Wikipedia:Reference desk/Archives/Humanities/2012 October 27

Welcome to the Wikipedia Humanities Reference Desk Archives
The page you are currently viewing is an archive page. While you can leave answers for any questions shown below, please ask new questions on one of the current reference desk pages.

October 27

UK House of Commons trivia

Two questions:

1. When do newly-elected MPs take office? Basically as soon as a winner is officially named by elections officials, or is there some set period (e.g. "Ten days after the election") between election and officially taking office?
2. What's the salary for the Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds? Presumably there's something, or it wouldn't be good for resignation purposes; is it something like £1 per year?

I've looked around for both of these answers, finding such documents as this, but I wasn't able to find anything through Google or at UK House of Commons, Kissing hands, the Chiltern steward article, or anywhere else that I looked. Have to admit that these questions grew out of reading the thread just above this one. Nyttend (talk) 00:24, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

On Q. 1: I assume this is covered in Erskine May: Parliamentary Practice but I'm having trouble accessing an online version. Having worked in this part of the Australian bureaucracy, I can assure you that members of our lower house commence their service and are paid from election day, no matter how long it might take for the result in their division to become clear or be officially declared. SeeOdgers' House of Representatives Practiceat "Members' remuneration and entitlements":

• A Member is paid salary and allowances from and including the day of the election, ...

See also further down the page at "Titles accorded to members":

• A Member's status as a Member does not depend on the meeting of the Parliament, nor on the Member taking his or her seat or making the oath or affirmation. A Member is technically regarded as a Member from the day of election—that is, when he or she is, in the words of the Constitution, ‘chosen by the people’. A new Member is entitled to use the title MP once this status is officially confirmed by the declaration of the poll.

Australia has a Westminster system modelled after the UK's, so I can only assume it's the same there. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 01:17, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Right, I'm going to have a bash at the Chiltern Hundreds question. For those playing along at home, the post of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds is asinecure used to permit members of the House of Commons to leave their posts. By tradition, MPs are forbidden to resign. This dates from a 1624 resolution that states that MPs have been entrusted to represent their constituencies, and are not at liberty to resign this trust. At this time, serving in parliament was seen much more as a duty than a privilege, so it was more necessary to 'force' MPs to serve.

However, under the 1701 Act of Settlement, no person who holds an Office of profit under the crown may continue to be an MP. Thus, any MP appointed to a position which entitles them to receive money from the Crown will cease to be an MP. In modern times, MPs use this loophole to resign, and MPs wishing to resign are appointed to either post of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds or Steward of the Manor of Northstead. Appointments usually alternate between the two.

In terms of the actual 'salary' one receives for these roles, things are somewhat unclear. According to theEncyclopædia Britannica of 1911, "Up to the 19th century there was a nominal salary of 20S. attached to the post[of Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds]", but "There are no traces of any profits having ever been derived from the office [of Steward and Bailiff of the Manor of Northstead]". There's no mention of when in the C19th the salary was abolished.

The Mirror of Parliament, Volume 1 by John Henry Barrow (1839) says: "...a salary of 20l a year is attached to it, though the money is never received by any person accepting the office." (p.276). 20l (italic small-case "L") would be £20 in modern notation. Alansplodge (talk) 09:46, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Isn't that 20/-? That is, 20 followed by a solidus, meaning 20 shillings or £1 in new money. See £sd. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:05, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

No, in the 19th century and before, pounds were signified by an italic "L" after the amount. See Old Bailey Proceedings Online; 4th February 1839. "...he had clothes which came to 2l. 4s. 6d., and 3l. 0s. 6d. in cash". Also Calendar of Treasury Books, Volume 8 - 1685-1689 "Petitioner has sworn before Baron Atkins that what has been recovered of the premises is only worth 5l. 10s. 0d. per an." There is some inconclusive discussion at Talk:Pound sign.Alansplodge (talk) 19:58, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

