Talk:2012 South Korean legislative election

the North Korean issue.

I know that the North Korea's planned missile launch is a serious provocation to its neighbors in the region and that even the North's closest ally China oppose the test, but its influence on the South's election was minimum.

The North's missile will be launched between April 12 and 15 and its planned date is after the election date, April 11, and the South reported it very calmly. Because of the North's numerous provocations in the past, South Koreans have accustomed to the North's erratic behaviors, even to the point that some people don't take it seriously. (some nationalistic liberals/progressivists even claim that the North's acquisition of nuke/ballistic missile is a good thing for the pride of all Korean people: Pop star criticised after praising North Korea's nuclear ambitions, 28 Apr 2009, The Telegraph)

Second, the conservatives won the election and majority not because of their policy or the North Korean issue, but because of the liberal Democratic United Party's clumsiness. I can hardly find any political analysts mentioning the North as the reason for the Saenuri's unexpected victory. (Saenuri's realistic goal was 121 seats, and they hoped for 130 to 140 seats in the National assembly. 152 seats were above anyone's expectation, and conservatives themselves were surprised at the result.) Most analysts agree that Kim Yong-min's scandal shifted about 15 seats toward Saenuri. (김용민, 막말로 15석·민주 제1당·야권연대 과반 날렸다 in Korean, 2012-04-12, The Chosun ilbo) Moreover, Korea-U.S. FTA and Jeju-do Naval Base were bigger issues than the North's missile.

In short, we shouldn't focus North Korean issues in this article. PBJT (talk) 22:47, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I quote Aljazeera article here: "While North Korea's rocket launch planned for the coming days is the sole focus of international attention on the Korean peninsula, it has barely figured in the election campaign in the south" (South Korea votes in closely contested poll, 11 Apr 2012, Aljazeera) PBJT (talk) 22:56, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Source of election figures

Could someone who reads Korean provide a link to the correct page at the NEC website from which these figures were obtained? The current link is just to the front page. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 04:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Here are the tables from NEC.

• Local seats table
• Block seats table

The order of parties is below:

1. Saenuri Party (NFP) 2. Democratic United Party (DUP) 3. Liberty Forward Party (LFP) 4. Unified Progressive Party (UPP) 5. Creative Korea Party (CKP) 6. Korea Vision Party (KVP) 17. New Progressive Party (NPP)

PBJT (talk) 04:44, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, but those appear to be tables of the age, gender and occupational backgrounds of candidates. I want a table of the voting figures. As far as I can see none of the links at those pages leads to voting figures.

I'm not sure whether you're looking at the same page as mine. In case of the local seats table, the horizontal section is "name of each party" where the order I mentioned earlier is the order of parties from Saenuri(NFP) to New Progressive(NPP). A total of 20 parties (including 13 minor parties) participate in the election. The vertical section is regions from Seoul to Sejong city(second line to the last), where the first line shows total number of seats by parties.

In case of the block seats table, again the horizontal section is name and the vertical section only shows total by each party since there is no region. And yes, you're right. You can sort the table by gender, education levels, occupation and party. I linked tables which was sorted by parties. And could you clarify what you mean by voting figures? (do you mean total number of votes each party/candidate earned?) PBJT (talk) 06:38, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I mean voting totals for each party. The article says that Saenuri polled 9,262,471 votes for the local seats and 9,129,226 votes for the block seats. Where at the NEC website are those figures to be found? The article must link these figures to a verifiable source, and at the moment it doesn't do so. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:53, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I see. Here is the table for total number of votes by parties for block seats. Number of votes by parties (in Koean) Unfortunately, NEC doen't provide the total number of votes for local seats by parties, and you have to add numbers from the tables by region. PBJT (talk) 07:14, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that, that's what I wanted. Next, where are the figures for the local seats? And another question: are the members elected for the block seats elected at a national level, or at a regional level? Where are the figures for the number of members elected, either nationally or for each region? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Blocks seat members are elected at the national level. Each party announces their block seat candidate list, and people vote for the party. The more a party earns votes, more candidates are elected for the party. As for the voting figures of Local seats, SK NEC doesn't provide it by parties and only provide it by regions. Here is the link for Seoul's voting statistics: voting result of Seoul by counties. You have to add up all those numbers from each cities and provinces to get the voting figures by parties. It is likely that people cited the numbers from a news source, not from the NEC. As for the number of Local/Block seats by parties, please find these links: 1. Number of Local seats earned by each party 2. Number of Block seats earned by each parety PBJT (talk) 20:26, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually I counted the figures manually by adding up all the individual results since no media source reported constituency figures; evidently I made mistakes. I can provide the Excel file in which I tabulated them if necessary to corroborate the calculations. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 05:14, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That must be a lot of work, Tyrannus Mundi! I tried to update the table, but the Korean news I cited only mentioned four major parties. In the end, I edited voting figures for major parties, and left KVP, CKP, NPP and others unchanged. PBJT (talk) 10:19, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Meaning of Saenuri

