Talk:2009 Indonesian legislative election

Infobox
We should show only the top six parties who garnered the most seats and votes. Besides, the template can only accommodate that. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 16:17, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Edit war?
I'm wondering who is the original source of this WP page. I corrected the bad math and added info about PAN coming in fifth place, but someone reverted to the older version of this page, completely obliterating my changes. Now who is that someone and what is their bias?

To give WP users a clear picture of the situation, it is *important* to state that the info listed only indicates national tallies and does not necessarily reflect composition of the DPR. Parties which have the same national tallies can differ widely in actual number of seats, as shown clearly in the case of PKS and PAN in 2004 (see WP entry for that election). Martindo (talk) 23:24, 12 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Your edits were reverted for the following reasons:

To answer your question, my "bias" is against uncited articles and original research. This is known as Policies and guidelines. Davidelit (talk) 07:57, 13 April 2009 (UTC)
 * It may be *important* to state that the info listed only indicates national tallies and does not necessarily reflect composition of the DPR, but aside from being touched on in the Allocation of seats section (albeit briefly) your edits were unreferenced. Please read WP:CITE for more on this. Incidentally your miscorrection of the bad math contradicted your thesis.
 * Expressions such as "Exit poll samples were small" and "Distribution of votes throughout the country is expected to be uneven in this election as well" were also uncited - or was this original research? Or your opinion?

I don't understand the accusation of "unreferenced" because I wrote the additional two paragraphs in the Introduction with a copy of KR beside me and it appeared as reference #11.

KR page 1 clearly shows Yogya as a lump in the distribution. Lumpy distribution is also almost obvious from the point of view of elementary statistics. Why hide that aspect of the situation? Amien Rais even mentioned it in an interview KR conducted, run in their April 11 edition. FYI, I'm not a supporter of his party, but I see no reason to omit mentioning it.

Further the use of "won" means almost nothing in terms of national tallies, especially given the fairly large possibility that no party will end up with 20% of the total vote. If you cut the explanation about parliamentary seats, then the verb "won" starts to sound misleading.

No explanation given for cutting my mention of parties in 5th, 6th, 7th, which Indonesian TV clearly showed today as being courted in negotiations to join coalitions.

No explanation given for cutting the info about open list and closed list, which is relevant to the campaign and probably new terminology for WP users unfamiliar with parliamentary elections.

In sum, I see an indiscriminate revert made for expedience w/o serious consideration of new content that might be valuable for readers of this entry, even if that content does not fit the original "vision" for producing this page.

It's great to see you so dedicated, David, but PLEASE look at my changes one by one. If you have to do wholesale reverts with scanty justification, perhaps you are overworked? Martindo (talk) 12:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi Martindo, I undid your edits because:


 * The info about seat allocation belongs into the seat allocation section, not in the lead. And actually the behaviour is kind of expected from any election with allocation based on district.
 * The parties in 5th-8th positions vary in different polls (see poll comparison) and KPU official tally, not to mention that all polls have statistical and sampling error, and these parties are obviously within error margin of each other.
 * As for the newspaper Kedaulatan Rakyat on April 11 showed quick counts for downtown Yogyakarta that indicate a ranking of Democratic Party, PAN, PDIP, PPP, PKS, and then Golkar in sixth place, I don't see what relevance a poll in a city has in an article about a nationwide election. 13:58, 13 April 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Arkwatem (talk • contribs)

After reviewing the time stamps, I realize that the above exchange is partly based on confusion of separate uploads. Yes, the first time I uploaded, I wrote "samples were small" and omitted the KR ref. After David reverted, I uploaded a revision WITH the KR ref included. That ref was, I believe, still on the WP page when David wrote his rejoinder and justification for a second revert.

Variation of polls regarding positions 5, 6, 7 can be accommodate by rewording. What's the point of deleting this info, which is background (party names) for the comment about 2004 results?

Regarding the distinction between national tally and DPR allocation, I feel strongly that this perspective should remain in the INTRO section until the election results are official (next month). After the results are official, claims about "winning" will be solid rather than statistical. At that point, the paragraph about "It is important to recognize" can be condensed and moved to "Allocation of seats". OK? Martindo (talk) 14:06, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I think the fact that the official DPR allocation is not out yet is actually an argument against inclusion of the info. Since we don't know the results yet, we don't know if it (different order in election results and DPR seats) will happen again, so we don't need to state it. There is a possibilty, of course, that the popular vote winner will not be the party with most DPR seats, but it more or less can be inferred from the fact that the election uses district allocation system (see Malapportionment). Arkwatem (talk) 14:32, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * Disagree. It sounds like you are expecting only political scientists familiar with malapportionment and other phenomena to read this page. Why leave anything to be "inferred"? A link with the 2004 election is valuable, all the more so for showing explicitly that national tally does not necessarily correlate with total number of DPR seats. Have you seen any breakdowns by kabupaten? They are REALLY lumpy. Martindo (talk) 14:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Arkwatem, thanks for clarifying your own justifications.
 * My argument really hinges on the presumptive use of the word "won" which MAY become solid as time goes on but seriously needs to be qualified when describing a situation that is in flux. The best way to qualify is by putting the info in the lead "while the situation is in flux". Move it later.
 * I reworded the info about 5, 6, 7. And these three continue to be justified, as shown by the most current results posted to this discussion page.
 * The info about Yogya was justification for my claim of "lumpy" which may be obvious to a statistically trained person like yourself, but is not obvious from the content in the lead.

