Talk:Candidates in the 2024 Irish general election

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

Ireland Low‑importance

	Ireland portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Ireland, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Ireland on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.IrelandWikipedia:WikiProject IrelandTemplate:WikiProject IrelandIreland articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Aontú

Why has Aontú been omitted from the table? They're included in the other Next Irish general election tables. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 09:36, 25 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"National Alliance"

Why would we include this in the table? They are (presumably) members of X or Y parties. If they leave them to join some new alliance (which hasn't been deemed worthy of its own article) then their new membership should be listed. If it's just some electoral pact, why would we mention it in a list of candidates? And why would we do it in such a weird manner, super-scripting an abbreviation? The most that could be included and still remain WP:DUE is a single footnote, saying 'Parties X, Y and Z announced an electoral pact, called the National Alliance'. If we have a reference for that. As an aside, the multiple instances of links to the Irish Freedom Party, Ireland First, etc, need to be removed. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:07, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This was based on the Kavanagh list [1] where independent candidates are described as "Independent/National Alliance". It makes sense to denote this and for consistency also next to the three parties that are part of the alliance. Could be a footnote similar to the existing footnotes for the Mid West Hospital Campaign and Workers Party independents, except there are many National Alliance candidates and only one of each of those. JSwift49 16:33, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Kavanagh lists no members of IFP/II or any other party as "National Alliance" candidates in that source. He lists nine "Independent/National Alliance" candidates. It seems to be some sort of loose electoral pact. Best to leave mention out, I think. Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 16:56, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It is a formal electoral alliance between three parties that includes independents. It has a leadership structure and its own election committee; this isn’t some informal thing.[2][3][4] JSwift49 18:09, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It seems most of those listed here as independents affiliated with the national alliance are actually members of the Irish people party or the national party according to their website

https://www.nationalalliance.ie/candidates 2001:BB6:284:5058:1181:784C:6B6A:4304 (talk) 03:19, 9 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Order of parties in table

What is the order based on? It seems very arbitrary. Fine Gael has fewer seats than Sinn Féin and Fianna Fáil and had a lower percentage in the last election, so it isn't either of those. I think it should be based on one of those. Lough Swilly (talk) 01:50, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

In my HO, it should be based on the current number of seats in the Oireachtas. Then it would be FF, FG, SF etc. You could also use percentage of first preference votes in the 2020 general election, or current number of seats in the Dail.Spleodrach (talk) 08:46, 29 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alphabetically would be my preference as alphabetical ordering is used on ballot papers in relation to candidate names in Ireland, so we would be borrowing from this convention and applying it to party ordering in the case of this Wikipedia page. Aside from this, party ordering following a logic would be better than ordering without a logic. I would describe party ordering by number of seats, or voter percentage, to be far less preferable than alphabetically, in order to avoid establishment bias. To argue this a little further, candidates do not appear on the ballot paper based on previous electoral success, so what would be the logic in doing so here? This is something to think about as I can image this page as a resource for people to see who is running in their constituency, so perhaps borrowing from the convention is the preferable way to order. SDominicH (talk) 16:29, 3 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would support ordering by the number of seats heading into the election. SDominicH has a valid point about the ballot orders, but the Wikipedia convention in infoboxes/tables seems to be to order by existing seats so that would be more in line. JSwift49 16:17, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'd support number of Dáil seats heading into the election. I take SDominicH's point, but I don't think people will be coming to WP to decide how they're going to vote, and if they are, I doubt they'll be too influenced by the order we've put people in. But some system is better than "random" or "author's preferred order". Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 17:38, 4 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fair play to you for reorganising the table, Lough Swilly - and not running into an edit conflict while doing it! Wiki tables are not the most intuitive or fun things to work with! Bastun^{Ėġáḍβáś₮ŭŃ!} 18:44, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks! Whenever I edit I always double check to see if there have been any page updates before I publish. Lough Swilly (talk) 18:50, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

People before Profit - Solidarity

It was my understanding that RISE merged into people before profit when Paul Murphy and those who split off the socialist party with him joined pbp. Paul is currently a pbp TD and would be a pbp candidate. Who is other candidate listed as RISE here? 2A01:B340:83:EC8E:DC51:E7CD:1503:7C16 (talk) 23:18, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I think you are right. I will remove RISE from the table. Spleodrach (talk) 23:26, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral alliances

When sorting the table, PBP-S and the National Alliance become messed up and split. I did not realise this when I changed it. Should it be left alone or should it be changed back/to something else?

There's a couple options. The way it was before was a single PBP-Solidarity row (perhaps with a footnote saying 33 candidates are from PBP and 9 from Sol), with the National Alliance split up with a footnote next to the parties involved in the alliance that it was a member of the National Alliance.

Alternatively the National Alliance could be shown as one row with a footnote showing how many members belong to each party or are independents. However the National Alliance is only an informal electoral pact, and not officially registered unlike PBP-S. Lough Swilly (talk) 15:56, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think PBP-S should be a single row with a footnote saying how many from PBP and from Solidarity. As the National Alliance is not a registered party, it should be removed. The 3 parties in it should be listed separately, with a footnote saying there are members of the alliance. Spleodrach (talk) 19:23, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]