Talk:2006 United Nations Security Council election

International relations: United Nations Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject International relations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of International relations 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.International relationsWikipedia:WikiProject International relationsTemplate:WikiProject International relationsInternational relations articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject United Nations.

Elections and Referendums

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

Vandalism[edit]

Someone take care of it —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 66.92.187.113 (talk • contribs) 16:13, October 20, 2006.

Looks like it's been done. — JeremyTalk 11:28, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]
By the way, check out the page at Help:Reverting so you can do it yourself. — JeremyTalk 11:29, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Individual votes[edit]

Does anyone know how each country voted in the elections? I'm terribly interested, and I can't find it anywhere online. Is it secret balloting, or does the UN not release such figures? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 15:51, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As you suspect, it's a secret ballot. The best you can do is scour the press for those countries that have announced their voting intent (Chile's abstention is well documented, for instance). However, there will be lots and lots of gaps; there are a couple of dozen floating voters between Guatemala's max of 116 and min of 93; and there's no guarantee that a given member publicly pledging support for B isn't really casting its vote for A. Bolivian Unicyclist 16:07, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, that might be interesting, but it would be a monstrous job, and probably only worth the effort if I worked for the press. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 17:06, 18 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I tried to find out about this in the European media, but without success. However, it is widely believed that most if not all EU countries supported Guatemala. Apparently politicans tried to hide this from their voters, given the widespread US-criticism and the fact that Chavez has quite a few supporters in Europe. 88.117.127.2 16:35, 11 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Invalid Ballot[edit]

What's this? Can we explain it here with at least a one-sentence footnote? Scoutersig 02:50, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently you weren't paying attention to the 2000 Florida Election close enough (:-D - jk): probably something like that, where someone goofed and hit marked two candidates. Actually, I haven't seen anything online about it; probably not much info, because it wasn't a crucial vote. Anyone else see anything? -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 04:22, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

It's not putting crosses in squares: they have to write the name of the country they want to vote for. I suppose the tellers are tolerant of incorrect spellings such as Guatamala and Venezuala (see Wikipedia, passim), so I'd guess the invalid votes are deliberately spoilt ballots or members voting for third countries, either out of turn (not every round admits 3rd candidates) or as a protest at the deadlock. Bolivian Unicyclist 14:39, 20 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Illegally occupied"[edit]

This article says that Belize is "illegally occupied" in parts by Guatemala. Perhaps someone could define illegal, here. -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 07:40, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I've just taken that entire (and very difficult) section by the horns, including the deletion of that line. Yes, there's a border dispute, but it's nothing like as acrimonious as it was 15 or 20 years ago. And "illegal" obviously reflects one side's POV. The remaining problem is that the entire section kind of interrupts the flow and upsets the balance of the article -- at the very least, it should be balanced by another section on support within the Latin American side in GRULAC. If you've got any other ideas for improving it, please go ahead and be bold. Bolivian Unicyclist 13:06, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

CIA World factbook says: "Guatemalan squatters continue to settle in the largely uninhabited rain forests of Belize's border region" (at the bottom of that page.)

See also timeline of conflict timeline CaribDigita 14:51, 21 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Dominican Republic[edit]

has been suggested as a compromise candidate... [1] —Nightst a llion (?) 07:30, 27 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

re Format needed[edit]

There is no place in the article where the current status is given. I need to read the whole article ? I think an upper infobox or something would make it more clear. Also, what does the "OTHER" table column means ? thanks and sorry for the incovenience! Jor70 19:41, 1 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Where can we see how each country voted[edit]

Because I know our Prime Minister promised to support Venezuela,so I would like to see how we voted.Is it possible to see how each country voted?

YXYX 02:13, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I asked that question above, which was answered, so we put this into the article: "Votes are taken by secret ballot" -Patstuart^{(talk)(contribs)} 02:20, 3 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

doesn't make sense[edit]

how can voting resume tuesday, november 8th when tuesday is the 7th and november 8th is a wednesday?

Stand by for October 2007[edit]

Hasn't the compromise merely postponed the inevitable? Won't this happen again next year? Guatemala has not yet sat on the security council and it is the only original UN member not to have done so. However, Chavez of Venezuela has very strong feelings on his point of view, and it only is logical that he will compete for it again next year. I can only see that diplomatically, he will have to be persuaded that Venezuela has had its turns - even if they were pre-Chavez. Guatemala was favoured in 2006, even if the margin wasn't large enough. I guess we'll find out if Chavez will have the dignity and diplomacy to back down and content himself with non-Latin-American voices in his favour. GBC 17:36, 6 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]