Talk:2023 Chicago mayoral election

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Request edit on 23 August 2022

  • What I think should be changed:
  • Why it should be changed:
  • References supporting the possible change (format using the "cite" button):

I am requesting the image https://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Bradleylabormanheadshot.jpg be added to the gallery of candidates. It was previous deleted and removed, but has been restored because all permissions have been submitted for the image to wikicommons.

I apologize I added the cite "https://www.wlsam.com/2022/08/24/bradley-laborman-the-cpd-seems-to-be-shackled-more-than-the-criminals-are/" as a source to confirm that Bradley Laborman is a registered candidate, I read the note now requesting that I request all changes in this talk. I apologize for the error.

216.80.2.17 (talk) 02:49, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

References

@216.80.2.17: The whole point of creating an edit request is to submit a change for others to review and post to the article or send back for revisions. It also means accepting the reality that there could be a lengthy delay between you submitting it and it getting reviewed. You have to sit and wait your turn - there is no deadline. Doing the edit yourself in the article subverts the whole process. --Drm310 🍁 (talk) 15:51, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
My request was for the image to be added, I apologized for the edit. I did it before I saw the notification in talk. I understand there is a line and I am waiting patiently for the image to be added. 216.80.2.17 (talk) 16:02, 25 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]
  • Proceduraly marking as  Not done and clearing this out of the backlog. All images have been removed per consensus established here. ~StyyxTalk? 19:40, 11 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Add Johnny Logalbo?

It appears Logalbo might be considered a real candidate for Chicago mayor because he has appeared on debate forums alongside other declared candidates [1], he's included on a list of Lightfoot challengers from NBC [2], and his ballot as been challenged alongside Sawyer's, Wilson's and Green's (all listed as candidates on this page) [3]. I think there's a case to add Logalbo to the table of candidates. Thoughts? 2601:249:8E00:420:9C1:7CFE:3D67:9383 (talk) 20:20, 16 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Ballotpedia considers them a legit disqualified candidate. I had never heard of them, but from what you have pointed out and Ballotpedia including them they seem to have been an actual candidate. [4] Fortunately, they are already in the article. SecretName101 (talk) 19:41, 26 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Graph colors

Is there a way to change Willie Wilson's color to a gold yellow and then use the grey color for the other/undecided data? 2601:249:8E00:420:88C:6EF8:E53D:239D (talk) 23:31, 19 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

M3 Strategies Reliability?

I've never heard of M3 Strategies, and I doubt many of you haven't as well, so I did some digging. M3 STRATEGIES AND ANALYTICS LLC (ILSOS.gov file no. 12593511) was registered on the 15th of December, 2022, fairly recent. Their website (https://www.mthreestrategies.com/) is a really basic wix website, with the domain being registered the next day (12-16-2022). The company was registered to a Mark Cavers and a Matthew Podgorski. Podgorski is a candidate for the Cook County Commissioner, as can be seen here (https://www.mattpodgorski.com/).

If anything, this should disqualify their first poll, as the company itself didn't exist until the 15th. Not to mention, the fact that a candidate owns said company is clear conflict of interest. Thoughts on removing any and all M3 Strategies polls from the list? Piemadd (talk) 21:53, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

