Talk:2012 United States presidential election

Template:U.S. presidential election, yyyy project page link

Infobox with third party candidates

So in past years I've seen that only the major parties (i.e.: Republicans and Democrats) have had their candidate listed in the infobox is that changing this year? CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 23:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It was decided that, up until the election itself, any candidate that could theoretically win the Presidency, as in having ballot access of 270 Electoral Votes or more, can and should be displayed there. However, the normal rules apply after the election itself, in which they will have needed to either win electoral votes, or have attained at least 5% of the vote. --Ariostos (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course consensus can change before the election. Hot Stop 23:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course. --Ariostos (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah theoretically, but let's be realistic here. Most polls only give you the options of the major party candidates and I would wager to guess ~95% of Americans only know of the major party candidates. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 23:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What Americans know has no relevance to this.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

How can it not considering they control they outcome of the election? CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 00:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the basis of reality is not on what the average Joe knows. It's based on what is.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah and the reality is that the third party candidate will most likely struggle to gain 5,000 votes country wide. Judging from the polls I mentioned before and precedent in previous elections. They don't get enough coverage to have a serious chance at the win. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 01:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep them off: I'd say keep them off because unless there is a similar Ross Perot / Bull Moose Party challenge. If a certain candidate was earning more than 5% of the polls based on Rasmussen, Ipsos, Gallup, etc consistently, then I would endorse putting those candidates on the list. 3rd Party candidates today have nil-to-none chances unless it's someone significant. Gary Johnson barely counts outside of Colorado and I have not seen a poll where he registers consistently more than 3%. Rasmussen for example already did research today on the 3rd party question [1]. ViriiK (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you are not a political scientist and do not read large amounts of polling data. Gary Johnson has regularly exceeded 10% in polling in his homestate of New Mexico and has exceeded 5% in many national polls (5% is the level at which candidates are included in infoboxes of past elections). See [[2]] and [[3]] for lists of polls that have included him. He reglarly polls near 10% in several western states. The effect that Gary Johnson has on the election could very well be a similar vote splitting effect that the Progressive Party had in the 1912 presidential election.XavierGreen (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Though it's rather lengthy, it might be helpful for those who missed this discussion to look through it in order to see the arguments and rationales that lead to the current consensus.--JayJasper (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone that believes third party candidates will only get a total of "5,000 votes country wide" seriously should think about commenting on a topic that they are more familiar with. Since polls are not concrete as ballot access, they should not be used as a crystal ball to jump to conclusions. As John Zogby told me, "the value of a poll is not to predict but to create accurate results that can be interpreted." --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the Third-Party Mafia has invaded and infiltrated Wikipedia. The United States is a de facto two party system. Even if the polls show that third party candidates have a 10% polling rate, the candidates have a snowball's chance in hell of even spoiling the presidential election. In other words, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are like the chosen sacrifices from their respective political parties to compete in this election. Nobody expects them to win, and they're nothing more than mere rubber stamp candidates. I'm starting to wonder if some of the editors here are being paid by the Johnson or Stein election committee. —stay (sic)! 18:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If one of these candidates pulls 10% of the vote, I'm not sure how it can be argued they didn't have an effect on the election. Most "sacrifices" become so involuntarily, unlike these candidates. I'm not sure what you mean by a "rubber stamp" candidate. If anything (and I'm taking your term very loosely here), voting for a major party nominee is "rubber stamping" the de facto two party system you speak of. The only argument that can be made is that their inclusion in the infobox gives them undue weight, but you are hardly the first to have made that argument, and frankly, it's not going to win out. The policy of excluding undue things is to avoid cluttering up pages with fringe ideas, items or people. With most states having very tough ballot access laws, a candidate must have very good organization, resources, and popular support to get on to a majority of ballots. The existence of those things is enough evidence that they are not fringe candidates, regardless of whether they have a realistic chance of winning the election. This is also an objective criterion that is easier to source and harder to fiddle with. Besides, 4 pictures doesn't appear 'cluttered' to me. You can view the most recent lengthy debate that was had over this at the link on the top of the page. Archives for earlier election talk pages will contain similar discussions- you'll see this really has been debated ad nauseum. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is every discussion about this topic starting with: If anyone thinks that a third party candidate will win.... NO ONE DOES!
Ok, maybe the candidates themselve in a weak moment, but that they are not winning is not an argument to keeping them out before the election. They have got the ballot access in what is proberly the hardest country in the world to get ballot access enough to theoretical win. In other words they are not going to we all know, but they are officially in the race, they will play a role in the election maybe even pivotal in some states for the winner and we are staying neutral. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

