Talk:2012 Romanian presidential impeachment referendum

Turnout requirement

For the referendum to be valid, a participation of at least 50% of the voters is required. Do I understand correctly: If, of the ~10mio that remained absent, 1mio would have actually gone voting in favor of the president, then his impeachment would have been successful. Now, that these 1mio people stayed at home, the election is invalid and the president cannot be impeached.

If this was correct, then I conclude that the law regulating the referendum is quite unreasonable (in my opinion). How can Romanians want a rule where it is bad for the president, if someone votes for him, but it is good for the president if the same voter casts no vote? Such regulation would ask for the president to call on his supporters "please stay at home, do not vote for me". How ridiculous! What about the 943,000 people that actually voted in his favor: Are they stupid? Or, are they actually against the president? But the, why did they not vote against the president?

This must have been discussed in Romania before the referendum. I think it is worth for the article to cover this controversy. Perhaps I just misunderstand the rules, then I guess the article needs updating to avoid the misunderstand I expressed in the first paragraph. Tomeasy _{T C} 15:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I don't have any explanation for the law itself, but if you find any reliable sources you feel explain this better, I'd be glad to help integrate them into the article. Khazar2 (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliable source for what? Tomeasy _{T C} 16:00, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Explaining the laws better than the article currently does. Khazar2 (talk) 16:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

The article has reliable sources and explains quite clearly the rule of validity, see second paragraph of the section "Background". So, your request for RS is in vain.

My question is simply if there has not been a lot of discussion due to the obvious limitation of the rule as set be the court, and if we should not report on this controversy, if it existed. I think the limitation has been explained enough in my first quote. 16:24, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I guess I'm having trouble understanding your request, then. But the main point is that you should feel free to include this information if you find discussion of it in reliable sources. Khazar2 (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Comment - Is clearly a great injustice to the Romanian people. This Turnout requirement didn't exist for 2007 impeachment Referendum. This law is totally ridiculous. - EugεnS¡m¡on(14) ® 16:33, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

That may well be true, but let's respect WP:NOTFORUM. Khazar2 (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

@Khazar I am not trying to discuss Romanian politics here. For or against the president - I really do not care. I just read this article, especially the "Background" section, and cannot avoid to see a very drastic logical error in the rule that was implemented lately. Now, I also do not want to have a discussion about its democratic deficit. This is just my opinion. I am posting this here, because I can well imagine that this logical limitation has led to quite some discussion in Romanian media, which may be relevant enough to include in this article. 16:59, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

@Tomeasy: The idea is that the impeachment is an extraordinary process that needs the participation of at least half the country. For example, in many countries, for important motions to be passed there have to be at least two thirds of MPs present to vote. It's the same for this. In any case, this referendum was illegal because the president didn't overstep the constitution, he's just unpopular because of austerity. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.112.54.161 (talk) 02:59, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It is clear to me why a quorum is implemented. This explanation was not necessary.

Thing is: typically, a quorum is put on the amount of votes required for a certain outcome to be valid. I understand this was the case in 2007, when 50% were required to vote "yes" or "no" to make either of the two a valid decision. The quorum that was active in 2012 is different, because it requires 50% participation rather than a percentage for or against.

The 2012 rule has the very awkward result that, for the president's supporters, it was better to abstain than to vote in his favor. This is usually undesirable, and I do not know of any other case where a quorum is put in this funny way. All cases I have followed, the quorum required a certain amount of people (not necessarily 50%, often it is less) to vote in favor or against to make their decision valid. This way, each voter will help his own opinion by going to vote, or more precisely cannot harm his own cause. This simple rule was violated in the present case. If, of those absent, 1mio had decided to vote in favor of the president, the result would have been in his disfavor. How can that make sense? More people cast their opinion in favor of something, but the result is that they render a decision against their cause valid. I hope you get the point now.

