Knowledge talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 6

3291:

possible on their campaign. Yes, I do have a problem with that. First off, based upon my own experiences running for elected office, not to mention just plain common sense, the corporate media will choose to give coverage to a candidate usually in equal proportion to how much money that candidate spends on advertising. Second, I've been using the Internet for 22 years. You may be able to figure out from that statement that I'm perfectly capable of finding my way around the web. Taking these two items into consideration, if the information found on Knowledge is too much of a mirror of information found elsewhere, then what do I need Knowledge for? I've been asking that question for years and don't believe I've gotten an answer, much less a good answer. If the corporate media's coverage of elections is skewed in any way for reasons usually having to do with the bottom line, then fine, that's their prerogative. However, when I see incessant parroting of the corporate media and their agendas on here, I realize that most contributors don't get the reasons why Knowledge is non-commercial and ad-free.

4207:

challenge the outcome, and one state's secretary of state cannot be found. While the winner of the popular vote will never be known (3 million absentee ballots are in states not close enough to open them let alone count them) which renders the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact moot, but would have been its first legal challenge, a single faithless elector has thrown the decision to the House of Representatives, which is unlikely to choose the independent candidate, who won 30 % of the vote but not a single elector. While a worst case nightmare, this is not 'a result'.

3557:, there is the issue of whether a person who has some formal connection to the campaign (eg, someone who is described as a "senior adviser" to the campaign) should be listed among individuals making an endorsement for a candidate — or whether the connection is exclusionary due to the conflict of interest. And what are the boundaries, if any, for deciding to exclude an endorser on the basis of being connected to the campaign? Would major financial contributors be acceptable for inclusion, or should they be excluded, or will it vary case by case? 2949:. I'm a pretty passionate champion of pluralism and permissivism on Knowledge myself, and a long-time opponent of uniformity for its own sake. I guess the question is whether there should be multiple optional lines for something on the order of "legislative caucus leader", "party leader", "party administrator", "party spokesperson", "executive candidate", etc. (not that I'd want to use those titles if better ones can be devised), so that a reader (who may come from a very different political system) can grasp what that line means. 3295:

and any voter could vote for any candidate, regardless of the party affiliation of either. I don't believe it to be an accurate statement that there were Democratic and Republican primaries in this instance. Why sure, there were the Democratic and Republican nominations at stake, but if the ballots weren't formatted to that effect, then that's an internal matter to the political parties rather than anything having to do with the election. Am I off-base in thinking this? I

3892:

and 4M for the other, and there are several jurisdictions whose election-organizing bodies use the -a spelling. If the OED said that the -a spelling is depreciated (that isn't actually part of their quote), I'm curious about how they came to that conclusion; did they only look at whether it was depreciated in England? If the OED said that one spelling was outright wrong for linguistic reasons, it would be a different matter (like in the case of octopuses/octopi). —

1750:

as they were handled in the campaign. There are other articles which are already reasonably full and which have at least mentioned the issues already in topics such as debates, platforms, press reaction or the factors governing voter opinion; in that case a spin-off article would be welcome and not just spreading sparse material far too thinly. So, instead of following a rigid rule, follow what's already been written, and what more can be easily documented.

2105:

with a seventh party, perhaps the solution for those classic 1960's and 1970's Italian, Irish, Israeli, Indian and Lebanese type elections where the 7th, 8th or even 9th party can be significant is just to leave the picture lines blank. If you really have to show what the leader of the 8th party (who never hoped to be prime minister or president anyway) looks or looked like, you can put a nice gallery somewhere near the middle or end of the article.

141: 576:. I don't think inclusion in the polls is an indicator of importance to an election and I don't think the 5% number is useful. Prior to an election, all ballot-listed candidate should be listed in state elections and in the rare case of the well known write-in like Lisa Murkowski in Alaska this year. Even more, what does "last" mean? The infobox should include as many candidates as possible to show an accurate view of an election.-- 77: 59: 3564:, what are the guidelines for deciding whether a particular endorsement is noteworthy enough (or whether the endorser is notable enough) for inclusion? For example, in the United States, the endorsement that a local schoolboard member makes for a candidate seeking to be the nation's president would not seem to be noteworthy enough for inclusion in a WP article, even though local newspapers might report on the endorsement. 32: 3675: 4567:. I've been working on this article here and there. It needs A LOT of work, particularly in regards to elections which are over and done with and have been certified. In light of that, the number one priority for that article does not need to be to tell me how Gary Johnson did, when a million other websites can do a better job of that. The vote total added to the article was incorrect 2384:

candidate. Not by party, not by previous result, but by strict alphabetical order by surname of candidate. It is very well known and recognised, very straight forward. I understand that the Amercian system is (very) different, though it does strike this brain of mine to be highly illogical (and somewhat unfair) to list candidates by party or previous result before a vote has been cast

4188:, Obama vs McCain, or Hollande vs Sarkozy, has a result (singular). But in practice an article will list results (plural). Obama vs McCain in each state, or popular vote as well as electoral vote. Hollande vs Sarkozy in the first and second rounds. Very rarely will an article contain only one result (one single-column table of figures). So for consistency 589:. These candidates from minor parties don't get coverage for a reason: they aren't viable. Knowledge articles should mirror actual news coverage in terms of how much coverage various candidates get. All candidates on a ballot or who have registered write in campaigns can be listed on the page, but they shouldn't all be in the infobox. -- 3110: 3036: 4523:

ballots or certified their results. Based upon existing examples of past election articles, in which preliminary results are still found in the article years later because they were never updated after election night, how does it help to allow these numbers to remain when they are only preliminary and not official results?

4522:

I'm a lot more worried about the insertion of vote totals, which I've noticed in quite a few articles on my watchlist. At the time I'm writing this, the polls closed approximately 24 to 30 hours ago, depending on time zone. I'm guessing that as of right now, not a single state has finished counting

4287:

I recall hearing in an AFD a while back that third party candidates for President of the United States who will be on the ballot in at least one state meet the notability guidelines. If this is correct, then what about stand-in candidates? And would it be any different if the stand-in candidates were

4206:

US presidential elections are far more complicated, and I would suggest 'results' based on the following hypothetical: X voters in 50 states and 5 areas voted; 3 states had to wait two weeks for absentee ballot to clarify their winner, and another is conducting a mandatory recount; court cases in two

3891:

Even though it's not quite the same as an ENGVAR case, I think it would be pretty weird if the government and media in a jurisdiction were mostly using one spelling and we were using the other. I think the argument that one spelling is depreciated is pretty weak. Google gives 3M hits for one spelling

3395:

would be starting individual articles for each Constabulary election. These would be easy to watch via bookmarks and watchlist, enable editors to focus on areas they know better than others, enhance the space available for each candidate's profile etc if required, and allow for a greater coverage for

3388:

would be keeping ALL 40+ election results on the same page. This would reduce the amount space used for British elections, reduce the likelihood of AfD discussions amongst the wider community on notability grounds, enable a co-ordination effort for the elections project, and enable editors to enhance

3318:

You should see from my recent contributions that I 'corrected' the vote share change in Manchester and Liverpool council elections. In these instances, the 2011 election was the end of the 4-year term for those councillors elected in 2007. The elections in 2012 for all those authorities who elect 'in

2252:

indicates). Since people tend to stop reading WP articles as they go along, you could make a case for the more 'important' primary going first. Traditionally that would be the non-incumbent one, but as lately the Republicans have grown fond of nuking their own, it could be decided on a case-by-case

1180:

One potential problem is which party to choose for the colored band on the left. My guess for Oregon's case (but I can't say for sure) is that the party a candidate affiliates with is treated as the most important nomination, and is listed first. Parties are not listed in simple alphabetical order on

636:

Agree with Muboshgu. I edit place articles where spammers insert the equivalent of "Eat at ], Joe's being redlinked. This is spam. However, the fact that the town has a (linked) GM plant is not spam. The difference (to newbies difficult to grasp) is that Joe's needs publicity, therefore we don't give

300:

4490:

for use on articles affected by the U.S. general election. Since the election is in early November and many of those elected don't take office until mid-to-late January, we tend to have a lot of jump-the-gun updating. This editnotice is intended to prevent some of that editing by reminding editors

3612:

2. obviously when linked to the campaign officially they shouldnt be added as its given you support your boss. That said financial contributions should be included as that is a sign of an endorsement (you wont contribute heavily to opposing candisdates (even though large corporations and unions give

2301:

I think the best uniform rule would probably be to give the incumbent party/candidate first, and where there are multiple opposition parties/candidates, to order them based on previous vote tally, from most to fewest (so the smallest opposition party/candidate appears last). There are obviously some

2104:

that we suppressed them during the election to avoid bias, and I moved the three then-mediocre returnees down very soon after the election to a gallery within the article's body. The result is that one easily can see six of the major parties at a glance without scrolling. Since I've seen an info box

1836:

The infobox only holds up to 6 parties. Thats why the others arent listed. Please look at other countries with parliamentary and proportional elections such as the two I listed above. They are both missing 3 parties. This is not a POV issue. Infoboxes are summaries. Its really easy to scroll down to

349:

2509:

I was told that all articles on elections roll up into "Politics" at the top. Is this so? The problem here is that Americans tend to think that campaigning and elections = (are identical to) "politics." If this is true, please note that this causes problems in the US. Campaign and election articles

2099:

People may hate me for this, but nice as the photos are for simple 2 and 3 person races when we have good free images in the right scale, they're often a hindrance, especially with those forever-begging, rarely-filled and supremely-uninformative "no free image" boxes. We had so few good images for

1749:

My feeling is that many election articles are skimpy enough as it is, being barely more than a list of candidates and numbers of votes (plus sometimes a couple of pre-election polls); where an election article isn't already near maximum reasonable length, I think it would be fine to add some issues

1622:

Hey all, a quick question. When working on an election article, is it appropriate to have a section specifically about issues discussed during that election? Like, for example, a section called "Issues" with possible subsections like "Health Care", "Abortion", "Social Security", etc. etc.? Or is it

970:

10% of the vote, I'd guess it's not a good idea on listing both of them -- infoboxes with two rows are unwieldy. This works well if there's only 3 of them at least there'll only be 1 row. Now if there are 5 "major" candidates that can be somewhat acceptable (as a rule 4 candidates on a 2x2 grid is

878:

article. However, this would put Nader in the 2000 election. But perhaps he deserves to be there. He was cited a lot in the media and Democrats claim he spoiled the election. But on the other hand, he only received 2.something%. Now Ive probably triggered a deluge of Nader supporters to go create a

3914:

I haven't read previous discussions on this topic, but I think we have bigger fish to fry at WP. Editors should be free to use whichever term they prefer. Everyone will understand what is intended. To promote uniformity for cosmetic purposes, I might be willing to support a guideline, but I oppose

3294:

Also, I'm in Alaska, which used a blanket primary for all but a handful of elections from 1948 to 1998. I see a number of articles for Alaska elections from the latter part of that era which portray a "Democratic primary" and a "Republican primary." That's funny, considering there was one ballot

2215:

regarding the ordering of party primaries in Senate election articles (and therefore House and gubernatorial articles as well). Jerzeykydd wants them ordered alphabetically (Democrats before Republicans) in all instances to avoid bias, but I find the choice of alphabetical order to be arbitrary.

2151:

I think we need some sort of official policy set out here for what sort of consistent organisation we plan for such articles. Right now articles widely differ based largely on popularity (such as the us elections ((and somewhat the anlglosphere of uk/aus, etc)) granted the us elections would never

1678:

Best saved for a properly named "Campaign" article. Any article called "Election" is supposed to be confined to the election not something the media calls "election" which is everything to do with the campaign. The media does not want to focus for whatever reason. Knowledge must provide that focus

263:

4550:

articles, you may have a point - ideally, I'd like to see preliminary numbers put into the articles, but eventually replaced with final numbers, but I don't know if people will actually do that. Perhaps the appropriate result would be to set up a squad of folks to systematically check/update the

4267:

This article, which is rather far outside my area of competence, is in a rather sorry state. I wonder if anyone with a working knowledge of Indian politics and government would care to take a look. Semi-protection just expired, but there hasn't been any major recent unpleasantness that I can see.

