![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From the article: "[McClellan] and ticketmate George H. Pendleton were nominated on a peace platform - a platform McClellan personally rejected." Does this mean that McClellan privately rejected the policy on which he was running?
I have a really dumb idea. Why not link to the actual text of the platforms so readers can see what they really SAID! For years I've been looking these up here and now all of a sudden they've been removed and replaced with blather. Who removed the platform text? translator ( talk) 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. -- maru (talk) Contribs 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Portions of Southern states occupied by Union troops participated in the election. Tennessee and Louisiana had substantial elections, in which Lincoln won. Congress chose not to count these votes, and in my research I have not been able to find a tally of the Lincoln vs. McClellan popular votes. Chronicler3 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3
Comment.My question is how could the 1864 election be valid with so many states not being allowed to participate? If the president wanted to claim to exercise power in the name of ALL states, even the ones which are "in a state of rebellion" which was the fiction that was being use to justify the war, than he should have had to deal with their votes, and not just the votes of states where his polices were popular. If the union had been truly 'broken' than the Washington government was justified in ignoring the Confederate States but it then would have to admit that it was an invader in the south and that these states were not a part of the same country. I really think the 1864 election should have, at the very least an * beside it because it was the decision of only a part of the country that had been chosen by the party in power. What government could not have won reelection if they had been free to exclude a third of the country which was least friendly to their candidate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corumplex ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The section in this article disagrees with the article National Union Party, which states that this was a real, albeit short-lived party in opposition to the Radical Republicans. I assume the other article is closer to the truth since it is more detailed, but neither is well-cited, so hopefully someone who knows something can come along and clear this up. -- 68.146.234.123 05:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The National Union Party was no other but a name used to describe the exact same entity as the Republican Party. Much as calling it the GOP as we do today. The term was coined as a response to the 1863 and 1864 state elections in contrast to the Democrats who supported peace at essentially all cost. The Republican Party, often referred to as the Union party or cause even by their own was as such because they supported in the preservation of the union at all cost, mainly continuation of the war and not allowing the CSA to gain independence as cost for peace.
This article is very misleading by suggesting Lincoln ran as anything other than a Republican. The Republican convention was held under the name of Union in 1864, but the Republican party, membership, and its structure was that in the same.
Read up on it in Team of Rivals, it discusses how Lincoln handled the convention of 64, as well as how Chase attempted to seize the nomination, both before hand and during, misguided as he was.
108.10.248.112 ( talk) 06:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I have to voice my concern that this format is hurting the article. I will post this on a few notable election pages and hope that it's noticed. I have to admire the determination of whoever came up with this idea (it's apparently on every page) but ultimately, I think it should go. I think that having "winner/runner-up" displayed so prominently in the infobox overshadows the importance of the election. Some of these elections were not mere contests, but were epic events in American history where a variety of important viewpoints were symbolically represented and voted upon. Just in the last 50 years, the notable political climates of 1968 and 2004 came to a boiling point around election time. We should not be placing so much emphasis on the "winner" and the "runner-up" -- this is not a spelling bee. If we condense this into who "won" we are doing a disservice to the issues that drove these elections. SpiderMMB 23:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be mentioned in this article that Lincoln was only president for one year, because he was shot in 1865? TheBlazikenMaster 23:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
more at http://elections.harpweek.com/1864/Overview-1864-2.htm -- JimWae 09:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC) also http://13thamendment.harpweek.com/HubPages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=05Election1864 -- JimWae 21:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The reason for the change is that Missouri and Kentucky had conflicting governments and were considered by the South to be Confederate states, but since they were controlled by union governments, these states participated in the 1864 elections.
Roadrunner ( talk) 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe there is a mistake on the electoral college map as Louisiana is marked as having contributed electoral votes 7 electoral votes to Lincoln. My understanding is that they were part of the confederacy and did not vote in the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SR Jean Valjean ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Why does Nevada only have two electoral votes? Are not all states promised at least three?-- 72.224.93.8 ( talk) 03:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
One elector didn't vote. It was assigned three but only cast two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.141.62 ( talk) 22:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
How does WP determine home state? Gen. McClellan was born and raised in PA, but certainly had ties as an adult to NJ (later becoming Gov.). Is there a rule to be followed here? Electiontechnology ( talk) 22:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The map shows Oregon in blue (Democratic). This is not correct. Only three states' electoral votes went for McClellan (NJ, DE and KY) making up his total of 21 votes. See http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1853_1869.html#1864 Qrobert ( talk) 12:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a mistake in the current presidential map of 1864, Oregon is stated blue (McClellan) instead of red (Lincoln) McClellan only won in three states, Kentucky, New Jersey and Delaware. Lincoln won in Oregon, i am trying to get a Wikipedia team to fix up the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.150.214 ( talk) 14:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
One map had Oregon going for McClellan, now the other does not. The article says there were 24 votes for him from 4 states. The 4th state AND the rest of the 24 votes seems to be missing.
