Talk:Electoral alliance

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Politics 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 ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Sociology This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. Organizations This article is within the scope of WikiProject Organizations, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Organizations 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.OrganizationsWikipedia:WikiProject OrganizationsTemplate:WikiProject Organizationsorganization ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. 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

The contents of the Kartel (electoral alliance) page were merged into Electoral alliance on 24 June 2020. For the contribution history and old versions of the redirected page, please see its history; for the discussion at that location, see its talk page.

I agree with Bkonrad. Fusion voting does not necessarily imply broad-based electoral alliance. At it's core, Electoral fusion deals with ballot design and a recognition that one or more political parties ma nominate the same candidate for public office. It is a more specific term than electoral alliance and worthy of its own entry. Speralta (talk) 20:08, 30 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think these should be merged. While there may be some similarity, they seem quite different in application. older ≠ wiser 00:00, 11 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

These are different indeed. The (current) article 'Electoral fusion' opens as: "Electoral fusion is an arrangement where two or more political parties on a ballot list the same candidate, pooling the votes for that candidate. Distinct from the process of electoral alliances in that the political parties remain separately listed on the ballot" (my bold). This distinction means that one is not a part of the other. 'Electoral fusion' is not a kind of 'electoral alliance' as the latter article describes. But, still in November 2009, User:Faunas had inserted 'electoral fusion' on the first line showing what is considered an 'electoral alliance'. I'm removing that undue insert (the only kind with a link). Note that 'electoral fusion' is still correctly found and linked in the 'See also' section.​▲ SomeHuman 2011-02-06 13:47 (UTC)

The article is about separate political parties that put their own candidates on a shared list. The Labour Party is a political party. The Co-operative Party calls itself a party, it certainly is political, and it is an organization that exists independently from the Labour Party. They have formed an alliance. There are candidates on a list that are members of the Labour Party. Some candidates on that same list are members of the Co-operative Party. So far, so good.
And yet, they having an 'electoral alliance' is fictitious, because the article Co-operative Party states: "co-operative members who wish to stand for election also having to be members of the Labour Party, as joint Labour Co-operative candidates". Hence, these are de facto and de jure simply candidates of the Labour Party (some of which may also be members of a snooker club, and perhaps they want to advertise that as well to draw votes). When all the candidates on a list are members of a single political party, there is no 'electoral alliance' in the sense of this article that requires an electoral list to be shared. It is a 'political alliance', and then a good ally can be expected to favour and support an election candidate of the other ally.

Many political groups (institutions, unions, etc.) exist that are allied with a party of which all candidates have to be members, in several countries. The candidates are often known to belong to a specific group. But such group, like here the Co-operative Party, is not a political party by itself having registered candidates. Furthermore, though not essential: "the Co-operative Party has not registered a logo with the electoral commission for use on ballot papers, as candidates use the more recognisable Labour Party 'rose' logo". The financing of some of the candidates by the Co-operative Party, is not essential either (no more than moral support) - at least not for determining to which party these candidates belong for an election.

The identical subsection about 'UK' could be found in the article electoral fusion, with only the term 'alliance' replaced with 'fusion'. As that article specifies: "Electoral fusion [...]. Distinct from the process of electoral alliances in that the political parties remain separately listed on the ballot," while I quoted from 'electoral alliance' that all candidates chose the Labour Party 'rose' logo for use on ballot papers that do not mention the Co-operative Party, it is clear that the UK section must be eliminated from article 'electoral fusion'. Consider this done.
Based on the above argumentation, I suggest to remove the UK section also from 'electoral alliance' - but still leave it there for a while, awaiting possible response here.​▲ SomeHuman 2011-02-06 13:49-14:03 (UTC)

The image File:Cduportugal.png is used in this article under a claim of fair use, but it does not have an adequate explanation for why it meets the requirements for such images when used here. In particular, for each page the image is used on, it must have an explanation linking to that page which explains why it needs to be used on that page. Please check

• That there is a non-free use rationale on the image's description page for the use in this article.
• That this article is linked to from the image description page.

This is an automated notice by FairuseBot. For assistance on the image use policy, see Wikipedia:Media copyright questions. --05:17, 11 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I propose merging Kartel (electoral alliance) into Electoral alliance. The article on kartel describes electoral alliances in relation to Belgian politics. This information can easily be added under a new section dealing with Belgium. Ezhao02 (talk) 17:47, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I'm trying to work out whether this article is supposed to be specifically about list binding/apparentement/cartels/subapportionment, i.e. situations where the apportionment process/voting system treats several parties as if they were a single, larger party. If it's trying to discuss a broader overall concept, that's unclear right now. Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 17:25, 15 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]