 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Some of the methods described in the article sound like fun. I might vote for Diego MaradonaorParis Hilton with my electorate vote. :-) Scott Gall 08:17, 24 June 2006 (UTC) PS: What's the nutritional value of a ballot?Reply
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Protest vote. 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:
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: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:46, 11 December 2017 (UTC)Reply
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I am working on a fairly substantial overhaul of this article to, hopefully, get it to a point where the additional citations banner can be removed. I have made some major changes, which I'll be introducing a section or paragraph at a time, and will be bringing in a good number of new scholarly sources to help improve the article. I'm looking forward to seeing ongoing additions and improvements to this article as new portions go live! I've done my best to maintain as much of the original form and content of the current article as possible, but I have done some editing for clarity and accuracy as well as adding new material.
I will be marking the reference in the first paragraph of the Significant protest vote events section, about Brexit, as failing verification. My particular concern is in the last sentence
The same survey showed that 3% of Remain voters immediately regretted their vote to Remain, meaning the Referendum result would not be affected even taking into account the survey's post-Referendum data.
I've added emphasis to the disputed section. This assertion is not present in the source article.
Furthermore, I actually made a spreadsheet: Using the percentages given in the article, the 7 percent regretting voting Leave would amount to 1,218,752 voters, and the 3 percent regretting voting remain would be 484,237 voters. The recalculated vote total would be 16,676,227 (49.7%) Leave and 16,875,756 (50.3%) Remain.
If the amount of voters regretting regretting their Leave votes is 1.2 million (many figures in the article are rounded), the recalculated vote total would be 16,694,979 (49.8%) Leave and 16,857,004 (50.2%) Remain.
Finally, many surveys for newspapers typically have a margin or error of +/- 3 percent. With this in mind, I'd assert that no conclusive statement could be made regarding how the Brexit referendum vote might have gone based on this survey data.