(Podgorski, from my understanding, seems to be a pollster (and, yes, occasional political candidate) who was seemingly formerly involved in leading Ogden & Fry (a reputable pollster per FiveThirtyEight). SecretName101 (talk) 22:40, 21 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I see that he used to lead a reputable pollster, that doesn't seem to poll anymore, but at the same time the following still make me a bit sus:
1. The m3 strategies website doesn't disclose who runs the polling operation (no names, no companies, etc), I had to find that info through an ILSOS search.
2. The fact that the first poll was conducted prior to the company and website even existed.
3. The polling asked respondents if they had recently seen, read, or heard any information about the following candidates in this order:
a. Paul Vallas (who ended up winning this poll)
b. Lori Lightfoot (incumbent)
c. Chuy Garcia (who ended up coming in 2nd in this poll)
4. The data is incredibly skewed when it comes to age demographics (only one I checked), and I doubt that other demographics aren't the same. Poll age demographics looked like this:
- 18-30: 5%
- 31-45: 24%
- 46-64: 44%
- 65+: 27%
When, as of the 2020 census, the city demographic percentages looked approximately like this (context, the 18-19 population number i used when building this is simply the census 15-19 age group multiplied by 0.4 to get an approximate figure. for this reason, the 18-30 age group may be a bit inaccurate, but probably not large to make a noticeable difference)
- 18-30: ~25%
- 31-45: ~30%
- 46-64: ~28%
- 65+: ~17%
I feel like polls that don't even get close to actual demographics should at least have a notice or something about probably inaccuracy. And back to my point, even though the runner of this poll isn't running for mayor, he still is a candidate in a position in this election. There has to be some sort of possible conflict of interest there, right? Piemadd (talk) 02:42, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can this very recently formed polling company be regarded as sufficiently reliable to include here? I doubt it. I found this media reference to it: Chicago mayoral election: New poll shows Vallas, Garcia as frontrunners. And there's this reference. Those references seem slight in terms of concluding that the WP:RS in Chicago think that M3 is legit. Novellasyes (talk) 14:25, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I've asked at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Guidelines on local polling companies in city/local elections whether any guidelines exist that apply to situations like this.Novellasyes (talk) 14:39, 22 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps we should hide the poll from the graph and polling charts until its reliability/consensus can be formed to re-add it? The fact that there's some suspicion about its reliability should merit it to be removed until discussions end. @SecretName101:, @Piemadd:, @Novellasyes:. 2601:249:8E00:420:880:88E1:7236:1B50 (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Just to provide some context. Podgorski is not a candidate at the moment. He campaign in 2022 for county commissioner. There were key indicators that older voters turned out heavily while young voters barely did in the last election, so a skewing towards older voters does not necessarily undermine a poll's relevancy/accuracy. Skewing of the extreme that the poll with such a small proportion for the youngest age group is unusual, but a random samples sometimes produce unusual results.
Sources related to turnout in last election:
SecretName101 (talk) 19:34, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
The skew of age demographics appears similar in this 2014 poll on the 2015 Chicago Mayoral election by Ogden & Fry. SecretName101 (talk) 19:46, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I do think that Fox 32 WFLD has an exclusive partnership with the polling firm ("New front runner emerges in Chicago mayoral race, FOX 32 exclusive poll shows") hence why other news outlets are not generally publishing it. WFLD-TV's newscasts are one of six major local English-language television newscasts in Chicago (alongside those of the CBS local affiliate WBBM-TV, NBC affiliate WMAQ-TV, ABC affiliate WLS-TV, PBS-affiliate WTTW, and independent station WGN). SecretName101 (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I created two graphs instead of one. One is only showing the trends of polls by more-established firms, while the other shows the trend of all polls. SecretName101 (talk) 03:11, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
  • @Piemadd: "Exclusive poll shows"? Why would we consider an almost brand new poll? I think "Perhaps we should hide the poll from the graph and polling charts until its reliability/consensus can be formed to re-add it"?--- is spot on. -- Otr500 (talk) 02:57, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Crain's Chicago Business included the poll in an article. Crain's is one of Chicago's biggest and more credible news publications. It is at there end of the article, referred to as being a WFLD-TV poll. SecretName101 (talk) 04:56, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The Five Thirty Eight blog also has an article that includes a hyperlink to one of the M3 polls Evidently Geoffrey Skelley considers the poll a noteworthy indicator. SecretName101 (talk) 05:24, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also Ballotpedia lists both of the M3 polls. Ballotpedia has standards for inclusion of polls on their site. SecretName101 (talk) 07:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements to keep an eye out for good sources on

The following endorsements have been made, but seem to lack good sources to cite for inclusion at the moment. Most of these I am aware of through campaign website and social media posts. If you see a good source for any of these, feel free to add the endorsement using that citation

Endorsements of Lightfoot

Endorsements of Brandon Johnson

  • Southwest Suburban Federation of Teachers (AFT Local 943) (done)

I will share if I find more SecretName101 (talk) 10:54, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I have heard some word that Susan Sadlowski Garza may have endorsed Chuy Garcia. SecretName101 (talk) 11:00, 30 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Michelle A. Harris was involved in Lightfoot's campaign kickoff. [5] but have not yet found a source saying "endorse" SecretName101 (talk) 21:05, 31 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found one, added her SecretName101 (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found a source for Taliaferro and will be adding him SecretName101 (talk) 01:28, 1 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found as source for Waguespack and Cappleman, will be adding them. SecretName101 (talk) 18:29, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found a source for Southwest Suburban Federation of Teachers and added it. SecretName101 (talk) 23:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found a source for Kelly Cassidy and added her. SecretName101 (talk) 23:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found one for Feigenholtz, will add SecretName101 (talk) 01:51, 5 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Forgot to note I added Newman already with a source. SecretName101 (talk) 16:59, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Found a source for Cardenas, and will add him now SecretName101 (talk) 06:23, 9 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

