Talk:Politics of Japan

Untitled

Would it be possible for a Japanese speaker to check the numbers for the 2019 election against the link cited? Specifically the number of votes won by "Others (five parties" looks incorrect (79,398,217 votes for consituencies, and 450,501,748 for proportional, when the total was 51 million) 194.82.172.26 (talk) 09:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

How long is the maximum term for a Japanese prime minister? Is there one? MrJones 20:37, 21 Oct 2003 (UTC)

Page organization

Would it be prudent to remove the section regarding 'basic facts' and replace it with a cross-reference to the 'Japan' article? If not a removal, perhaps a prioritization of what should and should not be in that section? Jcbstallion

I made the following changes MrJones 19:40, 25 Oct 2003 (UTC)

I belive we need to make these articles associated to the politics of Japan much better. First of all like in Sweden with the template,

needs to be done for Japan's political topohraphy. We also can learn from this very informative and pedagogical articles Prime Minister of Sweden, Government of Sweden, List of cabinets of Sweden Lord Metroid 23:53, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

one of these politics will be popular by the presidential.The politics is also mostly by the governemt. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.188.184.34 (talk) 20:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Removed these facts.

Capital: Tokyo

Country name: conventional long form: none conventional short form: Japan

Data code: JA

Worked these facts and links into the text if they weren't there already.

Executive branch: head of government: Prime Minister Koizumi Junichiro (since April 2001)

cabinet: Cabinet appointed by the prime minister

Constitution: May 3 1947

Government type: constitutional monarchy (see also: Japan Constitution)

chief of state: Emperor Akihito (since January 7, 1989)

Yet to be worked in

election of the Prime Minister: none; the monarch is hereditary; the Diet designates the prime minister; the constitution requires that the prime minister must command a parliamentary majority, therefore, following legislative elections, the leader of the majority party or leader of a majority coalition in the House of Representatives usua

Jcbstallion, 28-Oct-2003

Per my changelog cross-reference, I'll detail my changes a bit here. I divided the page more clearly into sections, particularly when it came to the different government branches. I moved some of the content around to make it consistent with the sections. I changed a little bit of wording in the Legislative section, but nothing overly noteworthy. I focused more upon the Executive Section -- especially the Cabinet and the list of current members. Also, in the 'Recent political developments' portion, I changed the wording in the sentence regarding Koizumi's victory. That's about it. Go Wikipedia!

Great work! It is informative, well-written! Brilliant! -- Taku 22:05, Oct 28, 2003 (UTC)

I started posting each party's diet seats in their respective wiki articles. Should the seat distribution also be mentioned here? JCB 05:07, 10 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think each house article, the House of Representatives and the House of Councillors are good place to mention the number of seats because the number in the house is what matters after all. Some kind of brief tables or lists of distribution are definitely interesting. -- Taku 07:10, Nov 10, 2003 (UTC)

"For historical reasons, the system is similar to that in the United Kingdom"

Can someone please elaborate on these "historical reasons?" - Sekicho 21:27, Sep 15, 2004 (UTC)

Iwakura's mission, as I was taught, included comparing the various governments in Europe and the USA. Of the German, US and British systems, the best was considered to be the British.Elijahmeeks 18:47, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

That is basically true, though over time the government was made to resemble the German Imperial system more and more. So you can trace elements of both British and German influence in the system. For example, the coutr system is decidedly continental (it is not the British adversarial system with jurors), while the parliamentary system more closely remsembles the British. ALC Washington 00:07, 26 January 2006 (UTC)

I'm only familiar with the history regarding the inspiration for the system and not its eventual evolution. I'd assume, if it hasn't been done already, those two sentences (One on Iwakura and one on the evolution of the system toward the German Imperial system) would adequately address Sekicho's request. Elijahmeeks 01:37, 6 February 2006 (UTC)

