Talk:2009 European Parliament election/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

13th of June 2009 is a saturday !

After verifications, the date 13-06-2009 falls on a saturday ; this means that at least half of the member states will exceptionally change their usual day of voting ? What will happen ? 82.240.207.81 (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2007 (UTC).

Last time, Holland and Britain voted on Thursday, CZ and Eire on Friday and all the others on Sat or Sunday, so probably again, especially since there is a strong chance that the General Election in the UK will be at the same time 139.184.30.16 10:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Joevsimp 10:48, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe that the countries will change their voting systems. This must be an error in the date.

In fact, even the french wikipedia-site writes: Comme c'est la loi en France, et dans la plupart des pays européens, l'élection se déroulera le dimanche. (Like it is the law in France and most of the European countries, elections will be held on Sunday) (http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lections_europ%C3%A9ennes_de_2009_en_France)

I am also unable to find any information on the sites of the European Parliament or elsewhere to proof these dates. [no username] 18-07-2007

It's true that the different countries are voting on different days although, unusually, they will all count the votes on the same day - so in places like the UK there will be a gap between the day of voting and the results being released. JimJay —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.105.47 (talk) 04:52, 1 February 2009 (UTC)

Number Of Seats

As the table in this article and, amongst others, the individual 2009 election article for the United Kingdom shows a different number of MEPs to be elected in 2009, can someone please clarify how many MEPs are going to be elected? I am usually up on this sort of thing but there appears to be some difference of information here... doktorb _words^deeds 18:05, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Clarified the text, that better?- J Logan ^t: 18:29, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Election date

From the Federal Elections

Here is an approximative translation into English (i am not fluent in German, i've used the dictionary some 50 times ;-)):

The election date for the 2009 European election.

The election time spans, in principle, for every member state, in the same period from Thursday to Sunday, to ensure that the different electoral traditions of the member states can be maintained. In most of the member states, it will be, like in Germany (§ 4 European electoral law i. V. m. [don't know]) on a Sunday

Der Wahltermin für die Europawahl 2009

Die Zeitspanne erstreckt sich grundsätzlich in einem für alle Mitgliedstaaten gleichen Zeitraum von Donnerstag bis Sonntag, um zu gewährleisten, dass die verschiedenen Wahltraditionen in den Mitgliedstaaten beibehalten werden können. In den meisten Mitgliedstaaten wird wie in Deutschland (§ 4 Europawahlgesetz i. V. m. § 16 Satz 2 Bundeswahlgesetz) an einem Sonntag oder gesetzlichen Feiertag gewählt, in Großbritannien und den Niederlanden werden die Wahllokale aber zum Beispiel donnerstags geöffnet.

Bild zeigt ein Kalenderblatt vom Juni 2009 Der Wahlzeitraum soll in einem der ersten Europawahl von 1979 entsprechenden Zeitraum im letzten Jahr der Wahlperiode liegen. Der Zeitraum der ersten Europawahl lag zwischen dem 7. und 10. Juni 1979. Ein Blick auf den Kalender des Monats Juni 2009 führt zu dem Ergebnis, dass für den Wahlzeitraum von Donnerstag bis Sonntag nur die Zeit zwischen dem 4. und 7. Juni in Frage käme, damit zumindest einer der Wahltage in den Mitgliedstaaten innerhalb des oben genannten Zeitraums liegt. Entsprechend wäre der Termin für die Europawahl in der Bundesrepublik Sonntag, der 7. Juni 2009.

Bild zeigt die bisherigen Wahltermine der EuropawahlenSofern es sich jedoch als unmöglich erweisen sollte, die Wahlen während dieses Zeitraums abzuhalten, ist es nach Anhörung des Europäischen Parlaments mög-lich, den Wahlzeitraum durch einen einstimmigen Beschluss des Rates zu ver-legen. Ein solcher Beschluss soll mindestens ein Jahr vor Ablauf der Wahlperiode gefasst werden, dies würde für die nächste anstehende Europawahl Mitte 2008 be-deuten. Ein neuer Wahlzeitraum darf höchstens zwei Monate vor und einen Monat nach dem ursprünglichen Termin liegen. Bisher gab es lediglich zwei solcher Beschlüsse, nämlich einen für die zweite und einen für die dritte Europawahl, durch die der Wahlzeitraum jeweils um eine Woche nach hinten verlegt wurde.

Von dem konkreten Wahltermin unabhängig dürfen die Wahlen der Vertreter für die Vertreterversammlungen nicht früher als 12 Monate, die Wahlen der Bewerber selbst nicht früher als neun Monate vor Beginn des Jahres durchgeführt werden, in dem die Wahl des Europäischen Parlamentes ansteht (§ 10 Abs. 3 Satz 4 Europawahlgesetz). Bezogen auf die kommende Europawahl kann also frühestens ab dem 1. Januar 2008 mit den innerparteilichen Wahlen der Vertreter für die Vertreterversammlungen und ab 1. April 2008 mit den Wahlen der Bewerber begonnen werden.

Die Listen für ein Bundesland sind beim jeweiligen Landeswahlleiter spätestens am 66. Tage, gemeinsame Listen für alle Länder sind dem Bundeswahlleiter spätestens am 68. Tage vor der Wahl bis 18 Uhr schriftlich einzureichen (§ 11 Abs. 1 Europawahlgesetz). Wann dies genau der Fall ist, steht somit erst dann fest, wenn letztendlich der Wahltermin festgelegt worden ist. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.240.207.81 (talk) 18:14, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

That may well be -- however, the Luxembourgian elections (which are held at the same time as the European ones, *always*) and the Bulgarian ones (explicitly stated in the news report to be held at the same time) are on 14 June 2009, so that should be strong evidence in favour of that weekend, instead. —Nightstallion 20:23, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Translating the above into English gives us:

The election date for the 2009 European elections

The period covers in principle all Member States for a similar period from Thursday to Sunday to ensure that the various electoral traditions in the Member States can be maintained. In most Member States as in Germany (Section 4 Europe electoral law in conjunction with Article 16 clause 2 federal election law) on a Sunday or public holiday elected in Britain and the Netherlands, but the polling stations opened Thursday, for example.

Picture shows a calendar page of the June 2009 election period will be one of the first European elections of 1979 corresponding period last year the legislature. The period of the first European elections was between 7 and 10 June 1979. A glance at the calendar for the month of June 2009 leads to the conclusion that the election period from Thursday to Sunday only the time between 4 and 7 June in question would be, so that at least one of the election days in the Member States within the above-mentioned period. According would be the deadline for the European elections in Germany Sunday, the 7th June 2009.

Picture shows the previous election dates, the elections en If it is impossible, however, as should the elections during this period would be, it is after consulting the European Parliament possible, the election period by a unanimous decision by the Council to understand. Such a decision should be at least one year before the expiry of the term focus, it would be forthcoming for the next European elections in mid-2008-show. A new election period should not exceed two months before and one month after the original date. So far there were only two such decisions, namely one for the second and the third one for European elections by the election period, each one week moved to the rear.

From the specific election date, the independent election of representatives to the representative assemblies not earlier than 12 months, the election of the candidate himself is not earlier than nine months before the start of the year, in which the election of the European Parliament is due (Section 10 para 3 Europe sentence 4 election law). Based on the forthcoming European elections may be earlier than 1 January 2008 with the internal elections of representatives to the meetings and representatives from 1 April 2008 with the election of candidates started.

The lists for a federal state in the country are Returning Officer no later than the 66th Days, joint lists for all countries are the Federal Returning Officer no later than the 68th Days before the election to 18 clock writing (Section 11 para 1 Europe electoral law). When this is precisely the case, is therefore only then, if ultimately the election date has been established.

