Talk:Spoilt vote

Missing reference to refused ballot

Please link to article Refused_ballot to distinguish between a spoilt (damaged) and a rejected (intentionally not filled in correctly) ballot in Canada.

Spoilt or spoiled

"Spoilt"? Is that even a word?
Signed, some American

Seriously, should this be spoiled? "Spoilt" might be right in Britain (I don't know, though), but it isn't in the US. Does Wikipedia have a policy on what to do in these cases? A10brown 19:33, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

"Spoilt" is in fact correct; in general, a "default" policy is to "give" the name to whoever started the article, a sort of "first come first served" basis. --Lenoxus 01:10, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Weeelll, Wikipedia:Manual of Style#National varieties of English does indeed say "Follow the dialect of the first contributor." and also "If an article has been in a given dialect for a long time, and there is no clear reason to change it, leave it alone." However, it also says, "Try to find words that are common to all." I reckon that applies to spelling as well as vocabulary. "Spoiled vote" is no worse than "spoilt vote" in British (as well as being a good deal better in American). jnestorius^(talk)

I've just done a Google search, and 'spoiled vote' gives 1.85 million hits compared to 420,000 for 'spoilt vote'. Given that result suggests 'spoiled vote' is the far more common usage, I would support a page move to that title. As Jnestorius says above, 'spoiled vote' is not incorrect in British English, and seems to be the only spelling used in American English, making it probably the most appropriate choice. Terraxos 19:46, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

This isn't so much a language issue as a contextual one. This article is about voting and is the correct spelling for that context. To give some further insight, a Google search of the complete phases "spoilt vote" vs. "spoiled vote" shows nearly twice as many entries for spoilt. Terraxos, your search only shows the word "spoilt" is less common overall than the word "spoiled." --Electiontechnology 03:17, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

I've just done some Google searches, removing references to wikipedia in order to avoid letting all of Wikipedia's mirrors bias the results:

"spoilt ballot" -wikipedia	16,700
"spoiled ballot" -wikipedia	21,700
"spoilt vote" -wikipedia	2,440
"spoiled vote" -wikipedia	2,490

From this, as well as my experience with elections, I conclude that the dominant term under which people will look for this page is 'spoiled ballot'. Note that the first paragraph of the article is all about spoilt or spoiled ballots, not votes, so moving to that name would make good sense Douglas W. Jones (talk) 14:26, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Prof. Jones brings some compelling evidence of the popularity of the terms. "Spoiled" has increased in popularity globally and is certainly the dominant term in the US. I would support a name change. Electiontechnology (talk) 17:42, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I must agree with those wishing for a change to "Spoiled". That word is not only more common, but is the preferred word and spelling in most dictionaries. Further, it will likely remain the first choice of those teaching the English language. The idea that "spoilt" has to do specifically or more appropriately with voting is without reason. That word does not lend anything to the discussion, other than looking odd and/or archaic. While I appreciate, those who wish to use it in their daily vocabulary, it is far from standard. And finally, the Wikipedia stand that one should "Follow the dialect of the first contributor" will lead to silly situations like this. We are not giving any special credit to the original author, as these are not signed articles, and the article may actually be made up by many contributors. A change stands to reason as being valid here. - KitchM (talk) 00:13, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

A change does not stand to reason if you follow Wikipedia's stated principle that "The English Wikipedia does not prefer any major national variety of the language. Within the English Wikipedia no variety is considered more correct than another."

In British English, the term "spoilt ballot" is absolutely standard, and "spoiled ballot" would sound unusual. Acceptable, but unusual. Any change would be taking a preference to American English. The same applies to the comment about teaching. Anyone teaching English in England would teach that the past participle of "spoil" is "spoilt". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.123.49 (talk) 10:52, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

UK Turnout

http://www.ukpolitical.info/Turnout45.htm and http://www.electoralcommission.org.uk/elections/results/general_elections/uk-general-election-2006/edinburgh-east

indicate that spoilt ballots are not included in turnout, so I'm going to edit that last section. --Gordon (talk) 16:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)

In the UK, they are listed as "rejected votes" - as you can see on that page —Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.123.49 (talk) 10:47, 6 May 2010 (UTC)

In the second paragraph of the article, there is the comment that in Glasgow, Labour traditionally receives all of the spoilt ballots, mail ballots, and "ballots which might have been cast but were not." Is this the attempt of someone to jest about how corrupt politics are in Glasgow? It can't be a legitimate statement about how things are actually done, can it? It also does not seem to be referenced. 2600:1004:B144:5853:CD69:792F:5592:6807 (talk) 23:17, 25 June 2015 (UTC)