Talk:2012 United States presidential election

Obama Clinches Nomination

By winning the primaries in D.C. and Maryland, Obama has clinched the Democratic nomination, so I think we should edit the box to list Obama as the official Democratic candidate and keep the Republican part of that box as TBD.Interstate373 (talk) 00:48, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

He doesn't become the official candidate until the convention actually votes for him to be the official candidate. Fat&Happy (talk) 16:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Last time around, he was listed in the infobox as the presumptive nominee prior to the convention after he had clinched the minimum number of delegates needed to secure the nomination.--JayJasper (talk) 17:51, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It was premature then and it's premature now, though probably to a lesser extent. Just because a Magic 8-Ball was correct once in the past isn't a good reason to keep relying on it. Granted, recent political conventions haven't been as wild and wooly as they were in the old days – and Sirhan Sirhan is safely tucked away – but things can still change in five months. Fat&Happy (talk) 18:02, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I wasn't necessarily suggesting it be done that way this time, as there are reasonable arguments to be made for holding off on placing candidate photos in the infobox until the nomination is official, I was just putting it out there for discussion. That said, it would not be at all premature to refer to him as the "presumptive nominee" (whether in the infobox or elsewhere in the article), since the term - by definition - refers to the candidate who has acquired the minimum delegates needed to secure the eventual nomination.--JayJasper (talk) 18:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

That would be completely reasonable. Certainly in the text; I'm not sure how gracefully it could be put into the infobox, and I'm still opposed to including one picture in the infobox without one of the opponent also (at least for any longer than the small gap between conventions). Fat&Happy (talk) 18:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree that we should not put one candidate in the infobox without at least one opponent also placed, lest it give the appearance of favoritism by giving one candidate the "jump" on the competition.--JayJasper (talk) 18:29, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

It should definitely be added to the article:

• http://content.usatoday.com/communities/theoval/post/2012/04/this-just-in-obama-clinches-democratic-nomination/1
• http://whitehouse.blogs.cnn.com/2012/04/04/obama-clinches-democratic-nomination/

--141.152.79.93 (talk) 22:01, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I've marked him as the presumptive nominee on the page, and added the sources provided by the IP user (thanks). I agree it's too soon to put him in the infobox. We should at least wait until Romney also gets the minimum # of delegates he needs to be the presumptive nominee as well, and we can put both of them in the box. Or maybe better still, we could wait until both are officially nominated at the conventions.--NextUSprez (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Once Romney gets to 1144 both should be put in the infobox, as I agree it can show both or neither. Fat&Happy, things can change even after the conventions too. I don't like this logic that because change is possible, a reasonable assumption can be discounted for crystal balling. It was a reasonable assumption to include Obama back in January when no one challenged him, and calling him the likely nominee wouldn't be an inappropriate prediction. Reywas92^Talk 04:15, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoever is not calling President Obama the Democratic Nominee is a silly goose. He's the Democratic nominee and has more than enough bound delegates to put him over at the convention. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 155.33.105.44 (talk) 20:22, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

He is acknowledged as the presumptive nominee in the Democratic candidates section.--JayJasper (talk) 20:40, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I believe that it is premature to list Joe Biden as Obama's running mate for this election. As noted in Hillary Clinton's article on wikipedia, she is planning on leaving the position of Secretary of State, thus becoming a possible candidate as Obama's running mate. Dmcl404 (talk) 12:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Considering that his own campaign website has "Obama - Biden" I would say it is safe enough. —Diiscool (talk) 12:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Bidens own words: "“There’s no question about it. There’s no way out. I mean, they’ve already printed Obama-Biden. You are looking at a vice-presidential candidate for the United States of America.” source: [1] Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:42, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Getting ready for the general

Okay, as you can see I've done some housecleaning. As Obama has gotten enough delegates to win the nomination, I've tried to make the Democratic section look like the 2004 and '08 articles. The same with the GOP. With Santorum out, and Gingrich basiclly giving up, I've consolidated the gallery to have all the candidates who got on the ballot in at least three states plus Pawlenty, who was invited to the debates early on. "Commentary" looking like '04 and '08 will follow.Ericl (talk) 16:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I also think it is time to put some faces in the infobox, since we have two presumptive nominees. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

As long they are clearly identified as "presumptive" nominees (as was done previously), I'd be okay with that. Although I'd add that, in the interest of neutrality and fairness, we should also list the other candidates who attain ballot status in enough states to theoretically win the minimum number of electoral votes needed to win the election. Typically, the Constitution, Green and Libertarian parties attain such status, and it appears that Americans Elect will too this time. The infobox can now hold as many as nine candidates, and likely there won't be that many attaining the aforementioned ballot status. Of course, the major party candidates would be listed at the top, per the policy of due weight.--JayJasper (talk) 18:12, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Romney, presumptive nominee?

I thought a candidate had to get a majority of delegates, before being called the party's presumptive presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think our article presumptive nominee makes it very clear. Although he does not quite have a majority, he has indeed secured "enough delegate commitments...to be assured - barring unforseen events - of the eventual nomination." There is absolutely no reason to believe he will not be nominated - there are no remaining major competitors, and Romney will not withdraw or be usurped - so we can safely assume he is the presumptive nominee. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a safe assumption, indeed. Also quoting from the aforementioned article: "A candidate may be considered a presumptive nominee after all other major competitors have dropped out and it is considered unlikely that the candidate will withdraw, be usurped, or be otherwise removed from the race." That certainly applies to Romney. That said, we should probably get a consensus on this before identifying him as the presumptive nominee on the page. If, for no other reason, to head off potential edit wars.--JayJasper (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that no media organization (or RS if you will) says he isn't the nominee should be evidence enough. Hot Stop 18:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The RNC have no declared him the presumptive nominee Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Right you are, Jack. Now we have the sources to verify it.--JayJasper (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The RNC does not decide who the presumptive nominee is, and it's actually illegal under GOP rule 11A to help a candidate while there is still opposition. The delegates decide, and the delegates have not spoken --Coching (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not illegal, Rule 11(a) states: "The Republican National Committee shall not, without the prior written and filed approval of all members of the Republican National Committee from the state involved....." As long as the got the paperwork they can do what they want. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned this briefly further below, but since the subject of RNC Rule 11(a) originally arose up here, I'd like to mention that I have yet to see a source that confirms that this necessary paperwork has been filed. Indeed, this event suggest some RNC members would be unlikely to oblige.173.28.205.74 (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the benefits do not out-weight the un-encyclopedia-ness of including speculation. I can foresee events that would allow the other remaining candidate to win the nomination.Antony.trupe (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Until he secures a majority of delegates he should not be the presumptive nominee. Beside Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.BenW (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Both Obama and Romney's picture need to be removed until both are NOMINATED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.214.237.222 (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's still too early to tell who the nominee will be, especially with Paul on the rise with gaining delegates (who I'm not saying will win, but still has a chance of beating Romney with the primaries still months away from ending). This seems way to much like something you'd see on CNN or some other old media station, and it's incredibly unencyclopedic to be placing speculation of nominees in the infoboxes. Please make it empty for the time being. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Calling Romney the presumptive nominee at this point is no more speculative than the networks calling Washington D.C. for Obama in 2008 with 1% of the precincts reported. The vast majority of the media (mainstream or otherwise) is in general election mode and so are both Obama and Romney. Hmmmmm, if this website had been around in 1996, I wonder if we'd get LaRouchies complaining about Wikipedia 'prematurely' referring to Clinton as the Democratic nominee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjs501180 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Using the term "presumptive" is implying that Romney already has the nomination and now all that is needed is the formalities, while some may deem it appropriate, many don't, whether he is or not is actually largely irrelevant. It is a false statement, and until he gets 1,444 delegates it will continue to be so, if ignored it will become a lie. It insults my American grammar to have to read that until Romney gets the majority of delegates, it may be a formality, but if so, the least you could do is accomidate the system that our fore-fathers invented. Don't lie to me.

