Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Archive 10 Archive 12 Archive 13 Archive 14 Archive 15 Archive 16 Archive 20


Protected edit request: Castle

For the Constitution Party section, please remove the "write-in anticipated" list, moving CA and DC to "not on ballot". This is confirmed by the given source. Castle's EV total should be updated to 451.

Bcharles (talk) 22:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:20, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

NH Midnight Voting Results?

Should we add in the midnight voting results? SalFiveOneFour (talk) 06:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

No. Far too trivial. Manful0103 (talk) 10:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
And not predictive. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Requirements for stating the winner

We don't want a Dewey Defeats Truman situation, so how many newspapers/national networks should we require to have called the election before we put the results in? I'd say any two major newspapers or networks, does that seem reasonable? Adam Cuerden (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Generally they call the winner around the same time (at least there's a group of them that usually does it together). Not sure if it'll be a huge problem. But 2 seems reasonable. Or we can just say "winner called by CNN" or what have you. EvergreenFir (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
There was a problem in 2000 when both Gore and Bush were declared winners. The networks should not have declared either the winner until the Supreme Court decision in Gore v. Bush. I am sure they have learned their lesson. I would accept any networks declaration and expect they will come at the same time. Usually it becomes fairly clear after one candidate passes the magic mark. Of course we don't have the Dewey Truman problem, since the article can be updated. TFD (talk) 18:42, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

254 already?

I'm hearing Trump already has 254. Should it be reflected?--Adûnâi (talk) 06:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

FOX News called Wisconsin for Trump a while ago bringing him to 254 by their count. Other news outlets haven't called that yet, but have Wisconsin very in Trump's favor. -AnonWikiEditor (talk) 06:16, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I think they're out on their own on Wisconsin. I don't imagine it'll take long for others to follow, but we should be more cautious, since we're not making calls. We should be sure the call is agreed upon. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
264 now, I think someone should shade Pennsylvania now. New York Times confirms he won the state. Burklemore1 (talk) 06:45, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Alaska was just added but CNN is the only one that projected it AFAIK. If we aren't going to update Wisconsin then we shouldn't update Alaska either. I don't have a problem with updating Wisconsin and Alaska tbh. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 06:47, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
cnn is not reliable source & never was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 07:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
266 now... (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
What source says that all of NE's EVs are for Trump? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 07:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


Can you update the electoral map? -- (talk) 04:31, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request

update the map! the two states that weren't highlighted are now RED

Not done. Wikipedia is WP:NOTNEWS, is behind the ball, and even then, Minnesota and Michigan have not yet been projected to have a victor. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 08:46, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Change "will will" to one "will"

The current text reads "Trump will will take office as the 45th President on January 20, 2017." Can someone correct the grammar here and remove the extra "will" please? (talk) 10:30, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Dschslava Δx parlez moi 11:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

States carried

Trump won 30 states plus Maine's 2nd congressional district (30 + ME2)

Clinton won 20 states plus Washington, DC (20 + DC)

This information needs to be added to the main box. (talk) 18:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Not all states have been called yet. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Prohibition Party

Add File:Prohibition Party ballot access (2016).svg above of third party candidates table. Include write-in and on ballot colors in the style of maps already there.

MB298 (talk) 03:42, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for creating the map. Please include a link to the map under the electoral vote total in the table as well. The multi-image "caption" could read:
Ballot access for James Hedges (Prohibition Party)
  On ballot
  Not on ballot
Bcharles (talk) 00:02, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:49, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Request for talk page etiquette

I am an uninvolved admin attempting to impose some order on this talk page and attend to edit requests. It would be helpful if folks could use a useful title when starting new discussion sections. Five sections all called "Protected edit request on 3 November 2016" is not very helpful. Please consider posting in an existing relevant section rather than starting a new one - it can be quite disruptive to split discussions across sections. I have done some consolidation above so that all discussion relating to a particular candidate is in one place. That makes it easier for people to see what has been discussed previously. Thank you — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:55, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

The "request edit" button on the view source page creates new sections with the dated title and protected edit request template. There will likely be more such sections generated. I think the logic of the system is to keep request in date order so they can be handled sequentially. Bcharles (talk) 11:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I know the request edit button produces that heading by default, but it can be changed. It is far more logical to keep threads in line with the same topic, rather than chronological. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Newspaper endorsements

Could somebody include that "The Crusader" endorsed Donald Trump? Should be mentioned in the section newspaper endorsements. --Cartinal (talk) 18:38, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

@Cartinal: First off, that would be something for Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2016. Second, according to this Washington Post article they aren't officially endorsing him. Elisfkc (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

De La Fuente

Democratic section

Rocky De La Fuente has lid so much passion in everyone here that I was doing some research on him and found out that he qualifies to be in the other democratic candidates section. Let me explain why.

First it says: ¨The following candidates were frequently interviewed by major broadcast networks and cable news channels, or were listed in publicly published national polls. Lessig was invited to one forum, but withdrew when rules were changed which prevented him from participating in officially sanctioned debates.¨

- If you search in Google Rocky has around 21.500 news results, more than Lessing 19.600. - Then he was invited to national broadcast networks, examples; Univision, CNN, Tv.Azteca and Telemundo. - He has more votes than Lessig, Webb and Chafee together. Way more. - The only thing that he falls way shorter than the other candidates is on the polls thing because he was just included in one, but it says ¨or¨ so it means that is either one thing or the other.

