Talk:2024 Georgian parliamentary election

Neutrality is disputed / GORBI is unreliable discussion?

I see that the neutrality of this article has been questioned and that GORBI has been listed as a dubious source. But there is no discussion that I see on the talk page. What is the grounds for this? Genuinely curious. -- Rei (talk) 10:10, 31 August 2024 (UTC)

All GORBI polls are commissioned by and published in Imedi TV. It's well known to be a pro-government propaganda tube and multiple sources describe it as "pro-government": Georgia Today [1], Civil.ge [2], JAMnews [3].

Additionally, there's a clear discrepancy between the results reported by GORBI—consistently ~50-60% for the ruling party—and other pollsters (Edison Research, IRI, ISSA), which have put the ruling party at ~30% and falling after the recent wave of anti-government protests. 93.157.76.2 (talk) 08:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

I mean Gorbi is a fake pollster there is no doubt about that. The only problem is that other pollsters are just underestimating GD’s support. In a way, its good to have both as they balance each other out and the truth is somewhere in between.

Polling is hard in Georgia in general. People do not trust pollsters usually and are scared to give their real answers. If the polls are sponsored by Imedi TV then people might say that they support GD and if they come from NDI / Edison person will probably mention the opposition. Idk what can be done about that or how it can be fixed. Zlad! (talk) 09:30, 3 September 2024 (UTC)

Polls

Chergoleishvili / Bokeria's Federalists and Katsarava's Chven should be removed from the polls section as those parties aren't taking part in the election... not independently at least. Zlad! (talk) 19:31, 1 September 2024 (UTC)

So far, Chven is campaigning visibly under their electoral number 23 (registration has also been accepted), so we should anticipate they partake independently. We'll know more by the end of the month when all candidate lists should have been submitted. I don't want to down-talk Katsarava, but realistically he won't stand much chance - and thus concerning the polling section - he hasn't even been polled yet. Labrang (talk) 22:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah a better argument for not including Federalists and Chven is that they haven’t even been polled. Zlad! (talk) 23:03, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Current infobox is bad

Current infobox is based on old elections in 2020, many things have changed since then. Many parties like European Socialists, Law and Justice, State for the People and others don't even take part in this election. Also, many parties presented in current infobox don't take part independently now and are running on other parties' electoral list: Citizens, Strategy Builder, Girchi - More Freedom. Also, many new coalitions were created in 2024, they are not present in current infobox. Current infobox should be changed, it is very irrelevant. Rutdam (talk) 14:49, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

If we have a definitive list of which parties/alliances are contesting the elections, then I would be happy for the list of parties in the infobox to be changed to only include them. Is there a confirmed list of parties/alliances that will run candidates? Number 57 14:55, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes there is. There are 27 parties but there is no need to list all parties in the infobox because many of them are irrelevant and only get 0.1%, are not even present in the polls. 2025 German federal election article also does not lists all parties. Rutdam (talk) 15:07, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

For the parties currently with seats, is the following list of parties correct?

• Georgian Dream – 83 seats (74 Georgian Dream, 9 People's Power, who are running on the GD list)
• UNM – 20 seats
• For Georgia – 5 seats
• Alliance of Patriots of Georgia – 4 seats (not taken as boycotting parliament?)
• Girchi – 4 seats
• Strong Georgia – 2 seats (both Lelo)
• Yes to Europe – 2 seats (this is the name Strategy Aghmashenebeli is running under?)
• Citizens – 2 seats
• Georgian Labour Party – 1 seat (not taken?)

If so, what has happened to the others? The article states that European Socialists were not registered, but there is no mention of State for the People, Progress and Freedom, National Democratic Party, Victorious Georgia or Law & Justice. The article says the Republican Party was going to be in a coalition ("Coalition for Change") with Girchi, but this does not seem to have materialised. Cheers, Number 57 15:31, 10 September 2024 (UTC)

I made a new infobox just the way that you hate lol (sorry not sorry).

But I don't think it's relevant counting how many seats the parties have now, but how many parties got in the last election.

I'll answer some of the questions you asked. Coalition for Change did materialize lol and Reps are in the coalition. Citizens is running with Lelo in Strong Georgia. Strategy Aghmashenebeli is running with UNM on Unity ticket. Georgian Labour Party's mandate was cancelled, since Shalva missed over half of the parliamentary sessions (aka didn't attend a single one). State for the People gifted their party to Ahali which was later transformed into CfC (formal coalitions are banned so all coalitions are informal). Progress and Freedom, NDP, VG no one knows lol. At least I don't. If anyone has information about them it would be greatly appreciated. As for L&J, its leader is running on Unity ticket, but the party itself is not formally a part of the informal coalition, just supporting. NPC - Girchi and For Georgia are running alone. Zlad! (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah, that was obviously a bad idea and has already led to an edit war – one of the (many) reasons {{Infobox legislative election}} is IMO better is because you don't have to limit the number of parties in it (and argue about who gets included). Number 57 20:36, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Leader of GD

Bidzina Ivanishvili is indeed the n1 on the party list of GD, but I'm not sure that really qualifies him to be counted as a leader. Prime Ministerial candidate or the current PM should be listed and that is Kobakhidze.

For other parties and coalitions I feel who the leader happens to be is pretty unambiguous. Tina Bokuchava for Unity as UNM is by far the dominating party in the alliance and Bokuchava is viewed as a leader by all. Even asked some members of the party and they confirmed that she alone was the leader.

