Talk:2016 United States presidential election
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 United States presidential election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article:
Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.
|
Infobox inclusion: It has been agreed by a unanimous consensus discussion as well as a discussion at an RfC that this article will use the following criteria for inclusion of candidates in the infobox: candidates that can theoretically win 270 Electoral Votes through ballot access and/or write-in access shall be included.
|
Order of candidates in the infobox: It has been agreed by consensus from an RfC at the article United States presidential election, 2016 that US presidential election articles will use the following criteria for ordering candidates in the infobox: order based on results of the candidates or their parties from the previous presidential general election.
|
The following images have been discussed: |
This article is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Heathercutajar.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 United States presidential election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days |
To-Do List (I'll Add-On When I Find More Things We Need To Do)
- 1. A photograph for Scott N. Bradley. He's Darrell Lane Castle's vice presidential candidate.
2. Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente Guerra and Laurence Jacob Kotlikoff need their own sections here. They're in the info-box, so, why not?- 3. A photograph for Edward Emory Leamer. He's Laurence Jacob Kotlikoff's vice presidential candidate.
- 4. A better photograph for David Evan McMullin. The one that's there has his mouth weirdly open and it's generally blurry. LOOK HERE!!!
- 5. Ballot/write-in access maps for Joseph Allen Maldonado (158), Mike Smith (164), Monica Gail Moorehead (188), and Thomas "Tom" Conrad Hoefling (225). Anybody who is able to get at least 150 e.-v.'s, but not 270 e.-v.'s, should still get their own maps, in my opinion. We have maps for Gloria Estela La Riva (174) and Michael "Mike" A. Maturen (198), so, why not them, too?
- I would like you guys to give me suggestions for what to add to this list. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- We need a better picture for McMullin. Has anyone contacted his campaign to see if they might release a photo under Creative Commons? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Antony-22:, I put your idea in my list. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- We need a better picture for McMullin. Has anyone contacted his campaign to see if they might release a photo under Creative Commons? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Second request: Done. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Prcc27:, thanks! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Second request: Done. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- In response to the request for a better photo of Evan McMullin, I've created a new section on this talk page comparing the current photo to a viable replacement. I haven't actually replaced it yet as I'm trying to reach a consensus through discussion, please reply if you like it. Thanks! BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- @BrendonTheWizard:, I gave my opinion. Also, I put a suggestion for checking out your idea in my list. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- In response to the request for a better photo of Evan McMullin, I've created a new section on this talk page comparing the current photo to a viable replacement. I haven't actually replaced it yet as I'm trying to reach a consensus through discussion, please reply if you like it. Thanks! BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding 5, we could add maps as a link under the electoral vote count. That way we can add maps for as many candidates as folk wish to create without taking up more space. Bcharles (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's actually a pretty good idea, @Bcharles:. But, what if a mistake was made on one of the maps? Since they wouldn't have good visibility due to the fact that they're on separate pages, it would be a while until the mistake is corrected. Plus, what's wrong with making a new section on the page just for the maps? Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- There are a fair number of editors who would be checking the maps, particularly while changes are being made to the list of states. The maps would likely be displayed on the candidate, or relevant party, page; and perhaps the United States third-party and independent presidential candidates, 2016 article. The list of minor candidates is already long, and has been mentioned as a possible violation of undue weight. Keeping the information compact helps keep it in perspective. Bcharles (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- That's actually a pretty good idea, @Bcharles:. But, what if a mistake was made on one of the maps? Since they wouldn't have good visibility due to the fact that they're on separate pages, it would be a while until the mistake is corrected. Plus, what's wrong with making a new section on the page just for the maps? Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Regarding 5, we could add maps as a link under the electoral vote count. That way we can add maps for as many candidates as folk wish to create without taking up more space. Bcharles (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
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.
- 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)
- 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)
Comments:
Extended content
|
---|
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)
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)
|
- 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.
A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle
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.
Should Presidential candidates Evan McMullin and Darrell Castle, who have enough votes through write-in access to win the presidency be included in the infobox alongside candidates with enough ballot-access votes to win the presidency?--Guiletheme (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC) As a committed voter for one of the major candidates, I have no dog in the fight between including or excluding them. However, it looks extremely unprofessional of us here at Wikipedia for an average Internet user to come to this page as a reference and see Castle and McMullan here one day, removed the next, another user adds them back, another removes them, ad nauseum. We need to have a call for consensus, because it makes it confusing for our readers and most importantly, Wikipedia's credibility to have these candidates removed and readded for the same reasons, about the write-ins, ballot access, etc.--Guiletheme (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
Extended content
| ||
---|---|---|
That's 3 for "keep" and 0 for "don't keep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
That's 4 for "keep" and 0 for "don't keep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk • contribs) 20:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
That's 4 for "keep" and 1 for "don't keep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
People yelling at me for using a term that's "not appropriate" for a consensus and for counting "votes", which is supposedly "not good". Also, I'm getting a picture of David Evan McMullin that I posted on this site deleted due to "non-fair-use" reasons. Maybe we should have a consensus about if I should or shouldn't quit Wikipedia. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
That's 7 for "keep" and 4 for "don't keep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk • contribs) 19:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
@Earthscent: "Is either Castle or McMullin polling enough in a single state to possibly tip the outcome? I don't think so. (But if I'm wrong please let me know)." In case you haven't been following this RfC and/or the statewide polls- McMullin is currently polling within the margin of error in Utah. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)
That's 9 for "keep" and 10 for "don't keep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk • contribs) 21:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
I'll stop. Quite a few of you have asked me to stop counting "votes" in this consensus. I was just trying to show how many people were on this side, and for the other. I'm still not totally sure why you guys are saying what I'm doing is not appropriate for the consensus, though. But, in a democracy, the majority rules, and the majority has told me to be quiet. (Still need a bit more clarification on why what I was doing was wrong, though.) Thank-you for taking the time to read this. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
