Talk:14th Congress of the Philippines
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
 |
This article is within the scope of Tambayan Philippines, the WikiProject and notice board for topics related to the Philippines. To participate, visit the Tambayan for more information. |
| Start | This article has been rated as Start-Class on the assessment scale. |
| Mid | This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance scale. |
Are the results of the constituency elections official? Any chance of getting a list of representatives per party? (I'd compile it, but some of them have more than one party listed.) —Nightstallion (?) 11:54, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
- Not exactly but people elected under the Liberal Party (Atienza Wing) have no party unless they were under a national/regional party allied to the Lakas or KAMPI Party like the Padajon Surigao, SARRO, Kilusang Diwa ng Taguig and the BALANE Rizalninoynapoleon 10:36, 1 July 2007 (UTC)
Could someone correct and fill in the sectoral representatives table? —Nightstallion 11:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
- Never mind, did it myself; the representatives themselves, however, weren't listed on the EC homepage... —Nightstallion 20:32, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Juan Miguel Zubiri
According to this link, the COMELEC says Zubiri was nominated by Lakas-CMD. I don't even think the COMELEC recognizes TEAM Unity, after all, it's not a political party, but a coalition. --Howard the Duck 09:45, 29 July 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Majority and minority bloc
It should not be included since its not permanent. Besides the members of the Senate should just say the name of the Senators, Party affiliation, and their terms as Senators. Rizalninoynapoleon 14:27, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
For example this table from the 12th Congress:
[edit] Senate
-
- If there's a new senate president, then there'll be a new vote, hence new majority and minority blocs, hence new edits, hence it's really not permanent. And not everything that was done on other congresses will be done here; there were no partylists before. And if anyone can come up on how the senators voted on the senate president election the better, since it is important to see which senators belong to the majority and minority bloc especially in the multiparty system RP has. If RP has a 2-party system we wouldn't need a majority bloc column since it'll be pretty straightforward. --Howard the Duck 16:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Unless someone comes up a better reason, I shall be removing the NPIV notice and restoring the bloc column shortly. --Howard the Duck 07:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- Seeing no one has offered rebuttals and other opinions, I'll commence readding them and remove the NPOV message. --Howard the Duck 16:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- No way. This issue is not resolved yet. Besides, I look at the pages of the U.S. Senate and there is does not say who is in the majority or minority bloc. Rizalninoynapoleon 06:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not for grouping them into majority of minority blocks, there's no need for that, their political parties should at least show their CURRENT PARTY AFFILIATION, not whether they are with the administration or with the opposition. And polarization of the Congress can't be clearly defined, they sway overnight. The vote for the senate presidency isn't sufficient to establish a senator's pro-administration, anti-admin stance, they don't correspond to their membership to the majority or minority. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 06:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- The table isn't saying who's the admininistration or opposition, it's saying who's at the majority and who's at the minority. The words "majority/minority bloc" are tossed around everyday and it is vital to define who belongs to those.
- And you won't need that in the US Congress (or any other two-party system in that matter) since it is certainly clearcut, the blues (and one indy in the House) are the majority while the reds are the minority.
- Also, if you'd notice, the LP and NP never voted on the same page. --Howard the Duck 11:49, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Does anyone else wants to say something? If there's no objection I'll reinstate them. --Howard the Duck 15:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- No way this is not resolved yet do put it yet until there is an agreement Rizalninoynapoleon 16:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- How can there'd be an agreement when there are no arguments issued? You can't just filibuster this. --Howard the Duck 16:49, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- No way this is not resolved yet do put it yet until there is an agreement Rizalninoynapoleon 16:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
- Does anyone else wants to say something? If there's no objection I'll reinstate them. --Howard the Duck 15:49, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
- I'm not for grouping them into majority of minority blocks, there's no need for that, their political parties should at least show their CURRENT PARTY AFFILIATION, not whether they are with the administration or with the opposition. And polarization of the Congress can't be clearly defined, they sway overnight. The vote for the senate presidency isn't sufficient to establish a senator's pro-administration, anti-admin stance, they don't correspond to their membership to the majority or minority. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 06:52, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- No way. This issue is not resolved yet. Besides, I look at the pages of the U.S. Senate and there is does not say who is in the majority or minority bloc. Rizalninoynapoleon 06:30, 25 August 2007 (UTC)
- Seeing no one has offered rebuttals and other opinions, I'll commence readding them and remove the NPOV message. --Howard the Duck 16:10, 24 August 2007 (UTC)
- Unless someone comes up a better reason, I shall be removing the NPIV notice and restoring the bloc column shortly. --Howard the Duck 07:08, 13 August 2007 (UTC)
- If there's a new senate president, then there'll be a new vote, hence new majority and minority blocs, hence new edits, hence it's really not permanent. And not everything that was done on other congresses will be done here; there were no partylists before. And if anyone can come up on how the senators voted on the senate president election the better, since it is important to see which senators belong to the majority and minority bloc especially in the multiparty system RP has. If RP has a 2-party system we wouldn't need a majority bloc column since it'll be pretty straightforward. --Howard the Duck 16:41, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
- Reindent: Unless there is an argument, I'll reinstate this, since no argument=agreement. Filibustering is bad. --Howard the Duck 03:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
- Here is my compromise, no putting of who is in the majority/minority bloc since their party affiliation will be enough and follow the examples from the 10th to the 13th Congresses. Rizalninoynapoleon 01:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- You call that a compromise when only your system is included? LOL. Tell why it isn't a bad thing to add the majority and minority bloc in a multi-party system. --Howard the Duck 03:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's been half a month, and there's still no reply. If no one comes up with a reasonable argument I'll do it myself and remove {{POV-check}}. --Howard the Duck 08:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- It's Christmas already... unless there's a compelling argument I'll be doing it when Simbang Gabi comes along. --Howard the Duck 13:48, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
- It's been half a month, and there's still no reply. If no one comes up with a reasonable argument I'll do it myself and remove {{POV-check}}. --Howard the Duck 08:00, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
- You call that a compromise when only your system is included? LOL. Tell why it isn't a bad thing to add the majority and minority bloc in a multi-party system. --Howard the Duck 03:06, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
- Here is my compromise, no putting of who is in the majority/minority bloc since their party affiliation will be enough and follow the examples from the 10th to the 13th Congresses. Rizalninoynapoleon 01:44, 11 September 2007 (UTC)