CfC I feel like should be all 4 since its a coalition of pretty equal parties except Ahali, but Ahali has two leaders as well and all 4 are being viewed as equal. Asked CfC and they confirmed that all 4 were leaders indeed.

Same reason for Mamuka Khazaradze being the leader of SG as Bokuchava being a leader of Unity.

And Gakharia is pretty self-explanatory. Zlad! (talk) 19:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The term leader is very ambiguous. Georgian parties have many leaders. The election authorities (CESKO) consider the party chair I believe as leader. For GD that would be Garibashvili. But maybe we should check the 2020 documents of CESKO to see how they have dealt with this in the final results etc. I couldn't tell from the top of my head - sorry. But it also depends on what is the standard in Wikipedia. Is the number 1 on a party lost considered the "leaders" for infobox, tables etc? It's something I am always confused about. Labrang (talk) 22:13, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah same. Maybe someone more experienced than me can chime in here. Zlad! (talk) 22:24, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@J4keeS237 May I ask why did you change SG's leaders to include Khazaradze as well as Dolidze, Elisashvili and Levan Tsutskiridze? I feel like Khazaradze is unambiguously the singular leader of the alliance. If you check the party registry, SG even lists Khazaradze as the singular chair. I also don't like adding all the parties of the coalition in the infobox, what do other users think? Since these coalitions are informal and are all built around 1 party it makes sense to only list it.

Additionally, why did you move CfC above SG when they're lower in both polling averages and seats held currently or won in 2020 election? Zlad! (talk) 08:55, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

While campaigning, I always hear "4 leaders of Strong Georgia", if you check Lelo's and Khazaradze's FB pages too they always mention "the leaders of the SG" and it's never Khazaradze alone. Even though Lelo has the biggest influence and great finances, it's still a coalition of 4 parties and I think all of them should be included. Difference between CfC and SG is just like 1% in the last 2 polls, but in ISSA's polls CfC parties in total are far ahead than SG, and I think their rating is actually much higher than SG's on average, but if we have to follow only the last polls then I'd be okay with moving SG above for now. J4keeS237 (talk) 09:17, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah let’s agree on moving CfC below SG. I support ranking it based on the number of seats attained in the last election and if there any ties or parties that didn’t get any seats last time rank them by polls.

I also support changing the party to just the largest one. Zlad! (talk) 09:36, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Also, I think it'd be better to update the file for CfC leaders too with better images + to include Samnidze's photo as well, she may not be that active but she's still one of the leaders of the coalition representing the Republican Party. I'll update it if others agree too J4keeS237 (talk) 09:24, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Samnidze is not at all a leader of CfC. Also are any of the photos you uploaded free? Otherwise, they should be deleted. Zlad! (talk) 09:34, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Stop removing APG party

Stop denialism and removing APG party. it is significant party by every metric. It has won seats in Georgian parliament in every election it contested so far since its creation, so it has a record. "Coalition for Change" does not crosses the therhold according to 9 polls out of 16 conducted, yet it is still listed. Rutdam (talk)

Ugh, it's not denialism. I would be happy to include APG in the article, but they are far away from meeting the criteria. What do you mean by 9 out of 16 polls btw? CfC has been around for like 2 polls and in both they crossed 5%. How many they cross and how many they don't doesn't matter btw - it is important that on average they cross. Look at the average in the bottom of the page.Zlad! (talk) 19:44, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Which elections it contested and where it won does not matter in the context of it being included in the infobox. Zlad! (talk) 19:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

"Calculating the average" of all polls and thinking it is some valid figure is just absurd and moreover, an WP:OR. Rutdam (talk) 19:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

No its not lmao Zlad! (talk) 19:49, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Yes it is. It is not backed by any source and mashing up some random numbers from GORBI and Edison Research polls is just very absurd. When the figures of polls differs drastically, that just means the polls are not based on reality and combining absurd polls to get some number is twice more absurd.Rutdam (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Okay, sorry it works this way idk what to say.

Even if we were to back down from the polls, which I will not, APG has not crossed 5% in either 2021 or 2020 local and parliamentary elections. They do not deserve to be in the infobox for either and do not deserve to be in the infobox for this one as well.

To speak of GORBI and Edison numbers, both have CfC above 5%. Zlad! (talk) 19:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The fact that the party is a parliamentary party is more significant than some party-based polls which write whatever numbers they like. Rutdam (talk) 19:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Anyway, how is the APG a parliamentary party? Their party exploded after the half god half man Fridon Injia decided to enter the parliament. In this convocation they weren't a parliamentary party. But even if we discuss it in the sense that they won seats in the parliament in 2020, they only got 4 seats and 3% - nowhere near enough to be present in the infobox for 2020 so that argument doesn't work as well. Zlad! (talk) 19:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

BTW I also have a very big skepticism about the state of polling in Georgia today which is flaming trash, but claiming all polls are fake is not a very convincing argument in this situation. Zlad! (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

APG was only nominally a parliamentary party - first, after the elections of 2020 the four elected MPs boycotted parliament, three out of which had their mandate cancelled. After which the three new ones from the party-list together with the fourth separated from APG and formed the European Socialists faction and party, under which name and party brand they have been operating since (so, since ~January 2021). When the election commission CESKO determined which parties would be automatically registered for the elections, based on their parliamentary status, APG was considered a "parliamentary party" based on the election result of 2020 and their elected representation in Parliament. It had nothing to do with the actual representation in parliament at this moment. To put the party in the infobox for the elections is kind of misleading, as the current parliamentary representation that came out of APG has nothing to do with APG for more than three years. Labrang (talk) 21:48, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Let's update the infoboxes of Georgian election pages

I have created TIE infoboxes for 2016, 2020, and 2024 elections and they should be included as they're universally more liked by the readers, provide more information and are easier to understand. Additionally, the methods user N57 has used to keep his preferred TILE infoboxes are just bad. Your behavior as an admit has rightfully outraged the entire internet. You consistently dodge criticism and are extremely stubborn.