Clarinetcousin (talk) 20:27, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

  • Support: This has, for some reason, been a controversial edit. I believe participating in most state primaries, and coming in fourth place by total votes, is worthy of inclusion in the Dem primary candidate gallery. Bcharles (talk) 01:16, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. If he was both a Democrat primary candidate and a general election third-party candidate, then he should be featured in both categories. — Lawrence King (talk) 02:00, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
  •  Administrator note: Please tell me exactly what change to make — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:36, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
This was proposed, with code, here. The image needs to be updated. So, add a column after Bernie by inserting each of the following (updated) lines:

! scope="col" style="width:3em; font-size:120%;"| [[Rocky De La Fuente]]


|<center>[[Entrepreneur]]<br /><small>(1984 to present)</small></center>

|<center>[[Rocky De La Fuente presidential campaign, 2016|Campaign]]<center>

|<center>''LN: July 26th 2016''<br/><small>67,457 primary votes and 0 delegates</small></center>

|<center><ref>{{cite web |url= |title=Democratic Delegation 2016 |first=Richard E. |last=Berg-Andersson |editor=Tony Roza | |year=2016 |accessdate=September 24, 2016}}</ref><center>

Bcharles (talk) 12:49, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay that's done. Should he be removed from the section lower down the article now? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:11, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
No, he ran both in the democratic primary and as a third party candidate for the new ADP and Reform Party. He still has an active campaign for the general election. Thanks for making the addition. Bcharles (talk) 20:30, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove lawsuits from ballot access maps

Shouldn't we have removed the pending lawsuits from the maps by now? They won't be decided early enough to put these candidates on the ballot, as most (if not all) of the states have already begun early voting. --Mr.Election (talk) 13:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Rocky De La Fuente's outstanding lawsuits have all been deferred until after the election, and I haven't heard anything at all about the Green Party lawsuit in Oklahoma for months. Representing these as a possible electoral path is wishful thinking at this point. If something specific does happen to affect electoral access on those states, the article can and should be edited to add whichever state is relevant at that point, but there's no need to mark them out now in order to do this. (talk) 20:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
The lawsuits will have significant implications for independent candidates in future elections. They also provide some context regarding the efforts and disputes keeping candidates off the ballot in those states. This I think they should remain as indicators beyond current ballot access. Bcharles (talk) 05:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

Rocky De La Fuente's candidacy

In the "Rocky De La Fuente's candidacy" section, on the "Ballot access to..." line, 284 shouldn't have a closing bracket, and should be italicised, just like all the previous sections. Thanks. -- numbermaniac (talk) 07:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Moved discussion on further edit to new edit request below. Bcharles (talk) 04:42, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


De La Fuente's section needs multiple updates and corrections (in addition to the one mentioned here). I have included a revision to his full section below. Bcharles (talk) 02:22, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Content removed for readability — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Please detail the changes you are proposing and get consensus on them before making the edit request — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:43, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
@MSGJ: There are updates needed nearly daily for write-in access, as states publish their lists. The changes included above are updates for a write-in states and the EV total. Added references for added states, ordered refs by state, and clean up of duplicate refs. Dropped "pending states" as last state was added to write-ins. Updated states with no ballot access (at this time), including California, which rejected his filing, and other "lawsuit states" without write-in filings. See sources for clarification. In "nominee" box: changed campaign logo width to match other candidates. Bcharles (talk) 00:51, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Well there have been no objections so  Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)


For Kotlikoff, please add MO and WI, and remove them from "no ballot access", increasing EV total by 20. See below: Bcharles (talk) 05:43, 3 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 15:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, yet again. Please fix comment bracket (missing <) at top of candidate box, after ballot access info. Bcharles (talk) 20:41, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Sorry Fixed — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:09, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

the Californian debacle

I just got done reading this article. Unless I am mistaken, there was no mention of the mess that happened here in California between Clinton and Sanders. (talk) 16:40, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

And no mention of Debbie Wasserman-Schultz or the DNC actions to influence the outcome of the Democratic primary process. TFD (talk) 17:36, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Picture of ballot...

What state is it from? doesn't say... (talk) 09:55, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Near the bottom under Jill Stein, the party listed is "Wisconsin Green". In the second column is John Arndt, the Libertarian candidate for the 5th Congressional District of Wisconsin. Also, David Craig is the apparently unopposed incumbent in Wisconsin's 83rd Assembly District. Bcharles (talk) 21:39, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

Post-election criteria for infobox inclusion, discussion at POTUS 1852 election article

John P. Hale got less than 5% in the 1852 election and there is a discussion going on here about whether or not to include him. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 01:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Newspaper endorsements: "top-100"

The statement "Trump ... has a historically low number of endorsements from top-100 circulation newspapers" is an understatement and not supported by the source. The source mentions "major" newspapers, and never talks about "top-100". Based on the cited sources, the statement should be "Trump ... has not been endorsed by a major newspaper." --JFH (talk) 00:38, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

This statement is also misleading: "Trump's major support in media instead came from sources such as 'alt-right' website Breitbart, outside the traditional media sphere." The source only mentions Breitbart, and I found another source which states that non-traditional media have shunned Trump as well. It's also misleading because you would think based on the section that this Breitbart endorses him, but that is not the case. The statement should be "Trump has received favorable coverage, but no explicit endorsement, from Breitbart, an alt-right news and opinion website." The following sources, copied from the Breitbart WP page, may be added for calling Breitbart alt-right (without scare quotes):
  • Eli Stokols (October 13, 2016). "Trump fires up the alt-right". Politico. ...the unmistakable imprint of Breitbart News, the 'alt-right' website ....
  • Staff (October 1, 2016). "The rise of the alt-right". The Week. Another major alt-right platform is, a right-wing news site ...
  • Will Rahn (August 19, 2016). "Steve Bannon and the alt-right: a primer". CBS News. Bannon’s Breitbart distinguished itself from the rest of the conservative media in two significant ways this cycle...The second was through their embrace of the alt-right... --JFH (talk) 01:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The statement that Trump has not been endorsed by a major newspaper is not true. He was endorsed by the Las Vegas Review-Journal. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:11, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
For the top 100 argument, see the intro paragraph on Newspaper endorsements in the United States presidential election, 2016. It also addresses the historically low argument. I'm on my phone right now, so I can't bring you the sources used there, but they are valid sources and statements. However, as pointed out above, the Las Vegas Review-Journal has endorsed him. Elisfkc (talk) 17:35, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Logo for Clinton Kaine

