Talk:2022 City of Chester by-election

Next or 2022?

I hate to be a pedant but with this by-election and the one for West Lancashire, the two have different names for the article? This one states "Next City of Chester by-election" whereas the West Lancashire one states 2022. Therefore, does this need to say 2022 or does the West Lancashire one need to adopt the "Next" until a date is confirmed for both? 148.197.248.43 (talk) 09:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

If we're going to change it, I feel like it should (in both cases) become 'Future xyz by-election', not 'Next'. We use Next for pages like Next United Kingdom general election which is a (broadly) fixed, regular occurence, so it's not really appropriate for by-elections. I'd suggest change both West Lancashire and City of Chester to 'Future'. OGBC1992 (talk) 10:45, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah, I forgot that by-elections use "Future"; I originally moved this from "Upcoming" which was definitely not precedent. If someone were to move this to "Future City of Chester by-election", I would have no objections. —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 13:22, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Future is what has been used in the past, I think Southend West and maybe Old Bexley and Sidcup from last year. In case of West Lancashire, it has been stated by Labour Party officials that the by-election will be held in 2022. Yoshi876 (talk) 13:37, 26 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure how to move a page title, @Twotwofourtysix, but if you could revert Next West Lancashire by-election and Next Stretford and Urmston by-election to 'Future' rather than 'Next', I'd be grateful! OGBC1992 (talk) 10:44, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

@OGBC1992: Alright,

Done. —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 22:27, 11 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Patrick Christys is the OMRLP candidate. I did add it earlier but someone has 'kindly' deleted my entry! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.13.244.175 (talk) 22:54, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry new to this! It won't let me add youtube of the show last week link sadly 86.13.244.175 (talk) 23:03, 2 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

OMRLP candidate

Is there an objective reason the Labour Party Twitter feed is more valid than the OMRLP Facebook feed? OGBC1992 (talk) 02:11, 3 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Neither satisfies our requirements for a reliable source. I've found a new citation for the Labour candidate (and for the Conservative candidate) that does qualify. Bondegezou (talk) 15:59, 8 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Samantha Dixon

Just a notice that I've started Draft:Samantha Dixon as a Labour victory seems quite likely. Moondragon21 (talk) 04:39, 1 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Math Error in Results?

Although I don't know the source of the totals, not only is the majority as a percent of turnout mathematically incorrect, the sum of the votes cast for each party candidate does not equal the turnout, being instead 266 votes greater than the sum. Is there any reason as to why these two are the case? Much thanks. AnOpenBook (talk) 03:34, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

These are more than likely spoilt ballots. So 28,275 total ballots cast, 28,009 ballots actually counting as votes for one of the candidates, and 266 ballots rejected as being invalid (for whatever reason). -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 04:12, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The sum I have is 28,275 for votes for the candidates, but on the infobox it has the total ballots cast as 28,541. If 28,541 is the number used for calculating percents on the infobox, then the Labour vote share would be 60.6% and not 61.2%, the Conservative vote share would be 22.2% and not 22.4%, the Liberal Democratic vote share would be 8.3% and not 8.4%, the OMRLP vote share would be 0.5% and not 0.6%, and the total vote share for the spoilt ballots (or whatever they may be) would be 0.9%. The majority would be 38.4%, as listed. However, if 28,275 is used instead, everything in terms of candidate vote share would be as listed, however the majority would instead be 38.8%. My main point of confusion was that the majority and vote shares were being calculated using different systems. Also, did the previous elections in 2001, 2005, 2015, 2017, and 2019 (the turnout number for 2010 disagrees with the sources listed, so I'm not sure about that one either - this being on the City of Chester constituency page) not have any spoilt ballots or does Wikipedia only account for them in by-elections? AnOpenBook (talk) 04:56, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The figure of 28,541 I added earlier came from Britain Elects' tweet, which almost certainly came from verification of the ballot papers and would be the total number cast, including spoilt ballots.

Reporting of spoilt ballots on Wikipedia is very inconsistent, to be honest, and I expect that to be because many news outlets don't report them. IMO the percentages listed for each candidate should be of the total valid votes, but I'll let others weigh in on that. -- M2Ys4U ^(talk) 08:35, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

The actual result is here. Note two errors from the widely reported figures: Bowers (Green Party) has 987 not 787, and Hope (MRLP) has 156 not 155. If you add those numbers together with the 66 spoiled papers, this matches with the 28,541 figure for total BPs given at the start of the count. 2010 EWCA Civ 880 (talk) 10:29, 2 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]