Talk:2007 California's 37th congressional district special election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

U.S. Congress Mid‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is about one (or many) event(s).

Wording

"The district has been historically Democratic, so it came as little surprise when no Republican was able to manage a remotely significant percentage of the vote. The highest-placing Republican, John M. Kanaley, could only put together a meager 2,230 votes, or 7.64% of the total."
Someone is going to have to explain to me what in this paragraph is "inappropriate for an encyclopedia." Encyclopedias often use colorful language so it's not just a stodgy list of facts. See also WP:NOT: "Articles should contain sufficient explanatory text to put statistics within the article in their proper context for a general reader." It is not "biased" to describe 7% as a "meager" amount, or not "a remotely significant percentage." Maybe I'm being accused of bias against single-digit numbers? Anyone? Rowsdower45 01:43, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not accusing you of "bias against single-digit numbers" nor am I dening that 2,230 votes, or 7.64% of the total is a low amount. All I'm saying is that we don't need to three times use phrases restating that fact. The numbers are self explanatory, and my text: ("The district has been historically Democratic, so it came as little surprise when the highest-placing Republican, John M. Kanaley, received only 2,230 votes, or 7.64% of the total.") does not remove anything that helps put the facts inclued in the article into context.--Tdl1060 17:07, 2 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Bias against third parties

The part "Both candidates released polls, each showing that person in the lead [www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-race27jun27,1,2407506.story?coll=la-headlines-california]" under interesting facts is rather out of place considering there are FOUR candidates in the runoff, not two.

   I edited the page to address this problem.  user:calbear22 July 23, 2007

Additions by calbear22

I'd like to admit that some of what I have done so far is incomplete. I will continue to work on improving what's one this page. As always, anyone is more than welcome to improve what is already on this page.