Talk:May 2012 Greek legislative election

Merge Greek economy referendum, 2012 with this article

 * Oppose because elections have not been announced for 2011. Until elections have been called, due to pressure or the defection of more MP's from Papandreou's government, then this is original research. --Philly boy92 (talk) 14:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * tentative support if the referendum is candeled. Let wait till we see the vote tonight.Lihaas (talk) 08:45, 4 November 2011 (UTC)

Move to Next Greek legislative election

 * Support such articles (like Next United Kingdom general election) are useful for those needing some sort of reference. It would be nice to have a place where non-speculative data such as opinion polls and political news can be collated. hello, i'm a member  |  talk to me!  17:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * A good alternative - I have moved the article and only included true and referenced information. Number   5  7  18:36, 1 November 2011 (UTC)

Speedy deletion
This article appears to be a hoax. The opposition have called for early elections, but the government has not. See the BBC. Number  5  7  14:58, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * lets consider the proposals above before we do anything. hello, i'm a member  |  talk to me!  17:30, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I guess in the BBC article, you missed those points:


 * "Mr Papandreou's parliamentary majority to two seats - 152 out of 300 - ahead of a confidence vote on Friday."


 * Actually 152 to 148 is a majority of four votes.Eregli bob (talk) 15:18, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * "another MP from Mr Papandreou's centre-left Pasok party, Vasso Papandreou (no relation) called for a government of national unity, to be followed by snap elections" < is this not from the government party calling for snap elections??


 * "I call on the president to convene the council of political leaders with the goal of forming a government of national salvation in view of safeguarding the EU package agreed on 27 October, and then to immediately hold elections," said Ms Papandreou, who chairs the parliamentary committee on economic affairs.


 * Also, this BBC series of articles, reads:


 * "Greek PM George Papandreou is facing calls to resign from within his own party after saying a referendum would be held on the EU bailout plan"


 * "Six members of Mr Papandreou's governing socialist Pasok party have said he should stand down and one MP has resigned from the party"


 * If you put the facts down, it's pretty clear that early elections are due to take place.


 * However, for the time being, the way i have formed this article, you can call it "original research" at worst, but, not "blatant hoax" or "pure vandalism". Same goes for the Greek economy referendum, 2012 article, which is about a suggested referendum over a not-yet-fully-defined treaty. The mentioned treaty has to be defined, the Greek parliament has to vote on the referendum law and then, it may take place. Last time I checked, the snap elections I, the opposition and a lot of government PM's suggest have to only be called for by the prime minister or the majority of the parliament to vote against the confidence vote Mr Papandreou has called for, which is clearly going to happen as indicated by numerous of the 152 MP's that constitute the current government party parliamentary majority.


 * You're called not to delete this article until the situation clears up... It's as much of a hoax as the one about the referendum. Heracletus (talk) 17:35, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Also, i suggest you read that WP:NOTCSD. Heracletus (talk) 17:39, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you should read a few things like WP:CRYSTAL. You have stated in the intro to the article that the govenment has fallen and that elections will be held. Neither are true, so I have to ask why on earth did you write such a thing? Number   5  7  18:29, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Because, as I have stated before:
 * A. there's a confidence vote to take place on Friday.
 * B. the government has a majority of 152 out of 300.
 * C. the opposition has called for elections and will vote for 'no'.
 * D. more than 2, 3 or 5 MP's from the government majority have publicly called for a different government and snap elections.


 * Also,
 * E. MP's from the government majority have also called for the resignation of the PM (before the no confidence vote takes place).
 * F. 5 members of the government party's national council have called for the PM's resignation.


 * Heracletus (talk) 18:55, 1 November 2011 (UTC)
 * And? The government has not fallen yet. Why did you write that it had? Number   5  7  19:22, 1 November 2011 (UTC)


 * I'm sorry to say, but, in English, what I wrote didn't read that the government had already fallen, it was merely suggestive of it:
 * "Parliamentary elections are to be held in Greece in November after the fall of the George Papandreou cabinet."
 * The above reads that there will be elections in Greece in November [2011] after the fall of the current cabinet happens. However, I have grown to not expect people to understand English.


 * On the other hand, yes, indeed, a proposed referendum on a draft deal that is yet to be a signed treaty and which would mean that my country will probably default, because:
 * A. we are not to receive the 6th installment of the loan to Greece from the EU and the IMF, before the referendum takes place.
 * B. the said referendum will be about Greece still being in the Eurozone or not.
 * is perfectly entitled to have its own article on wikipedia, while snap elections in Greece in 2011 don't.