What does "Saenuri" mean in English? Why are we calling it by its Korean name in contrast to all the other parties? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:11, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

"Saenuri"(Korean: 새누리) roughly means "New world" (Sae= New, nuri=world), and they changed their name just before the April election from Grand National Party (GNP or Korean: 한나라). I think some English news (like the Korea Times) call Saenuri as "New Frontier Party"(NFP) in English. PBJT (talk) 06:20, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. But why are we using the Korean name here and not the English name? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:25, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

I changed it accordingly. PBJT (talk) 20:30, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Saenuri Party or New Frontier Party?

Saenuri is the official name of the party which is a romanization. New Frontier is a translation but it not the official name of the party. — ASDFGH =] ^talk? 22:00, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hello ASDFGH, thanks for your input! :) I know Saenuri Party is the official name of SK major conservative party in Korean, but I'm not sure whether we should use Saenuri in English. Saenuri's previous name was Han-nara (Korean: 한나라) or "Grand National Party" in translation, and English newspapers used to call the party Grand National Party or GNP in short. Both Han-nara and Sae-nuri are native-Korean words, unlike Minju(Korean: 민주, 民主 or Democratic) or Tonghap(Korean: 통합, 統合 or United) which are sino-Korean vocabularies. PBJT (talk) 22:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Hannara-dang had an official English name, which the party actually used in international context. Same is true with the Democratic United Party, which even has the English name in its logo, or the K Party, where the official English name isn't even an exact translation of the Korean name ( 국민생각 would mean "National Thought" if translated word by word). The "official English name" of the Saenuri Party is Saenuri Party. "-dang" is translated to "party", but "Saenuri" isn't translated but kept in Korean as a proper noun. The International Democrat Union lists its Korean member as the Saenuri Party (with the translation "New Frontier Party" in brackets), while they list all other member parties (including those from non-English-speaking countries) under their English names - conclusion: Saenuri Party is the "English name", it is the name used for the party in an international, English-speaking context. It is of course legitimate if English-language media take the editorial decision to use the English translation instead of the official name, but it is not all English-language media, and we should not follow those who do so, for the above stated reasons. If the name of the party in international, English-language contexts is Saenuri Party, then this is the name the English-language Wikipedia should use, too. The analogy to other parties (or even Hannara-dang/Grand National Party) is false, because their English translation names are official, while "New Frontier Party" isn't. --RJFF (talk) 23:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for your comment, RJFF. I checked Saenuri's English website, and they're using Saenuri and GNP. Since Al Jazeera and others are using NFP, I assumed it is the official English name. Sorry about that, and again thanks for correcting my mistake. PBJT (talk) 00:00, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter whether the party has an "official" English name or not. This is the English Wikipedia and party names should be given in English. I'm sure the US Republican Party doesn't have an "official" Korean name, but the Korean Wikipedia calls it 공화당 (Gong Hwa Dang), not "Republican Party." Saenuri is not an English word, no matter who uses it. If the party wishes to be called Saenuri that fact can be noted, but Wikipedia should neverthless use the English name. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 01:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There are many examples of parties on English Wikipedia that does not necessary use English translated title (Uri Party (Our Party), New Komeito Party (New Clean Government Party), Kuomintang (Nationalist Party), etc.) — ASDFGH =] ^talk? 10:38, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There are not many examples, there are a few examples, and those are virtually the only ones. Both the Kuomintang and Komeito are very old parties which have long been known in English by those names, and all Wikipedia is doing is following established usage. This is a new party so there is no established usage to follow. The "default rule" should be that the English name is used unless there is a good reason not to, which in this case there isn't. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 11:18, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

There is, actually: the criterion is namely which one is more common. Saenuri has been used far more widely in the Anglophone media than New Frontier Party (1,070 vs. 398 hits on Google News). It is not Wikipedia's job to prescribe the name to be used in English, Wikipedia adopts the name that is actually in use. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 05:12, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

