Talk:2016 United States presidential election

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Heathercutajar.

Final popular vote results

When will we know for sure the final totals? None of the citations say how much of the votes are left to count.2602:306:CC42:8340:CCF5:CF5:9471:416D (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

13-Nov-2016 Update

According to a 70 News article posted on 12-Nov-2016 and updated on 13-Nov-2016, Trump has won both the electoral and popular votes. Are there any other articles confirming this, and has any official government source confirmed this?

Current ____ Template

Ok, so I just reverted @GoodDay:'s edit of switching the current election template out for ongoing event template, because the current election one is more specific. GoodDay then reverted this, bringing back the ongoing event template, citing the fact that current current election template created an empty category, which I agree is a problem. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2, I am bringing this up here to get a final answer. Which of the two templates are we going to use? Elisfkc (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: what if we just switch the | cat = Current elections part of the Template:Current election with | all =Current elections? That should solve the issue. Elisfkc (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Both templates are showing the same information. Why not continue to use the one I placed, which 'again' doesn't create an non-existent category. Besides, my template will be deleted in a few hours, barring a repeat of 2000. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: not sure if you read my most recent message yet, but if we fix the election template, it will put it in a real category and it is much more specific than the current one. Elisfkc (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

If you wish to do so, go ahead (it won't be counted as a second revert) & make the corrections :) GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Will do, thanks. Now if only the candidates were as courteous as you, maybe more people would vote. Elisfkc (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Haha ;) GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

When we start putting projections in the template the parameter is going to have to be changed so it says "ongoing = no" or else the "projected electoral vote" parameter won't show. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

• The "current" templates were created for those rare occasions that editing is so voluminous and rapid, that the editor should use caution, and not intended to mark an article for the reader, as all articles already have a general disclaimer footer link warning that the article may not be up to date or accurate, hence making the "current" template superfluous and redundant when used for the purpose of warning readers that the article may be inaccurate. Generally, these "current" templates are harvested a few hours after use, when a period of rapid editing eases, and the function the templates were created for ceases.
  Yellowdesk (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

External links tags on state-level articles

Someone added external link maintenance tags to a high number of state-level presidential election pages, such as United States presidential election in Alabama, 2016. How can this be addressed? Or should the maintenance tags just be removed? Dustin (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

First look to address the problem external links. The Alabama article does not seem to have a problem, other than references which are tagged in the ref section. I would remove the hat note where the problem has been addressed or the tag has been misused. Bcharles (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox needs fixing

Can someone please re-add the NE footnote; CD-2 is still outstanding? Also, the other candidates need to be re-added to the infobox since the results aren't finalized and it's WP:CRYSTAL to say those candidates won't win 5% of the popular vote or one of the remaining states. Plus, it's inconsistent that De La Fuente et al. are still in the infobox but the other candidates aren't. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The footnote says Johnson et al. haven't "appointed enough electors to win". Actually they have. The footnote is inaccurate. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

the problematic text, as well as Johnson and other candidates, were removed from the infobox. So, this is no longer an issue. Bcharles (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

on a Positive..

... we will soon get a good image of President Donald Trump (official) so we no linger will have to bicker on which of his images to use... --Stemoc 05:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

After the Trump official portrait comes out it will be included in the infobox. MB298 (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Well Brexit had the pound go down and rise back up again, really though, it isn't Trumps fault Wall Street failed to predict his upset victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer Rafferty (talk • contribs) 07:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The markets rebounded substantially after Trump's acceptance speech in which he reached out to all Americans. In fact, within two days they hit a record high. American In Brazil (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath of US presidental election

For reference, see one-way flights to Canada spikes and Canada's immigration site crashes as election is going. 103.1.70.149 (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't actually mean people are going to move to Canada. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It has happened before but it is a small number of people and few if any follow through. It's in the same league as Clinton hasn't made her concession speech yet because she's demanding $250,000. TFD (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Is that a joke? I'm actually not sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

For whatever weight an anecdote is worth, I do know personally of one oncologist who moved permanently to Canada after GWB was elected. That aside, I do think the crashing of the site between 11 pm and 1 am should have a minimal mention, since it was mentioned by several news media. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Michael Moore: A Trump Victory Would Be "The Biggest 'F**k You' Recorded In Human History" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ֗ (talk • contribs) 08:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Electoral map

It's been claimed now on the article that all 5 of Nebraska's electoral votes have been projected for Trump/Pence. Thus shouldn't we change the map? I think we should remove that mark (*). Keivan.f^Talk 07:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to first see a source that says that is true. Also, why does the infobox say Trump won 1 EV in Maine? Where's the source for that? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Can someone add a red dot to Maine? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27 Here's an article by NBC explaining why these two states split their votes. But as almost all of the people from Nebraska have voted for Trump, it seems that all of the 5 electoral votes belong to him now according to an article by New York Times. Keivan.f^Talk 08:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's now almost confirmed that 3 of Maine's electoral votes have been projected for Clinton/Kaine while 1 of the state's electoral votes has been projected for Trump/Pence. Shouldn't we make it clear on the map? By putting a mark in front of the number for example? Keivan.f^Talk 08:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I just found out that in an article by CNN it's still stated that Trump has only won 4 of Nebraska's electoral votes. The article is obviously updated. Can any other article be found to oppose this claim? Keivan.f^Talk 08:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

CNN's article confirms that 1 of Miane's electoral votes has been projected for Trump/Pence while it's not still confirmed that all of Nebraska's votes have been projected for Trump. Keivan.f^Talk 09:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

NBC News and the New York Times show Trump winning all five of Nebraska's votes. CNN still shows one vote TBD. Also, NBC called Minnesota for Clinton, but still hasn't called Arizona for Trump, putting him at 279 with the extra Nebraska vote. If you include Arizona, which some sources called for him, he has 290. Smartyllama (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The map should indicate that AZ, MI and NH have not yet been called. I guess that recounts are triggered and clear results won't be out for a few weeks. Bcharles (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Source that a recount was triggered in those states..!? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not certain that a recount is triggered, but either a potential recount or correction of numbers when official results are compiled, is keeping major news outlets from calling MI and NH. We will need to wait and see how it plays out. Bcharles (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, the networks haven't called those two yet, because there eligible for an applied recount, presumably. Either candidate within the close range could appeal for a recount, like Hillary Clinton in Michigan, which would probably lead to Trump asking for one in at least New Hampshire. They really won't actually change the fundamental outcome, though it will feature in the news substantially. Time for them isn't exactly running out, yet, but the deadlines to file are coming soon, I think, and it wouldn't play out well if either one didn't jump between the boats and declare something as soon as it's done (thereby protracting the election counting process, and whatnot).

Trump

Should Trump be redirected to Donald Trump and the existing page moved to something else? Sorry, I'm editing on mobile and am too lazy to create a move discussion. MB298 (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@MB298: No. Clinton is about the surname, not Bill Clinton. Bush is a dismbiguation page, and so is Roosevelt. The only 'presidential surnames' that are redirected to the article about the president are ones where the term has no other relevant article (like Obama). Revent^talk 08:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Trump image

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Here is a new, less obscured image of Trump in the infobox:

Placed this in the talk page for others to decide! --ZiaLater (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Here is another option.--ZiaLater (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The first one seems fine to me. We also should change the picture in the article about the republican primary elections. I'm adding other possible photos so we won't always use the same one. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Every picture with D. Trump on it is showing D. Trump. Cannot see the problem.--Bluemel1 (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Since the image of Hillary shows her smiling, for balance I think an image of Donald should show him smiling. What's wrong with that? American In Brazil (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Popular vote - FIFTH TIME IN USA HISTORY

Hillary won the popular vote - [1] !! So, FIFTH time in the USA history the winner of the elections lost the popular vote. LOL. M.Karelin (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

What is the source of the figures "59,131,310; 59,293,071" given for the popular vote in the article? How can there even be accurate figures before all states have reported final results? --dab (𒁳) 15:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Votes aren't done yet. Some states are still counting, and absentee and overseas ballots have yet to be included. As is, it's too close to know for sure. Martin Van Ballin' (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed we shouldn't declare Hillary the winner of the popular vote until all of the counting is finished. In 2012, both Obama and Romney had 49% of the vote each at this point but more votes came in and Obama eventually pulled away and the final count ended up being over 3 points.2602:306:CC42:8340:18C7:10B9:606F:26DF (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

At this point the popular vote is final. The statement that this is the 5th time in U.S. history that the electoral vote winner lost the popular vote is correct. See WP: Presidential elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. American In Brazil (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That is not correct. In 1824, Andrew Jackson won both the electoral and popular votes, but lost the contingent election in the House. Thus this is the fourth time that the popular vote winner lost the electoral college, but it is the fifth time that the popular vote winner lost the election. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 16:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It is correct. Andrew Jackson won the popular vote in the United States presidential election, 1824 (151,271 to John Quincy Adams' 113,122) and, although Jackson received a plurality of electoral votes (99 to Adams' 84), he did not win a majority of the electoral votes needed (131) to win the White House. Therefore, in accordance with the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the election went to the House of Representative to decide, the only time the House voted for the President. They chose Adams. Jackson ran again in 1828 and this time he was elected with a majority of the electoral college. as well as a majority of the popular vote. He's that guy on your $20 bill. American In Brazil (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there was one other time that the House of Representatives chose a President. It chose the top popular vote getter in the 1800 election, Thomas Jefferson over Aaron Burr. The mess up there, brought about the 12th Amendment :) GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