A new Steward of the Chiltern Hundreds used to cost £14 15/- in an inauguration fee, which at one point came from the profits on the land. There was also stamp duty of £2 on the writ of appointment. The sale of land led to the estates becoming much less valuable and the Government paid the fee (seeMagazine, January 1841 p. 43). There is a note in National Archives file E 197/1, the Crown book of appointments to the Stewardships from 1772 to 1847, which states "Fee of £16·15 on Appointment to the Stewardship of the Chiltern Hundreds discontinued according to Mr. Trevelyan's letter to me of the 22 Jan. 1840. R.B.A." The signature is presumably that of R.B. Adderley of the Exchequer Seal Office. Perhaps significantly, Trevelyan had only started work on the previous day. Sam Blacketer (talk) 11:53, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the House of Commons Background Paper: Resignation from the House of Commons "Other such offices have been used for this purpose in the past, and some of them have carried duties and salaries: this is not the case today." This would suggest that the Stewards do not now receive any money following their appointments, nominal or otherwise.

I think the way this works is that by being appointed to one of these posts, MPs are entitled to receive the duties attached to the manors. The fact that, for at least a few hundred years, those duties have been £0.00 (or £0-0-0) is immaterial. It's the 'entitlement' to the profit that makes one inelegible to sit in the House. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 11:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

According to the Parliamentary fact sheet, "During the seventeenth century, a hundred years after any records of their actual administration cease, the office of Steward became divorced from any former actual duties, and ceased to enjoy any revenues from the area." So it's an "office for profit", but any profit has been stripped from it. It's the UK. It does not have to make sense ;-).--Stephan Schulz (talk) 12:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

On when a person elected becomes a Member of Parliament, elections are formally ordered by a Writ being sent from the Clerk of the Crown in Chancery to the Returning Officer in each Parliamentary constituency. The UK doesn't have any arrangement whereby absentee postal votes which arrive after polling stations close can be added to the count, so (unusually in a Western democracy) the count which takes place from 10 PM is the final result (save if it is challenged through an election petition). The official in charge of the election is called the 'Returning Officer' because the duty is that of making a Return to the Writ, which is to send back to the Clerk of the Crown the name and address of the person who has been duly elected. The Writ also formally tells the Returning Officer the date, time and place when the Parliament is summoned to meet. The Returns are all gathered together in a large white book and about ten minutes before the new Parliament meets, the book is formally handed over to the Clerk of the House of Commons. (SeeVotes and Proceedings for the record of this handover happening in the current Parliament.) Each person elected to Parliament then has to take the oath or affirm allegiance to the Crown in order to take their seat.

It is difficult to be precise about when a newly elected person has formally become a Member. It is certainly possible to argue that it is as soon as the Returning Officer has formally declared them elected. Against this it could be argued that no-one can be a member of a Parliament which has not yet been summoned, so it would be as soon as the Parliament had met. Members of Parliament are not paid unless they have taken the oath, but when they do take the oath their pay is backdated to the date their Return was received (see Briefing on Parliamentary Oath, p 8). However Members who have not taken the oath are still Members of Parliament and able to perform some functions. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I looked at two UK MPs chosen at random - Tony Blair and Patricia Hewitt. Blair was elected at the 1983 general election, held on 9 June. His own page tells me he was the Member for Sedgfield from, you guessed it, 9 June 1983. Hewitt was elected at at the1997 election, held on 1 May. Her page says she was the Member for Leicester West from 1 May 1997. It seems clear that UK MPs are members from election day or by-election day as the case may be. If that were not the case, we'd have some explaining to do about Blair, Hewitt et no doubt al. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 21:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

That seems to be the answer to a subtly different question - "When should Wikipedia count a Parliamentarian's term as beginning?" It is custom and practice here as elsewhere to refer to the polling day in the general election. In fact only a very few fast-counting constituencies are able to produce a result in the two hours between the close of the poll and midnight. I have, though, undone an edit which used the fact that a byelection count had concluded after midnight as a reason for saying the successful candidate's term began on the following day. (There's more disagreement about when the term ends for an MP who is defeated: is it on polling day, or the day Parliament was dissolved? Practice seems to differ.) Sam Blacketer (talk) 23:52, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

The background paper downloadable from here talks about the Father of the House

• The Father of the House heads the ‘seniority list’ of Members, a list of Members in order of their length of unbroken service. If two or more Members enter the House at the same election, each with unbroken service, their seniority is determined by the date and/or time they took the oath.

