Talk:2016 Belarusian parliamentary election

Electoral system

Here is the link to Electoral Code (in Russian):

1. The 82 article says: "Выборы признаются состоявшимися, если в голосовании приняло участие более половины избирателей округа, включенных в списки граждан, имеющих право участвовать в выборах. Избранным считается кандидат в депутаты Палаты представителей, получивший НАИБОЛЬШЕЕ ЧИСЛО ГОЛОСОВ избирателей, принявших участие в голосовании. При проведении голосования по одной кандидатуре кандидат считается избранным, если он получил более половины голосов избирателей, принявших участие в голосовании."

Here is translation to English: "The election deems to have taken place if over a half of voters of the constituency, included in the register of votes, who has right to participate in elections. A candidate for deputies of the House of Representatives deems elected if he received the BIGGEST NUMBER OF VOTES of the voters, who have taken part in voting. When holding voting for one nominee, the candidate deems elected if he received more than a half of all votes of voters, who have taken part in voting."

As we can see, this is classical FPTP system: to be elected it is enough for candidate to get more votes than other candidates. The 50% limit is used only in case if only one candidate participate in election in exact constituency. If he fails to get more than 50%, the election deems to have not taken place - so there is no any "second round".

2. About reelection

The 87 article says: "Если по избирательному округу выборы были признаны несостоявшимися или недействительными либо баллотировался один кандидат в депутаты Палаты представителей, который не набрал необходимого количества голосов избирателей, а также в случае выбытия всех кандидатов в депутаты Центральная комиссия поручает соответственно областной, Минской городской и окружной избирательной комиссии провести в избирательном округе повторные выборы. [...] Повторные выборы признаются состоявшимися, если в голосовании приняло участие более половины избирателей округа, включенных в списки граждан, имеющих право участвовать в выборах. Избранным считается кандидат в депутаты Палаты представителей, получивший наибольшее число голосов избирателей, принявших участие в голосовании. При проведении голосования по одной кандидатуре кандидат считается избранным, если он получил более половины голосов избирателей, принявших участие в голосовании."

Translation: "If in the constituency election was deemed to have not taken place or invalid or there was one candidate for deputies of the House of Representatives, who failed to get enough votes of voters, and also in case of quitting all the candidates Central commission charges to oblast, Minsk municipal and district electoral committee to provide a REELECTION. [...] The reelection deems to have taken place if OVER A HALF of voters of the constituency, included in the register of votes, who has right to participate in elections. A candidate for deputies of the House of Representatives deems elected if he received the BIGGEST NUMBER OF VOTES of the voters, who have taken part in voting. When holding voting for one nominee, the candidate deems elected if he received more than a half of all votes of voters, who have taken part in voting."

I am sure that reelection can not be described as "second round", because it has the same rules as the election own, also all the candidates have to register newly. Pay attention that there are the same requirements for candidate to be elected and for election to be considered valid.

Based on the above I ask to change next things:

1) change "two-round system" into "FPTP";

2) remove words "or 25% in the second round" about voters turnout. Even if we consider reelection to be "second round", requirement to turnout is still 50%;

3) remove words "unless there is only one candidate in the second round, in which case there is no turnout requirement and a candidate needs only a majority of votes cast", because it is fully false;

4) remove links to http://www.electionguide.org and http://www.ipu.org because unfortunately they content incorrect information.

I hope you will agree that official law that is located on site of The Central Commission of the Republic of Belarus is more weighty then information on informational sites, that are administrated by non-Belarussians.

Olek Bokhan (talk) 21:55, 8 September 2016 (UTC)Oleksand Bokhan

All the standard sources for elections describe the Belarusian system as a two-round system. This includes:

• Inter-Parliamentary Union "In the first round, voting is considered valid if over 50 per cent of eligible voters take part in the polls. Candidates who receive over 50 per cent of votes are declared elected. If none of the candidates obtains 50 per cent of votes, a run-off election between the two leading candidates is held within two weeks... If the second round of voting is held for only one candidate, the candidate needs to obtain the support of over half of the voters taking part in the election."
• IFES: "In order to be considered valid, 50 percent of voters must show up to vote. If a second round is necessary in a district, this threshold is lowered to 25 percent."
• Nohlen & Stöver: "Candidates need to receive at more than 50% of the valid vote to be elected. If no candidate gets the necessary number of votes, a run-off is held within two weeks... If one of the two candidates withdraws before the runoff, the second round still has to take place as voters may cast a negative vote".

