Talk:2024 Finnish presidential election

Mika Aaltola
A lot is being made of Mika Aaltola gaining media attention during the Russia and Ukraine war. It would be good if someone could put in his section of this Wiki page his thoughts and opinions on the war and what he's said he will do about it if he becomes president of Finland. 31.94.62.250 (talk) 17:48, 10 October 2023 (UTC)

Eligible candidates
As per today the article is incorrect. Ten candidates, including Paavo Väyrynen have applied to candidate. However, the application of Mr. Väyrynen is not complete, as too few "cards" have been forwarded, but he may add such information until December 20. Thus, he is formally not out of the race. Boberger (talk) 05:22, 15 December 2023 (UTC)
 * He hasn't fulfilled the conditions of candidacy, so as of right now, he is out of the race. In the unlikely situation that this will change, the article may be changed accordingly. Jah77 (talk) 19:54, 16 December 2023 (UTC)

inconsistent party names
The infobox is incredibly inconsistent with naming. On one hand, the majority of the parties are in English, but then the Greens are called "VIHR", a short-hand for it in Finnish. Additionally, Liike Nyt/Movement Now is just "Liik". Why? It should be consistent. Personally, I'd change VIHR to Greens, and Liik to either their full name, Liike Nyt, or its English translation, Movement Now. What do you guys think? Starredlabrador (talk) 22:51, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
 * An English-language article should use English names, but I can't find a way to change the party names in the infobox. Jah77 (talk) 11:06, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * An English language article should use whatever the common name is in English, which may not be the English translation. We don't call Likud "Consolidation" or Forza Italia "Forward Italy". Party names are stored in the political party modules, so the Green League one would be in Module:Political party/G. Cheers, Number   5  7  15:59, 22 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Vihreät isn't really the common name though, people just call them the Greens. At the very least, I think Liike Nyt should be written with it's complete name as it just looks weird Starredlabrador (talk) 20:10, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Independents
Aaltola, Haavisto and Rehn are currently listed as "independent" candidates, but this is actually a misnomer. These three were originally nominated by constituency associations rather than parties, but Haavisto and Rehn do have partisan affiliations (the Greens and the Center Party, respectively), and subsequently received the official nominations of their parties as well. In other words, Haavisto and Rehn represent BOTH a constituency association AND a political party and therefore can't be considered independents the way the term is normally understood. The point being that a constituency association candidate isn't necessarily an independent. Jah77 (talk) 15:24, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree with Jah77. I'm against the change that was done to make two candidates appear as "independent" when they are members of a party, having even held position in government under those parties. It is highly misleading to label them independent. Yes, they used one of the possible forms to submit a candidacy, through signatures instead of parliamentaries, but that's just that, a form to submit a candidacy. It's not the candidates themselves, who still aren't independent, being members of parties. Cordially.--Aréat (talk) 16:47, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * : : I have provided a source, where the candidates have filed as an independents. Just because you’re a member of the party, doesn’t mean that you can’t run as an independent. . That’s why they collected 20,000 signatures for the requirement to register. If they were going from a political party, they would not have to have this..
 * FellowMellow (talk) 17:43, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I know he filled a candidacy through the independent process. My point is that he, himself, isn't an independent, as he's still a member of a party, and a prominent member at that. The way he filled his candidacy is a technicality that can very well be explained in the article, but when a candidate is being labelled "independent" in the infobox and result table, quick readers will think he is, which is misleading. We should show the party of a candidate, it's the least surprising way to have the info. Readers won't suppose it's actually just the process through which he submitted his candidacy, that's a counterintuitive presentation.--Aréat (talk) 18:40, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * As I said above, running as a constituency association candidate is not the same thing as being an independent. Haavisto and Rehn received the official nomination of their respective parties; as such, by definition, they aren't independents. The nomination process is already explained in the article, and it explicitly states that candidates may represent both a constituency association and a party. Jah77 (talk) 23:00, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Also note that at least to my knowledge, Finnish media has consistently referred to Haavisto, Rehn and Aaltola as "constituency association candidates" ("valitsijayhdistyksen ehdokas"), not as independents ("sitoutumaton"). Jah77 (talk) 23:13, 29 January 2024 (UTC)
 * @Aréat, that’s not how presidential elections work. Even if you’re a member of the party you can run anyway you want. Also, you’re wrong about not showing the party. I have specifically mentioned the political party (where it says alliance). I think the way the candidate filed to run, is how he should be represented. If you noticed that Alexander Stubb is not running as an independent because he filed to run from his party. He didn’t have to collect 20,000 signatures. @Jah77, exactly constituency association candidates, they had to collect 20,000 signatures. If they were running from their party, they wouldn’t have to do this. FellowMellow (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Can you please weigh in? If you agree with @Aréat, then we will keep it as it’s. If not, I would like to know please. Thanks -
 * FellowMellow (talk) 13:20, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For the third time: "Constituency association candidate" is not a synonym for an independent. A candidate who has received the official nomination of a political party is by definition not an independent, and the manner in which they filed makes no difference whatsoever.
 * If you think it's absolutely vital to mention the manner of filing in the infobox, then the party affiliation should read "constituency association", not "independent". The problem with that is that the average non-Finnish reader probably has no idea what a constituency association is, so they'd have to scroll much further down the article for an explanation. Jah77 (talk) 15:53, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * This is an interesting question, and a shame it cannot be settled with something as simple as how the candidates are listed on the ballot paper. I am probably leaning in favour of agreeing with Jah77 that the constituency association nomination is more of a technicality to be explained in the text than an affiliation to be listed in the infobox or results table. Is there a particular reason Haavisto and Rehn took this approach (perhaps an attempt to demonstrate they have genuine popular support rather than just the backing of the party)? Number   5  7  21:18, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * Yes, that was pretty much the reason. In a similar way, the outgoing president, Sauli Niinistö, ran in 2018 as a constituency association candidate, but also received the nomination of his party, National Coalition.
