Jump to content

Talk:2016 United States presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Writegeist (talk | contribs) at 03:22, 2 September 2016 (→‎New Trump photos: signing). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Order of the list of candidates in the infobox

There is a clear consensus that the first row of the infobox should contain the Democratic Party candidate and the Republican Party candidate. The candidate whose party received more electoral votes in the previous election should be on the left; the second candidate should be on the right.

There is insufficient discussion on whether third parties' candidates should be listed in the infobox or how they should be ordered. More discussion is needed if editors want to resolve those issues.

Cunard (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a long-standing consensus based on discussions in previous presidental articles that presidental general election candidates who have ballot access sufficient to have a mathematical possibility to reach a majority (270) of electoral votes are including in the infobox. The consensus regarding the order of candidates (from this discussion) is that the order is based on previous electoral results, not an arbitrary selection of particular parties. The issue of whether to arrange the candidates as two-per-row or four-per-row was not the subject of this question and there is no consensus on that. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)
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.

What should the order of the list of candidates in the infobox be? Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Scope: U.S. Presidential (general) Elections
(Publicized at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums, Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom, Talk:Australian_federal_election,_2016, Talk:Icelandic_presidential_election,_2016, Talk:National_electoral_calendar_2016, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics)

Background: Broad consensus has been reached as to which candidates are included in the infobox in presidential elections, however, despite much discussion on the issue, there has never been a firm consensus as to how they are ordered. Previous suggestions include alphabetically, an aesthetic criterion, by ballot access, by poll results, or some other order. Summary of advantages/disadvantages:

Aesthetically - Advantages: Looks nice, graphic quality. Disadvantages: Imprecise, more subjective.
Alphabetically - Advantages: Fair, simple, precise and unambiguous. Disadvantages: Doesn't give extra weight to potentially stronger candidates.
Ballot access - Advantages: Gives extra weight to potentially stronger candidates. Disadvantages: Perception of bias toward established parties, the order changes as ballot access changes.
Poll results - Advantages: Provides a rough indication of candidate's popular support. Disadvantages: The actual election is not based on popular support, polls are unreliable, subject to bias and constantly changing.
Other criterion? Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Comments:

  • Alphabetically - This method is precise and fair, and once settled on, it avoids all future arguments among editors as to which candidates/parties should get "extra weight" in the infoboxes. The order doesn't constantly change based on external factors which are sometimes ambiguous and potential biased. This also more closely follows WP guidelines on the order of lists. Regarding WP:Weight, all of the candidates in the infobox have achieved a threshold that separates them from the hundreds of others who are unlikely to be elected. The difference in elect-ability between a candidate that has 50-state ballot access and one who has 47-state access is inconsequential. Although two parties have dominated U.S. politics for some time, this can change (and historically has changed). Differences between the candidates who have made the cut and appear in the infobox are best handled within the body of the article where the subtleties of weight can be better addressed. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • What is the scope of this RFC? It's phrased and advertised as if it's relevant to all elections, but the argument and forum suggests that it's relevance is limited to US presidential elections. The scope needs to be clarified before continuing. Rami R 12:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. I've clarified in the proposal that the scope is for U.S. presidential (general) elections. Sparkie82 (t•c) 12:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sparkie82: do you mean future/on-going presidential elections, or all presidential elections? Ebonelm (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The RfC is for this article (United_States_presidential_election, 2016). If it results in a firm consensus with a clear standard, then the consensus could be relied upon for 2020, 2024... Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Note that this covers the pre-election time period. I believe that there already is a consensus to sort the candidates by actual electoral votes received post-election. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Is this meant to address the same issue currently discussed in #Ballot access and the infobox above? If so, will you add a comment there to avoid splitting discussion? 64.105.98.115 (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • They overlap but are not precisely the same. This RfC is about ordering the candidates, that one is about how to break that order up into rows. (I encourage everyone here to participate in that discussion as well.) Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tradition – US elections have essentially been a two-party system for more than a century, so the first row should reflect this reality, otherwise many readers would be confused. Second-row candidates and beyond can be listed alphabetically. For the ordering of the first row, tradition places the incumbent party on the left and the challenging party on the right, i.e. no change from today's placement. — JFG talk 19:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tradition - I see no reason to change a long standing practice done in books, and encyclopedias alike. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tradition/keep prior consensus The candidates were consistently sorted by ballot access throughout 2012, with the incumbent party in the first spot. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment - Some newer !votes support using past electoral results to determine the order. This carries an implication that only parties with prior success will have success in the future, which is a subtle case of WP:CRYSTAL. Ballot access is purely objective and reflects a current rather than past situation. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The implication is what you make of it. It is certainly not WP:CRYSTAL since we're not adding any further information. You'll agree that we must find an order, and any order will carry some perceived bias. How exactly do you suggest to order parties with equal ballot access? There are two issues here: inclusion and order. I agree that ballot access should be the criteria for incusion. However, for ordering the candidate, this page should use the same method used on all election articles across WP: previous election results. Ballot access is not precise enough, polls are too volatile, and alphabetical gives undue weight to any minor party whose name startswith A. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tradition - If we are going to include 3rd Party candidates in the infobox, let's not pretend they are as important as the two major parties. --yeah_93 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • We need to summarize in the same way as reliable sources. At the moment, they describe this election in a 2+1+1+others way, so Dem/Rep on first line, Lib/Green on second, and lets see if any others get ballot access. Revisit if a 3rd party rises sufficiently to get access to debates (15% in polls). Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • My default position for an upcoming election is to list candidates in order of how well they did last time: that's the usual approach on most election articles and seems sensible. If reliable sources/polls are consistently showing something else, then I would switch to that (recognising that "consistently" can be difficult to define). Were we to get to a point where, say, Stein was consistently being talked about as having a serious chance of winning, but Johnson was being ignored by RS as an irrelevance, then I think the infobox should reflect that. (I do not believe that outcome will happen.) Bondegezou (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • I think that Bondegezou's suggestion (ordered by votes in previous general election) is a good one. In general I would favour some sort of simple, objective criterion; it will hopefully minimize both arguing about the order and about whether wikipedia is taking/should take a political POV. Second preference would be for alphabetical order (though probably it should be clarified whether you mean alphabetical by party name or by candidates name, and if the latter what you intend to do whilst two of the candidates are still unconfirmed).Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Tradition - The Democrats & Republicans should get the top row. A third & fourth party can be added to the top line if they win any electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous result is, I believe, the only method that is impartial, non-arbitrary and rooted in actual facts. It settles the issue once and for all and it has the advantage of mirroring the order used for other election articles (e.g. Canadian federal elections). Specifically, I would order the candidates by their parties' electoral votes in the last election. The tie-breaker would be the popular vote in the previous election. As a second (unlikely) tie-breaker--for example if two brand new parties qualify--we can go alphabetically, either by party or by candidate's last name, or ballot access, whichever the community prefers.
In short I suggest we order the parties according to:
  1. Party's electoral vote in the last election
  2. Party's popular vote in the last election
  3. Party's ballot access in the current election
  4. Alphabetically by party's short name
Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
If no consensus can be reached regarding using alphabetical order, then previous results is preferable to just arbitrarily selecting the Democrats and Republicans to always go first. I'd suggest always putting the incumbent first because sometimes the incumbent will not have the most electoral votes (or no votes, e.g., Ford) or a candidate could switch parties while in office. Then sort the remaining candidates by the candidates'/parties' previous electoral votes, treating "independent" like a party. If there is more than one independent in the infobox, then sort them alphabetically in place. I agree that popular vote could be used as a tie-breaker. Also, I think that the incumbent should be indicated as "incumbent" or "incumbent party" and the previous vote totals shown in the infobox so the sorting order is explicit. If an election was settled in the House then also include those votes in the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that the incumbent candidate or their party should be put first. I think adding other info like incumbency and previous results is too much. Th infobox is cluttered enough as it. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, including previous total electoral votes prior to the election is less information than is included after the election. Also, including the word "incumbent" is no more than including the word "presumptive", which is currently there for two of the candidates. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I misunderstood, I thought you wanted to include that information even after the election. I'm not against including it until Election Day. However, I still think writing "incumbent" is not needed. That information is included on the infobox's bottom left corner already. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Rank by electoral college votes in the previous election or, if did not earn an electoral college vote in the previous election, by rank in polls or (if no polls) ballot access.--Proud User (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