TILE infoboxes are just not intuitive. They feature parties that got 1% or 1 seat, in the context of 2024 feature parties which aren't even running in the election, and feature so much less information. Reader gets a lot more by seeing GD, UNM, and APG in 2016 with the leaders picture, performance in the last election being clear as well as separated into constituency and proportional results, and with the ability to separate the coalition from a party and at the same time mentioning both. Zlad! (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

And the fact of the matter is that N57 has just gotten lazy. He additionally deletes any new changes when reverting back to the boring dull and unintuitive TILE instead of keeping them and reverting with the new changes. You can easily have kept the charts I created, but no you are just that stubborn. Zlad! (talk) 21:27, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The versions you changed to don't "provide more information" as they omit most of the parties. And as has been demonstrated by your edit war on this article, choosing which party to omit creates unnecessary controversy. I would also advise laying off the personal attacks, particularly when you have broken WP:3RR. Number 57 21:31, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Dude the 2/3rds of parties you mention got 19/150 seats combined. That means they are irrelevant. I mean for personal insults, do you deny that you are stubborn? Like your stubborness enraged the entire internet. You inspired a new generation of Wikipedia editors to join this site, including me, just because we saw how bad faith you act.

As for WP:3RR, its quite disingenuous to claim I broke it. I reverted your edit once. Previously I had reverted edits by another user who insisted on keeping APG in the infobox. Which party to omit does create controversy, but the solution that European Socialists should be included in the infobox is the solution that only you favor. Zlad! (talk) 21:43, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Plus let's mention the fact that for an article about 2024 election the infobox shows a completely misleading picture. The opposition isn't divided into 1 man parties anymore, its united into coalitions and you are showing the wrong picture to people.

Even if you think not showing 19/150 seats on the infobox is a dealbreaker in 2020, there is not a single valid reason you can come up with for not backing down on the use of TILE on 2016 page. Just 3 parties crossed 5%. 148/150 are accounted. Zlad! (talk) 21:47, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

(e/c) I think you need to familiarise yourself with WP:3RR, particularly An editor must not perform more than three reverts on a single page—whether involving the same or different material—within a 24-hour period. But I am impressed that you were inspired to join Wikipedia in 2018 by events in 2024.

But anyway, I don't think parties that win seats are "irrelevant" nor that reader get "a lot more" by seeing photos of a small number of party leaders – you need to stop confusing your personal opinions with facts.

I am happy to amend the list of parties in the 2024 infobox (hence my involvement in the discussion above about which parties to include), but I do not think the infobox type needs changing. Perhaps we could go back to having a sensible discussin about that rather than personal attacks and edit warring. Number 57 21:50, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Look at my edit history. I used to edit music wiki... then stopped for like 5 years and came back because of the infobox controversy and now on political wiki.

Georgian politics is also very personality oriented. Many people may not even know the name of a particular major party except Natsis or Qotsis and just know their leader.

"you need to stop confusing your personal opinions with facts" - says a guy who enraged the entire internet. Zlad! (talk) 21:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Again with the personal commentary... And you also need to familarise yourself with WP:CANVASS based on this. Number 57 21:54, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I notified that particular user because he also changed the TILE from TIE. I think they have a right to know that the discussion is ongoing. But alas, I changed the message to be more neutral. Zlad! (talk) 21:57, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I am trying to familiarize myself what is going on here. In any case, the current presented infobox (is that TILE??) is presenting the current composition of parliament. If I want to read more about this election, I would want to know which election subjects (blocs, parties, whatever) are taking part - or at least the (most likely) main contenders. This election is not going between Republicans (part of a unified list), European Socialists (not registered), State for the People (is now called Akhali with other people). We won't find NDP on the ballot, nor do we find People's Power. In other words - that infobox doesn't tell us a great thing when it comes to the question "between who are those elections, who are the main contenders". The other infobox - TIE? - tells us exactly what the elections is about: the main contenders. Namely, the unified coalitions who take part under one unified list under one party name. This is the major change with these elections: party-blocs are not allowed - so the coalition candidates are now all member or officially affiliated with the coalition election subject - the registration of the main party of the coalition (Lelo - nr9, Akhali - nr 4, UNM - nr 5).