Change File:Clinton Kaine.svg out with the more commonly used File:Clinton-Kaine blue.png. Elisfkc (talk) 15:29, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

Done No objections so done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:32, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
@MSGJ: someone reverted it without seeing this discussion. Can you put the light blue one back please? Elisfkc (talk) 17:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

states with write-in access needs to be updated

as many states have very late deadlines for write-in filing these need to be updated (especially for "other third parties and independents"). the newest (with a few still outstanding, I think there wasn't a list for Alaska and D.C. yet)): (talk) 04:04, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Results table

Here's a table I propose we add to the article for election night- especially since we won't be able to put electoral college tallies in the infobox until after the election. [1]

e • d 
Presidential Candidate / Vice-Presidential Candidate Electoral count*
Hillary Clinton / Tim Kaine
Donald Trump / Mike Pence
Gary Johnson / William Weld
Jill Stein / Ajamu Baraka
Darrell Castle / Scott Bradley
Evan McMullin / Mindy Finn
*These are projections; the electoral college will vote on December 19, 2016.
Green tickY = Projected President-elect

Prcc27🎃 (talk) 05:41, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It seems absurd to list projected electors, but ignore the popular vote, which is what is being counted election night. The percentage of popular vote is much more significant for most candidates. I would also list De La Fuente and La Riva, as they have ballot lines for more than a hundred electors each and potential to beat Castle or McMullin in votes. Bcharles (talk) 12:58, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
The popular vote tally will change practically ever second as more and more votes come in. I'm not even exaggerating. Votes will be coming in from all over the country. Also reliable sources could have differing popular vote tallies. Updating the popular vote totals over and over will likely result in several edit conflicts and maybe even edit wars. Excluding the popular vote is only temporary and we can add the popular vote once we get an idea of what the popular vote will be. I think most of the readers are actually more concerned with who is going to win the election and the election map (which the table complements) than the popular vote. I voted for Jill Stein and I'm still more concerned with the electoral tally even though she has a steep climb to 270. Also, if we add La Riva we are going to have to add other candidates and the table will be one big mess. I guess a compromise could be to add the popular vote tally but have a footnote saying it is only updated every 30 minutes or every hour. But a lot could happen in that time so I doubt it would be helpful. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 19:33, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
We are better off not even bothering with a results table until maybe (24) hours after the results come in, or if a results table is put in, we simply leave the popular vote fields blank while they are being tabulated, and update Electoral votes when those are thrown down; that is what I've seen happen with a number of Parliamentary Elections here, though naturally with seats rather than electors. --Ariostos (talk) 22:35, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed; reported popular vote totals will be inaccurate, incomplete (due to missing absentee returns), subject to recount in close races, and won't reflect write-in totals except as raw numbers despite the fact that McMullin or even Bernie Sanders could have significant write-in totals. They will also be reported slightly differently in different sources of real-time coverage. It's best not to even try giving minute-by-minute popular vote totals. On the other hand, there probably should be a "notes" field to add any explanation of totals that's needed. (talk) 23:02, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia, not a news site. Wikipedia documents elections, we are not where election results are calculated/revealed. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 23:19, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

──────────@Super Nintendo Chalmers: The election results are to be included, as it was in United States presidential election, 2012 and elections prior. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 23:22, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Update: a new parameter was created for the infobox so that "projected electoral vote" can be displayed. So long as this is included in the infobox I honestly couldn't care less if a table is added or not (although it was in 2012). But I still feel like we should leave the popular vote total out for a while. Maybe we could leave it out until all of the states (and D.C.) have officially certified their results which would be at least a month. But I'm sure that people would be tempted to add it before this happens. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 00:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that the table does not need to be added until 12 or 24 hours after polls close and can be updates every 12 to 24 hours, as needed. There is no reason to jump to electoral vote projections before stable vote counts are reported. There are dozens of sites that offer live returns and make projections long before a winner is certain. I still think that LA Riva and De La Fuente should be included in the table pending outcome of at least 0.1%. Bcharles (talk) 15:50, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Just a reminder, I added the Current election template inside of a show by date template a few months ago, to appear early in the morning on Tuesday on the page. So, even if someone comes looking for live updates, they will be told at the top of the article that the article may not be up to date. Elisfkc (talk) 17:43, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for that bit of preparedness. It's definitely needed. (talk) 19:41, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

We could leave a note (<!-- -->) informing editors not to add the vote totals. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 06:26, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Nominees tables

I have a question about nominees tables; should we use the official parties' colors,      (#3333FF) for Dems and      (#FF3333) for the GOP, or the ones current in use that are      (#34AAE0) and      (#CE2029)? Thanks -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:28, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

SPUSA ticket

Soltysik/Walker have write-in access in Wisconsin: — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 14:35, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Major Third Parties

Are we listing third parties in order form ballot access with write ins or no write ins? Billythekid314 (talk) 02:48, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

