![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
Hunt v. Cromartie (not Easley v. Cromartie) was a case in which the Supreme Court ruled that a particular district was permissible because it was a political gerrymander and not a racial one. However, I think the principle itself was established in a much earlier case. Also if you read the decision is really didn't blur the distinction because it outlined a number of criteria for determining which is which. (Basically the criteria is that if you have a choice are you excluding black Republicans or including white Democrats, and NC was able to show that the new district included large numbers of white Democrats.) DanKeshet 18:25, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)
This is a very strong oversimplication of a complex situation:
The United States has traditionally not had multi-member districts, and there are a long and complicated set of court decisions as to when multi-member districts are permissible. DanKeshet 18:25, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)
I'm about to remove this material not because it's inappropriate, but because I don't think it's true. If somebody could point me to some of these proposals, we could make this paragraph more concrete. For now, I'll move the link to bioregional democracy down to the see also. DanKeshet 18:25, Feb 11, 2004 (UTC)
In Pour la Science, April 2002, algorithmic districting procedures are discussed. David.Monniaux 20:47, 24 May 2004 (UTC)
the first line of the section titled Gerrymandering Computer Technology reads: "In the U.S., Federal judges found redistricting legal". obviously a year date was accidentally left out. i would correct it, but i can't figure out what year that that decision was made... help! :-)
--Nic.stage 22:19, 14 October 2005 (UTC)
I think the opening of this article needs changing. I don't see much controversy about gerrymandering; not many people argue that their side should redistrict to their advantage (though I suppose you might find something similar in Coulter or the like if you looked hard enough).
Redistricting can be controversial, of course, but the controversy would be over whether a particular redistricting constitutes gerrymandering.
I would suggest simply removing the word 'controversial' from the opening sentence, unless anyone can provide an alternative viewpoint that gerrymandering (as opposed to redistricting) is proper conduct.
Hi. Dropped in from writing up some stuff on rep-by-pop and rep-by-area from Representation (politics). I've been doing old historical election polls for Wiki's Canadian electoral project lately and, while I knew about them previously, have been constantly amazed by the incredibly low populations of some frontier-era and even post-war ridings. Thing is these really aren't malapportionment, except in a purist rep-by-pop sense, because the realities of the areas represented preclude any larger riding, so the population that's there gets its own say - largely because they're too far away from any more dominant electoral centre that would ever listen to their concerns. So ridings like Atlin, Skeena, Lillooet, Similkameen and Peace River had only a few hundred voters, vs the thousands in urban ridings in the same era (typically in the tens of thousands, larger ridings up to 20,000 and a few much larger, but with multiple members).
So it's a fine line. None of those seats were "safe seats" and the ridings were the way they were for historical and geographic reasons. But in other areas in BC there's been gerrymandering aplenty, most famously of a sliver of trés-riche urban swank - the Quilchena area - was added to Little Mountain, a mostly-middle class riding to secure a safe seat for a Socred cabinet minister (Gracie's Finger it was called, after Grace McCarthy). In the Kootenays and the Mid-Island the jiggering of electoral districts over the course of the last century is dizzying.
Anyway, my two bits. And just curious about how to define legitimate rep-by-area as opposed to malapportionment; I see someone holds that view on the US Senate; the same is true, but for different structural causes, in Canada. But again, the mass of area in Canada requires a compromise with non-population based electoral districts; the idea of Senate reform was to have ten senators each for all ten provinces; or a modulated formula with ten each for BC, AB, MB and SK combined, ON, QC, NB/NS/PEI/Nfld (or maybe twenty for them?), and ten for the territories Thing is Quebec would never go for it because they've got a 25% lockdown on Senate and Commons representation, no matter what happens to their population; and a third of the Supreme Court (and typically half the Cabinet, even under Tory governments...well, Mulroney's anyway). The rude compromise proposed by the Premiers, who don't want to have separate electoral bases, was for the Senator's jobs to be described as representing the views of the provincial governments, or to even just be appointed by the provincial governments, in other words the Premiers themeslves. And you'll notice how between the the Alliance-Tory merger and Tory "rebirth" the whole topic of senatorial reform has completely disappeared. No major political party wants changes to the existing political order. Which is also why BC-STV has been shelved, pending ways to dilute it and confuse the voters with other choices concocted by the profesional politicians....Skookum1 07:53, 13 December 2005 (UTC)
Another possible method of avoiding further gerrymandering is to simply avoid redistricting altogether by continuing to use existing political boundaries such as state, county, or provincial lines. Doing this makes further increasing electoral advantage by changing boundaries becomes impossible, however any existing advantage may become deeply ingrained. The United States Senate, for instance, has far more competitive elections than the House of Representatives due to the use of existing State borders rather than gerrymandered districts, however the Senate is also the most malapportioned legislative body in the developed world.
Consequently, many electoral reform packages advocate fixed or neutrally defined district borders to eliminate this manipulation. One such scheme of neutrally defined district borders is bioregional democracy which follows the borders of terrestrial ecoregions as defined by ecology. Presumably, scientific criteria would be immune to politically motivated manipulation, although of course this is debatable as scientists are people with political interests too.
The problem with geographically static districting systems (which is not what most reform packages suggest) is that they do not take in to account changes in population, meaning that individual electors can grow to have vastly different degrees of influence on the legislative process. This is particularly a problem during times of large population movements, and was especially prominent in the United Kingdom during the industrial revolution. See also Reform Act and rotten borough.
