Talk:2015 Polish parliamentary election

"Party-list proportional representation"?
The numbers show that the seat allocation rule is far from being a proportional rule. Clarification is required. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.2.81.93 (talk) 19:12, 27 October 2015‎
 * Would you care to elaborate? It already states that it is based on the d'Hondt method in constituencies, i.e. seats are allocated on a sub-national level akin to some MEP elections. The overall national vote percentage does not directly affect the number of seats a party attains and is rather a reflection of its popular support. Fuebaey (talk) 02:04, 29 October 2015 (UTC)


 * According to Markowski (2016), the result is due to 16% of votes being wasted because parties failed to meet the electoral thresholds. Unless you have any concerns with that source, I'll add a note to that effect to the article.-Eloquence* 14:52, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Kukiz'15
I'm not familiar with English terminology, so maybe it is correct, but technically speaking Kukiz'15 is not a political party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.77.124.85 (talk) 17:43, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

Zenji.yamada.nihon if you are unhappy with this Ideologies add an evidence of United Left (Poland).

"Economic"?
What ideology is "economic" (listed as an ideology of Law and Justice)?--MiguelMadeira (talk) 22:43, 24 October 2015 (UTC)


 * It seems to be meant that it's an economic party. --Ueberwolf (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Exit poll and Late poll
What's the Late poll and which of them is more precise? --Ueberwolf (talk) 06:15, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

Misinformation in infobox and lead
The faces in the infobox are supposed to be those of party leaders, right? Then why is there a picture of Beata Szydło, who is only one of deputy party leaders? The leader of PiS is still Jarosław Kaczyński, so it should be his picture there.

Secondly, what is "It was the first European election (...) where the two largest parties fielded a female candidate" supposed to mean? Surely, there have been female candidates in all Polish parliamentary elections I can remember. Is it supposed to mean candidates for the post of prime minister? But then, a parliamentary election is not a prime ministerial election. A prime minister is nominated by the president and confirmed by the Sejm. The president is under no obligation to nominate the person suggested by the winning party (even if this is normally the case). So there is no such thing as an official prime ministerial candidate in Polish parliamentary elections. — Kpalion(talk) 08:03, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I think to describe this as "misinformation" is unhelpful. What you describe are nuances around PiS putting forward Szydlo that are adequately described in the article. The infobox picture of Szydlo has an explanatory note on this matter already. Ultimately, we follow what RS say and these, it seems to me, are given. Bondegezou (talk) 08:22, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added further cites around Szydlo, but am happy to see further text explaining the situation added too. This leaves a different question beyond what Kpalion is saying, I think, around whether the claim about the historical significance of having female leads is supported. Bondegezou (talk) 08:39, 27 October 2015 (UTC)
 * Szydło was the face of her party's campaign and their candidate for prime minister. Therefore it's correct to put her image into the infobox. --Maxl (talk) 09:26, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

It's standard practice on election articles to put the "lead candidate" rather than the dejure party leader in the infobox. See the German federal election, 2013 or Indian general election, 2014 for example. --RaiderAspect (talk) 04:34, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

Official Results

 * http://parlament2015.pkw.gov.pl/
 * http://wiadomosci.onet.pl/kraj/wybory-parlamentarne-2015-pkw-podala-oficjalne-wyniki/nllhty (they have a nice grapgh but it is not Creative Commons) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Stefek99 (talk • contribs) 12:12, 27 October 2015 (UTC)


 * I added a table (Template:Polish parliamentary election, 2015), but the increased/decreased numbers of seats (for both Sejm and Senat) need to be filled. I don't have the information how are the seats currently distributed. —  Ma y ast  ( talk ) 14:38, 27 October 2015 (UTC)

PES
Is Poland now the only EU state with no PES member party in the national legislature? Latvia has the SDPS which is an associate member. Might be worth noting in analysis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.104.70.134 (talk) 07:53, 28 October 2015 (UTC)

New Sejm
When shall the new parliament be inaugurated? --212.186.0.108 (talk) 18:57, 2 November 2015 (UTC)


 * If it's there, I can't find it in the article. --212.186.0.108 (talk) 10:40, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

Seat Changes
Shouldn't the changes in number of seats refer to seats won in the 2011 election? Currently the comparison is between the seats currently held and seats won in 2015. This is kind of misleading because many MPs switched parties and some parliamentary groups practically disappeared. Note that other language wikipedia pages compare the seats won on election days. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.191.102.105 (talk) 14:22, 3 November 2015 (UTC)

recent edit warring
Putting aside of the disruptive nature of the edits for a moment, I agree with User:Szwedzki that's important to include parties which have passed the 3% threshold, simply because that guarantees state funding for campaigns.  Volunteer Marek  15:12, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Good point.--Batmacumba (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm frankly astonished as to how this page as turned into a spectacular edit war with little to no discussion in the talk page. Customary practice, in principle, is to leave parties obtaining 0 seats out from the infobox. Inclusion can be discussed and consensus may be reached, but it should be discussed, not just go to the article and start an edit war like this one. There are arguments supporting both positions, but customary practice, in principle prevailing, supports the "no 0-seat parties in the infobox" idea. Furthermore, if inclusion would be to be agreed, some details would need to be polished up. For example; is it fair for a party/coalition/list obtaining 7.55% of the vote to be placed behind a party with 0.18% of the national vote? As of now, inclusion of ZL and Razem in the infobox is being done on a rather chaotic manner, with no logic behind it, and even distorting the infobox size allocated to each party. Razem even lacking a color template of its own and the party logo being used as photo. Please, come down here and discuss the issue instead of keeping this edit warring, so that this may be done on a more orderly way. Impru20 (talk) 21:54, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Well, the unusually high 8% threshold for coalitions and the fact that ZL includes a party as important as SLD makes it rather odd to omit it, even if that follows a general principle.--Batmacumba (talk) 22:20, 13 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Even then, it is wrong to include Razem and not include KORWiN. ï¿½ (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2015 (UTC)


 * Agree 100%. All three should be included.--Batmacumba (talk) 16:34, 18 November 2015 (UTC)