Talk:2004 Philippine Senate election

Untitled

This website Elksyon 2004 shows Legarda leading in the Vice-Presidential poll. Does the anonymous editor who deleted this fact have evidence to the contrary? Adam 09:46, 12 May 2004 (UTC)

Parties

I am reinstating the information removed on Parties and Coalitions. First of all, the information I posted is highly relevant to this election precisely because many of the parties/coalitions/organizations mentioned were organized solely for this elections. For example, the K-4 coalition, of which the Lakas-CMD, the Liberal Party, the NPC, among others, is formed for this election. Arroyo, of Lakas, is running for president and De Castro, an independent, is running for vice-president (so it is incorrect to say that his party is Lakas-CMD; he is an independent politician running under the K-4 banner). The KNP is a coalition party also formed for this election. The same is true for Eddie Villanueva's Bangon Pilipinas Movement.

And if you really want to be strict about it, the "Parties contesting the presidential election" list is inaccurate. First, it does not list Villanueva's BPM. Second, the LDP is correctly stated as LDP-Aquino Wing (according to the COMELEC), which supports Lacson's presidency. The KNP has under its coalition, the Angara Wing of the LDP.

To Adam Carr, I know election results is your personal hobby, but please try to consider what Filipinos want to see in an article about their elections. As a Filipino somewhat politically-aware, one who has actually voted in the election in question, and one who has contributed a lot to Wikipedia, my opinion on what should be in an article in our elections should at least be considered. --seav 13:24, May 19, 2004 (UTC)

Seav, why have you moved this page and dropped the final "s" from the title? This can create confusion for non-Filipinos. Everybody in the English-speaking world knows the "Philippines", but when it comes to the nationality adjective, it is more confusing for many of us. Is it Philippine? Or Philippino? or Filipino? I will not unilaterally revert your change without discussing it first. But I personally believe it is better, wherever possible, to use a universally recognized title than one that is is less easy to find. David Cannon 02:29, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Because it seems that most of the election articles use the adjective of the country (e.g., Swiss election, Greek legislative election, Algerian presidential election), so the corresponding term is Philippine. Actually, the adjective "Philippine" applies to things official about the country (e.g., Philippine Senate), while the other adjective "Filipino" is more colloquial and applies to cultural stuff (e.g., Filipino cuisine). Anyway, redirects are there to catch inadvertent links.

BTW, the word "Philippino" does not exist and is quite horrifying to see for us Filipinos. We would understand misspellings such as "Phillipines" and "Phillippines" but "Philippino" screams "ignorant foreigner!". :) --seav 16:06, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

BTW, I haven't checked, so I don't know whether you were the writer or not, but I found this article laced with POV and have tried (sorta!) to de-POV-ize it. To whoever did this: calling Arroyo's change of mind a "broken promise" is POV, in my opinion. To say that many Filipinos REGARD that as a broken promise is an objective fact, but for an editor of the article to CALL it a broken promise is a subjective judgement and POV. I myself confess to ambivalence about Arroyo. I think Aquino and Ramos were better, but she's certainly an improvement on the person who came before her. That's my POV. Will I put that in the article? No. POV has no place in an encyclopedia, so let's all be doubly careful to keep POV out of it. David Cannon 02:29, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

I practically wrote the whole section on the Arroyo candidacy and I did made it as NPOV as possible. Nowhere did I say that her change of mind was a "broken promise". I think what you were referring to was the use of the term "promise". I agree that "commitment" is a better and more neutral term but I personally don't think that "promise" is not NPOV; maybe a bit amateurish for an encyclopedia, but not not NPOV. Anyway, I tried as much as possible not to insert my own personal views. If you'll read that section again, I wrote that many people were dismayed by her running when she said that she wouldn't, and that other people welcomed her decision. I think that that is fairly NPOV. --seav 16:06, May 20, 2004 (UTC)

Thank you, Seav. I think I understand now where you're coming from. David Cannon 21:39, 20 May 2004 (UTC)

Seav (or anyone else from the Philippines), do you know:

• Why Comelec is posting no election figures, and in fact why their website is offline today?
• Why it takes weeks for Comelec to count 30 million votes, while India, a much poorer country, can count 380 million votes in three days, and have them all available online within a week?
• Where I can obtain detailed results for the 1998 and 2001 House of Representatives elections to put at my website?

The [Comelec http://www.comelec.gov.ph/ website] shows results for the canvassing of election results for senators and party-list representatives since they are the ones who should count that. Local offices of the COMELEC are the ones that canvass results for the district representatives down to the municipal councilors. And if I understood correctly, the current Congress will convene themselves into a National canvassing Board and they will be the ones to count the votes for the president and vice-president, not the COMELEC. Unfortunately, the canvassing board will only begin operations this Monday, May 24.

The counting of ballots occurs simultaneously around the country for each precinct at 3 p.m. after the polls close. Usually, the counting finishes the next day. The problem is the transmitting of the results (the Election Returns from the precincts to the city/municipal center, and the Certificates of Canvass from the city/municipal center to the canvassing board. And coupled with the fact the the congress will still convene itself to be the canvassing board for the president and vice-president, it will definitely take a long time (inept people). Frankly, I myself don't understand why results take so long. Filipinos have already taken this lengthy announcement of results for granted.

Hmmm... I tried searching the internet for results of the house of representatives results but it doesn't seem to be anywhere. The records are probably not online since the counting of votes for the house of representatives is done locally, not nationally. --seav 00:42, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

By the way, I accept the points you make above, although I still think most readers will find all those parties a bit confusing when they don't seem to be relevant to the presidential election.

It probably boils down to how the article is organized and the judicious use of introductory paragraphs to each sections. --seav 00:42, May 22, 2004 (UTC)

Regards
Adam 05:42, 21 May 2004 (UTC)

House results?

I was also looking for the House results. Nobody seems to publish them. Does somebody have these reults or the division of seats between parties. I am also searching the list of elected party-list representatives. For me the Philppine results are among the most difficult to find every time. I need them to publish them at my site, [www.electionworld.org]. Gangulf 12:30, 5 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Philippines House results are impossible to find. The COMELEC website gives the names of members elected in 2004 and the number of votes they polled (although even that list is not complete), but nothing about other candidates. Nor does it tell you what party they belong to. For that you have to cross-reference the names with those at the Congressional website, which lists members by party. Googling the names and vote totals of winners turns up a few random results from local sources, but no-one seems to have produced a set of national results. I suspect this is because most educated Filipinos regard local politics as a vulgar, corrupt circus (which it is) and take no interest in it. Adam 15:04, 4 October 2005 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:2004 K4 campaign.jpg

Image:2004 K4 campaign.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 21:02, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Image copyright problem with Image:Raul roco.png

The image Image:Raul roco.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, 2 October 2008 (UTC)