This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
Opinion polls
The entry for IPSOS, Oct 2023 (the one with the ANC at 50%) does not represent the source article very well, for a number of reasons:
- This one was an Inclusive Society Institute analysis of IPSOS data, but it's only marked IPSOS. The previous such entry on the table states "IPSOS & Inclusive Society Institute"
- The fieldwork date is not mentioned anywhere in the news article that is the source. And the original polling report does not appear to be publicly available. It seems that Oct 2023 must be an assumption.
- The source article shows several sets of data:
- Party choice among eligible voters, with high, medium and low turnout scenarios.
- Party choice among registered voters, with the dataset that includes non-voters, refusals and undecideds, as well as the reworked data to exclude non-voters and allocate undecideds.
- Yet the data presented in the table is the polling of all eligible voters, in the high turnout scenario. With 26.2m voters registered before the first registration weekend in Nov [1] and 27.7m registered voters being the final outcome when the voters roll closed [2], the increase in registered voters was less than 6% between the likely fieldwork date and the proclaimed election date. The final number of registered voters reportedly represents 66.9% of the voting age population. [3] A high turnout of eligible voters would seem to be off the table.
I therefore suggest that the best results set from the ISI-IPSOS survey to include in the table of opinion polls, is the reworked result of party choice among registered voters. The second-best results set would probably be party choice among eligible voters in the medium turnout scenario. The choice which will be made on which set of results to report in the article is significant, as this poll represents the largest outlier in the polling trend over time. Gk sa (talk) 19:01, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- The above also prompted me to look at the other poll by ISI listed, the one for Apr 2023. Things get even stranger here. It does not seem to have been widely reported in the media. The original poll report is again not publicly available. The cited source, a news article on EWN, has been removed. I found an archived copy on the Wayback Machine[4]. And it turns out that the results listed in the table has been taken from the medium turnout scenario of the poll result, but the results reported here has been adjusted: the DA's support has been increased by exactly 10%, and the support for "Other" has been decreased by exactly 10% by ip 105.29.73.98 on 23 Oct 2023.
- It seems that this action can only have been deliberate, because it was done over the course of three edits, with the last step being to balance the lead differential in the last column to reflect the new fabricated results. Suggest that this either be corrected, or the opinion poll not being listed at all (since the apparent media blackout and unavailability of original source material casts some doubt on the veracity of this outlier). Either way, "making the data fit" is not the proper solution. Gk sa (talk) 20:13, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
- Since there were no objections or further input, I have now made the two changes proposed above, based on additional info I have found:
- IPSOS Oct 2023 (ANC at 50%) is actually the same poll data already listed as IPSOS, 1 June (ANC at 43%), which uses the correct fieldwork date and the reworked party choice for registered voters only instead, which matches my suggested resolution. Therefore I only removed the duplicate entry erroneously labelled "Oct 2023" and added additional referencing to the existing accurate entry.
- IPSOS & ISI Apr 2023 (ANC at 49.9%, DA at 23.6%) actually had its fieldwork conducted during Nov/Dec 2022, according to a News24 article I have now located, which reports identical figures to the high turnout scenario from the EWN article and some opposition support figures derived from all three turnout scenarios. There is still no matching report to be found on the IPSOS site, so I have opted to list the medium turnout scenario from the EWN article in the table, with the fieldwork & methodology mentioned in the News24 article, and the malicious editing done previously corrected (ANC at 49.9%, DA at 13.6%). Yes, the latter seems extremely low, but the DA has repeatedly stated that IPSOS methodology underestimates their support, so it actually tracks. It is still not quite clear whether the "Other" figure includes any undecideds.
- In the process of searching for sources on the above, I have found some additional poll data that has not been included in the table previously, so I have added those as well in separate edits (ISI May/July 2022 and IPSOS Oct/Nov 2022) and corrected the fieldwork date on SRF Jul 2022, which had incorrectly listed the article's publishing date instead.
- Gk sa (talk) 16:01, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
- Since there were no objections or further input, I have now made the two changes proposed above, based on additional info I have found:
Wiki Education assignment: Environmental Injustice and Justice in African History
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 24 January 2024 and 24 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Nreeb (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Hyaak.
