Talk:2014 European Parliament election/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Pre-inaugural session group reshuffling

Waking up from a looooong wiki-slumber, I notice that the election results table is getting hard to read with the color explosion in the last column. I propose that a new subsection is added to the "Results" section, with a reshuffling table along the lines of what's below this lines. Yes, it's incomplete because I didn't take the time to fill it without knowing if it will be accepted. What do you think? Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 20:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Between the election and the inaugual session of the 8th European Parliament, scheduled for July 1, parties and individual MEPs are able to switch allegiances between the Political groups of the European Parliament. This process, which sometimes has resulted in the disappearance of whole political groups from the Parliament, or their recomposition in another form, is particularly important for new parties and MEPs. The following table describes the announced membership changes in the Parliament groupings:

	2014 electoral impact on political groups of the 8th European Parliament																		MEPs
	EPP		S&D		ALDE		G-EFA		ECR		GUE/NGL		EFD		NI		New parties
End of 7th Parliament	274		196		83		57		57		35		31		33		—		766
Election changes (see table above)	204	-51	188	+4	55	-29	44	-11	44	-10	48	+13	38	+6	41	+11	79	(new)	751	-15
Group reshuffling					FW (other countries and parties)	+1 (etc)					TIERSCHUTZ	+1							751
Start of 8th Parliament	Summed	up	totals	go	here														751

In principle, yes please, although I'm not sure what the best way of doing this is. I do like the end column colours myself. AndrewRT(Talk) 22:02, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

Okay, I'll go about filling it then, it can always be modified/reverted if it turns out not to be more informative than the rainbow column. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 22:52, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

It looks like the True Finns and the Danish People's Party have moved to the ECR, should we put it under the group reshuffling?

On the other hand, the Latvian ZZS is part of the European Green Party, so I think it's almost sure they'll join the Greens --Jbenju (talk) 18:10, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

Flanagan (Ireland) and LPD (Spain)will join GUE/NGL Jbenju (talk) 13:30, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Synchronization

The first and the second table are not in sync, for example with Flanagan, N-VA's move to ALDE and other confirmed changes. Someone™ should sync the top table with the bottom table (the latter is more up-to-date right now). —Nightstallion 18:59, 11 June 2014 (UTC)

Grigule/ZZS → ALDE

Confirmed here: http://euobserver.com/eu-elections/124572 —Nightstallion 16:21, 12 June 2014 (UTC)

BBTs → ECR

Fully confirmed here: http://m.novinite.com/articles/161243/Bulgaria%27s+BWC,+Germany%27s+AfD+Join+EP+Conservatives —Nightstallion 14:08, 13 June 2014 (UTC)

While I suspect this is accurate, I think confirmation from another source is probably the best course of action. If I remember correctly, there was an inaccurate report a few days ago saying much the same thing. Gabrielthursday (talk) 10:42, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

this the another source, BBT web notice section http://bulgariabezcenzura.bg/novini/bbts-se-prisaedinyava-kam-grupata-na-konservatorite-v-ep/1316#.U516BPl_s08 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.234.100 (talk) 10:53, 15 June 2014 (UTC) i add, for the ECR twitter they had accepted only one of BBT MEP https://twitter.com/ecrgroup/status/477029031159033856 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.234.100 (talk) 12:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for the references. I'll add Barekov, and separate out IMRO. Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:06, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

SUM

the tables sum from group subtotals are wrong for the first table is 750 for the second is 748 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.234.100 (talk) 17:51, 15 June 2014 (UTC) i corrected both but the 2nd table need a graphic help — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.13.234.100 (talk) 00:01, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

New parties column

I am working on updating the table and note that some parties in the new parties column are reflected in a party group according the website of the EU parliament. There can be no better source (or at least more authoritative) than that of the EU parliament. Therefore, I am aligning the table to match the results on the EU parliamentary website. (whoops forgot to sign, it was me - Nbpolitico (talk) 00:43, 28 May 2014 (UTC))

