Talk:Elections in the United Kingdom

message: Good page...  small change needed. The Electoral Commission is not responsible for 'running' elections in the UK. It has a monitoring and best practice role, but it is local authorities in the UK that run elections. Votes are certified by the returning officer, who is invariably the chief executive of the relevant local authority. Local authorities also manage and have responsibility for the electoral roll although it is possible that this will be transferred to the EC or a new body in the medium term.91.106.231.216 (talk) 18:28, 19 November 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Electoral Commission

message: I think a specific point should be made about eligibility for each type of election. If they are all the same, this point should be addressed.
I agree. I'm pretty certain that the contention that "anyone who is a legal resident of the UK... is eligible to vote" is only the case for local elections, not general elections. 80.227.170.154  —Preceding signed but undated comment was added at 12:25, 8 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Eligibility

message: This needs info about (a) the practice of holding elections over multiple days, and (b) the practice of uncontested elections.  As I understand it the elections were phased, so that one borough would hold the election one day, another borough a day later, and suchforth.  So members would be returned in some constituencies before elections had even opened in others.  Newspapers reported interim reports.
Morwen - Talk 11:26, 15 Jun 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Some other old practices

message: I removed text claiming that the UK's use of 5 electoral systems is the most of any country; this is incorrect.  The United States, to my knowledge, uses single member plurality, plurality at large (bloc voting), cumulative voting, instant runoff, and multimember single transferable vote in elections, albeit some of these rather limitedly.  It's possible there are other localities in the US using other voting systems (approval voting, for instance), however I'm not certain of them at the moment. Scott Ritchie 07:04, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Most electoral systems of any country" 

message: Hello, good page.
As a voter I'd be interested to know where I can get information on the dates of future elections.
I see there is a Electoral calendar but this is not specific to the UK (and doesn't have any UK dates on).
--RickiRich 19:20, 20 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Information on future elections 

message: What statute was this done with?  Tried to research this, got nowhere.  Morwen - Talk 16:59, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Suspension of elections during World War II 

message: I propose that all results tables should also include a column denoting the party leader at the time, as the Northern Ireland pages (2003 and 2007) do. This gives people a bigger idea of the personalities and issues at hand, amongst other things. For example, for the 1997 General election, a column should be added between 'Party' and 'seats', with columns stating (in order); 'Tony Blair', 'John Major', 'Paddy Ashdown', 'James Goldsmith', 'Alex Salmond', 'David Trimble', etc. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 86.29.210.111 (talk) 15:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Election results tables 

message: The following statements, which can be found under the arguments against reform, are in need of improving due to the presence of weasel words:
"...Some think it would be irresponsible to give 'extremists' the opportunity to have political power. Others counter that in a true democracy, this is no argument."
-- Robnpov 22:48, 18 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Weaseled statements 

message: Is there any source for the number of new people to the electoral roll, and the number of people who fall off it? Preferably for the individual constituencies?
I don't mean simply the net change of people on the roll, but the raw numbers of how many new electors? Or how many left the electoral roll? It would also be useful to find the number of people voting who didn't last time.
I think this would be very useful in analysing changing vote patterns: for example it would shed light on whether Labour voters are switching to Liberal or whether the Liberal voters are primarily new voters and the Labour voters are staying at home. BillMasen 18:27, 17 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  New/ex-electors 

message: This section is a little convoluted and could do with some clarification and expansion.
For example, what does "legal resident" mean in this context? Is it the same thing as a person with Right of Abode?
Also, what does a Commonwealth citizen have to do in order to be able to vote in British general elections? Commonwealth citizens do not necessarily have Right of Abode in the UK - does that matter?
Would an Australian citizen or an Indian citizen be able to travel to to the UK as a tourist for a week or two, add themselves to the electoral register, and then vote in a general election?
What about people who are British nationals (not subjects or citizens), but are not Commonwealth citizens (if that is even possible)? 217.155.20.163 20:09, 16 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Eligibility section 

message: According to this article, British subjects are entitled to vote - this included the whole British Empire.
Since the transformation of the Empire into the Commonwealth, its "citizens have retained the right to vote in the UK if they live in the UK".  This makes sense for Jamaicans and Indians etc.
But what's the status of citizens of Commonwealth countries that weren't part of the British Empire, e.g. Mozambique?  Can they vote in UK elections? Bazonka 12:37, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Commonwealth voters 

message: I'm sure this is common knowledge to anyone living over there, but as an American I have no clue how a party's candidate is chosen to run in a general election in the U.K. Whoever knows the answer, could you kindly add it to this page? I think it's important to cover.--Reydeyo (talk) 05:22, 29 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I have the same question down below. Int21h (talk) 23:31, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Party nomination process? 

