Template talk:Philippine elections

What elections to include
I'd recommend to remove the 1897 ones; they weren't really elections; they were conventions or Congresses. -- Howard  the   Duck  04:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)
 * I rather not have them here too, since it was limited only to an organization, and did not target a nationwide constituency. &mdash;   scorpion prinz   15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I concur with the March 1897 one - this template is only for votes held on a national level (though it would include limited franchise votes, e.g. before women were enfranchised, or apartheid-era elections in South Africa). I don't know enough about the November 1897 one - was there a nationwide election to elect the Supreme Council? If so, it should remain. If not, it should go.  Number   5  7  15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Both 1897 elections, were Revolutionary council elections. I doubt if they both deserve to be here. I would rather have Aguinaldo's election as president by the Malolos Congress, at least that targeted a nationwide constituency, indirect though, through the representatives in Congress. &mdash;   scorpion prinz   00:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
 * There being no more objections I guess, I'm removing them from the list. &mdash;   scorpion prinz   18:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I have finished editing the elections of 1922 to 1931 base on new information i have found and i was able to find the dates of the elections based on clues given by the Jones Law of 1916.&mdash;   rizalninoynapoleon   15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I agree what Howard the Duck said on the elections of the Tejeros Convention and the Biyak-na-Bato Elections, i have researched and have concluded that the elections in Tejeros and Biyak-na-Bato were ratified b the Malolos Congress and was done on its first session of Congress and we can consider that it is an Constituent Assembly Election and I propose that we should add this to the template and make a page named as Philippine presidential elections, 1898. &mdash;   rizalninoynapoleon   15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * No, they are not elections, period and shouldn't be renamed in any other way. -- Howard  the   Duck  08:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(reindent) Peeps, I think the general elections must satisfy these requirements: Ergo, all midterm elections, constitutional conventions, congresses, elections specifically done for one place are to be excluded here. We might as well change the titles of the midterm elections from "general" to "local and legislative". -- Howard  the   Duck  08:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * 1) The election must elect all officials, from the president down to the councilor.
 * 2) It is done nationally.
 * I would be in favour of going back to splitting the template between presidential and legislative elections (as it was here, but with Senate and Parliament in the same section), and when they coincide (as a general election), they are included in both rows (see Template:Argentine elections as an example) - this is what has been done as standard on these templates. Number   5  7  08:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * That'll be better solution, IMHO. -- Howard  the   Duck  09:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Problem is that general elections were synchronized (presidential or midterm) after an amendment made to 1987 Constitution. And I was contacted by the Head of Archives of the Commission on Elections and has said that the Philippine Supreme Council elections, 1897 and the Tejeros Convention were validated by the Supreme Court, National Historical Institute and the Philippine Centennial Commission and has said they are the first and second presidential elections signed on January 30, 1999 in the centennial of the birth of the republic. So do consider putting it back or else who might arrested in denying history in the Philippine History conservation Act of 1999&mdash;   rizalninoynapoleon   15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * If you can get a citation on that, that'll be great, but without citation, that's original research. -- Howard  the   Duck  09:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's a problem that they are synchronised - they can appear on both rows without causing any disruption. Number   5  7  10:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

On regards to the what Rizalninoynapoleon said
Republic Act No. 8491 also known as the Heraldic and Preservation Act of 1999 which prescribed that a person, academic, scholar, teacher, professional who denied through words or theoretically speaking   of Philippine History and Culture unless have evidences to support there claims will be fined 500, 000 and 25 years imprisonment.&mdash;   rizalninoynapoleon   15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)


 * No legal threats, please, just provide us your sources that the NHI, SC, etc. said all pre 20th century "elections" really are elections and we'll all be happy. -- Howard  the   Duck  06:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)


 * How can the Supreme Court validate the Philippine Supreme Council elections, 1897 and the Tejeros Convention? Amazing! When in fact Philippine jurisprudence doesn't recognize any act of the Biyak-na-Bato, Tejeros, and Malolos Republic. They are recognized only for historical purposes. If you're gonna study law, Philippine jurisprudence was passed from Spanish to the Americans without interlude for a native government to function and interject any jurisprudence for a successor state to recognize. Because if the Supreme Court or Philippine jurisprudence recognize any act of these native republics why doesn't it recognize Gracio Gonzaga as the first Supreme Court Chief Justice being appointed by Aguinaldo to the position? (Source: The Laws of the First Philippine Republic, published by the National Historical Institute, ISBN 987-538-055-7)


