Talk:United States House of Representatives elections, 2010

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject U.S. Congress (Rated C-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
This article is about one (or many) event(s).
WikiProject Elections and Referendums (Rated C-class)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the quality scale.
 
WikiProject Politics (Rated C-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon 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.
C-Class article C  This article has been rated as C-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated List-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 List  This article has been rated as List-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (marked as Low-importance).
 

Merge needed[edit]

There is a page full of poll results, mostly from biased pollsters, that should either be deleted or merged here. I suggest a new column, "Other polls", that at least contains the reflinks to the other polls. (It might be possible to color in the cell somehow, perhaps by taking the latest result, or just calling any with divergent polls tossups.) 141.156.160.217 (talk) 17:24, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

  • Sir, these pollsters are not biased and a merge is not needed at all.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:41, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Races selected for table[edit]

Whatever sources were used to select the "competitive" races populating the table, surely there are changes by now? Some races not listed may now be considered competitive by the very same sources, and some (especially some that keep polling solid Republican) surely are no longer competitive. What do the sources say now? 141.156.160.217 (talk) 05:37, 10 September 2010 (UTC)

Analysis section[edit]

I think this article could use an analysis section talking about the large swing in the Republican direction, and a depth of analyses as to why it happened. Of course there are different opinions differ as to why (e.g., bad economy, poor communication with voters on the part of Democrats, unhappiness with a left-wing agenda, etc.), but the notable ones can be included. However, the historic nature of the changes should be unquestionable - frankly this would be a much better addition to this article than the sprawling and out of date "predictions" section. Magog the Ogre (talk) 23:20, 21 November 2010 (UTC)

Infobox photos[edit]

Yes, I understand the setup in the House for the majority party. But, it could be a tad confusing for those, who don't realize the the House Republican leader (who'll be majority leader in the 112th Congress) won't be John Boehner. GoodDay (talk) 16:23, 23 November 2010 (UTC)

The Majority Leader is not the House Republican leader; he's just the floor leader (and the second-in-command). The Speaker(-in-waiting) is the GOP leader. Therefore, John Boehner belongs in the infobox, just like Nancy Pelosi did before. --kurykh 18:16, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
Nobody was elected to any leadership positions on November 2, 2010. The only elections that occured were congressional elections. Having 'leaders' & 'speakers' mentioned in this (and all preceding articles) is inaccurate. These infoboxes shouldn't be made like the presidential election, gubernatorial election, single representative election & single senate election article infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 07:10, 27 November 2010 (UTC)
Boehner won't be elected Speaker until the new Congress takes office January 3, 2011, because Speaker is a Constitutional office, elected by sitting members of the House. As the WP Speaker page says, it's only "widely presumed" he'll be elected Speaker. Pelosi was already elected Minority Leader by the Democrats on Nov. 17, 2010 (see her WP page). Davemck (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
Stop the presses! Now I see the Republicans have voted (Nov. 17) for Boehner as Speaker. So, while it's not official till Jan. 3, and the vote wasn't in the Nov. 2 election, it's a consequence of it, so I reinstated the photo, with refs for both him and Pelosi. Davemck (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2010 (UTC)
The Boehner image should be removed, as the Full House hasn't voted on the Speakership yet. GoodDay (talk) 23:19, 28 November 2010 (UTC)

Voter turnout?[edit]

In neither this article nor the related United States elections, 2010 can I find a clear statement of the number and percentage of the national voter turnout. Seems to me this elementary statistic ought to be stated in all such articles. I wonder if one of you political-junkie editors could please add that here, with reliable source citation of course? Textorus (talk) 22:45, 12 April 2011 (UTC)

True! ROFLMAO!!! Here is a link that may help: 2010 General Election Turnout Rates at United Stated Elections Project website. In many "semi-democratic" societies a turnout of less then 50% invalidates the election and it must be held again. –pjoef (talkcontribs) 15:46, 3 July 2011 (UTC)


Source[edit]

What's the source for this? There are no citations, and I see names of candidates for NY seats here that did not file petitions, according to the NYS board of elections [1]

Scrolling[edit]

The page is too long. I don't support getting rid of it, but we need to figure out a way to reduce scrolling and page length.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC) I have a new proposal to reduce scrolling.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:10, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

  • I much prefer this page to be completely open with all races easily viewed and easily searchable. I don't like this change at all. Johnny longtorso (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2010 (UTC)
    • All races are easily viewed and easily searchable.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:12, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
      • Not when you have to expand each individual state's box. Previously you could just search for a candidate's name, now you can't. It's also useless if you want to browse. The old way is how the previous three cycles have been done, and I don't recall any complaints about the length then. Heck, the Canadian federal elections are all on one page, and due to the formatting there, the page is about the same length. Johnny longtorso (talk) 01:56, 4 October 2010 (UTC)
        • I don't understand what's the big deal? If you're looking for a candidate, than you can look under what state their from. I don't see what the big deal is. The old way is a pain in the butt. Why? Because the scrolling was ridiculous. These changes make the page much better.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:01, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

New representatives[edit]

In the introductory paragraph, I think it would be informative to mention how many new (or not so new) representatives were elected. #(retiring)+#(incumbents defeated), I think it adds to 95 in this article? Same goes for the article on election to the Senate. Jack Daw (talk) 01:14, 26 July 2012 (UTC)

Results summary[edit]

I've devised a new column to flesh out the figures. I've also found missing data for retired Reps. So please, if you need to correct the data, please cite your work.—GoldRingChip 13:25, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

My corrections fit the citations in the text. If you want to modify the table, you should also correct the text with citations.
OK, good point. I'll look it over and see what I can do. Thanks.—GoldRingChip 13:52, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Incumbents Losing Nomination[edit]

I've deleted the Entry for the 2012 primary between Mo Brooks and Parker Griffith, since Brooks was the incumbent at that point and he won re-election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrVonMalfoy (talkcontribs) 16:11, 19 February 2013 (UTC)