![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
NOTE: This archive was pre-maturely created by Miszabot when someone changed the settings on the main talk page. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 06:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
This might be a bit of a naive question, but the electoral votes for both of candidates (290 and 228) only add up 518 votes, and not to the 538 total available. Which state(s) have yet to declare who the remaining 20 votes go to? (It might be helpful to add this little piece of information to the front matter of the article.) Thanks. Arjun G. Menon ( talk · mail) 18:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result summary in the lead/infobox don't match the detailed results in the article's main body (the lead however seems more recent and better sourced)-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 18:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Why are we linking New York twice, in the home state section & why are we pipe-linking to a redirect? -- GoodDay ( talk) 04:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems Donald Trump is one of the few Presidents who won despite getting less vote than the losing candidate. This fact should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.220.16.62 ( talk) 17:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The turnout figure shows an increase of 0.7 percentage points from 2012. However, that is because the 2012 article uses a source that calculates turnout as the percent of the voting-age population, and the 2016 article uses a source that calculates turnout based on the voting-eligible population. Wikipedia should choose one basis and stick to it. 24.136.6.128 ( talk) 09:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
When Voter turnout is mention the figure used is percentage of registered voters. Bbigjohnson ( talk) 19:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
You can't vote if you're not registered. It should be percentage of registered voters. American In Brazil ( talk) 17:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Whatever the better measure is, you cannot compare percentages with different bases. Turnout actually declined from 2012. I think that is the important point. Engine61 ( talk) 05:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Why not give both figures - percentage of eligible voters and percentage of registered voters? American In Brazil ( talk) 14:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the popular vote figures for both candidates, Hillary Clinton's popular vote should be changed from 60,467,601 to 60,839,922 as of current, while Donald Trump's popular vote should be changed from 60,072,551 to 60,265,858. The source is the Google summary page for the US election, https://www.google.com/#q=us+election&eob=enn/p//0/0/////////// James L. B. ( talk) 16:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The figure of 57.6% for 2016 is a percentage of the voting eligible population (VEP). This is compared to the figure of 54.9% for 2012, but that's a percentage of the voting age population (VAP), same as the turnout figures Wikipedia gives for all elections prior to 2012. The first reference doesn't give an explicit VAP estimate for 2016, but we can calculate it from the same page, as 133,331,500/251,107,404, which is only 53.1%. Assuming the numbers don't change too much, this is a decrease from 2012. Do we need to wait until a source publishes an explicit VAP figure for 2016, or can we update the page right now with the more consistent figure of 53.1%? 73.70.240.208 ( talk) 06:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Is it possible to find the percentage of Muslim voters in the 2016 U.S. Election; and add them to the religion demographic? I am just wondering because of what many of them would have thought and/or voted due to President-Elect Trump's stance on Muslims immigrating to the U.S. Thanks! Samuel.farrell31 ( talk) 19:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Upon first glance, it doesn't seem as though the map is very clear (a lot of gray), and less then a third of the congressional districts in the country have reported their official and total results. I think we should keep the image, and update it accordingly (its format is great), but keep it off the page until at least a good majority have been colored in. Thanks. Ramires451 ( talk) 00:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The current popular vote totals in the infobox should be updated. Per CBS News, CNN, FOX News, and NBC News, the current numbers are Clinton 60,828,358 and Trump 60,261,924. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 ( talk) 07:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some kind of hint that those numbers aren't final? They are the source of misinformation like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/5c5k4e/i_made_a_chart_showing_the_popular_vote_turnout/ -- NoCultureIcons ( talk) 12:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
It appears that the popular vote in the election results infobox is sourcing a "projecting" number from a nice but minority opinion site called http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2016&off=0&elect=0&f=0
I think we should be reporting the counted number from the associated press. This number is consistent across all media sources I have seen from CNN, FOX, PBS, Google, etc. This is the consensus among almost every source I have seen. They update the results often, their last update was a few hours ago. I recommend we use that instead of a projected results from a minority source.
AP source API people are using: http://interactives.ap.org/2016/general-election/?SITE=APQA
PBS: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/2016-election-results/
FOX: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-election-headquarters
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/election
Gsonnenf ( talk) 18:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
PBS is just as AP slow in updating the numbers. Both have Clinton at 60,839,922 while Fox, CNN, CBS and NBC all quote 60,981,118 for Clinton since several hours. Apart from that provides Fox News (as only source from those mentioned here) the numbers of three minor candidates. Otto ( talk) 12:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The popular vote percentages in the infobox are incorrectly being displayed to the hundredth, instead of the tenth. Currently, it says Trump 47.30%, Clinton. 47.79%, but hose numbers should be changed to 47.3 and 47.8. Literally every prior presidential election article shows those numbers to the tenth, so it should be corrected to maintain consistency. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 ( talk) 17:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Has this line been discussed?
