Talk:Politics of the Netherlands

message: I edited out a lot of info on Queen Beatrix, which consisted almost entirely of her full name. I have 2 reasons for this edit:
1. This article is on the political structure of a particular country in general, not specifically on the individuals who may occupy particular posts within that structure.
2. Anyone who may be interested in this info can find it at Beatrix of the Netherlands which is much more logical --Dengo 16:01, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Queen Beatrix 

message: A majority is NOT "fifty percent plus one."  It is "more than half."  An example will suffice.  If a group has 101 members, then 51 votes is a majority.  If "fifty percent plus one" were the rule, we would need 52 votes (101/2 = 50.5 + 1 = 51.5, rounded to 52), and that is not correct, because in a group of 101, 51 votes is a majority.  A majority is a majority is a majority, so it is not necessary to be redundant and use the words "simple majority."  Likewise, it is not a "two-thirds majority," but rather, a two-thirds vote.John Paul Parks (talk) 04:39, 13 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Majority Vote; Two-Thirds Vote

message: And now for something different (or rather, picking up the previous discussion). The article is getting a bit long, which is not a problem in itself, but it would make sense to move the 'Seats per party' and 'Cabinets since WWII' sections to a separate page. Or maybe to Elections in the Netherlands. I don't think that article will get much bigger, whereas there is plenty of room for expansion in this article because there should be more on the Provincial and Municipal levels (I've already made a first start with that under 'Administrative Division'). Arnout's figure should stay in this article, though (as well), with a short  explanation and a reference to wherever the tables go. DirkvdM 12:20, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Move to separate page?

message: I question the appropriate use of the reference supposedly supporting the claim that "The political system delivers Full Representation and is by many [1] considered to be the perfect form of proportional representation."
From my interpretation, that reference ranks the Netherlands as #1 in granting civil and political liberties, not necessarily as being the "perfect form of...representation."  I might make the claim that the Netherlands has, arguably, the most open political process with the least restrictive access to that process compared to other democracies (at least as of 2001, the date of that reference).  But I would not feel comfortable claiming that the process itself is "perfect."  Perfection implies there is no room for improvement, which is contrary to the principles of a true democracy.  Democracies evolve and improve over time in response to changing social and political environments.   
Is there a more accurate reference to support the editor's claim, or is there a better way to state what the editor is trying to assert?
:Philosophically speaking your right, there is always room to improve democracy etc. But practically, the Netherlands has the most proportional system in the world for more information about that see for instance Arend Lijphart's "Patterns of Democracy". The Netherland's elections system is uniquily proportional in the world for three reasons:
::1) the Netherlands uses Proportional Representation;
::2) there is no threshold;
::3) votes are allotted astough then Netherlands is one electoral region, no seats are lost because a party can't make the threshold created by multi-member districts.
:This if a party gains .67% of votes it gets a seat. According to Lijphart the disproportionality in the Netherlands is only 1.30% compared to France 21.08%. This means that only 1.3% of the dutch votes is 'wasted', while 21% of the French are.
:There are off course some issues with the electoral system and its proportionality, most focus on the remainders seats and the openness of the party list. Finally proportional representation does not make a perfect democracy, and has many problems of its own.
:I hope this clarifies! C mon 22:38, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: User:FredrickS included this portion, so that user will have to backup that claim. Nonetheless, the sound of 'perfect form of proportional representation' for me begs the question if voting itself is warranted though. There is an easy claim to be made that democracy in itself is just mob rule, so then 'perfect form of proportional representation' becomes a little bit bizarre. Intangible 22:40, 25 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Questioning the "perfect form of proportional representation" 

message: I just oploaded my revision of the entire article. EDits have mostly taken place in the 'constitution' and 'institutions' sections. The rest I have basically left alone. I invite anyone to comment, criticise or edit my version.
I still have some problems with this version, but I did not want to be too radical without consulting my fellow editors first:
*As User:C_mon correctly pointed out, this article is supposed to be a summary of larger underlying articles. For large sections, this is not the case (yet).
*Related to this: I still feel that the political history section (although quite well written, partly by me ;-)) is a little out of place. In addition, it refers to History of the Netherlands: modern history (1900-present), which actually has less info on the same period.
*The graphs and tables. They are beautiful, but a)very detailed, b)very large and c)possibly out of place. Shouldn't they be moved to, for instance, Tweede Kamer?--Dengo 15:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: revision

message: I just created a new article Charter for the Kingdom of the Netherlands (which apparently is the official name of the Statute according to the ministry of Internal Affairs). Please critically review (and edit).--Dengo 21:01, 8 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Charter (Statute) for the Kingdom 

message: Why is the NVD not listed in the list of Dutch political parties?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.70.106.141 (talk) 03:32, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is not a discussion for this page. Probably because they never participated in an election. Arnoutf (talk) 17:11, 31 March 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  NVD? 

message: The government section of the "Outline of the Netherlands" needs to be checked, corrected, and completed -- especially the subsections for the government branches.
When the country outlines were created, temporary data (that matched most of the countries but not all) was used to speed up the process.  Those countries for which the temporary data does not match must be replaced with the correct information.
Please check that this country's outline is not in error.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact The Transhumanist .
Thank you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by  (talk • contribs) 
: There is No government section of the "Outline of the Netherlands". And in any case, the original creator of such a (future) article should make sure it is correct, and not go out and canvassing everywhere. Arnoutf (talk) 20:59, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone tell the bot it is not done to correct its own typing mistakes AFTER someone has already replied... Let alone editing another users' talk page edits...... (Not much of a problem here... Although a bot dalin tasks without a human editor first looking whether they need to be done..... Arnoutf (talk) 07:55, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Important notice 

message: The article was recently re=assessed as stub. A stub is the following
: A very basic description of the topic. The article is either a very short article or a rough collection of information that will need much work to become a meaningful article. It is usually very short, but if the material is irrelevant or incomprehensible, an article of any length falls into this category.
It is very clear to me that the article is way beyond this point. Therefore I re-assessed as start.
There remains, however, the issue that even for a start article this one is terribly under-referenced. Most information can probably be taken from the 3 (official) external links, but inline referencing will be needed. Arnoutf (talk) 09:12, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Re assess

message: @Kamal 030343 102.91.46.116 (talk) 04:11, 27 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revision