The problem seems to me to be that the Green and Libertarian candidates being included right alongside the Republican and Democratic candidates is a major deviation from the norm. That is, when I glance at the page, it seems to me as though, miraculously, there are not one, but two third-party candidates that pose a threat to the American supermajority parties. What's worse is that the introduction is also misleading (it simply states who the third party candidates are), so that one must go down to the third parties section or one of the nationwide polling articles in order to accurately absorb the information.

I still advocate for the exclusion of the third party candidates, not because it is unlikely for them to win or acheive a modest amount of the votes, but because they are misrepresented. The Green and Libertarian parties do not have 100% poll access, but they do have enough for a majority. Just having a plausible chance of winning an election however does not merit equal frontrunner status with the other candidates; other criteria need to be taken into account (and no, polls are not crystal balls, they are information completely relevant to the article and election). I believe it would be more appropriate to include more information on the third-party campaigns and exclude them from the infobox than to include them in it and exclude coverage of third-party campaigns in the light of NPOV. I also really don't think having the other candidates' images below the major candidates' tells anyone anything, as they occupy equal space, and so that is a silly solution.

Perhaps the exclusion of the candidates' images but not their names would be more appropriate, I remember that solution being experimented with at the 1920 presidential election article.[4] RoyalMate1 19:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I could support Royalmate1's idea of keeping the third-party candidates' names in the infobox but removing their images. I think a sound case has been made for including these candidates in the box, but I also think Royalmate has a valid point as well about misrepresentation. His suggestion might be a better way of applying WP:DUE than just listing Johnson and Stein under Obama and Romney. Perhaps we could restore the images of Johnson and/or Stein if either or both gets 100% ballot access nationwide or if either/both qualify for inclusion in one or more of the debates with the major party candidates.--Green4liberty (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that seems reasonable. RoyalMate1 21:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

I may also add that a clarification in the introduction, such as "The Libertarian and Green Party candidates are Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, respectively, although they do not have 100% ballot access", or something similar to that, could be implemented. RoyalMate1 21:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

One problem is that right now one one have 100% ballot access, not even the democrats and the republicans. Mostly because that local deathlines have not yet been reached. What ever we do I think it is important to have clear benchmarks otherwise we will have an ongoing campaigning on this page for every candidate, important or not. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure if I completely understood what you've stated, but it's my understanding that the major party candidates do get put on ballots after their conventions. Seeing as both candidates have a majority of delegates, however, I think this could be overlooked (presumptive nominee). I couldn't find any sources for major party ballot access, as almost all news sources deal with third party access. RoyalMate1 00:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Republicans and Democrats actually have to get ballot access just like everyone else. Nothing in the state or federal laws give a special place to any parties. Normally no one consider this and rightly so because everyone knows that these two big "private" partymachines will be on every ballot everywhere. But implementing in the article that the libertarian right now are not having 100% ballot access would imply that they are behind in some way to the big parties on the ballot area. And as I can see at a glimt they are actually going just as well as the two "real" parties. This doesnt happen every year and it doesnt say anything about the votes a third party will get. But this year the libertarian party seems to be on the track for full ballot access just as the DEM and REP naturally are. But they all still have to sign the papers and make the signatures just as everyone else and if they for some insane reason decides just to stay home and drink beer they will not automaticely magically been on every ballot. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 August 2012

