Talk:2015 Croatian parliamentary election

Name of enhanced coalition

"Croatia is growing" is the motto of the new and enhanced coalition, that includes SDP, HNS and HSU, as well as Labourists, ZP and the "authentic" Agrarians. But I have seen no source as to this being their name. Until someone presents such a source, I am returning it to Kukuriku, the name of the article.--Batmacumba (talk) 11:33, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

I have already done that. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:35, 21 September 2015 (UTC)

Croatian parliamentary election, 2015

Someone should change the name of the article to: Croatian parliamentary election, 2015 ; I really don't know how to do that, tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 08:14, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

, done. United Union (talk) 08:27, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

tnx, :* --Tuvixer (talk) 10:41, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Electoral systen

The info about the electoral system that has been placed in the first part contradicts info further down - either there is 5 or 10 constituencies and the incorrect info should be removed. It should also be properly and unequivocally sourced.--Batmacumba (talk) 15:23, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

There are 10 constituencies in Croatia, plus one constituency for national minorities and plus one for diaspora, so there are in fact 12 constituencies, but it is common practice to say that there are 10 constituencies plus two. --Tuvixer (talk) 22:55, 25 September 2015 (UTC)

Well, thats how it was in 2011, but the info about an electoral reform under "Electoral system" in the article contradicts this. If you are sure this info is still valid and have sources to back it up you should remove the incorrect info, or preferably rephrase it and explain why the reform didn't happen (what I was interested in was not a description of the system - but someone rewriting this part of the article to a coherent, accurate and properly sourced text).--Batmacumba (talk) 01:48, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the text beneath because it contradicted other info and had not been updated and therefore was confusing.

"The electoral system will likely see some changes compared to the last four elections. In December 2010, the Constitutional Court of Croatia decided to inform Parliament that it is necessary to update the electoral unit definitions according to current population data, in accordance with the provisions of the 1999 Law on electoral units. It was too late to change the system for the 2011 election cycle, since electoral laws cannot be changed less than a year before the election. Therefore, the next election will occur with boundary changes to accommodate shifts in the population. Minister of Public Administration Arsen Bauk announced major changes in the composition of the geographical electoral units. It is expected their number will be reduced from ten to five. They would follow the borders of Croatian counties with each encompassing several counties. This means they would not be roughly equal in size, as was the case before, but rather each district would give a different number of MPs, in proportion with their population. The population would be determined by census numbers, rather than the number of registered voters as was the case before. Two non-geographical districts, which give 3 seats for diaspora and 8 for minorities, would remain unchanged. 140 members would still come from the five geographical districts meaning the total number of seats would still be 151. Proportional representation would still be the method of electing members, however it is not clear whether the D'Hondt method would remain and whether there would be an introduction of open lists."

But it should preferably be rewritten by someone knowledgable and put back in - what happened with all this?

Things that needs to be clarified regarding the electoral system

We have several unanswered questions: 1) electoral units following county borders with different number of deputies/or still same size for all? 2) districts determined on census numbers or registered voters? 3) open lists or closed lists? 4) Still D'Hondt? 5) How is the preferential voting system going to work? Official source that describes the system?--Batmacumba (talk) 23:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

1) still the same

2) no

3) preferential voting system with proportional representation

4) yes

5) one preferential vote, and a 10% threshold on the list --Tuvixer (talk) 12:36, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

2) "No" doesn't make sense as answer to the second question (not a yes/no question). What do you mean?

5) If there is only one preferential vote, it isn't what you normally call preferential voting, but just a form of open list. How does the 10% threshold work? (it would be best if you tried describing it in the relevant section in the article.

We need a source for all this. Could you find one? --Batmacumba (talk) 13:37, 27 September 2015 (UTC)

2) it is both no

5) It is preferential voting because the voter can chose to vote only for a party or a coalition, or for a person on a party/coalition list. If one candidate collects 10% or more votes for that list he is moved to the first place on that list, and so on. --Tuvixer (talk) 11:01, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Preferential voting as you describe it isn't really preferential voting, but just a variation of open list (you can always vote list in an open list election). Of course you can argue all open list systems are preferential, but that is not the way it is usually used. So I think I will change that to open list and just describe how it works. Districts were previously determined by number of registered voters (with a roughly equal population distribution in all districts) if they are unchanged that is still the case. There was a proposal to change this to census numbers (giving among other things increased weight to areas with many children). If they are unchanged from last time it is basically still based on registered voters (it just seems odd if there has been no update with limited redistricting to make them roughly equal - are you sure about this?). Can you get a source? It is a part of the article that is important to be source because it is technical stuff.--