 * I do know that the BBC and British administrators and Greeks from Philadelphia which live in the UK hold the ultimate truth, however, Greeks will prove them wrong. I think we have proved most people of the said kind wrong already by not having defaulted yet. Heracletus (talk) 22:34, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I don't like bringing people who are not native speakers up on their mistakes in English (I'm a former English teacher so tend to be very picky about using precise language), but if you are insisting that you are correct, then I'm afraid I have to on this occasion. Using the clause "after" makes your sentence mean that the government will definitely fall (and this implication is reinforced by the fact that you have named a month for the elections). What you should have written was "Parliamentary elections are to held held in Greece in November 2011 if the Panandreou government falls." Number   5  7  18:13, 3 November 2011 (UTC)
 * My little oracle says:
 * A. No referendum is going to take place.
 * B. Papandreou has stepped down in favour of a coalition government.
 * C. Elections will follow the coalition government.
 * My little oracle demands that you apologize for calling my original article a hoax.
 * My little oracle would like to blame mr. Papandreou on his inactivity, which hadn't been for, elections would have been held in November, as originally stated.
 * My little oracle states that it is highly probable that there will be elections in the first two months of 2012, if not sooner. My little oracle would like to state that elections will take place after the coalition government votes and ratifies the agreements decided on 26th October.
 * My little oracle would want to comment on the BBC and other British media in the following fashion: "Damn British garbage, always behind the times, always trying to sabotage continental Europe, go solve your superiority complex." Heracletus (talk) 21:30, 6 November 2011 (UTC)


 * Just that your predictions may turn out to come true doesn't mean you were right in adding them to the article. Number was completely right in saying that those additions weren't admissible per WP:CRYSTAL. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:17, 7 November 2011 (UTC)

Some deletions
I have removed several pieces of text which claimed things that were not backed up by the given references. The text claimed that Papandreou was to step down as prime minister "in order for a caretaker government to take over until elections take place", for which this reference was given. However, if you put the reference through Google Translate you see that the article speaks not of a caretaker government but of a consensus government and doesn't say elections are due to take place. Also, the text read: "Evangelos Venizelos said that the caretaker government would last until February 2012, when elections would be held", backed up by this reference. If you put this one through Google Translate, you find that the word "elections" isn't even mentioned. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 14:13, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest that you don't just use Google Translate only, and before you delete something you ask for more sources, by using this template Template:Citation needed. Heracletus (talk) 21:10, 6 November 2011 (UTC)
 * I would suggest you just don't add poorly sourced claims, or risk removal. It is never a wise idea to present things as a fact while the discussion is still ongoing and political developments are going fast. Especially when the claims come from people not even in charge of the decision - Venizelos cannot speak for the prime minister and Ntolios and Kremastinos are not even members of government. - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
 * "Venizelos"" cannot speak for the prime minister"" and Ntolios and Kremastinos"" are not even members of government"". - TaalVerbeteraar (talk) 10:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)"
 * Apart from that, it's not the current prime minister alone that would decide. Also, unfortunately for you, any Greek, even Philly boy92, has a grasp of common sense, so as to think:
 * A. elections will be held after the end of the coalition Government.
 * B. Venizelos said the coalition government will last until some time in February 2012.
 * A+B => C. Venizelos said that elections will probably be held in February 2012.
 * Random wikipedia editor appears... "Used google translator, didn't find the word elections mentioned. Let's delete it all and start a new section in the talk page." You could just ask for it to be clarified. Heracletus (talk) 03:35, 8 November 2011 (UTC)
 * Ditto, we have tags as such. andother english sources sugest tehsame too.Lihaas (talk) 08:09, 8 November 2011 (UTC)

Poll chart
the current one is quite poor. It doesnt account for PASOKs humbling which is apparently DIMAR's gain. We need to include them.Lihaas (talk) 08:27, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

2012? Perhaps not ...
Just an advance warning that an April election might not be as set in stone as we first thought.



