Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/USA legend colors

Seat control after redistricting

If two incumbents from different parties are put into the same district after redistricting, should it use the gain or hold color? This should probably be clarified in its respective section. TheAmeliaMay (talk) 18:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I have a possible answer that ties into something else I've wanted to ask, and that is if there is a consistent guideline for how to designate seat control after redistricting. I have my own set of guidelines that I want to propose for general use:

1: Assuming districts are not re-numbered following redistricting, all districts that stay in roughly the same space should be treated normally.

2: If a district is substantially moved across a state, seat control should follow the district number. For example, if the number of a Republican-controlled district in a rural area gets moved to a city and a Democrat wins it, that is counted as a "gain" even though there was no Republican-controlled district in that city before.

3: If two districts appear to swap places, control follows the incumbents. For example, if a Democrat wins "district 12" before redistricting and a Republican wins "district 14," if, after redistricting, the same Democrat wins the new "district 14" and the same Republican wins "district 12," both should be counted as holds and not gains.

4: If a new district is created from nothing, such as by expanding the legislature, it is a gain for whichever party wins it.

5: District control includes party switches and special election flips since the most recent election (i.e. it's a hold if the person who switched it wins re-election, a gain if it flips back).

6: If a seat is vacant during the general election, it should be considered to be under the control of the party of the one who vacated the seat, and it should not be counted as a gain if the same party wins the open seat.

7: If two incumbents are drawn into the same district, seat control should still follow district numbers, so the incumbent who originally represented that number is given credence.

The end goal of these maps should be such that the number of gains and holds visible on the map should match the net change in partisanship in the infobox and the rest of the page, and we shouldn't show "gains" unnecessarily if a district simply moved places.

Let me know if you have comments or suggestions on these guidelines. OutlawRun (talk) 06:25, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Before I respond, would you be able to reclarify some points, because I assumed many of these were already convention in some form or another? Talthiel (talk) 15:47, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

But from what I understand my thoughts are as follows:

I don't entirely follow
Shouldn't it follow by party and/or incumbent?
Isn't this already convention since Holds/Gains regard incumbency, or the lack thereof
I agree, also isn't this convention?
Isn't this also convention
Shouldn't the district be considered vacant, since no party would hold the seat, and it'd be filled in a later general election (also I think seats are already counted that way)
I think it already follows this convention, unless the two incumbents are from separate parties and one incumbent from one party is defeated by an incumbent from another party

Talthiel (talk) 15:56, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The points that I made that are considered already convention were just me trying to be comprehensive in the guidelines that I use. I'll try to clarify the other points:

1: This is just us treating the districts like normal if they didn't really change. I probably worded it poorly.

2: The point of this rule is that when a district gets moved across the state due to population shifts, there is no incumbent in the district's new location, and the previous incumbent was likely drawn into a district with another incumbent. If a candidate with the same party as the old incumbent wins the seat in its new location, it should not be counted as a gain, since the party did not actually gain another seat in the legislature by winning the new seat. Following the seat numbers is a means of tracking how the districts are moved across the state.

In the 2022 New York State Senate election, for example, District 59 moved across the state to New York City and was won by a Democrat. Republicans won the old 59th district in 2020, so the win counts as a gain. District 17, however, was moved across NYC with redistricting and had no incumbent, but because a Democrat won both the old and new 17th districts, it is counted as a hold because no change in partisan composition resulted from the victory.

3: This tries to avoid a situation like the original map for the 2022 Utah Senate election where the mapper listed 6 Democratic gains and 6 Republican gains because the seats moved around, but all the incumbents ran in the new districts and won them for no change in composition.

6: These rules are only for mapping them after the election, not before, so no indication of vacant seats is needed. It's confusing to read a party "gaining" 3 seats from nothing in the overall composition of a chamber when they really just won vacant seats that they already controlled to begin with.

7: My thought process is that if a Democrat and a Republican are drawn into the same district, but the Republican won that same seat number under the old lines, if the Republican wins, that's a hold, and if the Democrat wins, that's a gain.

Hopefully this clarifies a bit where I'm coming from with this. OutlawRun (talk) 16:29, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Oh yeah it does definitely clear up some things. Thanks for that! Talthiel (talk) 18:07, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

2022 Color Scheme Proposal

I like it Talleyrand6 (talk) 05:24, 24 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, i think they contrast well. WeaponizingArchitecture | scream at me 14:48, 9 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

The reds, blues, purples and greys are perfect, the greens are a bit too dark but they are still tolerable. The biggest issues are orange and yellow, which are really murky/dark. BSMIsEditing (talk) 17:42, 10 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Same, I like it a lot. It may be a good idea to specify which colors to use for primary elections with multiple candidates winning counties, similar to the "alternate" colors currently used. It would make sense for Democratic primaries to use blue, then green, purple, and gray; and for Republican primaries to use red, then orange, yellow, and gray. Mad Mismagius (talk) 19:34, 13 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Are we going to start using them moving foward? I guess we should try and get some concensus before switching to the new scheme, personally I think some of the Republican colors look a bit too orange Gordfather69 (talk) 01:07, 28 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Independent Democratic Conference

per this change, OutlawRun are you sure this should be a separate color? These people did run as Democrats so I'm not sure it makes sense to show them separately on most election maps. Elli (talk | contribs) 01:56, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

If Coalition Republicans and Non-Caucusing Republicans are shown separately on pages like 2020 Alaska House of Representatives election, then they should be here, too. They were elected on the Democratic line, but they were considered a separate political group. OutlawRun (talk) 02:03, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if I agree with doing that in Alaska either. Fair enough though. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No votes color

I think "No votes" should be distinguished from "no data". I personally use black. Sometimes, all the fields are actually null, which is distinct from an election unit simply having no (0) votes. Master of Time (talk) 22:31, 13 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Presidential Color Extensions

I think the 20-30% colors for the Democrats and Republicans from the 1912 United States presidential election in North Dakota should be added to table. Ghyuty17 (talk) 18:59, 19 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primaries

Wanted to map a primary election with margins, but it seems like that doesn't happen on here. Is it frowned upon? If not, what colors should I use? The election I wanted to map was a Democratic primary for Senate (a head-to-head). William on Tires (talk) 21:55, 26 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Primary maps don't have separate colour schemes, as far as I know; Democratic primary maps usually use the blue from the Democratic downballot scheme for the winning candidate and the green from the write-in colour scheme for the second-placed candidate. —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 04:57, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

For Democratic primaries, I use Dem downballot for 1st place, write-in for the runner up, and "Unpledged Electors" for third place.

For Republican primaries, I use Rep downballot for 1st place, I use Republican "alternative" for second place, and Farmer-Labor for third place. OutlawRun (talk) 06:21, 29 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Alt Presidential Candidate Colours

E.g. Anderson 1980, Perot 1996… If there were some colours like this, can I get the hex code of them BarneyHunter123123 (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Color palette for Republican (alternative)

I'm not like a graphic designer but this palette looks kind of broken, like the colors in the 70+ categories are from a different palette. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 19:43, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Party colors

This might be a more aesthetic concern but shouldn't parties be listed alphabetically, at least beyond the major Dem/Rep colors? Talthiel (talk) 21:09, 4 September 2024 (UTC)[reply]