So guys, what should the infobox tell us? The past or the competition contenders? Inform the readers in a glimpse who are the most important contenders or update the readers on what the composition of the current parliament is and get the readers with little time on their hand lost in space and a lot of text? One thing for sure - most of those parties in current parliament will not return. For example, even if Samnidze gets elected for Coalition for Change, she won't be a member of parliament for the Republicans - and so forth. Labrang (talk) 22:05, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Infoboxes including leaders' pictures as done for the UK (where the infobox for 2024 accounts for 3 parties representing 93% of the seats) highlight the relevance of party leaders/candidates in a political system. Same goes for Germany, with a limited number of parties (where SSW with 1/736 seats is ommitted) that still fits into the infobox. For 2020, including the three most voted parties would result in 87% of parties' seats represented. Georgian politics and the party system has always been highly leader-centric (Sources: [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] [12] [13]). Despite the shift from presidentialism to parliamentarism this has not changed, which makes it even more relevant to highlihgt this particular feature of Georgian politics within the infobox. --Jamaika-Koalition (talk) 22:11, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Agree and totally true. Especially with this election the elections are back to focus on a handful of main contenders due to the threshold at 5%. 2020 was the exception, with a temporarily lowered threshold of 1%. Even with the fact that the districts are abolished for 2024 (ie fully proportional and not mixed) the 5% threshold will restrict the competition, hence most smaller opposition parties that got elected in 2020 for the first time, have now consolidated for the elections. Which is emphasised with the TIE infobox. Labrang (talk) 22:18, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Besides all previously said on the topic by Zlad!, Labrang, and Jamaika-Koalition, that I fully support and agree, the tendency in Wikipedia (and now I am speaking of global Wikipedia, not just the English version) is using a more visual approach to the infobox, specially neccesary in political enviroments so focused in leaders like Georgia's.--LordDildeia (talk) 22:17, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Like there are max 10 people in the entire country that know that Tako Charkviani is in Law and Justice probably lmao. Zlad! (talk) 22:23, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

There's a difference between a broad but shallow approach that includes more party, and a narrow but deep approach hat includes stuff like leaders portraits/seats and absolute number of votes. Glide08 (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

There are many issues concerning which type of infobox should be chosen. First of all, current infobox is indeed old, as it just reflects the results of 2020 elections and many configurations have changed since then. The obvious problem with infobox including leaders' pictures is that, which parties should be present? Should Khvichia's Girchi be present for example? This creates room for unjustified discrimination based on perceived and highly speculative performances of the parties in the polls. All polls are highly speculative by default. Even if the party is doing bad in the poll, does not means that it will do bad in the election and that the polls will necessarily match the actual election results. Polls and actual election results are very different things. Depriving the party the opportunity to be present in the infobox and dismissing it as "not real contender" because of very speculative markers such as "average performance in the polls" (when the polls themselves used are just very speculative with drastically different results, with no discernible patterns being present among the polls of different pollsters), will be an unjustified discrimination.

However, the another problem is that 27 parties take part in the election, should all be present? This would be too redundant. Some parties are too insignificant, never have gotten the seat in parliament, and receive like 0.1% of votes. They obviously should not be present. Therefore, even if we don't use infobox with leaders' pictures, we still will have to cut down the number of parties and select only some parties for the infobox. In this case, chosing the infobox with leader's pictures is more correct, however, all more or less significant parties should be added (including APG, Girchi, even Labor Party). Otherwise, it would be just POV-based discrimination of parties and unjustified.

Another problem is, some parties registered in the election separately despite also being part of coalition, like For the People party for example, it is part of Strong Georgia coalition, but also registered separately for some unknown reason. Should parties like this be also present separately in the infobox? If yes, then it would be better to choose infobox without party leaders pictures, as the infobox would become too big otherwise. Rutdam (talk) 22:28, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Addition: The infobox in its current form is also highly misleading as it includes parties that are not even registered to run per CESKO, either due to not registering at all or having their registration refused: [14] [15]. This includes European Socialists, People's Power, State for the People, Progress and Freedom, NDP, VG and Law & Justice. --Jamaika-Koalition (talk) 22:29, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Exactly that. Labrang (talk) 22:40, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I don't know the intricacies of exactly which parties should be present and which not, but the general trend I see is that it's about 5%. Either 5% of seats or votes. Polls and polling averages are also valid even in an environment where they are as unreliable as in Georgia. Zlad! (talk) 22:34, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Would anyone dismiss Iago Khvichia as being unimportant in the election, despite his party not polling well? Girchi is definetly important figure in Georgian politics, and deserves representation in the infobox, just like APG. Even if they don't cross 5% therhold they will still be close and thus take some very important percents from opposition/government. Just dismissing Girchi or APG as "unimportant" or "not real contenders" is wrong, because they definetly are important figures in the election and regularily receive media coverage too. Rutdam (talk) 22:39, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The thing is Khvichia is very important genuinely as is his party, but that is not the criteria for the infoboxes. It's supposed to be about which parties will be in parliament and it will be a giant upset and shock if Khvichia's Girchi does indeed manage to cross 5% barrier. Zlad! (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

All parties which have a chance of being slightly close to 5% election therhold should be present in the infobox, because even if they don't cross it and don't get to the parliament, they will take important percents from opposition/government so their participation is imporatant in that sense since the fate of this election might get decided just by 1% (for example, Girchi takes 1%, fails to cross the therholds, and opposition loses by 1%). Even 1/2% might be decider, so all more or less significant party should be present, unless their ranking is just 0.1%. Only no-name parties should be omitted from infobox. Rutdam (talk) 22:45, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

TIE infoboxes are usually not made that way though. For example British TIE infoboxes only list Labour, Lib Dems, and the Conservatives, even though other parties crossed 5%. I like the German model personally that includes parties that cross 5% especially considering we have proportional representation when in UK they have first past the post.