For this reason, scientists have proposed algorithmic ways of dividing constituencies. Desirable criteria for the outcomes are:
Actually, considering this articles length it would be better if they each stayed about the same size, if there's more material, for them they should get their own articles and a link to it. Jon 19:48, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
I think the Singapore section at the end is very POV and needs to be reworded, cited, or removed. Stifle (talk) 12:32, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the Singapore section needs to be cited, but I would be opposed to removing it and I do immediately see the point of rewording it. The words "accused", "suspected" and "alleged" suffice to show that these are opinions held by those who criticise the Singapore system, not objective facts. It is relevant to mention the fact that the system in the city state is controversial. (R3NL 22:20, 20 August 2006 (UTC))
Yes, the singapore section should be reworded, but not removed. It should also expanded to include more infomation
We may want to consider removing this is an example of gerrymandering. While it seems obvious that it appears to be I believe this one is court ordered. The Navajo and Hopi tribes have had a long legal feud over their tribal boundries. It was considered to be a conflict of interest therefore to have them represented by the same Congressman. SkyWayMan 05:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Exactly which district was it that led to the name? Massachusett's third? VolatileChemical 15:46, 3 January 2007 (UTC)
California 11 looks like more of an example of a failed gerrymander than a (normal) gerrymander, considering it was intended as a Republican district but is now represented by a Democrat. I guess if we point that one out we should probably have an example in the other direction such as TN D-4 during the 1990s (snaking one county wide thru all three grand divisions of the state, containing portions of most TV markets in the state while avoding the core metro areas), which was intended for a Democrat but ended up in under the control of the Republicans in 1994. Jon 14:29, 29 June 2007 (UTC)
In fixed districts, its claimed the US senate is the most malapportioned legislative body in the world. This seems like a difficult claim to make (and one unlikely to be true). Thoughts?? WilyD 14:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
The lede is much too long. Perhaps the discussion of etymology and origin of the term can go below. The more important discussion is what it means in the electoral process.--Parkwells (talk) 15:25, 19 March 2008 (UTC)
The narrative for Chile is very confusing. I recommend someone who knows what it is about try breaking up the issues into smaller pieces, with more context. --Parkwells (talk) 16:37, 30 April 2008 (UTC)
While merging the origin of the term section into the head, I removed this text:
I had always heard the story that the cartoon illustrated was captioned "Looks like a gerrymander", and that's from where the term arose - not the conversation of two reporters. Either way, what we need here is a source.
I also removed this sentence, as I don't think it to be true:
This is because every multiple winner district can be marginal, and that can translate into many more than a single last seat. The elections don't have to be close either.
I added this text, but it needs more research and a source:
It might also be a bit POV, and I know there are critics on both sides of the policy, but I don't have sources for them at the moment. Either way, it's some neat content, and something like it should be in the article.
I also added some comments in the article where I plan to add some more content soon. Scott Ritchie 4 July 2005 00:40 (UTC)
In 2000, for example, only 57 of the 435 seats (13 percent) of the United States House of Representatives were competitive, that is, decided by margins of 10 percent or less.[1]
The above was removed in a recent edit, but should be reworked somewhere in the US section. Scott Ritchie (talk) 18:05, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Since Columbus isn't even SHOWN on the "map", unless you know Columbus (or have an atlas or another tab open), this "map" in it's current form is merely wasted electrons. --Grndrush (talk) 05:45, 4 November 2008 (UTC)
I do not want this article to be further confused by addressing the problem as it occurs in the UK. It would be a very good thing if the "Electoral geography" were left to develop on its own for now. The current article seems to describe a game of Croquette as opposed to any form of rational government. Until such time as that article can be improved to give some hint of how the UK system works (or doesn't work) it is difficult to ascertain whether the problem of "gerrymandering" even exists. The current mess in the USA caused by huge gerrymandered districts needs to remain uncluttered by additional circuses until it is well understood by Americans. The next 2 years (2009, 2010) and perhaps until 2011 we Americans have a major opportunity to repair the damage done to our own system. But further confusion is not going to be helpful. I can't seem to parse the "Electoral geography" article in such a way as to understand how the UK system can work at all. It seems a total mess..--The Trucker (talk) 19:36, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This unsourced claim appears to be original research based on the fact that the only inputs are shape of the state and population distribution. But it seems to me that any geometric/mathematical districting algorithm would need to be careful to avoid having a pro-rural or pro-urban bias, which would definitely translate into a partisan bias in the US at least. Note that when applied to the green/magenta example, it would produce the (probably undesirable) bottom left outcome. I haven't crunched numbers, but I also suspect this method would tend to give disproportionate representation to whichever party has the majority in general. Getspaper (talk) 07:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
The first part of the section "Objective rules to create districts" cites no sources. (I did remove some references but they were only to define terms and did not support the facts stated.) One paragraph starts "One idea ..." This strike me as WP:WEASEL; we don't who proposed this idea. The next paragraph has similar problems. The statement about court rulings in the U.S. is unsourced.--RDBury (talk) 13:47, 11 August 2009 (UTC)
Critics of multiculturalism sometimes claim that it is a radical form of gerrymandering, by which a left-leaning party promotes immigration in order to destabilize its conservative opponents. See for example the Labour Party immigration scandal. [1][2][3] ADM (talk) 23:05, 31 October 2009 (UTC)
I removed the following paragraphs from the section "Recent Steps" under "United States".
The section on San Diego seems inappropriate in terms of scale -- why mention one city in a section dedicated to national-election-level gerrymandering? If this is a major example of a unique trend, the paragraph should be expanded to state how and why such is the case, and possibly include other cities or areas which have used third party commissions or other unique districting techniques.
The section on the Annan Plan does not belong under the heading for United States -- whoever is interested and knowledgeable about this subject should write it under its own heading AND include some valid sources: as it stands, it makes one hell of an accusation without recourse to any 3rd party sources.
According to its municipal charter, the city of San Diego uses a third party commission to define district boundaries.