Even though the odds are extremely great that the full count will shown Demokrat in the lead when final tallies are official next month, it seems misleading to say "won" without describing the limitations of that victory. Some people only read the lead of a long WP entry. And some people come to a page like this without reading fuller context on the Indonesia page, because they want a little explanation of what they may have heard in the media about the election.

We can go back and forth pointing fingers at each other about obvious, statistical significance, evidence, etc, but it will all be moot in a few weeks. I've done my part. If you guys want to revert, I won't fight you anymore. But before reverting, why not show the two versions of lead to a few people who are NOT familiar with Indonesia -- which one sounds clearer to them? Martindo (talk) 14:37, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Official tally
should we include latest official tally? Here is the current result (in Indonesian)

Total: 3.827.617 Sumber: KPU (2009-04-13 13:16:01) Arkwatem (talk) 05:43, 13 April 2009 (UTC)


 * I would say not. Fewer than 4 million votes have been counted so far and the fact the count is ongoing means the page would rapidly be out of date (although the numbers haven't changed in the last 4 hours!). I think the link to the results page is sufficient. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidelit (talk • contribs)
 * I agree, wikipedia is not news. Perhaps consider it when the counts are finalised. --Merbabu (talk) 14:28, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

Ruling Party
Quote from the article: Preliminary counts indicated that while the ruling Democratic Party was in first place with around 20% of the votes, the lead was much smaller than initially assumed. I am not sure how it works, but I think the Democrats is currently not the ruling party. They only achieved 7% in 2004 election (legislative). The coalition (which includes democrats, golkar - which switched side after kalla's election as head of golkar, PKB, etc) are the ruling parties. I am not sure, but I think it needs to be reworded somehow. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Fixed. Thanks for pointing it out. Davidelit (talk) 06:18, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * Thanks for that. This is not because I hated democrats, etc. In fact I chose them. w.tanoto-soegiri (talk) 06:48, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
 * IMO, this is one of several examples of subtle bias in favor of Democrat Party and SBY, who appear to be backed by major media. Granted, it's always difficult to unseat an incumbent, but I don't think this article is improved by including predictions that SBY will win, especially claims that it will be on the first ballot. WP has made great strides in recent years by including citations, but how can we determine the bias of cited sources? Martindo (talk) 00:46, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

Voter list controversy?
Is anyone going to touch on the issue of disenfranchisement due to inaccurate and incomplete final voter list? Even the national press agency Antara has reported that there are parties that allege as much as 40% of eligible voters have lost their voter rights. 

I believe this issue is significant because despite the political maneuverings of the political elite, implying acceptance of election results, follow-through on this case legally could possibly invalidate election results. I don't think this could be brushed aside since you will have a very hard time finding any Indonesian who doesn't personally know at least one person who couldn't vote because his/her name was not listed on the voter list.

(Personally I would love the voter-list controversy to be a non-issue, for the elections to go to the next step without anyone noticing anything, but as it is right now it's too big and in public to simply wish it away pretending the problem never existed) --Lemi4 (talk) 12:07, 11 May 2009 (UTC)

Agree, this should be mentioned -- add a new section, Lemi, and others will have a go at it. There was brief media coverage on TV and in print during April about GolPut winning the election with 40% of the entire registered voter roll being no shows or blank ballots. Disillusionment with choices is a different issue from *wanting* to vote and not being able to, but the info on voter turnout could be made more comprehensive by including both of these aspects. Martindo (talk) 02:56, 12 May 2009 (UTC)


 * I have added a section that can be used to expand on voter list controversies. Please feel free to contribute. Arsonal (talk) 05:19, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

References to be included
Arsonal (talk) 00:41, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

Arsonal (talk) 01:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)
 * DPR seat distribution chart

Party logo or leader photo
As in most of the articles concerning general elections, I think it's not a bad idea to replace should the party logos in the table instead to the party leaders photos? 222.124.97.231 (talk) 04:25, 5 March 2011 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 1 one external link on Indonesian legislative election, 2009. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20111007165659/http://www.sulbar.com/open.php?page=Sejarah to http://www.sulbar.com/open.php?page=Sejarah

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 16:16, 23 January 2016 (UTC)