![]() | 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Should Gary Johnson and Jill Stein be included in the infobox in each state's article for the 2016 election?
Ghoul flesh
talk
20:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
An RfC on what image to use in navigation templates regarding Clintion and Sanders is going on here. -- Proud User ( talk) 00:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I just got back from a rally for Trump, took these photos a couple hours ago. Given they are recent and have a smile, I suggest changing the main photo. Although the microphone is in the photo, I highly doubt you will find any future event where the microphone isn't near his face, as that is how his podium is almost always set up. Personally I prefer #1. Calibrador ( talk) 01:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 23:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
-- Proud User ( talk) 01:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I like the new proposed images, instead of the current. Chase ( talk) 01:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe this side by side to be the best. Both parties are smiling so it's fair and more neutral, and you wouldn't have to change Secretary Clinton's photograph. -- ThiefOfBagdad ( talk) 19:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
For those who think we need photos of candidates smiling in the Infobox, perhaps these could be cropped and the Gary Johnson photo be lightened.-- Proud User ( talk) 02:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All 538 members of the Electoral College 270 electoral votes needed to win | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() The electoral map for the 2016 election, based on populations from the
2010 census | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This to me looks like a good photo that also compliments the Hillary Clinton photo. I don't think his eyes are too squinty, that is the way he smiles, and his eyes look that way most of the time that he is smiling, which looks perfectly fine to me. Calibrador ( talk) 11:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Why did someone make each section one long paragraph? No indentations or separations between writings at all. This makes this article very hard to read. Can someone fix it? 2601:589:4705:B31D:C4FC:FDA1:304F:1931 ( talk) 14:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
There appears to be considerable discussion regarding the Trump photographs. On another topic, was wanting to gauge what everyone was thinking regarding the HRC portraits? They're now both in 3:2 dimension sizes, and the face/ photograph proportions are similar, as well as to that of Johnson and Stein's current portraits. I think looking at them both in 3:2 ratio, I'm starting to prefer photo #2 now... Sleepingstar ( talk) 08:15, 22 June 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. |
The Libertarian Party now has access to 338 electoral votes, they just gained access in South Dakota. Please change this in the Libertarian Party section.
Ghoul flesh
talk
19:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It is protected tho... 2601:283:8300:A75A:150D:61BC:FC2B:EE70 ( talk) 06:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The infobox currently lists President Obama as the incumbent, rather than president before election (as per the 2008 election page). Since the election is still months away I think "Outgoing President" would suffice until November. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.68.112.173 ( talk) 07:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
An editor has placed the image at right in the "Background" section of the article, shown here at actual size as currently displayed. I have no doubt that this addition was done with good intentions, and I have no objection to the basic idea of such a comparison; however, the image in question doesn't belong in the article in its present form. There are three major reasons why, and a few minor ones; most of them could be corrected in a future image.
Major issue 1: There are no sources provided, in the text, in the image itself, or on the image description page, to support the placement of the candidates. There's no explanation for why Clinton is placed close to Stein and far from Trump, when there are ample sources that analyze Clinton and Trump's politics as near-identical in practice. There's no source which explains why Stein is placed all the way to the left when there's actually a fair bit of political action to her left even in the United States. There is no source given to support placing Johnson to the right, when the Libertarian Party nomination process fell out directly along left-right lines and the rightward candidate lost. There is no source to support showing Clinton as a hair more authoritarian than Trump when both have been attacked as authoritarian populists during this election cycle. This point alone means that the image shouldn't be there. Note that it's not sufficient to have a clear methodology for placement, since this isn't the sort of simple arithmetic that is allowed by policy - but there isn't a methodology posted anywhere, either.
Major issue 2: The actual meaning of the axes and placement isn't explained in the image, in the article text, or anywhere obvious. One has to click a link in the image caption, explore the link, and click another link to find an explanation. Likewise, there is no explanation for why the leftward axis is labeled as "Progressive" (a recently resurgent term) and not as "Liberal" (as is most common on most versions of the Nolan chart), "Leftist", or similar. Plus, once again, there are no sources to support any explanation.
