Talk:2024–25 Romanian presidential election

Candidates section is atrocious

I'm sorry but mentioning Orban in the PNL section while leaving out Ciuca, the frontrunner for the Liberals, is satire right? 109.255.241.4 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

Results page and abroad voting

When looking at the cited page for results, it seems to be split into 2 sections, internal and abroad.

Shouldn't the final tally reflect the 2 added together? Jlaursen (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

The layout of the website is quite misleading. The "România" tab includes both the internal and diaspora vote. 178.164.249.145 (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

Do you have a source? @Aréat and Number 57: Panam2014 (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)

table

Now i admit its getting hard, what do you think?

Alliance		Party		Ideology	First round		Second round
	PSD Alliance		Social Democratic Party	Social democracy		Marcel Ciolacu	TBA
			PRO Romania	Social liberalism		Marcel Ciolacu	TBA
	National Liberal Party			Liberal conservatism		Nicolae Ciucă		Elena Lasconi
	Alliance for the Union of Romanians			Romanian nationalism		George Simion		Călin Georgescu
	Save Romania Union			Liberalism		Elena Lasconi		Elena Lasconi
	S.O.S. Romania			Ultranationalism	Invalid			Călin Georgescu
	AFDLC		Force of the Right	Liberal conservatism		Elena Lasconi		Elena Lasconi
			The Right Alternative	National conservatism		Elena Lasconi		Elena Lasconi
			National Peasants' Party Maniu-Mihalache	Agrarianism		Elena Lasconi		Elena Lasconi
			People's Movement Party	National conservatism		Elena Lasconi		Elena Lasconi
	PDPP		Renewing Romania's European Project	Liberalism		Elena Lasconi		Elena Lasconi
			Democracy and Solidarity Party	Democratic socialism		Elena Lasconi		Elena Lasconi
	PNCR Alliance		Romanian National Conservative Party	National conservatism		Cristian Terheș	TBA
			Republican Party of Romania	Romanian nationalism		Cristian Terheș	TBA
			National Identity Force Party	Romanian nationalism		Cristian Terheș	TBA
	Christian Democratic National Peasants' Party			Agrarianism	No endorsement			Călin Georgescu
	Romanian Ecologist Party			Green conservatism		Cristian Diaconescu	TBA
	Romania in Action Party			Localism		Mircea Geoană	TBA
	National Action League Party			Social liberalism		Silviu Predoiu	No endorsement
	Greater Romania Party			Romanian nationalism		Mircea Geoană	TBA
	ASR		Romanian Socialist Party	Communism	No endorsement			Călin Georgescu
			Social Democratic Workers' Party	Socialism	No endorsement			Călin Georgescu
			Romanian Communist Party of the 21st Century	Marxism–Leninism	No endorsement			Călin Georgescu
	Communists' Party			Communism	Boycott		Boycott
	Party of Young People			Christian nationalism		Călin Georgescu		Călin Georgescu
	National Christian Alliance			Christian nationalism		Cristian Diaconescu	TBA
	Alternative for National Dignity			Romanian nationalism		Alexandra Păcuraru		Călin Georgescu
	New Romania Party			Romanian nationalism		Sebastian Popescu	No endorsement
	Patriots of the Romanian People			Romanian nationalism	No endorsement			Călin Georgescu
	Romanian Village Party			Agrarianism	No endorsement			Călin Georgescu
	UDMR Alliance		Democratic Alliance of Hungarians	Hungarians minority interests		Hunor Kelemen	TBA
			Hungarian Alliance of Transylvania	Hungarian nationalism		Hunor Kelemen	TBA
			Hungarian Civic Force	Hungarians minority interests		Hunor Kelemen	TBA
	GPMN		Party of the Roma	Romani minority interests		Marcel Ciolacu	TBA
			Democratic Forum of Germans	German minority interests		Against extremists		Elena Lasconi

@PLATEL: Braganza (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)

shorten the alliance names to abbreviations and I think this can be included in the page  PLATEL  (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)

Split

Hi

We should create a new article for 2025 polls. Electoral process have been cancelled. Panam2014 (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Was the date really moved to 2025? There are 25 days left till next year. Borgenland (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

We need 30 days of electoral campaign, aside from the time required for gathering signatures for the candidates who will enter the new race. Most likely will be in spring of 2025, but the government has not set the date. Gdaniel111 (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

agreed. With the time frame new elections (first and second round) are likely to be set for next year. I think that the results of this election should be considered a seperate election. EmilePersaud (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

