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 Romania Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Romania, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Romania-related topics 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.RomaniaWikipedia:WikiProject RomaniaTemplate:WikiProject RomaniaRomania Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. To-do list: Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Article requests : Help Romania reach at least GA-status Help History of Romania get WP:GOOD Request an article or create a missing one Assess : Assess all articles tagged for this project that have not been assessed for quality Cleanup : Review the Romania-related cleanup listing Normalize the use of "Northern Bukovina" (capitalized) and "Northern Bessarabia" (Bessarabian part of Chernivtsi Oblast) all over Wikipedia Disambiguation : Disambiguate project articles and get points Expand : Expand Postage stamps and postal history of Romania Translate : Translate Romania-related articles from the Romanian Wikipedia Translate and keep in sync with the project versions in other languages: Projet:Roumanie (in French), Proiect:România (in Romanian), Проект:Румыния (in Russian) Unreferenced : * Add more reference to FC CFR Timișoara. Other : Make use in articles of the newly contributed images (about 5800!!) from the Wiki Loves Monuments Romania 2011 (WLM Romania external site) Review newly created Romania-related articles Check the articles needing expert attention or other work, and help with some of the items Create Awards for WikiProject Romania Contribute photos related to Romania at Commons:WikiProject Romania. Organize Romania related images on Commons. See also media-related tasks

I'm sorry but mentioning Orban in the PNL section while leaving out Ciuca, the frontrunner for the Liberals, is satire right? 109.255.241.4 (talk) 16:15, 5 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

When looking at the cited page for results, it seems to be split into 2 sections, internal and abroad.

Shouldn't the final tally reflect the 2 added together? Jlaursen (talk) 04:50, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The layout of the website is quite misleading. The "România" tab includes both the internal and diaspora vote. 178.164.249.145 (talk) 08:25, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Do you have a source? @Aréat and Number 57: Panam2014 (talk) 12:06, 25 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Now i admit its getting hard, what do you think?

@PLATEL: Braganza (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

shorten the alliance names to abbreviations and I think this can be included in the page  PLATEL  (talk) 05:43, 29 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

We should create a new article for 2025 polls. Electoral process have been cancelled. Panam2014 (talk) 14:08, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Was the date really moved to 2025? There are 25 days left till next year. Borgenland (talk) 14:11, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

We need 30 days of electoral campaign, aside from the time required for gathering signatures for the candidates who will enter the new race. Most likely will be in spring of 2025, but the government has not set the date. Gdaniel111 (talk) 16:46, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

agreed. With the time frame new elections (first and second round) are likely to be set for next year. I think that the results of this election should be considered a seperate election. EmilePersaud (talk) 16:07, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, this article should be only about the anulled elections. Gdaniel111 (talk) 16:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think a split might be neccesary for the article to be coherent. This is especially the case if (as I understand is the case) the candidates will be different in the re-run. At that point, how do you depict the now cancelled 2024 first round without it being confusing? Gust Justice (talk) 19:53, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

It depends on whether the fresh elections are considered a re-run or a separate election. It seems to me that the fresh elections are a re-run similar to 2013 Maldivian presidential election, and so the article should not be split. However, the article may need retitling 2024–25 Romanian presidential election. Number 57 19:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The current page should be about the annulled election. I suggest creating a new article called Next Romanian presidential election until the exact date is known, which will probably be in 2025. That makes it easy for the title. If they find a way to do it before the end of the year then I'd suggest 2024 Romanian presidential re-run election or December 2024 Romanian presidential election. Johndavies837 (talk) 20:35, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I suggest that a module is used to seperate the first election and the re-run like on the 1922 Polish presidential elections article Polish kurd (talk) 20:48, 6 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Number 57 in that we should see whether the fresh election is a re-run or a brand new election. So far, practice in Wikipedia has been to not split mere re-runs of annulled elections (Number 57 mentioned 2013 Maldivian presidential election, we also have 2016 Austrian presidential election), but to create new articles for elections that are new from scratch (2017 Kenyan general election/October 2017 Kenyan presidential election, 1997 Serbian general election/1997 Serbian presidential election, 2021 Berlin state election/2023 Berlin state election). In the latter case, though, I would support having it simply called "[Month if required] [Year] Romanian presidential election", without "re-run" or "repeat" in the title, as per WP:NCELECT. Impru20^talk 09:30, 7 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of creating a new article and moving this back to 2024 Romanian presidential election– it's not simply rerunning the 2024 election with the same candidates; new candidates are running. Not sure how the two elections could be combined into one article without being extremely confusing. Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:51, 16 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Number 57, @Impru20, in the presented examples, they're the same candidates. Already Mircea Geoană, the frontruner in the polls before the first campaign, has anounced that he will not run again. Nicolae Ciucă, the fifth in the results, is no longer the leader of its party and he most likely will not run. Also, Nicușor Dan or Cristian Sima have anounced that they will run. BEC (Central Electoral Bureau) says it will not let Georgescu, the frontrunner, enter the next election due to fraud and Russian interference. So it's not a re-run with same candidates, but a separate election (with different candidates) like in the Serbian case (1, 2).

