Talk:Congressional districts of the Philippines

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Change "at-large" to "lone"[edit]

While "at-large" district is technically correct, and is used in the United States House of Representatives, the term used here in the Philippines is "lone" district. Look at the list of district representatives on the congress' official website. It should be changed in accordance with MOS:TIES e.g. Antique's at-large congressional district → Antique's lone congressional district. Jollibinay (talk) 06:46, 12 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've thought about this, and at-large holds, as it also encompasses times when an "at-large" district is represented by two or more representatives (during the 2nd Republic and Regular Batasang Pambansa days). "Lone district" refers to a single-member district encompassing an entire LGU. I don't think it's proper to say that for Senate purposes, the Philippines is a "lone district", vs. "The Philippine Senate is elected 'at large'." Howard the Duck (talk) 20:10, 9 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Suggestion[edit]

@RioHondo and Howard the Duck: Can we make this article look like the List of constituencies of the National Assembly of France and move its content to List of members of the 18th Congress of the Philippines? —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 08:28, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • Good question. Hmm, in Wikipedia, anything is possible. My only worry is the accuracy of each member's political party, because we don't want to be changing them all the time dont we? Once weve shown those recent parties in control in the last 5 to 6 terms also. So again, how stable are those parties? My observation, theres a higher chance of getting the 1907 to 1986 parties right, compared to the 1987 to present where sources may differ on where each members political affiliations are.--RioHondo (talk) 08:50, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Umm, we dont need to copy the French table entirely cause Population and Area figures are also important data IMO. Population is supposed to be the basis for the creation of these districts so that definitely has to be included. Also, it would be so much better if the parties are identified through their colors only to save space. I can barely read them with color backgrounds anyway. Lets see how this can be improved. You left out the regions column too which is also very important as these are where the links to individual districts are grouped in our navbox below (and i think HTD also suggested creating overview articles per region that would house Cebu City's two districts, Mandaue and Lapu-Lapu's individual districts and those of the rest of Cebu, Bohol, Siquijor and Negros Oriental in one article, like how our House elections results articles are grouped. This is where i also intend to list the members of each region's at large representation for the Interim BP) I suggest we keep the one we have now and just add the 5 earlier congresses and just their party colors, with a separate table enumerating what those colors stand for? Will continue writing articles particularly the older districts and historical ones. Meanwhile, will leave the newer ones to you, HTD and i think we have a new volunteer ;).--RioHondo (talk) 13:03, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Just a question, which electorate count should we use: the 2016 one or the current one (as updated by our new volunteer recently)? And how about the land area of other districts? I noticed some of them are dashed out. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 13:22, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • 2019 is fine, that was from the most recent elections. i just didn't see this new data having been uploaded by Comelec. When the census data comes out later this year, its been 5 years since the last one from 2015, we will need to update the Population numbers too. As for districts with no area figures, that's cos PSA hasnt come out with the data for the barangay components of a district within a city. Thats usually the case for recently created districts i believe.--RioHondo (talk) 13:42, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Another question, why is the other half of Taguig (that has nothing to do with Pateros) named Taguig–Pateros's 2nd? Aren't they supposed to be two separate lone districts? I hope Pateros gets its own congressional district soon. Btw, it seems like some defunct districts aren't listed yet on the navbox, like Cavite City's at-large. —hueman1 (talk • contributions) 16:34, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cavite City district you said? I dont see it in the roster page of the House of Representatives website. When was the city represented as its own at large district separate from the province though? As for Taguig-Pateros 1st and Taguig-Pateros 2nd, that's whats written in the House website. The speaker belonging to the 1st and the wifey representing the 2nd. Its the same citation i used in the main article list. Given Pateros's extremely small population and desperately small area, i dont think it will get its own anytime soon. I mean the town is even smaller than the smallest barangay in Muntinlupa and Paranaque lol.