Knowledge talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 13

2082: 1328:-- While I agree with your sentiment to include candidates in the first round of two-round elections, I believe that your characterization of American elections suffers from a fundamental ignorance of how they work. You assert that Green and Libertarian parties don't matter. In the United States Congress, that was the plan of the founders. A two-party system is the inevitable result of an election scheme that selects a single delegate for each area. Without the support of a national organization and congresspeople, Green and Libertarian candidates struggle to get votes. They do count in presidential elections. In 1992, Ross Perot took 18.9% of the popular vote. In 2000, Ralph Nader took 2.7% of the vote in a race that had the two major parties' candidates separated by a half of one percent. 2998:. The argument made was that it is interesting and thus notable how United Future did because they had won a seat at the previous election, whereas the parties coming 8th-12th hadn't. In the end, the infobox syntax had to be bodged so it didn't say "Seventh party" next to a party that wasn't 7th. I may be stretching things, but I see a similar rationale behind the current proposal: a supposed spoiler candidate is interesting and thus should be in the infobox under an unobvious rule. I think this doesn't work. I think we need to keep it simple for the reader, with a straightforward cut-off (5% for a single seat seems sensible). When the reader sees a Knowledge election infobox, they then get used to something straightforward. Having an unobvious rule confuses the reader. 3608:

whole sovereign state of Antigua and Barbuda but no evidence to support this has been provided. What has been evidence is that Antiguan only refers to the island of Antigua. As for the denonym for the island of Barbuda it has not been shown Barbudan or Barbudian is incorrect just that one is "more common" without providing evidence and links to back up this claim. "Most common" is completely irrelevant all that is relevant is accuracy and fact. Wiktionary is clear here the demonym for the island of Antigua is Antiguan, the denonym for the island of Barbuda is Barbudan or Barbudian. There is no single denonym for the whole sovereign state if there is please provide evidence to support this.

2189: 1685: 3051:", I'd seen nothing about this Libertarian candidate in the election coverage so far (I've not been following this election very closely, but I've been following it with some interest). If you search for the candidate's name "Drew Gray Miller", there is some coverage of him, but I wouldn't characterise it as lots. None of it has been cited in the article; there's no discussion in the article of his role as a spoiler, so it would be odd to include him in the infobox on that basis. And I would feel very odd about including someone who got 0.6% of the vote here, while excluding people with 8 times that vote in other infoboxes. 2089: 472:– the prior isn't the case (most, especially in U.S. articles, aren't) and the latter can't be down with considerable effort (that's talking setting "data-sort-value" for polls across hundreds of U.S. articles alone of various obscurity); it's made more difficult when the tables use date ranges in particular, which often aren't in the same format or organized in the same way (compare Greece, Israel, Finland, Turkey, and Ukraine, for instance – wildly inconsistent in formatting so it isn't something that can be done overnight.) There's 179 separate opinion polling 1816: 1952: 4466:. Where more research is needed is to find out whether the singular is also used in those varieties, or whether the plural is the only acceptable form there. If the singular is also acceptable, then the policy says that the common form is preferable except in an article whose subject is related to a region where the plural is preferred; but if only the plural is accepted in some places, this is a harder problem, and I think the policy says that either form may be used, and whichever form was first used in an article should be retained. -- 482:

Wahlrecht.de (Germany) or neuwal.com (Austria), so I'm not sure why Knowledge should be different in this regard. Is it unreasonable to think that more recent data is more pertinent to particular elections (say, data from 2017 for an election in 2017 as opposed to seeing data from 2012 first)? I lean against a change to chronological order, but I'm not voting because I think that a project-wide RfC is inappropriate since such a change would be a considerable logistical challenge (to either reorder tables or also make them sortable).

3796:

line "If you continue to change it then I'm afraid I will will eventually be forced to report you for disruptive editing". Number 57 seems to be controlling this article (and the series as a whole) and is making any change very very difficult. Number 57 unilaterally changed all of the titles to an incorrect title and are now trying to stop all changes to the beginning of this article. More editors are needed on this article and the whole series, these articles need improving and the more people who can help the easier it will be.

450:

so is significantly less common, even when looking at historical polling (at least in my case – though again, I'm the kind of person who's looked up opinion polls enough times on Knowledge to think so). There's an obvious solution that accommodates both approaches, which is to make polling tables sortable, but unfortunately that rarely actually happens, as most editors don't know about "data-sort-value" (which was only implemented relatively recently, as far as I know) and as such it's rarely used where appropriate.

529:

similar exception was made on the French Knowledge earlier this year with a similar reasoning to what I gave (recency is pertinent to elections, so the polls closer to the date of an election are of greater relative importance). Even when viewing polling data well after an election, antichronological order makes sense since it shows the results closest to that election, not the previous one – and to me, I don't see the point of seeing polling data in chronological order from 2012 to 2017 on an article on the

3562:

and Barbudian are both acceptable alternatives to each other for the denonym for a person from Barbuda. What is wrong is calling everyone from the country of Antigua and Barbuda Antiguan. This is encyclopedia is supposed to be accurate based on facts. Wiktionary states clearly and unambiguously Antiguan refers only to the island of Antigua and not the whole sovereign state. Stating Antiguan refers to the whole sovereign state is an opinion not a fact. There are simply no facts provided backing up this claim.

1945: 2994:. How do you think they did in the election? Not very well: they're only seventh in the infobox after all. But lots of small parties stand, so they must have done quite well to be included. You might think they probably did 7th best. But, no, United Future came 13th in the election. The party listed 6th came 7th, and the party that actually came 6th and those coming 8th-12th are not included. This seems to me to be completely wrong-headed, but I gave up arguing against a strong 3750:

for a much more inclusive name (one that does not ignore Barbuda) and for a much more accurate title the current name has been come up with. The name Antiguan general election also makes out that the election only took place on the island of Antigua and not the whole sovereign state. I am in favour of returning the articles to their pre-June 2017 name. It is a damn site more accurate and as Sionk points out supported by evidence from those covering the election.

1938: 606:

Opinion polling for future elections (at least, elections that are fairly soon) would appear to fall under that clause. I am tempted to suggest that we stick with antichronological for forthcoming elections, but try to switch to chronological order once an election is in the past. That seems to me to stick to SALORDER closely enough. I realise, however, that the reality is that it seems unlikely that editors are going to go through past articles to 'fix' them.

1615: 31: 762:

done like it because it says it". So, I not only agree with all the reasons for using anti-chronoliogical lists for opinion polling articles–which do clearly improve reading and help readers in that most recent polls (which are arguably the most important ones as those are the nearest to the election date) are placed first–but I also add a new one, which is that "if a rule prevents you from improving or maintaining Knowledge, ignore it".

1678: 1030:

years previously. Always, in every country you may think of. For the simple reason that opinion polls are meant to predict an election result, and predictions released closer to such an election have much more media prominence and relevance than those conducted farther away in time. The historical order of opinion polls is shown reverse-chronologically by reliable sources; what's the issue of us doing exactly that?

3526:

be confusing (personally I strongly disagree). In the case of the latter, Irish nationalist editors were unhappy with the idea of an election in which Northern Irish voters participate being described as "British". In this case, Antiguan is the common demonym for the entire country of Antigua and Barbuda (I guess because Antigua is by far the largest part of it). See, for example, usage by the

4103:. As it's a formulaic method of deriving a title, I don't think it has any particular bearing on the text used in the article itself (we wouldn't start an article with text matching the title because "Scottish Parliament election, 2016" can't be fitted into a sentence). The Google search wasn't meant to prove what was more common, just that it is not wrong as WTKitty claimed. 1892: 908:. I think we should order tables with most recent polls first, quite simply because most readers come to Knowledge seeking the most recent information, especially on current elections. It's how such tables are presented in the real world because it's the most recent information. It's the most common sense thing to do in my view and I'd be strongly against changing it. 1659: 1692: 4386:

be shutting off (or attempting to) any opinions on this or any topic. It is clear there is a dispute as to what is and is not classed as correct. I would also like to point out just thinking one is correct does not mean one is that is closed minded and not wiling to work with others it goes against the whole point of discussions.

997:

Knowledge community. This isn't the first example of this, and it won't be the last. (P.S. Going to a standard practice of sortable tables, defaulted to reverse-chrono order, would be better than nothing IMO, but it still would not be my preferred outcome here, as I'd rather we stick to SALORDER, esp. post-elections...) --

3732:], reporting on the election results, calls it the "Antigua and Barbuda General Election". Surely that is the basis of WP:COMMONNAME, rather than abstract arguments about what people from Antigua and Barbuda are called. I challenge anyone to find a source that calls the event the "Antiguan and Barbudan general election". 3992:

taking place. I have attempted to correct this error but have been threatened by Number 57 over this issue. This needs to be discussed and corrected as pluralising in this way is gramatically wrong. Here is an example of the UK government using "General Election" and "General Elections" correctly for British English:

2665:, found a bunch of sources and stuff but I have no idea if this thing's formatted according to the standards here. If someone could take a gander that'd be great. I'd also love to get an official photo of her from then along with Gerald Richman, but I'm not sure where I could pull that easily. Thanks in advance! 4011:

I would've thought the phrase "_____ election/s" being plural depends on the first word. If it's an adjective like "general", "legislative", "parliamentary", or "presidential" it is almost always singular. Like "general election", "parliamentary election". If it's preceded by a noun (like the name of

2815:

So.... in your example you imply it would be a problem if we showed the third party candidate who got a 1% vote alongside the pics of the major party candidates who each got 45% of the vote. In the prior RFC there were lots of opinions, but there weren't any reasons offered why doing this a problem.

960:

And, yet, I still don't see how sortable tables doesn't just solve both problems – then tables can default to SALORDER, but can easily be sorted in reverse-chrono. I have yet to see anyone explain why we shouldn't just do this, as it solves all the issues. I'm really not trying to be difficult here –

761:

is an actual policy. In the unlikely scenario where we actually acknowledged SALORDER as an actual policy, reasons for listing opinion polls anti-chronologically have been explained and detailed, and they're all reasonable and logical. The claim for applying SALORDER seems to be just that "it must be

574:

Same, but insert four letters before "chronological". Of the 28 national elections that have taken place so far this year for which opinion polls have been conducted and listed on Knowledge, 23 have listed in antichronological order compared to only 5 in chronological order. Furthermore, all 27 of 27

481:

Also, maybe it's just me, but I'm used to reading polls in antichronological order – it's the way it's done everywhere outside of Knowledge wherever you find poll aggregation or lists of polls: HuffPost Pollster (sadly now mostly inactive due to staff cuts), RealClearPolitics, and FiveThirtyEight; on

128:

It has been reasonably argued that "oldest at the top" is is the most appropriate ordering for historical data. It has also been reasonably argued that "newest at the top" is most appropriate for current and upcoming elections. It has been suggested that reversing the ordering after the table becomes

4461:

says, there is no question of grammaticality here. "General elections" is clearly a wholly grammatical, well-formed, noun phrase in any variety of English, and nobody would object to it in a phrase like "the two general elections of 1974". The issue is whether it is appropriate to use it to refer to

3811:

Well at least it is factual. The name of the article itself is where the ugly comprise arises. Other coverage often says "an election will take place in..." or "the election in Antigua and Barbuda" or variations on that theme. If we're going to settle the matter we'd need to widen the debate to have

3607:

This simplest reply to the above is "so what". The above has not addressed the point of the title being inaccurate and incorrect and not based in fact. It has just been said the BBC said so therefor it must be so which is a self-detonating argument. It is claimed that Antiguan is the denonym for the

3561:

lists the denonyms Antiguan and Barbudan. This feels like not wanting to lose and be wrong; as opposed to actually having a correctly titles article. If Antiguan is commonly used to refer to the whole of the sovereign state show that it is. Also the contrived title is simply splitting hairs Barbudan

3525:

The American and British article titles are the ones with the problem. My understanding of the reasons for them not being currently at "American" and "British" is that in the case of the former, some editors deemed "American" to be ambiguous and therefore "American presidential election, 2016" would

1074:

This is not a matter of people preferring anti-chronological order for opinion polling tables for the sake of it, but because it serves a purpose, and because it's what reliable sources usually do as well. I still have yet to see what is the purpose of trying to enforce a non-policy such as SALORDER

800:

I thought someone had already explained that making these tables sortable would mean a titanic effort (creating some other issues along the way, as I've seen in the few opinion polling articles using sortable tables), as well as the fact that these tables are not usually made sortable in most cases.