Hope that helps, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Today the German Federal Ministry of the Interior officially set June 7th as election date for European Parliament election. source: [[1]](unfortunately only in German) --Edroeh (talk) 13:30, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Future tag

I removed the {{future election}} tag from the top of the article. I believe it is superfluous, since the very first sentence of the article clearly indicates that this is an upcoming event. The event is well-documented, and the article has plenty of sources. The event will most certainly occur, and there is really no need to have a disclaimer at a premium position in the article. --Kildor (talk) 21:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC) (timestamp corrected)

We have this tag on all future elections articles, so I see no need to remove it from here. BTW, your date seems to be off. —Nightstallion 12:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Well, obviously not: European Parliament election, 2009 (Sweden). But even if it was, it is really no argument to why it should be used. Many articles on "future" subjects do not have a future tag, as UEFA Euro 2008, Eurovision Song Contest 2009 and the year 2010. There is no need for such tag in this article either. --Kildor (talk) 21:16, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I dont understand this tag to be a "disclaimer" for events that might not happen. The problem with these kindof events is that if you look back, say, on the 7th June, you'll find that certain facts that are stated would, by then, be out of date. This is as true for this election as for any other. I think we should be consistent, so I agree it should be kept. Perhaps if you feel strongly you could start a discussion on the template page itself? AndrewRT(Talk) 21:56, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Andrew. It's just an easy way of categorising these articles and having the appropriate "future event" tag at the same time. —Nightstallion 22:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Still, no one have explained to me why it is appropriate to have a future event tag. And there is certainly no guideline saying so. This template does categorize the article in Category:Future elections. But I would say it is rather pointless, since the article is already categorized as Category:2009 elections. --Kildor (talk) 18:15, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

AFAIK, it's Wikipedia policy to clearly identify articles which are not about established events which HAVE already happened but rather speculation about events that WILL happen, and future elections clearly fit that bill. —Nightstallion 12:15, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe you are mistaken. There is no such policy or guideline. And there is really no need for this kind of "warning", since it is perfectly clear from the very first sentence of this article that this election is an upcoming event. BTW, unverified speculation is never acceptable at Wikipedia (WP:CRYSTAL). And any violations to this policy is probably better addressed with the {{crystal}} template. This is however not an issue for this article, since it is based on reliable sources. --Kildor (talk) 00:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Mh, it may well be that this is not official, but it's been used this way for a long time; if you are against this, may I suggest opening the debate on this at some central point? (And letting me know where, if you would be so kind. ;)) I think this should better be discussed elsewhere, as it would affect a lot of articles. —Nightstallion 09:26, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Try WP:CAFET or Template:Future. A lot of articles have these tags, but a lot of them do not. Since the wording of these templates make them look appropriate to every article about the future, many editors add them without thinking why and without reason. --Kildor (talk) 09:43, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, election articles almost universally have this template -- elections can be postponed for various reasons, parties assumed to contest the election can withdraw, etc.; in this special case, we've got sourced speculation over the election's effect on the EP's group structure, so the template certainly applies. —Nightstallion 09:48, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

As I said above, the future tags applies to every article with any content about the future. But it does not mean these tags should be used (in the same way a "historic tag" could be added to any article about a past event). Do you have any actual reasons to include this tag in this article? --Kildor (talk) 09:53, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

(reindent) As I've just said, "in this special case, we've got sourced speculation over the election's effect on the EP's group structure, so the template certainly applies." —Nightstallion 11:54, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Well, so the degree of speculation justifies the tag? And I can't see how this specific template adresses that concern. BTW, have you ever seen any similar banner or "disclaimer" at the top of any article (outside Wikipedia) you've read about an upcoming election? I have not, and I do not understand why it is needed here either. --Kildor (talk) 15:01, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

No, I haven't seen similar boilerplates -- but Wikipedia is not easily comparable to other media or sources of information, if you ask me. Anyway, as I've said, if you would like to end the practice of having these "careful, it's the future" templates, I'd suggest opening a discussion on it at some central point. —Nightstallion 11:27, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

I have brought it up on several places, but with little or no response. And I have removed several tags in the past weeks, and few with any objections. But the last couple of days, I have seen some of my edits reverted, and I should perhaps find another way to proceed with this problem now. But so far, I have not seen any compelling reasons for using these tags, not in this discussion either. --Kildor (talk) 15:23, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Well, it provides for easy categorisation for elections in the current year which are future elections, at the very least. —Nightstallion 15:45, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm..., Category:Future elections versus {{Future election}}. You're right. That'll save you 8 keystrokes... :) --Kildor (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Yep, exactly. ;) —Nightstallion 19:10, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Election date continued

I've been trying to puzzle out the date thing.

• The German site [2] gives a timetable for next year's Parliament sitting [3]: election dates 4-7 June 2009, constitutive session 14-16 July.
• The origin of that timetable is from the Parliament on May 21st 2008, when they debated[4] next year's calendar. They changed the date of one of the April sessions so not to clash with the Orthodox Easter, and MEP Hartmut Nassauer kicked up a bit of a fuss:[5] because of the date of the constitutive session, some MEPs may not get their full pension rights. He spoke in German, but a Google translation is "Mr. President! I want before the vote on a problem the attention that this vote and may still be discussed and resolved. You will find in the proposed calendar a reference to the election date of 2009. What we do not agree. We take note of the only way. However, it is clear from the election date of the subsequent appointment of the constituent session of Parliament in July 2009. In this context, that's why there are colleagues from some Member States concerned, because a closer look is evident that in holding the constituent meeting on 14 July for some people to achieve a pension entitlement required five-year period has not yet been met. In some Member States, not the legislature based on, but a set time, because the legislatures in the Member States have different lengths. I think that the initiative is to ensure care and to resolve this problem, either with regard to the election date or in relation to the date of the inaugural session. Therefore, I would like the legal services of Parliament ask." (my bolding)
• Meanwhile, the Brits are thinking[6] of moving the dates of the 2009 English local elections from "...Thursday 7 May 2009, so that they take place at the same time as the European Parliamentary elections on Thursday 4 June 2009..." (my bolding).
• From memory, the dates of the election are decided by the Act of 20 September 1976[7] but it can be changed if the Member States agree (I think that nearly happened either in 1999 or 2004).
• From the bits above, it may be the case that the elections should be held on 11-14 June, but are being held on 4-7 June (Council decision?).
• Before I hit the books on this one and end up writing an article called Election dates of the European Parliament - which I don't want to do - can anybody shed some light on this?

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 16:34, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Panic over. It's 4-7 June 2009. Here are the sources:

• European Parliament
• UK Office Calendar

Regards, Anameofmyveryown (talk) 17:52, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Aye, I know by now -- the interesting question is why Luxembourg and Bulgaria want to hold them at the same time, but then set them for 14 June. sighs —Nightstallion 22:24, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

electorate figure

the article states x number of citizens will elect the MEPs, the figure cited is the total EU population. Some are ineligible (children, prisoners, metally ill) so could we get an exact figure of the electorate or change the wording?- J Logan ^t: 22:26, 12 July 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the statement 515,000,000 EU citizens will elect over 700 MEPs is dubious:

1. 515,000,000 is an unsupported figure even for the total population of the EU (the CIA World Fact Book estimate for July 2008 is 491,018,683 -- is a 24 million increase expected over the year?)

2. Not all of the population members are citizens

3. Not all of the citizens are entitled to vote

4. Not all of those entitled to vote will do so

I have slightly revised the bald 515,000,000 EU citizens will elect... claim. However we could still do with a more accurate figure for the real size of the electorate. -- Picapica (talk) 17:00, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

Google

Google doing a US election service for the EU here. Don't have time to add myself yet. And this won't come in till 2014, if ever, but makes an interesting read: [8].- _J.Logan`^t: 21:51, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

High profile people

See article here for interesting list of high profile people who are running this year. Worth mentioning?- _J.Logan`^t: 21:55, 3 February 2009 (UTC)

Italy - PD

Why the italian democratic party is listed in the PES column ? They have not decided yet where they are going to seat. --87.5.99.150 (talk) 18:32, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

The full entry PD in the PES impossible. Many members of DP - former Christian Democrats, and even were in EPP-ED. 94.51.177.122 (talk) 19:23, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

They'll join the PES group, which will be called "Alliance of Socialists and Reformists" or something like that. —Nightstallion 13:13, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

BBC simply counts them as socialists. There's another such situation, SC in Latvia, wiki page on it says its not a member of any group. elections2009-results.eu also counts them as others. predict09.eu expects them to be a part of the socialist group. And BBC gives 2 seats to socialists, probably counting them. Its also not listing a party, PS, which elections2009 puts it in UEN , but BBC counts is as other, probably because its listing british conservative party as other, and seems this party will join them in this new group. But if the policy here is to dump everything into other that might not fit, the sum results don't mean much. I think a bit of reliably sourced guesswork as to which parties will go to which blocks, and putting them there immediately might give more meaningful results than a hundred or so 'Other' seats..--93.138.21.204 (talk) 15:44, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Results table

Should this really be using the 2004-2009 groups as the basis for the results? The UK Conservatives and Ulster Unionists (who will be fighting the 2009 election as a single party) will not be fighting the election itself as part of the EPP-ED group (formal notice of withdrawal has been given) - can anyone move this? Similarly the Irish Fianna Fáil will be fighting as part of the Liberals & Democrats, not the UEN.