message: "Smaller parties receive many more votes (and seats) in the elections using a proportional system, which are the regional elections for the Scottish Parliament, Welsh Assembly, Northern Ireland Assembly and London Assembly, and the European Parliament elections. Regional parties, such as the Scottish National Party or Plaid Cymru receive many more votes than at general or local elections, and at European elections, the United Kingdom Independence Party and Green Party of England and Wales perform better. It can be argued that in these elections, there is a multi-party system."
It's true that smaller parties tend to get more seats in PR elections, but that's mainly because the seats are allocated proportionally to the number of votes cast for that party. Is there any evidence that more people vote for smaller parties in PR elections than would in FPTP elections?
And also looking at the statistics, it seems the bit about SNP and Plaid Cymru doing better in regional elections than at general elections is completely untrue. It's hard to tell because there's never been a Welsh Assembly or Scottish Parliament election in the same year as a General. But for example, in the 2001 General election, Plaid got 195,893 votes, in the 2003 Welsh Assembly elections they got 180,185 consituency FPTP votes, and in the 2005 General election they got 174,838. So not much of a difference between regional and general elections at all.
Again, if we take SNP as the example, they got 464,314 votes in the 2001 general election, 449,476 constituency FPTP votes in the 2003 Scottish Parliament election, and 412,267 votes in the 2005 general election. So again, little difference at all. Jh39 (talk) 07:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Do smaller parties tend to get more votes under PR? 

message: The title of this page is Elections not the most recent Election in each nation of UK.  There should be an historical overview table.  At the moment the article is very biased towards the most recent few elections.  What is the justification for massive tables of fringe parties that stood but gained no seats on an overview page ?  There is none.  Leave that heavy detail for the detailed pages on each election.77.86.87.77 (talk) 11:56, 18 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggestion

message: "Of the 17 general elections between 1945 and 2005, four each were held in October, June, and May, and two were held in February" That only adds up to 14. 
98.28.68.59 (talk) 15:35, 27 March 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: It still makes sense.  "Of his 17 children, three were born in Hungary and five in Peru."  Perfectly OK not to enumerate every single child's birth place.  --  Jack of Oz  ... speak! ...  20:39, 6 May 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  This doesn't make sense? 

message: Someone correct me if I'm wrong, but from what I can gather, the process for the general elections are thus:
1. Parliament is dissolved
2. ????? choose candidates for each party in each constituency
3. The electorate in each constituency chooses amongst those chosen candidates
Am I to assume the Queen chooses each party's candidate? Or is there some more transparent process? Int21h (talk) 23:30, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   - the process varies by party, the article makes brief reference to Labour and Conservative processes. Selections will normally be done way in advance of the GE (in some marginal seats candidates may be selected 3-4 years out), all that has to be done after parliament is dissolved is that the candidates have to fill in their nomination papers and submit them to the Acting Returning Officer by a given deadline. Only in a few cases (e.g. where a candidate has stepped aside at the last minute) will any selection processes occur after the dissolution. Frinton100 (talk) 21:25, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The process you describe appears to be missing crucial information, such as the conditions under which someone may submit nomination papers (), and how and who selects between those nominated. It appears the major UK parties use some sort of caucus system, but that's as far as I got. (I added that information currently in the article.) Is it that only a single person named by the party elite may submit nomination papers, as is done in North Korea etc.? Int21h (talk) 06:02, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  I think you are confusing two separate issues:
First, candidate selection is down to the individual parties. As far as I am aware in almost all circumstances Labour, Conservative, LibDems and UKIP operate a "one member one vote" (OMOV) process, where any member of that party can vote for their party's candidate at that election. This takes place in many cases years in advance of the GE. The processes vary in the way in which the shortlist of candidates is drawn up. In the Labour Party, any member can put themselves forward for consideration for a constituency selection. Branch Labour Parties (BLPs) and Affiliate Branches can nominate candidates (usually up to 3) from the list of everyone who as expressed an interest. The Constituency Labour Party's General Committee (a body comprising representatives of all the BLPs and affiliates) whittles down the names of people nominated to come up with a shortlist (typically 4 to 6 names) which goes before the full membership for the OMOV ballot. The process can be amended depending on the make-up of the CLP (not all CLPs have BLPs or a General Committee for example) and the number of candidates who apply (in some less winnable seats you may only get 2 people apply, in which case the selection will often bypass the nomination and shortlisting stage and move straight to the OMOV ballot). The other main parties obviously have different processes as their structures are different. The obvious exception is Conservative seats where there is an open primary open to al voters in that constituency. 
The second issue is submitting nomination papers. Anyone who is entitled to vote at a parliamentary election (i.e. UK, Irish and Commonwealth citizens over 18 who are not members of the House of Lords) is entitled to stand at an election. Every candidate must complete their own set of nomination papers, which includes the appointment of an election agent, the signatures of 10 electors from the constituency who agree to their nomination and the candidate's own consent to nomination. Additionally at a parliamentary election you have to pay a £500 deposit, which is returned if you get over 5% of the vote. If a candidate is standing for a registered party (of whatever size - it could be a national party, a local "Ratepayers Association" type party, or one they have created for themselves), they need the signature of the party's nominating officer (or someone authorized in writing by the nominating officer) to be allowed to use the party name on the ballot. This is to stop people from claiming they are, say, the UKIP candidate, when UKIP have actually selected someone else. While the central party organization has a role to play in making sure all of their candidates have the appropriate forms to allow them to use the party name, the process of actually completing and submitting the nomination form is down to the candidate themselves, and their agent. The forms have to be submitted to the Acting Returning Officer in the individual constituency, rather than to the Electoral Commission or any other central body. 
But the short answer to your question is that in order to stand in an election, anyone can submit a nomination paper, provided they can pay the £500 deposit and find 10 people to sign their form. Frinton100 (talk) 14:40, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  How are a party's general election candidates chosen? 

