Talk:2020 United States presidential election

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lshane23 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: SumayyahGhori, Mberk11, Crazy326459, Wiki811pedia, Mvmarsha.

Biden and Trump almost tied

Should we mention how close the election was to being a 269-269 tie? The combined vote margin in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin was about ~45,000 votes in Biden's favor. If all those states narrowly flipped to Trump, a contingent election would have happened. [1][2] Prcc27 (talk) 21:27, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

That's still tens of thousands of votes in multiple states, doesn't seem that close to me. If it were just one of those states, then maybe. --Khajidha (talk) 22:04, 18 December 2020 (UTC)

45,000 votes is a razor thin margin given millions of votes were cast in those three states, and hundreds of millions of votes were cast nationwide. Prcc27 (talk) 00:12, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

No way. Lots of elections "could have gone the other way" if a few thousand votes had gone the other way in a few key states; they are never referred to as "almost tied". It was actually a lot closer to being "tied" in 2016, but I think Trump refers to that election as a "landslide". -- MelanieN (talk) 00:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• @MelanieN: That's because in most elections, a few thousand votes going another way wouldn't have resulted in a 269-269 tie. For example, 70,000+ votes flipping in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan in 2016, would have given Clinton a majority of electoral votes, not a 269-269 tie. I'm not aware of any reliable sources that said 2016 was almost a 269-269 tie. It would be interesting to hear why you think 2016 was closer to a tie than 2020 was, however. Also, what Trump thinks, is irrelevant to what we say in our article. Prcc27 (talk) 00:34, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• Prcc27, if I understand you correctly, you're interested in the hypothetical possibility there could have been a "269-269 tie." That's certainly interesting from a "playing with numbers symmetry" perspective, but is it something that multiple RS have discussed? If it is, then we could mention it, but is that the case? -- Valjean (talk) 01:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
  • @Valjean: While the possibility of a tie is one reason why it's worth mentioning, perhaps what's more important is that this could have lead to a flip from a Biden win, to a Trump win. Perhaps we should mention this in the proposed wording. I think that's the main motivation why the reliable sources mention those states, because a few thousand voters could have changed the outcome since contingent elections currently favor Republicans. I will change my proposed wording below to incorporate this. Prcc27 (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I think this is worth briefly mentioning in an appropriate section, with neutral language, as it has been discussed in several reliable sources (which should be referenced). Mdewman6 (talk) 00:19, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

It will be easier to evaluate this idea if you provide those sources and some suggested wording. -- Valjean (talk) 00:27, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Well, there are urls for two sources above, but yes, Prcc27, can you provide a proposed sentence to add and describe where in the article you think it should go, so we know exactly what we're talking about here? Mdewman6 (talk) 01:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Why mention that, which didn't happen? GoodDay (talk) 00:40, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Not following your argument here.. We also mention the 78,000 vote margin in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan in the 2016 article, even though Clinton didn't win those states. Prcc27 (talk) 00:50, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

We mentioned that in 2016, because it was the first time those states went Republican in 28-32 years. GoodDay (talk) 00:54, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Arizona and Georgia went blue for the first time in decades. Wisconsin flipped back to blue after going Republican for the first time in decades, and Wisconsin is the tipping point state. All of these states are noteable enough to be mentioned. Prcc27 (talk) 00:58, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm not overly interested arguing about this for weeks on end. So, do whatever ya want. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I lean against including this in the article. I think we have to be careful not to let these election articles just become repositories of random trivia. There are a huge number of "fun facts" unique to each election that could be added to every single election article under the sun. We should only include stuff like this when it is relevant and important (for example the high turnout, Biden flipping historically Republican AZ and GA etc.) Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 00:45, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposed wording: "A margin of about 44,000 votes flipping in Arizona, Georgia, and Wisconsin could have lead to an electoral vote tie between Biden and Trump. This would have lead to a contingent election." I propose we put this in the Statistics section, maybe even the Electoral votes section. Prcc27 (talk) 01:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Prcc27: Grammar quibble: that needs to say "could have led," not "could have lead". -- MelanieN (talk) 03:13, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Also, we need to see the sources you would cite to support this. In a quick search I'm not finding any support for this wording. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:16, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we should add something like "which likely would have resulted in a Trump victory" to the last sentence of my proposal. And maybe explain that currently contingent elections favor Republicans. Prcc27 (talk) 01:30, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

And which RS would you use to justify this content? Do multiple RS make exactly this point, and in such a way that it is anything other than trivia? If several high-quality RS mention it, then RS are defining it for us (they, not editors, are the ones who define it) as "not trivia," but if less than stellar sources, especially only a few, do it, then it's trivia. -- Valjean (talk) 02:04, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

When you write "currently contingent elections favor Republicans," what do you mean? Democrats have won the popular vote in seven out of eight straight presidential elections.[3] Do you see this changing in the near future? -- Valjean (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Valjean: In a contingent election, all of the states' House of Representatives vote as 1 single delegation for president. Even though Democrats hold the majority in the House, and will narrowly do so next year- Republicans will have a slim majority of state delegations. Democrats winning the national popular vote has nothing to do with what I'm talking about.. Prcc27 (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Better yet, what about the potential of faithless electors. GoodDay (talk) 02:38, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