Also one of the complications that doesn't get much attention is that in several countries coalitions of parties fight the elections on a joint list, with seats divided up within them (and sometimes across different groupings) - anyone know how best to handle this? Timrollpickering (talk) 13:50, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Hey Tim, I enjoy following your blog.

I've been pondering this one myself. It's certainly been the case in the past that there has been group-shuffling after the votes were counted, but I think we're into uncharted territory (someone correct me if this is not the case) with these situations where it's been preordained before the writ has dropped that certain partnerships probably won't be getting back together again (EPP-ED, UEN).

The thing is, the general way EP electoral results have been reflected in the public realm has been in reference to groups as they stood on election day. Most capsule summaries of the 2004 European elections make reference to an ELDR group and an EDD group, even though those were morphed into ALDE and ID, respectively, between the end of the counting of the ballots and the opening of Parliament. The European Parliament's election coverage website for the 2009 vote seems built around this same assumption that the story of the election will be told by seeing which of the current groups go up or down.

I agree with you, though, that this probably won't prove to be the most useful way of conveying the story of this election. For the sake of argument, let's say EPP parties on the whole incur small losses but the Tories and ODS make gains that more than offset them. Is it particularly useful to show the EPP-ED as a growing force? On the contrary, imaging a situation where let's say the EPP parties on the whole grow slightly, but because of the Tories leaving, the net impact is that the new EPP is smaller relative to the EPP-ED that preceded it? Should that be represented as a setback for the Parliament's largest group? Do we consider some sort of (Tory plus ODS plus UEN leftoevers) group as the successor of UEN? Finally, some have even suggested that even with the hiked numerical barrier to group formation, ITS or something equivalently nutty might well be back on the strength of the global recession, and so it could be equally inaccurate to assume that those parties that are currently non-attached will stay that way.

The way this is handled in the last election's Wikipedia article is to do show two different sets of results, one with the post-facto reshuffled groups and one with the electoral effects on the previous parliamentary groups.

But while that might have some bearing on how this article looks a few months from now, I don't know if it provides us with much guidance as how to present information in this article from now until the EP's first day back.

One way might be to split the numbers now, and keep a notional set that reflect what would have happened if nobody moved groups. However, we could introduce a newer, interim set that replaces the EPP-ED column with an EPP column and the NI column with a "final grouping unknown" column, into which we could put the Tories, ODS and FF as well as the various upstart uncommitted parties that polls show will likely win seats (like List Dedecker, Party for Freedom... any others? Libertas' French outfit?).

The other option might be to try and do a set of numbers based more closely on Europarties rather than political groups, and again have a "no Europarty" column. That would have the benefit of aligning with shared manifesto commitments, no?

Thoughts? 21:53, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

A tricky situation. The easiest one, to which I assume there's no opposition, is to merge the Conservative and Ulster Unionist totals as they will be fighting as one force.

With the EPP-ED at least, the Conservatives and ODS are not just announcing they won't be sitting post election but have actually undergone the formal process to leave so that they will not be part of the EPP-ED election campaign (such as it is - here in the UK the parliament groupings are invisible in elections) and it would be definitely wrong to state that a vote for either is a vote for the EPP-ED (also here in the UK the -ED bit is always either ignored or dismissed as a nominal entity so to say it's a vote at least for the European Democrats is dubious IMHO).

I suppose a "provisional" column for MER/European Conservatives or whatever name is used would be best for the Conservatives and ODS but we've also got the question of just how far other parties like PiS (currently in UEN) are actually onboard at this stage.

Fianna Fáil is a slightly different case as they are moving to an already existing group (and affiliating to the wider Europarty) so I don't think there would be a problem with moving them to the ELDR (well other than them not being a liberal party but that's something the Euro Liberals have ignored...) but there have been some media reports suggesting the MEPs (particularly their leader who is also the UEN co-leader) are trying to drag their heels and feel they've been bounced into this by the leadership back home. Once the relevant paperwork's lodged though I guess having them in the ELDR column will make sense, and that leaves a UEN rump.

Has the realignment of the Italian right been reflected in the current Parliament or are the National Alliance still sitting in UEN? If they are then the Party of Freedoms is a clear precedent to follow.

Finally what about parties that don't have any current MEPs or may not get any, but have clear links with the Europarties - e.g. Alliance Party of Northern Ireland and the Social Democratic and Labour Party who would clearly be in ELDR and PES respectively? Timrollpickering (talk) 08:28, 21 March 2009 (UTC)

Okay it's been a while but can I suggest that we put Fianna Fáil (if they win anything at all) in the ALDE column since they fought the election as such. This is also how at least the BBC have covered them.

The UK Conservatives, Czech ODS and Polish PiS are more difficult because the new group has been announced so to say these parties were elected under the EPP or UEN banner is wrong, but the new group hasn't been actually formed. Do we put them in Non-Inscrits (as the BBC did) or add a column for the proposed new group? Timrollpickering (talk) 10:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Election days map

The Indian page as a map, they have a lot more but perhaps it is something worth considering? Or does it just add sod all to the article? Probably the latter but it may be useful in allowing people to quickly see when it is where...- _J.Logan`^t: 09:36, 23 April 2009 (UTC)

Number elected

I thought we were just going to elect the Nice number of MEPs and then they stay on as uaul when Lisbon is in force then we elect the Lisbon numbers in 2014. But this article (at the bottom) says one idea is to elect the Libson number and the extras above Nice will be observers until Lisbon comes into force. Have they not decided this yet? Anyone know any more?- _J.Logan`^t;: 08:58, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

The latter is correct, although it was apparently only decided two weeks before the elections.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have answers, I have suggestions to your questions: please let's discuss it.

Hi JLogan,

thanks for your contribution to wikipedia:

(cur) (prev) 09:31, 23 April 2009 JLogan (talk | contribs) m (50,633 bytes) (exactly how is an election on the other side of the world going to influence a transnational election in Europe which doesn't even seem to be influenced by its own domestic politics???)

I saw you deleted my contribution to European Parliament election, 2009:

(cur) (prev) 07:13, 23 April 2009 Maurice Carbonaro (talk | contribs) m (50,684 bytes) (Added * Indian general election, 2009 that is taking place right now. Results of those elections may influence european ones that will take place at the beginning of june 2009.) (undo).

In order to try to answer to your (sarcastic?) question (with three question marks) that motivated your deletion of my contribution, please let's switch to a discussion the topic in the European parliament discussion page.

Thanks for your attention.
Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:02, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear JLogan,

As far as I am concerned this is the first election involving so many voters in India (about 700 million) after:

• the Indo-US civilian nuclear agreement that has taken place july 18, 2005,
  
• the Indian presidential election, 2007
  

• (In the meantime, there has been a 2008 Lok Sabha vote of confidence) and after the

• United States presidential election, 2008.
  

Depending on who will be elected in India and which political parties will have significant votes, yes, I think that european political observers will cast their vote consequently.
We live in a globalized world with "local political news" of any country at internet surfers fingertips.
So I don't see why

"elections that take place on the other side of the world"

shouldn't influence

"other parts of the world".

The fact that according to you

"(...) Europe doesn't even seem to be influenced by its own domestic politics (...)"

looks like a very personal and not neutral point of view to me.
But anyway, I am not offended, let's try to discuss further the topic please without biting each other if possible.
Thanks for your attention.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 09:17, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Look, the average European won't even be voting. If they do, it won't even be because of the manifestos put forward by the European political groups. They will vote on national issues, on pro/anti EU lines and on the financial crisis. What they will not be doing is looking at the Indian election results for a lead on who to vote for. EU politics barely gets reported, with the exception of the US no other countries will exactly hit the headlines. India may be very important from an academic and professional point of view but most people don't even know (or care) who the current PM is, let alone be basing their vote on who the next one will be. In fact, I can't imagine may people who would, people vote for issues that affect them. They vote on whether they can get a job, social security, pension, more income, safer streets and so on. I think the idea that Europeans will be watching, let alone be affected by the Indian election is pure fantasy, even in this "globalised" world we live in.- _J.Logan`^t: 10:32, 24 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear _J.Logan`^t,

Different versions of proposed european constitutions.

