Talk:2006 Dutch general election

A bit too early for this statement
"At the moment, the Partij van de Arbeid (labour party) is the largest party in the polls, but the CDA is gaining ground. The recent coalition government of CDA (christian democrats), VVD (liberals) and D66 (social liberals) is unable to keep a majority in recent polls." And the campaiging has only been going on since Friday? A bit too early I think; and unsourced, so I'm cutting it. (The wiki is not a crystal ball.) Jon 13:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I didn't make the statement, but it is a reality. See http://www.politiekebarometer.nl and http://www.peil.nl. The left wing parties lost ground in the last months. BTW, D^^ is not part of the coalition anymore. Electionworld = Wilfried (talk 15:05, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess you are missing the point that those kind of polls are always held in the Netherlands. If there are elections or not. 128.141.130.199 01:33, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

also a bit early
Isn't it also a bit early to put 'possible coalitions' into the polls-table. The combinations are endless and at this point most anything is possible. I happen to work in this field and I know for a fact that almost no combination is excluded at this point. Maybe a small section with a brief description of possibilities that are entertained in the media would be nice, but I feel this is too much. I will wait a few days and if no one comes up with a good argument to keep it, I will remove the possible coalition from the table.--Dengo 18:45, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Geno-lies controversy
Let us get a few things straight here. This controversy or whatever it is, has less to do with historical fact and more to do with the marginalisation and humiliation of a minority. There is a lot of anti-turkish and anti-muslim prejudice in the netherlands and these are just the first glimpses of it coming out in the 2 major parties. The SS stormtroopers of the netherlands cant stand the fact that a Turk is going to become a high level minister and possibly in the future the prime minister. It is clearly aimed at kicking out minorities, namely the Turkish minority out of political power. Every member of the Dutch Turkish minority should boycott these jokes called "political parties" like pvda and cda. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mertel (talk • contribs)
 * While your conspiracy theory is certainly amusing, it has no place in the Wikipedia article. We have policies like Verifiability which determine what is appropriate content for articles. jaco ♫ plane  17:11, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I have remove this section from the article:

"A large section of the country's Turkish minority has decided to boycott the election due to the racist, one-sided historical views of the main political parties. Many in the communitu also see this as a move aimed at disenfranchising Turks from the political spectum. A boycott could potentially swing a virtual neck-to-neck ra`d to the detriment of the labor party since Turks traditionally vote heavily in favor of the pvda"

Not only is it poorly written, but is also unsourced, pov and not in line with recent polls (by focuz). C mon 20:04, 8 October 2006 (UTC)

Elmaci gaf te kennen dat er momenteel totaal GEEN bewijs aanwezig is waardoor het een genocide betreft. Turkije heeft hun archief opengesteld voor de Armeense regering ivm onafhankelijke onderzoek, maar tot op heden is er geen reactie teruggekomen. Tijdens de 1ste wereldoorlog in 1915 zijn er van verschillende kanten slachtoffers gevallen, dus niet alleen aan de Armeense kant maar ook Turkische. Wat is de clue van deze hele ophef rond de "Armeense genocide" ? Niets wat op enigszins de waarheid berust. Sinds wanneer bepaalt het Nederlandse politiek wanneer iets een "genocide" betreft? Nederland en de Europese Unie zijn wel iets slimmer ingeschat om EERST met 100% proof bewijzen te komen voordat er vanuit de politiek een standpunt wordt ingenomen die NIET strookt met de werkelijkheid. Laat deze kwestie gewoon over aan DE HISTORICI, en we in Nederland ons gewoon bezig houden met de huidige zaken: Onderwijs, economie en gezondheidszorg - Zeynep, Utrecht


