This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
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
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Minnesota, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of articles related to Minnesota 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.MinnesotaWikipedia:WikiProject MinnesotaTemplate:WikiProject MinnesotaMinnesota articles
The results table lists both Democratic Socialists of America and Green Party of Minnesota as having received 3,061 1st Choice Votes. However, despite apparently receiving the exact same number of votes, DSA is listed as having 2.26% of 1st Choice Votes while GPMN is listed as having 2.28%. If the total is accurate (which I am skeptical of), 3,061 should be 2.28%. In the pie chart, however, DSA is listed as having only 2.06% of 1st Choice Votes. Going through each ward and counting up results for each candidate manually, GPMN got 3,065 votes and DSA got 2,763 votes (assuming you just count Robin and not DSA endorsed candidates who listed the DFL on their ballot. If you add votes for DSA-endorsed DFL candidates the result is way higher than 3,061). So I am not sure where the 3,061 number comes from, and it seems like all these numbers should probably be checked again. 2601:449:4200:7800:25D5:320F:58C6:7736 (talk) 23:54, 7 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]