Talk:2018 Pennsylvania's 18th congressional district special election

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

I fixed this page more than a month ago to include all the candidates on the ballot[edit]

What the hell. The voters in this election have THREE choices and the third party candidate needs to be part of the wikipage. I put his name, party, photo onto this page's candidate box a month ago. Only a JUDGE who changes the ballot can change the TRUTH that there are three candidates on the ballot. Shameful acts from some here. Rauterkus (talk) 14:12, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Draft space?[edit]

Because of a PROD, this article was moved into draft space to remove the PROD. However, it currently functions exactly as if it was in the article space; the article title without "Draft:" redirects to the draft, and Template: United States elections, 2017 contains this redirect. How do we resolve the problem of a mainspace template linking to a draft? (Note that I would prefer moving the draft back into mainspace.) HotdogPi 22:55, 6 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Conor Lamb[edit]

The continued deletion of the Conor Lamb page and redirect to here is clearly a huge problem. By any normal standards, he is a person of notoriety. Politico, New York Times, Washington Post have all written about him. Obviously, Wikipedia does not want to be a newspaper. I understand this. But providing non-partisan information about a candidate for a nationally covered election that, by the way, is already a historically significant event is definitely within the scope of the Wikipedia project. I am very disappointed by the way this discussion is unfolding and is dominated by people who clearly know a lot about Wikipedia--and invest a lot of effort. But in my opinion are not making the right decisions. Needless to say, the political implications of this page, with one candidate from one party with an entry on him and the other candidate from the other party without a link are huge.

Here some proof of his notoriety:

https://www.washingtonpost.com/powerpost/rural-democrats-left-for-dead-see-an-opening-in-pennsylvania/2017/11/21/b66af814-cc4e-11e7-b0cf-7689a9f2d84e_story.html?utm_term=.3f7d6f226355


https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/23/republicans-brace-for-competitive-pennsylvania-house-race-316206

Quigley david (talk) 09:17, 18 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment: 5% Inclusion Threshold[edit]

Question moved to WP:E&R project talk pageNewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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.

User Mélencron has repeatedly reverted edits to add the 3rd Party candidate, Libertarian Drew Gray Miller, to the infobox, citing WP:E&R RfC. However, his citation includes multiple discussions about exceptions, including some that are relevant here:

  • This is an ongoing election, and people come to WP to find out information. The Libertarian is on the ballot, but not shown in the info box.
  • This is a special election, so previous results do not strictly apply.
  • Even in the initial polls, none of which include the Libertarian, the results are within or very close to the margin of error. The third Party candidate could swung the results.

altjira (talk) 12:27, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The previous election is the most recent House election in 2016, which seems self-explanatory. This district was not contested by a Democrat in 2016 (last contested in 2012), but the aforementioned RfC recommends inclusion of the next-placed candidate, and it's pretty much common sense. Secondly, the combined third-party vote in the presidential race in 2016 was 3.4%, which still falls below the threshold. He hasn't been tested in any polls (which are usually used as a measuring stick for determining inclusion if they don't meet the "5% in previous election" threshold), but third-party candidates aren't usually included in infobox even if they serve as spoilers. Mélencron (talk) 14:06, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
This is a Special Election, which has different rules. The last Special Election in this district was in November 1971, when the Libertarian Party was newly formed, and could not be expected to have a credible candidate. But still, you are undervaluing the impact of WP as a news resource. Voters in this district will come for information up to election day, and you cause a disservice to users. I have no objections to you applying the 5% AFTER the election. The valid arguments against clutter are less important here. If you go through the archives of WP:E&R RfC, there are many discussions on this point establishing precedent. I respect your contributions and status as an editor, and wish to respect the customs and traditions of the community, but if you remain the sole arbiter of this point, I will have to ask for a Dispute Resolution. altjira (talk) 15:57, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Not allowing a candidate that is on the ballot for an election to be included on that elections page is a blatant misrepresentation of the election and doing a huge disservice to the readers.

Most importantly this is a direct violation of IRS law pertaining to non-profits behaving in a non-partisan manner.

"A 501(c)(3) organization can engage in the following activities without violating the IRS rule:

Non-partisan activities. Your organization may engage in non-partisan activities such as non-partisan voter registration drives, non-partisan candidate debates, and non-partisan voter education, as long as these activities fulfill your exempt purposes." 

Marcbozz (talk) 15:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Marcbozz: WP:NLT.
Re altjira, There don't seem to be "different rules" in this case as in others: it's been a consistent standard that's been used for special elections in the last year as well, and the point of the WP:E&R RfC was to establish a consistent standard. If you want to argue that an exception should be made, fine, but seek consensus for it first. I don't see any compelling reason other than "I'm a Libertarian" to include him in the infobox given past third-party performance here. Mélencron (talk) 17:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Mèlencron The compelling reason isn't "I'm a Libertarian" the compelling reason is that this page is to inform about the special election in the 18th and not listing a candidate that is on the ballot in this election is blatant misinformation. Relevancy should not be important here if the motivation is to provide facts and information. This candidate is recognized by the Pennsylvania Bureau of Commissions as being a candidate in the election.

