Talk:1915 South African general election
Latest comment: 2 years ago by Number 57 in topic Different number of seats and number of votes according to Nohlen (possibly) vs. Van der Waag.
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
Different number of seats and number of votes according to Nohlen (possibly) vs. Van der Waag.
editThe number of seats (since the original 2006 version of the article) and number of votes per party according to this page, per the cited
- doi:10.1093/0198296452.003.0046 Ulf Engel in Nohlen et al.'s Elections in Africa: A Data Handbook (Oxford Univ. Press);
differs from the online and free-to-read
- Van der Waag All splendid, but horrible: The Politics of South Africa's Second "Little Bit" and the War on the Western Front, 1915-1918 doi:10.5787/40-3-1040 (Scientia Militaria: South African Journal of Military Studies) which cites B.M. Schoeman Parlementêre verkiesings in Suid-Afrika).
Unionist seats, votes:
- Nohlen et al. according to this article = 39, 49917
- Van der Waag = 40, 48034
Does someone have access to Nohlen et al.'s Elections in Africa: A Data Handbook to check if it's figures are the same as this page's?
If it is the same as quoted in this article, that means Van der Waag is probably incorrect - should we remove Van der Waag as the source for 1910 South African general election? -- Jeandré, 2022-05-07t11:43z
- Nohlen and Van der Waag have nearly identical results for 1910; the only difference is that Nohlen has 39,765 votes for the Unionist Party; however, I believe this may be a typo, as the total number of votes listed for parties is one less than the total number of votes stated. As a result, I think Van der Waag is probably reliable for the 1910 results. Number 57 12:43, 7 May 2022 (UTC)