idk other users should chime in. Are polling averages really original research? I don’t think so. I think its the best metric we have. Zlad! (talk) 22:51, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

The reason polls should not be used as metric is because there is no pattern between polls conducted by different organizations. In some polls ruling party has 20%, in another onee 37%, and in another one 60%. Same with other parties. These numbers are too speculative to make any conclusions. Does their average necessarily tells us anything about possible results in the upcoming elections? I don't think so. Based on what do we decide that average of these very speculative figures is a itself trustable figure? Rutdam (talk) 22:55, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Actually the average of polls in 2020 was very close to the actual results of the election. Zlad! (talk) 23:02, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

Girchi has had more influence over the last 4 years than APG. That is objectively measurable. APG hasn't been in parliament since the elections. Labrang (talk) 22:42, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

What should be done with parties that registered in the election separately despite also being part of coalition, like For the People party for example, it is part of Strong Georgia coalition, but also registered separately for some unknown reason? Unless this is decided, infobox should not be changed from current format, because it will become too messy in the end. Rutdam (talk) 22:53, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I think the deadline for this stuff is around mid September so fast approaching. For the People doesn’t deserve to be included in the infobox even if they ran separately though. Zlad! (talk) 23:01, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

These parties maintained an active registration for tactical reasons, but obviously have no intention to submit a candidate list, meaning they will drop out from actual participation. On 26 September is the deadline for candidate list submission. Then we know more. Labrang (talk) 23:04, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

I guess I’m fine with waiting till 26th of September, but an important thing to remember is nothing will change until then. No party/coalition that is projected to cross 5% is expected to have any changes to them.

Anyways, are you in favor of reinstating the TIE infoboxes for 2016 and 2020 elections? Zlad! (talk) 23:07, 12 September 2024 (UTC)

@Labrang and Jamaika-Koalition: There is a section above which was discussing which parties should be shown in the TILE infobox (i.e. which ones are contesting the election). Unfortunately it was derailed by certain editors edit warring. I would be happy to update the current form of infobox if we can get to a definitive list of which parties/coalitions that currently hold seats are running. Number 57 00:16, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

1. Georgian Dream (includes PP)

2. Unity (included UNM, SB, EG and kinda L&J)

3. Coalition for Change (Ahali, Girchi - MF, Droa, Republcans)

4. Strong Georgia (Lelo, For the people, Citizens, Freedom Square)

5. Gakharia for Georgia

6. NPC - Girchi (they hold 4 seats and are running independently, so maybe they should be the sixth party included?)

And that is it. For some smaller parties that were a part of Strength is in Unity coalition I’d imagine they either would be running on Unity’s list or abstaining from the election. For L&J it seems like just the leader is running on Unity’s list so should we include their 1 seat they won in the previous election for the total seats of Unity? Maybe. Just with how informal the coalitions are this election I support it. For any other questions I could definitely ask around and find some stuff. Zlad! (talk) 00:41, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

The parties like ES, P&F, SftP, NDP, and VG are sure as hell not taking part in the election independently. They just either can’t or are not willing to risk GD’s victory by opposition vote splitting. Zlad! (talk) 00:48, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

2024 Georgian parliamentary election

26 October 2024

All 150 seats in Parliament 76 seats needed for a majority

Parties and coalitions running for election

Parties and coalitions that won seats in 2020

Party Leader Current seats Georgian Dream Bidzina Ivanishvili 83 Unity – National Movement Tinatin Bokuchava 22 Coalition for Change Nika Gvaramia Nika Melia Zurab Japaridze Elene Khoshtaria 8 For Georgia Giorgi Gakharia 5 Strong Georgia Mamuka Khazaradze 4 APG Davit Tarkhan Mouravi 0 SLP Shalva Natelashvili 0 Incumbent Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze Georgian Dream

So the infobox could look something like to the right (the seat calculations are mentioned in the code but may well be wrong). I've also included two parties that won seats in the last election but have lost them for whatever reason.

Yeah I'm heavily against this. Look how bad CfC looks. BTW there are still many things wrong with it. It's missing NPC-Girchi, State for the People may have gifted their party to Ahali and then subsequently to CfC but I'm not sure their seats should be counted as they haven't announced themselves being a part of the coalition. 1mp of L&J should definitely be included since she is running on Unity's list, probably along with some independents. I know about 1 independent who was SB member who is running on FG's list. BTW Labour lost its MP after he didn't attend a single parliamentary session, and APG through defections before they even joined the parliament. (APG MPs created ES) Zlad! (talk) 5:06, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

2024 Georgian parliamentary election

26 October 2024
All 150 seats in Parliament 76 seats needed for a majority
File:Tina Bokuchava.png Leader Irakli Kobakhidze Tinatin Bokuchava Mamuka Khazaradze Party Georgian Dream United National Movement Lelo for Georgia Alliance – Unity – National Movement Strong Georgia Leader since 8 February 2024 8 July 2024 17 July 2024 Last election 90 seats 36 seats 6 seats   File:Giorgi Gakharia (cropped).png Leader Nika Gvaramia Nika Melia Zurab Japaridze Elene Khoshtaria Giorgi Gakharia Party Ahali For Georgia Alliance Coalition for Change – Leader since n/a 29 May 2021 Last election 2 seats Did not exist
Incumbent Prime Minister Irakli Kobakhidze Georgian Dream

This is the TIE infobox I'm proposing.