Furthermore, I believe that the redirect 2025 Romanian presidential election should be the main article for the next elections, splitting this one only by size considerations. Most likely we will write another 100kb until the next elections - similar to those articles for the Berlin state election (1, 2).

I count 5 opinions in favor of splitting (EmilePersaud, Gust Justice, Johndavies837, Chessrat and mine) and only two against it. The consensus leans toward splitting. So, please, agree to the split. It will be very confusing mixing them all in the same article - like Chessrat and others say above. Thank you. Gdaniel111 (talk) 04:36, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I would be happy to split if it is definitive that the candidacies will be different. When will we have a confirmed list of candidates for the re-run? Number 57 12:13, 19 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Chessrat: I see you have split the article again "per talk page agreement". Is it now definitive that the candidacies will be different? Number 57 15:14, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe there has ever been a suggestion that the 2025 election would be re-run with the same candidates as the 2024 election? All declared candidates so far are different to the candidates in the 2024 election, and several of the major parties are considering running a single candidate under a joint ticket (https://www.romania-insider.com/nicusor-dan-run-president-dec-2024) Chessrat ^{(talk, contributions)} 17:16, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As per WP rules, we need enough secondary sources to create a 2024 Romanian coup d'état. Most media does use the word, but only as reporting others' word (as they actually should, as secondary sources, so no problem here). Trouble is, somehow the question of whether this is or isn't actually a coup (technically, a self-coup) isn't even discussed, despite put on the table by some proeminent forces, and pretty obvious (if cancelling election to prevent an opponent winning isn't a coup, what is?).

I am puzzled.

Respectively creating/not creating 2024 Romanian coup d'état is de facto siding with Romanian political forces respectively affirming/denying there is a coup going on. And as of today, WP is sifing with the latter. Not sure it should. Your thoughts? 2A01:E0A:1DC:4570:71AE:CE0A:C605:7A26 (talk) 09:18, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The election was not cancelled to prevent an opponent from winning, it was because evidence of Russian interference was declassified and released, therefore proving the election was messed with.

The same way notable right wing politicians falsely claim elections are "rigged" and "stolen" when Democrat candidates win in the United States, notable right wing politicians in Romania falsely claim this ordeal was a "coup."

It was not a coup. It was legally annulled after evidence was presented for an annulment to take place. Not creating an article going off of baseless claims is not "siding" with anyone.

A. Astronomy ꩜ 18:59, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hitler's Enabling Act was also enacted because of the "communist threat to Weimar democracy". Just because the ruling parties say something doesn't mean it's factual. Just because the judiciary says something doesn't mean it's factual (come on, they're appointed judges too?). Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's factual. My conclusion is that, whether this is seen as a coup or not, that's entirely subjective. About the article, however, there's probably not enough sources to create one about the supposed coup - probably should be folded into the "Annulment" section of this one, or perhaps a future article about what could be considered Romania's 2024 political crisis. Polish kurd (talk) 20:40, 9 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

This is YOUR OPINION. "Russian interference" is hypothetical, and not proven in any way. Evidence is not proof, and the evidence provided is very unreliable.

DW:

"The evidence that has been made public is flimsy. Moreover, the documents give the impression that the work of the Romanian secret services is shoddy and unprofessional.

Indeed, their completely opaque working methods have been a problem for decades. Although prescribed by law, there is no real parliamentary oversight of their work, and reports on the services' activities are either provided too late or not at all."

https://www.dw.com/en/developments-in-romania-and-outlook-since-the-annulment-of-the-presidential-election/a-71120944

FT: "Russian election meddling "nearly impossible to prove", says Romanian President"

https://www.ft.com/content/743ad422-385a-4bcc-8325-e573bee042c7

Now, Romanian news vehicles are reporting that in fact, Georgescu's campaign was indeed illegally funded, not by the Russians, but by PNL, in order to spoil and split the votes of competitors. Klaus Iohannis' party. The guy who is the current president. Who will stay as president without an election for undetermined time.

https://snoop.ro/anaf-a-descoperit-ca-pnl-a-platit-o-campanie-care-l-a-promovat-masiv-pe-calin-georgescu-pe-tiktok/

There is a huge bias in the Wikipedia in favour of Euro-Atlantic friendly opinions, rather than respect for objectivity and knowledge. I put Deustche Welle and Financial Times as sources because there is absolutely no way a sane person can claim they are "pro Russian", although by your tone it seems you might try.