There has not yet been a discussion specifically about this. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 03:21, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe it should be by electoral vote for ballot lines, then for write-in states. This would be consistent with the "other third parties and independents section, and would make sense generally. Bcharles (talk) 05:06, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
FYI, that would put De La Fuente above McMullin. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 05:16, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
McMullin has demonstrably appointed 270 electors, while De La Fuente has not. Of De La Fuente's write-in slates, only AZ, CA, CT, IN, MD, and VA require an elector slate, which isn't enough to get him to 270. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 05:47, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
I don't think the article takes elector slate filing into account especially since that information isn't provided in the article. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 06:19, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that we have to explain in the article why Rocky is behind Evan or not on the info box, even though he's on more ballots and can reach 270 votes with write-ins. Billythekid314 (talk) 14:33, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

The title and opening post to this thread is misleading. There is a section deep in the body of the article titled, "Major third parties and independents" which is what the opening post appears to be about but then the OP adds a post at near the end about the infobox, which has already been discussed elsewhere. This thread is useless and should be disregarded. Sparkie82 (tc) 09:58, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

In case it is desired

November 2, 2016.

I took and uploaded a new photo from a rally last week with Hillary Clinton. If a new photo is desired, here is one. I'm also the photo taker of the current Hillary Clinton photo being used in the article right now. There's a microphone in this one but it doesn't obscure the subject's face. Calibrador (talk) 09:15, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

There are also several more without a microphone in the photo, where she is shown smiling as well. They are towards the bottom here. Calibrador (talk) 09:19, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
She looks as orange as Trump now..--Stemoc 10:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverted it back to the previous color settings. Calibrador (talk) 20:11, 7 November 2016 (UTC)

That's a great image! The color balance seems near-perfect as of 20:30, 7 November 2016 (UTC). - MrX
Horrible pink cast and excessive contrast in the tooth region vs. her powedered face and the blurred background. Looks like one of those billboards for a local dentist. JMHO. I think we should use official photos wherever available. Let candidates choose their own poison. SPECIFICO talk 23:18, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
She has a look of joyous satisfaction. Sparkie82 (tc) 10:01, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Other Articles

Since I imagine most editors from WP:WikiProject Elections and Referendums are watching this page, as well as some editors not in that project, I will address these issues here.

I have just added Template:Current election to every election occurring today, according to Template:United States elections, 2016. This places all of them in Category:Current elections from November 2016. While going through, I noticed a couple issues that will be problematic later on tonight that need to be addressed by someone with more time than myself.

  1. Many of the non-presidential elections are currently using the presidential election results map from their state in the infobox. This includes nearly every gubernatorial and senate election article. See United States House of Representatives election in Wyoming, 2016 for an example.
  2. On the gubernatorial election infoboxes, many of them say that the type of election is presidential. This is incorrect. Someone may have copied and pasted the infobox from the presidential election articles for each state, resulting in both issues.
  3. Some of the articles do not have infoboxes. I have added the Template:Needs infobox to their respective talk pages.
  4. On United States House of Representatives elections in Pennsylvania, 2016, someone created a map of the results based on the 2012 results, which might have led to confusion. I have removed the image from the article, but this should be addressed.

Thanks, Elisfkc (talk) 19:54, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

Polls closing times

It would be nice to have a map of the closing times of the last poll in each state especially since the 2012 article has one. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 22:46, 4 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27: OK, build it in a sandbox and give a link to that sandbox. That way, the editors who have permission to edit this page don't have to make it themselves. Elisfkc (talk) 17:37, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
@Prcc27: I have created a map. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 18:27, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
That's not exactly right. Some states have multiple closing times, like IN and KY, which are in two time zones. This map is more accurate. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:35, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: If you had read the description, you would know that that was taken into account, but because you chose not to read the description, let me paste it here for you: "Poll closing times in the United States presidential election, 2016. In some states, there are multiple times of closing, so the earliest closing time is selected." Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 19:10, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
I looked at the image and didn't see a description, and I believe most people wouldn't have noticed it either. It wouldn't be included with the image anyway unless it was added as a caption. Don't assume I "chose" not to read it. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:37, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: My apologies for the last part, but if we were to add it to the article, there should be a not to be left behind. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 19:53, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
In 2012 the states were shaded for the last poll closing time. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 23:11, 8 November 2016 (UTC)


Can you correct the electoral votes in the election box plz? :) -- (talk) 01:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

What source is currently being used for the projected electoral vote tally..!? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 01:28, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016 (talk) 02:51, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald trump wants to kick out the Mexicans but Hillary Clinton is very nice and that is why you should vote for Hillary Clinton NOT FOR DONALD TRUMP

Not done per WP:NPOV. MB298 (talk) 02:53, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi protected page

As long as I know when an article was semi protected IPs and unconfirmed users couldn't edit it. Now a user with only around 20 edits on Wikipedia is changing the information on the infobox without discussing it first on the talk page. Shouldn't the administrators warn him at least to be more careful with what he does? Keivan.fTalk 03:56, 9 November 2016 (UTC)


Should Trump be redirected to Donald Trump and the existing page moved to something else? Sorry, I'm editing on mobile and am too lazy to create a move discussion. MB298 (talk) 08:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@MB298: No. Clinton is about the surname, not Bill Clinton. Bush is a dismbiguation page, and so is Roosevelt. The only 'presidential surnames' that are redirected to the article about the president are ones where the term has no other relevant article (like Obama). Reventtalk 08:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 9 November 2016

add the 'states carried' Qkxwsm (talk) 15:03, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. -- "please improve the page" is not a valid "edit request". --dab (𒁳) 15:35, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Turn out?

