Talk:Electoral threshold

EU-parliament electoral threshold

1. I believe the electoral threshold is currently at None, since the law changing it to 3.5% (vote on 3 May 2022) [1] is currently not in effect (Council did not vote on this law). My edit [2] was reverted. Sjö what do you think is the current electoral threshold?

2. Which section does EU-parliament belong? It's not a country. HudecEmil (talk) 00:13, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

I believe that the link I gave when I reverted your edit gives the current rules. The threshold can best be described as "various" since they are up to the nations to decide, within the 5% limit. The section "Arrangements subject to national provisions" (A) gives an overview of this. So I think that it would be best to say it is "various" with a note saying something along the lines of "thresholds are set by the member states but may not exceed 5%". Sjö (talk) 07:52, 27 August 2022 (UTC)

Agree on "various". Propose: varies for each member state up to 5% (national level), no threshold at EU level HudecEmil (talk) 05:07, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Sounds OK, but I'm not sure that the EU level needs to be included, but include it if you want to. I think that the best place to put it would be in a separate paragraph at the top of the Europe section, and that the section should include a link to Elections to the European Parliament#Voting system. Sjö (talk) 06:52, 29 August 2022 (UTC)

Propose splitting List of electoral thresholds by country

Proposing splitting by continent (Africa, Asia, Europe, Latin America) Currently is European countries and Non-European countries. Change as seen in Electoral_threshold&oldid=1208425782 HudecEmil (talk) 14:18, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Depending on viewpoint Armenia, Georgia and Turkey could be Europe or Asia (or both?). HudecEmil (talk) 14:31, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I have no objection to that, but, please keep in mind that most members of the Council of Europe are often categorized with "Europe" in politics related articles as these countries often adhere to CoE guidelines and recommendations (especially when it comes to elections). I support splitting into continents, but all CoE member states (Which includes Cyprus, Georgia, Armenia, and Turkey), plus Russia & Belarus, should be kept with Europe. Archives908 (talk) 14:34, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

HudecEmil, read and respond per WP:BRD before you continue implementing changes. Archives908 (talk) 15:48, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

I put Armenia both in Europe and Asia. Template:Asia_topic includes Armenia. What is your reason for enforcing your viewpoint that Armenia is not in Asia? HudecEmil (talk) 15:53, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

"Latin America" is not a continent, so the proposed split seems flawed. —Joeyconnick (talk) 03:50, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

I've already explained it, I won't repeat it. It's redundant and completely unnecessary. Archives908 (talk) 15:32, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

It seem splitting among any boundary is arbitrary, including the current split Europe/non-European where Armenia, Georgia and Turkey can belong to both. Now I propose merging Europe/non-European into one table, anyone disagree? HudecEmil (talk) 15:38, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

There seems to be no consensus that Council of Europe boundaries have to be used for all political articles. HudecEmil (talk) 15:47, 18 February 2024 (UTC)

Propose removing some duplicated parts

In section "Amount of wasted vote" there are whole sentences duplicated from Wasted vote#History of wasted votes in proportional representation. Propose to remove these duplicated parts (leaving non-duplicated parts) and adding note Main article: Wasted vote § History of wasted votes in proportional representation. Proposed result is Electoral_threshold&oldid=1208431159 HudecEmil (talk) 14:22, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

There is not much duplication. The material here is focused on the role of electoral thresholds on the wasted vote whereas Wasted vote#History of wasted votes in proportional representation is more general, so I think it's fine to have text in both that partially overlaps. Both sections could evolve to be more distinct. A link from here to Wasted vote#History of wasted votes in proportional representation does sound useful, however. Bondegezou (talk) 14:36, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Agreed. Archives908 (talk) 14:37, 17 February 2024 (UTC)

Philippines - tagged since 2013

Ehrenkater tagged the paragraph about the Philippines as Template:Tl in 2013. In 2025, this is how the paragraph is written:

"In the Philippines where party-list seats are only contested in 20 percent of the 287 seats in the lower house"

This is the first phrase that supposedly needs clarification. I for the life of me cannot understand what needs to be clarified? Other chambers have party-list systems, and only a proportion of seats are elected this way. This is outdated now though as there are already 317 seats but the proportion is always 80:20. So in the last election, there were 63 seats up.

"the effect of the 2 percent threshold is increased by the large number of parties participating in the election, which means that the threshold is harder to reach. This led to a quarter of valid votes being wasted, on average and led to the 20 percent of the seats never being allocated due to the 3-seat cap"

This needs a maths lesson:

• If there are more participants in an election, the threshold is harded to reach. In 2025, there were 155 parties, and only 6 parties got more than 2%, with the top party just getting over 6%. The 6 parties that surpassed the 2% threshold collectively got 25% of the vote. That means 75% of the vote was wasted just on this alone.
• There's also a 3-seat cap, which was not explained beforehand. So winning parties can only get up to 3 seats. So, to use for example 2025, if there were only six winning parties, and all six can only win up to three seats each, these six parties can only win up to 18 out of 63 seats.

"In 2007, the 2 percent threshold was altered to allow parties with less than 1 percent of first preferences to receive a seat each and the proportion of wasted votes reduced slightly to 21 percent, but it again increased to 29 percent in 2010 due to an increase in number of participating parties. These statistics take no account of the wasted votes for a party which is entitled to more than three seats but cannot claim those seats due to the three-seat cap."

Maths may have changed from 2010. Now since the parties that do not surpass the 2% threshold gets one seat each until all party-list were filled up, this means more parties - and more votes - were no longer wasted. Also, if a party was entitled to more than 3 seats, those votes were also still wasted. Howard the Duck (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2025 (UTC)

Hi, I've looked at this again 12 years later. In the first tagged sentence, it sounds like "party-list seats" are only one of two or more categories of seats. If so, how many of the 287 seats are party list seats? It looks like party list seats are contested in 20% of 287 = 57 seats. If (for the sake of argument) there are 150 party list seats, then this would mean that 38% of them are contested, which would be a more useful statistic to quote.

As regards the next tags, "three-seat cap" needs to be explained.

Hope this helps.---Ehrenkater (talk) 08:18, 6 June 2025 (UTC)

The proportion is always 80% from constituencies (districts), and 20% from party-lists. In earlier elections, because of the threshold and the 3-seat cap, not all of the 20% party-lists were seated, so de facto the proportion was not 4:1. A Supreme Court decision made the threshold not mandatory (i.e. other parties may still win seats by not passing the threshold). I'll try to rewrite this later. Howard the Duck (talk) 12:08, 6 June 2025 (UTC)