A "Contingent election" is something rather specific. regardless, WP:OR would suggest not adding anything that isn't directly backed up by a secondary source (avoid WP:SYNTHESIS). riffic (talk) 02:41, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I've found a few RS mentioning both the margins and contingent election favoring Republicans before. I can revisit them and add them if you'd like. Herbfur (talk) 02:52, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, please do. I can't currently imagine any basis for including this kind of speculation in the article, but maybe if multiple Reliable Sources have pointed it out (and indicated it wasn't also true in the last four out of five elections), I could be persuaded. -- MelanieN (talk) 03:10, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

[4], [5], [6], [7], [8]. The methodology and available information varies, but these sources all cite a close margin, ~45,000 for an electoral college tie, and most also say that such a tie would favor Trump because Republicans hold a majority of state delegations in the House of Representatives. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 21:31, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I think we should mention this (with some wordsmithing to avoid speculation about the results of the contingent election, and avoiding the "almost tied" language); it is included on many other election pages. I removed (inaccurate) information of this type from the 1828 election recently; and many other elections (1960, 1976) include similar information. power~enwiki (π, ν) 03:15, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

If this idea of a contingent election has any weight in connection with the Trump-Biden election, then establish it on the Contingent election article, where that is the main topic. That would justify mentioning it very briefly here. Otherwise, this idea seems to be a coatrack for including pure speculation about a possibility that was never even close, certainly no closer than in most other elections. Therefore it's undue here. If it had almost happened, there would be myriad RS discussing it. What created the illusion of any closeness in this election was the fact that mail-in ballots were counted last in most states. If they had been counted first, or even at the same time as in person ballots, Biden would have led from the start and there would have been a significant lead all the way to the finish line. So this whole idea seems to give undue weight to speculation of an imagined close race that never happened. Its focus is on a "What if?" question that was never realized. -- Valjean (talk) 15:28, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

• You saying the closeness of this election is an "illusion" is your *POV*. Also, a lack of coverage doesn't mean that the election wasn't close (it definitely appears to be). It might mean we are too early in the election for that kind of coverage to be widespread among reliable sources, given that the Electoral College just voted this week. The same goes for the media not widely reporting on which state the tipping point is, (even though Wisconsin is the apparent tipping point). I'm okay with waiting, to give the media time to step back and analyze the election, before adding this to the article. That is, unless @Herbfur: has some sources he can provide on the matter. Btw, I found another source, but not sure it meets WP:RS: [9] Prcc27 (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

I've added some more sources above, from Washington Post, NPR, The Conversation, Sabato's Crystal Ball, and the National Review. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 21:33, 19 December 2020 (UTC)

Current paragraph is imprecise and inaccurate

I was going to edit the following sentence paragraph, but given the debate on the topic, I thought it best to articulate my concerns here on the talk page first. Here is the current sentence paragraph:

The margins in favor of Biden in three states (Wisconsin, Georgia, and Arizona) totaled around 43,000 (0.03% of the total votes cast). If these states had gone for Trump, there would have been a tie of 269 electors for each candidate.[396] This would have led to a contingent election, in which the president is chosen by the House of Representatives, with each state casting only one vote. Since there were 25 states for each candidate, there would have been a tie there too, but voting must continue until one candidate wins.

Problem #1: "(0.03% of the total votes cast)" is ambiguous and misleading. It implies that Biden won the election by a margin of only 0.03%, which is of course not the case. Biden won the popular vote by 4.4% (a percentage that is 147 times larger than 0.03%), and he won in the electoral college 306 to 232. Or, the statement implies that Biden won by 0.03% in each of the three states mentioned. Or, it implies that Biden won by an average 0.03% of the three states. I don't know what the statement is supposed to mean, which is why I describe it as ambiguous.

Problem #2: This statement is inaccurate: "... with each state casting only one vote. Since there were 25 states for each candidate, there would have been a tie there too ...." As our article on contingent election states, "During a contingent election in the House, each state's delegation casts one en bloc vote to determine the president, rather than a vote from each representative. Senators, on the other hand, cast votes individually for vice president."

If we are going to discuss a hypothetical result (which seems to constitute original research to me, btw), we need to craft a clear, concise, comprehensible paragraph. (Since I oppose this speculative fiction, I will refrain from writing such a paragraph.) Mark D Worthen PsyD (talk) [he/his/him] 08:51, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

All of which is why this is just fantasizing that does not belong in the article. --Khajidha (talk) 13:39, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• This sort of rampant what-if argumentation, while perhaps of niche interest to statisticians and political scientists, is not of encyclopedic interest and doesn't warrant any inclusion in the article whatsoever.--WaltCip-(talk) 13:42, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm the person who added that paragraph. I do not at all agree that it is "fantasizing that does not belong in the article". Let me give you a transscript of the BBC interview with Professor Alexander Keyssar, author of Why do we still have the electoral college?, that I cited:

Quote:

Tim Franks: To an outside observer, it is amaxing that -- I was reading I think maybe in the Economist magazine over the weekend that the final certified results show that had just 43,560 voters, or 0.03% of the total, in three states, changed their minds, there would have been a tie in the electoral college. I mean, it just fries your brain to think of that!