— Assignment last updated by Hyaak (talk) 16:35, 30 March 2024 (UTC)
Opinion polling - party lead
Hi, all. The table of opinion polls incorrectly had the "lead" column indicating the ANCs lead in percentages instead of percentage points. I have corrected this, but assume some won't understand the difference or think that "pts" looks funny. But I can assure you that the leads should not be indicated in percentages (unless you actually want to calculate the actual/correct percentages), but rather in percentage points. I would agree that "pts" is maybe a weird abbreviation, but please feel free to change that to the correct abbreviation if you wish. Janneman27 (talk) 18:13, 20 April 2024 (UTC)
Lock article
The 2024 is a highly contested elections. Can we lock the page until after the elections to limit page vandalism and misinformation. EuKoketsolion (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- Vandalism has been very scarce and usually quickly dealt with. The election is still evolving and locking it now would be a bit premature. Janneman27 (talk) 15:48, 1 May 2024 (UTC)
- A request to Admins to lock the page will be made just prior to election day and for week. My experience from the last municipal and national election, was like trying to stop the "Zombies at the door with a club". All our hard work was being undone by the minute. Conlinp (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. EuKoketsolion (talk) 18:02, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
- A request to Admins to lock the page will be made just prior to election day and for week. My experience from the last municipal and national election, was like trying to stop the "Zombies at the door with a club". All our hard work was being undone by the minute. Conlinp (talk) 09:33, 2 May 2024 (UTC)
Is the Tripartite Alliance the Same as the MPC?
Neither the SACP (South African Communist Party) nor COSATU (Congress of South African Trade Unions) field candidates in elections. However, some of their members hold seats in Parliament and even Cabinet positions. Interestingly, the SACP is a registered political party and has even contested a by-election in the past. This raises the question of how the the Tripartite Alliance differs from the Multi-Party Charter, which is a political alliance . EuKoketsolion (talk) 18:10, 3 May 2024 (UTC)
Map Beef
Y'all, Matthew McMullin & 沁水湾 figure out your differences here not in edits. Thanks. Also, since I simply must give my two cents on this, I personally use the circles because they're aesthetic, even though I recognize issues of readability. They work in small quantities and cease to serve any functional use after a certain point. However, I also think the bar charts have limitations as well. They are, in my opinion, a bit clunky. This is why I prefer to use pie charts for things like this, but they too fail to meet the function we all desire. Talleyrand6 (talk) 21:18, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for your invite :)
- There’s always a tradeoff. I’ve already stated my issue with filling in circles when the district magnitude is large. I’ll not repeat them here.
- Regarding pie charts, we should steer clear of them in most cases. While it’s true they are more compact and display relative sizes as percentages between a small # of categories somewhat well, data visualization should prioritize intuitiveness over aesthetics. Pie charts have garnered its infamous reputation for good reasons. Long story short, our brains aren’t very good at differentiating the sizes of pies (as oppose to say heights of bars).
- Here’s an article on why you should almost never use a pie chart. I’m going to make a convert out of you two:): https://theconversation.com/heres-why-you-should-almost-never-use-a-pie-chart-for-your-data-214576 沁水湾 (talk) 21:49, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Of the two map types (2019 vs 2024), I prefer the 2019 one. Having a legend taking up a third of the width of the map isn't a great use of space.