 * And oh, a COMELEC archives department??? They don't have one sir. They have no records of any election prior to 1946, believe me I've been there. I hope that red book which contains all elections results from 1946 to 1963 survived the fire (glad i photocopied most of it) otherwise we might not have any reference anymore. I've inquired with most of the people concerned the only election results they have is 1946, since they were only created by a constitutional amendment in 1940. No election results in 1941 since all records were destroyed by the war. The earliest elections they have in record for historical purposes is the June 26, 1934 Concon elections, though they didn't sanction that one. (Source: COMELEC Records and Statistics Division). -- Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)


 * Wait for the email message from Ambeth Ocampo head of the NHI to settle the matter but we should be vigilant for the upcoming elections. --rizalninoynapoleon 01:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I don't rely on email alone. I can give you his cellphone number if you want. --Scorpion prinz (Talk 10:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Philippine Malolos Congress election, 1898
Should it be listed? -- Howard  the   Duck  17:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Were they elected by the public, or from amongst themselves? Number   5  7  17:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
 * I know about this because i found it a historical book made by Reader's Digest Philippines featuring the history of the philippines. To explain why the government held elections from June 23 to September 10 because each town that they liberate election are held immediately. Rizalninoynapoleon 01:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Are you telling as stories again? Can you give us the ISBN number, publisher, author, book title, etc.? -- Howard  the   Duck  02:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
 * The Philippines: A Unique Nation ISBN 971-642-071-4 Rizalninoynapoleon 16:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Even if this is through, it'll have to go through consensus first. -- Howard  the   Duck  17:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

IBP Regional and Sectoral
I have uncover in the book of Dr Sonia M. Zaide (Source: The Philippines: A Unique Nation ISBN 971-642-071-4) that there was an another IBP election for sectoral representatives on April 27, 1978 this is original and published evidence Take That Howard Rizalninoynapoleon 16:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * Where? -- Howard  the   Duck  17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * After reading the article, why should it be separate from the main Philippine parliamentary election, 1978? -- Howard  the   Duck  17:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
 * There were two IBP elections one for the regional and the other was the sectoral. I will am asking to separate the articles. Besides this is verified by the COMELEC (See:The Philippines: A Unique Nation ISBN 971-642-071-4) What the COMELEC verified is valid enough Rizalninoynapoleon 02:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
 * We only separate the articles if the file size is too big. As of now it's not that big. Heck even Philippine general elections, 2007 doesn't have separate articles for each level (Senatorial, House and local). -- Howard  the   Duck  05:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

We must separate the articles
I am thinking of separating the articles in this sectioning: Presidential, Senate, House, Parliamentary and Constitutional Convention Delegates Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Also in the template as well. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Just don't mess up and fix up the linking it should be fine for me. Dunno about the Elections WikiProject though. -- Howard  the   Duck  12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)


 * Manolo Quezon has a list of all of the House elections. I'm considering creating separate articles for them, then rename the "general election" article to "senate election" ones. – HTD  ( ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. ) 08:20, 5 December 2010 (UTC)

Need to define "general election" versus other elections. A new Wikipedia article needed?
The use of the term "general election" here differs from the use of the term elsewhere. See General election, General election (disambiguation) and General election (U.S.). I think there needs to be a new Wikipedia article General election (Philippines) or maybe a Philippines section in the General Election article, i.e. General election. Either that or drop the distinction between "general election" and "senate election", etc. --Bruce Hall (talk) 06:53, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * The general election, at least in the Philippines, is defined as an election where both local and national positions are contested. Ergo, the "midterm" Senate elections from 1947 to 1971 aren't a part of a general election, since on midterm elections, only positions in the Senate were up, as opposed to the quadrennial election where all positions were contested. All post-1987 elections then are "general" since aside from all local positions, several Senate seats (a nationally-elected office) are also up, plus the presidency and vice presidency every 6 years.
 * Also, the term "general election" is not that prevalent. The media often uses "national election" or "synchronized election" or simply "election" (just as how the yearly U.S. election articles are named). The Commission on Elections uses "National and Local elections" for post-1987 election, while for pre-1971 it used names such as "Presidential, Vice-Presidential, Senatorial and Congressional Elections". – H T  D  14:30, 18 December 2011 (UTC)
 * Also, that definition is rather prevalent among presidential systems: see for example Argentine general election, 2011, Panamanian general election, 2009, Liberian general election, 2011, etc. Perhaps a more general explanation should be included in the general election and should not just concern Philippine usage. – H T  D  19:24, 22 December 2011 (UTC)
 * None of those countries uses the term "general election" in the template. The templates only refer to the different elections (president, legislative, etc.) Given that the term is (a) not widely used now, (b) confusing (how is a general election different from a presidential) and (c) repetitive (it is not different from a presidential election), I think that that line should be removed and instead we should adopt a format along the lines of Template:Argentine elections, Template:Panamanian elections, and Template:Liberian elections. That would have the added benefit of streamlining the template, making it more readable. --Bruce Hall (talk) 11:07, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Isn't the setup on the other 3 hella confusing, though? For example, in the Argentine example, the articles listed in the "Presidential election" group are titled as "Argentine general election, ", with the infobox reinforcing the title, but the infobox exclusively deals with the presidential election, then the legislative elections are treated as an afterthought, with only the results stated at the "Results" section. This is also the case in the Mexican one. At least in Argentina, the "general election" term is used to distinguish it from the primary election, in the the cases of Panama and Mexico, the term "general election" doesn't even appear in the article prose!
 * In short, the three examples are pretty much screwed up. Articles entitled as "general" are under the "presidential" section in the navbox, the infobox calls it "general" but it deals exclusively with the presidential results, and the legislative results are like second class citizens.
 * If you'd ask me, elections to each branch of government (and to each chamber in the legislature, if possible) should have separate articles and sections in the navbox, with the "general elections" articles dealing with the summaries for all elections held in the day (or in case of rolling elections, during that time period). There should probably a new infobox for formats such as this, that will incorporate results from every branch of government that had an election. Or do the reverse of what you've said: rename "presidential elections" as "general elections" in the navbox, as the scopes of most articles that deal with recent elections that are entitled "general elections" where the executive and legislature are elected separately don't just include presidential results. – H T  D  11:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)


