Talk:2018 Swedish general election

OSCE observers
A misunderstanding is circulating in Swedish press saying that Danish politician Michael Aastrup Jensen is one of the OSCE observers at the Swedish general election. This is not true according to this source: Misinformation spredt i svenske medier om dansk V-politikers valgkritik (in Danish). The OSCE observers were active in the Stockholm area. Valobservatörer kritiska: ”Hanteringen av valsedlarna måste förändras” (in Swedish). Michael Aastrup Jensen visited Malmö in Southern Sweden on his own initiative. 94.191.146.59 (talk) 21:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Photographs of politicians
The pictures on the right-hand side hint that the politicians supplement their income with part-time work in call-centres. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.182.219.228 (talk) 20:25, 21 November 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 09:21, 18 March 2019 (UTC)
 * Stefan lofven cropped picture.jpg
 * I've changed the image. Sjö (talk) 11:38, 18 March 2019 (UTC)

Seat representation and Sweden Democrats
Is there any reason the Sweden Democrats are placed on the center of the hemicycle while all other parties are placed as a representation of their place on the left/right axis ? I think it should be on the right end.--Aréat (talk) 11:46, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Because they are effectively in a cordon sanitaire, I guess the current layout allows for representation of the respective strength of the left- and right blocs. Number   5  7  11:50, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but it's a bit misleading. A cordon santitaire doesn't make a party on the center. Maybe we could keep the one showing alliance, which does portray well the situation with neither side able to reach a majority, but have the normal one with the left/right axis with SD on the far right?--Aréat (talk) 12:57, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Really up to you – I don't have a strong opinion and was just giving my thoughts on why the hemicycle is as it is. Number   5  7  13:31, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I see, thanks. What about the graph makers :, , , your opinion on it ?--Aréat (talk) 14:14, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * I have always wonder the same thing, as SD is clearly in the far-right and is the only example that I'm aware off of such party located at the center. I made the change once but IIRC was reverted by who explained to me that SD is seem as a hinge party in Swedish politics (like a party that wasn't neither with the left-bloc nor with the right-bloc), again IIRC. However I do agree that should be in the right as it gets confusing, is not a centrist party. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 14:33, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * It seem indeed to me that being a fringe party and not belonging to left and right blocs doesn't negate its position as a right to far right party. It's in neither, and to the right of them both. Let's hear if there's more opinions on this, though. --Aréat (talk) 16:01, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no set way to organise a Parliamentary diagram: left-right, gov-opp, seating plan and blocs are all acceptable rationales. My view on it was that there is an 'easy reading' rationale for the current 'blocs' layout. Putting the V-S-MP bloc on the left and the former Alliance on the right allows readers to see at a glance how the parties co-operate and organise themselves, and their relative strengths, and also understand why the SD cause such a problem in forming a government. I do accept however that the breakup of the Alliance in forming the second Lofven government makes this argument significantly weaker, but I still believe the readability argument is valid. There seems to be a consensus to moving SD to the right here so I wouldn't revert it now. I tried to find a seating plan to present as a compromise rationale but was unable to. JackWilfred (talk) 20:08, 16 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Well I do think, to be honest, that archs are by definition left-to-right in design, unlike other type of diagram like the Westmister which IMO works better to show the counterbalance of government and opposition (but that in general isn't used outside of countries with Westmister systems). There has being lenghty discussions about this same subject in for example the Bundestag and the the Turkish assembly, the agreement we reach in some of these discussions is that if what is wanted is that the graphic shows how the benches are seated then the best option is to have the graphic resembling the actual hemicycle, which was done in the case of the Bundestag for example. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 03:40, 17 October 2019 (UTC)
 * In my opinion, diagrams that resemble 1-to-1 replicas of the Parliament's seating plan should be strongly avoided in all cases. We have a tool made by Slashme for a reason, and that is to make Parliamentary diagrams easily accessible and understandable at a glance, and knowing the exact seating plan is entirely superfluous information 95% of the time. I take special exception to the Bundestag diagram currently used, as it includes 'walkspaces' for no reason, uses the wrong colours, is a raster image, and the diagram tool already makes diagrams in the shape of the Bundestag. I have only declined to revert it as I missed the discussion where you came to a consensus to use it. The only conditions with which I would tolerate the use of an exact, bespoke diagram are cases in which the diagrams aren't cluttered and inaccesible (Spain and Canada are good examples), and the image is made to the same vector standards as the standard diagrams.
 * As I said, I think either rationale here, left-right or 'three blocs', is acceptable. My rationale is that while Sweden is the only Nordic parliament presented in this 'three blocs' way, the 'extreme right' equivalents in Finland, Norway and Denmark are all accepted parts of the political system, and until recently were all either part of the governing coalition or supporting it. The Sweden Democrats, by comparison, are completely isolated from the blocs by a cordon sanitaire and this is why, while the jury is still out over whether the second Lofven government has ended the traditional blocs in Sweden, I believe placing it in the middle, as a difficult 'third bloc', is the most readable summary of the political situation in Sweden. JackWilfred (talk) 20:27, 19 October 2019 (UTC)

Just for the record, I was more in line with the regular use of arch diagrams for the Bundestag, but it was the only way how the other user and I could reach and agreement. In any case there's no way to know that the SD represent a "thir bloc" in the Swedish parliament by looking at the current diagram, it doesn't tell me anything as there's no representation of who is government, who is opposition and who is "third" by just looking at, nor there's any indication that the central seats are somehow sanitarized by the other two. In a Westmister-style diagram maybe, but not in a an arch. If anything it just tell me that the SD are "centrist" not far-right specially beacuase their color is yellow which is not usually associated with the far-right. --Dereck Camacho (talk) 05:34, 21 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Understood, apologies if I came across too 'scold-y' about it. The issue here, I think, is that it's too difficult for editors with a particular understanding of Swedish parties to see this from a layman reader's perspective. Any diagram we propose has to work on the assumption of some knowledge though, because otherwise any organisation of the parties is equally valid. Looking at the positions of the parties, I don't agree that there would be a confusion as to the 'three blocs' here, as the smaller parties form a 'buffer' around SD. Your argument about confusion over the SD's ideological position, however, is actually one I didn't think about. I still don't agree, but I accept that your argument is entirely convincing, and have no issue with you changing the diagram. JackWilfred (talk) 18:06, 24 October 2019 (UTC)