"Businessman and reality television personality Donald Trump became the Republican Party's presidential nominee on July 19, 2016, after defeating U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, and 15 other major candidates in the Republican primary elections."
I know Ted Cruz was the biggest player besides Trump late in the game, but is he worth mentioning exclusively like that? Kasich was still in the race until the end, even if he wasn't getting as many votes. And I don't think about the primary being a primarily two man battle at any point. Would it make more sense to just say "16 major candidates"? I don't feel like the standard in articles about the primary was to say "he beat Cruz."
- KaJunl ( talk) 16:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The huge section on all these random candidates who happened to get enough ballot access should be condensed into a list format, with the ballot access maps removed. It was fine during the election, but now that the results are known, and their influence on the election is known it should be reassessed. I couldn't readily find a detailed list of total votes for each candidate, perhaps someone could locate a website that provides the results for all candidates nationally, but the total, including Darrell Castle (not necessarily suggesting his section condensed), of all candidates besides Trump, Clinton, Johnson and Stein equals only 0.7%. My guess is that the total vote for some of the candidates featured prominently in this article received a tenth of a percentage or less, which shouldn't merit such prominence. Calibrador ( talk) 05:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The statements on this page are premature. CNN has updated their projection and are now saying Trump is likely to win the popular vote. see http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president
-- CyberXRef ☎ 14:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
It might be best, to hide the popular vote totals in the infobox, until a final tally is reached. GoodDay ( talk) 18:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
CyberXRef, you said, "CNN has updated their projection and are now saying Trump is likely to win the popular vote." CNN is saying no such thing, nor does your source. Please provide a quote from your source where it says that. Actually, the CNN video at http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/ says, "Secretary Clinton will likely win the popular vote for president." Clinton took over the popular lead vote on the morning of November 9, and it has continued growing since then. Currently, her lead is over 389,000 votes. See http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/election-center/ or your own source http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president for the current tally. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 ( talk) 03:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
In the Outcome section, should include a statement about noteworthy/unusual wins and losses for Trump. e.g. "Trump is the first Republican candidate to win the states of Pennsylvania and Michigan since 1988, and the first to win Wisconsin since 1984. He the first Republican since World War 2 to win a presidential election without winning Virginia, Colorado, or Nevada". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDMConnell ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
There wasn't a Republican President during WWII. Do you mean since Eisenhower? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.184.147 ( talk) 21:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
According to a 70 News article posted on 12-Nov-2016 and updated on 13-Nov-2016, Trump has won both the electoral and popular votes. Are there any other articles confirming this, and has any official government source confirmed this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.214.97.2 ( talk) 02:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hillary won the popular vote - [1] !! So, FIFTH time in the USA history the winner of the elections lost the popular vote. LOL. M.Karelin ( talk) 11:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Votes aren't done yet. Some states are still counting, and absentee and overseas ballots have yet to be included. As is, it's too close to know for sure. Martin Van Ballin' ( talk) 19:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
At this point the popular vote is final. The statement that this is the 5th time in U.S. history that the electoral vote winner lost the popular vote is correct. See WP: Presidential elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. American In Brazil ( talk) 15:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, more specifically: this is the fourth time that the popular vote winner lost a plurality of the electoral college, but it is the fifth time that the popular vote winner lost the election. If you replace "plurality" with "absolute majority", it is still the fifth time. We should be sure to be precise with the wording in the article. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 21:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you for sure the vote is final? Is that the final count on the page? If it is then fine, but if it isn't you need to change your wording again. 2602:306:CC42:8340:7502:235E:E498:DC2E ( talk) 01:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The only election under the 12th Amendment (that is, since 1804) in which the popular vote winner had a plurality (that is, the most but not the majority) of electoral votes was the election of 1824. That election was then decided by the House of Representatives. In all the other cases (1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016) there was a definite winner of the electoral vote. (Alright, I'll grant you there was a big argument in 2000 over who won Florida.) The 12th Amendment clearly states that the winner must have a majority of the total number of electoral votes in order to occupy the White House. In the elections of 1948 and 1968, where a third party candidate won the electoral votes of some states ( Strom Thurmond and George Wallace, respectively), a small change in the popular vote of a few states would have denied the electoral vote winner ( Harry Truman in 1948, Richard Nixon in 1968 - both also won the popular vote) a majority of the electoral votes and sent the election to the House. But it didn't happen. American In Brazil ( talk) 12:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Currently Trump has 279. Arizona and Michigan were not called yet. They have 11 and 16 ev respectively. Trump is leading there by 80,000 and 15, 000 respectively. Trump's projected win will be with 306 (57%) electoral votes, not 289. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orly taitz ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
dup thread - Trump is president-elect, not the projected elected president
|
---|
Trump is president-elect, not the projected elected presidentDonald Trump is the president-elect of the United States. This is his official title, between now and January 20, 2017, when he becomes president. "President-elect" is a defined term, see president-elect of the United States. This article should indicate that Trump is currently the president-elect, rather than describing him as the "Projected elected president", as that makes it seem like things could change. A projection is speculative. Trump is not merely projected to be elected. However, he is not yet the elected president of the US. He is president-elect. I have been discussing this on my talk page with GoodDay see here. Since we aren't able to come to an agreement at this time, could other editors please share their thoughts about this?---- FeralOink ( talk) 22:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear confused users, just to clarify, Donald Trump is the president-elect, and is no longer considered projected elected president for two reasons. 1: He is definitely going to win. Even if those three 'too-close-to-call states' all go to Clinton, she could not possibly win. The elector total for Trump is just way too high. 2: Trump could never be 'elected president' until January 20, 2017. Before that date, he is still president-elect, as Obama remains president. There cannot possibly be two presidents at once. God forbid something were to happen to President Obama between now and January 20, Vice President Biden would assume the office of president. When Trump assumes the office on January 20, 2017, the title can change to 'president'. Just trying to resolve some issues, had they not already been resolved.
