Talk:2023 Bulgarian parliamentary election

Move to 2023
Hi all, considering BSP is returning the mandate and elections are a given, what would views be on moving the page to '2023 Bulgarian parliamentary election'? Quinby ( talk ) 23:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * It should be moved when it is definitely confirmed that the elections are happening in 2023. Number   5  7  23:50, 21 January 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it has to be noted that in April mostly educational elections are held in Europe, and parliamentary only mainly in Africa. And this choice is not to be confirmed as an Eurosceptic but pro-African and even pro-Egyptian because of the former Minister of education who took his professorship in Egyptology during his political mandate.--Politbgen (talk) 11:57, 22 March 2023 (UTC)
 * What does this mean? 144.82.8.59 (talk) 08:28, 31 March 2023 (UTC)

NOTA
unlike in other countries NOTA votes are not taken into account

quote from the Electoral Code:

IV. Determining the seats under the proportional system in multi-mandate electoral regions 4.4. Assighment of seats for each party and coalition at national level - First Step: 4.4.1. calculated shall be the sum of the valid votes cast in the country and abroad, except for those under Art. 279, para. 1, item 6; 4.4.2. calculated shall be 4 percent of the sum under item 4.4.1. Segregation of the Ballot Papers 6. (new - SG 39/16, in force from 26.05.2016) a pile of ballot papers in the established form: a) the vote being marked with the "X" or "V" signs by blue pen in the "I do not support anyone" box; b) containing two stamps of the competent section election commission.

I propose that we switch to normal wikitables as we used to, since election results don't allow this. Braganza (talk) 19:04, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Braganza (talk) 19:14, 24 March 2023 (UTC)


 * How did it look before, as I'm fairly new here. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 19:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * i just clicked through the history ;) Braganza (talk) 19:29, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Braganza I would broadly agree with this change. With so many parties predicted to getting close to the 4% threshold, there would need to be a lot of explanation notes. It would make sense to include NOTA as a section after the parties, as it is not tallied up by the CEC. I don't see why we should deviate from the CEC and violate WP:OR to the extent that we are reporting the percentages in a way very few sources if any are. Quinby  ( talk ) 21:07, 24 March 2023 (UTC)

I couldn't be more strongly opposed to this proposal. What you are describing above is simply how the electoral commission works out the allocation of the seats (it not only ignores NOTA but also independent candidates), which is completely different to the overall results. It would be madness to ignore votes cast for independent candidates and NOTA an overall results table. Note that this was previously explained here after an IP kept changing to the seat threshold percentage rather than the overall percentage. Number  5  7  20:01, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * by including NOTA we just lead to extreme confusing since some article/languages go after the official numbers (like GERB) while other use our numbers and especially with ITN, BV & Left! all close to the threshold we shouldn't start adjusting the numbers


 * also independents are not excluded, if you include NOTA but Independents it is always a match of the official results (they use "Брой на действителните гласове, подадени за кандидатските листи на партии, коалиции и инициативни комитети" as total)
 * Even if independents were included, the percentages you are talking are still purely used for calculating distribution of seats, and should not be considered the actual results for the purposes of presenting it in a results table. If the wrong figures are in parties' articles, fix them; it's not a reason to have an incorrect results table. Number   5  7  21:49, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * i don't think we are in the position to decide what the "actual" results are, especially for something which was just introduced in 2016 (thus doesn't have a long lasting tradition) and is not even included in the official results Braganza (talk) 22:21, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * also for Spain we include Blank ballots because in Spain they count and aren't regarded as invalid Braganza (talk) 22:25, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * NOTA are not invalid. They are included in the official results in the list of votes cast for parties/independents (see here) – it just doesn't have a percentage against it, because the percentage is solely for calculating seat allocations. Number   5  7  22:26, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I think you can recognise that NOTA is very different from a vote for a party, and as such at least I believe it should be treated differently. Considering it does not impact seat count or the results at large, there seems to be little issue in including it in a section of its own, and saying how many valid votes were NOTA as a percentage, while still allowing for better calculated tables. Quinby  ( talk ) 22:52, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * NOTA is included in the percentage figures according to standard psephological practice and it should not be excluded because the electoral commission ignores it when calculating seat allocations. We should show correct psephological values, not the seat allocation values. Number   5  7  22:59, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * "I think you can recognise that NOTA is very different from a vote for a party". Well, no, that's a bia. Many countries does consider NOTA votes as valid votes. The very point of them is for the voters to express their disaproval of the choice of parties given, and show that a given party does not have the support it could claim it has based on the sole party votes. The current tables do show the actual shares of supports per parties. --Aréat (talk) 23:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * the same can be said for invalid votes... some countries like Lithuania or Latvia recognize (specific) invalid votes as "valid" Braganza (talk) 06:26, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * But again, only for the purpose of determining threshold/seat allocations. This is a different concept to a full results table, which should be presented in a consistent fashion according to psephological norms. Number   5  7  10:20, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * in your opinion... Braganza (talk) 11:57, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * It's not an opinion. "Against all" is a valid vote, and it's not used to calculate the allocations of seats.--Aréat (talk) 12:06, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Aréat I apologise for being pedantic here, but I don't see why NOTA votes are explicitly valid, especially because they do not impact the results. Quinby  ( talk ) 12:35, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Quinby No problem, it's a legitimate question. Cf the Electoral code, article 278 : Upon determination of the voting results, each ballot paper shall correspond to one vote, which may be either valid or invalid. A vote shall be valid where [...] 9. (new - SG 39/16, in force from 26.05.2016) the "X" or "V" sign is placed by blue pen in the "I do not support anyone" box on the ballot paper.--Aréat (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * @Number 57 'Standard psephological practice' is a very vague term, and it does not seem to be a good reason to include or exclude things. I would also challenge the view that it is standard, as sources such as Politico remove them from their reporting. Quinby  ( talk ) 12:31, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The good reason to include them is that they are votes cast and should be recorded as such. Our results tables are for showing votes and percentages, not for showing the calculations used by the electoral commission for seat allocations. But anyway, I've made my point repeatedly here so I'm not sure how many times I can say the same thing. Can people also stop pinging me, as I have this page on my watchlist. Thanks, Number   5  7  12:52, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * also i made a proposal, you should comment on it Braganza (talk) 12:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Nothing proposed on the talk page is acceptable. The whole point of creating Election results was to ensure that Wikipedia presents election results in a consistent manner according to standard practice. Number   5  7  13:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * the point was to simplify of making such tables... not to standardize the results by common manners Braganza (talk) 13:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * As the person who built most of the module, I can tell you that standardisation was the main purpose. Simplification and error checking are secondary benefits. Number   5  7  13:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Achieving standardisation is nigh on impossible considering different countries have rules that differ. Trying to impose a system which is rejected by many alternative sources outside Wikipedia, including the official count, is a bold move, and in my opinion, a wrong one 2A00:23C7:DF99:1501:CDFE:626A:2C83:B366 (talk) 13:55, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Apologies, this was me, got logged out for some reason Quinby  ( talk ) 13:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

