Talk:2020 Bolivian general election

Snap elections?
I still don't understand why they are called snap elections. According to the definition in Wikipedia, a Snap election is an election that is called earlier than the one that has been scheduled. In this case it's rather the opposite, the take place a little bit later as the programmed election, or is it just my impression? Yomomo (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * Just your impression - the elections last year were held. The next ones would be in 2025. If any current leader (i.e. Áñez) calls for elections to happen before then, it's a snap election. Kingsif (talk) 18:16, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * The regime of Áñez is interim or Incumbent and no elected government. The elections were held but annulled. The best term that fits here is therefore By-election.  Yomomo (talk) 18:37, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * A by-election is the replacement of one position. This is a general election. Kingsif (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * "Generally, a Snap election in a parliamentary system is called to capitalize on an unusual electoral opportunity or to decide a pressing issue, under circumstances when an election is not required by law or convention." In the current situation the elections are required by the law, it's an interim regime. Your comment or the naming of the situation as snap elections would imply, that the regime of Áñez would normally govern until 2025 and that they decided not to do this. This is a very delicate situation and calling it snap elections would be quite inappropriate. So let's stay by general elections without an adjective or repeat general elections or something in this form. Yomomo (talk) 19:28, 4 January 2020 (UTC)
 * You have glossed over generally in that quote. It can't be a repeat, which has its own implications. Since you don't seem to understand these various political terminology, I strongly discourage you from continuing to change the lead. Kingsif (talk) 19:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Table needs editing
I have absolutely no idea on how to format the table, but the Jan poll should be amended to say that the percentage is not for Andronico Rodriguez, but for the as yet unchosen candidate for MAS-IPSP (see the link in the text). Rodriguez is losing favour in MAS as he is saying some things that are controversial, but he was not included in the poll so it is misleading to have him in the lead.

Arce/Choquehuanca Binomial
I edited the article yesterday and supplied references to correct the panel to say TBA for the MAS candidates. The one reference we had was reporting on the convocation that took place in Argentina by Evo Morales where he was announcing the candidates and was written by the Infobae. Two days before, however, the Unity Pact made a different selection. Morales involvement and attempt to control decisions of MAS from asylum is highly controversial in Bolivia, even within his own party. The workers bodies and unions who make up MAS membership, as well as prominent members of his own part, have said that the matter is not yet settled. The Arce/Choquehuanca selection is a very good one and will probably be chosen officially, especially as those involved are very tightly involved with Morales and would likely defer to his choices, but this has still not been adopted by the party as many bases, especially indigenous ones, see the indigenous Choquehanca as being sidelined. Mainly, however, there is resentment that Morales is making decisions for the party using the relatively small number of representatives that managed to travel to Argentina while ignoring the votes cast by the much larger base membership in Bolivia. The Argentine press is, unsurprisingly, only reporting on those decisions made on their soil. Crmoorhead (talk) 10:59, 23 January 2020 (UTC)

Stopping The Edit War
I am being followed from page to page by a bolivian coup supporter, so lets establish the facts here so they dont have an excuse to continue

both MIT researchers and the washington post agree that the OAS report was false, as well, the military demanding you resign is a coup,

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2020/02/26/bolivia-dismissed-its-october-elections-fraudulent-our-research-found-no-reason-suspect-fraud/

"A coup d'état is the forcible expulsion/removal of power of an existing government by non-democratic means; typically, it is an illegal, unconstitutional seizure of power by a dictator, the military, or a political faction.[1] A coup d'état is considered successful when the usurpers seize and hold power for at least seven days."

