Talk:2019 Danish general election

Infobox election

There is likely going to be 13 parties to choose amongst for the voters at the upcoming general election. Perhaps someone can fix the infobox template to fit them all? Philaweb (talk) 16:00, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

{{Infobox legislative election}} should be used instead in parliamentary systems with at least 10 parties winning seats. Mélencron (talk) 19:12, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. I might add this format tomorrow if I have time. Number 57 21:02, 27 April 2019 (UTC)

Done. A vast improvement IMO, as you can see all the parties listed on one screen, even though there are four more included than previously. Number 57 20:33, 30 April 2019 (UTC)

I was wondering what you all think about the idea of a hybrid infobox - at the top, the standard infobox with pictures, showing the two candidates of the two blocs, then just below, the full legislative infobox with the individual parties. The infobox is meant to give someone without expertise a summary of the contours of the election, and I think this setup would describe Denmark's system - multiple parties that arrange themselves into blocs - the best. (I'm not too familiar with this election in particular, and the potential for cross-bloc cooperation that exists this time, but I think it would work fine for 2015 and 2011.) Chuborno (talk) 04:32, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

We could not do that in a fair manner. Would The Alternative be a part of the red block, or part of their own green block? Would Hard Line be part of the blue block? Media is divided, see this, this and this. The parliamentary situation is more complicated, negotiations must follow before a government can be formed. What you want to show is convened in the bottom of the infobox with images of the outgoing and incoming prime minister. ― Heb the best (talk) 08:16, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. The parties are not running as part of a formal alliance, and it would be even more pointless if an SV government was formed. Number 57 08:39, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Including parties without seats in the infobox

It's usual practice to exclude parties without seats from infoboxes prior to elections. I'm not sure that should be any different here.

There was also an issue with the attempt to include seatless parties, insomuch as it didn't actually include all the parties that would be running in the election (the Faroese and Greenlandic parties were conspicuous by their absence), and therefore didn't seem to be NPOV compliant. Number 57 21:01, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I edited the infobox, so that all parties eligible to run was listed there. {ping|Number_57} reverted my changes. In Denmark you are eligible to run if you get ~20.000 voters to give you their support, which correspond to ~0.5 % of all voters. This is a threshold that is difficult to reach, but once you reach it, you are treated as a serious contender by the media. Because of public-service requirements, all eligible parties are treated equally by the media. The debates will be with all party leaders standing side by side, and they opinion polls will include all these parties. This have already created some debate, as Rasmus Paludan is regarded as extreme, know for his video filmed demonstrations, where he burns the Quran, and he will be standing side-by side with the established politicians. To exclude parties, just because the do not have any current representative, will be a systematic bias favoring the established parties. ― Heb the best (talk) 21:03, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

As I mentioned above, it is normal practice to exclude parties without seats from an infobox. And it is equally an NPOV issue to include some seatless parties but not others. Number 57 21:05, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

(Also, separate to this, I don't know whether you noticed, but because the template was limited to 15 parties, adding the seatless parties meant that the Faroese parties no longer appeared in the list. I've expanded the template to 20 parties so this shouldn't happen in future if it is agreed to include all the parties. We can increase it further if required. Number 57 21:10, 2 May 2019 (UTC))

Yeah, I've noticed it. I was going to look at it, but it seems you beat me to it ― Heb the best (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The north atlantic mandates are special, and I agree that these should not all be included in the infobox. But all Danish parties should. The mistake is that the infobox does not make clear that some of the mandates are reserved to Faroe and Greenaland. The election is actually three different elections at once. No party runs in more that one of those. ― Heb the best (talk) 21:20, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I was trying to say that all the Faroese/Greenlandic parties running should be included if the Danish ones are.