Alliance of Patriots coalition

There is this unsourced claim going around on Wikipedia that Georgian Idea and Georgian March are taking part in the election under APG's list. I wouldn't be surprised if that was true, but is there any proof of that? Does anyone have a source?

Georgian Idea party in itself is really weird as you could say that they are informally already running on APG's list as that party was gifted to alt-info after their own party Conservative Movement was banned. The party was deregistered afterwards by the government after which Alt Info transferred over to APG. Zlad! (talk) 07:22, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

I can’t say much about the Georgian March, but in the sources provided below, you can see that APG, Georgian Idea, and Conservative Movement are mentioned separately by the CM's media outlet Alt-Info. It seems that this trio is actively hosting meetings with potential voters. However, it is still unclear whether Georgian Idea has fully merged with either APG or CM.

https://alt-info.ge/archives/23027

https://alt-info.ge/archives/22654 70P53D (talk) 18:49, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

Yeah I would count this as being merged especially considering alt-info were the last leaders of Georgian Idea. But some others like Georgian March and CDM need further proof. Zlad! (talk) 19:14, 13 September 2024 (UTC)

U-NM Leadership

Hi @Zlad!, I’m curious about your view on why you consider Bokuchava as the sole and singular leader of Unity-NM. Why wouldn’t the same reasoning apply to SG with Khazaradze or CfC with Gvaramia and Melia? Unity-NM is an informal alliance (same as SG,CfC) where the party leaders who merged into them are actively participating in rallies and sharing leadership roles. Could you help clarify how these cases differ from each other? 70P53D (talk) 14:08, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Bokuchava is the singular leader of Unity for many reasons, but I reached out to Unity politicians and they confirmed it as well. With CfC they also confirmed that Gvaramia, Melia, Japaridze, and Khoshtaria were all leaders with equal weight. I tried reaching out to SG, but so far no response. Maybe it was because it was the weekends. With SG as well I feel like Khazaradze is the singular leader, but I’ll wait for their response.

If you have arguments why despite what the party states others except Bokuchava should be leaders as well, I’m willing to hear it. Zlad! (talk) 14:16, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Without concrete proof of outreach or official confirmation from the party, it’s difficult to accept these assertions. 70P53D (talk) 14:27, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Second part of my reply didn't get sent because I ran out mobile data, lol. Anyway I'll tag @AlexandreAssatiani since he is affiliated with UNM he can provide insight. Zlad! (talk) 15:45, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@AlexandreAssatiani Zlad! (talk) 15:59, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Jumping in here as a member of the Political Council of U-NM and I confirm that as we speak, the leader of the coalition is Tina Bokuchava. IF the coalition chooses at some point to nominate a prime ministerial candidate, then we can discuss questions on leadership. But as of today, Tina Bokuchava is the leader, both factually (she spearheads every event, she makes every major speech, etc.) and legally (she is officially registered as Chairwoman of the Unity - National Movement per the Ministry of Justice). --AlexandreAssatiani (talk) 10:09, 15 September 2024 (UTC)

@70P53D I know Wikipedia usually doesn’t trust what the party says and requires a source for everything, but seeing just how informal the coalitions are this election, I think we should take note of their opinions here.

I guess if we discount what is pretty obviously original research by me, we can look at weight. All 4 in C4C have equal weight, while in SG and Unity I’d argue Khazaradze and Bokuchava are dominating respectively. Maybe someone can find a first or preferably third-party source that lists who coalition leaders are, but I haven’t found it myself. Zlad! (talk) 15:38, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Supposed "collective leaderships"

Unless the coalitions have officially declared that they are led by collective leadership, it is original research to claim such thing and add pictures based on that. The information is unsourced and the pictures need to be deleted. Arguments listed on this page to claim that the some coalitions have "collective leaderships" are not backed by any sources and are based on user's personal perceptions of these coalitions, which is not a standart Wikipedia uses. On Cesko's website, we actually see that as "leaders" (ხელმძღვანელი პირი), most parties list only 1 person (for example, Khazaradze for "Strong Georgia", Bokuchava for National Movement). Only few parties list 2 persons as leaders (Akhali - Melia and Gvaramia, APG - Tarkhan-Mouravi and Inashvili). The unsourced information about supposed "collective leaderships" of the coalitions and who these "collective leaders" are, which does not conforms to any sources and the official information on Cesko's website, needs to deleted as unsourced and based on purely users' perception only. Rutdam (talk) 16:04, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree with the exception of CfC since its pretty clear they have 4 leaders. Who is the leader and who is not is not just about who the chairman is - GD's chairman is Garibashvili for example. I would also like to hear @AlexandreAssatiani's opinion on this. Zlad! (talk) 16:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

"I agree with the exception of CfC since its pretty clear they have 4 leaders" - No. It is not "pretty clear" unless the information is backed by a reliable source. Wikipedia is not blog. So we can not write article based on purely personal perceptions. So, if there is source, add it, or it also needs to be deleted. Rutdam (talk) 16:14, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Having 4 leaders is kinda their entire point. They're called Coalition 4 Change, have the election number 4, have 4 leaders. Listing Melia and Gvaramia only will be disingenuous and misleading. On all of their flyers, t-shirts, posters, coalition headquarters it's all 4 of them showing. It's a coalition of 4 people with equal weight. Zlad! (talk) 16:34, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

"They're called Coalition 4 Change, have the election number 4, have 4 leaders. Listing Melia and Gvaramia only will be disingenuous and misleading. On all of their flyers, t-shirts, posters, coalition headquarters it's all 4 of them showing. It's a coalition of 4 people with equal weight." - This is original research. Just because they are represented on "flyers, t-shirts, posters, coalition headquarters", does not means that they collectively lead coalition and make decisions collectively. It justs signifies that parties have united and they are campaigning together. But it does not necessarily implies that Khoshtaria has equal say with Melia for example in matters concerning managing the coalition.