449:

can't account for; i.e., comparing the relative accuracy of the final polls, rather than the polls for an election that were conducted four or five years out. I'd also suggest that readers are perfectly capable of accessing the end of the table and going in reverse order if they so desire, but to do

5093:

Number57 really needs to drop the stick and stop trying to re-fight his past personal battles long gone as it is poisoning the discussion, and look at the current issue which spans all of the post-Soviet space. In regard to Estonia (which applies equally to other post Soviet countries), it makes no

4385:

I would also invite Number 57 to welcome all input in to this discussion as the more views and information the better the encyclopedia will be and the stronger everything will be in general. This is not a one user show. No single person is more or less important than any other. Number 57 should not

3749:

The articles were all originally called Antiguan and Barbudan general election, (year) until in June 2017 Number 57 went round and changed them to Antiguan general election, (year). I would far prefer to call the articles Antigua and Barbuda general election, (year). In the spirit of compromise and

2274:

These are two different electoral systens. London mayoral elections are done in one round of voting using second preferences. Even then, I don't really see why Sian Berry should be included. I guess it's because in some ways it's a one round election and she crossed the 5% threshold usually used to

1407:

I'm strongly against changing the status quo on this. It will only lead to additional complexity in infoboxes that are supposed to be simple summaries. And I suspect it will also lead to a lot of edit warring over which first round candidates should be included). The only way I can see this working

1231:

Two thoughts... If tables can be made sortable on date, then that would be a good thing. I realise that is difficult and there are many articles to cover, but if someone wants to do it, then let them do it. As for what reliable sources do, most reliable sources covering current politics use reverse

1029:

any relation to the fact that placing most recent opinion polls first is more useful to readers? Opinion polls are pollsters' predictions of what the next election results are going to be. An opinion poll released 10 days ahead the election is going to be much more relevant than one conducted three

805:

is the application of SALORDER so badly needed (given that it's not a policy, that it also speaks of "should" and not "must", that it provides exceptions may exist and that no reason other than applying it for the sake of it is argued, against many reasons argued against it) so as to require any of

709:

etc might want to input as they seem to do a fair amount on opinion polling. One thing I would say is that if antichronolgical order is the standard method of presenting opinion polls in the real world, that that's what we should be doing here, regardless of a policy that has been developed without

3795:

Number 57 is insistent on stopping any change to the beginning of the article. There is an odd reason of "consistency" but that cannot override improvements to the article. "Consistency" is only what is currently in place, it is not a reason to threaten others, they have sent me a message with the

3021:

as this would arbitrarily determine whether third-party candidates are included within the infobox despite similar vote shares (e.g. Victor would be included in the 2012 AZ-Sen infobox, but other candidates with similar vote shares would be excluded under the 5% standard when the overall margin of

2472:

I've been a wikipedia editor since its launch. In political circles, I put forth a ballot referendum in my city in November 2017, and it got 73%, more than 32,000 votes YES to change the city's charter. This is the same area where I've stood for office on multiple occasions. I've never seen a more

1260:

So far, there is consensus to remove every candidate who didn't ascend to the second round of a two-round election from the Wikibox. While I guess such a thing makes sense in America, where the Presidential elections are a two-horse race where the Green and Libertarian parties don't really matter,

1164:

And if there was any urgent, relevant and/or useful reason to merit such a titanic effort, then I'd say "well, go ahead". But from the beginning I'm seeing no reason other than arguing that SALORDER must be applied to those for the sake of it, when it is not even a Knowledge policy or a compulsory

605:

I note that SALORDER says, "Special cases which specifically require frequent daily additions, such as Deaths in 2017, may use reverse chronological order for temporary convenience, although these articles should revert to non-reverse order when the article has stabilized, such as Deaths in 2003."

528:

SALORDER is a guideline, not a policy – one can make reasonable exceptions regardless of it and doesn't necessarily have to strictly adhere to it in certain cases, and I believe this is one such case. I'm of the opinion that it's reasonable to display opinion polling in antichronological order; a

3991:

There appears to be the use of the phrase "General elections" at the beginning of elections where only one general election is the focus of the article. This is an incorrect pluarlisation. While there may be more than one individual election at a general electionthere is only one general election

3494:

The other thing here is that Antiguan, refers to an individual from the island of Antigua. It does not cover Barbuda which is a separate island entirely and the denonym for people from the island of Barbuda is Barbudian. Having the current title is misleading as by definition it only covering the

3352:

a voter intention question (i.e. it doesn't ask for voting intention for other candidates or for whether voters would actually vote for him). This would be similar to arguing that approval/disapproval polls are reflective of how respondents would cast their votes. If the source does not explictly

3327:

Now you're moving the goalposts. You said you removed that poll because it didn't reflect voter intentions. It does reflect voter intentions, since it's simply a question "would you vote for X, yes or no?" Now you're saying that it can't be used because ballots don't contain language of that sort

3163:

Unless that third party candidate took an active role in the race with significant relative media coverage during the campaign and followed through with a modicum of popular support, they should not be in the infobox. A race being very close between two candidates does not necessarily mean it was

2698:

Regarding the 5% threshold for inclusion in election infoboxes after an election, should an exception be created to allow the inclusion of a third party candidate whose total vote count exceeds the difference between the first and second place contenders, and may have theoretically determined the

2870:

I think the 5% standard is far too onerous. The final vote totals in a given election are not necessarily reflective of how reliable sources cover an election. A candidate can receive few votes and have a major impact on the campaign based on a number of factors. The post-election infobox should

2376:

describes ...." (Aside: the use of the verb "describes" here is problematic, the article should be about the referent, not the descriptor.) I can't decide if the situation here is that there are too many articles or too few, but in any case the system of redirects, bolding, and leads seems very

1070:

Charts/graphs are horizontal. Tables are vertical. Gauging party support over time is done equally with both a forward-chronological order and a reverse-chronological order when put vertically, but it may indeed cause some issues when done horizontally. Nonetheless, horizontal charts/graphs have

1044:

If your only metric is the ultimate election result, then you may have a point. If, however, you're using opinion polls to gauge party support over time (which is more likely to be one of the aims of a "historically-minded" encyclopedia like this one), then putting the polling results in forward

3679:

All of the other fluff such as the BBC and which is the more common denonym for the Island of Barbuda is a distraction, irrelevant, and pointless. Opinion and "more common" do not override fact. Fact is fact and the denonym of Antiguan is for the island of Antigua is and the denonym Barbudan or

3135:

But the infobox is a summary, done in a somewhat consistent way across many articles, so we do have to make choices about what goes in it. Reliable sources say many things that don't get in the infobox. RSs discussed sexual misconduct allegations against Roy Moore at length, but the infobox for

3094:

The infobox should be a quick summary, and whether a third party may have affected an election is best left for the full body of the article, although it might appear higher up than the typical also-run mention at the end. The 5% remains a good threshold. The spoiler effect is debatable anyway.

2684:

This is the second of two RFCs intended to supplement, not change, the RFC on the 5% threshold we discussed last year. The eariler RFC did not consider the specific scenario in which a third party who does not receive 5% of the vote nonetheless claims enough votes that their total exceeds the

597:

talks sense, as usual! Key points I agree on: (a) there are problems with making these tables sortable; (b) the reality is that they are nearly all antichronological at present; (c) that is what reliable sources do; (d) SALORDER is a guideline and exceptions are allowed. That said, I am wary of

3636: 3582: 996:

It's not an issue to the small set of WP:WPE&R "regular" editors. But it is an issue to the wider set of editors who aren't WP:WPE&R "regulars" or election junkies. This is a common issue – a specific wikiproject develops a set of "standard practices" that are at odds with the wider En

945:

The historical order of opinion polls does tend to be in reverse order, however – as I've mentioned above, outside of Knowledge, other places where opinion polls are aggregated list them in reverse order. SALORDER isn't a compelling argument here other than for the apparent need to comply by a

551:

See GoldRingChip's !vote – it perfect encapsulates my feelings on the issue as well. If people feel there is such value in seeing these in reverse chronological order, then there is an option for that: sortable tables. But, failing that, there is not a compelling reason to not follow SALORDER.

444:

No particular view, but it seems something that should approached and decided upon on a case-by-case basis. The usefulness of listing opinion polls in reverse order is twofold: one, for in the months before an election for people to be able to find the most recent polls more easily. The second

925:. Knowledge is not a "news" wesbite – it's a historical record of events (which is why SALORDER exists). User:BoogaLouie's suggestion up-thread would be acceptable as a compromise, by GoldRingChip's overall point above is valid, especially for organizing these polling pages, post-elections. -- 3870:

If there is reliable source confirmation that he belongs to a political party then we should state that. Calling someone an independent who belongs to a party, even if it is a micro-party is factually inaccurate. However, not having ballot access might justify some kind of explanatory note.

2631:. The main thrust of the argument is around whether elections at a time when there was a very limited franchise should be included on the template. I won't repeat the arguments for/against that have been made so far, but just invite further input (probably best to continue it here). Cheers, 579:

elections are ordered antichronologically. At least in the case of election polling, it's clearly more logical to list them antichronologically. SALORDER isn't a particularly challenge to this for any reason other than "it's a Knowledge guideline" (which, in any case, is neither binding or

1158:

And I don't see you offering yourself to try to accomplish such an enormous task, so I fear this will end up being tasked to those who–like me–do frequently edit and keep these pages up to date. Specially if this is intended to be imposed through a RfC instead of done in a case-by-case

3219:

two years into his term of office. Therefore at the May 2017 election one seat was won by the Lib Dems and the other by Labour. This looks to me like it would be classed as a Labour gain from the Liberal Democrats, even though in actuality the two sitting councillors were re-elected.

4462:

the whole assemblage of parliamentary elections going on in a polity at one time. Certainly I have never heard it used in that sense in the UK. But the Google search that No 57 gave makes it quite clear that it is used in some regional varieties of English, so the relevant policy is

2942:. It is appropriate for the article content to discuss "spoiler" candidates or candidates notable for any reason, whatever RS deem interesting, but the infobox should summarise the election result and what matters there is the actual vote. Or else you get into messy stuff like this: 4964:

You posted this nonsense on another page and it was pointed out that Bbb23 doesn't have a decade-long track record of making these edits and was probably only responding to reports of vandalism or sockpuppetry. The inference that I have a Russian nationalist viewpoint is laughable.

2769:. The result of this policy is that you could get two candidates who got more than 45% of the vote in the infobox alongside a candidate who got 1% of the vote. If RSs suggest that a third candidate was a spoiler, there could be some justification for mentioning this in the text. 3632: 3578: 4711:

These have been added to a lot of election articles, often by IPs. Personally I've always thought they were a waste of space, especially when boxes are added for both votes and seats. They are usually added below the results tables, but can be moved to the side (e.g.

860:, and much less about "fixing" old tables (though that should be allowed too, should some editors want to undertake that...). I have yet to hear of anything that would make formatting these table as sortable to be too great a technical challenge from this point on. -- 806:

us to take on such an enormous task, which involves having to manually apply "data-sort-value" or whatever other template individually over hundreds (if not thousands in some cases) of opinion poll entries per article, over hundreds of such articles in Knowledge.

2296:

The dirrefence between the London system and proper two-round is the same as the difference between Instant runoff and exhaustive ballot - which is one takes place with ranked ballots on the sname day, the other takes place with bullet ballots on different days.

2842:

to a cause that few support is not neutrality. If the polls, campaign spending, campaign activity, media coverage and the ultimate result are dominated by two parties or candidates, then the article should reflect that and give minor parties less prominence.

3556:

If Antiguan is the common denonym for the whole sovereign state show that it is. At the moment the Wiktionary is conclusive. These articles are supposed to be titled correctly based on fact not on opinion. The Knowledge article as it currently stands for

2458:

A wikipedia page for a special election for US Congress with three candidates on the ballot is being repeatedly altered to EXCLUDE the third party option, and the blame is being shifted to this community. Do you want to own the FALSE TESTIMONY? I don't!

5035:

I invite other editors to look at the types of edits I've been making on Israel-related topics and judge for themselves. Editing in a topic area does not make someone a nationalist – it's the content being changed/added/removed that highlights the POV.

4606:

Aren't elections in different districts/constituencies different "separate elections to the same body during a year"? How about legislatures that have multiple electoral systems like MMP? Aren't those "separate elections to the same body during a year"

2468:

There is no sense in any 5% rule in advance of voter decisions being made. No crystal ball exists to predict the future. The purpose of democracy is prevent the majority from crushing, stealing, and causing genocide to the minority, not perpetuate it.

3043:. Lamb beat Saccone (well, there's still some arguing but leaving that aside) by 0.28%. A Libertarian candidate got 0.6%. Under the proposed rule, that candidate would be listed in the infobox. However, contrary to the strong claim above that "the RSs 4071:

FWIW, "general election" is just as widespread. It takes something more than Google searches to convince people if it's the right one. Almost all of our article titles are in the singular form. Are we going to move those? I'd rather ask someone at

4124:

We won't necessarily say "United Kingdom general election, 2016" is the actual article text, but if the article name says "general election" and the text calls it as "general elections", it'll lead to confusion. It's not as if singular is wrong

2363:

methods that use ranked-choice ballots)" (citations omitted). The bolding on "ranked choice voting" suggests that it is a redirect to STV, but in fact it is a redirect to IRV. Meanwhile, the link to "preferential voting" is actually a pipe to

4771:

I like the proposal of moving it to the side, but some result tables are wide enough. I would've wanted putting all of these as one long bar graph, one for votes, and one for seats, either at the top or bottom of the results table.

5104:

template, they represent a completely different polity, any citizen of the Soviet Union could vote in Soviet Union's constituent republic elections only if they reside there. On the other hand only Estonian citizens can vote in

4568:

Based on the naming guideline, it should be singular, and I believe it is in all cases except American and Philippine elections ( After doing a thorough search I only uncovered a single example outside of these two countries –

981:

It's not if the default set-up is chronological. If they were sortable with the default being reverse-chronological, very well. I've not seen any other suggestions that this is an issue, I'm surprised it's suddenly become one.

1333:

You dismiss the primary process in the United States. While it is true that the big race in November is between two, the primaries start with dozens in the fray. That is the analog of first-round elections in other countries.

1140:

There's 179 separate opinion polling articles and hundreds of articles including polling tables, and I don't see why a consensus on this should be determined on a project-wide basis as as opposed to a case-by-case basis where

3675:

As evidence has been shown referring to a denonym for the whole sovereign state that should be the name of the article, and all previous election articles. The title should be Antiguan and Barbudan general election, 2018.

2891:, where two third parties could both claim to be spoilers? We can't include only one of them, and including two parties that got like 3% of the vote would not be ideal as well. 5% is a very rational threshold to stick to. 2473:

shameful acts of bad behavior in the squashing of the Libertarian's appearance on the page for the Special Election for US Congress 18. I put his name and photo in the info box 23 January, 2018 -- and the battle wages on.

