Talk:2020 Surinamese general election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

South America: Suriname High‑importance

	Latin America portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject South America, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to South America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AmericaWikipedia:WikiProject South AmericaTemplate:WikiProject South AmericaSouth America articles
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Suriname (assessed as High-importance).

Abbreviations[edit]

This page is not going be useful to the outside world if you can't find the party. Democratie en Ontwikkeling in Eenheid is translated to Party for Democracy and Development through Unity. That doesn't even look it. Besides that newsreports always mention the abbreviation and they will always remain fixed regardless of the language. KittenKlub (talk) 13:01, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree, I think it's quite obvious which party is which. News reports from the 'outside world' tend to mention party's full names before their abbreviations.[1][2]

Separate to this, is there a reason why the Amazon Party is exempt from the rules against electoral alliances? This would be useful information to add to the article. Cheers, Number 5 7 13:06, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is very confusing and a reason why DA'91 was missed in the list. Look at the [3], [4], [5], [6] All major Surinamese newspapers use abbreviations first and foremost for the parties. And so do all the Dutch newspapers which will the secondary source of news for Suriname. KittenKlub (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume that the Amazon Party/Party for Law and Development alliance is possible, because it is an indigenous party which is only for the autonomous areas, but I haven't seen a source. Another thing is DA'91. What's the colour? Their facebook page doesn't mention colour. Yellow is the background, but it could be blue, because it's blue lettering KittenKlub (talk) 13:14, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

How the parties are referred to in Dutch language publications isn't relevant on English Wikipedia.

Not sure about party colours – Aréat and HapHaxion are clued up on this kind of thing. Number 5 7 13:32, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The rest of the world will probably use the same system, because they copy the Press reports. The standard in reporting in both Suriname and the Netherlands (and many more countries with lots of parties) is to use an abbreviation. And this is especially valid if you are going to use translated names. The PRO/APS was a trick. All candidates of APS are on the PRO list.[7] (and once again abbreviations in the news report). KittenKlub (talk) 13:35, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57:. First link on the BBC after searching for Suriname Elections: http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/4588049.stm And the abbreviation is always mentioned after the party. KittenKlub (talk) 13:49, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, that's what I said above (news reports from the 'outside world' tend to mention party's full names before their abbreviations). The point was that the translated names are used before any abbreviations so the latter aren't necessary. And again, how parties are referenced in Dutch-language press isn't relevant to English Wikipedia. Number 5 7 13:51, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That's why it needs to put in the document, because those abbreviations are identifiable unlike the name which is sometimes radically different from the original name. I didn't delete the name, but added the abbreviations as an extra column. So let's add the name FOLLOWED by the abbreviations, because most of the references are in Dutch and use the abbreviations. VHP doesn't resemble Progressive Reform Party. If the BBC uses the name for clarity, then why doesn't the English Wikipedia? KittenKlub (talk) 13:57, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The BBC use it for ease of reference in prose (as you can refer to the full name once and then the abbreviation thereafter). However, we are talking about a table where that same benefit is not realised and instead it's just clutter. Number 5 7 14:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not a clutter. The Dutch wikipedia has the abbreviations there. https://nacla.org/news/2020/05/20/suriname-election Look a recent report in English, and what do they say: "National Party of Suriname (NPS). To ensure political success, it represented both light- and dark-skinned Creoles, and was for a while popular among Maroons. Other parties represented the country’s large Hindustani and Javanese populations. But the early NPS wasn’t the party" So they start with the full name followed by the abbreviation and continue with the abbreviation in their story. The benefit is realized because you can IDENTIFY the party. The colour is not much use in this case, because there are 6 nearly identical red parties and we are not talking about the US, where you have two choices. KittenKlub (talk) 14:07, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Again, you have given example where abbreviations are used in prose. I think it is appropriate to use abbreviations in prose, but what we are discussing is their use in a table, where no following use occurs, and so there is no clear need for them.