We'll see. Chris Neville-Smith (talk) 13:34, 16 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Encyclopedically speaking, we should definitely rename this to "Next Greek legislative election", there are no definite indications whatsoever on when it will be held. Argymeg (talk) 03:34, 25 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I've reverted; it should never have been moved. -Rrius (talk) 04:25, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

deletion of last opinion poll
why has the third poll for february 2012 been deleted ? --89.204.155.108 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:41, 17 February 2012 (UTC).
 * There are four polls currently listed for February 2012. You have to be more specific: Who conducted the poll? What day was it deleted? Better yet, give the diff (i.e., the link to the edit that deleted it. -Rrius (talk) 04:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Image for Panos Kammenos
Please put an image for the leader of AN.EL. (in Greek: Ανεξάρτητοι Έλληνες) !!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Κυριλλος (talk • contribs) 17:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

list of Parties/Lists which are contesting the elections
32 Lists are contesting the elections. Here's a list of them (in german language): http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liste_der_politischen_Parteien_in_Griechenland#Parteien_bei_der_Parlamentswahl_2012 --89.204.139.4 (talk) 15:34, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Choose4Greece
This seems like an advertisement..albeit in such cases this would be EL. But this is certainly not POV (and its now in the EL and article) " quick unbiased tool, to check" is certainly pov. Whos individual judgement call is that? Further the way its presented as an outsourfed link is spam (and discouraged on WP)(Lihaas (talk) 21:20, 1 May 2012 (UTC)).


