Talk:Witney (UK Parliament constituency)

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 of the United Kingdom Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

UK Parliament constituencies

This article is within the scope of WikiProject UK Parliament constituencies, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of UK Parliament constituencies 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.UK Parliament constituenciesWikipedia:WikiProject UK Parliament constituenciesTemplate:WikiProject UK Parliament constituenciesUK Parliament constituencies articles

Certain Interesting Anomalies

I wonder if a passing psephologist would like to comment on the probability of a candidate getting exactly 10,000 votes as the Liberal Democrat candidate did in 2001. I am aware that the Council of Europe [1] is interested in vote fraud in British elections, but I didn't think people were so bad at covering it up as this example suggests. And in David Cameron's seat too. The mind boggles...Glad to see they covered their tracks better in 2005. Lstanley1979 (talk) 12:05, 2 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

With so many elections the probability of getting the odd exact figure now and then isn't that unusual. Also the figures in most counts do miss a few votes and round a few others up but unless the numbers are so close that a recount is held no-one makes any fuss. Timrollpickering (talk) 15:19, 22 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Correction of perspective of the region

The article states the area is "typically made up of market towns"; but actually it's a distributed population, part of one of the most sparsely populated counties of England, and has a high proportion of small villages - which is a significant contributor to it being a safe Tory seat as the largest opposition party Labour has little or no interest nor understanding of the rural parts of the UK. Putt1ck (talk) 07:39, 9 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The first point is a good one. The commentary from "which is a significant contributor..." is incorrect and biased commentary. DuncanEnright (talk) 08:35, 12 May 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Witney (UK Parliament constituency). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 31 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]