The red "normalized" gaussian curve in the function graph represents what the "average european voter" is according to JLogan?

64 years ago, in 1945, Turin and Milan were liberated by the CNL (Committee of National Liberation) and the Allied Forces.
Today is a national holiday in Italy.
The 1948 italian democratic Constitution declared itself to be "built on the Resistance".
And the very 21st article of the italian constitution is dedicated to the:

• Freedom of information,
• press,
  
• speech,
• and thought.
  
  

Please try not to take it as a personal attack but talking about "average europeans" like you are inviting me to do makes me honestly think like we are slipping somehow in a plot similar to that one of the U.S. Idiocracy movie (2006).
I don't think we have the right not to disclose to the european citizens and to the political observers of the rest of the world such an important hyperlink like that one that was existing in the "See also" section of this article:

Indian general election, 2009.

The one you cancelled.
thumb|250px|right|The promotional poster for Idiocracy. Based on which kind of information you can declare that:

"(...) the average European won't even be voting (...)"?

"(...) if they do (...)"?

Based on which kind of certainty you can be "absolutely sure" for what or who they will vote?

"(...) They will vote on national issues '(...)"?

"(...) on pro/anti EU lines (...)"?

"(...) on the financial crisis. (...)"?

For example I will be voting for sure, so why are talking about europeans in third person plural: "they" ?
Are you implying that you will not vote?

So because of the "fact" that you personally deem that...

"(...) What they will not be doing is looking at the Indian election results for a lead on who to vote (...)"

"(...) They vote on whether they can get a job, social security, pension, more income, safer streets and so on.(...)"

"(...) most people don't even know (or care) who the current PM is (...)"

"(...) let alone be affected by the Indian election is pure fantasy (...)"

... this hyperlink to the ongoing Indian election should be censored?

I personally don't know which "other countries will exactly hit the headlines" but we are not wikinews here but wikipedia.
And we are not talking about a journalistic headline here but about a simple hyperlink thrown at the end of the article in a "See also" section.

"I am enough of an artist to draw freely upon my imagination.
Imagination is more important than knowledge .
Knowledge is limited. Imagination encircles the world".

- Albert Einstein

You are obviously free to "think the idea that Europeans will be watching, let alone be affected by the Indian election is pure fantasy , even in this "globalised" world we live".

I will answer you reminding you a quote from Albert Einstein (1879-1955):

Imagination is more important than knowledge

— Einstein

.

If you arrived at the end of what I wrote I really appreciate your patience.

Please have a nice weekend.
Hugs.

Maurice Carbonaro (talk) 07:57, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
P.S.: I think that the right acronym for Member of Parliament should be MP and not PM.

Sorry but what on earth is this? You seem overly preoccupied with whether I am counting myself as a voter rather and putting up pictures than my argument. The idea this is censorship is rather degrading to the real cases of censorship, this is removing a hyperlink that has nothing to do with the topic. As for the basis of my assertions, it is on my own and other's academic research into voting behaviour, and most of all good old common sense. Take a walk down the street, ask someone what they think of the Indian election. Most people won't even give a toss let alone know about it - and my area has a lot of people from India here anyway. In fact, ask them what they think of the European elections, you'd get a similar response even to that. Finally, "Imagination is more important than knowledge" - on Wikipedia you can't cite your imagination I'm afraid. This is an encyclopaedia. In fact, that is another test for you. Fine me a reliable source that says that European voters will base their vote on the outcome of the Indian election.

PS, it was PM because I was talking about the Prime Minister, hence the singular.- _J.Logan`^t: 11:46, 25 April 2009 (UTC)

Hey, I think you are both right. Indian elections does influence politics in Europe and vice versa. We live in a globalized world so no country is totally isolated from the rest. However, it is also true that the average European voter knows nothing about the Indian elections. However, they may be indirectly affected by it. Indian elections influence Indian politics, which may be a factor in foreign and trade policy of EU countries, which is made by national/EU parties, which people ultimately vote for. So there's a connection, it's just very indirect. --Bizso (talk) 19:09, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Links to Country-Specific Subpages

I have no particular beef with the column presentation of the election schedule, but whoever made that change eliminated all of the links to the country-specific EU election 2009 subpages, and I am not skilled enough with Wikipedia to figure out how to bring back those links while retaining the column format, so I simply reverted to the old presentation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.86 (talk) 18:25, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Results

What are we doing with results on this page? there are no official results until 2000 (UTC) this evening. Anything that is here must be exit polls or unofficial results. Removing all. Physchim62 (talk) 18:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

It's easier to add and correct in one hour. There is a current tag. This is under construction. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:53, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Rather add a short note stating that these aren't official or final than go bezerk and delete stuff. Thank you. (Btw, this is probably the best resource for preliminary results on the web...) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.2.45 (talk) 18:54, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with that. If we had to wait two days I would understand it. It's only one hour. -- Magioladitis (talk) 18:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

We're not here to be the "best place for preliminary results on the web" (Wikinews is that way). We're here to give results which will be encyclopedic. If people make mistakes, that's not a huge problem, but we should refrain from giving out results which we know are not reliable. Physchim62 (talk) 19:12, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

In which country they are not? In the Netherlands for example all accept the result. The same goes for Cyprus. -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:17, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

For one hour, you wish to throw WP:RS out the window. You should be on Wikinews, not here. Physchim62 (talk) 19:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Can you be more specific? As I said Cyprus' results were announced in all media. Why are they not RS? -- Magioladitis (talk) 19:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Nowbody knows Wikinews. People come to Wikipedia for the results. It's the only site with an overview of the results in all the countrys. Most media only talk about the elections in their country. --213.3.68.106 (talk) 20:51, 7 June 2009 (UTC) http://www.elections2009-results.eu/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.210.2.45 (talk) 21:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a problem with the 'Total' line of the results - it comes from a prediction made on one site several hours ago, but which doesn't define which parties have been put in which groupings. But that prediction is badly out with the totals put in the table from each country - for instance, the PES group adds up to 182, but it says 159. Shouldn't the 'total' line just be the true total of what it says above, and then get adjusted as and when parties move between groupings? Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 10:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's locate the problem. In which countries they are different results? -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I see a problem with the Conservative Party in UK and results in Ireland are different in BBC. -- Magioladitis (talk) 10:38, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

You are right. Greece is wrong in elections2009-results.eu. Official results give 8-8-2-2-1-1 and not 9-7-2-2-1-1. Magioladitis (talk) 10:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the problem is that the elections2009-results.eu pages are from exit polls, not official results - they, for instance, predict Labour in Great Britain would get 11 seats, when they have got (from official results) 13. I think those pages should only be used when no official results have been found yet; and therefore the totals (from those exit polls) shouldn't be used at all. As you say, there are also problem with what grouping the UK Conservatives come under (because they were in one group in the previous parliament, but have announced they want to form a new one), and probably other parties too. I think we should add up the totals of what's in the table now, mark it as 'provisional', hope that as people update other lines they will update the total too, and occasionally revisit it to get the 'total' line correct, in case they haven't. Peace Makes Plenty (talk) 11:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Any chance that we have official results in all countries later today? When are the groups formed? -- Magioladitis (talk) 11:12, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

UK results

Why are the UK results apparently the last to be published, although they were among the first countries to vote? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 23:49, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Because they vote in pretty complicated system and apparently because they only started counting today. -- Jinxo (talk) 01:04, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Do they have a complicated system? I thought Great Britain voters have just to choose one out of the given party lists, just like e.g. Germany. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There are three main reasons for the final UK results being delayed:

Although the UK votes on a Thursday it follows the European directive of not releasing the results until the last polling anywhere in the EU (Italy, stopping at 21:00 BST on Sunday), and doesn't start the count until just before then - my local count began at 15:00 BST, but didn't finish and declare until 21:00 BST.