Major issue 3: The political spectrum actually employed is that of the Nolan chart, which is not objective - it was developed in part as a tool for political proselytism , to convince those who rated themselves on the chart that they had libertarian tendencies. Evaluations according to Nolan's methodology essentially never rate highly for authoritarianism, and that is precisely the case in this image - Clinton is rated slightly authoritarian, and Trump as not authoritarian, even though one can find sources objecting to both major candidates on the grounds of perceived authoritarianism. This, again, makes the positioning of Clinton as slightly more authoritarian quite problematic - what's the objective justification for it?
Minor issue: The graphic is ugly and hard to read. The labels are partially obscured, and the tiny portraits nearly impossible to make out. If a chart is used in the article, those issues should be fixed. Colored dots would be entirely preferable to the current version, but the smaller text should also be made larger and clearer. This part is entirely fixable.
I apologize for the long post, but I hope anyone reading this can see why the current image is a problem. It ought to be removed, and if a newer one is added it should be done with consensus. Most of all, though, any such image desperately needs sources. If anyone wishes to argue for including this or another image, please start your argument there. 64.105.98.115 ( talk) 20:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I have added a campaign finance section and table to the page. However, it is notable that opensecrets.org references appear behind the latest news coverage. [1] Though the latest FEC page has the same data as the opensecrets.org page. Dbsseven ( talk) 20:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
References
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/07/green-party-and-libertarian-party-make-illinois-ballot-for-president-challenge-filed-against-constitution-party-petitions/ ... Constitutional Party, Human Rights Party and Socialist Party USA may have also made it but they are facing legal challenges while Johnson and Stein are unquestionably on the ballot for November. 2601:283:8300:A75A:251A:13C9:B282:3EC1 ( talk) 03:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
You have added this ballot access for Gary Johnson but not Jill Stein. Please correct this now. 2601:283:8300:A75A:A09E:3229:1D:36B4 ( talk) 03:26, 7 July 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. |
The "Unaffiliated" subsection in the third-party candidate section was recently added without a source for its single candidate, removed, then readded with a source which claimed to demonstrate ballot access, but which only shows the registration of a campaign committee. There is no source currently given for the claim that this candidate has ballot access anywhere. Therefore, the entire section should be removed. 64.105.98.115 ( talk) 23:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Someone deleted everything in the Green Party section. 2601:640:4080:5960:D528:3270:B717:97F9 ( talk) 01:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Well they must've undeleted it, because the green party section is there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romandave ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't HRC's home state be listed as Arkansas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remsense ( talk • contribs) 03:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Pending official campaign announcement, it appears as if Jill Stein has qualified for the Georgia ballot: http://onlineathens.com/mobile/2016-07-12/green-party-candidate-stein-qualifies-georgia-ballot-ware-filing-write-candidate . 2601:283:8300:A75A:F975:1B35:C1D6:90F5 ( talk) 01:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I follow minor party ballot access pretty closely and just wanted to point out to the regular editors of this page that there is a significant possibility that one or more additional parties could achieve ballot access to 270 electoral college votes. Specifically if either the Constitution Party nominee gets cross nominated by the Independent American Party in California or the Party for Socialism and Liberation Nominee gets cross nominated by the Peace and Freedom Party, each could potentially reach 270 ballot access. This isn't a pressing issue, but I just wanted to bring it up since if it does happen it would require changes to the infobox coding and layout of the page. XavierGreen ( talk) 18:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
John McCain was never considered as running mate for Trump, but instead Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) can be added to the list. -- 217.110.69.30 ( talk) 11:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason there is a gallery for the Democratic Vice Presidential potential picks, and not for the Republican? Calibrador ( talk) 19:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, The Hill just posted an article saying that Mike Pence has been selected as Trump's running mate, shoul we put it on the info box?-- Angelgfg12345 ( talk) ( Angelgfg12345 ( talk) 17:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)).
I propose that we order the "Other third parties and independents" section by the number of electoral college vote they have access to, rather than alphabetical order as it currently is. Who is in agreement? -- Proud User ( talk) 16:52, 14 July 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. |
I want to make the presumptive text in Donald Trump's entry link to [1]
24.102.72.189 ( talk) 21:17, 16 July 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. |
Section 4.2 Green Party, Ballot access:
take out Deleware, change 339 to 336
see http://www.jill2016.com/ballot_access
174.22.242.183 ( talk) 04:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Sanders did not suspend his campaign, in his speech he said he'll go all the way to November, but offered to withdrawl from the race. He is keeping his promise as to going all the way to convention. As this article says, he does not officially drop out of the race, but supports Clinton. It's like the case for Kreml and Jill Stein in the Green Party primaries. He's still a candidate, but endorses Stein. Sanders endorses Clinton to defeat Trump, but is still in the race. -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 18:34, 12 July 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. |
Trump just won the vote at the RNC so he's no longer presumptive.