---

   In Germany, anyone who wants to keep his/her (good) social position stands at the Center or at a little right/left shifted position from there on political view, because regarded as a NeoNazi if shifting too right and regarded as a communist if shifting too left. -- Of course, in Germany both the extreme Right and the extreme Left have not become the ruling party since the end of World War II. --
   In Japan, the ruling party has been the complete Right, which is at the rightest in the parties of the Diet, almost completely and has always included parts of the extreme Right (, though it can be said that the Center has not existed).  So, there are a not few scholars who are hawks domestically with political view.  And this is not unrelated to that Japanese-fascistic sensationalistic action for knwon to the public and standing close to the power are able to be satisfied together domestically.
   Therefore a person telling hawk's ideas and known as an intelligentsia in Japan is usually regarded as a snob without sense in Europe.
                                    -- 06:25, 04 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Inaccuracy re: Komeito

The section on (New) Komeito contains the following:

• Because it is partners with the LDP, it is unopposed to the war in Iraq.

I believe this is inaccurate. Komeito was (is), IIRC, opposed to the war, but it either shelved its opposition or was unable to do anything about the war because of its position as a member of the ruling coalition. To write that it is unopposed to the war because it is partners with LDP is misleading, as it is neither unopposed nor is there any cause-and-effect relationship involved here. I'm no friend of Komeito, but let's be fair. This comment sounds like an emotive conclusion: "Komeito is partners with LDP, ergo it [must be=] is unopposed to the war." I think the situation is far more complicated than that.... Jersey_Jim 14:58, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

What is the stub for this topic

Someone please correctly stub-sort Akira Amari. Thanks! -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:49, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Never mind, I found it. -Theanphibian ^{(talk • contribs)} 17:51, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

Important notice

The government section of the "Outline of Japan" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.

When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process. Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.

Please check that this country's outline is not in error.

If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .

Thank you.

General Characteristics of Agricultural, Industrial, and Information Age Political Systems Agricultural Age Political Systems: During this age Japan was ruled by a succession of monarchs. The common citizen had no property or human rights. Everything individuals did was in the name of or for the ruling family. Japan at this time was under a dictatorship which wasn't as oppressive as some off the western nations. However it was effective enough to keep the average citizen too afraid to try to change the status quo. The only time change occured was when another powerful family overthrough the existing ruling family.

Industrial Age Political Systems: This age saw political structure come to Japan. In the form of a new governmental system rather than an monarch. Japan's economy grew during this period realized there had to be a better way of managing their influx of capital. The Japanese also adapted there Constitution in this period.

Information Age Political Systems: In this age the Japanese developed there persent system of government. It is best described as a Parilmentary Democracy, because it is a conbination of the U.K. system and the U.S. system. This system guaranteed representation, the right to vote, and indidvdidual rights to all men and women over the age of 20.

Information/Data on Japan's Political System There are two main political parties in Japan, the Liberal Democratic Party, which is the conservative party in Japan, and the Socialist Party. The Liberal Democratic Party has been the ruling party for over three decades. The Japanese government is divided into three branches, the Legislative, the Executive, and the Judicial. Conclusions on Japan (Whether Primarily Agricultural, Industrial, or Information Age Re: Its Political System) In conclusion Japan is primarily an information nation because of their political system of representive Democracy. However the Japanese government is not perfect they have suffered some disgrace from a few corrupt officials. Japanese government has withstood it's hard times and they are looking forward to continued success in politices, economics, and life.(Type of Political System)

---

Additional Online Sources on Japan's Political System site 1 site 2 site 3 Traditional Bibliographic Sources on Japan's Political System Baker, Donald (1993), Japan's Economic Power: Routledger & Kegan Van Dyke, Vernon (1994), Japanese Human Rights and Ethnicity: McGraw Hill Publishing Barclay, William (1990), Japan The Land Of The Rising Sun: Penguin Group Publishing —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.113.210.152 (talk) 22:00, 30 January 2011 (UTC)

Honebuto Hoshin

Please make sense with Honebuto Hoshin article nominated for deletion. It looks a valid subject, but requires a significanr intervention of an expert. -M.Altenmann >t 19:47, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