The proposed Annan Plan for a confederated Cyprus would have operated to eliminate voting rights of Christian citizens of Cyprus,namely Greek, Armenian and Catholic Maronites by institutionally excluding them from the Northern third of the loose confederation whereby only Muslims, namely ethnic Turks would solely enjoy democratic freedoms even though they have legal title to less than 11% of land in the area and formerly made up less than 18% of the resident population before the region was ethnically cleansed of all Christians.
72.196.123.188 (talk) 18:58, 27 December 2009 (UTC) Richard Paez, malachi@pathetic.org
I removed the following:
The first paragraph was uncited (as noted above), and both were a bit too specific and mathy for the general idea (another editor similarly removed the Shortest splitline algorithm). There have been many different proposals for mathematical rules to define districts, however explanations of how they work probably belong in separate articles (with appropriate citations). I think the text now gives a better, succinct summary of what these methods have in common as well as their disadvantages (don't consider geography, respecting local boundaries, and one set of rules may benefit one group more than another, leading to a "picking the rules" gerrymander). Scott Ritchie (talk) 23:51, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
I removed this section at the top
I did this because it is essentially duplicated by the image caption, which basically looks better anyway. Scott Ritchie (talk) 00:01, 22 January 2010 (UTC)
Under the united states section is a picture from the original page where the term gerrymander was first used. It claims it is from the Boston Gazette 1812. However the Boston Gazette stopped publishing in 1798 according to the gazette article. The picture from the front page mentions the boston centinel or some such. In any case I think the text under the picture is wrong. Don't know enough to fix myself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.33.111.74 (talk) 17:05, 17 February 2010 (UTC)
Someone "helpfully" put every image in this page into a large gallery near the top. This removes the context that some of them had with related concepts - the explanation of how the US requirement for contiguous districts is not a very binding constraint is made very clear when put adjacent the image of the "earmuff" district, for instance. Scott Ritchie (talk) 00:37, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
The article presents valuable detail, but needs a clear, simple, abstract example (to avoid local political POVs). This article has been rated as being only of medium importance which suggests that the power and severity of the potential abuses of gerrymandering have not been sufficiently clarified.
A simple example has been added which clearly shows how via Gerrymandering a minority of the voters can generate a stable supermajority for themselves in the legislature, completely distorting the premise of representative democracy. The example is clean, and does not include any references to specific countries, elections or parties in order to maintain its neutrality and clarity.
(There was an earlier set of diagrams like these that I found more convincing. What happened to it?)
Representative democracy typically asserts the principal that a minority
of voters should not be able to capture a majority
or supermajority of legislative seats. Gerrymandering can threaten this principle.
Via Gerrymandering, a minority of the population can create a stable self-reinforcing supermajority for themselves in the government.
Consider the following simple example :
Three districts A,B, and C.
100 voters.
Majority in a district wins the district.
Two parties :
X has 60 % of the voters nationally.
Y has 40 % of the voters nationally.
(X has a supermajority of support in the population).
District Allocation :
A
34 Voters from X, 0 from Y. (X wins district A)
B
13 Voters from X, 20 from Y. (Y wins district B)
C
13 Voters from X, 20 from Y. (Y wins district B)
Results :
TWO THIRDS of the legislative seats go to the minority party Y.
All districts are quite stable - "safe seats" - with a high probability
that the outcome is known in advance. Each party's favorite for their
safe districts will almost surely be elected.
Party Y can continue to use gerrymandering to subvert democracy
since it has a supermajority of the legislative seats.
It is unlikely that this will change unless Party Y loses its
ability to poll districts and gerrymander accordingly.
Party Y can also starve Party X and its supporters of resources
(and perhaps of rights) since it controls two thirds of the
legislature.
As we can see, gerrymandering can significantly undermine the principle
of majority rule fundamental to representative democracy.
(see oligarchy for contrast)
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.116.128.56 (talk) 17:15, 8 October 2010 (UTC)
It's unclear what this was referring to. Of course "redistricting" is legal. Gerrymandering is sometimes ok and sometimes not. As discussed elsewhere in the article, US Courts strike down blatantly racial gerrymanders, but decline to strike down even unconstitutional partisan gerrymanders because they think courts are unable to tell when partisan gerrymanders violate equal protection (see Vieth v. Jubelirer)
dictionary.com: corrupt = dishonest controversial = causing dispute
Gerrymandering is done right out in the open - honestly.
Unless the point is that all politicking in itself is dishonest, I don't think you can say gerrymandering is dishonest (corrupt).
So I reverted this last little edit from corrupt back to controversial.
Well, I don't see how you can call a practice that is well known and pervasive "corrupt." No unbiased observers called the recent redistricting struggle in Texas corruption, for instance. Also, before changing the lead sentence, why not create a section about the corruption aspect? Right now the article just doesn't support your assertion, IMHO. ~
Well, you can't equate "truly democratic" with noncorrupt! The key here, I think, is not our opinion about whether it is bad, but rather if it is commonly considered "corruption."
{After some Web research} It looks like the 14th Amendment and the Voter Right's Act weigh in heavily here. Also, the Supreme Court acted on the Texas controversy just before the election AND the house ethics committee dinged Tom De Lay for sicking the FAA on hiding TX Democrat lawmakers.
All of this is good stuff for a reader who comes to the 'pedia wanting to know if gerrymandering is "wrong." It has a negative connotation, but redistricting for political gain is VERY widespread and really not corrupt as far as I can tell unexpertly.
Some sources: http://www.dailytexanonline.com/news/2004/10/19/TopStories/Justices.Bring.Redistricting.Back.To.Life-772675.shtml http://www.burntorangereport.com/archives/cat_redistricting.html http://www.usatoday.com/news/washington/judicial/2004-10-18-scotus-tx-redistricting_x.htm
Who has ever used the word "gestate"? Why not replace it with the commoner and simpler word "gem"?
