Talk:2004 London mayoral 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 of the United Kingdom

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics of the United Kingdom, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Politics of the United Kingdom 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.Politics of the United KingdomWikipedia:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomTemplate:WikiProject Politics of the United KingdomPolitics of the United Kingdom articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

London Low‑importance

	London portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject London, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of London 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.LondonWikipedia:WikiProject LondonTemplate:WikiProject LondonLondon-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Untitled[edit]

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|Vamp Willow]] 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|Vamp Willow]] 13:47, 2 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Lindsey German[edit]

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

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on London mayoral election, 2004. 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/20070205092201/http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/gla-election-results.php to http://www.mayorwatch.co.uk/gla-election-results.php

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:38, 5 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]