Since we're no closer to reaching a consensus, I'll propose one of my own. Since every Presidential election is different and we pretty much have Clinton, Trump and Johnson with full ballot access in the top three, Stein with 480 leading off the second row followed by Castle and McMullin being included on virtue of write-in access, I move that the infobox stay as is. I believe it is fair because the three candidates with full ballot access are on the top three positions of the infobox according to previous election results from 2012, the one with 270+ ballot access leads off the second-tier of the infobox and the other two who can theoretically win through write-ins round out the field. Remember, this will change after the election. It's not our job to determine who can or cannot win before the election for eligible candidates, since I can guarantee one major-party candidate will lose, seeing how both rabid Clinton supporters and rabid Trump supporters will lay down their arms on November 9th because their candidate either won or lost (barring a repeat of 2000.) I am now convinced through the arguments above that a candidate is at least serious enough if they have a path to 270 through write-ins and a slate of electors. Castle and McMullin are at running serious campaigns in terms of policy and getting access and neither of them are perennial or frivolous candidates, such as Deez Nuts, whose inclusion I would definitely challenge even if he managed to get 270+ write-in access due to his ineligibility (age) and his fake name. Once again, I have no dog in the Castle/McMullin fight, I'm voting for a major candidate who I feel is in their appropriate place in the infobox. Can we reach this as a compromise knowing that the infobox will change post-election and will most likely only include Clinton and Trump, barring Johnson, the most likely of the rest, or one of the other three getting 5% or > and/or an electoral vote?--Guiletheme (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)
Well, the problem is that we don't live in Russia, and, by all accounts, we have free and fair elections where votes are counted legally and properly (at least it's what we have to assume, in case anyone else disagrees with even that). The major news corporations aren't really owned by, or beholden to, the government, and when Castle or McMullin were included, they were from minor advocacy groups (and got very low support, compared to Johnson and Stein). 198.84.229.179 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Comment: This discussion will likely not be resolved before election day, so it relates more to unknown candidates and parties in the 2020 election cycle. Please consider what criteria should hold beyond the given names and particular circumstances for the current election. Bcharles (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
Just to let everyone know, I have placed Evan McMullin ahead of Darrell Castle because of ballot and write-in access totals. McMullin has access to 465 electoral votes while Castle has 409 electoral votes. JC · Talk · Contributions 20:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
As someone who worked in politics, there will be many more candidates becoming eligible for 270+ electoral votes the sooner the election approaches and the infobox will get out of control. It's not fair for Kotlikoff to be left off and Castle to be left in since they have the same criteria for eligibility. 1. 270 or more electoral votes through ballot access OR 2. 10% or more national support through reputable polls OR 3. 20% or more support in a single state from reputable polls Ordered by the results of the 2012 election, which means you'd see Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and Evan McMullin. Personally, I'd like Clinton and Trump to be in the top part of the infobox seeing how Democrats and Republicans won electoral votes in 2012, and Johnson, Stein and McMullin in the bottom since they did not win any.--Guiletheme (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Compromise. I'm reversing my earlier decision. I dreaded the day that a seventh candidate would be added to the infobox, but that day has come. It's crowded and the criterion is just going to lead to more candidates being put in the fold. Here is the compromise that I am offering for everyone.
The following are the post-election criteria:
In this discussion, both sides are holding their ground, so everyone has to make a concession. This is the compromise that I'm offering, similar to the one above. With this as the criteria, only five people qualify to be in the infobox pre-election: Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Stein, and McMullin. The order would be decided by the number of Electoral College votes that the candidates have ballot access to. This compromise is not perfect, but this is probably the best we can do concerning a compromise. The following is just speculation, so don't give me a link to WP:SPECULATION. These five candidates are the ones with the highest probability to remain post-election. Clinton and Trump are guaranteed spots, Johnson will if he remains over five percent, Stein if she can gain more support, and McMullin might win Utah. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 17:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
We should look at previous election pages for guidance. Look at 2000. Ralph Nader isn't there, even though he got over three million votes. In 1960, Harry Byrd (okay, unpledged electors who had previously said they would support him) won two states, and he's not in the infobox! Write-ins actually winning sre very rare. Several people here were very much against even mentioning write-in results in the primary pages. leave it as it was....please?Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
|
Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2016
It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected redirect at United States presidential election, 2016. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |
I request that the write-in status for Rocky De La Fuente be updated to include the states of California, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, Virginia, and Washington. I also request that Oregon be added to every candidate's write in totals.
Rocky De La Fuente's website has a map that shows his ballot access, as well as current write-in access and "anticipated write-in access", which may or may not be approved in the future. The states listed above, including Oregon, are listed as write-ins, meaning that they are confirmed, or else they would have been included in the "anticipated" column. Also, if you look at the totals for Jill Stein, Darrell Castle, and Evan McMullin, their write-in status is based off their campaign websites' official totals. I am asking that we use the same standard for that of Mr. De La Fuente.
Also, I emailed the Oregon SoS office about their laws regarding write-ins, because I had read conflicting reports about the paperwork. They replied saying that there is so paperwork needed to file, only in the event that a write-in wins. Therefore, every candidate is considered to have write-in status in Oregon.
199.120.101.23 (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- @199.120.101.23: Please post the specific link from De La Fuente's website, as i was unable to find it. Although some candidates may only show one source for their ballot access, all candidates are checked against other available sources by multiple editors.
- Thank you for reporting the response from OR SoS. Ballot Access News states that presidential write-ins must file by 11 days before the election, and that OR won't count these unless the total write-ins outnumber the top candidates vote. Bcharles (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
has access to 271 ec-votes (254 as write-in), according to the policy that put castle and mcmullin to the infobox he should also be included. Any counterarguments? --Cartinal (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 08:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Write-in ballot access shouldn't be considered. With that logic, once the states allowing a write-in will exceed 270, everyone will be eligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.152.99 (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, we cannot have every write-in candidate listed in the infobox. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- So Castle and McMullin should also be deleted int he infobox. Kotlikoff, McMullin and Castle do all fulfill the criteria due to their status as write-ins. Or did some change in the requirements take place, which i am unaware of? --Cartinal (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Indeed, we cannot have every write-in candidate listed in the infobox. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Write-in ballot access shouldn't be considered. With that logic, once the states allowing a write-in will exceed 270, everyone will be eligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.152.99 (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
De La Fuente has:
Electoral votes: 147 (De La Fuente has access to a combined 147 electoral votes as an Independent, via The American Delta Party and via The Reform Party)[47][48]
Write-In included: 314 Electors[47][48]
Anticipated Write-In Included: 404 Electors
Any counterarguments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 14:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I found it, it's something that comes up if you click the arrows near the top of his home page, and he does intend at least claim that he has confirmed access to about (314) Electors through Write-In Access, California being the big one to put him over the hurdle. I'm not sure if we have outside sources that can verify all that however, so I'm going to hold off on actually making the edit itself. --Ariostos (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Write-in qualifications for infobox
I'd like to point out that the figures in the table include 54 electoral votes from six states (AL, NH, NJ, PA, RI, VT) that do not have a process for filling as a write-in. For infobox purposes, we only count write-in access if the candidates have filed a full slate of electors, which is impossible in those states. Subtracting those 54 votes from De La Fuente's 314 and Kotlikoff's 301 puts both of them under the 270 vote threshold, so I am removing them from the infobox.