Unfairly is a key word in many definitions given of gerrymandering.
The American Heritage Dictionary defines gerrymander as "To divide (a geographic area) into voting districts so as to give unfair advantage to one party in elections[4]." Encarta's Dictionary: "try to get extra votes unfairly: to manipulate an electoral area, usually by altering its boundaries, in order to gain an unfair political advantage in an election[5]" Ultralingua.Net: "To divide unfairly and to one's advantage; of voting districts[6]." Cambridge Dictionary of American English: "to divide (an area) into election districts (= special areas of voters who elect someone) in a way that gives an unfair advantage to one group or political party[7]" Webster Dictionary, 1913: "To divide (a State) into districts for the choice of representatives, in an unnatural and unfair way, with a view to give a political party an advantage over its opponent [8]." Online Plain Text English Dictionary: "To divide (a State) into districts for the choice of representatives, in an unnatural and unfair way, with a view to give a political party an advantage over its opponent.[9]" 1911 edition of the Encyclopedia Britannica: "to arrange election districts so as to give an unfair advantage to the party in power by means of a redistribution act, and so to manipulate constituencies generally, or arrange any political measure, with a view to an unfair party advantage.[10]"
If it was done "fairly" than there wouldn't be much of an argument. --Nyr14 12:16, July 12, 2005 (UTC)
The article seems to use examples of malapportionment interchangably with gerrymandering in many instances, such as the graphic and the United States section. While malapportionment is certainly worth a mention, explanation, and link, this article should probably note how gerrymandering is used even in cases where district sizes are equal in population. I think I'll move some content around when I get to it. Scott Ritchie 00:01, 22 July 2005 (UTC)
I recommend eliminating, renaming, or rewriting the section titled "Gerrymandering computer technology." As is, that section isn't really about computer technology and the section title is misleading. The only mentions of computer technology are "...accused of favoring Republicans by using computers to gerrymander..." and "...analysts have argued that sophisticated gerrymandering computer technology plus the fundraising advantages..." Niether of these statements are actually ABOUT computer technology or how computer technology is used to gerrymander. --134.161.206.248 00:25, 30 December 2005 (UTC)
How can ANY article on gerrymandering NOT include the Georgia redistricting of 2001. If no one else puts it up, I will do so myself! Ludahai 04:34, 2 November 2006 (UTC)
In the first sentence there is the phrase: "rather than using uniform geographic standards." I think it should be removed. It is not necessary for the sentence to work, and presoposses that uniform geographic standards are better. The example given in the "Effects of gerrymandering" section clearly demonstrates that uniform geographic standards can create unequal results just as easily as gerrymandering can. 97.75.161.222 (talk) 18:09, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
Point taken. That line has been removed.--JayJasper (talk) 18:38, 8 June 2011 (UTC)
The language describing the image pertaining to California's 23 district stated something along the line of "favoring the Democratic Candidate". This language is the exact opposite of the meaning of Gerrymandering. I'm not sure if that was the intent, but IMHO it was confusing to my interpretation of the language. I changed it instead to reflect the actual intent of that district (It marginalizes all democratic party voters into a single district). Jeff Carr (talk) 01:37, 21 November 2011 (UTC)
When I took English at the University of Uppsala, Sweden, I was told that the word Gerrymandering was a blend of the name Gerry and the word Meander. Now I hear that it has to do with Salamander. Is this questioned at all? Honestly, the image in the article [[11]] looks more like some bird than a lizzard. ChrisPsi (talk) 13:48, 10 December 2010 (UTC)
As far as I can tell from WP guidelines, WP is not U.K.-English or U.S.-English by global default, but U.S.-English for U.S. topics and U.K.-English for European topic. This article consistently uses the ending ise vs. ize, so it looks like U.K. English. However, it seems to be about politics in the U.S. This would imply changing these spellings to the U.S. convention. If a U.S. article is broken out, it should be changed and the remainder left alone. I hesitate to make this change unilaterally. I'd appreciate guidance. Donfbreed (talk) 08:27, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
I think "Unethical" in the first paragraph is far too strong. While it is generally looked on with disfavor the same can be said of most other venues for political sausage-making. Perhaps "Controversial" instead?
