Talk:2016 United States presidential election

popular vote and citizenship

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
It is said that Hillary Clinton got more popular vote. Donald Trump got more popular vote outside of California. California has millions of Mexican illegals. Illegals are able to vote. Anyone in California is on the voter registry as long as they have a driver's license. It is therefore unknown whether Hillary Clinton had more votes from American citizens. 204.197.185.4 (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC) There is no such thing as an "illegal". Non-citizens cannot vote. You have provided no sources. WP:RS Objective3000 (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC) It is more than "said" about HC getting the popular. Its fact. Google it. And "illegals" are unable to obtain DL and DLI if they do not have the proper paperwork.L3X1 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC) I am wondering if in 2020 if there are several million fewer votes out of California after the illegals are deported will the conversation be that national voter ID suppressed the minority vote or will it be that illegals did vote in 2016. In any case it's irrelevant because California is irrelevant.173.66.18.9 (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC) As is your edit. WP:NOTFORUM Objective3000 (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Percentage

The article says HRC won by 2.1% but the infobox suggests otherwise. There needs to be more clarification. Prcc27❄ (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I agree. Most everything I have been reading about the popular vote has Clinton's winning vote margin at 2.1%, not 2.0 as the infobox currently states. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Sanders is the first Independent to receive an electoral vote since George Washington

Independent Senator Bernard Sanders is the first political independent to receive an electoral vote since George Washington in the election of 1792. I don't have any source for this fact, but just going through every electoral college vote since the presidential election of 1788-89, every third party candidate is associated with some form of an established political party. For example, James B. Weaver in 1892 was associated with the Populist party, making him not an independent, just a minor party candidate. Millard Filmore in 1856 was associated with the American "Know-Nothing" Party, thus not an independent. While, Sanders is associated with no political party, although he recently changed affiliation back to independent after his presidential run. George Washington, of course, was 'nonpartisan,' basically the same as a political independent.

As such, a sentence should be added stating the fact that Sanders, by electoral vote count, is the most successful independent in presidential politics since George Washington; of course, with the stipulation that he had just recently changed his affiliation back from Democratic. The sentence would best fit either in the section titled, "Results by State," after stating he had the most successful write-in campaign in American presidential history or in the section about faithless electors, right after the statement that LaDuke is the first Green Party member to receive an electoral vote.

Thank you for your time. Wharmer (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

You may be right, but it is only significant if major media have noted the fact. TFD (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Regardless of major media recognition, is the fact not important? Especially given how the American presidential election system has been organized along party lines since 1796, and the entirety of the political system before then arguably.

See WP:OR Objective3000 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Secondary sources determine what is important, per "Balancing aspects." Not only that but, per Objective3000, OR applies. We would have to research all electoral college voting since 1789 to determine if the statement was true. TFD (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Not done: Firstly, you would need a RS that states that Sanders is the first independent to receive an elector vote. You would also have to disregard your own statement that George Washington was basically an independent. Sir Joseph ^(talk) 21:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm going based on wikipedia says, that Goerge Washington is "nonpartisan." Although I don't have a source saying he is, it is just my observation. Would it appropriate to say that it "appears to be," rather than something more definitive if there is no media source stating so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wharmer (talk • contribs) 00:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

I'd also like to point out that any Electoral Vote is not official until January 6th when Congress Officially counts them. That also emans that DJT is not president elect until that date also. L3X1 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

References

Faith Spotted Eagle is also politically independent, so she should be mentioned too, if we mention this in the article.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 22:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Assuming that Washington electors voted before Hawaii electors (matter of hours), Spotted Eagle would be the first since George Washington. But, when the roll call occurs at the joint session of Congress (Jan 6), Hawaii's totals will get mentioned first. But, when Biden announces the results - it's all 50 states & DC, thus Sanders & Spotted Eagle are recognized simultaneously - assuming faithless electoral votes will be counted. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

According to her page on Wikipedia, she ran as a Democrat for state house, so it is plausible she could be a registered Democrat but it just isn't known. If she is an independent then yeah, her and Sanders would appear to be the first independents to receive electoral votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wharmer (talk • contribs) 00:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)

Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, and Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas also have open primaries, so Johnson, McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Gore, George W. Bush, Kerry, Obama and Romney should be considered independents too. TFD (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

None of those were independent candidates.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

But they were not "registered Democrat[s]" or registered Republicans, which is the distinction Wharmer makes. TFD (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

???? This seems factually incorrect. Bernie was neither independent nor was he the first of Faithless elector history since George Washington to see an odd vote. He was a Democratic candidate who didn't win the nomination. It seems an homage that an elector voted for him since it didn't matter anyway, caveat I've not seen RS saying so. And in elector history, I would point to 1968 vote for George Wallace,

Wharmer didn't say the first to receive an odd vote, but first independent to receive electoral votes (since Washington). Sanders went independent after failing to get the Democratic nomination. You are correct in that it was a homage - one of the sources I read quoted Mulinix that he only voted for Sanders because at that point he already knew that Trump had enough votes, and his vote wouldn't change that.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Wallace was a candidate of the American Independent Party. I think John Anderson was the only officially independent candidate whose campaign attracted any note, but he did not receive any electoral votes. TFD (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

same with Perot. MB298 (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

There also was McMullin in this election, who was only on an official party roster in one state. But, he got no faithless electoral votes [edit:], faithless or otherwise.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 15:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's not forget Faith Spotted Eagle, folks. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