It's worth considering whether we should institute extra criteria for candidates who need write-in access to get to 270. Perhaps they should need actual ballot access in some number of states (notably, Kotlikoff only has on-ballot access in two states), or their campaign is notable enough to have its own campaign article. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'd argue against removing those States as counting for Write-Ins given the votes themselves are still validated, and I'm sure (I can't confirm) that there exists a process in each of these States where electors would be appointed to represent the Write-In candidate in December. Personally though I don't know what the system is should that theoretically happen. As for extra criteria, we should stay safe with requiring at least one State with ballot access; at the moment the only other candidate who would be on the precipice would be Tom Hoefling should he make it in California, making it nine candidates. --Ariostos (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- The consensus in 2012 was that we needed to verify that a full elector slate was filed, even in write-in states requiring registration. We should look into the process if a write-in candidate in a "free" write-in state wins. In any case, the RfC above is split down the middle on whether write-in access should count at all, and I don't think there'd be consensus for including free write-in access. I'm happy to hear more viewpoints. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- I know, I was one of the ones that was involved in those discussions at the time when the issue of Write-Ins came up then. People here are a bit more open to the idea now than they were then, but its still a major struggle against inertia. If I have the time I'll see if I can get in touch with the Elections people in Pennsylvania, all the while hoping that this isn't some legal black hole they've never thought to cover; that's the big one of the lot. --Ariostos (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Write-in status shouldn't count. It never has before in a general and shouldn't now. In the NH primary pages, even though a write-in candidate came in third, his votes aren't counted. McMullin and Castle shouldn't be there, except that McM is actually WINNING Utah in the latest polling, so he should stay. Stein should be OUT as soon as the election is over as it looks like she won't be getting 5% nationally. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- That Write-In "candidate" in the case of New Hampshire is actually just the scattering of various Write-Ins, which likely included a multitude of candidates. You can't really count that as a single person; it would be akin to balling all the votes for Kasich, Cruz and Bush together and saying that those votes should be considered for first place, without specifying how many of those votes are for Kasich, Cruz or Bush. --Ariostos (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Honestly, I'd rather leave De La Fuente and Kotlikoff off for now until there is a consensus to add them, given that the 2012 consensus would have excluded them due to lack of elector slates in those six free write-in states. It would also avoid everyone going crazy about their order in the infobox, which we don't have clear criteria for. I'm not going to double-revert, though.
- Can we at least "audit" the write-in access for Castle, McMullin, De La Fuente, and Kotlikoff to ensure that they have actually named electors in enough write-in states to qualify? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Regardless of what we decide, De La Fuente now has enough access in the "non-freebie" states. Does anyone know what happens if a write-in wins in a "freebie" state? Could they file for a slate of electors after the fact or is there no process that exists for write-ins? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- We need to verify that a full slate of electors has been filed before it counts for infobox purposes. Some states such as New York don't require a full slate to be filed, so it wouldn't count unless we verify it manually. (Some states do require that a full elector slate be filed; I checked some of the larger ones and TX, FL, IL, and OH do this.) That's how we did it in 2012. So no, if New York is excluded, De La Fuente still isn't over the 270 EV threshold. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I feel like the multiple threads of discussion here are getting out of hand. @Ariostos: Would you possibly agree to temporarily remove De La Fuente and Kotlikoff from the infobox until we can verify the filing of electors, and whether they can actually win electors in the "free" states? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I feel like we need a note in the infobox explaining why De La Fuente and Kotlikoff don't meet the criteria for inclusion. Otherwise, the readers will be very confused as to what the criteria for inclusion is. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Regardless of what we decide, De La Fuente now has enough access in the "non-freebie" states. Does anyone know what happens if a write-in wins in a "freebie" state? Could they file for a slate of electors after the fact or is there no process that exists for write-ins? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
It is absurd to distinguish among all of the various modes and means of filing for write-in access. Write-in access is, in the broader frame of the election, rather trivial. Way too much editor time, and too many disputes, are tied up in this small facet. If the ruling holds that we include write-in states for calculating notability, then there is no reason to exclude a subset of these states. If we consider the possibility that a candidate could win with write-in votes, then it does not matter which states. There are explicit means to declare electors after the election in some states (e.g. OR WA), and constitutional provisions for resolving the slate in others. - Of course we could avoid all this by just focusing on states that each candidate actually has a ballot line. Bcharles (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Auditing the write-in access
We need to verify that the candidates have actually filed full elector slates in each write-in state for it to count. There are two ways to do this: some states require all write-in candidates to file slates (which you can usually verify in their laws), while for the others we need to manually verify that they have filed electors. I've put a list of the current claimer write-in states; let's add a reference to each to show whether or not electors have been filed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone through all the states below. I've been able to find evidence of electors being filed for 159 electoral votes for Kotlikoff (AZ, FL, IN, KY, ME, MD, MA, MI, ND, OH, TX) and 87 for De La Fuente (AZ, CA, IN, MD). Combined with their 17 and 147 votes of on-ballot access, neither meets the 270 threshold for the infobox. Feel free to update or challenge the items below, but my opinion is that both candidates should be removed from the infobox until we can document the necessary electoral slates. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Kotlikoff
- Alabama - No provision for filing electors [8]
- Alaska - No electors listed [9]
- Arizona - Full slate required [10]
- Florida - Full slate required [11]
- Georgia - Unknown
- Idaho - No electors listed [12]
- Illinois - Unknown
- Indiana - Full slate required [13]
- Iowa - No provision for filing electors [14]
- Kentucky - Full slate required [15]
- Maine - Full slate listed [16]
- Maryland - Full slate required [17]
- Massachusetts - Full slate required [18]
- Michigan Full slate required [19]
- Montana No electors listed [20]
- New Hampshire - No provision for filing electors [21]
- New Jersey - No provision for filing electors [22]
- North Dakota - Full slate required [23]
- Ohio - Full slate required [24]
- Oregon - Unknown
- Pennsylvania - No provision for filing electors [25]
- Rhode Island - No provision for filing electors [26]
- Tennessee - Unknown
- Texas - Full slate required [27]
- Utah - No electors listed [28]
- Vermont - No provision for filing electors [29]
- Washington - Unknown
- West Virginia - Unknown
De La Fuente
- Alabama - No provision for filing electors [30]
- Arizona - Full slate required [31]
- California - Full slate required [32]
- Delaware - Unknown
- Indiana - Full slate required [33]
- Maryland - Full slate required [34]
- New York - Full slate not required [35]
- Oregon - Unknown
- Pennsylvania - No provision for filing electors [36]
- Washington - Unknown
- West Virginia - Unknown
- @Antony-22:, @Ariostos:, @Arglebargle79:, and @Prcc27:, we need more time, at least a week, before we reach a consensus! Keep them there for now. Also, if those states don't accept write-ins, then why are they listed as write-in states for the candidates at the bottom of the article in the first place‽ Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- The states indicated as "not listed" do accept write-ins, but apparently do not require filing of electors. I was confused by this as well, as the candidate is listed as a write-in in each of these states. I changed the notes to "no electors listed", to clear that ambiguity. Bcharles (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Bcharles:, you mean some candidates could legally win some of these write-in states, yet they won't win any of those states's electors? If so, who do those state's electors go to? Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I feel like we might be violating WP:OR leaving them out. If there's a procedure after a write-in wins a state then we should just include the other two candidates. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, @Prcc27:. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin: If a candidate wins any state by write-ins, the electors will be worked out, by post election filing, or state legislature appointing, or other state procedure. The electors would be pledged to vote for the state winner, but a candidates filing of electors helps ensure that they are faithful. Bcharles (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, @Prcc27:. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I feel like we might be violating WP:OR leaving them out. If there's a procedure after a write-in wins a state then we should just include the other two candidates. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Bcharles:, you mean some candidates could legally win some of these write-in states, yet they won't win any of those states's electors? If so, who do those state's electors go to? Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- The states indicated as "not listed" do accept write-ins, but apparently do not require filing of electors. I was confused by this as well, as the candidate is listed as a write-in in each of these states. I changed the notes to "no electors listed", to clear that ambiguity. Bcharles (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
A Note on Ordering of Candidates in Infobox Post Election
Since it now appears that Evan McMullin may win Utah and that Gary Johnson may get more than 5% of the vote, it is possible both may qualify to remain in the infobox post election and i would like to note that the standing precedent on how candidates are ordered in the infobox post-election is to order them by electoral college vote first and then by popular vote. For a good example of this see United_States_presidential_election,_1860 where four candidates are included in the infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- The 1860 election has four candidates in the infobox as all four won at least one state meaning they all earned at least one electoral college vote. The current consensus is that a candidate must either achieve one electoral college vote or reach at least 5% of the popular vote to remain after the election takes place. If Evan McMullin does win a state, he will remain in the infobox. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, but that's not what i was getting at. What i'm saying is if McMullin wins Utah and say gets 0.5% of the popular vote, and Johnson gets 6% of the popular vote but wins no electoral votes, McMullin would be listed before Johnson in the infobox because it is ordered by electoral college votes first as the 1860 election page indicates.XavierGreen (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- For the record, and in the hopes of staving off a post-election disagreement such as the one we've had for pre-election coverage, I support this existing consensus. Note that even if Johnson won New Mexico, his best-polling state, he would have only five electoral votes, short of Utah's six unless he also won there. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I would say Electoral College votes should go before popular vote. From a strict perspective also used for FPTP legislature elections, the EVs/seats won are politically more important. JackWilfred (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Request for clear consensus regarding the infobox (4, 6, or 8 candidates?)
