1374:
methods. This is likely why there are no authoritative sources proposing this. Though, I would agree that STV would be an ideal voting method in the preliminary round of an open primary for nominating candidates to a multi-seat general election. The source that I am calling into question actually focuses largely on using STV for nominating twice the number of candidates as there are seats to fill to a multi-winner election, which I agree would be an appropriate application of STV. The reason why using STV for nomination in a multi-winner election makes sense is that the surplus votes in the nominating round of the multi-winner election are going towards candidates that could win a seat in the general election, even if the candidate whose surplus is being transferred also were to win a seat in the general election. In the case of a single-seat general election however, using STV in the preliminary round would mean that voters of the candidate who gets the most votes not only get to have their candidate nominated, but a fraction of their vote also gets to help determine which other candidates get to advance and compete in the general election. Again, workable but not desirable, and operating in a way that is contrary to how realignment in a caucus works. For single-seat offices, the prefered voting method that uses a ranked ballot in the preliminary round would be what is called bottoms-up RCV. Bottoms-up RCV doesn't utilize the surplus vote transfers that STV uses. Instead, candidates not meeting a viability threshold are eliminated starting with the lowest votegetter, and have their votes redistributed to the the subsequent choices as marked on those ballots. While the literature on bottoms-up RCV is currently sparse, I believe there are enough available references that this could be worked into the article. See paragraph 9, and
604:) in a search was an article from the Washington Post (!) saying that such a statistic is meaningless. The Democrats "won" this in 2016 as well, with no effect of instant runoff, and they also did not do very well in that election. I also have to point out your bogus wording which implies that somehow the Republicans actually "won" this statistic, when in fact any estimate would require the votes to be redistributed (an idea would be to copy the CA governer's race, which would also add all the Republicans who did not vote for either candidate, a possibility you
1056:
December. In
Washington, by contrast, the primary is held before the general election. Even more importantly, in Louisiana there is no runoff at all if a candidate wins an absolute majority in the first round. In Washington, by contrast, the primary and the general election are both always held, so effectively there are always two rounds. My understanding is that if only two candidates file, then the same candidates will square off against each other twice. That wouldn't happen in Louisiana.
184:
163:
194:
103:
85:
54:
21:
1340:
pretty clearly states that it can be used to elect more than one person, so I don't see a problem with this. I think it was put in because quite a few people don't like approval voting and want a scheme where they can clearly say "I like A better than B" for all pairs, even though mathematically this
544:
But that's subjective. Some may consider it a good thing to have two from the same party in the second round. Also, just because a party has fewer candidates does not necessarily mean it will advance two of them to the final round. A party could have 10 candidates, but if one is well-known and the
1388:
I made the edit that I proposed, removing the mention of STV. I hope that more sources emerge about analysis of voting methods in the preliminary round of a top-two open primary. Open primaries are new enough that the authorities on voting methods likely haven't fully considered the ramifications
1373:
I also want to clarify that I agree that STV (in addition to a vast variety of other voting methods) could be used in the preliminary round of an open primary. While workable, it would not be a preferable method for nominating to a single-seat office due to the transfer of surplus votes in used STV
1303:
The intro section currently has a section about voting methods used in the preliminary round, or primary election, of top-two: "Some have proposed using other voting systems in the primary to alleviate this problem, such as the
Unified Primary based on approval voting, or selecting five or more via
412:
It would seem the most logical thing to do would be to make this article part of the "blanket primary" article, under a subsection called "non-partisan blanket primary," where the term "jungle primary" can be noted as an "also known as" (as well as possibly "Cajun primary," though that term doesn't
1457:
Why is this article just focused on the USA. Shouldn't we list
California and Washington as subcategories under the USA? Per Knowledge (XXG)'s Bold, Revert, Discuss policy I will go ahead and add the category, and make California and Washington as subcategory but I hope someone else can talk about
528:
The article really needs a criticism section. The main one, of course, is the very real possibility that two candidates from the same party make it into the second round. In such a case, the winning party is whichever one had fewer candidates - a party with only 2 contenders will split its votes
752:
The article says that gamesmanship can be used in which voters from one party split their vote to send 2 candidates from their own party to the second round. This implies that a given voter gets 2 votes, which seems unlikely. Is the voter supposed to agree with his buddy that each will vote for a
1363:
Hi
Spitzak, I shall elaborate on some of the points that I have raised. The text of the article says "Some have proposed using other voting systems in the primary, such as selecting five or more via single transferable vote." The source cited is the only example that I can find that "proposes"
712:
Also current one looks pretty messed up. There are comments that seem to be inverted "top two primary reduced the likelihood of running against a same party candidate" which seems absolutely impossible, and the Todd
Donovan person apparently appears in *favor* of the top two primary, yet somehow
585:
Because of
California's non-partisan blanket primary, two Democrats ran against each other for a US Senate seat in 2018, receiving a combined total of 10,900,270 votes while Republicans candidates received 0 (zero). This allows the fake news media to claim that Democrats won "the national senate
449:
The biggest difference is that in France (and many other countries) parties select candidates through their internal processes, rather than the public electing them in primary elections. Consequently you don't get all the contenders for a party's nomination running against each other and against
1055:
The article currently makes the following statement: "Louisiana's primary is virtually identical to the
Washington state primary system." However, that statement appears to be highly dubious. In Louisiana, the primary is held on the general-election day in November, and the runoff is held in
470:
and Royal effectively fought three elections - one to get the party nomination, another in the first round of the
Presidential election to get into the last two (which her predecessor as Socialist candidate failed to achieve in 2002) and then finally the second round head to head with Sarkozy.
358:
The last describes the
Louisiana system since 1975. In 20+ years in the profession until I saw this entry I never had encountered the term "jungle primary." It is not the proper name as used by those who study election systems, and should be replaced by the term, "nonpartisan blanket primary."
299:
This article absolutely needs to be merged, but not with blanket primary, which is a completely different thing. The key difference is that in a blanket primary, a voter must choose among candidates from the same party for a single office, though they can choose different parties for different
1208:
Are there any examples of this being used (or even proposed) where there are more than two winners that go on to the general election? Seems to me to be rather pendantic of a change. I am also worried that if this is ever proposed, it will be given another name other than "Nonpartisan blanket
1316:
in North Dakota call for a choose-one voting system in the primary (which is actually single non-transferable vote). The source cited in the existing text of this article related to STV is no longer live, and when reviewing the archive it appears to me that it does not meet
Knowledge (XXG)'s
1364:
using STV for this purpose, and I question if this source meets Knowledge (XXG)'s criteria for reliable sources. When looking at the archive of the source cited, it is unclear who the author is, and to me it appears to be a blog that doesn't meet the criteria for an authoritative source.
399:
I agree that this article needs to be merged into blanket primary or that both be merged into "nonpartisan blanket primary". As far as I know, the term "jungle primary" was never meant to be anything other than an ironic, dispariging nickname for the process, not its official title.
1229:
Referring to the fact that the system does not empirically increase moderation is not objectively "a problem"--that is a political point of view. We should change the phrasing so it is clear that some might value "moderation" and wish to support approval voting or whatever.
1308:(emphasis added)." There are several open primary RCV proposals being considered, but none of them call for single transferable vote (STV), as this is wouldn't be appropriate for nominating to a single-seat election. Most of these proposals, like Alaska's
1059:
More generally, I think the article could use some more details about the system used in Washington State. I'm not an expert, so I won't try to change the article myself, but the article could use some attention from someone knowledgeable in the subject.
1193:, and a quasi-authoritative source (Knowledge (XXG) is heavily-influential) biased so strongly for a two-winner system influences political systems which adopt these systems. I'm working on disentangling the number from the format.