I didn't - see my initial comment in this section.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 17:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove table in "Aftermath" section

What's the purpose for it? I don't understand. If anything, shouldn't it be included in the 'Results' section? Or perhaps the prognostications and projections subcategory? I haven't found any editor defending it, and I don't see what it's doing there. Plus, it does admittedly look at least a bit unpolished and unprofessional, and the inclusion of certain states is arbitrary, why not Maine or New Hampshire or Nebraska's district or Virginia or Colorado or Arizona or Ohio or Georgia or New Mexico or Texas or another group? Besides, it's just inserted not at the top of the section or at the bottom, but right in the middle of a more coherent textual flow. And there's three groups of sources in it,with five, four, and eight, respectively, that clog it up, aren't where they are supposed to be, don't accurately describe or back up the content, and are placed in the wrong locations. Shouldn't we just remove it, or at least relocate and fix the table? Ramires451 (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to add more swing states, but the table should ultimately stay. The fact that pre-election polling predictions were so inaccurate was widely reported in the media after the election. Even in the swing states that ultimately went Dem had much narrower margins than polls predicted. --1990'sguy (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Electoral Vote "Scatter"? Ridiculous and Wrong Terminology

The infobox calls the faithless electors "scatter." That terminology is quite wrong. "Scatter" is, at best, a statistics term. Electors who do not vote for their pledged candidate (assuming no death or withdrawal) have always been called "faithless electors" and must continue to be. No political scientist uses the term "electoral vote scatter" nor does anyone in professional politics. If the person who introduced this "scatter" term claims otherwise, cite your source.

Also, the page is woefully inadequate because it does not contain a chart for VP electoral vote. Sadly, this is a failing shared by numerous similar pages since the adoption of the 12th Amendment. I am unable to fix these matters, but I encourage a Wikipedia editor to do so. Wikipedia's credibility depends on people using terminology consistent with real-world users and on complete data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.19.121 (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I see no one cares about this. Typical for Wikipedia. God forbid articles be written in a professional manner using terms of art employed by those of us who use them professionally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.19.121 (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

If I can point out that, in your second post, you took up a rather hostile tone. This likely made users uncomfortable commenting on your discussion.

Wikipedia is a community of volunteers covering an endless number of topics. It was a single-day lapse between your first and second posts. Next time practice more patience with these things. You'll get far better results.
SecretName101 (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

I would favor replacing the instance of the term "Electoral vote scatter" with "fathless electors"SecretName101 (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Trump attacks

I object to the removal of my addition, as well as this user's false edit summary.

Fox News is a completely reliable source to use. This article was not commentary and it was completely NPOV. Falsely calling it "not RS for this" says more about the remover than the source itself. :1990'sguy (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Sorry but, I was about to remove it myself, but was cooking dinner and had no time to respond. The article is very poorly written, refers to an even worse article, and is clearly a WP:POV. I did a search on better sources, and none of them considered this an "anti-Trump" attack. Indeed, I can't find any ref from the police that investigated this that it had anything whatsoever to do with Trump, other than an off-hand rant. The police, at this point, appear to think it was hatred of the mentally challenged. I do not see how this is helpful to this article. Objective3000 (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

However, there was a large anti-Trump theme to the attack (as can be heard in the video), even if Trump was not the motivating factor of the attack (something that I acknowledged when first adding the source). Also, how exactly is this article POV? In addition, which of the three linked articles([1][2][3]) is the "even worse article" that you refer to? --1990'sguy (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

The first and the third are not reliable sources. The second source does not support the statement.

There was nothing "false" about the edit summary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Seriously? The first source was not RS? At the bottom of the source, it clearly states that the Associated Press contributed to it. Is the AP not reliable? --1990'sguy (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Why exactly was this completely relevant and well-sourced info removed?

I strongly object to this edit.

First off, the fact that Trump won the most counties of any presidential candidate regardless of party, since 1984 is NOT a "useless trivia", as the edit summary falsely states. It really doesn't matter that counties are not a precisely accurate depiction of the entire U.S. population. The fact that Trump won more U.S. counties since 1984 (32 years), which was a landslide election, shows very strong support across the country, particularly in rural portions of the country, and it is not trivial.

I also strongly object to the removal of this statement (which I did not add):

"...though she suffered the worst electoral college defeat of any Democratic candidate since Michael Dukakis's landslide defeat by George H.W. Bush in 1988."

I agree that this could have been worded in a more NPOV manner, but the fact is true: the Democratic candidate received the least electoral votes since 1988 (28 years), and to put it vice-versa, the GOP candidate received the most electoral votes since 1988. This is not trivia.

Both information should be restored. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It is trivia. It's just trying to come up with some measure of something that "Trump won" to pile it on.