I should probably remark that this unidentified IP user is definitely not me, even though he/she copied the intro I put in the previous talk section Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 23:15, 27 May 2014 (UTC)

We should agree to either (1) strictly put all parties that were not represented in the previous session in the "new parties" column, or (2) follow the table on the European Parliament's official election website ([1]) and put parties that had already declared their future group affiliation before the election in the respective group's columns. At the moment, the table shows a hotchpotch of both options, which is not acceptable. I think the latter of the two options is preferrable because the total of seats for each group will then correspond with the total of seats as given in the European Parliament's official result. --RJFF (talk) 15:55, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the latter is preferable. I had updated to the table to match what was on the European Parliament site. - Nbpolitico (talk) 20:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

"New" parties are by definition (and by [c] note under the table) parties, which are new in EP. But yeah, whatever.

There is separate table for "Group reshuffling". But yeah, whatever. Lets follow some stupid "table on the European Parliament's official election website"... Ivojr (talk) 11:09, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

The latter "declared affiliation" standard is unworkable, imho. Some parties had "declared" their intended affiliations but had not been accepted into the group. Some had informal agreements to enter, but the formal membership was not completed prior to the election. Moreover, the table pointed to above has been updated with new information, and even if we were to look at archived information, it's impossible to know if the information posted as of election day was a) accurate and b) complete. I think the simplest and clearest thing to do is to put all new parties in the "new party column", with the appropriate colour indicating their eventual affiliation. Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:24, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll expand a little on my original comments. I think the ideal would be that "new parties" would only be ascribed to their eventual group if the party was already a member of the European party at the core of the EP group. For example, if the Romanian party "Noua Republică" had elected a MEP, they could be in the ECR column because the party was previously admitted to the AECR. That's a formal affiliation, and any newly elected MEPs would more or less automatically join the EP group. c That said, I think this standard would be difficult to track down at this point, and we should put all the newly-represented parties in the "new party" column. Gabrielthursday (talk) 05:33, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

SGP go with ECR

http://www.sgp.nl/Actueel/Belder%20in%20ECR.wli#content --Francomemoria (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

The reference definitely says the SGP member is intending to seek membership in the ECR. I think, however, that we should hold off on reassigning people until they've formally switched; i.e. been accepted into the new group. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:09, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

This Dutch newspaper http://www.refdag.nl/nieuws/politiek/belder_sgp_treedt_toe_tot_europese_conservatieven_1_835056 says "Maandagmiddag heeft Belder de formulieren getekend om tot de ECR toe te treden" which means the papers have been signed this monday afternoon. - FakirNL (talk) 23:43, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

is confirmed also from ECR fb page https://www.facebook.com/ECRgroupEU --Francomemoria (talk) 16:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

first ALDE group meet

https://twitter.com/ALDEgroup/status/478926505515712513 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francomemoria (talk • contribs) 15:55, 17 June 2014 (UTC) they have deleted this tweet... mistery --Francomemoria (talk) 16:49, 17 June 2014 (UTC) now there is a tweet from the spokeman but w/o the NV-A https://twitter.com/ALDESpokesNeil --Francomemoria (talk) 17:47, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

We have more accessions to the ALDE: [2]. The UPyD, C's of Spain and the MPT of Portugal should be accounted for by whoever has the time. Gabrielthursday (talk) 17:58, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Some clarification on N-VA: ALDE voted in principle to allow them if they want to join, but N-VA still has to decide which group they want to join. They will likely decide in the next few days, and it will likely be ALDE, but nothing is formal/definitive at this time. SPQRobin (talk) 00:04, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

New Parties inappropriately assigned in the Results table

As I've mentioned above, I'm sceptical that any of the new parties should be attributed to their EP groups in the results table. That said, I don't want to change it wholesale just yet. That said, there are a fair number of parties currently shown as elected in their EP group when I doubt they were formally part of the group when elected. Specifically, I believe the German "Free Voters", "Pirates", the Spanish LPD and PE and the Czech "ANO" should be in the "New Parties" column. I think I'd like to see some references suggesting those parties had committed and been accepted to their EP group prior to election, or we should go ahead and adjust the table. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:28, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

