Template talk:Lithuanian elections

Central Lithuania

Any suggestions on how to add Election in Central Lithuania to that template?-- _{Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus | talk}  19:56, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Not sure if it should be added as the government of Central Lithuania is not a direct relation of post-WWI or post-Soviet Lithuania. I guess theoretically it should have its own section rather than be included here, as is the case with Transnistria and Northern Cyprus, both of which have separate sections rather than being included in the sections of Moldova or Cyprus. As it's one election, perhaps it should just be left as a link from the main Central Lithuania page? Number 57 21:21, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Elections order

It was mentioned in edit summary that legislative (or parliamentary) elections should come first as they predate the presidential ones. However, since the President of Lithuania is the most senior office holder and outranks all other politicians, I think it should come first on this template. --B.Lameira (talk) 18:36, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ordering of the elections is not done based on date, but on the supremacy of the respective offices. In presidential republics the presidential elections are listed first, in parliamentary republics the parliamentary elections are listed first (and I think for semi-presidential systems we list the president first simply on the basis that they are ultimately head of state). I am not sure what Lithuania's status is, but these are the rules that should be applied. Cheers, Number 57 21:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok, I changed it back to how B.Lameira suggested it. Lithuania is a semi-presidential system. No longer a penguin (talk) 07:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Presposition to create two different templates

I find it absolutely baffling that we need even to have a discussion about this, to begin with, but how on earth is it okay to put the elections of the Lithuanian SSR and the elections of the independent Republic of Lithuania in one template? These were two separate political states with one being a constituent part of a larger entity and the other one being a completely sovereign state.

Also, I'm not buying the argument about the elections of the interwar Republic of Lithuania should not be mentioned as they were indirect: you're saying that the elections of the interwar period don't count because they were indirect, but simultaneously you're perfectly fine with Lithuanian SSR fictional one-party elections that were fabricated being mentioned in the template? Are you joking me? Ignoring the elections of the interwar period is simply intellectually dishonest as it's ignoring the actual longevity of the presidential institution. So, no, it's not okay even in the slightest.

In addition, unlike Lithuania, modern Latvia and Estonia continue to have indirectly elected presidents by their parliament to this day. So, does that mean we should not mention them too? --SeriousThinker (talk) 16:59, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

In response to the first point, because It's the same territory.

In response to the second point, there is a long-standing consensus that indirect elections are not included in these templates, hence why presidential elections are not included at all on {{Latvian elections}}. You can see similar situations for {{Czech elections}}, {{French elections}}, {{German elections}} and {{Turkish elections}} – in all cases only the direct presidential elections are included (and also note that the Czech template includes legislative elections from when it was part of Czechoslovakia). Number 57 16:51, 22 September 2022 (UTC)

I see where you're going with the indirect elections and fair enough. However, I disagree with the other two explanations.

Firstly, what difference does it make whether its the same territory or not? That's not a valid argument, it's still not the same state. The Lithuanian SSR and the Republic of Lithuania have different forms of government, political institutions, currency, symbols, and etc. It's simply illogical to place the elections of the Lithuanian Supreme Soviet in a template of an independent republic that doesn't even have and never had such an institution, to begin with. Also, putting them next to the actual ones misleads people who see this as it basically reinforces the notion the Republic of Lithuania is some sort of a continuation of the Lithuanian SSR as if it was the same thing.

And secondly, to the best of my knowledge, elections in the Lithuanian SSR were one-party and one-candidate elections with no real impact on the governance of the constituent republics or the USSR at large. I wouldn't call them real elections in any sense so why are they included if we're so concerned about the will of the people in elections? – SeriousThinker, 18:39, 24 September 2022 (UTC) [reply]

I agree with not including interwar presidential elections as those were not true elections. Renata•3 21:30, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

One party states election are still elections. Templates of China, Vietnam, North Korea, etc aren't empty. Having election of a country in its template regardless of its political system or whether it was independent at the time is widely the norm all across election templates. What would be the point of forcing users to switch between different template everytime this changed ? In many countries like France we would have at least seven different templates. If it only make it more difficult to navigate, it's not a good idea. It's not the point of the templates to make a message about the democracy of an election.--Aréat (talk) 12:02, 25 September 2022 (UTC)