The second part was worded in a POV manner and without context it still is POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

US counties vary in population from 89 (Kalawao) to over 10,000,000 (LA). The counties won is a meaningless stat. Objective3000 (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with the fact that Trump won the most counties. It does have to do with the fact that he won more counties of any presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984. This is not meaningless trivia.

Also, Volunteer Marek, Trump did win. Every reliable source has called his victory "surprising," "an upset," "historical victory," etc. This is one example, and I do not see any reason to believe that it is worthless trivia. It was the most counties since 1984. Besides, there already exists "meaningless trivia" (at least as meaningless as my addition), such as the shooting at a polling place in Azusa, California (what in the world does this have to do with the results?) or both candidates breaking records in the amount of popular votes cast (as the U.S. population is increasing).

Also, how is the second part still POV? How does it not have context? Please explain. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

What does this have to do with counties? He may have also been voted by more people with names that start with G. It's a meaningless stat. One of an infinite number of meaningless stats. Your recent (and past) edits clearly show WP:POV problems. Objective3000 (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Remember, we're talking about two different things in this discussion. One is the counties and the other is the fact that Trump won the most electoral votes for a Republican since 1988 (and vice-versa for Clinton). As for the counties, I see no reason why winning the most since 1984 (regardless of party affiliation) is meaningless. Sure it isn't as important as winning the popular vote, but a shooting at a polling place in Azusa, California or winning the largest number of votes in a country with an increasing population are not very meaningful either (possibly even more meaningless in regards to election results). In regards to my edits, I have edited hundreds of political articles (some of them being extremely controversial and touchy subjects that get tens-of-thousands of page views every day), and very few of my edits have been reverted or challenged (particularly as POV). If only a few edits have been challenged out of hundreds or even thousands, that still shows a pretty good record. Attacking my record is thus not a good way of making your point. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Additionally, my questions above were still not answered. --1990'sguy (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Considering the electoral vote is the method used to elect presidents - not popular vote - I would say electoral vote totals are, in fact, at least equally relevant. Toa Nidhiki05 17:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes, of course electoral votes matter and they are discussed. The removed text was mostly about counties. Counties vary in size from 89 people to over 10,000,000 people. It’s a meaningless stat, and has been discussed in the past. The other removed text: though she suffered the worst electoral college defeat of any Democratic candidate since Michael Dukakis's landslide defeat by George H.W. Bush in 1988 is misleading. It makes it sound like an historical landslide. But, there has only been one Republican president since Bush41. That’s WP:TRIVIA. Objective3000 (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• 1--It is not trivia that Trump won more counties than any other presidential candidate, regardless of party, since 1984. No candidate won so many counties in 32 years.
• 2--How is winning the most counties of any presidential candidate as or more trivial than the random and useless facts already mentioned? Are you telling me that the worthless and silly facts that "Trump received more votes than any other Republican in any presidential election", that "Clinton also won more votes than any candidate, Republican or Democrat except Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012", that "Third party and write-ins were the highest since 1996", and that a shooting occurred in Azusa, CA that closed the polling place, are less trivial than the fact that Trump won the most counties than any candidate since 1984? (and that fact is reliably sourced to PolitiFact). If this fact is trivial, than the others are trivial as well and must be removed. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

If you wish to argue that other stuff should also be removed, you can do that. Counties have no statistical meaning as they vary so massively in population and physical size. (San Bernardino has 20,105 sq. mi. Kalawao County has 53 sq. mi., but only 12 sq. mi. are above water.) There is no standard county. LA County includes LA and surrounding areas. NYC is in five counties. LA County has a larger population than 42 states. But, you are counting this as 1 of 3,000 entities. Some states don’t have any counties. They wouldn’t be counted at all in this kind of stat. Objective3000 (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for "Results" section

I propose re-adding the fact that Trump won the largest number of electoral votes for a Republican since 1988 and the Clinton received the fewest electoral votes for a Democrat since 1988. Dave Leip's Election Atlas is my source.

Trump won the most electoral votes of any Republican since the 1988 presidential election, and Clinton won the fewest electoral votes of any Democrat since the 1988 presidential election.[4]

(the source would obviously be formatted correctly when it is actually added). --1990'sguy (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

This is incredibly misleading. It makes it sound like Trump won and Clinton lost by historical numbers. But, you could also say that in the elections from 1988, Trump won with the third lowest electoral votes out of eight and Clinton lost, but by less than five of the eight previous losers. In other words, it was a closer than usual election using the same time span as you used and the same electoral numbers. My point is that you can manipulate stats to fit a WP:POV. Which is why we would should avoid constructions like these. Objective3000 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

We could add both facts. I don't mind either. If we are going to include truly trivial facts, such as a shooting at a polling place, or that Trump won the most popular votes of a Republican in U.S. history (the U.S. has a growing population), or that Clinton won more popular votes of any candidate (other than Obama in 2008 and 2012, which makes this fact truly meaningless), then we should include this one or remove all of them. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it really true that at least 50 GOP electors were illegal?

