Talk:2023 Polish parliamentary election

Bezpartyjni Samorządowcy center-left?
What's the source on that? The three ex-leftists joining them previously doesn't make the party center-left. Polish Wiki lists their ideology as: regionalizm, demokracja bezpośrednia, konserwatywny liberalizm, proeuropeizm, none of which is stricly leftist. Their website doesn't call them that either, and neither does any source on the internet. Tomeka2 (talk) 18:14, 29 September 2023 (UTC)


 * There would be a few arguments for that. On the front of pure labels, the party did explicitly reject being right-wing, and stated that it "disagrees with PiS on ideological and world-view issues". It is also important to bring up party members who describe themselves as left-wing.
 * Socially, the party does campaign for causes that are identified with the left in Poland; they supported the 2020 Women's Strike and went as far as saying that PiS is "on the wrong side of history". There was also a debate a few days ago (24 September), in which the committee of this party took part in. They said that "Poland should become a comfortable and good country for economic migrants", expressed their support for state funding of in-vitro programs, and when asked about abortion, the spokeswoman of the party said that it's "solely a matter for the woman. It is up to the woman to decide whether or not to have an abortion".
 * Economically, you could also easily make a case for a left-wing alignment. Their program includes free lunches in schools, education vouchers and higher salaries for teachers. But something more ambitious is their plan for free public transport, which the party presents as an ecological solution too. Lastly, I want to point to this interview with Łukasz Pająk from September 2023, where he says: "I can guarantee that when we enter Parliament as Non-Partisan Local Governments, we will seek to tax large corporations". Brat Forelli (talk) 01:14, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

Jaroslaw Kaczynski's and Donald Tusk's party
Jaroslaw Kanczynski IS from PiS (Prawo i Sprawiedliwosc - Law and Justice) and NOT from ZO - Zjedonczona Prawica - United Right) and Law and Justice is leading in the polls, the same thing is with Donald Tusk whos party is called PO (Platforma Obywatelska - Civic Platform) and NOT KO (Koalicja Obywatelska - Civic Coalition. Lwh (talk) 22:14, 15 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Scratch that. Seems correct. Lwh (talk) 22:28, 15 October 2023 (UTC)

"Last election"? Is that the election of 15 Oct 2023?
The term "Last election" in the first table is ambiguous. Do the percentages mentioned there refer to th 2023 election or to the 2018 election? Someone who knows the answer, please indicate accordingly, i.e. by changing the wording in the table to "2018 election".Redav (talk) 14:02, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * They are from the 2018 elections. Someone is updating some of the results for this year's election, but they are not being shown in the table. LightNightLights (talk • contribs) 07:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

Seat count
Isn't it original research to add the seat count without any reliable sources for it being cited? To be clear, the numbers appear correct, but it shouldn't be for Wikipedia to be the first website to publish those numbers. Gust Justice (talk) 21:10, 16 October 2023 (UTC)


 * I've just redone the calculation myself & I can confirm they're correct, but yes, without a published source I guess that's original research. Charles Richardson (talk) 02:06, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * That's taking the notion of "original research" to an absurd extreme. If something can be derived based on math, cross-checked by others to ensure no mathematical mistakes, that shouldn't count as original research. Zombie Philosopher (talk) 12:00, 17 October 2023 (UTC)
 * I think it would depend. Certainly once all or almost all votes are counted, then I think it would acceptable to post a table with constituency results and seats, along with overall number of seats earned by parties. By simply posting estimated seat counts, which in some cases don't correspond at all to actual seat counts, but are just projected using an online calculator using universal swings, I think is problematic. Gust Justice (talk) 05:13, 18 October 2023 (UTC)

Seat projection
The ballot boxes have been counted at 99.86% as I write this, is it possible to add the results in seats to the page yet ? This is a source with 90% of ballots counted : https://www.tvp.info/73459940/late-poll-z-90-proc-okregow-pis-zwyciezca-wyborow Cuspysan (talk) 02:26, 17 October 2023 (UTC)


 * That source seems far too biased, it says that PiS won, even though they clearly lost this election. 72.229.242.36 (talk) 05:51, 17 October 2023 (UTC)

User experience feedback: Puzzling demographics table
On first look here, I'm confused by the sociological table. Can someone please explain how the share for men's and women's percentage of votes for e.g. Law and Justice is both higher than the total percentage of votes for Law and Justice? Shouldn't the total be an average of the men's and women's votes? If it's not a mistake, perhaps an explanatory note is required?