 * To complicate things even further, I checked the Ministry of Justice's list of presidential candidates (https://tulospalvelu.vaalit.fi/TPV-2024_1/en/ehd_listat_kokomaa.html) - which I believe is about as authoritative as sources get - and it lists Rehn as the candidate of "Constituency association A / Center Party", but Haavisto simply as the candidate of "Consistuency association C". So it seems that the Center Party officially nominated Rehn, whereas the Greens merely endorsed Haavisto.
 * Perhaps it would be simplest to just replace "independent" with "constituency association" in the party affiliation field? The concept is explained at the beginning of the "Candidates" section, so maybe that's clear enough? Jah77 (talk) 21:38, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I really don't think it's simplest to use the mean of candidacy. If a candidate is a member of a party, he should be shown as a member. How the candidacy was validated and whether the party backed him are different matters entirely, in my opinion.--Aréat (talk) 22:06, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I would argue that official nomination - i.e. who the candidate represents in the eyes of electoral law - is the key factor, not party membership. For example, in 1994, both Keijo Korhonen and Eeva Kuuskoski were card-carrying members of the Center Party, but they both ran as constituency association candidates against the Center Party's official nominee, Paavo Väyrynen. As such, it would be silly to label them "Center Party" candidates purely based on party membership, and I think we need to be consistent about this. Haavisto's and Rehn's partisan affiliations are clearly expressed in the article text, so it's not like we're trying to suppress that information. Jah77 (talk) 22:33, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * For the third time also, Constituency association candidate is also not a synonym (that they are a candidate from a party).
 * However,
 * @Jah77’s idea in replacing as the "constituency association" in the party affiliation field" is something I would support and I think it’s appropriate, instead of it being independent. Based on that source, that might be reasonable because clearly something isn’t adding up. I don’t think it’s appropriate for those candidates (should have a party next to it like @Aréat is proposing. I agree it’s silly to label them "party candidates", based on the example you brought up. Like Stubb for example, he accepted the nomination from his party and filed to run from his party. Haavisto and Rehn did not. - FellowMellow (talk) 23:19, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
 * I propose having the party of the candidate shown, and having the details of the "constituency association" in note, instead of the current opposite. Again, we shouldn't show the candidate as independent when they're not. Pekka Haavisto is a full member of the Green league, a member of the Finnish parliament under that party, and was Minister for Foreign Affairs in its governement. He's not an independent. That's not just misleading to indicate him as such, but false information. The table and infobox don't have a "Way of submitting candidacy" column, but a "party" one. It should show the party. It seem to me  and  were agreeing that the "constituency association" method is a technicality, so I don't get why we're going along a presentation that show it in full with the party membership as a footnote, instead of the reverse.--Aréat (talk) 01:00, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Like I said, there is a big difference between party membership and official nomination - see my example from 1994 above. I agree that Haavisto should not be labeled as an "independent", which is why "constituency association" seems like the best compromise, as it doesn't take a stand on whether the candidate is a member of one party or another. The candidate introduction already refers to Haavisto as a "Green League politician", indicating his affiliation. This could be made even clearer by referring to him in the lead as "former Green League chairman Pekka Haavisto" or something like that, but the article shouldn't give the impression that he is the official Green League nominee, because he isn't. Jah77 (talk) 10:27, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I think readers expect the column "Party" to show the party of the candidate, not his official nomination. It's not titled after the later, after all. Again, he's a full member of the Green league, a member of the Finnish parliament under that party, and was Minister for Foreign Affairs in a Green league governement. The column party should show his party, and only in a footnote precise it's not an official nomination.--Aréat (talk) 10:57, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I disagree. If you look at electoral articles in Wikipedia in general, not just Finnish elections, party affiliation in infoboxes is usually based on nomination, i.e. who the candidate officially represented in the election, not party membership - I don't think you'd gain much support if you went, for example, to the article on the 1980 United_States presidential election and attempted to change John B. Anderson's party affiliation to "Republican". Similarly, we don't call city/town councilors or MP's who were elected from a party's list "independents" even if they aren't card-carrying members of said party. Jah77 (talk) 17:14, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * If we're going by endorsements, then let's note that in the 2018 presidential election Niinistö was endorsed by the Christian Democrats in addition to the NCP. So should his 2018 candidacy be presented as "Independent (NCP/CD)", then? --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 19:04, 4 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Nominations, not endorsements. That's precisely the difference between Rehn and Haavisto - or Niinistö, who was not the official nominee of either the National Coalition or the Christian Democrats in 2018. Jah77 (talk) 11:03, 5 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Right, but currently the infobox of the 2018 election still lists Niinistö as "Independent (NCP)". --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 02:19, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect, then. The Ministry of Justice web site I linked earlier lists Niinistö as the candidate of a constituency association only. Jah77 (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That is incorrect, then. The Ministry of Justice web site I linked earlier lists Niinistö as the candidate of a constituency association only. Jah77 (talk) 10:59, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

The map of results needs to be updated
The colouring of the map is very confusing. With one candidate shown in nunances of blue and another in nuances of green, having a third in nuances of cyan really isn't working. Another colour should be used instead, such as red. (Not any of the candidate's colour, but neither is cyan). Jeppiz (talk) 00:12, 3 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I agree that green and cyan are too close to each other. Also, one municipality (Forssa) ended up as a draw between Stubb and Haavisto in the verification count. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 02:17, 6 February 2024 (UTC)