FWIW, if we had stuck with my original idea of not putting any prez or vice prez nominees in the infobox, until after the presidential election results? There'd be no disputing over order of candidates, who to include, when to include etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What if the sitting president (or their party) did not receive the most electoral votes in the previous election? Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Sparkie82: I think you confused electoral college votes with the popular vote. While the winner of the popular vote has not become president four times (most recently in 2000), the candidate who receives the most electoral college votes becomes the President 99.9% of the time. The only time this could not occur is if nobody receives a majority. Then Congress picks and could, in theory, pick someone else. This has not happened since 1824 and is unlikely to happen again. If and when that occurs then we can come up with a different consensus. Until then, we go by the last electoral college results. --Majora (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I was referring to the cases in which the House decides, or a president switches parties mid-term, or when a president is not elected at all, e.g., Ford. The possibility of no majority is actually pretty high this year, in fact, one possible strategy being discussed for an alternate candidate is to appear on the ballot in a few key states in order to deny a majority and then win in the House. If the list of candidates is not sorted alphabetically, then I think the incumbent should be first, and the rest sorted by electoral votes (or votes in the House if the election is decided that way.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted the edit of 04:11, 24 May 2016 by Antony-22 (which added a consensus infobox to this talk page) because we have not yet reached a consensus here. (That edit was made during a previous discussion on the same issue.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 11:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it's pretty clear that we reached consensus given the overwhelming majority of opinions in favor of keeping the previous ordering. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It seems unlikely that we will gain a consensus to order the candidates alphabetically at this time. Given that, I propose using the following criteria for this and future United States presidential election articles:
1. Place the current president in the first position (if she is a candidate in the presidential election that is the subject of the article).
2. Order the rest based on the candidates' previous actual electoral vote totals (or House vote totals if the election is dispositive within the House).
3. If a candidate did not participate in the previous presidential election, then use the number of votes received by the candidate's current party in the previous electoral election (or House votes if the election was dispositive in the House).
4. If there is a tie in the number of electoral votes (or House votes if dispositive in the House), use the number of popular votes cast for the candidates' (or parties') electors to break that tie.
5. Candidates (or parties) who don't have any votes based on the above criteria are placed in alphabetical order following the candidates/parties who do have an electoral history.
I think this criteria will cover any situation (under current law). Sparkie82 (t•c) 13:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Previous result, even though I don't mind using tradition and polling numbers. I think using the previous result is the most neutral and objective method that there is, and in addition I believe it is used for other election articles. I don't want Wikipedia to give undue coverage to third parties as if it were campaigning for one (and at the same time, I don't want Wikipedia to censor third parties either). I want fair coverage. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
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.

Gary Johnson image

I don't like the current Johnson infobox image and I'm not sure why it was changed. I think the old one was better, because it was consistent with the other three candidate images. The current one is from a photoshoot. Could we change it back please? Ghoul flesh talk 00:45, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Original image
    Original image
  • Current image
    Current image
  • Proposed image 1
    Proposed image 1
  • Proposed image 2
    Proposed image 2
I agree with the photoshoot photo looking out of place with the other images, a more casual photo should be used instead, but not the one you posted to the right. Calibrador (talk) 05:44, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
we use the best picture, not one that looks better to YOU...--Stemoc 05:56, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You realize you are hounding. Calibrador (talk) 06:59, 8 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Leave the Johnson image the way it is. Why replace a free-to-use, high-quality official portrait with an image randomly taken when Johnson was in the middle of a sentence. There is also a well-supported proposal to replace Clinton's current photo with a higher-quality portrait made available by Hillary for Iowa. If that proposal passes, Johnson's portrait will be in good company when it comes to quality and consistency. --Proud User (talk) 01:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Come on. Johnson's image looks so out of place, it's ridiculous. Can we please reach a consensus? I'm pretty sure whoever changed it in the first place did not do so with consensus. Ghoul flesh talk 15:43, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I think that the current image is fine, I don't like the proposed one as he is looking downwards. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:57, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Ghoul flesh: It will not look as much out of place if the proposed Clinton photo passes (which right now, it looks like it will). --Proud User (talk) 17:31, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
so Ghoul flesh, you are basically saying "Remove the nice image because it looks too nice alongside those 2 crappy ones"? be glad that the Johnson campaign decided to release their images on a free licence, the Hillary and Trump campaign refused to (why would they, their policies say nothing about things being free) ..Most of hillary's recent official images are no longer free and Donald trump looks like a 'smuggy idiot' in every pic taken of him, we can't really help it..Wikipedia is about using the best image available, not the poorest available so that it can match with other poor images..--Stemoc 17:37, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
What the proposed Clinton photo would look like alongside the current Johnson photo