There isn't proof that it was a coup either, but the evidence for a coup so Romanian authorities can manipulate the result of the election is way firmer than the evidence they use in their claim to void the election. Creating an article calling it a coup might not be justified, but the tone of this article misleads the reader into thinking the allegations are proven and reliable. It should be edited, but as I don't have the time nor the patience to fight with gatekeepers and propagandists like you, I would politely ask someone else does it. 109.228.177.243 (talk) 13:44, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry for the length, I hope it can help people understand why the decision was controversial but legitimate

As you correctly noted yourself, [m]ost media does use the word, but only as reporting others' word (as they actually should, as secondary sources, so no problem here), so Wikipedia (which is a tertiary source based around secondary sources) is not siding with the Romanian political forces ... denying there is a coup going on. Wikipedia is based around reliable sources, so we go by that, and if they only report others' word, it does not warrant an article (unless things are changed since last time I checked). In the lead, we already say: The aftermath of the first presidential vote was controversial and led Romania to the brink of a political crisis. ... On 6 December, the Constitutional Court reversed their decision and controversially annulled the first round of the election, after intelligence documents were declassified stating that Russia had run a coordinated online campaign to promote Georgescu. In the body, we also mention this: The annulment was condemned by both Georgescu and Lasconi, with Georgescu describing the court's verdict as a "formalised coup d'état", and Lasconi calling it "illegal [and] immoral" and stating that it "crushes the very essence of democracy". Fourth-placed George Simion also called the verdict a "coup d'état in full swing" but urged against street protests. Do you think coup should be in the lead? As the lead is also supposed to summarize the body, the latter should also discuss this more to be lead worthy, for example either expanding it a bit the "Aftermath and controversy" and "Annulment" sections or have a separate section briefly discussing this. Perhaps it can be discussed in a future article about what could be considered Romania's 2024 political crisis as suggested by Polish kurd.

While it is true Hitler's Enabling Act was also enacted because of the "communist threat to Weimar democracy" and just because the ruling parties say something doesn't mean it's factual (especially when it comes to certain U.S. Supreme Court's decision, I may add), the Court's decision, controversial or not, was legitimate insofar as it provided some evidence that Russia influence/interfered into the election (if only there was a Court doing the same thing to stop the violence and fraud by fascists in Italy and Germany in 1924 and 1932...). Also it is not like the elections are cancelled (they are going to be repeated), or that we are talking about an already full authoritarian country that rejected it merely because it did not like the results or invented that a foreign state interfered in the election making it obvious that this was a coup to end liberal democracy; you wrote if cancelling election to prevent an opponent winning isn't a coup, what is?, but the first round is going to be repeated and in fact this may ultimately favour Georgescu (although if he really committed a crime, the exclusion may be warranted, even if controversial), so this is not cancelling election to prevent an opponent winning.

Now if they do it again (I would expect they take counter-measures so that Russia, or any other country, does not interfere again and thus Romanians can have freer and fairer elections, so the repeated round will stand), or actually cancel the whole election and exclude Georgescu, that could be much closer to a coup and more problematic. Ultimately, I can agree that this is subjective (of course, those who won the first round are not going to be happy, and others may also not agree with the decision, which was nonetheless legitimate because the Court had this power and Russian interference was not a made up claim made by the Court) but at the same time we should not act like nothing happened in regards to Russia.

The same way notable right wing politicians falsely claim elections are "rigged" and "stolen" when Democrat candidates win in the United States, notable right wing politicians in Romania falsely claim this ordeal was a "coup." [I may add I very much doubt that with reversed role, where the Court annulled the first round win of a leftist or liberal, the Right or the same people calling it a coup would still say the same but they would call it legitimate; I am also sure a few would because there are still some coherent and consistent people.]