What happened to the turn-out? The total number of votes for Trump, at this moment, is nearly 2.0 million less than Romney's total four years ago. Is there some explanation for that or will the difference fade away in the coming hours/days? Peter b (talk) 15:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Because the election was rigged as the president stated. [2][3] Thanks God the rigging jaws shiver on they burble for now. But rigged system is still in place and may mos sad backstab if not rift by force. 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 17:34, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
p.s. of course documenting all the statistical anomalies should be added to the proper section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 17:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump picture change proposal

This is under discussion elsewhere. See the top of this page for links to the discussion on Talk:Donald Trump EvergreenFir (talk) 19:08, 9 November 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.

I'd prefer this photo over the current photo. CatcherStorm talk 16:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore 10.jpg

This one looks a little sketch, I prefer the current one but only have slight preference. Adwctamia (talk) 18:10, 9 November 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.

Pre-election infobox threads archived

I am about to move the threads on pre-election infobox inclusion into /Archive 13, so that they will all be in one place and can be easily consulted for future discussions. I don't know if there is desire to revisit this in the short term to create a basis for consensus in the next cycle, but I suggest that future discussions should occur at Talk:United States presidential election, 2020 since they are no longer relevant to this article.

In case somebody complains, I'd like to point out that the talk page guidelines state: "Large talk pages become difficult to read, strain the limits of older browsers, and load slowly over slow internet connections. As a rule of thumb, archive closed discussions when a talk page exceeds 75 KB or has multiple resolved or stale discussions." We are currently over 340 KB for this talk page, with 78 sections or subsections. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 20:25, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Extra note: if an admin was planning to "close" the discussions they still can, but it will be easier to do so now that they are all in one spot. Half of them had already been archived by the bot and were mixed in with other threads in Archive 12; I moved all of them to Archive 13 in the same order they were on this page. Antony–22 (talkcontribs) 21:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Fix results table

The results table is inaccurate. For example, Gary Johnson received 6% in North Dakota, but the table shows him with 1%. MB298 (talk) 01:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request at 18:11 on 9 November 2016

"No third party or independent candidate carried a state in the 2016 presidential election, nor have any of them done so since 1968."

Please change this to

"No third-party or independent candidate carried a state in the 2016 presidential election; none has done so since 1968."

Even if you don't do all of this change, please add a hyphen to make "third party" into "third-party," because it's a compound adjective; if you left out the independents, it would be "third-party candidate," not "third party candidate." (talk) 18:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm unable to find the text for this in the current revision — Andy W. (talk) 02:40, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2016

The table titled "Results by state" is copied in large part from the 2012 Presidential Election results (in Wikipedia) and it should be either removed altogether or else marked clearly with a notification that the data are largely incorrect and copied from 2012 (ideally, data that are not known should be set to zero until somebody can fill them in.)

I've compared the two sets of numbers and about 75% of the states show the exact same net Democratic & Republican vote counts as in 2012 (Wikipedia page) - certainly not possible. (talk) 05:45, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Duplicate results to 2012 election

It appears that several entries in the Results by State spreadsheet are duplicates of the 2012 election. What's going on? Dr. Morbius (talk) 06:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

link to post-election protests

Please change this link:

to this:

to more accurately link to the post-election protests. Wikipedem (talk) 07:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Fix needs made to Nebraska in Electoral College SVG

Hillary did win one of Nebraska's five electoral votes.[4] (Nebraska and Maine are the only two states which cede their electoral votes to the legislative districts.)

I was hoping someone who is good at editing the SVG could change it to reflect this. The last time this happened was in 2008... I think just a "1" in a blue circle, as seen here, would be sufficient. --OrbitHawk (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump won all 5 of Nebraska's electoral votes (2 for winning the statewide vote, plus 1 for each of the 3 congressional districts). Re-read your own source. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 17:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links tags on state-level articles

Someone added external link maintenance tags to a high number of state-level presidential election pages, such as United States presidential election in Alabama, 2016. How can this be addressed? Or should the maintenance tags just be removed? Dustin (talk) 01:20, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

First look to address the problem external links. The Alabama article does not seem to have a problem, other than references which are tagged in the ref section. I would remove the hat note where the problem has been addressed or the tag has been misused. Bcharles (talk) 18:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:CRYSTAL objection by User:Kiril Simeonovski reverted

Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, as per WP:CRYSTAL. New York Times source quoted. Dr Aus (talk) 13:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Note that sourced forecast can be included in discussion, but not stated as fact. Bcharles (talk) 18:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

New Hampshire projection

Why is New Hampshire marked as red on the map if it's been projected to be in favour of Clinton?--Adûnâi (talk) 18:54, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It's blue. GoodDay (talk) 18:58, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
That's not New Hampshire, that's Maine's second district. Mr. Anon515 18:59, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
lol Mannydantyla (talk) 21:28, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Aftermath of US presidental election

For reference, see one-way flights to Canada spikes and Canada's immigration site crashes as election is going. (talk) 05:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Doesn't actually mean people are going to move to Canada. – Muboshgu (talk) 05:59, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
It has happened before but it is a small number of people and few if any follow through. It's in the same league as Clinton hasn't made her concession speech yet because she's demanding $250,000. TFD (talk) 06:21, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Is that a joke? I'm actually not sure. – Muboshgu (talk) 06:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
For whatever weight an anecdote is worth, I do know personally of one oncologist who moved permanently to Canada after GWB was elected. That aside, I do think the crashing of the site between 11 pm and 1 am should have a minimal mention, since it was mentioned by several news media. - Tenebris (talk) 23:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Michael Moore: A Trump Victory Would Be "The Biggest 'F**k You' Recorded In Human History" — Preceding unsigned comment added by ֗ (talkcontribs) 08:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

"Carrying a state"

