Talk:2016 Basque regional election

Rational discussion on how to explain electoral procedures in the Basque Country and in clear English (no Google Translation) only.

This could be a long election. Lets keep it very simple and very straight. Wikimucker (talk) 23:37, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

User Impru20 is persistently removing my attempts to explain the fact that 25 seats are allocated to Alava province with 320,000 persons (2013) and 25 seats to Biscay province with over 1.15m persons. It is probably the most non proportional proportional representation in Europe. This means the article fails WP:NPOV

It is not enough to state that the electoral system uses propoprtional representation when the proportions between the provinces are grossly distorted.

WP:NPOV requires that the Structural Non Proportionality of the Representation be itself highlighted. This was my attempt at clarifying the problem which was reverted by Impru20.

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Basque_regional_election,_2016&diff=next&oldid=791006453

Each constituency was allocated a fixed number of 25 seats each nd the seat apportionment did not account for the districts' disparate populations which were 0.32m in Álava (the smallest) and 1.16m in Biscay (the largest) in 2013

Heads up to Togiad Number 57 Courcelles Sfs90who contributed non category portions of the article for their thoughts.Wikimucker (talk) 16:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

I think the disparity in population is definitely worth highlighting given the huge difference in populations. Is this a form of gerrymandering by the Spanish government to reduce the voting power of the Basque nationalist parties? Number 57 16:21, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Hi Number 57. This is already highlighted under the current phrasing (see below), and this is not what Wikimucker even pretended for in the first place, so I don't know what's the point of this whole discussion. Impru20 (talk) 16:31, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

First, what's the point in adding 2013 data to a 2016 election? And to skip Gipuzkoa's number for the sake of it?

Secondly, you say that under NPOV it is somehow required to state the population number of each constituency at a year not belonging to that of the election. There's not such Structural Non Proportionality of the Representation be itself highlighted requirement in NPOV, but even if that was to be required... isn't it already covered under the current phrasing?

Seats were allocated to constituencies, corresponding to the Basque provinces of Álava, Biscay and Gipuzkoa. Each constituency was allocated a fixed number of 25 seats each, with such an apportionment not proportional to their populations but, rather, accounting for an equal representation of the three provinces in Parliament as required under the regional Statute of Autonomy.

It's staightforward, and it avoids using outdated data from other years. It accomplish exactly what you pretend but without having random and outrightly false content as you added on your first "it's needed" edit (when you went as far as to misinterpret what the source you added said). Because you firstly added an outrightly false votes per seat-ratio arguing that it was that what was needed, then you come with (outdated) population figures, saying that it's now that what's needed under NPOV. What gives? Impru20 (talk) 16:29, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

If they are the most recent official population figures, then I don't see a problem. The text you propose doesn't tell readers just how skewed the division of seats is (the disparity is huge, akin to early 20th century elections in Europe when sparsely populated rural areas had the same number of seats as urban areas in order to prevent the working class electing left-leaning parties). By all means add Gipuzkoa's figure ni as well. Number 57 16:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

They aren't. The INE usually offers updated data at a monthly biannual basis.

In any case, this would require a full edit of all Basque election articles (with the correct population data), because it just feels weird that we stick just to this one. And by all means, the change should be done in a sense that it's useful for readers... not just for the sake of overriding another user by all means, as seems to be now the case (proposing several different changes in a very short timespan). If it helps readers, then go with it. Impru20 (talk) 16:44, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Then let's use the 2016 data from the relevant month. 18:43, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

All I did was play with image titles on Commons, but acknowledging the ping. Courcelles (talk) 17:50, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

The last verifiable population data on the wikipedia, from Spain, is from 2013 as far as I can see, has anyone found any more recent data, if so an early 2016 population fix would be in order.

The current description of the gross population disparity (almost 4x) between the smallest and largest provinces is completely obscure and is so badly written that it is unreadable as well as failing WP:NPOV .

Wikimucker (talk) 20:37, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Guy, where is this obscure? How is it unreadable?

Each constituency was allocated a fixed number of 25 seats each, with such an apportionment not proportional to their populations but, rather, accounting for an equal representation of the three provinces in Parliament as required under the regional Statute of Autonomy. Such deviations meant that Álava, with a population of 322,801 as of 1 July 2016, was allocated the same number of seats than Biscay (1,134,041) and Gipuzkoa (708,288).

The population data is already there. Readers may get their own conclusions without us needing to risk breaching WP:SYNTH. Yet the description is much more complete than what you even proposed in the first place. Please, elaborate on what you pretend, because it seems that even by going further than what you seemingly meant is not enough for you if I do it. As a note, you didn't even mention the x4 proportion in the first place, so I dunno how it's so important for you now when you didn't even included it in your bolded proposal (lol). Impru20 (talk) 20:48, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Looks much better now and well done for finding a useful pop data link Impru20. I'm happy with it now.Wikimucker (talk) 21:03, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Stop harassing me and re-editing my edits. I fully complied with what you (allegedly) pretended. Well, what you pretended in your second attempt, because your first one was a truly mess. The current edit is meant not only to be clear, but also to preserve consistency with other communities' electoral system recent wordings. Stop trying to have the last word, and acknowledge that when you're wrong, someone else may prove you right. Just don't re-edit someone else for the sake of it.

I've merged both yours and my version. I hope you now don't try to find another complain to try to re-edit me again, since Number 57 seemed already fine with the version previous to the one you unilaterally edited for the sake of editing me. And stop chasing me through Wikipedia. Thank you. Impru20 (talk) 21:06, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Final version:

Seats were allocated to constituencies, corresponding to the Basque provinces of Álava, Biscay and Gipuzkoa. Each constituency was allocated a fixed number of 25 seats each, to provide for an equal representation of the three provinces in Parliament as required under the regional Statute of Autonomy. This meant that Álava was allocated the same number of seats as Biscay and Gipuzkoa, despite their populations being, as of 1 July 2016, 322,801, 1,134,041 and 708,288, respectively.

Facts stated, then equal representation of provinces mentioned, then outright consequence of such a seat allocation and its connection with population. I think this can't be much more straightforward as it is. And indeed MUCH better than the previous wording that implied that it were population differences the ones that led to each province being allocated the same number of seats, which obviously isn't true. Impru20 (talk) 21:24, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

Big Improvement. I am happy that WP:NPOV is entirely satisfied with that final clarification and the up to date Pop data that Impru20 used as a supporting ref. I'm done. Thanks to all for their input. Wikimucker (talk) 21:33, 17 July 2017 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

• Logotipo EAJ-PNV.svg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:08, 15 November 2019 (UTC)