Jump to content

Talk:2024 South African general election

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

Infobox legislative election instead of Infobox election

[edit]
(non-admin closure) Result was to retain TIE. Note that there were several new accounts who may have been canvassed here owing to a twitter thread, and so I've given their comments little weight in the decision making here.

Arguments in favour of retaining TIE mention that there is too much superfluous information in the TILE infobox; there's a number of very small parties that weren't impactful in the election. Meanwhile, there were only 5 parties in double digits, which can be represented in TIE. There is also the argument that more detailed information isn't suitable for the infobox, and should be moved to a "Results" section in the article; having TILE effectively duplicates this. In short, TIE's format suits an election of this kind with a small number of impactful parties, and the precedent of TIE being used across other articles makes it hard to justify changing to TILE. There were also comments about UX/readability/aesthetics being made, but I feel these are subjective and should carry less weight.

Comments in favour of TILE included highlighting the limitations of TIE, the fact that several smaller parties gained in the election, and the compact nature of TILE. I do not, however, believe these arguments managed to counter the vast number of arguments highlighted above in favour of TIE; it appears that the consensus is that TILE is more appropriate for elections where multiple smaller parties have more impact on the result, such as Italian and Israeli elections. — Czello (music) 08:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Since there are more than 6 parties gaining (and may gain this time) seats in South African NA, but only 6 of them are presented in the infobox, I propose replacing the current infobox with Infobox legislative election in this article and other articles about legislative elections in South Africa. By analogy with Russia and some other countries, the number of parties in parliaments of which usually exceeds 6. I would love to hear your thoughts on this change.  PLATEL  (talk) 02:20, 31 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support This had been on my mental to-do list for a while – all post-apartheid elections should have the format given the number of parties winning seats each time. Number 57 01:17, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Number 57: If this discussion reached a consensus and was accepted, then I would be grateful to help you replace the infoboxes. I just want to ask you something. In the article about the 1999 election, there is a note about the New National Party (NNP)'s percentage and number of seats, explaining that it was the successor of the National Party (NP). Hence, its seat change and swing were calculated using the NP's number of seats and percentage in the 1994 election. Similarly, the Democratic Party (DP) was reorganized into the Democratic Alliance (DA) in the 2004 election. Thus, there was a note explaining this succession/renaming in the 2004 election. Is there a way to deal with cases like these in the legislative election infobox? You often give me some useful tips. Cheers. RyanW1995 (talk) 07:18, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    Seat changes generally take predecessor parties into account where there is a single successor (so the NNP's seat total would be compared to the NP). Number 57 15:36, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The argument in favor of this isn't any stronger for this article than for previous South African elections. While there are 15+ parties winning seats in this election, the vast majority of seats (~370) will still be won by the six largest parties. While the standard infobox can't depict the full set of results, it is still more suitable at giving readers the substantial picture. In addition, the standard infobox allows us to show both types of votes (national and regional ballots), while the legislative infobox requires only showing one percentage of the vote. Gust Justice (talk) 12:51, 1 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I know that the majority of seats will go to the majority of parties, this is usually the case in elections. I gave the example of Russia earlier, where one party got a huge number of seats in the last elections, but this template is still used there (not on my initiative tbh). So I see no problem in listing all parties, even if they are less relevant than, say, ANC or DA. Considering also that small parties are more likely to participate in coalition negotiations with large ones, this gives me another argument to include them in the template. Regarding the argument with two types of votes, I have an opinion that it is mainly the national vote that should be taken into account, as is done in the vast majority of legislative election templates where there are both national electoral lists and regional constituencies.  PLATEL  (talk) 05:13, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    I don't know why the Russian article uses TILE, and in any case I don't see how it should be decisive for which template to use. INFOBOXPURPOSE says that we should "present information in short form wherever possible, and exclude any unnecessary content". Not including all parties is more in accordance with this policy. Listing all the minor parties winning 1 or 2 seats is just not needed to get a summary of what happened in the election. This is further supported by the fact that most media coverage has not listed all 18 parties winning seats (this article for example only mentions the five largest parties). The fact that they might participate in a coalition (which remains to be seen, there is not much precedent for what happens next) is in any case not an argument for applying the format to previous articles, where the ANC won a majority of seats. Regarding the vote types, I won't insist that both must be shown. Combining the two, like 2023 Bavarian state election does, might also be a viable option. Gust Justice (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • OPPOSE Don't know why I need to explain why I am reverting edits that make pages look hideous. There is a reason why they were originally made with that template, and will therefore remain as the template where you can see photos of each major party leader. Unless you make templates that can house every represented party in parliament with a photo of their leader, we will keep it on the 6 major political parties. Don't understand why you guys want to interfere with pages that everyone has always been happy about, but now that teeny tiny popcorn parties are in parliament, you all of a sudden want to change what makes the South African election pages beautiful and recognizable. If you gonna change the South African elections, then you will need to change ever single election page for every