2362:

The best thing to do is to sort the primaries by alphabetical order. Democratic primary goes first, then Republican always. In this case, we don't have to worry about who the incumbent is, that is if there is an incumbent. Not to mention that in every other historical election article, Democratic

1932:

I see no good reason why the infobox can't be used or adapted here. The Dutch infobox mentioned above dealt with the issue by including a chart of party percentages as well as the top parties. Also, this problem is no more confusing than the decision involved in the lead. Neither WP:OR nor WP:POV

4589:

By temporary, I meant as far as the risk of new bad edits went - after the official results are released, I would expect that the frequency of the addition of new, bad, numbers would go down. The persistence of existing bad edits is, as you note, anything but temporary. I would be reluctant to

4545:

articles because a) they are reliable information about the election and b) they are part of the documented history of the election. I don't edit actual election articles much, but my personal preference would be to include both numbers in the election articles for historical reference. As for

4345:

Hello all! I’m working with the Saylor foundation to create a series of original, crowd-sourced textbooks that will be openly licensed and freely available on the web and within Saylor’s free, self-paced courses at Saylor.org. We are using Wikibooks as a platform to host this project and hope to

2067:

I think it should be included as a guide to quickly reference the top parties. The top parties being obviously those with the most seats (its not POV to state who won the most, if other parties didnt then they are minor parties). But perhaps limit it to 2-3 parties. I digress, though, that it is

680:

The top of the article is obviously the most visible part of an article. Why are we removing important information from the infobox based on arbitrary standards? And yes, a candidate receiving 3% is important information. Let me give an example: In New York this year, if any non-ballot qualified

3582:

requires that the material involved does not involve claims about a third party, yet political endorsements almost always involve claims about third parties (usually the preferred candidate, and often the rival candidates). For a couple of examples see the citations for Barbara Ehrenreich's and

3532:

There are some statements that nearly everyone, if not everyone, would accept as clear endorsements. An example would be when the editorial board of a newspaper publishes an article shortly before an election stating that of the candidates seeking office, the board prefers Candidate X and urges

1806:

As one of the editors involved in the Israeli elections (and as previously voiced on this talkpage), my opinion is that these infoboxes should be scrapped, or at least limited to two- or three-horse races where all candidates/parties can easily be included. However, for multi-candidate or party

3421:

Interesting ideas. I don't know that the length of the article would really be too over-burdensome, but, then again, since this is a new election, I'm not sure how it will really play out. I'm not completely opposed to it an article for each Constabulary. Depends on how notable it is. The main

3290:

I had some concerns which I see have been discussed in part. I do agree that "minor candidates" could be left out of the infobox. However, of the articles I read and contribute to, there appears to be a concerted effort to ghettoize every candidate who didn't intend to spend as much money as

526:

I am all for third parties and vote for them regularly, but there is this thing called clutter that we have to deal with. We have these no-name people with absolute no chance outside the wet dreams of their partisan supporters that are in infoboxes. I disagree with the arbitrary 5% in one poll

531:

to determine viability. Anything less is just patently ridiculous. Again, I love third parties and support them strongly, but they are cluttering up the infoboxes that they have no chance of winning. (I can get into a whole thing about their foolish and misguided behavior that keeps them from

3542:

Is it an endorsement if the person only makes the statement in question with reluctance (for example, during an interview that is not primarily about the interviewed subject's opinion of the candidates and in which the interviewer must ask repeatedly to extricate that specific information)?

2383:

I come into this from a British perspective. Through consensus - I doubt there is anything written down but it hasn't stopped the consensus from being the "done thing" - election articles prior to polling day have candidates/ballot papers listed in standard, alphabetical order by surname of

603:

We aren't showing "viability", which is an incredibly subjective term. We are giving information. If a reader comes to an election article, he or she shouldn't have to find the election table at the bottom to find out that there were more than two candidates. The infobox should give as much

3948:) English usage, and this is currently widespread across such articles. However, one editor has been attempting to change headings in several articles to "Result". Attempts at reverting have been met by claims that there is no consensus for the use of "Results". Thoughts please? Thanks, 3604:

1. Agreed that we need a criterion, problem is we often times wont know the whole context by just getting info from the oft-distorted view of the media. As for the media explicit support, that is an obvious notable inclusion if the outlet is notable. For multiple supports i would say we

2884:

had its leader in the United Kingdom Parliament (albeit abstenionist) and the Northern Ireland Assembly and the members of the Republic's Dail had a separate parliamentary leader. In 2007, confusingly, the party was represented in the Republic's leaders' debates by its Northern based

2971:

Shakescene kind of touched on this above. In the US, we have on average, over 200+ years, 30 states. They mostly held general elections every two years. In the 20th century, they started to hold primary elections to replace party nominees. So maybe 4000 potential articles at the

2715:

is not really informative. A map showing the strength of the yes/no vote would be more helpful. However the map's legend is hard-coded into the template - which fixes the colours. It would more useful IMO, if the caption could be customized (defaulting to the current of course).

4540:

Agreed, but that's much more of a temporary problem than the one the editnotice was created for - it should be a relatively short period of time before official results are available for most states. As for the utility of the preliminary results, I think they are valuable in

4399:

has only held that name since 1995, I guess it makes sense to use "legislative" for elections prior to then. But shouldn't the articles on post-1995 elections be consistently titled? As far as I can tell, the general issue of "parliamentary" versus "legislative" was discussed

3181:

should make provision regarding "daily polls". It has been suggested as an alternative that a style guideline is developed as part of this WikiProject. Your input at the discussion would be welcome, although detailed discussion about a style guide will be better on this page.

2510:"bleed over" into articles on politics. Most Americans cannot tell the difference. We need help here. The categorization isn't helping. Can't the categories roll up into "Government" or something? Or, for that matter, roll up into "Elections" forever until the top category? 747:

That would all but guarantee that only the top two would included in the infobox. The purpose of the infobox is to give more information quickly, not to make a user search for information on other candidates. Elections are not only about who wins and who loses, but a total

1960:

People seriously bawwed about that on the Dutch infobox? I probably would vote for one of those lower parties, but I cant see any reason to complain about them not being listed. I will work on getting a nice chart up tho as soon as I can. Seems this has been resolved tho

685:

important and those votes will have a long-lasting effect on political process. All ballot qualified candidates in local and state elections (or as many as the infobox can handle, which I believe is at most 6) should be included. In most cases, it is no more than 3 or

1807:

elections they should not be avoided; to avoid NPOV (i.e. missing some parties/candidates out) or OR (who decides what % of the vote is significant?) violations. This is especially a problem in countries where many parties win seats in parliament. For instance, in

3970:

Presumably you mean that you're in favour of the former? Results should normally be used since they are a collection of results for individual parties or candidates. Result would be used when we simply state who has been elected or the election is uncontested.

2762:

That probably is true for the UK referendum, where the result is so uniform as to be uninteresting - though retaining the box as a quick summary is still helpful. However the second point about accesibility will apply to all uses of the template - the one in

2860:

A lot of Canadian federal and provincial parties have elected leaders who are not yet in the relevant parliament. Some have entered via immediate by-elections but others have waited until the next general election with a separate parliamentary leader in the

2792:

Also referendums either go yes or no everywhere so perhaps an customizable caption. As for colors, I say some sporting maps use yellows for yes and blues for no, and those probably won't affect people w/ color blindness, at least except for some rare forms.

1028:" (for fusion). The cross nomination box should enable you to enter multiple nominating parties for each candidate. The fusion box should give a line for each party and candidate, and indicate the total votes for each candidate. Could someone tackle this? — 949:

HTD's suggestions seem fine to me, but I think it should only include those that either won a state or surpassed 5% of the vote in Pres. elections, since some candidates have won electoral votes via faithless electors while getting less than 3% of the vote.

4562:

I'm not so sure it's only a temporary problem when I've come across articles pertaining to 2006 and 2008 elections that were never updated after election night. There were a few articles which caught my attention this week. My poster child, however, is

953:

Let's exclude those how had electoral votes via faithless electors, then. As for polls I'd like a 5% threshold too, but that should take into account the margin of error -- e.g. if a candidate a 4% in a poll and there was 2% margin of error, he gets

3389:

their working knowledge on how to election results boxes, source material etc. It would be a very long article, require intense concentration to reduce confusion and enhance clarity, be open to sidetracking conversations about article splitting.

2048:

I think Rami's ideas should be addressed. Might be tightened in wording somehow, but including all parties in a ruling coalition sounds almost mandatory. And leaving room for omitting truly insignificant parties seems like a good idea. Otherwise

4141:

But in a presidential election there are several results as each candidate has a different one. I think it may be fairer to say there is one outcome but several results. I think we also need to have consistency between articles on the headings.

617:

but based on precedent. The non-partisan way to determine who is viable is to see who performs well in polls. 5% is a bit of an arbitrary cutoff, but I think it's arbitrary on the side of being overly inclusive rather than overly exclusive.

3343: 2172:

With another round of UK local elections now just four months away, is anyone interested in (or already) working on scripts to pull in candidate lists and results from local authority pages which use Open Election Data, as described on the

220:

2910:

You can't have a "centralised steer", there is no one size fits all solution because the examples are occurring in different countries with different legislatures. Why tar it all with the one brush when that would be blatantly misleading?

3319:

thirds' will be the end of the 2008-2012 cycle. I think everyone who deals with UK elections know that the vote share should be compared like-for-like, so in these instances, 2011 should be compared with 2007, 2012 with 2008, and so on.

4292:

and a Texas businessman of the same name, in Michigan this year. Should the other Gary Johnson receive his own article, a section in the main article about the original Johnson's campaign, or nothing? I'll provide cites if/when needed.

2871:

has recently selected a non-MP to lead it into the election and be their candidate for Premier, whilst another MP has been elected as the party's parliamentary leader and is (I think) nominally the official leader. Who should be in the

1779:. Both of these articles have infoboxes that list only the top 6 parties, despite 3 and 4 more winning seats. The infobox is a summary of the major facts in the election, not a summary of every single party. There are two options here: 806:

media event, which Knowledge naively uses. They really should be confined to Wikinews, being currents events (at best). The project is about elections not publicizing tricks used by the media or politicians to gain votes pushing their

3935:

In order to try to bring to a close a long-running dispute, what are fellow editors in favour of the heading title for this section of election and referendum articles? Personally I am in favour of the "Results" based on common (e.g.

4571:

two days later. Surely similar problems exist in other articles, too. The only appropriate conclusion would be "Whoopee, X candidate knew how to find/hire a social media consultant". It isn't anything which moves the encyclopedia

2247:

The closest real-life analogues to this are which party holds its convention first (the non-incumbent) and which party has the first or top ballot lines in the actual physical election voting ballots, machines, etc (varies a lot, as

295:

3809:, we are having a dispute concerning whether polls should be listed in chronological or reverse-chronological order. I would appreciate any outside input from the broader group of editors who contribute to these articles. Thanks! 1045:

Referring to my real-world example of Oregon for cross nomination, here's how it works: Each candidate can be nominated by up to three parties. On the ballot, the name of each party appears abbreviated under their candidates' names

4602:) could be useful leading up to a "let's fix it" campaign. The obvious catch is while we could apply the "needs to be checked" to a wide range of existing articles, it wouldn't be on new articles and they wouldn't get checked. -- 3230:

Giving a summary of votes in terms of the maximum votes counted for each candidate, which recognizes all transfers and is consistent with the elections infobox high-level presentation, rather than just first-choice or first round

2453:

I suppose people have articles clear out to 2096, I haven't checked. I had thought that most elections were done and over with. The US has had a hundred or more biannual and quadrennial elections. Many democracies have as well.

1770:

For whatever reason, some editors have decided that Israeli elections do not deserve infoboxes, calling it a POV violation. This is despite hundreds of other elections articles across the "world" having them. Most recently,

447:

I've come to the project page to find out what the scope of the project is, but it's not stated. Are local elections covered, or does the project concern itself with elections at national level only? I'm working a lot with

3322:

We all know that the media tend to compare year-by-year, and not like-by-like. If we can ensure that Knowledge does it right, then the media can just play catchup. I'll do what I can (currently on with Salford 2007-2011).

4506: 4090:

I have this page on my watchlist, I would have probably reached this discussion anyway. Question: does anybody other than Lihaas support the singular "Result"? Preferably someone who speaks English as a native language.

3616:

3. If the person is generally notable to be on WP i think thats notable enough for inclusion. As for school board members for president i would disagree, BUT for parliamentary or local/state elections it would hold more

757:

For two-party elections, perhaps yes, but for multiparty elections (specifically when the winner doesn't surpass 50% of the vote) this comes in handy. Infoboxes do not have to show everything anyway. They're a summary.

3114: 2788:

for yes and no, and at the bottom the turnout, as those are the only important figures in referendums (the total number of votes is usually not that important, the key is, in a two-choice referendum, the higher number

4054:

If I was canvassing, I wouldn't have notified you about the discussion (the editors I did invite had either previously commented on the result/results issue or had reverted changes to this heading). As for linking to

552:

Can we get an agreement on these options and then a vote? You are welcome to propose changes to the options, but this does need a vote. And dont feel rushed by the election on Tuesday. This can be done now for 2012.