The probability of Romney getting the nomination, while high, is not high enough for Wikipedia to use the word "presumptive" because nobody knows for sure what the delegate numbers are (the media reports some numbers, but they're not true--and yes, the media lies sometimes, it's not free from bias or corruption). I request that the pictures be removed on the basis of excessive speculation. --Coching (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Coching. We should not be giving a false impression here that Romney is the "presumptive" nominee, because guess what, he's not. This would pretty much be like the media, telling lies and giving wrong information just to boost a candidate, in this case, Romney. JDC808 (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Guess what? He is! The media's not lying, as much as you would like to believe: the RNC has indeed declared Romney the presumptive nominee! JayJasper has kindly provided sources confirming this above. Reywas92^Talk 02:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Remember the time the Newspaper said "Dewey defeats Truman" and Truman won? Remember the time they called Iowa for Romney but then later called it for Santorum? Just because the media says something will happen does not make it so. BenW (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

HAHA, sorry, had to put this in: Ron Paul has recently won most of the delegates for iowa (look it up); this race is far from over, and I resent people who pretend otherwise.

This is directed at Reywas92. The RNC officials don't decide who the nominee is. Whether or not the RNC says someone is the presumptive nominee before the national convention is irrelevant (it's actually illegal by GOP rule 11A). The RNC is fraught with corruption and bias as well, and have engaged in election fraud this election cycle, so they are not a trustworthy source. Delegates pick the nominee, and the delegates have not spoken yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coching (talk • contribs) 16:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Read rule 11 again, as long as the whole of RNC agrees in writting it is ok to support who ever they want and call him what they want. And again it is not the media calling Romney the presumptive nominee, if it was I would agree that we couldnt use it to much. But it is the RNC, you know the guys that are the leaders of the party, the guys that runs this election. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Notwithstanding rule 11, the RNC does not decide who the nominee is, as I said earlier. Delegates choose the nominee. Basing one's presumption on the words of officials who are vulnerable to bias and corruption, and who don't decide who the nominee is, is therefore irrelevant. As much as it might seem like the RNC "runs the election," as you put it, that's just not the case. They organize the structure on which the election runs, but voters and delegates run the election. --Coching (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to offer a compromise solution: We could put an asterisk by "presumptive nominee" following Romney's name and have a qualifier saying "according to the RNC and reliable media sources". The asterisk and qualifer can then be removed when Romney reaches the needed delegate count. How about it?--Newbreeder (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that'd be a fair compromise for the time being, though really needing that emphasis on the RNC being the ones who declared it rather than the election itself. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not a compromise at all, it's a ruse to keep things the way they are while still being deceitful about basing the prediction on hard evidence, when it isn't. The RNCs word does not carry the weight of voters and delegates, and the media, at least the major national media, has been shown by the Pew Research Center to have been significantly biased against Ron Paul, which calls into question the solidity of such sources. A better solution would be to have Romney and Ron Paul's picture next to Obama's --Coching (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion was not intended to be a ruse, but rather a clarification that while Romney has not yet gathered all the delegates he needs, he as been officially declared the "presumtive nominee" by the RNC and by reliable outside sources. The idea is to make the distinction between him and Obama, who is the presumptive nominee by virtue of having won the delegates he needs to be nominated. I hardly see how this is "being deceitful" about what the title is based on, when it's merely clarifying.--Newbreeder (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

How about we change it to "everybody in the world who doesn't support Ron Paul?" Hot Stop 06:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't find a single reliable source that projects Romney to have at least 1,144 delegates, which is the nominal number. I wasn't even restricting my research to the official RNC count. I checked CNN, NBC, FOX, ABC, and CBS. None of them are even projecting him to have the nominal number, and they, unlike the RNC, make projections in nonbinding contests before the official delegates are selected. I would also like to add that the person who reverted my edit accused me of edit warring, despite that fact that it was the first edit I made, and I did not revert the revert. Do we not assume good faith anymore? FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

And please tell me, what definition of "presumptive nominee" says he must have a majority of delegates? Wikipedia's definition is only that there are enough delegates to be assured the nomination, which Romney does. As much as you want to deny reality, Romney will clearly be the nominee. I can't wait until he actually does have 1144 delegates, and you Ron Paul folks are still claiming "Oh but actually some of them aren't bound to Romney, oh but actually those that are bound will break that promise at the convention, oh but actually some states' numbers are still just biased estimates, oh but actually Santorum and Gingrich will release their delegates who will vote for Paul." Mr. Romney is already the presumptive nominee, and the RNC is indeed a reliable source for this. I hope you have fun casting a write-in vote in November. Reywas92^Talk 19:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we ignore Reywas92 based on excessive bias. He says he "can't wait until [Romney] actually 'does' have 1144 delegates." --Coching (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you calling me "Ron Paul folk"? I haven't mentioned Paul at all, yet you're flaming me as if I did. When Romney does get 1,144 pledged delegates, then he becomes the presumptive nominee. The RNC website, which you admit is credible, shows that Romney has not yet achieved the nominal amount of pledged delegates. At least some distinction should be made to let readers know that, unlike Obama, Romney still hasn't clinched his party's nomination. FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If you don't like the RNC and media calling him the presumptive nominee, take it up with them. Hot Stop 22:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The RNC's own website shows that lacks the delegates to be the presumptive nominee. Like I said before, at least some distinction should be made to let readers know that, unlike Obama, Romney still hasn't clinched his party's nomination. 132.241.128.68 (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

But they still call him the presumptive nominee [2] Hot Stop 00:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The media does not have him as the presumptive nominee. For example, here is CNN's website: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries.html Notice how they have declared Obama to be the presumptive Democratic nominee, but they have yet to declare a presumptive Republican nominee? FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You know what the solution to this is? Don't put anybody in the box for the Republican nominee UNTIL one of the two have legitimately become the nominee. It's as simple as that and there won't be any arguing. Putting Romney there will make the average reader believe he is the nominee without giving Paul a chance. 173.81.115.107 (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You guys do realize that there's two candidates running, right? Picking one over the other would violate WP:CRYSTAL and well as WP:NPOV. Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The RNC has declared Romney the presumptive nominee.--NextUSprez (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter who is labeled the "presumptive" nominee. Anything less than a 100% chance that a presumptive nominee becomes the official nominee is enough to violate WP:CRYSTAL. Also Romney isn't even at 1144 yet. TL565 (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Crystal says "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included" so clearly this is okay. Hot Stop 11:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And after that it says, "though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." Zach Vega (talk to me) 11:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources and the RNC calls him the presumptive nominee. So should we. Sorry if you and Ron Paul disagree. Hot Stop 11:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What is it with you and Ron Paul? And we're being biased? No one here isn't even talking about him. Like I said before, it doesn't matter who is the "presumptive" nominee, it still doesn't get rid of the issue of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV. TL565 (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We're violating WP:NPOV by pushing one candidate over the other when the primary season is far from over. Zach Vega (talk to me) 20:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a good solution that was listed that you guys have overlooked. Don't put anyone in the infobox until it's official. P.S. I believe Hot Stop is a Romney fan which is why he keeps bringing up Ron Paul. He wants to keep his candidate in the box, as opposed to being neutral and waiting until it's official. He keeps bringing what the RNC and so called reliable sources have "declared" due to this reason. 129.71.208.130 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, how dare I use reliable sources to make my point. Hot Stop 20:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Why does the picture of Romney look like he has a sunburn? And, the Republican Party said Romney is the 'presumptive' nominee (until the first vote at convention). You may find this table interesting: *The Green Papers: "Republican 2012 Delegate Count, Current Summary". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to define "presumptive"--is he presumptive subjectively or objectively? Because clearly party officials saying they want to help a candidate only constitutes them wanting to help, it does not constitute making the candidate the objective "presumptive" nominee--if it did, Texas and California should abstain from voting because the RNC has already picked the nominee. The officials' snippets of support for Romney makes him presumptive to the officials, but not presumptive objectively, see the difference? Wikipedia is presenting Romney as presumptive objectively, for which, I would argue, there isn't enough evidence. If party officials choose the nominee, then why does anyone vote or participate in the delegate process? So we either use better evidence to show that Ron Paul's chances are so low that it's not realistic to consider him, using more than just the opinion of party officials, who are not free from bias, or we let reason be drowned out by the fallacy of appeal to authority. --Coching (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's how wikipedia defines Presumptive nominee.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Then it is clear from the description on that page that Romney is NOT the presumptive nominee. Here's why:

• "presumptive nominee is a political candidate who is all but assured of his or her party's nomination, but has not yet been formally nominated."
  • Romney doesn't qualify under this definition. He is not "all but assured" because he hasn't collected enough delegates (1144) to simply wait to be formally nominated, nor is it clear whether he will collect them before the Republican National Convention.
• "In the United States, the presumptive nominee is the candidate who has not yet received the formal nomination of his or her political party at the party's nominating convention, but who has acquired enough delegate commitments through the primary elections and caucuses to be assured - barring unforeseen events - of the eventual nomination at the convention."
  • This also mentions having enough delegates "to be assured" the nomination barring unforeseen events. This isn't a question of "what is the probability that he will get enough delegates in the future?" This is a question of "does he have a majority of delegates (1144), such that barring unforeseen event, he is assured the nomination?"
• The description lists examples of presumptive nominees, and mentions Romney as preferred by the RNC, but this creates a problem, because if we go by the definition at the start of the article, we see that Romney cannot objectively be called the presumptive nominee, but if we go by the examples, then the definition of presumptive nominee should be "a candidate who is declared as such by his/her party." So we have a contradiction here. --Coching (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"A candidate may be considered a presumptive nominee after all other major competitors have dropped out and it is considered unlikely that the candidate will withdraw, be usurped, or be otherwise removed from the race." Hot Stop 21:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Ron Paul is still running. Zach Vega (talk to me) 00:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. If Reince Priebus came out a bit high tomorrow and declared Elmer Fudd to be the Republican Party's presumptive nominee, does that make Fudd the presumptive nominee? (That's a no) If he declared 2+2=5, does that mean the sum of two and two is five? Statements, even from "official" sources, must be grounded in reality and the rules (still) in place governing primaries & delegate selection. Wikipedia's own definition, which you quoted above, essentially says that a candidate becomes the presumptive nominee only if they have clinched commitments from a majority of delegates (1144) and/or all their major competitors have withdrawn or suspended their candidacies. Mr. Romney has two official competitors at this time- Fred Karger & Ron Paul. I would hope that everyone recognizes that Paul is a 'major' candidate (as already acknowledged by the fact he is included in the GOP primaries infobox, and has received more than twice the portion of the popular vote than the threshold to be included for the general election infobox (5%)), and Karger is not, for the purposes of that definition and this discussion. Because most of the RNC's "automatic delegates" officially maintain neutrality until the convention, we should stick to the pledged delegate count, which I have not seen over 900 or so for Romney from any media source. As for Rule 11a, I have not seen any evidence that the RNC has filed the appropriate paperwork to satisfy the rule, but if anyone else has, I welcome them to come forward with a source.173.28.205.74 (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

We're letting ourselves get led by hyperactive news sources. The new media are trying to wrap up the prez election before it actually occurs. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If the pro-Romney folks are so confident that he'll be nominated, then what harm is there in telling the truth on Wikipedia we obviously don't have WP:CONSENSUS on the matter if there is so much debate about it on this talk page. An RNC endorsement is not equal to being nominating for an office. The 2010 cycle tells us that. FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean "we shout louder - we're right" Hot Stop 15:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Dude, we can't pick a candidate to put on a pedestal. That'd violate WP:NPOV. Zach Vega (talk to me) 15:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The RNC did that, dude. We're just reporting what they said. If you'd like to complain to them, do so. Hot Stop 15:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The RNC ≠ the Republican Party- please keep in mind that distinction. The Republican Party is made up of all registered Republicans in the United States and her territories. Those Republicans are all represented, in theory, by the delegates duly assembled on the floor of the GOP National Convention. It is those delegates that choose the nominee, and it is those delegates that vote on the party's rules & platform. This is in keeping with the general model of our government, which by design bears closer resemblance to a Roman-style republic than a Greek-style democracy. As for using the RNC's statements as a source for speculation, Wiki's rules allow so-called "expert" sources, but only if those sources are also reliable. Please read my statement above regarding Elmer Fudd. If Mr. Priebus, Mr. Romney, or anyone else wants to claim that Romney is the presumptive nominee by virtue of having the committed support of 'enough' (aka 1144) of the delegates, then they must provide evidence of that support. Otherwise, they lose whatever reliability they may have claimed to have had. The RNCs own website currently has Romney well below 900, much less 1144, and every mainstream news site I have seen (whose numbers are a bit inflated, given they are based on projections) still have him below 1000. Romney only has the public support of approximately 1/3 of the 120 or so automatic delegates, as most choose to remain officially neutral until the convention. Therefore, I believe it best to stick to the bound/hard delegate count (regardless of how 'bound' those delegates may or may not be) Don't get me wrong, I personally believe Romney will get there, probably after the California primary on June 5, but I don't let my personal beliefs lead me to jumping the gun, and neither should they for Mr. Priebus or anyone else.173.28.205.74 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Stein, presumptive nominee?

Someone that thinks Jill Stein is currently the nominee of the Green Party has no business editing this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct, Jill Stein is not the official nominee. However, she should be included with the qualifier that she is the presumptive nominee. If we are using this new, looser definition for "presumptive nominee" that appears to have been adopted to allow Mitt Romney to be named as such and therefore justify his inclusion in the infobox, then it is appropriate to do the same for Ms. Stein. If anyone disagrees that this is her position in the Green party primaries, then please discuss that in the section below.173.28.205.74 (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn, please maintain WP:CIVILITY. If Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party based on speculation of chances, even though he hasn't yet received the required number of pledged delegated to be assured the nomination, then Jill Stein would logically quality as the Green Party's presumptive nominee based on this new, looser standard. FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Then write 'presumptive', otherwise you'd be making a very big mistake.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It did say Presumptive :). I agree if Romney should be in, so should Stein. I dont really have an oppinion about what way it should be, but whatever the concensus becomes the criterias should be consistent and the same for all parties, not as it is right now. It would be the most NPOV thing to treat all parties with enough ballot access equally. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Has the Green party declared her to be the presumptive nominee? That was the basis for including Mitt, and should be for her too. Hot Stop 15:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

They have not. Please refer to my comments & delegate analysis in the section below as to why many have arrived at the conclusion that she is, indeed, the party's presumptive nominee (by virtue of the same relaxed definition Mr. Priebus & the RNC executive staff are apparently using for Romney).173.28.205.74 (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hot Stop have a point though. I have been doing some research trying to find sources saying she is the presumptive nominee and there are plenty. I am just not so sure anyone can be considered reliable. It is possible to flood Google with sites using Stein and Presumptive Nominee in the same sentence, it seems like everyone talking about the Greens (and there is not alot) beside the Green Party themselve is calling her that. But the Green Party have not said so! The Republican Party officials have used the word about Romney. Even if not all keeps the RNC and their decisions in high regard that have to mean something in some way, right? Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If Miit Romney is being declared the presumptive nominee of his party in the infobox, but Jill Stein isn't being declared the presumptive nominee of hers, then we have some WP:NPOV issues here.

Number of candidates in the infobox

I know this is a bit premature but I think we should have a clear consensus on this:

• Who are going in the infobox. Only the two major parties candidates or everybody that have a change of winning (on the ballot in enough states to actually win a majority) ???

In past election articles it is mostly only the two major party candidates, witch is logical as the others have got very few votes. As you can see in 2008. But since this is an ongoing/future election wouldnt it be a more NPOV to list all the candidates that will appear on the ballot in enough states to win in the infobox. When the election is over and the two major party candidates again have got 95% of the votes the thirdparty candidates can simply be removed. Right now I think America Elect and the Libertarian party have reach the benchmark. Here is the reference to how many states they are on the ballot:

• Libertarian [3]
• America Elect [4] (At the end of the press release)
• Green Party [5]