You may discuss this at the Wikiproject Japan talk page. Edit: Discussion was resolved. TheInfernoX (talk) 10:45, 3 May 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Politics of Japan. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20100605174127/http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hlQO-kyvIEyrc0I90V5l0LFN7JTwD9G37RBG0 to http://www.google.com/hostednews/ap/article/ALeqM5hlQO-kyvIEyrc0I90V5l0LFN7JTwD9G37RBG0

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers. —^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 10:54, 26 August 2015 (UTC)

Changing Infoboxes or Improving TIE

@Number 57, Impru20, Vacant0, Siglæ, Rowei99, Μαρκος Δ, Checco, Scia Della Cometa, Yakme, Vacant0, Braganza, Kawnhr, Chuborno, Davide King, Nick.mon, Erinthecute, HapHaxion, Helper201, Vif12vf, PLATEL, Morgan695, Tyrosian, and Elg3a-1:

I'm calling all of you in ways to improve the Japanese election pages. Here are a couple of options I think will improve them:

• Option A: Scottish TIE (including a threshold of 5% const. and/or PR votes) - This option would retain the TIE templates across all the election pages, but would expand them to be like Scotland. The Scottish TIE layout clearly explains Const. and PR seats, and their votes, without muddling them together, like they are on Italian and South Korean election pages (something I plan to canvass about with the latter). By having the 5% threshold, it removes parties from the infobox who have a low impact on day-to-day parliamentary affairs, displaying parties who have a say and collaborative influence on eachother (compared to SDP, who are essentially an even greater rump since they unofficially merged with CDP).
• Option B: TILE (but split across Const. and PR seats) - I created something that is a little unique compared to other ways of using TILE, as can been seen on this page. It is a sort of halfway between concerns about TIE and TILE, as it removes information about leaders, but addresses some concerns about summarising elections in TILE. The infobox is split into sections, with the top third summarising the seats (without the percentage, as it doesn't apply to totals), while the latter two-thirds have the const. and PR seats.

I believe these options will help improve these pages, and hopefully make users come to an agreement that will benefit readers and users ability to read the pages. Other suggestions are welcome, but I believe these would be a good start, or good options. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:39, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

First of all, why should we assume that 1) the infobox should be "improved" (whatever you mean with that) and 2) that such improvement can only come on the two choices you offer? I am still not convinced on what is the requirement for us to somehow forcefully insert the TILE formatting in any way into election articles. You have been eagerly engaged in edit wars aimed at imposing TILE into articles, so you have a clear personal preference, but then why should any change minimally mirroring that be required? Surely, any discussion should start from there, which is something you seemingly take for granted and avoid to address.

On the specific proposal, I favour using TIE for Japanese articles and the Scottish model of showing the various types of votes could be a starting point. Will elaborate if required (though I am somewhat still affected by the recent controversy and this probably should have waited for some more time to let things calm down first). Impru20^talk 17:06, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Isn't the infobox supposed to summarise election articles, like you said here? If the infoboxes do not summarise properly, e.g. exclude PR seats and votes, they are then incomplete. Second, these are options. I didn't say that users should only pick one of these two. I may have a preference, but won't deny users a chance to pick TILE. Having nine parties seems excessive in TIE, therefore a threshold is best to reduce the number of parties when used on Japanese election pages. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:20, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

Just clarified to users if they have suggestions on top of these. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:22, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Impru20: I'd also like to see a change to TIE to account for Const. and PR seats, rather than this mess. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 17:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

They are intended to summarize, and I may very well approve of a solution similar to SK for Japan (they are similar political systems in many ways) but I think your rationale: 1) Has been too hasty, with this issue being so recent and still too emotional (there was some form of agreement at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents#Widespread disruption on election articles that it would be better to let the issue rest for the time being, then start some serious RfCs (i.e. aimed at achieving long-lasting consensus by virtue of attracting high participation)) and 2) the proposal lacking the essential part of it: an explanation about why. I fear we are bound to repeat the same mistakes if rushing this like this, but I can of course be wrong. Impru20^talk 17:36, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

