Talk:Safe seat

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 Mid‑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
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Stronghold (Canadian political term)

I've merged the bulk of this article and redirected its title here. I dispute that stronghold is the usual term for a safe seat in Canadian politics; every relevant uses of "stronghold" I've ever seen has represented no more than generic use of the word stronghold. While this may in certain contexts identify a safe seat, it does not necessarily: references to the the 905, Mississauga, etc. as Ontario Tory strongholds prior to 2003 were surely legion, but approaching the 2003 election they were not considered safe, a doubt that was borne out by a Liberal sweep of many of them (in the 905; every seat in Mississauga). Further, the term "safe seat" or constructions "safe [party x] seat" are widely used and understood in Canada. I don't want Wikipedia to risk popularizing what's ultimately an idiosyncratic and potentially misleading usage. At the same time, I do assume good faith on the part of its editors - like the former article at 2.5 party system, it sounds like the sort of appelation an individual political science instructor or textbook might use, and an earnest student might log on to Wikipedia to helpfully write up. The trouble is that those expressions' broader application in Canadian political discourse then become overstated... Samaritan 01:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry I took so long to respond but I have not been checking my watchlist as often as I should. Anyways, I'm confused about the objections to the way I described the term Stronghold because said term is used in both conversation and the news-media pretty much exactly as I described it. For example:

The Chronicle Herald

"Charest’s presence at a campaign rally in the city’s east end was aimed at boosting the chances of rookie Liberal candidate Nathalie Malepart in a riding considered to be a Parti Quebecois stronghold." [1]

The Toronto Star

"Chin indicated election night that he will run again in Toronto-Danforth in the general election, but the riding is a long-time NDP stronghold. Some Liberals were privately kicking themselves that they didn't hold Chin out of the Toronto-Danforth fray and run him instead in the upcoming by-election in Parkdale-High Park, a much more winnable riding for the Liberals." [2]

The Source (Thunder Bay)

"Meanwhile, there is another hotly contested race in the riding of Toronto Danforth. Liberal candidate and former TV anchorman Ben Chin was out trying to lure voters. The riding has long been an NDP stronghold held by Marilyn Churley. Chin is in a tough battle with popular NDP candidate Peter Tabuns." [3]

The Ottawa Sun

"That's true. Looking at the poll figures, Grits are probably taking comfort from the fact two byelections are happening in their stronghold -- the Toronto area." [4]

The Hill Times

"In the Montreal riding of Papineau, Sen. Nolin noted that there was only a 50 per cent turnout in the last election in allophone neighborhoods, while francophone areas of the riding, once a Liberal stronghold, saw a 75 per cent voter turnout. Former Liberal foreign affairs minister Pierre Pettigrew, lost the riding to Bloc Québécois candidate Vivian Barbot. Sen. Nolin said the Conservatives are hoping to find explanations for all those trends in each neighbourhood."[5]

In retrospect, the term "Stronghold" is not as uniquely Canadian as I thought but a simple modification of the existing article as it was before merger can address that. I assume nothing but good intentions from Samaritan to make Wikipedia a better resource but I'm going to change it back in a few days unless someone can point out some error I'm missing. Incidentally I do have a Political Science degree and I can definitely say that the term "Stronghold" is used commonly in informal academic conversation in poly-sci circles. Martin-C 20:46, 2 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

But "safe seat" is used in the Canadian context just as readily, and is more particular to the specific topic we're discussing. I get over a thousand cumulative Google results for "safe seat" or "safe [party x] seat" within the their "pages from Canada" subset. Meanwhile, there's nothing Canadian about this use of the generic "stronghold," and suggesting it's a Canadian term, I'm afraid, misleads. I don't want somebody standing up in class describing stronghold as a Canadian political term to be asked to explain these Google results (full index):

"democratic stronghold" -"new democratic" 83400
"democrat stronghold" -"new democrat" 9970
"republican stronghold" 76800

Stronghold, the disambiguation page, should continue to include safe seat, but the definition at the former Stronghold (Canadian political term) is no different from that of a safe seat - maybe it suggests a shade less certainty, but every political type can think of reported "safe seats" that have fallen - isn't uniquely Canadian, and it's very widely called a safe seat in Canada too. I also assume good intentions from Martin-C. :) Samaritan 02:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Section order

The section order here seems a bit higgledy-piggledy to me: Canada, UK, US, Oz, NZ. Suggest either alphabetic order or North America/Europe/Oceania(?), though that may be OTT for Europe since every other European country has PR I think (perhaps not Malta?). Any comments?

BTW I like the brevity of this article-- not too much, not too little. SimonTrew (talk) 03:14, 14 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger

Tantamount to election should be merged to Safe seat#United States. They are basically duplicate articles/sections, though there is information in each that would benefit both. No real reason to have them separate that I can see. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 04:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

+1 merge; good reasons; thanks for the proposal Hugh (talk) 23:47, 2 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-1 separate. "Safe seat" is a phrase used with respect to legislative districts, specifically here the safe seats in the U.S. House of Representatives. "Tantamount to election," however, is a phrase used with regard to any type of election (legislative, executive, judicial, whatever) in any country, state, or county where one party has such advantage as to render its internal decisions effectively the sole ones that matter in the jurisdiction as a whole. Rammer (talk) 20:12, 12 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

-1 separate. I agree with Rammer. "Tantamount to election" is used in any context, legislative or not. - Presidentman talk · contribs (Talkback) 12:47, 28 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Safe seat. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/20090322030318/http://www.cbc.ca:80/news/canadavotes/riding/024/ to http://www.cbc.ca/news/canadavotes/riding/024/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

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).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 04:28, 9 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Safe seat. 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/20101021004525/http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060116/elxn_toronto_060116/20060116?s_name=election2006 to http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20060116/elxn_toronto_060116/20060116?s_name=election2006

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).

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) 17:27, 20 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Horribly sourced

Pretty unreliable write up. Most of the page is unsourced.--Wuerzele (talk) 09:08, 27 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Update?

This article lists the Conservative Party as having 174 safe seats but at the last election it only won 121. This means these past strongholds are no longer what they used to be and the article should be updated accordingly? 46.193.106.166 (talk) 08:59, 1 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]