More

More b

Endorsements of Garcia

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:249:8E00:420:A95D:FE03:2512:9DD6 (talk) 17:14, 10 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Handful for Chuy

Chuy’s website has claimed:

SecretName101 (talk) 09:35, 21 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Impact research

I had removed Impact Research as an established pollster. But I learned that it is actually the firm formerly known as ALG Research. Will be re-adding it as a established pollster SecretName101 (talk) 20:00, 8 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please explain @Aangeles4

@Aangeles4, you keep changing the polling table. You provide no description as to the purpose, method, or source of your changes. These are just unverified numbers you are adding without such an explanation. What are you doing? SecretName101 (talk) 02:35, 24 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Aangeles4: You have continued to do this with no summary, citation, or any explanation of what these changes you keep making to the graphs are based on. You are seemingly violating Wikipedia rules regarding citation and original research. You need to stop and explain what you are doing or stop immediately. SecretName101 (talk) 11:47, 28 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New poll

According to the most recent poll, Vallas is in the lead at 24%, Lightfoot is in second with 18% followed by Rep. Jesús “Chuy” García with 16% and Cook County Commissioner Brandon Johnson at 15%.

Chicago Mayoral Candidates Seek Last-Minute Support – NBC Chicago 73.110.175.228 (talk) 15:01, 27 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Map colours

Twotwofourtysix's original version
Matthew McMullin's derivative version

@Matthew McMullin: Hello, I understand that my version of the map can be hard to read because of the contrast between precincts where candidates performed weak in and those where they performed strongly in. But:

  1. The contrast is necessary to distinguish the suburbs which voted heavily for Vallas and South Side which only voted marginally for Lightfoot, for example.
  2. Using gray doesn't look good on a map, especially considering that gray is already used for precincts with no votes, which is why I used vibrant yellow–orange for Garcia.
  3. I don't know why you switched the colours between Johnson and Lightfoot, it's unnecessary and looks worse, in my opinion.

Any thoughts? —twotwofourtysix(talk || edits) 01:13, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Twotwofourtysix: to answer your queries I'll explain it out to hopefully get us a bit on the same page.

  1. while yes contrast is needed I think using such a light shade as you did in yours causes confusion for the general user when we are getting down to precincts/wards that a candidate won with only a 30/40% plurality. Increasing the levels for this as I did keeps the contrast to show proper strength while also making it more friendly to the average user
  2. I used grey for Chuy as his logo was primarily a grey/black logo which I thought fit in nicely with his theme, I was not aware that there was blank precincts and that's my fault. maybe we could color those in white?
  3. I switched the colors of Johnson and Lightfoot as to keep them in sync with Lightfoot's green color palette from the 2019 election, I believe this would keep the candidates organized. there is also the matter as Vallas is viewed as the psuedo-republican nominee so red for him made sense. giving Johnson as such the opposing democratic blue to me seemed a good idea.

would love to hear your thoughts/opinions, we are all simple users after all (btw to possibly answer the section in view history, I think we can both agree that calling me a "dipshit" is not useful nor is accusing me of "stealing" your map as I credited you as the author and you published your map under fair use to be freely remixed — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew McMullin (talk • contribs) 01:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

In brief,

  1. It shouldn't be hard to distinguish the light blue of Lightfoot with any other colours for most people.
  2. You shouldn't colour any precincts in white as they can be misinterpreted as enclaves outside of Chicago city limits.
  3. Fair enough for the first point. For the second point, I don't use the normal Republican red and Democratic blue exactly because I don't want them to be seen as the party nominee as this is a nonpartisan election after all.

Would appreciate any other editors chiming in.—twotwofourtysix(talk || edits) 01:50, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi @Twotwofourtysix:, maybe it's just a me thing but when I was looking at the map the wards/precincts of lightfoot especially where she won with less than 40% of the vote were difficult to make out, the white border doesn't benefit it as when the shade is that light I found it difficult to distinguish them

  1. To answer your query on the republican/democrat colors I can tell you I didn't use the universally agreed upon shades, I consulted the proposed colors which to my understanding are not in white use at this moment

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew McMullin (talk • contribs) 02:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

