Wikimucker (talk | contribs) →Retiring Incumbents: new section |
Wikimucker (talk | contribs) add opinion poll section |
||
(One intermediate revision by the same user not shown) | |||
Line 10: | Line 10: | ||
}} |
}} |
||
{{archive banner|index=true}} |
{{archive banner|index=true}} |
||
== Opinion Polls. Main Article or not. == |
|||
Given that Ireland is small and polls are infrequent compared to other countries I see no real utility in a separate article for polls, it would be different if 2 or 3 were published daily like, say, in Germany during a campaign. |
|||
In Ireland it is likely to peak at 3 to 4 a week at most and with a snap Amárach 1 question poll on occasion. I therefore think Opinion Polling can remain in the main Election 2020 article. |
|||
Thoughts along the lines of agreed or not agreed sought from other editors. [[User:Wikimucker|Wikimucker]] ([[User talk:Wikimucker|talk]]) 12:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC) |
|||
== Remove Renua == |
== Remove Renua == |
||
Line 117: | Line 125: | ||
::::I refer you again to the very first word in this section. I asked is there any reason for including election results other than that. You've come back to say "Otherstuffexists!" and offered no rebuttal or argument at all. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 13:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC) |
::::I refer you again to the very first word in this section. I asked is there any reason for including election results other than that. You've come back to say "Otherstuffexists!" and offered no rebuttal or argument at all. [[User:Bastun|<span style="font-family:Verdana, sans-serif">Bastun</span>]]<sup>[[User_talk:Bastun|Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!]]</sup> 13:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC) |
||
::::: [[Opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Irish_general_election]] shows that in our article on Opinion polls prior to the last general election, we showed the results of both the local and European elections in 2014, and that has seemingly been left in place for about 5 years now, suggesting that this is now the long established [[WP:CONSENSUS]] on how we should deal with the matter (at least in Ireland - other countries may or may not have different consensusses, for any number of reasons). Since reasons have been asked for, I suppose I might add that presumably that consensus exists because many editors think that many [[WP:READERS]] may be thought to find it useful to be able to compare and contrast Opinion polls against actual votes, perhaps as some kind of reality check, even if these votes are not exactly the same as general elections (and if that is in fact what they think, I'm strongly inclined to agree with such editors). But regardless of what the actual reasons for the consensus may be, it would seem that it should be up to those seeking to change that consensus to offer reasons why that change should happen, instead of demanding that others supply reasons why the change should not happen. [[User:Tlhslobus|Tlhslobus]] ([[User talk:Tlhslobus|talk]]) 01:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC) |
|||
:::::Incidentally, regarding which consensus to use, we seem to be stuck with our Irish consensus, if only because there seems to be no clear international consensus, with different countries dealing with it in different ways (some details in footnote below, if desired). I certainly see no reason why we should inconvenience our readers by changing our existing long-established consensus and depriving them of convenient and useful info while somebody goes and spends perhaps months or years trying to establish some different one-size-fits-all international consensus at some obscure discussion at some Wikiproject which most affected editors and readers won't even know about, let alone have the time to waste on a pointless argument there. [[User:Tlhslobus|Tlhslobus]] ([[User talk:Tlhslobus|talk]]) 01:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC) |
:::::Incidentally, regarding which consensus to use, we seem to be stuck with our Irish consensus, if only because there seems to be no clear international consensus, with different countries dealing with it in different ways (some details in footnote below, if desired). I certainly see no reason why we should inconvenience our readers by changing our existing long-established consensus and depriving them of convenient and useful info while somebody goes and spends perhaps months or years trying to establish some different one-size-fits-all international consensus at some obscure discussion at some Wikiproject which most affected editors and readers won't even know about, let alone have the time to waste on a pointless argument there. [[User:Tlhslobus|Tlhslobus]] ([[User talk:Tlhslobus|talk]]) 01:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC) |
Revision as of 12:20, 22 January 2020
Ireland Start‑class Mid‑importance | ||||||||||
|
Elections and Referendums Start‑class | |||||||
|
|
||
This page has archives. Sections older than 30 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 5 sections are present. |
Opinion Polls. Main Article or not.
Given that Ireland is small and polls are infrequent compared to other countries I see no real utility in a separate article for polls, it would be different if 2 or 3 were published daily like, say, in Germany during a campaign.
In Ireland it is likely to peak at 3 to 4 a week at most and with a snap Amárach 1 question poll on occasion. I therefore think Opinion Polling can remain in the main Election 2020 article.