It is the English Wikipedia's job to call things by their English names for English-speaking readers, just as the Korean Wikipedia translates English names into Korean. That's why we have an article on Korea and not Hanguk, and on the Communist Party of China and not 中國共產黨 or even Zhōngguó Gòngchǎndǎng. All the other Korean parties at this election are called by English translations of their names, so should this party be. From what PBJT said above, I gather than should be New World Party, not New Frontier Party. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 08:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Intelligent Mr Toad, we should never use "New World Party" in any case. "Nuri" can be translated in many ways, and Saenuri's website is using "Frontier" instead of "World" (though, "world" would be more close to the original meaning.). I know Saenuri sounds very foreign to English speakers, but so dose any Korean name like Lee Myung-bak. Until Saenuri officializes its English name NFP or English news media make a consensus, Saenuri is the English name for the party like many other users have pointed out. My guess is that Saenuri will officialize its translated name NFP, and English news will use NFP, just like they used GNP instead of Han-nara. Until then, let's leave the party's name as Sanuri here. PBJT (talk) 10:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd add as well that Saenuri is not the Korean name, it is an Anglicization of the Korean name. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 16:41, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Pattern of Korean voting

Korean politics are conventionally described as a contest between conservatives and liberals, but the voting pattern is clearly regional, not class-based as in Europe or Australia. Why does nearly everyone in Cholla vote for liberals and nearly everyone in Kyongsan vote for conservatives? Is this division historical, ethnic, linguistic, religious? Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:28, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

This will help you to understand the pattern of Korean voting. --kwan-in (talk) 05:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I can also add as a more substantive study Youngmi Kim's recent book The Politics of Coalition in Korea which deals with question of regionalization (and de-regionalization) in Korean politics in depth. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 05:09, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Error in map?

The map accompanying the article shows the DUP winning three seats in Busan. The figures show only two. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 06:50, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Good eyes, Intelligent Mr Toad. But the third one is a city in South Gyeongsang Province. DUP won in Busan Sasang district and Saha district. The third yellow area, little bigger than the other two yellow dots, is Gimhae city A, the home town of previous president Roh Moo-hyun. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeanutbutterjellyTaco (talk • contribs) 16:27, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

I have to add one more thing. Could anyone translate the title and index of map in English? the current version shows Korean text in it. PBJT (talk) 16:49, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

Prime minister and Saenuri Party.

Do we need to include Prime Minister position in the info box? SK doesn't have British parliamentary system, and PMs are appointed by the President. For example, PM Kim Hwang-sik was a Supreme court justice and then a chairperson of the Board of Audit and Inspection before he was chosen as a PM by President Lee. He has never been a politician, and not affiliated with GNP or Saenuri. PBJT (talk) 18:29, 14 April 2012 (UTC)

If no one object to my proposal, I'll go ahead and delete the PM section. Leaving PM section as it is now could give a false impression that this position is affected by the election result. PBJT (talk) 01:56, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The PM is appointed by the president but confirmed by the Parliament, hence the long struggles over Kim Jong-pil's appointment in 1998 for instance. The composition of the legislature has a direct bearing on the composition of the executive and so providing this information is not particularly misleading given that the party leaders, who are different, are specified very clearly and in much larger form directly above. In any case this can be solved just by changing Saenuri to Independent, which I have just done. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 05:08, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Glad that you changed PM Kim Hwang-sik's affiliation. But I still have some doubt that PMs are relevant information here. PMs step down when someone must be blamed for the government's mistakes or a public scandal. They're in a sense scapegoats for the President in SK politics, because the President's five year term is guaranteed and he/she cannot step down. For example, PM Han Seung-soo resigned his position due to the 2008 US beef protest in South Korea. The next PM Chung Un-chan was forced out of office after a modified Sejong city bill didn't passed in the Assembly. In both cases, 2008 election didn't play a role. It is true that PM candidates are more likely to be approved, if the ruling party control the Assembly. Nevertheless, replacing a PM is entirely upon President's will and oppositions cannot force him to do so even after they won an election.