--Proud User (talk) 18:06, 9 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Honestly the current Johnson image looks like a passport photo or a highschool yearbook photo, which, in contrast to another candidates' photos, makes him like an amateur-ish candidate.—SquidHomme (talk) 07:40, 10 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Again, from my understanding, the current Johnson image was never even approved of. It was just changed randomly. I think most of us can see that it looks out of place alongside the other photos. Including next to that Hillary photo. Johnson would still be the only one looking directly into the camera, and with a blank background. Ghoul flesh talk 18:36, 11 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New image that fits well with the other photos, as it is a non-posed shot, as the others aren't, has a smile, which is preferred, is recent, which is preferred, and is mostly straight on without the subject looking directly at the camera. When it is added to the infobox it looks better than it does in this gallery format, and more so matches the other photos than any of the other proposed photos. Calibrador (talk) 07:06, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support The current infobox photo. The pose and smile in the photo Skidmore keeps trying to add is horrible, in my opinion. The more staid image is preferable until something more casual can be found that doesn't have a weird smile and sideways glancing pose. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:42, 12 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Voted Yes. The current photo looks like a mugshot which is not fit within the infobox.—SquidHomme (talk) 12:50, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support the middle image in the list of photos at the top of this thread, which is marked "current image" but - as of the time this comment is being posted - has been replaced in the infobox by the one marked "new image" proposed by Calibrador. I agree with Winkelvi's assessment of the latter photo.--Newbreeder (talk) 15:49, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay sorry, could you say which image? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:01, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Proposed image 2. Ghoul flesh • talk 18:27, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pictures of Stein/Johnson

Do we need pictures of Stein and Johnson below Trump & Clinton? Seems kinda like a waste of space. Those two are going to be getting electoral votes, and will receive a very small portion of the national vote. The pages for past elections don't include those candidates, so why should this one when the two 3rd party candidates are not relevant, and will not be relevant? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:345:8300:2C7:64E9:F0C3:6FAA:CC60 (talk) 00:37, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, I think that if you want to put a candidate at least should be getting 6% at the polls, I think Gary Johnson has a chance but Jill stein is irrelevant, she doesn't even get 3% at the polls. (I said this without the intention to offend any Stain supporters). TexasMan34 (talk) 02:25, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Read what it says above:
--Proud User (talk) 07:44, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Also, if any candidate received less than 5% of the vote in the election and received no electoral votes, we will remove those candidates from the infobox. This will most likely mean the Green And Libertarian Parties will not be in the infobox after election day. Also, see the 1948, 1980, and 1992 presidential elections for third party candidates who are featured in the infobox. --1990'sguy (talk) 16:25, 18 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1990'sguy, Gary Johnson is receiving more than 5% in most polls, and so if these results are reliable indicators then he will probably still be in the infobox after election day. However, even if Jill Stein only gets 3 or 4% of the popular vote, she will still have done very well for a candidate not a member of the Democratic or Republican parties, and thus should not necessary be eliminated. Display name 99 (talk) 20:45, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Display name 99, these are good points, but to the best of my knowledge, receiving 5% of the popular vote is the consensus cutoff for being displayed in an infobox on a Wikipedia election article. Receiving 3-4% of the popular vote is a big achievement in modern American elections for a third party, but I don't see why we should change the standards just for this case. --1990'sguy (talk) 21:10, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The longstanding concensus is that that any candidate that a) received any number of pledged electoral votes (votes awarded by faithless electors don't count); and/or received 5% or more of the popular vote is be included in the infobox post-election. See this discussion and this one for explanation and rationale.--JayJasper (talk) 21:14, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
1990'sguy and JayJasper, thank you for the explanation. It appears likely that 3 candidates will be featured in the infobox following the election. Display name 99 (talk) 21:29, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Vice Presidential selection articles <merge suggestions>

I suggest merging the following articles into this one:

These should not be deleted as there is some useful information. However, these articles are not independent. They are all subsets of the same event and news story. Too much of them is speculation.—GoldRingChip 13:35, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

See Wikipedia:Content forking for a good discussion of content forking, pro & con.—GoldRingChip 13:41, 19 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support Excessive meaningless speculation without context. There should just be a couple paragraphs here or the campaign articles discussing the selection process and confirmed shortlists. Reywas92Talk 22:37, 21 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Oppose I don't agree with the statement that the articles are not independent; both major parties select their vice presidential candidates independently, and given the huge amount of media coverage of these selections, both selections are independently noteworthy (even if neither became vice president, I would argue). The speculation is from reliable sources, which is fine, per WP:CRYSTALBALL. Orser67 (talk) 22:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Propose removing voter demographics section

The voter demographics section is poorly written and adds no valuable information. I propose removing it unless/until it can be fixed. Thoughts? Instaurare (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Support- The concept that the white population percentage is diminishing is not hard to understand and an entire section is not needed to explain it. There was also some anti-Trump POV in the section which, although now properly removed, leaves only two lame sentences and a chart, all of which could easily be worked in elsewhere. Display name 99 (talk) 04:04, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • This section needs to be expanded, but definitely not deleted. --Proud User (talk) 11:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support per Display name 99. Before I removed the anti-Trump pro-Clinton/Obama propaganda, it was nothing but a POV tool to lead readers by the hand via political commentary. As it is, the section's a waste of space and the content can be interspersed elsewhere. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 13:33, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment: Many editors have pointed out that the "Voter demographics" section was written from a tone that was alleged to slightly favor Clinton. The content of that section, although written from an alleged pro-Clinton tone, was compatible with WP:V (as everything it contained was properly sourced), WP:NPOV (as it explained the sides and backed them up with facts), and WP:OR (as every allegation made came directly from a source). Therefore, I see no objective argument in favor of the deletion of this section. If you think this section should be deleted as it is too small, see WP:AADP#Article size. --Proud User (talk) 14:20, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think anyone alleges that it slightly favored Clinton, though. And yes, the demographic section in its current form should be removed. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:46, 23 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 24 August 2016

While the Constitution Party technically has enough ballot access to reach 270 electoral votes, they by no means "have been featured in major national polls". Stein is missing in many polls, and I have yet to see Castle in one. This should be removed or cited. 2601:805:8000:9A7D:1D13:363C:896C:1BB9 (talk) 00:16, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

By consensus we no longer use major national polls as a bar of measurement in determining whether they are displayed in the infobox in the period preceding the election, but rather their access to the required number of electoral votes. The reasoning is that many polls, at least four years ago, did not typically include Third Party candidates, and so there was no real effective way to determine whether a candidate's support was above or below the threshold within inserting our own opinions. Ballot Access as a whole is more objective, treating all parties equally, and after the election those that don't make or come close to the (5%) cut will be removed. --Ariostos (talk) 02:51, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Not done: as contrary to consensus as explained above. - Arjayay (talk) 10:46, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, the problem isn't whether or not to include Castle (I understand the consensus view). The problem is that the way the lede is worded, it claims that he is one of three third-party candidates who have been featured in major national polls. And that claim is wholly inaccurate. Castle shouldn't be removed, obviously, but that claim needs some reworking. Grandpallama (talk) 15:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Which some quick editor has already addressed, so never mind! Grandpallama (talk) 15:18, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Ariostos, I agree completely with your diagnosis here, but was the rule for 2016 that whichever candidates get at least one electoral vote would be kept in (or added into) the infobox? Thanks for clarifying. 24.114.65.5 (talk) 01:28, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a candidate is voted for by an elector who is pledged to them, then yes they would also make it in, even if they have less then (5%) of the vote. Storm Thurmond and his '48 Presidential campaign is an example of this in practice. --Ariostos (talk) 01:57, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Darrel Castle ejected from ballot in Ohio

