Talk:1960 Cypriot legislative election

“PEKA”
The article claims that, “ the newly formed Pan-Cyprian Union of Fighters did not participate in the elections.” and that instead the third candidate was PEKA. I believe this is untrue, and that the sources listed are mistaken. According to http://www.papademetris.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=1991:s-1433&catid=187:1959-1960-8&Itemid=120, the Cypriot newspaper “phileleftheros” 1 August 1960 and the book “ Βουλευτικές: Ιστορία Αριθμοί Ανάλυση” (ISBN 9789963798241), whose relevant article on the internet is http://www.eklektor.org/el/vouleftikes-ekloges-1960-analysi/ the Pancyprian Union of Fighters did field 3 candidates. In fact, it was created for the sole purpose to contest this elections! In fact, according to wikipedia itself, PEKA ceased to exist in 1959, as did EOKA. Should I edit the article?
 * Just a word of caution – don't believe everything you read in Wikipedia. The PEKA article claims it ceased to exist in 1959, but it is unsourced and may not be true. Today I corrected an article which had several incorrect dates for ministerial appointments.
 * However, based on this image, it looks like you are right (I checked the totals assigned to candidates of "ΣΥΝΔΥΑΣΜΟΣ ΠΑΓΚΥΠΡΙΟΥ ΣΥΝΔΕΣΜΟΥ ΑΓΩΝΙΣΤΩΝ"/"ΥΠΟΨΗΦΙΟΣ ΣΥΝΔΕΣΜΟΥ ΑΓΩΝΙΣΤΩΝ", and they match PEKA). By all means edit the article to correct this.
 * I notice the invalid votes are given, but for only four of the five districts. I guess this is therefore incomplete and cannot be added.
 * Out of interest, what is the second set of results that starts after the fifth constituency. I can barely read it. Are these the Turkish Cypriot results? Number   5  7  17:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I am aware of the fact that information in Wikipedia may not be true but in this one, even though unsourced, almost definitely is correct. As PEKA was the political wing of EOKA I find it likely it ceased to exist when EOKA did, especially since the majority of EOKA’s Supporters later supported the Patriotic Front.
 * I believe I should make the edits with the book as my source as it contains all the information including the invalid votes. I also believe I can add even more information with this source to the overall results.
 * As for the second set of results, it is indeed the Turkish Cypriots’ results. (Which I thought were not published) the book I wish to cite does not list them, however, so if I add them to he page, I will probably have to decode this image.
 * Do you agree with my use of the book as a source to expand the results? I could also use the newspaper but I think it would be hard to acquire.
 * The invalid votes are as follows:

Nicosia: 1083 Keryneia: 111 Famagusta: 458 Larnaka: 82 Limassol: 422

KnolGua (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Please do go ahead and make the edits (sorry, I somehow missed the bit where you referred to a book), and thanks for the work on finding all the details. I don't think the image is the entire set of Turkish results, but we might be able to find that issue of Ethnos (and more legible versions) elsewhere or by requesting it at WP:RX. Cheers, Number   5  7  18:51, 11 April 2020 (UTC)


 * It is the entire set. There were elections in only 3 districts as in the rest all candidates were elected unopposed.KnolGua (talk) 18:56, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Ah, ok. I was just actually about to ask why results for only five Greek constituencies are listed. I guess one was also uncontested? I've also asked at WikiProject Greece if anyone has access to an Ethnos archive to get that page more clearly (I can just about make out most of the numbers, but wouldn't be 100% certain). Number   5  7  19:00, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The source where we gained access to the Ethnos newspaper lists the exact numbers for each of the Turkish Cypriot candidates who received the most votes in their district. (But it does not list the results from every candidate). This is what it says:

Τελικά εξελέγησαν οι ακόλουθοι κατά επαρχία που ανήκαν στο Εθνικιστικό Κόμμα, του Φαζίλ Κουτσιούκ, Αντιπροέδρου της Κυπριακής Δημοκρατίας: Οσμάν Ορέκ, Φαζίλ Πλουμέρ, Ουμίτ Σουλεϊμάν Ονάν, Χαλίτ Αλί Ριζά και Σελτσιούκ Σιακίρ Σομέτ (Λευκωσία),Νιαζί Μανιέρα, Χασσάν Γκιουβενέρ και Μπουρχάν Ναλμπάντογλου (Αμμόχωστος) Χουσεϊν Ντερβίς και Τζεμίλ Ραματάν (Λεμεσός), Αχμέτ Αζίζ Αλτάϊ και Χαλίτ Κκιαζίμ Σεμσεντίν (Πάφος), και Αχμέτ Μιθάτ Μπερμπέρογλου (Κερύνεια).