-- Chumchum7 (talk) 04:29, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Or if someone knows who added this data, please let me know. I would like to ask them directly as per WP:V it isn't immediately obvious to me in the citation. -Chumchum7 (talk) 04:41, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * This data is from an Ipsos exit poll. The source is at the bottom of the table. I don’t know why, but the “Total vote” figures were wrong. They are correct now. Brainiac242 (talk) 05:21, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Right, I think Ipsos is in the citation I was referring to. In that case I'm glad we checked. Thanks for fixing. -Chumchum7 (talk) 07:24, 21 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Full disclosure, I'm fully opposed to Law and Justice. The implication of this data is that more women voted for Law and Justice than for any other party, which contradicts the common perception as represented by a BBC headline . Not sure what to do when the data contradicts an RS, but as we don't have an analysis section yet we'll cross that bridge when we come to it. -Chumchum7 (talk) 08:36, 21 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Would you know how to add the total % of women and men voters to the table? There's a sum here -Chumchum7 (talk) 13:53, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Do you mean the estimated turnout among women and men talked about at the bottom of the article? Brainiac242 (talk) 17:28, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Mistake?
The article states, "National minority communities, such as the German minority, are waived from the requirement of accomplishing a nation-wide 5% result, and only need to do so in their electoral constituency, in this specific case Opole." Doesn't that appear to be contradicted, here, or at least require better clarification?: https://notesfrompoland.com/2023/10/17/german-minority-out-of-polish-parliament-for-the-first-time-in-32-years/

-Chumchum7 (talk) 03:41, 23 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yes, that isn't quite right and is a misinterpretation of the Polish system a bit. What happened is that the German Minority Committee only contests elections in Opolskie Voivodeship - and this Voivodeship has 12 seats allocated in total. They might have crossed the electoral threshold, but they finished on 6th place rather than the usual 5th. Konfederacja got 31 150 votes there which pushed them past German Minority (who only got 25 778 votes), which meant that they took this last 12th seat that was always won by the German Minority. I will correct it. Brat Forelli (talk) 14:47, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Oh yeah, it is also still true that minority parties are still required to cross the 5% threshold regionally (I added a source with a quote that states this), but crossing this threshold does not mean winning a seat. This is what happened. Brat Forelli (talk) 15:00, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Yikes! How complicated. Thanks for fixing. What do you think about adding the gender voting %s, per my message to Brainiac above? -Chumchum7 (talk) 15:42, 23 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Definitely, it is a pretty convoluted system and it is sad to see a minority party being driven away from the Sejm because of some electoral machinery. They occupied a very unique place in Polish politics too, as a minority representative and left-leaning Christian Democrats, which also made them represent the pro-clerical left (this current was previously represented by Samoobrona, but this party died in 2007). Not to mention the irony of a far-right of all parties taking their seat away.
 * Regarding adding gender voting, I think your idea is great, but there is one question that remains - how do we do that? It seems like we will need to make a second table for that. Brat Forelli (talk) 16:26, 23 October 2023 (UTC)

Adding data for gender total
I am talking about adding data to the demographics table at the bottom of our article to show total male and female turnout, which AFAICS isn't in our article yet. Here is a citation, which itself relies on that same Ipsos exit poll as a source: "The exit poll published after the close of voting on Sunday evening indicated that turnout among female votes, at 73.7%, was slightly higher than the 72% among male ones." -Chumchum7 (talk) 02:42, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sorry, that’s what I meant. I was referring to the bottom of the article you provided, not this Wikipedia article. Anyway, the source at the bottom of the table had the estimated turnouts by sex, age, and agglomeration. I added them to a “Turnout” column. Let me know what you think. Brainiac242 (talk) 09:10, 24 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Beautiful work, thanks. -Chumchum7 (talk) 09:46, 24 October 2023 (UTC)
 * Interesting reference to 18-29 numbers being higher than 60+ : Maybe we should add vote counts to percentages on our chart. Lower percentages for 18-29, with higher numbers for 18-29, is quite a paradox. -Chumchum7 (talk) 17:27, 29 October 2023 (UTC)


 * That article says: “For the first time, Poles under 29 […] voted in larger numbers than people over 60”. The table shows turnout for 18-29s as 70.9%, and for over 60s as 66.5%. I really don’t see the contradiction. Brainiac242 (talk) 18:02, 29 October 2023 (UTC)
 * You're right, I misread the line. -Chumchum7 (talk) 18:11, 29 October 2023 (UTC)

Modern seats change
This article mentions that the Modern party got 6 seats, losing 13. However, on the previous election article (2019 Polish parliamentary election), there's a mention of 8 seats. Therefore, it looks like losing only 2 seats. Grillofrances (talk) 04:12, 26 October 2023 (UTC)