Ohio has determined that Darrel Castle does not have sufficient valid signatures to be on the ballot in that state, any references to his ballot access in ohio should be removed (ie: maps, body of the text, ect) [[1]]XavierGreen (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Any editor who is looking after this should probably clarify the way Ohio is listed for the Johnson/Weld ticket as well. The Libertarian Party has qualified for ballot access in Ohio, but the Secretary of Sate there does not want to allow them to list Johnson and Weld as their ticket, so Johnson and Weld qualified as independents. There is still a pending federal lawsuit about this issue, but it's entirely possible that Ohio will have two state LP members listed as the Libertarian ticket, separately from Johnson and Weld. The current listing for that ticket doesn't make the distinction. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:13, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I remain perplexed how someone can turn in over (8,000) signatures and have just under (5,000) of them ruled invalid, as has happened with Darrell Castle. I've changed the map, but am still surprised by the result. As for Ohio, the Secretary of State has already decided that substitution can be done, so there are no problems presently in getting either Johnson or Weld on the ticket there. I suppose though that does raise the same question in what we should do with Idaho in the case of the Constitution Party, which rebelled and nominated its own Presidential ticket, necessitating Castle to fight for an Independent listing there that is technically ongoing. There is a chance that the Oregon Constitution Party could buck the Party as well. --Ariostos (talk) 20:45, 24 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I've just noticed that the article counts Rocky De La Fuente as having Reform Party access in New York, but the Reform Party of New York is running a Trump/Pence "fusion" ticket as allowed by state law there (I looked for a good source for this, but I can't find anything official). In any case where a single state party is bucking the national party slate, the article needs to be careful to distinguish between party access and candidate access. As to exactly how it should be written up, I couldn't say. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 02:01, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
De la Fuente filed for access to New York via petition rather than using the Reform Party line.XavierGreen (talk) 14:31, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Filing for access is not the same as securing access. New York should be removed from De La Fuente's column for the reasons the IP states above as should Mississippi which is not bound to follow the national Reform Party. See [2] --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:14, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Confirmed by this other Ballot Access News article: "The leader of the [New York] Reform Party has promised the Republican Party to always nominate the Republican presidential nominee." Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 04:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Follow-up: Rocky's independent petition in New York has been found valid. See [3]. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:25, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Battleground States section

I have issues with the section generally, but my biggest problem is with this extremely problematic paragraph in particular:

"Left-leaning states in the Rust Belt could become more conservative... Wages have dropped for many of these citizens during the Obama administration.[182] However, they now represent a large portion of the American populace, and were a major factor in Trump's eventual nomination."

First of all, the single source used here does not appear to say anywhere that wages have fallen during the Obama administration (and according to DOL data, that would be an inaccurate claim anyway). Furthermore, there's no source for the additional claim that blue-collar workers in the "Rust Belt" now make up a large portion of the American population. Not only is it incorrect and unsubstantiated, it doesn't even make any logical sense, considering the obvious fact that the "Rust" part of that phrase refers to the decrease of manufacturing jobs and the outmigration of those workers anyway over the course of the last few decades. How would these particular people "now represent a large portion" of the overall population when they have decreased in size relative to other subgroups? And finally, there's this additional claim that Trump's nomination was majorly influenced by Rust Belt blue collar workers. While that last part jibes with certain media frames of this election cycle, where are the data to support the claim? Some journalists have speculated about that, sure, and feel free to link out to those assertions.

But ultimately, I'd advise a major cleanup of this section. With false references to decreasing wages and unsubstantiated implications about left-leaning states like Wisconsin or Pennsylvania trending toward the Republican presidential candidate, it reads too strongly like a narrative somebody on the Trump campaign would want to promote rather than an objective analysis of the situation.

Geogrphr (talk) 21:57, 25 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 27 August 2016


Lynn Khan qualified for the Iowa ballot putting her at 47 Electoral votes. Iowa needs to added to her State list and electoral votes updated. See source 120

Independent candidate, Richard Duncan, qualified for the Ohio ballot putting him at 18 electoral votes. He needs to be added to the list because that was his first state. See source 117

Lynn Kahn is qualified for the New York Ballot, and should be added.

Guidestone94 (talk) 04:33, 27 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. I'm not sure where or what sections you'd like modified. Also, your last item requires a reliable source. -- Dane2007 talk 19:09, 28 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is Utah a 'swing state'?

