Talk:2022 Latvian parliamentary election

This article is rated C-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 Latvia Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Latvia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Latvia related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LatviaWikipedia:WikiProject LatviaTemplate:WikiProject LatviaLatvia articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

@DudeFromTheBaltics: You edit this article a lot, so may know the answer. The leader field has been blank for KPV LV for ages. Does the party still not have a leader? Cheers, Number 57 19:47, 9 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Hi there. This party actually has no clear leader since Aldis Gobzems was kicked out of the party in February of 2019, and year later - Kaimiņš got kicked out too. Even their website is down. Sorry for the late answer, i have basically no time to edit Wikipedia. :)

All that is true. Also I'd like to add to that that the word "leader" of the party is a bit of a weird one in Latvia. No parties in Latvia have a clear leader like in the UK. Usually the person that a party nominates for the prime ministers position is referred to as the "leader" but in Latvia it is very common for there to not be a clear nominee for a prime ministers position until just a couple months before the election and some smaller parties never nominate a person at all. As the result, I don't see the the point of having a leader column. --OskarsC (talk) 19:47, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@OskarsC: The column is currently a permanent part of the infobox so can't be removed. If the party doesn't have a leader, the only option (other than changing the code of the infobox) is to leave the field blank. Does it not have a chairman or president though? Number 57 20:30, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: Yes, parties do have chairmen but I feel like listing chairmen as leaders asks more questions than answers. Some parties (like LuK) have co-chairmen and we run into this weird thing where we consider the chairmen as leaders before an election and then prime minister nominees during the election, yet this is an article about the election. And while we're at it, we might even ask what about "the face of the party"? I know it's silly but where do we draw the line? Why is Gobzems listed as the leader and not Stepaņenko? Just cause Gobzems is more recognizable? Also - that means this table is wrong - Kučinskis was the last prime minister from the ZZS not the chairman. The chairman of ZZS is Edgars Tavars. Similar for Zīle. I'm just throwing this out, a table like this works for a country like the UK where there's a clear boss in the party who runs the show but in a country like Latvia where you can be kicked out from the parliamentary fraction but not the party (or vice versa) I don't think it makes sense. Maybe we can add an asterisk? --OskarsC (talk) 21:06, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

If there are co-chairs, both can be listed (as they are (e.g.) for 2021 Bulgarian parliamentary election. But we can also add a note using {{efn}} it it helps clarify the position of the person listed. Number 57 21:37, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to raise the question on whether the November 2020 poll from SKDS/LSM should be included in the article. I saw that DudeFromTheBaltics has recently added it to the Opinion polls table, but when adding up the numbers, the total result is 105,7% – i.e. it is clarly an imprecise poll, which is also the reason why I didn't add it myself when it was first published. This is obviously a mistake by either SKDS or LSM and not at all by DudeFromTheBaltics, but nevertheless, it doesn't change that this is not a precise or trustworthy poll.

For the reasons stated above, I don't think it should be included in the article, but I didn't want to remove it before having discussed it here. | LinguineFusilli (talk) 10:45, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

My apologies. It is the November poll that is imprecise, not the December. DudeFromTheBaltics had accidentally added the November poll here on Wiki as the December one – it is fixed now :) Though this doesn't change that it is imprecise. | LinguineFusilli (talk) 10:51, 1 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

@

I don't see why we should limit it to only one ideology. Pargies can't be summarized by only one word. There's their economic stance, societal one, and view on the European union, at the minimum. There's all kind of parties mixing those, and informing the reader at a glance is the poibt of those tables. --Aréat (talk) 10:27, 1 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Let's look at the exact edits I talk about, they are:
1. Social conservatism being added to the S's ideology list even though it is only a fraction of the party, there is also a social liberal wing in the party, so we either put both social conservatism and social liberalism (which, in my opinion, will just be confusing) or remove the social conservatism altogether.
2. Listing both Liberal conservatism and Conservatism for JKP. Liberal conservatism is a part of conservatism, it doesn't make sense to feature both. We can leave liberal conservatism, not conservatism, but listing both is redundant.
3. Removing Vaccine hesitancy as the ideology for LPV and LuK because it isn't an ideology even though I provided various examples of it being one. Both parties talk about vaccination against COVID-19 being a voluntary decision and raise questions about the effectiveness of the vaccines. Vaccine hesitancy is a great description for those parties, it's a huge part of the parties' platforms and communication strategy, there is no reason to emit that in the table. Mirashhh (talk) 12:32, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sure. Just saying a party can't be summarized in one word and thus shouldn't.--Aréat (talk) 13:14, 2 December 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can we hold off for now on adding the results? The counting is still ongoing and should be complete in a few hours. Development/For have just slipped below the 5% threshold which affects the seats considerably as it means they get none. It also means that the results box now shown is wrong. There is no rush and we can readd this shortly Valenciano (talk) 14:56, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

