Talk:2009 Indian general election

message: Do you guys think it is a good idea to add the Third Front in the Infobox as a third party, with the leader being the Prakash Karat of CPI(M), due to the fact that the third front played a crucial role in this election. Even though it did poorly in this election, I think that throughout the campaign, it was a three-way race rather than a two way race.--Harish89 (talk) 03:28, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: guess it should be. --Like I Care 05:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: We need to rethink putting up the Third Front in the infobox. Of the original UNPA parties, SP,TRS, AGP and INLD joined other coalitions even before the polls began. BSP has now extended support to the UPA and the other parties like JD(S) and TDP seem to leave the alliance soon, thereby making the tally of 74 seats misleading. Moreover, both NDA and UPA had declared their PM candidates, and Mr. Karat was far from being an official choice. My point is, that while it wasn't a two-way contest, it could be assumed that there was a great possibility of either LK or Manmohan Singh being PM. Looking at it from a purist perspective, I agree we should let the entry remain. But then we should add Mayawati, Sharad Pawar, Jayalalitha...the list would be endless. Awaiting your reply. Cheers --Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 11:00, 20 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with the Third Front of 2009 is that it is not exactly the same as the UNPA which disbanded in 2008. But at the same time, a large number of the parties in the Third Front are from the erstwhile UNPA. And I definitely disagree with the idea of having Prakash Karat as the representative of the TF in the Infobox for the same reason that we have Manmohan Singh and not Sonia Gandhi on there. Prakash Karat was never in the running to be PM and neither were Mayawati or Sharad Pawar officially PM candidates. I wonder if we can have the TF as an entity with no PM candidate? Not clean or appealing, but perhaps a compromise between removing TF completely and being misleading w.r.t the leader?Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 11:29, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