Also, I'm not sure why the infobox needs to specifically say that there are seats elected from those two areas (it is explicitly mentioned in the opening paragraph)? France is the closest equivalent I can think of off the top of my head, but the French election infobox doesn't mention that X number of seats are elected from the Overseas Departments. However, if it is really deemed necessary, we could insert a line under the text "All 179 seats in the Folketing" saying (175 from Denmark, 2 from the Faroes, 2 from Greenland). Number 57 21:30, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

The opening paragraph does not state which parties won the NA mandates, nor would your proposed solution do that. If the reader look at the infobox without any footnote, they might think that people living in Denmark proper can vote for the last four one, which is not the case. I don't buy the argument that we should not improve this article, just because the french might have room for improvement too. I don't know the French system, but if the main continental parties run in the overseas elections, then the situations are not compareable. ― Heb the best (talk) 22:45, 2 May 2019 (UTC)

I don't think it's necessary to denote which parties won the Faroes/Greenland seats (we don't highlight the fact that the DUP or Sinn Fein won the Northern Irish seats in UK election articles). Number 57 11:30, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

UK has FPTP, DK has PR, there is a fundamental difference. NA-mandates are the exception to this rule. Reliable sources (i.e. Danish media) always label NA-mandates as coming from there, so we should do the same. Anyway, input from other contributors would be helpful. ― Heb the best (talk) 18:57, 3 May 2019 (UTC)

I am torn on this question. Infoboxes normally exclude parties without seats, but they don't always do so. There is some variation in practice. If there is some national defined threshold as Heb the best describes, which national media follows, I can see an argument for sticking to that. There's also a case for Siumut's inclusion on the grounds they had a seat at the last election, since lost through defection. Bondegezou (talk) 10:19, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

I think now we have an infobox with the capability of including all the parties, and the full list of those participating, I am ok with them all being in there, as is the case now. Number 57 10:30, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

Agree. The issue will solve itself in three weeks time, when at least 10 will be removed. ― Heb the best (talk) 11:27, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

This is not correct. Usually many parties are included. Go to any other country or election and you will see parties that didn't get any seats. JurijFedorov (talk) 21:40, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Names of Faroese and Greenlandic parties

Not sure if this is the right place to bring this up, as the issues spans several pages, but is seems odd that the Faeroese parties have english party names, while the Greenlandic ones have (mostly) Greenlandic names. The two situations should be equivalent. I am leaning to that they all be renamed to the english versions, as this after all is the english wiki, and the Danish parties also have (mostly) English names. My guess is that English sources are scarce, so it would be difficult to determine what names are used there. ― Heb the best (talk) 20:19, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

The correct place to discuss this is the parties' articles talk pages. There is no requirement for the situations for the Faroes and Greenland to be equivalent, nor even for consistency with a country – what matters is how the parties are best known in English (in Denmark, the Social Democrats and Venstre are known by their English and Danish names respectively. A similar situation is in Israel, where the two main parties are Likud (Hebrew) and Labor (English).

For the Greenlandic parties, Reuters seem to use the same mixture of names as Wikipedia, suggesting the current titles are probably right. Number 57 20:36, 15 May 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. We follow what reliable sources do, even if it seems inconsistent. Bondegezou (talk) 10:12, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

TODO-list

Campaing:

• "Velførdsløftet" from Venstre, reaction from LA+K, and the following speculation about SV-governemnt (prior to Løkke-announcement)
• Paludan stalker case. (short)
• Possible majority for removing "uddanelsesloftet" and from allowing families at Sjælsmark to make food.
• Possible referendum about the defence EU opt-out.
• Asylum-stop from DF, permanent border control from Venstre, 1 mia. used on border control so far.
• Buisness leaders call for less focus on using money
• Talk about if Social Liberal have influence on the immigration policy
• NA-seats up for negotioation, greenlandic demand for a arctic minister
• EU elections: win to V, Hønge case, "Klimatosser" and DF meltdown.
• TV2 documentary about neglect of children in daycare and the following debate.