- Also, yet another reminder to fellow editors that it's not cool to complain about/link to a dispute you are having on Wikipedia from your social media accounts, which is effectively WP:CANVASSING. This seems to have become a recurring issue for E&R articles in the last year and at some point it's going to end up at WP:ANI. Number 57 23:16, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- the 2019 legend takes up the exact same 3rd width of the image, what are you trying to get at? Matthew McMullin (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- In fact, comparing them exactly the 2019 one takes up MORE space (about a 1/3) compared to the 2024 one (about a 1/4) Matthew McMullin (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- The issue is it's a third of the width – moving it to the bottom (like the 2019 election) would allow the map to be the full width of the infobox. Number 57 23:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I believe you're mistaken, the 2019 infobox is on the right hand side of the image & as you can see it takes up 1/3 of the width. the individual party voter strengths are what is on the bottom. something I took out of my 2024 map because I believe things such as that to be no more than clutter. Matthew McMullin (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I can make this clearer: In the 2019 image the legend is fitted into the map in a way in which doesn't reduce the width of the country outline and the seat bloc is shown underneath (again not affecting the width of the country outline), whereas in the 2024 one the legend and seat bloc are not fitted in and take up the left-most third of the image, reducing the width of the country outline. Number 57 00:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I can make myself clearer: if you look for yourself at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_South_African_general_election you will see the infobox is on the RIGHT. if I cannot make you see that which is on the wikipedia page itself then I am powerless, such furthur endeavours or communications would only result in the repeat of previous interactions & experiences I have had with yourself, best of luck to you and good day. Matthew McMullin (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- BTW. Is it possible for you to upload your map under a slightly different name (such as “South African general election, 2024”)? All of my previous maps were uploaded under the “insert year South African general election” format. I want to keep it a set. Thanks for your generous considering. 沁水湾 (talk) 20:30, 12 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I can make myself clearer: if you look for yourself at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_South_African_general_election you will see the infobox is on the RIGHT. if I cannot make you see that which is on the wikipedia page itself then I am powerless, such furthur endeavours or communications would only result in the repeat of previous interactions & experiences I have had with yourself, best of luck to you and good day. Matthew McMullin (talk) 00:09, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure how I can make this clearer: In the 2019 image the legend is fitted into the map in a way in which doesn't reduce the width of the country outline and the seat bloc is shown underneath (again not affecting the width of the country outline), whereas in the 2024 one the legend and seat bloc are not fitted in and take up the left-most third of the image, reducing the width of the country outline. Number 57 00:03, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- I believe you're mistaken, the 2019 infobox is on the right hand side of the image & as you can see it takes up 1/3 of the width. the individual party voter strengths are what is on the bottom. something I took out of my 2024 map because I believe things such as that to be no more than clutter. Matthew McMullin (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- The issue is it's a third of the width – moving it to the bottom (like the 2019 election) would allow the map to be the full width of the infobox. Number 57 23:53, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- In fact, comparing them exactly the 2019 one takes up MORE space (about a 1/3) compared to the 2024 one (about a 1/4) Matthew McMullin (talk) 23:41, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- the 2019 legend takes up the exact same 3rd width of the image, what are you trying to get at? Matthew McMullin (talk) 23:40, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- I support the circles. That seems to be the closest thing to the wikipedia standard on the matter. XP6287 (talk) 19:57, 2 June 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why what side of the page the infobox is on is relevant, but here's a screenshot to demonstrate my point about the relative width of the map images from the two articles – as I hope can be seen, the 2019 map is significantly wider (and taller) than the 2024 one because it isn't being squeezed by the legend/seat bloc. Number 57 00:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- I second this. This is exactly why I downsized the legends, moved the nation-wide lists seats to bottom, and removed the top-8 party-vote strength maps from the main one. A bonus of doing this is the map width/length ratio remains 1:1. 沁水湾 (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- For the sake of space, I usually make my map templates to include all the parties that could win a seat or area, even if they don't. Usually, it's an educated guess based on polling & previous results. I also only give a vote share gradient to parties or coalitions winning a geographic area. I would also say, in the context of this year's SA election, since there's a coalition, Matthew's organization is bloated. The multi-party charter led by DA should have one gradient for the geographic areas, and the coalition parties should only have the bars showing names, votes, and seats. I know this is no place to self-insert, but for the French Legislative elections, I keep the coalitions within one bar and distinguish the individual parties within. Something like that could work here, too. For example, you can show the individual parties winning individual seats on the particular province and national lists, but you needn't do that in the legend area.