 * Bump. Who made the apparent mistake, and can they explain it? Chumchum7 (talk) 03:56, 27 October 2023 (UTC)

Leader versus PM candidate
Changing the pic in the box 'Leader' section from Kaczynski to Morawiecki is logically wrong as Morawiecki is not party leader. Adding in brackets that Morawiecki is the PM candidate is no justification, because it's not a box of PM candidates. Tusk is the likely PM candidate for KO/PO but that is not certain, it could turn out to be someone else, and that is not why he is there in that box. By the same token we don't have a box of 'heads of state' and replace a pic of Britain's King Charles with Rishi Sunak with the note in brackets "Most senior politician". A head of state is a head of state, a party leader is a party leader. -Chumchum7 (talk) 03:55, 27 October 2023 (UTC)


 * It is common practice to list the candidate for office in the infobox, even if it differs from who the de jure party leader is. For example, 2021 German federal election, 2022 Quebec general election and even 2019 Polish parliamentary election — which lists Morawiecki. With that in mind, I'm restoring Morawiecki to this infobox. If the title "leader" is a problem, we can do what the German pages do and overwrite it to say "candidate", if you prefer. — Kawnhr (talk) — Kawnhr (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2023 (UTC)


 * You pushing thru your version, despite this dispute seems to be in violation of WP:consensus --FantinoFalco (talk) 11:08, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I don't see how I'm "pushing through" anything. I came across this page, saw something that I considered amiss, and changed it. That is how Wikipedia works. As far as I can see, there was never any consensus; only one editor talked about this, and while their version stood until now, silence is the weakest form of consensus and only holds until someone objects (per WP:SILENCE). If you don't like the edit, then sure, we can go through the WP:BRD cycle, but that I have disagreed with another editor isn't some violation of collaborative editing. — Kawnhr (talk) 15:37, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I fully agree with Kawnhr. There was no consensus to "push through". Plus I find his logic completely sound. His change is definitely an improvement. Brat Forelli🦊  15:58, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * Should add, I don't think the label "leader" is even a problem. No, Morawiecki isn't the party leader, but the label doesn't say party leader, it just says leader — that's open enough that it can be read as "the person in charge of the campaign" or "leading candidate". Again, I'm fine with changing that to "candidate" if that's what people prefer, but I don't think this is strictly necessary. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I have now been reverted on this, so I suppose we're in the BRD cycle. So can someone who objects elaborate as to why? As I've already shown, there is precedent for doing exactly this. In the German example, it's not just Baerbock (who has a footnote), but Scholz as well, who was put forward as the SPD's candidate for chancellor despite not being party leader, and this is not even indicated by a note (this seems to be fairly common for the SPD at least — same thing happened in 2017, with Schulz). It's also been done on previous Polish elections: 2019 Polish parliamentary election uses the PM candidate over party leader for both PiS and PO, and 2015 Polish parliamentary election uses a PM candidate for PiS. Why is it a bridge too far here on the 2023 election specifically? — Kawnhr (talk) 15:07, 17 November 2023 (UTC)
 * OK, it's been nearly three weeks. I'm going to go ahead and reinstate Morawiecki in the infobox, since a) in this time, no editors have joined in the conversation; b) the only opposition was a supposed lack of consensus; c) the only person to voice an opinion on this was in agreement. This is not so bold a change — once again, this is how it's done on the previous two Polish elections — that it needs a robust consensus. I am not trying to close the door on this dispute, but if you disagree with me on this, please actually come here to discuss it. — Kawnhr (talk) 22:41, 8 December 2023 (UTC)

Results apportionment diagrams
Is it just me who thinks that the current apportionment diagrams for the Sejm/Senate results feel out of place on this article? They both look like they'd be fine on the Sejm of Poland and Senate of Poland pages or something, but here they just look wrong. I've created two new files that both seem better at displaying the results and are easier on the eyes in my opinion.





What are people's thoughts? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 04:20, 19 November 2023 (UTC)

Senator Piotr Woźniak - wrong path
The link to Wiki site of Piotr Woźniak is wrong 212.106.163.201 (talk) 10:16, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Appointment of the Prime Minister
Even though there has not been a vote of confidence yet. However, Mateusz Morawiecki was appointed Prime Minister for the second time. 3After the election Even though it is a minority government This is similar to the Thai election of 1975 in which the king appointed Seni Pramote as Prime Minister. Even though he later lost the vote of confidence. อย่ามาตบะ (talk) 02:17, 11 December 2023 (UTC)