That is, for the purposes of determining who the Father of the House is, it may be necessary to look at when two or more members took the oath. But the implication is that, for general purposes, the term of service of an MP commences on their election day. -- Jack of Oz ^[Talk] 03:04, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The disqualification attaching to offices of profit under the Crown is triggered if there is a possibility of payment through the office; it is not necessary for any actual payment to have been made. In 1955 there were a series of problems with Members of Parliament who had posts which were unpaid but where there was a theoretical entitlement to expenses; they were held to be disqualifying. As a result of the confusion the House of Commons Disqualification Act 1957 was passed which lists all the affected posts in a Schedule, so that there is no doubt. Sam Blacketer (talk) 13:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

diffrenciation and cost leadership

can a firm or business achieve diffrenciation and mantian a low cos leadership at the sametime? — Precedingunsigned comment added by 61.175.228.68 (talk) 01:19, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Have a look at Differentiation (economics), Cost leadership and especially Porter generic strategies; does that help?184.147.123.169 (talk) 14:25, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Generally, a differentiation strategy will employ advertising and other means, which will increase cost, over, say, generic alternatives. However, there may be exceptions. For example, once a company finds itself with a near monopoly, the economy of scale may allow them to advertise and still remain the lowest cost producer. StuRat (talk) 23:34, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Hebrew english dictionary transliteration

Is there a website that is a Hebrew-english and English-Hebrew with English transliteration? I am trying to translate some English words into Hebrew like strong, might and union but I have hard time reading Hebrew that's why I need transliteration. — Precedingunsigned comment added by 70.31.22.30 (talk) 02:54, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I google [hebrew transliteration online] and there seems to be a number of possibilities. ←Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 03:28, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Have no idea about on-line, but in the dead-tree world, "Webster's New World Hebrew Dictionary" by Hayim Baltsan (ISBN 0-671-88991-5) is aimed at people like you... AnonMoos (talk) 05:59, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

WikiBooks has the beginnings of an elementary Hebrew course with transliteration here, but as of now it is woefully incomplete. The Foreign Services Institute has a very comprehensive course in Hebrew, with transliteration and accompanying recorded classes in mp3 format (around twenty hours of such material, by my tally) here. It's particularly useful in figuring out the particular Modern Israeli articulations of phonemes (especially vowels, which are by no means interchangeable with any of their English counterparts), something that is often neglected with the other gratis courses out there. Also, it's not exactly transliteration, but you might tryMilon and Foundation Stone (downloadable), both of which include audio files of Hebrew pronunciation. And if it's good-ol' Biblical Hebrew you're working with, most editions of Strong's I've seen have transliteration in one form or another. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 13:20, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Those may be good resources, but if the original questioner wants to look up Hebrew words based on their modern Israeli pronunciations (ignoring the Hebrew alphabet), then the Baltsan book seems to be one of the few tools that allows this... AnonMoos (talk) 10:06, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Google Translate is simple and easy if you want an ok translation. Otherwise, as someone noted above, just googling "Hebrew dictionary online" or "Hebrew translation online" will get tons of results. If you want specific words, feel free to ask me on my talkpage.

• Strong = חזק (pronounced as chazak)

• Might = עָצְמָה (pronounced as otz-mah. Note: if you're asking it as in "Might I go to the bathroom," it'd be האם, pronounced as ha-eem)

• Union = איחוד (pronounced as ee-chood)

Hope it helps! --JethroB 00:37, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

To help a bit more, I'll indicate the stressed syllables in all caps and substitute letters I believe are closer to the Hebrew sounds: kha-ZAK, ots-MAH, ee-KHOOD - though in the _trade_ union context, I'd suggest ee-GOOD (rhymes with "see food"; Morfix online H>E dico gives "unification, merger, unity" foree-KHOOD). -- Deborahjay (talk) 18:44, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

איחוד is sometimes transliterated in writing as Ihud. --Soman (talk) 16:44, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

London geography - Primrose Hill

This question is related to some content from the Regent's Park page, but there is no content dispute, I am just curious about the facts. In fact, the reason I am asking here is to a large extent because it seems no one cares over at Talk:Regent's Park.