The bottom line for me is: the distinction between constituency and PR votes must be included in the infobox. The result is close to incomprehensible without both - i.e. the LDP's seat count compared to its PR vote share is incomprehensible without constituency votes, while the inverse is true for Komeito. TILE is wholly inappropriate for elections involving two parallel components unless the template is modified sufficiently – and by this I mean the actual template, not adaptations of its current format – to allow for the results of both to be displayed properly. This has implications for countries like Italy, South Korea, Lithuania, etc that use the TILE format for parallel voting. More broadly again, TILE should really be limited to elections where a large number of small parties are competitive or comparatively influential, such as Israel or the Netherlands. That is beyond the scope of this discussion. In this respect to my key point, your Option B is far too clunky; having three separate tables is excessive and confusing. The information can be displayed using TIE more compactly and legibly. I would support the formats used for South Korea 2020, New Zealand, or any comparable alternative; I don't have a specific preference as long as they get the job done. In regards to Option A, I oppose the inclusion of an arbitrary threshold for inclusion, particularly one as steep as 5% of seats (which would exclude, for example, the JCP from every election since 1996; Ishin in 2017; as well as all parties except the DPJ and LDP in 2009). Japan has no specific threshold for the Diet, and so I think it would be inappropriate to impose one for the infobox. That said, I might be open to a guideline of 10 seats or 5% of PR votes (in the post-1994 elections).

All this said, I agree with Impru that the ongoing tumult regarding TILE and infobox-related consensuses (or lack thereof) and I cannot support immediate change for Japan. Broader, heavy-duty consensuses on infobox and election formatting need to come first. Erinthecute (talk) 18:15, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

@Erinthecute: Sorry, I should've clarified (which I have now) that a party which gains 5% in either const. or PR votes would be represented in TIE. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 18:23, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I actually think you should stick to your guns on this one. 5% of seats is a perfectly fine threshold. The Results table in the article will always have all seat-winning parties, it's not the role of the header infobox to replicate it completely. It's perfectly fine for the JCP to be excluded - they've never played anything more than a marginal role in Japanese politics - and it's perfectly fine for Ishin to be missing in 2017, as Kibo took most of their votes then. British infoboxes only include Tories, Labour, Lib Dem, and SNP for the past few cases, which I think is the appropriate scale for an overview. Chuborno (talk) 18:36, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chuborno: Most election pages use a 5% vote threshold, hence I'd rather keep the consistency. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 10:42, 17 July 2024 (UTC)

I do not really have anything to add on top of Impru's and Erin's comments, Japan's system has both PR and Constituency so a Template:Infobox election would suit Japan's elections the best because the only other alternative is Template:Infobox legislative election that in the current format cannot really show us that. I'll just respond this because you pinged me. --Vacant0 (talk) 19:10, 19 June 2024 (UTC)

I am obviously in favor of option A, i.e. the Scottish model: both results must be shown, and this can only be effectively enabled by the TIE. The 5% threshold, however, deserves more in-depth reasoning.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 17:00, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

I concur, and also favor the implementation of Option A. Μαρκος Δ 19:19, 20 June 2024 (UTC)

@Number 57, Siglæ, Rowei99, Checco, Scia Della Cometa, Yakme, Vacant0, Braganza, Kawnhr, Chuborno, Davide King, Nick.mon, HapHaxion, Helper201, Vif12vf, PLATEL, Morgan695, Tyrosian, and Elg3a-1: As you guys haven't responded yet, I've pinged all of you for your responses. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:30, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I have not much knowledge of japanese politcs Braganza (talk) 21:37, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Braganza: As Japan has two voting systems, Scottish TIE makes more sense as to show both voting numbers. However, the contention is over the voting or seat threshold in percentages. I believe it should be 5%, as removes those that don't have an impact in parliament (like the Japanese Communist Party, despite it being a longstanding party). This would only affect elections from 1993, as they adopted the voting system that they use since then, as it was pretty much like FPTP before that (known as the 1955 system). ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:43, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Braganza: For example, the 2012 election infobox would remove two parties if no party achieved at least 5% in either const. or PR votes; or if it were 5% of the total seats, then Komeito would be the last party on the infobox, with the other parties after it no longer being in it. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 21:50, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

very soft support Braganza (talk) 21:52, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I don't really edit election articles, Japanese or otherwise, so I don't feel qualified to weigh in here. Morgan695 (talk) 16:31, 13 July 2024 (UTC)