PresidenteGonzalo (talk) 00:56, 6 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Calling someone a "bolivian coup supporter" for telling you that when only one of the many investigations into this says something that you are using as justification to call the whatever this is an outright coup and the OAS liars, etc. - when that investigation and the one news report that agrees with it don't even say that - and when there have been other users bringing up valid arguments as to why the investigation has dubious authority, is a personal attack nestled into forcing POV. Please, stop it all. Kingsif (talk) 01:43, 6 March 2020 (UTC)


 * The article is an analysis/opinion piece. Morales' resignation has been very controversial, and the definition it should receive has been discussed at length in the political crisis article's talk page. I advise you to read it. --Jamez42 (talk) 02:25, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Polls color
Pinging, since there seems to be a disagreement regarding which color should be used in the polls tables. I personally prefer using the party color, and if I'm not mistaken it is more or less a convention. --Jamez42 (talk) 13:05, 15 March 2020 (UTC)

Future Election
Category:2020 elections in South America has the category Category:Future elections in South America

Up to this article there is no 2020 election with a direct link to a Future elections category (like Serbia, Montenegro, Guinea)

Braganza (talk) 05:55, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

MDS candidacy
Hi Will the Junts alliance could contest without presidential candidates? --Panam2014 (talk) 13:31, 18 September 2020 (UTC)


 * No, the alliance has been formally dissolved by the TSE and all candidates have been withdrawn. Crmoorhead (talk) 00:09, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Map and opinion polls
The map in the ‘Breakdown of Results’ section will mean nothing to readers unless we add a legend explaining what the colours represent. Secondly, has anyone tried to explain how the various opinion polls leading up to the election could be so far wrong? We should add a section giving possible explanations if any have been given. Burrobert (talk) 10:17, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree on the map, although I have no idea how to code for that correction.


 * The opinion polls aren't wrong per se, at least I haven't seen anyone in Bolivia particularly shocked at the results. I have seen a couple of English-media headlines stating it as a "shock result", but that's not the feeling here at all. It's just that about 20% of voters were undecided/did not respond to the pollsters and candidates removed themselves from the elections. I also think some of the figures for "would not vote" from some of the polls have been incorrectly attributed on this page. TBH, everyone is relieved that some of the uncertainty is removed and there is a definite feeling of calm in the country now. Turnout was 87% and, even with compulsory voting, this is perhaps the highest turnout of any election. A lot of people maybe just decided on the day. Crmoorhead (talk) 12:38, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Looking at the polls for the 2019 election, the predictions for both main candidates were also 10-15% less than expected. Crmoorhead (talk) 13:47, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * Most polls in the last few months before the 2019 election correctly predicted a 10% or more lead for Morales over Mesa. In the 2020 election, most Opinion polls get fairly close to Mesa’s correct percentage but severely underestimate Arce’s support. If all undecided voters (in some polls this was almost 20%) decided to vote for Arce in the election, we are still short of Arce actual percentage by roughly 5 percent. So, how likely is it that all undecided voters chose Arce in the election? And what about the rest of his vote? I don’t know the answers but I would expect there will be some commentary about the discrepancy. Burrobert (talk) 19:18, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It's hard to make a comparison as the wiki page for the 2019 election has very few polls in the immediate runup to the election and the CELAG polls are not accredited by the TSE. Mesa got about 25% of the undecided/would not say and the second line of the polls assume a proportional split, which obviously didn't happen. Some of the polls are taken via telephone, so that might skew the demographic among people who don't want to answer. All I can say is that nobody is making a fuss about it, not even the opponents of MAS. But it's all speculation. Many polls are wrong in the upcoming period to elections, including major ones. The same people doing the previous ones were the ones that took the exit polls too. Most people were maybe expecting a second round, but with so many undecided and candidates dropping out, not even the experts were confident. Crmoorhead (talk) 19:52, 20 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It is possible that systemic methodological errors have resulted in the skewing of the results. Though I also have another hypothesis - it is possible that many MAS supporters felt repressed and worried that perhaps the right-wing government might attempt to do something against them, should it be revealed that they indended to support MAS. If so, they could have either refused to answer or lied when polled, so as to avoid this possibility. Of course, this is but a hypothesis. I am actually very interested in finding some good, reliable sources that can point out why the polls were so wrong. Many of them didn't even give Arce the victory via the 40%+10% rule, let alone an outright majority in the first round. If the exit polls and current count is correct, MAS actually got an absolute percentage point increase over the 2019 election by 4-8% - that's a lot! The editor above pointed out, it is also possible that the data given by some of these agencies was misintepreted or misattributed. In articles covering the election I noted that most covered just how mobilized MAS was in comparison to the other political parties. Most MAS supporters believed that their party and the legacy of Evo would be in an existential crisis should they lose. Perhaps justifiably, as Anez undid many of his policies during her relatively short interim presidency. As for the map - I think that what really needs clarifying is what exactly qualifies as "carrying" that province. After that it's a case of matching colors. Goodposts (talk) 12:18, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * The gap is widening even more as the last 15% is being counted. The interim government have very little power, TBH. Both the house of Deputies and the Senate are controlled by a MAS majority of more than 2/3, which means there is a general stalemate. The police are as corrupt and as immune to prosecution as under any Bolivian government and I don;t see a political bias from that corner. MAS supporters have blocked the roads and constricted the cities (even in full pandemic) and suffered very little repercussions, so I don't see that people are afraid to speak out or answer a question on voting intentions. People were more afraid to speak out against MAS under Evo, IMO, as the interim government has opposition from within it's own political spectrum. Also, at the end of the day, neither Anez nor her political block had a candidate in the election. The only significant changes made by Anez were memberships of various international organisations that will probably quickly be reversed and don't really affect the average citizen, especially not in the short-term. The MAS are very well mobilised, but they have been the biggest political party for 14 years with only fragmentary opposition. CC and Creemos aren't even parties, but coalitions of smaller parties. They were also in a position to heavily propagandise via state-owned media for a long time and it has an effect. Polls can be off, but certainly Arce's win is not surprising here like Trump in 2016 or Brexit was. As I said, there were a lot of undecideds, which is why the predictions could not accurately be made. Crmoorhead (talk) 16:02, 21 October 2020 (UTC)