3039:

for featured article, but so far it has received no actual comments or either support or oppose votes. I really do not want it to fail for lack of input, so could anybody spare the time to weigh in there? Thanks! —

2999:

Polls need to be jettisoned. We already have more maintenance than we can handle even with the few hundred abandoned articles. What the hell do polls matter after the election? What a futile waste of editor power!

2995:

We have abandoned articles because my candidate may have been "better than" yours, but he didn't win, so the editor went on to other matters! There are 2008 elections in Vermont still worded in the future tense!

3201:

I would like to suggest changing some of the format and content of how results of ranked choice voting elections are described. This would involve changing/adding/replacing templates. A prototype of changes to

1790:

Why do we even have infoboxes available for these types of elections if they would be POV? I am calling for a consensus to be developed in regards to whether infoboxes deserve to be on parliamentary election

1911:? It is so big that it finishes below the results table - hardly an effective summary tool when it takes longer to scroll down to read it than the actual full results (which includes far more information). 3578:, it may be helpful to spell out what specific rules apply to choosing citations for endorsements, given that they often are made nowadays on blogs, social media sites (eg Facebook), or personal websites. 1904:

Because by limiting the number of parties in the infobox (in order to make it fit), you are excluding others, largely at a whim. I don't believe the infobox can be NPOV if it does not include all of them.

4313: 3499:

Id support option a. If its too large then we can split it off later. How would you determine in an npov manner which one warrants importance and which is marginal (this was before i read Number57, btw)

3430: 3376: 2988:

pushing that my candidate was better than your candidate. Hard to keep that enthusiasm up as we go backwards into time. Whigs? Democratic-Republicans? Hard to identify. Maybe the articles will improve?

1215:

The New York State Board of Elections reports the vote for each ballot line — then they give a "recap", or a total vote for each candidate on all their ballot lines, which decides the election. See the

207: 4184:

Aridd has the right theory. The simplest of elections, say a presidential election, or a referendum, has a single result. There is not one result per candidate, there is one result per election. So

3007:

election in Vermont that is completely covered with each state office and both branches of the legislature covered. Mercifully we have no county government! At least we don't have to worry about that!

1976:

Given the general nature of the argument, shouldn't a guideline of sorts be developed, in order to maintain consistency across election articles? I've thinking something on the lines of the following:

2992:

We need a tighter structure. Having one article dedicated to proving my one candidate is better than your one candidate needs to be jettisoned in favor of something more inclusive and more objective.

4401: 4035:...not to mention after being told "for the nth time" ths conversation just comes up while accussing me of a "blind revert" + deceptive use of BRD when there is NO consensus whatsoevr fo the change. 3867: 199: 194: 182: 177: 169: 4346:

garner the interest of existing members of the Wikibooks and Knowledge community, as well as bring in new members! We thought that some of your members may be interested in contributing to our book

3584: 905:

My proposal is mostly useful for multiparty systems (or elections where the winner wins by less than 50%+1) -- for a two-party elections, I'd prefer the 5% threshold too (that's pretty low, too). –

3422:

article would list them all, then we'd have separate articles for the more notable elections. That would be kind of standard procedure here on WP, seems like. I'm more likely to support Option A.

882:

By last polls, I mean the most recent. This makes the infobox "live". If a 3rd or 4th or whatever candidate suddenly goes from 10% support to 2% support, they should be dropped from the infobox.

4491:

that there is a difference between editing and inauguration. I'm not mass-implementing it generally, but if you see that an article is drawing a lot of good faith errors, this is available. --

3379:. There will be over 40 concurrent elections in each of the Constabulary areas, with the potential for numerous candidates and the fun and games associated with using STV as a voting system. 2741:

Personally I would just scrap the infobox. All the information that is in it will be duplicated elsewhere in the article (it seems particularly ridiculous having the full results in the box).

2712: 3400:

We have just under a year to decide, though in real terms, the May election period is going to be a nightmare anyway (and that's without tying to keep up to date with the Boundary changes).

4564: 604:

information as possible, even if it only shows a candidate received 4.9% of the vote. Before an election, there is simply no non-partisan way to decide who is "viable" whatever that means.--

4595: 2302:

cases in which a high profile candidate will significantly boost a party from one election to the next, and exceptions to this general rule could certainly be made on a case-by-case basis.

350:

cases in which a high profile candidate will significantly boost a party from one election to the next, and exceptions to this general rule could certainly be made on a case-by-case basis.

4667: 3806: 2178: 226: 702:

I use a somewhat different criteria -- if the candidate's vote total is greater than or equal to the margin between the winner and the best loser, I'd add it to the infobox. For example:

637:

it to him! That is the function of a blog or .com site. Everyone has heard of GM. They don't need and cannot profit from the publicity in Knowledge.Therefore we (not very generously! :)

4672: 4641: 3533:

readers to vote for Candidate X; or when a retiring elected official holds a press conference together with his chosen successor and urges voters to cast their votes for that person.

2402:

It used to vary in various districts in the US. Candidates were listed alphabetically. Then they started to list them randomly to avoid the "earliest getting the most votes" syndrome.

1990:

These rules-of-thumb would grant a reader a reasonable overview of the legislative body composition, including in terms of coalition building process and historical trends. Thoughts?

535:

The infobox is a summary of the absolute most important and relevant info, not a complete rundown of every possibility. Minor "non"-candidates can go in the main body of the article.

1783:

either infoboxes are somehow POV because a user might load the page, look at the infobox, and think "Oh there cant possibly have been a 7th party, so this is all I need to know." OR

4288:

chosen not on merit, but because they have the same name as the main nominee, who was blocked from the ballot? It appears such a thing might happen with former New Mexico Governor

2152:

follow this method with the mobs there), but for the rest we can come to some sort of base outline and then with slight deviation for the particularities of respective elections.(

1890:

I can see both sides of this. Number57, I think I might assume why you might think it is POV, but please specify it clearly for this discussion so there is no misunderstanding. --

925:

BTW for U.S. presidential elections, I suggest limiting the people in the infobox either on those had ballot access in all 50 states + DC or to anyone who had an electoral vote. –

3396:

the contests in specific electoral areas. However they would be very difficult to watch all 40 at the height of the election period. It would also attract coordinated vandalism.

3234:

Providing a graphical representation of key vote count components for quicker and more intuitive understanding of the overall contest, integrated with supporting text quantities.

874:

Fwaa I forgot about this. I need to set watch pages. Anywho, I am intrigued by the proposal of HTD and did use that as a basis for removal of the 5th(!) candidate on I think the

4395:

are not consistently named. The article on the latest election for its legislature is titled "parliamentary", whereas the previous ones are all titled "legislative". Since the

3646: 157: 17: 3010:

We either need to abandon elections as they now stand or change drastically. We are not even keeping up with elections as we encounter them, never mind documenting past ones.

4377:. Should it be "Irish constitutional referendum, November 2012", "Children's rights referendum, 2012" or "Thirty-First Amendment of the Constitution (Children) Bill 2012"? — 4374: 3523:

Knowledge articles describing election campaigns could use some general guidelines for deciding which political endorsements are appropriate for inclusion in the articles.

1876:

Then why do we have an infobox template on virtually every election page. Again, look at Dutch and Swedish elections. Im not making this up. Its based on other elections.--

538:

Most important here is this needs a vote because the consensus above was unclear and someone arbitrarily decided there was "no consensus". I propose the following options:

2845:

In Germany the "Chancellor candidate" is a specific position in its own right, and the party leader another, with lander premiers often holding one or the other - e.g. in

4312:

I didn't think there were enough Election Box formats (!) so I made one for the Supplementary Vote counting system used for English mayoral elections and the forthcoming

3536:

There are many other situations in which it is not so clear that a formal endorsement is being made. These are the sorts of cases that can be problematic for WP editors.

3485:

Cheers for that. The feedback seems to be attracted to an Option C. It certainly seems to make sense. I'll keep the question open and see what other feedback might come

1811:, why do we include a party that won five seats, but not those than won four? In many cases there is a gradual decline in the number of seats and no clear cut-off point. 3620:

4. We dont cater to the whims of the candidate so its irrelevant if they want it or not. If its RS supported it should be added, with possible note that it was rejected)

3460:) to start with, and see how we go. If it gets too large, then it would be split. The suggestion by JoannaSerah is probably the best first way to split if we need to. 3117:. There have been no oppose votes but very little input at all, and I don't want to see it fail for lack of participation. Any help would be very much appreciated! — 102: 84: 64: 3382:

I want to know how people feel about the election coverage. I have two options in my mind, and want to ask people how we should work on the forthcoming elections.

3299:

and tried to come up with a way to format election boxes to accurately portray a blanket primary. Please take a look and offer some input or suggestions. Thanks.

2272: 2229: 2225: 1985:"Historical significance" - if a party was in the infobox the previous elections and hasn't lost seats following the current election, it's listed in the infobox. 320: 277: 273: 4404:, but it seems as if no firm conclusions were reached. Has some sort of naming conventions or guidelines been developed since? Or is it just "use common sense"? 3727: 2930: 2719:

Secondly, is intense red / intense green a good idea for accessibility with respect to colour blindness? People with deuteranopia cannot tell the two apart see

1698: 4599: 3550:— an endorsement suitable for inclusion among the endorsements listed in a WP article about a campaign? Or should exclusivity be a requirement for inclusion? 2217: 1008: 265: 879:

consensus to put him there, but thats a separate issue. The consensus here seems 3-1 or 4-1 in favor of any of my proposals. But we still need to pick one.

648:

publicity. We really should force them on the marketplace and not give them publicity here. The major parties cannot profit from it, therefore, no problem.

2276: 2221: 324: 269: 4428: 4226:

There is only one situation in which the singular form "result" is appropriate, and that is an election in which a single post was filled unopposed (e.g.

2888:

From this year the party has gone to the south and now sits in the Dail. There is a separate leader in the Assembly who is also the deputy First Minister?

2249: 297: 3571:, what should the convention be for handling endorsements made by individuals or groups with whom the candidate or party does not wish to be associated? 890:

was added to the infobox on the basis of a single, months-old poll that put her at 5%. Thats why I said the basis of inclusion should be current polls.--

887: 846: 2895:

And there are no doubt others. This is creating some discussion on individual articles over who should be listed; a centralised steer would be helpful.

1017:). But that box is for when parties in an alliance agree to not run candidates against each other. Cross nomination and fusion are different creatures. 1683:. Don't let topics for one article slop over into others. Causes maintenance problems in multiple places and leaves editors wondering what to link to. 4629: 3261: 2929:

I don't think anyone wants to force anything into a box; the question is what the non-expert reader will think a "leader" is. The question arose from

2134: 4440: 3866:

supports "referendums" as it points out that "the use of referenda is deprecated by the Oxford English Dictionary". Also note a previous discussion

3682: 3668: 2604: 2101: 1058:, etc.). So at least in Oregon's case (not sure how other jurisdictions do it), we could just tweak the current election box's appearance, like so: 4392: 2651: 2588: 613:

It's not subjective. A candidate that can't poll over 5% isn't viable in an election. That candidate isn't going to win, not based on anything

4010: 3779: 3748: 3016:

Without drastic changes, these articles will only continue to slide into the abyss and fail as a reference for anyone serious about elections.

2600: 4509:

shows too many changes, I'll go ahead and mass implement there. I just don't want to step on anyone's toes with preemptive implementation. --

3076:

A far-right party received 2.8% in one community, and now there is a section in the article on the 2010 election in Sweden. Please comment at

4459: 4444: 4250: 2802: 1657: 1233: 1025: 980: 958: 934: 914: 791: 779: 767: 733: 2026:

have them, and I think it gives a clearer sense of the overall result, without simply focusing on a simple 50+1% coalition governing party.

4317: 3833:

and using the spelling preferred by the elections-organizing body of each referendum. In my opinion, the quote by the Oxford Dictionary at

3434: 3203: 3174: 2868: 2329:

no incumbent party, such as a special election race or a race where an independent is holding the seat? Also, what about races such as the

1067: 1014: 377:

no incumbent party, such as a special election race or a race where an independent is holding the seat? Also, what about races such as the

2904: 3438: 681:

parties polls 50,000 votes (a number sure to be far less than 5%), they become ballot qualified. For that party, getting 50,000 votes is

4424: 3826: 3151: 3077: 3069: 2197: 1021: 245: 4261: 3902: 3847: 2672: 2655: 2546: 2491: 2487: 2023: 2019: 2015: 1908: 875: 429: 425: 4238:(plural), in the shape of vote counts for the various candidates. For consistency, it is best to use the plural form for headings. -- 2271:

Putting the non-incumbent party first wouldn't make sense where there is only token opposition from the opposing party, like say the

319:

Putting the non-incumbent party first wouldn't make sense where there is only token opposition from the opposing party, like say the

4432: 3129: 3052: 2841:

In some countries & systems all three are the same person, but there are various elections where the posts are split including:

2592: 1713: 1635: 3915:

imposition of a restrictive policy. (And yes, I studied Latin and have a passing familiarity with the history of modern English.)