Professor Alexander Kaisar: Yes, absolutely. Especially because an accompanying figure is that Joe Biden won seven million more votes. So this election in the popular vote was not close. But it was whisker thin in the electoral college.

Eric Kvaalen (talk) 14:52, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The difference in votes in Georgia was 11,779, out of 4,997,716 votes cast for president. That is 0.2% of the Georgia vote that would have to be changed. You (as well as Franks and Kaisar) are making inappropriate comparisons between the margin in each of these states and the total votes cast in all states. That's not how it works. --Khajidha (talk) 15:12, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The statistic given by Tim Franks is purposefully misleading. "43,560 voters in three states" comprises three specific subsets of voters in three different states. If any different subsets of 43,560 voters were selected across any other group of states, the election results would not have been affected at all. I realize that this is an indictment of the Electoral College system as a whole in that it favors swing state voters over voters in stronghold states like California or Texas, but this sort of argumentation falls into the realm of advocacy, and it's not Wikipedia's place to make that argument.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:18, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That's a feature of the EC, not a bug. It ensures that smaller states don't get completely overlooked. Biden's winning vote margin in California was greater than the total votes cast in Wyoming, Alaska, both Dakotas, Montana, West Virginia, Idaho, and Nebraska COMBINED and was almost 3/4 of the total margin of his popular vote win. In the electoral college, the previously mentioned states have just over half of the votes of California. Remove that and the smaller states would become more and more ignored leading to even greater tensions.--Khajidha (talk) 14:52, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

To be clear: I am all in favor of analyzing how the dynamics of the election were impacted by increased voter participation, absentee ballots, shifts in Latino and Asian demographics, etc., and how these dynamics made the election closer than expected (Nate Silver got it wrong again!). However, highlighting a numerical triviality that required a number of contingencies to fall into place in the Electoral College system, in my opinion, is not the way to go about doing that.--WaltCip-(talk) 15:31, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, if you change a small fraction of the total vote in the right places in exactly right way, you can change pretty much any election any election. To not be able to do it with a fraction of a percentage point of the total vote would actually need a bit of a landslide. This is normal and we don't need a section on this. We didn't have one in 2016 on it, when there enough states with less than 1% difference to change the winner, and we don't need it here. Banak (talk) 15:33, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Banak: The 2016 article does briefly reference those states and their margins though. Prcc27 (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

No, it's not normal. It happened also in 2016 in the opposite direction (that is, the candidate who lost the popular votee won the election because of a few tens of thousands of votes in Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania). But I challenge you to give me other examples. There may be some, but few and far between. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 16:25, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

That's nice, but, this still amounts to little more than trivial errata. Not worthy of mention in this manner. ValarianB (talk) 16:30, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

The RS I've seen have stated that a contingent election would lead to Trump being favored because Republicans hold more state delegations. I suggest that the wording be changed to reflect that instead. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 16:50, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I'm all for including it in the article, as long as we have enough RS to make the the change. However, the part about Biden winning 25 states and Trump winning 25 states resulting in a tie in a contingent election is definitely original research, and it has nothing to do with how a contingent election actually operates. So I'm vehemently opposed to that portion of the wording. Prcc27 (talk) 23:09, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, that wording is definitely problematic. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 00:17, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

The proposed paragraph is inaccurate in several ways as pointed out above (and let's be clear that it is NOT currently in the article; it was removed within hours citing this discussion). In order to add it we need to show significant coverage from Reliable Sources - in other words, that multiple Reliable Sources thought it significant enough to report. User:Herbfur offered five sources about, but only two are neutral reliable sources: NPR and Washington Post. NPR mentions the “tie” possibility in one sentence, attributing it to an NPR “senior political editor and correspondent”. WaPo does not mention the “tie” possibility at all. Bottom line, this is not a "thing" as far as Reliable Sources are concerned, and does not belong in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:49, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

If you look in WP:RSP, four of the cited sources are reliable I believe, and there's no consensus on the National Review. I think the main thing about including this information isn't that it could've ended in a tie but rather that the election was a lot closer in the electoral college, towards the tipping point, than in the popular vote. I'm fine with excluding the possibility of a tie but I wish for the info on the closeness in the electoral college to be included. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 20:00, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

But the electoral college vote wasn't close: 306 to 232 is pretty decisive. Individual states were close, but the country as a whole wasn't. --Khajidha (talk) 09:50, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

• @Khajidha: That's the point though.. 3 individual states were very close, to the point that it could have easily flipped the election to the other person in 2020. The same thing happened in 2016 when 3 individual states were close and just barely denied Clinton a win, even though the pledged electoral vote was exactly the same and pretty convincing (ignoring the faithless electors). Prcc27 (talk) 22:11, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

And my point is that you are confusing how close each state was with how close the country was. Yes, each of those states was close, but that still puts you multiple states away from flipping the country. Multiple states away is not close. --Khajidha (talk) 22:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

It's not necessarily about how many states needed to be flipped, but the amount of people in those states who could've swung the election by switching their votes the other way. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:40, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

They are still spread over multiple states. No matter how you slice it, to change the overall results would require multiple states to flip. Multiple states changing is always gonna be less likely than one state changing, no matter how small the individual margins. --Khajidha (talk) 05:18, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

Then why do we mention the three tipping point states in the 2016 article..? It just seems inconsistent to mention those three states in that article, but not mention the three tipping point states for this election cycle in this article.. Prcc27 (talk) 05:39, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know. It seems just as silly there as it does here. Inconsistency could also be averted by removing it from both places.--Khajidha (talk) 12:20, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

2020 Presidential Election Results by Congressional District

I made a map of the 2020 Presidential Election by Congressional District. It uses totals from this spreadsheet which are likely accurate, although we don't have solid numbers for all of New York and Kansas. However, we can take some accurate estimates of what the raw percentages are in every district. Here's the map and spreadsheet so far.