Thoughts along the lines of agreed or not agreed sought from other editors. Wikimucker (talk) 12:19, 22 January 2020 (UTC)
Remove Renua
This is a very dead duck, a party with no leader and no representatives bar a few councillors.
I propose to remove them from this article on the grounds of irrelevance. Wikimucker (talk) 19:06, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- They did achieve 2% of the vote nationally in the last election, though, and therefore have full party funding until the next election. That might keep them around until that funding dries up (assuming they achieve less than 2% in the next election). BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 19:14, 24 September 2016 (UTC)
- Might have to indulge the zombie then, lets see if any opinion pollers drop them on include them in others over the next year or so. Wikimucker (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- Jeez. we might be losing the SDs as well as Renua after that last poll. Wikimucker (talk) 19:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
- Might have to indulge the zombie then, lets see if any opinion pollers drop them on include them in others over the next year or so. Wikimucker (talk) 16:47, 25 September 2016 (UTC)
- 120 weeks later, not too many signs of life. Plus we now have Aontú blipping onto 1% Wikimucker (talk) 17:48, 21 April 2019 (UTC)
- They have an active Twitter account, at any rate... I'd not be removing them just yet. Let's see what the locals bring... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- Agree with Bastun. Spleodrach (talk) 11:55, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
- They have an active Twitter account, at any rate... I'd not be removing them just yet. Let's see what the locals bring... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 10:19, 22 April 2019 (UTC)
Include Independent Alliance in Infobox?
Should we not include Independent Alliance in the Infobox, if necessary with a footnote explaining their precise status? Admittedly, they are not technically a party, but they are treated as one by the opinion pollsters, and are the 4th largest such party in the latest poll and in many other polls. At the last election with 6 seats and 4.2% of the vote they were the 5th largest party by votes and joint 5th by seats. They are a non-negligable part of the minority Government's parliamentary support, and as such currently have 2 Cabinet Ministers and 3 attendees at Cabinet. So it seems both odd and somewhat misleading to our readers to leave them out of the infobox because of a seemingly largely irrelevant technicality which can be clarified in a footnote. Tlhslobus (talk) 10:38, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Seems like a good idea - I don't see any reason why they should be excluded, and as you say a footnote can explain their status. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:40, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with this proposal. Spleodrach (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
- Thanks. It looks like we can go ahead and do it. I may try to do so myself later, but I'm a bit busy so I'm not sure precisely when I'll be able to get around to it, so if anybody wants to go ahead and do it before I get around to it, please feel free to do so. Regards. Tlhslobus (talk) 12:35, 28 August 2018 (UTC)
- I've now added it, in 5th place (as they had same seats but more votes than Solidarity-PBP at the last election). I was mistaken above - they only have 1 Cabinet Minister and 2 attendees instead of the 2 and 3 I mistakenly mentioned above. I've had a difficulty with their party colour, which is currently showing as a darker shade of grey (C0C0C0) than we have in our opinion polls section (which is perhaps roughly E0E0E0, which is then not very clearly visible), but seems perhaps about the same as the 'hex=gray' which is used in the Composition Bar in the infobox of our article on them. Maybe somebody who knows more about how Wikipedia assigns party colours might fix this.Tlhslobus (talk) 14:09, 29 August 2018 (UTC)
- I agree with this proposal. Spleodrach (talk) 12:05, 27 August 2018 (UTC)
I propose we should have Feargal Quinn as 'leader' given he's the closest thing they have to any leadership (chairman). Irishpolitical (talk) 17:10, 26 March 2019 (UTC)
- No, they don't have a leader. Anyway Quinn is retired from politics. Spleodrach (talk) 19:18, 27 March 2019 (UTC)
We should probably get ready to remove the Independent Alliance from the Infobox. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2020 (UTC)
- Aaaaand replace them with what exactly??? Independents for Change are a more obvious deletion seeing as they nearly all buggered off to Europe last year but I cannot decide who could replace them. The Healy Raes have more elected members than I4C.
- For aesthetic reasons there should be 6 or 9 parties, 3 per row, in the Infobox. 12 is too much altogether.
