Talk:2024 United Kingdom general election

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)

Inappropriate section started by sockpuppet went nowhere
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
adding parties to infobox 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)

Adding other mainstream parties to info box.

The snp and Sinn Fein hae appeared in previous election info boxes, and reform is much more mainstream and received over 4million votes, which was more than the Lib Dem’s. Please end Wikipedia’s anti nationalist bias, I Donnae even agree with farage or many of his Americanophile views. ToadGuy101 (talk) 14:09, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

You'll want to review the extensive (!) previous discussions on this topic first, on this page and this page. If you finish that without dying of boredom and still want to discuss it, the floor is open. Cambial — foliar❧ 14:18, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Reform hae more votes than the Lib Dem’s. ToadGuy101 (talk) 16:31, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

There is no consensus to change the infobox. Cambial — foliar❧ 16:33, 4 January 2025 (UTC)

Proof? ToadGuy101 (talk) 02:38, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Here. '''[[User:CanonNi]]''' (talk • contribs) 02:40, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I find no consensus. Just because 3 people agree doesnae mean it’s a universal consensus ToadGuy101 (talk) 12:53, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes exactly, there is no consensus, thus no change Pikachubob3 (talk) 11:31, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

That isnae how Wikipedia works. If there is nae consensus then users can make changes then other users add more info atop said change. ToadGuy101 (talk) 14:08, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

No, Pikachubob3 is correct. It is how Wikipedia works. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:18, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

I tend to agree. As it stands, it is difficult for readers to understand where all the missing votes went. The three parties listed only account for 69.6% of the popular vote - where did the other 30.4% evaporate too? If we say, well, it's only seat-count that matters, then why do we clutter the infobox with the popular vote, its percentage, and its swing (for only 69.6% of it) at all? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:08, 5 January 2025 (UTC)

I also think it's very odd to exclude Reform from the infobox and seems out of step with all other UK election infoboxes. Looking at recent infoboxes there are parties with similar numbers of seats included, and ditto going back to the 1950s when the Liberal vote collapsed and they had single-digit seats. We even include Sinn Fein in the 2017 infobox despite the party not even actually occupying its seats. I would be in favour of reopening a discussion. I T B F 📢 06:07, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

• I'd agree with adding Reform and SNP. John (talk) 14:15, 6 January 2025 (UTC) On reflection, we don't need this. The infobox is a clear and brief summary, and is not the place to discuss the alsorans. I'd support any party getting 10 or more MPs being represented here, but neither SNP nor Reform met that this time. There should be mention in the article about the vagaries of "first past the post" and the large numbers of votes for Reform getting them a mere 5 seats, if it can be reliably sourced, but not in the infobox. Keep it simple. John (talk) 16:01, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  What about the anomaly of the popular vote rows in it? Don't you think that if we include those, we shouldn't exclude parties that have a bigger share of the popular vote than included parties? -- DeFacto (talk). 16:37, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, because that is not what determines the election. As above, there is space to comment on quirks like this in the article, but it is not in my opinion suitable for the infobox. John (talk) 16:40, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  There's currently a 30% hole in the popular vote in the infobox and with no explanation there for readers, so, as I said above in my pre-emption of this response, what then is the point in cluttering the box with it at all, especially as it is not what determines the election result? We would be better to remove it rather than confuse readers by only giving 70% of the story. -- DeFacto (talk). 16:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, I take your point. I think I am neutral on that idea. John (talk) 17:25, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  Just as John says, it's not a determinant in the election. The purpose of the election is to determine the legislature. Seats are the only factor that affect that outcome. There's no anomaly: the only infobox design in which the national vote share would nearly add up to 100% would be Option E from the RfC. As per the closer, The only real loser seems to have been option E, gaining as it did almost zero support. Cambial — foliar❧ 18:39, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  As I said first. So let's get rid of it as all it does is create confusion and disruption. What is the point of only including part of the significant information on the popular vote? -- DeFacto (talk). 18:45, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  The fact that you want to add Reform to the infobox and do not get a consensus for it does not mean that another unrelated element of the infobox (the popular vote in this case) "creates confusion and disruption". It does not: parties are ordered by seats in the infobox. That does not make popular vote irrelevant, it's just not the criteria used for ordering parties in the infobox. Reform got 5 seats, 14 times less seats than the LDs and less seats that even SF; the popular vote's presence in the infobox does not have the fault of it. Impru20^talk 20:47, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Impru20, where did you derive The fact that you want to add Reform to the infobox from? All I want is for the infobox to be encyclopaedic. Read the thread. If it's not desirable (for some historic reason?) to add enough parties to make the popular vote details useful, then I cannot see why the incomplete information is included at all. As I have said, the popular vote stands for nothing in UK General Elections, and continually causes confusion and conflict (as seen in the history of these articles and their talk pages). -- DeFacto (talk). 21:00, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  What about the anomaly of the popular vote rows in it? Don't you think that if we include those, we shouldn't exclude parties that have a bigger share of the popular vote than included parties? This is what you said in an earlier comment. It is not an anomaly. In fact, it makes little sense, because we could say the same for the seat rows. Some people will find confusing that a party with 5 seats is shown ahead of a party with 72 seats; others will resort to the popular vote instead. Others will argue than then the solution will be to show all parties, but then there will be the people who argue than showing 1 seat-parties in the infobox will clutter it beyond necessity as infoboxes are meant to summarize, not supplant, the article's contents. And so on. You will end up happily replicating the same discussion that ended up in the current consensus version being in place: it's impossible for all people to be happy and satisfied with one version, but we can have the version that gets the most approval or, at the very least, the least disapproval. Removing the popular vote because you cannot not get your prefered choice through helps no one: you see it as "causing confusion and conflict"; many others don't. Impru20^talk 21:27, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  If all we had were the seat rows, it would be clear. They are in the order of winner, runner-up, third, and the unseen rest with fewer seats are the 'also rans'. However, when the popular vote stats are included, but we don't include the percentages for all parties in the range between the highest and the third-place party, it gives the false-impression that they are also the top-three percentages - and this is misleading and contentious because it does not reflect the true story. And that it what I think needs correcting by either including the missing inbetweenies or not including the popular vote at all. I cannot see what is unreasonable or controversial about that. -- DeFacto (talk). 21:55, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  I understand your point, but I don't agree that it gives a false impression. Infoboxes are necessarily simple, and I think this is the least bad solution, the status quo. John (talk) 22:11, 6 January 2025 (UTC)

  If anything there should be a standard threshold to determine representation in the election infobox. I.e. votes divided by total number of seats multiplied by seats won. Or just use common sense. ToadGuy101 (talk) 19:28, 8 January 2025 (UTC)

  We have to be careful about creating rules like that as they night violate WP:LOCALCONSENSUS and even WP:OR. Bondegezou (talk) 22:21, 8 January 2025 (UTC)