The Libertarian will nominate their candidates this week, so maybe we could talk about this now? Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This not premature at all, as this very issue was debated ad nauseam during the 2008 cycle, so it is important to get a consensus ASAP before all hell breaks loose yet again. That said, here's my $0.02 worth: I agree that it would more NPOV to list all the candidates that have ballot status in enough states to theoretically the win the election by electoral vote count. Of course, we should list the major party candidates at the top of the infobox (per WP:DUE as well as just plain common sense). The third party candidates should be listed alphabetically by party name (e.g. Americans Elect, Constitution, Green.....). Following the election, we enforce the current standard for post-election listing in the box, which to my understanding is to include only the candidates that receive electoral votes (for reasons other than a faithless elector) and/or those who 5% or more of the popular vote.--JayJasper (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't we have a pre-election standard too? I'd say only to include candidates who are receiving at least 5% in polls. There is no compelling reason to include candidates who we can reasonably conclude will not get many votes in the election. This may certainly change if other candidates are being included in national polls, but at this point only the D and R should be in the infobox. Reywas92^Talk 22:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually according to the poll standard you are mentioning Gary Johnson (running for the Libertarian ticket) and Roseanne Barr (Running for the Green ticket), should be in the infobox. Since they bot have received more than 5% in a poll in 2012 see the wikipedia article on the polls. I guess we can agree that no one that are not actually a nominee or presumptive nominee of a party shouldnt be in the infobox. But what if a the green party are not reaching ballot access in enough states and their candidate couldnt even theoritical win, should Roseanne Barr then be in the infobox (if/when she secure the nomination) just because she has been polling well? So now we have 3 suggested benchmarks:

• The candidate have received at least 5% in a poll
• The candidate (or his party) appears on enough state ballots to actually win the election
• The candidate is the Nominee or Presumptive Nominee of his party (if not running as independent)

Should all these 3 benchmarks be reach before a candidate is put in the infobox? Do you have more benchmarks or do you disagree with any of them? Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good, but the polling should show a little consistency with more than a couple polls by PPP. Also, the benchmark to even be invited to the debates is 15%, should ours be perhaps 10% instead? If both Barr and Johnson were in the same poll, their individual numbers would likely be lower but the sum around the same, as None of the above is polling about that same number, although it never actually does that well. Reywas92^Talk 19:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with consistency is that it is a wide concept to use as a benchmark. If we adopt such a policy different editors could editwar about how many polls requires to be consistent, simply because they want to include or exclude a certain candidate. According to this discussion there was a bit of troubles about it last time. Would you happen to have a source for the 15% benchmark on access to the presidentiel debates? As I understand it are the debates arranged by a bipartisan (only Dem and Rep) committee and as a starting point is only for the two parties candidates. They have allowed a third candidate once or twice, but that was after hard pressure and much debate, not simply because the third candidate reached a benchmark agreed about beforehand. I would like to learn more about this 15% Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Almost by mistake I found the 15% rule myself (reading a news article on Johnson). It is in the box below. Personally I think we could included persons in the infobox that doesnt meet those standards. Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The Commission on Presidential Debates rule of including candidates: "They must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College, and have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations’ most recent publicly reported results at the time of the determination.”

I have put Johson in the infobox. He has just been nominated for president by his party, he has been polling 6/7 procent in the only poll he have been in, and his party are on the ballot in enought state to technically win. But is that enough to get into the infobox? I think we should have a consensus on the benchmarks candidates should meet before they go to the infobox. And a consensus is not made by 3 editors. So to get some interest for this discussion I have take the provocative step to include Johnson, I hope you forgive me. Please join the discussion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Can it be argued that exposure (media, wikipedia, etc) influences polls to a great deal? Therefore should we put polls aside as a determining factor in deciding which candidates to include? Instead include those candidates that have the ballot access and organization necessary to win the election. That would be those with a party organization or significant wealth. American's Elect (of which I am an online delegate) has postponed its first online caucus due to low support for the declared candidates, they may not even have enough active delegates to nominate anyone. The Libertarian Party is actually functional, the largest third party (citation needed), and has a candidate that has been a Governor and participated in a few Republican debates, therefore I support Gary Johnson being listed. I am unaware of the Green party status in this election. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.35.105 (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney should NOT be put in the box until the Republican nominee has been officially decided. JDC808 (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The Green Party currently has three candidates competing for the nomination: Jill Stein, Rosanne Barr, and Kent Mesplay. They are currently on the ballot in 21 states, with an aim to get on in 45. Their convention is in July in Baltimore. If the info box is to include candidates who win their party's nomination and who appear on enough ballots to win the presidency, then the Green nominee should definitely appear in it eventually. Thingscouldbebetter (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Everyone, this could have major implications if a third party is put in the box. We obviously cannot put all third parties in the box because the box would be too large. In the 1992 presidential election, Ross Perot is included in the box (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992). I think we should use the 5% or more in a standard poll (which we should decide on). It may be difficult to find polling data for third parties. cpsteiner. I do not think that we should accommodate every activist on this page who insists that their minor party candiate that is not polling well be listed. —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC).

I think this sort of infobox can hold upto 9 candidates, I dont think that many will be on the ballot in enough states. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I totally oppose the use of polls in deciding who appears. The names appearing here will influence polls. We MUST be independent of them. HiLo48 (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a PPP poll (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_041912.pdf), with Gary Johnson at 6% (Q9). Also the 5 largest political parties compared here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States#Major_Third_Parties). Just info for further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haimson (talk • contribs) 05:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not let past ballot access performance decide future inclusion for consideration by voters? For example, in 2008, the Libertarian, Constitution, and Green Parties all appeared on enough ballots to possibly win 270 electoral votes. Objectively speaking, they could all have mathematically won the presidency. Would it be a disservice to voters to include the nominees of these parties in the infobox once they reach that threshold of ballot access for this election? Thingscouldbebetter (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If we should only use the ballot access benchmark I think it should be all parties reaching enough ballot access in this election, no matter how they have done in the past. Example: If the Greens dont make it this time around it doesnt really matter how they did in the past. If American Elect makes it why should they be punished for being new in the field? Personally I think that it is so hard to get on enough ballot that just to do that should be enough, but I am open to arguments. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I totally agree with you. That's a good point about Americans Elect, for instance. If a candidate has the nomination of their party and is on enough ballots to win the presidency, they should be included. Thingscouldbebetter (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The weakness of the polling benchmark can be seen with Virgil Goode, a former US representative, that have been nominated by the Constitution Party and will appear on the ballot in enough states to mathematically being able to win. But I havent seen a single poll asking about him. So no one actually know how much, or how little, support he has. Right now Gary Johnson (Libertarian) [6] and Virgil Goode (Constitution) [7] are nominated by their parties and will appear on enough ballots. So in the spirit of NPOV I have added Goode to the infobox (since Johnson is already there to create attention for this dicussion). I dont say they should stay there, but welcome more editors to giver their say. If only the ballot access and the nomination benchmark will be followed it is likely that there will be 6 candidate in the box (Green and America Elect being the two last), so I dont think anyone should worry that every small candidate then would have to be included. It is actually quit a job to get ballot access. But again, what do we say? Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, I completely agree. It seems to me that it's very much in the spirit of NPOV to do this. Thingscouldbebetter (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Any polling % used as an inclusion benchmark is almost certain to be viewed as arbitrary. That's why I advocate the "ballot access in enough states to win" criterion, and believe it to be a neutral, objective and simple .--JayJasper (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right, it can't really get above 6 candidates. I think that would be fine. Any ideas why it would be a bad idea to include all 6? I assume that after the election, only those who received at least 5% of the vote or 1 electoral vote would remain for posterity, while the rest would be removed. The idea I guess is to not let Wikipedia fall into the same trap that broadcast media has by confining the narrative and thus influencing the outcome. We want to limit bias... right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haimson (talk • contribs) 22:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jay. The candidates with enough ballot access (not write-in status) to win the election should be included here. Wikipedia influences the polls, not vice versa.

