Talk:2012 Catalan regional election

ERC: ¿2nd or 3rd?

Please, I suggest don't having ERC as 2nd force. It's the 3rd force in votes. ERC is 2nd in seats because of the electoral system; with other system, it might have scored 3rd, or 4th, or 5th, or even have none at all, if we stick strictly to the number of seats won. In Catalonia's case, smaller provinces are overrepresented (Lleida, specially) while Barcelona itself is underrepresented. As PSC scored best in Barcelona while ERC got better results in the other three provinces, it resulted in ERC winning more seats even if they had fewer votes. But seat allocation is not an objective way to measure a party's true strength. Number of votes won are. Besides, the seat allocation was fairly close. For example:

• PSC missed its 2nd seat in Lleida by just 692 votes (that is, by 0.34% of the valid votes in that province, or just 0.02% in all of Catalonia), which, should have won it, would have placed them in a draw with ERC, with 21 seats each.
• PSC also missed a 15th seat in Barcelona by just 11,888 votes (0.44% of the valid votes in that province, or 0.33% in all of Catalonia).
• Also, ERC 12th seat in Barcelona is not even consolidated: it was won by a margin of just 6,641 (0.24% of the valid votes in that province, or 0.18% of the valid votes in all of Catalonia).

Thus, if vote results had been different by just between 0.02%-0.53% of the total valid votes, results would have been radically different: for instance PSC could have won between 21-22 seats and ERC could have went down to 19-20. I'm curious about how someone can pretend to place ERC 2nd when that 2nd place depends on a seat allocation which is tenuous at best, and is not reflected on the vote tally. Impru20 (talk) 18:21, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I don't agree with your argument. A party in a parliamentary system is measured in seats, because at the end, this number of seats will say how strengh this party is. The same phenomenon happened in 2003, when PSC get more votes but less seats, and in Wikipedia Article is reflected in the right way (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catalan_parliamentary_election,_2003). In this 2003 case, would be silly to say that PSC is the first party, because PSC was not in the goverment, so 2nd position is the right position for it. I agree with you that for sure, smaller provinces are overrepresented, but for me it is pretty clear what I stated before. --Mariusmm (talk) 16:15, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Huh, you know that the 2003 election resulted in the PSC being ACTUALLY in the government, no? The all-famous (in Spain and Catalonia, at least) 'Govern tripartit' (Tripartite government) of PSC-ERC-ICV that lasted from 2003 to 2010. The party winning the most seats is not necessarily the party forming the government. See Andalusia 2012, Basque Country 2009 and 1986, Catalonia 2003 and 2006, Galicia 2005, Madrid 1991... not talking about what may result from the 2015 regional elections, which will possibly see some communities not being governed by the party which won the most seats. And that just in Spain.

Nonetheless, I can agree with parties being ordered by seats in the election box, as it is done, for example, in the UK Feb 1974 election, but definitely not in the table (which is why I started the discussion in the first place, because there were people insisting on ordering parties by seats in both the table and the box). Impru20 (talk) 12:42, 30 June 2013 (UTC)

Democracy ?

So, in the name of your interpretation of Democracy, you decide to change the results of a parliamentary election because "if vote results had been different by just between 0.02%-0.53% of the total valid votes, results would have been radically different". Am I wrong? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.34.48.47 (talk) 11:45, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

I think so, since I'm not changing anything. Parties are ordered by vote results. I don't know what is my interpretation of democracy by doing that, but I thought that PSC's 524,707 votes (14.43%) are more than ERC's 498,124 (13.70%). That's objective data. PSC scored second and ERC third. When I said that "if vote results had been different by just between 0.02%-0.53% of the total valid votes, results would have been radically different", I was just refering to the electoral system. Obviously, other electoral systems would have resulted in different seat allocations. This is also done so for the sake of consistency: since in Catalonia the electoral system used is the same than that of Spain in general elections (just in less constituencies), ordering parties by seats here would result in doing so in Spanish election articles as well. And I'm not sure, but I think it wouldn't be fair, for example, to place UPyD in 6th place and Amaiur in 5th place in the 2011 election when the latter scored roughly 700,000 votes less than the first one, just because it has 2 more seats. Cheers. Impru20 (talk) 13:12, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Catalan regional election, 2012. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150716165026/http://www.icps.cat/archivos/sondeigs/SC2011NacEspCatala.pdf to http://www.icps.cat/archivos/sondeigs/SC2011NacEspCatala.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:42, 1 August 2017 (UTC)