When you're right, you're right. The 12th Amendment was a response to the confused election of 1800 in which the House chose Thomas Jefferson. I should have said that the election of 1824 was the only time the House chose the president under the 12th Amendment, which has governed presidential elections since the election of 1804. American In Brazil (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

BTW, has any noticed, all 5 defeated presidential candidates who had the most popular votes (1824-Jackson, 1876-Tilden, 1888-Cleveland, 2000-Gore & 2016-H.Clinton) were Democrats? PS - Ok, Jackson was a Democratic-Republican in 1824, defeated by a fellow Democratic-Republican. But anyways, that part was an immediate forerunner to the Democrats ;) GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, you're right. And Jackson was the first candidate of the modern Democratic Party. I wonder if the Cubs had lost the World Series, would Hillary have won? American In Brazil (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Haha ;) GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, more specifically: this is the fourth time that the popular vote winner lost a plurality of the electoral college, but it is the fifth time that the popular vote winner lost the election. If you replace "plurality" with "absolute majority", it is still the fifth time. We should be sure to be precise with the wording in the article. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you for sure the vote is final? Is that the final count on the page? If it is then fine, but if it isn't you need to change your wording again.2602:306:CC42:8340:7502:235E:E498:DC2E (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The only election under the 12th Amendment (that is, since 1804) in which the popular vote winner had a plurality (that is, the most but not the majority) of electoral votes was the election of 1824. That election was then decided by the House of Representatives. In all the other cases (1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016) there was a definite winner of the electoral vote. (Alright, I'll grant you there was a big argument in 2000 over who won Florida.) The 12th Amendment clearly states that the winner must have a majority of the total number of electoral votes in order to occupy the White House. In the elections of 1948 and 1968, where a third party candidate won the electoral votes of some states (Strom Thurmond and George Wallace, respectively), a small change in the popular vote of a few states would have denied the electoral vote winner (Harry Truman in 1948, Richard Nixon in 1968 - both also won the popular vote) a majority of the electoral votes and sent the election to the House. But it didn't happen. American In Brazil (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

"Carrying a state"

"No third party or independent candidate carried a state in the 2016 presidential election, nor have any of them done so since 1968." What does that even mean? I feel like that needs explanation. KarstenO (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@User:KarstenO it means that no third party has won a state since 1968. Perhaps that meaning isn't clear in non-American Englishes.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Although it could be phrased more clearly, even in American Englishes. For one thing, everything after the comma can be safely excised, since it would only be relevant if a third party or independent candidate *had* carried a state in the current election. There is no broad purpose to stressing the period of time since an unusual event happened if that unusual event is not currently happening. Case in point: was the Cubs curse emphasised every year -- by anyone other than Cubs fans and Cubs-oriented media -- during the World Series? It only became broadly relevant when the Cubs were actually in the World Series. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL objection by User:Kiril Simeonovski reverted

Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, as per WP:CRYSTAL. New York Times source quoted. Dr Aus (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that sourced forecast can be included in discussion, but not stated as fact. Bcharles (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016

add the 'states carried' Qkxwsm (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. -- "please improve the page" is not a valid "edit request". --dab (𒁳) 15:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Turn out?

What happened to the turn-out? The total number of votes for Trump, at this moment, is nearly 2.0 million less than Romney's total four years ago. Is there some explanation for that or will the difference fade away in the coming hours/days? Peter b (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Because the election was rigged as the president stated. [2][3] Thanks God the rigging jaws shiver on they burble for now. But rigged system is still in place and may mos sad backstab if not rift by force. 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

p.s. of course documenting all the statistical anomalies should be added to the proper section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Getting rid of the cranks and hobbyists (no, I don't mean YOU!!!!)

I took it upon myself to start deleting the minor party candidates and rearranging the rest. McMullin received a half million votes and Castle just over 100 thousand. According to the Green papers, none of the rest got anywhere NEAR that close, and a few didn't even make it past the thousand mark. So....

So we should have a chart showing all the national vote totals for everyone who hasn't made the cut, then put all the other information on the "third party and independent page" It's a good way to start... Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Candidates who were on the ballot in any state should be included in some fashion. I would leave the "other third parties and independents" table listing them. Their results can be combined as "others". Bcharles (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a note here, but the Independent and Libertarian color schemes change from one section to the next. The Libertarian party has always used gold as a primary color, yet is swapped orange later in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.244.162.182 (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Projected total electoral votes will be 306, not 289

Currently Trump has 279. Arizona and Michigan were not called yet. They have 11 and 16 ev respectively. Trump is leading there by 80,000 and 15, 000 respectively. Trump's projected win will be with 306 electoral votes, not 289. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orly taitz (talk • contribs) 15:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The sources haven't called it in his yet, we have to wait for them. 61.0.200.255 (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

All Nebraska Districts have been called for Trump, at least by some sources, so he should have 290 now. Also, according to the map, Minnesota has been called for Hillary so she should have 228. Still waiting on Michigan and New Hampshire. Smartyllama (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@GoingBatty, AllSportsfan16, Smartyllama, Der Eberswalder, Lukepryke, Newfraferz87, Brythones, Crazyseiko, Kiril Simeonovski, Kidsankyran, Spartan7W, Keivan.f, CyberXRef, GoodDay, Dr Aus, Orly taitz, and 61.0.200.255: AZ, MI and NH have not been called by NBC, NYT, nor POlITICO. There will likely be recounts that will take a few weeks to complete. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we should not include these states in the electoral vote for either candidate till resolved. Bcharles (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I think that might get from a recount.

Confirmed, Trump has 306 electoral votes. Please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.80.207 (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Automatic recounts are triggered by state law, usually when there is a difference between candidates of 0.5% or less. Otherwise, a recount has to be initiated (and paid for) by the losing candidate. Neither is happening in this election because the margin of victory of each candidate is more than 1% in each state.

Trump picture change proposal

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

I'd prefer this photo over the current photo. CatcherStorm ^talk 16:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

This one looks a little sketch, I prefer the current one but only have slight preference. Adwctamia (talk) 18:10, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Less vote for winning candidate

It seems Donald Trump is one of the few Presidents who won despite getting less vote than the losing candidate. This fact should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.220.16.62 (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

List of United States presidential elections where winner lost popular vote. -- ToE 18:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

It is. American In Brazil (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request at 18:11 on 9 November 2016

"No third party or independent candidate carried a state in the 2016 presidential election, nor have any of them done so since 1968."

Please change this to

"No third-party or independent candidate carried a state in the 2016 presidential election; none has done so since 1968."

Even if you don't do all of this change, please add a hyphen to make "third party" into "third-party," because it's a compound adjective; if you left out the independents, it would be "third-party candidate," not "third party candidate."

208.95.51.72 (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm unable to find the text for this in the current revision — Andy W. (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Rogue Washington Electors

I remember hearing reports two electors from Washington refused to vote for Clinton, http://www.seattletimes.com/seattle-news/politics/can-states-democratic-electors-go-rogue-and-deny-clinton-their-vote/

Should we add this somewhere?Archer Rafferty (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Archer Rafferty

Not until the electoral college officially casts its votes, which I believe is December 19. Anything before then is WP:CRYSTAL to say what they will or won't do. Smartyllama (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The above reference says that there is one Washington state representative and Democratic elector who has stated he will not vote for Hillary. He is a native American and has stated that Hillary did not oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline and therefore he refuses to support her. But I agree we should wait until the electoral votes are cast and read by the vice-president in the presence of the full Congress on December 19 before we report on the final electoral college vote. This election has been strange enough that maybe he will change his mind or maybe there will be another elector who joins him (the reference above says there is another Washington elector who may not vote for Hillary). American In Brazil (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Pre-election infobox threads archived

I am about to move the threads on pre-election infobox inclusion into /Archive 13, so that they will all be in one place and can be easily consulted for future discussions. I don't know if there is desire to revisit this in the short term to create a basis for consensus in the next cycle, but I suggest that future discussions should occur at Talk:United States presidential election, 2020 since they are no longer relevant to this article.

In case somebody complains, I'd like to point out that the talk page guidelines state: "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." We are currently over 340 KB for this talk page, with 78 sections or subsections. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Extra note: if an admin was planning to "close" the discussions they still can, but it will be easier to do so now that they are all in one spot. Half of them had already been archived by the bot and were mixed in with other threads in Archive 12; I moved all of them to Archive 13 in the same order they were on this page. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 21:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Presidents born in 1946

The lead mentions that, "Along with Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Trump was born in 1946; this is the first time a single birth year has produced three presidents". Per WP:UNDUE, I don't think that should be in the lead. It's not crucial information, or one of the most important facts about the election. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not for here, exactly -- but it is relevant that three presidents were born in the first baby boomer year. - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It certainly doesn't belong in the lede of any article. Right now it has found a place with several other presidential trivia paragraphs, which seems a good place for it -- although I'm not sure that presidential trivia belongs in this article at all. Most of the trivia facts in this section (including the 1946 birthdate) are not election trivia facts -- they are merely presidential trivia facts. — Lawrence King ^(talk) 00:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Lawrence. MB298 (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox: Elected President or President-elect?

