Talk:2016 United States presidential election

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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.214.97.2 (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how 70 News is a reliable news source especially since they themselves cite a random twitter post. Here is a Fox News page which currently shows Clinton ahead by over 600,000 votes. Since the majority of outstanding ballots are in California which Clinton won with over 60% of the vote I suspect the margin will only continue to rise in her favour.69.196.151.183 (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to also point out that 70 News is a Wordpress site, essentially a blog. Also, they seem to have a POV for Trump. Most news articles are neutral and don't call out those who initiated the petition. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:14, 14 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)

It also holds that every time the electoral college flipped the popular vote, the party that lost held the White House. So it is has flipped results in favor of upsetting the status quo every time to date. 2600:1014:B126:DB73:B97B:CD42:AAE0:3FD0 (talk) 19:15, 16 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)

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.

The official count is not yet complete, so numbers will change, even before considering a possible recount. The difference in MI is about 0.24%, less than a quarter percent. That can easily flip recount or not. Bcharles (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox: Elected President or President-elect?

dup thread - Trump is president-elect, not the projected elected president

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 self-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) I say it should be President-Elect (or the opposite, I forgot) as it is the proper and correct term used per the article. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Agreed, it should be president-elect.--FeralOink (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC) It should be Elected President, unless somebody has a source that says Trump has not been elected president. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC) It should be President-elect because that is his official title right now and has yet to take office. There is a subtle semantic difference between President-elect and Elected President.--Beneficii (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC) I agree, the title is President-elect. The other works for past elections because they were elected and took office. Trump has yet to take office. "Elected President," to me, means "president who was elected". Trump isn't president yet. Just use the official title that he currently bears. 2602:30A:2C26:2C90:4C4A:7C67:90B4:F066 (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC) As I stated above in another comment block, the correct title is President-elect. As already mentioned, every other article about the current president or former presidents state that they were 'elected president' because they were inaugurated as president in the past. Trump will be inaugurated as president in the future. Besides, if an official term exists to describe something, why would we use something else? jmcgowan2 (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Dear confused users, just to clarify, Donald Trump is the president-elect, and is no longer considered projected elected president for two reasons. 1: He is definitely going to win. Even if those three 'too-close-to-call states' all go to Clinton, she could not possibly win. The elector total for Trump is just way too high. 2: Trump could never be 'elected president' until January 20, 2017. Before that date, he is still president-elect, as Obama remains president. There cannot possibly be two presidents at once. God forbid something were to happen to President Obama between now and January 20, Vice President Biden would assume the office of president. When Trump assumes the office on January 20, 2017, the title can change to 'president'. Just trying to resolve some issues, had they not already been resolved. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Calling Trump the "president-elect" at this stage would be misleading since the electoral vote hasn't even voted yet. At this point he is only projected to become president; he hasn't technically been elected yet. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC) Howdy UNSC Luke. I'm not confused at all, about Trump being President-elect. I just fail to understand why there are editors here refusing to use Elected President in the infobox, when Trump has been elected President. He doesn't have to be in office, for us to use it. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC) I Prefer "projected president-elect" until the electoral college actually votes. Faithless electors are still possible. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC) @Prcc27: Trump has 306 electoral votes. It would take 37 faithless electors switching to Hillary to change the result. Ain't gonna happen. American In Brazil (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC) That message was seriously unnecessary. Please stop being so hostile with everybody. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC) @Callmemirela: Wasn't intended to be hostile but merely to point out an important fact - namely, that with Trump having 306 electoral votes it would take 37 faithless electors to switch from Trump to Hillary to change the outcome. However, in response to your comment I have taken out the phrase 'stop dreaming' just to soften my comment. (And no, I did not vote for Trump.) American In Brazil (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC) @GoodDay: Trump has been elected (verb) President, which makes him the President-elect (noun). Let's all move on. American In Brazil (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Why not Elected President? Trump doesn't have to be in office, for us to use Elected President in this article's infobox. Why are so many resisting to do this? GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC) GoodDay, you have to drop it already. President-elect is the proper and correct term used for the next president. Drop the stick already. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC) GoodDay, stop your nonsense. President-elect is obviously the correct and universally accepted term. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC) @GoodDay: There is resistance to Elected President because it is incorrect. Trump is not the President until he is inaugurated and assumes the office. Until then he is the President Elect. The term Elected President is even incorrect for past Presidents because obviously they could not have been President unless they were elected. Trump has been elected (verb) President - that makes him the President-elect (noun). American In Brazil (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Just FYI: Not every president was elected. Several Presidents were never "Elected President", those that succeeded on the death of the previous President. One was never even elected Vice President. See Gerald Ford, who was appointed VP without any election, then became President when the predecessor resigned. Otherwise, I agree that "President-elect" is the correct terminology. --Jayron32 13:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC) @Jayron32: You are correct in both respects. American In Brazil (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC) So, here I am, four days later, and I just checked the article. It still says Elected President. Trump is the president-elect. I am 100% a Donald Trump supporter. I am one of the handful of Wikipedians who put their name on the Donald Trump Wikiproject page back when no one else would. Trump is not yet the elected president though. He is the president-elect. It is an official title. @GoodDay please do not change this. We have overwhelming consensus here. On Inauguration Day, we will change this page to indicate Donald Trump as Elected President. It is not time to do that yet. He is president-elect--FeralOink (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC) I'd go through the long list of contributions if it wasn't already late, but could you please provide a diff that GoodDay restored Elected President? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC) Hello, Calmemirela. I apologize to GoodDay, as I can't find evidence that he was the one who changed the page to Elected President. All I know is that when I saw the article a little while ago, it said Elected President instead of President-elect. I will strike out that part of my previous comment.--FeralOink (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC) This is aduplicate thread. Please comment in the original thread "Infobox: Elected President or President-elect?" Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: The collapsed duplicate thread above "Trump is president-elect, not the projected elected president" -- which was started after and ran concurrent to this original thread "Infobox: Elected President or President-elect?" -- was collapsed and moved into this thread. Please add comments at the end of this thread. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

• @Sparkie82: 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)