My addition could probably be cleaned up, but the 4th U.S. Congressional District of Illinois has got to be one of the best, most extreme examples of gerrymandering out there, and certainly has a place in the article. TresÁrboles 05:43, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Or virtually all of Maryland could be used as an example: http://planning.maryland.gov/PDF/Redistricting/2010maps/Cong/Statewide.pdf We've got it all. District 4 is the "earmuff" design. Districts 2, 3 and 7 guarantee Democrats maintain control of Republican suburbs by pairing them with vast tracks of inner Baltimore county. District 6 used to be a large contiguous piece of rural western Maryland but has now been gerrymandered to include significant portions of more liberal areas in Montgomery county (which, issues-wise, shares few if any interests with western Maryland). The whole state map is like someone tripped with a can of paint and the state has been rated "least compact" of any state in America. Jbaswell (talk) 04:49, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
I too came on to talk about Maryland. Seems someone beat me to it by a day. I live in the 3rd district but used to live in the second. Previously my hometown flopped between several districts. The entire state is now Gerrymandered. It used to be the 1st (Eastern Shore) and 6th (I always called it the Mountain District) were left alone with contiguous and sensible boundaries, but now even those have some funny reaches. Pay particular attention to Maryland's 2nd and 3rd districts, they are like snakes or interwoven strings with small and obnoxious connections. I agree with the comments above about (I assume the "new") districts 4 and 7. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.49.128.87 (talk) 00:07, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
I think you must add the UK to your list of examples: the current Conservative government is attempting to manipulate the electorate (particularly in London) by capping the maximum amount of Housing Benefit they will pay to the unemployed - no longer able to afford the rents charged in London, it is an attempt to clear the capital of 'socialist' types,and ensure the Conservative Party always remain in control of the Capital, and can influence selection of the Mayor, regardless of the party in overall control in Government. Also referred to as 'Social Cleansing' e.g. see <http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-17821018> 79.70.235.31 (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)twl79.70.235.31 (talk) 03:22, 18 December 2012 (UTC)
I suppose it won´t do as an external link, but it´s very good: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Mky11UJb9AY&list=SPqs5ohhass_QZtSkX06DmWOaEaadwmw_D Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 12:12, 10 March 2013 (UTC)
We should shorten this article my creating a new main article for Gerrymandering in the United States. Move the current discussion of US Gerrymandering there. The content of the current section on Computer Redistricting probably belongs in the US section.--Fagles 16:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
You can add this http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California%27s_46th_congressional_district classical Gerrymandering in year 2003-2013. I was living in this district and look like classical phone: Pick your phone and call your Representative. Was too long travel by bike from one side to another by reality: Do you want know my district? It is one day bike trip. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.166.104.221 (talk) 19:59, 16 September 2013 (UTC)
...considering that the term itself originated in the United States, and (counter-examples are welcome!) primarily applies to United States politics? Malapportionment apparently already has its own article. Begging another question, why *wouldn't* the article perspective be limited to the U.S.? Just askin'. 98.228.92.5 (talk) 01:23, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
The article defines gerrymandering as "attempt[ing] to establish a political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating district boundaries to create partisan advantaged districts". The example quoted in the United Kingdom section is the proposed constituency boundary changes by the Electoral Commission. However, this was not gerrymandering since the Electoral Commission is non-partisan and it was not trying to advantage any political party; rather, the political advantage was a side-effect. The goal was to reduce the number of Members of Parliament from about 650 to 600 and to have constituencies of more equal population. I've reworded the section to a more NPOV but I propose deleting it altogether because I don't think it's relevant. Any comments? Dricherby (talk) 10:20, 14 February 2013 (UTC)
And, yes, every statement on Wikipedia that is not backed up by a reliable source is potentially subject to deletion, as an absolute matter of Wikipedia policy: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable" and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Now, in practice, we don't provide sources for absolutely everything and WP:OR says that the key point is the existence of sources, even if they're not mentioned in the article. It gives the example that we don't need to give a source for "Paris is the capital of France" because everyone knows it's true and anyone could find a source in the blink of an eye. WP:BLP issues aside, I wouldn't normally delete unsourced material unless I believed it to be untrue, which is what's happening here. In particular, the verifiability policy states that any material that is "challenged or is likely to be challenged" must have sources that "must clearly support the material as presented in the article" and the burden of proof is on the person who wishes to add or restore such material to the article. Notions such as "gerrymandering-like effects" are not "clearly supported" by the sources given. WP:SYNTH (part of WP:OR) explicitly says that one should not use a fact in a source (e.g., that the boundary changes favour one party over another) to advance a conclusion that is not in that source (e.g., that the boundary change is gerrymandering, or a "gerrymandering-like effect"). That is precisely OR. Dricherby (talk) 08:23, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
The deleted text in question, and the subject of our contention, IS:
"Proposals by the politically-independent Electoral Commission to reduce the number of seats in the House of Commons by redrawing constituency boundaries were defeated in the House of Commons in January 2013.[4]
Under the proposals the areas set to lose the fewest seats tended to vote Conservative, while other regions such as Wales, which would lose a larger proportion of its seats, tended to have more Labour voters. The plans were defended by the Conservative government as the natural result of smoothing out the number of voters per constituency, as in Wales in the 2010 election there were 36,667 votes per MP elected but in England there were 47,063 votes per MP.[5][6]"
There are some responses which I would like to give to our on-going discussion concerning the inclusion of the above text. 1) You stated on 07:17, 30 May 2013 (UTC) that "The fact that Labour would have been affected more than the Conservatives is already included in the text." At the time of this point, I am NOT aware that this is, in fact, explicitly stated as such anywhere within the article (one would logically think such a statement ought to be included
2) "I wouldn't normally delete unsourced material unless I believed it to be untrue, which is what's happening here." That's fair enough, afterall, you're entitled to your opinion. Nevertheless, by your own statement you have NO evidence (or sources) to back up the idea that the material that you removed was, indeed, untrue. What you are acting upon is your own belief or opinion, NOT what is either Verifiable OR True (not withstanding the whole Verifiability, not Truth debacle).
"And, yes, every statement on Wikipedia that is not backed up by a reliable source is potentially subject to deletion, as an absolute matter of Wikipedia policy".
3) You say that : "Notions such as "gerrymandering-like effects" are not "clearly supported" by the sources given. WP:SYNTH (part of WP:OR) explicitly says that one should not use a fact in a source (e.g., that the boundary changes favour one party over another) to advance a conclusion that is not in that source (e.g., that the boundary change is gerrymandering, or a "gerrymandering-like effect"). That is precisely OR." Not withstanding the issue of how one determines whether "gerrymandering-like effects" are "clearly supported" within a source or sources, the information you deleted faithfully reproduces the source in question (the http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-21235169 website). In particular, the text states that "Under the proposals the areas set to lose the fewest seats tended to vote Conservative, while other regions such as Wales, which would lose a larger proportion of its seats, tended to have more Labour voters." From what you have stated ("one should not use a fact in a source (e.g., that the boundary changes favour one party over another)"), you at least agree that the text WAS correct, and WAS verifiable given the source in question (you have said this!). The issue under contention is whether this constitutes Gerrymandering. You might make the assertion that including the text within the Gerrymandering article constitutes "advancing a conclusion that is not in that source", ie: that the changes were a form of Gerrymandering, by virtue of the fact that the changes are being included within the Gerrymandering article. This is a fallacy in the sense that just because an example is included within a Gerrymandering article, that that example is an example of Gerrymandering. It might be an illustrative example of something relevant to Gerrymandering (in which case, it at the very least ought to go into the malapportionment article, but the common sense reference I will make below means that it is well within reason for it to go into THIS article).
