Talk:Electoral geography

Untitled

I do not want this article to be merged into the main "gerrymandering" article at this time. It would be a very good thing if this article is 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. 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 this "Electoral geography" article in such a way as to understand how the UK system can work. It seems a total mess....--The Trucker (talk) 19:19, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree with The Trucker. This topic is different enough from Gerrymandering; it is not a subtopic of that topic. OLEF641 (talk) 19:33, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Copy-edit

This needs more than a copy-edit; if it wasn't for the references I'd send this to AFD for essay and original research. One issue that concerns me: England, Britain and The United Kingdom are NOT the same things. Another: the UK uses the First past the post system for general and local elections, whereas the article suggests that it uses some form of Proportional representation or Preferential voting system, which is not the case.

And what's all this piffle about "An election has to have a clear reason behind it, and voters have to be aware of these reasons as well."? What does this have to do with electoral boundaries?

This article needs re-writing from the ground up. I hope that someone with an ounce of writing ability and a Degree in politics should find it. Thanks, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 23:11, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

And what on earth does this mean? "In the UK, to extinguish regional identity, England was divided into nine regions." I can think of two or three meanings which this poor sentence can be twisted to mean, but it tells me more about the writer's thought processes than electoral representation. Baffle gab1978 is correct - a rewrite is the only hope. Gregory Goon — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.167.229 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Electoral geography. 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:

• Added archive http://www.webcitation.org/5mr891sXQ?url=http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html to http://www.census.gov/popest/states/NST-ann-est.html

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: 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) 03:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)