message: Under "General Elections" the article states: "with only one independent elected in the 2010 election and only four independent candidates in the entire country gaining more than a hundred votes" 
This is plainly wrong (there were 4 independents who got over 100 votes in Luton South alone!). I wonder if it should be 1,000 votes instead of 100, but even then 4 doesn't sound like a lot. Anyone have any idea about this, if not I suggest this part is just deleted. Frinton100 (talk) 21:32, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Independent Candidates in 2010 

message: Should it perhaps be mentioned somewhere in the article that candidates standing for seats don't have to live in the constituency which they are running for? I'm not sure if UK citizens don't view this as notable, but there are plenty of countries in which this isn't the case.  I know that in my state in the United States, a person running for a seat in the state legislature must be a legal resident of in that electoral district.  --Criticalthinker (talk) 07:15, 8 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think that's relevant. Candidates home addresses (or the constituency in which they live) are printed on the ballot paper, so any candidate's lack of residency or otherwise is completely transparent. Frinton100 (talk) 09:53, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: You're confused.  I'm not arguing the merits of it, rather that I think it's an important note to add, since in some countries residency is required and in other's it's not.  --Criticalthinker (talk) 15:17, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  No, I'm not confused thank you very much. My view is it is not relevant to the article, hence my very clear response "I don't think that's relevant". 
You did say "I'm not sure if UK citizens don't view this as notable" so I was explaining why I don't believe we view it as notable either. In other words, I was answering two questions that you posed 
1. Is it relevant for this article? No.
2. Is it an issue for the electorate? No. 
Frinton100 (talk) 17:38, 14 May 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Constituencies and residency 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Elections in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110128081658/http://www.re-constitution.org.uk:80/discover-the-facts/electoral-process/ to http://www.re-constitution.org.uk/discover-the-facts/electoral-process/#questions
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 05:38, 30 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The election results on this page have now all been superceeded by more recent elections. I propose that we strip out all the results on this page, and instead simply add more links in to the relevant individual pages. 
QuakerActivist (talk) 14:24, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: Makes sense. Whizz40 (talk) 18:52, 9 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stripping out election results 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Elections in the United Kingdom. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110117185354/http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk:80/register_to_vote/british_citizens_living_abroad.aspx to http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_vote/british_citizens_living_abroad.aspx
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131005002658/http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk:80/register_to_vote/british_citizens_living_abroad.aspx to http://www.aboutmyvote.co.uk/register_to_vote/british_citizens_living_abroad.aspx
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:53, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As I read in Free Derry#Background, listened in :File:Ulster.ogv and added to sect #20th century, only ratepayers voted in NI in 1968&ss. This doesn't agree with 1949 Act. Why? ※ Sobreira ◣◥ ፧ (parlez)⁇﹖ 08:55, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Northern Ireland 

message: Since the passing of the Elections Act 2022 photo ID is now required at UK general elections and English local elections, not just Northern Ireland as previously. I've added this to the article, though we still need a list of the photo ID types valid for elections in England, Scotland and Wales, similar to what we already have for NI. Mark and inwardly digest (talk) 13:57, 17 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Photo ID