416:
And to answer Supernova, yes, currently Lousiana is the only state to have this system, though other states used to have it, and it may be considered in other states, as is already noted in the "jungle primary" article.
338:
Political scientists classify American primary elections into four main types (actually, there are sub-types as well, depending upon how a voter is legally defined as "affiliated" -- registration, affirmation, etc.). A
1149:
1272:
The statement that, "However, when the primary uses first-past-the-post voting, it is highly susceptible to vote splitting" seems a bit out of place here. Top-two is by definition not first-past-the-post.
1082:
clearly distinguishes between a primary runoff and a top-two primary; this article, sadly, does not. I recommend splitting the two systems, which are not the same, into two different articles.
1341:
has been shown to not be any better (it also requires changing the voting machines and sending the full details, rather than sums, of votes to the central location). Normally this is called
1530:
224:
1515:
351:
is one where voters regardless of affiliation may select for each office contested a nominee regardless of the nominee's affiliation, as long as only one choice is made per office. A
300:
offices. In a jungle primary, however, all parties' candidates for each office are listed together. Not the same at all, despite the "also known as", which should have been removed.
1487:
But it doesn't show any mechanism by which this is done. What prevents parties from using an internal mechanism to select one or more candidates and instructing others not to run?
1252:
I think if moderation is an intended goal by many proponents of such a system (such as myself),arguments that it does not succeed in doing this are a legitimate complaint/problem.
241:
601:
1510:
563:
Yes, the argument that we need one from each of (only two) parties is nonsense. But a section that discusses criticisms and delivers responses thereto could be enlightening.
1431:
128:
110:
90:
994:
990:
976:
844:
840:
826:
435:
as used in France? The French don't call the first vote a primary, but apart from that I fail to see a difference. Therefore I think this article should be merged with
277:
1170:
I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not.
936:
1313:
1525:
966:
303:
However, the "jungle" primary has several names that do mean the same thing. "Louisiana primary" and "Cajun primary" redirect here; there should be a merger with
267:
231:
1106:
509:
California has a 2010 ballot proposition (prop 14) that appears to be exactly this. Is it? I think something should be added, whether or not the prop passes.
1535:
1139:
236:
926:
804:
1110:
1520:
443:
347:
is one where voters regardless of party affiliation may select for all offices contested a nominee from choices of only one particular party. A
1420:
1288:
1190:
1131:
207:
168:
1484:
Also, political parties are not allowed to whittle down the field using their internal techniques (such as party primaries or conventions).
602:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the-fix/wp/2016/11/29/the-most-bogus-stat-of-the-2016-election-how-democrats-won-the-senate-popular-vote
1432:
https://www.fairvote.org/mississippi_election_of_new_member_of_congress_with_louisiana_form_of_top_two_makes_case_for_ranked_choice_voting
343:
is one where voters affiliated with a particular party may select for all offices contested a nominee from choices of only that party. An
1237:
698:
546:
455:
219:
600:
Only in your fevered imagination. I never heard this despite getting lots of liberal hogwash in my Facebook feed, and the first hit (
972:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
937:
http://vote.wa.gov/Elections/WEI/Results.aspx?ElectionID%3D37%26JurisdictionTypeID%3D5%26JurisdictionID%3D63443%26ViewMode%3DResults
753:
different person from their favored party? the description in the article is unclear how the "vote split" works to their advantage.
920:
713:
somebody cherry-picked quotes that sound *negative* about the top-two! Hard to imagine he did not have any kind of positive quote.
948:
215:
on Knowledge (XXG). If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
386:
324:
967:
http://azdailysun.com/news/opinion/mailbag/top-two-primary-worth-considering/article_615362ce-1f63-5292-98d1-a549b7a76049.html
65:
307:
under this title or "Louisiana primary" -- not run-off primary, which is an incredibly confusing term, as many states have
1318:
1037:
1114:
1099:
904:
776:
370:
927:
https://web.archive.org/web/20100722063405/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2010-primary/pdf/2010-complete-sov.pdf
377:(and this and the other terms, just because). Do any other states have such a system or is Louisiana the only one? --
1309:
1284:
476:
1121:
article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.