• Support. --RJFF (talk) 20:08, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

generally i don't support, and maybe before to a request using google is best, however for ANO i've the source http://www.alde.eu/nc/press/press-and-release-news/press-release/article/czech-ano-party-joins-alde-group-in-the-european-parliament-42998/ for the LPD the source was already in the article http://www.guengl.eu/news/article/gue-ngl-news/strengthened-left-will-fight-for-alternatives-to-eu-leaders-dud-politics for german piraten http://www.greens-efa.eu/up-to-date-list-of-the-meps-for-the-new-legislative-period-12490.html --Francomemoria (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

I'm not contesting that the parties have affiliated to the groups in question; instead, I'm saying they should be in the "new parties" column since they weren't elected as part of the various EP groups. Thanks for the references: I note that the ANO reference clearly shows ANO was only admitted after the election. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:05, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

the reshuffling table there is for show the post elections situation otherwise is the same table of the result table. for free voters http://www.fw-bayern.de/aktuelles/archiv/2014/freie-waehler-ziehen-ins-europaparlament-ein/ --Francomemoria (talk) 23:48, 16 June 2014 (UTC)

i've misunderstand your position so i'm agree news parties in the new parties column with highlight and note four source, just need take attention that some parties that was not in the EP would be members of a european parties also before of the elections --Francomemoria (talk) 11:59, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

I don't think a "New parties" column makes much sense, since the new parties will all join one of the groups (or NI). I'd prefer to have an extra horizontal line for "New parties", where we could list them in their chosen group or else in NI. Currently the new parties already in groups are listed under "Accession" together with some old parties, but the new parties not (yet?) in any group aren't named at all. It'd be interesting to have a list of those somewhere in the table. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:32, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Well, I think it does add some useful information, which is appropriate for the results section. The performance of the EP groups as they stood prior to the elections is a slightly different question than how well they might do in attracting new parties or existing parties in other groups. The National Liberal Party of Romania, for instance, should probably be in the ALDE group for initial results, even though after the election they disaffiliated from the ALDE and joined the EPP. Similarly, if the EFD fails to requalify as a group, its constituent parties will head in different directions. Nonetheless, it will be important to mark how the EFD did in the actual election. Our headline "results" in the infobox show the positions post-shuffling; but it's still importanct to see how the various EP groups performed in the election as they then were. Gabrielthursday (talk) 00:30, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

The remaining newly-represented parties in the EP that aren't in the "New Parties" column are: Altra Europa, the Italian far-left party; TOP 09, a conservative Czech party; NEOS, the Austrian liberal party; the Left Alliance in Finland; the Danish Social Liberal Party; Most-Hid (EPP) and SaS (ALDE) from Slovakia; HNS & IDS, liberal parties in Croatia. I suspect most of these were affiliated prior to the election, but it would be nice to confirm that is the case for each of them. Also, for the sake of consistency, if there are any new parties currently in the "New Party" column that had established an affiliation with one of the European parties prior to the election, we should move them to their appropriate column. Other things that would be nice: better references for the parties that have affiliated with the Greens/EFA and the Socialists, and a good ref for the Five-Star Movement's affiliation to EFD. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:09, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

Authoritative source for pre-election affiliations?