Yes, this article should be only about the anulled elections. Gdaniel111 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I think a split might be neccesary for the article to be coherent. This is especially the case if (as I understand is the case) the candidates will be different in the re-run. At that point, how do you depict the now cancelled 2024 first round without it being confusing? Gust Justice (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)

It depends on whether the fresh elections are considered a re-run or a separate election. It seems to me that the fresh elections are a re-run similar to 2013 Maldivian presidential election, and so the article should not be split. However, the article may need retitling 2024–25 Romanian presidential election. Number 57 19:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

The current page should be about the annulled election. I suggest creating a new article called Next Romanian presidential election until the exact date is known, which will probably be in 2025. That makes it easy for the title. If they find a way to do it before the end of the year then I'd suggest 2024 Romanian presidential re-run election or December 2024 Romanian presidential election. Johndavies837 (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I suggest that a module is used to seperate the first election and the re-run like on the 1922 Polish presidential elections article Polish kurd (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I agree with Number 57 in that we should see whether the fresh election is a re-run or a brand new election. So far, practice in Wikipedia has been to not split mere re-runs of annulled elections (Number 57 mentioned 2013 Maldivian presidential election, we also have 2016 Austrian presidential election), but to create new articles for elections that are new from scratch (2017 Kenyan general election/October 2017 Kenyan presidential election, 1997 Serbian general election/1997 Serbian presidential election, 2021 Berlin state election/2023 Berlin state election). In the latter case, though, I would support having it simply called "[Month if required] [Year] Romanian presidential election", without "re-run" or "repeat" in the title, as per WP:NCELECT. Impru20^talk 09:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)

Coup

As per WP rules, we need enough secondary sources to create a 2024 Romanian coup d'état. Most media does use the word, but only as reporting others' word (as they actually should, as secondary sources, so no problem here). Trouble is, somehow the question of whether this is or isn't actually a coup (technically, a self-coup) isn't even discussed, despite put on the table by some proeminent forces, and pretty obvious (if cancelling election to prevent an opponent winning isn't a coup, what is?).

I am puzzled.

Respectively creating/not creating 2024 Romanian coup d'état is de facto siding with Romanian political forces respectively affirming/denying there is a coup going on. And as of today, WP is sifing with the latter. Not sure it should. Your thoughts? 2A01:E0A:1DC:4570:71AE:CE0A:C605:7A26 (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The election was not cancelled to prevent an opponent from winning, it was because evidence of Russian interference was declassified and released, therefore proving the election was messed with.

The same way notable right wing politicians falsely claim elections are "rigged" and "stolen" when Democrat candidates win in the United States, notable right wing politicians in Romania falsely claim this ordeal was a "coup."

It was not a coup. It was legally annulled after evidence was presented for an annulment to take place. Not creating an article going off of baseless claims is not "siding" with anyone.

A. Astronomy ꩜ 18:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Hitler's Enabling Act was also enacted because of the "communist threat to Weimar democracy". Just because the ruling parties say something doesn't mean it's factual. Just because the judiciary says something doesn't mean it's factual (come on, they're appointed judges too?). Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's factual. My conclusion is that, whether this is seen as a coup or not, that's entirely subjective. About the article, however, there's probably not enough sources to create one about the supposed coup - probably should be folded into the "Annulment" section of this one, or perhaps a future article about what could be considered Romania's 2024 political crisis. Polish kurd (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry for the length, I hope it can help people understand why the decision was controversial but legitimate

As you correctly noted yourself, [m]ost media does use the word, but only as reporting others' word (as they actually should, as secondary sources, so no problem here), so Wikipedia (which is a tertiary source based around secondary sources) is not siding with the Romanian political forces ... denying there is a coup going on. Wikipedia is based around reliable sources, so we go by that, and if they only report others' word, it does not warrant an article (unless things are changed since last time I checked). In the lead, we already say: The aftermath of the first presidential vote was controversial and led Romania to the brink of a political crisis. ... On 6 December, the Constitutional Court reversed their decision and controversially annulled the first round of the election, after intelligence documents were declassified stating that Russia had run a coordinated online campaign to promote Georgescu. In the body, we also mention this: The annulment was condemned by both Georgescu and Lasconi, with Georgescu describing the court's verdict as a "formalised coup d'état", and Lasconi calling it "illegal [and] immoral" and stating that it "crushes the very essence of democracy". Fourth-placed George Simion also called the verdict a "coup d'état in full swing" but urged against street protests. Do you think coup should be in the lead? As the lead is also supposed to summarize the body, the latter should also discuss this more to be lead worthy, for example either expanding it a bit the "Aftermath and controversy" and "Annulment" sections or have a separate section briefly discussing this. Perhaps it can be discussed in a future article about what could be considered Romania's 2024 political crisis as suggested by Polish kurd.