808:
805:
https://web.archive.org/20101103173546/http://voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2010/primary/propositions/14/analysis.htm
1492:
650:
993:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
960:
843:
to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
1337:
1135:
1117:'s orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for
942:
495:
ballot measure for the Louisiana primary. Could someone who knows the specifics find the proposition numbers?
304:
71:
1321:
guidelines. I propose removing the mention of STV here, and removing the citation that is no longer active.
930:
360:
1421:
https://www.nordicmodelusa.org/policy/government-and-representation/elections/nonpartisan-blanket-primaries/
1241:
1087:
1028:
912:
738:
676:
568:
534:
500:
1280:
1276:
1233:
954:
1488:
1065:
702:
550:
463:
1012:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
1000:
882:
862:
If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with
850:
591:
472:
440:
35:
911:. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit
418:
1342:
1198:
658:
451:
199:
53:
27:
1174:
382:
320:
1083:
734:
672:
639:
564:
530:
496:
997:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
921:
http://www.legis.state.la.us/billdata/byinst.asp?sessionid%3D10rs%26billtype%3DHB%26billno%3D292
847:
before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template
183:
162:
1459:
1154:
1013:
863:
114:, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to
1350:
1257:
1214:
1076:
1061:
949:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/politicsnorthwest/2012744540_statesenjeanberkeyasks.html
786:
718:
613:
514:
374:
1466:
1189:
This page as-is focuses heavily on top-two, as if the system cannot elect more. Top-two has
878:
758:
587:
436:
432:
122:
31:
1020:
870:
1194:
1143:
794:
654:
467:
1442:
1496:
1470:
1398:
1383:
1354:
1330:
1292:
1261:
1245:
1218:
1202:
1179:
1091:
1069:
1042:
890:
762:
742:
722:
706:
680:
662:
643:
617:
595:
572:
554:
538:
518:
504:
480:
421:
404:
390:
363:
328:
1394:
1379:
1326:
1171:
979:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
829:, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by
459:
378:
316:
1019:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
986:
869:
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with
836:
102:
84:
1504:
635:
212:
1346:
1253:
1210:
714:
609:
510:
401:
355:
is one where candidates run in the same primary contest regardless of affiliation.
1462:
754:
634:
Any suggestions on how to add Washington's new Top Two primary to this article?
1109:
to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for
809:
http://www.voterguide.sos.ca.gov/past/2010/primary/propositions/14/analysis.htm
671:
Some more still needs to be done though; I'll add some more material. Peace, --
985:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
835:. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
189:
961:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/editorials/2012672963_edit20toptwo.html
491:
I thought California had an "open primary" for a while, and that there was a
126:
and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit
1390:
1375:
1322:
943:
http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/opinion/2013328444_guest03vognild.html
545:
other nine aren't, the well-known candidate will likely dominate the vote.
466:
in a ballot of party members. Fabius and Stauss-Kahn were never up against
211:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
1080:
931:
http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/sov/2010-primary/pdf/2010-complete-sov.pdf
116:
791:
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add
955:
http://www.fivethirtyeight.com/2009/02/land-of-thousand-liebermans.html
426:
1150:
United States House of Representatives elections in Washington, 2014
450:
other party candidates in the public election itself. For instance
799:
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
1389:
of the open primary reform combined with other voting methods.
369:
Thanks for the informed input. I would support a merge/move to
1460:
https://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle
47:
15:
1476:
How are political parties prevented from reducing the field?
1051:
Difference between versions used in Louisiana and Washington
814:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the
427:
Isn't this exactly the same as the French two-round system?
915:
for additional information. I made the following changes:
1113:
in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of
775:
I have just added archive links to one external link on
908:
780:
1443:
https://www.fairvote.org/glossary#ranked_choice_voting
431:
Terminology aside, isn't this exactly the same as the
697:
critics dislike calling this an open primary system.