While not an official source, the website Europe Decides is run by the major PR firm Burson-Marsteller. In its candidate lists the site notes European Party affiliations, and it appears to be entirely based on pre-election affiliations. I'd suggest this is the source we were looking for to deal with the new parties issue. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:54, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

some european parties page had in the members list also the parties that had not get MEP in the last elections — Preceding unsigned comment added by Francomemoria (talk • contribs) 09:17, 18 June 2014 (UTC)

lead of the article

User Tuvixer might want to explain his arguments in a civil way instead of making personal attacks toward others in the edit summaries. UKIP is certainly not considered to be a "radical-right party". The Feminist Initiative getting one MEP in Sweden is a detail, which does not belong in the lead of the article dealing with the election of 751 MEPs. That is called undue weight. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 00:35, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I am sorry, I did not realise that this was in the lead of the article. Again sorry. Tuvixer (talk) 02:52, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Sure. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 01:18, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Groups reshuffling

After groups reshuffling ECR are the third group and GUE the fifth as in the Infobox at the top of the page, so we have to conform also the templates which are present in the section "Results".--Serb1914 (talk) 13:24, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

I wouldn't say it's a necessity, but that being said, I can't see any reason for not doing so. It certainly has the merit of introducing greater consistency. Gabrielthursday (talk) 16:34, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Ok, I agree with you and I think it will explain better the political situation after the EP election.--Serb1914 (talk) 17:07, 22 June 2014 (UTC)

Results table - new parties

TOP 09 + STAN (Czech Rep.) and Most-Híd (Slovakia) should be in the "new parties" column.----Bancki (talk) 08:03, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

I believe the rough compromise we had arrived at was to treat previously unrepresented parties as "belonging" to a EP group if they were already members of the principal Europarty of that group. That was the way the results were reported, by and large, on election night. TOP 09 & Most-Hid were already EPP members. Gabrielthursday (talk) 08:29, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Modifications made by RJFF are quite incoherent in my humble opinion

Hi RJFF and hi all,

I open this talk, because the modifications comments made by RJFF are quite non-understandable for me. I think I need to have some clarifications. I also think that RJFF may need this discussion to realise some very incoherent aspects of his modifications. I thank him anyway to participate to the elaboration of this Wikipedia article :).

RJFF seem to prefers to have political parties in the table (to quote him: writing the names of the electoral lists, instead of the parties is not helpful. Even people with high interest and knowledge in European politics won't be able to identify them. Official EP result indicates the parties, too.) which is fair, but obviously his change have to be coherent. Alas, it is not in the current state of the article from his modifications. If I understand correctly the comment from RJFF, rev: sorry, but there is no consensus for your changes. We go by the official results as provided by the EP and/or competent national authorities, not a system that is prefered by some user who thinks it is more logical, we have to agree that [w]e [should] go by the official results as provided by the EP and/or competent national authorities.

I am not sure what RJFF have in mind when he say that We [should not] go by not a system that is prefered by some user who thinks it is more logical and if this comment may apply to him, however if RJFF think in good faith that he go by official results and not by self prefer[ence], he should read again the official sources because his behaviour is not true to his remark: his editions have for object to label what official lists name Alternative (UDI+MoDem) as UDI+MoDem but to label what official list name FG (PCF+PG+Ens.+et al.) by FG.

Anyway, there is in my humble opinion a quite significant problem with his lasts modifications: he insert electoral lists in some case (like EE, FG or UOM), the detail of all parties of a coalition in others (like UDI+MoDem), only list some parties of the coalitions in others (like PS+PRG) and, finally, only name one party of a coalition in the last case (like FN or UMP). All of this is very misleading. And it is not limited to the French entry as coalitions are used in other entries of the table (like the CoE for example).

So, to be quite clear and factual, the fears that RJFF have regarding sources are quite erroneous as the European Parliament use Alternative for the Alternative (the coalition of UDI and MoDem created in 2013, [3]), the Ministry of Interior use liste bleu Marine for the Blue Marine Gathering (the coalition of the Front National with other far-rights and right-wing populists parties and with independents [4]), and there is tons of newspaper who use the same, so did the official ballots. The links are given in the French entry of the table : [5] [6] [7]

I can see three choices for the table, who have to be coherently applied and not anarchically used in some case and not in others:

1. using coalition/electoral lists labels used in official sources when parties are elected from a coalition/electoral list;
2. using label used in official sources for all elected parties and independents who are part of a coalition/electoral list;
3. using label used in official sources for the main party of a coalition/electoral list only.