 * It's possible that because of the political repression by the coup government, MAS supporters were more reluctant to openly support their party, but that's just my own guess. If we want to create a section about the discrepancy, first we need to see if it's WP:DUE and whether it's a widely discussed topic. BeŻet (talk) 20:58, 21 October 2020 (UTC)

Map and opinion polls (part 2)
No complaint about the closure above, but the first question by was not answered. There is no key to the colour shading - clearly the broad colour is the selected party colour, but there is no explanation for the light/dark or shaded/unshaded differences. Davidships (talk) 15:28, 23 October 2020 (UTC)

Vote count
The voting percentage in favour of MAS seemed to increase towards the end of the vote from around 52% to 55%. This same pattern was observed during the 2019 election after the suspension of the preliminary results. Has anyone commented on this phenomenon? If so, it would be worth including in the article as it appears to be a feature of Bolivian elections. Some people have said that it relates to the regions from which late votes originate. Burrobert (talk) 19:50, 23 October 2020 (UTC)
 * If you were watching the count over the last few days it was pretty obvious what happened. MAS stronghold departments with large amounts of voters, particularly La Paz and Cochabamba, were not fully counted as quickly as the other areas. Hunter9502 (talk) 01:00, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I have seen similar explanations. This was a big talking point during the 2019 election. It would be worth including something about this in the article if there are any relevant sources. Burrobert (talk) 03:04, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * In general MAS is more popular in rural/indigenous areas - the type of areas where collecting, sorting and counting ballots takes the longest due to reasons of physical distance and infrastructure. With that said, most sources which note the issue don't go as far as to point out the reason, though they do note that the process was considered normal by the election observers that monitored the election. Goodposts (talk) 13:33, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