4) "And, yes, every statement on Wikipedia that is not backed up by a reliable source is potentially subject to deletion, as an absolute matter of Wikipedia policy: "All material in Wikipedia mainspace, including everything in articles, lists and captions, must be verifiable" and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed." Now, in practice, we don't provide sources for absolutely everything and WP:OR says that the key point is the existence of sources, even if they're not mentioned in the article. " This may be the correct way of doing things. Then again, it may not. In particular, since you are stating that, as an "absolute matter" of policy, potentially ALL material lacking a "reliable source" (notwithstanding the issue of who determines what a reliable source is, or how it is defined, etc...) can be deleted, this overarching viewpoint would seem to conflict with "Common Sense" (WP:UCS), necessitating a conceptual hierarchy of whether Common Sense is deemed to be superior to Policy Guidelines (it does seem to be, in that "Wikipedia has many rules. Instead of following every rule, it is acceptable to use common sense as you go about editing. Being too wrapped up in rules can cause loss of perspective, so there are times when it is better to ignore a rule. Even if a contribution "violates" the precise wording of a rule, it might still be a good contribution."). Further, that statement "Why isn't "use common sense" an official policy? It doesn't need to be; as a fundamental principle, it is above any policy." would seem to imply that Common sense is above policies, and that if the deleted text IS common sensical, then it is a Good encyclopaedia entry and ought to be included, not deleted. Furthermore, the idea that EVERY statement on Wikipedia that is not backed up is potentially subject to deletion would seem to be a false position to hold as per WP:UCS.
Of course, the issue here is whether THIS statement on Wikipedia ought to be deleted (and some of the above points argue AGAINST deletion).
5) "Nobody came up with any sourcs so I deleted the text" Well, I guess the following would constitute a source. I will endeavour to include it within the article, BUT by your own arguments, this is not an absolute necessity (all that is necessary is that the reliable source exists, according to what you say - though maintaining goodwill would seem to necessitate that this be demonstrated, as I am about to do): http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/johnmcternan1/100104661/boundary-commission-this-tory-gerrymander-is-just-another-drop-of-kool-aid-for-the-suicidal-lib-dems/ For example, it states that "These changes – published yesterday – were anticipated to be particularly bad for Labour. " I believe that citation satisfies general community requirements for WP:RS.
I hope that these points at least demonstrate goodwill on my part in restoring the relevant text, and show that such restoration is reasonable. You are, of course, free to counter-argue BUT I hope that you would do as I have done AND make your arguments BEFORE instigating any changes. AnInformedDude (talk) 18:46, 27 October 2013 (UTC)
I think that, according to the below, I am correct to object to your removal of the material:
"Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step."
WP:BURDEN "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material, and is SATISFIED by providing a reliable source that directly supports the material." I HAVE provided a reliable source that directly supports the material. You have REMOVED said material with NO justification, stating that significant discussion has occurred. In line with good-faith, it is clear that you should provide justification given that I have demonstrated the existence of such a source on the Talk Page.
AnInformedDude (talk) 09:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)
mfarah, please discuss your issues with the article here before reverting. Thanks. Pristino (talk) 16:30, 18 August 2014 (UTC)
The examples show three California examples that should probably be removed because our state non-partisan commission drastically changed the boundaries after the 2010 census, so that using them as examples links to districts that are specifically not Gerrymandered now. It's confusing for the purpose of this article. If they're to be used as examples, they should link to historical examples.
Perhaps they could be replaced with districts brought under judicial scrutiny for gerrymandering. Austin might also be a good example, as it is the only city of that size to not include an anchor district - it is thoroughly carved up for gerrymandering reasons.
Davey1107 (talk) 01:22, 7 November 2014 (UTC)
Hi. I added the Redistricting Game to the External links on the Gerrymandering article. Then it was removed. The Redistricting Game is an objective and serious educational tool about gerrymandering. The game is used in colleges and high schools around the US year after year. It has been played 10s of millions of times. Also it is on par in terms of seriousness of purpose with the other external links. Please check out the project. If you still feel it should not appear in the External links I would appreciate an explanation as to why. Thank you. Pgz 1 (talk) 06:33, 12 February 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Gerrymandering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 06:44, 26 August 2015 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to 9 external links on Gerrymandering. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add ((cbignore))
after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add ((nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot))
to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:17, 8 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gerrymandering. 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, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ((Sourcecheck))
).
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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:41, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
The figure captioned "Gerrymandering in its most basic form." is coloured to depict that "red" steals the election from "blue". Given that this article mostly mentions gerrymandering in the US, and red is associated with the Republican party & blue the Democratic party, this is an obvious form of demonisation against the Republican party. I suggest the colour to be changed to yellow and purple.130.123.104.21 (talk) 23:08, 16 January 2017 (UTC)fzy
This image: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:How_to_Steal_an_Election_-_Gerrymandering.svg is included in the section Effect on electoral competition. I think the title may go against Neutral PoV considering "steal" has much negative connotation. The title could be changed to something like "Explaination of Gerrymandering" Nemoanon (talk) 07:35, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
The "How to Steal an Election" graphic (which was recently moved up to the lede) is nice, but I think it has two problems. It does illustrate quite well how drawing the map differently yields different un-representative election outcomes. And how a convoluted districting can produce a majority outcome for the minority party. I think it belongs in the lede, no question.