Howdy. I'm trying to match the bottom of the infobox using Elected President, in order to match with the infoboxes of the other United States presidential election, year articles. Yet somebody has reverted my edit back to President-elect. Why the resistance to consistency? GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Answer here. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump will continue to be President-elect after EV votes. President-elect means Elected President. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Seeking views from others:

• Shall we use President-elect or Elected President, at the bottom of the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
  • "President-elect" would appear to be more-or-less the official title: President-elect of the United States. clpo13_(talk) 00:25, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The reason why I think it should be Elected President, is that it's being used in all the other United States presidential election articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• • • It should read president-elect until he is sworn in, then changed to elected president. 142.161.93.186 (talk) 03:29, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

See President-elect of the United States. I can't account for those other articles, but the correct title for someone elected to be POTUS who has not yet taken office is President-elect. They cease being President-elect and become President when they are inaugurated. "Elected President" is what every President becomes, at any time after their election, both before and after they take office. It does not express the temporary nature of the office and their very limited powers prior to inauguration. Also see Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which uses the term (which has since come to be written with a hyphen), and 18 U.S. Code § 3056 - Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Secret Service for an example of how the President-elect is referred to in Federal regulations. The idea of the posttitle field (which is the field at issue) of Infobox election is "Title of the victor of the election (President-elect, Prime Minister-designate...), only if different than before." per Template:Infobox election. Please note the examples given. General Ization ^Talk 04:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I know all about that stuff, I'm speaking of consistency. See the articles United States presidential election, 2012, United States presidential election, 2008, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and it is possible to be consistently wrong; that doesn't make it right. The other articles should be changed, not this one. General Ization ^Talk 04:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

That would include all the infoboxes of the Senate & Governors elections (which are using Elected Senator & Elected Governor, instead of Senator-elect & Governor-elect), too. Would be a lot easier to just change this infobox here, to match the rest. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It might be easier, but you did not ask what would be easier. You asked what would be correct. General Ization ^Talk 04:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Well then, let's change to Elected President for this article, in order to match it with the others. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Please don't ask for consensus and then resolve to ignore it if it isn't what you thought it was going to be. The consensus is clear above, though you can wait for additional comments if you want more input. You should not reassert your preferred version after asking for consensus because you think it is "easier" than the version advocated by consensus. General Ization ^Talk 04:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

There's no hurry. Just don't understand why this one article should be singled out. Anyways, we'll shall let others weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the "one" article currently receiving the most page views of the ones you mention; hence we should take extra care to make sure it is correct. General Ization ^Talk 04:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Adding two more cents here - The other presidential elections articles probably say 'Elected President' because the person who won that election has already been sworn in as President. Since Donald Trump has not been sworn in yet, he is still President-Elect. Once he has been sworn in, the article should be updated to Elected President. Temporary inconsistency is fine as long as it is for a reason, such as maintaining accuracy. Besides, if the other articles followed this pattern of using President-Elect until after the person was sworn in, then we are being consistent. jmcgowan2 (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Just to point out 'again', we've got Elected Governor & Elected Senator for those 2016 election articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"President-elect" is the correct term between being elected and taking the oath of office on January 20. This is the term used by all the media. Thereafter, it is simply "President". The President-elect has no powers of office until he is sworn in, of course. American In Brazil (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Technically, the correct term is projected president-elect because he hasn't been elected, only electors have been elected. Given the current state of affairs it is entirely possible that, come December 19th, a couple of dozens electors could possibly switch and Clinton would be president-elect. It has happened before. Until December 19th (at the earliest), there is no president-elect. That being said, almost every news organization uses the (inaccurate) term president-elect as soon as the outcome of the general election is known. (But we don't have to do it the "wrong" way just because everyone else does.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Although there have been a few faithless electors in U.S. history, no election has been changed by them. Since Trump received 306 electoral votes, it would require 37 electors to change their votes to Hillary. On the contrary, two electors from Washington state (which Hillary won) have said they will not vote for Hillary. Then she would need 39 of Trump's electors. It just ain't gonna happen. American In Brazil (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

• @Sparki82: That's not what President-elect of the United States says. The first sentence says that president-elect is the title used between Election Day and Inauguration Day. No mention of "projected" president-elect. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The correct terms are "President-elect" between election day and inauguration, then "President" after inauguration. Thereafter, even after leaving office, an ex-President is called "President" (President [Bill] Clinton, Presidents Bush, President Carter, etc.). American In Brazil (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I put in (Projected) Elected President, as a compromise. To better bring this article's infobox in line with the other 57 articles. Trump will (which I'm not disputing) continue to use the title President-elect up 'til he takes office January 20, 2017. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I want to know how many votes the third party and Independent Candidates got?

I know it's one day latter but how can it take so long for that to be counted?--JaredMithrandir (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot of absentee ballots to be counted. And then, in counties where the result is close, usually the county election officials will do a second count before certifying the result to the state Secretary of State. And then there are always a few precincts where voting machines failed and paper ballots had to be used and must be counted by hand. More than 125 million votes were cast. Patience. American In Brazil (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Major Third Parties section needs to be trimmed or removed entirely

It's possible that "Major Third Parties" might include the Libertarian Party and the Green Party, only because these are the only two that received any significant press coverage. They also received roughly 2% of the popular vote on a national scale. Any other third parties are nowhere close to "major". They received few votes, and extremely small percentages. By listing them here (and including their logos with the same size and such), we are actually unbalancing the article by providing undue weight. Hires an editor (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm totally agree. Ali 22:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Evan McMullin is an exception. He received 20% of the vote in Utah. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 22:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd say include Johnson, Stein, and McMullin. All other minor candidates combined account for less than Johnson's popular vote total. McMullin's good showings in Utah and Idaho (plus the fact that he actually got press coverage before that) are reason enough to include him, but everyone below him is statistical noise. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with the idea of removing it. Johnson and Stein must remain, but I also believe that McMullin is worthy of remaining due to his significance in Utah. The statement that "They also received roughly 2% of the popular vote on a national scale" is simply incorrect. The third party candidates received 6% in 2016 while in 2012 they only received 1% and both Johnson and Stein have been in the national polls. Both candidates were capable of winning through ballot access and Johnson had access in all 50 states plus DC. When compared to previous elections, this is significant. Third party candidates received over 6,000,000 votes this election, there is not an argument to completely remove all third party candidates. Perhaps some of them are less significant such as La Riva, but removing Johnson and Stein would only remove relevant information. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

He's the 5th not the 4th

All the presidents stated are correct, but Grorge W Bush was the 4th president to win the 270 electoral votes and loose the popular vote to Democrat candidate Al Gore. This happened in 2000. This making Trump the 5th president to win the electoral college but loose the popular vote. Historicalaccuracy (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

One only needed 270 to get elected, starting with the 1964 US prez election. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

At this point the popular vote is final. The statement that this is the 5th time in U.S. history that the electoral vote winner lost the popular vote is correct. See WP: Presidential elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. American In Brazil (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump victory was considered unlikely

I tried to add this statement:

The Trump victory, considered unlikely by most pre-election forecasts, was characterized as an 'upset' and as 'shocking' by the media.

But it was reverted by UNSC Luke 1021, with edit summary saying that this is too opinion-based, but he's open to discussion. In my opinion, the fact that forecast considered the victory unlikely, and the fact that media consider it shocking are facts. It would be "matter of opinion" if the statement say "this victory is shocking" without any qualification, but I'm just stating how the media forecasted and reacted to the election. Also, I think it is encyclopedic enough to mention here as context. Imagine someone not familar with the US politics, or someone from the future reading this, the fact that the election result was very surprising is one of the key features in understanding this election. What do people think about this? HaEr48 (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

That sentence is very reasonable, and it is also true. I support reinserting it. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

The statement has been cited to some very reliable sources, and I agree that the shock of Trump's victory is an important aspect of the election. I think that the language could be placed in a better location, but it should go in. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I just believed that it is more opinionated than factual. If the general consensus is to readd it, I won't object. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It's not opinionated because most polls, analysts, "political insiders", etc. really predicted that Clinton would win easily, and I have seen many reliable, neutral sources talking about this. See these for example:[4][5][6][7] --1990'sguy (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

References

I support including this - with sources such as the above. Before the election a number of editors strongly pursued adding material to the forecasting section to say that all polls and models gave Mrs. Clinton a strong lead - which was true enough. The statement that Trump's victory was considered unlikely is just the same thing written the other way around in light of the actual results. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I support keeping in substantial documentation of all the polls and pundits who predicted a Hillary win and then were shocked by a Donald win. This was a major aspect of the campaigns. But of course any statements to that effect must be reliably sourced and there are numerous sources. American In Brazil (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Dec. 19 electoral college vote

Will the electors vote on December 19? I read sources saying a possibility before the Election Day, but sources afterwards seem rare: [8][9][10]. --George Ho (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

• From the last source you provided: "Whether or not Satiacum follows through on his claim won’t be known until electors cast their ballots on Dec. 19". Prcc27🎃 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

By operation of the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the electors meet in their respective States, vote and certify their ballots. These are forwarded to the President of the Senate (the Vice-President of the U.S.) who opens, tallies and reads out loud the electoral college vote count in the presence of the full Congress. By law, this is on December 19. At this point, that is just a formality. American In Brazil (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

From what I know, that won't be the case.