In Na h-Eileanan Siar/the Western Isles Sabbatarianism is strong and consequently the council absolutely refuses to count the vote there on a Sunday (see Religion in the Outer Hebrides for more details). As a result the official results for the Scotland constituency are not available until the next day (although as the Western Isles electorate is tiny it's normally possible to informally calculate the result from returns for the rest of Scotland).

Northern Ireland also doesn't count until Monday and that constituency uses the Single Transferable Vote which is complicated so the full count wasn't completed until late in the afternoon. Timrollpickering (talk) 10:55, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Irish Results

Just in case anyone's wondering why I left a comment in the Ireland section - elections2009-results.eu is reporting Sinn Fein winning a seat, despite the latest count having the candidate 400 votes ahead (out of a 400k turnout) with at least two counts remaining. I felt this was reason enough to dismiss elections2009-results as a source (for Ireland at least), and I replaced it with RTÉ (which is very reliable, being the national broadcaster). I put in a comment just to make people aware of this (so they didn't go read elections2009-results, then update the Irish section based on it). Full results probably won't be in until tomorrow afternoon/evening, when all counts have been completed (except in the Dublin constituency, where they're counting into the night). Thanks! Fin©™ 00:28, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Results by country

I know there's loads of excellent detail in this page already, but is it possible to do it so it shows seat change as well as seats won? AndrewRT(Talk) 01:41, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, the totals do already so I don't see why we couldn't just replicate that - something like "42 (PAR) +23" (i.e. add the seat change after the party code). The only issue I can think of is that there may be a bit of WP:OR involved - for example, the UK's number of MEPs has gone down, so technically the Conservatives have more seats proportionality, but on raw numbers their seats have actually gone down. Assuming there was a source for seat changes, however, I'd have no objection. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 01:46, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Smer-SD

Why is the Slovak party Smer-SD between Non-Inscrits? They are regular Socialists. They used to be out of PES, but that was settled pretty long ago. --Liberal Nationalist 03:37, 8 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal Nationalist (talk • contribs)

I moved it. Look at this source: [9] —Preceding unsigned comment added by Liberal Nationalist (talk • contribs) 04:01, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Virtual MEPs

Is anyone reporting on the numbers for the observers MEPs? Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:45, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

According to the article Pirate Party, this party will get one of the Swedish observer seats. (Unless User:Nightstallion's expectation turns out to be true (see below).) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:02, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

UK Conservatives

Per the BBC, the Conservatives in the UK are classed as non-inscrits until their new group is formed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared/bsp/hi/elections/euro/09/flash/html/eu.stm and click on "United Kingdom" shows no EPP-ED members. -- LondonStatto (talk) 04:06, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Austria

Just as a heads-up – there'll likely be one more seat for the Greens, at the expense of the Social Democrats, in Austria. And Hans-Peter Martin is certainly not I/D – he's too pro-European for that. He'll stay independent, I'm pretty sure. —Nightstallion 13:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

This was edited on the page and I have edited the total count and the new grouping table as appropriate. Is there any news outlet reporting this as true, with verifiable numbers? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.158.232 (talk) 17:34, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

First source I could find was http://www.kurier.at/nachrichten/324707.php . —Nightstallion 17:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

It's official now: http://www.orf.at/090609-39192/39194txt_story.html – They've now counted part of the votes and the second mandate is assured, with the SPÖ losing one. —Nightstallion 06:38, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Sweden

Another heads-up – the Pirate Party is close to winning a second seat, so final results might change here, too. —Nightstallion 13:24, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Sweden is marked as "completed". -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:35, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So's Austria, which is still wrong, as the postal votes won't come in and be counted for another week. —Nightstallion 14:27, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Still have some votes to count in Sweden?

I heard they'll definitely be winning a second 'virtual' MP seat. But are they really that close to an actual second seat with 'just' 7.1%?--93.138.21.204 (talk) 15:48, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I had misheard that – they'll get an observer. —Nightstallion 15:56, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Discrepancies in Overall Party Results

Granting that not all results are finalized yet, the official EU website for the election lists different results than does the BBC, than does this WIKI article; all 3 disagree so far (plus, the MEP totals in this article does not add up to 736), suggest an "In progress" tag be added to article:

• EU site: http://www.elections2009-results.eu/en/new_parliament_en.html
• BBC site: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/bsp/hi/elections/euro/09/flash/html/eu.stm

The main problem is that the BBC site is simply predicting which parties will join which groups, and they're guessing wrong on many counts. HPM (Austria) is not I/D, and the Tories and ODS are NI for now; the PD in Italy is not yet a member of the PES group, and so on. —Nightstallion 15:58, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There's a further problem, I have just seen 3 different numbers given around other wiki articles on the number of MPs of particular groups currently in European Parliament for instance: Political groups of the European Parliament gives 217 as the number of PES MPs, Member of the European Parliament gives 218, European Parliament gives 215. PES page , if you sum up MPs of member parties, having some confidence that I didn't mess up, gives 218 for the entire group (note, this would include the italian PD, which we currently list as Other, so either we should decide to move PD to the PES column, or calculate difference of seats towards a smaller number, like 201 for actual PES members. Now I would have done the former, and then started the discussion here about it, if only the numbers on the graph giving 218 , Member of the European Parliament were internally consistent. But I checked and rechecked, and my GNU bc is insisting that the sum of those numbers is 787 not 785 (presuming one cryptic and poorly visible number is 4. I guess I could decide to imagine seeing a 2 there instead..). And I have no idea which single seat is treated differently in the list of PES member parties to get 217 instead. Or 215... So this is just getting too complicated, I have no idea on how to calculate seat differences in comparison to previous results.. 93.138.21.204 (talk) 18:08, 8 June 2009 (UTC) Oh, and interestingly none are identical to these: http://www.europarl.europa.eu/members/expert/groupAndCountry.do?language=en I guess they tend to regroup with time, so other are dated. I'll go with these ones. And they do Include PD in the "Socialist Group in the European Parliament" Perhaps we should rename the column? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.138.21.204 (talk) 18:14, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

France

Regarding the results of the Left Front in France, they have technically only won 4 seats. However, they supported the Overseas Alliance list in the Overseas constituency which has won a seat. Similarily in 2004, the French Communist Party technically only won 2 seats and the Communist Party of Reunion (overseas)won 1. This overseas MEP will sit with the Left Front in the GUE-NGL group. I hope this puts an end to any confusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.79.128.179 (talk) 15:57, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

So, the sum of seats is 737 not 736?--93.138.21.204 (talk) 16:16, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, the sum is 736. There must be a discrepancy somewhere else. (perhaps again, in the French results)I'm positive however that the Left Front plus the Overseas Alliance (which is really just their overseas referent) has won 5 seats. I believe I've sited it too. (ill check on that though)--24.79.128.179 (talk) 16:29, 8 June 2009 (UTC) I've found the error. The UMP has in fact won 29 seats rather than 30.--24.79.128.179 (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

hehe, I was just correcting it :) 93.138.21.204 (talk) 16:40, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Differences between official results and ours

To clarify, I am referring to elections2009-results.eu as the official results page.

• Cyprus: They have DIKO as other – but AFAIK there's no reason to assume they won't continue to sit with the liberals.
• France: They have Alliance des Outre-mers as others, but we know they're EUL-NGL, so that's okay.
• Ireland: The official site claims result of all 12 seats, but that can't be right, as they're still counting AFAIK.
• Latvia: They have the Civic Union as UEN, not as other – though I really don't know why, if they're so careful with France and Cyprus...? Still, it's a reasonable assumption, as they split from TB/LNNK.
• Romania: They have Basescu as an indep. separately in EPP, which is what we should do, too – but they have 2 UDMR in EPP and 1 in EFA...? I assume László Tőkés will sit with the EPP now, though?
• Slovakia: They have SNS in UEN...?