In the 2008 legislative eletion article, PM was Han Seung-soo before and after the election. In 2012, PM was Kim Hwang-sik before and after the election. People could be confused that PM didn't change after the election, but somehow four years later a different person is PM. And probably they wouldn't realize that there was Chung Un-chan in between. PBJT (talk) 09:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Reconsidering it I think you do have a point here actually. I'll consent to getting rid of it if no one else objects. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 16:39, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

A better idea would be the (acting) speaker instead of the prime minister. — ASDFGH =] ^talk? 00:41, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The speaker of National Assembly serves a single two-years term. Whoever elected as a speak for the 19th national assembly, he/she will serve until 2014. (New assembly members will vote for candidates within the assembly, and a candidate who has won more than half votes of attended members will be elected.) The next general election for the 20th assembly is scheduled in 2016. PBJT (talk) 01:21, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

List of Speakers of the National Assembly of South Korea. PBJT (talk) 01:28, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Hankyoreh and KSOI

Korea Society Opinion Insititute (KSOI) isn't a subsidiary of Hankyoreh nor "Hankyoreh/KSOI" isn't a joint venture between the two. The Hankyoreh gave orders to KSOI to do a survey, and KSOI simply did the job. I will leave these two firms connected by slash for the sake of consistency, but any punctuation mark (dash, hyphen, dot, or and) can be used instead of slash. PBJT (talk) 03:27, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

That is fairly obvious; the slash is used to follow the convention used in other opinion poll tables here. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 05:15, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your explanations. PBJT (talk) 08:37, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Further question on results

The maps at this article and at the article for the 2008 election show no changes in the constituency boundaries. But the tables of results show that South Kyongsang elected 17 members in 2008 and 16 in 2012, while South Cholla elected 12 members in 2008 and 11 in 2012. Is there an error somewhere? Also the new constituency of Sejong City does not appear to be shown on the 2012 map. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 07:37, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Some seats have adjusted obviously to reflect a demographic change. Assembly member increases by one, making total seats 300 (국회의원 1명 늘려 300명 시대…‘게리맨더링’ 논란) the Hankyoreh, 28 February 2012. At the bottom of the article, a table summarized changes in seats.

"Paju district in Gyeonggi (divided), Wonju district in Gangwon(divided), Sejong City (established). Namhae-Hadong county in South Gyeongsang Province (merged), Damyang-Gokseong-Gurye county in South Jeolla Province (merged). Local seat total (245→246), Block seat total (54→54)."

As for the county/district boundaries in the map, I have no clues as this map is from the Korean wikipedia. PBJT (talk) 13:53, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

No, Sejong is shown in the 2012 map just compare basically (2008: Gongju-Yeongi) → (2012: Gongju and Sejong) on the left side of the Daejeon constituencies. — ASDFGH =] ^talk? 23:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

The maps are quite obviously different. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 00:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Again, Could anyone delete those Korean text from the map? I would like to edit it, but don't know how... PBJT (talk) 00:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Many thanks, Tyrannus Mundi! Just found you edited it. PBJT (talk) 00:55, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

2008 18th Gukhoe

2012 19th Gukhoe

Thanks for clarifying all that for me. Intelligent Mr Toad (talk) 02:29, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Saenuri = GNP+PPC

I just wanted to note here as well that I've gone ahead and added details for the Pro-Park Coalition as well in the infobox in the comparison for Saenuri, because I think it's otherwise very misleading (i.e. showing a positive swing when in fact voters quite obviously were leaving the party), and it doesn't make a lot of sense anyway - the PPC itself was a momentary phenomenon reflecting an internal division within the GNP. In any case we could technically say that Saenuri was a merger of the GNP and the PPC / Future Hope Alliance. --Tyrannus Mundi (talk) 23:02, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Police investigation right

I'm starting the discussion because including specific sentence to the article has become an editing war, and I already reverted three times. First of all User:Komitsuki, "You call yourself democratic?" could be a personal attack. So please be careful with that.

From my perspective, the police investigation right has very little to do with election result and it wasn't even a major issue during the election campaigns. The issue has been a continuous debate since at least previous government under President Roh. Thus, this isn't a couple of month old nor completely new issue. Even when Uri Party hold the majority in the Assembly, they couldn't pass the investigation right reform. So, the issue is at best a power struggle between two agencies.

Next, during the campaign period numerous neutrality violations had occurred, thus giving undue weight to the Ministry of Finance's report isn't necessary here. Otherwise, we have to enumerate every single incident of NEC's warning case. Furthermore, there's no evidence that the report have swayed voter's decision toward the conservatives. And since both Saenuri and DUP moved their position to the left, the report wasn't targeted at DUP.