My vote would be to keep things as they are as I don't see a need to change them. It would help me if you could please provide visual representations of options A and B next to an example of what you are referring to regarding a current Japan page and how your proposals would improve it. Helper201 (talk) 22:09, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201: Here are the two examples in my sandbox (not the top two, the ones below them). ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:25, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

I think the one that shows more parties is better of those two in your sandbox. However, I still don't see the need to change the current Japan infoboxes that seem to function fine as they are. Helper201 (talk) 22:28, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

@Helper201: The problem is that they don't show the whole picture, as it doesn't show both sets of results for const. and PR seats. It prioritises one set of results over the other. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:32, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Here's how it would've looked with TILE. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 22:33, 12 July 2024 (UTC)

Hmm, actually Option 1 is quite good. Fully agreed on the necessity of including constituency votes and shares, as well as setting a cutoff of 5% of seats. In under no circumstances should we use three different TILE boxes. (A modified version of TILE with both constituency and party vote shares might be acceptable.) Chuborno (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2024 (UTC)

@Chuborno: Due to the cut off of JCP, the 5% of seats threshold was changed to votes. For example, if a party got below 5% in one voting system, but got above in another, they would still be represented in TIE. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 09:43, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

I am always in favour of TILE for parliamentary elections, thus also in this case. --Checco (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2024 (UTC)

@Checco: The problem with TILE is that it isn't adapted for different voting systems in one election. Some approve of what I've done with the results pages for the Japanese elections, but the consternation is the threshold for TIE. I personally believe it should be 5% of either const. or PR votes (i.e., if a party gains over 5% in either vote, but falls sort on one of them, they'll still be represented in TIE). ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2024 (UTC)

Option A, with or without a 5% threshold, for Japanese elections and all mixed systems. Certainly the current infobox is inadequate since it only shows the results of the proportional system (while the majority of seats are distributed by constituency), but the difference between TIE and TILE is that the former is naturally designed for mixed or double-round electoral systems.--Scia Della Cometa (talk) 16:28, 18 July 2024 (UTC)

@Scia Della Cometa: The problem with having parties below is that a majority of them don't have an impact on events in parliament, but I certainly accept that TIE is better to display such electoral systems of T-R/Const. and PR. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 09:34, 20 July 2024 (UTC)

@Number 57, Rowei99, Yakme, Kawnhr, Chuborno, Davide King, Nick.mon, HapHaxion, Vif12vf, PLATEL, Tyrosian, and Elg3a-1: As it has been over a month since this discussion first started, and you've yet to contribute, I'd like to hear your opinions. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 14:56, 21 July 2024 (UTC)

I am not very familiar with Japanese politics and have no strong opinion on how to best cover it. — Kawnhr (talk) 19:46, 22 July 2024 (UTC)

@Impru20: It seems users are in favour of TIE, but there isn't a consensus on the threshold for parties being in the infobox. Do you think this part should be closed, since it's been over a month since it first started? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:33, 1 August 2024 (UTC)

@Number 57, Rowei99, Yakme, Chuborno, Davide King, Nick.mon, HapHaxion, Vif12vf, PLATEL, Tyrosian, and Elg3a-1: What are your opinions? ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 11:31, 3 August 2024 (UTC)

@Number 57, Rowei99, Yakme, Chuborno, Davide King, Nick.mon, HapHaxion, Vif12vf, PLATEL, Tyrosian, and Elg3a-1: Reply back! ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 12:24, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