4529:

I think this can now be summarised as being that the Use of "General Election" or "General Elections" will depend on the variation of English the article is written in and reliable sources backing up the variant usage.

2968:

claimed by a third party that was a potential spoiler. The link to the talk discussion doesn't really explain what messy thing would result from including potential spoilers in the infobox based on actual vote totals.

4907:

It includes a link to a template with the national elections in Yugoslavia. If the dates of the Croatian legislature elections during the Yugoslav era were known, they would be on the Croatian template like this:

4225:

Sort of off-topic: Since you've touched about it, considering you won't think of making mass moves of hundreds of articles, do you prefer the current convention or the "2017 United Kingdom general election" one?

3952: 1366:

I'm in favor of including multiple candidates within the infobox in two-round elections, but it's a somewhat well-established precedent at this point. (In some cases, I think it's an absolute necessity, as with

5119:

has a section "Regional elections", which duplicate (and links to articles on) elections held for the Supreme Soviets of the Soviet Union's constituent republics. So SSR elections really belong in an expanded

3040: 3970:

Asking again... The question is what endorsements to include: just registered political parties; those + registered entities campaigning in the referendum; or also including prominent (notable) individuals.

3069:

Well, it ain't over yet and the blogs and borderline RSs are buzzing though I wouldn't want to hang our hat on those. Better RSs are likely to come when the final numbers are certified. For now, see e.g.,

4374:

From the examples which the other editor there linked to, the plural form appears to be an Indian subcontinental/African variant. Suitable for those contexts, but it would be very unusual in e.g. UK usage.

757:'s points. SALORDER is not an actual policy but more of a guideline, plus the fact that the only reasoning being brought forward for its enforcement is that "it's a policy and it must be applied". Look, 4251: 1526:

are a precedent for what a two round election wikibox containing both rounds may look like - they include both the first and second rounds (of a supplementary vote, but it's close enough to true 2RV to

94: 86: 81: 69: 64: 59: 2081: 801:

We have also the fact of (reliable) sources using reverse-chrono order listings for opinion polling lists, so it's not that it's us alone that think it should be done this way. Maybe you could explain

3846:

California U.S. Senate candidate Don Grundmann is a Constitution Party candidate, but the party has no ballot access in the state. Should candidates like this be described as an independents instead?

129:

historical might be a viable compromise. However given the split views here, as well as the limited participation, it is impossible to assert any firm consensus that would impact countless articles.

4544:

I have another question. What is the election article is named after the legislature? Like "Senate elections" or "National Assembly elections". Is it always plural, always singular, or it depends? –

3510:

It is wrong by definition to call the article Antiguan and the current title is incorrect. The correct title to refer to the whole sovereign state is Antigua and Barbuda, not Antiguan or Barbudian.

3379:. I don't think these polls are intended to be exact predictors of final results, but couldn't they still useful as indicators? These newspapers at least seem to think so, and analyze them as such. 2662: 2883:

Per Anywikiuser. We can mention the spoiler effect in the article text, but including candidates who got tiny fractions of the vote in the inbox doesn't make any sense. What if its something like

2465:

The threshold to meet is getting onto the official ballot. Once the ballot is set, then history is written. When the vote totals come after the election, another chapter of history gets written.

4511:

I would like Number 57 to assume good faith. I have no idea what number 57 is on about regarding "this discussion is basically happening only because of you developing a grudge" and "extended to

4275:

I was referring if you will ignore the effort of doing mass moves. Moving lots of articles is a deterrent in move discussions. FWIW I also prefer "2016 Scottish Parliament election" convention. –

476:

and hundreds of articles including polling tables, and I don't see why a consensus on this should be determined on a project-wide basis as as opposed to a case-by-case basis where appropriate.

126:

provides information on how to obtain the desired sort order. I will offer the (non-binding) observation that some websites sort according to the midpoint of the polling start/end date range.

3907:

as it is, as a non-recognized party should not have its own section, but his denotation is fine. Though there's not a need to separate parties in sections anyway since they all run together.

4046:

a few years ago and found official, academic and media sources used the plural. It's patently incorrect of WTKitty to say that "General elections" is wrong for a single election given its

504:. I don't think GoldRingChip or I expect people to go back and "fix" many old articles that don't follow SALORDER, though if this RfC passes, nobody should oppose that happening either. -- 4487:

I don't think this is an ENGVAR issue. The ones that come up in Google News are the ones that have recently or will be holding elections soon, so their election cycles are in the news.

4196:

I'd hesitate to take Number 57's google search too authoritively, apart from the Texas news article the use of "general elections" is from countries where English is a second language.

4012:

the legislature), it depends if there are several concurrent elections in multiple constituencies. For example, House of Representatives elections, Senate elections, Assembly elections.

1155:

Then making sure such a change is done properly without causing serious issues to the way opinion polling tables work, because otherwise you would require to re-edit all of these again

4858:

It takes two to edit-war, and you are contributing to it. I don't think labelling people you disagree with as "Estonian nationalists" meets the criteria of a neutral notification per

2685:

difference between the two major party candidates. This question is not about mind reading. It's only about the situation when the math creates a possibility. UPDATE - This is a

1550:(b) You've misunderstood my comment about legislative elections. I was just citing that as an example of where we developed a new infobox better suited to displaying the information. 3137: 780:

Except not one of you has dealt with the issue of sortable tables, which would allow SALORDER to be followed, while still giving people access to reverse-chrono order listings... --

3207:

It seems to be a not uncommon in local politics to see politicans changing sides, joining and leaving different parties or political groups. I recently started an article on the

4802: 47: 17: 3296: 2871:

reflect the sources, not the vote totals. Downplaying the role of those who receive relatively few votes is its own form of POV pushing, just as it is prior to the election.--

5215: 1553:(c) Currently we only include the top two candidates between the first and second rounds. Your suggestion seems to be to include them all (which in some cases can be over 10) 3372: 3292: 1820:

Result of voting by London borough. Red boroughs are those with a plurality of (first-preference) votes for Sadiq Khan and blue are those with a plurality for Zac Goldsmith.

5059:

Editing in a topic area does not make someone a nationalist – it's the content being changed/added/removed in a way I personally don't like, that makes them a "nationalist"

1045:

chronological order has more historical value. I mean, otherwise, why don't we put the polling figures/graphs at these articles in reverse chronological order as well?! --

445:

reason, however, is because opinion polls closer to an election are simply of much greater greater relative importance than those longer from an election, something which

3904: 620:

Would anti-chronological before the election and chronological after make sense? Too much work? After the election the polls would be historical not looked at as news.--

2884: 155:

Should election (or other opinion polls, for that matter), be listed in forward-chronological (oldest at top to most recent at bottom) or reverse-chronological order?—

2418:

No, I'm not in either WikiProject. I'm just tired of doing all of these monotonous edits by myself, manually, without a script because I don't know how to write one.

1265:'s first round, for example, had four major candidates (Macron, Melenchon, Le Pen and Fillion), yet only Macron and Le Pen, who went to the second round, are listed. 1093:

allow for reverse-chrono. listing for anyone that wants it as well? It's the best of both worlds. Bottom line: Even if reverse-chrono. ordering is kept, these tables

2983:

I mean that the "actual vote" for a candidate should determine whether they are included, not the actual vote compared to the difference between the top two parties.

4401:

I'm not trying to shut down any discussion. However, I do feel that this discussion is basically happening only because of you developing a grudge that extended to

739:'s points. I actually find the SALORDER policy a bit confounding, given that it doesn't give an explanation as to why lists should aim for chronological ordering. 1556:(d) As I commented in the discussion at the election infobox template, I don't that is necessary. Also not sure why that discussion is now being duplicated here? 4047: 2275:

decide whether candidates should be included (also IMO if it's a clear two horse race and decided in one round, third or fourth candidates should be omitted).

1261:

thre US doesn't use a two-round system, and in many countries that do, the Presidential election is not a two-horse race and both rounds actually matter - the

3433:, when the state had gained its independence. Maybe someone has simply been copying the previous election articles as a template for the following elections. 2439:. It relates to how seats are presented after boundary changes and if every election of a member should be included and if their picture should be included. 1149:

Manually apply "data-sort-value" or whatever other template individually over hundreds (if not thousands, in some cases) of opinion poll entries per article

4950:. In my experience the only people that seem to get really upset over it are those that appear to adhere to a Russian nationalist viewpoint themselves. -- 3753:

In summary I am in favour of undoing all of Number 57's June 2017 moves and resorting the original tiles of Antigua and Barbuda general election, (year).

3262:, but they were removed. I thought they might be useful. I would like to have a consensus on whether they should be allowed in election articles or not. 2540: 2506:

Are you specifically talking about the candidate's non-inclusion in the infobox? An infobox is a short summary of the article. Details of the candidate

1272:

get to show both the first preference votes and the votes after all transfers for all candidates, shouldn't the Presidential election articles in, say,

3407:

What should the titles of this article be and the series of articles. Should it be as it is or should it be Antigua and Barbuda general election, 2018.

3291:"Inclined to re-elect" is just an alternate wording for the question "would you vote for". It's obviously a question of voter intentions. For example, 1454:

I'm strongly against changing the status quo on this. It will only lead to additional complexity in infoboxes that are supposed to be simple summaries.

3488: 3484: 2590: 2462:

What is next? Should no nation gets to send any athletes to the Olympic Games unless it has earned 5% of the gold medals in the past Olympic Games?

4893:

doesn't include Yugoslav elections but provides a link to them, nobody is attempting to make it appear that Croatia was not a part of Yugoslavia. --

3183:

Are there any How To guides which describe the procedure for creating presidential election electoral college maps? i.e. the red & blue US maps.

3071: 2943: 2436: 2188: 2088: 4574: 1183:

occasions in this thread, I have made it clear that I am not advocating that "old" articles be fixed. What I am saying is that all such tables

634:

I'd be OK with this as a compromise, though I still am unclear on why sortability for these tables (going forward) is such an issue – template

4784: 4634: 4556: 4446: 4353: 4287: 4238: 4185: 4141: 4088: 4031: 3480: 3476: 3475:

The problem here is the policy does not apply as simply as is being said it does. If the policy was to be applied in the way above why is it

2888: 1500: 1422: 1273: 1284:

is its own parameter, yet it's only relevant to presidential elections in the US, Kenya, Nigeria and Indonesia, while something relevant to

5021:

And you have a significant history of creating Israeli places, politics and society articles, that makes you an Israeli nationalist too? --

4918:. And yes, there is a group of editors with a long history of trying to make it appear that Estonia was not part of the USSR – for example 3929: 1602: 4577:). The only time it should be plural (IMO) is when the article covers two or more separate elections to the same body during a year (e.g. 3188:

Are there guidelines for creating the election results boxes? I.e. the tables that candidates, party affiliation, percentage of vote, etc.

4430:

in a specific article predominantly use pluralized "general elections" to use the plural form throughout the article, or at least in the

3577:

Apart from the link I provided to the BBC. Not sure what you mean by "contrived title", but based on Google books, it would appear that "

4043: 3429:

There's definitely a mismatch somewhere. Reading between the lines, it looks as if the titles should have been "Antigua and Barbuda..."

1684: 1277: 3376: 2820:? Why would that be bad, especially when their vote count prompts RSs to discuss their potentially determinative effect as a spoiler? 2480: 4713: 4582: 4578: 4016: 2987: 2986:

Sorry, no, I didn't really explain the New Zealand case, did I?! My apologies. This is somewhat tangential, but... go to the article,

1918: 1906: 1262: 4302: 4073: 3729: 1368: 1269: 331: 285: 239: 4618:

which is "separate elections to the same body during a year". The title is in singular form, but the lead says "Senatorial election

3768:

It's fine as it is now, which appears to be the compromise version. The original title was in conflict with the naming guideline.

1514:, which is only relevant to presidential elections in the US, Kenya, Nigeria and Indonesia. It's not that much of a stretch to add 5227: 5204: 5175: 5139: 5070: 5052: 5030: 5016: 4995: 4981: 4959: 4938: 4902: 4871: 4853: 4821: 4790: 4764: 4750: 4735: 4701: 4661: 4640: 4601: 4562: 4539: 4524: 4503: 4475: 4452: 4421: 4395: 4359: 4336: 4314: 4293: 4270: 4244: 4205: 4191: 4168: 4147: 4119: 4094: 4066: 4037: 4005: 3980: 3964: 3941: 3911: 3898: 3880: 3865: 3855: 3836: 3821: 3805: 3784: 3762: 3741: 3715: 3689: 3669: 3617: 3601: 3571: 3550: 3519: 3467: 3442: 3423: 3388: 3366: 3337: 3322: 3308: 3286: 3271: 3247: 3232: 3197: 3168: 3149: 3130: 3104: 3082: 3060: 3031: 3007: 2978: 2955: 2930: 2904: 2875: 2852: 2829: 2810: 2796: 2778: 2761: 2731: 2674: 2647: 2603: 2582: 2519: 2500: 2448: 2425: 2408: 2386: 2306: 2291: 2269: 1572: 1540: 1444: 1394: 1380: 1361: 1343: 1318: 1241: 1202: 1174: 1112: 1084: 1060: 1039: 1012: 991: 976: 955: 940: 917: 875: 849: 815: 795: 771: 748: 726: 659: 629: 615: 589: 567: 542: 519: 491: 459: 432: 400: 383: 366: 341: 306: 295: 269: 249: 212: 181: 159: 138: 3530:. In any case, if Barbuda were to be included in the title, it would be "Antiguan and Barbudan general election, 2018" (per e.g. 1734: 1951: 5047: 5011: 4976: 4933: 4848: 4816: 4730: 4656: 4596: 4498: 4416: 4331: 4265: 4163: 4114: 4061: 3779: 3710: 3664: 3596: 3545: 3462: 3397: 2839: 2835: 2642: 2286: 1567: 1439: 844: 721: 427: 374:, as it allows readers to see the most recent information first, and for most casual readers that's what they will be seeking. 3724:

It all seems a bit *rse backwards to base naming on a one-size-fits-all Knowledge guideline, rather than what the sources say

5171: 4912: 4697: 4570: 2599: 2578: 193:. In addition, most of these tables either are sortable, or can be made sortable, so there is no justification for violating 4677: 150:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

4585:

etc). However, I suspect the chances of getting the American articles in particular to fall in line are practically zero.

