Talk:By-election

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Correct spelling[edit]

The correct spelling is actually "bye-election", like the similar confusion of "by" and "bye" in "byelaw". PML. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.202.5.75 (talk) 06:55, 10 April 2003 (UTC)[reply]

Fowler says "by-law" is descended from the word "byrlaw", and gives "by-election" (unrelated etymology) as the recommended spelling -- Tarquin 08:28 April 10, 2003 (UTC)

There is no absolutely correct spelling. Byelection or by-election, or bye-election, are equally good. The term only arose in the late 19th century anyway. David | Talk 14:32, 10 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I mistakenly removed "bye-election" as a valid spelling (Merriam Webster), checked (Oxford Dictionary), saw I was mistaken, and reverted my edit. Jpgcwiki (talk) 23:18, 21 December 2014 (UTC)[reply]

United States Senate[edit]

I'm going to delete the reference to the United States Senate. When a senate seat is vacant, the governor of the state represented by that seat appoints a temporary senator to fill the seat until the next regular congressional election. Note that the next congressional election may not be the end of the term for that senate seat, for example if a senator resigned after serving for 1 year, the governor would appoint a senator who would serve for the next year, and then an election would be held to fill the seat for the next 4 years. Gentgeen 11:36, 1 July 2004 (UTC)[reply]

Note that this is not incorrect, but incomplete and misleading. The above is not true in all states, and where it is true, they are still special elections. In some states, an appointed Senator fills out the term until the next regularly scheduled election for that seat, while in others, a special election is scheduled for that seat which coincides with the next regularly-scheduled general elections. This can cause there to be 2 U.S. Senate elections in one state in one year - as in Mississippi in 2008 due to the appointment of Roger Wicker. U.S. Senate elections which are not held on a regularly scheduled election date for that seat are still special elections. XINOPH | TALK 17:58, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, this should be added to the article, which currently makes it appear as though there are no special elections for the US Senate. GoodDay (talk) 06:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

German By Elections[edit]

German By Elections: http://www.wahlrecht.de/lexikon/nachwahl-1952.htm — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.7.99.248 (talk) 19:18, 12 July 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Spelling[edit]

Just a thought, is a "special election" similar to the "special Olympics?" Just kidding, of course. But up until today I had never heard of the term special election. How odd. Why not just use the more common by-election? ☭ Zippanova 02:38, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you mean in the lead of the article, it's explaining the meaning of what a by-election is. —Wh o uk (talk) 08:13, 12 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Whatever the spelling, it's not "bi-election" as I've seen some publications publish is it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.195.227.89 (talk) 12:15, 22 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Added the 'globalization' template[edit]

Added it since this article seems to deal a lot more with by-elections in Commonwealth countries than anything else. One (talk) 18:48, 7 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Scotland PR Lists[edit]

"Scotland and New Zealand still hold by-elections, despite having adopted the additional member system, in which members are also chosen by party list"

Not entirely accurate as far as I am aware. In Scotland we have a by-election if a constituency seat becomes vacant, however if a regional (additional member) seat becomes vacant then a new member is appointed from the next available candidate on the party list. Therefore no vote actually takes place. --Delta-NC (talk) 11:44, 17 September 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see that you edited in this page.but can you please tell me the advantages and disadvantages of by-elections? Kutlo Queen (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Special Election (U.S.)[edit]

Should be its own article, as it is entirely different from a "by-election" held in other constituencies, and applies in ways not covered by this article - including in non-legislative races.XINOPH | TALK 18:01, 2 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering, just when does a special election need to be held - is that determined by state law?

Could someone instead be appointed for a time? - Matthew238 (talk) 08:20, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This does not appear to have been addressed in nearly 13 years! CapnZapp (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

General statements[edit]

I found swathes of statements which were dubious, and unsurprisingly lacked any referencing. Examples "The vast majority of by-elections are unimportant and voter turnouts are seldom comparable with general elections" - what, everywhere in the world? what does unimportant mean anyway? "governing parties are generally expected to fare less well in by-elections than in general elections" - expected by whom? and where?

So much of this sort of stuff that I have shortened the article somewhat by taking it out. If replaced, please add references and examples. Asnac (talk) 13:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Tasmania and ACT[edit]

According to other articles on Wikipedia, vacancies in the Tasmanian and the ACT legislative assemblies are filled by recounting the STV ballots. This is not necessarily the losers with the highest vote. 203.198.25.249 (talk) 12:28, 17 May 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Not being confident in adding a reference and removing the code used to highlight the material under question. I'll post a link to a story in the Mercury, which discusses proposals to change the present recount system in Tasmania. Van Dieman (talk) 04:42, 8 July 2011 (UTC)[reply]

By-election templates[edit]

While working on by-elections in New Zealand I created several templates for wikilinking by-elections within text and tables of results.FanN | talk 10:30, 2 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Template	Usage	Produces
{{By-election link year}}	{{By-election link year\|Sedgefield\|2007}}	2007
{{By-election link}}	{{By-election link\|Hong Kong\|2010}}	2010 by-election
{{By-election link small}}	{{By-election link small\|Botany\|2011}}	2011 by-election

Baseless reversion by MarnetteD[edit]

Section on Irish 1986 by-elections is over-coverage. The content of is word-for-word from said page. That country and year is not special and does not deserve such unbalanced coverage. It needs to be removed from the By-Elections page. The content remains available in the place where it is actually appropriate. Sb101FV (talk) 04:01, 12 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Special Elections[edit]

Special elections redirect here, but there is nothing specific on the US situation.

In fact I can't find a comprehensive overview of how the US fills vacancies!

That is, where is the Wikipedia article comparable to something like this: Filling Legislative Vacancies? CapnZapp (talk) 08:45, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Note: Request for a Legislative vacancies (U.S.) article or similar at Wikipedia:Requested articles/Social sciences/Politics and government#United States (any level) CapnZapp (talk) 09:14, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]