Talk:2025 German federal election

Retirements

More retirements include Marco Wanderwitz and Albrecht Glaser. https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/innenpolitik/wanderwitz-bundestag-rueckzug-100.html https://www.zeit.de/news/2024-09/07/jan-nolte-ist-afd-spitzenkandidat-fuer-bundestagswahl-demos JFM01 (talk) 17:57, 6 December 2024 (UTC)

I listed a number of outgoing MPs in this section on Jan 15, yet they were simply deleted from the discussion page and not added to the list. JFM01 (talk) 19:07, 22 February 2025 (UTC)

New election Day

Update: The new election Day is now February 23, 2025. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.77.57.109 (talk) 07:27, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

No, it is not until the confidence question is raised, it fails, and the President dissolves the Bundestag. none of those things have happened until at least next week, and this is why I got this article semiprotected. Xenon54 (talk) 14:55, 9 December 2024 (UTC)

The expected date is 23 Februrary, but as @Xenon54 mentioned, this is not yet official. The Bundestag first needs to vote on the vote of confidence, then Scholz has to request for an early election to be held, and finally the President has to schedule an early election. It is expected he will do that on 27 December. But until he does so, the official date of the election remains 28 September. Gust Justice (talk) 15:31, 13 December 2024 (UTC)

Coalitions?

I see that the two parties leading in the opinion polls are the BLACK line and the BLUE line.

Looking at we find 7 articles on coalition governments in Germany, but none involve the BLACK/BLUE group, which I guess they wouldn't if BLUE/AfD is a new party in the last decade. As a non-German reader, it seems odd to have so much coalition talk expressed in colors; but hey, when in Germany, do as the German's do.

So given German politics and party goals, what coalition(s) are most likely coming out of the upcoming election in February? Do we have any reliable source media that discusses this issue, so we might improve the article? Cheers. N2e (talk) 10:54, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

it is interesting to me the degree to which there has not been speculation in the media about this, besides noting Markus Söder's almost comical hatred of the Greens, which might preclude any Baden-Württemberg (black-green) coalition. certainly with the current polling, only a GroKo or black-green might be possible. I would add something on it if there were articles about it, but I haven't come across any. as for colors, it is common to describe all kinds of coalitions besides GroKo with colors, but only the interesting ones (red-red-green, Jamaica, Kenya, traffic light) have made it into English. Xenon54 (talk) 13:12, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

This situation is explained at German governing coalition:

Due to the cordon sanitaire (usually called Brandmauer, firewall, in Germany) all other parties have established against the AfD, hypothetical coalitions involving the AfD are rarely discussed. A coalition of CDU/CSU, AfD and FDP would have a majority in the 20th Bundestag elected in 2021, but was not seriously discussed publicly by either media or politicians. This hypothetical coalition has been described as the "Bahamas coalition", in reference to the colors of the flag of the Bahamas, as early as 2013.

Following the 2019 Thuringian state election, the election of Thomas Kemmerich by members of the three parties sparked a government crisis which ultimately led to Kemmerich's resignation. A hypothetical coalition involving the AfD and CDU, also referred as a "black–blue coalition", would have a majority in the Landtag of Hesse in 2023, the Landtag of Saxony in 2019 and 2024, and the Landtag of Thuringia in 2024. However, each time the CDU rejected this due to the cordon sanitaire.

Other coalitions involving the AfD are considered even more unlikely due to lack of parliamentary majorities and ideological differences, in addition to the cordon sanitaire.

Basically, it is seen as a given that the AfD won't be involved in any majority government, due to the cordon sanitaire, and there is nothing indicating that will be any different this time around. I couldn't (in a quick search) find any English sources outlining the options directly, but Merz has multiple times ruled out any cooperation with the AfD after the election. Meanwhile, the prospects of a black-red or a black-green government has been discussed multiple times. This could definitely be added to this article. Gust Justice (talk) 14:55, 20 December 2024 (UTC)

Very helpful, @Gust Justice:! I think some of that ought to be worked in, to improve the article.?

Although, it is worth noting, the the Argentinian equivalent of the cordon sanitaire seems to have fallen a year ago, and the U.S. equiv cordon sanitaire seems to be in the process of falling just now. That is, stuff that couldn't/wouldn't be talked about by the legacy media corporations and the main political establishments, is getting overturned by voters, who are apparently, less inclined to be cordoning off those views that are unpopular with media and mainstream political groups. We'll see, of course, but something similar could happen in German elections as well. ? N2e (talk) 06:00, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

Verifiability requires such a claim to be supported by sources for it to be added to the article. While the political circumstances in a country can change, the possibility of the cordon sanitaire breaking after this election, is not taken serious. Gust Justice (talk) 18:23, 21 December 2024 (UTC)

The AfD has no path to enter government as no other parties are willing to work with it?

"The AfD has no path to enter government as no other parties are willing to work with it" Sounds a bit rough, they do not have a way to "enter government" just because nobody else is willing to work with them? Jjbomb (talk) 23:30, 31 December 2024 (UTC)

I mean, anyone can win an absolute majority, which has happened once (1957) and realistically never will again, so not even worth discussing as a possibility. All other parties are on the record that they will not form a coalition including them so that is a correct claim to make. Xenon54 (talk) 16:49, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

no it is not a correct claim to make, it specifically says "no path to enter government", if they win the election, they enter the government, it's a wrong use of words, which is what im trying to say, makes it sound worse, better say they wont form a coalition Jjbomb (talk) 21:28, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

If they win the election they enter the government? Not what happened in the 2024 Thuringian state election. I agree that we should avoid categorically stating that AfD has "no path" to enter government because weird shit happens many times in politics, but it is indeed fairly unlikely as of now and there is nothing wrong in the article reflecting that (as long as reliable sources exist to support the claim). Impru20^talk 21:59, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Goofball, that is a state election, this is a FEDERAL election Jjbomb (talk) 05:16, 3 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't think it's appropriate to use and hominems like "goofball", ever. Impru20's point is valid, that with a plurality of votes, AfD could still have been the opposition if other parties formed a majority. Unknown Temptation (talk) 16:15, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The conclusion is correct, but I would probably phrase it differently as I think it sounds unencyclopedic. The terms used by the citations are "no prospect" and "its chances [...] are slim". I would probably phrase it like that. Perhaps "Because other parties refuse to work with it, its chances of entering government are seen as unlikely". Gust Justice (talk) 23:48, 2 January 2025 (UTC)

Competing parties

Can we get a list of competing parties if such a list is finalized? Thanks Semsûrî (talk) 13:00, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

Sure, Decission will be made Tuesday Jan 14.Nillurcheier (talk) 16:19, 12 January 2025 (UTC)

As far as I understand, based on this, 14 January is the day where it is determined which parties are eligible to participate, either by being represented in the Bundestag or a state legislature with at least 5 members, or by having given notice of participation, and be recognised as a party. So the parties announced there might participate, but they would still need to submit state lists, and the prerequisite number of signatures. 3 February is the day the nominations are finally announced. Gust Justice (talk) 20:13, 13 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't see any reason why a copy of the table at 2021_German_federal_election#Competing_parties can't be included here, but that could only happen after nominations and lists are confirmed. Xenon54 (talk)

Here is the Result of the "Bundeswahlausschuss" (election committee): 41 parties are granted admission to the ballots https://www.tagesschau.de/inland/bundestagswahl/zugelassene-parteien-bundeswahlleiterin-100.html Nillurcheier (talk) 11:24, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

As stated above, the parties that were approved yesterday still need to submit the required number of signatures.