single country. Can't want to change South African when you don't change every other country's election pages. Dylan Fourie (talk) 14:39, 8 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Dylan Fourie: do you really not know why you need to explain your reasoning? Perhaps Wikipedia is not for you. Here we try to disagree respectfully, without screaming in caps, without rants about foreigners, without ridiculous demands that show you are not assuming good faith. I happen to agree that the old template looks better (without claiming nonsensically that the new template looks "hideous"), but I can also see the counter point that the new template contains more information. I don't have a strong enough opinion to venture further comment here, but all you're likely to do with your edit warring and the aggressive nature of your edits is get yourself blocked. Greenman (talk) 13:00, 9 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose all other Westminster-based systems use TIE. This would break consistency with all other articles and go against WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE by including too much unnecessary information- there's a very large number of one-person parties that are essentially irrelevant to national politics. There are only 5 parties with seats in the double digits, and these could easily be shown on TIE. I see no reason why it should be changed DimensionalFusion (talk) 09:00, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment While i understand both sides of the argument in post-apartheid elections, removing the „illustration“ from Apartheid-Era election results, which some have been doing, does not work under that same logic. Most elections during Apartheid feature a much lower party count, making them fully functional and orderly in the larger display style.
Additionaly, reverting the "simplified" infobox of the 1989 election which shows results for all chambers to the previous „nicer looking“ version which only shows the results for one house of parliament is not helpful, irrelevant of personal opinion. RandonDjion (talk) 11:07, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose TIE is widely used for all other Westminster-based government systems, even with the large number of parties with at least one seat (see India's latest election). It would not be difficult to determine which of the parties is among the 4 or 6 most important, either by number of seats or by editor consensus. For consistency, information, and visual appeal I would much prefer TIE. LivinAWestLife (talk) 13:37, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Notwithstanding the fact that I do personally think the plain tables look bad, there seems to be some kind of movement here to change wikipedia precedence and consensus on infoboxes for only these foreign elections, which makes it seem like only a handful of editors are in favor of these changes to the infobox, while everyone else is opposed, as most other elections have proper photos and a nice infobox to nicely include all the info, but instead of trying to improve it, we seem to be just trying to completely strip it down, which is not the right move. LordEnma8 (talk) 14:39, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose Since I have most of these articles bookmarked, I have been obviously aware of the issue going on here and in other articles since my watchlist has become full of edit warring alerts. I can see sensible arguments for both positions, but from my experience I'll say that the bulk of this issue arises not from these but from a matter of personal preferences, actually. I'd like to highlight that, as a frequent editor of election articles across Wikipedia, I have noticed the (mal)practice of attempting to subtly introduce such changes in infobox templates across a number of countries for many years despite there being no consensus for these (and when opposition arose, these were either rejected with some rude arguments, discarded because the editor(s) opposing them were casually blocked for other issues or refuted because "look at these other articles using these" (most of which happened to have been unilaterally edited by the same editor(s) bringing up these arguments)).
From what I can discern, the aforementioned behaviour has created a situation where there is now a massive edit warring across a large number of articles, with the issue seemingly spilling over to social networks (which I noticed because it got into the timeline of my-personal-Twitter lmao), which is factually crazy. While I neither commend nor support the behaviour taking place at Twitter (which is basically aggravating the edit warring by bringing a lot of users into the fray) it has been fairly obvious for years that this issue was going to explode some day, considering how unconsensuated this was being carried out. Worth noting is that, if there wasn't a consensus for the changes to be implemented in the first place for South African articles, and this discussion is the one attempting to secure such consensus, why are the changes being implemented anyway? There is no consensus as of yet. This is under discussion. Yet some people are unilaterally imposing the change. Why? This is far from how consensus-building should be done in Wikipedia.
The way this is being enforced, as well as the fact that TIE has been the long-standing consensus version (surely with a lesser backlash than the one we are seeing with TILE, which was originally intended only for Israeli elections), that it is more complete and that infoboxes are not meant to show every small party (they are meant as summaries; for the full election results you can just go to the proper article section), makes me oppose the use of TILE and support the use of TIE in this case. While I don't oppose this being addressed in a case-by-case basis, this has obviously spiraled out of control and the local acceptance of TILE for some cases without good reason has been used as a free-hand to unilaterally impose it elsewhere. This is just unacceptable and should have been handled much better from the start in order to avoid such a situation as we are seeing today. Honestly, I am appalled to see how this has degenerated so much. Impru20talk 14:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not have this background information. Changing my position to oppose. I was duped by the appearance of consensus, and I am pretty aghast by how much consensus is being stomped on by the dictatorship of people with the most free time. Consensus is not made because a few people have enough free time to edit thousands of articles on a particular subject and gets to call it precedent. Changes like this should be much, much slower. Carlp941 (talk) 16:04, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose This change is simply bad UX and does a disservice to readers. It should only be used when rendered necessary by an unusual legislative situation, and this is not one of those. NotBartEhrman (talk) 