Both the 2012 and 2016 articles for the United States presidential elections showed clear consensus that any candidate with enough ballot access can be displayed prior to the election and those that reach at least 5% of the popular vote remain after the election takes place. Whether or not to show candidates with write-in access remains disputed with rough consensus for continuing to show Castle and McMullin. As of now, eight candidates are being displayed, two of which may need more citations to determine if they can theoretically win. There was no consensus for this. While Wikipedia is not a vote, the infobox has been topic of controversy on this talk page. The addition of the seventh and eighth candidates requires a consensus.
Who should be displayed before the election? Who should be displayed after the election?
Until the general election results are known, which of the following options should Wikipedia decide on for the infobox?
Option I. Four candidates - keep Johnson & Stein, remove the rest
- (Top two: Clinton, Trump)
- (Bottom two: Johnson, Stein)
Option II. Six candidates - keep McMullin & Castle, remove the rest
- (Top three: Clinton, Trump, Johnson)
- (Bottom three: Stein, McMullin, Castle)
Option III. Eight candidates - keep all
- (Top three: Clinton, Trump, Johnson)
- (Middle three: Stein, McMullin, Castle)
- (Bottom two: De La Fuente, Kotlikoff)
My opinion is inclusive of any who can theoretically win; while I would prefer that it shows only those with ballot access, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. That being said, if even write-in access is not enough for one to win, they should instead be displayed later in the article as non-major third party candidates.
Additionally, I would like to discuss post-election inclusion and exclusion.
The current consensus for post-election results is to display any candidate that either takes a minimum of 5% of the popular vote or a minimum of 1 electoral college vote. This is a reasonable position though I would consider lowering it to 2% as in recent elections (such as 2012's presidential election) no one third party candidate achieved one full percent; only when combined did they surpass 1%, making anything higher unusual and by extension significant. Additionally, despite only receiving 2% of the vote in 2000's presidential election, many believed that Nader played a role in the election (and some even criticize Nader as the sole cause of the election's outcome). For that reason, I believe 2% is a viable threshold for a candidate to be displayed in the infobox after the election's results are declared, but I acknowledge the current threshold of 5%. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC) .
- The current consensus is fine, if the candidate gets less than 5% of the vote then we should not include them in the info-box. As for before the election, we just had a huge discussion regarding that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
- Here's a chart that shows the scores obtained by the third best candidates since 1900. I think it shows very well that 5% is an adequate threshold to separate the few truly significant 3rd candidates. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 01:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The question is not how many candidates, but what objective criteria should be applied regardless of specific names. Bcharles (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- This chart is convincing that 5% does show a truly significant candidate, though I must ask if the 5% threshold applies to continuing to have sections for these candidates later in the article as well.
- Is there consensus on if we should keep information regarding these candidates and/or their campaigns later in the article even if not in the infobox?
- I understand that only significant information is to be displayed on Wikipedia but in this election I find the third parties collectively to play a more significant role than they have in decades. BrendonTheWizard (talk)
- I don't think anyone has suggested third parties should be completely omitted in this article. I also agree they deserve mention. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 11:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- 5% is appropriate since federal funding is available once obtaining that percent in a presidential election. KD0710 (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I don't think anyone has suggested third parties should be completely omitted in this article. I also agree they deserve mention. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 11:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- The question is not how many candidates, but what objective criteria should be applied regardless of specific names. Bcharles (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
This discussion should not revolve around which specific candidates should be in the infobox, but what objective criteria we should use. There is already discussion going on above at #Write-in qualifications for infobox on whether De La Fuente and Kotlikoff actually have enough qualifying write-in access to be in the infobox in the first place. Even if they do, I'd support instituting additional criteria for such candidates who need write-in access to get to 270. Some choices would be to require on-ballot access in some number of states or electoral votes, or that their campaign is notable enough to have its own campaign article.
