search

geary / election-results

Automatically exported from code.google.com/p/election-results
0 stars 0 forks source link

Independent candidate Names #5

Closed GoogleCodeExporter closed 9 years ago

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
So it appears that Cihan will give us BGMZ1...BGMZ8 in the XML so we need to 
the mapping to actual candidate names. The list of specific candidates that 
Cihan will follow (and their mappings to BGMZ1...BGMZ8) are given in a separate 
Excel sheet. We will need to reflect these names directly to the UI. I will 
also send an email to Chetan about this.

Original issue reported on code.google.com by zeyn...@google.com on 2 Jun 2011 at 2:42

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
Additional comment here: 
In the party drop down, we should list the party names first and then the 
independent candidates. Currently HEPAR HAS DYP and MMP are at the bottom we 
should move them up. Then we should explicitly list the candidates followed by 
Cihan and have a single BGMZDIGER for all other independent candidates. 

Note that a given candidate followed by Cihan will only run in a single 
province so they can only have a chance there. 

Note also that this will blow up our drop down but as long as all party names 
are at the top - this should be fine.

Original comment by zeyn...@google.com on 2 Jun 2011 at 2:48

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
PLEASE NOTE that I have reviewed this request once again and changed my idea on 
how we should list independent candidate names: 

1) In the party name drop down - we should have all parties plus a single 
entity called Bağımsız. This should include all candidates BGMZ1...8 in each 
province as well as BGMZDIGER. This makes much more sense since we would expect 
to see a heatmap of all independent votes across the country. Candidate names 
themselves dont make sense as they only have chance in one province. 

2) But we should explicitly mention names of independent candidates in the 
pop-up for each province. 

Does this make sense?

Original comment by zeyn...@google.com on 3 Jun 2011 at 11:54

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
That sounds great - much improved over the original idea.

Original comment by m...@mg.to on 3 Jun 2011 at 5:13

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago

Original comment by m...@mg.to on 3 Jun 2011 at 5:14

GoogleCodeExporter commented 9 years ago 
I *think* this works the way you're looking for now, but double-check it for 
me. :-)

Original comment by m...@mg.to on 8 Jun 2011 at 5:49