Maybe you are correct and this needs to be discussed with WP:E&R. Marcbozz (talk) 18:11, 19 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Coming from WP:E&R, the 5% threshold is applicable only when the results are available. There is nothing to stop a candidate being included prior to an election, and omitting them would be a gross violation of WP:NPOV in my opinion. Number 57 14:56, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Doesn't it hold with existing practice on other U.S. election articles, though? Libertarians have been included in infoboxes for recent/future U.S. elections where they got a significant share of the vote beforehand, and minor-party candidates weren't included in, say, the 2017 New Jersey gubernatorial election infobox before the election, either. It seems excessive to list all candidates on the ballot in all cases, especially where many candidates are able to achieve ballot access. Mélencron (talk) 15:14, 20 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If a candidate's on the ballot, in my opinion it would be a violation of NPOV to omit them from the infobox until the result is in, otherwise Wikipedia is potentially contributing to readers thinking there are only two candidates. Number 57 16:55, 20 February 2018 (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.

Predictions section[edit]

An IP added a section on "predictions"; A slightly different IP has edited the section. I reverted the whole section. The second IP has twice re-reverted in what could be an edit war. For example the most recent revert is in this diff which in the edit summary asserts that "Predictions are a routine feature of such election-related pages". Ordinarily I'd say two undiscussed re-reverts are edit warring. Especially after I put an Edit war warning on their talk page. However, in this case, I admit its possible I just don't know the usual format on such pages. So I looked at a random selection of 8 special elections to the US House. Not a single one of them had a section like this. To summarize, it is a table that lists people making the predictions and the prediction and the date. There were three entries, two cited to primary sources. I reverted saying Wikipedia is not a [{WP:CRYSTALBALL]], though a meaningful discussion of the basis for the predictions with RSs could be a valuable addition. But the naked list of bottom line, no. The IP seems to think this is a "routine feature". This is the chance for the IP to answer a question and educate me, so I can be a better Wikipedia editor- Dear ‎149.101.1.117 (talk · contribs) or ‎173.79.196.246 (talk · contribs) or 173.66.223.66 (talk · contribs), on what basis do you assert a naked table summarizing various people's predictions are a routine feature of such election-related pages". If you can't supply a reasonable answer, I'll probably ask for page protection to prevent IP edits. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 00:23, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

on what basis do you assert a naked table summarizing various people's predictions are a routine feature of such election-related pages – maybe the fact that it's on every other article on U.S. elections at the federal level taking place in November 2018? I believe it was the same editor who added it to most of those articles, though; I'm not sure where the practice originated. Mélencron (talk) 02:20, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Mélencron: it appears to have originated with this hopping IP. I can't find a single example that they did not add this year. Do you know of any, examples, or do you agree its reasonable to conclude the IP is adding them all? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:19, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
No, it's Neddy1234 in almost any case, as here. Mélencron (talk) 12:49, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, I did find an IP from the month prior. Since Template:user generates "pings", hopefully Neddy will comment here to keep discussion in one place. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 13:00, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Please see and if you wish comment at Predicting the outcome of US Elections. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 14:47, 6 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

WaPo article[edit]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/powerpost/paloma/daily-202/2018/03/09/daily-202-trump-launches-a-rescue-mission-to-save-gop-seat-in-pennsylvania-special-election/5aa20bd630fb047655a06bac/ imho interesting information in it (but I'm European + no native speaker). I would appreciate it if a fellow wikipedian would use infos contained in this article. --Neun-x (talk) 20:13, 9 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Third candidate[edit]