 * I noticed you oppose my contribution, to add the outsourced link and line about the newly developed application Choose4Greece, in the chapter about "Participating parties". Although WP discourage the use of outsourced links in article text, its however allowed and appropriate to add them in special situations, where it is considered as being an essential part of the articles content and/or will greatly expand informational value for the reader (not possible to provide otherwise). Arguments can be posted both for and against. But I guess the best and most correct thing now to do, is to keep the link at EL and keep my line about it in the "Participating parties" chapter (as the formulation is not POV), BUT follow your advice to avoid the outsourced link, by creating a special wikipedia article named "Choos4Greece" (and then wiki-link to that in my text line). Danish Expert (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * To provide a quick fix of the "outsourced link" situation, I now instead of creating a seperate Choose4Greece "wikipedia stub article", opted to change the external Choose4Greece link in the text, so that it now instead points the reader directly down to the "External link" section of the article (where the reader then can click further ahead if wanted). Thus I now consider, the possible conflict about an "outsourced link" as solved. Danish Expert (talk) 06:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * For the question, wether or not to keep my current text line about "Choose4Greece" as a final note in the chapter "Paticipating parties", I vote it should stay and not be re-formulated. In regards of your POV concern for the words "quick unbiased tool, to check", I have to say its certainly not POV, but instead a given fact that this is the core nature of all such developed "Internet applications for voters to check how their answers of a political survey match the answers collected by electional parties, solely being developed by non profit research teams at public universities". The method itself imply we are dealing with a "quick unbiased tool, to check", because you basicly type in your personal answers of a political survey, and then by pure mathematics the application calculate and show into what percentage your answers matched the one posted by the political parties. The method is quick (as it only take 5 minutes to run the application), compared to reading the entire political program of all electional parties. While the weakness of the method of course is, that you only get the result of "how well your answers match the answers of the political parties on the particulair selected questions in the political survey". When independent unbiased reasearchers develop such programs, they try to select the 30-50 most important questions for the election. Despite this weakness of the method (that it only include certain questions), it is still a fact that the method itself is always unbiased per definition, as it only promise the voter to compare his answer on certain questions with the answers of the political parties (where each question inside each subject is given the same weight, and where the subjects are also weighted equally when calculating your overall match percentage). The tool can be used by voters (and by the way already was developed and used as a "voter helping tool" for elections in many other modern countries), in order to get a first hand impression/overview of the political landscape in elections. As long as the tool doesnt pretend to deliver more than it actually does, it is completely justified, that we per definition refer to such tools as a "quick unbiased tool, to check how the voters answers of a political survey match the answers collected by electional parties". To say it short, I therefor support to keep my current text line about "Choose4Greece" as a final note in the chapter "Paticipating parties", as it is currently formulated. Danish Expert (talk) 06:10, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If it greatly add informational value (which is dubious as most readers cant see from here thats in Greek) then that is exactly what ELs are for. "uuquick and unbiaseD" is your opinion sourced from no where, and as its in Greek its certainly no uick for english readers. Your explanation is repeating the same assessment, but the location of both is redundant where we can place it on. Its POV-pushing at this point to draw undue attention to it. An encyclopaedia lists/mentions the party platform, it doesnt afdvertise other versions of it (which you say is limited to certain pre-selected uestions, in which case why should WP be limited to theri external choice and, as far as we are concerned, an arbitrary one)(Lihaas (talk) 08:00, 2 May 2012 (UTC)).
 * My first read about Choose4Greece, was through an article published by www.ekathimerini.com. If you really think its needed, I can add a ref for it into the text line in the article (to proof we deal with an important big tool in the Greek election, and as such, this is reason enough by itself to justify, that we shortly mention it inside the Wikipedia article, as I already did). Your argument that Choose4Greece can provide no info for non Greeks, is wrong. As a Dane, I ran the application with my browser auto-translating from Greek to English; and for me it was a great source to learn: 1) The 35 most important questions in the Greek election, 2) Political stance of the "participating parties". Finally I gently have to remind you, that that the article Greek legislative election, 2012 is not an "Wikipedia List", but instead an "Wikipedia article". The fact that we deal with an article (and not an limited list), is argument enough to justify, that we also add the relevant info and notes beneath the list of "participating parties". And yes the info about Choose4Greece, is relevant enough to be included (both as an EL and a note in the article). Danish Expert (talk) 09:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I never said it should not be added. Its edundant now when it should be in EL as otherwise undue spamming on behalf of giving them a promine tpart of the election. The EL section can very have the brief summation you added to the prose part.Lihaas (talk) 21:43, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Electoral system at the constituency level
I understand how the seats are awarded to the parties nationwide, but how do those seats 'rain down' to the constituency level?--Bancki (talk) 16:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The constituency idea does not apply in Greece. The entire country is a constituency. That idea applies in France, Anglo democracies and a few other countries, not in a proportional representation system as in the Greek situation.  The proportional system is why there are so many parties.Dogru144 (talk) 01:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry, Dogru144, the Greek electoral system does have constituencies or electoral districts. In the district "Athens A" Syriza has more votes than ND, but ND has 8 seats and Syriza only 3. In some way, the bonus at national level for ND, has its consequence in the different electoral districts all over the coutry (ND lists must be overrepresented compared to a proportional result at the district level). How exactly does the system work at the district level?--Bancki (talk) 08:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Most counties which have PR systems do divide their territory up into constituencies, each constituency electing a number of parliamentarians proportionate to the number of electors registered within that constituency. In the remaining countries where the whole nation acts as a single constituency, there is usually a minimum percentage of the votes casts that a party needs to win (a "threshold" %) before it is eligible to share in the division of the seats.
 * Greece has an oddity (which operated to PASOK's advantage last time and to ND's advantage this time) in that whichever party ends up with the most seats under this proportional system, then has an extra 50 seats added to its entitlement, even if it only won one or two seats more than the second party in the proportional system. So for Greece the proportional system works (at constituency level) to allocate 250 of the 300 seats, and the remaining 50 seats are automatically allocated to the party which has won the largest number (the "plurality") of the 250 seats. Rif Winfield (talk) 12:46, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Elsewhere on Wikipedia it is claimed that the 50 seat top up only comes into action if the largest party achieves a threshold which has varied from election to election (and which was apparently not met this time). Could this point be clarified? Jonathan A Jones (talk) 17:36, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As all 300 seats have been awarded, and New Democracy has been given the extra 50 seats to bring them up to 108 seats, this claim of a threshold being required would certainly appear untrue. Roughly speaking, the 58 constituency seats which ND received would appear to be proportionate to their share of the poll. This is the reason (and the only reason) why ND have won 17 more seats than at the last election in spite of losing a substantial share of the vote. Rif Winfield (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks: the problem is with Elections in Greece. I think I have worked out what it really means, but the sentence "However, the law helps the party that wins a plurality to achieve an absolute majority (151 out of 300 parliamentary seats), provided it tallies at least 39% of the total vote: this is supposed to enhance governmental stability" (emphasis added) is really quite confusing. Jonathan A Jones (talk) 21:25, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The seat totals per constituency in add up to 288, so with 12 'national' seats, we have all the 300 seats, there are no 50 national seats set aside for the bonus. The bonus and its disproportionate effect does 'rain down' to the seat apportionment between the parties at the constituency level. My question remains: how is the overall result (with the bonus) translated to the consituencies (and the apportionemnt of the 12 national seats)?--Bancki (talk) 07:43, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A description can be found on with two caveats: the bonus is increased from 40 to 50 seats and I'm not sure no other details have changed since then.--Bancki (talk) 13:42, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, but 108 + 52 + 41 + 33 + 26 + 21 + 19 = 300, and these are the figures actually quoted in . The 108 (for ND) includes the 50 seats allocated to the party gaining the plurality. Without these, the figures would be 58 + 52 + 41 + 33 + 26 + 21 + 19 = 250, these figures being roughly proportional to each party's share of the vote nationally (slight variations are due to the small differences between constituency electorates). Rif Winfield (talk) 14:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Table edits
This cant arbitrarily change numbers in order to get a preconceived total (100% in this case), if the polling is flawed it should be removed or just left as is with a note.
 * Polling was not flawed. The editor who previously typed the figures into the wikitable from each of the references however made several typo mistakes. I took the time to look up each of the data lines in the wikitable were the numbers did not ad up for 100%, and then discovered numbers had not been typed in correctly by the previous editor. My huge effort and contribution mean, that the entire table now reflect the same numbers as reported by the references. Danish Expert (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Further this is also a less impressive format than the one it changed. Lihaas (talk) 21:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No. My new format is several times better than the old. The problem is, that if we use the NA template it will destroy the layout and concept of the newly introduced "yellow marked lines", which were implemented to highlight whenever a poll was conducted according to method 1 rather than method 2. As the note beneath the wikitable explain, it is of very high importance to highlight whenever polls were made according to method 1 or method 2, as the figures from these two methods can not be directly compared with each other. Danish Expert (talk) 10:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Seats in new parliament
The infobox is great, but how about giving us the number of seats that each party has? We see what they had up to today, but no indication of numerically how the percentage votes.Dogru144 (talk) 01:31, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The numbers are as follows: ND 108 seats SYRIZA  52 seats PASOK   41 seats ANEL    33 seats KKE     26 seats XA      21 seats DIMAR   19 seats "The Democratic Left, which will have 19 seats in the new parliament, declared that the party would not join a pro-bailout New Democracy-PASOK grand coalition government. Democratic Left leader Fotis Kouvelis said that his party would only "participate in a coalition government with other progressive forces," such as the other leftist anti-bailout parties SYRIZA and KKE. Independent Greeks also refused to discuss joining a coalition with ND. For its part, ND said that it would be open to talks with any party except Golden Dawn, with Samaras saying he would likely end his efforts the following day, ahead of the deadline."
 * This limits the options. Obviously no other party is going to team up with any group that includes XA (Golden Dawn). But forming a coalition which can have the support of a majority of the 300 seats is virtually impossible:
 * An ND-Pasok coalition would have 149 seats - not quite enough - although it might survive for some time as an unstable minority government.
 * A 'left coalition' of SYRIZA (52), PASOK (41), ANEL (33), KKE (26) and DIMAR (19) would hold 171 seats in theory, but can anyone see such a coalition being formed? And if formed, what would it agree on as regards the bailout/austerity programme? Rif Winfield (talk) 12:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ANEL is not left-wing but right-wing. Estlandia (dialogue) 13:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course, I should have said a "left-dominated, anti-austerity coalition" where the left might tolerate ANEL if their votes were enough to give them a majority. Without ANEL, the left could only muster 138 votes in all (that's even assuming that PASOK would agree to join it, and renage on everything it has signed up for with the EU) so they have no chance to form a government. What other options are there to win a vote in parliament? Rif Winfield (talk) 18:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Couple of issues
The norm is singlar as the title replicates and this is contradictory. Also this makes it a proper noun, which is not the case as its a WP naing convention not asserts as such elsewhere.Lihaas (talk) 16:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the norm is plural. There is also nothing wrong with the language used in the second diff you provide. Number   5  7  18:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The artcle title is "election" thats a contradiction.
 * The lead is a propoer noun now tooLihaas (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not a contradiction at all, it's just how the language works. As an example, the IFES uses "Results" not "Result". Number   5  7  18:34, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But its purely illogical to have results to an election as in the title. We should try and change that too. Otherwise the cntradiction is glaringLihaas (talk) 21:55, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not glaring at all, probably because the English language is not logical. Number   5  7  08:27, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Infobox
The presentation of 7 parties in the infobox is not per a good article and does not show out right with 3-3-1. Adding 3 more parties (LAOS were in parliament but lost nall this time so could be notable) or remove it. See the Finland elections from last year that was almot a FA.Lihaas (talk) 18:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In this case it is quite appropriate, as no party got over 20 percent of the vote. It is important to get the easy access to the party essentials that the profile box gives, particularly as even if you add the vote percentages of the top six parties, you still get a figure less than 75 percent.