Fix results table

The results table is inaccurate. For example, Gary Johnson received 6% in North Dakota, but the table shows him with 1%. MB298 (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Undue emphasis

The huge section on all these random candidates who happened to get enough ballot access should be condensed into a list format, with the ballot access maps removed. It was fine during the election, but now that the results are known, and their influence on the election is known it should be reassessed. I couldn't readily find a detailed list of total votes for each candidate, perhaps someone could locate a website that provides the results for all candidates nationally, but the total, including Darrell Castle (not necessarily suggesting his section condensed), of all candidates besides Trump, Clinton, Johnson and Stein equals only 0.7%. My guess is that the total vote for some of the candidates featured prominently in this article received a tenth of a percentage or less, which shouldn't merit such prominence. Calibrador (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Here are the vote totals of the candidates, according to here:

• Donald Trump: 59,730,214, 47.49%
• Hillary Clinton: 59,939,033, 47.65%
• Gary Johnson: 4,066,846, 3.23%
• Jill Stein: 1,215,650, 0.97%
• Evan McMullin, 444,065, 0.35%
• Darrell Castle: 176,550, 0.14%
• Rocky De La Fuente, 31,775, 0.03%
• Laurence Kotlikoff, 1,861, 0.00%
• Tom Hoefling, 2,662, 0.00%
• Mike Maturen, 1,440, 0.00%

As far as I know, this doesn't include write in votes, but if the total votes for when they are actually on the ballot is so minute, I highly doubt the vote total gets some of the ones towards the bottom to even 0.01%. As of now, all of these candidates have exactly the same prominence in the article. If anything, it creates confusion among article observers, when they see these fringe (in some instances perennial) candidates listed with the exact same level of emphasis on the election as candidates who received millions to several hundred thousand votes. Out of 125 million votes cast, getting 1,440 votes doesn't merit significant mention. Calibrador (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the above. I added numbers for McMullin from Fox News and from the Constitution Party from US election atlas. Otto (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I would return Kotlikoff, Hoefling and Maturen to the "other third parties and independents" table. Leaving McMullin, Castle, and De La Fuente as "other candidates of note". Bcharles (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

McMullin and Castle would be fine, but De La Fuente had just as little impact as the others that received 0.00%. Calibrador (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's have consistent standards; the 2012 article includes the votes for a ticket that only won 0.006% of the popular vote. De La Fuente's 0.03% is much greater than 0.006%. For that reason, De La Fuente's votes should be included. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2016

The table titled "Results by state" is copied in large part from the 2012 Presidential Election results (in Wikipedia) and it should be either removed altogether or else marked clearly with a notification that the data are largely incorrect and copied from 2012 (ideally, data that are not known should be set to zero until somebody can fill them in.)

I've compared the two sets of numbers and about 75% of the states show the exact same net Democratic & Republican vote counts as in 2012 (Wikipedia page) - certainly not possible.

72.199.83.238 (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Gary Johnson in the main box.

Gary Johnson may have only received 3.2% of the national vote, but it is the responsibility of Wikipedia as an open-source encyclopedia to represent candidates that did in fact change the election in a major way (Gary Johnson's overall percentages in Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania- the most contested battleground states this year that ultimately decided the election- would have been won by Hillary Clinton had Gary Johnson not done as well as he did).

Along with this, I would suggest amending previous election pages to show major third party candidates that radically changed the vote as well (Ralph Nader in 2000, for example). But this is a start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:320A:A780:15E2:E3A7:CF88:8233 (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

5% is the threshold, and I support that threshold. Calibrador (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

5% is completely arbitrary and was proven this election cycle not to matter, as there were multiple state upsets akin to Ralph Nader's run in 2000 this year as well, to almost an even greater extent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:320A:A780:15E2:E3A7:CF88:8233 (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

What source or evidence is there that Johnsons votes would have gone to Clinton and not to Trump, had Johnson not be a candidate? --Gerrit ^CUTEDH 15:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the same situation as Ralph Nader in 2000, which is universally saw as having been the reason Al Gore lost. Most sources will be from what voters claimed themselves from boards on reddit and through social media outlets. Many bernout voters were split between HRC, Trump, and Johnson, but ultimately that 18% or so (according to bernouts themselves, will cite where I'm reading this) seems to have been what delivered Florida and Michigan to Donald Trump, considering in any normal election former supporters of a Democratic candidate would flock to the one that was nominated. As I said before as well: As the only open-source encyclopedia on the Internet that receives as much support and views as Wikipedia, we have a responsibility to provide the world with an accurate view of important candidates in an election front-and-center. Consider that many people still contest the results in 2000 and do not know about Ralph Nader's involvement. I believe setting a new standard by which we determine which candidates appear in the info box needs to be set. I would say it should be any candidate that has been given major mainstream and social media coverage and notoriety, as well as polling at least 1.00% of the national vote. Here are my sources, and bare in mind that the 18% seems to match up with the national polling from bernouts. Later on I will research what bernout numbers were in May, and adjust them to split them three ways to see if they gave Johnson the apparent boost he had.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Enough_Sanders_Spam/comments/5c4l2r/despite_the_gloating_bernie_bros_they_are_the/ http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:320A:A780:15E2:E3A7:CF88:8233 (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Reddit is a reliable source and can be cited in the article, but the New York Times is just a pro-Clinton opinion publication which does not meet wikipedia's reliable source criteria. 71.182.237.111 (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. While we cannot confirm that Johnson tipped the election to Trump, his voter share was well within the margin to do so in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. If Clinton won those states, she could have won the election. 128.189.147.31 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

In 1992, many people said the same thing about H. Ross Perot taking votes from George H.W. Bush and giving the election to Bill Clinton. This was found to be not true by the exit polling data. It showed that he siphoned votes from both Bush and Bill Clinton about equally in all states. Perot did not affect the election and he got a helluva lot more votes than Gary Johnson did. The exit poll data is the only way to formulate any kind of reasonable analysis. Everything else is just someones guess or even excuse for their candidate losing. If anyone thinks that voters that chose Johnson (I was one) would vote for Hillary Clinton instead they are badly mistaken. Libertarian ideals are closer to Republican ideals than to those of the Democratic Party.Bbigjohnson (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I also voted for Johnson, but I'm not a Libertarian idealist and neither is Johnson. Either way, we have a strong civic duty to include Mr. Johnson despite his 4% threshold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:81 (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@2602:306:320A:A780:15E2:E3A7:CF88:8233, 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:81, and 128.189.147.31: It was decided for all presidential elections that the minimum threshold for infobox inclusion was for candidates to receive at least 5% of the national popular vote or one earned electoral vote. At this time, it does not seem that /* Gary Johnson in the main box. */ Johnson received 5% of the vote or earned an electoral vote, so he does not meet the threshold for inclusion. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 22:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

As I stated, 5% is completely arbitrary besides being a threshold for receiving federal funding. Consider the implications of including Gary Johnson in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:320A:A780:F1F8:F29C:25D3:1ADA (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@2602:306:320A:A780:F1F8:F29C:25D3:1ADA: The definition of "arbitrary" is, "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system" (Google). It was decided through consensus, not random choice or personal whim, that 5% of the national popular vote or one earned electoral vote shall be the threshold for infobox inclusion. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 01:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep Johnson out. It's WP:UNDUE weight for his candidacy. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Keep Johnson out. There has to be a hard pass/fail limit for including third-party candidates by vote percentage, because if you allow one candidate based on arbitrarily almost meeting the hard limit, the next guy comes along and says that his favorite almost meets the limit that is actually in use and ought to be included too. That would make for a huge mess and constant argumentation such as actually was seen in this article prior to the election. The 5% standard is used in other election articles and ought to be universal, and Johnson fails it. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not so certain that if the Libertarian Party had not been on the ballot Hillary would have picked up those votes in battleground states. Johnson was the Republican Governor of New Mexico and his running mate, Bill Weld, was the Republican Governor of Massachusetts. It could just as easily have been that Donald would have gotten most of those votes. Rather than speculating on "what might have been if only..." let us state what was and leave it at that. That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. American In Brazil (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• This is a perennial topic of discussion on the presidential election talk pages. The criteria has been for some time now that a candidate needs at least 5% of the popular vote nationwide, or at least one electoral vote (excluding faithless electors). But remember that WP:weight (in the case of candidates) is determined by awareness and amount of media coverage, not by electoral popularity. Since there have been candidates who attract considerable media attention and therefore have significant weight (e.g. Nader in 2000), yet don't necessarily meet the current criteria for inclusion, perhaps the existing criteria should be revisited. But it certainly should not be reviewed in the context of a specific candidate(s), as this discussion is. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The media barely covered the Johnson-Weld ticket & they don't meet the inclusion criteria here (5% of popular vote, or a faithful electoral vote), so the answer is no to inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

If we leave out the Johnson/Weld vote, it will be obvious that the vote count for Trump and Clinton does not add up to 100%, - by over 4%. Readers will be left in the dark about where the rest of the votes went. Therefore, we must include at least the Libertarian Party vote totals. They will be included in the history books, so they must be included in WP.

Duplicate results to 2012 election

It appears that several entries in the Results by State spreadsheet are duplicates of the 2012 election. What's going on? Dr. Morbius (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

link to post-election protests

Please change this link:

Further information: Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 § November_2

to this:

Further information: Protests of the Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016 § Post-election

to more accurately link to the post-election protests. Wikipedem (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Turnout inconsistancy

The turnout figure shows an increase of 0.7 percentage points from 2012. However, that is because the 2012 article uses a source that calculates turnout as the percent of the voting-age population, and the 2016 article uses a source that calculates turnout based on the voting-eligible population. Wikipedia should choose one basis and stick to it. 24.136.6.128 (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Of the top of my head, VEP sounds more interesting than VAP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

When Voter turnout is mention the figure used is percentage of registered voters.Bbigjohnson (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Using registered voters values, would swing up the turnout percentage. Are you sure ? Robertiki (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You can't vote if you're not registered. It should be percentage of registered voters. American In Brazil (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the better measure is, you cannot compare percentages with different bases. Turnout actually declined from 2012. I think that is the important point. Engine61 (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Use the same method for all elections. Showing the turnout number 3 points higher in 2016 than 2012 when the vote count is down by over a million votes seems wrong. Derekt75 (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not give both figures - percentage of eligible voters and percentage of registered voters? American In Brazil (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump projected to win popular vote

The statements on this page are premature. CNN has updated their projection and are now saying Trump is likely to win the popular vote. see http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president

--CyberXRef^☎ 14:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep! Let's see.