So, what do we do with those discrepancies? —Nightstallion 18:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

There is a big possibility that DIKO joins PES according to this article (Politis On-line, May 17 2009). Another article ((June 8 2009) says that Cyprus sends "two MEPs to the Socialist group" meaning DIKO and EDEK. -- Magioladitis (talk) 21:34, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

According to this one (Simerini, 9/6/2009) DIKO officially applied to PES. 2/3 of PES parties have to agree with that. The Party of European Socialists will decide if EDEK can join the Socialist Group in the European Parliament. I am moving DIKO to "other". -- Magioladitis (talk) 22:17, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

At least one MEP from Latvian Harmony Center will join GUE/NGL. He is the ex-secretary of the CP of Latvia. -- Magioladitis (talk) 06:46, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Flags in "Overview" section

Is it just me or do the flags in the "overview" section really make it a too-colorful mess? --Thorsten1 (talk) 18:25, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Italy / South Tyrol

PD gained 21 and NOT 22 seats, beacause the 22th seat is actually the seat of the South Tyrolean People's Party, which is part of the EPP (this was maybe confusing, because language minorities have to do a lists agreement connection in order to elect a MEP without having to reach 4% of voters on national basis). I think it's necessary to move SVP in the EPP column independently from the PD. Please see here. User:Skafa/Sign 18:42, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Ulster Unionists

Should they be included here as the "Ulster Unionist Party"? They are currently in alliance with the Conservatives and campaigned together in Northern Ireland under the banner "Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.239.158.232 (talk) 21:52, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

No, they contested the election in alliance with the Conservatives, as you say, and should be listed under their correct title (Ulster Conservatives and Unionists - New Force). The manifesto was shared between the UUP and Conservative Party. I will ammend accordingly. Danfolkestone (talk) 22:51, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

Polish PiS

In the run-up to polling Law and Justice (PiS) joined with both the Czech Civic Democrats (ODS) and UK Conservatives in announcing they would jointly form the core of a new grouping in the parliament, and thus not sit in the current UEN or EPP-ED groups respectively. I earlier moved PiS from the UEN column to the Non-Inscrits, in line with the ODS and Conservative precedent (and for that matter placing Fianna Fáil in the ALDE column not UEN) but it was moved back without explanation.

I don't want to get into an edit war, but I think presenting the results as a mixture between the groupings in the outgoing parliament and the groupings under which parties actually fought the election is the worst of all worlds. The 2009 situation of group changes being announced before the elections is historically unusual. (Would a column for the parties that fought the election seeking the new grouping be a viable option?) Timrollpickering (talk) 23:54, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

We could make a section under the table and then remove it when final decisions are made. -- Magioladitis (talk) 00:21, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I think we should keep it as it is for now. When the new alliance is unveiled, then, I believe, we should change it so that, for example, not only the Conservatives, PiS, and ODS are given as European Conservatives/MER/whatever, but that so too would be List Dedecker, Indrek Tarand, and all the others whose membership isn't yet nailed down. That wouldn't be anachronistic, as, with the exception of 'Europarties', these alliances (including the PES and EPP) are only formed after the new Parliament is sworn in. Bastin 13:54, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with both of you! There is a good argument for including (in prose) well-sourced statements that certain parties will not join the same alliances that they had in the last parliament (eg, the UK Tories). On the other hand, the only practical solution for the table is to include:

• MEPs from parties which were represented in the last parliament in the same alliances that those parties joined in the last parliament;
• MEPs from "new" parties among the non-inscrits unless there is a very clear reason to join them to one of the existing alliances.

The parliament won't be convened until 14 July, so we need some sort of solution for the interim. Physchim62 (talk) 15:00, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Irish Socialist Party

I moved the Irish Socialist Party from the EUL/NGL column to the Other column because I can find no citation confirming that Higgins intends to join the EUL/NGL. The SP belongs to a Trotskyist international that has never elected anyone to the European Parliament (http://www.socialistparty.net/index.php/news/1-latest-news/188-socialist-partys-election-results-report.html) and that has sharp conflicts with many of the other EUL/NGL constituent parties, so I see no reason to assume anything. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.66 (talk) 19:40, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

I admit that putting Higgins in the GUE-NGL column was a bit of an educated guess. However, you are probably right that there is no reason to assume that Higgins will sit with the GUE-NGL. After the European Election of 1999, a Trotskyist coalition from France managed to elect 5 MEPs. Rather than sit with the French Communist Party in the GUE-NGL, they decided to sit as independents. It should have occured to me that Joe Higgins will likely do this too. So, thank you for pointing out the mistake. --24.79.128.179 (talk) 21:57, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

ALDE swing

Does anyone know the ALDE swing of the voting share? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

To look at the larger picture: are we sure the PES and EPP swings are correct? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:20, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Netherlands

Someone removed the PVV as observer parlement member According to dutch media it's still the question if PVV or PvdD (party for the animals (yes really, a animal party...) gets it. But according to dutch election law, the seat can only go to a party with already seats in parlement. So if the minister does not change the rules for the PvdD it's 99% sure it goes PVV See no point in not already putting here it's going PVV and NI. What are the views here on this subject? BasBr1 (talk) 12:13, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

afaik the Dutch government decided to exclude parties which are not elected (based on 25 Dutch seats), but this decision still needs to be accepted by the Dutch parliament. However, the Dutch electoral commission gave the advice to inlude parties that are above 75% of the election threshold. This would make PvdD the winner. Grioghair (talk) 12:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, where to begin. First it's already decided the the lissabon seat will be a rest seat. Then we need to follow the election law "kieswet". We got a election threshold and the PvdD did not meet it, so they wont get rest-seat based on that. Also i advise you to read It needs a law change to give the seat to PvdD. We can discuse this very long or very short, but for the moment it's 100% going PVV (talk) BasBr1 14:11, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This decision is not a law yet. This situation is not described in the 'Kieswet'. As i stated earlier, the Dutch parliament still needs to make a decision, which is the normal procedure in every democracy. The letter by the government to the parliament even refers to the advice by the electoral commission, where it is suggested to include the parties with more than 75% of the threshold. This is conform the 'Kieswet' regarding municipal election. So to me it is not clear at all. We will see what happens Grioghair (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Let met be clear: give me an external reliable source (aan geencommentaar is not a reliable source, it's a blog), that is going to be the PVV for sure and I'm satisfied. Until that time this original research and/or speculation. C mon (talk) 14:27, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The letter of the Government to the Parliament is clear: the rest seat will go to PVV Otto (talk) 15:22, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Your turning this discussion on it's head. Give me a reliable source or president that the "kieswet" wont be followed for European elections in 2009. The 26th seat is a rest seat if you follow normal election rules. Without a ruling that some other rules apply for this seat, your doing the speculation. If you follow the rules, it's simple mathematics that it goes PVV. BasBr1 (talk) 15:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The observer seat cannot be awarded to the PvdD, because it didn't meet the election threshold, including the threshold for 26 seats (3.846%). The question at first was whether the PvdD would be awarded the seat if it did not meet the 25 seat election threshold (4%), but did meet the 26 seat election threshold (3.846%). Some unofficial results after the election gave the PvdD a share of vote between 3.846% and 4%, but now the official results are in, it is clear that the seat is not going to the PvdD, but to the PVV instead. Awarding a seat to a party that did not meet the election threshold (be it the 25 seat one or the 26 one) is quite impossible in Dutch and most other election law. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 15:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

This is not impossible. Article P 8 of the Dutch Electoral Law states that this is in fact possible. The confusion arises from the fact that this threshold is not a really a threshold, it is actually a divider. Grioghair (talk) 16:01, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

You are indeed right. The advice of the Electoral Commission: http://www.kiesraad.nl/nl/Adviezen/Adviezen_van_de_Kiesraad/Adviezen-Adviezen_van_de_Kiesraad-2009/Advies_extra_zetel_in_het_Europees_parlement.html

Beware that the Electoral Commission advised to award the seat as it were a rest seat, and gave a suggestion to include parties that were above the 75% election threshold. So the Cabinet is right when it says that the Electoral Commission agrees with its proposal to award the seat to a party that did hold the original threshold; the Cabinet just doesn't follow up to the suggestion of the Electoral Commission. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 16:02, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Exactly. So its up to the parliament for now. I don't think it is likely that the parliament does not follow the cabinets position, because it will probably create a riot when the rules are tweaked afterwards Grioghair (talk) 16:14, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Someone any idea when and if the Dutch parliament make a ruling on this matter Or will the kiesraad announce the seat tomorrow? BasBr1 (talk) 16:33, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

A law proposal will be made for the parliament when (and if) the Lisbon treaty will come in effect Grioghair (talk) 16:58, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

ok, reference? Here is my proposal. Let's put PVV or PvdD in NI, with a reference to the discussion in the Netherlands. BasBr1 (talk) 17:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

@ BasBr1: How about reading to letter of the government to the parliament?