I would myself favour the first option as it is the shorter most precise and complete way to qualify who are elected. The second option would crowd too much the table and the third one would result to somewhat misleading results.

So... what do you think, RJFF and others?

Best Regards,

Captain frakas (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for raising this issue. My preference is to make this comprehensible rather than rigorously consistent, and use footnotes to note the complexities. In some cases coalitions are better understood than their constituent parties (in France, The Left Front); in others, the principal parties have continued to be principally identified (National Front). In Poland, every Party list contained nonpartisan candidates, I'm not sure how we'd deal with that, but I don't think it's important to do so. In general, I think the national parties should be preferred, since they are normally the most recognisable. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:35, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Also, slightly off-topic, can we dispense with most of the references in the reshuffling table in order to narrow the table for better presentation? The references will still be there in the results table. Gabrielthursday (talk) 23:39, 20 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank for your answer. Just my two cents: I fear that determining ourselves what is best understood may be a bit too much argued and subjective. I am not sure, for example, if the Left Front is really better known than the French Communist Party or if the PRG is that much better known than the SIEL and I am pretty sure that all the French electorate is well aware of the Marine Blue Gathering. We have official sources and I think that we should use them rationally rather than sensitively: Doing case by case, on a subject about next to thirty states would expose the article to be quite an original editorial content, IMHO, rather than a rigorous and neutral encyclopaedic content. I fear it may be argued endless.

I also have to say that I share with you the willingness to narrow the table's width for better presentation. Perhaps that we may have a note per country (put just after the flag or the country name) who detail composition of list (whatever the name who was choose in the table: main party or coalition name). It will narrow a bit the table's width but would somewhat expense the table's height. It would still be better than actually IMHO.

Also, we should not use flags, IMHO, in the columns of the reshuffle table. Perhaps that we may have lines for the few countries who have parties who change groups. And when the official composition will be known, we should, IMHO, erase the column new parties of the reshuffle table.

Best Regards Captain frakas (talk) 13:27, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks again for your thoughtful contribution. You're right that there is a bit of a consistency problem going on, where some parties elected in coalition have been represented together and others represented separately. I suppose I'm still of the view that we should not press a desire for consistency to the point of making the chart less comprehensible, but obviously one should prefer consistency when all else is equal. I'll also note that my experience has been that identifying a clear standard does not significantly reduce dispute/discussion on Wikipedia, so I fear you'll be a little disappointed. On the other points, I think the flags on the reshuffle table are actually one of the best things about that table, both in terms of improving understanding and visually. I do agree about the eventual erasure of the new parties column. Gabrielthursday (talk) 16:55, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps that the flags should be the sole visible but should link to the article on the political party/political coalition/electoral list concerned? Captain frakas (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

According to the result page of the French Ministry of Interior, it is the "Listes Front National" (i.e. lists of the National Front) who won 24 seats. According to the result page of the European Parliament, it is the Front national who won 24 seats. If a party has an electoral agreement with one or more minor parties and/or independent candidates to let them run on their party list, it is basically an internal issue of this party. Even if the FN cedes some places on their party's lists to candidates of another party or an independent, it is still the FN list. And the FN lists won 24 seats, even if some of these seats will be taken by MEPs who are not members of the FN. They are associated with FN, they ran on the FN list, they were elected on the FN list, therefore they will be listed as FN in this result table. This table is already complex enough. I think it is acceptable to make some slight simplifications in order to keep it not too complicated and confusing to users who are not experts. We have a separate article on the election in each member state, where national peculiarities and details may be included, that do not have major implications on the result of the whole European Union, including members of minor parties or independent candidates who run on the list of a larger party. --RJFF (talk) 20:40, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