Dual office holders for example.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/new-report-claims-at-least-50-trump-voter-in-electoral-college-were-illegally-seated/

172.98.146.50 (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

No. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

• @GoodDay: The Constitution says an elector can't hold public office... Prcc27❄ (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

All 538 electoral votes for President & all 538 electoral votes for Vice President were certified by Congress on January 6, 2017. I'm not aware if there's anybody looking to contest it to the US Supreme Court. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

I think this means federal legislators, SCOTUS, and presidential appointees only, not state office holders. In any case, it would require strong cites. Objective3000 (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Results - Faithless electors

I have several concerns with how the results are tabulated in the case of so-called "faithless electors". In most of these cases people are listed as "running mates" but it isn't really clear that "running mate" is the proper term to describe the relationship between two people whose only connection may be that they were both named on the same "faithless elector"'s ballot. For example, Elizabeth Warren cannot simultaneously be the running mate of both Colin Powell and Bernie Sanders. Dividing the electoral votes of Mike Pence into two chunks of 304 votes and 1 vote doesn't really make sense: Pence received 305 votes, period. The "ticket" of Faith Spotted Eagle and Winona LaDuke is shown as having no party affiliation, but LaDuke apparently does have a past or present affiliation with the Green Party. Constitutionally, electoral votes for vice president are completely independent of those for president. Given the historically high number of faithless electors in this election, I think they should be tabulated independently here as well. Dash77 (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

FWIW, a presidential candidate can have multiple vice presidential running mates & a vice presidential candidate can have multiple presidential running mates. See 1836 presidential election :) GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to mention Donald Trump had more popular votes in the general election than any other GOP nominee did

38.121.70.90 (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussed elsewhere already. Not surprising, as population grows… — JFG ^talk 04:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to remove arbitrarily-selected trivia from "Results" section

Certain editors opposed my addition stating that Trump won more counties than any other presidential candidate since Reagan in 1984. This opposition is arbitrary, as several pieces of trivia (much more trivial than my addition could ever be) are already in the "Results" section.

I propose removing these two paragraphs:

"According to unofficial totals, Trump received more votes than any other Republican in any presidential election, at least 900,000 more than George W. Bush in 2004. Clinton also won more votes than any candidate, Republican or Democrat except Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Third party and write-ins were the highest since 1996, accounting for over 8.2 million votes, 6.00% of valid votes, compared to 2.4 million and 1.85% in 2012.[3]"

"A shooting at a polling place in Azusa, California left two people dead, including the perpetrator, and two others critically injured. The shooting resulted in the closure of polls.[303]"

For the first one, the U.S. population has been increasing, so it is only natural that Trump and Clinton received more popular votes and all or most other candidates (and for Clinton, Obama still received more votes in both 2008 and 2012). For the second one, while this is interesting, I don't see how this really belongs in the "Results" section, at least any more than my addition. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

Your first paragraph makes this sound WP:POINTY Objective3000 (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

The second one should def be removed or at least moved out of the Results section. The first part of the proposal, like Objective3000 said, is just POINTY.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I apologize for the POINTYness. I really do find the exclusion arbitrary, and I stated "certain editors" because only three other editors (and one only made one short comment) ever participated in the discussions. --1990'sguy (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)

I included the Trump Republican party votes metric because they had been bleeding hard votes for a few elections despite the point you made about increasing population, but that trend reversed this election. The trivia was removed from the lede which I agree with but it should remain deeper in the article, and the Results section makes sense for it in my opinion.Travis McGeehan (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)

But how is that fact less trivial than the fact that Trump won the most counties of any presidential candidate regardless of party since 1984? If that fact is added, I will not support removing the fact you added, but removing Trump winning a record amount of counties while keeping your fact is quite arbitrary. --1990'sguy (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

As this thread has not received much discussion, I removed the info in question per WP:BRD. This info is not any more notable than the information I attempted to add. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

You deleted without consensus. In fact, without any support for most of the delete. And you are still using WP:POINTY language. Objective3000 (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

I deleted the info per WP:BRD. The discussion wasn't going anywhere in either direction. Also, only one editor voiced opposition to deleting the info and no editor showed why the info I attempted to add was not worthy of inclusion and why the deleted info was. Additionally, I don't see why my language is still POINTY. I merely stated my rationale for deleting, and I did not use inflammatory wording (at least not intentionally). --1990'sguy (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Revisit Adding Russian Interference in lede

At this point, Russian interference in the election is (IMO) clearly something that requires more WP:Weight in the article. With that, I think we should revisit visit rather there should be a mention of it in the lede. Casprings (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It shouldn't be added to the lead as there's no way to prove that any hacking caused Hillary Clinton to lose the election. GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Rather it caused here to lose or not, it is far more significant then the fact a few electors were unfaithful. We should try to judge what is historically significant about an election and outside interference is nearly always historically significant. Therefore, more meat needs to be put into this article regarding that, per WP:Weight

I disagree. At the very least, we should hold off until/if it's revealed that the Trump campaign & the Russian gov't collaborated. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

At this point we do not know whether the Russians tried to influence the election because no evidence has been provided to the public. And no intelligence have not claimed it had an influence. However, it is becoming part of the narrative, so I would not object to its mention, provided we did not make any claims about the story's truth. TFD (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)1

no intelligence have not claimed it had an influence? - I don't support propagating this Russian fantasy in the lede but sure if you offer your desired addition we can chat about it. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

It does not matter whether what they think is true or not, but whether it has obtained wide coverage and that we present it as an opinion. OTOH a couple of weeks ago Comey lost them the election, months ago Sanders was destroying their chances. The media gave too much coverage to Trump, didn't investigate him, the electoral college, voter complacency, fake news, racists. I imagine there will be lots of other excuses. TFD (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest something like this.