@American In Brazil: Re faithless electors changing results: In 1836 about 8% of the electors changed their intended votes for Johnson (they abstained), which changed the outcome of the electoral vote, preventing him from having a majority (although he was later elected in the Senate). It would take less than 8% faithless electors to change the outcome of this electoral vote. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Abjiklam: The main source at President-elect of the United States is a US statute. I just checked it and although it uses the term "president-elect" in the statute, it doesn't actually define it as beginning right after the general election. (I tagged the reference at that article.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Good that you checked the source, I hadn't done that myself. Still, he seems to be called president-elect all over the media. Shouldn't we use the term that is most commonly used for him? I haven't seen anywhere that he is projected to become president-elect. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 21:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sparkie82 (t*c). The election of 1836 that you reference did not involve faithless electors for President. It was about faithless electors for Vice-President. The 23 Virginia electors refused to vote for Richard Mentor Johnson because he had a well-publicized interracial relationship, scandalous in the time of slavery (even though Thomas Jefferson two generations earlier also had a well-known, long-standing interracial relationship). Johnson came up one vote short of a majority in the electoral college. As you correctly state, the vote then went to the Senate in accordance with the provisions of the 12th Amendment, the only time it ever did so. The Senate elected Johnson Vice-President anyway and, thus, the result was the same as if even one of the 23 faithless Virginia electors had voted for him. Therefore, my statement that no election was ever changed by faithless electors is accurate. In addition, since Trump got 306 electoral votes, it would require 37 electors to change their votes to Clinton in order to change the winner of the election. And two electors from Washington State, which Clinton won, have said they will not vote for her. In that case, Clinton would need 39 of Trump's electors. As I said above, it just ain't gonna happen. Donald Trump is the President-elect of the United States. American In Brazil (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

To say I'm mildly frustrated by the resistance to use Elected President in the infobox, might be an understatement. Trump has been elected president by all sources given. Yes, I know it's only his pledged electors that were chosen on November 8. But, we don't need to wait for either the Electoral College to vote or for Trump to be inaugurated, to use it. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This discussion will be resolved on December 19 when the electors cast their votes. American In Brazil (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

He will likely be president-elect (or projected president-elect) until January 20th, although there are a number of unlikely scenarios that could change that status before that date. I'm fine leaving it as it is (president-elect) until there is a change in that status. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's clarify some grammatical usage here in order to put this issue to rest. Trump was elected (verb) President which made him the President-elect (noun). American In Brazil (talk) 23:58, 18 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)

I disagree with a removal as well. Many people aren't even aware of all the parties running in the election and logical choice to inform yourself would be this article. Now their overall description might be trimmed and/or outsourced to a subpage or separate main article, but to the very least their names and voting share should be listed in this article as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that at least the major third parties should be included. If they are not, the total votes of Clinton and Trump do not add up to 100% and the article would be incomplete. American In Brazil (talk) 00:03, 19 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)

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)

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)

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)

In short, the article could include an image of the cover if the cover image was specifically discussed in the article text. That would require consensus for including Newsweek's screwup in the first place. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 13:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@ArgleBargle79: I think that an image of the Newsweek cover is as relevant to this election as the Chicago Tribune headline in 1948, DEWEY DEFEATS TRUMAN. Since you have a copy, please scan and add. American In Brazil (talk) 23:25, 15 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)

The lede states that this was the 4th presidential election in which the popular vote winner did not become president because s/he did not receive a majority of the electoral votes. It cites the elections of 1876, 1888 and 2000. There was also the election of 1824 in which Andrew Jackson was the popular vote winner and had a plurality of electoral votes but not the majority. Therefore, in accordance with the 12th Amendment the matter went to the House, which elected John Quincy Adams. I think this should be mentioned in the lede for completeness. I invite discussion and if there is no objection, I will add. American In Brazil (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, the election of 1824 has been added back to the lede. I think it's important to state that, historically, even though this election went to the House, the point is that the popular vote winner Andrew Jackson did not become President - John Quincy Adams did. So there were four times before 2016 this has happened and 2016 is the fifth time. The reason, of course, is that there is no national election - there are 51 (counting the District of Columbia) separate elections. Unless the electoral college is abolished by a Constitutional Amendment, this could happen again. As an encyclopedia, WP must report what happened, not what might have been. By comparing vote totals statewide, the reader can figure it out. American In Brazil (talk) 23:27, 18 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)

I'd like to add that, while I did edit the statement, I thought it was a little too trivial. I just wanted to clean up the language a bit. Maybe it can be placed elsewhere in the article, but it is definitely not important enough for inclusion in the opening. Nulla Lex Ink. (talk) 19:07, 14 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. [2] 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)

Are they projected? None of the three citations make any projection. They show a small lead for Trump but remain too close to project a winner. Owen (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Trump won Michigan, I located the government website specifically so that the results could not be disputed. That was linked to from http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1633---,00.html Atomic1fire (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

At the present time, the Michigan Secretary of State is reporting that Trump won Michigan by 13,107 votes: http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/2016GEN_CENR.html American In Brazil (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. The page does not report a "winner", but shows current results, clearly labeled "unofficial". These do not include provisional, absentee, and overseas ballots; not to mention malfunctioning machines, and incomplete or inaccurate precinct reports. The tally is too close to call before full, official results are reported. Don't take my word on that. See AP, CNN, NBC, NYT, etc. All indicate a marginal lead but undetermined winner. Bcharles (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Any idea how long that is going to take? It's over a week ago now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonHogervorst (talk • contribs) 20:29, 15 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)

The fact that this election ended in such a surprise will likely become a significant part of presidential electoral history, perhaps as significant as the 1948 result. I think that the section on forecasting should be renamed in such a way as to reflect that significance, such as "Polling failure", or merge the forecasting section into the results section and call it "Surprise result", or similar. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:54, 18 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)

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)

Or the {{Abbr}} template. clpo13_(talk) 18:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for the suggestion, Clpo13. Bcharles (talk) 05:53, 17 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)

this will be added, but likely not until official results are out as numbers are still incomplete and will change Bcharles (talk) 18:42, 15 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)

For a long time in the US Elections, there have only been two significant parties (of course, their policy ideas shifted, and so on). Each of those parties, typically, has gotten a sizable fraction of the vote - even true in 1984, where the losing Democratic candidate still got 40% of the vote. If you examine the two main parties in each election cycle, each candidate has been male until this election. That seems fairly significant - informally, she's the first female presidential candidate 'with a chance'. One could also argue that it's irrelevant that Obama was the first African-American presidential candidate, because of course race has no bearing on how well a candidate will perform in office. However, for both Obama and Clinton, their potential roles as the first non-white and first non-male presidents, respectively, were extensively covered by media. This is why it's notable - because secondary sources cover her role as the first female presidential candidate in depth. Appable (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

We can say on the article about the Democratic National Convention that this was the first time that the Democratic Party specifically nominated a female, but saying that she was the first female 'with a chance' does not belong on this article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 13:09, 15 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)

All electoral votes are "projected" until the electoral college votes, but no major sources have "projected" a winner if Michigan, which is still too close to call. Until official results accounting for provisional, absentee, overseas ballots, and incomplete or erroneous precinct reports; we will need to sit in limbo. Bcharles (talk) 18:52, 15 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)