It is preferential voting, ok, you write as you think and I will correct you, ok? Yes it is still the case, there were no changes. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:02, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Batmacumba (talk) 15:28, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

No of course it isn't "OK", edit wars and silly confrontations should be avoided and things discussed properly. Not sure why you take that attitude. You didn't address the source situation, which is the biggest problem. Were can we get sources?--Batmacumba (talk) 17:33, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

I was not threatening. You did a good job. It seems that in Croatian language we call preferential voting for what is in English open list. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:40, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

I have tried to describe it more accurately. A main argument against using the term "preferential voting" is that it is very imprecise and only links to a disambigutation page (such as this one ;-) ), whereas all the relevant info is on the open list page. Please help address the remaining questions and help find a source (it must be relatively easy to find one for a Croat)--Batmacumba (talk) 18:50, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Comparison to the Swedish system

It sounds like a "most open list with quota", which is the one used in Sweden.

"The 'most open' list system is the one where the absolute amount of votes every candidate receives fully determines the "order of election" (the list ranking only possibly serving as a 'tiebreaker'). When such a system is used, one could make the case that within every party an additional virtual single non-transferable vote election is taking place."

"In elections in Sweden, the 'most open' list is used, but a person needs to receive 5% of the party's votes for the personal vote to overrule the ordering on the party list. Voting without expressing a preference between individuals is possible, although the parties urge their voters to support the party's prime candidate, to protect them from being beaten by someone ranked lower by the party."

So basically most open list only taking effect when a quota is met (if so, how are ties decided?)

Is the above an accurate description? (please dont answer "no" if it isn't, but elaborate).--

It is accurate. Ties are resolved by the position on the list. It was a problem of language, we in Croatian call preferential voting what the English speaking people call open list. --Tuvixer (talk) 15:47, 30 September 2015 (UTC)

Batmacumba (talk) 18:04, 29 September 2015 (UTC)

Possible vandalism

Thewanderer, please stop your disruptive edits to the article, and please stop edit warring. Go here on the talk page and present your opinion here before you edit the article. Please stop edit warring. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 16:22, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The article currently has several glaring inaccuracies. I have added sourced info, which you have removed twice without reason. This has nothing to do with my opinion - I'm not editorializing anything, there are basic structural problems as the article stands. How am I edit warring?Thewanderer (talk) 16:29, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

The election date has not yet been announced. Wait with your edits, ok? Because you can't add speculation to the an encyclopedia. It will be changed when the time comes. Please stop edit-warring. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That is silly and arbitrary logic. All polls are performed on the basis of the SDP- and HDZ-led coalitions. There is no speculation here. The election is happening in weeks.Thewanderer (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Sure, but "in weeks" is not an accurate date. The President will announce the date on Monday, so just wait until she has done so.--Batmacumba (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

That is my point, but he is ignoring that, just pushing for his own changes like he OWNs the article. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:03, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Obviously I don't own this article. If you have any sourced info to counter anything I've added, you are most welcome to update it. This article has had several inaccuracies and inconsistencies. Why should Kukuriku be listed in the infobox (which has since been renamed for these elections), while the HDZ coalition (known officially as the Patriotic Coalition) should not? Theoretically Kukuriku/Croatia is Growing coalition could collapse before the election is called if you are so deeply concerned about the official deadlines for submitting electoral lists.Thewanderer (talk) 17:17, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Exactly my point. Just wait for the time and do not make disruptive edits to the article, and please stop edit-warring. Tnx --Tuvixer (talk) 17:20, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

No, you'll have to read my comment again. These are not disruptive edits. They are sourced edits reflecting the polls and the campaign which has been ongoing prior to the "official" campaign time (as is normal and has been seen in prior Croatian elections). We need to find consistency and accuracy based on current sources.Thewanderer (talk) 17:25, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Names of coalitions

Party names should be the electoral coalition, not the main party. See the Portuguese legislative election, 2015 for an example, where PM Pedro Passos Coelho is listed with PàF as his party, not PSD. Also, use short form - not the full name. It is already described in the article, that they are coalitions, and who are in them and you can also simply get that info by using the link.--Batmacumba (talk) 18:14, 3 October 2015 (UTC)

Successful Croatia

According to this official source, Coalition Successful Croatia consists of People's Party - Reformists, Forward Croatia! - Progressive Alliance and independent candidate Darinko Dumbović (Mayor of Petrinja). Should we list him also in the Coalitions table?

