Talk:2011 Slovenian parliamentary election

File:Gregor Virant2.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:Gregor Virant2.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion for the following reason: All Wikipedia files with unknown copyright status What should I do? Don't panic; you should have time to contest the deletion (although please review deletion guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to provide a fair use rationale If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale, then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Deletion Review This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 13:59, 5 November 2011 (UTC)

Infobox

SNS and LDS are ommitted from the infobox, because in all recent opinion polls they have received 1-2%, and thus they do not seem to have any chance to re-enter parliament. --RJFF (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Unvalid source?

Why is this: (Kommentar posten. "Neuwahlen am 4. Dezember - Slowenien - derStandard.at › International". Derstandard.at. Retrieved 2011-11-11.) source not valid? Could you explain that, please? To me it looks perfectly valid. Regards --RJFF (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

To me, it seems perfectly valid. Nonetheless, it would be better to find a source in English. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 11:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Minorities

"Under the Constitution of Slovenia, the remaining two seats are allocated to the Italian and Hungarian minority communities, one to a representative of each community". Who choose them?--Martianmister (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

They were elected by members of these national communities. Roberto Battelli and Laszlo Göncz were elected.(Slovene) --Eleassar ^{my talk} 10:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Parliamentary elections?

It seems 'parliamentary' is not the best description here. In Slovenia, the parliament is something that officially even doesn't exist and if we suppose it does informally, it would be bicameral - according to Slovenian Parliament, "In 2008, the Constitutional Court of Slovenia recognized the Slovenian Parliament as incompletely bicameral." etc. The election was only to the National Assembly. Accordingly, it would be more exact and neutral to rename the article to 'Slovenian National Assembly election, 2011'. The same term is also used by the Slovenian National Electoral Commission (volitve v državni zbor - Elections to the National Assembly)[1], the regulating act is named the "National Assembly Elections Act"[2] etc. --Eleassar ^{my talk} 12:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Voting system

What voting system is used? Party list? The article doesn't make this clear. Grover cleveland (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Added the system, good point. The full party list will be given when the final results are published. --Tone 15:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Confusing sentence

• Some questions were risen whether the President can dissolve the Assembly right after no candidates are proposed.

I take this to mean that questions were raised as to whether the President can dissolve the Assembly immediately after the deadline has passed for the proposal of candidates. But the previous paragraph says "a candidate has to be proposed by either members of the Assembly or the president within seven days after the fall of a government. If this does not happen, the president dissolves the Assembly and calls for a snap election", which seems to me to answer the question. Is there something else that I'm missing? The confusing sentence is unsourced anyway, so maybe if it is not clarified soon it should just be removed. 86.41.35.204 (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, that was rather a technical thing that was in question. The Constitution says to wait for one month and does not consider the situation that occurred (namely, that no candidates for the PM were proposed). So some people suggested the dissolution could happen earlier, but the President decided to wait all 30 days, to follow the Constitution by the book. I'm sure it could be written better, any suggestions? The reference is in the second sentence, by the way. --Tone 11:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)

I'm still not sure if I understand it correctly, but based on what I think you're saying, I suggest:

The question arose as to whether the President could dissolve the Assembly after the seven days, in the event that no candidate was proposed. However, since this situation is not covered in the constitution, the decision of the President to wait the full 30 days was welcomed by the political parties.

FTR I am the OP. I have a dynamic IP. 86.41.45.254 (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Opinion polls plot

The plot of opinion polls is useful, but it is a bit hard to follow at the moment - the labels are too small, and there are too many minor parties on there. Furthermore, it looks like the curves on the plot are polynomial regression curves, which are probably not appropriate here (there is no theoretical reason to believe party support follows a polynomial curve, they are prone to overfitting, and they don't necessarily sum to anything like 100%) - I don't know what would normally be used - maybe some kind of moving average? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)