 * You know what, screw with the other navboxes. I'm open to removing the "General" elections section. What should we do to the general elections articles now? Create a new navbox for them, together with the barangay and SK elections, and the elections and referendums in this template? – H T  D  14:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)


 * What do they cover? If they are effectively duplicating info already in separate articles, then they can be deleted. If on the other hand, the articles they duplicate are all fairly short and could be merged into a general elections article, then we should look at that. Number   5  7  15:38, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Basically, they're a summary of the elections in that year's election day. Like the United States elections, 2012 (which has a pretty neat infobox, BTW), which is further divided into United States presidential election, 2012, United States Senate elections, 2012, United States House of Representatives elections, 2012, etc. The articles on old elections are stubs, while the new ones must be start-class or better. – H T  D  18:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
 * In that case (and as the sub articles are quite detailed), I think we should get rid of the general election articles. Number   5  7  13:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * How? Via AFD? Redirects? "Dab" pages? It'll be interesting to say the least how the AFD on the 2012 US "general" election page turns out. The "general" election pages can still be useful as it has links to elections done on that day. – H T  D  14:40, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe keep them as DABs, but definitely remove them from here. Number   5  7  10:48, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
 * They've been removed, but my suggestion of placing them in a new navbox a la United States elections, with the same format as the more recent articles in that template stands. – H T  D  13:09, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Bumping this out instead of indenting more. I like the idea of having general articles that function as wordy disambiguation page or guide to other more detailed articles, a la United States elections, 2011. Each contest is a separate topic and should get a separate treatment. Congressmen, governors, board members, mayors, etc., run independent races in head-to-head-to-head-to... contests. There is not a single national congressional race or election. There is a large, spread out, diverse country; what Sule does is not necessarily influenced by what Iloilo does. This is why a plural is used. It is the 2013 gubernatorial electionS but the 2013 Iloilo gubernatorial electioN. Only in rare cases is a congressional race on Luzon related to one on Bohol. All politics is local, to quote Tip O'Neill. I note that Template:United States elections is not perfect since it only includes even-numbered years, those years when there are elections everywhere for federal offices along with state and local. Odd-numbered years, e.g. United States elections, 2011, which includes local, e.g. New York City mayoral election, 2009, and some state elections, see United States gubernatorial elections, 2011 and New Jersey gubernatorial election, 2009. I prefer our template. I support the dropping of the general line from the template since I don't think it added much and is unnecessary since we provide links to the main articles. In those separate articles we can add a link to the general discussion, "for more information about Philippine elections in ... see ...". --Bruce Hall (talk) 04:56, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * FYI, elections for all positions on individual provinces, cities and even municipalities are titled " local elections, ," e.g. Manila local elections, 2013. I dunno if there has been a local election article that focuses on just one position on one place, like the New York example above.
 * As for plural and singular, aside from the presidential election, there are only two other singular "election", that's the Senate elections post-1941 (Philippine Senate election, 2013, for example) and the party-list election (Philippine House of Representatives party-list election, 2013) as both treat the country as one "district". If perhaps, someone would create an article for a specific position in a place, like say "Cebu gubernatorial election, 2013" that can use the singular "election".
 * As for US elections, it does include odd-numbered years after 2000. I'm also in favor of retaining such articles but these should be on its own navbox (or to be included with a local elections navbox). I'm also in favor of renaming these from "Philippine general election, 2013" to "Philippine elections, 2013" as that will remove the impression that it is one massive election for one body that is connected to every race at every place. – H T  D  11:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