"No third party or independent candidate carried a state in the 2016 presidential election, nor have any of them done so since 1968." What does that even mean? I feel like that needs explanation. KarstenO (talk) 12:11, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

@User:KarstenO it means that no third party has won a state since 1968. Perhaps that meaning isn't clear in non-American Englishes.--Bellerophon5685 (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Although it could be phrased more clearly, even in American Englishes. For one thing, everything after the comma can be safely excised, since it would only be relevant if a third party or independent candidate *had* carried a state in the current election. There is no broad purpose to stressing the period of time since an unusual event happened if that unusual event is not currently happening. Case in point: was the Cubs curse emphasised every year -- by anyone other than Cubs fans and Cubs-oriented media -- during the World Series? It only became broadly relevant when the Cubs were actually in the World Series. - Tenebris (talk) 00:13, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Presidents born in 1946

The lead mentions that, "Along with Bill Clinton and George W. Bush, Trump was born in 1946; this is the first time a single birth year has produced three presidents". Per WP:UNDUE, I don't think that should be in the lead. It's not crucial information, or one of the most important facts about the election. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 20:39, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Maybe not for here, exactly -- but it is relevant that three presidents were born in the first baby boomer year. - Tenebris (talk) 00:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It certainly doesn't belong in the lede of any article. Right now it has found a place with several other presidential trivia paragraphs, which seems a good place for it -- although I'm not sure that presidential trivia belongs in this article at all. Most of the trivia facts in this section (including the 1946 birthdate) are not election trivia facts -- they are merely presidential trivia facts. — Lawrence King (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with Lawrence. MB298 (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Current ____ Template

Ok, so I just reverted @GoodDay:'s edit of switching the current election template out for ongoing event template, because the current election one is more specific. GoodDay then reverted this, bringing back the ongoing event template, citing the fact that current current election template created an empty category, which I agree is a problem. Per Wikipedia:Arbitration/Requests/Case/American politics 2, I am bringing this up here to get a final answer. Which of the two templates are we going to use? Elisfkc (talk) 21:03, 8 November 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: what if we just switch the | cat = Current elections part of the Template:Current election with | all =Current elections? That should solve the issue. Elisfkc (talk) 21:08, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Both templates are showing the same information. Why not continue to use the one I placed, which 'again' doesn't create an non-existent category. Besides, my template will be deleted in a few hours, barring a repeat of 2000. GoodDay (talk) 21:13, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: not sure if you read my most recent message yet, but if we fix the election template, it will put it in a real category and it is much more specific than the current one. Elisfkc (talk) 21:16, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
If you wish to do so, go ahead (it won't be counted as a second revert) & make the corrections :) GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Will do, thanks. Now if only the candidates were as courteous as you, maybe more people would vote. Elisfkc (talk) 21:19, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
Haha ;) GoodDay (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
When we start putting projections in the template the parameter is going to have to be changed so it says "ongoing = no" or else the "projected electoral vote" parameter won't show. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 23:39, 8 November 2016 (UTC)
  • The "current" templates were created for those rare occasions that editing is so voluminous and rapid, that the editor should use caution, and not intended to mark an article for the reader, as all articles already have a general disclaimer footer link warning that the article may not be up to date or accurate, hence making the "current" template superfluous and redundant when used for the purpose of warning readers that the article may be inaccurate. Generally, these "current" templates are harvested a few hours after use, when a period of rapid editing eases, and the function the templates were created for ceases.
    Yellowdesk (talk) 03:26, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Question regarding the text statement "Johnson won 4 million votes"

This may be accurate, but it is not proven by the citation provided:

The cited page shows only a map indicating that the Libertarian Party's Johnson and Weld were listed on the ballot in all fifty states. True, but not relevant. The following would seem to be a more relevant citation, indicating that the Johnson-Weld ticket received 4,089,727 votes, making up 3.24% of the total as of this date.

NicholasNotabene (talk) 12:46, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

on a Positive..

... we will soon get a good image of President Donald Trump (official) so we no linger will have to bicker on which of his images to use... --Stemoc 05:09, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

After the Trump official portrait comes out it will be included in the infobox. MB298 (talk) 05:37, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Well Brexit had the pound go down and rise back up again, really though, it isn't Trumps fault Wall Street failed to predict his upset victory. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Archer Rafferty (talkcontribs) 07:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The markets rebounded substantially after Trump's acceptance speech in which he reached out to all Americans. In fact, within two days they hit a record high. American In Brazil (talk) 15:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Trump image

The image is being discussed over on Talk:Donald Trump. Please see the top of this talk page for a direct link. EvergreenFir (talk) 19:10, 9 November 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.

Here is a new, less obscured image of Trump in the infobox:

Donald Trump speaking with supporters at a campaign rally at the Phoenix Convention Center.jpg

Placed this in the talk page for others to decide! --ZiaLater (talk) 08:58, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

President Trump 2.jpg

Donald Trump by Gage Skidmore 10.jpg

Donald Trump (29302378721).jpg

Here is another option.--ZiaLater (talk) 09:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The first one seems fine to me. We also should change the picture in the article about the republican primary elections. I'm adding other possible photos so we won't always use the same one. Jean-Jacques Georges (talk) 15:30, 9 November 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.
Every picture with D. Trump on it is showing D. Trump. Cannot see the problem.--Bluemel1 (talk) 12:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Since the image of Hillary shows her smiling, for balance I think an image of Donald should show him smiling. What's wrong with that? American In Brazil (talk) 15:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Rogue Washington Electors

I remember hearing reports two electors from Washington refused to vote for Clinton,

Should we add this somewhere?Archer Rafferty (talk) 20:23, 9 November 2016 (UTC)Archer Rafferty

Not until the electoral college officially casts its votes, which I believe is December 19. Anything before then is WP:CRYSTAL to say what they will or won't do. Smartyllama (talk) 20:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The above reference says that there is one Washington state Democratic elector who has stated he will not vote for Hillary. He is a native American and has stated that Hillary did not oppose the Dakota Access Pipeline and therefore he refuses to support her. But I agree we should wait until the electoral votes are cast and read by the vice-president in the presence of the full Congress on December 19 before we report on the final electoral college vote. This election has been strange enough that maybe he will change his mind or maybe there will be another elector who joins him (the reference above says there is another Washington elector who may not vote for Hillary). American In Brazil (talk) 15:41, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Getting rid of the cranks and hobbyists (no, I don't mean YOU!!!!)

