Talk:2016 San Marino general election

Showing initial and final allocation of seats

I really don't think we should "show initial and final allocation of seats" in the table. The seats allocated after the first round only, were only hypothetical. They have no impact on the actual election result, and have no legal meaning. But in the current table, they look like they have practical significance. That would be confusing to readers.

I'm most likely going to remove it, but I want your take on it first, Number 57. :)

Μαρκος Δ (talk) 19:39, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

They were official seat allocations by the election authority and are the reason there was a second round. I don't see any reason not to include them. Also, it's clearly marked that they were the initial allocations, so there should be no confusion. Number 57 19:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

But that was never the seat count. That was a hypothetical seat count, if no bloc obtained a majority. Literally the same moment that the initial seat counts were calculated by authorities, they also announced the second round. The numbers are in fact completely irrelevant, and I am absolutely determined that we should remove it. Wait and see with the 2017/2018 Italian general election, and I swear they won't include the first-round seat counts there. EDIT: Also, see articles for Italian local/regional elections, some of which employ roughly the same system. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 20:03, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

But it was the seat count – it's there in black and white on the government website. And it is 100% relevant to the article as that particular seat distribution was why a second round was needed. I have no idea why you would want to deny the reader this information. Number 57 21:58, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

I don't want to "deny them this information". All I'm saying is that the current table makes it look like the parties at any time actually won those seats. One user (Gag0409) was even confused enough about this, to actually go around and change each party's seat count on their respective pages – to the first round hypothetical seat counts. PDCS never won 16 seats. And thus there's absolutely no reason to state that they did/could have. If the information's going to be included, at least write "If no second round had been held, PDCS would've won 16 seats instead of the 10 it actually won". Don't you see how irrelevant the first round number is when I phrase it like that? It can't even be phrased in a non-awkward way.

Again I ask you to look at equivalent tables in the articles of the Italian regional elections that use the the two-round system. Not a single one lists seats the partes could have won. Because they were only one scenario. And a hypothetical scenario of how the election could have turned out, is unneccessary information in every sense of the word. I'm sure you've seen this site. There all the possible scenarios are listed. By your logic, we should include those, too. Which is clearly nonsense. The electoral rules are clearly stated in the article, and so the reader can tell for himself that since no coalition won the required votes, there was a second round. We absolutely don't need it in the table, and even less so in the results table. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 22:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Er, Gag0409 made those changes three days ago, before the table even existed in this format... Number 57 22:31, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant. My entire point is that you, since the beginning, have included the numbers from the first round, even though it was immediately known on 20 November that a second round would be held, and that the hypothetical seat shares from 20 November would not be the actual result. The hypothetical numbers should never have been in the article to begin with. Edit: you didn't answer any of my other concerns, though. I frankly think it's time for you to just back down from this. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 16:47, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If it's irrelevant, why did you bring it up? I'm not going to "just back down from this", and your tone is needlessly unpleasant – please remember this is a collaborative project. Seeing as we're at an impasse, then it looks like seeking a third opinion would be the best bet. Number 57 17:39, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Irrelevant because "this format" is the one I created, which includes second-round results (it should only have second-round results). The one he took the info from, was the one you published that contained data for a result that never was. But yes, that sounds good; we should ask for a third opinion. If I come off as needlessly crass, I apologize, as that was not my intention. Μαρκος Δ (talk) 20:40, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Seeing as this has restarted, I have requested opinions from other members of WP:E&R. Cheers, Number 57 22:22, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

• Comment If the government's website lists them (and it indeed does) then there should be little doubt as to their inclusion: They should be included. Impru20 (talk) 23:14, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Absolutely not. Those numbers would have been the election result, if a runoff had not been required. A runoff was required, meaning that those seat shares are therefore, by definition, not the election result. PDCS did not win 16 seats; SSD did not win 8 seats. It's incontestable. Hence, what Number 57 erroneously refers to as the "initial seat count" should absolutely not be included in what is, after all, a results table. I see that I discussed with both of you during the composition bar debate; it amazes me that you could both object so strongly to slightly changing how election results are displayed, citing the manual of style – but now you are both in favor of including something that is not even an election result, in a results table. That's far more radical.

If we include the results of a hypothetical, fully proportional (non-majority bonus) result from San Marino, we would have to do the same for the past three general elections in Italy, for the sake of consistency. I trust you will make that change, then? — Μαρκος Δ 23:48, 4 March 2017 (UTC)

Again, if the government's website lists them, it's not up to you to choose whether to exclude them. Indeed, the government's website considers them as some kind of an initial seat awarding, so as such should they be listed. Impru20 (talk) 22:20, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

This is absolutely surreal. For the umpteenth time, the seat results of the first round were only – only – published because it was at the time of the first round unknown whether a runoff would be needed. They were disregarded and dismissed as results the very moment it became clear a runoff was needed. The fact that you both insist the first round seat hypothetical seat counts are somehow a part of the actual election results, blatantly shows that you have zero understanding of the Sammarinese electoral system. You're seriously forcing me to a point where I'm tempted to contact the Sammarinese officials to get a clear answer; you have no idea how frustrating it is to argue with you when you completely disregard the facts "because the website says so". That's not an argument; you'll have to do better, and prove that you actually understand how the system works. Please tell me, how is a result that was explicitly disregarded as an effect of the constitution, still to be considered a result?

The inclusion of the first round "results" gives the impression that PDCS at some point (as a result of the first round) held 16 seats. That is nothing less than misinformation, as the party never did hold 16 seats. Stating in a tiny footnote that 16 was the "initial seat count" does not in any way improve it, not to mention that claiming 16 to be the "initial result" is factually incorrect. It went from 21 seats in 2012, to 10 seats now. End of story. 16 is not, and never was, a seat count held by PDCS, thus it can not be listed as such in the results table.

Let me once again bring up Italy. If PD's coalition had won over 340 seats immediately in 2013, then the majority bonus would not have been awarded. Thus, PD would have only had around 160+ seats in a fully proportional Chamber of Deputies, rather than the 297 they got as a result of the bonus. Do we list the 160+ seats of the PD? No. Of course not, because that was only one scenario, which was disregarded the moment it became clear that a bonus had to be awarded. So, do we list the PDCS' 16 seats? Again, no, because it was disregarded the moment it became clear that a bonus had to be awarded. The only difference between Italy and San Marino is that San Marino uses a runoff, which is why the government publishes what the results have been in the event that no runoff were held – unlike Italy, where the bonus is awarded after a single round, thus leaving the government no time to publish hypothetical non-bonus seat counts. That doesn't make the Sammarinese first round "results" any more official than PD's 160 seat scenario. We do not list the latter, and should therefore absolutely not list the former. — Μαρκος Δ 00:21, 8 March 2017 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2019 Sammarinese general election which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 09:52, 29 September 2021 (UTC)