After the election, all candidates with electoral votes or who polled above 5 percent in the popular vote should be included.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'd favor including only candidates invited to the debates (and in the interim only listing the two major ones). As an aside, I removed the "who should appear here" note in the infobox. Hot Stop 01:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on what?--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

? Hot Stop 01:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the basis for using the criteria established by the two major parties to shut out minor parties from the presidential debates? What is the basis for giving greater weight to two candidates (Obama and Romney) than two others (Goode and Johnson), who will appear on the same (or about the same) number of ballots? Perhaps you can say that the two major parties receive a greater amount of press coverage, but press coverage does not determine what is and what isn't. It is fact that all four of the men currently on the infobox have a mathematical shot of winning. The function of the infobox is to display the winner, so to exclude those who could win (and perhaps even influence such an outcome) is not fair or objective. We have no crystal ball to say that one candidate or another will win the election, but we do know objectively who can. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Having all four in there gives undue weight to minor candidates. The fact that Obama and Romney get a vast majority (if not all) media coverage separates them from the rest of the field. The infobox should reflect that. Hot Stop 13:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you just completely ignore what I wrote above? With your logic, you might as well go to List of Presidents of the United States and remove Millard Fillmore and William Henry Harrison since George Washington and Abraham Lincoln receive more coverage.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

yes, that's a logical conclusion to reach. Fuck the presidents no one cares about Hot Stop 18:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That is just disrespectfull Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's no worse than WSS's blatant misrepresentation of my comments. Hot Stop 02:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And to Sir Richardson, the Green and Americans Elect nominees should be added to the infobox when they are named. Since they currently do not have nominees there is nobody that can be added.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/ William. Note that WP:DUE is applied by listing the major party candidate at the top of the infobox.--JayJasper (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

William S. Saturn makes fantastic points here. Who gets included in debates is, honestly, a subjective exercise. There are many subjective choices made in media coverage as well. Where do you set the bar? Jill Stein of the Green Party is going to be on PBS' “To the Contrary” in June. Maine Public Radio just had a segment on her appearance there. I'm positive that other media outlets have talked about Goode and Johnson as well. My point here is that it's not Wikipedians' job to arbitrarily set a bar for entry into the discussion. I standly firmly behind the decision to include anyone who could mathematically win the presidency until proven that they cannot (i.e., until after the election). Thingscouldbebetter (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I proposed the following guidelines for including candidates in the infobox, adpated from a previous proposal:

• The candidate have received at least 5% in a 2 concurrent national polls in which they were listed
• The candidate (or his party) appears on enough state ballots to actually win the election
• The candidate is the Nominee or Presumptive Nominee of his party (if not running as independent, in which case they must be a declared candidate)

Under these conditions Gary Johnson and ONLY Gary Johnson would be qualified to be positioned within the Infobox; if at such a time Johnson were to drop below 5% in two concurrent national polls we could then also drop him until he once again fulfilled the required criteria above. Is this agreeable? --Ariostos (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the first criteria for the reasons I mentioned above. I agree completely with the last two. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree with proposal #1, but fully agree with #2 & #3 for reasons stated in previous threads.--JayJasper (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the first proposal too, but agrees with the two others. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough that still invalidates the Virgil Goode given his is, definitively, only within reach of 135 Electoral Votes; Now even if we were to take the states were the results are being certified and count them, he would be at only 152, and even if negotiations with the California affiliates succeed, that is only 207. Greens and Americans Elect under those conditions would make it however. --Ariostos (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a good source, or can find you way around an already stated source, could you please share it You are right, 152 according to themselve according to this source: [8]. I will remove them for now, even though the discussion has not concluded it seems to be a beginning concensus on at least the two last criterias (if not all) Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case then Goode should be removed until the CP gets the necessary ballot access.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed Goode for the time being, though a better fitting photo for Johnson should be used in order to fill that white space that is present. As for sources, Ballot Access News has a good track record, and they update their tracker of such on a monthly basis, sometimes including the smaller outfits such as the Justice Party; its "Big Four" which it definitively tracks though are the Libertarians, the Greens, the Constitution, and Americans Elect. At the very least, I have not found anything to contradict them on such. --Ariostos (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree that Ballot Access News is an excellent & reliable independent source.--JayJasper (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is an interesting quote from Ballot Access News, "The Green Party presidential candidates will debate each other in San Francisco on Saturday, May 12. The debate will include Roseanne Barr, Kent Mesplay, and Jill Stein." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about putting in a note next to the Gary Johnson data in the infobox to advise those who would normally delete it to come here first, but I actually don't know how to "hide" it so it doesn't appear within the Main Article. Can that actually be done in Wikipedia format? --Ariostos (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

start with < !-- and then your text, --> (Just remove the space beetwin < and -) Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright I put a note in there telling those who would normally remove him to come here. Hopefully that will disuade most from simply deleting his presence and actually promote some discussion on the issue. At least we won't have to argue about other candidacies until June. --Ariostos (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: I'd also like to voice support for including all candidates who have the nomination of a party with enough ballot access to theoretically win. The choice of a cutoff value for the polls is essentially arbitrary (why should it be 5%? Why not 10%, or 2%?) and is thus likely to lead to drama. I'd like to propose that the ordering should be based on the amount of ballot access, so that candidates with access to either more states or more electoral votes are listed earlier, with the two top-leftmost spots reserved for the two major parties.

Does anybody know what criteria are used for elections in other countries? The recent French election for example displayed five candidates before the April 22 election,[9] and after that only the two candidates eligible for the May 6 runoff.Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Jack Bornholms plan works for me. Johnson is clearing the 5% threshold that Ive always supported. Can we stop boosting nobody candidates? This comes up every time and rarely does a third party. We had this dispute in Massachusettes 2010 for governor when the green candidate was in the debates, but otherwise accomplished absolutely nothing. Im all for third parties, but we cant act like they have any influence on the race when they absolutely dont. Johnson is the rare breed that makes the cut, but even then he may fall short in November.--Metallurgist (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Jack Bornholm, from reading your arguments above, I can safely assume that you're a supporter of the US Libertarian Party and a Gary Johnson fan. While that may be the case for you, there is no widely-circulated proof or evidence that Gary Johnson is a popular third party candidate among the general public. In every presidential election, there has always been only two major candidates, at least since 1996. The US political system is also largely a two-party system, and that's how the average American voter sees it. So I think Gary Johnson should be removed from the main infobox until he actually does get more than 5% of the popular vote in this coming November's election. Just my two cents. —stay (sic)! 13:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You couldnt be more wrong on that, before reading this article (and the republican primary article) I had no idea who Gary Johnson or the Libertarian Party was. I dont take any site in american politics (or any other politics for that matter) since I am an european and really apolitical. I am sure that Mr. Johnson and his party are seriouse people that believes in what they say, but I most admitt that they way the talk and believes their views can save the world reminds me more of a religion than are political party. I understand that your system is a two-party system and the third party has not chance of winning, but it has from time to time the chance of winning one state, and even more often the chance of influencing the result by "stealing" votes from the two major party. I also believe that articles in Wikipedia has to be NPOV and that is why I started this discussion. I have no part of this election, who ever wins, it will not effect my life even a bit. I am not trying to argue for one candidate or the other. And I think it is wrong if we end this discussion by simply saying that Johnson gets to stay, then it will just start all over again after the Green Parties convention. I think we should make a concensus on some criteria all candidates should meet. Then it will not be about who like what candidate and endless discussion to that effect, but simple benchmark that needs no discussion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with having Gary Johnson in the infobox, he is going to be on the ballot in all 50 states and has been getting over 5% in the polls which should qualify him to be there. 15:29, 9 May 2012 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.197.25 (talk)

I dont think we should say if we want Johnson or not Johnson. But instead agree on some criterias the (third party) Candidates should meet. When I read this through I can see a concensus for for the first:

• The candidate will appear on enough state ballots to actually win the election (270 electorial votes)  Done (concensus reached)

The other criteria is the pollings:

• The candidate have received at least 5% in 2 national polls

Maybe we could simply state if we support or oppose this criteria?

Oppose I will start, I have already argued for this. So just to get us going. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose As I've state previously in this thread - polling percentages are arbitrary.--JayJasper (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose arbitrary polling standards are unnecessary.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose There's no way we can use this until polling actually includes every candidate who could mathematically win, and we can't reenforce the arbitrary judgement of polling outfits of who to include in polls with our own arbitrary judgement of what those polls should mean. Thingscouldbebetter (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• FYI having all three on one line really squeezes the lead too much. Hot Stop 17:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to have Johnson appear under the images of Obama & Romney? I tried that, thinking it might help overcome some of the "undue weight" objections, but couldn't get it to work. Does anyone know how to do that?

