Talk:2016 Samoan general election

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 Samoan general election article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

This article is written in Australian English, which has its own spelling conventions (colour, realise, program, labour (but Labor Party)) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

A news item involving 2016 Samoan general election was featured on Wikipedia's Main Page in the In the news section on 6 March 2016.

Wikipedia

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

Polynesia: Samoa Low‑importance

	Oceania portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Polynesia, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Polynesia 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.PolynesiaWikipedia:WikiProject PolynesiaTemplate:WikiProject PolynesiaPolynesia articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Samoa (assessed as Low-importance).

This article was created or improved during WikiProject Oceania's "10,000 Challenge", which started in November 2016 and is still continuing. You can help!

Results

The phenomenon with the large number of HRPP affiliated independents makes it hard to estimate how many seats the parties got. The provisional results, which we have a link to, showed 36 elected as HRPP, 11 independents (8 HRPP affiliated and 3 "unaffiliated" independents) and 2 TSP. Later 9 indies have joined HRPP (7 affiliated and 2 "genuine" independents) while 1 HRPP affiliated has joined TSP, and the third "genuine" independent remains independent. So the current balance is 45/1/3. The name of the extra 5th female MP should be released today. As the result is presented now it mentions the seat distribution given by the press shortly after the election, but link to a different result. That is unsatisfying. The presudo-independents linked to HRPP, and the many indies joining parties shortly after the election makes it hard to give exact numbers. Not sure what the best course of action is, but the numbers and source should at least match each other. I would probably prefer the formalistic 36/11/2 distribution, with a description of the post-electoral realignment afterwards and "final" distribution on parties added.--Batmacumba (talk) 21:58, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Batmacumba: The result should show what parties the candidates ran as, not what parties they joined after the elections – so 36/11/2. The post-election switches can be noted in an Aftermath section. Number 5 7 22:16, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Although looking at the results, it looks like there were 31 HRPP, 12 independents and 2 TSP. I do not know the affiliation of the four unopposed candidates, but I assume HRPP? If this is the case, the split is 35/12/2. Number 5 7 22:22, 11 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps a seat was moved during the recount? 35/11/2 was the distribution after the initial count. The EC made a map of it, which I would have uploaded if I knew how.--Batmacumba (talk) 11:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, here is a HTML version of the map after the first count:<a href="http://imgur.com/BxxMYR5"><img src="http://i.imgur.com/BxxMYR5.png" title="source: imgur.com" /></a> Perhaps someone can make it work.--Batmacumba (talk) 12:14, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

@Batmacumba: Based on the final official results here, the split was indeed 31/12/2, plus four unopposed, which I think are HRPP. I will update the table accordingly. There were a couple of very tight constituencies, so I assume a seat got transferred from HRPP to IND during a recount. Number 5 7 12:30, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The four unopposed were all HRPP, so 35/12/2. There were candidates elected as Independents/HRPP affiliated Independents (and then joining parties afterwards) last time as well, so counting loss/gain based on a 36/13 distribution is incorrect.--Batmacumba (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What was the immediate post-election situation last time? We need to amend the 2011 article too. Number 5 7 22:13, 16 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Couldn't find an official source, but 29/7/13 according to this article, which seems credible based on my general knowledge (the 7 "Independents" simply joined HRPP afterwards). http://www.southpacificlawyers.org/samoa-election-ruling-party-retains-control --Batmacumba (talk) 00:04, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have corrected the numbers now and added the extra 5th ladies rep. HRPP 35 (+6), Indies 13 (+6), TSP 2 (-11), but after all the "joining" it all adds up to HRPP 47 and TSP 3 (their 2 elected reps only being joined by that one HRPP affiliated Indie).--Batmacumba (talk) 00:45, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Good stuff. I have corrected the total seat change (which is +1 now we have 50 seats). Number 5 7 09:53, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]