Talk:2010 Sri Lankan presidential election

Maps

So we're going to need a map of electoral districts showing the winner of each one. Any volunteers to make one? --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 08:35, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm already working on it :) ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 08:36, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Awesome :) --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 09:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

What color are we using for Fonseka? Idk if it should be green, cos the swan is a shade of yellow. Most websites use green for him though. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 09:10, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I used the colour in the party colour template (Template:New Democratic Front (Sri Lanka)/meta/color). I'm also not sure about what exactly their colour is since it seems some media use yellow while others use green. Unfortunately, his own website gives no indication. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 09:30, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Is a side-by-side comparison appropriate?

I'm not sure whether this would be dismissed as "original research", or whether it might improperly favor one point of view, but some obvious comparisons might be:

• 
• 
• File:Tamil eelam stamp.jpg
• 

When I say "comparisons" I don't mean to suggest absolute similarity, as there are some interesting differences between each of these maps. Wnt (talk) 20:48, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's obvious that a majority of the Sinhalese vote went to the President, while the minorities votes Fonseka. Even Rajapaksa has acknowledged this.[1] If you want to include something about that, go right ahead. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:22, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Basic questions

Some information should be clarified for those of us not very familiar with Sri Lanka.

• The article says that there was a drastic difference in voter turnout (70% vs 20%) in what I'd infer to be the anti- and pro-Fonseka regions. Under the circumstances I'm surprised he won such a portion of the popular vote, but it would seem that if the voter turnout in the pro-Fonseka regions had been higher, Fonseka would have won the election. Is that so?
• The article also said that most of the electoral violence was conducted by supporters of the other candidate (who recently completed military operations in the north). I would assume that this allegedly one-sided violence would explain the difference in voter turnout, but is that correct?
• More fundamentally, does the popular vote carry the election directly, or is there a districting formula to correct for differences in voter turnout between regions?
• People in the United States frequently call for abolition of the electoral college, but I suspect that this institution, whatever its flaws, has shielded the U.S. from election-related violence seen in other countries. Has there been discussion of such ideas? Wnt (talk) 21:00, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It's no surprise that Fonseka won in the north, east and centre of the country. These areas are inhabited by the country's three main ethnic groups (Sri Lankan Tamil, Muslim and Indian Tamil respectively). Fonseka has been endorsed by political parties representing the ethnic minorities (TNA, SLMC, DPF) or by parties seen as friendly to the ethnic minorities (UNP). In answer to your questions:

1) I don't think so. Doing the maths it looks like that even if everyone of the voters who didn't vote in the "pro-Fonseka" regions had actually voted for Fonseka, he still wouldn't have won because of the margin of Rajapaksa's victory. More than two-thirds of the population lives in the "anti-Fonseka" regions.

2) Only slightly. The main reason for low turnout in the north and east was because neither of the main candidates were palatable for the Sri Lankan Tamils. Another reason is that most of the population in the north have migrated to other countries, this means that upto 40% of the population actually living there have voted.

3) Result is based on popular vote only.

4) I don't know if there has been any discussion about electoral college but there has been talk of abolishing the executive presidency and returning to a parliamentary system. Fonseka pledged to abolish the executive presidency.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 22:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Just a few comments, if an electoral college type system was implemented where there's a possibility the candidate who wins a majority of the vote loses the election, it'll be a terrible mess to implement. Imagine the court challenges after.

