Talk:London mayoral election, 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Contents

[edit] References

There are a hole load of external links throughout the article. Should these not be references? Leonini (talk) 18:53, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Election Infobox

An election infobox should definitely be added. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.194.145.223 (talk) 22:12, 18 March 2008 (UTC)

I'm reverting the election infobox (with parties) as it's a bit arbitrary... Why are the BNP listed, and not Left List..?--Gordon (talk) 13:46, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
Actually I'll leave it, but I think the candidates on it may need to be reviewed, at least to add Lindsey German.--Gordon (talk) 13:48, 23 April 2008 (UTC)
The top 7 candidates (i.e. those scoring more than 1%) last time around were Labour, Tory, LibDem, UKIP, Respect (with Lindsey German), BNP, Green and Christian Peoples Alliance, in that order; see London mayoral election, 2004 for details. If 6 candidates are to be listed in the infobox, one obvious decider of which six are the results from last time, i.e. Lab, Con, LDem, UKIP, BNP and L. German (now standing under the Left List label following the schism in Respect, with the other half of Respect not putting up a mayoral candidate), and thus notably excluding the Green's Sian Berry. On the other hand, Berry has clearly been getting more media coverage than UKIP, BNP, Left List or Respect, and the Greens did come 4th in the Assembly list vote (followed by UKIP and BNP). That said, several major hustings have been restricted to just Lab, Con and LDem.
So, one can construct an argument for the current 6 candidates listed (it's based on the Assembly result last time around; or it's based on the Mayoral vote last time around but there's no Respect mayoral candidate so the Greens get in), but I think both of those are somewhat spurious. The safe thing to do would be to be inclusive (i.e. anyone who got more than 1% last time, so Lab, Con, LDem, UKIP, Left List, BNP, Green and CPA) or to restrict it to the three main candidates (those who got more than 10% last time; and as recognised by the media). Anything in between seems dubious to me (e.g., why include Left List but exclude CPA?). I will be bold and do the latter, but feel free to revert me! Bondegezou (talk) 13:21, 24 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] London mayoral election, 2012

It may be premature to start an article for the 2012 mayoral election, but there are two items of information which relate to it:

I don't think that this can be confirmed as it would be likely to change if he loses the 2008 election

213.86.122.5 18:43, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] English Democrats

User 81.2.97.151 keeps adding unsubstantiated claims about Garry Bushell and deleting citation requests so I propose to delete this paragraph shortly if citations are not provided. All other mayoral candidacies here are backed by third-party citations. AFAIK Garry Bushell has not stated he is standing - indeed his own website [1] makes no mention of it. 213.86.122.5 13:38, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

  • OK, no citations forthcoming so I have deleted the papagraph on the English Democrats. Please feel free to put it back if reliable third-party citations can be provided. 213.86.122.5 15:50, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Brian Haw

I've been searching around for any evidence that Brian Haw is standing for Mayor in 2008 and can't find any. There are two places I've found it cited as a rumour (a blog and Indymedia) but even Brian's own site doesn't carry the news. I think this should be removed until a reputable citation can be provided. (Jim Jay) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.21.96.168 (talk) 14:27, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Respect/Left List

I have updated Lindsey German's party according to:

http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/regulatory-issues/regpoliticalparties.cfm?frmGB=1&frmPartyID=818&frmType=partydetail --Gordon (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

  • The section also contains a claim that seems POV. Lindsey German used the name Left List, not necessarily to distance herself from Respect Renewal, but because she doesn't have the right to use the name Respect according to the Electoral commission.

--Gordon (talk) 22:54, 16 March 2008 (UTC)

    • I've had a go at updating the section appropriately.--Andehandehandeh (talk) 14:42, 18 March 2008 (UTC)
      • Cheers --Gordon (talk) 00:12, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] One London Withdrawal

I'm going to rewrite the One London section a little, for now I'll leave it where it is, bit should it be moved to the bottom of the list?

How is the order decided? I'm happy to leave the top 8 as they are, but should the others be done alphabetically? --Gordon (talk) 16:19, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

  • I've added a new section of Nominated candidates and re-titled the old one. Maybe best to leave it as it is as a historical record? 213.86.122.5 (talk) 17:44, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voting system

Having chosen the mayor in the way described, are there any other consequences for the electorate having voted as it did? - Kittybrewster ☎ 12:52, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Sorry, don't know what you mean?--Gordon (talk) 17:22, 29 March 2008 (UTC)


[edit] Clean up

I've reordered it so candidates come before those who are not standing. We could probably do with putting the candidates into an order - alphabetical of candidate or party names perhaps?

Is there a legal distinction between 'Withdrawn' and 'did not stand'?Pontificake (talk) 21:51, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

And I think some of the selection process section is too long for this article.Pontificake (talk) 22:03, 29 March 2008 (UTC)

  • Only the 10 official candidates should be refered to as withdrawn, if any of them do. The rest should just be referred to as did not stand. I also think a lot of the stuff about people who didn't stand should now be removed. The most noteworthy events related to the election aren;t about the individual party selection procedures (even for the main three).