138:
Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject Elections and Referendums
1345:
but that seems to explicity say there is one winner.
733:
I think this article is cleaned up now. Thoughts? --
989:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
839:using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
1157:. Washington Secretary of State. November 4, 2014
1531:C-Class United States articles of Mid-importance
454:was selected as the Socialist candidate for the
1516:WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
975:This message was posted before February 2018.
825:This message was posted before February 2018.
141:Template:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
1458:nonpartisan party primaries outside the USA.
8:
1107:Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting
1209:primary" and make all your edits incorrect.
1511:C-Class Elections and Referendums articles
1274:
1231:
157:
79:
903:I have just modified 8 external links on
252:Knowledge (XXG):WikiProject United States
334:Need to have correct taxonomy and titles
1413:
159:
81:
51:
1132:Louisiana gubernatorial election, 2007
693:The criticism section doesn't explain
1526:Mid-importance United States articles
311:but only Louisiana has the so-called
111:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
7:
205:This article is within the scope of
108:This article is within the scope of
70:It is of interest to the following
1536:WikiProject United States articles
1299:Voting Method in Preliminary Round
1268:Top-two is not first-past-the-post
586:popular vote" by 9 million votes.
487:Was this really used in California
456:French presidential election, 2007
255:Template:WikiProject United States
144:Elections and Referendums articles
14:
907:. Please take a moment to review
779:. Please take a moment to review
192:
182:
161:
101:
83:
52:
34:on June 12, 2022. The result of
19:
965:Corrected formatting/usage for
959:Corrected formatting/usage for
953:Corrected formatting/usage for
947:Corrected formatting/usage for
941:Corrected formatting/usage for
935:Corrected formatting/usage for
919:Corrected formatting/usage for
608:ignored). Talk about fake news.
272:This article has been rated as
26:This article was nominated for
1521:C-Class United States articles
1355:20:02, 18 September 2020 (UTC)
1331:20:25, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
1043:15:49, 18 September 2017 (UTC)
763:00:49, 23 September 2013 (UTC)
524:Really needs criticism section
413:seem to be as commonly used).
1:
649:Let's write an article about
573:18:59, 18 February 2016 (UTC)
1399:17:44, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
1293:03:06, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
1262:19:23, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
1246:17:18, 5 December 2019 (UTC)
1219:19:16, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
1203:22:10, 26 January 2019 (UTC)
1138:Retrieved October 21, 2007
1136:Louisiana Secretary of State
1070:03:14, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
891:09:27, 15 January 2016 (UTC)
663:20:46, 31 October 2008 (UTC)
618:16:58, 3 December 2018 (UTC)
596:04:30, 2 December 2018 (UTC)
529:far less than one with 10.
444:13:43, 6 November 2007 (UTC)
1471:01:00, 2 January 2022 (UTC)
1384:00:06, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
1185:Focuses too much on Top-Two
1142:September 19, 2008, at the
1115:Nonpartisan blanket primary
1100:Nonpartisan blanket primary
905:Nonpartisan blanket primary
777:Nonpartisan blanket primary
743:16:46, 25 August 2011 (UTC)
729:Page looks cleaned up to me
707:02:22, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
681:23:25, 22 August 2011 (UTC)
644:23:34, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
555:02:24, 20 August 2011 (UTC)
539:04:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
505:04:43, 17 August 2008 (UTC)
422:07:24, 6 October 2006 (UTC)
405:17:29, 31 August 2006 (UTC)
391:00:58, 16 August 2006 (UTC)
371:nonpartisan blanket primary
364:14:44, 14 August 2006 (UTC)
353:nonpartisan blanket primary
329:17:13, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
1552:
1497:15:12, 12 March 2024 (UTC)
1125:Reference named "Results":
1006:(last update: 5 June 2024)
900:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
856:(last update: 5 June 2024)
797:|deny=InternetArchiveBot}}
772:Hello fellow Wikipedians,
481:12:35, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
278:project's importance scale
1480:The article states that:
723:17:27, 17 July 2017 (UTC)
309:primary run-off elections
271:
208:WikiProject United States
177:
135:Elections and Referendums
96:
91:Elections and Referendums
78:
40:Not merged — no consensus
1338:Single Transferable Vote
1306:single transferable vote
1180:20:47, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
1105:I check pages listed in
1092:14:57, 17 May 2018 (UTC)
519:22:34, 22 May 2010 (UTC)
305:run-off primary election
213:United States of America
1155:"Federal - All Results"
1098:Orphaned references in
896:External links modified
768:External links modified
373:, with a redirect from
464:Dominique Strauss-Kahn
258:United States articles
60:This article is rated
64:on Knowledge (XXG)'s
1343:Ranked Choice Voting
987:regular verification
837:regular verification
822:to let others know.