In our case, De La Fuente is on the ballot on more states than even McMullin, and he has the support of the long-established Reform Party (even if it is much reduced from its former prominence). Kotlikoff on the other hand is on the ballot in only two states, has the backing of no established party, and has almost no press coverage. Subjectively, I feel like we should set the threshold higher than that. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I'll vote for option I with the criteria being 270+ electoral votes ballot access. This is getting out of control. We can put McMullin/De La Fuente/Castle/Kotlikoff in their own special section of third-party candidates with write-in access for 270 or more electoral votes later in the article.--Guiletheme (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, absolutely any criterion needs to be an objective standard, not a means to set the line in one place. I think at this point the only standard that will get agreement is "wait two more weeks". 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Question about the 5% popular vote requirement for keeping candidates in the infobox after the election: there is actually a nonzero chance in this election that McMullin could win in Utah while receiving a miniscule percentage of the popular vote (Fivethirtyeight currently pegs his chances in Utah at 13.6%, but there isn't enough polling to know if that is accurate). I think we have to include any candidate who wins even one electoral vote, no matter their vote percentage. Is there a consensus for this?--Danaman5 (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- That is exactly the current consensus. 5% popular vote or 1 electoral vote. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 01:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Be sure to note the 1 electoral vote does not apply to faithless electors. Otherwise John Hospers would be in the infobox in '72, Ronald Reagan would be in the infobox in '76, and John Edwards would be in the infobox in '04.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Ballot access seems like a reasonable, objective standard for determining the candidates who go in the infobox for a presidential election that's in progress. So I would favor option 1. For infoboxes after an election, I strongly favor the current precedent of 5% or at least one electoral vote (discounting faithless electors), which seems like a great number for capturing whether a candidate was a truly important force as more than just a spoiler. Orser67 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I think the top six candidates Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Stein, McMullin and Castle should be in the info box. Everyone else is irreverent in the election and does not have enough original ballot access to win and than anyone who gets over 5% can be listed post election.LuckyLag360 (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Everybody, keep in mind that Option I was ruled out by the previous RfC. We're only deciding between II and III here. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 22:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- How was this ruled out and also what are the "qualifications" to be in the info box. At the very least Johnson has to be there as he has 50 state ballot access and polling well above 5%.LuckyLag360 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- We had a very long discussion which we recently closed that showed a consensus for keeping Castle and McMullin in the infobox. See #A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle above. This discussion is a follow-up to that one on the inclusion of De La Fuente and Kotlikoff.
- In general, the rule is that in order to be included in the infobox, it needs to be possible for a candidate to win a majority of the votes in the Electoral College. The ongoing discussions are about what sort of ballot access counts. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 23:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Structured discussion
|
Let's move to collecting !votes so we can actually determine what the consensus is on inclusion of Rocky De La Fuente and Laurence Kotlikoff in the infobox. Keep in mind the previous consensus that the fundamental infobox inclusion criterion is that it is legally possible for the candidate to win a majority of the votes in the Electoral College, and that write-in access counts in principle (see #A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle above). This consensus is not being revisited here. The question here is what kind of write-in ballot access counts. The main considerations are:
- Should we continue to require actual documentation that electors have been selected, as was done in 2012? (See #Auditing the write-in access above.)
- Should we count the 54 electoral votes from the six "free write-in" states (AL, NH, NJ, PA, RI, VT), which do not have a process for advance filing as a write-in candidate?
- Should there be additional requirements for candidates who need write-in access to get to 270 electoral votes, such as requiring that they have on-ballot access for a certain number of states or electoral votes?
Please !vote whether to include or exclude De La Fuente and Kotlikoff, and explain your reasoning. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- If polling above a certain percent is not included in the criteria, the whole thing is fairly meaningless from the point of view of creating an article that will actually inform someone who doesn't already know much about the election. Including barely notable people like Castle and De la Fuente could cause readers to completely misunderstand the election. Putting these people in the infobox gives them undue weight. If all we're looking at is ballot access we will include a lot of people who technically could win but definitely will not win. Including them in the infobox gives a false message to uneducated readers.
- But since I've already presented this argument and no one cared about making an article useful for the general public, I propose that the only criteria for inclusion in the infobox is having an article on Wikpedia and having a reliable source stating that you're running for president. An infobox of 20 or 30 is just as useful as one of 6 or 8.Earthscent (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I assume this is an exclude !vote. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. But if they are not excluded, I'm not being sarcastic about increasing the infobox to a few dozen people, for this election and for 2020. Earthscent (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- You may not be sarcastic, but your position illustrates why it is important to keep fairly restrictive inclusion criteria for the infobox. If we are actually going down the road of including over a dozen candidates, I would support removing the infobox altogether until the election day, and stop this never ending tedious discussion. The infobox is not a substitute for the whole article, merely a summary of the most important information. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Yes. But if they are not excluded, I'm not being sarcastic about increasing the infobox to a few dozen people, for this election and for 2020. Earthscent (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I assume this is an exclude !vote. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi guys, I know that couple of days ago I was angry with some of you and I apologize if you got offended by any comment I made. Now let me share with you what I think. Elections in our beautiful country are all about voting for the person that we think that is the best option. Now in a more objective way, of course for him or her to be able to become the POTUS needs to have the mathematic chance of accomplishing it. This year that amount is 270. That is all they need. It doesn't matter if they are write ins or if they are in the ballot is about being able to win. Wikipedia is the #1 source of information and the beauty of it is that it usually gives all of us a transparent access to information. We can all agree that today people read less, and this is a pretty big article, so if we send candidates to other areas of the page is not giving them the chance to be seen. Media we know that have always controlled what we see and is subjective, here we have the chance to be fair for once. So bottom line is not just about placing the main candidates (Hillary and Trump) is about giving the ones who have the chance to get more than 269 the right of being seen, they have made a huge effort, lets not take it away from them. The info box is the most seen area of the article, why are we going to make it so exclusive? This is about us being better than the media, is about being good. Probably Hillary or Trump are going to win, but this is not about odds is about merits. After the 8th of November this is just going to be history, today is alive. Love you fellas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 02:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I assume this is an include !vote. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude. We do not currently have documentation that either of the candidates have actually selected 270 electors, according to #Auditing the write-in access. I would support including either candidate if we can document the requisite number of electors, clarify the situation in the "free write-in" states, and/or they gain access in additional states. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Exclude. Agreed, So we can keep the current six but for the other two they shouldnt be added until they have the proper amount of write in access. LuckyLag360 (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi, here are some info sources from where you can see that they (the ones currently in the infobox, Kotlikoff and De La Fuente) have access to more than 269 votes.
https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates, according to this source; ¨An individual can run as a write-in candidate. In 34 states, a write-in candidate must file paperwork in advance of the election. In nine states, write-in voting for presidential candidates is not permitted. The remaining states do not require write-in candidates to file paperwork in advance of the election.¨ Vote Smart, "Government 101: United States Presidential Primary," accessed August 15, 2015. This means that if they are write in they had to apply and fulfill the requirements.
A good link to double check ballot access for the candidates; http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president
Wikipedia Article on third party and independents; https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third-party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2016
Arizona; http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2016/10/14/16-hopefuls-seek-presidential-write-in-votes-in-arizona/
More info on write in candidates; http://ballot-access.org/2016/08/27/august-2016-ballot-access-news-print-edition/
Aside note: If someone wants to update McMullin information on that link will be amazing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 05:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
They qualify with the criteria: Electoral + Write Ins > 269
I don't know if any other editors are continuing to take comments on this, but I'm in favor of only listing the candidates who either receive more than 5 percent of the nationwide popular vote, or who receive any Electoral College votes. Since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, I suggest listing only 5 candidates right now: H. Clinton, Trump, G. Johnson, Stein, and McMullin. McMullin is only included in my suggestion because there's a strong possibility that he could win Utah's 6 Electoral College votes. If it turns out he doesn't win Utah, then it's obvious he should be removed, but I think McMullin should be kept until at least after the popular vote totals and Electoral College vote totals are publicly known. Also, I don't believe a candidate should be listed in the infobox just because they can reach 270 or more Electoral College votes with the majority of them being write-in votes. I believe a candidate should be listed if the majority of the possible Electoral College votes comes from the ballot, not write-in votes. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: please put a bolded "include" or "exclude" at the beginning of your text, to make it clear which you are supporting. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, but only if we can think of a way to do this while also avoiding a WP:SYNTH violation. But if we do indeed exclude these candidates there would need to be something in the article and/or infobox explaining who does and doesn't have a slate of electors filed for each jurisdiction. Maybe add new colors on the map to indicate which states a slate of electors has been filed for. Otherwise, the readers would probably be pretty confused about what the criteria for inclusion is.