If anybody has thoughts on this please say so. I figure I can produce an updated graphic showing the two representative-outcome maps, and change the labeling, a week or so from now. It is an SVG file (not an image), I could even edit it by hand.
By the way, the persistent complaint from some editors that the graphic is biased against Republicans (because of the red and blue) results from problem 1. They are reading the graphic as "the left-hand illustration is normal where the Blue Party wins, the right-hand illustration where the Red Party wins is bad." Whereas both are unrepresentative outcomes, but the graphic doesn't indicate that. M.boli (talk) 00:23, 10 April 2017 (UTC)
There are two problems with the intro image. The first are the colors; the second is the middle example.
Red and blue are traditionally associated with the US Republican and Democratic parties. Although there is an example of blue winning in the middle as an example of gerrymandering, it seems a priori that blue would win in a fair election, since there is more blue to start with. For this reason it is not clear how the middle image is an example of gerrymandering, since the rectangular divisions indicated appear a reasonable way to divide the grid.
So the image on the right of red winning appears to be the only example of gerrymandering, and the implication can be naturally inferred -- as I did -- that "the Republican Party is more likely to gerrymander", given recent articles from the dominant media together with the colors shown here, something not explicitly stated by the image.
1. Will you please change the colors to purple and green? or pink and brown? 2. Will you please revise the middle image to a more clear example of the majority gerrymandering? -- Newagelink (talk) 03:56, 18 May 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Gerrymandering. 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:14, 26 July 2017 (UTC)
The article overwhelmingly gives the impression that gerrymandering is the US is an exclusively Republican action--every example given involves the Republican party as the gerrymander-ers. This leads me to ask two questions:
Spectheintro (talk) 16:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)spectheintro
I have replaced the contested image. The new one is built from the former one. Changes are:
I think the image isn't rendering with very good quality in my browser's rendition of the gerrymandering article, even though it looked OK to me in Wikimedia commons. I think the colors aren't contrasting enough, and somehow the fonts are not rendering well. Also there are some small anomalies in the SVG that I don't understand because I have no exprience with Inkscape. So if somebody wants to download the SVG and fix it up, you are welcome to do so. M.boli (talk) 03:45, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
SEE [14]... This edit is pure WP:SYN. I suggest removing it. Also, see M.boli's parallel and nearly simultaneous suggestion [15] at Gerrymandering in the United States, along with Unschool. Perhaps an RfC is in order? DN (talk) 07:28, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Here is one example of the ORIGINAL file....Notice the simplicity compared to the alternate version. The original is red and blue, but the rest of the work is represented as the publisher intended. DN (talk) 07:34, 28 November 2017 (UTC)
Uploaded an improved version of the diagram. Colors now green/yellow for better readability, explanatory text improved, some drawing anomalies fixed. I kept the versions of the map that are proportionate, I think that showing gerrymandered maps as contrast to the gerrymandered ones can be helpful. I hope this one meets with approval. I will be happy to consider improvements, tweaks, and bug fixes to the diagram. And I am happy to consider arguments as to why I may be wrong-headed. M.boli (talk) 01:29, 1 December 2017 (UTC)
This section has been tagged as needing citations. I found an article by ProPublica that seems to fit the bill [16]. Any thoughts? DN (talk) 08:23, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
Many of the sections through the article have a lack of citations and verifiable sources. I've managed to find a few that may be useful but many more will be needed. Information in the article that cannot be verified should possibly be removed since the source of the information is unknown. Here are some of the articles found so far that may help when it comes to the missing citations.
Chen, Jowei, and David Cottrell. “Evaluating Partisan Gains from Congressional Gerrymandering: Using Computer Simulations to Estimate the Effect of Gerrymandering in the U.S. House.” Electoral Studies, vol. 44, 2016, pp. 329–340., doi:10.1016/j.electstud.2016.06.014.
Cooper, Michael. “5 Ways to Tilt an Election.” The New York Times, The New York Times, 7 Oct. 2010, http://graphics8.nytimes.com/packages/pdf/weekinreview/20100925-redistricting-graphic.pdf
Forgette, Richard, and John W. Winkle. “Partisan Gerrymandering and the Voting Rights Act.” Social Science Quarterly, vol. 87, no. 1, 2006, pp. 155–173. JSTOR, JSTOR, www.jstor.org/stable/42956115.
Kennedy, Sheila Suess. “Electoral Integrity: How Gerrymandering Matters.” Public Integrity, vol. 19, no. 3, 2016, pp. 265–273., doi:10.1080/10999922.2016.1225480
Feel free to add any more relevant sources or remove any of the ones here if they are not appropriate for the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vkouakou (talk • contribs) 05:12, 15 March 2018 (UTC)
69.181.23.220 (talk) 22:00, 5 September 2018 (UTC)
Quote: "Among western democracies, only Israel and the Netherlands employ an electoral system with only one (nationwide) voting district for election of national representatives."
Not true. Several smaller European countries, such as Slovakia or Slovenia have only one nationwide voting district for parliamentary elections. Other European countries (Austria, Czechia, Sweden) have voting districts with fixed boundaries. The number of representatives from each district can change in time (because of population shifts), but the boundaries do not change, so again, gerrymandering is not an issue there.
In case of presidential elections (if the president is elected by direct vote of the citizens), even those European countries that do have electoral districts for parliamentary elections, have no districts for the presidential ones. The president of France, for example, is elected by direct vote, with votes from all of France being counted together, leaving no room for gerrymandering.
Someone should correct this.