 * Please only add English texts to English wiki. Also - the comments in this article are not about the Armenian Genocide Issue, not even about issues whether Dutch government has anything to say about it; it is about the upheaval that surrounded this issue in relation to the 2006 election; this upheaval undeniably occurred (regardless of whatever happened in 1915). Arnoutf 08:35, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Map of results
I was thinking it would be nice to make a map showing the results based on Geographical location. Some images we could use include Image:Nederland gemeenten 2006.png (this one might be too much work though) or Image:Provinces of the Netherlands.svg. This would be something like what's done at verkiezingsuitslagen.nl (site by the kiesraad). Would the graphs on that site be in the public domain? jaco ♫ plane 07:26, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Sound like a good idea!
 * About the Kiesraad map I'm guessing no; but I think it based on the same public domain map we're using. But you could email them and ask.
 * Although I like the idea of making our own map, it seems a lot of work; a provincial map is very primitive, maybe we could use electoral districts (map) of which there are 19 (including the three major cities). C mon 09:11, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I doubt the work is too much for a person familiar with GIS (which I'm not), I'm more concerned with the Kiesraad though. They don't have any copyright information on their site. So emailing them sounds like a good idea, hope they put the data out in public domain. Intangible 09:58, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Ok well I created a simple map with the "kieskringen" based on Image:Nederland gemeenten 2006.png and this. Once the results are in we just have to create a legend for the different parties and then color in the largest parties. I think we should do it per kieskring, except if someone knows how to work with a geographic information system to map the results to individual municipalities. jaco ♫ plane 11:53, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Looks great! But one of the problems of the Kiesraad division is two territories aren't contigunous. So the Haarlem kieskring consists of the territory around Haarlem (Kennemerland) and Hilversum ('t Gooi), east and west of Amsterdam; and the Dordrecht kieskring consists out of the territory South of The Hague and south of Rotterdam: Haaglanden and Hoeksche Waard. C mon 12:54, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Although a very nice idea I would not support it for several reasons. (1) The Dutch have a one-man-one-vote representative system. Thus it is not really relevant who is winnig what district (this in sharp contrast to the-winner-takes-it-all system in the US and the UK); presenting the results this way may confuse readers who are not very familiar with the Dutch system to confue the Dutch voting system with the anglo-saxon systems (IMHO this should be avoided at all cost). (2) The incredulous amount of work to do this right. Arnoutf 22:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Working with electoral districts decreases the work, pointing out who our system works addresses your first point, and if this works we can apply to individual parties to show what their stronger and weaker regions are, which is very useful information if you ask me. C mon 11:41, 16 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Perhaps you are right, I can't really visualise the section yet, so have a go. My worries come from the fairly similar maps for the recent US elections where a red or blue district means the senator for that district is from that part while in Nl there are no specific candidates linked to kieskringen (at least not exclusively) and the influence of a kieskring fully depends on turnout and size. So these issues need to be discussed. But if you are happy with it, have a go at it; it may prove to be interesting after all. Arnoutf 11:57, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Another option could be to get rid of the electoral districts altogether, and go by the municipalities. The map could show party by party who is strong where. The map of support for the PvdA for instance would be based on varying shades of the colour red, CDA green, VVD blue, etc., with the shades becoming darker as the percentage of votes increases. A ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 12:06, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If you want to go with municipalities, you would almost certainly need to make use of GIS. Maybe some Wikipedia user can do this, but I am not sure. It would make for nice graphs for sure, but in the end they have to be relevant as well. I can see them being made for the four largest parties though. Intangible 12:16, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Does anyone have any recommendations for GIS software? I'm downloading Quantum GIS right now and I'll try and play around with it and see if I can figure it out. jaco ♫ plane  13:19, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * OK, that was too complicated for me, so I guess we should give up on this for now. jaco ♫ plane  20:47, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

possible coalitions
PvdA-SP-GL-CU ? Sure theoretically it's possible but is it realistic? CU: anti-abortion, anti-euthanasia, anti-gay marriage in a single cabinet with GL. I can't see it happening. On the other hand, it looks like the Dutch voters are going to make it extremely difficult to form any sort of coalition.146.50.208.168 01:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed from time-to-time as CU has caring for the poor and weak; and care for the environment in common with the Left wing parties. On the other hand the issues above seem indeed deal-breakers. We'll see nov 22nd is yet a long way of ;-) Arnoutf 12:48, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * IIRC, André Rouvoet has said during several interviews that the CU was more likely to come to an agreement with PvdA, SP and GL than with CDA and VVD. And it's very well possible that the four parties can reach an agreement. PvdA, SP, GL and CU share roughly the same views on the economy and on the welfare state. The two main differences are foreign policy (SP is more isolationist, PvdA and GL tend towards Europe and CU towards the US) and ethical issues (PvdA, SP and GL liberal, CU conservative). A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 12:56, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This interview with Rouvoet (mp3, interview starts around 6 minutes in to the mp3) is interesting with regard to this topic. The interviewer keeps asking him what the breaking points are for him in coalition negotiations, and he keeps saying that there are no breaking points and that he's pretty much willing to negotiate about everything. jaco ♫ plane  13:00, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

deleted section
Greenpeace interference with CDA party congress=== ==

this was imho a non-issue, so i took the libery to delete it. Aleichem 03:43, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * A non-issue? It got descent press coverage. I'll restore it. Intangible 11:25, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * It did not influence the debates, the expected election results and political strategies as did the Armenian genocide question or the voting computer issue. I support removal, to expand the section we might consider including the AOW-row (senior citizens' tax) and the renewed urgency of the debate on the environment following Gore's movie (maybe including a small reference to GreenPeace's presence on the CDA congress). C mon 12:00, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This section is included not because political parties found it an issue to be debated, but because  this organization interfered with the right to free (political) assembly and association of citizens in a democratic country. Interior minister Remkes called this organization's action 'maatschappelijk volstrekt onverantwoord gedrag'. Intangible 13:44, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * 'Maatschappelijk volstrekt onverantwoord gedrag' still has to be notable. I'm not sure this got enough independent third-party coverage from reliable sources. A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 14:26, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The interference with the CDA congress was covered widely by the media (e.g.  ). Intangible 15:01, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There are so much other issues with more importance that could be covered here instead of an incident wich took place some months ago. Aleichem 15:11, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Such as "tax on pensions"? This is an issue between political parties, not an issue about the election itself. These kind of issues between political parties are indeed innumerable. Intangible 17:24, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about the taxes on pensions section either. I think if we include this dispute then we should also include other major disputes between the parties, otherwise the article gives the impression that the election was mainly about this issue. What about the introduction of the new law banning the burqa ... a few days before the election? Surely that was related to the campaign? Perhaps we should make a list of missing issues here and then expand them into the article. jaco ♫ plane  18:45, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The issues between parties (say tax on pensions) should be separated from those related to run up to the election, not? There are many issues (i.e. mortgage deductions, child-care benefits, etc.) between parties, and I'm not sure if this can be covered in a NPOV way. Intangible 17:41, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Note that these plans were launched as issues at stake (maybe better section) for these elections. Arnoutf 17:46, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Maybe make a new section? "Issues at stake". I've added the story about possible mistreatment of Iraqi prisoners, which is actually more about the election, then actually an issue at stake. Intangible 18:23, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I came up with this with the idea as sub-sections of the existing first section which is already issues at stake. Let's wait with reorganising untill tomorrow, after the elections, when we can start working on the (more or less) final version of the article. Arnoutf 19:01, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Pat on the back
I just wanted to say "good job" to everyone who has worked on this article, and on related articles. I don't think I've ever seen an article on an election that was this good before the election took place. This article will probably be one of the most read sources for this election in the international community, and having this level of quality definitely helps foreigners understand Dutch politics better. Next up, let's make an effort to make this a featured article after the election! jaco ♫ plane 20:46, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