3140:

doesn't mention them. The question is not what do RS discuss, but what of the things RS discuss do we put in the infobox.

1639: 1629: 1523: 1251:

Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

391:

any decision that would determine ordering of opinion polls for the reasons detailed in the discussion below this survey.

2413: 1066:

I mean, otherwise, why don't we put the polling figures/graphs at these articles in reverse chronological order as well?!

4611: 2625: 2563: 2444: 1486:

The only way I can see this working is if a new infobox is created that organises the information in a different way to

1193: 1103: 1051: 1003: 987: 967: 931: 913: 866: 786: 650: 558: 510: 379: 260: 203: 5098: 4887: 4831: 3277:"Inclined to re-elect" and "Not inclined to re-elect" aren't voting intention questions, which is why I removed them. 3208: 644:

was created for exactly this (apparent) issue (that, or use of the aforementioned "data-sort-value" in tables...). --

5187:

Anyone know what page this should redirect to? He's running in New York’s 3rd Congressional District this election.--

118:

tables are generally desirable in new tables, and generally desirable in existing tables if anyone wishes to add it.

320:. While exceptions can be made, they're rare, temporary, and based on maintainability concerns at very long pages. 3126: 3078: 2974: 2926: 2825: 2792: 2757: 2727: 1815: 1547:(a) Trying to include more candidates and more data will inevitably make the infobox less simple and comprehensible 38: 5151: 5124: 5113: 4779: 4629: 4551: 4441: 4348: 4282: 4233: 4180: 4136: 4083: 4026: 3384: 3333: 3304: 3072:

https://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/drew-miller-libertarian-spoiler-special-election_us_5aa98129e4b0600b82ffaa03

2595: 2574: 1490: 1412: 122:

provides information on how to do so. It has been noted that dates and date-ranges often fail to sort properly.

3238:

It's a gain. Reliable sources generally report results with respect to the previous vote, ignoring defections.

2995: 2342: 2338: 2220: 2123: 1994: 497: 4741:

I agree with this sentiment – they don't add anything of value that isn't already conveyed in results tables.

1476:

And I suspect it will also lead to a lot of edit warring over which first round candidates should be included.

1146:

I'll try to explain it again in a detailed way. In order to make these tables sortable, you'll be required to

3994:

UK government information page - "General Elections occur every five years", "to vote in a General Election".

3889:. The Libertarians and Greens have ballot access in CA, but not the Constitution Party. What should be done? 5223: 5200: 4880:

Apparently Number57 believes some editors are trying to make it appear that Estonia was not part of the USSR

3348:

That is not voter intention. It just asks whether voters would like to see this guy re-elected, but that is

3212: 2898: 2545: 2531: 2440: 2404: 2382: 1989: 1843: 1729: 983: 909: 704: 375: 4746: 4379: 3894: 3851: 3646: 3318: 3282: 3267: 3027: 2419: 1376: 1097:

be made sortable from now on, for anyone who wants to check chronological ordering in either direction. --

951: 585: 538: 487: 455: 396: 303: 178: 156: 4986:

The inference that I have an Estonian nationalist viewpoint is equally laughable, I am from Australia. --

4719:

I was wondering what other editors' thoughts on them were, as IMO it would be better to get rid of them.

2816:

My question then is, given your example that we'd be showing a 1-percenter alongside two 45-percenters,

3876: 3122: 3074: 2970: 2922: 2848: 2821: 2806: 2788: 2774: 2753: 2723: 2541:"'A decade-long fight for the soul of the Labour party' - how Momentum are gaining ground in Manchester" 2350: 2334: 328: 282: 236: 5188: 5181: 4805:

on a couple of election templates that is relevant to the project. Input would be appreciated. Cheers,

3353:

place this as a voter intention poll, it's not for us to make such an interpretation ourselves, as per

2100: 1232:

chronological, but chronological is used, and I think is more common, for academic, historical papers.

4645:

No, I don't believe they are separate elections if they're to the same body and held on the same day.

2990:, and there's an infobox. There are 7 parties listed in the infobox. Let's take the 7th party listed, 2485: 2435:

There is currently a discussion regarding they layout of Scottish parliamentary constituency articles

1127:

the reality is that it seems unlikely that editors are going to go through past articles to 'fix' them

5106: 4774: 4760: 4624: 4546: 4436: 4343: 4277: 4228: 4175: 4131: 4078: 4021: 3976: 3960: 3696: 3380: 3329: 3300: 3243: 3145: 3056: 3003: 2951: 2515: 2365: 2360: 2355: 2216: 1237: 625: 611: 416:). Applying a guideline which was not developed with this specific listing in mind seems unhelpful. 5042: 5006: 4971: 4928: 4843: 4811: 4725: 4651: 4591: 4493: 4471: 4411: 4326: 4260: 4158: 4109: 4056: 3774: 3705: 3659: 3591: 3558: 3540: 3457: 2719:- I have not seen any discussion on this specific point. If you know of any, please post a link(s) 2658: 2637: 2496: 2396: 2281: 2118: 1562: 1434: 839: 716: 422: 4515:-making ". Number 57 appears to want to throw a lot of rubbish at me and I would like it to stop. 3695:

What is more common is entirely relevant when it comes to deciding on naming – that's why we have

2298: 2261: 1532: 1386: 1353: 1325: 1310: 833:

Perhaps worth noting that if you are against it, there is a !vote section above (this is an RfC).

5219: 5168: 4694: 2893: 2569: 2400: 2378: 744: 446: 317: 194: 190: 174: 1974: 1944: 3886: 4742: 4615: 4535: 4520: 4391: 4376: 4320:

Unnecessary IMO. It's clearly grammatically correct, otherwise it wouldn't be used so widely.

4310: 4001: 3890: 3847: 3832: 3801: 3758: 3685: 3642: 3613: 3567: 3531: 3515: 3419: 3362: 3314: 3278: 3263: 3100: 3023: 2670: 2488:

should be in that info box and that page needs to reflect the actual ballot before the voters.

2422: 2330: 2302: 2265: 1861: 1724: 1536: 1390: 1372: 1357: 1314: 1170: 1080: 1035: 1026: 947: 922: 811: 767: 754: 736: 594: 581: 534: 500:

basis. More importantly, this is really more about establishing the proper way to handle this

483: 451: 392: 362: 354: 219: 3299:

the Washington Post using the phrases "inclined to vote" and "plan to vote" interchangeably.

228:

The RfC (as of this timestamp, anyway) is not asking a yes/no question but an either/or one.

177:. WP is an encyclopedia and therefore historical in scope. It is not a newspaper or a blog.— 5130:

template, which can be linked to from the current country templates. It just makes sense. --

4859: 4463: 4100: 3872: 3728:. Caribeeanelections.com calls the election the "Antigua and Barbuda General Election"; the 3448: 2844: 2802: 2770: 2618: 2481:

https://en.wikipedia.org/Pennsylvania%27s_18th_congressional_district_special_election,_2018

1663: 1339: 1197: 1107: 1089:

And I'm still back to why can't we just make the tables sortable, so we can follow SALORDER

1055: 1007: 971: 935: 870: 790: 758: 654: 562: 514: 323: 277: 264: 231: 207: 3495:

island of Antigua and not the whole state of Antigua and Barbuda. Please see Wiktionary:

1937: 1299:

elections, such as those of the Czech Senate, should have both rounds. Only that two round

5155: 4837:. Some assistance in dealing with the Estonian nationalists would be appreciated. Cheers, 4756: 4681: 4512: 4402: 4201: 3972: 3956: 3937: 3817: 3737: 3626: 3527: 3438: 3354: 3239: 3228: 3141: 3118: 3052: 2999: 2947: 2511: 2231: 2195: 1963: 1851: 1832: 1677: 1233: 688: 621: 607: 134: 2106: 5000:

I invite other editors to take a look at your editing history and judge for themselves.

4622:

have been held on 24 September 2017". Should the article title be in plural form, too? –

3371:

Okay, I could be wrong. But just look at some of the newspaper coverage of these polls:

2838:

does not mean that all candidates must be treated equally in every way possible. Giving

5037: 5001: 4966: 4923: 4838: 4806: 4720: 4646: 4586: 4488: 4482: 4467: 4458: 4431: 4406: 4321: 4255: 4153: 4104: 4051: 3769: 3700: 3654: 3623:

Evidence has been provided for all the issues you have raised. To make it clear again:

3586: 3535: 3452: 3048: 2750: 2700: 2632: 2492: 2276: 1584: 1557: 1467: 1429: 1075:

for opinion polling tables other than doing it because, somehow, it "must be done so".

903: 834: 711: 417: 4042:

In my experience it's largely plural regardless of the body/post being elected. I had

5161: 5135: 5066: 5026: 4991: 4955: 4898: 4867: 4687: 3908: 3862: 3165: 2991: 2392: 2198: 1969: 1839: 1714: 1709: 828: 740: 700: 696: 692: 3410:

Can I get some help improving this article, so it can be on the in the news section.

1408:

is if a new infobox is created that organises the information in a different way to

413: 4531: 4516: 4427: 4387: 4306: 3997: 3828: 3797: 3754: 3681: 3609: 3563: 3511: 3415: 3358: 3216: 3194: 3096: 2666: 1480:

Same ones that were included between the first and second rounds. Problem - solved.

1166: 1076: 1031: 824: 807: 763: 684: 638: 358: 123: 119: 1470:. Legislative election infoboxes can stay as-is - this is about presidential ones. 1071:

nothing to do with SALORDER, so I don't know what connection does it have to this.

3328:(obviously not, since ballots contain a list of choices, not a yet/no question). 2964:

I don't understand what you mean. This RFC proposes including what you call the

2621:

about whether the referendum and sanitary board elections should be removed from

3295:

the LA times using that same poll as a way to predict how people will vote. And

2872: 2614: 1335: 1188: 1098: 1046: 998: 962: 926: 861: 781: 645: 599: 553: 505: 465: 255: 223: 198: 46:

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

3211:

ward in North Wales, for example, because of its colourful history. Of the two

2345:, which asserts in its lead "STV is the system of choice of groups such as ... 4944: 4197: 3933: 3813: 3733: 3434: 3224: 2235: 1984: 1857: 1703: 1371:, however; in those cases one can just add the necessary infobox parameters.) 130: 409: 3680:

Barbudian is for the island of Barbuda. Fact! Not opinion or "more common".

3259: 961:

making these sortable tables, from henceforth, really is the best answer. --

4573:– I have since moved it to the singular to bring it in line with the other 3313:

Yeah, but are you given "don't re-elect" on the ballot? I don't think so.

2745:

Because we follow the RSs and whenever the simply math works out, the RSs

2454:

You, here, are getting blamed for changing the TRUTH to false information.

5131: 5062: 5022: 4987: 4951: 4894: 4863: 3996:

The plural "General Elections" is wrong for a single "General Election".

3993: 3164:

spoiled (i.e. those votes may have otherwise gone to the winner anyway).

2346: 3121:. All we care about (theoretically) is what's in the reliable sources. 2711:- Yes or No or (invent a new one then explain in the discussion section) 1288:

of all direct presidential elections isn't even icluded in the wikibox!

4341:

You are more than welcome to try to shut down the discussion there... –

1691: 5109:

regardless of where they reside. There is a distinction. The template

4301:

A request for an opinion has been made on the language reference desk

4254:

a change in the naming format to "2016 Scottish Parliament election".

1352:

Huh, sorry for that. Do you think this turns people off from my Idea?

1280:

show all candidates with both first and second round results? I mean,

4250:

Not sure where I've said I wouldn't consider making mass moves? I've

4676:

Notifying project members of a consensus discussion taking place at

2921:

why that is so. Well, it isn't obvious why that is so. Why not?

3953:

Talk:Thirty-sixth Amendment of the Constitution Bill 2018 (Ireland)

3047:

discuss the possibility that the race may have been decided by the

2749:

discuss the possibility that the race may have been decided by the

302:

Thanks for letting us know. I don't think it's a problem, though.—

103:

Request for comment (RFC): Chronological order of election polling

5158:

that members of this project might interested in taking part in.

3041:

Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district special election, 2018

2337:, which asserts that IRV is sometimes called transferable vote. 470:

most of these tables either are sortable, or can be made sortable

1510:

There's no need to - as I said, there's already a parameter for

1466:. I'm not saying anything about legislative election infoboxes, 1117:

You were already replied on this several times by several users.

856:

And, again, this is more about how these tables should be done,

4019:" though. We'd need more help from someone who knows grammar. – 3254:

Consensus on posting voter intention polls in election articles

2588:

A discussion is currently taking place about this election box

2680:

RFC - Infoboxes and Third Parties who may have been a spoiler

598:

LOCALCONSENSUS and we should try to follow guidelines, as per

25: 2663:

Florida's 18th congressional district special election, 1989

496:

Well, SALORDER is not something that should be ignored on a

1152:

Do that over hundreds of such articles throughout Knowledge

1121:

such a change would be a considerable logistical challenge

946:

guideline, which, in any case, can be reasonably ignored.