UNSC Luke 1021 (
talk)
16:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Trump has been elected (verb) President, which makes him the President-elect (noun). Let's all move on. American In Brazil ( talk) 13:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Why not Elected President?Trump doesn't have to be in office, for us to use Elected President in this article's infobox. Why are so many resisting to do this? GoodDay ( talk) 23:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
So, here I am, four days later, and I just checked the article. It still says Elected President. Trump is the president-elect. I am 100% a Donald Trump supporter. I am one of the handful of Wikipedians who put their name on the Donald Trump Wikiproject page back when no one else would. Trump is not yet the elected president though. He is the president-elect. It is an official title.
|
Howdy. I'm trying to match the bottom of the infobox using Elected President, in order to match with the infoboxes of the other United States presidential election, year articles. Yet somebody has reverted my edit back to President-elect. Why the resistance to consistency? GoodDay ( talk) 22:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Seeking views from others:
"President-elect" is the correct term between being elected and taking the oath of office on January 20. This is the term used by all the media. Thereafter, it is simply "President". The President-elect has no powers of office until he is sworn in, of course. American In Brazil ( talk) 15:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I put in ( Projected) Elected President, as a compromise. To better bring this article's infobox in line with the other 57 articles. Trump will (which I'm not disputing) continue to use the title President-elect up 'til he takes office January 20, 2017. GoodDay ( talk) 22:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Sparkie82 (t*c). The election of 1836 that you reference did not involve faithless electors for President. It was about faithless electors for Vice-President. The 23 Virginia electors refused to vote for Richard Mentor Johnson because he had a well-publicized interracial relationship, scandalous in the time of slavery (even though Thomas Jefferson two generations earlier also had a well-known, long-standing interracial relationship). Johnson came up one vote short of a majority in the electoral college. As you correctly state, the vote then went to the Senate in accordance with the provisions of the 12th Amendment, the only time it ever did so. The Senate elected Johnson Vice-President anyway and, thus, the result was the same as if even one of the 23 faithless Virginia electors had voted for him. Therefore, my statement that no election was ever changed by faithless electors is accurate. In addition, since Trump got 306 electoral votes, it would require 37 electors to change their votes to Clinton in order to change the winner of the election. And two electors from Washington State, which Clinton won, have said they will not vote for her. In that case, Clinton would need 39 of Trump's electors. As I said above, it just ain't gonna happen. Donald Trump is the President-elect of the United States. American In Brazil ( talk) 21:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
To say I'm mildly frustrated by the resistance to use Elected President in the infobox, might be an understatement. Trump has been elected president by all sources given. Yes, I know it's only his pledged electors that were chosen on November 8. But, we don't need to wait for either the Electoral College to vote or for Trump to be inaugurated, to use it. GoodDay ( talk) 23:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
This discussion will be resolved on December 19 when the electors cast their votes. American In Brazil ( talk) 03:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
It's possible that "Major Third Parties" might include the Libertarian Party and the Green Party, only because these are the only two that received any significant press coverage. They also received roughly 2% of the popular vote on a national scale. Any other third parties are nowhere close to "major". They received few votes, and extremely small percentages. By listing them here (and including their logos with the same size and such), we are actually unbalancing the article by providing undue weight. Hires an editor ( talk) 23:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with a removal as well. Many people aren't even aware of all the parties running in the election and logical choice to inform yourself would be this article. Now their overall description might be trimmed and/or outsourced to a subpage or separate main article, but to the very least their names and voting share should be listed in this article as well.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 08:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that at least the major third parties should be included. If they are not, the total votes of Clinton and Trump do not add up to 100% and the article would be incomplete. American In Brazil ( talk) 00:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Technically, isn't this point not relevant until January? Neither candidate has already become president. Shouldn't it say 2016 was the fifth election in which the popular vote winner did win the election or 2016 was the fifth election in which the popular vote winner did not win the electoral vote? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The lede states that this was the 4th presidential election in which the popular vote winner did not become president because s/he did not receive a majority of the electoral votes. It cites the elections of 1876, 1888 and 2000. There was also the election of 1824 in which Andrew Jackson was the popular vote winner and had a plurality of electoral votes but not the majority. Therefore, in accordance with the 12th Amendment the matter went to the House, which elected John Quincy Adams. I think this should be mentioned in the lede for completeness. I invite discussion and if there is no objection, I will add. American In Brazil ( talk) 22:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