 * Οι βουλευτές Λευκωσίας, Λάρνακας και Κερύνειας ανακηρύχθηκαν χωρίς εκλογές. Στη Λεμεσό, Αμμόχωστο και Πάφο έγιναν εκλογές και εξελέγησαν και οι επτά υποψήφιοι του Κόμματος του Κουτσιούκ.

Το σύνολο των εγγεγραμμένων Τούρκων ψηφοφόρων στις επαρχίες που έγιναν εκλογές ήταν 23.005. Η αποχή έφθασε στους 9.943 ή 25.8%.

Αναλυτικότερα στην Αμμόχωστο από τους 9.154 εγγεγραμμένους ψήφισαν οι 6.792, ση Λεμεσό από τους 6.561 ψήφισαν οι 4.865 και στην Πάφο από τους 7.290 ψήφισαν οι 5.405.

Το σύνολο των εγγεγραμμένων Τούρκων ψηφοφόρων στις επαρχίες που έγιναν εκλογές ήταν 23.005. Η αποχή έφθασε στους 9.943 ή 25.8%.

Αναλυτικότερα στην Αμμόχωστο από τους 9.154 εγγεγραμμένους ψήφισαν οι 6.792, ση Λεμεσό από τους 6.561 ψήφισαν οι 4.865 και στην Πάφο από τους 7.290 ψήφισαν οι 5.405.

Κατά επαρχία πρώτοι αναδείχθηκαν ο Τζεμίλ Ραματάν στη Λεμεσό με 2,251. ο Νιαζί Μανιέρα στην Αμμόχωστο με 5.024 και στην Πάφο ο Κιαζίμ Σεμσεντίν με 4.369.


 * Rough translation:

The Seats of Nicosia, Larnaca and Kyrenia were declared without elections. Elections were held in Limassol, Famagusta and Paphos, and all seven Kuchuk Party candidates were elected.

The total number of registered Turkish voters in the provinces where the elections took place was 23,005. Abstinence reached 9,943 or 25.8%.

More specifically, in Famagusta, out of 9,154 registered voters, 6,792 voted, in Limassol, out of 6,561, 4,865 voted, and in Paphos, out of 7,290, 5,405 voted.

Cemil Ramatan was the first in the province with 2,251. Niazi Maniere in Famagusta with 5,024 and in Paphos Kiazim Semsedin with 4,369.

Please excuse my use of Google Translate


 * By the way, I also wish to make some changes based on the book “Βουλεφτικες: Ιστορία, Αριθμοί, Ανάλυση” in the 1970 elections’ article.

KnolGua (talk) 19:15, 11 April 2020 (UTC) Shall I write the results for each district as well? KnolGua (talk) 19:35, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't take too much space, I don't see why not. Number   5  7  19:49, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The results in the table don't seem to add up. The total of the valid votes is 148,645, but you have given a total of 136,062. Similarly, the percentages add up to 109%. Also, I thought you were going to use the book as the source, but you have cited the Elektor website. The strange totalling would suggest that website is not correct in some way, so perhaps best to go with the book? Cheers, Number   5  7  23:42, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I also noticed the Elektor website gives different results to Ethnos (according to Ethnos, there was no Pancyprian Union of Fighters candidate in Larnaca; the website seems to have one of the independents as as a PUF candidate). Number   5  7  23:48, 11 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I have found many sources. Some disagree and some agree with the PUF’s support of Alexandros Dimitriou in Larnaca (The newspaper “Fileleftheros” of which I own a copy of from 1960 also lists Dimitriou as being supported by the PUF).
 * The reason for the fact that many things don’t add up us that a person could vote for more than one party. Each person had as many votes as there were candidates in their constiuency and they could distribute them however they desired regardless of parties. However, parties could form “lists” where you could just select a box above the list to give your vote to all of its candidates. I believe the reason for the confusion of Dimitriou’s candidacy was that party names might not have been listed above the list so if Dimitriou was a list of his own then it would be unclear if he was a member of a party (assuming independent candidates were listed in separate lists, which is the case today in Cyprus). It is also likely that the PUF was not an official party and just endorsed some candidates. Regardless, I believe we should stick to the idea that he was either a member of or endorsed by the PUA as this is what our current source lists. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KnolGua (talk • contribs) 00:02, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * In that case, rather than using these 'average' figures, would it just be easier to total up all votes cast for each candidate of each party and use that as a total? This is how it's done for countries like Luxembourg (see e.g. here) or Mauritius (see here), which have similar electoral systems. We can't have a table where totals of percentages and votes cast don't add up (I've also just noticed that the percentages in the 1970 election are way over 100% too). Number   5  7  00:05, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I believe this would not be correct as every source I have ever seen reports the elections using “average” figures. It just seems that this was the norm in reporting election results at the time in Cyprus. I think we must report the results the way they were reported at the time and not how they are reported in similar cases today. I believe that we can fix this confusion by expanding the “electoral system” part of the article.