The United States government has accused the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 United States elections. A joint US intelligence review stated with high confidence that, "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Hillary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency." Further, the US intelligence community stated "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."

References

Just clearly state what the intel community of US has stated.Casprings (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

OPPOSE The source of the leak is Wikileaks. They are investigative journalists. They are allowed to leak whatever the fuck they want to the public. Even if it were Hillary Clinton's emails instead of John Podesta's emails, they can also leak them. It is not known who the hackers are. It could be Wikileaks themselves. The hacking software is a commercial one from Ukraine. I doubt the FSB would use such a software to hack John Podesta's gmail. It is possible, but we simply don't know the identity of the hackers. All that is certain at this point is the leakers are Wikileaks. So I oppose adding anything to do with Russia in the lede or even in the article at all. Anything that is not certain should not be included in the article. Only facts should be included in the article. Just my 2 cents. 216.165.202.95 (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Everything in the statement is a fact as the release of the statement by the ONDI is a fact.Casprings (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• The suggested text looks good to me. It states the facts as reported by RS and draws no conclusions. And yes, it certainly seems to me more weighty than a handful of faithless electors. Objective3000 (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• I object to this trash in the lede. There is no consensus here to add it, please stop adding it. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – There is enough material in the article about this story, although that could be updated. The purported influence of any Russian hacking or propaganda campaign on election results is inconclusive. — JFG ^talk 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The term "government" is ambiguous. There is a difference between statements by government officials and the government speaking in its official capacity. We would not say for example that it is the position of the U.S. government that Trump is unqualified for office, although the President said that. Also, only two of the three intelligence agencies had high confidence, one had medium confidence. TFD (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

RFC on including Russian influence into the election

The following text has been suggested to be added to the article lede:

The United States government has accused the Russian government of interfering in the 2016 United States elections. A joint US intelligence review stated with high confidence that, "Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Hillary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency." Further, the US intelligence community stated "Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."

Reference list
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
References

The questions of the RFC are.

1. Should the lede of the article United States presidential election, 2016 mention 2016 United States election interference by Russia?

2. Should the article include the above text?

Casprings (talk) 19:00, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Support both as nom The article gives too little WP:Weight to what is one of the most important aspects of the election, which is possible interference by a foreign actor. An outside actor influencing or the belief among intelligence agencies that an outside actor is influencing an election would be given more weight in any election article where that is true. This should be no different. WP:WEIGHT demands greater weight be given and for this to be included.Casprings (talk) 19:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose as it's impossible & will be impossible to determined if the hacks-in-question were decisive in Trump's victory. There's no way to prove that these hacks caused voters to turn to Trump/Pence & away from Clinton/Kaine. GoodDay (talk) 19:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose The term "government" is ambiguous. There is a difference between statements by government officials and the government speaking in its official capacity. We would not say for example that it is the position of the U.S. government that Trump is unqualified for office, although the President said that. Also, only two of the three intelligence agencies had high confidence, one had medium confidence. TFD (talk) 20:11, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

If you read the report, that is not true on the confidence. The NSA had moderate confidence on the motivation of the Russians. No agency had anything but high confidence that the Russians were behind the attach.Casprings (talk) 20:13, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for the correction. However, it still does not support the statement that intelligence had high confidence that the Russians intended to help Trump, since the NSA had only medium confidence. TFD (talk) 02:22, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

All agencies agreed that to the following "We assess Russian President Vladimir Putin ordered an influence campaign in 2016 aimed at the US presidential election. Russia’s goals were to undermine public faith in the US democratic process, denigrate Secretary Clinton, and harm her electability and potential presidency. We further assess Putin and the Russian Government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump. We have high confidence in these judgments." The NSA only changed with the following: "We also assess Putin and the Russian Government aspired to help President-elect Trump’s election chances when possible by discrediting Secretary Clinton and publicly contrasting her unfavorably to him. All three agencies agree with this judgment. CIA and FBI have high confidence in this judgment; NSA has moderate confidence." See page ii.Casprings (talk)

