Talk:Psephology

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

Politics High‑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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Statistics Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Statistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of statistics 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.StatisticsWikipedia:WikiProject StatisticsTemplate:WikiProject StatisticsStatistics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Untitled

Defunct word. Psephology is a defunct word not commonly used or understood by people today. That makes for a bad category. Better is "Voting Studies." Rjensen 13:13, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not just remove the cat. There is a proper Wikipedia procedure for dealing with this type of dispute:

Wikipedia:Categories for deletion

Please use it if you are unhappy. Do not just remove the cat from the article.--Mais oui! 13:17, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well who invented this category and with what justification? Rjensen 13:55, 21 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just drafted an article on election science which is a subdiscipline, but I agree this term is a fun but not discipline anywhere in political science. Mr election guy (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Scientific\Statistical

The article reads "Psephology is the statistical study of elections," but it is the scientific study of elections (if it must be qualified). --Electiontechnology 19:05, 20 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Done I agree.[1] --Trevj (talk) 18:49, 17 October 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not a defunct word at all - just not used a lot

There is no replacement word for it. It just isn't used a lot. The tags on the article make it look bad but it is actually pretty much as good as it possibly could be. I won't just remove the tags as I note that someone else got told off for that, but I really think that the issues have been dealt with. 123.2.223.96 (talk) 14:16, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to this Google Ngram it peaked in the 1960's and is approaching extinction now. I'm not sure how accurate that is -- the curve for "voting studies" seem odd, and neither "election science" nor "voting science" nor "scientific study of elections" come up at all. But Google Ngrams is considered a good source I think, and if that's true then "voting studies" is certainly more popular. But the trend for "voting studies" shows that it was (comparatively) wildly more popular around 1975 but is, for some reason, cratering and will also be extinct around 2020. And "Election analysis" probably refers to too many examples of non-scientific analysis to be of much use to us here. So hmmm. Herostratus (talk) 18:03, 10 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

I've seen 'psephologists' used three times in three separate Guardian articles by different authors in the last few days. It's not that rare. Google it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.132.72.205 (talk) 08:35, 24 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Voting behaviour

 Would not a more succinct way of defining psephology than that offered in this article be to say that it is the study of voting behaviour? Vorbee (talk) 16:32, 14 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]