Yeah, 200,000 edits from a guy who won't stop arguing with everyone about his insistence that we should use the term "Elected President" instead of President-elect haha. A perfect example of why someone's edit count has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of those edits. ;) 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 04:32, 15 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)

You are completely misunderstanding my request. My request was solely about the popular vote; not about who won the election. Thus, the title of this thread. Obviously, Trump won. I simply was asking for that sentence to be temporarily changed from she "won" the popular vote to she's "winning" the popular vote (with x% to Trump's x%) because the votes are still being tallied. I said nothing about readers believing she won the election. I said the wording makes it sound like the current percentages are the final percentages. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 15:59, 14 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 [3]. 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)

Technically, Trump can still win the popular vote, since they're not all counted yet. In my opinion, it was a statistical tie, right now, she's leading by about 700,000 votes, that's roughly the population of the county that I live in, Obama won by 5 million in 2012, around the population of Colorado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric0928 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 15 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)

I agree completely--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:58, 14 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.[4] 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)

I removed the current turnout figure because it is using a different methodology than older presidential election articles, which is rather misleading, moreover it is contradicting the results reported in the press so far (see for instance [5])--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: Note that the turnout in 2012 was 129,085,410 compared to the 127+ million we have now and we should use the same terminology for all presidential articles otherwise the figures become misleading and somewhat meaningless.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand how if turnout went UP as the info box claims, the total number of votes is so much lower than the last election? Unless Wikipedia is tacitly acknowledging that millions fewer Americans are ELIGIBLE to vote because the states or some other actor suppressed their votes by removing them from the rolls?Amyzex (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Amyzex: If I understand it correctly there are two common terms to measure turnout VAP and VEP and for some reason at the least the recent presidential election articles use VAP rather than VEP. I probably would better if those articles list both figures and an explaining footnote. According to this, the VEP figures for 2012 and 2016 are both roughly 58%, so there almost no change in turnout. Also note that earlier misleading 2% up vote in the infobox has been corrected.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:51, 16 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)

As American celebrities do not rule the world that does not mean it automatically requires mention.GuzzyG (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Lady Gaga has one vote, same as every other American citizen. She's also promoting her latest album - quite good by the way. American In Brazil (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So electors should defy the will of the American people and elect a white supremacist to the presidency?173.67.16.123 (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Poll closing times

Is there any particular reason the diagram of poll closing times is still in the article? It was certainly a good thing to have on election day, but now it seems to be information overload, and there are a lot of other maps in the article. I'm thinking this should be removed, or at most converted to one or two sentences of prose. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, the poll closing times are actually for the 2008 election, as indicated by the file name, see if you can find any references that the poll closing times are the same as 8 years ago. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 13:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2016

Since nobody is speaking up with a reason to retain the image above in the article, and since it is out-of-date information in any case, as noted above, will someone please remove the chart of poll closing times (File:Poll Closing Times 2008.svg} from the article? As the popular election is over, this chart serves no purpose that I can identify. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

64.105.98.115 (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz singled out in primary Comment

In the lede, I found this unusual statement:
"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."
Why is Ted Cruz singled out from among the other candidates? Is there a reason that Ted Cruz is mentioned by name, while the others are not? Joshualouie711 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's because he lead Trump at one point. If I recall right, Ted Cruz won the first contest in Iowa, plus he won the second most primaries. I can't say for certain, but that's my guess. Nulla Lex Ink. (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

John Kasich won Ohio, but he's not mentioned, probably because he didn't give Trump as much of a run for his money. In any case, I find singling out Ted Cruz to be slightly bemusing and advocate removing his name from the lede, as he was nowhere near Bernie Sanders-level resistance. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 20:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your point, Joshua. Cruz finished (a very distant) second in the primaries, but it's very odd how he's singled out. If Cruz had been neck and neck with Trump until late in the primaries, then I could understand it. Cruz's name should be taken out of the lead. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure Cruz should be taken out of the lede. He was the last significant opponent to drop out of the primaries, leaving Trump the sole survivor. Isn't it important to mention that? American In Brazil (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Kasich was the last candidate to drop out. Cruz dropped out that evening, and Kasich conceded the next morning.Joshualouie711 (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Kasich did drop out after Cruz, but he had ceased being a mathematically viable candidate over a month before. Aliiqve (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Cruz should be singled out. He & Trump had way more delegates then the other 15 candidates. PS - Go easy on the Texan, his hopes for the 2020 Republican presidential nomination took a bad blow, last week. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay, you really need to stop all your nonsense on this message board. First you want to fight with everyone regarding your ridiculous insistence that the term President-elect be changed to Elected President. Now, you're inserting your irrelevant bias into a discussion. This page is to neutrally discuss changes to the article, not to chit chat about your favorite politician and advocate for him to be highlighted. Your behavior on this board proves that quantity of edits (over 200,000) doesn't necessarily equate with quality of edits. Also, please try to use proper spelling and grammar in your posts. For the record, this article is about the general election, not the primaries. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Final Results

The Federal Election Commission is supposed to officially publish the final results until early January. It can be accessed via their website. Does anybody know exact date for the publishing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by נריה לוי (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, not to seek information about the topic. Use Google. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Michigan

On the first map, Michigan is gray, but the legend only explains red and blue. What does gray mean? Kdammers (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Michigan's 16 EVs

Why Michigan's 16 Electoral Votes has not been added to President-Elect's 290 EVs (to show a sum of 306)? 79.76.124.54 (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Michigan is still counting provisional and absentee ballots so results are not official. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 15:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Sure, but we could add a note mentioning this point of detail. 100% of precincts have reported their results[6] and local newspapers have called the race long ago.[7] Michigan election officials say that with the current 13,000 vote difference those extra ballots have no chance to change the outcome[8] and local laws only allow for recounts when the difference is under 2,000 votes.[9] Millions of readers turn to Wikipedia worldwide to learn verifiable facts about this election and it's embarrassing that the USA don't seem to be able to fully count their votes after a week… — JFG ^talk 16:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Counts also include absentee ballots and mail-in just an FYI. Counting every vote does not take 2 seconds to do. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done. Added NBC report of 290 to Detroit Free Press report of 16 in Michigan per WP:CALC. — JFG ^talk 17:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Notably, however, CNN, ABC news, CBS News, Al Jazeera and I got tired of looking, but it looks like every major national or international news site has not yet called it for Michigan. --Jayron32 17:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that AP, AlJazeera, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC, and NYT outweigh a local paper. This is undetermined, likely until full, official results are reported. Bcharles (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