At the very least this page needs some sort of disclaimer on the current numbers "59,692,974" and "59,923,027" --- these will not be the final vote counts! --Nanite (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thus far only ~130M votes have been counted, there are still ~10M left --Nanite (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Very interesting. The percentage of the population voting, will go up as well. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I just looked and it has Clinton ahead. It could be we have to wait to know for sure. TFD (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It might be best, to hide the popular vote totals in the infobox, until a final tally is reached. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No. The "final" tally will only be released once the Federal Election Commission releases its Election Results Report, and that's probably going to be in the next year. In the past years we've updated the results live, and I don't think this year should be the exception. --yeah_93 (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

in 2012 it took over a month just to get close to the final result, I just think it should be bold until at point, because alot of people are jumping the gun. --Crazyseiko (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

While I agree in principle that we should hold off on definitely saying Hilary won popular vote, the CNN page has been misinterpreted. The chart on the popular vote says trump is projected to win the election, not the popular vote. The way the graph is designed is apparently flawed. This is according to CNN's Tom Kludt on his twitter account where he say's CNN is not projecting trump to win the popular vote. annoynmous 22:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

CyberXRef, you said, "CNN has updated their projection and are now saying Trump is likely to win the popular vote." CNN is saying no such thing, nor does your source. Please provide a quote from your source where it says that. Actually, the CNN video at http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/ says, "Secretary Clinton will likely win the popular vote for president." Clinton took over the popular lead vote on the morning of November 9, and it has continued growing since then. Currently, her lead is over 389,000 votes. See http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/election-center/ or your own source http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president for the current tally. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

No, she definitively won the popular vote, her margin currently at around 631 thousand and getting wider. Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Fix needs made to Nebraska in Electoral College SVG

Hillary did win one of Nebraska's five electoral votes.[11] (Nebraska and Maine are the only two states which cede their electoral votes to the legislative districts.)

I was hoping someone who is good at editing the SVG could change it to reflect this. The last time this happened was in 2008... I think just a "1" in a blue circle, as seen here, would be sufficient. --OrbitHawk (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump won all 5 of Nebraska's electoral votes (2 for winning the statewide vote, plus 1 for each of the 3 congressional districts). Re-read your own source. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

New Hampshire projection

Why is New Hampshire marked as red on the map if it's been projected to be in favour of Clinton?--Adûnâi (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It's blue. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not New Hampshire, that's Maine's second district. Mr. Anon515 18:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

lol Mannydantyla (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Minimizing or Limiting Third Party Candidate Info

I believe that there is too much third party candidate information that is somewhat irrelevant and makes the article much longer than it really needs to be. Maybe create a new article for 2016 third party candidates and provide a link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polly7423 (talk • contribs) 21:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Not necessary, the 'third party' info in this article will gradually be decreased. WP:RECENTISM is common in situations like this. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, that was what I was hoping for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polly7423 (talk • contribs) 21:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe that third party participation is just as important as the second party, and primary candidates. They are not the victors, but represent undercurrents of the political flow. Bcharles (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump the first Republican to win/not win these states...

In the Outcome section, should include a statement about noteworthy/unusual wins and losses for Trump. e.g. "Trump is the first Republican candidate to win the states of Pennsylvania and Michigan since 1988, and the first to win Wisconsin since 1984. He the first Republican since World War 2 to win a presidential election without winning Virginia, Colorado, or Nevada". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDMConnell (talk • contribs) 23:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

There wasn't a Republican President during WWII. Do you mean since Eisenhower? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.184.147 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox and gray states

Possibly this got lost in a previous edit, but neither the electoral map nor the text explains why three states remain in gray. The infobox text explains red and blue states only. Maybe something like this: "Gray denotes states which will have recounts or whose votes are under current investigation." (I assume that is the reason Arizona is gray?) Or maybe, simply, "Gray denotes states where the outcome is not yet final." - Tenebris 66.11.171.90 (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Added note explaining grey. Bcharles (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016

AP Projects Donald Trump takes AZ. 24.63.220.205 (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Read the template: "This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y"." 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

We don't rush to update states with the first source to call them, but most sources have now called AZ, so it has been updated. Bcharles (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Newsweek

Before the election, Newsweek sent bookstores advance printed copies of its magazine declaring Hillary the winner, but no such advance printed copies declaring Trump the winner.

"Topix made a business decision to only print the Clinton version ahead of time given that she is almost universally favored to win the election on Tuesday."

Source: http://money.cnn.com/2016/11/07/media/newsweek-hillary-clinton-cover/ 71.182.237.111 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

This story has gotten some coverage since the election, but part of that coverage was conspiracy-mongering about the election being "fixed" (I guess the fix was broken). If it continues to get discussed the way the famous "Dewey Defeats Truman" story was, then it should be covered here. If the story has no legs, it shouldn't be. Right now, I would guess it's undue weight. It is a funny story, though. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) The quote you provided says it all. Are you aware of "DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN" (https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/2/28/Deweytruman12.jpg)? 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 03:54, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Now the question is: would a picture of the magazine (I have a copy, BTW and can scan the cover if you want) violate copyright and thus be impossible to place here? Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

New York vs New York (state)

Why are we linking New York twice, in the home state section & why are we pipe-linking to a redirect? -- GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it is because of Talk:New York#Proposed action to resolve incorrect incoming links. Thincat (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the explanation. I had "fixed" the links and will need to re-redirect them next time i edit the infobox (if someone else doesn't beat me to it). Bcharles (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm glad you understood the explanation because, although I linked to it, I had no idea what was going on over there! Thincat (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Popular Vote

General question, so please correct me if I'm wrong and excuse my ignorance. But whats the purpose of tallying the popular vote? My understanding is that it has no bearing on the election results and the US Electoral College doesn't even have an official metric for total popular vote. So whats the point because all it seems to do is cause confusion with groups of people on the veracity of the winner. Thanks in advance for clarifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.142.95.12 (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

We put information into the article based on what reliable sources choose to report per "Balancing aspects." Popular vote is relevant because it shows whether the election was close. Had Clinton won 1% more of the vote for example, she would have won. People reading about elections are normally interested in how close elections were, which in turn helps explain how attractive candidates were, and how successful each side was in its approach. TFD (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

and it just shows how Democracy is an ass Govindaharihari (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually it shows how democratic/undemocratic the American system really is. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Not only the American version, all democratic systems that I am aware of are severely flawed.Govindaharihari (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• User:The Four Deuces , hi there, your statement that Had Clinton won 1% more of the vote for example, she would have won where would she have had to do that to win the election, or what would she have won? I tried to get a link to support your claim but couldn't find anything, could you provide a link, if your claim is correct that should be reported in the article, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • See Nate Silver's article.[12] TFD (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Obama won florida from Romney in 2012 by 0.9 percent http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/states/florida - Trump beat Hillary by 1.3 percent http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/florida - its just how it is and has been also previously, it's obtuse imho to claim if this or this had happened and to bother reporting it. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
    • You can also report that Trump beat Hillary in Florida in 2016 by 33 percent more than Obama beat Romney in 2012. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Gov - "...all democratic systems that I am aware of are severely flawed." Winston Churchill - "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others." American In Brazil (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

the popular vote winner did not become president

Technically, isn't this point not relevant until January? Neither candidate has already become president. Shouldn't it say 2016 was the fifth election in which the popular vote winner did win the election or 2016 was the fifth election in which the popular vote winner did not win the electoral vote? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not even technically true. There was no popular vote prior to 1820: (a) state legislatures in a majority of states elected Electors, there was no public ballot for Electors, (b) in states in which there was a public ballot voters chose from undifferentiated candidate lists, not a single candidate. It's, therefore, not possible to say - for instance - "Thomas Jefferson won the popular vote" as there was no popular vote to win. I've added exhaustive sources explaining this. While the sources have been maintained in the article, this important historical content has been repeatedly stripped-out. We need to be sure we clarify that the popular vote leader has lost the Electoral vote five times since there have been popular votes to calculate, not five times overall. LavaBaron (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure the fact that Thomas Jefferson didn't win the popular vote because no popular vote took place needs to be clarified in the lead of this article (maybe just add "since the United States presidency started to be decided by a public ballot"?), but until January we definitely shouldn't be saying that "Trump became the president" (or implying the same by saying that Hillary, as opposed to Trump, didn't become the president). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

"since the United States presidency started to be decided by a public ballot"? The US presidency isn't decided by a public ballot, it never has been, and without a constitutional change it will not be. The US presidency is decided by the EC. I'm not saying if it should or shouldn't be, just what is. The EC is now appointed by public ballot in each state, but the presidency is not decided by public ballot. In fact the entire conversation about the "popular vote" is very deceptive and misleading, because we could expect voting patterns to be different if there was a popular vote, but there isn't. This is like talking about a baseball team (because we love baseball analogies) that lost even though they had the most bunts. While this might be an interesting fact, it's deceptive to present it like it actually matters to the outcome of the game. And if bunts became a metric for winning a baseball game, I'm sure we'd see different stats regarding bunts. (Just to save the trouble of someone looking up my IP and calling me a Puttin troll, no I'm an expat.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.91.175 (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

In truth the US presidential election, is really 50 elections. Winning the popular vote on a state-by-state basis (thus the states electoral votes), gets the White House :) GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