- I agree with Number 57 here that the geographic areas are the most important and should have prominence over the party legend and seat illustrations. I also agree with 沁水湾 on the need for compactness. A good map doesn't need all the bells and whistles we would typically like to attach. For instance, her Japanese maps are a prime example. Compact and detailed. I don't want to show any partiality towards anyone here; these are just my private opinions. I, of course, celebrate newer map-makers testing their hand at making new maps and developing their styles. Still, in a place like Wikipedia, specific unspoken guidelines developed by the mass of mappers are generally a wise place to start. Accuracy, detail, and compactness are all important, but you needn't sacrifice one for another. Matt's maps are lovely, but they often stray into the territory of extra detail. Again, that's wonderful. I commend him. It's just a wee bit too much for an infobox map. Talleyrand6 (talk) 18:51, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- obviously I won't have *every* bar showing when the final election results are done, I've just made every one of them now as a "better safe than sorry" situation because it's easier for me to remove bars than it is to add them back in Matthew McMullin (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- The issue for me isn't the width of the bars, it's the location. If they were placed under the map rather than to the side, the map could be made full width of the image (like the 2019 one), which I think would be easier for readers to digest. Number 57 20:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've just uploaded a new version of the map with the change you requested, please tell me how it looks now Matthew McMullin (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- Much better, thanks! My only comments is that if there was any chance the legend could be fitted a bit more tightly with the western border of Northern Cape (so the map could be almost totally full width), I'd do that. Cheers, Number 57 23:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- ok how about now? I've made it the full width of the page Matthew McMullin (talk) 04:00, 16 May 2024 (UTC)
- Much better, thanks! My only comments is that if there was any chance the legend could be fitted a bit more tightly with the western border of Northern Cape (so the map could be almost totally full width), I'd do that. Cheers, Number 57 23:12, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I've just uploaded a new version of the map with the change you requested, please tell me how it looks now Matthew McMullin (talk) 22:18, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- The issue for me isn't the width of the bars, it's the location. If they were placed under the map rather than to the side, the map could be made full width of the image (like the 2019 one), which I think would be easier for readers to digest. Number 57 20:58, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- obviously I won't have *every* bar showing when the final election results are done, I've just made every one of them now as a "better safe than sorry" situation because it's easier for me to remove bars than it is to add them back in Matthew McMullin (talk) 19:13, 15 May 2024 (UTC)
- I second this. This is exactly why I downsized the legends, moved the nation-wide lists seats to bottom, and removed the top-8 party-vote strength maps from the main one. A bonus of doing this is the map width/length ratio remains 1:1. 沁水湾 (talk) 02:50, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
- I'm not sure why what side of the page the infobox is on is relevant, but here's a screenshot to demonstrate my point about the relative width of the map images from the two articles – as I hope can be seen, the 2019 map is significantly wider (and taller) than the 2024 one because it isn't being squeezed by the legend/seat bloc. Number 57 00:28, 11 May 2024 (UTC)
"Controversial" labeling
Labeling a violent, racist, communist organization like the EFF as "controversial" is a massive understatement.
Pineapple on pizza is "controversial". Julius Malema and his organization are horrible. RemLezar (talk) 22:01, 10 May 2024 (UTC)
- Labeling anything as anything based on personal opinion is not what Wikipedia is about. Go and do that around the braai. Janneman27 (talk) 14:35, 17 May 2024 (UTC)
Campaign issues - issues
Whilst it is great to see the Campaign issues section is there, that section also needs to be both shortened and rewritten. The most significant problem I currently see with it is that sections of it come very close to being analysis thereby violating the no original research rule. The following sentence is a good example of this:
- "The issue of racial justice becomes particularly salient when looking at disparities in agricultural production and environmental harms. With the majority of land in South Africa being owned by white people. Reports from the South African government indicate that whites own 72% of total farms of agricultural holdings."
This analysis needs to be sourced before it can be included in a Wikipedia article, at the moment it just vaguely quotes the 2017 Land Audit, if it is to be included then it would be better left on the land reform article. For example, no where in the quoted reference (2017 Land Audit) is "land justice" even mentioned. The last sentence is also vague and needs to be better worded, what does "farms of agricultural holdings" even mean? Does it mean commercial farms, all farms, economically active farms, privately owned farms? This is not clear and very likely misleading. This is just one example of a section that can be reduced in length and improved in writing to make the article shorter, easier to read, and more accurate. Discott (talk) 11:07, 21 May 2024 (UTC)
- Agreed that parts of this section is not written in an encyclopaedic style, and could be more concise. I think you should go ahead with your proposed changes, if you are able to. Gk sa (talk) 15:18, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Social Research Foundation Daily Tracker in the polling average?
