Contents

Talk:1915 South African general election

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles South Africa Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject South Africa, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of South Africa on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.South AfricaWikipedia:WikiProject South AfricaTemplate:WikiProject South AfricaSouth Africa articles Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Different number of seats and number of votes according to Nohlen (possibly) vs. Van der Waag.[edit]

The 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)[reply]