The 2020 United States Presidential Election by Congressional District

Spreadsheet of results can be accessed here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1uPaQL4Izv-7nbreQA7N5NVWAduulCtkyw8qZN7bpjCg/edit#gid=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Fuzzybf (talk • contribs) 19:28, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

If you are suggesting we use this in the article, I would say no. This is WP:Original research; we can only use things that have been published by Reliable Sources. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:31, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Where are you getting this spreadsheet? Is it your own data or is it compiled by a reliable source? If you compiled it on your own, unfortunately, it violates WP:NOR so I would have to respectfully dissent to its inclusion in the article. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:50, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

If all the data is confirmed by an "official" source, can it be added?

unsigned comment added by Fuzzybf (talk • contribs)

Unfortunately, no, per WP:SYNTH. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 21:06, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

What if I redo the map, but only get the data from one (credible) source? Will that be acceptable?

unsigned comment added by Fuzzybf (talk • contribs) — Preceding undated comment added 23:25, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Fuzzybf, please get the message. The problem is not the reliability of the data. The problem is you making it into a map. That is Original Research and not allowed. Also, please sign your posts here. You do that by adding four tildes (~~~~), or by putting your cursor at the end of your message and clicking the button at the top of the editing page that looks like a signature. That will automatically produce a signature and a date/time stamp. This is what happens when I do that: -- MelanieN (talk) 23:35, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Actually, the message I was reading was that the spreadsheet was the problem, not the map until Herbur's comment, so I can understand why Fuzzybf might be confused. Anyways, according to WP:OI, Original images created by a Wikipedian are not considered original research, so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments, the core reason behind the NOR policy. Based on my current belief, I am not so sure it is a problem. If the data is fine to post as it is, then where would the problem be if that data was shown in map form? --Super Goku V (talk) 02:07, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

The map is original research since Melanie is a administrator and she said so so it cannot be posted unless other administrators allow it 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 11:13, 23 December 2020 (UTC)

That's not inherently true either. The test for original research is based on objective criteria and not whether or not an admin said so. WaltCip-(talk) 12:30, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

This does not make any sense to me. If all the data could come from one source, then it would not be original research to make it into a map. It is no more original research than any of the maps are which are posted on every single election article. If the source of the information is the problem, then fine, say that. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 06:44, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

SUPPORT-@Fuzzybf:- After going through WP:OI as Super Goku V has mentioned above, I am of the view that your map will not violate Wikipedia's guidelines if you can provide published and reputed sources to support your data. CX Zoom (talk) 15:02, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

My opinion was that of a regular editor; I was not speaking as an administrator, since I am WP:INVOLVED at this article. I notice that User:Muboshgu agreed with me, and I think User:Herbfur may have agreed as well, since he called it WP:SYNTH. -- MelanieN (talk) 19:05, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree with you, MelanieN. The policy about images that was later cited still does not clear this image for use. My understanding of the policy is that it's meant to clear editors who go out and take a physical photo with a camera and contribute them to Wikipedia, not necessarily editors who create digital images using their computers. While the later case is still covered by the policy, we should also remember that the policy cited states, "so long as they do not illustrate or introduce unpublished ideas or arguments". This is essentially the same provision as those of WP:NOR and WP:SYNTH and the map would still be in violation of that for now. That's because the idea of exactly which congressional districts the candidates have won hasn't been covered by reliable sources yet. While some sources like FiveThirtyEight have stated how many districts Biden and Trump won, they haven't said which districts exactly. Even using state certifications to generate this data would still violate these three policies, because the state certifications, as far as I'm aware, don't provide congressional district-level information for the presidential race, so that would be doing original research and drawing unstated conclusions from these sources (WP:SYNTH). I'm certain that this information will come soon from reliable sources, and when it does, I'd definitely support adding this kind of a map. But regrettably, for now, I must oppose the inclusion of the map. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 19:16, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

The key is: "For now". There are reliable sources who calculate CD-level results for the Presidential Election, it just hasn't been done yet. I would completely support the inclusion of a map of that once a source is available. yeah_93 (talk) 16:58, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

@Herbfur and MelanieN: I believe I understand. Out of curiosity, does that mean we can remove the other versions of the image on the other election articles or do they need to be discussed as a group somewhere? (2008, 2000, 1988, 1960, 1956, 1952, and all others I missed) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:53, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