- Yes, we should count the "freebie" states unless there is a good enough reason to believe that there is no post-election process for filing a slate of electors.
- 100% no. This would probably contradict the consensus we came up with in the RfC. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: This discussion is too broad, including multiple questions and involving tenuous prior decisions. I recommend focusing on a singe question with no mention of specific candidates. Bcharles (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Unless there is a reasonable reason to believe that there isn't a post-election process for a write-in that wins a state without a slate of electors, I think we should include the other candidates. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Adding List of United States presidential electors, 2016 as link in article... and asking for help
Rather than tripping over everybody on this article, I'm merely asking if it would be appropriate to include a link to a list of elector candidates that I'm trying to gather from various state agencies and other news services? If anybody wants to take a bit of a break from this article and help me out trying to find sources of information for the states I haven't found any information about, it would be appreciated too. --Robert Horning (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- OK. It will be good idea to add list of elections. One can later mark which one was rigged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've added a link to Template:US 2016 presidential elections series. In gathering the information, please remember to include the references to the original sources. This will actually help greatly in figuring out who has filed an elector slate where, which is important for determining who is included in the infobox. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am trying as best as I can to get the information directly from the state election officials rather than from news services if I can. The State of Deleware claims that they have not yet received the slate of electors from the political parties yet... in spite of state law that requires them to be filed by September 1st. This is far more frustrating to dig up than I anticipated and I'm getting some bureaucratic push-back, along with having to do some really heavy digging for even the stuff I've found so far. Still, thank you for all of your help in this. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- If you have information that can help verify whether write-in candidates have actually filed electors, it would be great if you could also add it to the section above. Thanks! Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I am trying as best as I can to get the information directly from the state election officials rather than from news services if I can. The State of Deleware claims that they have not yet received the slate of electors from the political parties yet... in spite of state law that requires them to be filed by September 1st. This is far more frustrating to dig up than I anticipated and I'm getting some bureaucratic push-back, along with having to do some really heavy digging for even the stuff I've found so far. Still, thank you for all of your help in this. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've added a link to Template:US 2016 presidential elections series. In gathering the information, please remember to include the references to the original sources. This will actually help greatly in figuring out who has filed an elector slate where, which is important for determining who is included in the infobox. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
If someone tries to add write-ins into the info box, revome them
The reason why Castle and other write-ins are not currently in the infobox is because the consensus has been, since 2012, to include only candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to be able to achieve 270 electoral votes, not write-ins. The most recent attempts to add write-in candidates started with an bold attempt to add Castle to the infobox during a discussion on Aug 23 at 735891756, which was challenged (reverted) at 736056459. The addition of Castle and other write-ins have been proposed/challenged/discussed ever since at discussions on this article, including the thread #Infobox inclusion, again and several other threads without reaching a consensus to add them. There is a RfC currently under discussion with no consensus to change the criterion to add write-ins to the infobox, therefore, any edits that try to put write-ins in the infobox should be be immediately reverted. Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- WE AGREED IN THE CONSENSUS THAT WE WOULD KEEP THEM!!! FORGET WHATEVER HAPPENED IN 2012!!! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Looking at the info-box I am starting to have second thoughts but this is just me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Hi, I dont want to add gasoline to the fire but I was checking out some of the information and I think that if the criteria is to order them by amount of electotal votes + write ins Castle should be be number 5, De La Fuente 6, McMullin 7 and Kotilkoff 8. It is just a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.54.160.228 (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Sparkie82: I'm finding your edits very disruptive. It was decided on 22 August that candidates that have crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold with ballot and write-in access would be included. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 18:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've tried telling them about that unanimous consensus from August, but every time I bring it up they ignore me (and they even said on their talk page that they are going to ignore me from now on). Sparkie82 has been very disruptive but the admins don't seem to care enough to do something about it I guess. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2016
This edit request to United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please remove all the candidates who aren't Clinton, Trump, Johnson or Stein from the main section. Even including Johnson and Stein is over the top let alone this. Why? Because it's absurd. Almost all previous elections had tonnes of candidates but they weren't included in the main section.
188.2.97.237 (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Not done: There is extensive discussion on this subject. We can make this edit only once a consensus is reached. Making edit requests for this is useless. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Rocky, Laurence, Gloria and Hoefling
Should Rocky de la Fuente and Laurence Kotlikoff be moved up to Major Third PARTY Candidates now that they have secured the 270 Electoral Votes needed like we have done for the other Candidates?
Also Tom Hoefling has more EV Access than Gloria La Riva and yet her map is featured and not his. Political Boss (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- First request: Done
- Second request: too be honest, I don't think Gloria's map should even be listed since she isn't even a major third party candidate.
- De La Fuente's infobox color is now indistinguishable from Castle's infobox color. I would fix it myself but I don't want to violate WP:1RR. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Gloria La Riva's map shouldn't be there, as you say. Also, De La Fuente's map follows some horribly complicated scheme that isn't documented in the map legend. And I agree that the candidate color keys in general are a mess. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- De La Fuentes map uses 4 colors (On ballot, write-in, lawsuit, off ballot). There is a vertical stripe patern defined for states with write-in and pending lawsuit. It is easy to set the appropriate fill color or pattern with a text editor. Bcharles (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Gloria La Riva's map shouldn't be there, as you say. Also, De La Fuente's map follows some horribly complicated scheme that isn't documented in the map legend. And I agree that the candidate color keys in general are a mess. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Sigh!, or "march madness" in October
This is not crystal ball: The only candidates who are capable of receiving electoral votes are Clinton, Trump and McMullin. That's it. If a faithless elector in Oregon votes for Stein like he's threatening to, then that might be slightly different, but that's highly improbable. Most states that permit write-in votes don't have lists they give out at the polls, so nobody has any idea who these people are, and they won't get more than a dozen votes, if that many, in any state they have write-in "access."