Primrose Hill is a hill in London. At some point content was introduced into the Regent's Park article to say:

"Primrose Hill is a Royal Park and belongs to the Sovereign along with all the other Royal Parks of the Crown Estate.

The supposition that Primrose Hill is owned and maintained by the Corporation of London is an error that has been the subject of successful Crown litigation in both in the High Court and Court of Appeal"

Now, I am wondering about the facts behind these statements because 1) Primrose Hill is not listed as a Royal Park in London, and 2) the second sentence seems a bit non sequitur - is there really a supposition that Primrose Hill is owned by the Corporation of London? And has the Crown really sued the City in the High Court and the Court of Appeal? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:01, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll take the first bit: Whilst Primrose Hill isn't a separate Royal Park in and of itself, it is a part of Regent's Park. This is confirmed byCamden Borough Council: "Regent’s Park and Primrose Hill are operated by Royal Parks", bythis Royal Parks proposal for improvements to the summit and by the map of Regent's Park. I haven't found any evidence so far about the Corporation of London being involved, but these things sometimes get into the Wikipedia article by someone adding something they think they know, someone else reverting it, and the compromise being that the information is left in, qualified by 'it is often thought that...'. I'll keep looking. -Cucumber Mike (talk) 15:36, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(EC) On 1), see THE REGENT’S PARK & PRIMROSE HILL OPERATIONS PLAN: January 2009 "The Regent’s Park and Primrose Hill are distinct but contiguous public parks jointly managed by The Royal Parks". However, on the Royal Parks website, there is no mention of Primrose Hill on the list on their Parkspage, however the accompanying map shows "The Regents Park and Primrose Hill" but when you click on the link, you only get details of Regent's Park.Alansplodge (talk) 15:42, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Old and New London: Volume 5: CHAPTER XXII PRIMROSE HILL AND CHALK FARM (1878) says; "In 1827, the provost and fellows of Eton (who owned Primrose Hill at the time) began to see that their property would soon become valuable, and they obtained an Act of Parliament (7 Geo. IV., c. 25, private), enabling them to grant leases of lands in the parishes of Hampstead and Marylebone. Soon after the accession of Queen Victoria, endeavours were made to obtain Primrose Hill for the Crown, and a public act was passed (5 and 6 Vict., c. 78), for effecting an exchange between Her Majesty and the provost and college of Eton. By this act Eton College received certain property at Eton, and gave up all their rights in the Hill." Still searching for mention of litigation. Alansplodge (talk) 16:05, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Regent's Park and Primrose Hill by Martin Sheppard (2010) says that Primrose Hill was acquired in 1841 because of a proposed scheme to turn it into a cemetery (p.97). No mention of any court case though, I suggest a "Citation needed" tag would be in order. Alansplodge (talk) 16:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the informative answers. On the first question then, it seems that Primrose Hill is managed as part of Regent's Park even if it geographically might not be within the Park's boundaries. Primrose Hill is not listed in our list in the Royal Parks of London article, but I am also wondering where the original author derived that list of the Royal Parks from - it cites section 22 of the Crown Lands Act 1851, but that statutory provision also includes many other pieces of land other than the ones listed in the Royal Parks of London article, including Primrose Hill. Perhaps someone could come up with a way to reconcile the two lists? --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Since I still haven't found the details of the alleged court case, I'll just mention that one way in which the Corporation of the City of London isinvolved with Primrose Hill is over the subject of the Protected views: nothing is allowed to be built such that it would block the view of the dome of St Paul's Cathedral, or of the Palace of Westminster, from the top of Primrose Hill. Consideration is also given to the backdrop: there are restrictions on what may be built behind the buildings mentioned as well.document has more details. - Cucumber Mike (talk) 19:58, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for that interesting cite. Definitely a tag needed on the second sentence. --PalaceGuard008 (Talk) 15:07, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