Topics:

• Newly agreed pensions reforms, and new model from S
• Newly agreed health care reforms
• Climate change
• Immigration

The above is a list of topics that should, to some extend, be covered in this article. It is easy to lose track of the campaign. Feel free to cross them over, one it is added. ― Heb the best (talk) 03:04, 25 May 2019 (UTC)

Talks about a SV-government

The section on the SV government is very good and a great addition to the article. Nevertheless it could use some work: The abbreviations are very inaccessible for the non-Danish reader and I think they would need to be explained at the beginning of the section? alternatively the acronyms(SV, SVR) could be written out of the story and be replaced by Social Democrats and Venstre, or Social Democrats, Venstre and Radikale Venstre? Thomasfowl (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 19:22, 4 June 2019 (UTC)

I have removed SVR from the text. An SV-government is explained in the first paragraph, feel free to improve it, if you think it is insufficient. ― Heb the best (talk) 08:27, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Results table changes

Before this turns into further reverting, I think there are several issues with this version of the results:

1. It's split into separate tables, which doesn't seem necessary (plus it separates the parliament diagram from the table)
2. It adds bar charts and icons to the table, which are not necessary to convey the information – these tables should be as simple and decluttered as possible
3. The bar charts are particularly problematic as they repeat the number of seats on every row, make the seats column very wide (particularly at the bottom where it has just normal numbers) and doubles the height of the rows, nearly doubling the size of the tables, which makes it harder to view effectively on phone screens. Also, having the bar charts for the parties that won seats but not others means that the table is unbalanced as some rows are bigger than others.
4. Several cells near the bottom of the table are left empty because the information being added doesn't fit.

The original table does a good job of conveying the information in a simpler way. Number 57 12:44, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

1. I don't object to it being made a single table.
2. The addition of the change in voter share is important, as it is actually new information, who should be there. I disagree that the tables should be as simple as possible. Instead they should be formatted in the way that helps our readers the most. I think both the composition bars and the colored up/down arrows helps doing that, the latter without taking additional space.
3. The composition bars are a way to incorporate the voter share diagram below the table, and although not quite the same, it helps convey the difference in strength of the different parties in a better way. I don't really see the issue of size as a big one.
4. This problem already existed in the first place. ― Heb the best (talk) 13:13, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Last night I added voter share, composition bars, and increase/decrease symbols to the resulting table, who {ping|Number57} appears to think were not an improvement, to which I strongly disagree. It is a blunder to leave out the changes in voter share, and both the compositions bars and the colored increase/decrease symbols will help our reader to get an overview with only a quick glance. What do other editors think?

Please note, the question is not if they should be a single table or split into three, I don't have strong feelings about that. ― Heb the best (talk) 12:51, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Perhaps we can compromise on adding a column for change in vote share. I can see that this adds some value, but the composition bars are problematic for the many reasons mentioned above. I would also say the coloured icons are clutter and readers can equally quickly see the + and – symbols.

More generally, I find significant changes to results tables such as these quite unhelpful, as they introduce inconsistencies with previous articles (whilst I appreciate not all the previous results tables are exactly identical, none are so visually different items such as bar charts or icons). If we do add a column for change in vote share, it should be added to previous Danish articles too, preferably at the effort of the editor requesting the change from the norm (I am currently slowly going through the articles to update the infoboxes after it seems we reached a consensus to use the legislative election one). Number 57 13:45, 6 June 2019 (UTC)

Electoral system

The section describing the electoral system says that 135 seats in Denmark proper are divided between 10 multi-member constituencies where seats are distributed using proportional representation. However, the results section shows an image where it appears that Denmark is divided into single-member constituencies.

I am not knowledgeable enough to know what that last image means. But it's quite confusing, and I believe some clarification is in order, from those who know more about Danish politics than I do. LunaticLarry (talk) 12:34, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

@LunaticLarry: They are nomination districts, rather than constituencies. I have added a caption to the map, linking to Constituencies in Denmark, where this is explained. Number 57 13:02, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Add a Coalition vote map!!

Add a coalition vote map : it is more understandable than a party based map. 79.16.120.96 (talk) 12:59, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

• Support There is a coalition map on the [2022 Danish general election]] article as well as the 2022 Swedish general election where it's actually the first map shown.--Marginataen (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)

Switcher

Is it possible to add a switcher displaying the performance of each party in the individual opstillingskredse like it is the case on the article about the 2022 Danish general election?--Marginataen (talk) 15:16, 1 January 2023 (UTC)