McMullin may be an exception because of all that publicity he received by surging in Utah, he may get some traction elsewhere. I dunno. But I do know this. Someone should start working on a sandbox version of he post election permanent article NOW and post a link on this page so we can start a joint effort to get ready before going for our next poll fix.Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- Why are you acknowledging that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and immediately contradicted that by stating why you believe only three candidates can win, even using words like "highly improbable"? The consensus is prior to the election, a candidate's requirement to appear on the infobox is the theoretical ability to win by having access to 270 electoral college votes. That does not mean that they must poll high in states. Winning an electoral college vote (or reaching at least 5% of the popular vote) is the post-election requirement. If you would like to speak about states specifically, as of now Gary Johnson is polling competitively with Trump and Hillary (though not enough to win the state as of now) in the state of New Mexico. As for who will win the state, we cannot know until the results are in. We can assume Hillary will win it, but that doesn't mean that we should exclude him from the infobox as of now. He, like Stein, can theoretically win at least 270 votes on ballot access alone, and for that reason is currently displayed. The reason why the other candidates in the infobox are a topic of debate is write-in access. As of now, the consensus is that they stay for the time being due to the potential to theoretically win. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. BrendonTheWizard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Fivethirtyeight (Nate Silver) in Swing table
Is there any reason we don't include fivethirtyeight's predicted outcomes in our swing state table? It's a reliable and well regarded source! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
- FiveThirtyEight's election forecast does not conduct polls, but rather makes predictions on who will win. FiveThirtyEight should not be included in the article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I personally would trust 538 over most sources. But, I don't think they have a long-term reputation. Objective3000 (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- None of the sites that are included in the swing state table conduct polls. All do analysis of polling and other data, similarly to FiveThirtyEight, which has a decent track record. The problem is that FiveThirtyEight does not identify or distinguish any "swing states", but just rates states on a continuum. That makes it arbitrary as to which states are labeled tossup, tilt, lean or safe. Bcharles (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2016
This edit request to United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the table of independent candidates, please remove the recently-added "Stoyevant Party" entry. It appears to be a hoax, and in any case there is no source given for any ballot access. Thanks to whoever look after this. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Done. Thank you for catching this. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Party logos
People, please stop adding logos before checking the license. Those logos cannot be included because it is a copyright violation. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 18:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- They've been on Wikipedia for a LONG time now, so I don't see why you're suddenly contesting them, Mister/Miss/Misses @JayCoop:. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- They're being used in certain articles with a fair use rationale. If you want to use them on this article, you need to provide a separate rationale specific to this article, per WP:NFCC. clpo13(talk) 18:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Also, please be aware that mere decoration ("it looks nice") isn't a valid rationale. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- They're being used in certain articles with a fair use rationale. If you want to use them on this article, you need to provide a separate rationale specific to this article, per WP:NFCC. clpo13(talk) 18:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
McMullin's image + infobox color
| |||||||||||
538 members of the Electoral College 270 electoral votes needed to win | |||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Opinion polls | |||||||||||
|
The image on the Wikipedia article for Evan McMullin has been replaced recently and it looks rather nice compared to the current one that we have. I do not know if the new image is free but I saw it added to his article so I'm assuming that it could be a viable replacement for what we have now. What do you think we should use?
Additionally, his color currently is a reddish orange that appears similar to the color being used for Trump, so I am considering changing it to an orange that leans neither to red nor yellow as to more clearly distinguish him. The infobox on this section compares the current version of how McMullin appears to my proposed change. Please respond with opinions. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Option 1. Light orange line. It looks a LOT better. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- If the image is actually free (the file page currently says it is, but the source is not well provided), I suggest you go ahead and replace the image. This is not controversial in any way since option 1 is superior to 2 in every way. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- The image should not be used until it is demonstrated to be free--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- In response to William S. Saturn, I tried doing a quick search for this image. This tweet from the verified TeamMcMullin account utilizes the same image, which leads me to believe that not only is Evan McMullin the copyright holder but that he also agrees to release it under free license. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Still, the copyright on this image is unclear. This should be fixed before we use the image. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- The copyright holder is usually the person who took the photo unless there is some other arrangement made. We need proof that an arrangement was made with the photographer and that the copyright holder agrees to release it under a free license.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- Still, the copyright on this image is unclear. This should be fixed before we use the image. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- In response to William S. Saturn, I tried doing a quick search for this image. This tweet from the verified TeamMcMullin account utilizes the same image, which leads me to believe that not only is Evan McMullin the copyright holder but that he also agrees to release it under free license. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I must add that this image will need to be cropped to be in the infobox. I previewed what the infobox would look like with the image replaced, and it's a little too wide. For now, I've changed only the color in the infobox. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've cropped it. This won't be added to the infobox yet. I'll attempt to find more information about its copyright. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've added it to the info-box ONLY because it'll get people more aware of it and more will look into its copyright status. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Posting a photograph to Twitter does not automatically place it under a free license. The image will likely be deleted. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- In case we cannot find sufficient information regarding this image, I've found two more potential replacements on Flickr. This is the first and this is the second. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- When looking at the version of the article with the new & cropped image, it appears that it is not wide enough now. I'll post an updated version when I can get the dimensions exact. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- @BrendonTheWizard: A photograph needs to be under a Creative Commons license that allows commercial reuse, or in the public domain (e.g. because it was taken by a federal government employee) in order to be used. Neither of those Flickr photographs fulfill those criteria.
- McMullin formerly worked for the House Republican Conference; perhaps they published a public-domain photo at some point in the past? Also, McMullin has a number of public events coming up: Saturday in Boise, Idaho, Monday in Jackson, Wyoming, Tuesday in Lakewood, Colorado, and Thursday in Richmond, Virginia and Buena Vista, Virginia. Perhaps someone living close to one of those locations can show up and take a photo. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I attempted to find pictures of him from government sources by searching through the websites associated with his past government jobs. The most I could find was a pdf confirming his position as a policy director, but I could not find a photograph. His events could generate photographs of him, there's also the possibility of him showing up at the F&E third party debate on the 25th of October soon, though his campaign has not confirmed the invitation. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- One possibility is to contact Anthony Trueheart at [37]. He's the author of the current portrait and he may be willing to publish a better quality portrait that we could use. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I attempted to find pictures of him from government sources by searching through the websites associated with his past government jobs. The most I could find was a pdf confirming his position as a policy director, but I could not find a photograph. His events could generate photographs of him, there's also the possibility of him showing up at the F&E third party debate on the 25th of October soon, though his campaign has not confirmed the invitation. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Posting a photograph to Twitter does not automatically place it under a free license. The image will likely be deleted. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 00:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- I've added it to the info-box ONLY because it'll get people more aware of it and more will look into its copyright status. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Does this look good? Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Better than what we have now, though a less blurry picture would be even better if we can get one. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is certainly much better than the original image. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Better than what we have now, though a less blurry picture would be even better if we can get one. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- My question about the infobox color is this: who decided it had to be orange? Shouldn't it be a color that reflects his campaign logo? Also, shouldn't consensus be reached as to what the HTML or HEX color code is? Personally, I think that the infobox color for McMullin's campaign should be something like this: reddish-orange Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Maps don't show up on Firefox
This page contains many small maps showing which states a candidate has ballot access in. They show up on Internet Explorer, but not on Firefox. I am guessing this is due to the use of the {{multiple image}} macro, because these maps show up correctly on other pages (e.g., Evan McMullin presidential campaign, 2016) in Firefox.
