|Election law has been listed as a level-5 vital article in Society. If you can improve it, please do. This article has been rated as Stub-Class.|
|This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:|
Is there an attribution for the quote "the politics of law and the law of politics" from this article? - dcljr 03:46, 10 Jan 2005 (UTC)
More detailed treatmentsEdit
I would like a more detailed treatment of US law, like one man one vote, gerrymandering, poll tax... felony disenfranchisemnt.
We should have one election law page per country of interest if we also want Canada. John wesley 17:21, 14 January 2006 (UTC)
- How about you start writing them, we can comment, edit, etc. -- Joseph Lorenzo Hall 00:29, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
- To some extent we already have them for other countries (I just added Court of Disputed Returns and Category:Election law in the United Kingdom to See Also). But it is kind of haphazard what we do and do not cover (and there are probably other existing articles I didn't find). Kingdon 19:35, 27 June 2007 (UTC)
Wikipedia editing and historyEdit
SF> This page was last modified on 27 June 2007, at 19:35.
SF> It is an article that probably needs additional material. You could write pages on this. This is the article:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Election_law Election Law
SF> Maybe the article should lots of links to other places and cross references.
Yes. Links to other articles seem sparse here, and perhaps some of them lead to places that are less than the most appropriate in the context.
SF> Amazingly, the author seems to have left out a very important > part of Election Law: Who is qualified to be on the ballot and > how they can be knocked off.
As you saw in the History page, close to a dozen people contributed to two dozen revisions of this article in the past four years. Anyway, it seems to me such questions better belong to the Ballot article.
SF> theer is the issue of cross-endoresments - acandidate being named > by more than one party. This I think may be legal only on New York > State and it makes a big difference.
This topic is addressed at length (and correctly spelt) in another article called Electoral fusion. Looking at the present article, I see little need to expand its text. If anything, excess text in the "Issues" bullet points should be pared and replaced by links to articles that properly explain each particular issue.
SF> I think i need to register to say anything. If I do I wonder if > anyione would read it. maybe I should just edit it - When i edit I > undersdtand there is a way to gove a reason.
You can say anything anonymously, without signing in. I assume when an anonymous and unsummarized change appears in one of my thousands of watchlisted articles, it's by an idiot who doesn't care, and must be investigated immediately so it can be undone unless it proves to be a good change. I assume when a change is summarized and comes from a named user, it has been carefully done, and must be investigated eventually so it can be undone or improved if it proves to be a bad change. I assume many other watchers assume similarly.
Yes, you should sign in, and sign your name to your entry in a talk page using the four tilde method as described in the edit window. I am going to do something unusual; copy this E-mail into http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Election_law, the talk page for the article in quesiton, and hope for leniency from my fellow experienced editors.
>SF> Does that mean that could be saved to disk or printed?
>JH> I assume so. I never wanted to do either.
SF> It would give me time to read t - plus a better way to search through it.
If you like. With this particular entry I am combining the advantage of Juno offline mail and those of Wikipedia online page editing, but normally I do mail offline and Wiki online. After you reply in the article's talk page, we can move this inappropriately long discussion off of there and onto your personal talk page. Here are the four tildes for my Wiki signature: Jim.henderson (talk) 17:05, 17 September 2008 (UTC)