Election experiments
I'm not too sure about this section. The only source dates from 2004. I think we need some more recent confirmation that these experiments are taking place, personally I haven't really read anything about it in the media. jaco ♫ plane 21:07, 21 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I voted at a random polling booth today, so that experiment is certainly going on. I'm not sure about the second experiment though the information I found here seems quite old. C mon 18:06, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

TNS NIPO exit poll
EENNL 1 PVDD 2 SGP 2 D66 2 GL 6 CU 7 PVV 8 VVD 20 SP 30 PVDA 34 CDA 38 Intangible 19:56, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

De Hond / NOS exit poll / ANP
EENNL 1 D66 2 SGP 2 PVDD 3 CU 5 PVV 6 GL 8 VVD 21 SP 24 PVDA 35 CDA 43 Intangible 20:03, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

I put them in the table as they differ significantly from yesterday's results. Let's see what happens for real. Arnoutf 20:43, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Amsterdam is using the old pencil system again, so the definite results should come in really late tonight. Intangible 20:50, 22 November 2006 (UTC)
 * At the moment, 99.8% of the votes have been counted. IIRC the remaining .2% are votes from abroad. A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 10:25, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * These may be of impact on split seats that have to be rounded up or down. So we need to keep track of these (may differ one seat somewhere) Arnoutf 10:34, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Christian left
The coalitions table uses 'Christian left' twice, both for CDA-PvdA, which makes perfect sense, and PvdA-SP-GL-CU, which makes little sense because the christian part (CU) consitutes only about 8% of the coalition. I don't recall now if this term was used in the media or that I only read it here. Also, why is 'christian' written with a capital 'C'? DirkvdM 09:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * How about left+. And Christian is capitalized because those are English spelling rules. C mon 10:06, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Move
Msikma moved the article from Dutch general election, 2006 to 2006 Dutch general election. However, all (?) other 'Dutch general election' articles have the former format. If this is against waht is customary on Wikipedia then all those have to be moved as well. DirkvdM 13:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think the move should be reversed. There are many articles, like United States general elections, 2006 and Austrian legislative election, 2006 that use the same title format. There is no Wikipedia guideline afaik (but maybe there should be one). Intangible 13:55, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Done. Indeed, Msikma's move was incorrect. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 14:30, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually there is a WP guideline for election naming at WP:NAME and it supports the name Dutch general election, 2006 AndrewRT(Talk) 21:39, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Issue of climate change
I would suggest to remove or at least reduce the paragraph about climate change. Research results shown on NOS television on the day of election showed that they were not in the top 5 of issues that moved voters' decision. Also, some of the coalitions listed are extremely unlikely: GroenLinks for example has strongy agitated against CDA and VVD. They still might form a coalition with one of those parties, but definitely not with both of them. Sjoerd de Vries, 15.33, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Someone removed one bit about it, but precisely the bit that should be kept, I'd say, so I put it back. The greenpeace action indeed receives too much attention, but I'll wait for reactions here before altering that. DirkvdM 19:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * About the coalitions, I didn't want to presume too much, so I tried to add all that are somewhat feasible. I'd sooner remove the ones that don't constitute a majority, except for the combinations of the last coalition (before and after the fall). DirkvdM 19:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Photo
The comment with the foto is a bit strange, Only a few muncipalities used paper(5? i think, including a few with broken down machines), and only two parts of amsterdam. 80.57.243.174 18:47, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Nope 31!! (See voting controversy) - as the machines in these municipalities were not approved. Arnoutf 18:56, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Still not many. More like 'some' or 'a minority'. many would be like over half ok? this suggests it is a significant portion of votes.80.57.243.174 05:05, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Not many indeed; I can go with some. It is a significant portion of the votes though as Amsterdam (about 5% of the votes) was one of the 31. Arnoutf 10:32, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