Realistically not all of these parties will be on the ballot and many won't be in all states. JFM01 (talk) 18:16, 15 January 2025 (UTC)

Correct, let's a few more days.Nillurcheier (talk) 09:11, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

Is there a reason the Bündnis Deutschland listed before the BSW when the BSW has far more seats federally and on the state level? Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 20:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

According to the Federal Returning Officer, the parties that have been continously represented in a state legislature (but not the Bundestag) with at least 5 representatives are listed in alphabetical order. I just copied the number scheme of used there. Gust Justice (talk) 19:21, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

Adding the Sarah wagenkhnecht Alliance to the list of parties

Shouldn’t The swa be added to the list of party’s for the election. The map of the Germany, I believe it used to be in the info box so what happened? Haf Grorkuv (talk) 22:51, 25 January 2025 (UTC)

It was removed by @Spaastm in an edit. In my view, while I don't have strong feelings about it, it is more appropriate to include it in the infobox before the election, than it is to exclude it. Pretty much all sources covering the election treat is as one of the seven "main" parties, given that it is currently polling above the 5% threshold. The fact that it didn't win seats at the last election should not in of itself be decisive; the article is about the upcoming election, not the previous one. A party can be relevant even if it didn't exist prior to the upcoming election. This is also consistent with how the AfD seems to have been treated prior to the 2017 election. Gust Justice (talk) 10:04, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

Ok add it back, I'm indifferent Spaastm (talk) 12:15, 26 January 2025 (UTC)

since someone just tried to add Volt (??) to the infobox...if there is not a WikiProject standard on this, then I agree the line should be drawn at all currently represented parties and any notable/bona fide challengers. (I reverted this user since 2.5% in one low-turnout national election does not a notable challenger make.) Xenon54 (talk) 19:48, 27 January 2025 (UTC)

Yeah even if the EP election result should be used as an indication of which parties are the "major" parties (which I doubt is the best approach), that would at the very least require that Free Voters also be included in it. Regardless, all reliable sources covering this election treat it as a minor party. Gust Justice (talk) 12:28, 29 January 2025 (UTC)

MPs standing down

There are a number of MPs listed twice in the above list (for the attention of someone who is better at editing tables than I am!) Jdcooper (talk) 02:55, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Electoral System and seat allocation

This is very unclear as of Feb. 10th. I've tried translating German descriptions to no clear end.

Scenario: CSU will likely get around 5% of second vote -- proportionally just over 30 seats. Yet, they'll lead in over 40 constituencies or more in Bavaria -- even on the second vote, given history. Or, more appropriately, the Party will be way over-shared in Bavaria. In this election, this will likely impact most of the leading parties, in some way.

How does the allocation work breaking it down from Federal to state? What is 100% for the share-back -- all voters?, Party voters? other?

Do Constituency winners (first vote) get priority? Are they automatically on whatever these State Lists are -- which are not identified in the description?

Why doesn't it say -- even on German gov't sites -- that a Constituency winner is not guaranteed a seat? I'd be curious how public knowledge of that -- given 4 of 5 German I know gave me a confused look. 174.127.159.17 (talk) 22:02, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

The text could perhaps be a bit more clear, since it is currently structured to first explain the basics of how the system works (and also worked prior to the reform), and then subsequently explains the reform. Ideally there would be a longer article for the 2023 electoral reform, which would explain it in more detail (or perhaps as a section on Electoral system of Germany). The fact that the Federal Constitutional Court reintroduced the constituency rule in its ruling doesn't make it simpler.

I think the text in the article does explain things sufficiently, given that it is written in summary style. To answer your question, the principle of second vote coverage would mean that the CSU's proportional allocation takes precedence. If it wins a plurality of the vote in 47 constituencies, but proportionally is only entitled to 40 seats, it will only win 40 seats.

This sentence here explains the seat allocation from the federal level to the state level:

Initially, seats are allocated proportionally at the federal level to parties clearing the threshold, then subsequently within each party to its state lists within each state. Both calculations are done using the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method.

The phrasing might not be perfect, but this essentially describes the fact that the 630 seats are first distributed among parties clearing the threshold, based on its national vote totals and using Sainte-Laguë's method. Then for each party, a similar proportional distribution of that party's seats is done between the different states, based on the number of votes the party got in each state. Essentially this means that the distribution from the national level to the state level isn't done through one single calculation, but a separate one for each party.

Constituency winners do get priority when it comes to the seats allocated to each party's state list. This is essentially what section 6(1) of the electoral law says. Confusingly, the term state list (Landeslite) is used in the law, even though a constituency candidate does not have to be on a party's actual list. I used the term state list on this article because it's unclear what the terminology otherwise would be.

The reason why the website of the German government website doesn't say that a constituency winner isn't guarenteed a seat, is likely because said page is outdated. Gust Justice (talk) 22:21, 10 February 2025 (UTC)

So your reply helps -- I'm offering this to replace your 2nd and 3rd paragraphs within Electoral System. You may add or just ignore this suggestion. Sorry if I get labels wrong. Questions are in caps:

text to replace: "Initially, seats are allocated proportionally at the federal level to parties clearing the threshold, then subsequently within each party to its state lists within each state. Both calculations are done using the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method. The number of constituencies each party wins in each state are subtracted from its allocation to arrive at the final number of list seats.

Independent candidates are elected if they receive a plurality of the vote in their constituency. The second votes of ballots on which a winning independent candidate is the first vote are not taken into account in order to preserve voter equality."

suggested text: "These duel votes adds to complexity for entry into the Bundestag. Importantly in 2025, only Independent candidates who win their Constituency vote (first vote) are guaranteed to enter the Bundestag. All party candidates must be among those parties passing the threshold (noted above) with available derived seats from the second vote (identified below). As well, for any constituency won by an Independent, second votes for any party on those ballots are not included in the receiving party's total. [DOES THIS IMPACT THE FEDERAL THRESHOLD??] The implication to opinion polls and the election night exit poll is minimal as long as there are few Independent candidates. However, the impact becomes less clear if more Independents were to win their first vote -- say, more than five constituencies in various scenarios.

Party candidates are then assigned seats by a two step calculation.

STEP ONE, does the party pass the required threshold. If so, the party's derived seats (see calculation method below) are shared out to states based its own nationwide vote share. Meaning, if a party wins 5% of the vote, roughly 31 seats of 630 total seats, and within that 50% comes from a specific state, then roughly 15 seats will be assigned to that state (and so on among other states).

STEP TWO, a party's available seats are assigned first based on Constituency winners (first vote). If more allocated seats are available compared to first vote winners, then the party's State List is used to select candidates. [IS THERE A PARTY-DETERMINED ORDER TO THIS LIST??] [WHAT HAPPENS WHEN THERE ARE MORE FIRST VOTE WINNERS THAN AVAILABLE SEATS??]

The calculation method in both steps is the Webster/Sainte-Laguë method. This allocates whole seats from fractional vote shares, among other methods. 174.127.159.17 (talk) 17:47, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I have tried to address the questions you are mentioning. When it comes to the question of what happens if there are more candidates getting a plurality, than the party is set to win seats in a state, this is addressed by the 2023 reform section. Gust Justice (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2025 (UTC)

I understand most of it now, thank you. Just some follow-up questions:

1) are parties required to submit lists of a certain size? if not, what happens when their vote share entitles them to more seats than the list includes? Are these lists submitted and finalized prior to the election?

2) what is the order by which first vote winners are assigned seats? this is only for those situations where the second vote share seat allocation is smaller than first vote leading constituencies. [i believe i read this is by first vote ranking but it could be the party's second vote by constituency]

Please ignore if these are answered. I'm trying to understand the process -- not trying to make you jump through hoops! 174.127.159.17 (talk) 20:17, 13 February 2025 (UTC)

1. As far as I can tell, there is no minimum number of candidates a party must have on its state list. If a party in a state wins more seats than it has candidates on its list, those seats are left vacant. This is the only way the number of MPs elected to the Bundestag may be less than 630. This however is very unlikely as all major parties include more than enough candidates to prevent its list from being exhausted like this. The deadline for submitting the lists is normally 58 days before the election; this deadline has been shortened due to the election happening earlier than planned and with a shorter timeframe than normal.
2. Candidates getting a plurality of the vote are, within their party, ranked by the first vote vote share in their respective constituency. I.e. their personal number of votes divided by the total number of votes cast for all constituency candidates in that constituency.