Party colors on maps

Which ones are better in your opinion? Lighter (1st and 3rd map) or darker colors (2nd and 4th)? Darker are the ones used on meta party color templates. I think a darker blue suits HDZ better and that SDP should have a bit darker red. Tzowu (talk) 21:45, 15 October 2015 (UTC)

• 
• 
• 
• 

By all means you can use the 2nd, the results will be the same as on that map. xD --Tuvixer (talk) 02:08, 18 October 2015 (UTC)

Human Blockade

The movement is often considered leftist, as an example see the description of their presidential candidate here: http://www.balkaninsight.com/en/article/croatian-presidential-elections-kick-off. Otherwise maybe cross-political, but definitely not right wing.--Batmacumba (talk) 13:19, 30 October 2015 (UTC)

Ethnic minority seats

Only 2 minority seats (the Czech/Slovak and Italian) were won by individual candidates as stated in the text. The other six were won by minority parties/groups. SDSS got the 3 Serb. The "all the rest" seat went to a Roma organization, the Hungarian to MESZ (Hungarians Associations) and the ex-Yugoslavian/Albanian had two Albanian alliances being 9 seats apart (will there be a recount?) I am not sure if any of these minor groups (apart from SDSS) have English names.--Batmacumba (talk) 10:39, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

Some of the minority reps that are nominally independent or elected for minority orgs seem to be associated with Croatian parties (like Sandor Juhasz from MESZ to SDP). It would be could if a Croatian user could make a list of those affiliated with Croatian parties.--Batmacumba (talk) 13:33, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Milorad Pupovac, Mile Horvat, Mirko Rašković *Serbs* (members of SDSS), Šandor Uhas *Hungarians* (elected member of the Beli Manastir city council as SDP candidate), Furio Radin *Italians* (member of the IDS parliamentary club), Vladimir Bilek *Czechs and Slovaks* (member of HNS), Veljko Kajtazi *Romani...* (member of the HNS parliamentary club), Ermina Lekaj Prljaskaj *Albanians...* (member of HNS). United Union (talk) 14:07, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Where are your sources? --Tuvixer (talk) 16:27, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

Sources added. United Union (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2015 (UTC)

It probably isn't fair to say only two of the candidates were individual/unaffiliated. In this electoral cycle, only the 3 Serb representatives were nominated by what we would generally consider a political party (the SDSS). The rest were nominated by cultural associations of one sort or another. The Albanian candidate who won was nominated by three organizations, all of which are considered civic associations. Now, after the election, these individuals then affiliate with parties (as some have noted, the IDS or the HNS are dominant usually), or revert to party affiliations they had prior to being elected (Sandor Juhas), but they aren't elected on those platforms.93.136.61.243 (talk) 16:41, 18 November 2015 (UTC)

Fall in registered voters

The number of registered voters has fallen by 465,000, or more than 10%, since 2011. This seems extraordinary. Is this due to population decline, voter apathy, a change in electoral law, or something else? Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 04:01, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Before the voter in diaspora were by default counted in the voter poll, now they have to register, and only registered count. --Tuvixer (talk) 17:14, 30 November 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. That explains why the number of registered diaspora voters fell from 411,758 to 28,944. It doesn't explain the fall in the 10 electoral districts. In District II, for example, it fell from 403,716 to 380,485. What is the explanation for that? Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 10:10, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Now the people with valid ID cards are registered voters, many people who do not live in Croatia were registered as they live here but without ID cards. That has changed. --Tuvixer (talk) 10:40, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

For years, there was an issue of potentially untrustworthy voter rolls in Croatian politics. Two years ago, a new law instituted some new rules, you can read about it in Croatian press articles from that time, e.g. http://www.vecernji.hr/hrvatska/bauk-niste-na-novom-popisu-biraca-izvadite-osobnu-iskaznicu-467254 --Joy [shallot] (talk) 22:15, 1 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. Intelligent Mr Toad 2 (talk) 10:19, 2 December 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Croatian parliamentary election, 2015. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20141202093302/http://www.hns.hr/index.php/dokumenti/2012-04-20-01-45-30/programske-smjernice to http://hns.hr/index.php/dokumenti/2012-04-20-01-45-30/programske-smjernice
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141202025426/http://www.hns.hr/index.php/dokumenti/2012-04-20-01-45-30/statut to http://hns.hr/index.php/dokumenti/2012-04-20-01-45-30/statut
• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20151006114043/http://www.reformisti.hr/dokumenti/program to http://reformisti.hr/dokumenti/program

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 14:43, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Croatian parliamentary election, 2015. 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/20130927164227/http://www.sdp.hr/media/303876/statut-sdp.pdf to http://www.sdp.hr/media/303876/statut-sdp.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130502034920/http://www.hdz.hr/static/media/attached_files/attachedfileitem/Statut/STATUT_HDZ-a_2012.pdf to http://hdz.hr/static/media/attached_files/attachedfileitem/Statut/STATUT_HDZ-a_2012.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) 18:13, 14 August 2017 (UTC)