3837:

suggests that we should use the -a spelling, but some people are strongly opposed to it, so the ENGVAR solution might be better. —

527:

threshold. What happens when they get 5% in the first poll and never show up in a poll again? Instead, it should be 5% in at least

4321: 4119:

Knowledge usage should be based on common usage. It also depends on the type of election. A presidential election normally has a

2676: 2228:), I believe the incumbent party should always be listed first. This also prevents burying independents, like Bernie Sanders in 276:), I believe the incumbent party should always be listed first. This also prevents burying independents, like Bernie Sanders in 4653: 4608: 4584: 4557: 4535: 4515: 4497: 4465: 4413: 4381: 4363: 4333: 4302: 4277: 4255: 4216: 4201: 4176: 4158: 4136: 4106: 4083: 4047: 4001: 3980: 3964: 3924: 3907: 3886: 3852: 3815: 3795: 3768: 3658: 3632: 3596: 3508: 3494: 3476: 3450: 3415: 3375:

I am typing this question in a number of different locations to help measure opinion. As you may know, next year should see the

3362: 3332: 3308: 3280: 3250: 3191: 3163: 3140: 3099: 3063: 3025: 2958: 2920: 2808: 2779: 2757: 2735: 2689: 2637: 2623: 2581: 2554: 2519: 2499: 2463: 2436: 2414: 2393: 2372: 2357: 2311: 2288: 2262: 2241: 2201: 2161: 2141: 2114: 2077: 2062: 2035: 2005: 1970: 1942: 1927: 1899: 1885: 1871: 1850: 1827: 1800: 1759: 1740: 1724: 1692: 1669: 1646: 1605: 1579: 1542: 1197: 1039: 986: 940: 920: 899: 827: 797: 773: 752: 739: 690: 657: 627: 608: 598: 580: 567: 511: 493: 479: 465: 437: 405: 359: 336: 310: 289: 249: 4551:

articles in, say, early December? I'd be willing to be part of such a patrol - at least for the national House and Senate. --

4153: 4078: 3996: 3959: 3881: 3752: 3471: 3357: 3275: 3013:

We need to cover parties that garner 3% (or some other cutoff) of the vote. We probably need a lot of other shortcuts as well.

2764: 2752: 2618: 2596: 1933:

enters into the question of summarizing information (in the Lead or an infobox) within an article that provides all the data.--

1922: 1866: 1822: 1653: 1539: 1194: 1036: 2564:

Does this WikiProject have any sort of standard on how to name referendums? I was just discussing with the editor who created

3238:

The numbers used in this sample are the latest numbers (November 30) published by the San Francisco Department of Elections.

2864: 1348: 1326: 818:

remove the polls for anyone not actually receiving 5% of the vote. That should help with history if not with current evernt.

2068:

excluding "on a whim" because there is a clear and defined reason for who makes it, the only controversy would be how many?(

1623:

generally better to cover the issues in the "Campaign" sections as they are discussed, without a separate issues section? —

556:(By last 5 polls, I mean 5 different pollsters. If its Rasmussen, Rasmussen, Survey USA, PPP, Survey USA; that wont count.) 4480: 2846: 2720: 4591: 2659: 1470: 1147: 39: 2330: 378: 4227: 3740: 3686: 3664: 3207: 3134: 3057: 2699: 1718: 1640: 1444: 1143: 3694:

Its not true at all according to RS sources (as opposed to the individual's website). Election was in 2011 and 2013

3546:

Is saying "I support Candidate X" while simultaneously saying "I support Candidate Y" and "I support Candidate Z" —

1652:

Personally I would say it can be fine - a couple of examples of featured election articles with issues sections are

1005:

I can't find an election box that handles cross nomination by parties, or electoral fusion. The closest I found was

4637: 4633: 4625: 3744: 3211: 3094: 2900: 2542: 2432: 2014:

I think the top 6 vote getting parties should be listed in an infobox - the Israeli legislative election pages for

1111: 1047: 148: 3210:. The templates being used in this prototype are in the User: namespace. Links to the templates can be found at 2349: 1571: 961:

article, they only have the three major parties in the infobox -- the other parties, all of which either had : -->

865: 397: 4454: 4246: 3433:

would highlight the most notable (however that's determined) and then we'd have more detailed listings in either

2824: 2031: 4359: 4351: 1119: 4640:. I think that all three capitalisations should lead to the same place, so I have nominated both redirects at 2322:

I think the best idea here is to place the incumbent party first in all cases, like has been suggested above.

1217: 370:

I think the best idea here is to place the incumbent party first in all cases, like has been suggested above.

2857:, the premier of Saarland, and I'm not sure who had been leading the SPD in the Bundestag up to the election. 1786:

The infoboxes are a reasonable, professional, graphic summary that makes the articles look nicer and uniform.

4378: 3296: 3221:

Using standard and most commonly used terminology for ranked choice voting, especially as used in California

2633: 2577: 2569: 2342: 2258: 2193: 1776: 1564: 1139: 1051: 858: 390: 306: 241: 4436: 3898: 3843: 3829:

and I think we should choose a policy, either requiring one spelling across the encyclopedia or requiring

2668: 2550: 2495: 2232:, where the Democrats almost certainly won't contest the seat, and Republicans may pass also. Thoughts? -- 2027: 1966: 1881: 1846: 1796: 1601: 1418: 1370: 1115: 1055: 895: 563: 433: 280:, where the Democrats almost certainly won't contest the seat, and Republicans may pass also. Thoughts? -- 4355: 4396: 4329: 4298: 4197: 3446: 3159: 3124: 3086: 3047: 2896: 2538: 2534: 2527: 2428: 1708: 1630: 1300: 1263: 45: 4596:

Category:Articles that need to be checked for accuracy and for use of official (final) election results

2568:

how little I like referring to things like "Question 1" and HR676 without saying which election. Would

724:

3. Jenny won't since 2<3. I dunno if this can be applied to polling numbers prior to the election. –

4487: 4449: 4420: 4373:

A discussion regarding the appropriate naming convention for articles on referendums is taking place

4273: 4239: 3976: 3154:

concerning questions about Project Vote Smart. Any info and help would be appreciated. Thank you. --

2954: 2916: 2795: 2723:. Red/green may be a natural scheme, but is about the worst possible choice for colour blind users.-- 2368: 2110: 1772: 1755: 973: 927: 907: 784: 760: 726: 2876:

It can also be messy if a party structure puts the leader in a different body altogether, including

2587:

All the ones I am aware of (several hundred) use the format "Fooian subject referendum, XXXX" (e.g.

1096: 498:

Ok, I've drafted some words for the project page to reflect that. Please amend this as you see fit.

4649: 4579: 4530: 4212: 4148: 4073: 3991: 3954: 3876: 3756: 3698: 3645:

Due to recurrent discussions that lead nowhere, an open-ended discussion and proposals are invited

3490: 3466: 3411: 3352: 3328: 3304: 3270: 3187: 2850: 2775: 2747: 2731: 2613: 2389: 1917: 1861: 1817: 1091: 845:- Infoboxes should not be cluttered with minor candidates that made no impact on the election (see 505: 459: 452:

and if I knew, I could place the appropriate tag on election articles when I undertake assessment.

1982:

The parties in the infobox that are part of the governing coalition have at least 1/2 of the seats

4171: 3920: 3592: 3021: 2891:

Confusingly between 2007 & 2011 Sinn Féin had a separate DFM from its leader/Assembly leader.

2629: 2573: 2515: 2459: 2410: 2335: 2284: 2254: 2237: 2184: 2177:? I'm in touch with the people behind that project, and would be willing to act as a go-between. 2058: 1736: 1688: 1665: 1557: 851: 823: 653: 623: 594: 489: 383: 332: 302: 285: 232: 225:? I'm in touch with the people behind that project, and would be willing to act as a go-between. 3217:

The prototype illustrates some improved ways of reporting ranked choice voting results such as:

2938: 4123:, while legislative elections are a combination of constituency elections in which a number of 2837:

The person whom the party is presenting at the election as their candidate to be chief minister

2771: 2727: 88:, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to 3893: 3838: 3791: 3723: 3579: 2985: 2942: 2680: 2663: 2307: 1962: 1877: 1842: 1792: 1597: 1181:

the ballot (or else Art Robinson would appear as a Constitution candidate first and foremost).

891: 614: 559: 355: 4604: 4553: 4511: 4493: 4325: 4294: 4193: 4094: 4043: 3859: 3764: 3654: 3628: 3539:

Is casually saying "I agree with a lot of what Candidate X says" an endorsement for office?

3504: 3442: 3155: 3119: 3042: 3037:

nominated the article United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010

2854: 2565: 2157: 2073: 1993: 1938: 1703: 1625: 1392: 998: 96: 4409: 4269: 4132: 3972: 3810: 3246: 2950: 2912: 2364: 2212: 2106: 1895: 1751: 1680: 1397: 472: 260: 1555:

I like; this seems like a practical way to have electoral fusion/cross nomination added.

3937: 4645: 4573: 4524: 4419:

It seems to go along with how it is called in the local language. The elections to the

4208: 4143: 4068: 4032: 3986: 3949: 3871: 3486: 3461: 3407: 3347: 3324: 3300: 3265: 3183: 2768: 2742: 2724: 2684: 2608: 2385: 2050: 1912: 1856: 1812: 1533: 1449: 1188: 1030: 1020:

So I think templates need to be created for this. The real-world applications include "

803: 500: 454: 3241:

Feedback is welcome, including if there is a better place than here to discuss this.

2405:

Why not present the winners first in descending order? Wouldn't that make more sense?

1855:

If it's so easy to scroll down and see the results, why do we need an infobox at all?

76: 58: 4661: 3916: 3710: 3588: 3178: 3017: 2511: 2455: 2406: 2280: 2233: 2216:

Since elections concern incumbents and incumbent parties (ie., primary challenges in

2054: 1732: 1701:, where there is no separate "campaign" article, what would the solution be there? — 1684: 1661: 1270: 1124: 849:, where Jill Stein is up and got less than 2% of the vote); 5% is a decent threshold. 819: 649: 619: 590: 485: 449: 328: 281: 264:

Since elections concern incumbents and incumbent parties (ie., primary challenges in

3078:

Talk:Swedish_general_election,_2010#Municipal_elections_and_National_Socialism:_Expo

2333:, where the main candidates are all members of one party and there is no incumbent? 381:, where the main candidates are all members of one party and there is no incumbent? 4289: 3784: 3702: 2303: 1475: 1423: 1152: 351: 4642:

Knowledge:Redirects for discussion/Log/2012 November 19#2004 Presidential election

4013:, no consensus there iehter. Need to get consensus THEN change not per IDONTLIKEIT 3945: 3941: 2946: 2881: 644:

The analogy here, if I must draw it, is that low "polling" (but see below) groups

3709:

While all contributions to Knowledge are appreciated, content or articles may be

4347: 4339: 4099: 4059:

edit, can you explain to me how this a BRD violation when I am reverting to the

4039: 3760: 3650: 3649:

for ITN on the main page as to what should be recurrent without ITNC discussions

3624: 3500: 3344:

Knowledge:Articles for deletion/Israeli Agricultural Labour Union election, 1968

2934: 2153: 2069: 1998: 1934: 1838: 749: 687: 605: 577: 156:

If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the

3862:

issue, so would support the first solution. I also think it's quite clear that

1979:

The parties represented in the infobox have at least 3/4 of the seats combined.

4405: 4128: 4016:

If we are to change it then we need to change the tiltle for consistency . An

3863: 3834: 3830: 3242: 2138: 1891: 883: 3733:

Please consider improving the article to address the issues raised. Removing

3695: 2784:

A good infobox would be to imitate the FA Cup Final infobox: two columns for

1206:

I think I figured out a possible way to handle fusion, at least for New York.

100:

and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit

2363:

primary always goes first (I would know I created most of these articles).--

2224:, the question of whether or not the Republicans can hold the open seat in 1305: 272:, the question of whether or not the Republicans can hold the open seat in 2984:

for the U.S. We have maybe 500 or so today? Most of these are dedicated to

2207:

In what order should political parties in election articles be presented?

255:

In what order should political parties in election articles be presented?

90: 4600:

Category:Articles checked for accurate official (final) election results

641:

them publicity. We don't worry about it since it can't do them any good.