KnolGua (talk) 00:13, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

I just saw the edits you made to the article. Thank you very much for making the table clearer. I was trying to figure out how I would make it more visually appealing. I see you have also merged the tables again. I understand why you would do this but I was intending to write the results for each district for the Greek Cypriot elections, and I separated the Turkish Cypriot results so that I could later on write these results below the “Greek Community” and above the “Turkish Community” results. I also see you listed eklektor as the source for the results entirely. I refrained from doing so because it did not actually list the Total Turkish Community votes or registered voters. KnolGua (talk) 00:21, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * OK, no problem using the averages, but we do need to make sure the "total" line and the percentages add up. The actual total is 148,445, and this is what should be used to work out the percentages (the reason they add up to more than 100% is they are based on the 136k figure.
 * With regards to the table split, when we have constituency-level results, we typically have a national results table, followed by a "By constituency" section, so the Greek constituency results would be in that, beneath the national Turkish results. Elektor is cited alongside Oron (which the Turkish results are from), so the table is not entirely sourced to it. If it's an issue, we can have a source row beneath the Registered voters row for the Greek community, so it's clearer which part is refernece to which, or we can simply write Elektor (Greek), Oron (Turkish) at the bottom. Number   5  7  00:37, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * My only problem with this is that we would have to edit every percentage. For one, I was wandering if this counts as Own Research, as this is not how the results are on the source. Secondly, I think it would be more useful to the readers of Wikipedia to see what percentage of voters supported each candidate and not which percentage of votes were given to each party, as this gives more weight to people who supported more than one party. Perhaps we could add a note, explaining why the numbers don’t add up? (This is what the Greek article for these elections does, but that one has wrong explanations!)

