Template talk:Philippine elections

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.
Template This article has been rated as Template-Class on the assessment scale.
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] What elections to include

I'd recommend to remove the 1897 ones; they weren't really elections; they were conventions or Congresses. --Howard the Duck 04:49, 3 March 2007 (UTC)

I rather not have them here too, since it was limited only to an organization, and did not target a nationwide constituency. — scorpion prinz 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
I concur with the March 1897 one - this template is only for votes held on a national level (though it would include limited franchise votes, e.g. before women were enfranchised, or apartheid-era elections in South Africa). I don't know enough about the November 1897 one - was there a nationwide election to elect the Supreme Council? If so, it should remain. If not, it should go. Number 57 15:18, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
Both 1897 elections, were Revolutionary council elections. I doubt if they both deserve to be here. I would rather have Aguinaldo's election as president by the Malolos Congress, at least that targeted a nationwide constituency, indirect though, through the representatives in Congress. — scorpion prinz 00:14, 12 April 2007 (UTC)
There being no more objections I guess, I'm removing them from the list. — scorpion prinz 18:22, 19 April 2007 (UTC)
I have finished editing the elections of 1922 to 1931 base on new information i have found and i was able to find the dates of the elections based on clues given by the Jones Law of 1916.— rizalninoynapoleon 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree what Howard the Duck said on the elections of the Tejeros Convention and the Biyak-na-Bato Elections, i have researched and have concluded that the elections in Tejeros and Biyak-na-Bato were ratified b the Malolos Congress and was done on its first session of Congress and we can consider that it is an Constituent Assembly Election and I propose that we should add this to the template and make a page named as Philippine presidential elections, 1898. — rizalninoynapoleon 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
No, they are not elections, period and shouldn't be renamed in any other way. --Howard the Duck 08:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

(reindent) Peeps, I think the general elections must satisfy these requirements:

  1. The election must elect all officials, from the president down to the councilor.
  2. It is done nationally.

Ergo, all midterm elections, constitutional conventions, congresses, elections specifically done for one place are to be excluded here. We might as well change the titles of the midterm elections from "general" to "local and legislative". --Howard the Duck 08:33, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

I would be in favour of going back to splitting the template between presidential and legislative elections (as it was here, but with Senate and Parliament in the same section), and when they coincide (as a general election), they are included in both rows (see Template:Argentine elections as an example) - this is what has been done as standard on these templates. Number 57 08:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
That'll be better solution, IMHO. --Howard the Duck 09:22, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
Problem is that general elections were synchronized (presidential or midterm) after an amendment made to 1987 Constitution. And I was contacted by the Head of Archives of the Commission on Elections and has said that the Philippine Supreme Council elections, 1897 and the Tejeros Convention were validated by the Supreme Court, National Historical Institute and the Philippine Centennial Commission and has said they are the first and second presidential elections signed on January 30, 1999 in the centennial of the birth of the republic. So do consider putting it back or else who might arrested in denying history in the Philippine History conservation Act of 1999— rizalninoynapoleon 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
If you can get a citation on that, that'll be great, but without citation, that's original research. --Howard the Duck 09:54, 24 April 2007 (UTC)
I don't think it's a problem that they are synchronised - they can appear on both rows without causing any disruption. Number 57 10:29, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] On regards to the what Rizalninoynapoleon said

Republic Act No. 8491 also known as the Heraldic and Preservation Act of 1999 which prescribed that a person, academic, scholar, teacher, professional who denied through words or theoretically speaking of Philippine History and Culture unless have evidences to support there claims will be fined 500, 000 and 25 years imprisonment.— rizalninoynapoleon 15:14, 24 April 2007 (UTC)

No legal threats, please, just provide us your sources that the NHI, SC, etc. said all pre 20th century "elections" really are elections and we'll all be happy. --Howard the Duck 06:42, 25 April 2007 (UTC)
How can the Supreme Court validate the Philippine Supreme Council elections, 1897 and the Tejeros Convention? Amazing! When in fact Philippine jurisprudence doesn't recognize any act of the Biyak-na-Bato, Tejeros, and Malolos Republic. They are recognized only for historical purposes. If you're gonna study law, Philippine jurisprudence was passed from Spanish to the Americans without interlude for a native government to function and interject any jurisprudence for a successor state to recognize. Because if the Supreme Court or Philippine jurisprudence recognize any act of these native republics why doesn't it recognize Gracio Gonzaga as the first Supreme Court Chief Justice being appointed by Aguinaldo to the position? (Source: The Laws of the First Philippine Republic, published by the National Historical Institute, ISBN 987-538-055-7)
And oh, a COMELEC archives department??? They don't have one sir. They have no records of any election prior to 1946, believe me I've been there. I hope that red book which contains all elections results from 1946 to 1963 survived the fire (glad i photocopied most of it) otherwise we might not have any reference anymore. I've inquired with most of the people concerned the only election results they have is 1946, since they were only created by a constitutional amendment in 1940. No election results in 1941 since all records were destroyed by the war. The earliest elections they have in record for historical purposes is the June 26, 1934 Concon elections, though they didn't sanction that one. (Source: COMELEC Records and Statistics Division). -- Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 17:05, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
Wait for the email message from Ambeth Ocampo head of the NHI to settle the matter but we should be vigilant for the upcoming elections. --rizalninoynapoleon 01:37, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
I don't rely on email alone. I can give you his cellphone number if you want. --Scorpion prinz (Talk | contribs) 10:53, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Philippine Malolos Congress election, 1898

Should it be listed? --Howard the Duck 17:24, 13 May 2007 (UTC)

Were they elected by the public, or from amongst themselves? Number 57 17:34, 13 May 2007 (UTC)
I know about this because i found it a historical book made by Reader's Digest Philippines featuring the history of the philippines. To explain why the government held elections from June 23 to September 10 because each town that they liberate election are held immediately. Rizalninoynapoleon 01:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
Are you telling as stories again? Can you give us the ISBN number, publisher, author, book title, etc.? --Howard the Duck 02:43, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
The Philippines: A Unique Nation ISBN 971-642-071-4 Rizalninoynapoleon 16:35, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
Even if this is through, it'll have to go through consensus first. --Howard the Duck 17:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

[edit] IBP Regional and Sectoral

I have uncover in the book of Dr Sonia M. Zaide (Source: The Philippines: A Unique Nation ISBN 971-642-071-4) that there was an another IBP election for sectoral representatives on April 27, 1978 this is original and published evidence Take That Howard Rizalninoynapoleon 16:40, 31 May 2007 (UTC)

Where? --Howard the Duck 17:22, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
After reading the article, why should it be separate from the main Philippine parliamentary election, 1978? --Howard the Duck 17:33, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
There were two IBP elections one for the regional and the other was the sectoral. I will am asking to separate the articles. Besides this is verified by the COMELEC (See:The Philippines: A Unique Nation ISBN 971-642-071-4) What the COMELEC verified is valid enough Rizalninoynapoleon 02:43, 1 June 2007 (UTC)
We only separate the articles if the file size is too big. As of now it's not that big. Heck even Philippine general elections, 2007 doesn't have separate articles for each level (Senatorial, House and local). --Howard the Duck 05:59, 1 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] We must separate the articles

I am thinking of separating the articles in this sectioning: Presidential, Senate, House, Parliamentary and Constitutional Convention Delegates Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 10:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Also in the template as well. Rizalninoynapoleon (talk) 10:20, 14 April 2008 (UTC)
Just don't mess up and fix up the linking it should be fine for me. Dunno about the Elections WikiProject though. --Howard the Duck 12:55, 14 April 2008 (UTC)