Talk:Congress of Deputies

Graph

There's a graph on the commons showing the number of seats each party has held across time [Image:Escaños congreso de España 1977-2004.png here] (sorry the syntax is awry).--Estrellador* 22:24, 6 May 2007 (UTC)

Questionable title

As far as I know, no other organization has a "Congress of Deputies", so why is there a disambigatory "(Spain)" at the end of the title if there is no ambiguity? 68.39.174.238 (talk) 21:25, 25 July 2008 (UTC)

The correct translation for "Diputados" is NOT "deputies" in any case, "representatives" or even "senators" would be a better translation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 178.208.220.154 (talk) 09:29, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

coalicion andalucista¿

where is? it isn't in the table. http://www.generales2008.mir.es/99CG/FTOP.htm more than 68000 votes... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.229.108.146 (talk) 04:26, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

Podemos Numbers

According to this: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidos_Podemos Podemos as 71 deputies, according the this article the coalition inlcuding Podemos has 67 deputies, according to this: https://es.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unidos_Podemos they have 41 deputies. Obviously, different definitions are being used. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:8311:CE00:219F:5D0F:17A9:46B9 (talk) 00:36, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

71 is the number they got in the election, if we include Coalició Compromís. 67 is the current size of their parliamentary group, given that Compromís is in the Mixed Group.

The correct number for this article is 67, as it's the parliamentary group size. The Unidos Podemos figure is 71 in that article, however, because that is what they got in the election.

I've no idea where the 41 number comes from. It may very well be wrong. Impru20 (talk) 09:01, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 20 February 2018

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: page moved. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 06:02, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

---

Congress of Deputies (Spain) → Congress of Deputies – Congress of Deputies redirects here. Apparently no other chamber is called this way (thus the existence of a redirection and not a dissambiguation page), so, per WP:COMMONNAME, the title should be moved to Congress of Deputies Asqueladd (talk) 02:54, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

This is a contested technical request (permalink). Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:49, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

• @Asqueladd: There are many meetings and groups that could be more or less described as a congress of deputies. Keep the disambiguater. Anthony Appleyard (talk) 05:51, 20 February 2018 (UTC)
• @Anthony Appleyard: The thing is that Congress of Deputies is not a dissambiguation page, but a redirect to Congress of Deputies (Spain), so it doesn't make sense. If there are many meetings that could be named as "congress of deputies" (this is in contradiction with the entry lower chamber, that states that congress of deputies is a "unique name"[sic]), let's start creating a Congress of Deputies (disambiguation) page.--Asqueladd (talk) 05:57, 20 February 2018 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Confidence and supply parties

Given the magnitude of the vote on the State of Alarm last Wednesday−as seen by the Spanish media here or here−which has seemingly broken the motion of no confidence block, I'd rather delete the 'Supported by' cathegory or change the parties which are on it. For example, I'd propose moving ERC to 'Opposition'−because they critized the apparent new Sánchez's allies here and here−and Cs and PRC to 'Supported by'−maybe provisionally−especially, regarding the future vote on the budget as stated by both parties here and here, or at least, the last of them if any of you were to point out this on Cs' stance. 5.34.154.217 (talk) 22:44, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I agree in part and disagree in part. The things I agree on are that I think ERC and Bildu should be moved back to opposition. Not because their vote against the state of alarm has made them all that much more antagonistic or even more likely to vote against the budgets. Rather I think they should be moved back to opposition because even in their most helpful posture toward this government (such as the investiture vote) they wished to be understood as opposition parties who might work with the government for concessions and in ERC's case specifically if the negotiations between the Spanish and Catalan governments went well. I still expect them to be the Coalitions chosen partner for future budgets. The other place where I agree is that I think we can now consider the PRC a support party. Their vote against the investiture was largely seen as a whim of the PRC President and soon after it the agreement by which that party governs Cantabria in coalition with the PSOE was renewed and part of that was an agreement to support the federal government which it has done in all the important subsequent votes that I have been aware of. Where I very strongly disagree is the idea that Ciudadanos should now be considered a support party of the Coalition government. That is clearly wrong and their support of the government in the last vote on the renewal of the state of alarm was merely a coincidence of views in a crisis. Pedro Sanchez reaffirmed this recently by saying that the Coalition Government's political projects (read budgets and so on) would rely on the parties that supported the investiture whereas the alliance of convenience with Ciudadanos in the State of Alarm vote was only a product of emergency circumstances. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.99.1.133 (talk) 15:02, 13 May 2020 (UTC)

Political groups in infobox

I recently tried to change the infobox to reflect the political groups that exist in the Congress of Deputies. Later, user @Foreverwillbeokay reverted the edit, arguing that "it has been the norm to list the individual parties in the deputies page". However:

• The infobox clearly refers to "Political groups", not "Political parties". Therefore, listing only political parties, without indicating the parliamentary groups they belong to, could be misleading.
• Other legislative chambers, such as the French National Assembly, follow the same approach that I proposed.

For this reason, I intend to reintroduce the change so that the content matches what the infobox label suggests. If there is a clear policy-based reason not to do so, please let me know. Jocafus (talk) 16:29, 23 February 2026 (UTC)