PvdV
The bit about PvdV in the final debate got altered, focusing on how the discussion went. I added that because of the importance of even VVD not being interrested in entering a coalition with PvdV. It's the fifth biggest party and considering the difficulties with finding a workable coalition that fact is quite noteworthy. I'll rewrite it to avoid the issue. DirkvdM 19:02, 23 November 2006 (UTC)
 * You wouldn't expect the VVD to start a coalition with someone who left that party disgruntled over the Turkey accession position? It is not surprising the VVD does not want a coalition with the PVV, the VVD is even preparing for being an opposition party itself. Intangible 19:11, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * What's more, even talking to Wilders would be political suicide for any party. Of course I couldn't put it like that in the article. So this was a nice opportunity to make the above point clear. DirkvdM 19:17, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Non of the parties (that I know of) have stated that they don't want a coalition with the PvdV on the other hand. Wilder's mistake of not reversing the question to drive home his point, he's clearly not the most gifted debater. --Zero g 19:22, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Marijnissen (IMHO correctly) stated that he did see no similarity whatsoever in program between his SP (and PvdA and GL either) and PVV; thus making coalition at best highly unlikely; so that leaves only CU and CDA. Arnoutf 19:28, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * And Rouvoet did not want to speak up, because then his coalition chances with the SP or PVDA went up smoke. But what Rutte said was not really surprising if you look at the history of the VVD and Wilders. Intangible 19:32, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Rutte clearly said he left all options open. Not to mention there's of course the rest of the VVD which is unlikely to reason in the same manner, some of them having gone as far as stating that they wished Wilders had stayed. --Zero g 19:37, 23 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Rutte said he left all options open but that there their programs were too far apart. Note that they were shouting at each other. This was by far the fiercest 'debate' (shouting contest) I've seen in the entire campaign. And that's between Wilders and his only possible ally. Also note that even Verdonk in a Nova debate with Pastors (who is not as radical as Wilders) subtly distanced herself from him (I was amazed at both that and the fact that she could also be subtle). I could also add that Rutte repeatedly called the PvdV a one-issue party and that he wouldn't let Wilders maneouvre himself in an 'outsider-position'. But I saw little point in expanding too far on it. The point is that PvdV has no chances whatsoever to enter a coalition and that that has a big effect on the formation of a coalition. I also thought about adding that this greatly weakens the right wing, but until I read that somewhere, that would be original research. DirkvdM 10:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Another (but related) issue is the addition of coalitions with PvdV in the list of possible coalitions. Adding all possible coalitions would be over the top, so it has to be limited to the ones that are somewhat plausible. Any coalition with PvdV is nowhere near plausible. DirkvdM 11:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * A coalition consisting of both GL and the VVD is not plausible either. Excluding the PvdV from any kind of coalition is a violation of NPOV as well, especially since the most plausible one was given and both Wilders and a member of the VVD suggested that coalition. --Zero g 11:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You re-added CDA-VVD-PvdV-CU as the most plausible coalition with PvdV. What about adding the most plausible coalition containing SGP? Get real. I haven't Rutte suggest that option (anyone else?), but CDA and especially CU (who specifically stand for freedom of religion) would never ever anter into a coalition with PvdV. Like I said, entering into a coalition with PvdV would be political suicide for any party. Never mind what the PvdV really stands for. What counts is the image of PvdV among the electorate. And for VVD there is the problem that acknowledging the PvdV would give off a message that it makes sense to vote PvdV. DirkvdM 11:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think the only plausible PvdV coalition is the minority CDA-VVD-PvdV coalition. But I am very sure this will not happen; as that coalition will never get 'gedoogsteun' for any proposal from any of the other parties. Arnoutf 12:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * This discussion is not up to us. We should just report the possible coalitions, including ones with the PvdV. I think a coalition which includes SP and VVD is never going to happen, yet we still include it. Wilders himself personally mentioned this coalition, so even if there's no way it will happen we should keep it in the table. jaco ♫ plane  12:12, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I think in a while we should start cutting down the table to combinations that have a certain importance (eg paars-historical) and those that are included in negotiation. Untill then, I do not mind too much; I only responded on the remark that CDA-VVD-PvdV-CU is most plausible - IMHO the above minority combi is more plausible. Arnoutf 12:18, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The SGP has only 2 seats, opposed to the PvdV who has 9. This shouldn't be ignored. Rutte clearly said he didn't exclude anyone, and since no one disagreed with that we can say that there are no plans for a Cordon Sanitair like you suggest, quite the contrary from the reactions when Wilders suggested it. Another issue is that neither Rutte, Balkenende, nor Rouvoet are dictators who have the final say in their party.
 * Looking at the information gathered by De Hond there is strong support for a VVD - CDA coalition among those who voted CU and PvdV, the question is whether these parties prefer a right wing coalition opposed to a center left coalition. Not to mention that Wilders and others suggested it which makes it noteworthy from the viewpoint of a political opinion alone.
 * Another issue is not the opinion of those who voted PvdA, SP, GL, but the opinion of the voters of the mentioned coalition. Verdonk for example is a highly controversial member of the VVD, does this mean political suicide for any party that involves itself with the VVD?
 * If you however insist on pushing this pov, it would be wise to change the title of the section to 'plausible coalitions' and remove all coalitions that include both the VVD and GL, as well as other unlikely combinations. --Zero g 12:27, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