As far as I can count only the Green Party have access on enough ballots (281 electorial votes). So it would be possible to put a question mark as their candidate and have it like I have done in my sandbox: User:Jack Bornholm/sandbox. I dont think it is possible to just have Johnson in below the major candidates. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe just a blank space in the image slot with "to be determined" in the text (I think that would be more encyclopedic than a question mark) would do the trick.--JayJasper (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have done that in my sandbox User:Jack Bornholm/sandbox Check it out. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that would work.--JayJasper (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I will put it in the article and see what the reaction will be then. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Gary Johnson receiving at least 5% in the election, and therefore eventually featuring in the infobox in terms of the election results, is a definite possibility. I am extremely skeptical at the notion of the Green or Constitution parties doing so, though. Sir Richardson (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont believe any third party candidates will be in the infobox after the election, but that is just my guess. What is important right now is who should be in the infobox before the election. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sir Richardson, I can't see the Green candidate getting anywhere near what Gary Johnson will in the election so am sceptical about them being there in the infobox. 20:49, 9 May 2012 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.197.25 (talk)

Formerly I was opposed to having other candidates in the Infobox other than Johnson, who has shown a manner of resilience within the polls, but considering we have, with other elections, candidates present with little to no chance of being relevant in the grand scheme of things, it seems best from an unbiased point of view to allow them to be present till the results come in. At that point, should they attain a level of support that is negligible, then they could be removed since there would no longer be claims of bias with the election being done. --Ariostos (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed Green party for now. Give me a break, TBD is NOT a candidate and will therefore never be on a ballot anywhere. Wait til they nominate someone then it can be readded. CTJF83 22:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above. The Green Party TBD is there to make two rows, so the third candidates are not in the same row as the major canidates, please address this problem, everybody understands that TBD is not a candidate. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That's stupid, why does it matter if 3 are on the top row. Also there should be some way to put just 1 in the 2nd row. Also if there must be, put Green party last since there is no candidate. I see above move people opposing Green party all together. CTJF83 22:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I see 3 people supporting 4 candidates and 3 opposing Green party, so not sure how anyone thinks that's a consensus. CTJF83 22:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont think we are discussing Green Party or not. But the criteria for including third candidates, and if you read the whole discussion I think you would agree with me that there seems to be forming an concensus for including all candidates that are on enough ballots to cover 270 or more electoral votes. But we will see when the concensus are formed. Two good suggestions, please find a way to make 2 rows with 3 candidates, and you are proberly right it would look better with the empty slot (green) at the right. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm horrible at tables, but I don't think there would be an opposition to an actual candidate to be ahead of a TBD. CTJF83 22:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesnt matter, I think I solve the problem. Right now there is a candidate in the fourth spot, it is simply nameless. It was enough to put in a picture (found a file with a picture of nothing) without any text to cheat the template to believing there is a candidate more. Should make everybody happy and we can go back to talking about the general criterias instead of discussion specific parties. The last always leads to partisanship and stupid arguments. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you or no one else try hiding the 4th spot? User:Ctjf83/Sandbox CTJF83 22:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just got the idea. It seems to work, at least on my screen. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as Johnson is the 'only' presidential nominee, he & his running mate should be the 'only' ones in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama can be included now because he never had serious opposition (even by the most charitable (and still reasonable) definition I can imagine- having an opponent who appeared on enough state ballots to challenge him for a plurality of pledged delegates) in the primaries and has already clinched the requisite majority of all delegates, bound or otherwise. To put it another way, he has met the true and traditional (not media-driven) definition of a "presumptive nominee."

As an encyclopedia, I believe we must use objective, rather than subjective-based information whenever there is a choice. Polls are inherently subjective, as polling firms must make decisions on a variety of factors, including who is important enough to include in a poll, who is polled (and how), and how that information is post-processed for demographics. I agree with using ballot access as a minimum criteria for inclusion in the infobox, as it is both an objective measure, and a practical one that eliminates most minor candidates. While it is theoretically possible for a candidate to win without 270 pledged electors on election day (e.g. if no candidate gets 270 votes, and/or there are faithless electors), I would agree that this sort of result, which is rare to begin with, is further unlikely to lead to the election of a 3rd party candidate given the wholly bipartisan composition of the House of Representatives. I would go further and suggest that for now it is the only criteria used, unless the number of candidates who meet this threshold becomes unmanageable (say, greater than 6), at which other criterion can be discussed. I remember before the French presidential runoff this year there were 5 or 6 candidates listed on that page, and I don't think that was controversial, nor did it appear cluttered, to me anyway. As far as the placeholder for the Green Party candidate is concerned, I would just point out that Jill Stein, having swept all the primaries so far [10], is just as much a "presumptive nominee" at this point as Mr. Romney, as neither have yet clinched the required # of pledged delegates to be nominated, but are generally regarded as the "inevitable" winner (I'm not even sure if Kent Mesplay meets the natural-born requirement) If we seek consistency on this page, both Stein & Romney should be included. If we also seek objectivity and non-bias, neither should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.205.74 (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind on the Mesplay comment. “According to an April 2000 report by the CRS, most constitutional scholars interpret the natural born citizen clause as to include citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens.”[11] But my point still stands- neither he nor Barr are accruing an appreciable # of delegates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.205.74 (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Obama and/or Romney could die or drop out of the 2012 race, before their respective party conventions. There's not 100% gurantee they'll be their parties presidential nominees. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is there such a panic to have Obama/Biden & Romney/tbd in the infobox, now? These people have not been nominated for President or Vice President (something that'll be handled by convention delegates); nobody will be nominated by the Republicans until August & the Democrats until September. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Where I am from we say that the only thing that are 100% is death and taxes. I dont know if you have that saying in America. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A consensus has been reached to include presumptive nominees in the infobox. Being an incumbent and never having faced serious primary competition, Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee, barring death or a major scandal. Following your logic, we shouldn't list a winner after Election Day or report electoral vote totals, because electoral college votes won't be counted, nor a "winner" legally declared by Congress until January 7, 2013. The real issue here that needs to be decided is what the definition of a "presumptive nominee" is. Using the rationale being bounced around in the talk section above, both Romney & Stein are presumptive nominees. I strongly disagree with this, as it assumes Romney will have a majority of bound delegates- they are essentially presuming presumptiveness, which is a slippery slope. My preferred layout at this time would be 2x2, with Obama and a Republican placeholder on top, then Gary Johnson & a Green placeholder on the bottom (unless Americans Elect has also reached enough state ballots?) Second best would be Obama, Romney, Johnson, Stein, with GJ listed third b/c he has reached greater ballot access and is an official rather than presumptive nominee. Third best I suppose is the current setup of Stein before Johnson. If AE ends up being included, I would suggest 2 rows of 3, with the 3rd person on the first row determinable by polling or quantity of ballot access (GJ is expected to end up on all 51 ballots, whereas the Green & AE parties may not).173.28.205.74 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know the only four parties to have ballot access in enough states to win is of course Democrates and Republicans and then Green and Libertarians. For now, bot American Elect, the Constitution and the Reform party is working seriousely to achive this goal. The future will tell if any of them makes it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It was mentioned somewhere that if the republican presumptive nominee should be in the infobox, then the presumptive nominee of the Green Party should be too, as the green party have enough ballot access. I am mostly a reader to the whole discussion about Romney should be in or not, but the writer talking about Jill Stein is right. She is the presumptive nominee fromt the Green Party, having won 16 out of 16 primaries hold so far (They havent had primaries in all states in the past, dont know about this year) and should be there. Of course I know he can in no way be compared to the Republican candidate, but NPOV and all, I am putting her in. But please lets have the whole presumptive nominee debate in the sections designated for that. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right, only 4 parties have enough ballot access to win. As of today, Americans Elect has ballot access in 27 states electing 256 electors. [12] The Constitution Party has access in only 17 states, and other parties are even further behind. However, given AE is on the verge of getting to the 270 threshold, we should begin brainstorming how to treat them in the infobox, especially if they don't have an official nominee when they get there.173.28.205.74 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I support three on top and three on bottom.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