admit it, you almost used the word "trump", instead of "outweigh" there... I have returned the article to the prior state it was in, pending the official results, or a more broad-based reporting in national or international sources. --Jayron32 19:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Oh, come on now… The AP is being sloppy or overly cautious, like they were during the primaries when results from some states took several weeks to be reported. I remember countless edit wars on "Did Bernie really get 16 electors to Clinton's 15 or was it rather Hillary getting 17 over Bernie's 14?", or "Cruz is mathematically eliminated" vs "convention delegates will deny Trump the nomnation". Sure, Michigan may yet flip to Clinton like the Electoral College may yet stage a rebellion; both are about as likely as an asteroid hitting the Earth before Christmas. We'll report it if and when it happens. Meanwhile the election is settled, nationwide as well as in Michigan. — JFG ^talk 02:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Bcharles: The local paper is not guessing, they are calling the election result as "final" based on their reporting on the ground, including the Michigan State Department in charge of elections, which we could quote as well. State Dept says "final unofficial results", in which "final" means the outcome won't change and "unofficial" means there are still some odd ballots to count but they won't make a difference. All the news outlets you cite can be considered a single source as they copy their numbers from AP. I would argue that the local RS with feet on the ground in Michigan carries more weight than the AP aggregate (and for the record, this particular newspaper was strongly endorsing Clinton so you can't call them biased towards hiding the result either). Finally, our own article counts 306 in detailed results tables below, and the lead + infobox should reflect article contents. Accordingly, I will be reverting the total electoral votes to 306 vs 232. — JFG ^talk 02:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

And here's a fresh USA Today article affirming that Michigan eventual official vote tally won't affect the outcome: [10] retweeted by Mich. Secretary of State:[11]

In spite of the title, the USA Today article just says that the result with Trump leading is not likely to change. The "final" unofficial results simply mean that the state will not continue to update them, and you will need to wait for the official results to be reported later this month. AP supplies data for PBS, Politico and most newspapers. Fox, NBC and others compile their own results and make their own editorial decisions on when to call a race. CNN called NH days before other outlets, NBC still has not called it. Perhaps after being burned by calling elections too early in the past, they are more conservative now. Their is no reason for an encyclopedia to be rushed to call a winner when numerous news outlets have not. Informing readers that there is some degree of uncertainty, that numbers are still being checked and adjusted, says much more than trying to paint the whole canvas as black or white. Bcharles (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Updating numbers based on published state results?

Some states, such as California, are updating their results a couple times per day as the count proceeds. The tables don't reflect those numbers. Should they? It's not going to affect the overall result of the election, but it would help counter all the misinformation out there about low turnout. --Nosecohn (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. If you have reliable sources, and want to cite those sources, and continue to update results, no one will stop you from making the article better. --Jayron32 19:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The text below the table of State results says they all come from the Associated Press. If I start changing the results from individual States, that will no longer be true. Should I just edit that line, appending "unless otherwise noted"?

Projected Electoral Vote

So after everyone seems to have messed with the counts, it now says "Projected" and 290 (Trump) and 232 (Clinton). Yet nobody projects that. It adds up to 522, which is nowhere close to the total of 538. I haven't heard of anyone projecting 16 electors for people besides Trump and Clinton.

I suggest changing Trump's 290 back to 306, since that seems to be what is actually projected.

I stopped bothering with that yesterday. It's just gonna continue to be reverted back to '290', by somebody. Not sure why it's taking Michigan so long to count votes. It's been a whole week, now. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait until the 19th, 20th Dec. Actuals are supposed to be in then. wiki user 10stone5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.211.227 (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

We are going to use the majority opinion for the projected count until we have the official results. This is via WP:RS. The associated press result is likely the largest reputable source for 'projected' election results as it has members from nearly every news organization in the US. Minority opinions should be discussed, but not in the info box or primary count. Gsonnenf (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Michigan has stopped updating their unofficial results. Their official count will be out later this month. It takes all states a couple to few weeks to complete their official tallies, but MI is too close to call with certainty, until all of the outstanding ballots and corrections are included. Bcharles (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

When are we going to add "Dead" and "Illegals" to the demographics tables?

not a useful discussion for improving the article. --Jayron32 19:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Would be interesting considering over 3million Illegals and a large number of dead voted for clinton. 2A02:8084:4E40:E380:FD43:9411:E884:F4EA (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Dear uninformed editor, in case you haven't realized, a dead person cannot vote. Whoever voted dead people in obviously committed voter fraud. Also, only 19 counts of 'dead votes' were reported in the US, all of them in Virginia. Everyone knows that 19 votes have little chance to turn the tide of the election, especially in a state like Virginia with millions of people. It should not be included, because it was illegal activity and is discounted. As for the illegal immigrants, I do not believe that it should be its own demographic. Illegal immigrant votes are technically illegal activity, but it's occurred for years and is simply considered part of the system now. This does not mean I approve of it, I'm just answering your question. Good day! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Without going into questions of NPOV (of which there are many), can you provide a Reliable Source that backs that up? jmcgowan2 (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC) It's a myth the white supremacists have come up with to assuage themselves about the resounding rebuke the American people delivered to them on tuesday.173.67.16.123 (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Finally someone has admitted that Trump's upset victory was a "resounding rebuke" to white supremacists :). Either way, a source would need to be provided before adding this (or discounting this in general). --1990'sguy (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Snopes says it is unconfirmed, which means it is true. 2A02:8084:4E40:E380:5CFF:6ECD:A849:6960 (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Snopes says it is unconfirmed, which means it is unconfirmed, as the words 'unconfirmed' and 'true' are not synonymous. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Why are we even discussing this? This is so uninformed. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 18:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Agreed. Shutting this down. --Jayron32 19:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Turnout

The box in the top right of the page shows that voter turnout was up 3.2 percentage points, yet every analytis I have read shows that voter turnout was down by a lot. Can we correct this? Cite: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voter-turnout-fell-especially-in-states-that-clinton-won/ Mannydantyla (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The link you cite is from Nov 11. The citation used in the article currently is from Nov 15. It appears your data is out of date. If you can find a more recent data source, you may have something. --Jayron32 21:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mannydantyla: @Jayron32: Yet, per the first source for turnout used, turnout based on Voting-Age Population, which is the metric used in all previous presidential elections, decreased by ~129 basis points to 53.6%. The difference that Manny cites is due to using eligible voters (VEP) this year and comparing to VAP in 2012, which is apples-to-oranges by definition. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo @Jayron glad we got it figured out Mannydantyla (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Crazyseiko: Read the above and WP:CALC. Although the VAP turnout is not cited explicitly in the Elect Project source, the two requisite numbers (estimated number of [valid] ballots cast, and Voting-Age Population) are both provided by said source, and Division is covered under WP:CALC. Also, this is not the first time I have had to call you out on WP:CIR violations (not to mention your atrocious grammar). CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@MaverickLittle: No, it is not Original research, as Dr. McDonald provided both VAP and Ballot estimates, so WP:CALC (ironically a subsection of WP:OR) holds here. Also, this is NOT an apples-to-oranges comparison, as every POTUS election article states turnout (and change from previous election) based on VAP. What is Apples-to-oranges is the prior arrangement which displays a 58.1% turnout (based on VEP) and claims turnout rose 3.2% from 2012's VAP turnout of 54.9%. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Crazyseiko: Caradhras is correct. In your edit summary you ask "MORE ppl voted this time around YET somehow turnout is lower?" The answer is yes, the voting age population grew substantially between 2012 and 2016. The numbers from elect project are:

2016 - Votes = 134,765,650, Voting eligible = 231,556,622, Voting Age = 251,107,404 Turnout: ~58.2%/~53.7% 2012 - Votes = 130,292,355, Voting eligible = 222,474,111, voting Age = 240,957,993 Turnout: ~58.6%/~54.1%

As you can see the voting population grew substantially. The extra overall votes is a function of population growth, not a larger portion of the population turning out. I am also in agreement that simply dividing 2 numbers to show turnout is WP:CALC and not WP:OR. We are presenting the VAP result because the argument between VAP/VEP has already been settled on other elections pages over the course of the years and they chose VAP for the election box. If you object either of the above arguments, or have additional arguments let me know, otherwise we should add it back. Please don't revert with out presenting additional arguments or refuting the arguments made here. If you don't agree and just think the argument here is nonsense or you just don't believe this is how Wikipedia policy works, we can start a request for comment WP:RFC to get the input of other editors and establish consensus.Gsonnenf (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gsonnenf: The due process has worked, and as you have said the process has now been sorted to bring it into line with other pages. Of course with wiki every changing and going improvements I was unaware of the full due process, and if didn't highlight this issue this would not have been resolved. The only part that could cause nonsense is: Over number of voters: It MUST BE MADE CLEAR either with * or # the overall number of people eligible to vote has increase since the last election. This will stop any further confusement on this matter by any new people. --Crazyseiko (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Crazyseiko: Hi, I don't understand what your conclusion is. Are you ok with us moving the Voting age percentage back to the infobox as we have suggested? I'm fine with putting an explanation of this in the body text.Gsonnenf (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gsonnenf: Yes to both points. --Crazyseiko (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Importance of swing states

Yesterday I added "The swing states were crucial to the result. For example, if a total of just 56,921 Trump voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (6554, 13,754, and 36,613 respectively) had voted for Clinton instead, then Clinton would have won, with 378 electoral votes." This was reverted by Jayron32 with the comment "uncited personal analysis." But if I'm not mistaken, it's allowed to put in simple arithmetic facts, and I think this one is interesting and deserves to be in. It shows how Trump really squeaked by. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Because that is personal analysis. Clinton didn't win those states so she didn't get 378 electoral votes. If she won 50 states she would've had 538 electoral votes, but she didn't.

I guess we better remove this sort of comments from the article United States presidential election, 2004 then: "Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes." P.S. sign your comments. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The statement on Kerry and OH is spin, and does not belong in the article. It relates a hypothetical case, that did not occur, then uses it as a basis of comparison to another election. Your statement about Clinton introduces a hypothetical case that involves three states. It likewise uses a scenario that did not occur to spin the results. Bcharles (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Results section

How on earth is this section correct? The REF is this " Popular vote: Unofficial, Electoral Vote: Projected" http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html . That isnt helpful and does not comply with the rest of the page..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 23:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who this anon editor is (Note: It is Crazyseiko), since they would not sign their comment, but the comment is wildly off the mark. Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections is a reliable source. As the Wikipedia article on the website states, "The site has been used a reference for U.S. election and political data by major media outlets including U.S. News & World Report, The Atlantic, The Wall Street Journal, Roll Call, CBS News, Politico, The Washington Post, and Men's Health . Leip's Atlas has been cited as a "preferred source for election results" by statistician and political pundit Nate Silver."--ML (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It is difficult when facts get in the way of unresearched opinion.--ML (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Someone has been trying to sneak this http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html into this page as a majority opinion. It doesn't look like a majority opinion source, to tell the truth I'm not sure if it has the weight to be a minority opinion source. I suggest we strip it out of the page and replace it with a majority opinion source. (also you should sign your comment).Gsonnenf (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, no one is trying to "sneak" in anything since this particular website (Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections) has been used on Wikipedia many, many times in the past. It is an acceptable reliable source that is used by tons of respectable media sources. See above. Also, to "strip it out" without getting consensus will be looked upon a vandalism since you have provided ZERO evidence that the website is unreliable.--ML (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The source that you have been pushing is the AP. The AP does not seem to provide the vote for all five candidates. Don't "strip it out" until you find a better source which provides more information than just the two major party candidates.--ML (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

There will be no "strip it out". That's not how Wikipedia works. In 2012, there was a table at the end of the article (just like this one) that provided the results for the top candidates, not just the two major parties candidates. You can review the old chart from 2012 here: the 22:59, 12 December 2012 version of the United States presidential election, 2012 page. The table had a disclaimer attached and all of the editors were quite happy with the disclaimer. The disclaimer stated: "Popular vote count is preliminary. Many states will not certify their results until late November or early December." When the Official results for all of the candidates are presented by the Presidential Election Committee then we will update the chart. In the meantime the numbers will stay until there is a better source. Now, there is a possible better source which is David Wasserman of Charlie Cook's The Cook Political Report and Nate Silver's and ESPN's FiveThirtyEight fame. But just "stripping out" good information without a better replacement is not an acceptable choice. It just sounds like empty rhetoric.--ML (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Leip's Election Atlas is a reliable source, if not mainstream, as is TheGreenPapers. Politico reports data from AP updated daily, that includes all candidates on ballot in each state's results. A column for "others" is needed. Bcharles (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I would add the "others" section to the table but I am afraid that I would mess up the whole table so I will leave that to someone else with better table skills than me. As for Politico's AP listing, it does not provide the vote totals for Evan McMullin, or the other minor 3rd party candidates or the write-in total. I just reviewed TheGreenPapers again and I did not see a breakdown in vote totals for all of the candidates. If you can find a link in TheGreenPapers to a detailed breakdown of the votes totals then leave it here. Thanks.--ML (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with BCharles that Leip's atlas could be considered a reliable source, and also that it is not a majority source. Most organizations report an election results that is based on currently accepted results rather than votes projected on a more uncertain model. I've been using Associated press result for the infobox, as it has members from all major US news organizations and is considered the proper source under WP:RS. I've tried to have a discussion with ML but he has been rude and keeps insisting an his source is the most 'accurate', which I'm not going to attempt to argue about, because we should be using the majority opinion source not trying to cherry pick the single minority source that we have an opinion of as the most accurate. Gsonnenf (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Gsonnenf states incorrectly that the Associated Press "is considered the proper source under WP:RS". Gsonnenf's statement is simply not true. Wikipedia does not pick one reliable source over another reliable source. That is factually incorrect. As I pointed out above Leip's Atlas has been used in Wikipedia numerous times over the years and it quoted in the WSJ, NY Times, etc. The Associated Press does not even provide a breakdown of the votes for all of the top candidates whereas Leip's Atlas does. Also, Gsonnenf states "Most organizations report an election results that is based on currently accepted results rather than votes projected on a more uncertain model." What does this even mean? Gsonnenf seems to be saying that he has learned through his own original research that Dave Leip is reporting vote totals on some other method than what the AP is doing, right? Isn't that what that confusing sentence seems to be saying? I don't know what exactly Gsonnenf is claiming because it is tangled mess of a sentence but it seems he has done his own personal original research and he has found out that Leip is doing something he calls "project[ing] on a more uncertain model." Well, it is fine that Gsonnenf has engaged in some personal original research but that is not what the standard for Wikipedia is. We don't use original research in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No original research. What we do know that Leip's Atlas is a reliable source that has been referred to for years and years in Wikipedia and it is an accepted reliable source by WSJ, NY Times, etc. Whether Gsonnenf accepts it is NOT the standard no matter how many times he repeats himself. Also, Gsonnenf has advocated to "strip out" the reliable information that he simply does not like without gaining a consensus for its removal. The table is an essential part of the wrap up of the election on Wikipedia and so far we have one reliable source, Leip's Atlas, that provides the information for the top five or six candidates. There is no other reliable source with this information. Removing the information (or blindly "strip out" the information) without a reasonable replacement makes no sense whatsoever.--ML (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