Change in numbers
There was an edit made to reflect the change in numbers from the last sessions of the Deputies and Senate. They made the point that the seats allocated in the previous election in 2019 did not take effect, so we should measure the change from the actual makeup of the parties from the previous election in 2014 since these were the ones that were actually in parliament. This seems to ring true to me, but we would need a citation. Perhaps both should be given as it might be useful to compare both the old and new makeup of the chambers as well as how it compares with the annulled numbers? Crmoorhead (talk) 14:49, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi! It is standard wikipedia policy to merely document elections and not really make decisions as to whether or not they were legitimate. Now, there is a point that those elections were legally annulled and that convocation of the assembly never took power. That's true. However, what we're interested in Wikipedia is what makes good encyclopedic content, and in particular - what is informative to readers. The immediate comparison a reader is likely to make with this election in mind (if any) is against the 2019 Election that triggered the political crisis in the first place, not the 2014 one, which is hardly related. Furthermore, the 2019 election already has a table comparing it to the one held in 2014, which in turn allows readers to extrapolate a snapshot of where Bolivian politics were going at that time. Lastly, if you get into the debate of what a "real" election is, you're opening a whole can of worms that doesn't really have a clear answer. So what I say we ought to do is look at the sources. Presently, most sources are directly comparing the results of this election to the results of the 2019 election, not the one in 2014. For all these reasons, I opine that we ought to continue with the way this article was and currently is in that regard and compare the 2020 election results to the 2019 election results. Best regards, Goodposts (talk) 15:34, 24 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say that the most informative version reflects the real-life change in numbers of both chambers, particularly as that is also affects the 2/3 majority needed for many lawmaking processes which won't happen until the new government is installed. At time of writing, the legislative assemblies consist of the 2014 numbers. In 2 weeks time, they will be the those determined by the 2020 elections. Thus the real life change in numbers will be from the 2014 numbers. It's not a decision on whether or not the elections were legitimate, those are the facts on who was or was not able to vote in the assemblies. To say that there are x fewer seats for a particular political party based on the 2019 numbers is therefore factually incorrect and it would not be encyclopedic content to report otherwise, at least without a note to say that the changes don't reflect the real numbers in the assembly. As far as I can tell, there is no standard Wiki policy on how to report the change in numbers for annulled elections as most just give the vote share and not the change in seat numbers. As I mentioned before, it would probably be most useful for the reader to be able to compare both at a glance as a comparison with the 2019 results would be of interest too. This is, however, secondary to reporting the real change in seats. Most sources (at least in Bolivia) are reflecting on the 2014 seat numbers rather than the 2019 seat numbers because that actually affects the working of parliament whereas the 2019 numbers were only theoretical. Most sources outside of Bolivia may be comparing with the 2019 elections because they simply weren't interested in the non-controversial 2014 elections and don't report the 2019 seat numbers at all. Sure, people could compare between the 2014, 2019 and 2020 numbers by going to the separate pages, but that would involve doing unnecessary maths and there is no real reason to not have both on this page for the most informative content. Crmoorhead (talk) 22:17, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with Goodposts that what would be instinctively pursued as a comparison is one to the 2019 election. MAS losing its two third majority is indeed an important point, but it can very well be in the text of the article, with a comparison to several previous elections, and not in the table. Actually, it is even more uneeded in the table, because 2/3 of 166 isn't a number that come to mind, and so it wouldn't be apparent in the table even if we had the comparison of seats with 2014 there.--Aréat (talk) 22:24, 25 October 2020 (UTC)
 * You are entirely correct that MAS lost its 2/3 supermajority, but in fact MAS lost it back in 2019, so this isn't really news. Now, you are correct in stating that due to the cancellation of the 2019 election results, MAS would only lose its supermajority in practice after the new convocation takes up office, but I think that put it well when he said that this can easily be explained in the text of the article, instead of the table. Goodposts (talk) 13:20, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Hi, yes I included it in accompanying text. The table is not the correct place to mention it, but I don't believe I suggested it other than I think the number changes should represent the real change. It's a strange position to say that MAS lost the supermajority in 2019 when they continued to have it and indeed use it politically for the next year. It's like saying someone lost their job, but continued working for the company under the same conditions for a year. The stalemate between the ALP and the government was a major characteristic of the political landscape of the last year. Looking at the 2019 election page, there is no mention of it there. Crmoorhead (talk) 14:23, 26 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I just read what you've added to the article and I believe you've done a good job at explaining this to the readers. I'd say the reason for the discrepency is because we are comparing election results to election results and not necessarily the aftermath of one election to the aftermath of another. Goodposts (talk) 13:52, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 00:23, 17 September 2021 (UTC)
 * Luis Fernando Camacho.jpg

Updated results?
The spanish page show different results, with this source. Before changing it all, do someone here know which may be the definitive ones? It wouldn't be the first time an election page of a spanish speaking country is more up to date on the english wiki.--Aréat (talk) 19:39, 21 February 2022 (UTC)