Talk:2011 Slovenian parliamentary election

Infobox
SNS and LDS are ommitted from the infobox, because in all recent opinion polls they have received 1-2%, and thus they do not seem to have any chance to re-enter parliament. --RJFF (talk) 15:58, 12 November 2011 (UTC)

Unvalid source?
Why is this: source not valid? Could you explain that, please? To me it looks perfectly valid. Regards --RJFF (talk) 21:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)


 * To me, it seems perfectly valid. Nonetheless, it would be better to find a source in English. --Eleassar my talk 11:33, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Minorities
"Under the Constitution of Slovenia, the remaining two seats are allocated to the Italian and Hungarian minority communities, one to a representative of each community". Who choose them?--Martianmister (talk) 10:34, 8 December 2011 (UTC)


 * They were elected by members of these national communities. Roberto Battelli and Laszlo Göncz were elected.(Slovene) --Eleassar my talk 10:54, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Parliamentary elections?
It seems 'parliamentary' is not the best description here. In Slovenia, the parliament is something that officially even doesn't exist and if we suppose it does informally, it would be bicameral - according to Slovenian Parliament, "In 2008, the Constitutional Court of Slovenia recognized the Slovenian Parliament as incompletely bicameral." etc. The election was only to the National Assembly. Accordingly, it would be more exact and neutral to rename the article to 'Slovenian National Assembly election, 2011'. The same term is also used by the Slovenian National Electoral Commission (volitve v državni zbor - Elections to the National Assembly), the regulating act is named the "National Assembly Elections Act" etc. --Eleassar my talk 12:14, 8 December 2011 (UTC)

Voting system
What voting system is used? Party list? The article doesn't make this clear. Grover cleveland (talk) 15:09, 9 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Added the system, good point. The full party list will be given when the final results are published. --Tone 15:13, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Confusing sentence
I take this to mean that questions were raised as to whether the President can dissolve the Assembly immediately after the deadline has passed for the proposal of candidates. But the previous paragraph says "a candidate has to be proposed by either members of the Assembly or the president within seven days after the fall of a government. If this does not happen, the president dissolves the Assembly and calls for a snap election", which seems to me to answer the question. Is there something else that I'm missing? The confusing sentence is unsourced anyway, so maybe if it is not clarified soon it should just be removed. 86.41.35.204 (talk) 19:09, 11 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Some questions were risen whether the President can dissolve the Assembly right after no candidates are proposed.
 * Well, that was rather a technical thing that was in question. The Constitution says to wait for one month and does not consider the situation that occurred (namely, that no candidates for the PM were proposed). So some people suggested the dissolution could happen earlier, but the President decided to wait all 30 days, to follow the Constitution by the book. I'm sure it could be written better, any suggestions? The reference is in the second sentence, by the way. --Tone 11:36, 12 December 2011 (UTC)
 * I'm still not sure if I understand it correctly, but based on what I think you're saying, I suggest:
 * ''The question arose as to whether the President could dissolve the Assembly after the seven days, in the event that no candidate was proposed. However, since this situation is not covered in the constitution, the decision of the President to wait the full 30 days was welcomed by the political parties.
 * FTR I am the OP. I have a dynamic IP. 86.41.45.254 (talk) 21:49, 14 December 2011 (UTC)

Opinion polls plot
The plot of opinion polls is useful, but it is a bit hard to follow at the moment - the labels are too small, and there are too many minor parties on there. Furthermore, it looks like the curves on the plot are polynomial regression curves, which are probably not appropriate here (there is no theoretical reason to believe party support follows a polynomial curve, they are prone to overfitting, and they don't necessarily sum to anything like 100%) - I don't know what would normally be used - maybe some kind of moving average? 81.98.43.107 (talk) 15:54, 12 December 2011 (UTC)