An Atlantic magazine article about the vote totals for the 2016 election referred to and quoted Leip's Atlas. Andrew McGill wrote, "This has happened before. David Leip is the one-man band behind The Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, a website cataloging vote totals all the way back to the early days of the Republic. He remembers seeing much of the same vote-counting hysteria after Election Day in 2012, when it appeared Obama would fall far short of his 2008 total. “They did the same thing—‘Oh my goodness, look at all those missing votes,’” he said. From the numbers he’s seeing, California is due for a record turnout, and possibly other states are as well. It’s too soon to tell, he cautions, if Clinton’s total haul, which sat at 62.4 million as of the morning of November 16, will match or surpass the 66 million votes Obama received in 2012." You can review the quote yourself at: McGill, Andrew. Clinton's Popular-Vote Lead Will Grow, and Grow, and Grow, Atlantic, November 12, 2016. The point is that Leip's Atlas is a reliable source that provides the data we need to fill out the table that has been a part of these types of articles for over a decade. Gsonnenf and the anon editor have not provided any logical arguments to change.--ML (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Lets be fair here, as soon as the election commission publishes its report, that will become the main ref.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 21:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Lets be fair here"? Of course, I am being fair. I stated a long, long, long time ago that when the election commission publishes its report then the table will get updated. So you have no point, whatsoever. Gsonnenf had no point whatsoever. I never made the claim that the Leip's Atlas reliable source will be the final source. Never. You should have read the whole discussion. Gsonnenf for some reason only wants to use the AP source that does not provide a breakdown of the votes for all of the candidates. It doesn't make sense whatsoever.--ML (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

So here is the deal, MaverickLittle hasn't read enough of the wikipedia guidelines and rules to understand how sources are used. WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT do decide that large organizations are given more weight than small organizations. The infobox should reflect the AP result because it has more WP:WEIGHT than the Leip source. For the breakdown of 3rd parties, Leip, despite being a smaller source that does a bit of projection math, might be the most prominent source. But Maverick, you're really being sort of abusive and forcing your view without any consensus. We should probably settle this in dispute resolution. Gsonnenf (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gsonnenf Since you make the claim that Leip uses "projection math" please show how you came to this conclusion. Please outline what original research you did to come to this POV of yours. I would like see the evidence. You state a conclusionary statement but you don't provide any support such as a reliable source that supports your conclusionary statement. I will be waiting for it until the Presidential Election Commission issues the final results.--ML (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Gsonnenf, Leip's atlas is plainly more updated and accurate than AP, which has stopped updating multiple states, and the consensus here and in other wiki articles is pretty obvious to use Leip. Please don't revert to the AP numbers again. 2005 (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@2005: There is clearly not consensus for Leip's source. Some people are leaning towards it not even being a reliable source at all. It is a self published source which means its NOT preferred, and only allowed if the person is an 'expert' in the field and it is referenced by reliable 3rd party source. It is referenced by 3rd party sources but David Leip isn't necessarily a recognized expert in the field. WP:SPS This is currently under dispute resolution here: [[12]]. People in this thread are debating if Leip is even a reliable source, let alone a prefered source. So far Tomruen, crazySeiko and gsonnenf have all questioned its reliability as a source in general. BCharles has stated Leip is not a mainstream source, Maverick has previously accept AP for the info box, you are the only one who has not accepted it and consensus was reached before you even showed up.Gsonnenf (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I think your taking this to heart now which is not good idea, What I mean its this is some what a smaller issues. I just wish everyone to be able to sing of the same sheet for the next month.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 16:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

No, your statement is simply not true. I'm not taking anything to heart. Besides you don't know what is in my heart. All you know is some writing on a computer screen. This section is designed for a discussion of how to make this particular article better. It is not designed for you to comment, incorrectly, what is or is not in my heart. What is in my heart is not an appropriate topic for this talk page and, of course, you are incorect. The Leip Atlas is the only option for the table at the end of the article. I have asked for an alternative and there has not been one provided.--ML (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Who's Nathan Johnson?

"Nathan Johnson is listed on the ballot as Evan McMullin's running mate with the intention of serving as a placeholder for Mindy Finn."