Two of us are having a dispute about whether Utah is one of the swing states in the election. I appreciate it's not the safest state particularly as Clinton is relatively up currently, but what is a manageable definition of swing that means we don't have the Republican's 4th safest state and thereby we have to have 40 states in the swing states section? Tom B (talk) 03:26, 31 August 2016 (UTC) One innovative method might be to use the top 10 or so of the 'chance of tipping the election' list on 538 [5]? Anyway need to find consensus on using a method that results in a small list Tom B (talk) 03:42, 31 August 2016 (UTC) Tom B (talk) 03:35, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to narrow the states down then okay I am on board with that, but is there more than one source that agrees with 538 when it comes to the top 10 or so flipping states? I don't want to have to rely on one source here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:47, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]
thanks, agree to narrow down states. like you say it'll be hard to find sources agreeing on a definite 10 or 11.... we could perhaps build in the other direction e.g. everyone agrees at least FL, Ohio, N. Carolina...Clinton's current supremacy is bringing more states into play so it's a moving target. Tom B (talk) 15:56, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should Wikipedia say whether candidates make a lot of false statements?

You are invited to participate in Talk:Donald Trump#RfC: Donald Trump's false campaign statements.Anythingyouwant (talk) 04:10, 31 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New Trump photos

Photo from August 31, 2016.

I was at the immigration policy speech yesterday, and have uploaded several dozen photos of Donald Trump. I uploaded one that I thought would work as an infobox image, but would welcome users to look through the others, particularly the ones of him smiling. The link to do that is here. Calibrador (talk) 11:50, 1 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Pinging some users involved with past discussions Ghoul_flesh, SquidHomme, Jean-Jacques Georges, TexasMan34, ShadowDragon343. Calibrador (talk) 00:39, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not bad at all, maybe if you take the microphone out, will be better, this is perfect, HD, smiling, what else do you want in a photo? TexasMan34 (talk) 01:17, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

As the microphone is not obscuring his face, (and the fact that the current photo also has a microphone) I don't think there's really an issue with it. Calibrador (talk) 01:30, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I Oppose this image, the microphone is an issue and I don't like the smirk. Can we please focus on more constructive things here? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There's no issue with the microphone being in the photo, and a smile is preferred over a frown. Calibrador (talk) 02:02, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Side note, please be sure to also go to the link I provided at the beginning of this section. There are several other smiling photos that don't have a microphone in the photo if it were to be cropped. Calibrador (talk) 02:12, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Actually it is a constructive issue the current image needs to be updated badly, it has him leaning over and it is from last year. Here is one I propose, no microphone or anyone else behind him. Just Trump lightly smiling and standing upright!!!

File:Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore 13.jpg
Photo from August 31, 2016.

ShadowDragon343 (talk) 02:27, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for adding the second photo ShadowDragon343. Calibrador (talk) 02:37, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is something very odd about that smile, its looks very 'forced' ..compared to his image we are currently using, it looks off....I prefer an image like these but with his mouth slightly open..maybe its botox or something but i'm sure his lips were fuller before--Stemoc 03:06, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The first photo's smile looks very natural, and is vastly superior to the smile in the current photo being used. Oh wait... Calibrador (talk) 03:10, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Personally I prefer Gage Skidmore's offerings—they cleverly give the man the appearance of a smug buffoon. But the existing photograph already has consensus. Also Knowledgekid87 hit the nail on the head; there are far more important issues to address in the article. A pointless distraction, this thread is a waste of time. Unfortunately it's also par for the course at political talk pages during presidential campaigns. Writegeist (talk) 02:56, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You realize by simply complaining rather than contributing to a substantive conversation you are contributing to what you are complaining about. Also the article states in a note to obtain consensus on the talk page in regards to changing the image. That's what I've attempted to do. Calibrador (talk) 03:01, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Trying to inveigle a photograph into the article that portrays a serious Republican candidate for President of the United States as a smug buffoon ill-befits WP and shamelessly insults the supporters who (one need only refer to his Facebook page) regard him as (a) the only possible savior of the nation and also as (b) a man who has been looking wonderfully presidential in his latest appearances. This is not the place to pursue an anti-Trump agenda. Writegeist (talk) 03:22, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

WaunaKeegan11's edits

I just had to redo the entire third party candidate section from this edit here: [4]. So I want to ask @WaunaKeegan11:, what are you doing? You have been placing states in the wrong sections such as here: [5], and here: [6]. I have been going by this source: [7] for the green party, and this source: [8] for the constitution party. If you move states to other categories can you please provide some sources? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:54, 2 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=737334815"