Andehandehandeh (talk) 01:04, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Urgent need for clean up

In its current post-nominations close state it's an absolute mess. I have given up on trying to fix what is ostensibly vandalism.

For the future, I think a section on current candidates (with or without their selection histories -- might be needed as the campaign develops) and then a separate section on those who attempted a run but didn't, would be best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Municipalist (talk • contribs) 09:48, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

OK, that's better! Thanks to whoever sorted it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Municipalist (talk • contribs) 09:50, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Voting System

Is RodCrosby's update to the page a question of semantics?

If there are only two candidates left, one of them is bound to have a majority, if not of the entire vote, of the 2nd round.--Gordon (talk) 11:04, 2 April 2008 (UTC)

The winner will have a majority of the 'remaining' votes, but may not have been backed by the majority of all voters. There will be many voters who decline to use their second preference vote, or whose second preference candidate was eliminated. In 2000 Ken Livingstone finished with the support of 776,427 out of 1,752,303 voters (44.3%). In 2004 he finished with the support of 828,380 out of 1,920,533 voters (43.1%). My preference would be to ditch the last sentence - not sure it really adds anything and may be misleading as to the purpose of that voting system. Pontificake (talk) 16:38, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
I think most election analysts consider the majority as a "majority of all those casting a (valid) ballot in the election." The French two-round system is different in several respects from the London SV system, most noticeably in that it is really two separate elections a fortnight apart. Clearly the French system will (barring a tie) always deliver a majority in the second election, although it may be comprised of different and fewer people than who voted in the first round, perhaps also voting differently than they did first time! So the change I made may not just be a question of semantics, but it is certainly the conventional analysis. RodCrosby (talk) 16:50, 2 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for clarifying. I think that last sentence should be made a little more explicit or removed altogether. After all, there are many things this could allow for but not guarantee. Cheers,--Gordon (talk) 11:50, 3 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Opinion Polling

Would anyone abject to opinion polling?

Other elections such as the US Presidential election (yes I know its bigger/"more important" though) has polling? Samaster1991 (talk) 21:45, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

I fixed the april poll result for batten, there's a question mark on the uk polling report reference given and the original results are given here: http://www.icmresearch.co.uk/pdfs/2008_april_london_mayor_poll.pdf --Gordon (talk) 13:22, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] E-counting

I think that it is worth mentioning that votes will be counted by machine in this election, this is the first major election in the UK to be doing something like this since the may 2007 elections in england and scotland where e-voting and e-counting failed miserably. The Open Rights Group was observing these elections and did not express confidence in the results a fairly damning report was submitted to and discussed in the house of commons on the matter. This is of fairly large concern to many people and i feel is worth mentioning. --Stoman101 (talk) 19:57, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Wrong flag

This is not an election for the City of London but for London. - Kittybrewster ☎ 22:07, 25 April 2008 (UTC)

A better image is Image:Arms_of_the_Greater_London_Council.svg. - Kittybrewster ☎ 17:15, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Instead somebody has now hoisted the Flag of England. Why????? Kittybrewster ☎ 15:12, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Full Second Preference Figures

Full second preference figures have now been posetd on the London Elects website (http://results.londonelects.org.uk/Results/MayoralResult.aspx). I have added figures and percentages to table.

[edit] Second Preferences don't tell the whole story

We have only been given where the votes went 'to' under 2nd preference - not where those votes came 'from' (in terms of 1st preference). Yes, that isn't strictly relevant since all the 'minor' candidates are eliminated in a single stage under the rules but the information is intriguing never-the-less (such as how many 2nd pref votes Boris Johnson collected from the BNP). This correlated data may exist - or it may never have been collated. The 'images' of voting papers were initially retained by the election authority - but have they since been deleted? Also there were a lot of uncounted 'Rejected - 2nd preference' ballots (412,054) whilst there was a similar number of 'No 2nd preference' (407,840) ballots. I take it the latter figure sits entirely within the former figure? If it does, then there is little effect on the result.

[edit] "Final Votes"

The column listing the number of final votes seems to have a bit of an issue: Only combined totals for the top two candidates were released AFAIK, and the "final" votes for the LibDem and Green candidates are arrived at by simply adding the first and second preferences for those candidates. This overstates the results compared to what Livingstone and Johnson won, vote-share wise since some of the second preference votes for the LibDems and Greens likely came from either Johnson or Livingstone's supporters (which would, in turn, increase Johnson and Livingstone's share of the vote by removing redundant votes).

In short, the "final vote" numbers for both of those candidates ought to be removed and the vote shares reverted to what they were before, as neither the LibDem nor Green candidates were in the second round of counting. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.72.100.64 (talk) 08:46, 10 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Electoral Question

The number of spoilt ballot papers should be included (as it was a significant number)

What would have happened if, rather than creating spoilt papers, people had voted for Matt O'Connor, who withdrew? Jackiespeel (talk) 17:44, 12 May 2008 (UTC)