U.S. election timings

Hey all. I'm looking for an updated version of http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/3760822.stm (for any timezone) but my google-fu just isn't up to strength. Does anyone know where I can find one? Or are the timings all going to be the same? Also, that page equivalates "polls close" and "result declared" --how good an approximation is that likely to be? I'm trying to organise a social event around the elections, you see :) Thanks, -Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 15:09, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I would assume that the timings are going to be very close to the 2004 values (here's a less-readily-useful but updated2012 reference). As for "how good an approximation" -- no one can really say. Only a few swing states are really in play, so none of the west coast states in the late brackets are likely to matter (in terms of dramatic uncertainty). Nate Silver of fivethirtyeight currently estimates a 50/50 chance that Ohio will determine the election -- so on that basis, Ohio closing at 0030 UTC may be the highlight of the evening. If it's a landslide, that might be clear within 30 minutes (and good enough for pundits to declare X the all-but-inevitable winner). On the other hand, votes might be close enough to trigger a repeat of the 2000 election and take weeks to resolve, or any other timetable in between. — Lomn 18:44, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) [1] The results of many races will be able to be reliably predicted by news networks soon after the polls are closed (or even before the polls close, based on exit polling. In closer races, the information will take several hours as the different precincts report there numbers (maybe up to 12 hours, but most probably within 3-6 hours). However, most news networks will continue to give a blow-by-blow account as different results come in, so it could still be interesting (if you find that sort of thing interesting). If the race is close enough to trigger arecount, then the results could take a long time. If it's for president, as in the Florida election recount, they'll probably still try to get a president sworn in by January. If it's for a lower office, as in the United States Senate election in Minnesota, 2008, it could go significantly longer.Buddy431 (talk) 18:55, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

(ec) Yes, Buddy431's version of the link is substantially better. My advice, after the above caveats, is that 0000 - 0300 UTC is probably the sweet spot. If Romney has not made substantial progress in the Obama-leaning swing states of Virginia, Ohio, Wisconsin, and Colorado (all of which close by 0200), Obama probably wins, even with the remaining states yet to close (as those are the last of the large swing states). If Obama takes Florida (the largest Romney-leaning swing state) and Ohio, that's also probably good enough to call it his way. — Lomn 19:03, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Thanks all. If I called it an evening at, say, 03:45 UTC, then, the general consensus is that I'd go to bed confident of the result? -Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 11:11, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Not if it goes like it did in 2000. In fact, CBS projected Bush the winner in Florida, and then had to backtrack as the situation became clearer (or muddier). It was a good stretch of time before they got the Florida thing figured out. And it could happen again. ←Baseball Bugs^{What's up, Doc?} carrots→ 16:59, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, barring a goes-to-recount result in a critical state in an otherwise-close election, I think the answer will be in hand by 0345. — Lomn 22:33, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I guess you'd both agree that extending to (say) 04:30 UTC probably would not increase the chance of knowing greatly? Thanks! -Jarry1250 ^{[Deliberation needed]} 16:21, 30 October 2012 (UTC)

Freemasonry and homosexuality

My question is whether or not Freemasons accept homosexuals as member of their Lodges. Thank you. Iowafromiowa (talk) 19:02, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

A google search for "freemason homosexual membership" is instructive, provided you filter past the conspiracy-theorist results. The forums associated with AskAFreemason suggest "it depends on the lodge". This story from Lexington, KY, notes a vote to dismiss a proposal that would have banned gay members for that state. The presence of a vote at that level suggests to me that the initial link is on the right track: it depends on the lodge. — Lomn 19:08, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Freemasonry, as an institution, accepts homosexuals. There is no Grand Lodge that has a ban on homosexuals being initiated. However, election to the fraternity takes place at the individual lodge level... so: "It depends on the individual lodge" is the correct answer. I personally know several several Freemasons who are openly homosexual. They joined lodges that either did not care about a candidate's sexual orientation, or actively sought out gay men. However, I also personally know several Freemasons who are openly homophobic. They tend to belong to lodges that consist of other homophobes... lodges that would reject an openly gay men (or even a man who the members suspect is gay).