96.244.230.204 ( talk) 23:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Trump isn't officially nominee until he accepts it, something that hasn't happened yet so I find it controversial to list him as officially nominee of the Republican party for President of the United States, and thus I think it shouldn't be displayed on Wikipedia since it isn't confirmed and he hasn't accepted the nomination yet. I'm not from the United States but ABC News says this: Trump will not officially become the Republican Party's nominee for president until he accepts the nomination, which is slated to occur as part of his speech on Thursday night, according to the RNC counsel's office. It's like a marriage: You need an "I do" from both sides to become the nominee. The Republican convention will offer the nomination when the delegates vote, and Trump needs to accept it. ( SOURCE) What are your opinions? Thanks! Itsyoungrapper ( talk) 23:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The 45th and 48th president of the United States...what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.57.124 ( talk) 16:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Should we remove the list of prospective running mates for Clinton, until her actual previous shortlist comes out? The media speculation was just that, and they were, in my opinion, quite baseless. The predictions were made without any insider information, so...
I think they should be kept until Clinton comes out at the convention with a few more on Kaine, or doesn't. Should it be changed?
Rep.donsman456 ( talk) 14:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I know that we have discussed a lot about Trump's photo, but I would like to propose you another one. What do you think about this image?
Thank you. -- Nick.mon ( talk) 22:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Can we change the image for Gary Johnson to this one from a better angle. Perhaps crop it a little at the top? -- Bensin ( talk) 01:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Is this a good picture to replace the hunched over the podium glancing off to the side one currently being used.
ShadowDragon343 ( talk) 16:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
But it's not consistent... have you looked at the other three pictures? Take five seconds and do a google image search. 68.110.99.8 ( talk) 18:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
So when Trump confirms officially that Pence as his VP and that Weld is the official VP for LP. Can we format running mates like this under the header Running mate on the party ticket header?
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mike Pence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
50th
Governor of Indiana (since 2013) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[1] |
William Weld | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68th
Governor of Massachusetts (1991–1997) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[2][3] |
Good? Bad? Your thoughts Thoughts? -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 18:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Donald Trump | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chairman of
The Trump Organization (1971–present) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Campaign | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() ![]() Running mate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[1] [2] [3] |
Gary Johnson | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
29th Governor of New Mexico (1995–2003) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Campaign | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() Running mate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[4] [5]{{center| |
![]() | |
Donald Trump / Mike Pence | |
---|---|
![]() President CEO of The Trump Organization |
![]() Vice President Gov. of Indiana |
Campaign [6] [7] [8] |
Gary Johnson / William Weld | |
---|---|
![]() President Fmr. Gov. of New Mexico |
![]() Vice President Fmr. Gov. of Massachusetts |
Campaign [9] [10] |
References
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section of withdrawn Republican candidates, Bobby Jindal is shown to be still governor of Louisiana, even though his term ended in 2016 when John Bel Edwards took office.
74.129.50.194 ( talk) 04:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I really don't think they should be in there. Whatever your political position, I think we can agree that they will not be a major player this election. I support including the Libertarians, but the Greens I oppose in the wikibox. If support for them grows, it can be reconsidered, but I don't think they are important enough now. Baconheimian ( talk) 23:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I very much think they should be there. Many Bernie Sanders supporters have flipped to supporting Stein. And donations and social media attention for Jill Stein has exploded. She will be on the ballot in 45-48 states. She definitely deserves to be there until election day. Cax17 ( talk) 22:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
A user is making more than one revert per 24 hours:
I also do not believe there was a consensus for that change. -- Proud User ( talk) 17:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of bureaucracy, one provision of the 1RR restriction is specifically that "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction". You shouldn't be afraid to revert edits that are clearly vandalism; that includes both of the above. 64.105.98.115 ( talk) 02:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Links here and here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.205.30.34 ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not proposing we do this, but has there been any discussion on adding the Constitution Party candidate, Darrell Castle, once he attains ballot access to 270 electoral votes? Cax17 ( talk) 02:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, we haven't discuss Clinton's photo yet, I would like to propose you one. What do you think about this image? Good, bad? thoughts? From my own perspective it looks far more better than the one we have right now.