"51 elections"* That is my point exactly, it is 51 unequally weighted elections so it's just wrong to talk about an unweighed popular vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.91.175 (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

None actually became the president here, though, either.Ramires451 (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Gun control referendums article

This isn't directly related but will find most attention here. Gun control referendums were held in 4 US states on election day, they were passed in 3 states. They have been covered in the media and I think they are notable and impactful enough to have their own article. I hope someone can create it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.91.89.63 (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems like the wrong article for that, perhaps https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_United_States PackMecEng (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding the text statement "Johnson won 4 million votes"

This may be accurate, but it is not proven by the citation provided:

https://www.lp.org/2016-presidential-ballot-access-map

The cited page shows only a map indicating that the Libertarian Party's Johnson and Weld were listed on the ballot in all fifty states. True, but not relevant. The following would seem to be a more relevant citation, indicating that the Johnson-Weld ticket received 4,089,727 votes, making up 3.24% of the total as of this date.

http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G16/President-Details.phtml?v=c&p=LBTN

NicholasNotabene (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Results

The result summary in the lead/infobox don't match the detailed results in the article's main body (the lead however seems more recent and better sourced)--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The popular vote keeps changing (for whatever reason) and the detailed results in the article's main body continue to differ from the lead/infobox.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Vote counting and confirming will continue for several weeks. Thus the results will continue to be updated periodically. The note at the top of the article alerts readers to this issue. Bcharles (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I understand that, but in such cases the whole article should be updated, so that article internally is consistent/insync.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Where are 20 electoral votes?

This might be a bit of a naive question, but the electoral votes for both of candidates (290 and 228) only add up 518 votes, and not to the 538 total available. Which state(s) have yet to declare who the remaining 20 votes go to? (It might be helpful to add this little piece of information to the front matter of the article.) Thanks. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 18:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Arjun G. Menon: Michigan and New Hampshire. Michigan is expected to go to Trump and New Hampshire to Clinton. MB298 (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Are they not counted by now? http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan says 100% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.98.130.215 (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

They are going through provisional ballots I think, probably a few days for Michigan and New Hampshire. It is unlikely to change much with the margins they currently have, but we have to wait and see what the final numbers are. PackMecEng (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The grey states on the map should make this clear. It is a temporary issue in any case. Bcharles (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Probably not – it's absolutely possible, but I just don't think it will come out laterally.

Muslim Votes??

Is it possible to find the percentage of Muslim voters in the 2016 U.S. Election; and add them to the religion demographic? I am just wondering because of what many of them would have thought and/or voted due to President-Elect Trump's stance on Muslims immigrating to the U.S. Thanks! Samuel.farrell31 (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a section for other religions, I'm guessing Muslim votes are included in that. But can't seem to find source on internet for specifically Muslim votes, I'll try to find it if I can. 117.199.88.111 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The percentage of Muslim voters is about 1%, too small for general population polls to separate out significant results. A poll specifically targeting Muslims or communities where their represent a higher percentage would help. Anecdotal reports from Muslims show that they span the political spectrum supporting a variety of political options. Bcharles (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay thanks for the help, I just thought it would be interesting because of Trump's stance on Muslim immigration. Samuel.farrell31 (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Information on swing states

The article states that,

"Trump's relatively poor polling in some traditionally Republican states, such as Utah, has raised the possibility they could vote for Clinton, despite easy wins there by recent Republican nominees. Many analysts have asserted that Utah is not a viable Democratic destination. However recent polling has shown a surge for Evan McMullin there and a collapse of Trump's support following the Access Hollywood tape scandal."

That needs to be rewritten, as it speaks about the election as an event that is still in the future. The comment about "recent" polling is obviously now outdated, for example. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016

TwistyKnobTank (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Maine split its electoral votes for the first time since 1828.

should be changed to "Maine split it's electoral votes for the first time"

the 1828 election was not a split, but rather a faithless elector.

TwistyKnobTank, the reference you provided says nothing of the sort. Indeed, I've been unable to find any sort of substantiating evidence for your claim. And even then, an argument could be made that the electoral vote itself is determined by the electors in the electoral college and not by the people. As such, I have not done it and will not until further input is provided. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 21:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Popular Vote numbers NOT listed

Why are vote numbers NOT listed or removed from this Wikipedia listing? Every other listing of prior presidential election has this, so why is this excluded/removed here? I am pretty sure it was listed yesterday when I checked. So can we put a lock on from removal of this IMPORTANT, VITAL, HISTORIC data showing a popular president through popular votes not being elected into office because of a rigged system against the majority? Percentage isn't good enough. How much Hillary won by is also very important. That is MY voice, and I will not let Wikipedia and its BIASED members silence it. 22:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It was probably 'temporarily' removed, because not all the votes have been tallied yet. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that, because then it would mean percentage points is also not complete, but was kept. Someone purposely removed it because of its implication. Please add it back in from the NYTimes results page used for percentage points. I cannot because the article is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The popular vote count was removed from the infobox because it was unsourced. It was then replaced, with appropriate sourcing. Please review Assume good faith. General Ization ^Talk 23:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It being temporary is not a good reason/excuse for its removal while other temporary data was not removed. I expect better from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchfan07 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It is being updated as the sources are updating. As noted above, the temporary removal was because it was not properly sourced. The sources were updated and put back up quickly. PackMecEng (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Contested statement

At the end of the lead section of the article: "It is the first election since 1928 where the Republican Party has won the Presidency and/or Vice Presidency without Richard Nixon or a member of the Bush family on the ticket." ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A25F:FB9A:4CB9:2FC6:C152:FDE5 (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The only Republican presidents since 1928 who were not themselves either Nixon or a Bush, Eisenhower and Reagan, each had Nixon or a Bush as their VP (Eisenhower the former and Reagan the latter). It would be nice if this statement was sourced, however.General Ization ^Talk 23:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It is trivia. Trivia of course is interesting, but unless it is widely spoken about, it does not belong in the lead. TFD (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I was just about to say this is way too trivial a way of slicing and dicing historical information. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I mean, that's just way too unimportant, this rest of the stuff. It can't be added just yet, but any historical sections don't make sense like that. with these methods, the White House could technically, belong to anyone – I know some people may like it that way, but it's just like saying that no Republicans have won since 1976 without Reagan, H.W. Bush, W. Bush, Trump, etc. at top of the ticket. Ramires451 (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2016

Please correct updated voting data in the "results" section, as reported by reliable sources such as the AP, WP, WSJ, CNN, etc. For example, go on pages for the Nevada statistics, at http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/new-hampshire. They're different from what's been reported on this page, which was last updated two days ago at that point for any of the lists. Thanks. Ramires451 (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Ramires451 (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Michigan

Somebody needs to update the electoral map to show Trump has won Michigan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mctaviix (talk • contribs) 03:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Not at this time, he hasn't. [13] General Ization ^Talk 03:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Has New Hampshire and Michigan votes been finalized yet? The problem is that the "projected electoral vote" in the template is not in agreement with the map showing the electoral votes. 70.26.84.232 (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC) http://www.teaparty.org/trump-makes-history-takes-michigan-gains-306-electoral-votes-win-historic-race-199032/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.174.139.140 (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Michigan has not been called, and will likely not be for days or weeks and the official tally is completed. The map and number should both indicate that MI and NH are undetermined until sources declare them. Bcharles (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is Michigan listed for Trump??? The page says he received 306 EV but all three citations for that claim say 290, with Michigan still undecided. Owen (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The 306 and 232 in the info box are listed as projected electoral vote. In the results section, there is a note saying they are projected as well. They should get updated when everything is finalized. PackMecEng (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Polling failure - suggest add these sources for section on Polling failure

---

Polling failure

Further information: Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016

The election ended in a victory for Donald Trump despite being behind in nearly all opinion polls. After the general election polling misfiring, media analysts differed as to why the opinion prediction industry was unable to correctly forecast the result. BBC News questioned whether polling should be abandoned due to its abject failure. Forbes magazine contributor astrophysicist Ethan Siegel performed a scientific analysis and raised whether the statistical population sampled for the polling was inaccurate, and cited the cautionary adage Garbage in, garbage out. He concluded there may have been sampling bias on the part of the pollsters. Siegel compared the 2016 election to the failure of prognosticator Arthur Henning in the Dewey Defeats Truman incident from the 1948 presidential election.

---

Suggest to add above as new section for the article.

Thank you ! 69.50.70.9 (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This could be incorporated into the section on forecasting, with some balance to maintain WP:NPOV. The swing states section could be merged into forecasting as well. Bcharles (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay that is a good idea, please update here when that's been done. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

But the 'opinion polls' seems to be correct as of right now. Hillary is indeed leading the Popular Vote count by about 600,000 votes as of this post, and is estimated to be in the lead by over 1% in terms of Popular Vote. Polling only takes into account of Popular Vote, not Elector Vote Count. It is not a failure in polling analysis, but a failure in truly democratic system that is at fault here which makes it impossible for the majority to voice an opinion and creates a faux representation of majority vote/support. For 'national' opinion polls, they seem to be correct as of right now.

No, the opinion polls were wrong. They were state-by-state and they were wrong in those states that flipped over. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they were wrong. And the U.S. does not base its elections on a "simple majority" - and for very good reasons. The electoral college is the chosen system, and it works very well.

Since when does opinion polls offer the same exact measure for each and every individual state? That would be absurd now, wouldn't it? To say that Hillary is leading Trump by the same margin in both Texas and New York for example. They are 'national polls' intended to predict who will win the popular vote because until now, except for 2000, popular vote also predicted the winner of the electoral college vote. From seeing the vote count so far, national polls have been accurate in that Hillary will win the popular vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchfan07 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. That's what polls are supposed to measure. I would recommend adding that section to the article on the presential election in Michigan. --Proud User (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Inconsistent Turnout Figures?