It also can depend on what area of your state you are in. Freemasonry is a cross section of society in general. In a town or city where broader society is accepting of homosexuality, the local Masonic lodge will tend to reflect that societal acceptance. In a town or city where broader society is not accepting, the local Masonic lodge will reflect that lack of acceptance. Blueboar (talk) 20:46, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Dividends and stock price

When people know upfront that some company is paying dividends, and I suppose it's almost always announced, how does that influence the price? I thought at first that the price would increase shortly afterbefore the payment day, and fall after that, but it seems that it follows a different logic. How does it work?Comploose (talk) 21:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure why you would think that. To me it seems more logical that the price should be highest shortly before the dividend payout, because there is going to be a very quick cash return. In most cases, though, the dividend is not a large enough fraction of the stock price to have a major short-term effect one way or the other. Looie496 (talk) 21:39, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, I meant before. BTW, some dividends are higher than 5%, isn't that much? Comploose (talk) 22:49, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but most dividends are paid quarterly, and the difference between getting 2% tomorrow and 2% three months from now is not all that much.Looie496 (talk) 03:40, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The difference between getting the 2% tomorrow or in three months would be huge, if you could re-use your money for obtaining other 2% the day after tomorrow. But, things don't work like that. The expectation of getting 2% dividends for your stock is balanced by any other existent negative expectation. And these negative expectations exist if a company is paying dividends, since that's only due to the fact that there are good reasons to expect a negative outcome. That's way dividend paying stock is not getting up before they pay and down after. OsmanRF34 (talk) 17:52, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

The price will change on the announcement depending on how the announcement compares with market expectations. The price immediately before the announcement will be based on the expected dividend. If the actual dividend is larger, the price will go up. If it is smaller, the price will go down. (This is the same as you see following profit announcements - if profits are higher than expected, the price goes up, if they are lower, the price goes down - this is why it is common for a price to go up following news of a massive fall in profits, it's just that the fall wasn't quite as massive as people were expecting). The price will then drop by the amount of the dividend on the day the stock goes "ex-dividend", meaning the day it is determined who gets the dividend (if you sell your stock just before the ex-dividend date, they get the dividend, if you sell it just after, you get it - it will actually be paid a few days after that). It is clear that the price must drop, since the total amount of wealth of the shareholders can't change because of a purely financial action (nothing has happened that could actually create new wealth). --Tango (talk) 01:01, 29 October 2012 (UTC)

Write-in Candidates

One of the earlier threads about the upcoming election in the US made me think about write-in candidates. Being from a country where such a thing would never be allowed I'm just curious as to how that works. In particular I'd like to know how the people who count the votes determine who was meant by the people who wrote in their choice. It probably has no relevance in the real world but imagine this scenario: John Doe was never a candidate for any office but thousands of people write him in on the ballot (by the way, how do you write a name in on those ballots that are actually punchcards?). So John Doe gets the majority of the votes and thus becomes mayor-elect (or whatever office we're talking about). The John Doe everybody had in mind now says he doesn't really want to be mayor and declines the office. Since there is no shortage of John Does in the City, some other John Doe goes up there and says: "My name is John Doe and John Doe was elected mayor and I'd be happy to assume that office." How do you legally stop him becoming mayor?--Zoppp (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

See the second paragraph of our article on Write-in candidates. I've copied it below.-gadfium 23:06, 27 October 2012 (UTC)

"Some jurisdictions require write-in candidates be registered as official candidates before the election. This is standard in elections with a large pool of potential candidates, as there may be multiple candidates with the same name that could be written in."

But not all jurisdictions require that. As I noted in the other thread, Pennsylvania has no such requirement. And while the scenario that Zopppdescribed is unlikely in a city, in a small community it does happen. In my town a few years ago, a man was elected to borough council by write-in vote. No one was running for the office, but there were several dozen write-in votes. Each person written in had one vote, except for one man who had 3 votes. No one had ever even campaigned for the seat. But since he had the most votes, he was on council.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 03:15, 28 October 2012 (UTC)

This issue doesn't just affect write-in candidates: [2] AlexTiefling (talk) 12:05, 29 October 2012 (UTC)