This is a local consensus so it affects this article only. Of course, discussions could be started at the other articles and similar arguments made, if anyone feels like doing it. -- MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I think we'd have to discuss there first. The other images are probably backed by reliable sources, so they're probably ok. I also looked into Wikipedia policy further and WP:CALC could apply? If the images were generated by doing calculations on certified election results, they could be permissible as is, if the image creator tells us their method for generating the results and the community agrees that the method is sound. Thoughts? Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 18:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Then my current belief is that the 1952, 1960, and 1988 (along with any others I missed) need to be edited to remove the signature at the bottom. In addition, the 1952, 1988, and 2020 files only cite Twitter with no actual link, so those need to be updated to include some actual source instead of saying, Drawn on paint. Previously published: Published on Twitter. The 1960 source links to a Facebook post which has the only mention of the source as A very special thank you to Gary Jacobson at the University of San Diego for providing me the necessary election data! (The 2000 source is a private forum, so I will only note it here for now.) The 2008 map has the best sourcing of the files and the only approval to use the file that I can see, but it seems to have errors in it at a glance. (Districts in Wisconsin (6th), Iowa (2nd), New Mexico (1st), Texas (15th) use different shading between the two maps despite just being a conversion from Red for Democrats and Blue for Republicans to the US norm.) --Super Goku V (talk) 02:07, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Comment: As a side note, I don't think it's appropriate to put your name and Twitter handle directly on the map that you want in the article. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 17:31, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

I'll take the signature out if need be. --Fuzzybf 2601:602:87F:E6F0:CC32:9530:5127:E9DF (talk) 23:44, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

The signature has been taken out. -Fuzzybf 2601:602:87F:E6F0:4D56:9301:C392:CE4B (talk) 22:26, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Clarify 2016 swings in results by state

Can someone validate the percentage swings from 2016 column in the "Results by state" section? Particularly the +/- sign - e.g. Florida's change from 2016 is listed as -2.16%, which doesn't make sense given that Trump increased his victory margin there. Shouldn't it be +2.16%? In general, it's not clear at all what the sign convention is - does + signify increased margin for the victor, or a specific change relative to one party? Please clarify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A00:23C6:BB0F:C601:EC1C:88DB:88CA:4C8F (talk) 11:30, 27 December 2020 (UTC)

As with the rest of the table, it relates to the swing towards or against the victor. + is towards the victor and - is against the victor. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:38, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

The victor of the state, or the victor of the overall election? Again, using Florida as an example - it swung 2.16% for the victor of the state, Donald Trump, and yet is listed as a negative. The sign convention isn't intuitive and needs to be stated, or modified to be more intuitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 158.180.192.10 (talk) 22:28, 28 December 2020 (UTC)

It's in comparison to the victor of the election. It's standard convention across all these articles, but I can add a key to explain it if you'd like. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 16:38, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

"Biden has won largest share of popular vote against an incumbent since 1932."

This statement made in the introduction of the article is false. Biden won the largest share of the popular vote against an incumbent since 1980. Ronald Reagan beat President Carter by more than 9%, well over Biden's victory of 4.4%. Cardinal-Blitz2 (talk) 14:47, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

The statement could be more clearly written. In 1980, Reagan won 50.7%. Biden in 2020 won 51.3%. We should be mindful that "share" and "margin of victory" are two different things. I suggest the following verbiage: "Biden won the highest share of the popular vote of any successful challenger since 1932." Thoughts?MisterCSharp (talk) 14:59, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

At 51% Biden did win the largest "share" of the popular vote, while with Reagan winning by 9% his "share" was technically larger. Another descriptor is needed to replace share. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:18, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The use of "share" to mean overall percentage of the vote (as opposed to margin over one's opponent) is the standard usage on Wikipedia political articles. marbeh raglaim (talk) 00:28, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

The current statement is accurate (share does not equal margin, as noted above) but I agree it could be confusing to readers. How about just replacing "share" with "percentage"? Mdewman6 (talk) 00:30, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Whether you use the word "percentage" or "share" (either are okay in my opinion), I think what's confusing about the original wording is that it was the largest share/percentage "against an incumbent" since 1932. It's clearer to say it's the highest share/percentage of the popular vote "of any successful challenger since 1932." marbeh raglaim (talk) 00:42, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

How about ... and Biden won the largest(or)highest percentage of the popular vote of any successful challenger since 1932. -- Somedifferentstuff (talk) 00:49, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 29 December 2020

Biden's 2020 current popular vote total: 81,283,098 Trump's 2020 current popular vote total: 74,222,958 DBradshaw25 (talk) 19:52, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:09, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

@Spiffy sperry: Their numbers and the ones currently on ABC News' election map are the same. (It claims that it was updated last on December 18th.) I just saved a copy to the Internet Archive, but is that a suitable source for the moment? --Super Goku V (talk) 03:52, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Possibly, but I'm not sure. I appreciate the link to ABC, and it led me to check the total votes listed by other media sources. I found that CNN and Washington Post have the same vote totals as ABC and the Associated Press and Wall Street Journal have different vote totals (from ABC and from each other). This article currently uses the exact sum of the certified results of all 51 authorities (states + DC). The media sources I list here each differ from the certified results in 5-10 states. And in all cases, the media sources do not appear to use the exact sum of their state totals to arrive at their reported national total. I guess the bottom line is that reliable sources differ slightly, so I'm not sure that using ABC above all other options is justified. At some point, the Federal Election Commission will issue a report with the final numbers. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 18:34, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Ah, if this uses a sum of all of the certified results, then we should stay with what we have until the FEC's final numbers. I didn't check for other sources as I just searched for "81,283,098" on Google, so I didn't discover that there were differences. --Super Goku V (talk) 01:35, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Should turnout arrow be removed?