Thank you. -- User:Angelgfg12345 ( talk) 12:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we should move forward on changing it. TexasMan34 ( talk) 04:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
What about creating Controversies section or something similar to that which will include alleged Russian hacking, Clinton controversies, Trump controversies etc.? Just a small description of controversial things that happened during the race. Or it can be included in Background category, I think this will be appreciated. Itsyoungrapper ( talk) 15:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi All,
As previously suggested, I have moved the Swing states section entirely onto this page. If there are any suggestions for improvement, please feel free to express them. Also with the user's request, the "Pundits' Projections" are now in a new section; however, it does seem like it needs some polishing. If it could be linked to one of the other pages, it may look more professional under a different umbrealla. In addition, I would also like to a stronger or more accurate name for the section regarding the states' ratings. Thank you!
Rhea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rep.donsman456 ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Could whoever keeps adding ballot access without valid sources PLEASE stop? Just because we turn in petitions does NOT mean we have ballot access there. Secretary of State has to announce it. Green Party has NOT gained ballot access in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Nebraska or New Jersey. Those are all pending, unless you can cite the campaign itself or the secretary of state. The New Jersey citations are UNOFFICIAL. Secretary of States can invalidate signatures. Libertarians are NOT on the ballot in Pennsylvania, New York or New Jersey. Blog and c-list news citations do not count - they're just talking about filing petitions. Filing a ton of signatures makes it more likely, but it is not confirmed. Gloria LaRiva, Rocky DeLa Fuente, Monica Moorehead and Darrel Castle also need to have their New Jersey access removed from this page until further confirmed. 2601:283:8300:A75A:4113:9F4F:AFDD:5614 ( talk) 03:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I am proposing to place in a ballot access table for all parties that have access to over 50 electoral votes. Please reply about any ideas or concerns about this. An unfinished prototype is available below to update and edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaunaKeegan11 ( talk • contribs) 22:24, August 2, 2016 (UTC)
Democratic Party | Republican Party | Libertarian Party | Green Party | Constitution Party | American Delta Party | America's Party | Reform Party | Party for Socialism and Liberation | American Independent Party | Peace and Freedom Party | Other Parties | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
States | 50 (and DC) | 50 (and DC) | 39 (NOT DC) | 26 (and DC) | 19 (NOT DC) | 10 (NOT DC) | 2 (NOT DC) | 4 (NOT DC) | 5 (NOT DC) | 1 (and DC) | 1 (NOT DC) | 11 (NOT DC) |
Electoral votes | 538 | 538 | 433 | 409 | 175 | 538 | 538 | 538 | 527 | 503 | 514 | 370 |
% of population (EVs) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Alabama | On ballot | On ballot | In-Progress | In-Progress | In-Progress | In-Progress | In-Progress | In-Progress | In-Progress | In-Progress | In-Progress | In-Progress |
Alaska | ||||||||||||
Arizona | On ballot | |||||||||||
Arkansas | ||||||||||||
California | ||||||||||||
Colorado | ||||||||||||
Connecticut | In-Progress | |||||||||||
Delaware | On ballot | |||||||||||
Florida | ||||||||||||
Georgia | ||||||||||||
Hawaii | ||||||||||||
Idaho | ||||||||||||
Illinois | ||||||||||||
Indiana | ||||||||||||
Iowa | In-Progress | |||||||||||
Kansas | On ballot | |||||||||||
Kentucky | In-Progress | |||||||||||
Louisiana | On ballot | |||||||||||
Maine | ||||||||||||
Maryland | ||||||||||||
Massachusetts | In-Progress | |||||||||||
Michigan | On ballot | |||||||||||
Minnesota | In-Progress | |||||||||||
Mississippi | On ballot | |||||||||||
Missouri | ||||||||||||
Montana | ||||||||||||
Nebraska | ||||||||||||
Nevada | ||||||||||||
New Hampshire | In-Progress | |||||||||||
New Jersey | On ballot | |||||||||||
New Mexico | ||||||||||||
New York | ||||||||||||
North Carolina | ||||||||||||
North Dakota | ||||||||||||
Ohio | In-Progress | |||||||||||
Oklahoma | On ballot | |||||||||||
Oregon | ||||||||||||
Pennsylvania | ||||||||||||
Rhode Island | In-Progress | |||||||||||
South Carolina | On ballot | |||||||||||
South Dakota | ||||||||||||
Tennessee | ||||||||||||
Texas | ||||||||||||
Utah | ||||||||||||
Vermont | ||||||||||||
Virginia | In-Progress | |||||||||||
Washington | ||||||||||||
West Virginia | On ballot | |||||||||||
Wisconsin | ||||||||||||
Wyoming | ||||||||||||
District of Columbia | In-Progress |
References
The table is incorrect as it isn't finished. WaunaKeegan11 ( talk) 15:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
What are the sources on the current Libertarian ballot access map? Because the official LP site still has only 36 states listed and several of the states currently on the article map (Pennsylvania, New York, among others) are not on the official party map. 50.27.101.171 ( talk) 15:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I do believe we should reverse that edit, which made Trump first. He is generally losing in the polling averages, as well as the betting and prediction markets! And, besides, some on the other page's discussion forum had decided that incumbency would determine the order as a tie-breaker, until the real results came out.