Gust Justice (talk) 02:48, 14 February 2025 (UTC)

Can anyone tell me that how many constituency are in German Election 2025 276 or 299? Thinktankresearch (talk) 10:57, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

There are 299 constituencies, but the number of candidates elected from constituencies is not guarenteed to be equal to 299, since a candidate needs second vote coverage to be elected. As such, the number of MPs elected through their constituency result is 276. Gust Justice (talk) 11:00, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Isn't in every constituency candidates contested?

then what about 299 - 276 rest of constituencies? how representation will be done in Bundestag of remaining constituencies?

Why there is not every fix? fluid unclear uncertain. Normal person can asses the election

from many days I am trying to understand German election system but failing Thinktankresearch (talk) 13:35, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

Exit polls

Do not add exit poll projections to the infobox as if they are actual results. They are not, and it is very misleading to claim that they are results FriendlyDataNerdV2 (talk) 18:00, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I totally agree, this would misleading for those who (are probably outside of Germany and) don't have the timeline about announcement of results in mind. Damghani 18:19, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah the infobox format is not suitable for adding exit polls on their own. For that to be possible, it would need to be possible to make it clear to viewers that it is only an exit poll. Gust Justice (talk) 18:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Results

Winning a constituency does not equal winning a seat. Seats are allocated after all second votes are counted. There are only 299 constituencies vs 630 seats. Timetorockknowlege (talk) 20:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Yeah this needs to be taken into account. Gust Justice (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Winning a constituency guarantees a seat. What is not guaranteed, are the remaining candidates within each party's state list, as those corresponding to second vote count (excluding the constituency seats). ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 17:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Include BSW in the infobox if below 5%

Seeking opinions/thoughts on what to do here. If BSW drops below 5% - which is the more likely result at the time of writing - should they be included in the infobox? This is a party that didn't exist in the previous election and (potentially) will have gained no seats in this election. I believe this means it SHOULDN'T be added but I'd like to reach a consensus here. Thoughts? Spaastm (talk) 22:10, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Thoughts? @FriendlyDataNerdV2 , @Timetorockknowlege, @Damghani, @Gust Justice Spaastm (talk) 22:21, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I was going to argue to not include them but on second thought I think they should be included if they don't get the 5% margin to show their seats declining from 10 to 0. I'd argue the consensus should be to include any party that has a shift in seats even if its a shift to 0 seats such as the FDP. However if a party goes from 0 seats to still having 0 seats such as the Free Voters for example, they should not be included.

Timetorockknowlege (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Hmm... I think this would mean we'd have to include parties like Bündnis Deutschland or WerteUnion since they both had 1 seat each at dissolution (from party switches during the 20th Bundestag). I'm leaning towards not including BSW but it's tricky and I'd like to hear more opinions before we make a final decision. Spaastm (talk) 22:36, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I would include them and FDP, but it seems they both got 0 seats. A section explaining this (as the law updated recently) would help too. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 22:38, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

FDP is different. It should be included because it ran in the last election. BSW didn't exist. Notice that even the official results page is merging the BSW results under "Sonstige" ("Others"). I suppose this will change if they get 5% or above: https://www.bundeswahlleiterin.de/bundestagswahlen/2025/ergebnisse/bund-99.html Spaastm (talk) 22:39, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

10 seats is much more significant than just a single seat + those other parties are gaining less than 1% of the vote while the BSW is extremely close to 5%, as of right now its 4.9% Timetorockknowlege (talk) 23:08, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

Understood but look at the 2021 election infobox. The seat change difference is not based on the number of seats at dissolution. It's based on the number of seats compared to the previous election. There will be nothing to compare the BSW change against because the party did not exist in the 2021 election. I increasingly see no reason to include BSW in the infobox as long as they don't reach 5%. My vote is to NOT INCLUDE BSW (but do include FDP). Spaastm (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree, even if the BSW electorally hasn't won any seats, going in they still had a notable amount, and very likely had an effect on Die Linke's performance V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 23:24, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I would say include it, at least for the time being, given that no matter what it will be really close. The full discussion is premature since we don't yet know the full result. Gust Justice (talk) 22:55, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree it should be included for now but it should be excluded if they don't get seats. The seat change is based on previous election, not based on seats at dissolution. There is nothing to compare the (likely) 0 BSW seats against because they didn't exist in 2021. I do not think it should be included if it fails to reach 5%. Spaastm (talk) 23:27, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

• They (and the FDP) should be excluded if they fail to win a seat, but included if they do IMO. Number 57 23:09, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  The FDP should absolutely be included regardless. They were in the last governing coalition and had 91 seats. To show their share declining to 0 needs to be shown so at a glance people can understand where all the AfD and Union seats came from. Also, this goes with precedent as in the 2013 election the FDP had 93 seats and lost them all in a similar situation and that was represented in the infobox. FDP being shown shouldn't even be a debate. Timetorockknowlege (talk) 23:18, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

  FDP should be included regardless, BSW should only be included if they get to 5%. The seat change in the infobox is calculated based on the seats in the previous election. If it's a new party, the seat change is set to "New party". If the party gets 0 seats, what are we comparing against? It doesn't make sense to include a party that didn't run in the previous election and failed to gain seats in this one. Spaastm (talk) 23:30, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

I would say include the BSW if they get the 5% threshold, and have the FDP in the infobox no matter what. Pikachubob3 (talk) 23:58, 23 February 2025 (UTC)

We are still going back on forward on this so should we open a RFC and confirm a consensus? Pikachubob3 (talk) 23:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

There appears to be some edit-warring right now regarding FDP's place in the infobox. For the record, I think it should be there because they had seats the last election. Pretty sure that's the consensus already? As far is BSW goes, they are going from zero seats to zero seats. There isn't a pressing need to depict that in the infobox. TheSavageNorwegian 01:07, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed Pikachubob3 (talk) 01:11, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

This is incorrect. They are going from 10 seats to 0 if we are including parties that had seats they are included. Emac07 (talk) 01:13, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Ohh yeah they did have 10 seats before the election Pikachubob3 (talk) 01:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Zero seats at last election, sorry, which is what the infobox depicts. Some (much less busy) infoboxes depict both seats last election, seats before election, and seats elected. We need a strong consensus to change towards that, since it's already so information-dense. TheSavageNorwegian 01:23, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The seat change is done compared to the previous election, not the seats at dissolution. They are going from 0 to 0 as Norwegian said. BSW should not be included. Spaastm (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

It should be added, we have SSW added even though they only have 1 seat, and we have the FDP added after losing all there seats and winning a smaller percentage than the BSW. BSW should be added to the infobox. Completely Random Guy (talk) 01:22, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

FDP is there so people can see where seats have come from Pikachubob3 (talk) 01:24, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

FDP ran in the last election and now lost all the seats. SSW runs in only one state - should not be included. BSW didn't exist in 2021 and gained 0 seats, therefore going from N/A to 0 seats from one election to the other. It should not be included. Spaastm (talk) 01:25, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I just don’t see how it’s justifiable to have only the FDP in the election box when they received less votes in this election than BSW, regardless of their greater significance last time 2607:FEA8:51F:B980:25ED:4B59:3CCF:97D3 (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I see your point, however, BSW had zero seats last election and zero now. There are many things we could depict in the infobox but choose not to for brevity. If more people are of your opinion we can have an RFC about it and change it. Consensus can certainly change. I am slightly on the fence about it, but I land on the side of established consensus (and wanting a tidy, easy-to-understand infobox) TheSavageNorwegian 01:48, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

