Talk:Results breakdown of the 2019 United Kingdom general 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

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
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Seats changing hands

Shouldn't the seats changing hands be based upon the winning party in the 2017 election, and not a dissolution? Jopal22 (talk) 12:37, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jopal22: I just based it off of whatever the Guardian said.^[1] –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 16:12, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@MJL: Okay, I just thought I'd highlight it, as I don't think that was the approach in 2017 (e.g. Richmond Park was not shown as a Lib Dem to Con). Also Liverpool Wavertree (UK Parliament constituency) should be shown as LibDem to Labour under the Guardian's method? Let's see if anyone else has an opinion. Jopal22 (talk) 17:30, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

@Jopal22: Added. I missed that one. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 18:46, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Colne Valley and Keighley seem to be missing from the list of Con gains from Lab. 94.197.17.123 (talk) 19:17, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Added. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:06, 14 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Where are these numbers from?

The numbers don't seem to agree with either themselves or the source.

For example, the table states that there were 13,966,565 votes cast for the Conservatives and 31,829,630 votes cast in total, which would make the Conservative voteshare 43.9%, yet the table states the percentage as 43.6%

Meanwhile, the source provided is a BBC article that agrees with that voteshare percentage but gives a different number for votes cast for the Conservatives: 13,966,451

Here's the link: https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2019/results

Is this just a problem with finding accurate data this soon after the election?

--Wight 01:43, 15 December 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wight1984 (talk • contribs)

Blank and invalid votes

Does the UK system not count them? The turnout rate is only a guess without them.--Aréat (talk) 00:11, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]