Talk:London mayoral election, 2004

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

re 'independent' -v- 'individual candidate': the latter is the official designation (sfaict) even though the former is the perceived status. --VampWillow 15:47, 2004 May 17 (UTC)

Re my addition about only counting the leading two candidates in the second round, the point I was making was about the voting method in use being biased towards the leading parties, and not that there was any error in the actual count. --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 13:17, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Your 750,349 figure is mistaken - you are just adding the first and second choice numbers. If you look at the figures for the first two candidates, you see that it doesn't work that way, as the note below explains. Therefore, it is not certain that the third-placed would have come second. Gzornenplatz 13:31, Aug 2, 2004 (UTC)

Oh ... indeed. Clearly the "Total" column is a misnomer as the figures for *totals* come out as Ken: 936,058, Steve: 764,982 (and Simon 750,349). Hmmn. More investigation needed, although the point about only counting the leading two still has some validity, not as much as it might have! Will see what I can discover about the apparently missing 107,678 (Ken) and 97,804 (Steve) votes from "Total" ... --[[User:VampWillow|VampWillow]] 13:47, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Lindsey German

Is there any reason why "oppose privatisation" is listed twice under her policies - does she really not like it?