Furthermore, as there is no greater than a 3 point (except the 3.6 spread between SYRIZA and PASOK) spread between parties it is kind of arbitrary to cut off the table at a certain point.Dogru144 (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * On the contrary it is NOT arbitrary, expecially in this case, where the 3 largest parties alone get the chance to form a governmetn hence making them more notable.
 * The other reason is pure aesthetics to match symetrically.
 * tbtw- Was just pondering...SYRIZA could form a govt with all but ND and GD (or even ND join with outside support), bt PASOK would have to give up the austerity programme or at least renegotiate! Jeez, 38 yr old PM! Mut bt the youngest ;(Lihaas (talk) 21:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * This combination is what I suggested as a possibility at "Seats in new parliament" above (which see) as a left-leaning anti-austerity government, but I consider the possibility remote as (a) ANEL would be unlikely to join a left-dominated government, and (b) PASOK are signed up to the austerity programme and could not retract their support for it now, even if they wished to do so, without losing the small amount of credibility they retain. Without these two, SYRIZA could not muster more than 99 votes with the KKE and DIMAR. A fresh election is the most likely outcome, but sadly that is not likely to produce a very different result, so the problem is not going to go away!
 * By the way, there have been much younger PMs than a 38-year-old! William Pitt became PM of Britain in 1783 at the age of 24; but I don't expect you to remember that. Rif Winfield (talk) 14:40, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Whilst PASOK may be nominally left-leaning, the main cleavage seems to be pro-bailout/anti-bailout, which is why a left-wing government would only include anti-bailout leftists. But what delivers a deathblow to the chances of forming an anti-bailout government, is the incredible stubbornness of the hardcore communists of the KKE, who refuse to coöperate even with the SYRIZA .Estlandia (dialogue) 11:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But it's not implausible to suggest Syriza being the likely leader ater next election. If they were to get 60-65 seats+50=115 seats and Democratic Left gaining some 25 = 140. What if KKE are induced (or defections) with 10 seats. Could very well have an anti-austerity Syriza-led govt by July. ND/PASOK/Golden Dawn could lose seats next time (OR Golden Dawn's social patrols could rally further support and be a model for Jobbik). Or a third election in August?Lihaas (talk) 14:08, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Mathematically possible, but the economic circumstances would be devastating. More important, I still cannot see co-operation taking place among the anti-austerity groups; remember too that the vast majority of their pariamentarians have no experience of sitting in the National Parliament, and of the political compromises that being in Parliament would entail, and I worry that any government would collapse very quickly. And who will be in charge while these fresh elections are being held, as the current administration is tied to the austerity package? Rif Winfield (talk) 18:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It now looks possible (but not probable) that DIMAR (Democratic Left) may be persuaded to join a coalition with New Democracy and PASOK, which would together have 168 seats. If not, fresh elections loom; I can understand SYRIZA's preference to have fresh elections - an opinion poll by Marc for Alpha TV published late on Thursday 10th May put SYRIZA in first place with nearly 28% of the vote - up from 16.8 - winning 128 seats (including the 50-seat 'bonus' for becoming the largest party), with New Democracy in second place with 20.3% and 57 seats, and PASOK third with 12.6% of the vote and 36 seats. Rif Winfield (talk) 07:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * True with the experience but democratic politics tragically trumps that. Dodgy about govt during the new election period, but guess either nothing gets passed or all that is undone with a new govrnment. Did anyone doubt Syriza would gain from new elections? I too always suggested theyd win more and PASOK and ND would lose (the latter heavily, but polls dont say that). I also thought Golden Dawn would lose more, which is turning out that way. Seems their votes are going to NDLihaas (talk) 22:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Electoral system again
I have read the above commentary and I understand in broad terms how this (ridiculous) system works, but can someone explain why ND did not win a seat in Evvia? They polled 14.5% and got no seats, while DIMAR won a seat with 6.2%. I understand that the system at the national level is rigged in favour of the leading party, but here ND is being discriminated against. Why is this, and who makes the decisions about how to allocate the seats within each Nomos? (I could also ask why a bankrupt country with 11 million people needs a 300-seat Parliament, but I'll save that for somewhere else.) Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 03:42, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