3807:

Talk:United_States_Senate_election_in_Massachusetts,_2012#Polling_order

2831:

The person holding the official position of leader of the overall party

3115:

United States Senate Democratic primary election in Pennsylvania, 2010

2595:). For the one you are asking about, I suppose the solution would be 1596:

Agreed. Looks beautiful and practical. btw, where are 2010 results?--

1220:

for an example. So how about doing something like this for New York:

3613:

to both parties in the USA to hedge, one is overwhelmingly larger))

2976:

in each state. Times each office, say five officers average at the

2937:(who now serves in a different parliament entirely, the Republic's 3529:, there is the issue of what constitutes a political endorsement. 2711:

The UK has strongly rejected AV in its referendum this week, so a

2708:

I've got a couple issues with this template and the maps it uses:

548:

Candidates must have at least 5% support in 1 of the last 3 polls.

545:

Candidates must have at least 5% support in 2 of the last 5 polls.

542:

Candidates must have at least 5% support in 3 of the last 5 polls.

471:

All elections, all referendums, everywhere, if I am not mistaken.

3623:

5. RS sources first. the rest can be taken on case-by-case basis.

4590:

address this via a banner or an editnotice, though the usage of

4324:. I have some more features in mind but any comments welcome. 3441:. Or would that be forking it out too much, also? Thank you. -- 1186:

Electoral fusion is trickier. Not sure how to make that work. —

4314:

England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012

3377:

England and Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012

2174: 802:

The main problem is confusing polling, which are essentially a

222: 969:

be in the infobox, and the last two like have a combined : -->

135: 25: 3985:

Yes, sorry, I was just editing that when I saw your comment!

3585:

List of Barack Obama presidential campaign endorsements, 2008

2133:

I've suggested merging WikiProject Voting systems here - see

4067:

just leave articles with grammatically incorrect sentences.

3673: 2853:, the premier of Lower Saxony, whilst the party leader was 2427:

That doesn't mean a thing before the votes have been cast.

2179:

Discussion is at WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

1837:

results and see there are other parties. Also, please read

780:

Knowledge:Manual of Style (infoboxes)#Purpose of an infobox

227:

Discussion is at WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom

4565:

Electoral history of the Libertarian Party (United States)

2505:

All election article and catefories roll up into Politics?

4038:(and instead of warring you can add content to that page! 778:

P.S. That was my own personal judgment, but it turns out

4431:" hence the its English Knowledge article is called as " 3700: 3262:

Talk:Greek head of state referendum, 1862#Requested move

3175:

Knowledge talk:What Knowledge is not#Polls on Knowledge?

962:

5% of the vote, or of seats won or both, were not there.

4064: 4060: 4056: 4036: 3858:

As noted in the discussion, I do not believe this is a

3751:

process can result in deletion without discussion, and

2827:. The entry for a party's "leader" can potentially be: 2482: 1808: 420: 4283:

Stand in Candidates for President of the United States

3716:

You may prevent the proposed deletion by removing the

2980:= 20,000 articles. Not even counting the legislature. 2652:

Talk:Rod_Blagojevich_corruption_charges#Requested_move

4644:. Your comments in that discussion would be welcome. 3435:

England Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012

965:

BTW (last), if there are four candidates that should

723:

Tom and Dick gets in, then Harry gets in since 4: -->

3647:

Knowledge talk:In the news/Recurring items/Elections

3197:

Changing reporting of ranked choice voting elections

2279:, where all the action was on the incumbent side. -- 327:, where all the action was on the incumbent side. -- 18:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

3439:

Wales Police and Crime Commissioner elections, 2012

3227:

Separating aggregations of basic ballot accounting.