Huh? Kaldari (talk)

@Kaldari: Read Politico's article about it. The situation is definitely bizarre. MB298 (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on here. Can someone who knows a bit about it straighten this out? American In Brazil (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I read the Politico article. As MB298 says, definitely bizarre. But it should be summarized, if only because McMullin got 20% of the vote in Utah. PS. My friend Nathan Johnson says he doesn't know anything about it! American In Brazil (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Rocky yet again

I hate to resurrect this discussion, but apparently not everyone is on board with the outcome discussed here. De La Fuente Ran in the Democratic primaries, was on the ballot in most states, placed 4th by total votes, and received as much media coverage as Lessig or Chafee. He is also as notable a candidate as Jindal or Perry. He lost by an overwhelming margin. There is no need to try to erase him from history as well. Thus i am restoring him to the table of also ran democratic candidates. Bcharles (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Random comment

Popular Vote numbers seem to be reversed? 84.45.119.6 (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This comment belongs below. Also, Really? I can't believe this has to be pointed out: Clinton has received more popular votes, but lost the Electoral College.--ML (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Presidential debates

PBS hosted a debate between Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. I think this should be included because this has two candidates in the major third parties and independent sections and we also included the free and equal debate, which had only one candidate in the major third parties and independent section. Any disagreements? Billythekid314 (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think mentioning this would be a good idea. While it (unfortunately) did not get anywhere close to the attention the Trump-Clinton debates got, I believe it should be included. MB298 (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Source: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/11/gary-johnson-jill-stein-debate-on-travis-smiley-show/ Billythekid314 (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

For completeness, I agree with Billythekid314 and MB298. American In Brazil (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I've added a brief sentence about it. Someone else who is better with tables and maps can updated those two parts as well. --Jayron32 13:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2016

Change ...businessman Donald Trump from New York... to ..."businessman" Donald Trump from New York...

Landyngill (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. MB298 (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I concur with MB298. That change would introduce a bias in violation of Neutral Point Of View policy. Please read the linked NPOV article. Bcharles (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MB298 and Bcharles. Trump is a businessman and has been all his life - ever since he graduated from Wharton in 1968 and joined his father's real estate firm. American In Brazil (talk) 13:10, 17 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 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. (-- unsigned comment by: American In Brazil [13])

Until we change the criteria, he doesn't go in there. Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sparkie82:. Then we have incomplete totals becasue Clinton and Trump only add up to 96% of the total vote. American In Brazil (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@American In Brazil: That means nothing. None of the people on the infoboxes of the elections will ever add up to 100% unless there were only two candidates in each of the races. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 23:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@JayCoop: Actually, except for the Libertarian and Green party candidates, the other third party candidates are too small to affect the percentage to two decimal places. However, the Libertarian and Green parties had more than 6 million votes, or over 4% of the total vote. They should be included or else the vote percentages will be significantly under-counted. American In Brazil (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@American In Brazil: For the United States presidential election, 1948, Strom Thurmond was included in the infobox because he earned electoral votes. For the United States presidential election, 1968, George Wallace was included in the infobox because he received more than 5% of the national popular vote and earned electoral votes. For the United States presidential elections, 1992 and 1996, Ross Perot was included in the infobox because he received more than 5% of the national popular vote in both elections. For the United States presidential election, 2000, Ralph Nader received 2.74% of the vote, but was not included in the infobox because he did not have at least 5% of the national popular vote or one earned electoral vote. Neither Johnson nor Stein received at least 5% of the national popular vote nor did either earn a single electoral vote, so they will not be included in the infobox. This is not arbitrary, this is previously-established consensus. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 19:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

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)

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)

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.

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)

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)

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)

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.[14] 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)

I agree. Mentioning the popular vote is irrelevant. The founding of the country and the attempt to balance the power of large population states and small population states is well documented in the Federalist Papers. The system for choosing the President is NOT the popular vote, but the Electoral College. Continually citing the popular vote promotes a hidden agenda. If the statement is included, then a robust discussion of the Congressional Map and the percentage of red versus the percentage of blue needs to be done. However, that is more appropriately taken up under the Electoral College, not any single individual election. Again, the standard of measure for the Presidential Election is the Electoral College, not the popular vote. Mott Black Coffee (talk) 13:29, 19 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)

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)

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)

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)

Thank you to whoever for editing this back, because someone had removed this from the Talk page yesterday(at least, it was missing yesterday). And to whoever is doing the vandalizing, please grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchfan07 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Vote totals source

Is this a reliable source for Wikipedia's elections? It looks like a personal website: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS Tom Ruen (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The short answer is "Yes, it is a reliable source." Please learn more about the website here: Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Please join the conversation here: Results section discussion.--ML (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tomruen: It is the self published personal website of David Leip, but the industry has given it some credibility. It's not a 'majority opinion source' which is the standard for Wikipedia's main source, but it appears to be our only current source on 3rd party voting data. I'd invite you to change the infobox vote total back to a majority opinion source such Associated Press. Also join the discussion that was referenced above. We need more eyes on this data.Gsonnenf (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

New section: Election was stolen from Hillary Clinton

Investigative journalist Greg Palast reveals that the 2016 presidential election was STOLEN from Hillary Clinton by the GOP controlled states. Greg Palast revealed the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004. We cannot allow the 2016 election to be regarded as legit.

http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/ AHC300 (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not a reliable source, per Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. When the information has been covered by independent reliable sources of good standing, we'll include the information. Importantly, for a subject as widely covered as this election, it would be the sort of thing that would be heavily covered by nearly ever major national and international news source. If one dude's own self-published website is the best place to find the information, it is not reliable by Wikipedia standards, and should not be included in the article. When the BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, etc cover it, we'll do so as well. --Jayron32 13:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I just made a more appropriate section on this, but there are credible, serious allegations of influence by outside governments: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nsa-chief-adm-michael-rogers-speaks-candidly-of-russias-use-of-wikileaks-in-u-s-election/ Silenceisgod (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@AHC300. The source you cite is aggressively attempting to sell a book and video based on this allegation. Therefore it is not a reliable source WP:RS. American In Brazil (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Consider the results of the recent World Series

Consider the results of the recent World Series:

 Game #1 Score: Cubs 0, Indians 6 - Runs: Cubs  0 Indians  6 - Games: Cubs 0 Indians 1
 Game #2 Score: Cubs 5, Indians 1 - Runs: Cubs  5 Indians  7 - Games: Cubs 1 Indians 1
 Game #3 Score: Cubs 0, Indians 1 - Runs: Cubs  5 Indians  8 - Games: Cubs 1 Indians 2
 Game #4 Score: Cubs 2, Indians 7 - Runs: Cubs  7 Indians 15 - Games: Cubs 1 Indians 3
 Game #5 Score: Cubs 3, Indians 2 - Runs: Cubs 10 Indians 17 - Games: Cubs 2 Indians 3
 Game #6 Score: Cubs 9, Indians 3 - Runs: Cubs 19 Indians 20 - Games: Cubs 3 Indians 3
 Game #7 Score: Cubs 8, Indians 7 - Runs: Cubs 27 Indians 27 - Games: Cubs 4 Indians 3

At game #2 the teams were tied in games won (the only thing that matters) but the Indians were ahead in runs (which does not matter).

At game #6 the Indians were ahead in runs made but the teams were tied in games won.

And of course at game #7 the cubs were ahead in games won while the teams were tied in runs made.

My point is that nobody counts runs made. They just count games won because the rules say the winner is the team that wins the most games. And the managers make decisions that maximize games won. If at the beginning the rules had been that the team with the most runs wins both teams would have tried to run up the score rather than giving their best pitchers some rest when the score was lopsided.