With 5 candidates in the infobox I dont think there is much choice. It can either be (1) two rows of 3 with an empty space in the end of the first or second row or (2) Three rows of 2 with a empty "fake" spot (a image of nothing) at the end of the last row. I have fouled around with it in a sandbox and I think the second option would be the best. But considering that AE's spot simply will be a blank and it will create a empty spot I think the best grafic solution (If not the most NPOV) is to wait until there convention next month before putting AE in, if they get passed the threshold before their convention at all. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree. The AE convention is only a month away, and that is soon enough to keep them off the infobox until they have a nominee, at which time we can put them in if they've met the threshold. If they meet it before June 12, I would be ok with putting a placeholder for them in early, but only if there were also proper placeholders for the GOP & Green parties. As for 2 rows vs. 3 rows, I would agree that if we end up with 5 to 6 qualifying candidates, that 3 rows of 2 is better unless one (or more) of the 3rd party candidates earns full ballot access (50 states+DC). If that happens, they should be moved up to the top row, which would help to show that the nominees listed there are true nationwide candidates with a notably broad base of support. All others can be sorted by ballot access, with the alphabetical name of their party as a tiebreaker.173.28.205.74 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be nice if we states a easy reference to the ballot access after each third candidates name. It should be a reference that are updated (not just a newsletter). If anyone knows such reference then please add them or write them here and I will add them. Right now it is hard to check who has access to winning most electoral votes. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't edit them back in, but I'd like to point out that the Green Party does have ballot access in enough states. As of today, they are on the ballot of 20 states+DC, which together have 293 electors, by my count.[13] It's slightly out of date, but even this map from the party itself shows 270+. [14]173.28.205.74 (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that state that Jill Stein is the Green presumptive nominee? I searched and couldn't find any, so I switched to TBD in the box where it says nominee. I see that the party has ballot access enough to get the 270 electorl votes, and that's why it's in the box. But I don't think anyone should put in there as the presumptive nomineee until there are sources that say it, like there is with Romney. As far I know, the green party hasn't declared her the presumptive nomiee like the RNC did with Romney. If anyone can show otherwise with good sources, then she should placed back in the infobox.--I.C. Rivers (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing to realize about these third parties is that finding "official sources" will not be easy, as 99% of the media focuses on the Democratic & GOP races. Doing a cursory Google search for "green party presumptive nominee" reveals various sites referring to her as such in an informal way. However, given we do want to be grounded in facts here, I researched the Green Party's delegate process, and found it prescribed here. Delegate status through April from the party is here, while Stein's website on primaries looks like it's kept more current. The delegate breakdown is thus: There are 401 allocated for the National Convention, but only 397 are seated, because 4 are disqualified due to Guam & the N. Mariana Islands not having a recognized affiliated local party. So 199 votes are needed to win. Of 129 allocated thus far, Stein has 96.5 (75%), 19.5 Barr (15%), 6.5 Mesplay, 1.5 Mikkelson, 7 Uncommitted. There are 169 delegates to be determined from upcoming primaries/caucuses, and 97 delegates from 21 states & 2 territories that will essentially serve as "superdelegates", since their states have no direct election method with which to try to bind them. It is important to note that Barr & Stein are the only 2 candidates the party recognizes, and only Stein can clinch (in the hard count) before the convention. The earliest she can do so is after the June 5 California primary which, ironically, is precisely when Mr. Romney is expected to clinch 1144 in the RNC's own hard delegate count. The reasons the GNC has not come out and declared Stein the presumptive nomine are threefold: 1. They have more respect for Ms. Barr than the RNC does for Dr. Paul, 2. Barr brings the party 10x the media attention the Greens would otherwise receive, and 3. unlike the RNC, the GNC is eager to bring new people into their party. I will reiterate, if I had my way neither Stein nor Romney would be included, but it is very important to maintain consistency & NPOV. If someone here is a Barr or Mesplay fan and wants to keep Stein out of the infobox, take it up with the folks in the above section who insist Romney should be in there.173.28.205.74 (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a good chance Gary Johnson could win New Mexico (unlikely I know but it isn't outside the realms of possibility, he is very popular in New Mexico after all) or at least have a very strong showing in that state, this alone should warrant Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party be above the Green Party and it's candidate in the infobox at least between now and the election 14:59, 11 May 2012 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.197.25 (talk)

That would be a very subjective criteria, that a candidate might win a state. Almost Crystalball. I think we should keep to criterias that can not be discussed, ex. Ballot Access or Alfabetical. If someone is popular or not is very subjective. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Libertarians & Greens

Why do these party tickets get to be in the infobox, when they aren't in the previous US prez election article infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read through this section (yes, I know it's getting pretty long). A consensus appears to have been reached to include candidates that have a mathematical chance, however small, of winning 270 electoral votes on Election Day. After the election, any candidate that fails to win at least one pledged electoral vote, or does not earn at least 5% of the popular vote, will be removed.173.28.205.74 (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Groovy. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Well put, I agree that it must be the consensus from this discussion Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Clarification on who is still in the race

Wouldn't it be appropriate that the article is shaped by its status quo? As an example; Santorum and Gingrich is now both out of the race as well as many others. So 'Nominations -> Candidates' and then list them separately as they are either in or out. One section for each. That way its easier to distinguish who's in or not quickly. Jørgen88 (talk) 20:41, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree. Previously, there was a distinction betweeen "active" and "inactive" candidates on the page. Not sure when or why that was changed, but I think it should be restored.--Rollins83 (talk) 16:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the parties mentioned: Constitution, Libertarian, Green and Americans Elect should be included if they get on enough ballots to theoretically win until the voting actually takes place.69.230.190.148 (talk) 22:51, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think interest on this page follows the race, with a balance of history. Not everything needs to be on one page. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:51, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thad McCotter

Thad McCotter, a US congressman from Michigan was briefly in the race for the republican nomination before dropping out in late 2011. He's shown in the article listing candidates for the GOP nomination but not in the main article for the 2012 presidential election. It seems to me that while he was a minor candidate he deserves to have his name listed with the other candidates for the GOP. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.152.5.236 (talk) 13:48, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree, he should be included as he was earlier. Recently, some sweeping changes were made to the page and it seems the standard for listing the candidates was changed. Which begs the question: was there a consensus for these changes? Because I don't see a discussion about it on the talk page or in the archives, and there clearly was a consensus for the previous standards, and it was reached after rather lengthy discussions. Who decided that only candidates that were invited to debates and had ballot access in at least 3 primaries should be included on the republican candidate list? And why is there a different standard for the democrat candidates (minimum of 10,000 primary votes)? Shouldn't there be consistency? This needs to be discussed and a consensus established, because this all seems rather arbitrary and well, unencyclopedic.--Rollins83 (talk) 15:55, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be helpfull to look at the United States presidential election, 2004. It was the same situation, an incumbent president and a contender. Why really have all the perennial democratic candidates at this page. It would be better to do as it was done in 2004. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:26, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Republican_Party_presidential_candidates,_2012 has all candidates. A more prominent link here could be explained. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Overuse of the word "presumptive"

In the box at the top, Joe Biden is listed as the VP nominee (presumptive). Mr. Biden is very likely to be President Obama's VP choice but presumptive is just guessing. Even putting Obama and Romney as presumptive is guessing but the press does this occasionally. However, we should not do a 2nd generation presumption (presumption on top of a presumption) and list Biden in the box. If we do, then we just might as well list Obama as the Presumptive winner of the 2012 election. Seriously, Biden's name should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.203.235.15 (talk) 04:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Obamas campaign page is called Obama-Biden Jack Bornholm (talk) 06:22, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, nobody should be in the infobox, unless they've actually been nominated by their respective party. GoodDay (talk) 04:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I think everyone should just be removed until they are officially nominated. All this "presumptive" stuff is causing a lot of problems and being made as an excuse to bypass WP:CRYSTAL. TL565 (talk) 05:40, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

yea please keep well-sourced, readily available information out of the article Hot Stop 07:13, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

But there's no 100% guarentee that Obama & Romney will be their respective party's presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 15:57, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion about Romney above, but not to included Obama, he has secured a majority of delegates to his partys national convention. He will be the democratic candidate, that is why he is included. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

He could die or suddenly choose to reject re-nomination between now & then. It's not 100% certain, he'll be the 2012 Democratic presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 15:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

That's why he's marked as "presumptive", a term used widely in reliable sources. Wikipedia even has an article on it. The reliable sources say he's the presumptive nominee, so we do too. that's how Wiki works.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:05, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

But he shouldn't be in the infobox. It's quite enough to have his 'presumptive' status, mentioned in the Democratic party's section of this article. GoodDay (talk) 16:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As I see it, it is no different in principle than when we had him in the infobox as the "president elect" following the election and prior to the inauguration. He had not yet been sworn in as President and, theoretically speaking, it was not "100% certain" he would be. Yet I do not recall there being a big fuss about "crystal-balling" at that time. This is basically the same deal, he has clinched the nomination but not yet formally received it, and we are acknowledging that distinction just as we did (and almost certainly will do in the future) with "president elect".--JayJasper (talk) 17:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