According to the note attached to the turnout figure in the info box, it's not comparable to previous years as the figure for 2020 excludes ineligible US residents and includes eligible US citizens abroad (neither of which were done in previous years' turnout calculations). So shouldn't we remove the green arrow indicating an increase of turnout? It's confusing to say "this figure can't be compared to previous figures" and then have a symbol to compare it to previous figures. Thek826 (talk) 15:37, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Yes, I agree, it might have to be removed. It seems common sense that turnout is higher but like you said, it's contradictory and solid sources aren't available to back up that comparison. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 16:40, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I believe the reason is due to these two discussions: Voter turnout (Archive 21), Voter turnout (Archive 23). According to Heitordp, But it should take a few months until the FEC publishes its report. Until then, should we temporarily cite the estimate similar to the FEC method (1/3) from this source? That's what was done for the previous election before the FEC report was available. Additionally, we have this sentence in the lede, The election saw the highest voter turnout since 1900,[10] which references the U.S. Elections Project indirectly. There are also sources like the AP which shows that turnout as determined on November 9th had increased compared to 2016. (Since then, about 7.5 million ballots were counted, so their numbers are outdated.) Personally, I would say we have evidence of increased voter turnout, but the uncertainty is the percentage of voter turnout and by how much. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:08, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Edit request

Regarding 2020 United States presidential election#January 6, 2021 Objection to the Certification of Electoral College votes, I think the section needs serious refactoring, and I would even support outright deletion. But, at the very least, seeing as how I can't edit it myself, I would request that Harley be changed to Hawley with a wikilink to Josh Hawley; the section remove its title caps; and that which would force his fellow Republicans to vote to choose between rejecting President Donald Trump's unsubstantiated claims of massive voter fraud in this year's election or disenfranchising millions of voters be removed as violating WP:NPOV and a copyvio (directly lifted from the article cited). Urve (talk) 01:05, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Urve,  Done. Mikemikem, please be more careful not to plagiarize sources. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:12, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

falsely alleging widespread voter fraud and trying to influence the vote counting process in swing states

There was voter fraud this should be changed to " alleging widespread voter fraud and trying to influence the vote-counting process in swing states." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.194.182 (talk) 22:13, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the courts and reliable sources disagree with you. If you have evidence of voter fraud, you should hurry to SCOTUS, since no one else has offered any. 331dot (talk) 22:17, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

Huh? That's what's in the lead (modulo a hyphen). While there was voter fraud (see here), it wasn't widespread... which is what our article says. I fail to see what the IP is getting at. Unless you're trying to get us to omit falsely, in which case, no. Urve (talk) 23:57, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

There's basically always some voter fraud. But voter fraud in the 10s or 100s of thousands (or more)? That is unusual and would require a lot of proof. Which hasn't turned up anywhere. --Khajidha (talk) 15:44, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Suggested minor edit

In the introduction, first sentence second paragraph (referring to Biden), please change

…“in a competitive primary that featured the largest field of candidates for any political party”… to

…“in a competitive primary that featured the largest field of candidates (29) for any political party”…

This extra information comes from wiki page “2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries” Thanks Peter Ells (talk) 23:48, 1 January 2021 (UTC)

Graphic showing shifts in votes compared to 2016

Are the arrows showing how each State shifted compared to the previous election going to be added to this article like in other election articles? I thought those were really helpful and interesting in seeing which States got more Red and more Blue. NutteLarsson59 (talk) 04:30, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

@NutteLarsson59: Consider File:U.S._2016_to_2020_presidential_election_swing.svg? Which is close but not precisely what you want (arrows). Otherwise click on the shift button here; I don't see a map with arrows at commons, but the NYT graphic does. Urve (talk) 12:40, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

@Urve I was referring to an overall State graphic, such as this https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Presidential_Election_Results_Swing_by_State_from_2012_to_2016.svg NutteLarsson59 (talk) 21:30, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Why is Wikipedia allowing articles to present biased opinions in lieu of fact?