For now I reordered the table with above the split all coalitions that have a history of forming a coalition. All other coalitions may be listed below the split; but that section needs some cleanup after negotiations start in full. Arnoutf 12:55, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Latest news is that the SP loses one seat and the PvdA gains one, and that Verdonk got more preferential votes than Rutte. --Zero g 13:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * seat change is already worked into the resultsArnoutf 13:02, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Should we include all possible coalitions?
The above discussion seems to evolve around whether all possible coalitions should be in the table or only the most likely ones. The problem with the latter is that it is difficult to asses which are possible (without specific quotes it really is OR). Including all possibilities would generate a very long list, but that could be seen as making a point. And it would end the above discussion. Ultimately, when the coalition is formed, that whole section should be moved to a separate article anyway, so it's a thought. Any ideas? DirkvdM 14:57, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Most neutral would be a list of coalitions as desired by the notable parties and that have been suggested by notable people. This would keep the list short and avoids OR. --Zero g 15:17, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with zero g's suggestion with the addition of historic coalitions (as I did already). On the other hand as far as I know there are 2 suggested before the election (CDA-VVD byCDA and VVD) and (PvdA, GL and SP by GL and SP). Both are lacking a majority at the moment. After the election I only heard CDA-PvdA-CU by several commentators, but nothing from the parties so far. I could live with listing only the historic ones and these three/two (CDA-VVD is also a historic one). Arnoutf 15:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Would this qualify the CDA-PvdA-CU coalition as "openly favoured in the campaign"? jaco ♫ plane  17:24, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * would suggest another category; perhaps suggested by pol leader after election?Arnoutf 17:34, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That raises the issue who is notable and what can be seen as a suggestion. What if a newspaper reporter makes a suggestion? Or what if Wiegel mentions something? Are we to decide whether he is joking? And what about less known former politicians? Would there have to be a verifiable reference for every coalition? And all that over such a minor point? DirkvdM 18:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Naturally notability isn't an issue until it becomes one. I guess it can be left as it is, though I'd personally remove the GL - VVD coalitions unless someone notable suggests one. Regarding this being a minor point, agreed, but I got nothing better to do really. --Zero g 19:08, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

Parties and top candidates
Do we need this section any more (Dutch_general_election%2C_2006)? Seems a bit redundant to me. AndrewRT(Talk) 21:41, 23 November 2006 (UTC)

Largest party per municipality
The map showing the largest party per municipality isn't very useful. The Dutch national elections don't work that way. It would be informative, though, to know which way people vote in varous parts of the Netherlands, but for that it would make more sense to group the left and right together, say blue for CDA, VVD, PvdV and SGP and red for the rest. Notice that 'the rest' (the left) constitutes 6 parties and the right only 4, which is part of the problem - of course a right wing party will then be the biggest party in most municipalities. Another idea would be to make a map for each party, showing how big they were in each municipality. That said, I'm not going to do this, just a hint for anyone who might be so inclined. :) DirkvdM 10:26, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly why I was never in favour of the map in the first place, while CDA only got about 27% of the votes the map suggests a much larger win (see above). Lumping right and left togehter does not sound convincing either; that would do injustice to D66 (not left), CU (centre left) and even CDA (currently centre right). You would at least have to add some more to it to show the compplexity of the Dutch political landscape: e.g. the liberal-conservative dimension (GL-Left Lib; D66 centr-lib; CU left-conserv; SP; Pvda left; CDA, SGP conservative; PvdV right conservative); Or 3 classes Christian (CDA-SGP-CU) Left (PvdA, SP, GL) Right (VVD, PvdV); but where to put PvdD and D66? Or discontinue the map at all?; or (lot of work) a pie-chart per municipality / province Arnoutf 10:58, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The map is one way to give an informtive overview of the regional strenghts and weaknesses of each party. It isn't the whole picture though, combined with a pie chart it is very useful! C mon 11:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes but considering the map as it is now, the impression arises that CDA rules the country by an almost unchallenged majority.....Arnoutf 12:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * That's why I made the second suggestion of making a map per party, thus showing not the largest party per municipality but the most important muniicipalities per party. More work but a whole lot more informative. NRC of 23 november has such maps for the big four. I have an online subscription, so I could upload those for the article, but I don't think that would possible, copyright-wise (fair use probably won't apply here). DirkvdM 15:09, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that would likely be copyright violation. Arnoutf 15:42, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree with respect to the map.


 * I think most people are sophisticated enough to differentiate between land mass and electoral popularity.