De kieswet voorziet er niet in dat gedurende de zittingsperiode van een vertegenwoordigend orgaan één of meer zetels worden toegekend. Voor de toewijzing van de extra Nederlandse zetel in het Europees Parlement is derhalve een eenmalige wettelijke voorziening noodzakelijk. Een wetsvoorstel zal worden ingediend zodra het Verdrag van Lissabon in werking treedt.

Quite clear. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 18:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

@Fentener Be nice now. Ok put Undecided with reference on it. Everyone happy? BasBr1 (talk) 18:54, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

No, still mad as hell! (j/k) Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Article P 8 of the Kieswet is not applicable since the number of seats conquested after the Treaty of Lisbon is in effect is 26. Article P 8 goes about community councils with less then 19 seats. The applicable article is P 7 based on Y 2 which applies the rules for the election of the Tweede Kamer to the election for the European Parliament. The second part of Article P 7 obviously creates a treshold of, in this case, 1/26 of the votes. There is no room for confusion about that. The advice of the Kiesraad was a mistake because it violates the Kieswet. Otto (talk) 18:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The Kieswet doesn't apply in this case, as the Kieswet does not foresee in an apportionment of seats during a legislative period. A separate law in this special case is therefore needed, as specified by the Kiesraad and the Cabinet. Fentener van Vlissingen (talk) 19:09, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I have changed the sentence above the table and included the word likely to allow for other possibilities: 1st Lisbon could be denied, 2nd EP could deny observers, 3rd Dutch parliament could decide otherwise. Possibly seats for other countries also cope with the same problem, where it is not sure which party will get te seat. Also see my comment in the section Observer_MEPs. Grioghair (talk) 19:30, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The chair of the Kiesraad said today that who will get the seat is not decided yet. See article in the Volkskrant. C mon (talk) 11:57, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

If you read the report of the Kiesraad it says it does not matter if the elections were run on 26 seats or the current agreement. Both cases it goes PVV. Because in the final result de PvdD only got 3,5% of the vote. BasBr1 (talk) 14:37, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

3.5% is still more then 75% of the election divider. There is still some speculation in the media how this issue will be resolved. However, I would be surprised if this would not result in a seat for PVV. If just the cabinet and parliament would be a bit faster with their decisions, then there would not be such akward situation. Bit ironic though, two parties that don't want the Netherlands to have the 26th seat, which are now fighting for it., Grioghair (talk) 15:25, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

BTW i updated the Netherlands results page. Could use some help. So if someone has some time, take a look BasBr1 (talk) 15:35, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm very sorry, but no decision has been made yet by parliament. I've reverted. C mon (talk) 20:28, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

You are not sorry, C mon, but just an hypocrite. Otto (talk) 22:01, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible political groupings

This section in the article is very speculative at this point. It is OK to state some possible group changes, but is it necessary to include a table which is incomplete and very much like the table above it? This table does also not correspond to the rules of the EP and the speculation stated above. The MER is shown with less then 7 states, which is not enough for a group. Grioghair (talk) 14:59, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. If your including MER. You should also include ITS (what has the required 7 states, but not the required 28 seats) The possible political grouping is pure speculation. BasBr1 (talk) 23:00, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Observer_MEPs

The Observer_MEPs section is currently 100% unsourced, i.e. completely WP:OR. In my opinion, it should be removed or backed up./85.194.44.18 (talk) 17:49, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I would like to point out that the following sentence is not correct: "The following 18 parties (additionally) receive seats for observers, who are planned to become full MEPs if the Lisbon treaty goes into force". Only after the ratification of Lisbon will these candidates become observers, and only if the EP agrees. They will become full MEPS after an yet to be prepared protocol is ratified by all EU members. See [10]. Grioghair (talk) 19:05, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

That's strange. There were references which claimed they would become observers at once. So which reference is more trustworthy? Is there an official statement from the EP perhaps? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Here's the reference I meant: "Eighteen 'phantom' MEPs will do no work for two years". (ref. 100 in the article). I realise it might agree with what your source says; apparently they presume that the Treaty will come into force early next year and the protocol only two years after.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:16, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

It's not WP:OR in my opinion, because it comes into play when talking about European Parliament elections for 2009-2014. It was part of the election, no matter how you look at it. As for the description. Perhaps a section about the role, the Lisbon treaty played in the election.

It most certainly is original research to, instead of finding official results listing virtual MEPs, ourselves look at the percentages, apply our interpretation of the d'Hondt and other methods, and assume which parties will receive seats. That is what seems to be the case here. /Coffeeshivers (talk) 06:49, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no view on what happened in other countries with the advise of the European commission to decide this elections on what to do with those extra seats. The thing is, it doesn't need to be original research in all the countries. The Dutch government decided it would not be possible to already give the seat away and it need a special law to do so. Other countries system could be different. BasBr1 (talk) 09:21, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

It is most certainly not OR to apply a well known mathematical system to a well known set of election results and arrive at a conclusion. Would you say that computing the value of g on the Moon is original research? Similarly, taking the 51st through the 54st quotients in the D'Hondt method from Spain is not OR. Everyone can do it with the election results and a simple spreadsheet, or even use my program ADSVote. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 11:13, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

So, you are using data, applying a method to reach a conclusion. If that is not original research, what is it? I'd like to point to WP:SYN, clearly stating "Do not put together information from multiple sources to reach a conclusion that is not stated explicitly by any of the sources." That is what is done here. We have e.g. used one source claiming that Sweden allocates MEPs by the d'Hondt method, another source that lists the full election results, and a third source that claims Sweden will get two more seats if the Lisbon treaty is passed. From that, it has been concluded that those seats wuold then go to (S) and (PP). That is undoubtedly OR./Coffeeshivers (talk) 18:11, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm trying to find when the policy changed because I'm pretty sure that when I arrived here (back in 2004) there was some section that specifically allowed synthesis for certain things like simple mathematical derivations. Nonetheless, I have found an additional source for the Spanish claim, a newspaper which specifically states the allocation of the new seats: [11]. Will add it to the main page soon. Habbit: just shy, not antisocial - you can talk to me! 18:29, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Romanian UDMR Party

The European Parliament Web site (http://www.elections2009-results.eu/en/romania_en.html) is currently attributing two incoming UDMR MEPs to the EPP group and one to the G/EFA group. Presumably the latter is László Tőkés, who sat as an independent member of the EFA in the previous parliament. Is this a sufficiently reliable source for revising the chart? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.66 (talk) 18:46, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Article needed

It's official now: http://www.italiannetwork.it/news.aspx?ln=it&id=11154 The Socialist Group in the European Parliament will now be the Alliance of Socialists and Democrats for Europe to accomodate the Democratic Party. Could someone write an article on the new group? —Nightstallion 11:21, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

I started it, but it was soon put into AfD! Can anyone help that article? --Checco (talk) 21:00, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Results tables

I think directly after the groupings are formed, we should just merge the current full results table with the possible political groupings table. Thoughts? Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:10, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

turnout

Where turnout is mandatory, I think this should be noted alongside the turnout figures. AndrewRT(Talk)(WMUK) 13:30, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, makes sense. That would be Belgium Luxembourg and ..... ? --Triwbe (talk) 15:26, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

I believe the Netherlands. Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:43, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope, voting is not mandatory in the Netherlands. It was abolished 1970 BasBr1 (talk) 18:21, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Check http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compulsory_voting. You got your work cut out for you, because there a lot exceptions of mandatory voting and it's not enforced everywhere. BasBr1 (talk) 18:24, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

The extent of usage of electronic voting machines in European election

To how large an extent were electronic voting machines used in these elections and what percentage of these elections made through electronic voting machines? Extremely important information to be included considering the recent US election frauds, where experts stated that electronic voting systems never ever could be made safe against voting fraud.

I know that Germany did not use any electronic systems. Their use was declared unconstitutional shortly before the elections, because of the risk you mention.