In Minnesota, the Republican Party has not yet filed to be on the presidential ballot. Stein and Harris are on the Minnesota ballot. Lindsay and Alexander are both on the New York ballot. 207.177.29.217 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Can you provide reliable sources to verify this?--JayJasper (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)

Closing to clear backlog. The template has instructions for reactivating should you wish to do so. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 08:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 August 2012

Carlson, Stein, and Harris are on the ballot in Minnesota Lindsay, Alexander, Johnson, and Goode are on the ballot in New York Johnson and Stein are on thhe ballot in D.C. 207.177.29.217 (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: This is too similar to the last request and there are still no reliable sources to back your statements up. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 11:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Inauguration day

Doesn't the inauguration take place on January 20 as the constitution says? If it takes place on January 21, would Romney be president on that day or on the 20th should he win election? --78.51.107.147 (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

From what I can remember from 4 years ago, if the inauguration is on a Sunday (which it will be next year), the president is inaugurated a day later. I don't know about whether Romney, if elected, would be assumed to be president on the 20th or the 21st. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 17:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

He becomes President on the 20th. The inaugural wouldn't be until the 22nd because of MLK day. Hot Stop 18:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Since 1937 all presidential inauguration have been at january 20 according to the 20th ammendment section 1:

"The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin."

In 2009, January 20 was a tuesday. Where does it say that the inauguration can not be on a sunday? Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 August 2012

Go to ballot-access.org 207.177.29.217 (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. RudolfRed (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why 270?

I'm confused about the 270 potential electoral votes threshold among minor parties used through-out the article. Presumably in a scenario where the elected president is neither a democrat nor a republican there's an excellent chance of a 3+ way race. Isn't the winner determined by a plurality of votes in the electoral college, not a majority? Thus requiring only a minimum of 55 (since whoever gets California's votes will have 55, barring faithless electors?) WilyD 14:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

The winner is not deterimined by pluratlity of votes. A candidate must recieve at least a majority of electoral votes in order to win outright (which currently is 270). If no candidate recieves 270 votes, then there is a special election in which each state delegation of the house of representatives has one vote. The candidates in the election are limited to the top three elecotral vote winners in the regular presidential election. A candidate needs to recieve a majority of votes of state delegations to win (currently 26). If no candidate recieves a majority of votes in the special election, then new rounds of voting continue until a candidate recieves a majority. If voting continues until past the end of the current president's term, the speaker of the house would be sworn in as acting president until 26 state delegations agree on a president. Since the Republican party currently controls a majority of house delegations, a republican victory is virtually assured if a presidential candidate does not recieve a majority vote from the electoral college.XavierGreen (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Hmmm, interesting concept. But I do remember the time when Al Gore won the plurality of nationwide votes, but lost the electoral college vote to Bush in Florida, costing him the presidency. However, a few rumors suggested that George's lil brother, Jeb Bush who was governor of Florida at the time, ensured George's "victory" in Florida by wielding his executive power/position. —stay (sic)! 04:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The president of the USA are not elected by the people of USA but by the people of the different states of the union. So from time to time presidents are elected by the majority in enough states but not with a majortiy in the whole population of US as a whole. That is because US is a federal state nothing else. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

You sound like an old-time federalist, or a modern-day constitutionalist. Lol. —stay (sic)! 22:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

I am actually a subject of the royal realm of the danish commenwealth, to stay oldfashioned Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, in the united states the popular vote for president does not actually elect the president. When you vote for president you are actually voting for a slate of potential electoral college members that have pledged their support to whatever candidate you have selected. Once they are appointed they can in most instances vote however they please, but because the various parties only put up veteran loyal party members and leaders they dont stray from their pledged candidates to often. A person needs only the votes of 270 electors to become president, the popular vote does not generally matter at all except as the means of electing the members of the electoral college.XavierGreen (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Never said the people directly elect the president. Meant to say that Jeb Bush influenced his state government to favor George Bush Jr. for president. Familial and partisan loyalty much? Anyways why bother when the US gov't is run by a duopoly that virtually has no other relevant opposition(s). —stay (sic)! 22:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Ballot Access Update

ballot-access.org shows that Virgil Goode, Peta Lindsay, and Gary Johnson are on the New York ballot. Minnesota's secretary of state's site now shows that johnson, stein, goode, anderson, dean morstad, carlson, harris, and lindsay are on the minnesota ballot. The district of columbia's elections site shows gary johnson on the ballot 207.177.29.217 (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