At the end of the lead section of the article: "It is the first election since 1928 where the Republican Party has won the Presidency and/or Vice Presidency without Richard Nixon or a member of the Bush family on the ticket." ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A25F:FB9A:4CB9:2FC6:C152:FDE5 ( talk) 23:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to add that, while I did edit the statement, I thought it was a little too trivial. I just wanted to clean up the language a bit. Maybe it can be placed elsewhere in the article, but it is definitely not important enough for inclusion in the opening. Nulla Lex Ink. ( talk) 19:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The margin column helps because sorting by this column allows for "tipping point" analyses. Thanks! DavidRF ( talk) 18:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that since this morning somebody decided to put this little fact on the page, in the second paragraph no less. I don't see what's the point of stating this, except to make some liberals feel better about themselves after this humiliating defeat. If no other woman became candidate of a major US party, they had no chance of winning the popular vote either.
Why not put instead that she's the first woman in the history of the United States to lose a presidential election? That's more befitting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.221.169 ( talk) 03:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. While it's worth mentioning she won the popular vote, I don't think "first woman to win the popular vote" is necessary. - KaJunl ( talk) 16:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, Samuel Tilden is the only defeated presidential candidate, who got a majority of the popular vote. GoodDay ( talk) 18:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the statement about majority. Even the definition of majority says it is more than half. But Clinton is doubtlessly the first female candidate in the major parties of Republicans and Democrats and the first wonen to recieve more votes than any other candidate. I think that it is necessary to mention and is notable as this is the first time it has ever happened. 59.89.47.63 ( talk) 18:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Apropos the various discussions on the topic of specific comparisons, why is there no recognition of the fact that Trump received fewer votes than any African-American candidate of any presidential election in the 21st century?
In this section, I surmise that "W: (date)" indicates the date the candidate withdrew, but what does "LN: (date)" represent? Should these be defined in a footnote? — soupvector ( talk) 18:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I can't say for certain, since I wasn't the one who made it, but I think LN stands for "Lost Nomination." A footnote probably would be helpful. Nulla Lex Ink. ( talk) 22:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
Abbr}}
template.
clpo13(
talk)
18:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Can we come to agreement on what numbers to show, please? GoodDay ( talk) 16:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The lead currently says, "Hillary Clinton won a plurality of the popular vote with 47.8% of ballots cast while Trump received 47.3%" as if it's a final result. That wording must be changed to reflect that it's only the current count, which will continue to change for awhile. The New York Times is now projecting that Clinton is likely to win the popular vote by over a million votes and a margin of 1.2%. By comparison, Gore beat Bush in the popular vote by 544,000 and 0.5%. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 ( talk) 19:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be a rumor of the following numbers: #Trump: 62,972,226 #Clinton: 62,277,750 [2]. I couldn't find a reliable source to cite this number. Is there an official place where these numbers are presented to the public? Tal Galili ( talk) 19:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
All these reliable sources say differently. -- Proud User ( talk) 20:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
A reliable source says that there are 227,019,486 people eligible to vote. Another reliable source tells us that these is expected to be 127,545,927 votes. [3] Therefore, the voter turnout is 56.18%. See WP:CALC. -- Proud User ( talk) 23:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Should we have an "at least" value until all the votes are counted? We do know that the voter turnout has increased by at least 1.5% since the last election. -- Proud User ( talk) 23:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I removed the current turnout figure because it is using a different methodology than older presidential election articles, which is rather misleading, moreover it is contradicting the results reported in the press so far (see for instance [4])-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 09:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I do not understand how if turnout went UP as the info box claims, the total number of votes is so much lower than the last election? Unless Wikipedia is tacitly acknowledging that millions fewer Americans are ELIGIBLE to vote because the states or some other actor suppressed their votes by removing them from the rolls? Amyzex ( talk) 18:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 10 | ← | Archive 13 | Archive 14 | Archive 15 | Archive 16 | Archive 17 | → | Archive 20 |
NOTE: This archive was pre-maturely created by Miszabot when someone changed the settings on the main talk page. Sparkie82 ( t• c) 06:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