4099:

The article titles are singular due to the naming format

2431:

Notification of discussion which may be interest to users

4682:

Seeking consensus to restore content challenged by _____

3179:

I have 2 questions and I'm sure I'm in the right place:

2689:

question. Maybe it matters elsewhere also, maybe not.

1133:

making these tables sortable would mean a titanic effort

4948: 4919: 4881: 4680:. Discussion is currently found in sub-section titled 4368: 3861:

Yes, especially as there are no party primaries there.

3504: 1578: 3924:

Further work needed on Lebanese general election, 2018

3499: 3138:

United States Senate special election in Alabama, 2017

681:

I have no particular interest in this, but users like

4755:

And they frequently display wrongly on some screens.

2534:, for use when candidates are definitely known, e.g. 1603:

Actual Wikibox from ''London mayoral election, 2016''

4173:

Apparently someone else did. Should we avoid that? –

408:

per how election polls are presented normally (e.g.

18:

Knowledge talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

2944:

Talk:New_Zealand_general_election,_2017#Sixth_Party

1652: 1519: 1515: 1511: 1281: 5094:rational sense to include Soviet elections in the 4152:I can't see there being any confusion personally. 274:Obviously "yes", or I wouldn't have mentioned it. 111:No consensus on ordering of election polling data. 5218:and I would appreciate assistance in filling it. 4405:-making at the Sierra Leonean election articles. 3955:on how to handle endorsements. Comments welcome. 3905:United States Senate election in California, 2018 3117:debatable among us editors because that would be 3827:Lets widen this out and really get this sorted. 2610:Inclusion/exclusion of elections from a template 2207: 1827: 3643:Antigua Observer use of "Antiguan and Barbudan" 5216:eponymous categories about specific elections 3645:as demonym for the entire country. There are 1291:It's improtant to note that I don't mean the 124:Help:Sorting#Specifying_a_sort_key_for_a_cell 8: 3215:councillors elected in May 2012, one joined 1883: 1606: 4883:, which is complete nonsense. The template 3842:Candidates in parties without ballot access 5214:I’ve created a new container category for 3951:We could do with some additional input at 2917:it wouldn't make sense, as though it were 2567:, and an example of it in use can be seen 1882: 1605: 1579:Only the ones that appear pre-first round. 1256:Two-round policy for Presidential articles 197:in the pristine versions of the tables. -- 3885:The CA Constitution Party lists him as a 3489:United States presidential election, 1792 3485:United States presidential election, 2016 2349:in the USA (which refers to both STV and 2193:Results of the second round by department 3223:Is this a Labour gain or a Labour hold? 1187:forward should be made sortable. Yes? -- 4827:This has now spread to edit warring at 4575:body-specific Iranian election articles 2539:Williams, Jennifer (16 November 2017). 4367:An opinion has been provided which is 3629:(the government of the entire country) 3491:. As opposed to British or American. 1139: 1132: 1126: 1120: 1065: 469: 114:It appears to be uncontroversial that 44:Do not edit the contents of this page. 4947:must be an "Estonian nationalist" too 4797:Election template deletion discussion 3481:United Kingdom general election, 2015 3477:United Kingdom general election, 2017 2657:Hey y'all-- I created an article for 2526:Election box for Labour (Momentum) UK 120:Help:Sorting#Creating_sortable_tables 7: 4922:from the birthplace of biographies. 4716:), which I think is an improvement. 3930:Talk:Lebanese general election, 2018 3699:as a key part of our naming policy. 3627:BBC reference to Antiguan government 1385:Well, want to help me change it? :) 1270:Irish presidential election articles 146:The following discussion is closed. 4672:Consensus-seeking discussion notice 1179:You keep ignoring the fact that on 357:and other reasons discussed below. 5057:What you really meant to say was: 4583:Indian Rajya Sabha elections, 2016 4579:Indian Rajya Sabha elections, 2014 4017:Scottish Parliament election, 2016 2988:New Zealand general election, 2017 2420:Care to differ or discuss with me? 1884:French presidential election, 2017 1263:French presidential election, 2017 24: 4074:Knowledge:Reference desk/Language 3987:Use of phrase "General elections" 3447:The current title is correct per 3203:Election gains and election holds 2653:Double checking an article I made 2530:I've created an election box for 2510:in the main body of the article. 1369:French legislative election, 2017 3113:Actually, the spoiler effect is 2187: 2087: 2080: 1950: 1943: 1936: 1890: 1814: 1690: 1683: 1676: 1658: 1657: 1613: 1577:(a) Well, not include them all. 1524:London mayoral election articles 1247:The discussion above is closed. 29: 3398:Antiguan general election, 2018 3258:I posted voter intention polls 5152:Trump-Russia dossier talk page 4571:Iranian Senate elections, 1949 2617:and myself have been having a 1: 3039:We have a live case study in 2661:'s first special election at 2604:23:50, 22 February 2018 (UTC) 2583:04:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC) 2520:15:27, 20 February 2018 (UTC) 2501:14:40, 20 February 2018 (UTC) 2399:is a disambiguation page. -- 1607:London mayoral election, 2016 575:opinion polling articles for 433:22:30, 22 November 2017 (UTC) 321: 275: 229: 4612:French Senate election, 2017 3887:Constitution Party candidate 2913:Like Anywikiuser you simply 2449:16:59, 1 February 2018 (UTC) 2426:19:24, 16 January 2018 (UTC) 2409:00:09, 14 January 2018 (UTC) 2387:23:58, 13 January 2018 (UTC) 1501:Infobox legislative election 1423:Infobox legislative election 1242:10:11, 6 November 2017 (UTC) 1203:00:16, 4 November 2017 (UTC) 1175:21:25, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 1113:21:00, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 1085:20:55, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 1061:20:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 1040:19:54, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 1013:20:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 992:19:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 977:18:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 956:18:23, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 941:17:56, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 918:17:44, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 876:14:15, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 850:14:04, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 816:13:53, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 796:13:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 772:13:06, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 749:11:26, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 727:10:21, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 660:04:36, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 630:01:40, 31 October 2017 (UTC) 616:10:24, 30 October 2017 (UTC) 590:04:38, 30 October 2017 (UTC) 568:04:18, 30 October 2017 (UTC) 543:04:04, 30 October 2017 (UTC) 520:03:57, 30 October 2017 (UTC) 492:03:45, 30 October 2017 (UTC) 460:02:11, 30 October 2017 (UTC) 401:01:56, 4 November 2017 (UTC) 384:17:45, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 367:14:13, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 342:04:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 307:12:38, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 296:04:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 270:04:31, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 250:04:29, 3 November 2017 (UTC) 213:03:36, 30 October 2017 (UTC) 182:01:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC) 160:01:52, 30 October 2017 (UTC) 3947:Ireland abortion referendum 2885:2010's Illinois Senate race 2359:, although there are other 2307:20:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC) 2292:18:14, 5 January 2018 (UTC) 2270:18:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC) 1912:23 April 2017 (first round) 1573:17:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC) 1541:17:52, 5 January 2018 (UTC) 1516:| popular_vote_firstround = 1445:17:03, 5 January 2018 (UTC) 1395:15:54, 5 January 2018 (UTC) 1381:14:04, 5 January 2018 (UTC) 1362:13:56, 5 January 2018 (UTC) 1344:13:42, 5 January 2018 (UTC) 1319:07:55, 5 January 2018 (UTC) 1165:and unavoidable guideline. 406:Reverse-chronological order 372:Reverse-chronological order 347:Reverse-chronological order 139:03:06, 1 January 2018 (UTC) 5243: 5176:01:20, 30 April 2018 (UTC) 5140:05:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC) 5071:04:54, 22 April 2018 (UTC) 5053:04:49, 22 April 2018 (UTC) 5031:04:42, 22 April 2018 (UTC) 5017:04:34, 22 April 2018 (UTC) 4996:04:32, 22 April 2018 (UTC) 4982:04:21, 22 April 2018 (UTC) 4960:04:17, 22 April 2018 (UTC) 4939:03:30, 22 April 2018 (UTC) 4903:02:57, 22 April 2018 (UTC) 4872:03:33, 22 April 2018 (UTC) 4854:14:17, 21 April 2018 (UTC) 4822:16:49, 20 April 2018 (UTC) 4791:17:48, 21 April 2018 (UTC) 4765:11:53, 18 April 2018 (UTC) 4751:17:21, 16 April 2018 (UTC) 4736:14:53, 16 April 2018 (UTC) 4702:00:03, 18 April 2018 (UTC) 4662:08:13, 14 April 2018 (UTC) 4641:17:43, 13 April 2018 (UTC) 4540:06:55, 31 March 2018 (UTC) 4525:18:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4504:17:57, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4476:17:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4453:17:49, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4422:17:48, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4396:17:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4381:17:09, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4360:17:39, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4337:16:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4315:15:22, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4294:17:45, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4271:16:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4245:14:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4206:18:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4192:17:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4169:16:35, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4148:14:25, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4120:14:15, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4095:14:12, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4067:13:58, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4038:13:43, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 4015:For some reason, it's at " 4006:12:33, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 3981:09:45, 11 April 2018 (UTC) 3912:04:53, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 3899:01:23, 28 March 2018 (UTC) 3881:21:18, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 3866:21:10, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 3856:18:04, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 3837:00:23, 27 March 2018 (UTC) 3822:22:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC) 3812:a 'page move' discussion. 