This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject West Midlands, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of West Midlands on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.West MidlandsWikipedia:WikiProject West MidlandsTemplate:WikiProject West MidlandsWest Midlands articles
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject Law Enforcement. Please Join, Create, and Assess.Law EnforcementWikipedia:WikiProject Law EnforcementTemplate:WikiProject Law EnforcementLaw enforcement articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Coventry, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.CoventryWikipedia:WikiProject CoventryTemplate:WikiProject CoventryCoventry articles
Is this really a by-election? I know that elections for replacement candidates to legislatures and councils (in cases where there are electoral districts) are described as such, but for a single-person position like this? Number5720:54, 2 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Using "election": BBC, story Press Association (reprinted in numerous local newspaper) refers to it as just an election.
It looks to be a 50/50 split, so I would say we have an active choice. As noted above, I don't believe single-person posts meets the traditional meaning of by-elections (our article by-elections refers only to legislative ones). Number5711:46, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
Well let's try to be constructive. We don't have precedent, these roles are new and vacancies are untested. We only have the term 'by election' in our lexicon, rather than, say, the American 'special election'. The post is vacant and, as above, the legislation says an election to fill the vacancy must be held within 35 days. What we could do is maintain the article for now and make a decision on its future in time. doktorbwordsdeeds13:56, 3 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]
I've just added the 2012 result for comparison but the tables look odd - in particular the three parties who increased their raw totals & shares look as though they all dropped between the two. Does anyone understand the table enough to know what's going on? Timrollpickering (talk) 14:33, 22 August 2014 (UTC)[reply]