For clarity, changed "upper house" to "senate"
Opting for clarity among ignorant readers, I changed "upper house" to "senate." Why come to Wikipedia if you are not ignorant and want to learn? I suspect that many may only be in the 7th or 8th grade, or not received schooling beyond the 7th or 8th grade, and may not know that "upper house" means "senate". Since each and every election linked to has "senate" in the article's title, I changed "upper house" to the more commonly used word "senate". I think that this is more in keep with WP:CommonName. I left lower house because it has "house" in there and since ignorant does not mean stupid that might be a clue that it relates to the House. Further, that body's name has changed and so the articles' titles use different names (e.g. assembly, parliamentary, house of reps.), though I would be open to dropping the "lower" modifier. --Bruce Hall (talk) 11:23, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I used "Upper house" for consistency, as according what you've said, the lower house has had a variety of names. It looks funky with Senate+Lower house but I'm not objecting to it. – H T  D  11:26, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It does look funky and that I think is a benefit. Hopefully people will wonder "why?" and do some more clicking and reading. History is messy and complicated, not rational, logical, scientific.  We human beings look at things and see patterns and create boxes as a way of learning lessons from the past but we must be careful not to try too hard to force things into neat little non-funky boxes. Neatening up history too much can obscure as much as it can elucidate. --Bruce Hall (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * I was even thinking of separating it into "legislative eras" (see List of Senators of the Philippines for these "eras".) subgroups, or even a new group for parliamentary elections. I settled on Upper House and Lower House as the former isn't done elsewhere (subgroups), and the latter is a waste as there are only two (or three) elections to be include there. If anything I can be talked into renaming it into "House of Representatives." – H T  D  11:14, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Dividing the template into two
''I separated this from the above discussion because I was having a hard time reading it and thoughts others might too. --Bruce Hall (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)''
 * Also, in a sorta unrelated note, I'd be in favor ditching the gubernatorial, barangay and SK elections. I'd place them in a new template together with the local elections, with the local elections staying here as local elections are also included in other countries' election navboxes. – H T  D  11:29, 4 November 2012 (UTC)
 * Gubernatorial and board elections, and municipal elections (in the American English meaning as Philippine English doesn't have a similar term), are tied into national elections. Often who runs for governor is dependent upon who runs for congress. It gets even more complicated when one considers mayoral and city council elections in component cities and independent cites. Personally, I like have a catch-all template that includes all elections.  There are all the elections, messy as they are.  And I don't see a downside to keeping them all together and it seems like to much to separate them.--Bruce Hall (talk) 04:27, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also municipal elections here too, maybe except for those who are proud that their places became cities will insist on not using the word "municipal." With that said, I dunno what the people at WP:WPE&R are in favor of, but I'd like this template to only include elections for President, Congress, the catch-all articles of the year's local elections and referendums under here, with the barangay elections an option, while the gubernatorial elections should go to a local elections template, or maybe there's another Philippine elections navbox somewhere.
 * I don't feel strongly on this issue, tbh, but having a big template may be unwieldy for some. I guess this is the only elections navbox that is this big. – H T  D  11:09, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

I have noticed that User talk:Howard the Duck removed all the gubernatorial and barangay elections but left in the local. I think that we need to have a reference to the barangay elections. They are separate elections from the General Election in May and that should be referenced. Eventhough the previous version of the box, the one that had all the elections, was unwieldy, I think that was fine because it reflects reality in the 12th largest country in the world, because it was never-the-less clear, and because all these types of boxes are a bit unwieldy by their very nature. I support adding back in the barangay elections, with or without other LGU elections, because they are distinct and unique elections from the typical May elections. --Bruce Hall (talk) 06:05, 4 February 2013 (UTC)
 * I won't object, but Indian elections is shorter than the Philippine elections template, and it is the largest democracy in the world. To compare French elections has sections for every local government level (I think the officials of French communes, the rough equivalent of barangays, aren't directly elected.). The only reason why this template is long is that the Philippines holds elections pretty frequently. – H T  D  11:31, 4 February 2013 (UTC)