Talk:Electoral alliance

Proposed merger with Electoral fusion

I agree with Bkonrad. Fusion voting does not necessarily imply broad-based electoral alliance. At it's core, Electoral fusion deals with ballot design and a recognition that one or more political parties ma nominate the same candidate for public office. It is a more specific term than electoral alliance and worthy of its own entry. Speralta (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I don't think these should be merged. While there may be some similarity, they seem quite different in application. older ≠ wiser 00:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

These are different indeed. The (current) article 'Electoral fusion' opens as: "Electoral fusion is an arrangement where two or more political parties on a ballot list the same candidate, pooling the votes for that candidate. Distinct from the process of electoral alliances in that the political parties remain separately listed on the ballot" (my bold). This distinction means that one is not a part of the other. 'Electoral fusion' is not a kind of 'electoral alliance' as the latter article describes. But, still in November 2009, User:Faunas had inserted 'electoral fusion' on the first line showing what is considered an 'electoral alliance'. I'm removing that undue insert (the only kind with a link). Note that 'electoral fusion' is still correctly found and linked in the 'See also' section.​▲ SomeHuman 2011-02-06 13:47 (UTC)

UK item is not an electoral alliance

The article is about separate political parties that put their own candidates on a shared list. The Labour Party is a political party. The Co-operative Party calls itself a party, it certainly is political, and it is an organization that exists independently from the Labour Party. They have formed an alliance. There are candidates on a list that are members of the Labour Party. Some candidates on that same list are members of the Co-operative Party. So far, so good.
And yet, they having an 'electoral alliance' is fictitious, because the article Co-operative Party states: "co-operative members who wish to stand for election also having to be members of the Labour Party, as joint Labour Co-operative candidates". Hence, these are de facto and de jure simply candidates of the Labour Party (some of which may also be members of a snooker club, and perhaps they want to advertise that as well to draw votes). When all the candidates on a list are members of a single political party, there is no 'electoral alliance' in the sense of this article that requires an electoral list to be shared. It is a 'political alliance', and then a good ally can be expected to favour and support an election candidate of the other ally.

Many political groups (institutions, unions, etc.) exist that are allied with a party of which all candidates have to be members, in several countries. The candidates are often known to belong to a specific group. But such group, like here the Co-operative Party, is not a political party by itself having registered candidates. Furthermore, though not essential: "the Co-operative Party has not registered a logo with the electoral commission for use on ballot papers, as candidates use the more recognisable Labour Party 'rose' logo". The financing of some of the candidates by the Co-operative Party, is not essential either (no more than moral support) - at least not for determining to which party these candidates belong for an election.

The identical subsection about 'UK' could be found in the article electoral fusion, with only the term 'alliance' replaced with 'fusion'. As that article specifies: "Electoral fusion [...]. Distinct from the process of electoral alliances in that the political parties remain separately listed on the ballot," while I quoted from 'electoral alliance' that all candidates chose the Labour Party 'rose' logo for use on ballot papers that do not mention the Co-operative Party, it is clear that the UK section must be eliminated from article 'electoral fusion'. Consider this done.
Based on the above argumentation, I suggest to remove the UK section also from 'electoral alliance' - but still leave it there for a while, awaiting possible response here.​▲ SomeHuman 2011-02-06 13:49-14:03 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with File:Cduportugal.png

The image File:Cduportugal.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Merger proposal

I propose merging Kartel (electoral alliance) into Electoral alliance. The article on kartel describes electoral alliances in relation to Belgian politics. This information can easily be added under a new section dealing with Belgium. Ezhao02 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)

Merge from Ley de lemas

The same system is called the Ley de lemas in Latin American politics. The article describes it as "parties" that can have "subfactions," but from the standpoint of electoral systems, there is no difference between a party made up of factions and a coalition made up of parties. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:20, 13 March 2024 (UTC)

There's a massive difference. One is separate parties forming an alliance and the other is a contest between subfactions of a party. Number 57 22:18, 14 March 2024 (UTC)

Oppose merge, the system works differently in both cases. Cambalachero (talk) 14:57, 7 April 2024 (UTC)