This might be a bit of a naive question, but the electoral votes for both of candidates (290 and 228) only add up 518 votes, and not to the 538 total available. Which state(s) have yet to declare who the remaining 20 votes go to? (It might be helpful to add this little piece of information to the front matter of the article.) Thanks. Arjun G. Menon ( talk · mail) 18:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The result summary in the lead/infobox don't match the detailed results in the article's main body (the lead however seems more recent and better sourced)-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 18:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Why are we linking New York twice, in the home state section & why are we pipe-linking to a redirect? -- GoodDay ( talk) 04:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems Donald Trump is one of the few Presidents who won despite getting less vote than the losing candidate. This fact should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.220.16.62 ( talk) 17:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
The turnout figure shows an increase of 0.7 percentage points from 2012. However, that is because the 2012 article uses a source that calculates turnout as the percent of the voting-age population, and the 2016 article uses a source that calculates turnout based on the voting-eligible population. Wikipedia should choose one basis and stick to it. 24.136.6.128 ( talk) 09:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
When Voter turnout is mention the figure used is percentage of registered voters. Bbigjohnson ( talk) 19:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
You can't vote if you're not registered. It should be percentage of registered voters. American In Brazil ( talk) 17:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Whatever the better measure is, you cannot compare percentages with different bases. Turnout actually declined from 2012. I think that is the important point. Engine61 ( talk) 05:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Why not give both figures - percentage of eligible voters and percentage of registered voters? American In Brazil ( talk) 14:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Please change the popular vote figures for both candidates, Hillary Clinton's popular vote should be changed from 60,467,601 to 60,839,922 as of current, while Donald Trump's popular vote should be changed from 60,072,551 to 60,265,858. The source is the Google summary page for the US election, https://www.google.com/#q=us+election&eob=enn/p//0/0/////////// James L. B. ( talk) 16:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The figure of 57.6% for 2016 is a percentage of the voting eligible population (VEP). This is compared to the figure of 54.9% for 2012, but that's a percentage of the voting age population (VAP), same as the turnout figures Wikipedia gives for all elections prior to 2012. The first reference doesn't give an explicit VAP estimate for 2016, but we can calculate it from the same page, as 133,331,500/251,107,404, which is only 53.1%. Assuming the numbers don't change too much, this is a decrease from 2012. Do we need to wait until a source publishes an explicit VAP figure for 2016, or can we update the page right now with the more consistent figure of 53.1%? 73.70.240.208 ( talk) 06:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Is it possible to find the percentage of Muslim voters in the 2016 U.S. Election; and add them to the religion demographic? I am just wondering because of what many of them would have thought and/or voted due to President-Elect Trump's stance on Muslims immigrating to the U.S. Thanks! Samuel.farrell31 ( talk) 19:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Upon first glance, it doesn't seem as though the map is very clear (a lot of gray), and less then a third of the congressional districts in the country have reported their official and total results. I think we should keep the image, and update it accordingly (its format is great), but keep it off the page until at least a good majority have been colored in. Thanks. Ramires451 ( talk) 00:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The current popular vote totals in the infobox should be updated. Per CBS News, CNN, FOX News, and NBC News, the current numbers are Clinton 60,828,358 and Trump 60,261,924. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 ( talk) 07:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't there be some kind of hint that those numbers aren't final? They are the source of misinformation like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/5c5k4e/i_made_a_chart_showing_the_popular_vote_turnout/ -- NoCultureIcons ( talk) 12:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
It appears that the popular vote in the election results infobox is sourcing a "projecting" number from a nice but minority opinion site called http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2016&off=0&elect=0&f=0
I think we should be reporting the counted number from the associated press. This number is consistent across all media sources I have seen from CNN, FOX, PBS, Google, etc. This is the consensus among almost every source I have seen. They update the results often, their last update was a few hours ago. I recommend we use that instead of a projected results from a minority source.
AP source API people are using: http://interactives.ap.org/2016/general-election/?SITE=APQA
PBS: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/2016-election-results/
FOX: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-election-headquarters
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/election
Gsonnenf ( talk) 18:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
PBS is just as AP slow in updating the numbers. Both have Clinton at 60,839,922 while Fox, CNN, CBS and NBC all quote 60,981,118 for Clinton since several hours. Apart from that provides Fox News (as only source from those mentioned here) the numbers of three minor candidates. Otto ( talk) 12:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The popular vote percentages in the infobox are incorrectly being displayed to the hundredth, instead of the tenth. Currently, it says Trump 47.30%, Clinton. 47.79%, but hose numbers should be changed to 47.3 and 47.8. Literally every prior presidential election article shows those numbers to the tenth, so it should be corrected to maintain consistency. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 ( talk) 17:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Has this line been discussed?