 * Even if they're not the tables explaining the percentage of the vote that each party received in this election should put things into proper perspective. Ruthfulbarbarity 16:25, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree for 2 reasons.
 * (1) Each and any figure needs to be self-explanatory without reference to the text (actually this is good practice for scientific publications so do not say that this is a fallacy of the careless reader). Many people may not read the full text and thus misinterpret the figure if reading the text is necessary for people not familiar with the Dutch system (most people)
 * (2) English wiki is mainly aimed at anglosaxon countries (ie USA and UK) that do have a district system where the largest in a district takes all the influence of that district (ie if this was a map of the UK it should be interpreted as the CDA having about 120 seats!). Knowing your readers (and writing your texts to fit their knowledge level rather than your own) is another good practice in writing high quality texts. (IMHO Dirk's suggestion to put up several maps to show strength of different parties per district is sufficiently different from e.g. USA reporting to take away this confusion) Arnoutf 16:40, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Don't you think the piechart at the top of the page makes it abundently clear that the election was not dominated by any one party? Even though anglosaxons might not understand the intricacies of the Dutch electoral process, we shouldn't have to assume that they're total idiots either. I think the caption makes it quite clear what the map is showing. Personally I'd like to see it kept. The other suggestion of having multiple maps is interesting, but I'm not sure we have space for that on this article. jaco ♫ plane  16:46, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Oh sorry; I came out a bit more forcefully than intended as in my percpetion this was about the map being on top of the page (where it was for a while). That said I am still not convinced the geographic info adds anything for the Dutch situation (except that labour is more favourite in cities and Groningen). I can live with a map halfway down (but still doubt whether is should be there at all - as can be seen from my previous comment- no offense intended) Arnoutf 16:50, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * None taken, I think my response sounded a bit forceful as well :) I'll be happy to go with whatever the general consensus is. jaco ♫ plane  17:00, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Ruthfulbarbarity, as far as I'm concerned land mass is not the issue here. The point of the map(s) is to show how political preference is distributed over the Netherlands. Actually, from that perspective, the demographics of the Netherlands article would be a better place for it. But the fact that there's confusion about this between us illustrates that confusion arises easily. And that would be even worse for people who are used to a different political system and possibly not even all that knowledgeable about politics in general. After all, this is an encyclopedia. And most people will only have a short glance at such a simple map and get a completely wrong idea. Btw, the separate maps wouldn't take up too much place. There need only be four, for the four major parties, and they don't need to be very big, just to give a rough impression. DirkvdM 18:20, 24 November 2006 (UTC)

The map may bot be very appropiate given how things are done in NL at present, but does give an interesting glimse into what the Political landscape of NL would look like if it had a 'first past the post' system of electing MPs. Though i guess maybe that would belong better in an entry on possible (wishfull thinking) political reform in the Netherlands. Still, its an interesting map, derserves to be on the wiki somewhere at least. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.177.190.150 (talk • contribs)
 * There may be reasons to include the map but wishfull thinking is not one (ie a POV); anyway would you be happy with a more than two-thirds CDA majority?;-) But without kidding I like the map as an effort it looks nice and is informative for someone intimately familiar with Dutch politics (mind you most Dutch are not), but I am just asking for caution; and if that means that for the overall quality of the article a favourite, nice, and good looking idea which cost time and effort to make has to dropped I am sorry, but that's life (I 've had to kill a few of my babies myself and know how painful it can be). Arnoutf 18:41, 24 November 2006 (UTC)
 * NRC Handelsblad has the same kind of map, so it isn't all wishfull thinking. Intangible 18:45, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that's not wishful thinking on NRC's part. :) Although it is interresting to note that in the NRC of 22 november there was a little article that said that a quarter of NRC readers vote CDA (followed by PvdA and VVD). Anyway, the fact that NRC printed this is an indication that it might be useful, but that doesn't necessarily mean it really is. Also note that NRC also printed the map-per-party option I proposed. And I don't think anyone will doubt that that is a lot more useful. DirkvdM 14:01, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Also note that the NRC map is interactive; clicking a municipality gives all results And of course NRC is aimed at Dutch readers; who are more familiar with the Dutch system. Arnoutf 14:04, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Wouldn't it be cool if we had that too. I suppose the detailed results are public property, so we can use them. I can't find them though. Are they available online (in a copyable form)? DirkvdM 14:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Piechart needs to be updated
The image Image:ZetelsTK2006.png needs to be updated to reflect the seat exchange between SP & PvdA. I haven't got access to a spreadsheet at the moment, so perhaps someone else could create an updated version. jaco ♫ plane 18:15, 24 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Is it me or is D66 misplaced on the political scale? I'd say it fits better between PvdA and CU. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Zero g (talk • contribs)
 * Perhaps, so if you have access to Excel or OpenOffice why don't you make a new chart which places D66 between PvdA and CU, and also changes the figures for SP (-1) & PvdA (+1)? Can't install software here, so I can't make the chart. jaco ♫ plane  00:13, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks zero g for putting up the new chart. I am not fully convinced with the position of SGP though (I would put that close to CU in the middle, rahter than right of PvdV). Also I am not fully convinced by your colour scheme; I think the previous chart stayed closer to the colours the parties use themselves (green for GreenLeft; Red for SP/PvdA). Also the horizontal presentation of the other one mimics the chamber more. But let's leave it at this for now and wait until the 2e kamer seating arrangements are made public and then redo the pie-chart for the last time following the order of parties in the chamber arrangement.Arnoutf 11:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Isn't the SGP pro death-penalty and against political participation of women? Guess I'll have to take a serious look at their website sometime. --Zero g 11:40, 25 November 2006 (UTC)
 * They're indeed pro death-penalty and want to abolish female suffrage. They consider Islam a false religion with which they defend their desired ban on the building of Mosques. They oppose euthanasia, abortion, same-sex marriage, prostitution and desire the censorship of all pornography. They have no clear stance on economics. Unless an undue weight is given to the Islamic question I'd say the SGP easily beats the PvdV. --Zero g 13:03, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I noticed that too. I expected to see SGP and CU flanking CDA on the left and right. About the colouring, it might be useful to use the same colouring as in Image:Dutchparlseats2.png. And maybe the relative positions should be synchronised too. This could go either way because that chart needs to be redone anyway because it still has a typo in the header (I believe I pointed that out before). Sorry, Arnout, I know you've already put a fair bit of time into that and I haven't a clue how much work any changes would be. Another problem is where to put D66 because they are both liberal and left-wing. For these election results and in view of the polarisation it is quite useful to group the left- and right-wing parties together to show there is an even distribution (76 seats left and 74 seats right). But then any decisions should be applicable to the whole of Dutch politics over time. I suppose there is no right solution. Btw, it's not D'66 but D66. They changed that some time ago, I believe, but people haven't caught on to that. DirkvdM 14:18, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Piechart will be updated by me, the maker, when on Tuesday the FINAL results are announced. Untill then I think the 1 seat difference is not a big problem. User:Allard Placed: Saturday 25 november 2006  16:16 CET