15:22, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose @PLATEL: other Westminster infoboxes use TIE. It is not super difficult, nor is it Wikipedia taking a side to deliberate over what parties are major enough to appear in the wikibox, the TIE box looks better and is used more consistently, unless we're going to reformat the election box template entirely. CaelemSG (talk) 16:34, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose TIE has been consistently used on almost every election page for over a decade so I don't understand why people would want to change it to something that reads worse. I prefer seeing the pictures and the stats for each party, even if it means there's multiple parties because it reads well and gets the biggest points across, including swings and previous results to compare to. The table format should be reserved for the RESULTS section where a table reads better. It's the opening for article, it should be pretty and attention-grabbing, not so bland and uninformative. Civilbeegee (talk) 17:38, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose The trade-off between conveying, in the introduction, a extremely minimal more precise information at the expense of readability, general clarity and Ux experience isn’t worth it in any way. The more precise results can be inserted in the body of the voice, they don’t need to ne the first thing you see while opening the page. Siglæ (talk) 17:40, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Exactly. That's the whole point of the article! Tables are generally found within the body of the text where it can properly explain the info and give insight and analysis. The opening section, info box, is not for this because you cannot properly explain everything in that small of a window. Why it's always been the TIE previously is because people immediately see a photo and are drawn in naturally. People see numbers as the first thing and they become suddenly less interested because they feel that it's going to be complicated or require more effort to read or understand. Civilbeegee (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I concur emphatically with @Impru20: above. Besides the systemic effort to implement the legislative election template across vast swathes of elections without clear cause, there is a point where the effort to change the template becomes so disruptive that the drawbacks in subsequent conflict and edit warring outweigh any benefits that may be gained. We are far beyond that point. This needs to be stopped, frankly. Erinthecute (talk) 18:47, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I also concur with the point made by @Erinthecute: TIE is pretty consistently used for national elections like this, and I don't quite understand why we're changing this now. I see the use of TIE in elections stretching from interwar Romanian legislative elections to the articles of many recent elections in modern nations. The change to using TILE doesn't seem to make sense for me considering that it makes the most sense in a scenario where there are both a large number of political parties active in the parliament, and also where the largest party has a small plurality of the vote. I can see the merit of using TILE in Knesset election pages, where the largest six parties might not even compose a majority, much less a super-majority of votes cast. The same may be the case with elections in the Netherlands. But in the case of South Africa, the six largest parties make up more than 90% of the votes cast.
Regardless, the purpose of the lede should be as a summary, giving the reader a quick understanding of the subject, while the rest of the article expands where the lede started. As such, something as cluttered as an infobox in TILE style just doesn't fit. We might be able to accommodate the TILE style in the results section, but for the lede, we should keep the TIE infobox as it already exists. The only cases where we shouldn't do this are cases like the original case that the alternative was meant for, such as elections to the Knesset. I don't think that this article fits that category for the reasons stated above.
To finally resolve this issue for all articles involved in this dispute, we should really set ground rules through the Elections Wikiproject. Maybe this discussion might be where we start making these decisions. Jerry (talk) 20:13, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose -
to be frank not all parties are equal in election based on the amount of votes and much more information is quickly gained from the original view (TIE), rather than the new one, which loses both visual flow and readability in addition to not adding any new information. Best would be getting an adjustment to the original template which allows optional view of the smallest parties, rather than losing the photo one.
If we want to change what should be the template overall, it's not for a few editors who encourage each other, or for a talk page of a single election to decide.
All articles should be reverted to its original TIE state. LadislavLouka (talk) 21:49, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose for reasons that have already been thoroughly enumerated: aesthetic considerations, readability, and the non-necessity of including tiny parties (which get covered in the results section.) CipherRephic (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose I acknowledge that TILE probably works better for some elections/electoral systems. But here, where there are a few clear, major parties, it just seems to repeat detailed info better suited to the results section, where it can be presented with better formatting anyway. TIE to me fits better the idea of a summary - the major parties, their results and their leaders, who, for better or worse, are a significant part of how politics operate. I also agree with Jerry that perhaps some overarching discussion should be had at Elections Wikiproject? I've never seen a formatting issue generate such interest off-Wikipedia, suggesting something here is amiss. Lilactree201 (talk) 23:11, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
    @Lilactree201 I would concur for a wider discussion because clearly something here has hit a nerve, and it's bleeding over into a bunch of other articles. CaelemSG (talk) 23:17, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@PLATEL
Oppose, there's no need to display on the infobox, which is meant to be a short and easy to read summary of the article, precise information regarding every party that got 1 or 2 seats, especially since that is already present in the "Results" section. Eduluzsci (talk) 00:11, 16 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose These results can be found in the body of the body, which is generally used to give more insight. Infoboxes are much better at conveying information and allow people to gain an interest in these elections. 2 brown eyes (talk) 22:43, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