- We either go with 6 or 9 in the Infobox then and I am more inclined to prune it down to 6 and leave the selection at FF FG SF GR SD and finally 'Solidarity/PBP. Wikimucker (talk) 16:15, 14 January 2020 (UTC)
- Likely to see 7 parties in the next Dáil - don't forget Labour - so that number seems a good compromise. Culloty82 (talk) 14:42, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Agree with 6, but it should be the current largest 6, i.e. FG, FF, SF, Lab, S-PGP and Green. No room for SocDems, I'm afraid. Spleodrach (talk) 15:54, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies Spleodrach for the premature switch, cache hadn't refreshed on this. I'd be inclined towards 6 as well. —Iveagh Gardens (talk) 16:33, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Apologies for forgetting Labour, are we moving to 6 in the Infobox and FG, FF, SF, Lab, S-PGP and Green. I am agreed with those 6.
- Articles Elections 2007 (infobox 6) 2011 (infobox 9) and 2016 (infobox 9) in the interests of balance here but 2016 includes Renua who promptly imploded afterwards. Wikimucker (talk) 18:11, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- Per WP:Bold, I've gonae ahead and changed it to those 6. Spleodrach (talk) 18:43, 15 January 2020 (UTC)
- And per WP:BOLD and WP:NOTPAPER, I've reverted. Why would we exclude parties that won seats last time out?! Especially when over the last two elections, we've gone with 9?! "Aesthetic reasons" doesn't cut it. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 09:33, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Consensus was 6, Spain only has 6 for example, the 6 largest, as does Poland. I will revert to 6 presently unless a case is made for 9 in the interim. Wikimucker (talk) 14:56, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Meanwhile I suggest people look at the richer data presented for those 6 parties in the Polish Infobox ....for inspiration. Wikimucker (talk) 14:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS isn't an argument. Arbitrarily removing relevant material that's been here for literally over 4 years, just 3 weeks out from the next election - and directly concerns the topic of the article - smacks of censorship, to be honest. Honestly - what is the problem with including all of the parties/groupings that have been on the page since 2011, and have Dáil representation?! BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 17:28, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
It is not arbitrary, both the IA and I4C have essentially collapsed and IA were never a party anyway while I4C is formally registered, a large infobox....in that context....strikes me as inchoate.
I'll raise ya a 404 for your 'arbitrary'. > https://independentalliance.ie/, how is that???
Wikimucker (talk) 17:48, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Again, it's not arbitrary, the Ind. Alliance and I4C both don't exist anymore, and are not contesting this election. I will be removing them again, unless someone can justify that they remain. Spleodrach (talk) 22:52, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- As you said above, we include parties/groupings who have "imploded" after (though both the IA and I4C haven't quite "imploded" just yet, managing a couple of MEPs!) and they've lasted 4+ years. In 2007, we listed every party who had Dáil representation (6); same in 2011 and 2016 (9 each). 2011 even includes a one-man party and one with no seats at all... BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:50, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- It's foolish and misleading to list groups/parties that are not contesting this election. Spleodrach (talk) 22:53, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- I've no objection to removing groups/parties that aren't contesting this election, but those who are should remain - regardless of "aesthetics." BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:58, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
Latest possible date
Taken from version of 17 February 2017:
The next general election cannot be held later than Monday 12 April 2021. This date is determined as follows:
Law | Requirement | Comments |
---|---|---|
Constitution: Section 16.5 [1] | The same Dáil Éireann shall not continue for a longer period than seven years from the date of its first meeting: a shorter period may be fixed by law. | A shorter period is fixed by law through the Electoral Act, 1992. |
Electoral Act, 1992: Section 33 [2] | The same Dáil shall not continue for a longer period than five years from the date of its first meeting. | The Dáil resulting from the 2016 election first met on 10 March 2016. Five years after 10 March 2016 is 10 March 2021. |
Electoral Act, 1992: Section 96 [3] | (1) A poll at a Dáil election— (a) shall be taken on such day as shall be appointed by the Minister by order, being a day which (disregarding any excluded day) is not earlier than the seventeenth day or later than the twenty-fifth day next following the day on which the writ or writs for the election is or are issued. | 25 days after 10 March 2021, disregarding excluded days, is 12 April 2021. Excluded days are:
|
Electoral Act, 1992: Section 2 [4] | (1) In this Act— "excluded day" means a day which is a Sunday, Good Friday or a day which is declared to be a public holiday by the Holidays (Employees) Act, 1973 , or a day which by virtue of a statute or proclamation is a public holiday; |
Is this satisfactory? Spleodrach (talk) 14:46, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- It would be better to source the date to a reliable, secondary source. We're in danger of slipping into WP:SYNTH territory. Bondegezou (talk) 20:02, 23 March 2019 (UTC)
- From RTE - [5] - It says 10 April 2021. It also says the Dáil would need to be dissolved before 9 March 2021, the above calcs assume 10 March which appears to be incorrect. Using 9 March 2021 as dissolution date and applying the above rules gives Saturday 10 April 2021, same as RTE source. Spleodrach (talk) 16:51, 24 March 2019 (UTC)
