Talk:1932 Romanian general election

Latest comment: 8 years ago by Number 57 in topic Romanian Communist Party

Romanian Communist Party edit

What source does support the results for the "Romanian Communist Party"? Being officially banned, it did not directly participate in any elections between 1922 and 1946, but only through front organization. In the 1932 election, this role was taken by the Peasants' and Workers' Bloc, whose result are already present in the table. I also note that the left-socialist Independent Socialist Party is not present in the table, though it seems it gained 7791 votes. Also, are there any reasons to believe "Democratic Peasant Party" is not exactly the same as Democratic Peasant Party-Stere (the Senate also included members who were elected on corporatist bases and some who were awarded a seat by default, so it's perfectly possible for the party to have elected senators without significant popular vote).Anonimu (talk) 14:36, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply

To answer one-by-one:
  • A strange question – the results table is clearly sourced, and the source gives these results. PCR is listed as receiving 18,643 votes on page 1602 of the Nohlen & Stöver book. I will check the Sternberger source again tomorrow when I visit the library, but I don't recall any differences.
  • The PSIR may be amongst the "Others" that gained 9,178 votes.
  • The Nohlen book lists the PTD-Stere was winning Chamber seats, but in the Senate section it is listed as just PTD.
Number 57 17:48, 1 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Update: The Sternberger book has the Conservative Party receiving 18,643 votes, which also ties in with the sourced material at Vlad Țepeș League; presumably PCR was supposed to refer to Romanian Conservative Party, not Communist Party in the Nohlen & Stover book. I have corrected the article. Number 57 18:08, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Thank you for fixing the error. Anonimu (talk) 18:33, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply
Yes, although the Nohlen & Stöver book is a great resource, sometimes I get the feeling that no-one bothered proofreading or sense-checking it... Number 57 20:55, 2 November 2015 (UTC)Reply