Regarding the alliance of UDI and MoDem, I do not have a strong opinion. The French MoI lists them as "Union du Centre" (I do not know why), the EP page as "Alternative (UDI+MoDem)" or "Coalition (Union des Démocrates et Indépendants + Mouvement Démocrate)". The lists were called "UDI-MoDem-les Européens". To me it would be both acceptable to list them as "UDI+MoDem" (the names of the two constituent parties of the alliance, which are also in the name of its electoral lists) or as "The Alternative", the name of the alliance. I think that "The Alternative" is a little less preferable, because this name is not very well known, even in France. To my knowledge, the names of the two constituent parties are much more well known, probably the reason why electoral lists were called "UDI-MoDem-les Européens" and not "L'Alternative". --RJFF (talk) 20:52, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

The Left Front is different from "The Alternative" or the "Marine Blue Gathering" as it is not just an alliance formed for this election, but an established long-term coalition that has already run in several elections.--RJFF (talk) 20:59, 21 June 2014 (UTC)

1. A key to read the code used by the French ministry of Interior. LFN/List Front national or LUC/Liste Union du centre is not a coalition name but a political tone. Political tone's names are decided by the French Ministry of Interior, not by candidates or by political parties. Each political party and each independent is attributed a political tone by the French Ministry of Interior. The key is here:[8]. As you can read in the previous document, the French Interior Ministry use LUC/Liste Union du centre for electoral lists invested by the Alternative, LUG/Liste Union de la gauche for electoral lists invested by the Socialist party and another party, either left-wing or the MoDem and LUD/Liste Union de la droite for electoral lists invested by the UMP and the UDI. It use LFN/List Front national for list being invested by the National Front.

2. Your last assumption is erroneous: The Alternative was formed in 2013 and already run in the French municipal elections of this year and are an alliance whose main objective is a common candidature to the French presidential election of 2017. The Marine Blue Gathering are even older as it was created in 2012 and also already did compete to the French presidential election of 2012, to the French Parliament Lower House election of 2012 and to the French municipal elections of this year.Captain frakas (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

3. You are right here, however: We have a separate article on the election in each member state, where national peculiarities and details may be included, that do not have major implications on the result of the whole European Union, including members of minor parties or independent candidates who run on the list of a larger party.. Maybe there should be a nota bene in the table that announce that an abstraction have been used in the table. I still think that the table should use a coherent abstraction for each electoral lists thus. Captain frakas (talk) 14:50, 23 June 2014 (UTC)

Pictures

Pictures should be of candidates not leaders. It is candidates' names that are listed immediately below pictures, and leaders only in the second line. The current setup is misleading. --Ivan Štambuk (talk) 12:45, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Seat swing: compared to last election or last session of the previous Parliament?

As I'm writing this, the infobox is marking the seat swing as compared to the end of the 7th Parliament ("seats before") instead of the seat count following the last election. I find this odd, since virtually all other Wikipedia election articles have it the other way around. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 21:47, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

For consistency sake, I think that if it is done this way on other articles, it should be done this way here too. I would say that you should not hesitate to correct the infobox. Captain frakas (talk) 23:16, 29 June 2014 (UTC)

Map of the largest group as elected by each member state

• 
  Result per State
• 
  Results per constituency (current)
• 
  Results per constituency (striped)

I made a map representing which parliamentary group got the most MEP for each member state, using the data from the table on the bottom of the page. If two or more groups were tied, I put both colors using a strip pattern. For France, in which the party that got the most MEP (FN) isn't affiliated with any group, I used a dark grey colour, the same used for the Non-Inscripts column.