As noted, we must keep in mind that Trump created a big precedent for the loser to cry wolf, so I am not surprised of any of this, and yet compare Trump's behavior to that of Harris or Lasconi, both of whom either accepted the loss or criticized a decision that could help her (although Lasconi may have merely criticized the decision because now the Social Democrats may reach the second round in the re-run). It is kinda funny (it really is not because elections must be free and fair not subjected to foreign interference or state media bias and the loser(s) must accept the loss when it fair and square like it was in 2020 for Trump or in 2022 for Bolsonaro) that the global, pro-Trump Right is complaining about this being a coup when Trump essentially supported doing the same in 2020, with also the big and fundamental difference that in Trump's case there was no fraud whereas here there are intelligence documents showing that Russia had run a coordinated online campaign to help Georgescu. Like in football, a match may be repeated for the smallest of things; Georgescu was polling around 5% and then won 23%, it does not take a genius to realize that if Russia really interfered in his favour, it succeeded. Democracy is not an absolute, in the sense that it must also be free and fair (otherwise Russia and other authoritarian states are democratic just because they held elections and who finishes first win, regardless of whether they were free and fair, always win), and if Georgescu was really favoured by Russia through an illegal promotional campaign, it was not free and fair to the other competitors, as simple as that. In Italy, our sport fraud law is based on the concept of early consumation and that of danger, meaning that one does not even need to attempt to fix a match to commit a crime, he or she must simply act in a way that it put in danger the legal good (e.g. football), and it does not need to prove the match was fixed/altered in the first place. I think Russia certainly put the legal good (e.g. elections) in danger, and likely went further, since there are classified documents showing it promoted online Georgescu, who was also the only one whose campaign was mainly online (TikTok).

In this sense, I also fully share the comment that [t]he election was not cancelled to prevent an opponent from winning, it was because evidence of Russian interference was declassified and released, therefore proving the election was messed with. In conclusion, I would not say for sure that it was not a coup (I would let reliable sources and experts doing that for us), it was certainly controversial but ultimately legitimate (which does not necessarily preclude it being a coup, although as stated I feel like there would need a bit more to reach that criteria) as the Court had this power, and acting as though the elections were cancelled when only the first round was, that it is going to be repeated, and that this may ultimately backfire and increase support for Georgescu (so much for preventing an opponent from winning, they should have excluded him from the get go like they did with Diana Șoșoacă, now they may have helped him win), that is a bit too far. If the Court either again cancel the first round (this time without enough evidence) or the whole elections, and somehow the new government use emergency powers or slip towards further illiberalism and went full authoritarianism, with Iohannis still in power beyond caretaker role, now that would be another thing and definitely a coup and the end of liberal democracy in Romania. Davide King (talk) 12:28, 10 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The article is disinformation and a shame for a site that wants to be an encyclopedia. There is no proof for the statement "Russia was involved in the elections". Absolutely no proof. The only thing that was reproached to the candidate Calin Georgescu is that which would be influenced the Tik Tok algorithms to promote himself. This is also a false argument because all the candidates were present on Tik Tok and Calin Georgescu had less views than other candidates and yet he was the one who won the first round. Over 9 million people voted democratically and almost 2 million voted for Calin Georgescu. A coup d'état actually took place in Romania. 86.126.133.250 (talk) 21:10, 21 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Feel free to add such information to the article. However, this isn't something made up by Wikipedia, since everything on Wikipedia is based on sources from outside the website. Polish kurd (talk) 01:33, 22 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The campaign was influenced by a Russian network on social media (1). Denial of the election interference is only a conspiracy theory. Gdaniel111 (talk) 17:38, 25 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No proof to this day.Saying otherwise is just false information.

If there had been the slightest evidence that would show this, Calin Georgescu would not be free without any charge or evidence against him. The declassified files show zero evidence for Russia's involvement in the elections. Because these elections were annulled for no reason, without proof, it means, according to definitions, exactly what a coup d'etat is, and those involved in this coup d'état are the same communists who took power in 1989, also following a coup d'état. 86.126.133.245 (talk) 18:01, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Why would Calin Georgescu not be free? There is no direct connection with him, the Russian network only supported him. Gdaniel111 (talk) 18:19, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Again this is an enciclopedia website ,saying something is not proof.There is zero proof for your statement,in fact it doesn't make any sense.