I took it upon myself to start deleting the minor party candidates and rearranging the rest. McMullin received a half million votes and Castle just over 100 thousand. According to the Green papers, none of the rest got anywhere NEAR that close, and a few didn't even make it past the thousand mark. So....

So we should have a chart showing all the national vote totals for everyone who hasn't made the cut, then put all the other information on the "third party and independent page" It's a good way to start... Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:52, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Candidates who were on the ballot in any state should be included in some fashion. I would leave the "other third parties and independents" table listing them. Their results can be combined as "others". Bcharles (talk) 15:42, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Just a note here, but the Independent and Libertarian color schemes change from one section to the next. The Libertarian party has always used gold as a primary color, yet is swapped orange later in the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 15:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I want to know how many votes the third party and Independent Candidates got?

I know it's one day latter but how can it take so long for that to be counted?--JaredMithrandir (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, there are a lot of absentee ballots to be counted. And then, in counties where the result is close, usually the county election officials will do a second count before certifying the result to the state Secretary of State. And then there are always a few precincts where voting machines failed and paper ballots had to be used and must be counted by hand. More than 125 million votes were cast. Patience. American In Brazil (talk) 15:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

He's the 5th not the 4th

All the presidents stated are correct, but Grorge W Bush was the 4th president to win the 270 electoral votes and loose the popular vote to Democrat candidate Al Gore. This happened in 2000. This making Trump the 5th president to win the electoral college but loose the popular vote. Historicalaccuracy (talk) 23:24, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

One only needed 270 to get elected, starting with the 1964 US prez election. GoodDay (talk) 23:26, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

At this point the popular vote is final. The statement that this is the 5th time in U.S. history that the electoral vote winner lost the popular vote is correct. See WP: Presidential elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. American In Brazil (talk) 16:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Dec. 19 electoral college vote

Will the electors vote on December 19? I read sources saying a possibility before the Election Day, but sources afterwards seem rare: [5][6][7]. --George Ho (talk) 01:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

  • From the last source you provided: "Whether or not Satiacum follows through on his claim won’t be known until electors cast their ballots on Dec. 19". Prcc27🎃 (talk) 01:36, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

By operation of the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the electors meet in their respective States, vote and certify their ballots. These are forwarded to the President of the Senate (the Vice-President of the U.S.) who opens, tallies and reads out loud the electoral college vote count in the presence of the full Congress. By law, this is on December 19. At this point, that is just a formality. American In Brazil (talk) 16:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

From what I know, that won't be the case.

Trump victory was considered unlikely

I tried to add this statement:

The Trump victory, considered unlikely by most pre-election forecasts,[1] was characterized as an 'upset' and as 'shocking' by the media.[2][3]

But it was reverted by UNSC Luke 1021, with edit summary saying that this is too opinion-based, but he's open to discussion. In my opinion, the fact that forecast considered the victory unlikely, and the fact that media consider it shocking are facts. It would be "matter of opinion" if the statement say "this victory is shocking" without any qualification, but I'm just stating how the media forecasted and reacted to the election. Also, I think it is encyclopedic enough to mention here as context. Imagine someone not familar with the US politics, or someone from the future reading this, the fact that the election result was very surprising is one of the key features in understanding this election. What do people think about this? HaEr48 (talk) 01:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

That sentence is very reasonable, and it is also true. I support reinserting it. --1990'sguy (talk) 01:50, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The statement has been cited to some very reliable sources, and I agree that the shock of Trump's victory is an important aspect of the election. I think that the language could be placed in a better location, but it should go in. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 02:30, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I just believed that it is more opinionated than factual. If the general consensus is to readd it, I won't object. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 11:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
It's not opinionated because most polls, analysts, "political insiders", etc. really predicted that Clinton would win easily, and I have seen many reliable, neutral sources talking about this. See these for example:[8][9][10][11] --1990'sguy (talk) 01:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


I support including this - with sources such as the above. Before the election a number of editors strongly pursued adding material to the forecasting section to say that all polls and models gave Mrs. Clinton a strong lead - which was true enough. The statement that Trump's victory was considered unlikely is just the same thing written the other way around in light of the actual results. (talk) 03:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I support keeping in substantial documentation of all the polls and pundits who predicted a Hillary win and then were shocked by a Donald win. This was a major aspect of the campaigns. But of course any statements to that effect must be reliably sourced and there are numerous sources. American In Brazil (talk) 17:00, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Information on swing states

The article states that,

"Trump's relatively poor polling in some traditionally Republican states, such as Utah, has raised the possibility they could vote for Clinton, despite easy wins there by recent Republican nominees. Many analysts have asserted that Utah is not a viable Democratic destination. However recent polling has shown a surge for Evan McMullin there and a collapse of Trump's support following the Access Hollywood tape scandal."