--RioHondo (talk) 18:24, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • HueMan1 talks about defunct districts. Cavite City had its own representation in the National Assembly (Second Philippine Republic). About Pateros and Taguig's congressional districts, COMELEC ballot for 2019 lists them as "Lone District of Taguig-Pateros" and "Lone District of Taguig". News articles and house bills filed by the representatives, though, use "1st District of Taguig-Pateros" and "2nd District of Taguig". For this article and all others, I suggest that we name them Taguig-Pateros's 1st and Taguig's 2nd. I think it is not accurate to label the 2nd district as "Taguig-Pateros's 2nd" since Pateros is not represented in this district, and "Taguig-Pateros" is not an established government unit.—Jmsay (talk) 05:01, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Taguig does have 2 districts for City Council purposes, but its 1st district includes Pateros for congressional representation purposes. A district needs 250k people so Pateros won't get one if it's redistricted out of the congressional district it is on, but it can if it's converted into a city, just as what happened to San Juan and Navotas. While I don't see that happening, that's more feasible that the first option.
  • As for naming purposes, I would've wanted Pateros-Taguig 1st, and Taguig 2nd or Taguig-1st/Pateros and Taguig-2nd, but since that's not how we name the former, we're stuck with Taguig--Pateros-1st, and Taguig-2nd. Howard the Duck (talk) 06:25, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I see that an article on Legislative district of Cavite City had been created. I just dont see it in the official roster of legislators in the House website, but it does list those delegates as part of Cavite's at-large congressional district. So which do we follow? I cant see the sources for Cavite City's article though. This needs further investigation. Btw thanks for your help Jmsay. The reason we are creating these congressional districts articles is cos the Legislative districts series have changed scope, as legislative districts per se means electoral districts for any legislative body, so that includes the Senate (senatorial districts), provincial board and city council districts as per the main article. This means all the existing legislative district articles will be converted into overview articles covering both national and local legislatures where an LGU is divided and represented.--RioHondo (talk) 09:56, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • As for Taguig-Pateros, again it's an official website entry that we have been using. How reliable is congress.gov.ph anyway? Lol. But we can always switch them around once articles for them have been created.--RioHondo (talk) 10:04, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Congress.gov.ph shows multiple legislators from Cavite (non from Cavite City specifically). I'd say it should be redirected to Legislative districts of Cavite. For Taguig-2nd and Taguig-Pateros-1st, it shows Taguig City/Pateros with 1st and 2nd districts, and lone district when it was one. For Taguig City, it only shows 2nd district during the 14th Congress. The 2019 elections website does show both "Lone Legdist", but Taguig's 2 councilor districts are distinguished. Howard the Duck (talk) 11:52, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • A lot of inconsistencies depending on which website you look. And i have not even started with the pre 1972 House election results articles with parties that are inconsistent with my actual research hehe. It wasnt all Nacionalista/ Nacionalista vs Liberal or black and white as the articles and BLPs here currently make it appear. There's a lot more Democratas (rock stars ;)), Progresistas (whigs!), Liga Popular, Democratic, Sakdalistas (leftist), Popular Front, DA (leftist) and Young Philippines as i discovered so far. I am enjoying all these discoveries. The 1922 Colectivistas werent all Nacionalistas and that those that wrote Nacionalista as their party then were the Unipersonalistas who remained with Osmeña. It was Quezon and his group who bolted from the Nacionalista to form the Colectivista party. Anyway, best to decide on which website to use. If we are to rely on the congress website then i suggest we rely on it exclusively, which means we stick to Taguig-Pateros 1st & 2nd and all the districts not written there would have to be removed.--RioHondo (talk) 13:06, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sources for Party Membership during Congress[edit]

Where can I find sources for party membership of representatives, especially in the 8th congress onwards? I am having a hard time completing articles because they lack some information about party membership for certain congresses. Thanks!—Jmsay (talk) 17:18, 18 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Congressional_districts_of_the_Philippines&oldid=1198072981"