 * Good suggestion. For now I just put in the provisional results and am waiting with the final updated version of Image:Dutchparlseats2.png until the final results are made public. I'll fix the typo then as well. Actually setting up the Duchparlseat thing was a bit of work, but I now have it in Excel (and than some work to adapt it in through Powerpoint as excel has only limited colours). moving the order around is not very difficult, just a reordering of the series. So as soon as we have consensus I will take the colours and order and make it consistent. Arnoutf 16:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * You can sort the parties from communistic to capitalistic, progressive to conservative, and arguably from egalitarianistic to hierarchic. The next issue is what weight you give these classifications. If you go purely on capitalism the SGP belongs left from the VVD for sure. If you go purely on conservatism both the CU and SGP go to the far right, while the SGP also belongs there based on hierarchism because it defines Christianity as true, and everything else as a false religion, besides their hierarchic view on gender.
 * The problem with the PvdV is that it has several progressive elements and isn't as radical hierarchic as the SGP and possibly shouldn't even be classified as such since its policies mainly target non Dutch citizens. This only leaves its economic viewpoints which are easily classified as right from the VVD.
 * The PvdD might be classified wrongly as well since it's mainly placed on the left side for it's egalitarian viewpoint, while it's economic ideal might fall in the center like the SGP and might possibly be against abortion, genetic manipulation, and other conservative issues. --Zero g 19:24, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's just wait how the 2nd kamer is ordered; that is definitely a wayall parties themselves can live with the order. (PS abbreviation of Partij voor de Vrijheid is PVV to prevent confusion with Partij van de Vrijheid (PvdV) which briefly existed in the mid 1940's) Arnoutf 19:49, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Just a little input from a dabbler of statistics. I don't really like the pie chart, or its really more of a rainbow chart. It is kind of distracting (makes me wonder about the missing half and center of the pie) but then again thats just an opinion and as far as I know it doesnt go against any of the rules of statistics.


 * The piechart is up-dated. I'd say let's leave it at this. With the extra seatslist under it, the result is pretty good, I think.  User:Allard Monday November 27, 2006 | 17:27

Coalition
Why don't we split the part about coalition talks off to 2006 Dutch cabinet formation: the article is getting very long and the formation talks are something different from the elections. C mon 08:52, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sound like a great idea. Your suggestion also means we can now start finalising this article (or at least by monday when the final results are in). We could make a short section directing to that new article with a text like: Due to the representative voting system in practice Dutch cabinet are formed by a coalition of two or more parties to secure a majority in the tweede kamer. After elections it is not always clear which combination will provide the cabinet. This may be the focus of prolonged negotiations(needs some english improvement, but just as idea)... and leave it at that   Arnoutf 10:33, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree. I actually brought this up in a thread here-above. The sentence you propose, however, is too much about practise and too little about the basic theory. I'd suggest something more along the lines of "The Dutch system requires the formation of a government that consists of parties whose fractions together at least have a majority in the second chamber. With these results that requires a least three parties. As of 25 november 2006 negotiations are still under way and may last a long time due to a polarisation without a clear dominance for either the left or the right. Iin the meantime the Balkenende III government remains seated." Although that isn't strictly true because a minority cabinet is also possible. DirkvdM 11:43, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Good suggestion - Let's do it. I will start copying that current paragraphs to the new page. Arnoutf 12:35, 25 November 2006 (UTC)


 * The Dutch system doesn't require the government to have a majority in parliament. It's common practice, but there's no requirement. There are many instances of minority cabinets (e.g. the current interim government Balkenende-III) or extraparliamentary cabinets (e.g. Cort van der Linden, between 1913 and 1918). A  ecis  Dancing to electro-pop like a robot from 1984. 21:53, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * True. That is why I already a while age changed above sentence to Thus, this system requires the formation of a coalition government that consists of parties whose combined fractions can propose laws that can count on a majority in the second chamber. Ie the meaning now is that the proposed laws rather than the coalition need a majority. In practice a majroity coalition is the easy way for it. In modern politics (after WWII) there are only a few minority cabinets, and at least the latest van Agt (25 yrs ago) and Balkenende (current) minority coalitions were formed after the fall of a majority cabinet, and both had as main task to govern untill early elections; so it is fairly uncommon. Arnoutf 08:54, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Page name
I moved this page to 2006 Dutch general election, which is the correct name. It was moved back to this name a while afterwards. I don't see why, seen as how all events tied to a specific year use this format. See, for example, the articles in Template:Arab-Israeli_Conflict.  function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ) { 09:16, 26 November 2006 (UTC)