Including him in the box is the proper thing to do. A candidate, especially from an established party that has produced people in congress and as governors, should definitely be included. --Arsaces (talk) 03:31, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose — It has been consensus for years that candidates can only be included in the infobox if they won at least 5% of the popular vote. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 04:01, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
WP:E&R RfC definitively holds a 5% after the election. I disagree with other users on the standard that should apply before the election (my understanding of the rule in the past was that it was based on past election results and polling), but Miller is definitively below 5%. Mélencron (talk) 04:07, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support - First WP:Consensus can change. Second, the rule makes sense but it also makes sense to include an exception. Any time the race was potentially decided by the third party vote they should be included. In this case, the Libertarian candidates total votes exceeds the difference between the two majors. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:40, 14 March 2018 (UTC) MORE... I think the RFC mentioned by Mmelencron may have been this one. That RFC asked two questions the first "What should be the standard for inclusion in the infobox of U.S. election articles?" Then it listed three options. By restricting the possibilities, the situation where the third party may have determined the outcome was not listed. So I would argue that RFC did not envision, discuss, or decide the question presented here. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 10:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose — Once the result is reported, there's no need to include a candidate who got less than 5% of the vote in the infobox (obviously they still appear in the results box). Anywikiuser (talk) 10:57, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
@Anyikiuser, You have stated a "ILIKE" type opinion that there is "no reason" but..... maybe you overlooked my comment, which does present a logic-based reason. You may have a logic based reason to still oppose, if so.... please share? What do you think of cases of split tickets where the 3rd party may have decided the race? NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Firstly, it's debatable that the Libertarian candidate was a "spoiler". Yes, even in a race this close (it's not decided yet) it's debatable. It's not as though 100% of Libertarian votes came at the GOP's expense. Had Miller not been on the ballot, some would have voted for Lamb, some would have done a write-in protest and others wouldn't have voted at all. The Libertarians are somewhat right-wing, but that doesn't guarantee their supporters behave the same way. A case in point: Ralph Nader's 2000 campaign. One exit poll found that 25% of Nader's voters would have voted for Bush if Nader hadn't stood, even though Nader was more left-wing than Gore. Secondly, and partly because of this, there is no precedent for including a candidate in the infobox solely because they were considered a "spoiler"; thus Nader does not appear in the infobox for the 2000 presidential election. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:28, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks for replying; The reasons you offer however are moot. As to the first point, my proposal isn't based on mind-reading but on a simple bit of arithmetic that creates a possibility.... one that is always mentioned in the RSs whenever it occurs. Second, you refer to what we did in the past as though this were not a living breathing evolving encyclopedia, and as I mentioned earlier, if this was discussed before WP:Consensus can change. But has potential-spoiler-arithmetic as a reason to include 3rd parties in infoboxes actually been discussed? If you have a link to such a thread please post it. NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 11:51, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
It hasn't really. But the fact something is arithmetically possible doesn't mean it was particularly likely, and this result (whether a gain or hold) was decided by much bigger factors than the fact the Libertarians chose to stand. Anywikiuser (talk) 12:24, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
So in your mind, they don't matter. But we follow the RSs and the RSs always talk about this when the math works out. in any case, I have started an RFC on the question at E&R. Please add/repeat your thoughts there. Thanks for the discussion so far! NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 12:38, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
If RSs do discuss the theory that the Libertarians were a spoiler, there could be some justification for mentioning it in the text, which is not the same as including it in the infobox. Anywikiuser (talk) 13:03, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

100% in and it's saying Lamb won[edit]

https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2018/03/13/us/elections/results-pennsylvania-house-special-election.html

  • Wait until news outlets call the race. When they say "100% of precincts reporting" that does not always include the postal vote. Anywikiuser (talk) 09:21, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Vote results[edit]

I cannot find a single source that states Lamb won 113,906 and Sacconne 113,293. All I have is 113,813 and 113,186 respectively. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 22:17, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I was just about to ask this myself. I'm going to edit those numbers in. – numbermaniac 22:18, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Callmemirela 🍁 talk 22:20, 14 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Is this election over?[edit]

What is the status? The article does not say. Are the final results pending a recount? Or some such? Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 17:48, 15 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

There are a small number of postal votes that are yet to be counted. One report I read estimates that it is no more than 'a few hundred', so they are unlikely to overturn Lamb's lead of 627. However, it is not impossible. Some media outlets have already declared Lamb to be the winner, while others are holding back. The last votes will be counted on Tuesday. Also, there's the possibility of a recount, though those rarely change the result. Anywikiuser (talk) 10:32, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Helpful info. But, shouldn't the article mention something along these lines? If you read the article, it seems unclear and ambiguous as to whether there is a final result or a final winner, etc. It does not mention that the final result is pending a recount, or what have you. Can someone please edit the article accordingly? I don't know enough on this topic to provide a meaningful edit. But, still, it's quite germane info that belongs in the article. Thanks. 32.209.55.38 (talk) 18:41, 16 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final result[edit]

Two statements It appears… and If Lamb's lead holds… near the end of #Campaign should be removed when there is an official result. –84.46.52.128 (talk) 04:47, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved
 – by User:Anywikiuser, thanks. –84.46.53.184 (talk) 17:38, 22 March 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Final results are in, and WIKIPEDIA lost its NPOV[edit]

The total freeze out of the third party candidate, especially on Wikipedia, due to willful edits of the facts of the ballot choices, makes election coverage far from NPOV. The third part candidate got MORE votes than the margin of difference between the D and the R. No coverage. No wikipedia mentions. No hope for democracy except in the hands of the voters. Rauterkus (talk) 18:58, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

@Rauterkus: See WP:SOFIXIT NewsAndEventsGuy (talk) 19:29, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
You're complaining that WP is incomplete? Also this is not a forum, so either propose improvements to the article or go complain on a message board somewhere. ‡ Єl Cid of ᐺalencia ᐐT₳LKᐬ 19:37, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
There is coverage if you scroll down. Candidates that get less than 1% of the vote in an election generally aren't discussed in the infobox or lead section of an article. power~enwiki (π, ν) 20:33, 7 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2018_Pennsylvania%27s_18th_congressional_district_special_election&oldid=1212501262"