Talk:2013 Isle of Anglesey County Council election

General comments

1). I don't think it's helpful for the largest paragraph in the introduction to be a summary of who can and can't vote with protracted details for the arrangements for students and other absentees. This should either be moved down or removed altogether - it's the sort of thing that belongs in articles about the franchise not in every single council election.

2). At the risk of wading into a mess, "Independent" isn't the most helpful description for a council where multiple independent groups regularly form and some indication of which independents are in existing alliances could be handy.

3). How the party shares are calculated in multi-members seats is always messy, especially when parties field less candidates than available seats and/or there's a high level of voting for the person that cuts across party lines and/or you have independent candidates running jointly. Only one ward saw a clean sweep by a party slate and two others by indys who may or may not have been a team so any calculation is somewhat theoretical. This is where the explicit methodology should be stated and an explanation either given or linked to.

Timrollpickering (talk) 13:48, 30 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Re point 3, what exactly do you mean? From my experience as a polling officer and count assistant, in a result for a single multi-member ward, it's standard practice to assign a % to each candidate. However, if we are adding up all the votes across the council for a "total" table like in the Overall results section, then it is acceptable to calculate percentages using total votes for all candidates across the council (it's similar to a general election in which not all parties contest every seat, yet are still assigned a % of the national vote share). Number 5 7 11:15, 30 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

It's common in reporting and analysis of council results to produce party %s for wards and in turn the overall authority but there's several different approaches for multi-member wards. Some methods take the top polling candidate in each ward, others average by the number of candidates stood, others by the number of seats available. These can produce wildly differing results when either a party doesn't stand a full slate and/or a lot of votes split the slate. Ynys Gybi is an example of both where Plaid only stood two candidates in a three member seat and one got nearly three times as many as the other. Authority wide results sometimes try to take the full raw votes but they can be distorted by different numbers of seats per ward so the larger wards distort the total. And independents can just make it worse because of whether some, all or none should be bracketted together. Anglesey has quite a history of independent groups and alliances on the council which makes it dubious to treat all indies separately. Timrollpickering (talk) 01:38, 31 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Voting numbers

The numbers of votes for each party seems questionable. Just a rough tally shows Plaid Cymru had over 19,000 votes cast for it, but the total in the table is less than half of this, 9,021. How is the 9,021 arrived at? Sionk (talk) 12:27, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

It's likely a miscalculation based on the voting method. One voter can use their vote more than once so I wonder if there's been a case of double or triple counting? doktorb _words^deeds 14:11, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

The tally is of votes, rather than voters, so it looks like a case of half counting :) Sionk (talk) 14:32, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]

This is why somebody else does my taxes ;) doktorb _words^deeds 17:37, 16 March 2019 (UTC)[reply]