1679:and not follow the media in losing focus. Stick to 38:This page does not require a rating on Knowledge's 4192:is overwhelmingly going to be the correct word. 2823:There's a potential problem with the listings in 1907:In addition, what is the point of the infobox on 4668:Project-Class Elections and Referendums articles 4316:. The template is based on the one created for 2834:The person who leads the party in the parliament 4427:at first glance but in French, it's called as " 2135:Knowledge talk:WikiProject Voting systems#Merge 1731:My thought would be to start that new article. 112:Knowledge:WikiProject Elections and Referendums 4673:WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles 3519:Guidelines for Listing Endorsements for Office 2804:ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. 2273:United States Senate election in Wyoming, 2012 2250:this recap from the 2008 presidential election 982:ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. 936:ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. 916:ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. 793:ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. 769:ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. 735:ITN: Where no updates but is stickied happens. 321:United States Senate election in Wyoming, 2012 298:this recap from the 2008 presidential election 115:Template:WikiProject Elections and Referendums 2931:Talk:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2011 1699:United States Senate election in Nevada, 2010 8: 3204:San Francisco mayoral election, 2011#Results 2628:Thanks for taking care of that, Number 57.-- 4505:I'm not against mass implementation and if 3548:all of whom are competing for the same seat 3429:Perhaps we could split it up into two? The 2277:United States Senate election in Utah, 2010 325:United States Senate election in Utah, 2010 888:Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2010 847:Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2010 53: 4630:United States presidential election, 2004 4441:Eleições legislativas portuguesas de 2011 4429:Élections législatives françaises de 2012 3825:I had a bit of a debate on this issue at 2819:Who should be listed as a party's leader? 2607:(as they don't seem to use the demonym). 2597:Mainer same-sex marriage referendum, 2009 31: 29: 3931:Section headings - "Results" vs "Result" 3683:Mauritanian parliamentary election, 2012 3669:Mauritanian parliamentary election, 2012 2605:Maine same-sex marriage referendum, 2009 2572:be better? Or something else? Thanks. -- 2102:Northern Ireland Assembly election, 2011 1229: 1063: 867:<font color="green" face="Mistral" 05 814:use politician and media spam, at least 4393:Category:Elections in Georgia (country) 4387:Parliamentary versus legislative, redux 4011:Talk: Next Israeli legislative election 3782:about election article titles. Thanks. 3722:notice, but please explain why in your 2849:the SPD's candidate for Chancellor was 2589:Turkish constitutional referendum, 2007 1507: 1493: 1164: 957:BTW, in a separate perspective, in the 55: 3286:Minor candidates and blanket primaries 2211:I'm having an ongoing discussion with 259:I'm having an ongoing discussion with 154:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4445:Portuguese legislative election, 2011 3368:Police commissioner elections - query 3297:played around in the sandbox recently 2767:is not good for colour blind users.-- 1658:South Australian state election, 2006 1234:New York gubernatorial election, 2006 1026:New York gubernatorial election, 2010 959:United Kingdom general election, 2010 85:WikiProject Elections and Referendums 7: 4318:San Francisco mayoral election, 2011 3314:British local elections and "thirds" 3177:there is a discussion about whether 2945:should be listed as the "leader" of 2880:Prior to 2011 the all-Ireland party 2869:Liberal National Party of Queensland 2601:existing election articles for Maine 2541:(apparently, the British term), see 4425:French parliamentary election, 2012 3827:Template:British Columbia elections 3583:Garrison Keillor's endorsements at 1218:2006 gubernatorial election results 1068:Oregon's 4th congressional district 1022:Oregon gubernatorial election, 2010 1009:Election box candidate for alliance 44:It is of interest to the following 4391:I've noticed that the articles in 4262:Indian presidential election, 2012 3711:deleted for any of several reasons 3689:because of the following concern: 3031:Need input at election-related FAC 2656:Rod Blagojevich corruption charges 2488:Talk:Free election (Polish throne) 876:Maine gubernatorial election, 2010 532:victory, but thats another story) 426:Talk:Free election (Polish throne) 118:Elections and Referendums articles 24: 4433:French legislative election, 2012 4348:Saylor.org's Comparative Politics 4230:). In every other situation, the 3456:I would go for a single article ( 2593:Tasmanian casino referendum, 1968 2331:New Orleans mayoral election 2010 1839:MOS:INFOBOX#Purpose_of_an_infobox 379:New Orleans mayoral election 2010 82:This page is within the scope of 4322:Mansfield mayoral election, 2011 3224:Avoiding misleading terminology. 2537:has been proposed to be renamed 2175:OpenElectionData project website 450:politics articles in New Zealand 223:OpenElectionData project website 139: 75: 57: 30: 3169:Polls during election campaigns 2933:, where it's not clear whether 2765:Oregon Ballot Measure 57 (2008) 1654:Canadian federal election, 1957 4621:Presidential elections in 2004 4382:09:45, 25 September 2012 (UTC) 4006:1. there is not consensus YET. 3152:WikiProject Politics Talk page 3109:Still really need help at the 2865:Next Queensland state election 2560:Standardizing referendum names 1024:" (for cross nomination) and " 843:Agree with any and all of them 574:Disagree with all of the above 522:5% Threshold rule needs a vote 1: 4654:12:45, 19 November 2012 (UTC) 4609:18:18, 10 November 2012 (UTC) 4585:06:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC) 4340:Comparative Politics Textbook 4166:My intuition would be to use 3495:20:50, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 3477:19:11, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 3451:16:31, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 3416:12:33, 13 December 2011 (UTC) 3363:15:16, 15 February 2012 (UTC) 3281:22:14, 11 December 2011 (UTC) 3192:20:09, 26 November 2011 (UTC) 3164:02:10, 11 November 2011 (UTC) 3150:Please see the discussion at 2721:File:Rainbow Deuteranopia.svg 2358:16:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 2312:13:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 2289:03:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 2263:02:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 2242:22:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 2162:13:55, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 2142:01:32, 25 November 2010 (UTC) 2078:13:49, 28 December 2010 (UTC) 2063:22:55, 23 November 2010 (UTC) 2036:04:39, 22 November 2010 (UTC) 2006:19:51, 21 November 2010 (UTC) 1971:18:44, 17 November 2010 (UTC) 1943:15:12, 17 November 2010 (UTC) 1928:11:04, 17 November 2010 (UTC) 1900:10:55, 17 November 2010 (UTC) 1886:21:47, 16 November 2010 (UTC) 1872:21:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC) 1851:21:30, 16 November 2010 (UTC) 1828:18:36, 16 November 2010 (UTC) 1801:18:13, 16 November 2010 (UTC) 1741:22:24, 11 November 2010 (UTC) 1606:18:32, 16 November 2010 (UTC) 987:20:43, 24 December 2010 (UTC) 941:09:37, 20 December 2010 (UTC) 921:17:44, 18 December 2010 (UTC) 900:18:28, 16 November 2010 (UTC) 406:16:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 360:13:56, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 337:03:37, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 311:02:57, 12 February 2011 (UTC) 290:22:28, 11 February 2011 (UTC) 4558:08:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC) 4536:07:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC) 4516:09:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC) 4498:20:56, 6 November 2012 (UTC) 4466:14:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC) 4369:Referendum naming convention 3333:03:50, 6 February 2012 (UTC) 3309:19:33, 25 January 2012 (UTC) 3251:04:19, 3 December 2011 (UTC) 2660:United States v. Blagojevich 2202:19:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 1725:21:31, 9 November 2010 (UTC) 1693:21:13, 8 November 2010 (UTC) 1670:15:07, 7 November 2010 (UTC) 1647:15:00, 7 November 2010 (UTC) 1580:16:15, 5 November 2010 (UTC) 1543:04:48, 2 November 2010 (UTC) 1198:04:53, 1 November 2010 (UTC) 1040:04:07, 1 November 2010 (UTC) 828:11:56, 1 November 2010 (UTC) 798:18:27, 31 October 2010 (UTC) 774:18:21, 31 October 2010 (UTC) 753:17:55, 31 October 2010 (UTC) 740:16:53, 31 October 2010 (UTC) 691:02:43, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 658:12:20, 1 November 2010 (UTC) 628:02:29, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 609:02:17, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 599:02:10, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 581:01:15, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 568:00:05, 30 October 2010 (UTC) 529:three of the last five polls 512:19:54, 31 October 2010 (UTC) 494:12:32, 29 October 2010 (UTC) 480:05:27, 27 October 2010 (UTC) 466:04:40, 27 October 2010 (UTC) 250:19:02, 17 January 2011 (UTC) 4636:redirects to a dab page at 4414:15:38, 5 October 2012 (UTC) 4364:16:40, 22 August 2012 (UTC) 4228:St Albans by-election, 1943 3755:allows discussion to reach 3736:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 3719:{{proposed deletion/dated}} 3587:. 06:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 3208:User:DCary/SampleRcvResults 3141:21:09, 16 August 2011 (UTC) 3111:featured article nomination 3100:11:31, 13 August 2011 (UTC) 2941:) or Deputy First Minister 4689: 4638:2004 presidential election 4634:2004 Presidential election 4626:2004 Presidential Election 3769:21:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC) 3747:exist. In particular, the 3659:07:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 3633:07:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 3509:07:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC) 3212:User:DCary/Wip/RCV_Results 3206:is currently available at 3064:15:23, 6 August 2011 (UTC) 2690:18:05, 27 April 2011 (UTC) 2638:12:58, 28 April 2011 (UTC) 2624:15:18, 27 April 2011 (UTC) 2582:14:46, 27 April 2011 (UTC) 2555:03:46, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 2543:Talk:Instant-runoff voting 2520:18:49, 16 April 2011 (UTC) 2500:03:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC) 2464:02:23, 22 April 2011 (UTC) 2437:19:08, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 2415:18:38, 19 April 2011 (UTC) 2394:18:45, 17 April 2011 (UTC) 2373:18:23, 17 April 2011 (UTC) 438:03:58, 29 March 2011 (UTC) 4334:11:15, 28 July 2012 (UTC) 4303:01:42, 30 June 2012 (UTC) 4278:17:45, 29 June 2012 (UTC) 4256:14:29, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 4217:05:27, 24 June 2012 (UTC) 4202:21:56, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 4177:14:05, 22 June 2012 (UTC) 4159:17:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 4137:16:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 4107:16:31, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 4084:17:23, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 4048:16:15, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 4033:canvass selected editors! 4002:14:39, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 3981:14:38, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 3965:14:28, 21 June 2012 (UTC) 3741:proposed deletion process 3697:. Nor is it n the news. ( 3597:06:19, 7 March 2012 (UTC) 3260:Contributions welcome at 3026:02:12, 19 June 2011 (UTC) 2825:Template:Infobox election 2486:is under discussion, see 1239: 1232: 1074: 1066: 424:is under discussion, see 109:Elections and Referendums 70: 65:Elections and Referendums 52: 4472:U.S. Election editnotice 4308:Another new election box 3925:17:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 3908:16:43, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 3887:07:23, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 3853:03:24, 1 June 2012 (UTC) 3404:Any feedback or ideas? 2599:, although based on the 2115:10:11, 17 May 2011 (UTC) 4628:presently redirects to 3821:Referendum vs Referenda 3816:16:21, 9 May 2012 (UTC) 3796:09:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC) 3728:the article's talk page 3609:add it with due caveat. 