Anyway, it is not my intention to discuss good and bad quorums at length. I am just assuming that this funny rule lead to peculiar situations in Romania, which fulfill notability and may be quoted here with reliable sources. E.g., I could imagine the president to call on his supporter not to vote in his favor but rather to be absent. If this had happened, it would certainly be noteworthy. I could further imagine that the decision of those people who voted for the president could have been questioned or even ridiculed: after all, it was probably not very wise of them to participate and vote for their cause, as they would have almost ruined there own interest by rendering the result against their cause valid. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:38, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It is mentioned in the lead that the president asked for boycott. Those who voted "no", were either uninformed or considered that upholding democracy by participating is more important than the outcome itself. But you are very right about the quorum issue being controversial, for multiple reasons. One much discussed point missing from the article is the question of the size of the electorate (currently estimated at 18,288,757), which some (including the PM) allege to be outdated data, real figures being lower at around 16.5 mil (Source). That has implications on calculating the participation rate. --ELEKHH^T 23:16, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, your answer makes sense to me. I agree that a call for boycott is a logical reaction, somehow due to the rule implemented here. Tomeasy _{T C} 20:17, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this type of quorum is an extreme case of negative vote weight. --Roentgenium111 (talk) 21:54, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Date in infobox

Anyone know why the date isn't showing in the infobox? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 17:03, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Census data

I suspect I'm near 3RR on this article so won't try to revert, but it appears to me that this edit directly contradicts the given source. Would anyone double-check? Khazar2 (talk) 02:43, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I've reverted the IP - the info it's inserting is both wrong, and a rather large dose of WP:OR. Number 57 08:23, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

There is still some confusion in that part of the article. The AFP source states "Ponta has told the EU his government will respect a ruling invalidating an impeachment referendum", that is, in case the Court decides so. He did not "acknowledged [...] that the referendum had failed" as the article states. Further the source states "Antonescu wants the court to use data from last year's census, which he said "represents reality" rather than up to date figures from the official electoral register." This does not explain why would he claim that up-to-date data from the register would not be as real as last years census, hence the misrepresentation in the article is understandable. But Romanian media sources clarify this. The specific allegation here is that the "up to date figures from the official electoral register" is based on the 2002 Census, hence is less accurate than new figures based on the 2011 Census would be. In any case the statement in the article that "Other officials of his party, however, called on the Constitutional Court to use the previous year's census figures rather than the current ones" is wrong on multiple counts. Antonescu is part of the same coalition, but not the same party, neither is he simply party-official, but acting-president. Also he calls not for using last years figures instead of up to date ones, but he alleges that the current official figures are not up to date. --ELEKHH^T 23:31, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Clearly this is a complicated issue, but the AFP's statement seems pretty straightforward: "The centre-left Ponta, whose feud with Basescu plunged Romania into one of its worst political crises since the fall of communism over two decades ago, acknowledged Monday that Sunday's referendum on the motion to remove his rival from office fell short of the turnout needed. He said although he was "not happy" with the result, the centre-right Basescu would be able to return to the office he has held since 2004."

As for Antonescu's specific demand, is it possible to find other English-language sources that better clarify this? I don't mind using Romanian-lang sources if we have no choice, but it makes it harder for other editors (and future readers) to understand the nuances. Khazar2 (talk) 06:42, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

It is quite messy too, and I wouldn't be surprised if even some of those involved are inconsistent. From the AFP text I focused on the "will respect referendum ruling" (i.e. by the Court) part which is consistent with Romanian media reporting, and read the paragraph you quote as conditional on that. Here an English language RS which shows that he actually called on Basescu to step down. Also on Euronews a more recent brief item about the results being challenged. --ELEKHH^T 07:18, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

POV issues with use of description "Constitutional Court invalidated the referendum"

The Romanian Constitutional Court only has powers to declare the recent referendum invalid because there exists a law, passed in 2000 and subsequently amended, that sets out the rules for what referenda are considered valid. Though it is not our purpose here to interpret the law - that is what the court did today - it is our purpose to report what they did in reasonably fair and balanced language. To say the members of the Court "invalidated" the results of the referendum implies they have ultra vires powers to make law. They were applying the existing law (law 3/2000, section 5(2) deals with the 50%+1 requirement). Though there is a difference of opinion about whether they made the right decision about how to apply the law, application of the law is what they are doing. They have no power to autocratically "invalidate" referenda, just because they feel like it. Those who represent things this way speak in error, and that error must not be endorsed by Wikipedia.