Thanks for your consideration! 24.246.89.125 ( talk) 15:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Set first image or Title Image to a generic Election of 2016 Title Image. When you search in google "When is the next election", currently first thing you see is picture of Hillary. This to some creates bias and should be reviewed to either show a generic election image or show all up for election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanarp ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
To the best of my knowlege, Google looks for faces in an article and if it finds one, it will show it. Showing a generic image will only clutter the article itself while you will still see Clinton's face on Google. Besides, Wikipedia's purpuse is to build an encyclopedia, not make sure Google results are unbiased. -- Proud User ( talk) 21:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I changed the picture of Trump from the current one to this one but was reverted. The reason is simply to have a different picture from the one we currently have in the Donald Trump page, just like we're using this one for Clinton and not this one. Is there a particular reason to keep using the same picture here and in the Trump article ? I just find a bit dull to use always the same photo. Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 19:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The picture that you proposed was rejected, that's the reason why we reverted TexasMan34 ( talk) 21:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll go with #2, also. TexasMan34 ( talk) 19:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I support the current image, rather than any of the proposed images, for two reasons: personal preference and WP:NPOV. None of the proposed photos are compatible with WP:NPOV. -- Proud User ( talk) 21:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
538 members of the Electoral College 270 electoral votes needed to win | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
How about this one?
TexasMan34 ( talk) 04:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe Rocky De La Fuente should be removed from candidates. My removing him from the campaign finance table was reverted as he is still listed as a candidate for the American Delta Party. However, this is a party he founded as a vehicle for his own candidacy. [1] He has since registered as a candidate in the 2016 Senate election in Florida. [2] [3] His campaign website is solely focused on the Senate campaign and describes his presidential candidacy in the past tense. He does not appear to be actively campaigning for the presidency. [4] Dbsseven ( talk) 23:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rocky De La Fuente is now the nominee of the Reform Party (Source:
http://ballot-access.org/2016/08/09/reform-party-nominates-rocky-de-la-fuente-for-president/).
Please update this article accordingly. Thank you.
2600:1003:B845:32DC:B081:535C:7B0B:DE51 (
talk)
20:51, 9 August 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. |
The Better for America petition in Arkansas has been officially accepted; see http://ballot-access.org/2016/08/10/better-for-america-petition-in-arkansas-is-valid/ . Therefore, please list them in the Other third parties and independents section as having access to six electoral votes. Please note also that they have not declared a Presidential candidate there yet - they will almost certainly nominate Evan McMullin, but this has not yet happened and he should not yet be listed as the candidate. Thank you.
64.105.98.115 (
talk)
03:48, 11 August 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. |
I hate to use an edit request to request a revert, but
this edit which claims to "update" the Libertarian ballot access numbers is pure wishful thinking. Compare it with the Libertarian Party's official ballot access statement
[10] and note that, in particular neither the LP nor the Johnson/Weld ticket yet has access in Ohio
[11]. Therefore, please change this to use the previous count; better yet, use the map found on the Libertarian Party website above, since the older count here also seems to be wishful thinking. Thank you.