I notice two new polls have been added to the opinion polling section, both link to the same source, the SRFs daily polling tracker which removes 200 people and adds 200 people every single day. This is not the same as a regular opinion poll and I think posting both the one for 20th of May and 21st of May is very misleading. There are 7 days until the election, that means there will be 7 more SRF daily tracker polls added which will completely skew the average with over half of the polls being from the same source. I don't think this is how polling aggregates are supposed to work. Normalwan (talk) 18:35, 22 May 2024 (UTC)
- I agree. However, lolz to the fact that you think there is any value in "the average" of a bunch of different polls :) :) :D Janneman27 (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2024 (UTC)
- I also agree that it's a bit much, and not that interesting either. I have decided to be WP:BOLD and adjust that to weekly data instead. The SRF website now states that they replace 300 of the 1835 participants every day; which means that the dataset does change in its entirety over the course of a week. Side note — we should probably list the 60% turnout scenario here, as it is the middle ground of the five possibilities. Gk sa (talk) 05:35, 25 May 2024 (UTC)
Independent Candidates
How do we categorise independent candidates that only appear in the regional ballots to be represented in the National Assembly map and in the table? ChangingDepresso (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
- I would say treat them like parties. It's worth noting that the regional vote also counts when determining the distribution of all 400 seats. So a vote for an independent is a vote that otherwise could have gone to a party. Ideally we would have a table that depicts both the national and the regional votes, including the sum of those two votes, since the sum of those are what matters. Gust Justice (talk) 16:22, 30 May 2024 (UTC)
Infobox legislative election instead of Infobox election
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)
- 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)
- @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)
- Support I also fully support this idea. The current template would be more useful for countries with presidential elections. Not really as useful in this case. Janneman27 (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- 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)
- Support the TILE infobox can cover more parties in a more compact way. MOS:INFOBOXPURPOSE is clear in recommending smaller infoboxes. Bondegezou (talk) 05:49, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Oppose A detailed summary is already at the results section. An infobox is supposed to be a short summary of the results, and the 7th to last parties are mostly irrelevant Troopasturbador (talk) 12:01, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Support Braganza (talk) 13:59, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
Live Clock
A minor point but why is the live clock showing the time as being 5am. Surely, it should be written as 5:XX pm or 17:XX not 05:XX. 2A02:8084:609B:4100:D904:22B1:D3DF:A380 (talk) 16:26, 1 June 2024 (UTC)
Seats per region table wrong
Current seat allocation seems to be here: [5] [6] --109.43.48.174 (talk) 17:29, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
- Thanks for flagging it up – have fixed it. However, someone had been adding seat totals to the provincial results tables based on the incorrect tables, which I assume means they must have been calculating them themselves rather than using sources? Number 57 22:27, 3 June 2024 (UTC)
No photographs
Why are there no photographs of the party leaders? BlueBlurHog (talk) 01:24, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
CONSENSUS NOT REACHED
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)
- 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)
- how about joining the discussion first? Braganza (talk) 07:01, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
- because Platel locked the discussion and went on to change the stuff Dylan Fourie (talk) 09:31, 4 June 2024 (UTC)
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)
Alleged MMP electoral system
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)
- does this page say it's MMP? Rankedchoicevoter (talk) 11:36, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- The Electoral system section seem to, and the MMP page has South Africa on its map.--Aréat (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
- The Electoral system section seem to, and the MMP page has South Africa on its map.--Aréat (talk) 12:17, 5 June 2024 (UTC)
- 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)
Regional results and Provincial elections
Went WP:BOLD and separated the regional results into the Results of the 2024 South African general election, and the results of the provincial elections into the 2024 South African provincial elections articles respectively. Thought it would be best to cut down on some of the denseness of the article and allow for deeper analysis to be sectioned into the respective articles. I know this is something that several other elections have done before so I thought it would be best to inform editors of this. Ornithoptera (talk) 20:12, 5 June 2024 (UTC)