SSW won one seat at the last election, they are not depicted in the infobox. I'm entirely comfortable with that consensus standing, this is different than a party fielding candidates nationwide. TheSavageNorwegian 01:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. FDP should be included because it ran in the last election even if it lost all its seats in this one. BSW should not be included because it didn't exist in the previous election and didn't gain seats now. SSW should not be included because it's not included in 2021 and also only runs in one state. Plus you get the added "aesthetic" bonus of having six parties in the infobox - the same six as in 2021. I think this is the correct decision and it should be the final decision too. Spaastm (talk) 01:35, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. Even if they didn't have those 10 seats last election their share in parliament is still declining. Its obvious from the infobox the weren't in the last election as it says "Did not exist" under last election. But their seat number in the Bundestag of 10 seats and them coming extremely close to the 5% I believe gives them the right to be in the infobox. Timetorockknowlege (talk) 04:00, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree I think they’re too significant of a party to not be included. We needn’t be so legalistic about it. The average person going to the page likely has some interest in the party since they have played a significant part in prior elections. Parties that hold 1 seat are not relevant enough to justify inclusion. The point of a wiki page is to display relevant information that the average person is looking for. Yes precedent is a good guide for most things but this is a case where strict adherence to precedent is harming the page. 49.199.199.59 (talk) 04:51, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I absolutely agree that the BSW should be included in the infobox. Even if they came slightly short of winning seats they are still a major party. Most importantly they got more votes then the FDP, it doesn't make sense to include one but not the other. They also have 5 seats in the Bundesrat, showing their major influence. Throughout the entire election they were treated like a major party, thats why it was included in the infobox during the campaign. They were part of election debates and polling, unlike the other 2 small parties that gained seats after the 2021 election. If the SSW was treated as a major party by the media I would support them being included as well despite them only running in one state. But that's a different point. Regardless of if the BSW end up gaining seats they played a major role in this election and should be included. I also think the "seats before" line should be added back. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 05:06, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

2025 German federal election

23 February 2025
All 630 seats in the Bundestag 316 seats needed for a majority
Opinion polls
Registered	60,490,603
Turnout	82.5% ( 6.2pp)
First party Second party Third party   Candidate Friedrich Merz Alice Weidel Olaf Scholz Party CDU/CSU AfD SPD Last election 24.1%, 197 seats 10.4%, 83 seats 25.7%, 206 seats Seats before 196 76 207 Seats won 208 152 120 Seat change 11 69 86 Popular vote 14,158,432 10,327,148 8,148,284 Percentage 28.5% 20.8% 16.4% Swing 4.4 pp 10.3 pp 9.3 pp   Fourth party Fifth party Sixth party   Candidate Robert Habeck Jan van Aken & Heidi Reichinnek Stefan Seidler Party Greens Left SSW Last election 14.7%, 118 seats 4.9%, 39 seats 0.12%, 1 seat Seats before 117 28 1 Seats won 85 64 1 Seat change 33 25 Popular vote 5,761,476 4,355,382 76,126 Percentage 11.6% 8.8% 0.15% Swing 3.1 pp 3.9 pp 0.03 pp   Seventh party Eighth party   Candidate Sahra Wagenknecht Christian Lindner Party BSW FDP Last election Did not exist 11.4%, 91 seats Seats before 10 89 Seats won 0 0 Seat change 10 91 Popular vote 2,468,670 2,148,878 Percentage 4.9% 4.3% Swing 4.9 pp 7.1 pp
The Bundestag constituencies to be used at the election
Government before election Scholz cabinet SPD–Green Government after election TBD

I support including both SSW and BSW. All major parties, and all parties with seats. Reason: FDP has to be included to show the drop, but infoboxes generally don't show parties with 1 seat whilst omitting parties with 0 seats, which implies SSW's inclusion too, and if so then there's no point in excluding BSW which got more votes than FDP. That way the first two lines would be all the parties with seats, and the ones without (BSW, FDP) on the third line. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 05:42, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm a bit on the fence about including the SSW because they weren't included in debates or much media coverage. I don't oppose it, but think we should have a separate discussion on that after agreeing to add back the BSW. I think this infobox looks good and makes sense. However I would put the SSW at the end. Aka list them in order of votes received rather then seats. I don't know if that's the standard, but it just makes more sense to me. But we also have to decide if we want to add the SSW to the 2021 election infobox, when there was very limited talk about the party during that election even after they won a seat. We would need to include a note that they are exempt from the 5% threshold. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 06:12, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

There is a general consensus that in infoboxes, parties are always arranged by number of seats, with parties with more seats coming ahead of parties with fewer- which means that if we're including parties with zero seats, all parties with seats should come before them.

It would be possible to break with that standard if there's a good reason to do so, of course, but in this case I don't really think there's a need. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 06:27, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Ok that makes sense. I'd be in favour of adding this infobox. The one thing is the BSW says -10 seats, so based on dissolution, but FDP says -91, so based on last election. We'd need to be consistent. I personally don't have a preference which number we use for that part. But the standard for other countries like Canada is dissolution. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 06:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with this point. If we will add the seats before line we must decide whether the seat change will use it or last election. If we decide on adding the BSW then it only makes sense to use the seats before otherwise there's not really a point in adding the BSW. if we don't add them then we should keep the comparison to last election and just not add the seats before line. Timetorockknowlege (talk) 07:30, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I oppose including the SSW. They are a regionalist party that only runs in a single state in hopes of gaining a single seat to represent the Danish minority. They have 0 impact whatsoever on the entire nation or coalition talks. Meanwhile the BSW probably cost both the Left and the AfD a decent amount of votes, ran across the country, had a decent chunk of seats (10) and almost met the 5% threshold which could've forced the Union to have an undesirable 3 party coalition. Timetorockknowlege (talk) 07:28, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

What matters in an election is winning seats. Nearly all election article infoboxes include only parties that won seats. (There are some exceptions, particularly for Canada.) Most infoboxes include all parties that won seats, although there is some variation and the smallest parties are sometimes excluded. I thus oppose including BSW and the FDP. I'm neutral on whether to include SSW. Whoever we include, all infoboxes order parties by number of seats won, so if including SSW and BSW, then SSW comes before BSW, and we can't include BSW while excluding SSW. Bondegezou (talk) 15:20, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The FDP was depicted in the 2013 German federal election despite losing all its seats. We have precedent to depict them, as they won a large number of seats in the prior election. River10000 (talk) 16:38, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed with Chessrat on this one. BSW is treated as a major party throughout the election and only barely fell short of the 5% mark (BSW stood at 4.97% to be exact), having more votes than both the FDP and SSW. Importantly, both BSW and FDP had parliamentary groups prior to the election.