Infering information from various supposed proofs without a source explicitly saying that the coalition is collectivly headed by 4 four leaders who make decisions collectively and have equal say, is an original research and unsourced information needs to be deleted. For the information to be included in Wikipedia, there must be a source explicitly backing the information. Rutdam (talk) 16:54, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

They are "leaders" in the sense that they lead the campaign, not necessarily the party's operations. Glide08 (talk) 18:57, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

None of these coalitions are formal alliances, they are all informal partnerships because electoral blocs were banned. As a result, their leadership structures are also informal. Therefore, not mentioning other leaders of these coalitions simply because the CESKO papers do not list them would lead to a misinterpretation/underestimation of the notability of these coalitions. 70P53D (talk) 17:01, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I agree in case of CfC and maybe SG, but definitely not Unity. Zlad! (talk) 17:03, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

let's hear other what other users who have participated in this conversation think about this. @Jamaika-Koalition, @Labrang, @number57, @J4keeS237, @Glide08, and I'll tag @AlexandreAssatiani once again and hopefully he provides his insight. Zlad! (talk) 17:07, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Unless there is a reliable source backing that, it does not matter, because only sourced information needs to be included. Cesko might not be ideal, but it is the only reliable source that is present right now. If there is a source backing the information, then it needs to present, if there is no source, then information needs to deleted. Rutdam (talk) 17:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Here is one source stating that all 4 are indeed CfC leaders.

https://mtavari.tv/news/164510-koalitsia-tsvlilebistvis-memorandumi-parlamentshi Zlad! (talk) 17:11, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

note: Mtavari, one of the biggest opposition channels in Georgia, is affiliated with Ahali's leader Gvaramia. Zlad! (talk) 17:12, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

Ok, then it is justified to add 4 of them. But I still don't like idea personally, because it looks infobox too messy. Rutdam (talk) 17:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I also don't like it visually tbh, but I feel like not including it would be worse than including it. I also have found 2 sources explicitly naming only Khazaradze as the leader of SG.

https://1tv.ge/lang/en/news/davit-gamkrelidze-to-head-strong-georgias-election-headquarters/

https://jam-news.net/geocase-to-collaborate-with-strong-georgia/ Zlad! (talk) 17:50, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I recommend removing whole leadership in infobox and just list parties in the coalitions. If somebody want to learn more about their individual leaders, they can do that type of detailed reading on individual pages. Current format is just too much. Too many faces and too many questions about their "true" role. I also find it interesting that Ivanishvili is absent from leadership, while Saakashvili's picture is shown, even though everybody knows Ivanishvili is the real leader of Georgian Dream - he is officially number one on the party's election list, so he's not even hiding any more that he is participating in leading role.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 20:05, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

@LeontinaVarlamonva I removed both Saakashvili and Ivanishvili as they are informal leaders. I also removed collective leaderships from all except CfC where it is explicit that they have 4 leaders. Is this TIE version satisfactory to you or do you support reverting back to TILE? Zlad! (talk) 20:37, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

This version is ok, I just dont think it will be very stable because questions will keep getting raised for reasons I describe above. You can keep it and see how long it lasts...--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 20:40, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

I tend to agree with Leontina. This kind of constant wikipedia arguing is getting tiresome. Sleep tight! Labrang (talk) 20:52, 14 September 2024 (UTC)

GD Leadership

@Zlad! Your claim that Kobakhidze is the leader of Georgian Dream, even though he officially isn’t, is just your subjective view. The fact that Kobakhidze is Prime Minister doesn’t back this up. I understand that he holds much more significant political weight, but by that logic, Ivanishvili, as honorary chairman and the literal puppeteer of GD (lol), has the most influence. Adding Ivanishvili, however, would create another issue, if we go that route, we’d also have to replace Bokuchava with Saakashvili, which doesn't seem fair in my opinion. To make the most sense, we need a compromise, and that should be Garibashvili. 70P53D (talk) 15:51, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Not at all. Prime Minister has way more weight than the chairman. Who we put as leaders are supposed to in a way act as party's PM candidates. I'm not exactly 100% sure on the rules, but I think this is how it is.