But why the panic? GoodDay (talk) 17:51, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Huh? He's secured the minimum number of delegates to clinch the nomination and earned the title of presumptive nominee. So how does placing him in the infobox constitute a "panic"?--JayJasper (talk) 18:03, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Obama hasn't been re-nominated for President, by the Democratic party. GoodDay (talk) 18:17, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

See my remarks about "president elect". He had not yet been sworn in as President, were we panicking by putting him in the infobox?--JayJasper (talk) 18:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama should be marked as the presumptive nominee of the Democratic Party, since he has the necessary amount of delegates pledged to him to be nominated at the convention floor (which is also why he shouldn't be marked as the official nominee until the convention nominates him– he has to be nominated at the convention first). Mitt Romney should not be marked as the presumptive nominee as he has not secured the necessary amount of delegates in the primary process in order to be nominated at the convention. As for the Vice-Presidential candidate Joe Biden, I don't think he should be marked down as the nominee until that is officially settled at the convention for the Democratic Party (unless he has delegates that are officially bound to vote for him at the convention). Mr. Kite (Talk | Contributions) 19:18, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Note that it does not say "vice presidential nominee" in infobox, but rather it says "running mate", and Biden is Obama's confirmed running mate in this election. Therefore, IMO, his name should remain in the infobox.--JayJasper (talk) 21:12, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Biden own words: "“There’s no question about it. There’s no way out. I mean, they’ve already printed Obama-Biden. You are looking at a vice-presidential candidate for the United States of America.” source: [15] Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:35, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I did see those remarks & I would be happy to leave out the 'President-elect' & 'Prime Minister-designate' for all infoboxes. However, that scenerio occured after an election. In this situation, the primaries & caucauses haven't ended yet, let alone the conventions haven't been held yet. I see, that I'm not getting through to anyone here & so ya'll can do as you like. GoodDay (talk) 19:43, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Page vandalism - prison inmate running for president?

Please tell me this is a joke. There's a picture of a convict next to Obama. Vandalism surely? Davez621 (talk) 09:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Weirdly enough not. Keith Russell Judd actually won 41% of the votes in the democratic primary in West Virginia. As far as I know he has only been on the ballot in one state, but he might get delegates from that state - So I dont know if he should be listed here or not. But you are right it does sound like a joke, but read the Wall Street Journals article here: [16] Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:54, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Well this has just proved that Wikipedia is a joke. How can someone in prison run for president - what's he going to do, run the country from his cell? I don't even live in the USA and I know that it's impossible.Davez621 (talk) 11:12, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It's not Wikipedia's fault that this occurred. What you have to understand about the United States is that election laws can vary drastically between the states. In some ways, U.S. states have more autonomy than the member-states of the European Union. So you are correct, an inmate could not become president because he would be excluded from the ballot in most U.S. States. He managed to make a West Virginia primary ballot solely because the election laws in this state do not explicitly disqualify inmates from the ballot, and he performed well because Democrats in West Virginia (a large coal-producing region) were protesting Obama's energy policy which could hurt coal interests. Although not one for the history books, it received plenty of media attention, which means it merits some mention on the Wiki. 109.9.106.141 (talk) 13:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Mr. Dave I stated a reliable source to what totally correct at first seems to be a joke. It is good to read the whole comments in a discussion before starting to comment on them and especially when that comment is just acusations. What are explain above is also all in the source (Wall Street Journal). Intersting comment that us states have more autonomi than the sovereign states of Europa. I am not sure I agree, seeing how different the European elections are conducted from country to country - But still interesting as a sidenote. When understanding Europa it is alway good to remember even though it call itself an union (federation) it is actually more of a Confederation. But it is not always all mediea show that - Bias is not only a American thing :) :) Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as the autonomy, I only meant that U.S. states have more control over themselves in some aspects. For example, EU member-states would not be able to reinstate the death penalty even if 100% of that nation's legislature voted in favor of it---a U.S. state can change its criminal justice laws whenever it wants. Actually, the European Union is a lot like the United States was when it was first conceived. Different U.S. states could even print their own money at one time, just like the UK, Sweden and Denmark aren't obliged to use the euro. The parallels between the early US and the EU are actually very interesting. Sometimes I wonder if the European Union won't join together and become a single "Federation of Europe" sometime in the next century. 109.9.106.141 (talk) 10:52, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I actually didnt know that the any of the european treaties had a anti death penalty paragraf. (those treaties is the only thing binding for the european countries all other laws are volunterly incorperated by each parliement into the countrys laws) But I guess it is a safe thing to put in a treaty, not even to more neonazi parties would be stupid enough to support the death penalty, it would be political suiced in Europe. You are correct that the parallels are interesting, but you have to remember to be totally correct, Virginia and Masschuttets should be two emerging powers from the ruines of an ancient culture. Then be engaged in a 100 year religiouse war that would wipe out more than half their populations, only to rebuild have a few wars now and then. And of course make two World wars about where the state border should be. In the process enslaving most of the planet in a gigant colonial system, loosing it all again. Kill all the members of a annoying minority (lets just say all black people) in big deathcamps. Getting invaded from both sides after really having messed up the whole continent of North America themselve and then let half of the continent be living under occupation for 50 years. Then Europe today would be a bit like US before the Union. It might seem like the same, but no one understands Europe, especially not the europeans. In Denmark the same family have been sitting on the throne for 1.000 years. Europe is complicated and old. I guess I am starting to soapbox a bit, getting started on my favorite subject. All I wanted to ask was, would you might have some easy to read source on the whole thing that european countries are not free to make their own criminal laws, including death penalty? It could be a nice addit to the article on the European Union. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:00, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Fair use candidate from Commons: File:Keith judd.jpg

The file File:Keith judd.jpg, used on this page, has been deleted from Wikimedia Commons and re-uploaded at File:Keith judd.jpg. It should be reviewed to determine if it is compliant with this project's non-free content policy, or else should be deleted and removed from this page. Commons fair use upload bot (talk) 09:46, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Pictures of Candidates

In my opinion, the pictures of President Obama and Governor Romney in the infobox are too informal. I suggest using these images instead: Obama and Romney. These would be more appropriate considering that this article is for a presidential election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.247.242.113 (talk) 01:11, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Too informal? They're wearing ties, which is something probably 80% of the population hardly ever do. That's formal enough for me. It's an election of a person, not a staged image of one. Better to see them "informally" than in an artificial pose. HiLo48 (talk) 01:21, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I really like the "informal" pictures because they are good together. Ad some point a official photo of Romney was used (the one from the primary article), but put at the right side it made him look away from Obama. Now it looks like the engage eachother. To look good in a infobox it is also very important that they have about ths same height and wide proportions. If not one of the pictures will be much bigger than the other or there will be a white gap at the bottom of one of them. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:05, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I also really like the pictures. No, they aren't official, staged photographs like the majority of those used on prior U.S. election pages, but they give an excellent physical impression of both candidates. I've always disliked that photo of Mitt Romney in the sun because you can't really see his eyes. And he also looks much too young in the photograph of him used for 2008. 109.9.106.141 (talk) 17:25, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

I like them too. It looks like they're out campaigning, and not posing for photographs. Hot Stop 20:36, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul withdraws?

Today, May 14, 2012, Ron Paul withdrew from the race. Someone needs to change the "Republican Party nomination" article from Ron Paul being a active candidate to him being a no longer active candidate. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.130.241 (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This simply hasn't happened. RoyalMate1 20:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul has in fact suspended his active campaign, but will continue to make efforts to accumulate delegates: [17], [18], [19] --JayJasper (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The media is saying Paul has suspended his campaign because he will not contest the popular vote of the remaining 11 primaries. Guess who else isn't competing for votes in those primaries- Mitt Romney, who has adjusted his campaign to focus against Obama, often while fundraising. Does that mean he too has dropped out? Of course not. It simply means nobody (officially) is competing for those votes anymore, so we'll continue to see very poor turnout. Paul aides are already scrambling to repair the damage of this morning's poorly worded press release. Here's a video explanation from a post on Paul's official website.68.58.63.22 (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No it means that in all pratical ways Romney has won. Jack Bornholm (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)