- I'd agree with RTÉ - "shall not continue for a longer period than five years from the date of its first meeting [on 10 March 2016]" implies the 5 years are up on 9th March 2021, not the 10th. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 20:24, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
Opinion polls and EU/local election results
WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS aside, is there a good reason for including the election results (which were for European and local elections, not general) in with the opinion polls? All of the opinion polls ask the question "Who would you vote for in the next general election?" The "results" are skewed if you include the elections - someone in, say, Waterford, might well say "Renua" in answer to a pollster's question; but if Renua don't run a local or European election candidate in Waterford, that voter's preference can't be reflected in the election results. Similarly, there's a >10-point difference in FF's vote between the local and Euro elections. Regards, BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 16:35, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I haven't seen them being included like this on any other polling table. Take 'em out. Bondegezou (talk) 20:00, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- (Although PhDoctor says they are in Spanish and Italian articles. Bondegezou (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- Dear, Bondegezou and BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!. For god's sake, are you two blinded or something? Read Opinion polling for the next Italian general election and Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election. They have 2019 EP Election Results included. Also, they aren't added by me. User:PhDoctor 10:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Until you pointed out the Spanish and Italian articles, I had not seen this done before. It's not done this way on Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, Opinion polling for the next German federal election, Next_Romanian_legislative_election#Opinion_polls, Opinion polling for the next Dutch general election, or Opinion polling for the 2019 Belgian federal election. But it is on Opinion polling for the 2019 Polish parliamentary election and Opinion polling for the 2019 Greek legislative election. I will raise a discussion at the relevant WikiProject. Bondegezou (talk) 11:42, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- See Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#European_Parliament_election_results_in_opinion_polling_tables. Bondegezou (talk) 11:50, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Dear, Bondegezou and BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!. For god's sake, are you two blinded or something? Read Opinion polling for the next Italian general election and Opinion polling for the next Spanish general election. They have 2019 EP Election Results included. Also, they aren't added by me. User:PhDoctor 10:43, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- (Although PhDoctor says they are in Spanish and Italian articles. Bondegezou (talk) 20:02, 31 May 2019 (UTC)
- I refer you again to the very first word in this section. I asked is there any reason for including election results other than that. You've come back to say "Otherstuffexists!" and offered no rebuttal or argument at all. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 13:01, 1 June 2019 (UTC)
- Incidentally, regarding which consensus to use, we seem to be stuck with our Irish consensus, if only because there seems to be no clear international consensus, with different countries dealing with it in different ways (some details in footnote below, if desired). I certainly see no reason why we should inconvenience our readers by changing our existing long-established consensus and depriving them of convenient and useful info while somebody goes and spends perhaps months or years trying to establish some different one-size-fits-all international consensus at some obscure discussion at some Wikiproject which most affected editors and readers won't even know about, let alone have the time to waste on a pointless argument there. Tlhslobus (talk) 01:51, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- Footnote: Some details re lack of international consensus, in case anybody thinks otherwise: Note that looking at what has been done for these 2019 elections, as Bondegezou does above, is misleading because Wikipedia is a work in progress and the end-of-May 2019 elections are very recent. For instance, the first above example I checked (after Ireland, of course) was Holland, and they had nothing (yet) for 2019, but they put a link to the 2014 Euro elections in the relevant Opinion poll table (which was for their previous general election). The Belgians had nothing, perhaps because their general election occurred at about the same time (May 2014) so they presumably sensibly included that instead. The Germans and Greeks ignored May 2014, tho the Greeks currently include 2019, and the relevant Romanian article has no opinion polls of any kind before July 2014 (2 months after the Euro elections of May 2014). The Spanish and Italians have already included May 2019 results (even though it was just a month after Spain's last general election), and they previously included May 2014 results in the relevant Opinion poll articles. We in Ireland have included May 2014 (as already mentioned above, and despite the claims that we should remove 2019 because nothing like that had supposedly ever been seen before). The relevant previous Opinion polls for the 2015 Polish elections includes results for both European elections in May 2014 and local elections in November 2014. Bondegezou is right that this is not how it's done