Also, the official English source that you used earlier suggests a majority (not a plurality) is required: "A candidate for deputies of the House of Representatives deems elected if he/ she received the majority vote of the voters, who have taken part in voting." Number 57 22:34, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I searched for more information on this topic and found the root of all the problems. All standard sources describe previous Belarussian electoral system. Indeed, the electoral system in Belarus was two-round. But on 25 November 2013 the changes into Electoral Code were adopted. Here is a link on the law that changed the Code: http://www.epde.org/tl_files/EPDE/RESSOURCES/Electoral%20Legislation/BY_amend_elCode_25.11.13_RU.pdf. Also, I found the English text of Electoral Code: http://law.by/main.aspx?guid=3871&p0=Hk0000370ee.

About the official English source: this text could be written by person, who has paid small attention on difference between English words "majority" and "plurality" (furthermore, there is the conception of "relative majority"). The more important thing is that this text is not the law, but only informational article. In case of any doubts we must read the text of living low - Electoral Code. Text of the Code avoids any doubts: it says about "the greatest number of votes" (Russian "наибольшее число голосов").

A few links on this topic: 1) "New Electoral Code of Belarus (amended in November 25, 2013) effectively changes the country’s electoral system from TRS into FPTP." - http://www.idea.int/esd/country.cfm?id=35; 2) "Another novelty specifically affects parliamentary elections: they will now run according to the first-past-the-post model when a simple majority wins the election." - http://belarusdigest.com/story/belarusian-domestic-politics-2013-cautious-authorities-and-divided-opposition-16557; 3) "Another procedural novelty relates to defining the winner during parliamentary elections. There will be no need to receive more than 50% of the ballots; victory with just a simple majority will be enough." - http://belarusdigest.com/story/electoral-reform-belarus-liberalisation-or-window-dressing-15076.

That is why I insist on changes proposed by me. Olek Bokhan (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

OK, no problem, that makes sense. One question though (I cannot work it out from the Electoral Code): Is the 50% turnout requirement applicable to the election as a whole, or does it apply in each individual constituency (e.g. a constituency with a turnout of 45% would have a re-election?). Cheers, Number 57 11:36, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Article 82 consists turnout requirement to each constituency separately. I have not found any regulations in the Code that describes possibility of recognition the whole election invalid, based on low turnout or anything else.Olek Bokhan (talk) 12:24, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Thanks – I've added that to the article. Number 57 13:23, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

References

Percents in the results table

As we know, the electoral system is FPTP. That means that voters do not vote for parties directly. But it is possible to vote for a candidate, nominated by party. What do you think, it is correct to count percents of votes by each party as percents of votes for candidates, nominated by it? I have doubt that we can use these numbers to judge about paries support among voters, because no one party has nominated candidates in every constituency.Olek Bokhan (talk) 20:25, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

If we have a number of votes cast for all candidates of each party, then we should add it to the table. Parties not standing in all constituencies isn't a problem (for instance, we still give an overall national vote/percentage figure to parties like the Scottish National Party in British elections even though they only run in Scotland). I'd be happy to tabulate it if it's only available in lists (I recently calculated the parliamentary results for Zambia, which involved adding up the results from all 150+ constituencies). Number 57 20:49, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Agrarian party