The only accusation without evidence was that Georgescu was promoted more on tik tok than other opponents, statements that also turned out to be false, his opponents having more views on tik tokviews paid from public money, but they had a much worse result than Calin Georgescu, precisely because Romanians showed their desire through democratic voting, As a matter of fact, it is important to note that the Creator of the Universe, the Creator of the Universe, is the Creator of the Universe. Lasconi was, by definition, pro-European, and even criticized the annulment very harshly, invoking the Constitution and the values of democracy. 86.126.133.245 (talk) 11:54, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The only direct accusation, without evidence, was that Georgescu was promoted more on tik tok than other opponents, statements that also proved to be false, his opponents having more views on tik tok views paid for with public money, but they have had a much weaker result than Călin Georgescu, precisely because the Romanians showed their desire through a democratic vote, when they elected Călin Georgescu democratically and freely.

And Georgescu was ignored by the televisions, televisions that collected millions of euros from the other candidates.

That's why the only platform on which Georgescu promoted himself was tik tok.

And it's funny to say that he was promoted unequally on tik tok when in fact he was discriminated against by televisions throughout the campaign when, although the law says that equal space should be granted to all candidates, he was only invited once or twice to a television station and when he was invited he was alone in the studio, he was not invited to the electoral debate.

Many of his supporters were called to the police to give statements for Facebook posts because they supported Calin Georgescu.Why was Iulian Capsali and many others called to the police? If Georgescu was not involved in anything, even if there was evidence of Russian involvement, why were people intimidated by the police and harassed for posts on Facebook or titk tok in which they show disagreement with the CCR decision or the support of the candidate Calin Georgescu? Because there is too much democracy in Romania?

Anyone who wants to see, sees the "democracy" in Romania.

It is funny to say now that it is normal to be free when he was permanently accused without evidence of direct ties to Russia, he was named a legionnaire, it was mentioned in the press that he has paid mercenaries who want to destabilize Romania, and many people typical communist propaganda for a third world state not for a member country EU and NATO.

Canceling a democratic process, in this case the very essence of democracy based on non-existent statements and evidence, means the exact opposite of democracy.

And it would have been the duty of those who say they support democracy to fight for the respect of the people's vote, especially when the other candidate with whom Georgescu met in the second round, Lasconi was by definition pro-European and even criticized the cancellation very harshly citing the Constitution and democratic values.

Sorry for the previous comment, admins maybe you want to delete it, the "creator of the universe" was added for reasons that only google knows "it has no relevance and importance to the message. It's a translation mistake. 86.126.133.245 (talk) 12:18, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, a lot of statements without any referencing. We don't work like that on Wikipedia. For every statement we have to provide a reference. I provided for mine above and there's even more. Even Donald Trump was supported by Russia as you can see from this article, that doesn't mean Trump will be arrested for this. Same goes for Calin Georgescu.

P.S.: If you want to delete your own duplicate comments, you can. Gdaniel111 (talk) 14:34, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Repeating an idea endlessly does not magically transform it into truth. There is not even a single piece of evidence for Russia's intervention in the electoral process, nor for the promotion of the candidate Calin Georgescu. Therefore, there is no real and legal basis for canceling the elections. What source do you want? Source for harassing people for facebook posts? You can find them on google. A happy New Year Daniel. It would have been something if you weren't exactly from Romania. The definition of democracy, but its essence is the right to vote and to be voted for. Can someone explain to us how nine people canceled this right for 19 million people and how this can be called democracy considering that the people voted democratically on Calin Georgescu and Lasconi? Doesn't democracy mean letting the people choose between one and the other? 86.126.133.170 (talk) 20:10, 29 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this section is helpful in any way as it doesn't improve the article. As stated above: This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. We can talk about the statements and information using reliable sources (as asked by myself and user Polish kurd above) or what to include in the article. The objective of talk pages is to improve the encyclopedia, not pointless conversation without sources. If I want to talk with someone about a subject I have Whatsapp, Facebook and Tiktok; I don't need to use Wikipedia's talk pages. This isn't Facebook. I don't have to prove something to someone or to persuade. My job on Wikipedia isn't to prove my point.

As for the Russian interference I will include the references, the facts and the opinions against it in that article. As for the cancelled election, this isn't the first one in history or in a democracy. You should check the categories of this article for more on the subject. Again, it's not the objective of the talk pages to be a forum or an information desk. Thank you. Gdaniel111 (talk) 20:18, 30 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Accusations of Russian interference in the 2024 Romanian presidential election has two entire unsourced sections and is rather short as a whole. I'm not sure if this topic needs an article of its own, but it definitively needs some work. Posting in this talk page in case contributors of this article decide to help. Super Ψ Dro 22:31, 28 December 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Hi

Should the page be split? Panam2014 (talk) 19:48, 1 January 2025 (UTC)[reply]