Talk:2013–2014 San Diego mayoral special election

Bob Filner resignation section

It seems like it would be useful to include a detailed section on Filner's resignation in the body of the article. The lead could just mention that the election was necessary due to Filner's resignation amid allegations of sexual harassment. Most of what's currently in the second paragraph of the lead could be moved to this new section. This is the way that San Diego mayoral special election, 2005 is currently structured. Thoughts? mcd51 (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

I think having a section title is a good idea - since his resignation is the reason for the special election - but I don't think much more detail is needed than is already there. The 2005 article that you referenced has just one paragraph about Murphy's resignation, about comparable to what we have here. --MelanieN (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2013 (UTC)

Name change

If, as expected, the runoff between Faulconer and Alvarez is scheduled for early 2014, should the name of this page be changed to San Diego mayoral special election, 2014? It seems like most people looking for this page in the future would being looking based on the date when the new mayor was actually elected. The current name would automatically be left as a redirect, which seems reasonable to me. Thoughts? mcd51 (talk) 01:19, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

That makes sense. But what do you think about waiting until 2014 or close to 2014 before moving it? --MelanieN (talk) 01:35, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

Yeah, there's no rush to move it, especially since a date for the runoff hasn't even been picked yet. It just seems like eventually it should end up with the year when the mayor is actually elected. Early 2014 should be fine. mcd51 (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

Infobox partisanship

This is a non-partisan election. Shouldn't the infobox party reflect that, as the article does? Prose can state that the candidates are registered to a political party (and which one). – Muboshgu (talk) 15:02, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I wish I could agree with you, but alas - nonpartisan elections seem to have become a polite fiction over the past few years. The news coverage of the race is focusing heavily - almost exclusively - on the partisan angle. And the local political parties have become much more heavily involved in recent years. (For example, the local Republican party decreed that there should be only one high-profile Republican in this special election, so they persuaded Carl DeMaio not to run. For another example, in the most recent city council election, the Republican party recruited and ran three Republican challengers as a slate, with the openly stated hope of flipping the majority party on the council.) If we pretend that state law mandating nonpartisan elections is still the governing principle here, I think we would be closing our eyes to the reality on the ground - and to how it is being reported by Reliable Sources. --MelanieN (talk) 16:20, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

As it is now, the infobox is partisan, and the body and table are non-partisan. They should be one way or the other. I still lean non-partisan for all, personally, since even though partisanship may be very much involved, the candidates are not listed by a party on the ballot. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:36, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

I see your point about the inconsistency. I could be persuaded. Let's see what others have to say. Meanwhile, I see that we neglected to explain the nonpartisan angle in the article. I have now added it. Thanks for the nudge. --MelanieN (talk) 16:54, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Even though local elections are officially non-partisan in California, I agree that it is useful for readers to see the political preference of the candidates where known. As currently written, it is clear in the article that the race is officially non-partisan even though party preference of candidates are widely known and emphasized in reporting on the races. If we want to make the boxes consistent, I would include partisan prefernence in the body and tables with the caveat that though officially non-partisan, party preference is listed where known. mcd51 (talk) 01:24, 16 February 2014 (UTC)