Anyway, if we've reached the point where you're having to shout, I think there's no point in us continuing to try and convince each other, so maybe Aréat or HapHaxion can give a decisive third opinion on the matter. Number 5 7 14:24, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@KittenKlub: @Number 57: Well, I think we should stick to english name on the english page. Yet it's true sometimes sources very predominantly use acronyms rather than use the long name, so much that you actually have to dig to find the full name, like in Madagascar. If there's an habit of many sources to only use acronyms in Surinam as well, it could be better to also include them, indeed. I'm adding some example below. Please tell me what you think of it. If you can provide acronyms for all these parties, KittenKlub, the change wouldn't be a problem to implement. As for the colors, I didn't work on those used in this article, so it would be better to ask @HapHaxion:, who did that good job. Although I must say here again that I think we really should avoid giving colors so undistinguishables from each others to different parties, as the main use of using color here in the first place is to be able to easily reffer to each parties in tables, maps, polls charts, seat diagram results, etc. If there's so much alike, it can't be used to do so. I would advise making slight changes to all these greens and reds. Cordially.

Party			Votes	%	Seats	+/–
	National Democratic Party	NDP
	Brotherhood and Unity in Politics	BEP

--Aréat (talk) 19:13, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

That was my idea as well. There are acronyms for all parties. Progressive Reform Party = VHP (The old name was United Hindu Party which is also VHP). General Liberation and Development Party = ABOP. You can find them in the history of the page. I assume the colours are all correct. Maybe changing it a bit will help... KittenKlub (talk) 19:25, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The colors aren't too much of an issue-- in a worst case scenario if parties with similar colors win seats we can refine the colors a bit then and make the seating diagram right after. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 19:33, 22 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Official results[edit]

Just a heads up, the official results should be announced on Tuesday night according to StarNieuws. HapHaxion _{(talk / contribs)} 22:00, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@HapHaxion:Indeed it is Tuesday. Bouterse has already announced that he will respect the official results. There was talk about a partial recount, but that could not possibly have made any difference. The National Assembly will reconvene on 29 June.KittenKlub (talk) 22:06, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Results[edit]

Results are now presented as final, yet there's some inconsistency in the numbers on the page. When adding up all valid votes, I get 274,381, which added to 432 blank and invalids ones, make a total of 274,813 and not 274,381 as presented. I would say it's a typo, but then the turnout is 71.60 and not 71.58 %. I don't speak dutch, so I can't make sense of the results in the source.--Aréat (talk) 19:34, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The results in the table do not match either the source (which has the VHP on 108,378 votes) or the OKB (which has them on 107,969). I do not know which is considered more reliable. Number 5 7 19:51, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, it seems the heading was updated, but not the figures. Number 5 7 19:56, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

You can see the exact figures at Star Nieuws: https://www.starnieuws.com/index.php/beyond_files/get_image/f18ed69967f078788393a832347ec950.jpg___landelijk.jpg/617 (It is going to ruin your eyes.) Consultic is a Paramaribo based IT company which loves to show off, but it's gathering the data from 3rd parties. KittenKlub (talk) 19:58, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why are these numbers different to the Electoral Commission, which appears to be a complete count (650/650)? Number 5 7 20:00, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would use the source with the 108,378 for VHP, because that's the same as the screen shot. KittenKlub (talk) 20:02, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Why though? The Electoral Commission website has a different figure. It's not impossible that they're wrong (we frequently find that official sources are wrong), but it's usually good to understand the reasons. Number 5 7 20:17, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The screen shot was taken from the televised presentation. The Electoral Commission still has to present on Friday, so maybe they don't have the accurate figures. You said you had a source for that 108,378 figure which matches what was on the screen during the meeting. The total should be 274,714 votes. KittenKlub (talk) 20:19, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, the source in the results table. You really should not update headings to make results appear final, but not change the actual numbers... Number 5 7 20:30, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There is a good reason why people don't update the page and ignore the expand messages. I limit my edits to the bare minimum here. KittenKlub (talk) 20:36, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Let's wait for friday, then. Hopefully they will present a full set of definitive results.--Aréat (talk) 20:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Re the invalid votes, the Consultic source has a figure for "Aantal kiezers" (Total voters) on page four of the second set of figures (288,726). Combining this with the valid votes figure (274,714), this would suggest there were 14,012 invalid votes, which I think is a more realistic figure than the 400 previously. Number 5 7 20:47, 16 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]