And now I see in Imathia that ND actually topped the poll with 21%, and won no seats, while the KKE polled 9% and won a seat. This is proportional representation? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:27, 11 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Good questions, but no idea and i find that straage. But as for the 300 MPs its sadly standard practic. the pporest province in india has 400+ legislaturesl. Probs why theyre poor ;)Lihaas (talk) 22:55, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Building Next Greek legislative election
I imagine the "Next Election" article will be the foundation for the article for the imminent election once it is called. It's pretty bare-bones at the moment, and it would probably be a good idea to reflect the content of this page as best as possible, if someone is willing to take it on. I've added a polling section, but those with more knowledge should help with fleshing it out. On a secondary note, when a new election is called, this article will have to be renamed Greek legislative election, May 2012; and the old wikilinks to this article will probably have to be changed manually where possible since a simple redirect will not suffice as we will have two "Greek legislative election" articles- a disambiguation is probably the best option for this title. Gabrielthursday (talk) 07:23, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Two questions about this: Does the President have the power to dissolve this parliament even before it has met, because none of the party leaders can form a government? Can the Papadimos government not stay in office until the parliament meets, and then seek a vote of confidence? It might suit all the parties for Papadimos to stay in office. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 09:38, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I'm not saying that it's impossible for a government to be formed- only that it would be a good idea, given the likelihood of new elections, to work on the article for the coming election. Gabrielthursday (talk) 10:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The article states as a fact that an election will be held in June. That cannot be known. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 10:32, 12 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Couple of things:
 * This will become May 2012 as suggested next week.
 * Papadimos can (in parliamentary systems) dissolve parliament and in this case, since the parliament wont really sit, call the election when it fails. And with Syriza leading, theres no doubt well have an election soon.
 * By then most editors will migrate to that article with a note here that ithe election resulted in a new govt and then start with a brief background of this in the new page.
 * Also, the RS source Al Jaz. says 17 June for the new eection, so we work on RS sourcesLihaas (talk) 23:02, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