 * It is not similar; I believe the vote of no confidence led to another election there, while we already have Donald Tusk as a prime-minister-in-waiting. I personally urge for the "TBD" label to be kept until Tusk's formally sworn in, though. — twotwofourtysix (talk &#124;&#124; edits) 12:14, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * This is similar to what happened in Portugal following the 2015 Portuguese legislative election: both Passos Coelho and Morawiecki were appointed as PMs by the president following the election (and in spite of their results handing a clear majority for the opposition). After a couple of weeks, both governments fell following a binding vote of confidence in the parliament. It was obvious all along that Morawiecki would not be a "permanent" PM, but he was still appointed to the post as a result of the election, so it would be misleading to just have him vanishing. I have thus established a system similar to the 2015 Portuguese election, in which Coelho was shown as the PM after the election but a footnote and text clarifying his government only lasted until the parliament voted it down, with the subsequent PM being shown as well.  Impru 20 talk 16:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yes, this is how we typically handle it. For another couple of examples, see 2017 British Columbia general election and 1985 Ontario general election — also scenarios where the incumbent leader doggedly stayed in office despite the opposition coming to an agreement, and was then promptly defeated at first opportunity. The argument there was that, even though the premier didn't stay in office long, it is still the case that they were sworn into office as a direct result of that election (having won a plurality). That would also apply here, per the article itself, where it mentions that Morawiecki was invited to form a government, and promptly formed a new cabinet. We will of course have a footnote for Tusk, when he's sworn in. — Kawnhr (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Yep, that (being sworn into office as a direct result of that election) is the argument at play here. It does not matter whether it was one year or one day, there was a PM appointment just after the election, and in this case that was Morawiecki. Obviously, the special circumstances at hand (i.e. a parliamentary majority resulting from the election and opposing this appointment) are what merit a footnote/clarification being made on the subsequent PM (also a direct result of the election).  Impru 20 talk 17:05, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Constitutionally, the situation in Poland is comparable to the various recent drawn out government formation crisis in Israel. For example, after the 2021 election, the president of Israel initially tasked Netanyahu with assembling a government. After Netanyahu failed, the president then awarded the mandate to Yair Lapid, who later succeeded. During this period Netanyahu served both in a caretaker capacity & was appointed formateur first, a direct result of Likud coming first in the election.
 * I believe especially since the wording is “elected” Prime Minister, it implies the investiture vote after the election under the new parliament. Morawiecki lost said investiture vote & Tusk won. The election of Tusk reflects the configuration of the new Sejm as well as the electorate’s will. It’d be misleading to list Morawiecki above or alongside side Tusk as the elected PM. 沁水湾 (talk) 04:23, 12 December 2023 (UTC)
 * The difference is that Netanyahu was not elected to the post in any way. Morawiecki was sworn into office as a direct result of the election under constitutional procedures, even if he later lost the vote. Not as a caretaker, but as a fully responsible PM. That is why the situation is similar to Portugal 2015, not much Israel 2021.  Impru 20 talk 07:00, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

This is an article about a parliamentary election. We put here the prime minister elected by new parliament. It is Tusk. --95.24.69.71 (talk) 18:30, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * A presidential PM appointment was required under Polish law as a result of the election. That was done, and that was Morawiecki. So, Morawiecki was elected PM as a direct result of the election. However, under Polish law, if such appointment does not secure the confidence vote of the parliament, the initiative for PM appointment goes to the Sejm. We are at that point, when presumably Tusk will be elected as PM (also as a direct result of the election). So, both of them, Morawiecki and Tusk, would have been appointed as PM as a result of the election according to Polish law, so both will be shown. There are plenty of precedents for this in Wikipedia, we are not in uncharted territory. Similar solutions as in the past will be implemented.  Impru 20 talk 18:55, 11 December 2023 (UTC)
 * In practice, it's the one who "sticks", who can sustain the confidence of the legislature, who counts. Coming out of this process, Tusk will be PM. While we should explain the detail of the process, when summarising in the lead or infobox, isn't the answer Tusk? Bondegezou (talk) 15:20, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 December 2023
In the Aftermath section, please remove "at 9:13 CET" from the sentence, "Tusk's cabinet was sworn in at 9:13 CET on 13 December." Who's going to care about the time in ten years from now? 2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:9CF2:DF85:98F3:2B59 (talk) 19:04, 16 December 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ I don't think "no-one's going to care in ten years time" is a valid rationale for removing content, but I couldn't find a source stating the specific time, so I removed it for that reason. Liu1126 (talk) 13:24, 18 December 2023 (UTC)
 * See WP:10YEARTEST. --2001:BB6:47ED:FA58:91EB:8C3:6D5F:EB44 (talk) 11:44, 19 December 2023 (UTC)