You may tag some more experienced editors to hear their opinion out as well. Zlad! (talk) 15:54, 1 October 2024 (UTC)

Kobakhidze is the incumbent prime minister and even though in the party structure gharibashvili is superior, atm kobakhidze holds more political power, therefore he should be shown as the leader, same as how Gakharia is listed as GD leader on the 2020 election page. Nickknee (talk) 22:14, 7 October 2024 (UTC)

It's all about who you want to be presented in the infobox (and tables) as "leader". Is that the party chairperson as registered at the election commission (the party registration for the elections) - in that case it is Irakli Gharibashvili. Is it the leader (nr. 1) of the partylist - in that case it is Bidzina I. What happens now is pick n choose a random figure - sure, in this case not really random, but the PM. But what happens in the infobox is a juggle of which person we consider the leader for that party based on a weight. Georgian media has the tendency to mention many party prominents as "leader" - not "the leader" but "a leading figure". And that we don't need here. Make a straight choice: #1 of the list or the party chair. Labrang (talk) 06:55, 16 October 2024 (UTC)

I think for ruling parties we should always show the PM, but I agree with the way we do others. I think Bokuchava is undoubtably the leader of Unity, Gakharia as well for ForGeo, Khazaradze has been shown to be the one singular leader of SG (especially confirmed after his negotiations with Gakharia), but with CfC I see no possible way to narrow it down to a singular leader. The only compromise we can go for is listing the party's n1 - Nana Malashkhia, which is 1 - absurd on many levels, 2 - completely unnecessary as it is common to see multiple people being listed in the infobox as the leader when naming just one would be misleading. Even if we were to narrow it down to the coalition's biggest party - Ahali, even that has two chairman! I don't see either Gvaramia, Melia, Japaridze, or Khoshtaria or any grouping of them rising to the role of a singular leader, they unlike all of the above mentioned coalitions seem to be a collective affair. If anything it seems like (to me) that maybe Gvaramia has the most weight out of the four comparatively, but nothing concrete. Zlad! (talk) 13:36, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Lead length

While I appreciate the vast amount of information in the lead (especially compared to the lackluster 2016 and 2020 election articles), per WP:LEAD the lead section of an article should be "The lead should briefly summarize the most important points covered in an article, in such a way that it can stand on its own as a concise version of the article" and furthermore that "[t]he length should conform to readers' expectations of a short, but useful and complete, summary of the topic" with a good indicator of length being the fact that "leads in most featured articles contain about 250 to 400 words." This article's lead section is currently sitting at over 800 words. Taking into account that the election results and any other important information regarding the election's aftermath will need to be added, the lead clearly is too long.

Shortening the lead would mostly involve reducing the amount of information presently devoted to certain party's stances/leadership as well as commentary on the EU and authoritarianism. For other examples on what this type of lead should look like, see this year's Panamanian, French, Indian, and UK elections. I would also suggest taking out or at least paraphrasing the numerous quotes in the lead, as those are typically not conducive to a summary style. Additionally, there are over forty citations in the lead at the moment. While citations in the lead are acceptable, this amount indicates that redundant citations are present and should be trimmed, per MOS:LEADCITE. Yeoutie (talk) 18:36, 24 October 2024 (UTC)

Coalition for Change main color

What should the main color of CfC be? Sources differ and they either use green or orange.

Radio Tavisufleba, for example uses orange - [16]

While, OC Media uses green - [17]

Since its contentious I'll revert back to green, but I support changing it to a color most frequently used by different sources. Zlad! (talk) 12:57, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

GORBI polls are.. suspect.

Why are we adding these polls that always give Georgian Dream an insane ammount of favorability 2 days before the election? Either they need to be removed or they need to be marked as biased in favor of Georgian Dream. I find it bogus the party can jump from 30% to 60% so quickly. ⛿ WeaponizingArchitecture | yell at me 14:53, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Gorbi's polls are pure crap. That is undeniable. However, it's also true that Edison and Savanta are skewed to the opposition. Adding Gorbi into the averages helps paint a more realistic picture. Also Gorbi, sadly, is a reputable organization to the gullible international audience however laughable that may not be to a Georgian. Zlad! (talk) 19:47, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Is it really the right results list that's displayed?

The indicated source for results redirects towards the "electronic results" of CEC website, which gives approximately the same results as the Wikipedia article presents. However, the "election results" right on the left of the "electronic" give a report rate of 63%, while the other give a 72% as I'm writing this. "Electronic results" can be seen there: https://results.cec.gov.ge/#/en-us/election_57/el/dashboard ; "Election results are here": https://results.cec.gov.ge/#/en-us/election_57/tr/dashboard. --- Plus, when I check the "Data according to majoritarian election districts and election precincts", the "election results" include some abroad offices, which the "electronic results" don't show. I believe the "electronic results" only include the votes casted by electronic machines, while the "election results" give a global result (although some offices that are in "electronic results" aren't showed in "election results", which is why there is less votes in the "election results"; I believe they will be also included later on). --- I may be wrong, and the "electronic results" may be the official results displayed, but I find it mundane, since abroad results seem like they'll be only included in "election results". Plus, it makes sense for me: a fraction of votes casted won't be electronic. --- I preferred to talk about it there instead of doing any change in the article and in the given source. PFBaguette (talk) 23:05, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Electoral map needs to be added

It is necessary to add an electoral map so that it is visible who won in which region. 212.58.102.132 (talk) 08:26, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

I think you mean electoral district. Region would be too large of a unit. The electoral district outcome is certainly indicative for election anomalies and should be shown. Labrang (talk) 07:28, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

What is point of results map when many like country's president is saying it was fraud and "Russian special operation"? Not sure neutral way to present official "results" when they may not be "real" results.--LeontinaVarlamonva (talk) 03:02, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

Minor spelling error

In responses section the word dully is used when duly is the correct spelling. Please amend. 2A00:23C8:4287:8901:816:AF56:9199:107A (talk) 09:41, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

 Partly done I just condensed what France stated and removed the direct quote. The page is long enough as is and the quotes are extending it. Bremps... 01:11, 1 November 2024 (UTC)