Talk:2022 Alaska House of Representatives election

Alaska Low‑importance

	Alaska portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alaska, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of Alaska 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.AlaskaWikipedia:WikiProject AlaskaTemplate:WikiProject AlaskaAlaska articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

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

United States: State Legislatures Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. State Legislatures.

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Not sure how to treat the primaries with the new election regime

For districts with four or less candidates, do we treat them all as having "won" the primary and slot them in the general election box? Do we skip a general election box for now? For unopposed candidates, do we show them as having won overall? Technically write-ins could carry the day even though that's unlikely. @JenningstheCrow: you've been very active editing this page, what do you think? Nevermore27 (talk) 03:40, 3 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Candidates have until July 25th to withdraw, so it's probably best to wait at least until then to go forth with general election stuff. Write-in wins are unlikely, but candidates can apply until November 3rd, so candidates who are currently unopposed could technically end up losing the GE. JenningsTheCrow (talk) 00:34, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, it's June 25. And yeah, anything other than reflecting results as they're reported by recognized sources is original research. There's no rush.

Nevermore brought up a greater concern. I moved to North Carolina last year and voted in my first election several weeks ago, the state/county primary (the city general election was held in November, but I had moved out of city limits by then). I voted the Republican ballot and was puzzled when I didn't see a candidate for sheriff. Come to find out, when a candidate is unopposed, they cancel the primary election and the candidate advances directly to the general election. Guess what? That isn't the case in Alaska, either prior to BM2 or now. I read encyclopedia entries on Alaska elections and results for unopposed primaries are missing. Those results are canvassed, tabulated and reported by the Alaska Division of Elections, and subsequently reported by third-party reliable sources. That's the standard we should be applying. It sounds like we have Wikipedians who believe that we should impose the standards of another state onto these articles in order to satisfy some false notion of consistency. RadioKAOS / Talk to me, Billy / Transmissions 06:28, 6 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I fail to see what any of that has to do with this discussion. Nevermore27 (talk) 02:57, 8 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Typically, with top-two primaries (for example), the two advancing candidates are shown in bold as being the winners of the primary only. As it's top-four, therefore all those who advance should be shown as primary winners. For the general elections, the assumption in uncontested seats is usually not made for the winner because of, however unlikely, situations that lead to another person winning (e.g. write-in who wasn't on the ballot). However, since it's a new system, I'm not sure if there is a write-in option, which would make a default winner reasonable; it's generally inappropriate to assert other possibilities, such as death, withdrawal or disqualification because those are far more circumstantial and speculative. -- Bacon Noodles (talk • contribs • uploads) 04:38, 5 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References?

As far as I can tell, the quantitative results in this article are unreferenced. Should they be removed until references are available? -- Mikeblas (talk) 15:25, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I just added a citation for the primary results. It wasn't hard to find. OutlawRun (talk) 21:43, 24 September 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Thank! Thing is, the numbers in the article don't match the reference you've provided at all. Seems easiest just to delete everything, since the numbers can't be verified. -- Mikeblas (talk) 23:28, 8 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@JenningsTheCrow: you placed many of these results, but didn't provide a reference. Are you able to fix them, or provide a link to the reference you used? Meanwhile, I've marked the article for disputed accuracy and marked the reference that OutlawRun placed with {{fv}} because it looks like this article is completely bogus. The numbers don't match, and some races are even reported to the wrong winner. -- Mikeblas (talk) 00:53, 9 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

File.louise.stutes.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:36, 13 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Caucus vs. Party

Currently, there are points where a candidate's party is listed as "Coalition Republican", "Republican" or "Independent Republican". I'm afraid this may give some readers the false impression that these are separate parties, when they actually members of the same party with different caucus affiliations. I think this information about the caucuses is valuable to include, but may be difficult to clearly present. I welcome any ideas. 71.162.7.170 (talk) 11:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Coalition/Caucus vs. Party in the Infobox

Reverting OutlawRun's WP:BOLD [edit] to show the party affiliation instead of coalition in the infobox to allow for some discussion. I understand the logic of comparing Alaska to how coalitions in other global democracies are noted, but it seems to confuse the situation. The main difference I would see is that, generally speaking, coalitions in other democracies are formed at the party level, but the Alaska (and Northern Mariana Islands) coalitions are between the individuals, not the parties. So showing 21 Republicans vs. 15 Democrats doesn't reflect the governing situation, nor the fractured nature of the Republican caucus. Also putting the two "Independent Republicans" with the Independents seems wrong if it's about the party label; they should be counted with the rest of the Republicans. Their "independent" label reflects their relationship to the caucus, not the party per se. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 12:58, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before continuing the discussion I do want to mention that I did not put the "Independent Republicans" in with the Independents. There were four actual independents elected as independents in the 2020 election, and that number increased to six after the 2022 election.

As for the party labels vs. coalitions, the page is about the election itself. These elections are conducted based on the party labels that appear on the ballot without any mention of who is caucusing with whom. Coalitions are more flexible than parties, and people can leave easily at any time. When results are reported, they are reported by party, not by caucus. Coalition negotiations also often happen weeks after the election and don't technically have to do with the elections themselves, nor do they particularly change the results of them. These negotiations can be mentioned in the text of the page, sure, even with tables and charts down the line, but the infobox should be a baseline for the partisanship as the election happened. This also allows for us to put popular vote figures, which isn't something you can do as easily with coalition stuff. OutlawRun (talk) 15:39, 18 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]