Template talk:United States Senate elections results, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
WikiProject United States / Government (Rated Template-class)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
Taskforce icon
This template is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.
WikiProject U.S. Congress (Rated Template-class, Low-importance)
WikiProject icon This template is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
 Template  This template does not require a rating on the project's quality scale.
 Low  This template has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
This template is about one (or many) Event(s).

On the Changes[edit]

  1. First and foremost, the styles across this table were a mess. The HTML attributes align and valign are deprecated, use CSS styles text-align and vertical-align, respectively, in their places. Second, there is no need for redundant styles (text-align: right in the table tag will be inherited by all subordinate tags).
  2. There is no need to include the third parties. First of all, who exactly chose the third parties to be listed? The "Socialist Workers Party", according to its own article, has a few hundred members. The "Independence Party" is only represented in a handful of states. And the Libertarian party prefers to use the color yellow when included with other parties that use blue. Second, they have not won SEATS which is important for the senate race. Including the third parties is just extraneous information. Either lump their popular votes under "Independent" or create a SINGLE additional category called "Other Parties".

Kbolino 01:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

I'd roll them into "Other parties" myself. Independent campaigns and third party campaigns are different beasts entirely. Even the smallest third party has more support than most independent campaigns. (Outside of Lieberman and Sanders of course). --Bobblehead 01:56, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
The template was a direct analogue of Template:United States Senate election, 2004. Your edit has made the table, in Firefox at least, much less pleasing to the eye than the original incarnation, ignoring the removal of the third parties. Also, the current setup of the table implies that no candidate who was not a Democrat, Republican or Independent won any votes at all, which is patently false. —Cuiviénen 18:47, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
Let me say that I edit WP in Firefox, and while the table skews somewhat unpleasantly below 1024x768 (it is still quite readable, however) it looks a good deal more professional than its previous incarnation (personally, I would ditch the color bars on the side). Some things I focused on while editing it included the deprecated and disarrayed styles, the inconsistent row widths (for rows that held the same type of data), the random color choice, the inconsistent use of boldface in the headings, and finally the use of the hyphen where a minus was appropriate. In my opinion, propriety and professionalism are more important than stylistic vanity. As for the third parties, you are correct in reading the implication, but I already noted this in the comment to which you replied. I ought to know they got votes; I voted for one! But I am also a realist: they didn't win seats. They didn't even lose seats, as they had none to begin with. As such, I feel it is more than fair to just lump them all in one category. But there was no popular vote data in the table when I edited it, so I was not inclined to create such a category at that time. HOWEVER: I am not disinclined to someone replacing all of the third parties for which data is available in the context of the new table format. I am disinclined to the use of those peculiar templates for the color bars, however (e.g. Template:American politics/party colours/Republican/row) —Kbolino 02:37, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Popular vote statistics, vandalism fix[edit]

I added some popular vote results (unofficial) from US election atlas. I combined all non-Republican/non-Democrat votes to make them 'Independent' votes. The source for the results can be found at http://www.uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2006&off=3&f=0

I also corrected some vandalism that had the Democrats losing and GOP picking up 6 seats, which clearly didn't happen. For the purposes of the table and vote statistics I added, Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman are counted as Independents. I realize this isn't wholly accurate given that Lieberman is going back to being a Democrat, but he did run and campaign as an Independent in Connecticut against Democrat Ned Lamont. Whoblitzell 21:34, 12 November 2006 (UTC)


I've removed the voter turnout segment until someone can substantiated it with some facts. Both Dave Leip's Atlas and George Mason show significantly higher average turnout by state.—Kbolino 21:47, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

The percentage was based on the VEP, shown by your George Mason link, which is 207,336,873. VEP is the total electorate (voting age minus those who are not allowed to vote). Your first link, Leip's atlas, shows the percentage for the registered voters, but that is not relevant here. It's the total electorate that counts. And 61,552,749 / 207,336,873 = 0.29687, or 29.7%. Oddly, the page does not say what the percentage in the last column is about, but it may be about the house of representatives, the elections for which were held on the same day, 7 November 2006. DirkvdM 10:55, 5 May 2007 (UTC)
No reaction yet, so I'll put it back. DirkvdM 17:37, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
DirkvdM, voter turnout is generally reported - at least regarding elections in Oregon - as a percentage of registered voters. By the Secretary of State, the County elections offices, the news media, and voter advocacy organizations. I agree that percentage of total electorate is more interesting in many cases, but the idea that "turnout" is uncontroversially understood to mean what you say is not correct.
There's plenty of space in that table cell. I'd suggest it should say "Voter turnout: xx% of registered voters, xx% of total electorate." -Pete 18:54, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
That would solve the issue. But now some German prince has altered the turnout figure without any reference or contribution to this discussion (and he marked it as a minor edit - I sense foul play). I don't wish to turn this into an edit war, but I'll revert that and then someone else can add the other figure the way you suggest. Still, the normal meaning of turnout is a percentage of the electorate. At least, that makes most sense. Expressing it in a percentage of the registered voters is a typical US thing (afaik). But that's a big country, so there might be a lot of people who interpret turnout that way, so that should be given too. Although in the US the percentage of the electorate is also used, as I have seen on some sites. Most important is that if there are two interpretations they should both be given. Add rather than delete. I'd do that too, if I knew what the prince's figure was about, but I don't. DirkvdM 10:56, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Office of the Clerk Results[edit]

The "official" results of the 2006 elections came out sometime in July, and it seems to be rather different than the ones listed here (although having said that, I've worked with figures which they list there and wonder sometimes if they counted right when they do their recapitulation table at the end). United States really isn't my area, but if anyone wants to look at, and perhaps edit the current table, the results are here: http://clerk.house.gov/member_info/electionInfo/2006election.pdf

Summary of the "Recapitulation" results for Senate elections:

Democratic: 31,397,838 Republican: 21,247,120 Libertarian: 612,732 Independent: 378,142 Green: 311,907 Independence: 231,899 Constitution: 26,934

Be careful with the "other parties" section though, it includes Conservative and Working Families figures which are actually fusion votes for Republican and Democratic parties respectfully, and the total listed there is obviously not the calculation of the "other parties" column. Mikebloke 09:48, 24 August 2007 (UTC)

And another note, it appears as though a lot of the ones they list as Independent belong to other parties which were unable to register (or chose not to) under the Party and stood as Independent instead. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mikebloke (talkcontribs) 09:51, August 24, 2007 (UTC)