Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election

Infobox for next UK general election

Our RfC on the infobox for this article has yet to be closed and the question remains contentious. However, there is now also a proposal at Talk:Next_United_Kingdom_general_election#Use_of_TILE_rather_than_TIE on changing the type of infobox and what parties to show there. Editors might like to input. Bondegezou (talk) 15:17, 6 September 2024 (UTC)

Replace 'Proportionality concerns' section with Gallagher Index reference

I propose the removal of the "Proportionality concerns" section in its current form and the inclusion of a more detailed reference to the Gallagher index, as has been standard practice for previous UK general election articles.

While the section currently provides commentary on disproportionality, it overlaps with the objective analysis provided by the Gallagher index. The index offers an academically recognized and neutral measure of electoral disproportionality, which has consistently been used in past election articles.

In light of the score of 23.67 from the Gallagher index—the highest in modern UK history—this figure alone captures the extent of disproportionality in the 2024 election without the need for subjective narratives or opinions. For example, commentary such as Fraser Nelson's "Potemkin landslide" and similar subjective statements are less suitable for an encyclopedic entry focused on neutrality.

I also suggest that a separate article could be created to chronicle historical Gallagher index scores for UK elections. This would allow for an ongoing, objective reference point, and the current discourse around proportional voting could be better addressed in that context.

In summary, I recommend:

• Removing subjective narratives and detailed party-specific breakdowns, as the Gallagher index covers disproportionality comprehensively.
• Retaining and expanding the Gallagher index reference to offer a clearer, objective analysis of the election results.
• This approach would align the article with Wikipedia's goal of using objective, standardized measures and provide a more neutral and structured account of the election's disproportionality.

This felt like a large edit, so wanted to ensure it was discussed here first.

Thoughts? Telephone man123 (talk) 13:51, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

We should reflect what reliable sources say. There have been more reliable sources than usual commenting on the disproportionality of this election, so we should reflect that. Most of these don't use the Gallagher index, so while it's useful to include the Gallagher index, I think it would be inappropriate for us to base our coverage around it. Bondegezou (talk) 15:30, 9 September 2024 (UTC)

Summary for this election should go higher than the results of the last election?

Trying to find the results for parties other than Labour Tory and Libdem means getting past several bits of data, including lists for the previous parliament. It's nice that proportional representation is mentioned in the article, but the article itself does not do a great job at proportionally representing the votes cast. Markshinshu (talk) 08:05, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

adding parties to infobox

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

can we add reform to the infobox considering they got more votes than the libdems and the third most voted party? also, snp is notable and could also be added considering they were on the infobox in 2019 too Shooboo23 (talk) 13:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)

No. We've been over this on this page many times now. It would be good to let the current consensus stand for a decent length of time. GenevieveDEon (talk) 13:34, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

As GenevieveDEon says, this has been discussed at length. The current selection is the result. Elections are about winning seats, so we focus on seat winners, not who got the most votes. Bondegezou (talk) 14:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

just trying to not draw attention to how reform is on the rise arent you -> Ideological bias on Wikipedia Shooboo23 (talk) 20:05, 3 November 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)

just trying to pick a fight arent you -> WP:NOTHERE Tim O'Doherty (talk) 20:13, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

so trying to improve the infobox which most people see first by including a party with the 3rd-highest number of votes means that im not here to build an encyclopedia? Shooboo23 (talk) 21:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)( Blocked sockpuppet)

I voted for the larger box option during the RfC. But we have had that discussion, and it had an outcome, that we are abiding by. Please stop trying to relitigate something that already wasted a load of our time. GenevieveDEon (talk) 21:37, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Shooboo23, I suggest you read WP:AGF. We try to assume other editors are acting in good faith and not throw around accusations. Bondegezou (talk) 11:37, 5 November 2024 (UTC)

See long-winded RfC on this here as to why they are not included. CNC (talk) 14:36, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.