Talk:2021 Ecuadorian general election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

DYK nomination[edit]

The following is an archived discussion of the DYK nomination of the article below. Please do not modify this page. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as this nomination's talk page, the article's talk page or Wikipedia talk:Did you know), unless there is consensus to re-open the discussion at this page. No further edits should be made to this page.

The result was: promoted by Cwmhiraeth (talk) 20:49, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

(
)
  • ... that Lenín Moreno is not running for re-election as president in the 2021 Ecuadorian general election, but 16 other people are? Source: Economist article, not enough space here to include the 16 sources for each candidate
    • ALT1:... that ...? Source: "You are strongly encouraged to quote the source text supporting each hook" (and [link] the source, or cite it briefly without using citation templates)

Created/expanded by JPxG (talk). Self-nominated at 13:05, 17 December 2020 (UTC).[reply]

  • The article is long enough and new enough. I assume good faith on the non-English references and on a couple references that are used for the hook. Those hook references say that I need to sign in to read the the rest of the articles. A QPQ has been completed. The "16 other people" refer to the list of candidates and all of them are referenced except for one of them. The only problems are that the sentences "Alianza Honestidad, the coalition of the Partido Socialista Ecuatoriano and Concertación parties, nominated César Montúfar Mancheno, with vice presidential nominee Julio Villacreses Guillém" and "Parties have to receive at least 5% of the vote in national elections in order to maintain their legal registration" are unreferenced. SL93 (talk) 12:56, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oops, not sure how I missed the ref for that candidate. Added to the article. I couldn't find which reference that other part about 5% of the vote was from, so I removed it for now (I'll put it back in later if I find a source for it). jp×g 17:22, 27 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Per WP:DYK#Content, we do not run political hooks within 30 days before an election. I am moving this to the special occasions area for after February 7, but a new hook will probably have to be submitted at that time. Yoninah (talk) 17:40, 2 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
  • @JPxG: the hook needs rephrasing. It sounds like 16 people are running for re-election. Yoninah (talk) 18:47, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Graph[edit]

The graph of the opinion polls on this page is wildly off, showing Arauz with much lower poll numbers than nearby spreadsheet. I do not have any idea how to edit that, is there anyone who does? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.46.196.254 (talk) 21:56, 4 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Color[edit]

Why is Pachakutik suddenly in grey? --Aréat (talk) 11:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Someone is getting ahead of themselves, IMHO. Rather than providing current but uncertified results for the two second-place contenders (who are only separated 0.13% of the vote), they’ve completely removed their pictures and put in TBD — “To Be Determined”. That’s not a helpful presentation — it could stay this way for weeks! — Andy Anderson 13:45, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Ah, that's a separate question. Well, as long as there isn't a definitive second place winner, it's not a bad move. If there's still more unchecked votes than the lead of Perez over Lasso, we can't say for sure one is beating the other. Otherwise it's Crystallball on our part. Whenever the remaining votes to be checked will be smaller than the lead, then we will be able to fill the infobox.--Aréat (talk) 14:17, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
But there will probably be a recount, so a definitive answer will likely take weeks. In the meantime, showing both of those candidates with a description of the situation is not a crystal ball.
The usual practice is to have it shown when the count is 100 % completed, with the section titled as "Preliminary results". Once there is definitive results, we update the page. Currently it's at 99.72 % and with each update the lead of Perez seem to shrink. It's now of only 0.06 % and 5,500 votes. It's not absurd to wait a bit before claiming who's qualified for the second round. We're not wikinews, there's no need to hurry. Better wait a few days than show an incorrect information on such an important matter.--Aréat (talk) 17:43, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I think Pachakutik's color should be pink and not light grey. Light grey in polls tend to usually be associated for uncertain/independent/other. Seeing how the Pachakutik candidate might advance to the run-off his color should be changed ASAP. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 23:11, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I opened a discussion on the party's page.--Aréat (talk) 23:30, 10 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independents/regionalists on the CNE source[edit]