That needs to be rewritten, as it speaks about the election as an event that is still in the future. The comment about "recent" polling is obviously now outdated, for example. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 19:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox and gray states

Possibly this got lost in a previous edit, but neither the electoral map nor the text explains why three states remain in gray. The infobox text explains red and blue states only. Maybe something like this: "Gray denotes states which will have recounts or whose votes are under current investigation." (I assume that is the reason Arizona is gray?) Or maybe, simply, "Gray denotes states where the outcome is not yet final." - Tenebris (talk) 00:38, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

 Done Added note explaining grey. Bcharles (talk) 21:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016

AP Projects Donald Trump takes AZ. (talk) 01:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Read the template: "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"." 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 04:11, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
We don't rush to update states with the first source to call them, but most sources have now called AZ, so it has been updated. Bcharles (talk) 21:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Minimizing or Limiting Third Party Candidate Info

I believe that there is too much third party candidate information that is somewhat irrelevant and makes the article much longer than it really needs to be. Maybe create a new article for 2016 third party candidates and provide a link? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polly7423 (talkcontribs) 21:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Not necessary, the 'third party' info in this article will gradually be decreased. WP:RECENTISM is common in situations like this. GoodDay (talk) 21:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks, that was what I was hoping for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Polly7423 (talkcontribs) 21:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I believe that third party participation is just as important as the second party, and primary candidates. They are not the victors, but represent undercurrents of the political flow. Bcharles (talk) 21:19, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2016

TwistyKnobTank (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC) Maine split its electoral votes for the first time since 1828.[1]

should be changed to "Maine split it's electoral votes for the first time"

the 1828 election was not a split, but rather a faithless elector.

TwistyKnobTank, the reference you provided says nothing of the sort. Indeed, I've been unable to find any sort of substantiating evidence for your claim. And even then, an argument could be made that the electoral vote itself is determined by the electors in the electoral college and not by the people. As such, I have not done it and will not until further input is provided. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 21:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)


Electoral map

It's been claimed now on the article that all 5 of Nebraska's electoral votes have been projected for Trump/Pence. Thus shouldn't we change the map? I think we should remove that mark (*). Keivan.fTalk 07:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I would like to first see a source that says that is true. Also, why does the infobox say Trump won 1 EV in Maine? Where's the source for that? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 07:22, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Can someone add a red dot to Maine? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 08:02, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
@Prcc27 Here's an article by NBC explaining why these two states split their votes. But as almost all of the people from Nebraska have voted for Trump, it seems that all of the 5 electoral votes belong to him now according to an article by New York Times. Keivan.fTalk 08:12, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I think it's now almost confirmed that 3 of Maine's electoral votes have been projected for Clinton/Kaine while 1 of the state's electoral votes has been projected for Trump/Pence. Shouldn't we make it clear on the map? By putting a mark in front of the number for example? Keivan.fTalk 08:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I just found out that in an article by CNN it's still stated that Trump has only won 4 of Nebraska's electoral votes. The article is obviously updated. Can any other article be found to oppose this claim? Keivan.fTalk 08:44, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
CNN's article confirms that 1 of Miane's electoral votes has been projected for Trump/Pence while it's not still confirmed that all of Nebraska's votes have been projected for Trump. Keivan.fTalk 09:07, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
NBC News and the New York Times show Trump winning all five of Nebraska's votes. CNN still shows one vote TBD. Also, NBC called Minnesota for Clinton, but still hasn't called Arizona for Trump, putting him at 279 with the extra Nebraska vote. If you include Arizona, which some sources called for him, he has 290. Smartyllama (talk) 16:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The map should indicate that AZ, MI and NH have not yet been called. I guess that recounts are triggered and clear results won't be out for a few weeks. Bcharles (talk) 18:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Source that a recount was triggered in those states..!? Prcc27🎃 (talk) 16:06, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I am not certain that a recount is triggered, but either a potential recount or correction of numbers when official results are compiled, is keeping major news outlets from calling MI and NH. We will need to wait and see how it plays out. Bcharles (talk) 21:52, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Well, the networks haven't called those two yet, because there eligible for an applied recount, presumably. Either candidate within the close range could appeal for a recount, like Hillary Clinton in Michigan, which would probably lead to Trump asking for one in at least New Hampshire. They really won't actually change the fundamental outcome, though it will feature in the news substantially. Time for them isn't exactly running out, yet, but the deadlines to file are coming soon, I think, and it wouldn't play out well if either one didn't jump between the boats and declare something as soon as it's done (thereby protracting the election counting process, and whatnot).

Infobox needs fixing

Can someone please re-add the NE footnote; CD-2 is still outstanding? Also, the other candidates need to be re-added to the infobox since the results aren't finalized and it's WP:CRYSTAL to say those candidates won't win 5% of the popular vote or one of the remaining states. Plus, it's inconsistent that De La Fuente et al. are still in the infobox but the other candidates aren't. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:36, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The footnote says Johnson et al. haven't "appointed enough electors to win". Actually they have. The footnote is inaccurate. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
the problematic text, as well as Johnson and other candidates, were removed from the infobox. So, this is no longer an issue. Bcharles (talk) 22:01, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2016

Please correct updated voting data in the "results" section, as reported by reliable sources such as the AP, WP, WSJ, CNN, etc. For example, go on pages for the Nevada statistics, at They're different from what's been reported on this page, which was last updated two days ago at that point for any of the lists. Thanks. Ramires451 (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Ramires451 (talk) 01:01, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Gun control referendums article

This isn't directly related but will find most attention here. Gun control referendums were held in 4 US states on election day, they were passed in 3 states. They have been covered in the media and I think they are notable and impactful enough to have their own article. I hope someone can create it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 12:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Seems like the wrong article for that, perhaps PackMecEng (talk) 02:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)