"Businessman and reality television personality Donald Trump became the Republican Party's presidential nominee on July 19, 2016, after defeating U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, and 15 other major candidates in the Republican primary elections."
I know Ted Cruz was the biggest player besides Trump late in the game, but is he worth mentioning exclusively like that? Kasich was still in the race until the end, even if he wasn't getting as many votes. And I don't think about the primary being a primarily two man battle at any point. Would it make more sense to just say "16 major candidates"? I don't feel like the standard in articles about the primary was to say "he beat Cruz."
- KaJunl ( talk) 16:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The huge section on all these random candidates who happened to get enough ballot access should be condensed into a list format, with the ballot access maps removed. It was fine during the election, but now that the results are known, and their influence on the election is known it should be reassessed. I couldn't readily find a detailed list of total votes for each candidate, perhaps someone could locate a website that provides the results for all candidates nationally, but the total, including Darrell Castle (not necessarily suggesting his section condensed), of all candidates besides Trump, Clinton, Johnson and Stein equals only 0.7%. My guess is that the total vote for some of the candidates featured prominently in this article received a tenth of a percentage or less, which shouldn't merit such prominence. Calibrador ( talk) 05:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
The statements on this page are premature. CNN has updated their projection and are now saying Trump is likely to win the popular vote. see http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president
-- CyberXRef ☎ 14:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
It might be best, to hide the popular vote totals in the infobox, until a final tally is reached. GoodDay ( talk) 18:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
CyberXRef, you said, "CNN has updated their projection and are now saying Trump is likely to win the popular vote." CNN is saying no such thing, nor does your source. Please provide a quote from your source where it says that. Actually, the CNN video at http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/ says, "Secretary Clinton will likely win the popular vote for president." Clinton took over the popular lead vote on the morning of November 9, and it has continued growing since then. Currently, her lead is over 389,000 votes. See http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/election-center/ or your own source http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president for the current tally. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 ( talk) 03:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
In the Outcome section, should include a statement about noteworthy/unusual wins and losses for Trump. e.g. "Trump is the first Republican candidate to win the states of Pennsylvania and Michigan since 1988, and the first to win Wisconsin since 1984. He the first Republican since World War 2 to win a presidential election without winning Virginia, Colorado, or Nevada". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDMConnell ( talk • contribs) 23:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
There wasn't a Republican President during WWII. Do you mean since Eisenhower? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.184.147 ( talk) 21:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
According to a 70 News article posted on 12-Nov-2016 and updated on 13-Nov-2016, Trump has won both the electoral and popular votes. Are there any other articles confirming this, and has any official government source confirmed this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.214.97.2 ( talk) 02:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Hillary won the popular vote - [1] !! So, FIFTH time in the USA history the winner of the elections lost the popular vote. LOL. M.Karelin ( talk) 11:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Votes aren't done yet. Some states are still counting, and absentee and overseas ballots have yet to be included. As is, it's too close to know for sure. Martin Van Ballin' ( talk) 19:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
At this point the popular vote is final. The statement that this is the 5th time in U.S. history that the electoral vote winner lost the popular vote is correct. See WP: Presidential elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. American In Brazil ( talk) 15:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay, more specifically: this is the fourth time that the popular vote winner lost a plurality of the electoral college, but it is the fifth time that the popular vote winner lost the election. If you replace "plurality" with "absolute majority", it is still the fifth time. We should be sure to be precise with the wording in the article. Antony–22 ( talk⁄ contribs) 21:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Are you for sure the vote is final? Is that the final count on the page? If it is then fine, but if it isn't you need to change your wording again. 2602:306:CC42:8340:7502:235E:E498:DC2E ( talk) 01:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The only election under the 12th Amendment (that is, since 1804) in which the popular vote winner had a plurality (that is, the most but not the majority) of electoral votes was the election of 1824. That election was then decided by the House of Representatives. In all the other cases (1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016) there was a definite winner of the electoral vote. (Alright, I'll grant you there was a big argument in 2000 over who won Florida.) The 12th Amendment clearly states that the winner must have a majority of the total number of electoral votes in order to occupy the White House. In the elections of 1948 and 1968, where a third party candidate won the electoral votes of some states ( Strom Thurmond and George Wallace, respectively), a small change in the popular vote of a few states would have denied the electoral vote winner ( Harry Truman in 1948, Richard Nixon in 1968 - both also won the popular vote) a majority of the electoral votes and sent the election to the House. But it didn't happen. American In Brazil ( talk) 12:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Currently Trump has 279. Arizona and Michigan were not called yet. They have 11 and 16 ev respectively. Trump is leading there by 80,000 and 15, 000 respectively. Trump's projected win will be with 306 (57%) electoral votes, not 289. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orly taitz ( talk • contribs) 15:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
dup thread - Trump is president-elect, not the projected elected president
|
---|
Trump is president-elect, not the projected elected presidentDonald Trump is the president-elect of the United States. This is his official title, between now and January 20, 2017, when he becomes president. "President-elect" is a defined term, see president-elect of the United States. This article should indicate that Trump is currently the president-elect, rather than describing him as the "Projected elected president", as that makes it seem like things could change. A projection is speculative. Trump is not merely projected to be elected. However, he is not yet the elected president of the US. He is president-elect. I have been discussing this on my talk page with GoodDay see here. Since we aren't able to come to an agreement at this time, could other editors please share their thoughts about this?---- FeralOink ( talk) 22:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear confused users, just to clarify, Donald Trump is the president-elect, and is no longer considered projected elected president for two reasons. 1: He is definitely going to win. Even if those three 'too-close-to-call states' all go to Clinton, she could not possibly win. The elector total for Trump is just way too high. 2: Trump could never be 'elected president' until January 20, 2017. Before that date, he is still president-elect, as Obama remains president. There cannot possibly be two presidents at once. God forbid something were to happen to President Obama between now and January 20, Vice President Biden would assume the office of president. When Trump assumes the office on January 20, 2017, the title can change to 'president'. Just trying to resolve some issues, had they not already been resolved.
