Talk:2016 United States presidential election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Former good article nominee2016 United States presidential election was a good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
March 2, 2006Articles for deletionDeleted
January 14, 2009Articles for deletionNo consensus
February 3, 2009Articles for deletionDeleted
September 15, 2020Good article nomineeNot listed
Current status: Former good article nominee
Consensus on pre-election discussions about presentation of candidates


Us Voter Turnout, use Voting Eligable Population instead of Voting Age population[edit]

RogerTheBear (talk) 18:37, 3 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I think the Voter Turnout used should be the Voter Eligible Turnout because US Election pages till 2012 used the Voter Eligible Turnout from the US Election project[1]. It will be easier to compare voter turnout between elections if the same definition was used. [1]https://www.electproject.org/national-1789-present

@RogerTheBear: I was just about to start a topic on your change with this edit before I saw this. I think the infobox should use the official election results and the results published by the Federal Election Commission give 55.67% ("Percentage of Voting Age Population casting a vote for President: 55.67%").
While I agree that the VEP number might be better for analyzing changes in historical voting patterns, there are different estimates. The number by McDonald is higher than the estimate tablulated in Voter turnout in United States presidential elections. It seems to me that the actual result of the election in the infobox should use the official figure and other numbers discussed elsewhere. Other places (e.g. the UK) use registered voters for the turnout calculation. —  Jts1882 | talk  14:18, 24 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox image[edit]

Hi,

The inbox image for Donald Trump is his official presidential portrait taken after he assumed the presidency. However, I believe it make sense to include a photo of him during the 2016 presidential primaries as has been done for Hillary Clinton. Furthermore, this would provide consistency with this page if we used the photo of him there: 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries Golfpecks256 (talk) 23:26, 4 July 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, as for every president the official potrait is used also in the article about the presidential election (see Biden in 2020, Obama in 2008 and 2012, Bush in 2000 and 2004 and so on). Moreover, the official pic is used in all the articles linked to this election (see for example the election results in each state). So I think we should keep using it. -- Nick.mon (talk) 07:26, 4 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with the original poster, we should not use a picture from after the election to depict a candidate during the election. It seems as wrong as it would be to use a picture of Shrley Temple Black from her days as a diplomat in the aticle for the movie Curly Top. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 12:40, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Wording in infobox[edit]

I think the line "However, because of seven faithless electors (five Democratic and two Republican), Trump received just 304 votes to Clinton's 227" should be changed to "...Trump only received 304 votes and Clinton 227" or similar.

As is, the wording makes it sound like there was some massive numerical change, and trump had the tiny number of 304 votes cast for him, while clinton's numbers where unchanged. I propose changing it to the more dry factual wording above. I'd boldly change it, but ther may have been a previous discussion about it, though I cant find it in the talk page archives. Hydromania (talk) 03:28, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. The present wording is a bit confusing, and possibly misleading. I like your suggested re-phrasing. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:20, 15 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Gary Johnson on first Template (Infobox election)[edit]

I would like to insert Gary Johnson in the Infobox Election, because he played an important role during the election, could you agree with me that I can insert him? Hugo.fr43 (talk) 15:28, 10 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The consensus is a candidate should only be considered for the infobox if they win any states or achieve more than 5% of the popular vote. Gary Johnson meets neither of these criteria which is why he is omitted. TheFellaVB (talk) 20:15, 8 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I am researching the vote totals for all parties[edit]

The Green and Libertarian parties only got estimates, while you have exact totals for Dems and Republicans. This reinforces the idea that we must tick with the 2 party system. Greg Spence Wolf 24.16.169.51 (talk) 02:10, 9 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]