While it is true Hitler's Enabling Act was also enacted because of the "communist threat to Weimar democracy" and just because the ruling parties say something doesn't mean it's factual (especially when it comes to certain U.S. Supreme Court's decision, I may add), the Court's decision, controversial or not, was legitimate insofar as it provided some evidence that Russia influence/interfered into the election (if only there was a Court doing the same thing to stop the violence and fraud by fascists in Italy and Germany in 1924 and 1932...). Also it is not like the elections are cancelled (they are going to be repeated), or that we are talking about an already full authoritarian country that rejected it merely because it did not like the results or invented that a foreign state interfered in the election making it obvious that this was a coup to end liberal democracy; you wrote if cancelling election to prevent an opponent winning isn't a coup, what is?, but the first round is going to be repeated and in fact this may ultimately favour Georgescu (although if he really committed a crime, the exclusion may be warranted, even if controversial), so this is not cancelling election to prevent an opponent winning.

Now if they do it again (I would expect they take counter-measures so that Russia, or any other country, does not interfere again and thus Romanians can have freer and fairer elections, so the repeated round will stand), or actually cancel the whole election and exclude Georgescu, that could be much closer to a coup and more problematic. Ultimately, I can agree that this is subjective (of course, those who won the first round are not going to be happy, and others may also not agree with the decision, which was nonetheless legitimate because the Court had this power and Russian interference was not a made up claim made by the Court) but at the same time we should not act like nothing happened in regards to Russia.

The same way notable right wing politicians falsely claim elections are "rigged" and "stolen" when Democrat candidates win in the United States, notable right wing politicians in Romania falsely claim this ordeal was a "coup." [I may add I very much doubt that with reversed role, where the Court annulled the first round win of a leftist or liberal, the Right or the same people calling it a coup would still say the same but they would call it legitimate; I am also sure a few would because there are still some coherent and consistent people.]

As noted, we must keep in mind that Trump created a big precedent for the loser to cry wolf, so I am not surprised of any of this, and yet compare Trump's behavior to that of Harris or Lasconi, both of whom either accepted the loss or criticized a decision that could help her (although Lasconi may have merely criticized the decision because now the Social Democrats may reach the second round in the re-run). It is kinda funny (it really is not because elections must be free and fair not subjected to foreign interference or state media bias and the loser(s) must accept the loss when it fair and square like it was in 2020 for Trump or in 2022 for Bolsonaro) that the global, pro-Trump Right is complaining about this being a coup when Trump essentially supported doing the same in 2020, with also the big and fundamental difference that in Trump's case there was no fraud whereas here there are intelligence documents showing that Russia had run a coordinated online campaign to help Georgescu. Like in football, a match may be repeated for the smallest of things; Georgescu was polling around 5% and then won 23%, it does not take a genius to realize that if Russia really interfered in his favour, it succeeded. Democracy is not an absolute, in the sense that it must also be free and fair (otherwise Russia and other authoritarian states are democratic just because they held elections and who finishes first win, regardless of whether they were free and fair, always win), and if Georgescu was really favoured by Russia through an illegal promotional campaign, it was not free and fair to the other competitors, as simple as that. In Italy, our sport fraud law is based on the concept of early consumation and that of danger, meaning that one does not even need to attempt to fix a match to commit a crime, he or she must simply act in a way that it put in danger the legal good (e.g. football), and it does not need to prove the match was fixed/altered in the first place. I think Russia certainly put the legal good (e.g. elections) in danger, and likely went further, since there are classified documents showing it promoted online Georgescu, who was also the only one whose campaign was mainly online (TikTok).

In this sense, I also fully share the comment that [t]he election was not cancelled to prevent an opponent from winning, it was because evidence of Russian interference was declassified and released, therefore proving the election was messed with. In conclusion, I would not say for sure that it was not a coup (I would let reliable sources and experts doing that for us), it was certainly controversial but ultimately legitimate (which does not necessarily preclude it being a coup, although as stated I feel like there would need a bit more to reach that criteria) as the Court had this power, and acting as though the elections were cancelled when only the first round was, that it is going to be repeated, and that this may ultimately backfire and increase support for Georgescu (so much for preventing an opponent from winning, they should have excluded him from the get go like they did with Diana Șoșoacă, now they may have helped him win), that is a bit too far. If the Court either again cancel the first round (this time without enough evidence) or the whole elections, and somehow the new government use emergency powers or slip towards further illiberalism and went full authoritarianism, with Iohannis still in power beyond caretaker role, now that would be another thing and definitely a coup and the end of liberal democracy in Romania. Davide King (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)