OK, the answers to my questions are, yes the President can dissolve the parliament before it meets, in fact he must do so if no new government can be formed; and no the Papadimos government cannot stay in office. I have added these facts. I have removed the reference to "June 2012" since this is speculation. Al-Jazeera has no way of knowing when the election will be held. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 13:14, 13 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Its held within a month or so...and new outlets have sources within govt and other analysts, thats what makes them RS ;)
 * Also the overlap bit would probably be in background for the neew lection with brief mention of he EU/IMF pact and talk of failure to form govt with a "main" link to here and the govt formation pageLihaas (talk) 02:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Lead
Per this, that is not the format for the majority of election articles, and that if WP:OSE is to be cited. More importantly, for this article alone, the WP guideline for bolding the lead is for article titles that are proper nouns, not for articles that use WP's own style (Even though that is more often than not ignored). Further the current incarnation reads: "The Greek legislative election 2012 was a general election held on 6 May 2012 in Greece, to elect all 300 members to the Greek Parliament." which i obviously repetitious and outright silly. so theres no need to blindly parot other versions (italics emphasis added to show the redundancies, all of which are in the same sentence.Lihaas (talk) 02:19, 15 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You are wrong that WP policy only narrowly allow to bold "proper nouns". According to WP:BOLDTITLE: "If an article's title is a formal or widely accepted name for the subject, display it in bold as early as possible in the first sentence." In example the policy highlights this bolded lead sentence as the prefered style:

"The inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre were held in AD 80. (Inaugural games of the Flavian Amphitheatre)"


 * WP:LEADSENTENCE then furthermore stipulates, that the first sentence for any article should comply with (among others) these 2 important rules:
 * The article should begin with a declarative sentence telling the nonspecialist reader what the subject is. If possible, the page title should be the subject of the first sentence. When the page title is used as the subject of the first sentence, it may appear in a slightly different form, and it may include variations (incl. synonyms) . Similarly, if the title has a parenthetical disambiguator, the disambiguator should be omitted in the text.
 *  Redundancy must be kept to a minimum in the first sentence. Use the first sentence of the article to provide relevant information which is not already given by the title of the article. Remember that the title of the article need not appear verbatim in the lead.


 * So your concern of redundancy was OK to state. On the other hand, I however still think you should also be open to accept, that we adopt the style of the lead sentance found in the similar article United Kingdom general election, 2010 (and accept just a light level of redundancy in the first lead sentence). Because this is not just WP:OSE, but a highly edited article with multiple editors ending to agree on exactly this formulation and style of the lead sentence:

"The United Kingdom general election of 2010 was held on Thursday 6 May 2010 to elect members to the House of Commons. (United Kingdom general election, 2010)"