3806:08:06, 26 March 2018 (UTC) 3785:07:27, 26 March 2018 (UTC) 3763:06:44, 26 March 2018 (UTC) 3742:22:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 3716:20:30, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 3690:19:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 3670:19:44, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 3618:19:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 3602:14:03, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 3572:13:50, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 3551:12:59, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 3520:11:45, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 3468:10:58, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 3443:10:24, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 3424:09:12, 25 March 2018 (UTC) 3389:01:46, 24 March 2018 (UTC) 3367:22:00, 23 March 2018 (UTC) 3338:21:39, 23 March 2018 (UTC) 3323:22:43, 22 March 2018 (UTC) 3309:22:00, 22 March 2018 (UTC) 3287:19:57, 22 March 2018 (UTC) 3272:18:54, 22 March 2018 (UTC) 3248:08:24, 23 March 2018 (UTC) 3233:00:18, 23 March 2018 (UTC) 3198:09:45, 19 March 2018 (UTC) 3169:23:29, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 3150:20:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 3131:17:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 3105:17:07, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 3083:17:58, 16 March 2018 (UTC) 3061:17:34, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 3032:13:07, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 3008:17:23, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 2979:10:03, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 2956:09:58, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 2931:17:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 2905:16:26, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 2876:15:25, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 2853:09:39, 15 March 2018 (UTC) 2830:17:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 2811:15:15, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 2797:14:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 2779:13:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 2762:12:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 2732:12:27, 14 March 2018 (UTC) 2675:07:06, 10 March 2018 (UTC) 2619:rather circular discussion 533:election. That's my take. 4678:Talk:Trump–Russia dossier 4602:19:34, 3 April 2018 (UTC) 4563:18:19, 3 April 2018 (UTC) 3965:20:36, 8 April 2018 (UTC) 3942:07:14, 2 April 2018 (UTC) 2648:14:11, 1 March 2018 (UTC) 2212:President before election 2205: 2185: 2072: 1929: 1914:7 May 2017 (second round) 1900: 1888: 1825: 1812: 1669: 1623: 1611: 1520:| percentage_firstround = 735:I essentially agree with 3791:Changes to the beginning 2343:single transferable vote 2339:Transferable vote system 1587:, if this is acceptable: 1249:Please do not modify it. 148:Please do not modify it. 5228:23:08, 5 May 2018 (UTC) 5205:14:20, 3 May 2018 (UTC) 5150:There is an RfC at the 4920:removing "Soviet Union" 4426:I'd be okay with it if 3581:" is more common than " 3505:Definition of Barbudian 3431:since the 1981 election 2546:Manchester Evening News 1877:Shouldn't this be too? 4383: 3647:hundreds more examples 3500:Definition of Antiguan 2329:Here is a true thing: 4913:Montenegrin elections 4803:a deletion discussion 4372: 3585:" by a factor of 20. 2836:neutral point of view 2737:Survey and discussion 2351:instant-runoff voting 2335:instant-runoff voting 1464:simple yet incomplete 1303:elections, which are 42:of past discussions. 5107:Elections in Estonia 4252:previously suggested 4076:to clear this out. – 3022:victory is larger). 2834:Because providing a 2596:The Vintage Feminist 2575:The Vintage Feminist 2374:ranked-choice voting 2366:ranked voting system 2356:ranked choice voting 1462:simple. Now they're 900:Thanks for the tag, 254:Does this matter? -- 4801:There is currently 3730:Montseratt Reporter 3559:Antigua and Barbuda 2699:outcome due to the 2659:Ileana Ros-Lehtinen 2626:Hong Kong elections 2397:preferential voting 2391:Oh, also, there is 2370:Preferential voting 2361:preferential voting 1885: 1608: 1496:as we did with the 1418:as we did with the 439:Threaded discussion 5099:Estonian elections 4888:Croatian elections 4832:Estonian elections 4303:at this discussion 3726:about the election 2441:Sport and politics 2101:Jean-Luc Mélenchon 1512:| states_carried = 1305:ridculously common 1282:| states_carried = 984:FriendlyDataNerdV2 910:FriendlyDataNerdV2 705:FriendlyDataNerdV2 376:FriendlyDataNerdV2 351:case-by-case basis 149: 5182:Dan DeBono (SEAL) 4616:indirect election 2996:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 2476:Not in my name! 2333:is a redirect to 2331:transferable vote 2250: 2249: 2246: 2245: 2242: 2241: 2227:Elected President 2217:François Hollande 2181: 2180: 1925: 1924: 1872: 1871: 1868: 1867: 1808: 1807: 1648: 1647: 1201: 1111: 1059: 1011: 975: 939: 874: 794: 658: 566: 518: 498:WP:LOCALCONSENSUS 353:at most), as per 268: 211: 147: 100: 99: 54: 53: 48:current talk page 5234: 5196: 5193: 5174: 5164: 5146:RfC notification 5129: 5125:Soviet elections 5123: 5118: 5114:Soviet elections 5112: 5103: 5097: 5050: 5045: 5040: 5014: 5009: 5004: 4979: 4974: 4969: 4936: 4931: 4926: 4917: 4911: 4892: 4886: 4851: 4846: 4841: 4836: 4830: 4819: 4814: 4809: 4787: 4782: 4777: 4733: 4728: 4723: 4700: 4690: 4659: 4654: 4649: 4637: 4632: 4627: 4599: 4594: 4589: 4559: 4554: 4549: 4501: 4496: 4491: 4486: 4449: 4444: 4439: 4419: 4414: 4409: 4356: 4351: 4346: 4334: 4329: 4324: 4290: 4285: 4280: 4268: 4263: 4258: 4241: 4236: 4231: 4188: 4183: 4178: 4166: 4161: 4156: 4144: 4139: 4134: 4117: 4112: 4107: 4091: 4086: 4081: 4064: 4059: 4054: 4048:ubiquitous usage 4034: 4029: 4024: 3782: 3777: 3772: 3713: 3708: 3703: 3667: 3662: 3657: 3649:on Google Books. 3639:on Google books. 3599: 3594: 3589: 3548: 3543: 3538: 3465: 3460: 3455: 3213:Liberal Democrat 3123:NewsAndEventsGuy 3075:NewsAndEventsGuy 2971:NewsAndEventsGuy 2923:NewsAndEventsGuy 2822:NewsAndEventsGuy 2789:NewsAndEventsGuy 2754:NewsAndEventsGuy 2724:NewsAndEventsGuy 2717:Prior discussion 2645: 2640: 2635: 2630: 2624: 2557: 2555: 2553: 2486:Drew Gray Miller 2414: 2377:problematic. -- 2368:, which begins " 2289: 2284: 2279: 2208: 2191: 2103: 2091: 2084: 1954: 1947: 1940: 1931: 1930: 1902: 1901: 1895: 1894: 1893: 1886: 1828: 1818: 1694: 1687: 1680: 1671: 1670: 1661: 1660: 1625: 1624: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1609: 1599: 1598: 1570: 1565: 1560: 1521: 1517: 1513: 1505: 1499: 1495: 1491:Infobox election 1489: 1442: 1437: 1432: 1427: 1421: 1417: 1413:Infobox election 1411: 1283: 1191: 1101: 1049: 1001: 965: 929: 907: 864: 847: 842: 837: 832: 784: 724: 719: 714: 708: 648: 643: 637: 556: 508: 430: 425: 420: 340: 294: 258: 248: 227: 201: 78: 56: 55: 33: 32: 26: 5242: 5241: 5237: 5236: 5235: 5233: 5232: 5231: 5212: 5194: 5191: 5185: 5167: 5160: 5148: 5127: 5121: 5116: 5110: 5101: 5095: 5048: 5043: 5038: 5012: 5007: 5002: 4977: 4972: 4967: 4934: 4929: 4924: 4915: 4909: 4890: 4884: 4849: 4844: 4839: 4834: 4828: 4817: 4812: 4807: 4799: 4785: 4780: 4775: 4731: 4726: 4721: 4709: 4693: 4686: 4674: 4657: 4652: 4647: 4635: 4630: 4625: 4597: 4592: 4587: 4557: 4552: 4547: 4499: 4494: 4489: 4480: 4447: 4442: 4437: 4417: 4412: 4407: 4354: 4349: 4344: 4332: 4327: 4322: 4288: 4283: 4278: 4266: 4261: 4256: 4239: 4234: 4229: 4186: 4181: 4176: 4164: 4159: 4154: 4142: 4137: 4132: 4115: 4110: 4105: 4089: 4084: 4079: 4062: 4057: 4052: 4032: 4027: 4022: 3989: 3949: 3926: 3844: 3793: 3780: 3775: 3770: 3711: 3706: 3701: 3665: 3660: 3655: 3597: 3592: 3587: 3546: 3541: 3536: 3463: 3458: 3453: 3401: 3381:Red Rock Canyon 3330:Red Rock Canyon 3301:Red Rock Canyon 3256: 3205: 3177: 2739: 2682: 2655: 2643: 2638: 2633: 2628: 2622: 2612: 2551: 2549: 2538: 2528: 2456: 2433: 2416: 2327: 2287: 2282: 2277: 2232:Emmanuel Macron 2201: 2196:Emmanuel Macron 2152:2nd Round vote 2130:1st Round vote 2099: 2037:2nd Round vote 2001:1st Round vote 1975:François Fillon 1964:Emmanuel Macron 1891: 1889: 1835:before election 1821: 1773:2nd Round vote 1741:1st Round vote 1614: 1612: 1568: 1563: 1558: 1503: 1497: 1493: 1487: 1440: 1435: 1430: 1425: 1419: 1415: 1409: 1258: 1253: 1252: 1185:from this point 1138:And also this: 901: 845: 840: 835: 822: 722: 717: 712: 682: 641: 635: 441: 428: 423: 418: 338: 292: 246: 217: 167: 152: 143: 142: 141: 105: 74: 30: 22: 21: 20: 12: 11: 5: 5240: 5238: 5211: 5208: 5184: 5179: 5147: 5144: 5143: 5142: 5090: 5089: 5088: 5087: 5086: 5085: 5084: 5083: 5082: 5081: 5080: 5079: 5078: 5077: 5076: 5075: 5074: 5073: 4877: 4876: 4875: 4874: 4798: 4795: 4794: 4793: 4769: 4768: 4767: 4708: 4705: 4673: 4670: 4669: 4668: 4667: 4666: 4665: 4664: 4608: 4509: 4508: 4507: 4506: 4455: 4424: 4365: 4364: 4363: 4362: 4299: 4298: 4297: 4296: 4223: 4222: 4221: 4220: 4219: 4218: 4217: 4216: 4215: 4214: 4213: 4212: 4211: 4210: 4209: 4208: 4013: 3988: 3985: 3984: 3983: 3948: 3945: 3925: 3922: 3921: 3920: 3919: 3918: 3917: 3916: 3915: 3914: 3843: 3840: 3825: 3824: 3792: 3789: 3788: 3787: 3747: 3746: 3745: 3744: 3719: 3718: 3673: 3672: 3652: 3651: 3650: 3640: 3630: 3605: 3604: 3554: 3553: 3508: 3507: 3502: 3473: 3472: 3471: 3470: 3412: 3411: 3408: 3400: 3395: 3394: 3393: 3392: 3391: 3346: 3345: 3344: 3343: 3342: 3341: 3340: 3255: 3252: 3251: 3250: 3204: 3201: 3192: 3190: 3189: 3185: 3184: 3176: 3173: 3172: 3171: 3157: 3156: 3155: 3154: 3153: 3152: 3108: 3107: 3088: 3087: 3086: 3085: 3064: 3063: 3049:Spoiler effect 3034: 3015: 3014: 3013: 3012: 3011: 3010: 2984: 2959: 2958: 2936: 2935: 2934: 2933: 2908: 2907: 2878: 2864: 2863: 2862: 2861: 2860: 2859: 2858: 2857: 2856: 2855: 2782: 2781: 2764: 2751:Spoiler effect 2738: 2735: 2721: 2720: 2713: 2712: 2705: 2704: 2701:Spoiler effect 2693: 2681: 2678: 2654: 2651: 2611: 2608: 2607: 2606: 2559: 2558: 2527: 2524: 2523: 2522: 2490: 2489: 2483: 2455: 2452: 2432: 2429: 2415: 2412: 2326: 2323: 2322: 2321: 