Talk:1921 Italian general election

Royalist faction?
Why wasn't there a royalist party in the election of 1921? Was King Umberto blamed for an error of some kind? 216.99.201.154 (talk) 08:30, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

In 1921 Vittorio Emanuele III was the king of Italy, not Umberto. In that time almost all the parties were royalist, so that an official royalist party was not necessary.--165.112.29.170 (talk) 19:00, 28 November 2012 (UTC) Simone

Constitutional List
Checco, Ritchie92, Autospark, Scia Della Cometa: Hi everybody, Facquis edited this article, introducing the results of a so-called Constitutional List (of which I've never herd before). The electoral results are quite clear and are cited here, at page "XLIII". Even if all the parties of this "Constitutional List" governed together, I sincerely don't know why we should put them together in the electoral results... -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:12, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * By studying this document I discovered that the division of the various lists is largely arbitrary except for PSI, PPI, PCd'I, PRI, SeT and Psd'Az. For example in Abruzzo (page 75) the so-called Constitutional party identified by the document as a Liberal list appeared. The elected, however, do not belong to the liberal party if not one in fact they are 6 of the PLD, 3 PDSI, 2 FIC, 1 ANI and 1 PSRI (page 45 or XLV). In the old version it seems that the national blocs are a party and that the fascists in parliament were only two and not 36 as in reality, therefore I think it is better to completely abandon the division of the constitutional lists into arbitrary currents totally disconnected from the parties that represent and adopt this new version--Facquis (talk) 18:56, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Constitutional lists is a name you can find on page 55 (LV)--Facquis (talk) 07:27, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, I agree regarding National Blocs, we should split them pointing out the seats gained by each party. However, even if I know that the results of “liberal” parties aren’t clear, I’m not totally sure that the “Constitutional List” woul be the best solution, mainly because in that official document they are kept separated in the “overall results”. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * On page 40 (XL) the document says "Conseguenza di ciò è che, se anche alcuni di questi partiti, come il fascista e il combattente, si trovano indicati a parte perché in alcuni Collegi posero le loro candidature senza alleanze, le cifre esposte per essi nel prospetto non rappresentano il complessivo genuino risultato raggiunto dal partito, a causa appunto dei blocchi che, come si è già, detto, qua e là, resero impossibile di sceverare la parte che nelle forze di coalizione spettava a ciascuno. Ma poiché non sarebbe stato opportuno di confondere. tutte assieme le liste presentate da questi nuclei, le abbiamo raggruppate in questo modo:". So the document divides the lists according to ideological affiliations that however have nothing to do with the parties that really make them up, moreover it would not be possible to even specify the composition of the National Blocks given that for example in Piedmont a list belonging to the BN presented itself only in the circumscription of Alessandria when the document instead provides the real parliamentary composition according to the region and not to the circumscription. Due to this lack of data, I believe that the most appropriate thing to do is to aggregate the votes of these lists under a single item and then only show the distribution of seats. The data as it is now is false. In addition, the documeno also gathers the parties when he has to compare the seats for the elections of 1919 and 1921 (page 44, XLIV). I believe that the escamotage of the Constitutional Lists is the clearest and most practical choice, clearly describing in the parties section the meaning of Constitutional Lists.--Facquis (talk) 08:49, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, I understand your point of view, however I think this could be an original research, moreover I'm not sure where the name "Constitutional List" appears in that document. Even if they have probably made some mistakes in reporting all the electoral results, we have an official summary made by the Ministry, which is by far the most reliable source, why shouldn't we use it? We cannot modified a 100 years-old official document of the Ministry. -- Nick.mon (talk) 13:14, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * It is not an original research since all the data are extrapolated from the same document, it is only a matter of ignoring the tables on pages 42 and 43 and rather using all the analytical tables below and the table containing the members by region. it is a fact that in parliament the fascists were not 2 but 36, just as the number of other parliamentarians is completely distorted. "Constitutional Lists" could be renamed "Other Lists" instead of, but the point is that the division made on the document is only by ideological affinity of the lists and independent of the parties that constitute them. One way, however, I think should be found because as it currently is, the page is not good, the results are false.--Facquis (talk) 13:32, 11 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe "Liberal lists" would be more correct, even if they weren't all liberals. However, with "your" format the National Bloc de facto disappears. -- Nick.mon (talk) 15:21, 11 January 2020 (UTC)