We need the exact address that explicitly says that, and I'm not even sure if the source is reliable.  Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ballot-access.org is a blog; therefore, it is not reliable. A boat that can float! (watch me float!) 13:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

What to Do with Constitution Party

I ask this because I remember, as someone mentioned, that Texas, despite only being a Write-In state for Goode, could be considered for ballot access given that Write-In candidates also have to nominate electors as regular balloted candidates would. Including Texas, and only Texas, under such status would place Virgil Goode at a level that would warrant his position in the Info-Box alongside Stein and Johnson. However, I am sure there would be dispute over the notion, and show wished to open it to discussion to figure out how to decide upon it. I will note however that, as it currently stands, Goode will not make the Info-Box otherwise, having suffered a number of reversals over the last two months. --Ariostos (talk) 01:05, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

The list of states we have for Goode include two that are not at his official ballot page: NY & VA. Because VA verifies signatures on a "rolling" basis as they come in, we know Goode should be on the VA ballot because he already got the 10,000 required signatures verified. As for NY, I know he submitted enough, but does anyone know if it's enough that no challenge was filed by today's deadline, or do the signatures still have to be verified? If they don't need to be, then adding TX would indeed bring him past 270, to 277. I didn't check all of his other write-in states but it really isn't necessary to do that if TX puts him over the mark. If we can verify NY, then I would support adding Goode to the infobox, per the discussion about whether and how to count write-in electoral slates here. Per prior discussions on layout, he would go by himself into a third row for now. If Johnson or anybody else matches the Dems & GOP with full ballot access, that candidate would join those two in the top row, with Goode then sliding into the second row. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:03, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

From what I gathered, everyone but Stewart Alexander has been validated for the ballot there. --Ariostos (talk) 00:47, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Query

What is the right article for discussing events during the campaigns? I'm interested, for instance, in writing about the way in which Todd Akin's comments affected national campaigns, rather than containing the material solely within local articles (or - name any other event) but I don't see the right article in which to do so - the Timeline of the election contains only very official events like people entering and dropping out of races. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 21:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)

If the event happened in the primary season it would be best to put it into the primary articles. This is the general article for the general PRESIDENTIEL election so if this man have a impact at the general presidentiel election beyond a single or two newscycle or beyond his own reelection campaign this would be the place. But not every little comment by everyone running for office in the general election can be included. Maybe this is better covered on his own article, it is actually already written quit good about it there. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Well, yes, it is covered in other articles. But that's the whole point - it has had, and is predicted to have, impact on the presidential race. I can write a little bit about it for this, but it seems out of place, hence wondering if there was a better article - but perhaps people just haven't felt like writing more. –Roscelese (talk ⋅ contribs) 22:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

If it have had an impact on the presidentiel election this is the article to write it in, just a question where . This is an article in its making and it might need a new section telling about the course of the campaign. Covering the time where the primary articles (especially the republican one) left off. Be very careful not to include any crystalballing (that being prediction or speculation on what effect it will have in the future) but keep to what is already historical facts. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is Mitt Romney still listed as "presumptive"

Mitt Romney secured the official nomination of the Republican Party at their National Convention, on August 28. He has the official backing of the party; there's no reason to continue to list him as the "presumptive" nominee. 128.84.125.137 (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Justice Party candidate not on ballot in TN

Wikipedia has Tennessee listed as one of the states of which Rocky Anderson is on the ballot. However, the State of Tennessee does not have him on their list. http://state.tn.us/sos/election/cand/2012NovemberCandidates.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.187.204.37 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Change Obama/Romney pictures on infobox