2320: 2319: 2318: 2317: 2316: 2315: 2314: 2313: 2312: 2311: 2310: 2309: 2248: 2247: 2244: 2243: 2240: 2239: 2234: 2229: 2224: 2219: 2214: 2206: 2203: 2202: 2194: 2192: 2186: 2183: 2182: 2179: 2178: 2173: 2168: 2164: 2163: 2158: 2153: 2149: 2148: 2145: 2142: 2138: 2137: 2134: 2131: 2127: 2126: 2121: 2116: 2112: 2111: 2109: 2104: 2097: 2093: 2092: 2085: 2078: 2075: 2074: 2073: 2070: 2069: 2064: 2061: 2056: 2052: 2051: 2046: 2043: 2038: 2034: 2033: 2030: 2025: 2020: 2016: 2015: 2012: 2007: 2002: 1998: 1997: 1992: 1987: 1982: 1978: 1977: 1972: 1967: 1960: 1956: 1955: 1948: 1941: 1934: 1927: 1926: 1923: 1922: 1916: 1913: 1909: 1898: 1897: 1896: 1879: 1878: 1874: 1873: 1870: 1869: 1866: 1865: 1860: 1855: 1847: 1842: 1837: 1826: 1823: 1822: 1819: 1813: 1810: 1809: 1806: 1805: 1800: 1797: 1792: 1788: 1787: 1782: 1779: 1774: 1770: 1769: 1766: 1763: 1758: 1754: 1753: 1750: 1747: 1742: 1738: 1737: 1732: 1727: 1722: 1718: 1717: 1712: 1707: 1700: 1696: 1695: 1688: 1681: 1674: 1667: 1666: 1654: 1650: 1649: 1646: 1645: 1637: 1632: 1621: 1620: 1619: 1597: 1596: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1591: 1590: 1589: 1588: 1581: 1554: 1551: 1548: 1530: 1529: 1528: 1483: 1482: 1481: 1473: 1472: 1471: 1448: 1447: 1404: 1403: 1402: 1401: 1400: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1347: 1346: 1330: 1329: 1257: 1254: 1246: 1245: 1244: 1228: 1227: 1226: 1225: 1224: 1223: 1222: 1221: 1220: 1219: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1214: 1213: 1212: 1211: 1210: 1209: 1208: 1207: 1206: 1205: 1162: 1161: 1160: 1156: 1153: 1150: 1144: 1136: 1130: 1124: 1118: 1072: 1068: 1023: 1022: 1021: 1020: 1019: 1018: 1017: 1016: 1015: 887: 886: 885: 884: 883: 882: 881: 880: 879: 878: 854: 853: 852: 775: 774: 753:Agreeing with 751: 730: 729: 710:this in mind. 675: 674: 673: 672: 671: 670: 669: 668: 667: 666: 665: 664: 663: 662: 603: 571: 570: 546: 545: 523: 522: 478: 477: 462: 440: 437: 436: 435: 403: 386: 369: 344: 336: 311: 310: 309: 300: 299: 298: 290: 244: 215: 187:Strong support 184: 166: 163: 153: 144: 109: 108: 107: 106: 104: 101: 98: 97: 92: 89: 84: 79: 72: 67: 62: 52: 51: 34: 23: 15: 14: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 5239: 5230: 5229: 5225: 5221: 5220:Charles Essie 5217: 5209: 5207: 5206: 5202: 5198: 5197: 5183: 5180: 5178: 5177: 5173: 5170: 5165: 5163: 5157: 5153: 5145: 5141: 5137: 5133: 5126: 5115: 5108: 5100: 5092: 5091: 5072: 5068: 5064: 5060: 5056: 5055: 5054: 5051: 5046: 5041: 5034: 5033: 5032: 5028: 5024: 5020: 5019: 5018: 5015: 5010: 5005: 4999: 4998: 4997: 4993: 4989: 4985: 4984: 4983: 4980: 4975: 4970: 4963: 4962: 4961: 4957: 4953: 4949: 4946: 4942: 4941: 4940: 4937: 4932: 4927: 4921: 4914: 4906: 4905: 4904: 4900: 4896: 4889: 4882: 4879: 4878: 4873: 4869: 4865: 4861: 4857: 4856: 4855: 4852: 4847: 4842: 4833: 4826: 4825: 4824: 4823: 4820: 4815: 4810: 4804: 4796: 4792: 4789: 4788: 4783: 4778: 4770: 4766: 4762: 4758: 4754: 4753: 4752: 4748: 4744: 4740: 4739: 4738: 4737: 4734: 4729: 4724: 4717: 4715: 4706: 4704: 4703: 4699: 4696: 4691: 4689: 4683: 4679: 4671: 4663: 4660: 4655: 4650: 4644: 4643: 4642: 4639: 4638: 4633: 4628: 4621: 4617: 4614:? This is an 4613: 4609: 4605: 4604: 4603: 4600: 4595: 4590: 4584: 4580: 4576: 4572: 4567: 4566: 4565: 4564: 4561: 4560: 4555: 4550: 4542: 4541: 4537: 4533: 4527: 4526: 4522: 4518: 4514: 4505: 4502: 4497: 4492: 4484: 4479: 4478: 4477: 4473: 4469: 4465: 4460: 4456: 4454: 4451: 4450: 4445: 4440: 4433: 4429: 4425: 4423: 4420: 4415: 4410: 4404: 4400: 4399: 4398: 4397: 4393: 4389: 4382: 4380: 4378: 4371: 4370: 4361: 4358: 4357: 4352: 4347: 4340: 4339: 4338: 4335: 4330: 4325: 4319: 4318: 4317: 4316: 4312: 4308: 4304: 4295: 4292: 4291: 4286: 4281: 4274: 4273: 4272: 4269: 4264: 4259: 4253: 4249: 4248: 4247: 4246: 4243: 4242: 4237: 4232: 4207: 4203: 4199: 4195: 4194: 4193: 4190: 4189: 4184: 4179: 4172: 4171: 4170: 4167: 4162: 4157: 4151: 4150: 4149: 4146: 4145: 4140: 4135: 4128: 4123: 4122: 4121: 4118: 4113: 4108: 4102: 4098: 4097: 4096: 4093: 4092: 4087: 4082: 4075: 4070: 4069: 4068: 4065: 4060: 4055: 4049: 4045: 4041: 4040: 4039: 4036: 4035: 4030: 4025: 4018: 4014: 4010: 4009: 4008: 4007: 4003: 3999: 3995: 3986: 3982: 3978: 3974: 3969: 3968: 3967: 3966: 3962: 3958: 3954: 3946: 3944: 3943: 3939: 3935: 3931: 3923: 3913: 3910: 3906: 3902: 3901: 3900: 3896: 3892: 3888: 3884: 3883: 3882: 3878: 3874: 3869: 3868: 3867: 3864: 3860: 3859: 3858: 3857: 3853: 3849: 3841: 3839: 3838: 3834: 3830: 3823: 3819: 3815: 3810: 3809: 3808: 3807: 3803: 3799: 3790: 3786: 3783: 3778: 3773: 3767: 3766: 3765: 3764: 3760: 3756: 3751: 3743: 3739: 3735: 3731: 3727: 3723: 3722: 3721: 3720: 3717: 3714: 3709: 3704: 3698: 3697:WP:COMMONNAME 3694: 3693: 3692: 3691: 3687: 3683: 3677: 3671: 3668: 3663: 3658: 3653: 3648: 3644: 3641: 3638: 3634: 3631: 3628: 3625: 3624: 3622: 3621: 3620: 3619: 3615: 3611: 3603: 3600: 3595: 3590: 3584: 3580: 3576: 3575: 3574: 3573: 3569: 3565: 3560: 3552: 3549: 3544: 3539: 3533: 3529: 3524: 3523: 3522: 3521: 3517: 3513: 3506: 3503: 3501: 3498: 3497: 3496: 3492: 3490: 3486: 3482: 3478: 3469: 3466: 3461: 3456: 3450: 3446: 3445: 3444: 3440: 3436: 3432: 3428: 3427: 3426: 3425: 3421: 3417: 3409: 3406: 3405: 3404: 3399: 3396: 3390: 3386: 3382: 3378: 3374: 3370: 3369: 3368: 3364: 3360: 3356: 3351: 3347: 3339: 3335: 3331: 3326: 3325: 3324: 3320: 3316: 3312: 3311: 3310: 3306: 3302: 3298: 3294: 3290: 3289: 3288: 3284: 3280: 3276: 3275: 3274: 3273: 3269: 3265: 3261: 3260:like this one 3253: 3249: 3245: 3241: 3237: 3236: 3235: 3234: 3230: 3226: 3221: 3218: 3214: 3210: 3202: 3200: 3199: 3196: 3187: 3186: 3182: 3181: 3180: 3174: 3170: 3167: 3162: 3159: 3158: 3151: 3147: 3143: 3139: 3134: 3133: 3132: 3128: 3124: 3120: 3116: 3112: 3111: 3110: 3109: 3106: 3102: 3098: 3093: 3090: 3089: 3084: 3080: 3076: 3073: 3068: 3067: 3066: 3065: 3062: 3058: 3054: 3050: 3046: 3042: 3038: 3035: 3033: 3029: 3025: 3020: 3017: 3016: 3009: 3005: 3001: 2997: 2993: 2992:United Future 2989: 2985: 2982: 2981: 2980: 2976: 2972: 2967: 2966:"actual vote" 2963: 2962: 2961: 2960: 2957: 2953: 2949: 2945: 2941: 2938: 2937: 2932: 2928: 2924: 2920: 2916: 2912: 2911: 2910: 2909: 2906: 2903: 2902: 2901: 2897: 2896: 2890: 2889:governor race 2886: 2882: 2879: 2877: 2874: 2869: 2866: 2865: 2854: 2850: 2846: 2841: 2837: 2833: 2832: 2831: 2827: 2823: 2819: 2814: 2813: 2812: 2808: 2804: 2800: 2799: 2798: 2794: 2790: 2786: 2785: 2784: 2783: 2780: 2776: 2772: 2768: 2765: 2763: 2759: 2755: 2752: 2748: 2744: 2741: 2740: 2736: 2734: 2733: 2729: 2725: 2718: 2715: 2714: 2710: 2707: 2706: 2703: 2702: 2696: 2695: 2694: 2690: 2688: 2679: 2677: 2676: 2672: 2668: 2664: 2660: 2652: 2650: 2649: 2646: 2641: 2636: 2627: 2620: 2616: 2609: 2605: 2601: 2597: 2593: 2592: 2587: 2586: 2585: 2584: 2580: 2576: 2572: 2571: 2566: 2565: 2548: 2547: 2542: 2537: 2536: 2535: 2533: 2525: 2521: 2517: 2513: 2509: 2505: 2504: 2503: 2502: 2498: 2494: 2487: 2484: 2482: 2479: 2478: 2477: 2474: 2470: 2466: 2463: 2460: 2453: 2451: 2450: 2446: 2442: 2438: 2430: 2428: 2427: 2424: 2421: 2411: 2410: 2406: 2402: 2398: 2394: 2393:ranked voting 2389: 2388: 2384: 2380: 2375: 2371: 2367: 2362: 2358: 2357: 2352: 2348: 2344: 2341:redirects to 2340: 2336: 2332: 2324: 2308: 2304: 2300: 2295: 2294: 2293: 2290: 2285: 2280: 2273: 2272: 2271: 2267: 2263: 2260: 2259: 2258: 2257: 2256: 2255: 2254: 2253: 2252: 2251: 2238: 2237: 2233: 2228: 2225: 2223: 2222: 2218: 2213: 2210: 2209: 2204: 2200: 2199:Marine Le Pen 2197: 2190: 2184: 2177: 2174: 2172: 2169: 2166: 2165: 2162: 2159: 2157: 2154: 2151: 2150: 2146: 2143: 2140: 2139: 2135: 2132: 2129: 2128: 2125: 2122: 2120: 2117: 2114: 2113: 2110: 2108: 2105: 2102: 2098: 2095: 2094: 2090: 2086: 2083: 2079: 2077: 2076: 2071: 2068: 2065: 2062: 2060: 2057: 2054: 2053: 2050: 2047: 2044: 2042: 2039: 2036: 2035: 2031: 2029: 2026: 2024: 2021: 2018: 2017: 2013: 2011: 2008: 2006: 2003: 2000: 1999: 1996: 1993: 1991: 1988: 1986: 1983: 1980: 1979: 1976: 1973: 1971: 1970:Marine Le Pen 1968: 1966: 1965: 1961: 1958: 1957: 1953: 1949: 1946: 1942: 1939: 1935: 1933: 1932: 1928: 1920: 1917: 1915: 1910: 1908: 1904: 1903: 1899: 1887: 1881: 1880: 1876: 1875: 1864: 1863: 1859: 1854: 1853: 1848: 1846: 1845: 1841: 1840:Boris Johnson 1836: 1834: 1830: 1829: 1824: 1817: 1811: 1804: 1801: 1798: 1796: 1793: 1790: 1789: 1786: 1783: 1780: 1778: 1775: 1772: 1771: 1767: 1764: 1762: 1759: 1756: 1755: 1751: 1748: 1746: 1743: 1740: 1739: 1736: 1733: 1731: 1728: 1726: 1723: 1720: 1719: 1716: 1713: 1711: 1710:Zac Goldsmith 1708: 1706: 1705: 1701: 1698: 1697: 1693: 1689: 1686: 1682: 1679: 1675: 1673: 1672: 1668: 1665: 1655: 1651: 1643: 1642: 1638: 1636: 1633: 1631: 1627: 1626: 1622: 1610: 1604: 1601: 1600: 1586: 1583:(d) Because, 1582: 1580: 1576: 1575: 1574: 1571: 1566: 1561: 1555: 1552: 1549: 1546: 1545: 1544: 1543: 1542: 1538: 1534: 1531: 1525: 1509: 1508: 1507: 1502: 1492: 1484: 1479: 1478: 1477: 1474: 1469: 1465: 1461: 1457: 1456: 1455: 1452: 1451: 1450: 1449: 1446: 1443: 1438: 1433: 1424: 1414: 1406: 1405: 1396: 1392: 1388: 1384: 1383: 1382: 1378: 1374: 1370: 1365: 1364: 1363: 1359: 1355: 1351: 1350: 1349: 1348: 1345: 1341: 1337: 1332: 1331: 1327: 1323: 1322: 1321: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1306: 1302: 1298: 1294: 1289: 1287: 1279: 1275: 1271: 1266: 1264: 1255: 1250: 1243: 1239: 1235: 1230: 1229: 1204: 1199: 1195: 1190: 1186: 1182: 1178: 1177: 1176: 1172: 1168: 1163: 1157: 1154: 1151: 1148: 1147: 1145: 1142: 1137: 1134: 1131: 1128: 1125: 1122: 1119: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1109: 1105: 1100: 1096: 1092: 1088: 1087: 1086: 1082: 1078: 1073: 1069: 1067: 1064: 1063: 1062: 1057: 1053: 1048: 1043: 1042: 1041: 1037: 1033: 1028: 1024: 1014: 1009: 1005: 1000: 995: 994: 993: 989: 985: 980: 979: 978: 973: 969: 964: 959: 958: 957: 953: 949: 944: 943: 942: 937: 933: 928: 924: 921: 920: 919: 915: 911: 905: 899: 898: 897: 896: 895: 894: 893: 892: 891: 890: 889: 888: 877: 872: 868: 863: 859: 858:going forward 855: 851: 848: 843: 838: 830: 826: 821: 820: 819: 818: 817: 813: 809: 804: 799: 798: 797: 792: 788: 783: 779: 778: 777: 776: 773: 769: 765: 760: 756: 752: 750: 746: 742: 738: 734: 733: 732: 731: 728: 725: 720: 715: 706: 702: 698: 694: 690: 686: 680: 677: 676: 661: 656: 652: 647: 640: 633: 632: 631: 627: 623: 619: 618: 617: 613: 609: 604: 601: 596: 593: 592: 591: 587: 583: 578: 573: 572: 569: 564: 560: 555: 550: 549: 548: 547: 544: 540: 536: 532: 527: 526: 525: 524: 521: 516: 512: 507: 503: 502:going forward 499: 495: 494: 493: 489: 485: 480: 479: 475: 471: 467: 463: 461: 457: 453: 448: 443: 442: 438: 434: 431: 426: 421: 415: 411: 407: 404: 402: 398: 394: 390: 387: 385: 381: 377: 373: 370: 368: 364: 360: 356: 352: 348: 345: 343: 333: 