2959:07:20, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 2921:06:10, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 2905:00:53, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 2818: 2809:04:05, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 2780:18:12, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 2758:17:50, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 2736:17:43, 7 May 2011 (UTC) 2570:Maine Question 1 (2009) 2325:However, what if there 1777:Swedish elections, 2010 1760:07:39, 9 May 2011 (UTC) 373:However, what if there 4437:Parliament of Portugal 4320:and you can see it on 3864:Referendum#Terminology 3835:Referendum#Terminology 3678: 3070:Swedish elections 2010 2147:Organising consistency 4397:Parliament of Georgia 4234:consists of multiple 3753:articles for deletion 3687:proposed for deletion 3677: 3431:EWPCC elections, 2012 3072:: Mention Nazi party? 2695:A couple issues with 2535:Instant-runoff voting 2528:Instant-runoff voting 1001:election boxes needed 997:Cross nomination and 782:echoes my thoughts. – 152:of past discussions. 4569:per the cited source 4481:U.S. Election notice 4421:Parliament of France 3342:Input is welcome at 2646:Page move discussion 1773:Dutch 2010 elections 4592:tracking categories 4507:this Iowa watchlist 4488:editnotice template 4423:should be named as 4127:may be meaningful. 4063:. Also, edits like 4031:An admn doenst war/ 1697:So, in a case like 4581:Talk to me, Billy 4532:Talk to me, Billy 4443:", which becomes " 4379:Blue-Haired Lawyer 3774:Naming conventions 3745:deletion processes 3679: 3641:ITNR for elections 3146:Project Vote Smart 2700:Infobox Referendum 2650:Please comment at 2168:Open Election Data 1766:Election infoboxes 484:Agree with harej. 216:Open Election Data 40:content assessment 4254: 3906: 3851: 3665:Proposed deletion 3098: 3003:And BTW, we have 2967:Too many articles 2943:Martin McGuinness 2847:the 1998 election 2713:simple yes/no map 2688: 1618:"Issues" section? 1522: 1521: 1471:Socialist Workers 1175: 1174: 213: 212: 164: 163: 158:current talk page 134: 133: 130: 129: 126: 125: 4680: 4582: 4576: 4533: 4527: 4485: 4479: 4462: 4457: 4452: 4245: 4242: 4174: 4156: 4151: 4146: 4102: 4097: 4081: 4076: 4071: 3999: 3994: 3989: 3962: 3957: 3952: 3896: 3884: 3879: 3874: 3841: 3787: 3738: 3737: 3721: 3720: 3676: 3474: 3469: 3464: 3360: 3355: 3350: 3278: 3273: 3268: 3137: 3132: 3127: 3122: 3097: 3091: 3084: 3060: 3055: 3050: 3045: 2897:Timrollpickering 2855:Oskar Lafontaine 2851:Gerhard Schröder 2805: 2798: 2755: 2750: 2745: 2704: 2698: 2666: 2621: 2616: 2611: 2566:Maine Question 1 2539:Alternative Vote 2485: 2429:Timrollpickering 2353: 2346: 2339: 2200: 2191: 2187: 2001: 1996: 1925: 1920: 1915: 1869: 1864: 1859: 1825: 1820: 1815: 1721: 1716: 1711: 1706: 1643: 1638: 1633: 1628: 1575: 1568: 1561: 1536: 1445:Rent Is Too High 1371:Working Families 1230: 1191: 1064: 1033: 1012: 999:electoral fusion 983: 976: 937: 930: 917: 910: 862: 855: 794: 787: 770: 763: 736: 729: 587:agree completely 508: 503: 477: 462: 457: 443:Scope of project 423: 401: 394: 387: 248: 239: 235: 191: 166: 165: 143: 142: 136: 120: 119: 116: 113: 110: 103:our project page 97:electoral reform 79: 72: 71: 61: 54: 35: 34: 33: 26: 4688: 4687: 4683: 4682: 4681: 4679: 4678: 4677: 4658: 4657: 4623: 4580: 4574: 4531: 4525: 4483: 4477: 4474: 4460: 4455: 4450: 4389: 4371: 4343: 4310: 4285: 4265: 4240: 4172: 4154: 4149: 4144: 4100: 4095: 4079: 4074: 4069: 3997: 3992: 3987: 3960: 3955: 3950: 3933: 3882: 3877: 3872: 3823: 3803: 3785: 3780:this discussion 3776: 3749:speedy deletion 3735: 3734: 3718: 3717: 3674: 3672: 3643: 3521: 3493: 3472: 3467: 3462: 3414: 3370: 3358: 3353: 3348: 3340: 3331: 3316: 3288: 3276: 3271: 3266: 3258: 3199: 3171: 3148: 3135: 3130: 3125: 3120: 3107: 3087: 3085: 3074: 3058: 3053: 3048: 3043: 3033: 2969: 2821: 2803: 2796: 2753: 2748: 2743: 2706: 2702: 2696: 2648: 2619: 2614: 2609: 2562: 2532: 2507: 2481: 2478: 2392: 2351: 2344: 2337: 2213:User:Jerzeykydd 2209: 2189: 2183: 2182: 2170: 2149: 2131: 2028:Australian Matt 1999: 1994: 1923: 1918: 1913: 1867: 1862: 1857: 1823: 1818: 1813: 1768: 1719: 1714: 1709: 1704: 1641: 1636: 1631: 1626: 1620: 1573: 1566: 1559: 1541: 1532: 1398:Malachy McCourt 1196: 1187: 1070:election, 2010 1038: 1029: 1006: 1003: 981: 974: 935: 928: 915: 908: 860: 853: 792: 785: 768: 761: 734: 727: 524: 506: 501: 473: 460: 455: 445: 419: 416: 399: 392: 385: 261:User:Jerzeykydd 257: 237: 231: 230: 218: 187: 140: 117: 114: 111: 108: 107: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 4686: 4684: 4676: 4675: 4670: 4660: 4659: 4622: 4619: 4618: 4617: 4616: 4615: 4614: 4613: 4612: 4611: 4520: 4519: 4518: 4473: 4470: 4469: 4468: 4388: 4385: 4370: 4367: 4356:Thomas Simpson 4342: 4337: 4309: 4306: 4284: 4281: 4264: 4259: 4224: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4164: 4163: 4162: 4161: 4117: 4116: 4115: 4114: 4113: 4112: 4111: 4110: 4109: 4088: 4087: 4086: 4061:original title 4014: 4007: 3940:) and formal ( 3932: 3929: 3928: 3927: 3912: 3911: 3910: 3822: 3819: 3802: 3799: 3775: 3772: 3759:for deletion. 3739:will stop the 3707: 3706: 3671: 3662: 3642: 3639: 3638: 3637: 3636: 3635: 3621: 3618: 3614: 3610: 3574: 3567: 3560: 3553: 3520: 3517: 3516: 3515: 3514: 3513: 3512: 3511: 3489: 3480: 3479: 3424: 3423: 3410: 3403: 3399: 3369: 3366: 3339: 3336: 3327: 3315: 3312: 3287: 3284: 3257: 3256:Requested move 3254: 3236: 3235: 3232: 3228: 3225: 3222: 3198: 3195: 3170: 3167: 3147: 3144: 3106: 3103: 3073: 3067: 3032: 3029: 2968: 2965: 2964: 2963: 2962: 2961: 2924: 2923: 2893: 2892: 2889: 2886: 2874: 2873: 2862: 2858: 2839: 2838: 2835: 2832: 2820: 2817: 2816: 2815: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2811: 2790: 2705: 2693: 2647: 2644: 2643: 2642: 2641: 2640: 2603:, it would be 2561: 2558: 2531: 2523: 2506: 2503: 2477: 2474: 2473: 2472: 2471: 2470: 2469: 2468: 2467: 2466: 2444: 2443: 2442: 2441: 2440: 2439: 2420: 2419: 2418: 2417: 2403: 2397: 2396: 2388: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2377: 2376: 2375: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2294: 2293: 2292: 2291: 2266: 2265: 2208: 2205: 2169: 2166: 2148: 2145: 2130: 2127: 2126: 2125: 2124: 2123: 2122: 2121: 2120: 2119: 2118: 2117: 2088: 2087: 2086: 2085: 2084: 2083: 2082: 2081: 2041: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2009: 2008: 1988: 1987: 1986: 1983: 1980: 1958: 1957: 1956: 1955: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1950: 1949: 1948: 1947: 1946: 1945: 1905: 1831: 1830: 1788: 1787: 1784: 1767: 1764: 1763: 1762: 1747: 1746: 1745: 1744: 1743: 1728: 1727: 1673: 1672: 1619: 1616: 1615: 1614: 1613: 1612: 1611: 1610: 1609: 1608: 1587: 1586: 1585: 1584: 1583: 1582: 1548: 1547: 1546: 1545: 1538: 1526: 1525: 1524: 1523: 1520: 1519: 1517: 1515: 1512: 1509: 1505: 1504: 1502: 1500: 1498: 1495: 1491: 1490: 1487: 1484: 1481: 1478: 1473: 1468: 1465: 1464: 1461: 1458: 1455: 1452: 1450:Jimmy McMillan 1447: 1442: 1439: 1438: 1435: 1432: 1429: 1426: 1421: 1416: 1413: 1412: 1409: 1406: 1403: 1400: 1395: 1390: 1387: 1386: 1384: 1382: 1379: 1376: 1373: 1368: 1365: 1364: 1362: 1360: 1357: 1354: 1351: 1346: 1343: 1342: 1340: 1338: 1335: 1332: 1329: 1324: 1321: 1320: 1317: 1314: 1311: 1308: 1303: 1298: 1295: 1294: 1289: 1284: 1279: 1274: 1267: 1260: 1257: 1256: 1253: 1250: 1247: 1244: 1241: 1237: 1236: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1201: 1200: 1193: 1183: 1182: 1177: 1176: 1173: 1172: 1169: 1166: 1162: 1161: 1158: 1155: 1150: 1137: 1134: 1133: 1130: 1127: 1122: 1109: 1106: 1105: 1102: 1099: 1097:Mike Beilstein 1094: 1089: 1086: 1085: 1082: 1079: 1076: 1072: 1071: 1060: 1059: 1035: 1002: 995: 994: 993: 992: 991: 990: 989: 963: 955: 944: 943: 923: 872: 871: 839: 838: 837: 836: 835: 834: 833: 832: 831: 830: 808: 721: 720: 719: 718: 717:Jenny: 2 votes 715: 714:Harry: 4 votes 712: 709: 700: 699: 698: 697: 696: 695: 694: 693: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 661: 660: 642: 583: 550: 549: 546: 543: 523: 520: 519: 518: 517: 516: 515: 514: 444: 441: 415: 412: 411: 410: 409: 408: 367: 366: 365: 364: 363: 362: 342: 341: 340: 339: 314: 313: 256: 253: 217: 214: 211: 210: 205: 202: 197: 192: 185: 180: 175: 172: 162: 161: 144: 132: 131: 128: 127: 124: 123: 121: 80: 68: 67: 62: 50: 49: 43: 36: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 4685: 4674: 4671: 4669: 4666: 4665: 4663: 4656: 4655: 4651: 4647: 4643: 4639: 4635: 4631: 4627: 4620: 4610: 4607: 4606: 4601: 4597: 4593: 4588: 4587: 4586: 4583: 4577: 4570: 4566: 4561: 4560: 4559: 4556: 4555: 4549: 4544: 4539: 4538: 4537: 4534: 4528: 4521: 4517: 4514: 4513: 4508: 4504: 4503: 4502: 4501: 4500: 4499: 4496: 4495: 4489: 4482: 4476:I've created 4471: 4467: 4464: 4463: 4458: 4453: 4446: 4442: 4438: 4434: 4430: 4426: 4422: 4418: 4417: 4416: 4415: 4411: 4407: 4403: 4398: 4394: 4386: 4384: 4383: 4380: 4376: 4368: 4366: 4365: 4361: 4357: 4353: 4349: 4341: 4338: 4336: 4335: 4331: 4327: 4323: 4319: 4315: 4307: 4305: 4304: 4300: 4296: 4291: 4282: 4280: 4279: 4275: 4271: 4263: 4260: 4258: 4257: 4252: 4248: 4244: 4237: 4233: 4229: 4218: 4214: 4210: 4205: 4204: 4203: 4199: 4195: 4191: 4187: 4183: 4182: 4181: 4180: 4179: 4178: 4175: 4173:Nightstallion 4169: 4160: 4157: 4152: 4147: 4140: 4139: 4138: 4134: 4130: 4126: 4122: 4118: 4108: 4105: 4104: 4103: 4098: 4089: 4085: 4082: 4077: 4072: 4066: 4062: 4058: 4053: 4052: 4051: 4050: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4037: 4034: 4030: 4029: 4027: 4023: 4020:doesnt yield 4019: 4015: 4012: 4008: 4005: 4004: 4003: 4000: 3995: 3990: 3984: 3983: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3963: 3958: 3953: 3947: 3943: 3939: 3930: 3926: 3922: 3918: 3913: 3909: 3904: 3900: 3895: 3890: 3889: 3888: 3885: 3880: 3875: 3869: 3865: 3861: 3857: 3856: 3855: 3854: 3849: 3845: 3840: 3836: 3832: 3828: 3820: 3818: 3817: 3814: 3813: 3808: 3801:Polling order 3800: 3798: 3797: 3793: 3789: 3788: 3781: 3773: 3771: 3770: 3766: 3762: 3758: 3754: 3750: 3746: 3742: 3731: 3729: 3725: 3714: 3712: 3705: 3703: 3701: 3699: 3696: 3692: 3691: 3690: 3688: 3684: 3670: 3666: 3663: 3661: 3660: 3656: 3652: 3648: 3640: 3634: 3630: 3626: 3622: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3608: 3603: 3602: 3601: 3600: 3599: 3598: 3594: 3590: 3586: 3581: 3577: 3572: 3570: 3565: 3563: 3558: 3556: 3551: 3549: 3544: 3540: 3537: 3534: 3530: 3528: 3524: 3518: 3510: 3506: 3502: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3492: 3488: 3484: 3483: 3482: 3481: 3478: 3475: 3470: 3465: 3459: 3455: 3454: 3453: 3452: 3448: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3420: 3419: 3418: 3417: 3413: 3409: 3405: 3401: 3397: 3394: 3390: 3387: 3383: 3380: 3378: 3373: 3367: 3365: 3364: 3361: 3356: 3351: 3345: 3337: 3335: 3334: 3330: 3326: 3320: 3313: 3311: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3298: 3292: 3285: 3283: 3282: 3279: 3274: 3269: 3263: 3255: 3253: 3252: 3248: 3244: 3239: 3233: 3229: 3226: 3223: 3220: 3219: 3218: 3215: 3213: 3209: 3205: 3196: 3194: 3193: 3189: 3185: 3180: 3176: 3168: 3166: 3165: 3161: 3157: 3153: 3145: 3143: 3142: 3139: 3138: 3133: 3128: 3123: 3116: 3112: 3104: 3102: 3101: 3096: 3092: 3090: 3081: 3079: 3071: 3068: 3066: 3065: 3062: 3061: 3056: 3051: 3046: 3038: 3030: 3028: 3027: 3023: 3019: 3014: 3011: 3008: 3006: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2990: 2987: 2983: 2979: 2975: 2966: 2960: 2956: 2952: 2951:—— Shakescene 2948: 2944: 2940: 2936: 2932: 2928: 2927: 2926: 2925: 2922: 2918: 2914: 2909: 2908: 2907: 2906: 2902: 2898: 2890: 2887: 2883: 2879: 2878: 2877: 2870: 2866: 2863: 2859: 2856: 2852: 2848: 2844: 2843: 2842: 2836: 2833: 2830: 2829: 2828: 2826: 2810: 2806: 2800: 2799: 2791: 2787: 2783: 2782: 2781: 2777: 2773: 2770: 2766: 2761: 2760: 2759: 2756: 2751: 2746: 2740: 2739: 2738: 2737: 2733: 2729: 2726: 2722: 2717: 2714: 2709: 2701: 2694: 2692: 2691: 2686: 2682: 2678: 2674: 2670: 2665: 2661: 2657: 2653: 2645: 2639: 2635: 2631: 2630:SarekOfVulcan 2627: 2626: 2625: 2622: 2617: 2612: 2606: 2602: 2598: 2594: 2590: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2583: 2579: 2575: 2574:SarekOfVulcan 2571: 2567: 2559: 2557: 2556: 2552: 2548: 2544: 2540: 2536: 2530: 2529: 2524: 2522: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2504: 2502: 2501: 2497: 2493: 2489: 2484: 2483:free election 2480:The usage of 2476:Free election 2475: 2465: 2461: 2457: 2452: 2451: 2450: 2449: 2448: 2447: 2446: 2445: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2425: 2424: 2423: 2422: 2421: 2416: 2412: 2408: 2404: 2401: 2400: 2399: 2398: 2395: 2391: 2387: 2382: 2381: 2374: 2370: 2366: 2361: 2360: 2359: 2356: 2355: 2354: 2348: 2347: 2341: 2340: 2332: 2328: 2324: 2323: 2321: 2320: 2313: 2309: 2305: 2300: 2299: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2290: 2286: 2282: 2278: 2274: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2267: 2264: 2260: 2256: 