The solution here is to either exclude all three, or include all three - and given that the FDP was in government after the 2021 election, the only option is to include SSW, BSW, and FDP. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 16:50, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't agree on there being a binary in regard to these 3 parties, mainly I disagree on including the SSW, which is a largely irrelevant party, aiming to hold their single seat, compared to the BSW and FDP, which are both represented nationally V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 19:18, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

100% oppose including the FDP, BSW, and SSW. Infoboxes are for briefly informing readers the top-lines of the election, not an all-encompassing results table (which is already included in the body). I can't think of another election which shows a party in the infobox which didn't win a single seat. BSW is even in a worse position than the FDP as they did not win seats in the last election, so showing seat change 0 to 0 is needless information. Oppose showing SSW for the same reasons as the last election. We do not need to include every party which won seats, common in other European elections, especially for a regionalist party which only fields a candidate in one area. Yeoutie (talk) 16:54, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

In addition, not only have I never seen on Wikipedia a party included in the infobox which won zero seats, the 'seats before' line has only ever been used pre-election in my experience. Cluttering the infobox is not the answer to include certain parties. Yeoutie (talk) 16:59, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

At this point I support including all the parties mentioned, (FDP BSW and SSW). FDP and BSW both were treated as major parties and had a large number of seats before they election. They were both recognized as parliamentary groups and included in debates. The SSW won seats the last 2 elections in a row. The German language page seems to be including them (And also the Free Voters, but I don't think we need them as they played a minor roll this election). It doesn't seem that cluttered to me, and it provides easy access to information, with more detail included later on. We need to have the seats before line. It shows trends before the election and shows the strength of the BSW. It works well in Canada. I think that this is becoming the majority opinion. For sure FDP should be included given precedent and their historical position, and since the BSW got more votes if the FDP is included the BSW must be too. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 19:04, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

As has been said above, the FDP lost all their seats in the 2013 federal election, but were still included, so there is precedent for this exact scenario V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

These exceptions are interesting, thanks for brining them to our attention. First of all. it's just baffling to me to even think about including a party which won nothing in what is meant to be a quick summary of results. Secondly, I did find it interesting that Canada appears to me to be the only country in all of the wiki to include the 'seats before' in all of their elections, along with a few others such as one or two of the UK's and the most recent three US House elections. So I do admit it wasn't quite as rare as I thought, but nonetheless still rare. I would still caution editors for putting in the 'seats before' just to justify the BSW's inclusion, when no other german election has necessitated it. Third, I would defer to some editors back in 2021 who brought up the similar situation the SSW and the UK's small regional parties find themselves in in respect to the infobox, and why inclusion is not necessary for again, this summary of important results. Yeoutie (talk) 22:46, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

From reading this I am getting the vibe that overall we are leaning towards including the BSW. Can we have a vote on this to finally decide it. I am 100% in favour of including the BSW and FDP, and 75% in favour of including the SSW. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 22:33, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that we should hold a vote or an RFC Pikachubob3 (talk) 23:19, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree as well. Timetorockknowlege (talk) 00:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I also support starting an RfC, I'm just wondering if we should include either the FDP, SSW, or both, for comment, given the disscusion that has been about them V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 01:05, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I would say the options should be

1. Only parties with seats (Die Linke, SPD, Greens, CDU\CSU, AFD)

2. Option 1 + FDP

3. Option 1 + FDP + BSW

4. Option 1 + FDP + BSW + SSW Pikachubob3 (talk) 01:10, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I have started an RfC V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 07:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Last election

Now that 23 February 2025 was the actual last federal election, some of wording on Wikipedia page is confusing, yet people are going to Wikipedia for updates. I will try change it to 2021 election, or actually update the data where useful. ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 09:36, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay I am quite confused. It appears last election is consistently used to refer to "2nd last election", but if a reasonable editor like me can be confused, I can imagine others as well. Any strong opinions against using the numeric year? ~ 🦝 Shushugah (he/him • talk) 10:02, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Results table

It looks like the primary criteria for the order of entries is party list vote total. If so, several of the minor parties at the bottom end (below 1% of the vote) seem at the moment to be listed out of order - Volt should be above everything except Human Environment Animal Protection Party for instance, and the several parties with three figure totals should obviously be right at the end. 10:32, 24 February 2025 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8012:227B:0:A00E:2856:F4D0:109F (talk)

Results map

I appreciate the work that has gone into the present version but I think it would be more appropriate to use the second vote results to show most supported party in each area. We know that tactical voting and smaller parties not fielding candidates distorts party support in the first vote figures. 86.157.203.217 (talk) 19:05, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I disagree. We show both later on which is good. Constituencies only matter for the first vote. So if we have the constituency results in the infobox, then its the constituency vote. Tactical voting is irrelevant to the map, but might make an interesting section of the article later on because the discrepancy between the first and second vote this election is much greater than usual. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 23:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

On some level you are correct. The second vote is far and away the vote type that matters the most. But this format is what is used on other articles and when German media shows election maps, it is most frequently of what party has the first vote plurality. As @Politicsenthusiast06 points out, the geographic distribution of second votes within a state has no impact on the overall seat distribution. A second vote cast in Würzburg will have the exact same impact as one cast in Munich (discounting the practically irrelevant provision for if an independent candidate wins a seat). Overall I would say that the two different plurality maps are similar enough that including the first vote plurality map in the infobox is fine. It manages to summarize the result of the election in an appropriate way. Gust Justice (talk) 10:58, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

When is the new Bundestag seated?

I think the edits on German party articles that placed the number of seats won in yesterday's election in the infobox are premature.

According to this article: [1], the previous Bundestag wasn't seated until a month after its election.

Thoughts? David O. Johnson (talk) 20:39, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

Grundgesetz 39(1) and 39(2): the term of a Bundestag ends at the konstituierende Sitzung (initial session, I do not know an equivalent English term for this) of the new Bundestag, which must happen within 30 days of an election. Since it hasn't yet, I agree with you. Xenon54 (talk) 20:55, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I think at latest the date is 25 March (30th day after the election), but it can be called earlier by the outgoing Bundestag President. Since this hasn't happened yet, the outgoing seat totals is still what matters on the articles of political parties and of politicians. FDP for example still has 90 seats. It only loses representation once the new Bundestag convenes. Gust Justice (talk) 21:16, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

There's reporting from the New York Times today about Merz legislating during the lame duck session. Here's the quote that's relevant: "He set a March 24 deadline for those talks, the last day the old Parliament would be active."TheSavageNorwegian 22:14, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

I appreciate it. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:28, 25 February 2025 (UTC)

References

Electorate/Demographic data?

I don't really contribute to wikipedia much but given similar election pages in the UK and France contain electorate data then surely the available data for this one should be used too?

https://www.dw.com/en/german-election-results-and-voter-demographics-explained-in-charts/a-71724186 Zexal42 (talk) 21:29, 24 February 2025 (UTC)

The Linke/ Die Linke?

I'm just wondering why we are going with the Linke instead of Die Linke and sometimes even just the left Pikachubob3 (talk) 02:40, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

"Die Linke" is only used five times in prose. I didn't see any instances of it being called "the Linke." David O. Johnson (talk) 02:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

RfC: Inclusion of FDP, BSW, and SSW

There has been discussion, intially over whether to include the BSW in the infobox, that has since grown to encompass the inclusion the FDP and SSW.

Should we:

1. Exclude all three
   
2. Include only the FDP
   
3. Include the FDP and BSW
   
4. Include the FDP, BSW, and SSW
   
5. Include the SSW, but not either the BSW or FDP

V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 07:24, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The reason for this discussion was whether FDP, BSW, despite not reaching the electoral threshold, and the SSW, being exempted for the threshold and winning a seat, due to representing ethnic minorities, are important enough to include. The arguments in favour of the FDP seem to be that they were important enough historically significant to be included and a similar situation in the 2013 election infobox where they were included. The arguments in favour of including the BSW also focus on their significance, having 10 seats going into the election, and just barely missing the 5% threshold. The main argument against both is that they won no seats and as such shouldn’t be included, and, for the BSW being a smaller and less relevant party, that hadn’t participated in a previous federal election. The arguments around the meanwhile SSW are over whether their single seat is worthy of inclusion.