Do we know why "Independents/Regionalists" (3 seats) has no vote listing on the CNE vote tally source? I looked at the Spanish Wikipedia's article for the incoming National Assembly and I would guess that (according to elimination) this is referring Hugo Cabrera (Azuay), Mariano Curicama (Chimborazo) and Augusto Guamán (Sucumbíos) all of which do have their own (I'm guessing regional) parties listed. Can someone explain this to me? As it seems like this is an obvious issue for when it comes to listing the final number of votes for the "Independent" (or reg. equivalent) ticket. J2m5 (talk) 08:54, 13 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

It looks like that is correct yeah, the source listed on spanish wiki lists these. Looks like it may be parties only running in one region or independent lists.[1] You can see them in the CNE vote tallies too, but I couldn't find seat allocation anywhere on the CNE site. May want to note the names in a footnote. Øln (talk) 00:10, 22 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Al menos 122 asambleístas ya tienen su curul asegurada Para hacer uso de este contenido cite la fuente y haga un enlace a la nota original en Primicias.ec:".

Continuing to Describe Early Results vs. Presenting Only Current Results[edit]

In the section ===President===, the description of the electoral results was updated to describe the official preliminary vote tally that placed Lasso ahead of Pérez. Aréat changed that to include a description of early results that showed Pérez ahead. I reverted this, with the explanation that “Early results don’t matter, especially now that there is an official preliminary tally, which is what this page should be reporting. Early positioning routinely changes depending on how regions turn in their vote totals.” Aréat reverted my reversion with the explanation that “That's an important info to know to understand Perez and his supporter reaction and demand for a recount”.

I disagree with this, because, again, early results don’t matter except as part of the excitement of watching the vote count. The only thing that matters in the end (where we are now) is that this is a close vote and because counting errors occur, requesting a recount is a very reasonable response.

I need only point to the recent US presidential election where Republicans tended to vote in person and so had their votes counted first while Democrats tended to vote by mail and so usually had their votes counted second. This resulted in Trump leading in early counts but losing in the final count. More than 60 lawsuits were filed that often tried to make this same point as Aréat, and they were all dismissed.

Therefore, Aréat’s reversion of my reversion should be reverted. — Andy Anderson 23:19, 18 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I'm honestly not sure what's the best approach here, there is a lot going on with the recount request and fraud allegations at the moment, and it's not very clear how credible the allegations are. We would ultimately want to follow what reliable sources state about this. Some of the contention seems to have been about the "Actas con novedad" who's results came in late after most votes had been counted and ultimately made up the difference. I agree that using "early lead" may not be ideal, maybe it should instead be noted where and why Perez alleged irregularities. Personally I'm not a spanish speaker, and the coverage in international media is a bit limited, someone with more familiarity with the language and political scene will have to look into the details. It should be made clear that Lasso is 2nd with the current data, but that it's still fully determined. Maybe it would be better to list more candidates with preliminary results in the infobox until things are more clear, rather than TBD. Øln (talk) 17:15, 19 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see why mentioned that should be reverted. It's an important point to understand the following events with the demand for a recount, and doesn't negatively impact the page. This is the same situation as the 2019 Bolivian general election, in which the way the count initially gave a result that later got reversed with further ballots is an important part of the information to understand why events unfolded that way. --Aréat (talk) 19:40, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Independents and Regionalists[edit]

What's up with the Independents and Regionalists 3 seats ? There's no votes , they're not in the result source, and they're not mentioned in the electoral system section. Someone got some info about that? --Aréat (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Legislative results[edit]

There seem to be a problem with the numbers. The party votes doesn't equal the share they're given when divided by the total (for example, with Union for Hope 2,584,579/7,717,442 equal to 33.49 instead of 32.21. The valid and invalid votes don't add up to the total of vote cast, and the latter doesn't add up with abstentions to the total of registered voters. Are the results still preliminary?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2021_Ecuadorian_general_election&oldid=1212502239"