 * This was discussed under section Move. Wikipolicy for elections seems to support the current name - so please do not change again. Arnoutf 09:50, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I didn't know that this current name is actually supported by the manual of style. However, perhaps that rule should be changed, as the overwhelming majority of articles tied to a certain year use the -Year- -Event- notation.  function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void  14:21, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I see no reason to change it, as almost all people who regularily take care of election articles support this format as far as I know... Besides, it would be HELL to clean up now if you really want to change all the hundreds of election articles there are which follow the current naming convention. I really see no compelling reason to change... &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 14:25, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Consistency is a pretty big issue to me personally. I think that one common format would make more sense than two. It might take a lot of work to complete, but either a few dedicated admins or bots would be able to take care of that easily. I'll bring up the issue at the pump later.  function msikma(user: UserPage, talk: TalkPage ): Void  23:56, 26 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I think this has to be discussed at the naming conventions forum rather than here. If (and only if) the name policies are changed I am pretty sure we will change the name of this article. Arnoutf 08:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Indeed, and please do notify me when you start the discussion -- also notify the respective WikiProjects. &mdash; Nightst a  llion  (?) 12:48, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

votes per candidates
Should a table be made that show the votes per candidate (or at least of those candidates who obtained a vote larger than the electoral quota)? Intangible 18:09, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

There are only two interesting results there. The election of D66 no6 on personal votes; and the votes on Verdonk (>Rutte). The rest does not look that interesting. Arnoutf 18:57, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Naming convention
I would like to resurrect my previous idea to change the current naming convention for elections. The current convention is:


 * Use the format "Demonym type election, date", for example "Canadian federal election, 1867"...  (WP:NAME}

I propose this is changed to allow two alternatives, as follows:


 * Use either this form: political division type election, date, or this form: political division election of date. For example, Canadian federal election, 1867 or Canadian federal election of 1867. Where an article has been created using one form, do not move the article to the other form.

This new option would make linking more natural and make the article names more encyclopedic.

Please comment on this proposal at Wikipedia talk:Naming conventions

Thanks AndrewRT(Talk) 23:32, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

there is hope for mankind after all
i was begining to worry. the dutch had gone right on us. and so did germany, sweden, canada, france, uk, denmark.

Consistency party colour coding
In different tables, graphs and articles the Dutch political parties are given different colors. I would like to propose a standard list of RGB colours to use consistently. Please react to my proposal for consistent RGB colour scheme discussed at Talk:List_of_political_parties_in_the_Netherlands/colours. thanks for any input Arnoutf 17:36, 2 December 2006 (UTC) Strike-through text

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on Dutch general election, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061028223056/http://news.moneycentral.msn.com:80/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=FT to http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=FT&Date=20060629&ID=5834370

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 01:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Dutch general election, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://news.moneycentral.msn.com/provider/providerarticle.asp?feed=FT&Date=20060629&ID=5834370
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930201747/http://www.elsevier.nl/nieuws/laatste_24_uur/artikel/asp/artnr/127081/ to http://www.elsevier.nl/nieuws/laatste_24_uur/artikel/asp/artnr/127081/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070208123456/http://www.elsevier.nl/nieuws/politiek/artikel/asp/artnr/127222/index.html to http://www.elsevier.nl/nieuws/politiek/artikel/asp/artnr/127222/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070126190628/http://www.elsevier.nl/nieuws/politiek/artikel/asp/artnr/136028/index.html to http://www.elsevier.nl/nieuws/politiek/artikel/asp/artnr/136028/index.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061106025013/http://www.nos.nl/nos/artikelen/2006/10/art000001C6FB4D6C2CF6EE.html to http://www.nos.nl/nos/artikelen/2006/10/art000001C6FB4D6C2CF6EE.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070318025202/http://www.nos.nl/jeugdjournaal/artikelen/2006/11/7/verkiezingsdebat1.html to http://www.nos.nl/jeugdjournaal/artikelen/2006/11/7/verkiezingsdebat1.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930225856/http://www.nos.nl/jeugdjournaal/artikelen/2006/11/12/wouterbos.html to http://www.nos.nl/jeugdjournaal/artikelen/2006/11/12/wouterbos.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070318025458/http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/artikelen/2006/11/21/211106_laatstedagverkiezingen.html to http://www.nos.nl/nosjournaal/artikelen/2006/11/21/211106_laatstedagverkiezingen.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070930181318/http://www.nos.nl/nos/artikelen/2006/11/art000001C70F10824DCA01.html to http://www.nos.nl/nos/artikelen/2006/11/art000001C70F10824DCA01.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:42, 15 September 2017 (UTC)