UNSC Luke 1021 (
talk)
16:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Trump has been elected (verb) President, which makes him the President-elect (noun). Let's all move on. American In Brazil ( talk) 13:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Why not Elected President?Trump doesn't have to be in office, for us to use Elected President in this article's infobox. Why are so many resisting to do this? GoodDay ( talk) 23:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
So, here I am, four days later, and I just checked the article. It still says Elected President. Trump is the president-elect. I am 100% a Donald Trump supporter. I am one of the handful of Wikipedians who put their name on the Donald Trump Wikiproject page back when no one else would. Trump is not yet the elected president though. He is the president-elect. It is an official title.
|
Howdy. I'm trying to match the bottom of the infobox using Elected President, in order to match with the infoboxes of the other United States presidential election, year articles. Yet somebody has reverted my edit back to President-elect. Why the resistance to consistency? GoodDay ( talk) 22:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Seeking views from others:
"President-elect" is the correct term between being elected and taking the oath of office on January 20. This is the term used by all the media. Thereafter, it is simply "President". The President-elect has no powers of office until he is sworn in, of course. American In Brazil ( talk) 15:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I put in ( Projected) Elected President, as a compromise. To better bring this article's infobox in line with the other 57 articles. Trump will (which I'm not disputing) continue to use the title President-elect up 'til he takes office January 20, 2017. GoodDay ( talk) 22:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@Sparkie82 (t*c). The election of 1836 that you reference did not involve faithless electors for President. It was about faithless electors for Vice-President. The 23 Virginia electors refused to vote for Richard Mentor Johnson because he had a well-publicized interracial relationship, scandalous in the time of slavery (even though Thomas Jefferson two generations earlier also had a well-known, long-standing interracial relationship). Johnson came up one vote short of a majority in the electoral college. As you correctly state, the vote then went to the Senate in accordance with the provisions of the 12th Amendment, the only time it ever did so. The Senate elected Johnson Vice-President anyway and, thus, the result was the same as if even one of the 23 faithless Virginia electors had voted for him. Therefore, my statement that no election was ever changed by faithless electors is accurate. In addition, since Trump got 306 electoral votes, it would require 37 electors to change their votes to Clinton in order to change the winner of the election. And two electors from Washington State, which Clinton won, have said they will not vote for her. In that case, Clinton would need 39 of Trump's electors. As I said above, it just ain't gonna happen. Donald Trump is the President-elect of the United States. American In Brazil ( talk) 21:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
To say I'm mildly frustrated by the resistance to use Elected President in the infobox, might be an understatement. Trump has been elected president by all sources given. Yes, I know it's only his pledged electors that were chosen on November 8. But, we don't need to wait for either the Electoral College to vote or for Trump to be inaugurated, to use it. GoodDay ( talk) 23:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
This discussion will be resolved on December 19 when the electors cast their votes. American In Brazil ( talk) 03:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
It's possible that "Major Third Parties" might include the Libertarian Party and the Green Party, only because these are the only two that received any significant press coverage. They also received roughly 2% of the popular vote on a national scale. Any other third parties are nowhere close to "major". They received few votes, and extremely small percentages. By listing them here (and including their logos with the same size and such), we are actually unbalancing the article by providing undue weight. Hires an editor ( talk) 23:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with a removal as well. Many people aren't even aware of all the parties running in the election and logical choice to inform yourself would be this article. Now their overall description might be trimmed and/or outsourced to a subpage or separate main article, but to the very least their names and voting share should be listed in this article as well.-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 08:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that at least the major third parties should be included. If they are not, the total votes of Clinton and Trump do not add up to 100% and the article would be incomplete. American In Brazil ( talk) 00:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Technically, isn't this point not relevant until January? Neither candidate has already become president. Shouldn't it say 2016 was the fifth election in which the popular vote winner did win the election or 2016 was the fifth election in which the popular vote winner did not win the electoral vote? Hijiri 88 ( 聖 やや) 12:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