By failing to represent this referendum as being held according to legal rules and processes, Wikipedia would be confirming a widespread belief that this referendum itself constitutes a threat to the rule of law, for which there is, at least as yet, no credible evidence. Those who promoted the referendum against Băsescu have accepted the court's ruling, though some of them may disagree with it. Ponta has accepted the verdict's legality. Antonescu has accepted the verdict's legality. If Wikipedia presents them as somehow being scheming coup plotters in light of those facts, then I would assume the next step would be to go over to the page about the Bush/Gore election and present Gore as a scheming coup plotter because he had challenged the legality of Bush's election as American president in 2000 (despite the fact that he, too, accepted the legality of the court's verdict). Zachary Klaas (talk) 00:30, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

While I am sure that you are telling the truth, Wikipedia writes based on references, and we have reliable references using the word "invalidate" in it. Personally, I don't see that far into it, but I can understand your concern. If you can bring different references that say otherwise while reporting this event, then perhaps it can be changed. But we use reliable references for this type of stuff. (And as one of the updaters who put in the wording, I can tell you no POV attempt was made). Would writing that the court invalidated it make it better than saying they declared it invalid? --Activism1234 00:52, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

No, I don't think so. The law passed by parliament invalidated it. The court recognised that it was invalidated by the terms of the law. I'm sure I can present you with reliable sources saying "declared it invalid" too. Are we just going with your version because it was the version that was there first, then? Zachary Klaas (talk) 05:46, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This reference is already in the ref list, for example...it says "declared invalid" in the headline --> [1] Zachary Klaas (talk) 05:49, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Here is a wire article from the McClatchy-Tribune news service: "Although 88 percent of those who cast their ballots in the July referendum were in favor of the impeachment, the vote was declared invalid after turnout fell short of the 50 percent threshold required by law. The Constitutional Court rejected Ponta’s claim that Romanian voter registries were outdated and that, as a result, turnout for the referendum had actually been higher than 50 percent." --> [2] That is exactly what happened, in clear language. There was an existing law requiring a 50 percent threshold, the Constitutional Court is recognising that this is the law, and the question brought before the court was on the question of whether the voter registries were sufficiently outdated that the requirements of the law had been met - a question upon which the court ruled in the negative, about which government leaders still disagree, but which they have accepted because the court has the right to decide this under the Romanian constitution. It is not the court ruling on its own, with no previous law to guide it on the matter, nor is it the government blowing past the court as if it had no role here. Zachary Klaas (talk) 13:06, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Sir/madam, I'm not Romanian, I write articles or passages based on references, and the references I had in the international media outlets specifically used the word invalidated. I don't see it as problematic either - the referndum may not have been valid to begin with, and the court simply said "Yeah guys it's not valid." --Activism1234 14:36, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

This is, in my opinion, a non-issue. In this context, there is no major difference beteeen to "invalidate" and to "declare invalid", to me the difference only slightly changes the emphasis, but for all intents and purposes, they are the same. The fact that it has been used in both ways by the press only confirms this. I think that, under these circumstances, "invalidated" is a better option since it's more concise. Silvrous (talk) 15:13, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Activism: Is that true? It seems like I'm finding more references that say "declared invalid". Indeed, just using the references you used yourself, to recommend this story for "In The News", I discovered that a majority of them used "declared invalid" --> [3], note my comments near the end. I'm not trying to show you up here, I'm just curious how you can say that when your own examples seem to support the case I am making. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:20, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