to make it more clear this is my idea

so it is not denied that NOTA are valid votes but they are not taken into account
 * Why not consider NOTA — Preceding unsigned comment added by Aréat (talk • contribs) 23:23, 24 March 2023 (UTC)
 * just as i said NOTA does not have an impact on the threshold and we just confuse everyone by making our own numbers (even english wikipedia sometimes uses the percentages including NOTA sometimes without NOTA) Braganza (talk) 06:22, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * The message above was a mistake made on mobile. Anyways, parts of the votes not being used in the calculation of the threshold for the allocation of seats doesn't make them less of a valid vote. The same way votes for parties under the threshold not being used for the allocation of seats are still shown as valid votes. --Aréat (talk) 12:10, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Also, we are not "making our own numbers"; external electoral results compilers also include NOTA in their calculations (e.g. IFES – parties that didn't win seats and NOTA are not listed, but you can see that they are included in the calculation of the percentage, hence why GERB/SDS has 24.48% rather than 25.33% (which be the figure excluding NOTA). Please do point out articles where this is being done wrong so it can be corrected though. Cheers, Number   5  7  12:11, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * it's not about "correcting" (since this would also mean that the official results are wrong?)
 * and it's not just some party articles but also other languages either adopted the percentages English wiki lists (like French & Bulgarian wikis) while other languages use the official percentages there is no "consistent fashion" if we include NOTA and leads only to confusing Braganza (talk) 12:53, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * For the final time: The official results (and I assume you are referring to the percentages) are for calculating the seat allocations; what we are showing is the overall results. What other language Wikis do is not our problem, as different languages have different policies and guidelines. Number   5  7  13:04, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * when did we introduce such guidelines about which votes we recognize and which not? Braganza (talk) 13:13, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, if you want to be pedantic, replace guidelines with "ways of doing things". Number   5  7  13:14, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * ok, i give up if you are not willing to discuss it's fine just do your stuff Braganza (talk) 13:40, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * i just saw in the history that you called my proposal "madness", sorry but this is not ok
 * i am reluctantly giving up since you are not willing to argue but i am not accepting that you're calling it straight up madness Braganza (talk) 06:21, 26 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I would not say they are, they calculate the percentages received by parties among voters expressing an intention. Seems strange to suggest the official results source should not be reported to the fullest extent Quinby  ( talk ) 14:00, 25 March 2023 (UTC)
 * Have you seen my comment above ? NOTA votes are officialy valid votes.--Aréat (talk) 16:56, 25 March 2023 (UTC)

Just a note on this, as of now ITN is sitting on 3.98% of the vote excluding independents and NOTA. If we are sticking to this, it will need to be explained. Quinby ( talk ) 07:49, 3 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Braganza (talk) 07:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

School bomb threats
I am not confident enough in my understanding of Bulgarian politics to add this to the article myself.

Leading up to the elections, there have been numerous bomb threats sent to schools all across Bulgaria, and I think that this is notable enough to be included. Bulgarian elections take place in school buildings, so that's the reason for the threats. Quick Quokka [⁠talk • contribs] 09:33, 1 April 2023 (UTC)