Talk:1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Russia: History Mid‑importance

	Russia portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Russia, a WikiProject dedicated to coverage of Russia on Wikipedia. To participate: Feel free to edit the article attached to this page, join up at the project page, or contribute to the project discussion.RussiaWikipedia:WikiProject RussiaTemplate:WikiProject RussiaRussia articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the history of Russia task force.

Turn-out

The 48.44% does not agree with the figure implied by the article on the Russian Constituent Assembly. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.194.200 (talk) 14:29, 20 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why 2 unexplained tables?

This article shows two tables with significantly different figures (for example, SRs have 17.1 million votes in the first table and 17.9 million in the second table), and no clear explanation as to why this is so (or if such an explanation is given, it seems unreasonably well hidden). Tlhslobus (talk) 08:10, 28 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sakhalin Oblast

~~Which electoral district did Sakhalin belong to? Amur-Maritime? --Soman (talk) 15:51, 13 October 2018 (UTC)~~[reply]

Splitting proposal

The results by constituency table is far too much for this article. Like virtually every other national election article with detailed district results, it should be split; I created Results of the Russian Constituent Assembly election, 1917, but the removal of the content from this article has been reverted. Comments welcome. Cheers, Number 5 7 18:35, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The problem in this case is that since many of the district results are incomplete or with weak sourcing, only presenting national aggregates is quite misleading. If we are to move material to a Results article, then we need to move other passages as well there (i.e. the entire Results section, not just the district results). --Soman (talk) 19:28, 14 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think that's necessary. It's already clear enough in the sections before the districts bit that the results are incomplete. 19:56, 14 October 2018 (UTC)

Hi @Number 57:. I moved the details to constituency-level articles, to be able to expand more there. Is the current level of detail ok? --Soman (talk) 12:38, 29 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The current tables in the Results by electoral district are incomprehensible. Also, I don't think articles on the constituencies are necessary when the information can be covered at the results article; I was planning on nominating them for deletion TBH. Number 5 7

Number of seats per constituency

Б. Ф Додонов; Е. Д Гринько; О. В.. Лавинская (2004). Журналы заседаний Временного правительства: Сентябрь-октябрь 1917 года. РОССПЭН. pp. 206–208. has a listing of seats by constituency. But the listing only has the civilian districts and numbers don't match the numbers for deputies elected used in the article at the moment (which are taken from ROSSPEN source as well). The listing has some weird lines just saying "1" instead of a name of a district. And whilst the total of the listing is 734, the "total" at the bottom of the table says 730. Anyhow, if used in the article the listing would be

It would be good if someone could double-check the listing, see if there is a list that also includes the military district and try to get a sense of the discrepancy between the listing of elected delegates and these numbers (for example, Transcaucasus has 36 seats allotted but there are names of 42 elected deputies). --Soman (talk) 14:55, 9 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Results

I've update the Results of the 1917 Russian Constituent Assembly election - but yet to update the result in the main article. Just as the new listing was more or less ready, I came across online version of Protasov's 1997 book (http://library6.com/books/516416.pdf). Protasov has results from some constituencies missing until now, notably Samarkand, Yakutsk and Caucasus Front, with a total of 48,401,962 votes. But the book has two key problems: 1) In a text published 7 years later, Protasov puts the total vote at 47,167,621 (1.2 million votes less), no explanation as to why he lowered his account and 2) Protasov uses the categories SR, Popular Socialist, Menshevik, Bolshevik, [other] Socialist, Kadet, National lists, Rightists and Others. For the Bolsheviks and Kadets, it is fairly straightforward, in the SR and Menshevik accounts he includes dissident lists, but the "national list" and "others" are often difficult to dechiffer the vote per list. The use of columns isn't very consequent, for example sometimes including Plekhanov's Unity party in Menshevik column, sometimes not.

Basically, the following constituencies have multiple lists in same column without possibility to clarify the vote per list:"Самарский Харьковский Подольский (incomplete result) Степной (incomplete result) Херсонский (incomplete result) Бессарабский Петроград Симбирский Тверской Терско-Дагестанский (incomplete result) Юго-Западный фронт Румынский фронт Вологодский Волынский Вятский Московский Нижегородский Оренбургский Пермский Приамурский Рязанский Таврический Уфимский Балтийский флот Западный фронт Енисейский Киевский Минский Москва Орловский Петроградский Тульский Ферганский Черниговский Кавказский фронт" In some cases, the discrepancies between the currently used sources and Protasov are very minor, but in several cases using Protasov's numbers would aid considerably. For example the Caucasian Front... where he has a much more complete account. The problem with the Caucasus Front is that Radkey mentions Armenian Revolutionary Front and a Georgian (which party?) lists and alludes to a Ukrainian list, but Protasov has only the column "Socialists". Anyone has seen any source (in Armenian, Georgian, etc..) that helps identify the lists for the these constituencies???

From the following constituencies, Protasov gives identical result as the currently used sources: "Ярославский Алтайский Витебский Донской Екатеринославский Закавказский Казанский Калужский Костромской Лифляндский Могилевский Новгородский Олонецкий Пензенский Полтавский Псковский Саратовский Смоленский Тобольский Томский Уральский Эстляндский Черноморский флот Северный фронт".

From the following constituencies Protasov gives a lower total than the currently used sources: "квжд Семиреченский Ставропольский Тургайский Ярославский". Not sure whether to keep current source, or switch to Protasov considering his research is more recent?

From the remaining constituencies, Protasov gives higher result than current sources; "Архангельский Астраханский Владимирский Воронежский Забайкальский Иркутский Камчатский (incomplete result) Курский Кубано-Черноморский (incomplete result) Самаркандский Тамбовский Якутский"

I'll proceed updating Arkhangelsk, Astrakhan, Vladimir, Voronezh, Transbaikal, Irkutsk, Kuban-Black Sea, Samarkand, Tambov and Yakutsk per Protasov, but leaving Kamchatka out for now as Protasov's numbers are almost as minimal as Radkey's. I'm also concerned that Yakutsk result might be incomplete. --Soman (talk) 19:46, 27 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]