They do not have to reply. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 13:41, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Vacant0: They are the only ones who haven't contributed to the discussion. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 13:50, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

They do not have to if they do not want to. Vacant0 (talk • contribs) 09:22, 9 August 2024 (UTC)

i abstain  PLATEL  (talk) 18:08, 8 August 2024 (UTC)

@Number 57, Impru20, Vacant0, Siglæ, Rowei99, Μαρκος Δ, Checco, Scia Della Cometa, Yakme, Vacant0, Braganza, Chuborno, Davide King, Nick.mon, Erinthecute, HapHaxion, Helper201, Vif12vf, PLATEL, Morgan695, Tyrosian, and Elg3a-1: Some of us have had a discussion on the 2024 general election whether to include Sanseito and CPJ in the infobox and have listed the following reasons:

1. If the infobox is there to show as many as nine parties, we should display as many parties as we can rather than leaving the whole space empty with no purpose
2. Leaving out two parties and keeping a seven-party infobox would give a misconception that only seven parties contested/won seats in the election
3. The Sanseito and CPJ, as written in the article, are the newly emerged political forces that worth attention. Then why are we preventing our readers to know more about them from the infobox at a glance?
4. It is in line with the Japanese version, which also show nine parties
5. All the Japanese media do not have discriminatory practice against the smaller parties by excluding the Sanseito, who only had one seat, to the debate or in their media coverage, who are we to set up the arbitrary rule to discriminate against small parties?
6. There are many issues with the 5% threshold. Japan, unlike Germany and other countries, does not have the threshold for PR block vote, so the argument that a 5% threshold should apply to Japanese election articles is weak
7. In 2021 Japanese general election, DPP won more seats than JCP but did not feature in the infobox because of the 5% threshold thing, which gives a wrong perception that the JCP was the fifth largest party but it was actually the DPP!

@River10000: has provided that the Japanese electoral law recognises parties that receive more than 2% of the national vote to be recognised as a national party and @ValenciaThunderbolt: suggested that we can bring it to a broader discussion whether it can be our standard on Japanese election infoboxs across wikipedia. 2A02:6B67:E700:800:C453:ECEA:8716:7C66 (talk) 16:38, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes, hi. I think it might be best to include parties that meet national requirements (either over 5 seats on FPTP/Prop. or 2% of proportional or FPTP vote nationwide) because these parties will likely be the ones that last into the next election, and are also easily the most important (ie. included in debates and polls) River10000 (talk) 16:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

@River10000: I concur to that suggestion. Only those that meet that requirement should only be in TIE. ValenciaThunderbolt (talk) 16:52, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

IMO the obvious thing to do is to use the infobox format that can fit in all the parties that won seats (and can display the information on a single screen length). This would avoid having to make up arbitrary rules on which parties to exclude. Number 57 18:01, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

Oh, it's you! Imo, the national party qualification works best. It's also an actual criterion, not arbitrarily made. River10000 (talk) 18:48, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

The problem with that criterion is that it gives absurd results; for example, for the 2005 elections it would mean including the New Party Nippon (1 seat) but excluding the People's New Party (4 seats). It would also mean that the Social Democratic Party appears in the infobox in 2014 but not in 2017, despite it winning two seats in both elections. It really seems that people are trying to create a backwards justification for keeping an infobox that can't cope with multi-party systems. Number 57 19:13, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

IMO the best is to keep as many parties as we can, as it is how the infobox is here to do. But 2% threshold could be the comprise we can agree on. I think the current infobox is in many ways better than the other infobox as the latter only provides one of the results even there are a parallel voting system such as Japan, with many info such as last election results, leader's images, leader's seats, leadership elections and so on missing. 2A02:6B67:E700:800:C453:ECEA:8716:7C66 (talk) 22:04, 31 October 2024 (UTC)

^. The other infobox limits info for pure presentation, which, imo, shouldn't ever be the compromise. River10000 (talk) 05:06, 1 November 2024 (UTC)