• Support in principle, though I could quibble with the wording. It doesn't actually say that Trump's victory was due to Russian interference, which of course we cannot say: but that the interference existed, and that we have to mention it per WP:DUE, seems undeniable. Vanamonde (talk) 07:02, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support some manner of inclusion per WEIGHT. We should mention interference but be careful not to suggest it actually changed the outcome as there's not enough evidence or certainty for that yet. EvergreenFir (talk) 08:32, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support including the above sentence, as long as we accurately report the findings and do not say that the actions of Russia changed the outcome of the election. WP:Due is applicable here. Michelangelo1992 (talk) 22:04, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support both - not clear on what the relevant oppose argument votes are. Clearly it's notable and one of the main phenomenon (whether true or not, whether influential or not) associated with the election. Whether the interference actually swayed any votes is completely beside the point. Everything in the proposed text is verifiable. The claims of non-verifiability are referencing some imaginary strawman.Volunteer Marek (talk) 04:34, 17 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support both - EvergreenFir and Vanamonde said it best. This is clearly of historical significance (it is indeed unprecedented) and deserves a mention in the lead and the body. As VM points out, whether the interference swung the election or not is irrelevant Neutrality^talk 04:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose - (1) Foul: The juxtaposed snippet at the end is clearly a WP:SYNTH editing rather than a connected quote, so it lacks WP:INTEGRITY to the source. (2) Not WP:LEAD worthy - this wasn't central or prominent to the campaign and voting process which is the article's topic, and is not predominant in the usual Google search. (3) Contrary to precedent: The similar 1996 Chinese 1996 United States campaign finance controversy is down in section 5.1 at United_States_presidential_election,_1996#Campaign_donations_controversy. (4) NPOV - a WP:NEUTRAL notice of an event is all that WP:LEAD indicates, this kind of positional phrasing detail would go somewhere in the body as it requires addition of other views on the topic, Trump or Putin for example, which will not fit. Overall the edit as proposed just does not suit. It's an unusual topic notable as sidelight about the election, similar to the 1996 Chinese efforts, but more as a small section in the body as it's not something that is prominently said or said to be a clear and major factor in the result. Markbassett (talk) 04:55, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

• As we are entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts, the last sentence is a direct pull from the intel assessment. See page ii. The arguments on WP:SYNTH and WP:INTEGRITY are without merit, IMHO.

Casprings - Gee, the editor asserts he doesn't see the problem. But that's why you're here at RFC, and I'll explain in a bit more detail. Look, the text as proposed is not showing that as an attribution, another nit to fix for WP:CITE. What the proposal is showing is a problem of second source second quote that is clearly a WP:SYNTH synthesis (combining of pieces) with some joinery editing rather than a connected single quote or completely quoted sentences. This raises unnecessary WP:INTEGRITY concerns. You should have either proposed a connected single quote from a single source or to have done a paraphrase from multiple cites, not a mix-up of styles. Doing a mix back and forth of your phrasing then one quote then your phrasing the another quote is an unnecessary digression and an impropriety to the RS. I'll suggest that a clean paraphrase would be preferable, or to use attribution to ODNI report on a quote from them and to use Washington Post attribution on any conclusion from them. But avoid using multiple cites as sources for selecting snippets of ODNI words when direct sources are available, the WP:SWYRT is just not needed. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 21:46, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Markbassett I disagree. To me, this uses the language the intel community used to hit at the two major points from multiple WP:RS. 1. They intervened. 2. They did so in support of Trump. The two quotes are mentioned multiple times but are used from the primary to be as WP:N as possiable. That being said, I am certainly open to changing it, if that is the consensus. However, whatever the wording, more weight belongs in the article.Casprings (talk) 23:33, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Casprings - well the writer isn't expected to see agree to what criticism is. So long as you understand I object to having a construction of quote 1 saying it's from pg 11 of NYTimes and then your interjection and then quote 2 saying from Washington Post then I think you've received the comment. Markbassett (talk) 01:14, 19 January 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose – There is enough material in the article about this story, although that could be updated. The purported influence of any Russian hacking or propaganda campaign on election results is inconclusive. At best the lead could say "After the election, the US intelligence community and media ramped up allegations of a propaganda campaign from Russia against Hillary Clinton." — JFG ^talk 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
• Procedural note: Casprings opened an informal poll on this question, got 4 opposes and 0 support, then proceeded just a few hours later to ask the exact same question in RfC format. Of course that's allowed but Caspring has been on a crusade since December to push this information into the lead of many articles and was rebuffed everywhere. This new attempt sounds like WP:IDHT. — JFG ^talk 02:08, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• The RFC was one to provide guidance to add it to a number of articles and templates. While the consensus was that this needs to be dealt with one article (or template) at a time, this continues to be what dominates the coverage of this election in WP:RS. As such, I believe it requires more WP:Weight. If you disagree, so be it. However, as the coverage continues to be dominated by Russian interference, so does the argument for more WP:Weight in the article.Casprings (talk) 02:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