64.105.98.115 (
talk)
22:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
This is separate from the above since it isn't a specific request to change one thing to another, but I strongly suggest verifying both the the Libertarian and Green Party ballot access numbers against a good source. The best summary for the greens is at http://www.gp.org/ballotaccess with a similar map at http://www.jill2016.com/ballot_access ; the best one for the LP is https://www.lp.org/2016-presidential-ballot-access-map , and neither of the counts in this article agrees with those. If a state is added here that isn't on one of those maps, a specific source should be provided for it; that is required already but it ought to be enforced. There is way too much wishful thinking in the current numbers. 64.105.98.115 ( talk) 22:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Massachusetts refers to the Green Party as the "Green-Rainbow Party" and should be referred to that way in the Green Party Pages.
It is stated this in both the Green Party of the United States as well as the Green-Rainbow Party Wikipedia pages.
Travis H. O. ( talk) 22:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The #NeverTrump group Better for America (the same group that attempted to recruit Ben Sasse and David French) has just announced Evan McMullin as their chosen candidate. Better for America currently has no ballot access anywhere, so McMullin doesn't currently qualify for a listing on his own merits, but should this candidacy be mentioned in relation to Trump? I'm starting a preemptive discussion, because editors will be adding his name in good faith and a consensus about this will help. So, opinions? 64.105.98.115 ( talk) 16:11, 8 August 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. |
I wish to add or see Evan McMullin added to the list of candidates running for President of the United States. Zorseman ( talk) 17:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is linking to a conspiracy theory article in this article appropriate? I really don't think so. I removed it, I was reverted. So a discussion is necessary. Seems so incredibly WP:UNDUE on this article. Remember, this article is going to be viewed millions of times in the next few months. To have that link on here makes it seem like Wikipedia is encouraging these conspiracy theories against a major party candidate. Not only that, it makes it seem like Wikipedia is one sided against one candidate. Completely inappropriate link in my opinion. -- Majora ( talk) 18:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that there were 2 third party candidates in the main infobox, but when I looked at the pages for previous elections, most of them just had the two candidates (other than the obvious ones like Ross Perot and Ralph Nader).
Will the two added candidates be deleted once the election is over (assuming they don't have any significant effect on the results)? Or have they already met the same criteria for inclusion that Nader and Perot have met? Nikki Lee 1999 ( talk) 19:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I have heard around that candidates will be allowed in the infobox if they achieve over 5% of the popular vote.
Ghoul flesh
talk
03:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
It is justifiable to include former candidates in the boxes for the Libertarian and Green Parties since they both have enough ballot access to theoretically win the election and former candidates may run again in four years. The edits already exist for both parties with candidates being included. All that would be necessary is reverting their deletions. Computermichael ( talk) 16:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe there should be a cutoff on who gets featured on the main page, otherwise 20 candidates with access in only state will be listed. WaunaKeegan11 ( talk) 03:02, 14 August 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 5 | ← | Archive 7 | Archive 8 | Archive 9 | Archive 10 | Archive 11 | → | Archive 15 |
Should Gary Johnson and Jill Stein be included in the infobox in each state's article for the 2016 election?
Ghoul flesh
talk
20:40, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
An RfC on what image to use in navigation templates regarding Clintion and Sanders is going on here. -- Proud User ( talk) 00:34, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
I just got back from a rally for Trump, took these photos a couple hours ago. Given they are recent and have a smile, I suggest changing the main photo. Although the microphone is in the photo, I highly doubt you will find any future event where the microphone isn't near his face, as that is how his podium is almost always set up. Personally I prefer #1. Calibrador ( talk) 01:39, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
-- William S. Saturn ( talk) 23:06, 19 June 2016 (UTC)
-- Proud User ( talk) 01:08, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I like the new proposed images, instead of the current. Chase ( talk) 01:38, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe this side by side to be the best. Both parties are smiling so it's fair and more neutral, and you wouldn't have to change Secretary Clinton's photograph. -- ThiefOfBagdad ( talk) 19:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)
For those who think we need photos of candidates smiling in the Infobox, perhaps these could be cropped and the Gary Johnson photo be lightened.-- Proud User ( talk) 02:13, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
All 538 members of the Electoral College 270 electoral votes needed to win | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() The electoral map for the 2016 election, based on populations from the
2010 census | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This to me looks like a good photo that also compliments the Hillary Clinton photo. I don't think his eyes are too squinty, that is the way he smiles, and his eyes look that way most of the time that he is smiling, which looks perfectly fine to me. Calibrador ( talk) 11:25, 21 June 2016 (UTC)
Why did someone make each section one long paragraph? No indentations or separations between writings at all. This makes this article very hard to read. Can someone fix it? 2601:589:4705:B31D:C4FC:FDA1:304F:1931 ( talk) 14:00, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
There appears to be considerable discussion regarding the Trump photographs. On another topic, was wanting to gauge what everyone was thinking regarding the HRC portraits? They're now both in 3:2 dimension sizes, and the face/ photograph proportions are similar, as well as to that of Johnson and Stein's current portraits. I think looking at them both in 3:2 ratio, I'm starting to prefer photo #2 now... Sleepingstar ( talk) 08:15, 22 June 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. |
The Libertarian Party now has access to 338 electoral votes, they just gained access in South Dakota. Please change this in the Libertarian Party section.