OT: I'm not aware there were "recent US election frauds". That's a strong claim. I agree that there is an increased danger of voting frauds with electronic voting machines, but have any actually happened (and been proved) in any country? --Roentgenium111 (talk) 12:06, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible Political Groupings: France

There are some problems with the breakdown of the Europe Écologie seats in France. This list is not, in and of itself, a member of either the European Greens or the EFA. It includes Les Verts, a member of the European Greens; the Fédération Régions et Peuples Solidaires, a coalition of EFA member parties; and several unaffiliated candidates. Attributing all 14 seats to the European Greens is therefore inaccurate.

At least one new MEP is a member of the FRPS, and it is unclear to me how many of the other 13 are members of Les Verts and how many are independent. I have also not seen any source confirming that the independent Europe Écologie MEPs will be sitting with the Greens/EFA. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.66 (talk) 18:53, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

Seeing no comments, I have updated the chart based on the apparently widespread assumption that all the unaffiliated Europe Écologie MEPs will affiliate with the European Greens. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.66 (talk) 16:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

I have updated this further with information from French-language Wikipedia. http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%89lections_europ%C3%A9ennes_de_2009_en_France. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.231.6.66 (talk) 15:19, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Alliance of Socialists and Democrats for Europe (ASDE)

See: http://www.europeanvoice.com/article/2009/06/new-alliance-emerges-in-european-parliament/65180.aspx The Italian party has agreed to take their 21 seats over to the Party of European Socialists (PES), giving them 182 seats. Can someone update the table? Thanks, 206.172.0.195 (talk) 14:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

Possible political groupings - EPP-ED

This table currently assumes the EPP-ED will continue, however the group website appears to have gone ahead and dropped the "-ED" nomenclature and is just branding itself as the EPP. Should the table be changed to reflect this? Timrollpickering (talk) 10:41, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

I googled EPP-ED, EPP and ED. www.epp-ed.eu redirects to www.eppgroup.eu. However, sub-pages don't redirect, e.g. the European Democrats page. I'd hold off for now, but it does look to me as if EPP-ED is rebranding itself as just EPP. I'd like to see confirmation first, ideally. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

It is confirmed. /--Glentamara (talk) 12:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

European Conservatives and Reformists Group

The Conservative Party have succeeded in forming an a european party under the name "European Conservatives and Reformists Group" (although im not use that is officially their name yet). Shouldn't they, and the other parties, be given their own new coluum on the elections results. So far they have 55 seats making them the fourth largest party - knocking the greens into fifth place. Here is the link to the BBC http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/4665818.stm explaining about all the other parties. Other news websites provide more coverage about the new group itself but i am finding it differcult to relocate these articles. 82.28.40.202 (talk) 06:17, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

The article European Conservatives and Reformists has most of the references needed.--Triwbe (talk) 06:54, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Two charts -- confusing

Right now we have two tables -- one labelled "results" that lumps everyone in with their old group, except for those that had explicitly said before the election that they wouldn't be in their old group, who have been put into the NI column, and one that attempts to make sense of the emerging new group alignments, which comes at the end of a section of material about realignments that was mostly written before the election. Having been following this article since before the election, I understand why it's come to look like this, but if I were coming to it new right now, I think I would find it very confusiong -- I might, for instance, not realize that the second chart represents 2009 election results, but instead think that it only contains predictions. Would anyone object if I moved the second table up to the "results" section, and added a bit more explanatory material to both tables, including (for the second) a reference to the material in the later section? --Jfruh (talk) 19:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

I've been thinking about this a bit, and I think it might make the most sense to "cap" this article chronologically as things stood when all the votes were counted. We could have a brief section mentioning those parties that said before the election they wouldn't be in their old group, and otherwise leave just the current top "results" table as the main summary of what happened.

The fact that various group-shuffles occurred after this election could get a quick mention in this article, along with a boxscore of the final numbers of the groups when the Parliament reconvened, but I think where a full party-by-party breakdown of who agglomerated with who and why really belongs is in the 7th European Parliament article. The Tom (talk) 00:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

We can siplify things as soon as we know the final formation of the groups. -- Magioladitis (talk) 07:33, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Mention of the referendum in Ireland in the Role of the Treaty of Lisbon section

However, primarily because of the failure of the referendum in Ireland, the framework established by the Treaty of Nice will be used again.

English is not my native language, but the sentence above seems to imply that the referendum failed, that the referendum was somehow invalid or failed to reach a decision. From what I could find out on short notice, the referendum was valid and the proposal was defeated. I'd like to know the interpretation of someone for whom English is the primary language. V (talk) 19:54, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

While that isn't the most artfully written sentence, I'd say that most native English speaking would take the intended meaning from the sentence: that the law proposed in the referndum was voted down -- in other words, that it failed to pass. It's not a particularly strange idiom. --Jfruh (talk) 21:13, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks. V (talk) 22:23, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

One more group

The remainder of IND/DEM (without the left-wing eurosceptics from Scandinavia) will form a new group: http://euobserver.com/9/28394 It'll consist of UKIP, Lega Nord, LAOS, SGP, True Finns and DUP, plus also Libertas France (= Movement for France), the Danish People's Party and possibly a few others. —Nightstallion 15:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

They're appearing to be going with the name: "Europe of Freedom and Democracy", sez the BBC. Interestingly, the BBC's focus is on the UKIP but doesn't mention the DUP being a member. --Jfruh (talk) 17:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, a new EU obserer article says that the new group will have 30 members and adds them all up, without the DUP being mentioned, which I assume means that they aren't in. Party totals are: UKIP 13 MEP, Lega Nord 9, LAOS 2, Danish People's Party 2, Movement for France 1, Dutch Reformed Party 1, True Finns 1, and the Slovak National Party 1. With actual sources, someone should add this to the lower table ASAP; I'd do it but I am consistently baffled by the Wiki table syntax. --Jfruh (talk) 17:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. I've taken from those sources that it is a continuation of I/D (which is accurate). I've abbreviated it to EFD, which may or may not be correct, and that can obviously be changed in the morning when more sources appear in newspapers; if DUP, Order and Justice, or the other rumoured-to-be-interested groups join, they can be added as and when. Bastin 18:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Political Composition Update

The European Parliament's Web site just updated its breakdown of the political composition of the new MEPs. All the updates were already reflected in this article except the allocation of one of Latvia's Harmony Centre MEPs to the PASD. I made that change and added a cite to the chart. 163.231.6.87 (talk) 16:25, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging political alignments

Now that the European Parliament has convened and the groups officially formed, we can get about to solving this ugliness with two tables. As agreed above, we were going to update the results table to correspond to the new groups - effectively meaning the party data in the top table would be replaced by the current alignments from the bottom table. As stated, the idea that the UK Conservatives, Law and Justice, and Civic Democrats were not aligned is only technically correct, insofar as nobody is aligned before the election, whilst the alignments of the members of the former UEN were very much in the balance. Would there be any objections to now updating the top table to reflect current alignments? Bastin 13:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

No objections! One table has to stay with maybe some footnotes to exaplain how we compare the results. -- Magioladitis (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

As I indicated above, I wholeheartedly agree. --Jfruh (talk) 21:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

So who will do it? :-) --Roentgenium111 (talk) 13:27, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

It has already be done. Now we have only 1 table. -- Magioladitis (talk) 13:36, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I still see 2 such tables in the article - one in "Results: Full MEPs" and one in "Parliamentary groups 2009", with apparently almost identical data.--Roentgenium111 (talk) 15:08, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I thought everyone knew that group leaders do not play any role in the election...

...until I found this infobox at the top of the article, implying that the election was basically a three-way race between Daul, Schulz, and Watson. Come on. 82.240.207.81 (talk) 05:21, 24 December 2010 (UTC)

page move

to European parliamentary election, 2009in line with consistency for election articles. theres nothign really pov/controversail about the move.(Lihaas (talk) 17:55, 6 January 2011 (UTC)).

Yes, there most certainly is something controversial and POV. 'European' refers to the continent, and ought to be avoided when referring to an institution of the European Union - to do so would be POV.

There are thus two options used elsewhere. First, use 'European Union' as the adjective (ie 'European Union parliamentary election, 2009'). This is very cumbersome and artificial. Second, name it after the institution, which is 'European Parliament'. That is the option that has been chosen, and is in the same vein as articles from United States Senate elections, 2010 to the Bhutanese National Council election, 2011 and from United Nations Security Council election, 2010 to Scottish Parliament general election, 2011. Bastin 19:20, 6 January 2011 (UTC)