• Support. Whether the outcome of the election was affected is unproven but immaterial. The important point is the conclusion of the relevant agencies that interference occurred. It places this election in a special position historically. It absolutely makes it appropriate for mention in the lead. It would be extraordinary for the lead not to mention it. --Mkativerata (talk) 05:44, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support per Vanamonde, EvergreenFir and Mkativerata, and others. Whether it had an actual effect on the election is not relevant: various intelligence agencies have concluded that interference occurred and agree on its intent (all in RS), and this bit of text doesn't speculate beyond that. Besides, even if there was no impact on the election at all, the fact that a foreign power attempted to intervene in this election is highly significant, and definitely deserving of mention in the lede. The link to Russian (a dab page) needs to be fixed to a more appropriate link, although whether that's Government of Russia or some other link I'm not sure about, and I suggest that the text "interfering in the 2016 United States elections" all be wikilinked and piped to 2016 United States election interference by Russia. Ivanvector (^Talk/_Edits) 13:26, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support – I opposed at Donald Trump as undue. However, I think the interference by a foreign power in the 2016 US presidential election certainly should be a part of an article on the 2016 US presidential election, whatever the effect may or may not have been. Coverage has been high in RS. Investigators include the FBI, the CIA, the NSA, the Justice Department, FinCEN, and representatives of the director of national intelligence.[5] Even Putin has entered the fray. That seems quite weighty. Objective3000 (talk) 17:46, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - User:Markbassett nails it in wikipedia policy, so to quote him as it is such a perfect interpretation - (1) Foul: The juxtaposed snippet at the end is clearly a WP:SYNTH editing rather than a connected quote, so it lacks WP:INTEGRITY to the source. (2) Not WP:LEAD worthy - this wasn't central or prominent to the campaign and voting process which is the article's topic, and is not predominant in the usual Google search. (3) Contrary to precedent: The similar 1996 Chinese 1996 United States campaign finance controversy is down in section 5.1 at United_States_presidential_election,_1996#Campaign_donations_controversy. (4) NPOV - a WP:NEUTRAL notice of an event is all that WP:LEAD indicates, this kind of positional phrasing detail would go somewhere in the body as it requires addition of other views on the topic, Trump or Putin for example, which will not fit. Overall the edit as proposed just does not suit. It's an unusual topic notable as sidelight about the election, similar to the 1996 Chinese efforts, but more as a small section in the body as it's not something that is prominently said or said to be a clear and major factor in the result. Govindaharihari (talk) 19:20, 19 January 2017 (UTC)
• 1 - yes, 2 - no. Russian intervention is far too important not to be included, and will continue to receive coverage in reliable sources for decades to come. But the proposed language is non-neutral in two distinct ways. First, it's an undue amount of detail for a lead section. Second, the word "accused" is non-neutral language because this was not just an accusation, it was a conclusion after an in-depth investigation by multiple agencies. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 20:40, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
  • I concur with using the word conclusion. Casprings (talk) 19:39, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
• Support both - The intervention has been the most notable part of coverage since election day and the statement is well-sourced. Mizike (talk) 22:04, 27 January 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - This is just one of many things that could have potentially influenced the outcome of the election. If this is added to the lede then so should things like the Donald Trump and Billy Bush recording and the Hillary Clinton email controversy especially in regards to James Comey as Clinton herself has blamed him. 80.235.147.186 (talk) 19:40, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

Regardless of any findings by the FBI, CIA & NI, there's no way to prove that enough voters were swayed to vote for Trump/Pence instead of Clinton/Kaine. GoodDay (talk) 02:35, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Exactly. I think the fact that we can never know the effect of the interference is partly why the interference is so important. Objective3000 (talk) 02:51, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Yes. But that matters little for the historical significance that an outside nation interfered in another nations elections. Whatever the effect, that is one of the most important facts of the election and needs to be represented with more WP:Weight.Casprings (talk) 02:55, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

Objective3000 Your "I think important" doesn't suit. That just signifies WP:OR or WP:SOAPBOX -- it has to show WP:WEIGHT predominance in WP:RS coverage to pass WP muster. This just isn't at this time looking like a big percentage of election coverage by Google check, it's more of a recent item and just gotta wait for a WP:NOTNEWS need to see if it has any significance beyond a 7-day wonder. Markbassett (talk) 04:27, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Hardly soap. I've already said that I think this is undue on Donald Trump and have not yet !voted because of notnews. But, it is more relevant to this article, coverage has been high, Congress is talking about investigations, and there are now over 40 lawmakers skipping the inauguration apparently, primarily as fallout from this. Doesn't look like it's going away. Objective3000 (talk) 12:14, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

Objective3000 - Yup, OK. Sounds like my thinking of it has WP:WEIGHT suitable for now as a subsection. If it persists and grows -- or if additional related events occur -- then I think the greater external WP:WEIGHT prominence will drive for something more. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 22:07, 17 January 2017 (UTC)

foreign intervention is fair game

Not useful, not relevant, not a forum, should be removed. Objective3000 (talk) 22:16, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
France helped Henry Tudor kill his distant cousin Richard III to become Henry VII. Even if Russia helped Donald Trump beat his distant cousin Hillary Clinton to become the POTUS, it would have been fair game. 204.197.181.138 (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC) This isn't a forum.--3family6 (Talk to me | See what I have done) 04:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Even if this isn't a forum, what does France and Britain in the 1490s have to do with anything? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC) Why is an event about monarchies in Britain in the 1490s relevant to the 2016 US presidential election? They're two totally different events. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Turnout question

Does the article have the turnout for the election, any data on the numbers of registered and non-registered electors and any on electors excluded from voting because of legal bars and other forms of jiggery-pokery? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Picture

Now that Trump has an official presidential portrait,, shouldn't we be using that one for this page? Stevo D (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

No, because that image hadn't happened yet. The picture shows him as President. We should only use the microphone one. 86.152.144.17 (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

We use the official photo (at the time) of Clinton for 1992 and 1996, Bush for 2000 and 2004, Obama for 2008 and 2012, so why not Trump for 2016? MB298 (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead wording

The lead states,

"Trump took office as the 45th President, and Pence as the 48th Vice President, on January 20, 2017.