The figure of 57.6% for 2016 is a percentage of the voting eligible population (VEP). This is compared to the figure of 54.9% for 2012, but that's a percentage of the voting age population (VAP), same as the turnout figures Wikipedia gives for all elections prior to 2012. The first reference doesn't give an explicit VAP estimate for 2016, but we can calculate it from the same page, as 133,331,500/251,107,404, which is only 53.1%. Assuming the numbers don't change too much, this is a decrease from 2012. Do we need to wait until a source publishes an explicit VAP figure for 2016, or can we update the page right now with the more consistent figure of 53.1%? 73.70.240.208 (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not give both figures - percentage of eligible voters and percentage of registered voters? American In Brazil (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Voting Eligible Population gives a more accurate reflection of turnout. I would look to adjust the 2012 article to the % of VEP figure. You are correct that % of VAP should not be compared with % of VEP in a different year. Bcharles (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed the turnout percentage point difference, then thought why not just remove the turnout figure entirely. It's clearly going to shift around, and we can't get an accurate number yet. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 17:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Update popular vote totals in infobox

The current popular vote totals in the infobox should be updated. Per CBS News, CNN, FOX News, and NBC News, the current numbers are Clinton 60,828,358 and Trump 60,261,924. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I just updated the numbers using Fox News as source. Otto (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Vasyan174 reversed two numbers in the infobox (and not elsewhere in the article) without explanation. I reverse this edit because the numbers are outdated. Otto (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The article quotes in the infobox Associated Press. This site just updated and shows now the same numbers as CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC. I change the source in Fox News because it updates faster than AP and it is the only one which shows the aggregrate numbers of the main three other candidates (Johnson, Stein, McMullin). Otto (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some kind of hint that those numbers aren't final? They are the source of misinformation like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/5c5k4e/i_made_a_chart_showing_the_popular_vote_turnout/ --NoCultureIcons (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2016

Please change the popular vote figures for both candidates, Hillary Clinton's popular vote should be changed from 60,467,601 to 60,839,922 as of current, while Donald Trump's popular vote should be changed from 60,072,551 to 60,265,858. The source is the Google summary page for the US election, https://www.google.com/#q=us+election&eob=enn/p//0/0/////////// James L. B. (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Election result numbers will continue to change for several weeks. The numbers will be updated periodically, based on sources cited. As indicted in the not at the top of the article, information will not always be the most current. Bcharles (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Election results Source.

It appears that the popular vote in the election results infobox is sourcing a "projecting" number from a nice but minority opinion site called http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2016&off=0&elect=0&f=0

I think we should be reporting the counted number from the associated press. This number is consistent across all media sources I have seen from CNN, FOX, PBS, Google, etc. This is the consensus among almost every source I have seen. They update the results often, their last update was a few hours ago. I recommend we use that instead of a projected results from a minority source.

AP source API people are using: http://interactives.ap.org/2016/general-election/?SITE=APQA

PBS: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/2016-election-results/

FOX: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-election-headquarters

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/election

Gsonnenf (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

PBS is just as AP slow in updating the numbers. Both have Clinton at 60,839,922 while Fox, CNN, CBS and NBC all quote 60,981,118 for Clinton since several hours. Apart from that provides Fox News (as only source from those mentioned here) the numbers of three minor candidates. Otto (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Undefined abbreviation: LN

In this section, I surmise that "W: (date)" indicates the date the candidate withdrew, but what does "LN: (date)" represent? Should these be defined in a footnote? — soupvector (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't say for certain, since I wasn't the one who made it, but I think LN stands for "Lost Nomination." A footnote probably would be helpful. Nulla Lex Ink. (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Request "Margin" column(s) in state results table as in previous years

The margin column helps because sorting by this column allows for "tipping point" analyses. Thanks! DavidRF (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we should remove the 'results by congressional district' map and new sections until more information comes in

Upon first glance, it doesn't seem as though the map is very clear (a lot of gray), and less then a third of the congressional districts in the country have reported their official and total results. I think we should keep the image, and update it accordingly (its format is great), but keep it off the page until at least a good majority have been colored in. Thanks. Ramires451 (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

"Hillary Clinton the first woman to win the popular vote"

I noticed that since this morning somebody decided to put this little fact on the page, in the second paragraph no less. I don't see what's the point of stating this, except to make some liberals feel better about themselves after this humiliating defeat. If no other woman became candidate of a major US party, they had no chance of winning the popular vote either.

Why not put instead that she's the first woman in the history of the United States to lose a presidential election? That's more befitting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.221.169 (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Winning a popular vote by itself is historical, and by the margin it is being done is also historical, and that it is being done by a female candidate is one for the books. It is not a small trivial matter, because each vote has a person behind it who is voicing their opinion, people like me and my parents, and the majority, the popular vote, chose Hillary as president.

47.75% is not "the majority". 91.152.20.224 (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

There is no need to say first 'woman' to lose an election, because that is a childish attempt to degrade her gender-wise. A better phrasing would be: 'Hillary is the first female candidate to lose an U.S. presidential election but win the popular vote.' With more emphasis on the term 'candidate', not gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchfan07 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Agree to some extent with Watchfan07, but I don't think mentioning her loss is needed. The first paragraph says who won the election, and the focus of the second paragraph is the discrepency between the electoral college vote and the plurality. In this case, it should be obvious to a reader that Clinton lost the election but won the popular vote, and vice versa for Trump. Appable (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

She is not the first woman to lose the election. There has been atleast 2 women presidental candidate before her including Jill Stein, besides I've never seen "first person to lose from XXX group" in an election article. 117.199.88.131 (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. While it's worth mentioning she won the popular vote, I don't think "first woman to win the popular vote" is necessary. -KaJunl (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I just really don't think all of this about Clinton being a woman is actually necessary. What does it matter whether she's a woman, or a man? She should be treated equally, regardless of her gender, and Wikipedia shouldn't be encouraging any form of bias on the part of either Clinton or Trump's genders. At the same time, I do realize that many of you view this as a historic moment for women in politics, so maybe we could just shift this argument and say simply that "Hillary Clinton was the first woman to ever win a major-party nomination", and that she lost the popular vote, but that she lost the entire election, though the last two points right there really don't have anything to do with her gender, so we should perhaps omit it. There doesn't really seem to be any reason why we should mention that she was the first major female nominee to lose the Electoral College, or that she was the first to win the popular vote, or that she was the first to do both at the same time. If they were firsts regardless of her gender, of course we'd mention that. But her gender in these cases do not merit being put on the first few ines, especially considering she would be the first major woman nominee to do anything that she's done. Ramires451 (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Not significant. TFD (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

• Even if she won both the popular vote and presidency (this is a scenario; I acknowledge that she did not win the presidency), it would only be by plurality. A plurality is NOT a majority. Simply the fact that she is female is irrelevant. Prior to 2016, Jill Stein received more votes than any other female in United States history, but the fact that she is female does NOT make this information significant. To say that Hillary Clinton's nomination is significant because she was the first of a so-called "major party" to receive a nomination is exclusive of other parties that have already nominated female solely to make Hillary more "special." Wikipedia serves the purpose of an encyclopedia and is inclusive to information that can be deemed important. Hillary Clinton being a female is not significant and does not need to be included. We can allow the readers to draw their own conclusions by simply displaying her amount of votes. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, Samuel Tilden is the only defeated presidential candidate, who got a majority of the popular vote. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the statement about majority. Even the definition of majority says it is more than half. But Clinton is doubtlessly the first female candidate in the major parties of Republicans and Democrats and the first wonen to recieve more votes than any other candidate. I think that it is necessary to mention and is notable as this is the first time it has ever happened. 59.89.47.63 (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Apropos the various discussions on the topic of specific comparisons, why is there no recognition of the fact that Trump received fewer votes than any African-American candidate of any presidential election in the 21st century?

We can say she is the first major female nominee of a major party and also won more votes than here opponent because both have been covered extensively in the media. But other issues have not. She is the oldest woman to be a major party candidate, also the youngest. She is the oldest person to have won the most votes, also the youngest woman to have won the most votes. We can come up with lots of things where she was first. TFD (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

We refer to the Green Party as either a "Major Third Party" when referring to the political parties of the United States but dismiss its existence when trying to fit the narrative that Hillary Clinton made a "historic achievement" and say Hillary was the first to be nominated by any "major" party rather than simply saying she was the first to be nominated by the Democratic Party. There are no implications of her being female. Although there were no female nominees three decades ago, it's not to say that they were not allowed. We could also say that Hillary Clinton lost the presidency to the most disliked candidate in the history of the United States, but that wouldn't fit the narrative that she's "historic." BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz

Has this line been discussed?

"Businessman and reality television personality Donald Trump became the Republican Party's presidential nominee on July 19, 2016, after defeating U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, and 15 other major candidates in the Republican primary elections."

I know Ted Cruz was the biggest player besides Trump late in the game, but is he worth mentioning exclusively like that? Kasich was still in the race until the end, even if he wasn't getting as many votes. And I don't think about the primary being a primarily two man battle at any point. Would it make more sense to just say "16 major candidates"? I don't feel like the standard in articles about the primary was to say "he beat Cruz."