Johnnyjanko (talk) 12:31, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
These two sections should be either deleted or replaced by reliably sourced content. I understand the editor urge to figure out and explain things. But these sections have evolved into people trying to figure out and blog their ideas on gerrymandering. M.boli (talk) 13:47, 29 December 2018 (UTC)
Large parts of the section or almost everything is not supported by any reliable sources. This section is covering a relatively broad view on Gerrymandering and voting systems, but it fails to provide a simple explanation of why and how Gerrymandering works in voting systems. In addition, a short discussion on potential consequences for electoral outcomes needs to be part of this section. How does Gerrymandering impact the representation and rights of minorities and how is this caused by electoral processes? What other aspects of an electoral/voting system might impact representation in combination with Gerrymandering? 1. giving this section a clear structure 2. short paragraph about the interactions with other features of the voting system 3. backing the remaining and added parts with reliable sources
(SparkOfDoener (talk) 17:29, 24 April 2019 (UTC))
Consider this statement from the page: "When the parties win district elections in rough proportion to their electoral popularity, the efficiency gap is near zero."
Now consider an example: 5 districts, 10 voters per district, two parties A and B, district 1 with all 10 from A, district 2 with all 10 from A, district 3 with 10 from A, district 4 with 10 from A, district 5 with all 10 from B. So party A has 20 wasted votes and party B has 5 wasted votes. The difference is 15, so the efficiency gap is 15/50 = 30%. Party A has 40 voters and gets 4 seats, party B has 10 voters and gets 1 seat, so the parties win the district elections in proportion to their electoral popularity. But the efficiency gap is far from 0. So the quoted statement is false.
Compare with https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Wasted_vote&diff=next&oldid=904976867#Accuracy_of_a_statement
Who wants to fix it?
Daniel R. Grayson (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2019 (UTC)
The graphic 'Different ways to apportion electoral districts' might be more powerful if it were apportioned to make a 4:1 outcome. Maybe the most powerful way would be to make 4 groupings that are 2:1 and one group that is 12:26. It could be made even more extreme by adding more squares, creating a 4:1 outcome with 4 groupings that are 2:1 and one group that is 12:36, or 12:46, ad nauseum. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.58.183.93 (talk) 20:10, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
The article uses Georgia districts 8 and 10 as examples for the determination of *Minimum district to convex polygon ratio*. The image says that 10 is less gerrymandered because 8 has a lower score, in that district 8's actual area fills in a lower ratio of its convex polygon than district 10 does.
The irony is that district 10 is still considered to be a gerrymander, as part of it is specifically drawn to break up the cities of Athens and Augusta, which each have a high proportion of Democrat voters (an example of "cracking").
--The owner of all ✌️ 01:22, 19 April 2021 (UTC)
The provided diagram of a theoretical rectangular country has an issue, it presents differing district lines as either "proportionate outcome" or "disproportionate outcome", implying that that is the factor that determines whether gerrymandering has occurred. The truth is that it is possible for lines to be drawn such that the geographic districts are perceived as fair, but the resulting outcome is still "disproportionate". In fact, without knowing the political parties, most people would probably agree that the top left example is fair, because all the districts are compact, convex, and otherwise comply with known fair criteria. The owner of all ✌️ 03:54, 12 May 2021 (UTC)
The article should be under the title Gerrymander not gerrymandering, in accordance with standard naming procedure. STÓD/ÉÍRE 00:26 Apr 10, 2003 (UTC)
Why was this moved from Gerrymandering? The title of an article should be the noun form, not the verb. If there are no objections, I will move it back Deus Ex 17:58, 22 Oct 2004 (UTC)
Well, a Google test shows 66,300 hits for 'gerrymandering' and 24,700 for 'gerrymander'. I think most encyclopaedias would have an article under 'gerrymandering' as well, for example Britannica does. Deus Ex 12:37, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)
This reference might be useful: Bliss, Laura (August 18, 2021). "A Surge of Citizen Activism Amps Up the Fight Against Gerrymandering". Bloomberg CityLab. Retrieved 2021-08-22. Eastmain (talk • contribs) 23:15, 22 August 2021 (UTC)
I inserted the word “arguably” into the opening sentence: “Gerrymandering (/ˈdʒɛrimændərɪŋ/ or /ˈɡɛrimændərɪŋ/)[1][2] is a practice intended to establish an arguably unfair political advantage for a particular party or group by manipulating the boundaries of electoral districts, which is most commonly used in first-past-the-post electoral systems.”
I did this because it’s not clear that the early practitioners of this practice (such as Elbridge Gerry) thought it was unfair. In the nation of Greece, the party having a majority in parliament automatically gets some extra seats so that it can govern effectively, and without paralysis. In America, the gerrymander may have a similar anti-paralysis effect. In any event, if the word “arguably” is removed from the lead sentence, I hope that references will be produced showing that the gerrymander is objectively unfair. I don’t think we should be judgmental about it, if a significant number of reliable sources are not judgmental about it. Anythingyouwant (talk) 16:51, 22 September 2021 (UTC)
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Vkouakou.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 22:20, 16 January 2022 (UTC)
"with the intent of creating undue advantage for a party, group, or socio-economic class within the constituency."
So if you are manipulating electoral districts to try to minimize party advantage and maximize the competitiveness of elections, that isn't also gerrymandering? Either way you are trying to socially engineer elections. I think your definition is too narrow, and you can drop the intent clause from it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:980:C004:5410:6D43:856B:4CB3:C603 (talk) 14:18, 29 January 2022 (UTC)
Is there a reason why India is not in this list? 2600:1700:38D0:56D0:E594:28A5:CDBB:2B89 (talk) 18:35, 19 September 2022 (UTC)
Perhaps include examples from outside USA e.g. Northern Ireland. 2A02:8084:20:DE00:F81B:4926:78C:DABE (talk) 06:24, 11 November 2022 (UTC)
((cite news))
: Missing or empty |title=
(help); Text "titleConservatives lose boundary review vote" ignored (help)
((cite news))
: Missing or empty |title=
(help); Text "Election 2010 Results" ignored (help)