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

---

I, like many others thought that Wikipedia was supposed to be an online encyclopedia. Sadly this is no longer the case. I repeatedly see articles with opinions being asserted as facts. This is unconscionable behavior. Like many other supposed reputable news sources, this has been compromised. Just allow facts, not opinions. Mcsgwi (talk) 22:14, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Mcsgwi, broad complaints like these are not helpful. Is there anything specific you'd like to point out as being potentially biased? – Muboshgu (talk) 22:19, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

What "opinion" are you talking about? It is a fact that Joe Biden was elected the 46th President of the United States. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 23:05, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Mcsgwi So news sources and Wikipedia are compromised because they don't tell you what you want to hear? 331dot (talk) 23:09, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Mcsgwi Please let us know exactly what statements you find biased or incorrect. You can also WP:BE BOLD and edit things you find biased, and discuss with other editors on talk pages. But making broad and vague statements doesn't help. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 23:58, 2 January 2021 (UTC)

Mcsgwi, Wikipedia depends on reliable and secondary source and most of them are left wing based sources. Conservative editors are having a hard time editing nowadays. Check out this article: Wikipedia co-founder Larry Sanger says online encyclopedia scrapped neutrality, favors lefty politics. And since I'm using Fox News, I'll be warned for using it because of this: Wikipedia administrators caution editors about using Fox News as source on 'contentious' claims. Happy editing. KRtau16 (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It’s not Wikipedia’s fault that so many “conservative” news sources are increasingly detached from reality.—-Ermenrich (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

You are right! It's good that talk shows are deemed unreliable as it is opinion based. KRtau16 (talk) 02:06, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

This is veering dangerously close to WP:NOTFORUM territory, but yes, the issue is that Wikipedia relies on reliable sources and can experience systemic bias. However, the editor raising this concern should point out specific issues with the article so we can address them. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:19, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Mcsgwi I don't know what he wants to talk about in this article. Whether you are the supporter of Democrats or Republicans, this article is mainly based on sources. There are "many others" who want to write about their political facts in here. But Wikipedia is not a space which is advocating to specific political figures or specific political view. I think you should look NPOV and GFCA -- Wendylove (talk)`

Mcsgwi I agree. All encyclopedic content on Wikipedia must be written from a neutral point of view (NPOV), which means representing fairly, proportionately, and, as far as possible, without editorial bias, all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. This is clearly being violated by pushing narrative over fact. 124.169.150.131 (talk) 18:29, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Where is this article doing that? Can you indicate the offending passages and provide evidence that they're biased? 24.46.83.131 (talk) 19:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Where exactly are the narratives being pushed in this article? Please cite specific passages. Again, these kinds of broad statements are unhelpful. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 20:02, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Just to raise one example that I see fit: A subsection is named "False claims of fraud" where "False" reads opinionated. "Claims of fraud" seems to be the right term to use for NPOV. --Luminoxius (talk) 08:03, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I believe that Q2 in the FAQ covers why we use the word false, as reliable sources say false claims. --Super Goku V (talk) 08:48, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that we should give equal time to people who claim that the Earth is flat or that climate change is a hoax? Sorry, but no - we are not required to give credence to fringe theories, and the claim that there was any significant electoral fraud in the 2020 American presidential election is demonstrably fringe and rejected by all mainstream sources. NorthBySouthBaranof (talk) 08:53, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It's fair that we call the claims false, or that they have been declared false by reliable sources, but it's not necessary to name the subsection with that word. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:57, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

This is what I mean. Same way the "Presidency" section under Donald Trump is not named "Controversial presidency" just because RS say so. --Luminoxius (talk) 09:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

By the same token, it's "opinionated" to call the Earth round, because there are some crackpots out there who either don't understand science or choose not to believe in it. Jah77 (talk) 10:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

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

Insufficient evidence vs. False, and how it is applied

Despite what the "journalistic" headlines say (using words like "false" or "lack of evidence"), the courts have rejected the cases for the vast majority based on standing, timeliness or insufficiency of evidence, rather than because of presented evidence being false or nonexistent.

For an encyclopedic article, I believe that claims about falsehood should be held to a high standard, not be a mere echo of journalistic opinion (unless the intention is to document the journalistic opinion, in which case it should be clearly noted as such). Unfortunately I don't think this article meets these standards. An example is the sentence that begins with "Before, during, and after Election Day, Trump and numerous Republicans attempted to subvert the election and overturn the results, falsely alleging widespread voter fraud." (issues: insufficient evidence does not equate to a false allegation, also the use of "subvert" which makes opinionated assumptions about intent and does not add factual information to "overturn"). An even worse example is found later in the paragraph, where "widespread" is not even mentioned: "The Trump campaign and its allies, including Republican members of Congress,[24] still continued to engage in numerous attempts to overturn the results of the election by [...] spreading conspiracy theories falsely alleging fraud,[28][...]" (issue: election fraud is not a "conspiracy theory" but a historically well-documented fact, e.g., in the Heritage Foundation voter fraud database . The question about fraud in the 2020 election is not whether it happened but whether it was sufficiently widespread to influence the outcome, as indicated by the comments from AG William Barr in this same article [28]: attorney general William Barr told reporters that though he was “sure there was fraud in this election” it was not “systemic or broad-based”). An additional problem with this part of the sentence is that the cited source is a rather weak support of the statement itself (the article opens as an ad-hominem attack in its headline and first sentence, which denotes a debate/opinion intent, and using Sidney Powell as a significantly representative example of "The Trump campaign and its allies, including Republican members of Congress" is a stretch).

Certain newspapers may be acceptable as a reliable source of facts, but that does not automatically extend to opinion in those newspapers (which includes sections of a news article where the statements are not backed by the facts being reported). This is specifically covered in Wikipedia's examples of where material should not be reported in Wikipedia's voice WP:TRUTH. Q2 in the FAQ is based on the incorrect assumption that because a source considered reliable for news calls his statements false, it is acceptable to repeat that same claim in a Wikipedia article (with Wikipedia's voice), and should be removed.

