Talk:Electoral threshold

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Electoral threshold article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 6 months

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Effective/natural thresholds[edit]

This article only discusses explicit/legal thresholds, and doesn't mention effective/natural/implicit thresholds – except for the last sentence of the introduction, but it's not even that clear. I think this should be included, it's an important aspect of a proportional representation system. In Switzerland, it has been the subject of several supreme court decisions. I'll see if I have some time myself in the future to include this in the article; meanwhile, if somebody else feels like expanding it go ahead. --Novarupta (talk) 12:15, 13 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Bondegezou (talk) 09:29, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also agreedEdward Carson (talk) 06:48, 10 April 2017 (UTC)[reply]

EU-parliament electoral threshold[edit]

1. I believe the electoral threshold is currently at None, since the law changing it to 3.5% (vote on 3 May 2022) [1] is currently not in effect (Council did not vote on this law). My edit [2] was reverted. Sjö what do you think is the current electoral threshold?

2. Which section does EU-parliament belong? It's not a country. HudecEmil (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I believe that the link I gave when I reverted your edit gives the current rules. The threshold can best be described as "various" since they are up to the nations to decide, within the 5% limit. The section "Arrangements subject to national provisions" (A) gives an overview of this. So I think that it would be best to say it is "various" with a note saying something along the lines of "thresholds are set by the member states but may not exceed 5%". Sjö (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Agree on "various". Propose: varies for each member state up to 5% (national level), no threshold at EU level HudecEmil (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sounds OK, but I'm not sure that the EU level needs to be included, but include it if you want to. I think that the best place to put it would be in a separate paragraph at the top of the Europe section, and that the section should include a link to Elections to the European Parliament#Voting system. Sjö (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Propose splitting List of electoral thresholds by country[edit]

Proposing splitting by continent (Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America) Currently is European countries and Non-European countries. Change as seen in Electoral_threshold&oldid=1208425782 HudecEmil (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Depending on viewpoint Armenia, Georgia and Turkey could be Europe or Asia (or both?). HudecEmil (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I have no objection to that, but, please keep in mind that most members of the Council of Europe are often categorized with "Europe" in politics related articles as these countries often adhere to CoE guidelines and recommendations (especially when it comes to elections). I support splitting into continents, but all CoE member states (Which includes Cyprus, Georgia, Armenia, and Turkey), plus Russia & Belarus, should be kept with Europe. Archives908 (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

HudecEmil, read and respond per WP:BRD before you continue implementing changes. Archives908 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I put Armenia both in Europe and Asia. Template:Asia_topic includes Armenia. What is your reason for enforcing your viewpoint that Armenia is not in Asia? HudecEmil (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Latin America" is not a continent, so the proposed split seems flawed. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I've already explained it, I won't repeat it. It's redundant and completely unnecessary. Archives908 (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seem splitting among any boundary is arbitrary, including the current split Europe/non-European where Armenia, Georgia and Turkey can belong to both. Now I propose merging Europe/non-European into one table, anyone disagree? HudecEmil (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There seems to be no consensus that Council of Europe boundaries have to be used for all political articles. HudecEmil (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Propose removing some duplicated parts[edit]

In section "Amount of wasted vote" there are whole sentences duplicated from Wasted vote#History of wasted votes in proportional representation. Propose to remove these duplicated parts (leaving non-duplicated parts) and adding note Main article: Wasted vote § History of wasted votes in proportional representation. Proposed result is Electoral_threshold&oldid=1208431159 HudecEmil (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

There is not much duplication. The material here is focused on the role of electoral thresholds on the wasted vote whereas Wasted vote#History of wasted votes in proportional representation is more general, so I think it's fine to have text in both that partially overlaps. Both sections could evolve to be more distinct. A link from here to Wasted vote#History of wasted votes in proportional representation does sound useful, however. Bondegezou (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. Archives908 (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]