Also can we say so flatly that "Thus, for a brief period, the Republican Party ceased to exist"?<r ef> The American Pageant</r ef> I wonder if a high school textbook is the best reliable source for such a definite claim. Did the party cease to exist OR did 2 factions hold 2 separate conventions & at one a coalition & a new name (not necessarily a new PARTY) were worked out? -- JimWae ( talk) 02:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Because textbooks are notorious for oversimplification. Aren't parties legal entities with charters, that do not just cease to exist just because of a temporary name change? Furthermore, it is most likely that there were many, many local chapters that were well attended... And I still am looking for the quote-- JimWae ( talk) 23:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
If state & local chapters of the National Republican Party existed, then the party did NOT cease to exist. World Book, in treating Union Pary as a label, supports my point.-- JimWae ( talk) 00:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Just because a temporary label was put on a coalition engineered by the party does not mean the party with the older label does not exist. Coca-Cola did not cease to exist when Coke came along. Apparently the new label was adopted at the Republican National COnvention of 1864. If Standard Oil changes to Esso then to Mobil then to Exxon and ExxonMobil, what company has ceased to exist?-- JimWae ( talk) 07:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Reading http://www.archive.org/details/proceedingsoffir00repu one can readily see the attendees considered themselves a continuation of the former party, as did the attendees at later Republican conventions consider the 1864 convention one of their own party -- JimWae ( talk) 08:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a co-operative project. No single voice rules it. For such a definitive claim, you'll need several sources (with quotes here) of high reliabity. A claim that "The Republican Party ceased to exist" is no more than an exaggeration. National Union Party was not a new party - it was a new banner that allowed War Democrats to join the arena-- JimWae ( talk) 20:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
A party temporarily having no candidate using its banner does not mean it "ceased to exist". You want to put an extraordinary claim in the lede - to justify that you will need more sources and better sources. -- JimWae ( talk) 21:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you take a look at http://www.archive.org/details/proceedingsoffir00repu yet. The 1868 Republican national convention considered it had been only 4 years since it last met. If they had "ceased to exist", they should have had some inkling of it -- JimWae ( talk) 03:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Even if Lincoln had run under the banner of the Whigs, Free-Soilers or even the Democrats, that would not be evidence that the Republican party "ceased to exist"-- JimWae ( talk) 05:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
In the event that the SVG image is incorrect, the PNG image is preferable to having it simply say "no image available". If there is a further issue, please discuss it here. I would fix the SVG image if I was able. Recognizance ( talk) 22:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Only 2 Electoral votes? This is correct? 174.57.203.45 ( talk) 19:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Should the map show the rump Confederate governments in Missouri and Kentucky, and/or the Confederate claims to Arizona Territory, New Mexico Territory, and Indian Territory? -- Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 02:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Voting took place on November 8th, exactly a week before Sherman set off on his March to the Sea.
Was the result known by then - especially in Georgia, where the telegraph wires had been cut? 86.164.55.251 ( talk) 20:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Democratic presidential ticket 1864b.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 8, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-11-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 14:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Not being an American, I am unsure of the details of the allegiance of the various states, but the state immediately to the east of Texas is marked pink for Lincoln, returning 7 electors, surrounded by a sea of Confederate brown. Is this correct ?-- अनाम गुमनाम 16:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem (edit war) regarding how to count state’s carried by Lincoln in 1864. The distinction lies between a) states carried by Lincoln in November elections held in states, or b) states carried by Lincoln in Electoral College count as ratified by Congress.
Both considerations should be represented, in the following way. a) The article narrative should report elections in Tennessee and Louisiana for President (and for Congress) which were so disrupted in civil war that Congress did not seat Representatives from districts or count Electoral College votes from states with very small percentages of votes compared to the 1860 turnouts. b) For comparison purposes among presidential elections, the Infobox should report Electoral College count. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 11:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Using gallery mode=packed seems to create some pretty unfortunate and unnecessary line breaks (like "Massachuset/ts"). It seems like removing this attribute leads to a better layout (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_States_presidential_election,_1864&diff=prev&oldid=756009849). Any objection to removing it for all the galleries on the page? tlesher ( talk) 13:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
two Confederate states (Louisiana and Tennessee) were controlled by the Union by 1864 and held elections (although their electors were not ultimately counted). Numbers indicate the number of electoral votes allotted to each state.
