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 Rollins83 (talk | contribs) at 17:56, 14 July 2016 (→‎VP speculation). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This talk page contains a Request for Comment subpage regarding the remodeling of major party candidate areas. Please visit it here: Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016/Remodeling_of_major_party_candidate_areas.

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]

  • Traditional Images are sorted by previous electoral college results. No mess. Easy to follow. Less drama if we stick with what we know works. --Majora (talk) 01:31, 7 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.

VP speculation

John McCain was never considered as running mate for Trump, but instead Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) can be added to the list. --217.110.69.30 (talk) 11:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Source? --Proud User (talk) 17:39, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason there is a gallery for the Democratic Vice Presidential potential picks, and not for the Republican? Calibrador (talk) 19:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I was wondering the same thing. IMO, neither section needs a gallery.--Ddcm8991 (talk) 19:28, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that neither needs a gallery. We didn't have one for the potential presidential candidates, so use additional bandwidth on potential veep candidates? For that reason, I have removed the gallery for the Dem. potentials.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:03, 5 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hey guys, The Hill just posted an article saying that Mike Pence has been selected as Trump's running mate, shoul we put it on the info box?--Angelgfg12345 (talk) (Angelgfg12345 (talk) 17:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)).[reply]

No, not until the official announcement has been made. See WP:CRYSTAL and WP:V.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:20, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Nextprez that we should wait unti the announcement before stating that Pence is the running mate. However, I think it would appropriate to add a (sourced) statement saying that multiple reliable sources are reporting that Mike Pence is expected to be named Trump's running mate (or words to that effect).--Rollins83 (talk) 17:56, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Stein and Johnson Gain Access in Illinois

http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/07/green-party-and-libertarian-party-make-illinois-ballot-for-president-challenge-filed-against-constitution-party-petitions/ ... Constitutional Party, Human Rights Party and Socialist Party USA may have also made it but they are facing legal challenges while Johnson and Stein are unquestionably on the ballot for November. 2601:283:8300:A75A:251A:13C9:B282:3EC1 (talk) 03:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You have added this ballot access for Gary Johnson but not Jill Stein. Please correct this now. 2601:283:8300:A75A:A09E:3229:1D:36B4 (talk) 03:26, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I just corrected the Stein access per http://www.jill2016.com/we_re_on_the_ballot_in_illinois as most people cannot change the page more then once a day! I would prefer a non-campaign source if you have one :)! Fritz1543 (talk) 03:41, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign Finance

I have added a campaign finance section and table to the page. However, it is notable that opensecrets.org references appear behind the latest news coverage. [1] Though the latest FEC page has the same data as the opensecrets.org page. Dbsseven (talk) 20:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I really like this idea!!! Perhaps we can add a bit of information about what an outside group is for readers? What do you think? Fritz1543 (talk) 03:36, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Murray, Mark; Cardwell, Leigh Ann (6 July 2016). "Donald Trump Raises $26 Million in June". CNN. Retrieved 6 July 2016.

Semi-protected edit request on 7 July 2016

The "Unaffiliated" subsection in the third-party candidate section was recently added without a source for its single candidate, removed, then readded with a source which claimed to demonstrate ballot access, but which only shows the registration of a campaign committee. There is no source currently given for the claim that this candidate has ballot access anywhere. Therefore, the entire section should be removed. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 23:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - Thanks, good catch on your part. The section can, of course, be reinstated if and when ballot access can be verified.--JayJasper (talk) 23:21, 7 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green party

Someone deleted everything in the Green Party section.2601:640:4080:5960:D528:3270:B717:97F9 (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well they must've undeleted it, because the green party section is there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romandave (talk • contribs) 01:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Clinton home state

Shouldn't HRC's home state be listed as Arkansas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remsense (talk • contribs) 03:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Not according to her FEC form. She hasn't lived in Arkansas for many many many years anyways. --Majora (talk) 03:35, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Bernie Sanders did not suspended his campaign

Sanders did not suspend his campaign, in his speech he said he'll go all the way to November, but offered to withdrawl from the race. He is keeping his promise as to going all the way to convention. As this article says, he does not officially drop out of the race, but supports Clinton. It's like the case for Kreml and Jill Stein in the Green Party primaries. He's still a candidate, but endorses Stein. Sanders endorses Clinton to defeat Trump, but is still in the race. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 18:34, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

His speech today seemed as clear of a concession as any. It's true that his campaign technically is not suspended but it's really hard for me to understand under what criteria his campaign is continuing. The goal of the campaign (for Bernie Sanders to obtain the Democratic Party nomination and afterwards the presidency) was not met and this has been acknowledged by the candidate as well as the staff. It's hard for me personally to find a justification for continuing to describe the Sanders campaign as active. 50.27.101.171 (talk) 21:58, 12 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's just about official stuff. Sanders suspended his campaign months ago, in effectiveness. But officially, his campaign continues. 2601:283:8300:A75A:F975:1B35:C1D6:90F5 (talk) 06:43, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]
My goodness, is that you Jonathan Tasini? Sanders lost, he endorsed Clinton, and it's done. Not sure how much clearer it can be. I can see the 2020 election page being drafted and people will still want to say "Sanders is still in it". Just let it go. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4705:B31D:7971:F155:7037:D404 (talk) 12:02, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party Georgia Access

Pending official campaign announcement, it appears as if Jill Stein has qualified for the Georgia ballot: http://onlineathens.com/mobile/2016-07-12/green-party-candidate-stein-qualifies-georgia-ballot-ware-filing-write-candidate . 2601:283:8300:A75A:F975:1B35:C1D6:90F5 (talk) 01:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Other parties which could achieve ballot access to 270 electoral votes

I follow minor party ballot access pretty closely and just wanted to point out to the regular editors of this page that there is a significant possibility that one or more additional parties could achieve ballot access to 270 electoral college votes. Specifically if either the Constitution Party nominee gets cross nominated by the Independent American Party in California or the Party for Socialism and Liberation Nominee gets cross nominated by the Peace and Freedom Party, each could potentially reach 270 ballot access. This isn't a pressing issue, but I just wanted to bring it up since if it does happen it would require changes to the infobox coding and layout of the page.XavierGreen (talk) 18:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If additional parties reach 270 votes of ballot access, they will be featured in the infobox. In 2012 we had six candidates listed. By all means, if you're following their ballot access, let us know as soon as any of them reach 270. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:39, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Order "Other third parties and independents" by electoral college access

I propose that we order the "Other third parties and independents" section by the number of electoral college vote they have access to, rather than alphabetical order as it currently is. Who is in agreement? --Proud User (talk) 16:52, 14 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_United_States_presidential_election&oldid=729807346"