That's not what I was trying to say, I don't want people to think that the red is intended to symbolise Republicans and blue for Democrats. —twotwofourtysix(talk || edits) 02:22, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Also, to answer your point about the white border (stroke), we can change those very easily. —twotwofourtysix(talk || edits) 06:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think people in general will assume red=republican and blue=democrat as that's been the standard for decades, I think using it to contrast vallas and johnson is a good idea as it fits in with the generally agreed upon view that vallas is the more "conservative" candidate in the race while johnson is the more "liberal" candidate in the race. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew McMullin (talk • contribs) 02:26, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think this is a bad idea to use red and blue. It is a talking point of Vallas' opponents that he is actually a Republican. Assigning the candidates the party colors when there is not a partisan difference will:
a) lead readers only giving a cursory look at the infobox to mis-assume that it is/was a partisan race between a Republican and Democrat
and
b) play directly into a talking point that benefits one candidate and is a potential liability for the other
SecretName101 (talk) 02:30, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I guess I can see the need for that, would it be agreeable to you then if I re-made my recolor of your map with lightfoot and johnson's color schemes swapped back to blue and green respectively? I can also make the blank precincts a pure black as to give them enough distinction from the grey of chuy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew McMullin (talk • contribs) 02:41, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Black would also not be good as it stands out unnecessarily and Garcia using grayscale might still give an impression that the "no votes" precincts are an extension of that colour scheme —twotwofourtysix(talk || edits) 04:29, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I've inputted a modified version of my recolored map onto the main article with blank precincts colored black, in my opinion the black stands out very clearly from the grey of chuy and given the gradient chart on the side of the image I believe people would be able to easily tell those precincts would NOT be chuy precincts — Preceding unsigned comment added by Matthew McMullin (talk • contribs) 05:03, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

On this note, @Talleyrand6:, this edit summary ("The dipshit that replaced the original maps User:Twotwofourtysix had no right copying and recoloring his work without proper notice ") was inappropriate and WAY off base. You are violating the civility rules of this project by making a personal attack that refers to another user as a "dipshit". Secondly, they have every right to copy and recolor the work. Twotwofourtysix published/released thier map under a "Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International" license which permits others to copy the work as well as remix/adapt the work. No notice is required. Permissions were already granted by its release under a Creative Commons license permitting the copying and adaption of the work. SecretName101 (talk) 02:16, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the only big issue I see upon a cursory look is that for Garcia and Vallas the maps use too similar of colors, which is a problem particularly on the precinct map. SecretName101 (talk) 02:25, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Now Wilson and Vallas look very similar in their lightest shade on the precinct map SecretName101 (talk) 08:04, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Yup, that's why I used purple, not magenta. —twotwofourtysix(talk || edits) 08:06, 2 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m not sure who added the news results from the new batch today but thank you, is anyone gonna be updating or shading with the updated results? Thank You I’m not sure who added it, because I’m new to wiki Proman28292 (talk) 03:25, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Might I also add now that the fact full label text has been added to Twoetwofourtysix's map makes it very cluttered, I also noticed that the precincts that Willie Wilson won in englewood look indistinguishable from the precincts that Lightfoot won on his map, I can't really make out any of the precincts wilson actually won unless I spend a good 10-15 minutes staring at the map Matthew McMullin (talk) 16:36, 7 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsement Ward Map Incorrect

Why would a map indicate that Roderick Sawyer and Sophia King, both mayoral candidate, endorsed Chuy Garcia? The map is wrong. It also omits David Moore's endorsement of King. The map should be fixed. It can be found here. Mpen320 (talk) 02:27, 3 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Mpen320 You literally happened to load this article at the most peculiar time. I had uploaded an errant version to commons that accidentally changed the colors of the incumbent aldermen's wards at 2:26. This was remedied at 2:27. You happened to load this article in the less than minute in which that error was active. What are the odds? SecretName101 (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Well, thumbnails of images on Wikipedia and Commons are cached so the old version could still appear even if the image has been updated. —twotwofourtysix(talk || edits) 11:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I’m new to Wikipedia but I wanted to say, that Chicago added more mail in votes, and I believe the tally is incorrect on the page. Proman28292 (talk) 05:48, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Chicago results map

More mail in votes are allied, and could someone please add the new results and add the coloring on the map Proman28292 (talk) 05:51, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Proman28292: What colouring on what map? The results maps have been coloured already, although it's based on results reported from yesterday. —twotwofourtysix(talk || edits) 06:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I just mean If they mail in ballots are added, I hope the map and coloring may be adjusted slightly if needed, sorry I’m new to wiki. Proman28292 (talk) 07:46, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Proman28292: I'm certain they're updating daily and the vote share hasn't and will not change until the final update, so I'll just wait until the count is finished; I have other things to do. —twotwofourtysix(talk || edits) 08:03, 5 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Data

More Chicago results have been updated today <IP redacted> 03:28, 8 March 2023 (UTC)