If that is the case I would argue that there should not be numbers on Louisiana or Tennessee, as neither state were allocated valid electors. SecretName101 ( talk) 05:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
While I already know that both Louisiana and Tennessee were controlled by the Union in 1864 and cast their ballots for Lincoln in the 1864 election, their voted were not counted. Though the two states didn't have their votes counted, does anyone think that articles for the 1864 Presidential Election in Louisiana and Tennessee should be created? Yes or no to the two articles? Both articles could mentioned what happened during the election process and such and how their votes weren't counted by Congress. They would be named:
If no, then nothing happens. If yes, both articles get created by either myself or someone else and both states get added to the state election 1864 template and the 1864 state table on the article mentioning that neither Louisiana or Tennessee's voted were counted. -- JCC the Alternate Historian ( talk) 15:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Can someone change the text colour for the states listed by margin of victory (Section 3.3 of the article) from normal blue (Democrat) and light pink (Republican) to darkblue and darkred (those are the names for the colours per HTML or Wikicode or whatever you use) respectively to match more recent elections like the 2016 United States presidential election and for the sake of visibility? 45.251.33.20 ( talk) 07:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From the article: "[McClellan] and ticketmate George H. Pendleton were nominated on a peace platform - a platform McClellan personally rejected." Does this mean that McClellan privately rejected the policy on which he was running?
I have a really dumb idea. Why not link to the actual text of the platforms so readers can see what they really SAID! For years I've been looking these up here and now all of a sudden they've been removed and replaced with blather. Who removed the platform text? translator ( talk) 23:28, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. -- maru (talk) Contribs 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
Comment. Portions of Southern states occupied by Union troops participated in the election. Tennessee and Louisiana had substantial elections, in which Lincoln won. Congress chose not to count these votes, and in my research I have not been able to find a tally of the Lincoln vs. McClellan popular votes. Chronicler3 23:21, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3
Comment.My question is how could the 1864 election be valid with so many states not being allowed to participate? If the president wanted to claim to exercise power in the name of ALL states, even the ones which are "in a state of rebellion" which was the fiction that was being use to justify the war, than he should have had to deal with their votes, and not just the votes of states where his polices were popular. If the union had been truly 'broken' than the Washington government was justified in ignoring the Confederate States but it then would have to admit that it was an invader in the south and that these states were not a part of the same country. I really think the 1864 election should have, at the very least an * beside it because it was the decision of only a part of the country that had been chosen by the party in power. What government could not have won reelection if they had been free to exclude a third of the country which was least friendly to their candidate? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corumplex ( talk • contribs) 21:04, 19 September 2010 (UTC)
The section in this article disagrees with the article National Union Party, which states that this was a real, albeit short-lived party in opposition to the Radical Republicans. I assume the other article is closer to the truth since it is more detailed, but neither is well-cited, so hopefully someone who knows something can come along and clear this up. -- 68.146.234.123 05:09, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
The National Union Party was no other but a name used to describe the exact same entity as the Republican Party. Much as calling it the GOP as we do today. The term was coined as a response to the 1863 and 1864 state elections in contrast to the Democrats who supported peace at essentially all cost. The Republican Party, often referred to as the Union party or cause even by their own was as such because they supported in the preservation of the union at all cost, mainly continuation of the war and not allowing the CSA to gain independence as cost for peace.
This article is very misleading by suggesting Lincoln ran as anything other than a Republican. The Republican convention was held under the name of Union in 1864, but the Republican party, membership, and its structure was that in the same.
Read up on it in Team of Rivals, it discusses how Lincoln handled the convention of 64, as well as how Chase attempted to seize the nomination, both before hand and during, misguided as he was.