The 2016 Senate elections, 2016 gubernatorial elections, and many state and local elections were also held on this date."

Unless the 2016 Senate elections, 2016 gubernatorial elections, and many state and local elections, were also held on January 20, 2017, that wording is clearly both incorrect and misleading. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

 Done This has been corrected (not by me). — JFG ^talk 10:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

cantidates unpopularity

Trump and Clinton were the two most unfavourably viewed, most disliked, most untrustworty cantidates in history, accoridng to many polls. Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere, as having two such unpopular candidates has not happened before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomberswarm2 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

It is mentioned: "Both Clinton and Trump were seen unfavorably by the general public." TFD (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect vote totals?

It seems like something is wrong with the Clinton/Trump vote totals. When I add up the state totals using the same numbers in the chart, I get 65,844,952 for Clinton and 62,979,860 for Trump, as opposed to the 65,845,063/62,980,160 listed. Is there an error in the formula? Is my spreadsheet broken? Please help.

ETA: Given the incorrect Utah number, the totals should be 65,844,954 and 62,979,880.

Abbey Bartlet (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like some of the vote totals in the chart were not certified. We have been using Dave Leip's US Election Atlas website as a source of truth for this. The latest totals are Trump: 62,985,105, and Clinton: 65,853,625. The preferred (and consistent with historical Wikipedia pages on US presidential elections) source of truth is the FEC report on the election. Once available, my expectation is some helpful WP editor will come along & source this information from there & link it. Happysomeone (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

Official State Results

The numbers listed in the table of state results for North Carolina are identical with those posted on the linked page which now calls them "official" results, so the North Carolina results line should be updated to reflect that these numbers are official. The Washington state results also seem to be official with the numbers already listed in the table. The congressional district numbers for the NE-1 and NE-3 districts need to be updated with the results in the linked document (for NE-1, Clinton at 100,132 and Trump at 158,642 and Johnson at 14,033, the other numbers are still accurate, but this will affect the total number and the percentages listed; and for NE-3, Clinton at 53,332 and Trump at 199.755 and Johnson at 11,668, the other numbers are again still accurate, but the totals and percentages will need to be adjusted), and then the lines for each of the congressional district results should also be marked "official". Also someone should figure out where the congressional district break-downs for Maine came from, because the link to the State's Excel spreadsheet does NOT provide the data in that format. I would have made all these changes myself but I figured out after I'd checked everything that the page is locked, so if a certified editor could look into this and make the appropriate adjustments that would be great. It honestly looks ridiculous that 2.5 months after the election, when the votes were certified months ago and the new President has been inaugurated, that Wikipedia is still offering only "unofficial" results for some states and incorrect data on two Nebraska congressional districts. 107.145.77.108 (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The Utah results here are outdated as well. I updated the main Utah election page, but can't update this one. See final certified results: https://elections.utah.gov/Media/Default/2016%20Election/2016%20General%20Election%20-%20Statewide%20Canvass%203.pdf.

Abbey Bartlet (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Didn't Trump end up winning the popular vote?

I read somewhere that he did — Preceding unsigned comment added by The first stone (talk • contribs) 15:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

No. Objective3000 (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Okay thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by The first stone (talk • contribs) 16:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

California was the difference. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

That's really not a proper statement. You could just as well say NY, IL and MA were the difference. (Someone else should hat this.) Objective3000 (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

You can't say NY alone, IL alone or MA alone, however. Same situation occurred in 1888, with Texas. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Clinton won California by over 4 million votes and received almost 3 million more votes than Trump nationwide. In no other state did she win by this number of votes, hence reliable sources frequently mention it. Understanding how Trump won the election is informative to readers and his supporters should not see it as undermining the legitimacy of his presidency. The electoral system provides proportionately more weight to votes from smaller states than larger one. If California votes had been weighted the same as Alaska votes, Clinton would have won the election. TFD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

If you just refuse to account for every single person in a state with a Republican plurality or majority who voted for the Democratic ticket, then yes, it was only California. This is ridiculous though because California constitutes 12% of the U.S. population, a higher amount of people than live in Canada in its entirety. Of course California has a dramatic effect on the popular vote. These discussions never get anywhere, so please stop bringing this up. The IP said "Didn't Trump end up winning the popular vote?" and the answer was no. There was no need to launch into another discussion about who was responsible or why. Dustin (talk) 20:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Gary Johnson historical achievement

In the results section of the article, I believe it should be mentioned that Gary Johnson won the highest vote total for the Libertairian party in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.214.179 (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

It was still a disappointment considering he was running against the two most unpopular mainstream party candidates ever. It's probably worth pointing out, but we should reduce the excessive detail about Johnson's poor performance as a candidate. TFD (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)