Can someone plz delete this I accidentally typed it Proman28292 (talk) 03:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not remove the endorsement XML tags

Hi all, I'm kindly asking people not to remove the tags that say <sectionbegin...> and so on surrounding the endorsement boxes. They do not display on the page, and are used to make the endorsements transclude correctly onto the candidate pages without having to transclude the whole endorsements section (which is to say, without having to transclude the endorsements of all of the candidates). Much obliged. 25Means 22:58, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wrong district highlighted for Johnson endorsement

Hi all, I'm requesting that the map for Brandon Johnson's US Representative endorsement be changed. The map highlights Illinois' 10th congressional district instead of the 1st congressional district. The incumbent representing the 10th district, Brad Schneider, has not made an endorsement in the race whatsoever, likely due to Chicago not being part of his district. Jonathan Jackson's district is not in the northeast corner of the state. PsyIconic (talk) 18:12, 10 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

UPDATE: Thank you to whoever changed it, however, this time you highlighted the 11th district. Bill Foster, the representative for the 11th, has not made an endorsement nor does his district encompass any part of the city of Chicago. The boundaries for the 1st congressional district can be found here. I appreciate the effort. PsyIconic (talk) 04:25, 12 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Please create other map templates

If anyone can create an editable-SVG map for the following, I would be immensely grateful. Please feature easy to understand labels in its code that identify each district, so that it will be easy to know which fill to alter the color of when updating.

  • Cook County Board of Commissioners: This would allow us to create an endorsement map for members of this. It would also allow create results maps for the 2022 election for that body and the next two elections when they come
  • Illinois House of Representatives (the labels on existing maps of current districts are unclear, making it confusing to edit)
  • Illinois State Senate (the labels on existing maps of current districts are unclear, making it confusing to edit)

Also appreciated:

  • Cook County Board of Appeals: We have no need for an endorsement map for this body at the moment, but being able to create a results map for its elections would be beneficial to the project

Thank anyone so much in advance SecretName101 (talk) 12:31, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Twotwofourtysix not sure if you'd be able to do this or not, but pinging if you can. SecretName101 (talk) 12:33, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Better Vallas photo

File:Paul Vallas (3x4a).jpg is now being used on the Paul Vallas page, and I'd say it is a good improvement over the photo currently in use on this page. Novellasyes (talk) 13:51, 21 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Really impressed

I'm really impressed with those of you who are keeping up with all the endorsements! There seem to be a zillion. Novellasyes (talk) 19:25, 22 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Help with the graph chart please

It should be updated to note today's poll which involved Emerson and partners WGN-TV and The Hill. [9]Speakfor (talk) 22:43, 27 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Latino Leadership Council

I know that their endorsement has been removed in the past on the grounds of them being not significant, however I think they are. Prior to Chuy Garcia's announcement, CBS issued an article dedicated to the Latino Leadership Council calling on Garcia to run. If they weren't that major, they wouldn't have an entire article dedicating their calls on Garcia to run. They have sponsors ranging from multiple organizations see their website, two reliable news sources (Fox and ABC) released articles when the council announced their support of Vallas plus not to mention Vallas now includes their endorsement on his website ([10]). I personally believe there's more reasons for their endorsement to be included rather than excluded. 2601:249:8E00:420:CCF2:7029:DE9A:C781 (talk) 22:31, 28 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

There usually has to be a Wikipedia article on the organisation itself, in this case the Latino Leadership Council, as they indicate the org's notability. See Wikipedia's guideline on political endorsements. —twotwofourtysix(talk || edits) 01:58, 29 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Usually an org needs to have an article, or be notable that would could reasonably exist on this project. Sometimes an endorsement of an otherwise non-notable figure or org can be allowed if a consensus arises that it is very notable in the context of the election or particular locality in which the election exists, but nevertheless not broadly notable enough for an article. SecretName101 (talk) 16:00, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Runoff Election Map Colors

As someone who is colorblind, I unfortunately can't see the colors on the runoff map well. Maybe a red-blue spectrum or a blue-green would work better? Thanks so much. AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging @Twotwofourtysix as well AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 08:04, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@AwesomeSaucer9 I’ve updated the map, it should be more accessible now. —twotwofourtysix(talk || edits) 15:26, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
It looks a LOT better. Thank you!!! AwesomeSaucer9 (talk) 19:22, 10 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry, this follows the first round colour scheme, so that it transitions nicely from there. Open to suggestions from others —twotwofourtysix(talk || edits) 08:09, 5 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:2023_Chicago_mayoral_election"