text: It's not appealing I agree, but this infobox is a style borrowed from the US Presidential Elections and is bound to be a misfit in our context. We put up two photographs for the benefit of the foreign reader; But I think the third entry should be taken off altogether. Reading the number of seats between the two big alliances, its obvious that there are other parties in the fray- we needn't account for all 543 seats in photographs. Still waiting for harish89's reply. Aditya, we can discuss this further. Cheers. --Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 08:19, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. We should remove it. We also have a precedent from the 2004 election where only the UPA & NDA have been displayed despite the Left Front playing a far more pivotal role in 2004 than the 3rd Front have played in 2009. The only reason I suggested to retain it is because over the last 3-4 months, the 3rd Front has been added to & removed from the Infobox multiple times.Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 09:38, 21 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Having just UPA and NDA in the infobox is misleading, this is the first election, where there was a formidable third alliance, which was organized. There hasn't been a third force, in indian elections for a long time. In 2004, the left front ran while supporting congress, so they weren't really a third alliance. This year, they fought for a non-BJP and non-Congress government. In response to someone saying the style is like the US presidential elections, I disagree. Its more of the UK/Canada elections, where we have parties that get a significant share of seats in the parliament, rather than single leaders. The 74 seats, represents pre-poll alliance, not what happened after the election. We still cannot be sure with 262 seats with UPA, but that should be the number in the box, no matter what happens after the election, bc those are the official election results. I strongly believe that the third front proved to be an important alliance in this election, even though they were defeated, and removing them, does not paint an accurate picture of the election.--68.2.24.162 (talk) 01:44, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with the above comment, I think its important that third front be included in the infobox. They represented an alliance, that wanted to form non-BJP, non-Congress government. Even though they were defeated, they were a formidable alliance, just like the NDA and UPA. On the point that it is obvious that there are other parties, the point of adding the third front isnt to point out other parties, but they was another alliance. This is significant, because they tried to run an election, with a common manifesto, that could present something different from the other alliances. This is also the first election, that we have had a formidable third front (pre-poll alliance). The other elections, like in 1977, 1989, 1996, were third fronts that grew out of post poll alliances. If we do not include the third front in this election, it would be out of line with other elections. For example for the 1996 indian election, I added the United Front to the infobox, bc. previously it had BJP has the leading party. I think viewers who look at the page, would be confused on why Deve Gowda was elected prime minister, and where he got the seats. Thats why i added the post poll alliance to the box, to explain the number of seats that went to the alliance, w/o Congress, and how they were able to form government. In this election, no one was sure that NDA or UPA would be largest alliance, bc of powerful parties under the third front. It is worth noting, that they were not just loose parties that tried to fight the election, but they formed an alliance, and tried to contest on par with UPA and NDA. --Harish89 (talk) 01:58, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: In terms of leader being Karat, I see that there is a problem between leader and PM candidate. If someone could edit the actual template and add PM candidate as one of the items, then the confusion would disappear. I put Karat, because the left front were the first to start the third front, just as congress was first to start UPA, and bjp was first to start NDA, and I am by no way indicating that he is the PM candidate. Since we have Manmohan Singh as the leader, I was thinking that if the PM candidate is declared then he should be the leader of the alliance, if its not then the party/alliance leader should be the leader. I dont mind if we can remove karat as leader, and dont put up a leader, but i think its important to put up the third front.--Harish89 (talk) 02:08, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, due to confusion on leaders, i have included all of them. Is this a fair compromise, in terms of leaders/PM candidates?--Harish89 (talk) 02:36, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that the multiple leaders makes it very confusing. From UPA & NDA perspective, we definitely should have only 1 leader - the PM-candidates. The 3rd Front makes it a challenge since each of the leaders have been touted as PM candidates (unofficially) at various times. I'll try to see if there is any news article where the 3rd Front may have nominated a convenor or chairperson, and if so, we could use that person as the leader of 3rdF. In the meantime, I think we should revert back to the single leader display.Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 02:55, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I see the problem. I wish the template was personalized for Indian elections, where it included PM candidate instead of leader, and had coalition instead of party, and included entries for pre-poll alliance and post-poll alliance seats. As far as my knowledge on third front, they didnt want a leader to represent third front, bc they were afraid they might be projected as PM candidate. I put Karat because his left front had the most seats, and the left front, started the third front. We can remove the third front from infobox, if we cannot get a consensus, on leader/PM candidate and just note the prescense of third front in the article.--Harish89 (talk) 03:03, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  How about we leave the TF in Infobox, but don't have any leader or photo? It might not really look very good, but that does convey the most accurate picture... It shows that a 3rd pre-poll alliance played a big role in the campaigning phase but this alliance didn't present any leader to the Indian voter.As for the Alliance, I too think that it is something that we should have. I have placed a request for it at: Template talk:Infobox Election. Lets try getting some votes in there?Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 07:20, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Whoa. Seems like I missed a long discussion. I vote that the entry can stay, without a photograph and with updated no. of seats (thats 68) Cheers --Sayitaintsojoe (talk) 10:43, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I've added the alliance parameters to Template:Infobox Election and added the information into this article. I'm still not convinced that we should have Mr. Karat as the face of the TF. Do we have a consensus on what to do with the TF entry?Aditya.krishnan.82 (talk, contribs) 16:57, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think what we have right now is perfect. I know its tough to represent the third front, since they consist of many big name parties. Since Left Front ended up with most seats, with the TF, i think its appropriate to have Karat and CPM, as the leading party of third front, since they were more of a national party than other parties. It is also appropriate since CPM and Left Front, were the ones who started the third front, just like congress was with UPA and BJP was with NDA. Even many media outlet, represent the third front, as the left front alliance, due to the fact they were able to get 59 seats, in the last election, being the 3rd largest so-called alliance in the last election. --Harish89 (talk) 19:22, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

text: I agree Happyjit Singh (talk) 11:21, 7 December 2023 (UTC)
thread_title: Addition of the Third Front to Infobox

message: CPI(M) lead Third Front must be added in the info box. As it had 100+ seats in last election and won 80 seats. So, it was a major alliance at that time. Happyjit Singh (talk) 10:11, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Happyjit Singh I have explained you so many times. But it seems you don't want to understand. Anyways, I am explaining again. MOS:INDELECT#Infobox says  Now I hope this might clear things. We are supposed to add parties not alliances. Whenever we see results on Election Commission website it shows seat and vote share according to party not alliance. As you yourself have said that CPI(M) led Third Front (which is an alliance) won 100+ seats. This means that not one party has won but an alliance. Hence it can't be added. ShaanSenguptaTalk 11:59, 6 December 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: User:Soman What is your opinion in this matter Happyjit Singh (talk) 11:20, 7 December 2023 (UTC)

text: But media at that time covered news regarding the third front led by CPIM. I agree with @Happyjit Singh. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:04, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides in Wikipedia we see major parties before election/major alliance leader parties and not after election. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:06, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
replies: text: Besides, India has not presidential form of parliament where a face is must to contest election. So we can add CPIM as leader of third front even it did not have any PM face. XYZ 250706 (talk) 16:08, 2 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Add CPI(M) lead Third Front