Template:Did you know nominations/Double direct election


 * The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as |this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Allen3 talk 17:05, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Double direct election

 * ... that in a double direct election, individuals are elected as representatives for two tiers of government in one election?
 * Reviewed: Template:Did you know nominations/Amethi (Lok Sabha constituency) (see my DYK tracker) Mind  matrix  17:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC)

Moved to mainspace by Mindmatrix (talk). Self nominated at 17:58, 25 January 2015 (UTC).


 * Symbol question.svg I'm a bit confused. Is this where a person is elected with a dual mandate in one direct election? Would either of the following (hypothetically) apply:
 * Scenario 1: a person wins a direct election for two posts (local and parliamentary) and serves as a local councillor and a Member of Parliament
 * Scenario 2: a person wins two direct elections (local and parliamentary) held at the same time and serves as a local councillor and a Member of Parliament
 * Fuebaey (talk) 09:58, 2 March 2015 (UTC)


 * No, neither of those apply. This is specifically about an individual who, as a result of a single election, ends up serving on council of two lower-level jurisdictions - their municipal council, and the council for the region of which that municipality is part (at least in Canada; I haven't had much luck finding info for China). If an individual runs for office provincially or federally, they must take a leave of absence from current municipal offices, and resign from those lower-level councils if elected to provincial or federal office. Mind  matrix  14:20, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Okay, I asked because I wanted to clarify some doubts about verification. Two points before a full review:
 * The section on China refers to this source on page 148. The passage describes the potential for direct elections for both LegCo and the Chief Exec in Hong Kong (currently the former is partially direct, the latter is elected by an appointed group of ~1,200). But in each case the elections are separate and tend not to occur at the same time. That seems to contradict what you've written above.
 * Would you consider renaming this "Double direct elections in Canada"? Save the last sentence, the article seems rather Canada-centric and I'd prefer not to slap an orange tag on it.
 * Fuebaey (talk) 19:23, 2 March 2015 (UTC)
 * To be honest, I only included the section on Hong Kong because I found it incidentally during web searches for the Canadian concept, and it is quite different from the Canadian version of the term. I don't know if the Hong Kong version merits its own article or should be embedded within another one, and I didn't really know what to do with it at the time. I propose that the material about Hong Kong be removed, the article retain the current name (no need for preemptive disambiguation), and either the article gets moved in the future if the need arises, or expanded to include info about other countries (I doubt Canada is the only country using this; one of the sources is Russian, in a report for potential implementation of this type of electoral system for parts of Russia). A hatnote directing readers to the proper subject for the Hong Kong concept can be included if that content can be salvaged and placed in a more appropriate article (likely one or both of the articles you linked in your comment). Mind  matrix  04:46, 4 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I'd agree with removing the last sentence. I think the term in the book is used to describe two direct elections rather than how it's defined in the article. I'm not going to press on the worldwide view tag, but I just want to put it out there in case it arises in the future. New enough (25 Jan) and long enough (4.6k). Source, neutral with no apparent copyvio. Hook is stated and sourced. QPQ done. Could you rem that section and possibly write up your explanation (2 Mar) to avoid confusion? Fuebaey (talk) 19:48, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've deleted that section. I'm not clear about what you mean with "write up your explanation" - do you want me to use my statements from March 2 above and integrate them into the article? Mind  matrix  21:24, 5 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Apologies if I wasn't clear myself. Could you use your statement from 2 March to clarify the original definition of the term in the article? Fuebaey (talk) 04:45, 6 March 2015 (UTC)
 * I've added the info to the intro, but I had to use the general term "regional", as BC and Ontario have different types of regional governments; they are sourced in the respective provincial sections in the article. I've also tweaked some phrasing and removed one more China-related reference I had missed earlier. Mind  matrix  14:50, 13 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Symbol confirmed.svg Thanks for following this up. Fuebaey (talk) 11:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)