I welcome anyone's suggestion to my comments. Thanks. --- PBJT (talk) 15:04, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, that wasn't a personal attack. Second, the police investigation right is not a election result but a consequence of the election result. The police investigation dispute is one of the biggest intra-government conflicts in South Korean history and it deserves a mention. Third, the Ministry of Strategy and Finance dispute is a deliberate involvement of the current Lee Myung-bak government right before the election and it deserves a mention. These didn't influence the votes but they did contribute something negative to both of the government and the election. Komitsuki (talk) 15:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You made a point in that the police investigation is a conflict between two agencies, but didn't mention why it deserves a mention in the election article. You said it is a consequence of the election, but it remains to be seen whether the reform bill will pass in the Assembly or not. You cannot say it is a consequence of the event, when it hasn't happened yet.

Second, the NEC's comment on the MOF's report was just a warning. And like I mentioned earlier, it wasn't the only warning given by NEC during the campaign period.

All in one, if you insist on including these unrelated details, there's whole bunch of topics out there to be included. --- PBJT (talk) 15:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I moved them to other articles. Are you happy now? _{Unfortunately Koreans in general can't accomplish the win-win situations.} (And no, this is not an insult; I'm a half-Korean.) Komitsuki (talk) 15:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I find your behavior little bit childish, Komitsuki. And the whole discussion has nothing to do with pleasing anyone's feeling. What really matters here is whether the contents is relevant to the topic or not, and whether your contribution is POV or not. Your ethnicity is no one's interest in this discussion, and your mention of "Unfortunately Koreans in general can't accomplish the win-win situations." is once again a personal attack however you may claim it isn't. --- PBJT (talk) 15:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I told you, it's not an attack. You're not the first Korean contributor who mocked me. Komitsuki (talk) 15:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Analysis for the 2012 legislative election

Anyone interested in SK politics and the implication of this 2012 legislative election might find this podcast from the Korea Society interesting: Korea’s Legislative Elections: The Day After (Date: April 12, 2012) --- PBJT (talk) 23:01, 10 May 2012 (UTC) Summary:

Prof. Shin Gi-wook (Stanford University)

• Winners: (1) Saenuri (2) UPP (3) Park Geun-hye
• Losers: (1) DUP (2) LFP (3) Han Myung-sook (4) Moon Jae-in
• Saenuri: Saenuri framed the election as the competition between future power Park GH and old power Roh MH. Park GH wasn't equated with Lee MB. Saenuri won all the seats in Gangwon, and performed better in Chungcheong. Very few independent won the election. (only 3 vs 25 in 2008).
• DUP: DUP made a strategic mistake in bringing the KOR-US FTA and Jeju naval base issues to the forefront, which was self-contradicting. Might see a reshuffling of party leadership after the election. Main challenge would be choosing the DUP’s presidential candidate. Party leadership will be crucial to handle the crisis, and it remains to be seen whether new party leadership can do the same as Park GH did for Saenuri.
• UPP: UPP failed to win Ulsan, their traditional stronghold. But it should be pleased over overall outcome. Even with 13 seats, UPP can strongly press DUP for FTA and welfare issues. UPP understands DUP needs its cooperation to win December election.
• Park GH: Saenuri become Park GH's party, and she wouldn't face any major challenge in her presidential bid within the party. Winning Gangwon and Chung-cheong, two swing provinces, is encouraging for Park GH. Park GH have to improve her image among Seoulites and young voters.
• Moon Jae-in: Moon Jae-in’s performance will make others doubts his capability of defeating Park GH. This will be an opportunity for Ahn Cheol-soo.
• FTA have survived Korean politics.

Prof. Charles K. Armstrong (Columbia University)

• Saenuri showed surprising adaptability from its dysfunctional predecessor GNP, and it positioned itself more to the center.
• On the contrary, a remarkable ineptitude of DUP made them to lose.
• Two party system have been continuously solidified since 2004. A perennial problem of East vs. West regionalism has not gone away, and it seems to be growing.
• Two swing provinces needs to be watched for how the election would go.
• The election wasn't a referendum for Lee MB, even though oppositions put it that way. It was more like a referendum for future power, Park GH. She went through it very well.
• Park won-soon could be an outlier in two party system, and he didn't have much impact on DUP's election performance.
• FTA and Jeju naval base were greatly overplayed. Misreading the public mood, DUP was vocal on the FTA issue. Most Koreans accepted the pact by this point and were ready to move on, this move was clearly unproductive for DUP.
• There is no evidence that NK played any role in the election. But certainly NK satellite launch didn’t help DUP, who wants to engage NK more aggresively.
• If Park GH become next President, her government will less likely take a pro-engagement policy. But if the opposition wins the election, inter-Korean relationship would improve from its lowest point in recent years.
• Regardless of its size, UPP will push its progressive agenda.

--- PBJT (talk) 07:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)