With that being said, I am personally in favour of option C, due to the reasons mentioned above. I also feel it’s important to note that the SSW wasn’t included in the infobox for the 2021 election, despite it being when they won their seat. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 07:26, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

We've had this discussion at length under "Include BSW in the infobox if below 5%" with a pretty clear consensus on B, a consensus I don't really see changing. You seem to want to include the BSW, but remember that they didn't exist in 2021 and their 10 seats going in the election were essentially poached from Die Linke. It would also look odd to include them in the infobox; "no change", "new", "pre-creation", a third row – I don't think there's a compelling enough reason, like them winning seats, that warrants that mess. There's a history of this as well: For the 1990 infobox, the DSU was excluded despite going into the election with 8 seats if I remember correctly. Additionally, the FDP is a "legacy party" of sorts, a party that has run in German elections since 1949, whereas the BSW has a resonably high chance of dissolving before the next election. The SSW's inclusion has been denied repeatedly for the last election for reasons obvious: Not even 0,01 % of the vote, just a quirk of German election rules really. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 07:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

I opened an RfC because I personally couldn't a consensus and saw some other people calling for one, also I don't think it's of much concern, especially if you think it'll just turn out to be the status quo V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 10:36, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• B Shadow4dark (talk) 07:43, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• As explained previously under the same discussion, I do believe there exists a binary between all three and none of them. Thus, D and A both have my vote. With that said I am amenable to C due to SSW being a minority party and thus arguably nationally irrelevant.
  A runs into the issue of not being able to show the extent of how the FDP fell, and of BSW's treatment as a major party throughout the campaign, but is a necessary tradeoff if we are to include only the major in-Bundestag parties.
  I oppose E as an inclusion of SSW without FDP or BSW is undue. I entirely reject B as it directly violates WP:NPOV by excluding a party that only fell short by 0.03% but keeping in one that fell short by 0.67%.
  Know that it's not a !vote, but my preference is D>A≥C>>>>E>>>>B. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 07:48, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  B doesn't give undue weight to the FDP and thus doesn't violate WP:NPOV because the BSW hadn't won any seats to begin with. They amount they fell short by is irrelevant, if you miss, you miss. D is a recipe for maximum clutter. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 07:54, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  We will have to agree to disagree. Clutter inevitably will have to happen when 7 or more parties participate. DemocracyDeprivationDisorder (talk) 07:59, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• B The FDP should be there to show where all the seats came from Pikachubob3 (talk) 10:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

2022 Latvian parliamentary election, 2022 Slovenian parliamentary election, 2024 Icelandic parliamentary election and multiple other election articles, faced with the same problem, did not include parties that crashed out of their parliaments. They don't feel the need to show where all the seats came from. I see no reason why Germany should be different. Bondegezou (talk) 13:30, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• B Is the only approach consistent with previous articles. The FDP being shown, but BSW excluded is also how the FDP and AfD respectively are treated in the 2013 article. It is also consistent with how the Federal Returning Officer depicts the results. On that official website, the BSW is grouped under others due to not currently having parliamentary representation, nor obtaining it. As for the SSW, if we are going to include the party in the 2025 article, there would be no good reason not to include it in 2021, other than the view that the infobox looks bad if it has exactly 7 parties. I think its exclusion from the infobox is justified, given that it has nowhere near the number of MPs required to form a party group (32 seats), and only got 0.2% of the vote. The fact that you can't know the full distribution of seats from the infobox, and have to scroll down to know that SSW won one seat, is something we have to live with. Gust Justice (talk) 12:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

B is not consistent with numerous non-German election articles. It is inconsistent with them. Bondegezou (talk) 13:32, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• Option B FDP had seats prior to the election that it won in the last election and lost all of them. BSW only had seats from people who had changed their prior membership, and didn't win any either, so it would be reasonable to exclude it. I don't know about SSW, since it's a small regional party.Mgasparin (talk) 09:33, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• The real problem here is that multi-party elections should use {{Infobox legislative election}} over {{Infobox election}} which is designed with US-centrism. As times moves on, we stray further and further away from WP:INFOBOXPURPOSE because some people think this looks cool, and then run into disputes about what to include in it and what not to. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 11:37, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  Because of the US-like Chancellor's race and the pretty long three-party run in West Germany, {{Infobox election} still makes sense. And it looks way better. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 12:45, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  FDP, AFD and Grune have been decently large parties for quite a long time now. Even Linke is winning a large chunk now. Times have changed and it should be accepted. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 15:27, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  I can't say I agree with that. "Looking cool" is a key feature here. You can process information much better if it's presented in a visually-friendly way. We do the readers a disservice otherwise. {{Infobox legislative election}} is a cop-out. We've got a table farther down the page for a pure list. An RfC every now and again is a small price to pay for a good infobox. TheSavageNorwegian 15:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  Exactly! I always sigh at the Israeli election infoboxes, even though there, there really isn't an other option. But for six parties? Totally feasible. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 19:49, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

Yep, we aren't in a 2023 netherlands situation with over a dozen parties represented, much more analogous to 2021 norway as an example. Yeoutie (talk) 04:10, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

• Option C All parties that had seats in the Bundestag going into the election should be included. SSW can be excluded because they are a regionalist party with only one seat. Maybe an "others" category? Nevermore27 (talk) 15:21, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  That gives undue weight in favor of the BSW. Because it should make a difference if you earned seats in the previous election, i. e. you're an established political force, or you just poached 10 seats. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

@Maxwhollymoralground: I see where you're coming from but they were undeniably an important factor in the election. Nevermore27 (talk) 13:58, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Nevermore27: Which is why they were included, to which no one objected, in the pre-election infobox. They're not an important factor now though and the infobox now displays the results. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 14:10, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Maxwhollymoralground: Sure. My opinion hasn't changed but I respect yours Nevermore27 (talk) 16:33, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

That is not an approach taken by any other election articles. We can't have a special rule for German elections. Bondegezou (talk) 13:42, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• B makes the most sense, and is consistent with how other German elections are formatted. I wanted C to work, but it's cluttered and has no precedent. We open ourselves up to all previous election infoboxes being meddled with if we overturn that precedent. There's no justification for the BSW being included other than they held seats going into the election. That's weak justification; splinter parties happen all the time. For example, we don't include the Libertarian Party in the 2020 United States House of Representatives elections infobox even though incumbent party-switcher Justin Amash lost his seat. TheSavageNorwegian 15:35, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• B - as already outlined by others, the BSW are a splinter from Die Linke which didn't win seats at the last election. Although this wouldn't necessarily be disqualifying by itself, I don't see much of a reason to include them. The SSW are a small regionalist party and are covered amply in the lead section; I don't feel the need to put it in the infobox too. The FDP's wipeout is notable for me because of their status as a member of the outgoing coalition, making it more relevant than either of the others in a historical sense I think. Gazamp (talk) 16:02, 26 February 2025 (UTC)
• D - all parties that won seats should be in the infobox. FDP should be in the infobox because they had won seats in the previous parliament, while BSW had a higher share of the vote than them. Plus, the FDP and the BSW are treated as major parties by the media (AFAIK), and ultimately we should be making these decisions based on reliable sources, who treated them as major parties.-- Earl Andrew - talk 16:15, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  "while BSW had a higher share of the vote than them" I have seen this argument so many times now. But: It doesn't matter at all if you miss the threshold by 4,9 or 0,01 %. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 19:50, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

  Question, is it your view that the SSW seat should be added to the infobox at 2021 German federal election as well? Point taken about the ever-important directive of following the sources. TheSavageNorwegian 21:53, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

C (although D has my secret sympathies for looking nicer)

On one hand, they didn't win any seats. On the other, FDP and BSW were both extremely relevant to the election and are included in the polling charts after all (so is FW, but FW is marginal). A similar thing comes to mind with the 2015 Polish election - SLD came under the 8% threshold, so they are excluded, but they were extremely relevant to the election and historically aswell, their loss also allowed PiS a direct majority. Yet as I said, they are not in the infobox. Overall, I think the general norm right now would be to keep them off, but I have to say I oppose the norm, and that's basically what this discussion seems to be about. I believe infoboxes should inform the reader of the fates of the most major players - so BSW and FDP included. Polish kurd (talk) 22:25, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