2255:Wasted Time R 2251: 2246: 2245: 2244: 2243: 2239: 2235: 2231: 2227: 2223: 2219: 2214: 2206: 2204: 2203: 2199: 2195: 2190:Pigsonthewing 2186: 2180: 2176: 2167: 2165: 2163: 2159: 2155: 2146: 2144: 2143: 2140: 2136: 2128: 2116: 2112: 2108: 2107:—— Shakescene 2103: 2098: 2097: 2096: 2095: 2094: 2093: 2092: 2091: 2090: 2089: 2079: 2075: 2071: 2066: 2065: 2064: 2060: 2056: 2052: 2047: 2046: 2045: 2044: 2043: 2042: 2037: 2033: 2029: 2025: 2021: 2017: 2013: 2012: 2011: 2010: 2007: 2004: 2003: 2002: 1997: 1989: 1984: 1981: 1978: 1977: 1975: 1974: 1973: 1972: 1968: 1964: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1931: 1930: 1929: 1926: 1921: 1916: 1910: 1906: 1903: 1902: 1901: 1897: 1893: 1889: 1888: 1887: 1883: 1879: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1870: 1865: 1860: 1854: 1853: 1852: 1848: 1844: 1840: 1835: 1834: 1833: 1832: 1829: 1826: 1821: 1816: 1810: 1805: 1804: 1803: 1802: 1798: 1794: 1785: 1782: 1781: 1780: 1778: 1774: 1765: 1761: 1757: 1753: 1752:—— Shakescene 1748: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1729: 1726: 1723: 1722: 1717: 1712: 1707: 1700: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1690: 1686: 1682: 1677: 1676: 1675: 1674: 1671: 1667: 1663: 1659: 1655: 1651: 1650: 1649: 1648: 1645: 1644: 1639: 1634: 1629: 1617: 1607: 1603: 1599: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1581: 1578: 1577: 1576: 1570: 1569: 1563: 1562: 1554: 1553: 1552: 1551: 1550: 1549: 1544: 1540: 1535: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1527: 1518: 1516: 1513: 1510: 1506: 1503: 1501: 1499: 1496: 1492: 1488: 1485: 1482: 1479: 1477: 1474: 1472: 1469: 1467: 1466: 1462: 1459: 1456: 1453: 1451: 1448: 1446: 1443: 1441: 1440: 1436: 1433: 1430: 1427: 1425: 1422: 1420: 1417: 1415: 1414: 1410: 1407: 1404: 1401: 1399: 1396: 1394: 1391: 1389: 1388: 1385: 1383: 1380: 1377: 1375:Eliot Spitzer 1374: 1372: 1369: 1367: 1366: 1363: 1361: 1358: 1355: 1352: 1350: 1347: 1345: 1344: 1341: 1339: 1336: 1333: 1331:Eliot Spitzer 1330: 1328: 1325: 1323: 1322: 1318: 1315: 1312: 1309: 1307: 1304: 1302: 1299: 1297: 1296: 1293: 1290: 1288: 1285: 1283: 1280: 1278: 1275: 1273: 1272: 1271:Eliot Spitzer 1268: 1266: 1265: 1261: 1259: 1258: 1254: 1251: 1248: 1245: 1242: 1238: 1235: 1231: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1219: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1205: 1204: 1203: 1202: 1199: 1195: 1190: 1185: 1184: 1179: 1178: 1170: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1156: 1154: 1151: 1149: 1145: 1141: 1138: 1136: 1135: 1131: 1128: 1126: 1125:Peter DeFazio 1123: 1121: 1117: 1113: 1110: 1108: 1107: 1103: 1100: 1098: 1095: 1093: 1090: 1088: 1087: 1083: 1080: 1077: 1073: 1069: 1065: 1062: 1061: 1057: 1053: 1049: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1037: 1032: 1027: 1023: 1018: 1016: 1010: 1000: 996: 988: 984: 978: 977: 968: 964: 960: 956: 952: 951: 948: 947: 946: 945: 942: 938: 932: 931: 924: 922: 918: 912: 911: 904: 903: 902: 901: 897: 893: 889: 885: 880: 877: 870: 869: 868: 864: 863: 857: 856: 848: 844: 841: 840: 829: 825: 821: 817: 816:retroactively 813: 809: 805: 801: 800: 799: 795: 789: 788: 781: 777: 776: 775: 771: 765: 764: 756: 755: 754: 751: 746: 745: 744: 743: 742: 741: 737: 731: 730: 716: 713: 711:Dick: 7 votes 710: 708:Tom: 10 votes 707: 706: 705: 704: 703: 692: 689: 684: 679: 678: 677: 676: 675: 674: 673: 672: 659: 655: 651: 647: 643: 640: 635: 634: 633: 632: 631: 630: 629: 625: 621: 616: 612: 611: 610: 607: 602: 601: 600: 596: 592: 588: 584: 582: 579: 575: 572: 571: 570: 569: 565: 561: 557: 554: 547: 544: 541: 540: 539: 536: 533: 530: 521: 513: 510: 509: 504: 497: 496: 495: 491: 487: 483: 482: 481: 478: 476: 470: 469: 468: 467: 464: 463: 458: 451: 442: 440: 439: 435: 431: 427: 422: 421:free election 418:The usage of 414:Free election 413: 407: 404: 403: 402: 396: 395: 389: 388: 380: 376: 372: 371: 369: 368: 361: 357: 353: 348: 347: 346: 345: 344: 343: 338: 334: 330: 326: 322: 318: 317: 316: 315: 312: 308: 304: 303:Wasted Time R 299: 294: 293: 292: 291: 287: 283: 279: 275: 271: 267: 262: 254: 252: 251: 247: 243: 238:Pigsonthewing 234: 228: 224: 215: 209: 206: 203: 201: 198: 196: 193: 190: 186: 184: 181: 179: 176: 173: 171: 168: 167: 159: 155: 151: 150: 145: 138: 137: 122: 105: 104: 99: 98: 93: 92: 87: 86: 81: 78: 74: 73: 69: 66: 63: 60: 56: 51: 47: 41: 37: 28: 27: 19: 4624: 4603: 4568: 4552: 4547: 4542: 4510: 4492: 4475: 4448: 4435:". Same for 4390: 4372: 4344: 4311: 4290:Gary Johnson 4286: 4266: 4235: 4231: 4225: 4189: 4185: 4167: 4165: 4124: 4120: 4093: 4092: 4025: 4021: 4017: 3934: 3894:Arctic Gnome 3839:Arctic Gnome 3824: 3811: 3804: 3783: 3777: 3743:, but other 3732: 3724:edit summary 3715: 3708: 3693: 3681:The article 3680: 3644: 3606: 3575: 3573: 3568: 3566: 3561: 3559: 3554: 3552: 3547: 3545: 3541: 3538: 3535: 3531: 3526: 3525: 3522: 3457: 3426: 3425: 3406: 3402: 3398: 3392: 3391: 3385: 3384: 3381: 3374: 3372:Afternoon. 3371: 3341: 3321: 3317: 3293: 3289: 3259: 3240: 3237: 3216: 3200: 3172: 3149: 3118: 3108: 3088: 3082: 3075: 3041: 3034: 3015: 3012: 3009: 3004: 3002: 2998: 2994: 2991: 2981: 2977: 2973: 2970: 2939:Dáil Éireann 2894: 2875: 2840: 2822: 2794: 2785: 2718: 2710: 2707: 2664:TonyTheTiger 2649: 2563: 2547:65.94.45.160 2533: 2526: 2508: 2492:65.93.12.101 2479: 2350: 2343: 2336: 2334: 2326: 2210: 2198:Andy's edits 2185:Andy Mabbett 2171: 2150: 2132: 1992: 1991: 1963:Metallurgist 1959: 1909:this article 1878:Metallurgist 1843:Metallurgist 1809:this article 1793:Metallurgist 1789: 1769: 1702: 1624: 1621: 1598:Metallurgist 1572: 1565: 1558: 1556: 1476:Maura DeLuca 1424:John Clifton 1349:Conservative 1327:Independence 1291: 1286: 1281: 1276: 1269: 1262: 1240:Ballot line 1153:Art Robinson 1019: 1004: 972: 966: 926: 906: 892:Metallurgist 881: 873: 866: 859: 852: 850: 842: 815: 811: 783: 759: 748:situation.-- 725: 722: 701: 682: 645: 638: 586: 573: 560:Metallurgist 558: 555: 551: 537: 534: 528: 525: 499: 474: 453: 446: 430:65.93.12.101 417: 398: 391: 384: 382: 374: 258: 246:Andy's edits 233:Andy Mabbett 219: 188: 153: 147: 101: 95: 89: 83: 46:WikiProjects 4605:Philosopher 4554:Philosopher 4512:Philosopher 4494:Philosopher 4326:Sussexonian 4295:Smartyllama 4194:Sussexonian 3778:Please see 3443:JoannaSerah 3156:JoannaSerah 2978:state level 2935:Gerry Adams 2786:percentages 2194:Andy's talk 1419:Libertarian 242:Andy's talk 146:This is an 4662:Categories 4575:RadioKAOS 4526:RadioKAOS 4270:Rivertorch 4243:HairedGirl 3973:Valenciano 3831:MOS:ENGVAR 3812:johnpseudo 3580:WP:SELFPUB 3346:. Cheers, 3264:. Cheers, 2986:WP:SOAPBOX 2681:WP:CHICAGO 2654:on moving 2365:Jerzeykydd 2053:for them. 1301:Republican 1264:Democratic 884:Jill Stein 615:WP:CRYSTAL 208:Archive 10 4646:Thryduulf 4209:Dru of Id 4186:in theory 4022:elections 3860:WP:ENGVAR 3757:consensus 3685:has been 3301:RadioKAOS 3184:Thryduulf 3095:Wolfowitz 2974:top level 2947:Sinn Féin 2913:Timeshift 2882:Sinn Féin 2525:Renaming 1961:anyway.-- 1534:Athelwulf 1511:4,697,867 1353:John Faso 1316:1,274,335 1310:1,105,681 1306:John Faso 1287:3,086,709 1277:2,740,864 1243:Candidate 1189:Athelwulf 1078:Candidate 1031:Athelwulf 200:Archive 8 195:Archive 7 189:Archive 6 183:Archive 5 178:Archive 4 170:Archive 1 91:elections 4572:forward. 4548:personal 4543:election 4439:: it's " 4251:contribs 4018:election 3917:Dezastru 3903:contribs 3848:contribs 3589:Dezastru 3458:option A 3427:Option C 3393:Option B 3386:Option A 3083:Thanks! 3018:Student7 2861:interim. 2512:Student7 2456:Student7 2407:Student7 2281:Muboshgu 2275:, or in 2253:basis. 2234:Muboshgu 2055:Student7 1791:pages.-- 1733:Student7 1685:Student7 1681:WP:TOPIC 1662:Davewild 1494:Invalid 820:Student7 650:Student7 620:Muboshgu 591:Muboshgu 486:Student7 329:Muboshgu 323:, or in 301:basis. 282:Muboshgu 4236:results 4232:outcome 4190:Results 4168:Results 4125:results 4026:results 4009:2. see 3946:the IPU 3786:Lugnuts 3487:doktorb 3408:doktorb 3325:doktorb 3035:I have 2885:leader. 2685:WP:FOUR 2386:doktorb 2345:Nidhiki 2304:cmadler 2230:Vermont 2226:Arizona 2051:WP:SPAM 1567:Nidhiki 1497:260,647 1378:155,184 1356:168,654 1334:190,661 1015:example 971:bad). – 861:Nidhiki 810:If you 804:WP:SPAM 502:Schwede 456:Schwede 393:Nidhiki 352:cmadler 278:Vermont 274:Arizona 149:archive 4632:, but 4594:(e.g. 4486:as an 4247:(talk) 4145:Number 4121:result 4070:Number 4040:Lihaas 3988:Number 3951:Number 3873:Number 3761:Lihaas 3726:or on 3651:Lihaas 3625:Lihaas 3617:water. 3569:Fourth 3555:Second 3501:Lihaas 3463:Number 3349:Number 3267:Number 3231:votes. 3179:WP:NOT 3089:Kiefer 2867:. The 2744:Number 2610:Number 2188:(User: 2154:Lihaas 2070:Lihaas 1935:Carwil 1914:Number 1858:Number 1814:Number 1508:Total 1460:13,355 1454:13,355 1434:14,736 1428:14,736 1408:42,166 1402:42,166 1319:28.72 1165:Total 1075:Party 967:really 236:(User: 42:scale. 4406:Gabbe 4241:Brown 4129:Aridd 3607:could 3576:Fifth 3562:Third 3527:First 3491:words 3412:words 3329:words 3243:DCary 2789:wins. 2772:anion 2728:anion 2390:words 2218:Maine 2139:Rd232 2129:Merge 1892:Shuki 1489:0.30 1486:5,919 1480:5,919 1463:0.33 1437:0.33 1411:0.95 1393:Green 1313:24.92 1292:69.56 1282:61.77 1252:Recap 1246:Votes 1171:100% 1168:9,999 1157:3,333 1129:3,333 1101:3,333 1081:Votes 886:from 475:harej 266:Maine 16:< 4650:talk 4598:and 4447:". – 4410:talk 4402:here 4375:here 4360:talk 4352:talk 4330:talk 4299:talk 4274:talk 4213:talk 4198:talk 4133:talk 4096:Rami 4065:this 4057:this 4044:talk 3977:talk 3944:and 3942:IFES 3921:talk 3899:talk 3868:here 3844:talk 3792:talk 3765:talk 3655:talk 3629:talk 3593:talk 3505:talk 3447:talk 3437:and 3305:talk 3247:talk 3188:talk 3160:talk 3113:for 3105:Help 3022:talk 2982:Just 2955:talk 2917:talk 2901:talk 2872:box? 2776:talk 2769:Nilf 2732:talk 2725:Nilf 2634:talk 2578:talk 2551:talk 2516:talk 2496:talk 2460:talk 2433:talk 2411:talk 2369:talk 2308:talk 2285:talk 2259:talk 2238:talk 2222:Utah 2220:and 2158:talk 2111:talk 2074:talk 2059:talk 2032:talk 2024:2009 2022:and 2020:1951 2016:1949 1995:Rami 1967:talk 1939:talk 1896:talk 1882:talk 1847:talk 1797:talk 1775:and 1756:talk 1737:talk 1689:talk 1666:talk 1656:and 1602:talk 1514:100% 1483:0.30 1457:0.33 1431:0.33 1405:0.95 1381:3.50 1359:3.80 1337:4.30 1160:33% 1132:33% 1104:33% 896:talk 824:talk 812:must 807:pov. 686:4.-- 683:very 654:talk 646:need 639:give 624:talk 595:talk 564:talk 490:talk 434:talk 356:talk 333:talk 307:talk 286:talk 270:Utah 268:and 4354:)-- 4350:. ( 4249:• ( 4170:. — 3938:BBC 3805:In 3667:of 3338:AfD 3173:At 3126:ter 3121:Hun 3049:ter 3044:Hun 2797:HTD 2677:BIO 2662:.-- 2591:or 2338:Toa 2192:); 2164:). 1841:.-- 1710:ter 1705:Hun 1632:ter 1627:Hun 1560:Toa 1148:CON 1144:IND 1140:REP 1120:PRO 1116:WFP 1112:DEM 1092:PGP 1056:WFP 1052:REP 1048:DEM 975:HTD 954:in. 929:HTD 909:HTD 854:Toa 786:HTD 762:HTD 728:HTD 386:Toa 240:); 4664:: 4652:) 4578:– 4529:– 4484:}} 4478:{{ 4412:) 4362:) 4332:) 4301:) 4276:) 4215:) 4200:) 4135:) 4046:) 4028:. 3979:) 3923:) 3901:• 3870:. 3846:• 3794:) 3767:) 3730:. 3713:. 3657:) 3631:) 3595:) 3507:) 3449:) 3307:) 3249:) 3214:. 3190:) 3162:) 3136:hn 3131:Ka 3080:. 3059:hn 3054:Ka 3024:) 3005:no 2957:) 2919:) 2903:) 2807:) 2778:) 2734:) 2703:}} 2697:{{ 2687:) 2658:→ 2636:) 2580:) 2553:) 2545:. 2518:) 2498:) 2490:. 2462:) 2435:) 2413:) 2371:) 2352:05 2327:is 2310:) 2287:) 2261:) 2240:) 2196:; 2181:. 2160:) 2137:. 2113:) 2080:). 2076:) 2061:) 2034:) 2018:, 1969:) 1941:) 1898:) 1884:) 1849:) 1799:) 1758:) 1739:) 1720:hn 1715:Ka 1691:) 1668:) 1660:. 1642:hn 1637:Ka 1604:) 1574:05 1531:— 1255:% 1146:, 1142:, 1118:, 1114:, 1084:% 1054:, 1050:, 1011:}} 1007:{{ 985:) 939:) 919:) 898:) 826:) 796:) 772:) 750:TM 738:) 688:TM 656:) 626:) 618:-- 606:TM 597:) 585:I 578:TM 566:) 507:66 492:) 461:66 436:) 428:. 400:05 375:is 358:) 335:) 309:) 288:) 244:; 229:. 204:→ 174:← 94:, 4648:( 4461:D 4456:T 4451:H 4408:( 4358:( 4328:( 4297:( 4272:( 4253:) 4211:( 4196:( 4155:7 4150:5 4131:( 4101:R 4080:7 4075:5 4042:( 4024:/ 3998:7 3993:5 3975:( 3961:7 3956:5 3919:( 3905:) 3897:( 3883:7 3878:5 3850:) 3842:( 3790:( 3763:( 3704:) 3653:( 3627:( 3591:( 3503:( 3473:7 3468:5 3445:( 3359:7 3354:5 3303:( 3277:7 3272:5 3245:( 3186:( 3158:( 3093:. 3020:( 2953:( 2915:( 2899:( 2801:( 2793:– 2774:( 2754:7 2749:5 2730:( 2683:/ 2679:/ 2675:/ 2673:C 2671:/ 2669:T 2667:( 2632:( 2620:7 2615:5 2576:( 2549:( 2514:( 2494:( 2458:( 2431:( 2409:( 2367:( 2306:( 2283:( 2257:( 2236:( 2156:( 2109:( 2072:( 2057:( 2030:( 2000:R 1965:( 1937:( 1924:7 1919:5 1894:( 1880:( 1868:7 1863:5 1845:( 1824:7 1819:5 1795:( 1754:( 1735:( 1687:( 1664:( 1600:( 1537:/ 1249:% 1192:/ 1046:( 1034:/ 1013:( 979:( 933:( 913:( 894:( 822:( 790:( 766:( 758:– 732:( 652:( 622:( 593:( 562:( 488:( 432:( 354:( 331:( 305:( 284:( 160:. 106:. 48::

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 6 - Knowledge

Index