The big question now is, is Rajapaksa President until Jan 2016 (6 years from his reelection) or Nov 2017 (a 12 year term). Indications are it's going to be Nov 2017.[2] --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 18:32, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

It's not Nov 2017. Chandrika tried to do add the remainder of her first term to her second term but the Supreme Court overruled this. She ended up only serving 11 years. Rajapaksa can only serve a maximum 6 years from moment he starts his second term. I read somewhere that this has to be before Nov 2010, so he can only be president till Nov 2016 at the latest.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 19:42, 28 January 2010 (UTC)

Chandrika took oaths for her second term immediately after her re-election in '99. That's why the Supreme Court ruled that her 2nd term expired in 2005. Rajapaksa on the other hand seems to have learned her lesson, and is going to wait till the end of his 1st term next year before he's sworn in for his 2nd term. If so, in essence he was elected for an 8 year term. That's total bs, but I think the constitution allows that. I don't see any other reason for him not to have been sworn in yet.--snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 03:29, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, it seems Rajapaksa will stay until 2017. Anyway, we can't add any of this until it is reported by reliable sources. ≈ Chamal ^talk ¤ 03:32, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

I came across this paragraph when doing some research for an article. It's from the Financial Times about the 1982 Presidential election

"Mr Jayawardene claims that sections of the SLFP conspired to assassinate him, leaders of their own party and others soon after the Presidential election and take power in a coup. This is his justification for prolonging a state of emergency declared a day after the election, although there appears to be no evidence of revolutionary activity in this paradise island."

Déjà vu? lol. --snowolfD4 ^{( talk / @ )} 17:43, 9 February 2010 (UTC)

Arrest of Main Opposition Candidate

The Main opposition Candidate General Sarath Fonseka has been arrested at his office in Colombo on 07/02/2010. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.73.8.17 (talk) 03:48, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

POV

After reading the first sentence in the paragraph marked as violence, it is quite clear that same editor edited the conduct section in the 2015 presidential elections article. In that sentence the editor states "Sri Lankan elections have a history of violence, misuse of state resources, and other violations of election laws" while the cited source simple states "Sri Lankan police received a certain number of complaints and that the police would take stern action against election law violators." the part referring to Sri lankan elections having a history of violence, misuse of state resources and other violations of elections laws appear to be editors own view point and not that of the cited source.Eng.M.Bandara (talk) 09:23, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

States/Districts carried

The States/Districts carried is pretty important to the election as it shows the which regions voted for who, It does not at all suggest the more states you win the more vote you get. This statistic is pretty vital to these elections as seen in the 2010 one. Please leave it be. thanks.--Blackknight12 (talk) 03:14, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

No, it does not in the 2005 election if you have a closer look it does not show that at all the top two candidates both won the sae number of provinces but one got more votes than the other therefore won the election. Stop referring to provinces as States please, Sri Lanka does not have any states nor is it a federal state. You need to understand how the country works before you make contributions that can be misleading.--Adhisha4 (talk) 12:06, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I believe the "States carried" field was specifically created for US presidential elections where states carried - or rather the electoral college votes of each state - decides the result of the election, not the popular vote. In the US it's possible for a candidate to win the election without winning the most popular votes, as in 2000. In Sri Lanka presidential elections results are decided by popular vote and the number of states (electoral districts) carried is irrelevant. As such, although the number of electoral districts won may be interesting from a psephological perspective, my view is that they should not be included in Sri Lankan presidential election articles. I have looked at other country's presidential election articles and overwhelmingly they don't include states carried - Argentine general election, 2011, Chilean general election, 2013, French presidential election, 2012, Irish presidential election, 2011, Mexican general election, 2012.--obi2canibe^{talk contr} 18:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

I know that the "States carried" parameter was created specifically for the US presidential elections, however that does not mean it cant be used for the Sri Lankan presidential election. Yes obviously states and districts are not the same but a parameter can be made for districts. In the recent elections as well as most likely in the earlier presidential elections outcomes have been very polarised such as very clearly in the 2010 elections, with the upcoming elections similar to the 2010 but this time with a larger opposition to the same incumbent.--Blackknight12 (talk) 19:56, 29 December 2014 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Sri Lankan presidential election, 2010. 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/20100203233032/http://english.vietnamnet.vn:80/politics/201001/Viet-Nam-China-good-friends-and-partners-in-2010-892217/ to http://english.vietnamnet.vn/politics/201001/Viet-Nam-China-good-friends-and-partners-in-2010-892217/

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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} 19:07, 29 January 2016 (UTC)