The lede states that this was the 4th presidential election in which the popular vote winner did not become president because s/he did not receive a majority of the electoral votes. It cites the elections of 1876, 1888 and 2000. There was also the election of 1824 in which Andrew Jackson was the popular vote winner and had a plurality of electoral votes but not the majority. Therefore, in accordance with the 12th Amendment the matter went to the House, which elected John Quincy Adams. I think this should be mentioned in the lede for completeness. I invite discussion and if there is no objection, I will add. American In Brazil ( talk) 22:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
At the end of the lead section of the article: "It is the first election since 1928 where the Republican Party has won the Presidency and/or Vice Presidency without Richard Nixon or a member of the Bush family on the ticket." ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A25F:FB9A:4CB9:2FC6:C152:FDE5 ( talk) 23:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to add that, while I did edit the statement, I thought it was a little too trivial. I just wanted to clean up the language a bit. Maybe it can be placed elsewhere in the article, but it is definitely not important enough for inclusion in the opening. Nulla Lex Ink. ( talk) 19:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
The margin column helps because sorting by this column allows for "tipping point" analyses. Thanks! DavidRF ( talk) 18:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that since this morning somebody decided to put this little fact on the page, in the second paragraph no less. I don't see what's the point of stating this, except to make some liberals feel better about themselves after this humiliating defeat. If no other woman became candidate of a major US party, they had no chance of winning the popular vote either.
Why not put instead that she's the first woman in the history of the United States to lose a presidential election? That's more befitting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.221.169 ( talk) 03:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. While it's worth mentioning she won the popular vote, I don't think "first woman to win the popular vote" is necessary. - KaJunl ( talk) 16:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
FWIW, Samuel Tilden is the only defeated presidential candidate, who got a majority of the popular vote. GoodDay ( talk) 18:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the statement about majority. Even the definition of majority says it is more than half. But Clinton is doubtlessly the first female candidate in the major parties of Republicans and Democrats and the first wonen to recieve more votes than any other candidate. I think that it is necessary to mention and is notable as this is the first time it has ever happened. 59.89.47.63 ( talk) 18:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Apropos the various discussions on the topic of specific comparisons, why is there no recognition of the fact that Trump received fewer votes than any African-American candidate of any presidential election in the 21st century?
In this section, I surmise that "W: (date)" indicates the date the candidate withdrew, but what does "LN: (date)" represent? Should these be defined in a footnote? — soupvector ( talk) 18:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I can't say for certain, since I wasn't the one who made it, but I think LN stands for "Lost Nomination." A footnote probably would be helpful. Nulla Lex Ink. ( talk) 22:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
{{
Abbr}}
template.
clpo13(
talk)
18:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Can we come to agreement on what numbers to show, please? GoodDay ( talk) 16:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The lead currently says, "Hillary Clinton won a plurality of the popular vote with 47.8% of ballots cast while Trump received 47.3%" as if it's a final result. That wording must be changed to reflect that it's only the current count, which will continue to change for awhile. The New York Times is now projecting that Clinton is likely to win the popular vote by over a million votes and a margin of 1.2%. By comparison, Gore beat Bush in the popular vote by 544,000 and 0.5%. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 ( talk) 19:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
There seems to be a rumor of the following numbers: #Trump: 62,972,226 #Clinton: 62,277,750 [2]. I couldn't find a reliable source to cite this number. Is there an official place where these numbers are presented to the public? Tal Galili ( talk) 19:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
All these reliable sources say differently. -- Proud User ( talk) 20:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
A reliable source says that there are 227,019,486 people eligible to vote. Another reliable source tells us that these is expected to be 127,545,927 votes. [3] Therefore, the voter turnout is 56.18%. See WP:CALC. -- Proud User ( talk) 23:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Should we have an "at least" value until all the votes are counted? We do know that the voter turnout has increased by at least 1.5% since the last election. -- Proud User ( talk) 23:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I removed the current turnout figure because it is using a different methodology than older presidential election articles, which is rather misleading, moreover it is contradicting the results reported in the press so far (see for instance [4])-- Kmhkmh ( talk) 09:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I do not understand how if turnout went UP as the info box claims, the total number of votes is so much lower than the last election? Unless Wikipedia is tacitly acknowledging that millions fewer Americans are ELIGIBLE to vote because the states or some other actor suppressed their votes by removing them from the rolls? Amyzex ( talk) 18:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)