-KaJunl (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

By the latter stages of the Republican primaries, Cruz was the only candidate left with the possibility of at least preventing Trump from winning the party's presidential nomination on the first ballot. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm leaning toward keeping Cruz in there, since he did finish second in delegates. Calidum ¤ 16:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

But that's just, "by the latter stages". There were lots of other candidates early on, some led in the beginning, others surpassed Cruz in the delegate count, etc. but although I agree that Cruz was the second-most important candidate in the Republican primaries this year, at least some others of Rubio, Carson, Bush, Christie, Kasich, Paul, Huckabee, Fiorina, Walker, Perry, etc. would deserve a mention. Since this is their only example, though, I'd think just "Trump beat 16 other major candidates" or something similar would best suit the article. Ramires451 (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Cruz the runner-up, finished way ahead of the others in terms of pledge delegates. Rubio & Kasich (the only others to win primaries) were way behind. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox: Projected Electoral Votes

Can we come to agreement on what numbers to show, please? GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Just show the outcome with links to support, see WP:RS , thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Why did you remove Michigan's 16 EV & New Hampshire's 4 EV, yet leave Michigan & New Hampshire in the number of states won totals? GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Govindaharihari, electoral college vote count for Trump is 306. You have reverted that to to a number in the 200's at least three times today. Why do you keep lowering it? We have adequately sourced the count to 306 for Trump.--FeralOink (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Popular vote percentages

The popular vote percentages in the infobox are incorrectly being displayed to the hundredth, instead of the tenth. Currently, it says Trump 47.30%, Clinton. 47.79%, but hose numbers should be changed to 47.3 and 47.8. Literally every prior presidential election article shows those numbers to the tenth, so it should be corrected to maintain consistency. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

When the the totals are finally gotten, it'll be taken care of. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Popular vote sentence in the lead

The lead currently says, "Hillary Clinton won a plurality of the popular vote with 47.8% of ballots cast while Trump received 47.3%" as if it's a final result. That wording must be changed to reflect that it's only the current count, which will continue to change for awhile. The New York Times is now projecting that Clinton is likely to win the popular vote by over a million votes and a margin of 1.2%. By comparison, Gore beat Bush in the popular vote by 544,000 and 0.5%. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's relax & wait until the final tally. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Please do not be condescending and tell an editor to "relax." My concern is valid and the text needs to be changed now because it indicates to readers that it is a final result. I'm not saying to change the numbers, just the wording. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The numbers are listed in the info box on the side and the Results section. The lead is generally a short summery with more information to the side and in the article. They are also being updated fairly regularly with current numbers as all the counts are not in. Also please review Assume good faith. PackMecEng (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I know what a lead is. And it is a summary* of the most important points in the article, but those points must be accurate. Saying that Clinton "won" the plurality of the votes 47.7% to 47.3% is false and misleading. She is "winning" the plurality of the votes. There's a big difference, so it needs to be corrected. Finally, I don't need someone who started editing a couple weeks ago lecturing me about assuming good faith. Interesting how you would about that and how to link to it after only days of editing. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I suggest that you read WP:Civility. Your tone in your messages is unnecessary and unwarranted. They are only trying to help you. If that's not what you came for, then I suggest you go elsewhere. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

IP User, see above for Editor GoodDay (who has over 200,000 edits!) and already told you to wait for the final tally. The New York Times said that Trump won.--FeralOink (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

OP, please don't worry. I changed it to "Hillary Clinton won a plurality of the popular vote with (whatever the numbers were at the time)" because the sentence was previously had a heavy emphasis on the significance of Hillary being female and used the numbers as part of a narrative that she has made a historic accomplishment; I cut out the soapboxing and left the fact that she did win over the plurality. It is true that she won over the plurality, but if I'm not mistaken the very next sentence brings up the planned inauguration of Trump as the 45th president, so I disagree that the reader would be mislead to believe that Hillary won the election. The numbers are subject to change. As more votes are counted, the article will be updated to reflect these changes. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Final results? (did Trump also win the popular vote?)

There seems to be a rumor of the following numbers: #Trump: 62,972,226 #Clinton: 62,277,750 [14]. I couldn't find a reliable source to cite this number. Is there an official place where these numbers are presented to the public? Tal Galili (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It's impossible to know, until all the votes are tallied. It could be weeks. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't treat that piece as having any merit. The "liberal loonies" bit should be enough to make my position clear; it doesn't even try to appear neutral. Anyway, a search doesn't appear to show any reliable sources with those numbers. Dustin (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Based on the news, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, though I'm trying to find a reliable source :). -Primetime (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not a reliable source. In another article they say Obama is about to make a major announcement about UFOs. TFD (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It's a conservative internet hoax, just like most of the Trump campaign. A good article on the subject can be found here. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Voter turnout is "TBD"? Seriously?

All these reliable sources say differently. --Proud User (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I presume the TBD is because not all votes have been counted yet. California is still missing over 4 million votes if I am not mistaken. Adding a turnout now would just constantly change as there is no final number. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Every article that's being displayed from the Google search that you linked displays different information. Some say this is an all-time low, others that it's at its lowest in the last 20 years, others that it's up 5%, others that it's record-high. I'm assuming that these were all written at different times. We might want to wait until it's finalized. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

A reliable source says that there are 227,019,486 people eligible to vote. Another reliable source tells us that these is expected to be 127,545,927 votes.[15] Therefore, the voter turnout is 56.18%. See WP:CALC. --Proud User (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, expected. There are no final results; there are many votes still left to count. There is no need to jump on the gun. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Should we have an "at least" value until all the votes are counted? We do know that the voter turnout has increased by at least 1.5% since the last election. --Proud User (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

At least is just another definition for TBD. At least means that it's not official, it's not the final result. TBD meant exactly the same. I personally am for the TBD. Less confusion and everybody can wait until it's all final. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Reactions: petition

There are several petitions that have been mentioned in the media, notably a petition that asks faithless electors vote for Hillary Clinton as president. Should be included as part of "Reactions"? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, it shouldn't be. If I recall accurately, the same attempt occured in 2000. Attempting to convince 37 electors to defy the popular majority vote of their respective states (in 2016), compared to trying to convince 2 to 5 electors to do the same (in 2000), is extremely unlikely to succeed. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Personally, whether it may realistically happen or not is exactly the most valid reason to not include it. It's an ongoing petition with Lady Gaga even promoting it and therefore notable. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump is president-elect, not the projected elected president

Donald Trump is the president-elect of the United States. This is his official title, between now and January 20, 2017, when he becomes president. "President-elect" is a defined term, see president-elect of the United States. This article should indicate that Trump is currently the president-elect, rather than describing him as the "Projected elected president", as that makes it seem like things could change.

A projection is speculative. Trump is not merely projected to be elected. However, he is not yet the elected president of the US. He is president-elect. I have been discussing this on my talk page with GoodDay see here. Since we aren't able to come to an agreement at this time, could other editors please share their thoughts about this?----FeralOink (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

See discussion above. I put Projected Elected President as a compromse, because folks were against putting in Elected President (per the Electoral College) even though vast sources say he is elected president. As for the title President-elect? that will continue to be used right until he's sworn in on January 20, 2017. I'm just trying (as much as possible) to bring the infobox into consistency with the 57 other articles. HONESTLY, I don't understand why there's so much resistance to putting Elected President into the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay:The other 57 presidents ARE elected presidents. That is in the past. Those infoboxes are correct, and should not be changed. The 2016 election is still in process. That is why there are links to the schedule of the election in the article, sourced to the U.S. government's National Archive, that give the dates when certain steps are taken, when the winner of the election becomes president-elect (from election day until inauguration day) and when he becomes president (on inauguration day). The infobox on the 2016 presidential election should NOT be consistent with the 57 other past articles at this time, not in that regard. As of January 20, 2017, the infobox for this article should be made consistent with those articles. Please see the discussion on the Donald Trump article talk page here for an additional explanation of why Donald Trump IS the current president-elect. President-elect is a defined term. "Projected Elected President" is not a defined term, but rather a description. It IS important, because president-elect has an official meaning in the U.S. government. Let's get some other editors to share their thoughts about this.--FeralOink (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

How can Elected President & Projected Elected President, both be wrong? GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Elected President is correct for the other 57 presidents. It is not correct for Donald Trump, not yet. Projected Elected President is incorrect. Donald Trump is the current president-elect of the United States. Visit the president-elect article please. It even has a picture of Trump there and says he is the incumbent president-elect. Let's get some other people to comment. If we don't get anyone else, I will make a Request for Comment RfC in a few days.--FeralOink (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

From my understanding, Elected President is definitely-explanatory. Based on the president-elect article, president-elect means a person who is projected to be the next president until Inauguration Day. Projected Elected President is redundant if president-elect is the correct term used. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

He's President-elect until he's inaugurated. He doesn't loose that title on December 19, when the Electoral College votes. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree, that he does not lose the title of president-elect on December 19, 2016. He loses the title on January 17, 2017, which is Inauguration Day, when he becomes president. I do not understand why that is relevant though. We should either change it to president-elect OR just say "Elected President". To confirm consistency with precedent on Wikipedia (which you used as a rationale, see above), I checked the edit log for the US Presidential Election in 2008. That was the most recent time that we had a new person be president-elect. Election day was November 4, 2008. As you can see, immediately following the election, from November 6, 2008 onward, Obama was described as Elected President in the infobox. We should NOT say "Projected Elected President" in this article. It is redundant and inconsistent with Wikipedia usage for past U.S. presidential elections. I am going to change it to Elected President. Thank you, @Callmemirela: and GoodDay.--FeralOink (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, it should be Elected President in the infobox. However, a few editors opposed that & so I added Projected as a compromise. BTW, Inauguration Day is January 20, 2017. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)