·C - The FDP should be shown because they had a large number of seats going into it, they have been a major party since 1949, were a part of government and the precedent is set in 2013. If the FDP is included the BSW must be as well as the BSW got more votes. If the AFD had gotten more votes in 2013 they should've been included in that infobox too. On top of that they (BSW) had 10 seats going into the election, how they got those seats is irrelevant, they were treated as a parliamentary group. Throughout the entire election they were treated as a major party, often more so then some who won seats. They came within 0.03% of winning seats, and are suing to try and get seats (overseas ballot issues), and have 5 seats in the Bundesrat. They had a massive effect on this election and the infobox should reflect that. I would also accept option D. I don't think the SSW was treated as a major party throughout the election, but as they won a seat I think it would be fair to include them. Option B would be completely biased and unfair. Option A and E I think would be a disservice to viewers for lacking major information, but they'd follow a consistent argument. I don't find the supposed lack of precedent argument to be compelling, the BSW is a new phenomenon in German politics.Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 22:41, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

The BSW are a new phenomenon in German politics, but new parties appearing through defections and then failing to get elected has happened in other countries. Wikipedia election article infoboxes usually do not include parties winning 0 seats, even if they did well last time or had lots of seats in the outgoing parliament. Bondegezou (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Also we'd be in line with media showing these parties in the infobox as that's pretty much universal for their graphics. Many of them and the German language page also include the FW, but i think that's unnecessary. However option D does look best though as a graphic. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 22:46, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

• E Include the party that won seats, but not the two that didn't. The argument that the FDP need to be included "to show where all the seats came from" doesn't work IMO because the Bundestag was reduced in size by 105 seats. Number 57 22:57, 26 February 2025 (UTC)

"how they got those seats is irrelevant" no, it's not irrelevant. Otherwise, we should include the Libertarian Party in the 2020 House infobox. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 08:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

The Libertarian Party isn't an equivalent example. Because that was only 1 seat, not 10, their one member didn't run for re-election, the media didn't treat them as a major party and their votes were distant behind other parties. That example is only helpful for deciding not to include the values union, which no one is proposing for us to add. A much more comparable example would be the People's Party in Canada, which despite not winning seats has been included. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 19:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Politicsenthusiast06 The PPC's infobox inclusion, despite obviously having no relevance to the elections, was another exhausting and pedantic discussion I'm reminded of. I'm sure Wikipedians will find, for the third time, some asinine reason to include it even after it gets 1 % of the vote come April. But that example does have salience because back then, they decided to round up from 4.9 to 5 to warrant their inclusion. But that doesn't really work here? Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 09:29, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

"and are suing to try and get seats (overseas ballot issues)" I don't think that should count as an arguments towards their inclusion unless it actually pulls them towards the 5 %, which IMHO won't happen because the Federal Constitutional Court will throw out their obviously baseless, ridiculous, sore loser claims. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 08:54, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

"Baseless", "ridiculous" or any other such description has absolutely no place on any politics-related Wikipedia page and has zero value on talk pages Polish kurd (talk) 19:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Polish kurd I have zero respect for Stalinist, cult of personality cadre parties and their BS. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 20:48, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Maxwhollymoralground: I loathe the BSW like you, but "Stalinist" is ridiculous – Wagenknecht hasn't been a communist or Marxist of any kind since 2010, and the BSW is ideologically more of a conservative neoliberal party than anything else. They do not oppose nor criticise capitalism fundamentally. Wagenknecht supports ordoliberalism and admires Ludwig Erhard (to say nothing of her sympathies for Putin, not exactly a socialist either), and they even call themselves linkskonservativ and appeal to small businesses, that's anything but Marxist. Also, a "cult of personality" is by no means specific to any particular ideology. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 17:14, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Florian Blaschke when I say "Stalinist", I mean the internal organization of the party. When the SED dissolved itself, the late Michael Schumann declared on their party convention "We irrevocably break with Stalinism as a system". With "Stalinism" he obviously didn't mean the SED shot dissenters, he meant the totalitarian way the party was run and internal dissenters were treated. And I do think that applies to the Wagenknecht party, the way she tries to force her will upon the state parties alone is very reminiscent of "democratic centralism". Regardless, Wagenknecht praised both Ulbricht and Stalin! I don't like WSW for obvious reasons, but they actually have a good German-language article on Wagenknecht's political stances, which actually have barely changed: https://www.wsws.org/de/articles/2024/11/08/wage-n08.html There's no internal dissent allowed and, yes, Wagenknecht is treated as this larger-than-life figure, the only uncorrupted politician, the only politician that can save Germany. And as for economic policy, I think the BSW has remained quite statist. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 21:21, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the Romanian situation is a fraud by the PNL. I privately consider the situation a fraud. But it's absolutely wrong for my opinion about the election annulment being fraudulent to influence whether Lasconi & Georgescu should be last or first in the infobox, and it's wrong to use that in any argument in the talk page. Polish kurd (talk) 22:12, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Polish kurd sorry, I was just felt like venting about these claims being taken seriously. To be clear, I hold the BSW to the same standard I hold any other party though: Because the infobox should provide an overview, parties should only be included if they either win seats or had won seats in the previous election. Which is why the BSW isn't included here and the DSU isn't included in the 1990 infobox. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 00:01, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

The DSU didn't play any major role or come even close to winning seats in the 1990 election, and it immediately died off. So again I don't think it's a fair comparison. But that election is notable as the only one that includes a seats before in the infobox. That election was obviously unique, especially since seats were redistributed with the east joining. But this election unlike most others in Germany had a large change of seat count between election. That's why I favour adding that line. The 1961 election is also one I think it should definitely be added for. (Or we just make it standard for all since it's a small addition that won't add clutter and adds some useful information). Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 00:37, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

I would also like to mention that the logic being used to include the FDP would also apply to the DP/GDP in the 1961 election. Since they had won seats in the previous election and had been part of government until 1960. I find the logic behind option B is very flawed and based in biases. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 22:31, 2 March 2025 (UTC)

@Politicsenthusiast06 DP/GDP should be included in the 1961 election IMHO. Don't get why you derive from that that B supporters are biased. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 09:20, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

I am not a lawyer and don't know specifics about German electoral law, but their claims do have a base. My vote didn't count because my ballot arrived far too late to get back to Germany in time. And all the other Germans living abroad I know faced similar issues, if they received a ballot at all. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 20:34, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Politicsenthusiast06 No, they don't. First of all, voting by mail is not a right in Germany, it's a convenience and sending them out in time is the responsibility of the voter. All Germans abroad can vote at home, nobody was hindered to do that. Second of all, more importantly, the Federal Constitutional Court has VERY high bar for declaring election results invalid. Among other criteria, the errors have to be "mandatsrelevant" and unlike the Berlin High Court for example, they assume a much larger scale. For example, if we just assume 8 % of Germans abroad voted BSW, it still wouldn't be enough. Regardless, NUMEROUS legal experts have called these accusations to have little chance of success. Even if they managed to file something, I don't think it is even relevant enough for the reactions section. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 20:47, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Again I'm not a lawyer so I don't have any expertise in the legal argument. But if the ballots that were requested well in advance don't arrive in time for the person to vote that is a failure on the government's part. And if your living in another country you don't really have another option to vote. You seem to have a very strong bias against this party that is affecting your stance on this. I completely disagree with the BSW and don't think it should exist, but I think we need to be unbiased and give them the same treatment we would any other party. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 22:13, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the core of the argument you are making, which is that until any decision is made to the contrary (by the Federal Constitutional Court), we should assume the party will end up below 5%. Whether or not the claims are baseless is irrelevant as far as I see it. What matters for inclusion in the infobox would be if the claim is ultimately succesful and the party ends up at 5%. Until then, the claim is most appropriately mentioned in a different section. Gust Justice (talk) 21:06, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