 * Based on all info above, I ask for all editors argued opinion in the section below, if we should now opt to select my newly re-written and improved version 1 of the lead sentence (starting with the entire Article Name in bold), OR keep the old differently formulated and unbolded version 2 originally written by Lihaas (and later updated by me to also feature the same precise wording as used in my counter proposed version 1)?
 * The Greek legislative election of May 2012 was held on Sunday 6 May 2012, to elect all 300 members to the Hellenic Parliament.
 * A legislative election was held on Sunday 6 May 2012 in Greece to elect all 300 members to the Hellenic Parliament.
 * Personally I prefer to implement the new "version 1", for all our "Greek legislative election" articles. Danish Expert (talk) 10:01, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Opinion/selection of preferred lead sentence
In my opinion, version 2 is preferable, as "redundancy must be kept to a minimum in the first sentence". Saying that the Greek election of May 2012 took place in May 2012 is redundant. And: "If the article's title does not lend itself to being used easily and naturally in the opening sentence, the wording should not be distorted in an effort to include it" (per WP:BOLDTITLE). Your version 1 is an example of bending the wording to include the article's title. We should avoid this. --RJFF (talk) 22:22, 17 May 2012 (UTC)


 * In regards of redundancy, one should however also remember to read note 6 about redundancy. The note states that "Sometimes a little redundancy is unavoidable.", and mention in example this lead sentence as the preferred style:

"The Oxford English Dictionary (OED), published by the Oxford University Press, is the self-styled premier dictionary of the English language. (Oxford English Dictionary)"
 * I think my proposed version 1 is supported by the example above, as my newly reformulated version 1 in a similar way only carry a light level of unavoidable redundancy (repeating month+year), while providing 4 pieces of extra info: 1) Exact date, 2) Weekday, 3) Name of the legislative, 4) Number of seats up for election. With that in mind, I think the very light level of redundancy (repeating month+year) is justified. Thus I would style wise, still opt to select version 1 rather than version 2, per the rule that we should always bold the name of the article in the lead sentence -whenever the name is a widely used and commonly accepted name, and it is possible to do without creating great levels of redundancy or "word bending". Danish Expert (talk) 11:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

New article name proposed
I propose that we rename the article from Greek legislative election, May 2012 to either:
 * 1) Greek general election, May 2012
 * 2) Greek parliamentary election, May 2012

The reason why I think the two newly proposed names are better than the old "legislative" name, is because I consider them both being more "commonly used", and at the same time they are more accurate and precise. AFAIK a "general election" is defined as a special type of "legislative election" (where the majority/all seats in the primary legislative house are up for election), and thats why it would be more precise and accurate to rename the article from "Greek legislative election" to "Greek general election", as we in fact deal with a general election. In the same way it could however also appropriately be renamed to "Greek parliamentary election", as this title then imply its an election for the primary house of Greek politics. Please let me know if you agree, and if you prefer we use the phrase "General election" or "Parliamentary election" instead of "legislative election"?
 * Btw, if you do a Google search you find these number of hits:
 * "Greek general elections" = 1,240,000
 * "Greek parliamentary elections" = 120,000
 * "Greek legislative election" = 80,900

Comparing with 26 other European states with only a one-house legislative, wikipedia used the term "parliamentary elections" for 19 (Albania, Croatia, Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Hungary, Iceland, Latvia, Liechtenstein, Lithuania, Macedonia, Moldova, Monaco, Montenegro, Norway, San Marino, Serbia, Slovakia, Ukrain), 4 used the term "legislative election" (Cyprus, Greece, Portugal, Luxembourg) and 3 used the term "general election" (Sweeden, Malta, Turkey). So for Wikipedia (despite the most popular Google term being "Greek general elections"), we should perhaps opt instead to comply with wikipedias most commonly used term "parliamentary elections"? Danish Expert (talk) 09:28, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Why has this article been renamed?
There is no confirmation yet that a second election will be held this year. The article should only be moved when that is confirmed. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 05:48, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Greek legislative election, May 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://archive.is/20130217164234/http://archive.enet.gr/online/online_text/c=112,dt=12.06.2004,id=20721500 to http://archive.enet.gr/online/online_text/c%3D112%2Cdt%3D12.06.2004%2Cid%3D20721500
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120627001708/http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Greece+Secretive+right+party+taps+into+Greeks+anger+fear/6519781/story.html to http://www.vancouversun.com/news/Greece+Secretive+right+party+taps+into+Greeks+anger+fear/6519781/story.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 09:08, 23 October 2017 (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) 07:22, 30 September 2022 (UTC)
 * Nikólas Michaloliákos.jpg

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) 01:25, 23 May 2023 (UTC)
 * Nikos Michaloliakos - Golden Dawn party leader.jpg