This template 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
This template is within the scope of WikiProject Portugal, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Portugal 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.PortugalWikipedia:WikiProject PortugalTemplate:WikiProject PortugalPortugal articles
Find correct name
The airport is not listed as João Paulo II anywhere.
The airport's own website calls itself simply Ponta Delgada, and has no mention of João Paulo.
Template:Regions of Portugal: statistical (NUTS3) subregions and intercommunal entities are confused; they are not the same in all regions, and should be sublisted separately in each region: intermunicipal entities are sometimes larger and split by subregions (e.g. the Metropolitan Area of Lisbon has two subregions), some intercommunal entities are containing only parts of subregions. All subregions should be listed explicitly and not assume they are only intermunicipal entities (which accessorily are not statistic subdivisions but real administrative entities, so they should be listed below, probably using a smaller font: we can safely eliminate the subgrouping by type of intermunicipal entity from this box).
@B.Lameira: Portugal has indeed a semi-presidential system but it leans heavily to a parliamentary system. Our system is very similar to Austria, Poland or Croatia were the president has basically the same powers as we have in Portugal. The President only has two de facto powers: dissolve parliament when there is a national interest and to nominate a Prime Minister. That's it. They don't have any legislative or executive powers, he or she is only the Head of State that represents ao country abroad and commands the Armed Forces. So, again, the most important elections are the legisltaive elections and they should come first because of what explained.Tuesp1985 (talk) 22:56, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuesp1985: You seem to have forgotten executive powers like vetoing legislation (naming Prime Minister is indeed one of those) and how Duverger himself described the Portuguese constitutional system. Are legislative elections more important? Well, since I do not engage in original research, I think that respecting hierarchy is better. --B.Lameira (talk) 23:09, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Moreover, the French wiki template also uses this arrangement. --B.Lameira (talk) 23:16, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@B.Lameira: I understand your point of view. The president is in fact the first in the State hierarchy, but, as i said, it doesn't has any real powers, you can even make the risky claim that it is a almost cerimonial office that indeed has it's independence and can advice the Prime Minister and Government on what to do. The use of the council of state is one example of that kind of influence and advice. About vetoing legislation, again, he or she can do that but if the government persists on any specific legislation by the 3rd time it's is presented to the President he or she is obliged to aprove it. What the President can do is send legislation to the Constitucional Court and therefore obligate the Government to change legislation. This is not a consensual topic, our system is quite ambiguous and subject of many interpretations.Tuesp1985 (talk) 23:24, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In fact the French wiki template uses that arrangement, the Austrian, Polish and Croatian election templates, which have a very similar system as ours, have the parliamentary election first and then the presidentialTuesp1985 (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuesp1985: About the political veto, he or she can also do that without appealing to the Constitutional Court, read article 136 of the Portuguese Constitution: Constituição da República Portuguesa. When the political veto is exercised, it can only be overridden by an absolute majority of members of parliament, two-thirds majority when it's a specified bill. Anyway, the opinion of political scientists is what counts, not yours. --B.Lameira (talk) 23:47, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
"Portugal has indeed a semi-presidential system but it leans heavily to a parliamentary system", quoting what you wrote, the
premier-presidential. --B.Lameira (talk) 23:55, 4 January 2016 (UTC)[reply
]
@B.Lameira: When i talked about the Constitutional Court, i was only mentioning one of the paths the President has on analysing legislation without vetoing laws. A presidential veto is somewhat rare, what normally happens is sending to the Constitucional Court. When the president makes a veto on specific legislation, the government normally changes the law to not create a confrontational war with the president. I think Cavaco Silva changed some laws that Soares vetoed but i'm not quite sure. Look, i was only presenting my point of view, i'm not going to change the template. Many constitutional experts do not agree on the true nature of the constitucion and i´m one those people who think we have an almost parliamentary system. For example, the post October election crisis was also a discussion of what the powers of the president really were and were they right.Tuesp1985 (talk) 00:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Tuesp1985: Now that you speak of it, the designation of Costa as Prime Minister has only happened because the President is, curiously, in his end of term because, otherwise, I am absolutely sure that he would dissolve the assembly and call for new elections, like what happened last year in Turkey. --B.Lameira (talk) 00:13, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And about the nature of the system, 4 October elections even made me more sure about the nature of the Portuguese political regime. Presidential discretion to dissolve parliament is also a very important power and since he is almost leaving office, he is not able to use it at all. --B.Lameira (talk) 00:18, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@B.Lameira: I don't think that would happen because of the "6 month law" that says that Parliament can't be dissolve in the 6 months after the new parliament was elected. My personal opinion is that the chossing of the PM should be an exclusive Parliament function, and the confusion about the election results and the following government formation, with the problem of the end of the President term, was the culmination of the differents opinions about our constitucional system.Tuesp1985 (talk) 00:26, 5 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]