783:. If necessary, add
200:United States portal
1191:serious pathologies
1111:orphaned references
977:After February 2018
827:After February 2018
818:parameter below to
226:Articles Requested!
1031:InternetArchiveBot
982:InternetArchiveBot
832:InternetArchiveBot
361:Voteearlyvoteoften
66:content assessment
1295:
1279:comment added by
1248:
1236:comment added by
1075:You are correct,
1007:
889:
857:
689:Criticism section
375:Louisiana primary
292:
291:
288:
287:
284:
283:
156:
155:
152:
151:
46:
45:
1543:
1445:
1440:
1434:
1429:
1423:
1418:
1336:The article for
1319:Reliable Sources
1314:proposed measure
1281:Jordan Mendelson
1225:Neutrality Issue
1177:
1166:
1164:
1162:
1041:
1032:
1005:
1004:
983:
885:
884:Talk to my owner
880:
855:
854:
833:
798:
790:
473:Timrollpickering
437:Two-round system
433:Two-round system
260:
259:
256:
253:
250:
202:
197:
196:
195:
186:
179:
178:
173:
165:
158:
146:
145:
142:
139:
136:
129:our project page
123:electoral reform
105:
98:
97:
87:
80:
63:
57:
56:
48:
32:Two-round system
23:
22:
16:
1551:
1550:
1546:
1545:
1544:
1542:
1541:
1540:
1501:
1500:
1489:RationallyDense
1478:
1455:
1450:
1449:
1448:
1441:
1437:
1430:
1426:
1419:
1415:
1301:
1270:
1227:
1187:
1175:
1160:
1158:
1153:
1144:Wayback Machine
1103:
1053:
1035:
1030:
998:
991:have permission
981:
913:this simple FaQ
898:
888:
883:
848:
841:have permission
831:
792:
784:
770:
750:
748:Voter splitting
731:
691:
632:
526:
489:
468:Nicolas Sarkozy
429:
349:blanket primary
336:
313:run-off primary
297:
257:
254:
251:
248:
247:
246:
232:Become a Member
198:
193:
191:
171:
143:
140:
137:
134:
133:
61:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1549:
1547:
1539:
1538:
1533:
1528:
1523:
1518:
1513:
1503:
1502:
1477:
1474:
1454:
1451:
1447:
1446:
1435:
1424:
1412:
1411:
1407:
1406:
1405:
1404:
1403:
1402:
1401:
1368:
1367:
1366:
1365:
1358:
1357:
1300:
1297:
1269:
1266:
1265:
1264:
1226:
1223:
1222:
1221:
1186:
1183:
1168:
1167:
1146:
1102:
1096:
1095:
1094:
1052:
1049:
1047:
1025:
1024:
1017:
970:
969:
963:
957:
951:
945:
939:
933:
925:Added archive
923:
897:
894:
881:
875:
874:
867:
812:
811:
803:Added archive
769:
766:
749:
746:
730:
727:
726:
725:
690:
687:
686:
685:
684:
683:
666:
665:
631:
628:
627:
626:
625:
624:
623:
622:
621:
620:
578:
577:
576:
575:
558:
557:
525:
522:
488:
485:
484:
483:
460:Laurent Fabius
452:Ségolène Royal
428:
425:
410:
409:
408:
407:
394:
393:
341:closed primary
335:
332:
296:
293:
290:
289:
286:
285:
282:
281:
274:Mid-importance
270:
264:
263:
261:
245:
244:
239:
234:
229:
222:
220:Template Usage
216:
204:
203:
187:
175:
174:
172:Mid‑importance
166:
154:
153:
150:
149:
147:
106:
94:
93:
88:
76:
75:
69:
58:
44:
43:
36:the discussion
24:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1548:
1537:
1534:
1532:
1529:
1527:
1524:
1522:
1519:
1517:
1514:
1512:
1509:
1508:
1506:
1499:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1485:
1481:
1475:
1473:
1472:
1468:
1464:
1461:
1452:
1444:
1439:
1436:
1433:
1428:
1425:
1422:
1417:
1414:
1410:
1400:
1396:
1392:
1387:
1386:
1385:
1381:
1377:
1372:
1371:
1370:
1369:
1362:
1361:
1360:
1359:
1356:
1352:
1348:
1344:
1339:
1335:
1334:
1333:
1332:
1328:
1324:
1320:
1315:
1311:
1307:
1298:
1296:
1294:
1290:
1286:
1282:
1278:
1267:
1263:
1259:
1255:
1251:
1250:
1249:
1247:
1243:
1239:
1238:67.168.189.62
1235:
1224:
1220:
1216:
1212:
1207:
1206:
1205:
1204:
1200:
1196:
1192:
1184:
1182:
1181:
1178:
1173:
1156:
1151:
1147:
1145:
1141:
1137:
1133:
1129:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1122:
1120:
1116:
1112:
1108:
1101:
1097:
1093:
1089:
1085:
1084:Wikibojopayne
1081:
1079:. Ballotpedia
1078:
1074:
1073:
1072:
1071:
1067:
1063:
1057:
1050:
1048:
1045:
1044:
1039:
1034:
1033:
1022:
1018:
1015:
1011:
1010:
1009:
1002:
996:
992:
988:
984:
978:
973:
968:
964:
962:
958:
956:
952:
950:
946:
944:
940:
938:
934:
932:
928:
924:
922:
918:
917:
916:
914:
910:
906:
901:
895:
893:
892:
886:
879:
872:
868:
865:
861:
860:
859:
852:
846:
842:
838:
834:
828:
823:
821:
817:
810:
806:
802:
801:
800:
796:
788:
782:
778:
773:
767:
765:
764:
760:
756:
747:
745:
744:
740:
736:
735:Wikibojopayne
728:
724:
720:
716:
711:
710:
709:
708:
704:
700:
696:
688:
682:
678:
674:
673:Wikibojopayne
670:
669:
668:
667:
664:
660:
656:
652:
648:
647:
646:
645:
641:
637:
629:
619:
615:
611:
607:
603:
599:
598:
597:
593:
589:
584:
583:
582:
581:
580:
579:
574:
570:
566:
565:D. F. Schmidt
562:
561:
560:
559:
556:
552:
548:
543:
542:
541:
540:
536:
532:
531:Scott Ritchie
523:
521:
520:
516:
512:
507:
506:
502:
498:
497:Scott Ritchie
494:
486:
482:
478:
474:
469:
465:
461:
457:
453:
448:
447:
446:
445:
442:
441:212.63.43.180
438:
434:
424:
423:
420:
414:
406:
403:
398:
397:
396:
395:
392:
388:
384:
380:
376:
372:
368:
367:
366:
365:
362:
356:
354:
350:
346:
342:
333:
331:
330:
326:
322:
318:
314:
310:
306:
301:
294:
279:
275:
269:
266:
265:
262:
249:United States
243:
240:
238:
235:
233:
230:
228:
227:
223:
221:
218:
217:
214:
210:
209:
201:
190:
188:
185:
181:
180:
176:
170:
169:United States
167:
164:
160:
148:
131:
130:
125:
124:
119:
118:
113:
112:
107:
104:
100:
99:
95:
92:
89:
86:
82:
77:
73:
67:
59:
55:
50:
49:
41:
37:
33:
29:
25:
18:
17:
1486:
1482:
1479:
1456:
1438:
1427:
1416:
1408:
1305:
1302:
1275:— Preceding
1271:
1232:— Preceding
1228:
1188:
1169:
1159:. Retrieved
1124:
1123:
1118:
1104:
1077:Kevin Nelson
1062:Kevin Nelson
1058:
1054:
1046:
1029:
1026:
1001:source check
980:
974:
971:
902:
899:
876:
851:source check
830:
824:
819:
815:
813:
774:
771:
751:
732:
699:98.209.116.7
694:
692:
633:
605:
547:98.209.116.7
527:
508:
492:
490:
430:
415:
411:
357:
352:
348:
345:open primary
344:
340:
337:
312:
308:
302:
298:
273:
237:Project Talk
225:
206:
127:
121:
115:
109:
72:WikiProjects
39:
1161:December 8,
588:Hobbe Yonge
1505:Categories
1409:References
1195:John Moser
1038:Report bug
655:Chadlupkes
630:Washington
1312:, or the
1310:Measure 2
1172:AnomieBOT
1021:this tool
1014:this tool
871:this tool
864:this tool
379:SuperNova
317:SuperNova
117:elections
1289:contribs
1277:unsigned
1234:unsigned
1140:Archived
1027:Cheers.—
877:Cheers.—
787:cbignore
636:TechBear
458:against
1347:Spitzak
1254:Spitzak
1211:Spitzak
909:my edit
887::Online
816:checked
781:my edit
715:Spitzak
610:Spitzak
511:Spitzak
419:Troodon
402:Rlquall
276:on the
62:C-class
28:merging
1463:Myclob
795:nobots
755:Edison
493:failed
295:Merger
242:Alerts
68:scale.
1483:: -->
1148:From
1130:From
439:. --
30:with
1493:talk
1467:talk
1453:USA?
1395:talk
1391:MAH!
1380:talk
1376:MAH!
1351:talk
1327:talk
1323:MAH!
1285:talk
1258:talk
1242:talk
1215:talk
1199:talk
1163:2014
1119:this
1088:talk
1066:talk
820:true
759:talk
739:talk
719:talk
703:talk
677:talk
659:talk
640:talk
614:talk
606:also
592:talk
569:talk
551:talk
535:talk
515:talk
501:talk
477:talk
462:and
315:. --
38:was
995:RfC
929:to
845:RfC
807:to
695:why
653:.
651:872
268:Mid
1507::
1495:)
1469:)
1397:)
1382:)
1353:)
1329:)
1291:)
1287:•
1260:)
1244:)
1217:)
1201:)
1152::
1134::
1090:)
1068:)
1008:.
1003:}}
999:{{
858:.
853:}}
849:{{
793:{{
789:}}
785:{{
761:)
741:)
721:)
705:)
679:)
661:)
642:)
616:)
594:)
571:)
553:)
537:)
517:)
503:)
479:)
389:|
327:|
120:,
1491:(
1465:(
1393:(
1378:(
1349:(
1325:(
1283:(
1256:(
1240:(
1213:(
1197:(
1176:⚡
1165:.
1086:(
1064:(
1040:)
1036:(
1023:.
1016:.
873:.
866:.
757:(
737:(
717:(
701:(
675:(
657:(
638:(
612:(
590:(
567:(
549:(
533:(
513:(
499:(
475:(
387:C
385:|
383:T
381:|
325:C
323:|
321:T
319:|
280:.
132:.
74::
42:.
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.