This party has not nominated candidatures in any constituency. I have removed it from the result table. I suggest to remove it from the section about participating parties. Olek Bokhan (talk) 22:52, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Go for it. Number 57 23:33, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Make a note about it below the table. It is always annoying when the pre-election and post-election numbers do not add up and since the Agrarians had a seat in the previous assembly it should be mentioned that they didn't contest this one. Technically there was also one seat vacant after the previous election, which was later won by an independent (presumably in a by-election? though appointment can not be completely ruled out in Belarus), so the number of independents at the previous election was one lower than the number in the outgoing assembly. Again, its annoying if the numbers do not add up and you have no explanation of why, so there should be a note.--Batmacumba (talk) 06:46, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Source of results

The table of results by party is attributed to the CEC. Yet the CEC website does not provide party identification for candidates, as far as I can see. What is the source for this information? Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 00:52, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

@Olek Bokhan: should be able to answer this question. Number 57 22:29, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I will delete the table tomorrow unless an answer is provided. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 11:08, 9 December 2016 (UTC)

That is unacceptable sabotage. When it comes to elections in places like Belarus you will often have to rely on the discretion of well informed local users (this applies to a wide range of election related articles, and should be discussed more broadly if changes are to be made in the de facto policy), and in this case the information is uncontroversial. I will revert the edit if you remove the info.--Batmacumba (talk) 05:41, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

As always, the only way I can get a response is to threaten to delete something. You surely know that Wikipedia does not work on the basis of "the discretion of well informed local users." It works on the basis of facts which can be referenced to reliable sources. I have no idea who the author of these figures is, and nor does anyone else. They could be complete invention as far as anyone can tell. If you know who the author is, I suggest you advise them to provide a source. Otherwise the table must be deleted in accordance with Wikipedia's long-standing rules on verifiability. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 05:53, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

The source is Belarusian media as reported by a Belarusian poster (Olek Bokhan) and at the time checked by others, while its regrettable that he didn't source them that doesn't make them unreliable. And yes, election articles from "exotic places" do to some extent run on info by well-informed local users. Its a fiction that everything on Wiki is sourced,its the ideal, but not the reality.--Batmacumba (talk) 06:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Deleting this info basically makes the whole article useless as the party distribution is the central element in an election result. At least give Oleg B. time to respond. He is a semi-regular, who usually edits articles at some point every month, and last contributed on November 17. He will be back soon and can tell you the exact source.--Batmacumba (talk) 06:10, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Generally, rather than threatening to delete info its much more constructive to browse through the article history and identify the user that has contributed the unsourced info and then leave a message on his/her talk page. This article was built by a relatively small number of people with only one native contributor, so it wouldn't have been that hard to locate the person who provided the info.--Batmacumba (talk) 07:07, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

He didn't say the source was Belarusian media, he said it was the CEC, as he has now confirmed below. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Greetings, guys! All information about party affiliation of candidates you can find in the next documents of CEC, separated to each region:

• http://rec.gov.by/sites/default/files/pdf/Elections-PPNS6-kand1.pdf
• http://rec.gov.by/sites/default/files/pdf/Elections-PPNS6-kand2.pdf
• http://rec.gov.by/sites/default/files/pdf/Elections-PPNS6-kand3.pdf
• http://rec.gov.by/sites/default/files/pdf/Elections-PPNS6-kand4.pdf
• http://rec.gov.by/sites/default/files/pdf/Elections-PPNS6-kand5.pdf
• http://rec.gov.by/sites/default/files/pdf/Elections-PPNS6-kand6.pdf
• http://rec.gov.by/sites/default/files/pdf/Elections-PPNS6-kand7.pdf

Olek Bokhan (talk) 09:33, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for providing that information. This argument wouldn't have been necessary if you had provided those links in the first place. You should now change the source information in the article. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 11:39, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

This discussion was never necessary, apart from you being an obnoxious busybody.--Batmacumba (talk) 23:50, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

I could, if I wished, ask why this discussion is any business of yours at all. I asked for information about the source of the table to be provided. I waited six days, and when the information was not provided, I said I would delete the table since it was not in conformity with Wikipedia's long-standing rule about verifiable sources. The information was then provided by Olek, for which I thanked him. All you have done is make abusive remarks. I suggest you go and do something useful. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 11:35, 15 December 2016 (UTC)