the election because some candidates are elected in multiple districts. But I don't think that applies to Amsterdam III, because the candidate elected in June, Henri Polak (SDAP), took his seat and resigned later upon his election to the Senate.

Either way, I think it's fair to use the figures provided by the Kiesraad, the official election commission, over third party sources. Luxorr (talk) 13:55, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Where are the vote figures from the Kiesraad? It would be a bit

WP:SYNTH to use the vote figures from one source and seats from another when they contradict each other. Number 57 14:09, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

Unfortunately the Kiesraad only reports vote figures per district, so getting national vote figures would require adding everything up manually. Regardless,

WP:SYNTH constitutes "combin[ing] material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source". I don't think we'd be reaching or implying any such conclusion, so I don't believe WP:SYNTH applies in this situation. In my view, using vote figures from one source and seat figures from another is fine as long as this is made clear in the references. Luxorr (talk) 14:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

The issue is, if one source has a certain set of vote and seat figures, it may be the case that votes have been assigned differently to a source that has different seat figures... Number 57 18:16, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Would you prefer to remove the vote figures altogether then? Luxorr (talk) 20:17, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Interestingly, the Kiesraad has been the leading source for vote figures for most of the past Dutch general elections as well. Using the Kiesraad figures would be consistent with the use of data from the Federal Election Commision for the US election results or the German Bundeswahlleiter for the German election results.

HJ 16:40, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

If someone can tabulate the Kiesraad figures, I would have no problem with replacing the existing set. Number 57 20:10, 7 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are the tabulated Kiesraad figures according to my calculations:

Luxorr (talk) 12:30, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the totals on Kiesraad, there should be 768,750 valid votes? Although having said that, the total number of valid (768,750) and blank (11,622) votes add up to 780,372 rather than the stated total votes (780,371). Number 57 20:21, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, I found that two districts, Franeker and Tietjerksteradeel, inexplicably show a total number of valid votes exactly 1 lower than the sum of all the candidates' votes. You can check for yourself. Luxorr (talk) 20:34, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

So, @Number 57, would you agree to include these figures in the article alongside the map? Luxorr (talk) 08:12, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, no problem. Apologies for the delayed response. Number 57 11:53, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]