CONSENSUS NOT REACHED

[edit]

Dont know what your definition of consensus is, but whatever was reached in the "Infobox legislative election instead of infobox election" was clearly not a consensus. Change the infobox back, the current one makes this page look hideous. Dylan Fourie (talk) 05:39, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Calling other people's edits "hideous" or "horrendous" (as you did here) without any constructive discussion and starting an edit war is not a good, but a very bad solution to wiki disputes.  PLATEL  (talk) 06:09, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
how about joining the discussion first? Braganza (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
because Platel locked the discussion and went on to change the stuff Dylan Fourie (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I did not lock and/or close the discussion.  PLATEL  (talk) 10:03, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I wouldn't say it looks bad, but I feel like the old infobox felt like it had more info. This version feels so compact, that it's so easy to miss the important information. Edwyth (talk) 19:10, 4 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I also agree that infobox election is better since it contains more info and doesn't look too compact. - Bokmanrocks01 (talk) 22:09, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wholeheartedly agree consensus not reached SW1APolitico (talk) 09:13, 14 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alleged MMP electoral system

[edit]

The new electoral system is called Mixed-member proportional representation (MMP) on the page, but the source here doesn't call it this way, and the system described isn't MMP. With MMP, there's one vote for a fixed number of consistuency seats, and a second vote for proportional, which is used to add as many seats as needed to correct the results in seats to achieve a proportional repartition of the total seats by parties as close as possible to the repartition of the second votes. Here in SA, the system described is two proportional system acting independently to get a fixed total of seats which then add up to each other. That's Parallel voting, not MMP.Aréat (talk) 05:51, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

does this page say it's MMP? Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The Electoral system section seem to, and the MMP page has South Africa on its map.--Aréat (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's on the map as it uses MMP on a local level only (different shade than Lesotho, which uses it on a national level) - is this incorrect?
I interpreted it as MMP was considered and maybe accepted in some preliminary vote in 2021, but that section doesn't say anything more recent, it should be added with up-to-date information Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 12:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not parallel voting either. All 400 seats (minus independents) are distributed at the national level (by sum of national + regional votes). National lists receive what is left after the regional lists of the same party got their share (same as with MMP, but without majoritarian representation). --109.43.48.104 (talk) 00:58, 6 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It's not MMP. The system broadly is like that used in Denmark, Sweden, and Norway - i.e. proportional representation with some MPs elected in subnational constituencies, with the remaining then being elected through levelling seats allocated based on the national vote totals. MMP (where FPTP is used to elect half the seats) is used for municipal elections in South Africa, but not for national or provincial elections. Gust Justice (talk) 11:15, 15 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Highly Contested Provinces needs updating

[edit]

The KwaZulu-Natal subsection fails to mention the performance of the IFP in the province. The IFP received more votes on both the provincial and regional ballots, and received a comparable number of votes to the ANC on the national ballot in the province as well.

The IFP saw large gains in KZN and their performance should be noted in this section of page. KA Weinert (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

List party or coalition for "president after"

[edit]

I was gonna change it, but this has never been the case before: It says ANC-DA-IFP-PA... but the president is still a member of only the ANC. So what should be listed? Coalition or party? 2600:8800:2C09:3200:389D:BBC9:7DD0:24F6 (talk) 17:37, 14 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_South_African_general_election&oldid=1245655447"