Talk:Opinion polling for the 2024 Belgian elections/Archives/

2

Source of federal election results in Flanders and Wallonia
As this article is about opinion polling for the 2024 federal election, it should report 2019 federal election results. For the Brussels Capital Region, these are easy to find, as the region coincides with an electoral district. For the Flemish and Walloon Regions, this is harder, as they do not coincide with electoral districts. Reporting results for the regional elections is not the same as voters need not vote for the same party in the regional and federal elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.134.3.199 (talk) 12:17, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Not all Belgians are Flemish or Walloon
In the tables: 1 October 2020 — De Croo Government formed with the Open Vld, sp.a, CD&V, Groen (Flemish), MR, PS and Ecolo (Walloon). We are not Hutu and Tutsi. I would write Dutch speaking or French speaking. As written now it excludes most people from Brussels — and many Belgians altogether (born elsewhere). --Dominique Meeùs (talk) 21:32, 12 March 2021 (UTC)

Opinion poll De Stemming De Standaard
Personally I think the results of 'De Stemming' in De Standaard should be included in this article. It is not an opinion poll which is specifically about the Flanders election: also federal politicians are included in the popularity poll. PJ Geest (talk) 12:20, 22 May 2021 (UTC)

Ideologies section
I have 2 remarkes, that I don't know how to fix yet. So I post them here. 1) It is doubtful that we can still describe Les Engagés as part of the christiandemocratic family. 2) Both Flemish Interest (Vlaams Belang) and N-VA are Flemish nationalists (and I think we should make that clear above the table in the text). They are not commonly refered to as being in the same family (because of the cordon Flemish interest is excluded from taking part in Government; N-VA has taken part in Government and has negotiated with the PS). The placement of Flemish Interest in the far-right category is correct. So in my opinion we should rename the N-VA category. If we don't have something better we could call it just N-VA but that breaks the theme of refering to ideologies. Other names seem really complex: "Liberal Conservative Flemish Nationalists" or someting like that. 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:1508:2F77:4900:1DAF (talk) 14:24, 22 December 2022 (UTC)


 * Would it be better to use the term "centrists" for CD&V and LE? Also, after a quick research, it looks like "political families" might be a more common term than "ideologies" . In that scenario, I would replace "far-right" with "VB" etc. in all columns where the "ideology" consists of just one party. Gbuvn (talk) 14:49, 22 December 2022 (UTC)
 * Quick note: I just realized, the term "political families" is already used in the section header, so it would make sense anyway to use the same term in the table. --Gbuvn (talk) 14:51, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Recently added graphs
I wanted to discuss the recently added graphs by @Thiscouldbeauser.

What I like:

1) They are added in front of the list of polling results and not like the graphs that were (and still are) in the article after.

2) The axes and the graphs are named (I don't think the full stop is needed however in the titles).

What I don't like:

1) I'm against adding only the top two parties: Belgium has a proportional system, this means that being the first party isn't as important as in a first-past-the post system (or in a run-off system, or in a system where the first party gets a bonus). The first party (and the second party) can be excluded (and is excluded right now) from government. The vote shares of the other parties are just as important because a majority in seats has to be found to form a government. The media also never makes graphs with only the first and second parties.

-some small things where size does matter-

There is a small advantage for bigger parties in getting seats and there is a 5% electoral threshold (per province). On the regional level being the first party means you traditionally (an unwritten rule) get the first initiative to try to form a government but this certainly doesn't mean you will be governing.

2) The graphs use only polling data after the forming of the government. This is not commonly done in Belgian media. They always include and compare to the data of the last election. Belgium has long government formations and Belgian governments can resign and be formed without elections.

No opinion: Whether the graphs are centered or not. 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:A988:5F1:77F2:D85E (talk) 16:54, 28 January 2023 (UTC)


 * On the last point: we can include a vertical line thay says when the De Croo government was formed but then we have to decide if we want to inlude the formation of the minority government Wilmes. 2A02:1810:BCA9:3A00:A988:5F1:77F2:D85E (talk) 16:58, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

11/12/2023 ipsos poll
Does anyone know where I can find the results of the Flemish language parties in Brussels from the latest poll? The french language version of this page does have the results but their source is unavailable.

The original french speaking article for the poll has been taken down, I am wondering if this is at all related to the strange results in the poll such as N-VA gaining 1.2% in Wallonia and the PTB making moderate gains in Flanders and Brussels but losing badly in Wallonia. Timsmsmsm (talk) 18:59, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Twitter as a citation?
Is the citation for the latest seat projection under #By party reliable enough in people's opinions? I'm personally quite sceptical of the fact that it's just from a single twitter account with seemingly no source cited, but I want to hear other people's views on it first. Should a more reliable source be found or is the tweet from Dewilt enough? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2024 (UTC)


 * It would obviously be better to get the seat projections from the polling firms (in this case Ipsos) but Pascal Delwit (fr wikipage) is a political science professor and is an expert.
 * Possible problems:
 * Someone else could be impersonating the prof (this is not the case here). Since the changes by Twitter, verification is more difficult.
 * It is unclear how the professor calculates the seat projection; has he the data per electoral district (in most cases the province) or in my view more likely, does he calculate a uniform swing on previous election data. I don't think he got the seat data from Ipsos. 2A02:1810:BC3A:D800:486B:8B1:820E:BDE (talk) 11:17, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * Yeah those possible problems were what I was worried about, it's good to know the account isn't an impersonator, but given that it's unlikely Ipsos provided the seat projections, is it fair to: A) Attribute the projections to Ipsos and/or B) include it at all if there's no way to verify that it's accurate? What's your opinion? GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 21:55, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm not really certain that Ipsos didn't do a seat calculation, they used (p.11) to do this (already in the article). Maybe the newspapers just don't publish it. It is possible he got the seat calculation from Ipsos. I already went looking for the polling results on the web and on the Ipsos website but I don't find them (maybe that has something to do with the contracts with the newspapers).
 * To know for certain, sending an email to Ipsos would be the way. Contacting the professor and convincing him to publish the results somewhere else (not on Twitter) and give his methodology (if he didn't get them from Ipsos) is also possible but he seems to like using Twitter for this and it would give him a lot of work for no gain. For what to do, I see 3 options:
 * 1) Delete the tweets and add citation needed: This would be bad because we know where the projections came from when they were added (the tweets) and it would give the impression that we know for certain that Ipsos made these projections. Other sources are not likely to appear/to exist/ be published in a wiki compliant way. After the election no new sources will probably be added to this page. The info will either stay in the page or end up deleted.
 * 2) Comment the seat projections out or leave them on the talk page. They will probably stay there but I prefer leaving them on the talk page to total deletion.
 * 3) Delete the seat projections: I don't like it but it is the policy compliant thing to do. Because I don't like it, I will not advocate for it but I also wouldn't object if someone removed them (though place them on the talk page in that case). 2A02:1810:BC3A:D800:BDF9:1E63:51A4:7408 (talk) 11:38, 28 March 2024 (UTC)
 * I'm personally leaning towards removing them in this instance, given there isn't a trace of a policy-compliant source for the projections, but I'd prefer a third opinion before we take action in order to get some form of consensus. Do you know anyone you think would be useful to add to this discussion? (Can be multiple people) GlowstoneUnknown (talk) 11:50, 28 March 2024 (UTC)