Talk:House of Representatives (Netherlands)

Tweede Kamerlijn was nominated for deletion. The discussion was closed on 29 February 2020 with a consensus to merge. Its contents were merged into House of Representatives (Netherlands). The original page is now a redirect to this page. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected article, please see its history; for its talk page, see here.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Netherlands

This article falls within the scope of WikiProject Netherlands, an attempt to create, expand, and improve articles related to the Netherlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, visit the project page where you can join the project or contribute to the discussion.NetherlandsWikipedia:WikiProject NetherlandsTemplate:WikiProject NetherlandsNetherlands articles

Seperate factions PvdA-GL

I support @Shadow4dark, we do not have to mention the background of PvdA and GL members. I havent read a source outside Wikipedia that does that explicitly. And one difference with Germany, is that these members are also not elected by a different party. Dajasj (talk) 13:59, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It is WP:OR as they are clearly stated as GL-PVDA and not seperate. https://www.houseofrepresentatives.nl/members_of_parliament/parliamentary_parties/groenlinks-pvda, see party members Shadow4dark (talk) 14:12, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

As I said in the edit summary, GroenLinks and Labour do indeed sit as a single faction in parliament, but they are still two separate parties. It is standard in Wikipedia to include the number of MPs of each party even when they sit as a single faction. This is the case even in parliaments like Bulgaria’s and Spain’s where MPs are elected using party-list proportional representation, just like in the Netherlands. I also included a source that breaks down the MPs by party instead of by faction. Brainiac242 (talk) 14:18, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I see it is only a note btw, which is better than what I see on other pages. But are we going to change it everytime a MP leaves parliament? Dajasj (talk) 14:32, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(I missed it because it was later added by @Luxorr, thanks!) Dajasj (talk) 14:34, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Both styles are widely used, but because it reduces visibility, notes are usually reserved for cases when there are too many parties in the factions/coalitions to be shown the other way (e.g. France). Also, yes, when the number of MPs of a party changes, we are supposed to update the article. Brainiac242 (talk) 14:53, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I changed it to a note so that it would be analogous to Sumar in the article for the Congress of Deputies, which you also mentioned. I also think that putting the different parties in the infobox directly might give the impression that the distinction is more consequential than it really is. The two parties operate as a single force, in contrast to plural groups in the Congress of Deputies, the Bulgarian National Assembly or the Bundestag, where the different parties still act with some degree of independence. Luxorr (talk) 15:05, 18 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The current seat map is lower quality as the last one and harder to seperate all parties. Shadow4dark (talk) 09:49, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Voorzitter - Speaker????

I very much disapprove of translating Voorzitter as Speaker. Speaker is a function known in Anglo-saxon parliaments. The use of speaker as a translation is inaccurate and could create a false impression: the man/woman is a Chairman or a President of the chamber. There are no doubt many who prefer to use speaker because it is used in English. Speaker, however, is an equivalent and the term does not accurately reflect the Dutch situation. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 22:52, 27 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The English-language website also uses "Chairman" for that post. Glide08 (talk) 22:44, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, the official translation of the Constitution uses the word "Speaker". Luxorr (talk) 16:33, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would go with the house website (ie use chairman), although his tasks and appointment are very similar to the US situation (selected by the house at start of period). Arnoutf (talk) 18:25, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The House website itself isn't particularly consistent on the matter. Luxorr (talk) 18:52, 29 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Wasted votes

I propose the deletion of the section on wasted votes, this seems like original research to me, and I also see it mentioned rarely on the pages of other parliaments (where I think this problem is often far worse).

On the merits I also disagree with it: It seems to argue that the votes for parties that do not enter parliament are waisted. I don't agree with this, this is still an important political signal, as is the case with all voting. It implies that the It also does not account to for the votes "wasted" when a party gains more votes than it needed for its current amount of seats, something that happens all the time and would be a significantly higher number. 2A02:A45A:5AF5:1:912E:DB1A:A58C:6855 (talk) 10:10, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is worth including it somewhere on Wikipedia, in particular because the Netherlands has a relatively low wasted vote. But perhaps Elections in the Netherlands would be a better place. Dajasj (talk) 12:19, 14 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]