Proposed improvement: Remove the opinion sections marked in bold above. Remove Q2 in this Talk page FAQ

--Ecrz (talk) 18:17, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

This is a nonstarter. It is nonsense that courts only rejected the suits because of standing. Numerous judges have ruled that the accusations lack merit and have no evidence, as can be seen by looking at previous discussions of the issue. Wikipedia does not report conspiracy theories as if they might be true.--Ermenrich (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Also, you don't need to even rely on what journalism or courts say to begin to gauge the falseness of the claims: simply compare what Trump and GOP lawyers say in court—where they're liable for committing perjury—to what they say at their staged events when cameras are rolling but they aren't under oath. --‿Ꞅtruthious 𝔹andersnatch ͡ |℡| 20:28, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree, they often have said "fraud" in front of cameras but "no fraud" under oath. Additionally, the editor is proposing things that go against Wikipedia's basic pillars, I mean, whether or not something is true in this situation isn't an opinion. The reliable sources are reporting a fact that these statements are incorrect. Even then, like others have said, the courts have also thrown out cases because the evidence is false or nonexistent, not just standing or timing. The word "false" should stay, per WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 20:33, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

I would respectfully request that you read WP:DUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:RS (as well as what I wrote) in its entirety and refer to the full context, instead of cherry picking. Also WP:NOR is relevant, and I will reiterate WP:Verifiability,_not_truth#"If_it's_written_in_a_book,_it_must_be_true!"

I agree that Wikipedia should not report conspiracy theories as if they might be true, but that is very different from engaging in value-laden labeling, which is explicitly against WP:LABEL. This is what this article seems to be currently doing and I am proposing to remove. --Ecrz (talk) 03:01, 6 January 2021 (UTC)

Trump's call with Raffensberger

Worth including? ‘I just want to find 11,780 votes’: In extraordinary hour-long call, Trump pressures Georgia secretary of state to recalculate the vote in his favor President Trump urged fellow Republican Brad Raffensperger, the Georgia secretary of state, to “find” enough votes to overturn his defeat in an extraordinary one-hour phone call Saturday that election experts said raised legal questions.--Ermenrich (talk) 20:44, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

Also NYT [10], CNN [11], MSNBC [12], Politco [13]. Not at Fox yet but I don't see how they can avoid reporting it (although what do I know?). Now at Fox too [14].--Ermenrich (talk) 20:56, 3 January 2021 (UTC)

It absolutely is. Completely in favor of this. Enough reliable sources have covered it, I think. —GreenFlash411 — Preceding undated comment added 02:34, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

While the attempts at overturning the election overall are noteworthy for the article, we have no reason to believe these particular comments will be noteworthy, per WP:10YEARTEST, so they don't belong here in what is already too far large of an article. Onetwothreeip (talk)

The 10 year test is a good one - though I doubt many WP articles on recent events would pass it. It’s looking to be a significant incident at time of writing but the significance will clarify over coming days so probably best to wait for the moment. WP:CRYSTAL. DeCausa (talk) 09:58, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

It seems roughly in-line with other stuff in 2020_United_States_presidential_election#Pressure_on_state_and_local_officials. I think a sentence is fine, but it's true the article is massive and that sort of nitty-gritty can be covered elsewhere; if we're not going to include it I would suggest generally rewriting / condensing that section, since including other stuff at similar levels of granularity but leaving that one out is awkward. Alternatively an existing sentence in there could be made more general (encompassing both this and other, comparable calls in one sentence.) --Aquillion (talk) 23:18, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Move nomination process to another article.

The article is bloated right now and moving the nomination process elsewhere would help condense. A Tree In A Box (talk) 15:29, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The entire primaries section and the aftermath could be split out. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:51, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

I agree. Those are both worthy of an article in their own right. Some of the background information can probably be trimmed as well. Herbfur (Eric, He/Him) (talk) 02:27, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

They are elsewhere, what is there now is just a summary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)

Request for voter turnout consolidation

Please change The election saw the highest voter turnout as a percentage of eligible voters since 1900,[396] with each of the two main tickets receiving more than 74 million votes, surpassing Barack Obama's record of 69.5 million votes from 2008.[10] in the "Statistics" section to (something akin to) The election saw the highest voter turnout as a percentage of eligible voters since 1900 - 66.3%[396] - with each of the two main tickets receiving more than 74 million votes, surpassing Barack Obama's record of 69.5 million votes from 2008.[10] Rationale: Voter turnout is a standard and one of the major election statistical measures and if the "Statistics" section mentions the turnout, it would be user-friendly to actually include the value. Additionally, voter turnout (in pct) is provided at two places in the article - in the top right side main box and in the "Electoral results" sections. These use sources different from the source in the "Statistics" section. Suggestions: - Replace the turnout value and it's source in the main box with the value corresponding to the official results. - Unify the cited sources for all mentions of the voter turnout. TBH I'm baffled by my inability to find official source(s) for votes totals, but perhaps this will be ramified by tomorrow's certification by the Congress, providing an official cite-able results as well. 84.208.61.181 (talk) 10:55, 5 January 2021 (UTC)