KnolGua (talk) 00:47, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Basic calculations such as additions and percentages are not deemed original research per WP:CALC (in many cases, editors create results tables by adding up constituency-level results when election commissions don't produce the totals themselves). I can't see how the current percentages are an accurate reflection of how many voters supported each candidate, as it looks like there are more than 100% worth of voters (honestly I cannot work out any logical reason why they would calculate them in a way that added up to more than 100%). If we base the percentages on the totals of the 'average' vote, that would still reflect the percentage support for the various candidates/parties. Number   5  7  00:56, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Well, the percentages given reflect what percentage of Greek Cypriots voted for each party, and some voted for more than one. If someone reads the results of an election, they expect to see what percentage of voters supported each party. Say, for example, that all of the nine percent of votes-to-more-than-one-party were given to AKEL. It would be unfair to report the percentages as if all of the votes-to-more-than-one-party were spread evenly among all the parties as this was not the case, and we would not express what percentage of voters actually supported AKEL (in this example). Regarding my comments on own research, I must admit I was mistaken, but what I meant was that this would show a disagreement with the source (which lists the percentages as I have). Wasn’t disagreement with sources the reason these edits were made in the first place? KnolGua (talk) 01:33, 12 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The averages tell us the actual percentage of voters that cast at least one vote for a candidate of each party though, they just tell us that some voters cast votes for more than one party, so it's not an accurate reflection of actual voting habits. The Elektor source does actually have percentages that add up to 100% this page.
 * With regards to disagreements, a note can be put in the source code to describe any differences. It happens quite regularly that election commissions publish incorrect percentages, because either they've added it up wrong, or they have not rounded correctly, and we as editors correct it, usually leaving a note to say why. Anyway, if we are still in disagreement, I'm happy to get some wider input from other election editors to see what they think. Cheers, Number   5  7  12:27, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Indeed, the averages divide each vote by the number of candidates in the relevant party (so 10 for the PF in Nicosia), but if anything this is even more accurate than saying what percentage of voters gave at least one vote to each party, because if a voter voted for more than one party by finding the average we give the percentage of their vote which went to one party to that party, so if a person gave one half of their votes to a party and the other half to another party (assuming both parties fielded full lists of candidates) 0.5 votes would be given to each party when we find the averages. Of course in this case it is much more complicated, as no party fielded a full list of candidates, meaning that a person could vote for every candidate in one party and every candidate in another, which would give them both a single average vote, as when we find the average of a party we use its total candidates, but a person’s votes are as many as there are seats in their constituency. But what I said about percentages is still true. Using 144K as a percentage is odd, as it is a number which is also formed by some factors which are independent of the votes received by a specific party. If a party received a certain number of (average) votes in one election, and in another, with the exact same amount of voters, valid votes, etc. but more people voted for more than one party the party’s percentage would be reduced even if none of its voters voted for another party. By using the 144 K to calculate the percentages what we are trying to do is to negate the effect of votes given to more than one party, but this is impossible as we do not know which votes were given to more than one party. Let me give an example. Imagine a country with five constituencies, and four parties, with this electoral system. Each constituency has 2 seats and each party has 1 candidate per constituency. For the sake of simplicity let’s imagine that each constituency has only one voter. In the first constituency, the voter gives their vote to party A. In the second constituency, the voter gives their vote to party B. In the third constituency, the voter gives their vote to candidate C. In the fourth constituency they give their vote to candidate D. In the fifth constituency, the voter gives their first vote to party A and their second vote to party B. (Please ignore the fact that four seats in this parliament are left vacant) so how would a person report the votes? Well, first of all, finding the average for each party per constituency, we find that in each constituency from the first to fourth, one vote was given to parties A to D respectively, not only in actuality but also in average votes. In constituency five, however, one vote was given to party A and one to B, as party a gained 1 total vote and had one candidate so 1/1=1 and the same applies for party B. This would mean that our votes are A=2 B=2 C=1 and D=1. Now when we find a percentage, using the number of voters, we find that (with a total of 5 voters) A=40%, B=40%, C=20% and D=20%. Our problem is that the percentages don’t add up. If we wanted them to add up, what would be fair would be to subtract the extra 20% from A and B as they are the parties which gained more than one vote from a single person (which in reality is impossible as we don’t know who voted for more than one party). If instead we were to just bring the total of the percentages down to 100, then we would subtract from each party, and C and D would have their percentages lowered for no reason (and we would get A=33% B=33% C=16% and D=16%) . If in the next elections the voter from the fifth constituency votes only for A, then there would be no surplus in the percentage and they would be reported straight away, so it would be A=40% B=20% C=20% and D=20%. This has the misleading effect of making the readers thing that C rise in popularity by 4%, even though it experienced no rise at all.KnolGua (talk) 13:42, 12 April 2020 (UTC)

The website used the percentages because they were the only way to correctly compare results with future elections, as in the future Cyprus adopted proportional representation which always gives a total of 100%. They also used the percentages to visualize the results in a pie chart, which takes the percentage of each number regardless of elections or wether or not that number is itself a percentage. I believe that what we should do is just add a note explaining why the percentages don’t add up.KnolGua (talk) 13:49, 12 April 2020 (UTC)


 * I was thinking a note we could add next to “Total” could be, “The sums of the votes and percentages given are not equal to the total number of votes cast because the votes given are the average votes for every constituency and voters could vote for more than one party.”

KnolGua (talk) 12:13, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Turkish Cypriot Election Results
I was wandering if anyone could figure out what the results were for the Turkish Cypriots’ elections based on this picture this image. Unfortunately, the image is blurry. The Turkish Cypriots’ election results are the ones in the bottom right. I can send the results for every Greek Cypriot Candidate if it helps. I also know that in Limassol the first candidate was Cemil Ramatan with 2,251 votes, in Famagusta it was Niyazi Maniera with 5,024 votes and in Paphos it was Kiazim Semsedin with 4,369 votes. KnolGua (talk) 17:39, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