Ghoul flesh
talk
19:53, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
It is protected tho... 2601:283:8300:A75A:150D:61BC:FC2B:EE70 ( talk) 06:34, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
The infobox currently lists President Obama as the incumbent, rather than president before election (as per the 2008 election page). Since the election is still months away I think "Outgoing President" would suffice until November. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.68.112.173 ( talk) 07:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
An editor has placed the image at right in the "Background" section of the article, shown here at actual size as currently displayed. I have no doubt that this addition was done with good intentions, and I have no objection to the basic idea of such a comparison; however, the image in question doesn't belong in the article in its present form. There are three major reasons why, and a few minor ones; most of them could be corrected in a future image.
Major issue 1: There are no sources provided, in the text, in the image itself, or on the image description page, to support the placement of the candidates. There's no explanation for why Clinton is placed close to Stein and far from Trump, when there are ample sources that analyze Clinton and Trump's politics as near-identical in practice. There's no source which explains why Stein is placed all the way to the left when there's actually a fair bit of political action to her left even in the United States. There is no source given to support placing Johnson to the right, when the Libertarian Party nomination process fell out directly along left-right lines and the rightward candidate lost. There is no source to support showing Clinton as a hair more authoritarian than Trump when both have been attacked as authoritarian populists during this election cycle. This point alone means that the image shouldn't be there. Note that it's not sufficient to have a clear methodology for placement, since this isn't the sort of simple arithmetic that is allowed by policy - but there isn't a methodology posted anywhere, either.
Major issue 2: The actual meaning of the axes and placement isn't explained in the image, in the article text, or anywhere obvious. One has to click a link in the image caption, explore the link, and click another link to find an explanation. Likewise, there is no explanation for why the leftward axis is labeled as "Progressive" (a recently resurgent term) and not as "Liberal" (as is most common on most versions of the Nolan chart), "Leftist", or similar. Plus, once again, there are no sources to support any explanation.
Major issue 3: The political spectrum actually employed is that of the Nolan chart, which is not objective - it was developed in part as a tool for political proselytism , to convince those who rated themselves on the chart that they had libertarian tendencies. Evaluations according to Nolan's methodology essentially never rate highly for authoritarianism, and that is precisely the case in this image - Clinton is rated slightly authoritarian, and Trump as not authoritarian, even though one can find sources objecting to both major candidates on the grounds of perceived authoritarianism. This, again, makes the positioning of Clinton as slightly more authoritarian quite problematic - what's the objective justification for it?
Minor issue: The graphic is ugly and hard to read. The labels are partially obscured, and the tiny portraits nearly impossible to make out. If a chart is used in the article, those issues should be fixed. Colored dots would be entirely preferable to the current version, but the smaller text should also be made larger and clearer. This part is entirely fixable.