Likewise, if at the beginning the rules had been "most pupular votes win" both candidates would have put more effort into highly-populated areas where the electoral outcome was certain and far, far less effort into swing states. Thus we don't know what the popular vote would have been if both candidates had been trying to run up the popular vote total.

My conclusion from this is that we should mention the popular vote but should not emphasize it, just as we should not emphasize other statistical metrics that can not change the rusult. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Historic popular vote(as of current vote count) but losing election of recent times should be downplayed? First of all, this isn't a 'game', each vote has a person behind it, a citizen. Also understand that congress caps amount of representatives in House, and thereby the electoral college votes each state receives, against the wishes of US constitution, through the Apportionment Act of 1911. Therefore, Popular Vote is more representative of population than an outdated, improperly allocated electoral college system, in my opinion. Electoral college votes will be honored, but doesn't mean popular votes will be ignored, or that it should be ignored. Who knows, maybe this popular vote will create the need and basis for change in the future. Watchfan07 (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Its definitely a talked about issue and should be mentioned in an controversies section similar to the 2008 election page. This election is more similar to the 2008 election than the 2012 because it did not involve an incumbent candidate expected to win.Gsonnenf (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of influence by the Russian government

There's serious allegations of foul play in this election beyond it being "stolen". The chief of the NSA has claimed that the election was targeted by a "nation-state". Other security officials have specifically mentioned Russia as the source of attacks. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nsa-chief-adm-michael-rogers-speaks-candidly-of-russias-use-of-wikileaks-in-u-s-election/ http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/election-over-russia-still-hacking-n683651 Silenceisgod (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall reading any stories where Russians have cast votes in this election. That would be the only way they could influence the result. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay:Using effective propaganda during an election, to the effect of having people change their votes, is also considered 'influencing' an election. Gsonnenf (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

We do have an entire article on it at Democratic National Committee cyber attacks, but I'm not sure this is the right article to mention it in further, howeverm in light of WP:UNDUE and other issues, care has to be given to depth, location, and tone of the coverage of the incident. Simply put, while the information has been covered to sufficient depth to be mentioned at Wikipedia somewhere we already have an article about it, so we're not missing any information, and I'm not entirely convinced this article needs to be further expanded.--Jayron32 20:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

There article might be unwieldy, but so was the election. If there's an article on it and it was a likely influence on the outcome, I think it should be at least mentioned. Silenceisgod (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversy Section

This has been a very contentious election compared to the 2012 election and is likely more reflective of the 2008 election (which did not include an incumbent). The 2008 election has a section dedicated to the controversies of their election. I am suggesting we add a controversies sections similar to the 2008 election page. For larger issues we can create a summary and reference to the wikipage that explores the top in depth.Gsonnenf (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Really? There wasn't any controversy about the election itself. It had two controversial candidates, and (of course) a number of people didn't like the result, but that is not enough to label the election controversial. StAnselm (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The 2008 lists media bias as a controversy. The press and NSA have been claiming Russia influenced the election. Immediately following the election their were large protests and some riots. The press also predicted the election very poorly, so there is some controversy. Also, Comey released some information very close to the election date that Clinton claimed swang the election.Gsonnenf (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

We have separate articles on the campaigns. The election article properly should only cover the events on Nov. 9th and Dec. 19th, with enough background to provide basic context. There's no problem with covering well-referenced information on the campaign season at Wikipedia, but I don't know that THIS article is the correct place to do so. Also, citing another article at Wikipedia is not an argument: The errors of other people and of earlier times are not required to be repeated here. --Jayron32 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with you on that last point. Other articles, of the exact same, are what other editors to via consensus and should be heavily considered. I think its a good argument for it. I don't think that saying 'other people's consensus might be in error' is really an argument. Also the election begins on Nov. 8th, not Nov. 9th, and the media projections were considered a controversy, and after that date, the NSA is saying the Russians influenced the election. So overall I'm going to have say a controversies page is warranted..Gsonnenf (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Color change needed in the Voter Demographics section

Under "First Time Voter" in that section, on the "Everyone Else" line, both the Clinton and Trump boxes should have strong background color; I don't know how to change that myself, or I would already have done so. As it is, the bold color in only the Trump box falsely indicates a win for him among that group, though at 47-47 it is actually a tie. Could someone please take care of this? Thanks. Textorus (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Textorus: Is it possible that, for example, Trump got 47.4% and Clinton got 47.2%? I'd have to check the source. MB298 (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@MB298: It might well be possible, MB, but since none of the numbers in this table are displayed with decimal points, it seems to me that, rather than mystifying the reader, we would do well to make the color strength correspond with the simple numbers shown. And btw that is just what CNN does on their exit poll page, which is quite easy to read and understand. Textorus (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Popular vote inconsistency

How can readers have faith in the credibility of the popular vote numbers in this article when there's so much inconsistency in the content about it, and only one source each is used in the infobox and the Results section. These numbers should match throughout the article and multiple sources need to be used to verify those numbers. So why is only AP being used in the infobox and only Dave Leip being used in the Results section? Those two don't even match, and AP is always a step behind in updating the count. Why not use multiple, high level, mainstream sources that all provide the same numbers, like CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News? All four of them have the exact same current numbers: Clinton 62,523,126, Trump 61,201,031. Obviously, the numbers will continue to change for awhwile, but at least these four very reputable sources will always match, and give confidence to readers that the numbers they're seeing are reliable. Perception is reality to readers, so when you inexplicably limit different sections to a single source to verify important data, and those sections contradict each other, why would a reader trust either? And if you're going to illogically use just one source, then at least use that source throughout the article whereever the popular vote count is shown. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

This problem will not be resolved until mid December when the offical are made clear before the collage vote. --Crazyseiko (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree.--ML (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Crazyseiko, the official... what? You missed the point completely, which is about illogical sourcing of important data that is continually being updated here. The Electoral College* vote has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand, which is the popular vote. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Hi, The FOX, CNN, CBS, AP, PBS, all agree with each other within a few hours, so I agree we should be sourcing them as mainstream sources, i believe they were all sourced earlier in the infobox, but someone stripped them out. The Leip source doesn't agree with these majority opinion sources, its only in the article because it provides 3rd party voting data. In the results section this is stated. Perhaps we can add more of these consistent mainstream sources, and not report the minority source for the Clinton/Trump count. For Leip, we can only present their data for the 3rd party sources to maintain consistency. Does that sound good to you 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672?

Keep in mind we have discussed this in other talk page sections, and took this to dispute resolution, but MaverickLittle refused to participate. Gsonnenf (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it sounds good to me. Currently, it makes no sense and destroys the credibility of editors in the eyes of readers. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)