I have the results for the Turkish Cypriots. They are listed on the newspapers “Philelefheros” and “Haravgi” (AKEL’s newspaper) which I have copies of. I can use these to find out what the specific numbers are on “Ethnos” to write down the results on the article and use the picture of Ethnos as the source.KnolGua (talk) 10:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent work! Number   5  7  14:24, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The turnout figures do need to be removed though. Whoever produced the figures has calculated them on the basis of valid votes only, so they are not true turnout figures.
 * Also, with regards to the Armenian seat, I don't see how it was possible to vote for more than one candidate in a single seat contest. The sum of the votes cast for each candidate is the same as the total number of votes case, so it clearly wasn't possible to do so (otherwise the sum would be higher). Number   5  7  15:30, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand what you are saying. The turnout figures for Turkish Cypriots are correct. We do not have the valid votes or the invalid votes, but we have the turnout. It is impossible to reach any conclusions regarding Valid votes if we have no figure for them. What I was trying to say was that the total for the Turkish Cypriots which I wrote down was the total number of people who voted, which is why both “invalid votes” (which I left blank) and the votes for each list are above “total,” as in it is the total votes including invalid votes. I have provided a rough translation for what Papademitris says above. I didn’t use any information other than that and Ethnos, and I calculated the percentages myself. Where are you getting the valid votes? Maybe you misunderstood the results and thought the number of voters were the valid votes. Given the information we have it is impossible to prove a mistake was made by Papademitris, so we should assume he did not. By the way, seeing as the range for votes received by independents is very high, I do not believe the way it currently is correctly represents the election results. Maybe we should change it so that there are three columns for “independent” (which is what the book I mentioned earlier, which was written by the same person as “Eklektor,” does for most elections with this electoral system).
 * Regarding the Armenian seat, my mistake! I thought you were talking about the Turkish seats. Please forgive me! (Technically it was the same electoral system, seeing as there were 1 seat and each person had 1 vote)KnolGua (talk) 15:45, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * By “Armenian seat” you mean “informal elections to decide which Armenian would withdraw from the race,” right?
 * Yes, I do. And apologies, I hadn't realised that the 'Total' row in the Turkish seats was not the total of the National Union + Independents votes, but includes something else (presumably invalid votes)
 * Also, are the Turkish Community results definitely correct for Limassol? The average of the independent candidates looks to be over 1,000 from the Ethnos (from what I can make out, the three independent candidates there received 1,648, 667 and 1,825 votes, which would give an average of 1,380. Number   5  7  16:10, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
 * With your comment about the independents votes being of a high range, we could list constituency results by candidates (something like 1966 Fijian general election) which might be more meaningful to readers than the averages. Number   5  7  16:16, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Ah. I think I know what’s going on. You’re right. I though Ertogrouloglou received 1021 votes. The last digit was squeezed by the printing machine used by the newspaper and I thought it was a one, and the “8” was poorly printed as well. I did not realize this was the case even after checking “Ethnos,” Thanks,
 * I see nothing wrong with your proposal. Even all the newspapers list the election results for the Turkish Cypriots in the way you propose. It seems that whereas for the Greek Cypriots most people would view the party results (and there were more candidates) for the Turkish Cypriots the results would not have been conveyed in a meaningful fashion with the method we are currently using. The only problem is I am not completely sure fir each candidate’s exact names. Of course it would be easy to find the MPs’ names but I am unsure regarding some independents’ names. I believe they are:
 * Ertuğrul Ertogrouroglou
 * Dr. Fikri Alkan
 * Faiz Kaymak
 * Hassan Hussein
 * Dervis Rasid
 * There is a single independent from Limassol for whom I have no idea. I believe he is (Dr. Niaz(i)(?) M(?)(?)(?)zlo(u?)I was wandering if anyone could help. Perhaps it would be useful, while figuring this out, that this surname is a Turkish Cypriot surname which tend to be closer to Greek surnames than most Turkish surnames.
 * The “Total” is not the Total for the CTNU and the Independents and invalid votes. It is the Total number of votes cast.KnolGua (talk) 17:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

23 Patriotic Front Communal Chambers Seats
The sentence “In the Communal Chambers, the Patriotic Front won 20 of the 26 seats in the Greek Chamber“ is not entirely correct. The Armenian and Maronite candidates, as well as, quite possibly, the latin candidate, run as part of the Patriotic Front. The issue is complicated and I believe hat the solution would be to use vaguer language.KnolGua (talk) 00:47, 24 May 2020 (UTC)