I really think the Obama photo now is really bad. I don't care about the Romney one, but we should just change them! I know there was already a consensus but I can't stand the Obama photo. We should change it to his official portrait. --Creativemind15 10:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creativemind15 (talk • contribs)

If the official portrait is the one you've been trying to change it to, please don't use that one because his eyes look closed in it. Ratemonth (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

Maybe you could say why you hate it? I mean that one editors taste tells him that it is bad photo dont really merrit it should be changed. There must be som rational reasons why it is bad. Personally I think it makes him look in charge and presidentiel, much more than his official photo. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

At least crop the Obama photo. You can't see his eyes in the photo now. At least find another Obama picture on Wiki Commons. User:Creativemind15 (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.149.186 (talk)

Typo Edit Request

Hello, I cannot edit this page, but notice a typo here: "Bachmann, who finished fifth in Iowa, withdrew after the caucses." (The typo being that "caucuses" is missing a 'u.')Thanks.--75.18.185.180 (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for spotting the typo.--JayJasper (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Number of Democratic Candidates

To treat a some fringe democratic candidates the same as the seriouse republican candidates is to imply that there was a democratic race. Older articles with the same setup do not do so. In 2004 Bush was the incumbent president and even though many perinnial candidates was on the ballot as the article Republican Party presidential primaries, 2004 shows the article on the general election: United States presidential election, 2004 does only list Bush as a candidate. So I have removed the candidates from this article in the same manner. There are of course still in the subjects main article: Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2012. I am looking forward to hear any arguments against this if it is undone. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

How many third party candidates should be listed?

Soon the deadlines for attaining ballot access will be reached and it will be clear how many states the different small parties will have ballot access in. The last deadline I think is september 7th [5], and then there will of course validating and challenging for some time.
So I think now is a good time to think about how many third party and independt candidates should be listed in this article? There is already a indept article on all the candidates both the party nominees and the ones that lost the third party primaries/convention nominations. This article also includes independent candidates. United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012 does need some work but I think it is the place to put every single candidate running for president even those that just do it for a laugh as the Naked Cowboy from New York. If we choice not to list all candidates in this article man of the information would good to migrate to that article.
What will be the criteria? I have listed a few options:

• All and every candidate will be listed in this article.
• Only candidates with ballot access to more than 270 delegates will be listed
• Only candidates with ballot access to more than 270 delegates will be listed INCL. states where they have officially certified write-in status.
• Only candidates with ballot access to more than 100 (or another number) delegates will be listed
• Only candidates with ballot access in more than 5 (or another number) states will be listed.

Personally I would go with number 3. That would practically mean that 4 third parties will stay in this article: The Libertarians, The Greens, The Constitution Party and The Justice Party. I dont think The Party for Socialism and Liberation should be included even if they by some chance should get enough ballot access because its candidates are not eligble to be elected at all. (Lindsay is to young (28) and Yari Osorio is born in Columbia) But what do you think? Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:22, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of US Presidential Candidates, 2012

I do not know if there is enough data out there yet, but it would be beneficial to create a page comparing the presidential candidates policy positions in a manner similar to Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008. If I find the time, I'll try to set one up myself in the next week or so. 98.82.9.78 (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request - VP nominees inappropriately added to candidate photo galleries

Somehow, without anyone noticing, on August 14th Creativemind15 changed the longstanding format of having the candidate photo galleries for each party showing the presidential candidates only, by adding the VP nominees (Biden and Ryan) and, in the Republicans gallery, adding the words "Nominees" and "Withdrew". The galleries for each party is only supposed to list the presidential candidates; only those who ran for president. The VP nominees are only supposed to be listed in the infobox. This is what the candidate galleries looked like before the changes were made.[6] This is the first of multiple changes, where Biden and Ryan were inappropriately added.[7]. Then it was changed to put the Pres/VP nominees on their own lines as "Nominees" and split all the remaining candidates into their own area with the word "Withdrew" added for the Republican gallery.[8]. Please put the galleries back to way they correctly were at 21:09, 14 August 2012‎.[9] Thanks. --76.189.126.159 (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)