Is this a known bug? Is it wise that such an important article is designed in a way that doesn't render correctly on a major web browser? — Lawrence King (talk) 23:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
- Maps show up OK on Firefox here: Firefox 49.0.2, Windows 10 on an HP PC displays maps for Stein (shades of green), McMullin (orange), Castle (violet), De La Fuente (blue-violet), Kotlikoff (yellow-green), Maturen and La Riva. I don't normally use Firefox, and I know I may have misunderstood the original comment ... it seems to me that the page appears essentially identical via Firefox and Chrome ... but if others can describe what platform they are using and how the page renders for them, that may provide clues. When I examine the HTML source in my browser, the maps are just being displayed as .svg images, and the coding seems straightforward. NameIsRon (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I thought the original post was about maps in the "Other third parties and independents" section. If the comment refers to maps in the "Major third parties and independents" section, I have had no problem seeing those on firefox. If this is still a problem, please be specific as to which candidate maps are not displaying. Bcharles (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Unjustified removal of Rocky De La Fuente and Laurence Kotlikoff from the infobox
LuckyLag360 removed Rocky De La Fuente and Laurence Kotlikoff from the infobox without providing a valid reason.[38] When I tried to add re‐add them to the infobox, my edit was reverted by LuckyLag360.[39] The current consensus is to include De La Fuente and Kotlikoff because they can theoretically win 270 Electoral Votes through write‐in access. Since I can't take them back because of WP:1RR, can someone else do that instead? —MartinZ02 (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- This is being discussed here. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 01:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- The reason was clear and understandable. A consensus on whether they should be added has not been reached.LuckyLag360 (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- @LuckyLag360:, that's exactly what I said! It hasn't been a week, yet people like @SPECIFICO: say a consensus has been reached! But, it hasn't! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk • contribs)
- The reason was clear and understandable. A consensus on whether they should be added has not been reached.LuckyLag360 (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2016
It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected redirect at United States presidential election, 2016. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".
The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |
At some point during the edit wars today, the "Stoyevant Party" nonsense crept back into the list of minor-party candidates. There is no evidence for the existence of this candidacy, and none is provided in the listing in any case, so someone should remove it 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I removed it. I google searched for it and I could not find anything. Regardless though unless the editor can source there add it shouldnt be there, so I removed it.LuckyLag360 (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I hope that other editors will watch for this, since it seems very likely that the same content will return, and it's almost certainly just someone playing pretend. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note that no state ballot lines were listed, only a few write-in states. At least one state ballot line is required to be included here. Bcharles (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- @Bcharles:, that's true, also, @LuckyLag360:, thanks for removing it! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Note that no state ballot lines were listed, only a few write-in states. At least one state ballot line is required to be included here. Bcharles (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Thanks for that. I hope that other editors will watch for this, since it seems very likely that the same content will return, and it's almost certainly just someone playing pretend. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
voting machines?
the introductory question: is it technically possible to feed results from all voting maschines directly to infobox? I see it is. If the data are presented bet ween one interface is rather trivial to write a soft to flip the numbers on wikipedia infobox. If we do it, we wont need to watch the mosst sad MSM but all views will go to our website. I can dedicate some programming for this challenging task. And if there is your support we can provide a source. 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- Having a voting machine connected to a website could result in some hacking, which could change the result of an election. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- But the machines are already connected to servers[1] and the election judges are merely 'legitimizing decoration' because they do not judge the process. Why not trust more solid base of 5columns (and the the info-neutralization in our WP:5P) but trust some corporate closed source solution ? Corporations works for profit. This issue (electronic voting process) have a lot of refs but is not addressed in this article at all: 'string "mach* not found' and singular "electr*" refer to a crystal ball. 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Admin enforcement needed
Multiple reverts by Gagarin -- Please. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, this page has already been locked fully before. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, too. However, people keep making major changes to the article without a reached consensus, and they're justifiably reverted, yet the person who made the major change in the first place defends themself by saying a consensus was reached, but such a consensus was set out to made only a couple of days ago, with barely anybody having the time to look at it yet. @SPECIFICO: and @Antony-22: are some of the people who say a consensus has been reached. You can't say a consensus has been reached when it has been set out to be made only a couple of days prior! Think about it! If the election were to occur now instead of on the eighth, and it was reported that this was going to be happening on a news channel that isn't viewed often, very few people would vote. This means that the result wouldn't be anywhere near 100% accurate! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I said no such thing about consensus. I am saying that you're a Single Purpose Account that has ignored warnings from half a dozen editors and you should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia toot sweet. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- The consensus from 2012 was that we needed documentation that 270 electors had been appointed, which should carry over to this cycle. However, I personally am not making further edits to the infobox regarding De La Fuente and Kotlikoff until the current discussion is closed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- @SPECIFICO: I think you should read WP:GF anf WP:CIV. —MartinZ02 (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I said no such thing about consensus. I am saying that you're a Single Purpose Account that has ignored warnings from half a dozen editors and you should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia toot sweet. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- I agree, too. However, people keep making major changes to the article without a reached consensus, and they're justifiably reverted, yet the person who made the major change in the first place defends themself by saying a consensus was reached, but such a consensus was set out to made only a couple of days ago, with barely anybody having the time to look at it yet. @SPECIFICO: and @Antony-22: are some of the people who say a consensus has been reached. You can't say a consensus has been reached when it has been set out to be made only a couple of days prior! Think about it! If the election were to occur now instead of on the eighth, and it was reported that this was going to be happening on a news channel that isn't viewed often, very few people would vote. This means that the result wouldn't be anywhere near 100% accurate! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Antony, De La Fuente and Kotilkoff were excluded again from the article. McMullin is a write in candidate, this means that for example De La Fuente is in more ballots than him, twice as much, but this should not be an issue because McMullin is registered in more write ins. You were part of the conversation in which the 270 was established as a requirement. Now people needs to follow through. The info box is vital for every candidate that has made an effort to be able to get to 270, it doesn't matter how. There is a lot of us that can edit the article, but we believe in the consensus, while other guys are just making changes. Our next President is going to be the same and it doesn't matter if him or her wins by presence on the ballots or by write ins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
- ^
- http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/09/technology/voting-machine-hack-election/
- https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-voting-technology/
- the servers were indeed an issue of the machine s design http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html
- http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/23/could_the_2016_election_be_stolen
- B-Class Donald Trump articles
- Top-importance Donald Trump articles
- WikiProject Donald Trump articles
- B-Class Elections and Referendums articles
- WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
- B-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- B-Class United States presidential elections articles
- High-importance United States presidential elections articles
- WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
- B-Class United States Government articles
- High-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- B-Class politics articles
- High-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Wikipedia semi-protected edit requests
- Wikipedia edit requests possibly using incorrect templates
- Wikipedia requests for comment