In my opinion, I don't believe there is any issue with putting up the results as long as we have a '99% counted' bar at the top. AP! are extremely unlikely to reach the threshold, as the only place left to count in any significant numbers is Riga, where they have not done well. Quinby (talk) 15:09, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The remaining Riga count is, however, expat voters who are counted in the Riga constituency and Development/For did better abroad with that group last time than they did in Riga overall, so I would be careful about reading too much into it. However, I've no issue with adding the results with a note that they are after 99% counted. Valenciano (talk) 15:29, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Can someone make an interim decision whether to show results based on AP! having over 5% or under 5%? Having their percentage column be 5.04%, their seat count be 0, and their constituency result be 6 is just confusing. I know it's just temporary, but it should all be one or the other in the meantime. 86.28.187.124 (talk) 15:49, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The percentages in the template are calculated automatically, but I can't figure out why it ends up at 5.04% and not 4.99% as stated on cvk.lv Semsûrî (talk) 16:38, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Seems that the site includes the invalid votes in calculating the 4.99% (which user

4iamking noted in their edit summary earlier). Semsûrî (talk) 16:43, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply

]

In Results there is 1.14% blank votes and 0.3% Invalid/blank votes. Doesn't seem consistent. HudecEmil (talk) 19:03, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Closed HudecEmil (talk) 22:02, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

AP! 5.03% and 0 seats is inconsistent with electoral threshold of 5%. HudecEmil (talk) 22:08, 2 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Results template might be the issue, the line Invalid/blank votes should be Invalid votes. HudecEmil (talk) 01:03, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

According to the official website they are at 4.97%. This is because valid blank envelopes are still counted when calculating the percentages for the parties, including whether those parties make the 5% threshold. Invalid envelopes seem not to be counted however. Gust Justice (talk) 05:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sure, that is now corrected. But correcting this caused a new issue, which is: table in results section has both Invalid/blank votes (0.3%) and Blank votes (1.14%), which is inconsistent. I believe the row Invalid/blank should be renamed to Invalid, but I don't know how to do that. HudecEmil (talk) 07:00, 3 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be some disagreement on what the order of the parties should be in the results section diagram. If someone can find an official/broadly recognized source for an ordering, that would be helpful.
In the meantime, and since I can't find one, the issue is that Latvian politics does not match the traditional left-right spectrum of Western politics (conservative green parties anyone?). S! is a breakaway group from S, which is aligned with the European Socialists, so they should be on the center left despite their populist tendencies. AS is described as centrist, ZZS as center to center-right, and JV as center-right, so I would put them in that order (JV is also to the right of ZZS on the Saeima page).
So, my proposed ordering is: PRO S! AS ZZS JV NA LPV 86.28.187.124 (talk) 09:38, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @86.28.187.124 On a left to right basis, I broadly agree with you and your rough reasoning. However, looking at the diagram it is nigh on impossible to tell the difference between LPV & NA, and there is definitely room to mix up S! & AS. Hence, the last iteration created separates these out to be more visible, with JV between the two hard right parties and ZZS between S! & AS. Quinby (talk) 10:10, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Mixing up which party is which when they have similar colours is an issue regardless of whether or not they are next to each other. I agree that the similarity between LPV & NA is an issue though, as it makes it look like one big party at a glance. Could we maybe use gold for NA as it's also one of their colours? 86.28.187.124 (talk) 10:27, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@86.28.187.124 Changing the party colour for NA would constitute quite a large change for something so small, not to mention gold is similar to the colours of S!, AS & P. Hence, I'd say the best solution is just swapping JV & LPV in the order Quinby (talk) 14:14, 4 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Please someone fix 176.72.100.207 (talk) 12:31, 10 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57: I was looking into the reason Development/For! was excluded from the seat apportionment even though it got 5.03 % of the valid votes. According to the electoral law here, which seem up to date, most notably section 31, 32 and 38, it's because the electoral law distinguish between valid ballot envelopes and valid ballot paper. It différentiate first between valid and invalid ballot envelopes, then when they are opened, between valid and blank/invalid ballot papers inside. The threshold is calculated on the total of valid ballot envelopes, not on the valid ballot papers. Aréat (talk) 07:48, 20 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@Aréat: i think we should not use this template (same with lithuania) since this is just confusing with these autogenerated percentages Braganza (talk) 13:53, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's really not. It's standard practice to exclude invalid votes from percentage calculations. The electoral commission using a different way of calculating thresholds can be mentioned in the text. For example, the Bulgarian electoral commission excludes votes received by independents when calculating the threshold for parties – should we exclude independents from the results table (or set their votes to zero) to get the same percentages the commission use? Number 57 15:11, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

if it has an impact on the threshold? i wouldnt straight up exlude it but not include it in the % Braganza (talk) 20:16, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That would be madness IMO. Election commissions sometimes have different ways of calculating thresholds for parties to pass to gain seats. This is not necessarily always the same thing as the percentage of the full results, which is what we should be showing. Number 57 20:20, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

what about spanish blank ballots? they dont have any impact to the seat calculation but we still include them because they're technically valid Braganza (talk) 20:54, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Spanish (and Colombian) blank ballots are a valid vote because they are a type of none of the above vote. Number 57 21:12, 20 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

i still dont get what the difference is in your opinion Braganza (talk) 11:39, 29 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]