108.10.248.112 ( talk) 06:00, 19 August 2013 (UTC)
I have to voice my concern that this format is hurting the article. I will post this on a few notable election pages and hope that it's noticed. I have to admire the determination of whoever came up with this idea (it's apparently on every page) but ultimately, I think it should go. I think that having "winner/runner-up" displayed so prominently in the infobox overshadows the importance of the election. Some of these elections were not mere contests, but were epic events in American history where a variety of important viewpoints were symbolically represented and voted upon. Just in the last 50 years, the notable political climates of 1968 and 2004 came to a boiling point around election time. We should not be placing so much emphasis on the "winner" and the "runner-up" -- this is not a spelling bee. If we condense this into who "won" we are doing a disservice to the issues that drove these elections. SpiderMMB 23:19, 5 October 2007 (UTC)
Shouldn't it be mentioned in this article that Lincoln was only president for one year, because he was shot in 1865? TheBlazikenMaster 23:36, 20 October 2007 (UTC)
more at http://elections.harpweek.com/1864/Overview-1864-2.htm -- JimWae 09:35, 10 November 2007 (UTC) also http://13thamendment.harpweek.com/HubPages/CommentaryPage.asp?Commentary=05Election1864 -- JimWae 21:49, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
The reason for the change is that Missouri and Kentucky had conflicting governments and were considered by the South to be Confederate states, but since they were controlled by union governments, these states participated in the 1864 elections.
Roadrunner ( talk) 14:30, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I believe there is a mistake on the electoral college map as Louisiana is marked as having contributed electoral votes 7 electoral votes to Lincoln. My understanding is that they were part of the confederacy and did not vote in the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by SR Jean Valjean ( talk • contribs) 17:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
Why does Nevada only have two electoral votes? Are not all states promised at least three?-- 72.224.93.8 ( talk) 03:45, 27 August 2008 (UTC)
One elector didn't vote. It was assigned three but only cast two. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.64.141.62 ( talk) 22:28, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
How does WP determine home state? Gen. McClellan was born and raised in PA, but certainly had ties as an adult to NJ (later becoming Gov.). Is there a rule to be followed here? Electiontechnology ( talk) 22:16, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
The map shows Oregon in blue (Democratic). This is not correct. Only three states' electoral votes went for McClellan (NJ, DE and KY) making up his total of 21 votes. See http://www.archives.gov/federal-register/electoral-college/votes/1853_1869.html#1864 Qrobert ( talk) 12:45, 12 February 2009 (UTC)
There is a mistake in the current presidential map of 1864, Oregon is stated blue (McClellan) instead of red (Lincoln) McClellan only won in three states, Kentucky, New Jersey and Delaware. Lincoln won in Oregon, i am trying to get a Wikipedia team to fix up the map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.53.150.214 ( talk) 14:13, 11 April 2009 (UTC)
One map had Oregon going for McClellan, now the other does not. The article says there were 24 votes for him from 4 states. The 4th state AND the rest of the 24 votes seems to be missing.
Also can we say so flatly that "Thus, for a brief period, the Republican Party ceased to exist"?<r ef> The American Pageant</r ef> I wonder if a high school textbook is the best reliable source for such a definite claim. Did the party cease to exist OR did 2 factions hold 2 separate conventions & at one a coalition & a new name (not necessarily a new PARTY) were worked out? -- JimWae ( talk) 02:52, 17 May 2009 (UTC)
Because textbooks are notorious for oversimplification. Aren't parties legal entities with charters, that do not just cease to exist just because of a temporary name change? Furthermore, it is most likely that there were many, many local chapters that were well attended... And I still am looking for the quote-- JimWae ( talk) 23:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)
If state & local chapters of the National Republican Party existed, then the party did NOT cease to exist. World Book, in treating Union Pary as a label, supports my point.-- JimWae ( talk) 00:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Just because a temporary label was put on a coalition engineered by the party does not mean the party with the older label does not exist. Coca-Cola did not cease to exist when Coke came along. Apparently the new label was adopted at the Republican National COnvention of 1864. If Standard Oil changes to Esso then to Mobil then to Exxon and ExxonMobil, what company has ceased to exist?-- JimWae ( talk) 07:35, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Reading http://www.archive.org/details/proceedingsoffir00repu one can readily see the attendees considered themselves a continuation of the former party, as did the attendees at later Republican conventions consider the 1864 convention one of their own party -- JimWae ( talk) 08:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)
Wikipedia is a co-operative project. No single voice rules it. For such a definitive claim, you'll need several sources (with quotes here) of high reliabity. A claim that "The Republican Party ceased to exist" is no more than an exaggeration. National Union Party was not a new party - it was a new banner that allowed War Democrats to join the arena-- JimWae ( talk) 20:46, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
A party temporarily having no candidate using its banner does not mean it "ceased to exist". You want to put an extraordinary claim in the lede - to justify that you will need more sources and better sources. -- JimWae ( talk) 21:49, 22 May 2009 (UTC)
Did you take a look at http://www.archive.org/details/proceedingsoffir00repu yet. The 1868 Republican national convention considered it had been only 4 years since it last met. If they had "ceased to exist", they should have had some inkling of it -- JimWae ( talk) 03:29, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
Even if Lincoln had run under the banner of the Whigs, Free-Soilers or even the Democrats, that would not be evidence that the Republican party "ceased to exist"-- JimWae ( talk) 05:26, 23 May 2009 (UTC)
In the event that the SVG image is incorrect, the PNG image is preferable to having it simply say "no image available". If there is a further issue, please discuss it here. I would fix the SVG image if I was able. Recognizance ( talk) 22:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Only 2 Electoral votes? This is correct? 174.57.203.45 ( talk) 19:20, 26 March 2011 (UTC)
Should the map show the rump Confederate governments in Missouri and Kentucky, and/or the Confederate claims to Arizona Territory, New Mexico Territory, and Indian Territory? -- Whoop whoop pull up Bitching Betty | Averted crashes 02:39, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
Voting took place on November 8th, exactly a week before Sherman set off on his March to the Sea.