@Gust Justice You are right, we are getting sidetracked. Politicsenthusiast06 (talk) 22:15, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed, we are discussing the fate of BSW since they haven't reached 5%, if they fail, whatever the consensus here is will remain, if they succeed and reach 5%, there will be no reason to not include them V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 23:32, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 23:59, 27 February 2025 (UTC)

• B. I would vote A if the 2013 election didn't exist as it has included a 0 seat FDP for a decade; this also extends to other German state election articles such as 1994 Brandenburg, showing a clear German election preference to include under 5% parties if demonstrative of drastic seat changes. BSW has no reason to be here; it won 0 seats in the last election, and won 0 this election. SSW should not be here as minor regional parties are commonly excluded from infoboxes wikipedia wide including past German election in which the SSW won a seat. They are #15 in terms of votes in this election, I understand they won a single seat but this is not vital to show in an infobox; its important to remember that the infobox in a wikipedia article is there to help readers get the quickest, most important information from a glance. Yeoutie (talk) 04:06, 28 February 2025 (UTC)

What matters in an election is winning seats. It doesn't matter that SSW are 15th in terms of votes. They get someone in the Parliament, while the FDP and BSW don't. Bondegezou (talk) 11:18, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

• A or E, or possibly D. There is a basic principle that we show parties in infoboxes in order of how many seats they win. What matters in an election above all is being elected, i.e. winning seats. Therefore, we cannot have an infobox that includes a party that won 0 seats while excluding a party than won >0 seats. That would be misleading. Therefore, B and C are unacceptable. The most usual practice across Wikipedia infoboxes is to include all parties that win seats and none that don't win seats, which would be E. Some Wikipedia election infoboxes include the larger parties that won seats, but drop some smaller parties that won seats, which would be A. Only a very few election article infoboxes include parties that won no seats, although there are a few examples: these would be like D. We should follow common practice, so I would prefer A or E. I am not aware of any election article infobox that includes a party that won no seats while excluding a party that did win a seat, which is like B and C. Bondegezou (talk) 11:13, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

Comparison with other election articles

There are two issues here. The SSW problem is a niche party winning a small number of seats. The FDP (and BSW) problem is when a party was significant in the previous parliament, but wins zero seats this election. At dissolution, the FDP had 90/733 seats (12%) and BSW had 10/733 (1%) in Germany. We should avoid establishing a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and look to other election articles. I looked at other European elections, taking the most recent election, radiating out from Germany, until I got bored. These fit four groups.

Eight (2024 French legislative election, 2022 Italian general election, 2023 Dutch general election, 2022 Hungarian parliamentary election, 2023 Spanish general election, 2021 Norwegian parliamentary election, 2023 Finnish parliamentary election, 2024 United Kingdom general election) are like A. That is, there are small parties excluded from the infobox. None of these had something like the FDP problem.

Twenty are like E. 2023 Polish parliamentary election, 2021 Czech parliamentary election, 2023 Slovak parliamentary election, 2024 Romanian parliamentary election, 2024 Austrian legislative election, 2022 Swedish general election, 2023 Estonian parliamentary election: these are like E. All parties winning seats are included in the infobox, however these elections did not have an SSW problem, nor an FDP problem.

2022 Danish general election, 2023 Swiss federal election, 2023 Luxembourg general election, 2024 Croatian parliamentary election, 2022 Serbian general election, June 2023 Greek parliamentary election, 2024 Portuguese legislative election: these are like E, all parties winning seats included. These all include situations like the SSW, with parties winning small and very small numbers of seats and still being included. They do not have an FDP problem.

There are then a group of articles that are again like E, all parties included, but where they did have something like the FDP/BSW problem. That is, they had one or more significant parties in the previous parliament who then won 0 seats. Every one of these excluded those parties from the infobox. Looking at these in more detail, the most striking is 2022 Latvian parliamentary election. Here, Harmony won 23/100 seats (23%), both the Conservatives and Union for Latvia won 16/100 seats (16%), and Development/For! won 13/100 seats (13%) in the last election and all of them dropped to 0 in this election. They were not included in the infobox. In other words, parties representing two thirds of the last parliament all vanished, and this is not shown in the infobox.

2022 Slovenian parliamentary election is similar. List of Marjan Šarec won 13/90 (14%) and Let's Connect Slovenia won 10/90 seats (11%) in the last election and both dropped to 0 in this election. They were not included. Likewise, with 2024 Icelandic parliamentary election, Left-Green Movement won 8/63 (13%) and Pirate Party won 6/63 seats (10%) in the last election and both dropped to 0 in this election. They were not included.

On a smaller scale, with 2024 Lithuanian parliamentary election, the Labour Party won 10/141 seats (7%) in the last election and dropped to 0 in this election. They were not included. With October 2024 Bulgarian parliamentary election, Velichie won 13/240 seats (5%) in the last election and dropped to 0 in this election. They were not included. With 2019 Ukrainian parliamentary election, Radical Party of Oleh Liashko won 22/450 seats (5%) in the last election and dropped to 0 in this election. They were not included.

This strongly suggests we should go with E (20 articles) or A (8 articles). No article matches B, C or D (although I have seen D approaches on occasion). Faced with an FDP-like problem, 6 out of 6 articles excluded parties that won no seats. Bondegezou (talk) 13:26, 3 March 2025 (UTC)

@Bondegezou There is no Wiki-wide consensus on election infobox inclusion criteria, I don't see why we can't deviate from other elections (especially if they use other infobox styles, the Infobox legislative version allows for many more parties to be displayed without being cluttered) and you don't explain why we shouldn't do a WP:LOCALCONSENSUS. Apart from that, I think you're comparing apples and oranges. None of these countries have an electoral system identical to Germany, but more importantly, Germany has a much more rigid party system. None of the established German parties (parties that won seats in Bundestag elections at least four times) have ever disappeared, which is why it makes sense in my mind to include the FDP – it is more likely they win seats in the next election than for them to just disappear. The Bundestag is also a lot larger than most other European legislatures, which is why 1 seat really doesn't matter. Regardless, the SSW shouldn't be included because the infobox still is supposed to be an overview of the election results. For which neither the BSW nor SSW matter at all, the SSW arguably less so. Maxwhollymoralground (talk) 10:59, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

WP:LOCALCONSENSUS says "Consensus among a limited group of editors, at one place and time, cannot override community consensus on a wider scale." It is not the only criterion that matters, but we should avoid doing something very different to other election articles if we can. There aren't written down rules for election article infoboxes, but we can observe common practice. It is useful to look at this common practice.

I entirely accept that there can be reasons to do something different, but they need to be good reasons. I reviewed 28 election articles. The 2025 German election is not sui generis. You say, None of the established German parties (parties that won seats in Bundestag elections at least four times) have ever disappeared, which is why it makes sense in my mind to include the FDP, but the Left-Green Movement had won seats in the last 8 Icelandic elections and when they fell to 0 seats in the latest election, they were dropped from the infobox. Harmony were in the previous 4 Latvian elections. They were the largest party in 2011, 2014 and 2018, before collapsing in 2022 and winning 0 seats. They were dropped from the infobox. No-one has offered a reason why the FDP is more important than these examples. We should look at what other articles do, and all 6 other articles I found with a similar situation to the FDP came up with the same answer.

Every election article infobox I've seen, in this analysis and over many years on Wikipedia, lists parties in order of the number of seats won (ties split by vote share). If we break that, as the current infobox does by having the FDP (0 seats) but not the SSW (1 seat), then we are misleading readers. We cannot do that. Bondegezou (talk) 13:53, 4 March 2025 (UTC)