in the UK (anomalous anyway due Brexit), but neither is how we currently have it the same as how the UK does it, since we are showing nothing but their relevant opinion poll tables link to the Euro elections in both 2019 and 2014 (as the Dutch have done for 2014, as already mentioned). That's seemingly all the countries mentioned above, but there are over 20 other countries one could check, but there doesn't seem any real point in doing so, because our own past consensus is clear enough, as already mentioned above. Tlhslobus (talk) 03:00, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- So again: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There may be a consensus on the Opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Irish_general_election - but we're not talking about that article, we're talking about this one. You have, at least, provided a reason for inclusion in your first paragraph above, and it's a fair point. But since nobody has actually proposed a wiki-wide RfC, your second paragraph is irrelevant. Paragraph three is again all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Once again - this article is about the next Irish general election. Opinion polling, asking about people's voting intentions in the next Irish general election is relevant, as is how people voted in the last Irish general election. Including results for two entirely different elections - held on the same day, but with quite different results - is a) irrelevant, and b) misleading, because parties attach different importance and strategies to different types of election, run different campaigns, and may or may not put candidates forward for other elections based on many factors, including but not limited to candidates available, funding, constituency size and population, and so on. If a reader wants to know about Irish local elections or Irish European elections, we have articles on those too. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- The reason to not include the figures is that they are very different figures to the opinion polls above and below them. They are not directly comparable.
- If they are to be included, we should use shading or something to mark out the figures as being different, as done on some of the other articles linked to above. Bondegezou (talk) 12:58, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- So again: WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. There may be a consensus on the Opinion_polling_for_the_2016_Irish_general_election - but we're not talking about that article, we're talking about this one. You have, at least, provided a reason for inclusion in your first paragraph above, and it's a fair point. But since nobody has actually proposed a wiki-wide RfC, your second paragraph is irrelevant. Paragraph three is again all WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. Once again - this article is about the next Irish general election. Opinion polling, asking about people's voting intentions in the next Irish general election is relevant, as is how people voted in the last Irish general election. Including results for two entirely different elections - held on the same day, but with quite different results - is a) irrelevant, and b) misleading, because parties attach different importance and strategies to different types of election, run different campaigns, and may or may not put candidates forward for other elections based on many factors, including but not limited to candidates available, funding, constituency size and population, and so on. If a reader wants to know about Irish local elections or Irish European elections, we have articles on those too. BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 11:18, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
It is not the job of Wikipedia to innovate. We are very clearly warned against interpreting primary sources. If reliable secondary sources interleave opinion polls with European and local results, then we can do the same. If they do not, then it is WP:OR for us to decide it is a useful juxtaposition. Bondegezou (talk) 13:23, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Renua
Now that the party doesn't have an elected representative any more, will polling companies continue to list them as a separate option, and should we still give them their own column? Culloty82 (talk) 11:28, 11 June 2019 (UTC)
- I'd leave them until the next election now. Aontu seem the logical replacement but they are less than a year old. We had a lucky miss with I4C now that half their members have decamped to Europe Wikimucker (talk) 15:51, 21 July 2019 (UTC)
adriankavanaghelections.org
Can we consider adriankavanaghelections.org to be a reliable source? Yes, it's a blog - but it's specialised, balanced and more fact than opinion based. Thoughts? BastunĖġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ! 22:51, 16 January 2020 (UTC)
- Absolutely so, yes, he has many sources and has been at this quite a while. Note he mainly lists 'declarations'until formal nominations close (next friday I think) and he is most useful for fast moving news but will need a revisit to double check actual nominations are = declarations afterwards. Wikimucker (talk) 00:15, 17 January 2020 (UTC)
- Poll at 10pm tonight Bastun,Spleodrach,CaneFruitMan,Iveagh Gardens , I'll be out.
- https://www.irishtimes.com/news/politics/election-2020-irish-times-ipsos-mrbi-poll-to-be-released-tonight-1.4145162 Wikimucker (talk) 18:19, 20 January 2020 (UTC)
Retiring Incumbents
It might be pushing it to say that Maria Bailey "announced" her retirement and Seán Barrett quietly went away with no annoucement at all.
As nominations close today I propose to prune the retirements subsection to:
a) remove announcement dates. b) change description to "Retiring Incumbents"
after I check they are all really gone and that nobody else joins them by end of business today. Wikimucker (talk) 10:59, 22 January 2020 (UTC)