Was the result known by then - especially in Georgia, where the telegraph wires had been cut? 86.164.55.251 ( talk) 20:44, 11 January 2013 (UTC)
Hello! This is a note to let the editors of this article know that File:Democratic presidential ticket 1864b.jpg will be appearing as picture of the day on November 8, 2013. You can view and edit the POTD blurb at Template:POTD/2013-11-08. If this article needs any attention or maintenance, it would be preferable if that could be done before its appearance on the Main Page. Thanks! — Crisco 1492 ( talk) 14:59, 30 January 2013 (UTC)
Not being an American, I am unsure of the details of the allegiance of the various states, but the state immediately to the east of Texas is marked pink for Lincoln, returning 7 electors, surrounded by a sea of Confederate brown. Is this correct ?-- अनाम गुमनाम 16:45, 8 November 2013 (UTC)
There seems to be a problem (edit war) regarding how to count state’s carried by Lincoln in 1864. The distinction lies between a) states carried by Lincoln in November elections held in states, or b) states carried by Lincoln in Electoral College count as ratified by Congress.
Both considerations should be represented, in the following way. a) The article narrative should report elections in Tennessee and Louisiana for President (and for Congress) which were so disrupted in civil war that Congress did not seat Representatives from districts or count Electoral College votes from states with very small percentages of votes compared to the 1860 turnouts. b) For comparison purposes among presidential elections, the Infobox should report Electoral College count. TheVirginiaHistorian ( talk) 11:10, 2 June 2014 (UTC)
Using gallery mode=packed seems to create some pretty unfortunate and unnecessary line breaks (like "Massachuset/ts"). It seems like removing this attribute leads to a better layout (e.g., https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=United_States_presidential_election,_1864&diff=prev&oldid=756009849). Any objection to removing it for all the galleries on the page? tlesher ( talk) 13:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
two Confederate states (Louisiana and Tennessee) were controlled by the Union by 1864 and held elections (although their electors were not ultimately counted). Numbers indicate the number of electoral votes allotted to each state.
If that is the case I would argue that there should not be numbers on Louisiana or Tennessee, as neither state were allocated valid electors. SecretName101 ( talk) 05:20, 8 September 2017 (UTC)
While I already know that both Louisiana and Tennessee were controlled by the Union in 1864 and cast their ballots for Lincoln in the 1864 election, their voted were not counted. Though the two states didn't have their votes counted, does anyone think that articles for the 1864 Presidential Election in Louisiana and Tennessee should be created? Yes or no to the two articles? Both articles could mentioned what happened during the election process and such and how their votes weren't counted by Congress. They would be named:
If no, then nothing happens. If yes, both articles get created by either myself or someone else and both states get added to the state election 1864 template and the 1864 state table on the article mentioning that neither Louisiana or Tennessee's voted were counted. -- JCC the Alternate Historian ( talk) 15:35, 21 September 2018 (UTC)
![]() | This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered. |
Can someone change the text colour for the states listed by margin of victory (Section 3.3 of the article) from normal blue (Democrat) and light pink (Republican) to darkblue and darkred (those are the names for the colours per HTML or Wikicode or whatever you use) respectively to match more recent elections like the 2016 United States presidential election and for the sake of visibility? 45.251.33.20 ( talk) 07:27, 3 November 2020 (UTC)