330: 327: 326: 319: 315: 312: 308: 305: 301: 297: 287: 284: 281: 280: 273: 272: 271: 266: 262: 257: 253: 252: 251: 241: 238: 235: 234: 225: 221: 216: 214: 209: 205: 200: 196: 192: 188: 185: 183: 180: 176: 172: 169: 168: 164: 162: 161: 158: 151: 140: 136: 132: 127: 125: 121: 117: 112: 102: 96: 93: 90: 88: 85: 83: 80: 77: 73: 71: 68: 66: 63: 61: 58: 57: 49: 45: 41: 40: 35: 28: 27: 19: 5213: 5210:New category 5189: 5186: 5159: 5149: 5058: 4943:Apparently, 4800: 4773: 4718: 4710: 4685: 4675: 4623: 4619: 4545: 4543: 4528: 4510: 4435: 4384: 4373: 4366: 4342: 4300: 4276: 4227: 4224: 4174: 4130: 4126: 4077: 4044:a discussion 4020: 3990: 3950: 3927: 3891:Kart2401real 3848:Kart2401real 3845: 3826: 3794: 3752: 3748: 3725: 3678: 3674: 3606: 3555: 3509: 3493: 3474: 3430: 3413: 3403:Two points: 3402: 3349: 3264:Kart2401real 3257: 3222: 3217:Welsh Labour 3206: 3191: 3178: 3160: 3114: 3091: 3044: 3036: 3018: 2965: 2939: 2918: 2914: 2899: 2894: 2892: 2880: 2867: 2840:undue weight 2817: 2766: 2746: 2742: 2722: 2716: 2708: 2697: 2691: 2686: 2683: 2656: 2613: 2589: 2568: 2562: 2561:Details are 2560: 2550:. Retrieved 2544: 2529: 2507: 2491: 2475: 2471: 2467: 2464: 2461: 2457: 2434: 2417: 2390: 2373: 2369: 2354: 2328: 2230: 2226: 2215: 2211: 2175: 2170: 2160: 2155: 2107:Benoît Hamon 2066: 2058: 2048: 2040: 2027: 2022: 2009: 2004: 1962: 1911: 1856: 1849: 1844:Conservative 1838: 1831: 1802: 1794: 1784: 1776: 1760: 1744: 1730:Conservative 1702: 1640: 1634: 1485: 1475: 1463: 1459: 1453: 1309: 1304: 1301:presidential 1300: 1296: 1292: 1290: 1285: 1267: 1259: 1248: 1184: 1180: 1129:(Bondegezou) 1094: 1090: 857: 802: 678: 580:universal). 576: 530: 501: 473: 405: 388: 371: 350: 346: 324: 313: 304:GoldRingChip 278: 232: 220:GoldRingChip 186: 179:GoldRingChip 170: 157:GoldRingChip 154: 145: 115: 113: 110: 75: 43: 37: 3873:Ad Orientem 2845:Anywikiuser 2803:Anywikiuser 2771:Anywikiuser 2552:22 February 2325:STV and IRV 2167:Percentage 2141:Percentage 2055:Percentage 2045:10,638,475 2019:Percentage 1791:Percentage 1757:Percentage 1522:., and the 1297:legislative 1143:(Mélencron) 1141:appropriate 1123:(Mélencron) 447:WP:SALORDER 325:SMcCandlish 318:WP:SALORDER 279:SMcCandlish 233:SMcCandlish 195:WP:SALORDER 191:WP:SALORDER 175:WP:SALORDER 36:This is an 4945:User:Bbb23 4757:Bondegezou 4610:How about 4457:First, as 4369:as follows 3973:Bondegezou 3957:Bondegezou 3240:Bondegezou 3193:Thanks! – 3142:Bondegezou 3053:Bondegezou 3000:Bondegezou 2948:Bondegezou 2687:US-focused 2512:Bondegezou 2423:The N User 2176:Eliminated 2171:Eliminated 2161:Eliminated 2156:Eliminated 2136:2,291,288 2133:7,059,951 2067:Eliminated 2049:Eliminated 2041:20,743,128 2014:7,212,995 1858:Sadiq Khan 1803:Eliminated 1785:Eliminated 1715:Siân Berry 1704:Sadiq Khan 1699:Candidate 1635:5 May 2016 1307:, should. 1295:two round 1286:two-thirds 1234:Bondegezou 1027:WP:NOTNEWS 923:WP:NOTNEWS 689:Timeshift9 622:BoogaLouie 608:Bondegezou 95:Archive 20 87:Archive 15 82:Archive 14 76:Archive 13 70:Archive 12 65:Archive 11 60:Archive 10 4860:WP:CANVAS 4743:Mélencron 4707:Bar boxes 4483:ColinFine 4468:ColinFine 4464:WP:ENGVAR 4459:Number 57 4101:WP:NC-GAL 3637:Barbudian 3583:Barbudian 3449:WP:NC-GAL 3315:Mélencron 3279:Mélencron 3024:Mélencron 2900:Nidhiki05 2801:So what? 2692:Question 2493:Rauterkus 2010:7,678,491 2005:8,656,346 1777:1,310,143 1745:1,148,716 1585:Number 57 1468:Number 57 1373:Mélencron 948:Mélencron 904:Number 57 759:WP:IGNORE 755:Mélencron 737:Mélencron 595:Mélencron 582:Mélencron 535:Mélencron 484:Mélencron 452:Mélencron 393:Mélencron 355:Mélencron 189:, as per 4513:WP:POINT 4403:WP:POINT 3909:Reywas92 3863:Reywas92 3633:Barbudan 3579:Barbudan 3414:Thanks. 3373:LA Times 3355:WP:SYNTH 3166:Reywas92 3119:WP:FORUM 2532:Momentum 2347:FairVote 2096:Nominee 1959:Nominee 1850:Elected 1781:994,614 1752:150,673 1749:909,755 1458:They'll 1194:contribs 1181:multiple 1135:(Myself) 1104:contribs 1052:contribs 1025:How has 1004:contribs 968:contribs 932:contribs 867:contribs 829:Clesam11 787:contribs 741:Clesam11 701:Nub Cake 697:Ron 1987 693:Clesam11 651:contribs 559:contribs 511:contribs 474:articles 261:contribs 204:contribs 116:sortable 4532:WTKitty 4517:WTKitty 4432:WP:LEAD 4388:WTKitty 4307:WTKitty 3998:WTKitty 3829:WTKitty 3798:WTKitty 3755:WTKitty 3682:WTKitty 3610:WTKitty 3564:WTKitty 3512:WTKitty 3416:WTKitty 3359:Impru20 3097:altjira 3037:Comment 2919:obvious 2818:so what 2709:Options 2667:Nomader 2395:. And 2299:Glide08 2262:Glide08 1653:Turnout 1533:Glide08 1527:count). 1387:Glide08 1354:Glide08 1326:Glide08 1311:Glide08 1274:Ukraine 1268:So, if 1167:Impru20 1077:Impru20 1032:Impru20 825:Impru20 808:Impru20 764:Impru20 703:, and 685:Impru20 679:Comment 359:Impru20 314:Forward 171:Support 39:archive 5154:found 5039:Number 5003:Number 4968:Number 4925:Number 4840:Number 4808:Number 4722:Number 4648:Number 4588:Number 4490:Number 4408:Number 4323:Number 4257:Number 4155:Number 4127:either 4106:Number 4053:Number 3903:Leave 3771:Number 3702:Number 3656:Number 3588:Number 3537:Number 3454:Number 3377:SFGATE 3297:here's 3293:here's 3195:Lionel 3175:How To 3045:always 2747:always 2634:Number 2615:Lmmhnh 2278:Number 2144:19.6% 2115:Party 2063:33.9% 2032:20.0% 1981:Party 1862:Labour 1799:43.2% 1765:35.0% 1725:Labour 1721:Party 1656:45.3% 1559:Number 1460:remain 1431:Number 1336:Rhadow 1324:Hello 1189:IJBall 1099:IJBall 1095:should 1047:IJBall 999:IJBall 963:IJBall 927:IJBall 862:IJBall 836:Number 782:IJBall 713:Number 646:IJBall 600:IJBall 577:future 554:IJBall 506:IJBall 466:IJBall 419:Number 389:Oppose 339:ⱷ< 316:, per 293:ⱷ< 256:IJBall 247:ⱷ< 224:IJBall 199:IJBall 173:, per 165:Survey 5162:-- ψλ 4688:-- ψλ 4428:WP:RS 4377:Henry 4198:Sionk 3934:Soman 3814:Sionk 3734:Sionk 3435:Sionk 3225:Sionk 2868:Other 2787:So? 2147:6.4% 2059:66.1% 2028:21.3% 2023:24.0% 1852:Mayor 1833:Mayor 1795:56.8% 1768:5.8% 1761:44.2% 1735:Green 1278:Chile 1159:basis 334:: --> 288:: --> 242:: --> 131:Alsee 16:< 5224:talk 5201:talk 5195:ekim 5192:cier 5190:Dloh 5156:here 5136:talk 5067:talk 5061:. -- 5027:talk 4992:talk 4956:talk 4899:talk 4868:talk 4862:. -- 4761:talk 4747:talk 4714:here 4607:too? 4536:talk 4521:talk 4472:talk 4392:talk 4311:talk 4202:talk 4002:talk 3977:talk 3961:talk 3938:talk 3932:. -- 3928:see 3895:talk 3877:talk 3852:talk 3833:talk 3818:talk 3802:talk 3759:talk 3738:talk 3686:talk 3614:talk 3568:talk 3532:this 3516:talk 3439:talk 3420:talk 3385:talk 3375:and 3363:talk 3334:talk 3319:talk 3305:talk 3283:talk 3268:talk 3244:talk 3229:talk 3209:Marl 3146:talk 3127:talk 3101:talk 3079:talk 3057:talk 3028:talk 3004:talk 2975:talk 2952:talk 2927:talk 2849:talk 2826:talk 2807:talk 2793:talk 2775:talk 2758:talk 2728:talk 2671:talk 2600:talk 2594:. -- 2591:here 2579:talk 2573:. -- 2570:here 2564:here 2554:2018 2516:talk 2497:talk 2445:talk 2437:here 2405:talk 2383:talk 2303:talk 2266:talk 1919:2022 1907:2012 1662:7.2 1641:2020 1630:2012 1537:talk 1518:and 1391:talk 1377:talk 1358:talk 1340:talk 1315:talk 1293:rare 1238:talk 1198:talk 1171:talk 1108:talk 1081:talk 1056:talk 1036:talk 1008:talk 988:talk 972:talk 952:talk 936:talk 914:talk 871:talk 827:and 812:talk 791:talk 768:talk 745:talk 655:talk 626:talk 612:talk 586:talk 563:talk 539:talk 531:2017 515:talk 488:talk 456:talk 414:here 410:here 397:talk 380:talk 363:talk 349:(or 265:talk 222:and 208:talk 135:talk 5132:Nug 5063:Nug 5023:Nug 4988:Nug 4952:Nug 4895:Nug 4864:Nug 4684:. 4434:. – 4129:. – 3635:vs 3534:). 3528:BBC 3350:not 3115:not 2915:say 2895:Toa 2887:or 2743:Yes 2508:are 2401:JBL 2379:JBL 2372:or 2353:as 2119:LFI 1276:or 1091:and 803:why 639:dts 464:Re 412:or 5226:) 5203:) 5166:● 5138:) 5128:}} 5122:{{ 5117:}} 5111:{{ 5102:}} 5096:{{ 5069:) 5029:) 4994:) 4958:) 4916:}} 4910:{{ 4901:) 4891:}} 4885:{{ 4870:) 4835:}} 4829:{{ 4763:) 4749:) 4692:● 4581:, 4538:) 4523:) 4474:) 4394:) 4313:) 4305:. 4204:) 4050:. 4004:) 3979:) 3963:) 3940:) 3897:) 3879:) 3854:) 3835:) 3820:) 3804:) 3761:) 3740:) 3688:) 3616:) 3570:) 3518:) 3487:, 3483:, 3479:, 3451:. 3441:) 3422:) 3387:) 3365:) 3357:. 3336:) 3321:) 3307:) 3285:) 3270:) 3246:) 3231:) 3161:No 3148:) 3129:) 3103:) 3092:No 3081:) 3059:) 3030:) 3019:No 3006:) 2977:) 2954:) 2946:. 2940:No 2929:) 2881:No 2873:TM 2851:) 2828:) 2809:) 2795:) 2777:) 2767:No 2760:) 2730:) 2673:) 2629:}} 2623:{{ 2602:) 2581:) 2543:. 2518:) 2499:) 2447:) 2407:) 2385:) 2305:) 2268:) 2236:EM 2221:PS 2124:PS 1995:LR 1990:FN 1985:EM 1905:← 1664:pp 1628:← 1539:) 1504:}} 1498:{{ 1494:}} 1488:{{ 1428:. 1426:}} 1420:{{ 1416:}} 1410:{{ 1393:) 1379:) 1360:) 1342:) 1317:) 1240:) 1196:• 1173:) 1106:• 1083:) 1054:• 1038:) 1006:• 990:) 970:• 954:) 934:• 916:) 869:• 814:) 789:• 770:) 747:) 699:, 695:, 691:, 687:, 653:• 642:}} 636:{{ 628:) 614:) 588:) 561:• 552:-- 541:) 513:• 490:) 468:: 458:) 399:) 382:) 365:) 335:ⱷ҅ 322:— 289:ⱷ҅ 276:— 263:• 243:ⱷ҅ 230:— 206:• 137:) 91:→ 5222:( 5199:( 5172:✓ 5169:✉ 5134:( 5065:( 5049:7 5044:5 5025:( 5013:7 5008:5 4990:( 4978:7 4973:5 4954:( 4935:7 4930:5 4897:( 4866:( 4850:7 4845:5 4818:7 4813:5 4786:D 4781:T 4776:H 4772:– 4759:( 4745:( 4732:7 4727:5 4698:✓ 4695:✉ 4658:7 4653:5 4636:D 4631:T 4626:H 4620:s 4598:7 4593:5 4558:D 4553:T 4548:H 4534:( 4519:( 4500:7 4495:5 4485:: 4481:@ 4470:( 4448:D 4443:T 4438:H 4418:7 4413:5 4390:( 4355:D 4350:T 4345:H 4333:7 4328:5 4309:( 4289:D 4284:T 4279:H 4267:7 4262:5 4240:D 4235:T 4230:H 4226:– 4200:( 4187:D 4182:T 4177:H 4165:7 4160:5 4143:D 4138:T 4133:H 4116:7 4111:5 4090:D 4085:T 4080:H 4063:7 4058:5 4033:D 4028:T 4023:H 4000:( 3975:( 3959:( 3936:( 3893:( 3875:( 3871:- 3850:( 3831:( 3816:( 3800:( 3781:7 3776:5 3757:( 3736:( 3712:7 3707:5 3684:( 3666:7 3661:5 3612:( 3598:7 3593:5 3566:( 3547:7 3542:5 3514:( 3464:7 3459:5 3437:( 3418:( 3383:( 3361:( 3332:( 3317:( 3303:( 3281:( 3266:( 3242:( 3227:( 3144:( 3125:( 3099:( 3077:( 3055:( 3026:( 3002:( 2973:( 2950:( 2925:( 2847:( 2824:( 2805:( 2791:( 2773:( 2756:( 2726:( 2669:( 2644:7 2639:5 2598:( 2577:( 2556:. 2514:( 2495:( 2443:( 2403:( 2381:( 2301:( 2288:7 2283:5 2264:( 1921:→ 1644:→ 1569:7 1564:5 1535:( 1506:. 1441:7 1436:5 1389:( 1375:( 1356:( 1338:( 1313:( 1236:( 1200:) 1192:( 1169:( 1110:) 1102:( 1079:( 1058:) 1050:( 1034:( 1010:) 1002:( 986:( 974:) 966:( 950:( 938:) 930:( 912:( 906:: 902:@ 873:) 865:( 846:7 841:5 831:: 823:@ 810:( 793:) 785:( 766:( 743:( 723:7 718:5 707:: 683:@ 657:) 649:( 624:( 610:( 602:. 584:( 565:) 557:( 537:( 517:) 509:( 486:( 454:( 429:7 424:5 395:( 378:( 361:( 337:ᴥ 332:¢ 329:☏ 291:ᴥ 286:¢ 283:☏ 267:) 259:( 245:ᴥ 240:¢ 237:☏ 226:: 218:@ 210:) 202:( 133:( 50:.

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

Knowledge

talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 13 - Knowledge

Index