Juma93 (talk) 23:19, 28 May 2014 (UTC)

Will the map be changed if, for example, the Belgian N-VA leaves the Greens/EFA or if Front National succeeds in creating a new group? --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 13:15, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I think it should be - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 14:12, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, after all in the 2009 election map ECR is in the map, even though the group was only formed after that election. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure who's editing this map now, but I think the stripes should be used for those jurisdictions where there was a tie. Perhaps we can use narrower stripes, since there are smaller jurisdictions used now? Gabrielthursday (talk) 22:12, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree; using stripes instead of grey with tied countries/districts would be more informative. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 22:39, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

I'll edit the current map later today to turn the grey into stripes as is the case with the map to the right. - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 12:28, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

 Done I made a striped version of the current map (see gallery above). TBH, I feel the first map, with results per state, instead of per constituency was the best (except the fact that part of Cyprus was cut off). The current one looks empty/unfinished with all the grey constituencies, and the striped one I made looks too busy. /2cents -ArnoldPlaton (talk) 17:36, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I think the third map is the most useful. Though Sinn Féin is the wrong colour in Ireland (but correct in Northern Ireland).86.43.72.9 (talk) 23:47, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

I agree that the first option is superior. The second and third maps are too busy, and as some constituencies are entire member states it can be a bit confusing to look at. One recognizes Germany and Spain as whole entities and wonders what is going on elsewhere. I would stick to the first image for this page and then break down by constituency at member state-level articles for the election. Another option may be the form used to show results by province in Canadian elections; they colour the jurisdiction but then show the seat totals in bars (see below for example):

- Nbpolitico (talk) 02:54, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Question: Should I mark the unaffiliated independents (Ireland) as Non-Inscrits as well? - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 18:38, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for your work. I think they are N-I's until they affiliate at least. Gabrielthursday (talk) 19:22, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Why have a separate colouring for ties? Why not just go by the popular vote? Thorbecke2012 (talk) 23:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Because the map is about MEPs, not votes. In countries with several constituencies, it's possible for a party to win (not tie) the MEP count but to lose the popular vote. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 16:54, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps, but you can't possibly win a region's popular vote but lose the seat count there. That's mathematically impossible.

Thorbecke2012 (talk) 23:33, 11 June 2014 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.71.22.191 (talk)

"you can't possibly win a region's popular vote but lose the seat count there. That's mathematically impossible". In the Netherlands D66 (ALDE) was the largest party in share of votes but CDA (EPP) was the largest in share of seats due to list combination with CU/SGP (ECR/EFD). For the file it's not an issue because another large party in the Netherlands, the VVD, is also in the ALDE-group making the ALDE-group still by far the largest in the Netherlands. - FakirNL (talk) 18:34, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

It is possible, when there are several national parties affiliated with the same EP group. In Finland the two EPP parties, NCP and CD, got 22.6 percent and 5.2 percent support respectively for a total of 27.8 percent. The two ALDE parties, Centre and SPP, got 19.7 percent and 6.8 percent support respectively for a total of 26.5 percent. There were no electoral alliances, despite the shared European affiliations. The EPP was thus the most popular group in Finland measured by popular vote, but ALDE got four MEPs (three for Centre, one for SPP), while EPP got three (for NCP), since CD's 5.2 percent support was too low for a seat. So Finland's colour depends on whether we measure the largest EP group in seats or popular vote. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 19:04, 10 June 2014 (UTC)

Danish People's Party has been accepted to ECR, which makes ECR the biggest group in Denmark. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 07:16, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

Arnold or whoever else has access & expertise may wish to wait until the shuffling ends to change the map - some other affiliations may change. But yes, Denmark should eventually become blue. Gabrielthursday (talk) 06:11, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

With the N-VA affiliating with the ECR, the Dutch-speaking constituency of Belgium should change colour to dark blue as well. I think that also should change the national colour to just yellow (ALDE). Gabrielthursday (talk) 01:02, 19 June 2014 (UTC)

Updated map to match current affiliations - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 17:46, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Awesome! Many thanks. Gabrielthursday (talk) 18:23, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Shouldn't Northern Ireland's DUP be marked with the same colour as FN in France, seeing as they're both non-inscrits? --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 22:14, 28 June 2014 (UTC)

Yes, indeed. My bad. Fixed - ArnoldPlaton (talk) 10:56, 30 June 2014 (UTC)