In any case, if there really is no difference between the two, as Silvrous suggests, then we should use my version, because all three of us would be satisfied, then. Zachary Klaas (talk) 21:22, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm just going to write "declared invalid." Is that OK with you though? --Activism1234 21:25, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I"m confused. I went to change it, but it seems that's the current wording. Is there something different you want to change it to? --Activism1234 21:28, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

I already made the changes - I was explaining what I was doing on the Talk page, to make sure people were on side with me doing that. Zachary Klaas (talk) 04:23, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Illegitimacy issue

These are the the years of election and numbers of people that have voted for Mr Traian Basescu

Year 2004 Election

• Second round 5,126,794 votes 51.2 percent
• Total votes:10.008.314 SOURCE: [[4]2004]

Year 2007 Referendum

• VOTES for the president [NO]6,059,315 /percentage 75.06/ AGAINST [YES] 2,013,099
• Total votes:8.072.414 SOURCE: [[5]2007]

Year 2009 Election

• Second round 5.277.068 votes 50.33 percent
• Total votes:10.483.815 SOURCE: [[6]2009]

First he was elected with 5,126,794 votes (2004) the second time 5.277.068 votes (2009) and voted off with 7,403,836 (2012) this is should be mentioned in a article since its a serious issue affecting Capitalism as a hole. Veriteo (talk • contribs) 11:56, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Hello, i'm from romanian and i would like to add the the President is a illegitimate one give the fact that there are under 15 million with voting right source:1 and given the fact that romanian abroad don't count in Electorate.Romania also has a population decline source:2and has only a 19 million population (2012 data) SOURCE:3 Veriteo (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Your opinion shouldn't matter in your activity on Wikipedia. Wikipedia is based on fact and reliable evidence (WP:V), and a neutral point of view WP:NPOV. If you wish to contribute to the Encyclopedia, feel free to improve any article, it's easy! See your talk page for more information. Silvrous (talk) 07:51, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Ahhh,opinion have you read my post ??? aLMOST FORGOT source 3 is in Romanian you will find the population stated in page 1 line 25 Populaţia stabilă(Stable population): 19,0 milioane (19.042.936) persoane(people) Veriteo (talk) 11:12, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

The facts and the law are in dispute here, especially considering that the Constitutional Court gave a verdict that some disagree with, and some agree. In this context, your assertion that the president is illegitimate is a matter of opinion. Wikipedia doesn't state whether someone is legitimate or not, only, if there is a dispute, presenting the arguments of both sides. In this situation, a definitive claim is simply impossible. Silvrous (talk) 12:34, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

OK so the numbers speak from themselves 5.277.068 votes means LESS than 7,403,836 votes (in your case means more i will certainly allow you to teach my children math) those numbers right there are not a FACT that the president has no more legitimacy its my own opinion and this event is nothing out of the ordinary every communist country oh excuse me capitalist country has exactly the same event happen every referendum or election day its not a failure of capitalism or Romania's failure i'm certain of it.Veriteo (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC) Also Wikipedia must say that a thing is black or white when everyone sees that its black right ?? Veriteo (talk) 13:07, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

I am not contesting your beliefs/arguments, I am merely concerned about your neutrality. I suggest you read WP:COI, WP:NPOV and WP:EQ. Anyone can make great contributions to the wiki, but we all have to follow the guidelines to ensure that the encyclopedia fulfills its intended purpose, a neutral, fact-based source. Silvrous (talk) 13:19, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

so tell me is in a sane world 5.277.068 > 7,403,836 true or not ?? Veriteo (talk) 13:39, 26 August 2012 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.politics.hu/20120730/romanian-pm-claims-outrage-over-hungarian-counterparts-comments-on-impeachment-referendum/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Psychonaut (talk) 19:49, 26 April 2014 (UTC)