I apologize for the long post, but I hope anyone reading this can see why the current image is a problem. It ought to be removed, and if a newer one is added it should be done with consensus. Most of all, though, any such image desperately needs sources. If anyone wishes to argue for including this or another image, please start your argument there. 64.105.98.115 ( talk) 20:46, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I have added a campaign finance section and table to the page. However, it is notable that opensecrets.org references appear behind the latest news coverage. [1] Though the latest FEC page has the same data as the opensecrets.org page. Dbsseven ( talk) 20:21, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
References
http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/07/green-party-and-libertarian-party-make-illinois-ballot-for-president-challenge-filed-against-constitution-party-petitions/ ... Constitutional Party, Human Rights Party and Socialist Party USA may have also made it but they are facing legal challenges while Johnson and Stein are unquestionably on the ballot for November. 2601:283:8300:A75A:251A:13C9:B282:3EC1 ( talk) 03:10, 6 July 2016 (UTC)
You have added this ballot access for Gary Johnson but not Jill Stein. Please correct this now. 2601:283:8300:A75A:A09E:3229:1D:36B4 ( talk) 03:26, 7 July 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. |
The "Unaffiliated" subsection in the third-party candidate section was recently added without a source for its single candidate, removed, then readded with a source which claimed to demonstrate ballot access, but which only shows the registration of a campaign committee. There is no source currently given for the claim that this candidate has ballot access anywhere. Therefore, the entire section should be removed. 64.105.98.115 ( talk) 23:16, 7 July 2016 (UTC)
Someone deleted everything in the Green Party section. 2601:640:4080:5960:D528:3270:B717:97F9 ( talk) 01:46, 10 July 2016 (UTC)
Well they must've undeleted it, because the green party section is there now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Romandave ( talk • contribs) 01:55, 11 July 2016 (UTC)
Shouldn't HRC's home state be listed as Arkansas? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Remsense ( talk • contribs) 03:29, 12 July 2016 (UTC)
Pending official campaign announcement, it appears as if Jill Stein has qualified for the Georgia ballot: http://onlineathens.com/mobile/2016-07-12/green-party-candidate-stein-qualifies-georgia-ballot-ware-filing-write-candidate . 2601:283:8300:A75A:F975:1B35:C1D6:90F5 ( talk) 01:57, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
I follow minor party ballot access pretty closely and just wanted to point out to the regular editors of this page that there is a significant possibility that one or more additional parties could achieve ballot access to 270 electoral college votes. Specifically if either the Constitution Party nominee gets cross nominated by the Independent American Party in California or the Party for Socialism and Liberation Nominee gets cross nominated by the Peace and Freedom Party, each could potentially reach 270 ballot access. This isn't a pressing issue, but I just wanted to bring it up since if it does happen it would require changes to the infobox coding and layout of the page. XavierGreen ( talk) 18:42, 13 July 2016 (UTC)
John McCain was never considered as running mate for Trump, but instead Sen. Bob Corker (R-TN) can be added to the list. -- 217.110.69.30 ( talk) 11:08, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Is there a reason there is a gallery for the Democratic Vice Presidential potential picks, and not for the Republican? Calibrador ( talk) 19:24, 5 July 2016 (UTC)
Hey guys, The Hill just posted an article saying that Mike Pence has been selected as Trump's running mate, shoul we put it on the info box?-- Angelgfg12345 ( talk) ( Angelgfg12345 ( talk) 17:06, 14 July 2016 (UTC)).
I propose that we order the "Other third parties and independents" section by the number of electoral college vote they have access to, rather than alphabetical order as it currently is. Who is in agreement? -- Proud User ( talk) 16:52, 14 July 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. |
I want to make the presumptive text in Donald Trump's entry link to [1]
24.102.72.189 ( talk) 21:17, 16 July 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. |
Section 4.2 Green Party, Ballot access:
take out Deleware, change 339 to 336
see http://www.jill2016.com/ballot_access
174.22.242.183 ( talk) 04:24, 17 July 2016 (UTC)
Sanders did not suspend his campaign, in his speech he said he'll go all the way to November, but offered to withdrawl from the race. He is keeping his promise as to going all the way to convention. As this article says, he does not officially drop out of the race, but supports Clinton. It's like the case for Kreml and Jill Stein in the Green Party primaries. He's still a candidate, but endorses Stein. Sanders endorses Clinton to defeat Trump, but is still in the race. -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 18:34, 12 July 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. |
Trump just won the vote at the RNC so he's no longer presumptive.
96.244.230.204 ( talk) 23:14, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, Trump isn't officially nominee until he accepts it, something that hasn't happened yet so I find it controversial to list him as officially nominee of the Republican party for President of the United States, and thus I think it shouldn't be displayed on Wikipedia since it isn't confirmed and he hasn't accepted the nomination yet. I'm not from the United States but ABC News says this: Trump will not officially become the Republican Party's nominee for president until he accepts the nomination, which is slated to occur as part of his speech on Thursday night, according to the RNC counsel's office. It's like a marriage: You need an "I do" from both sides to become the nominee. The Republican convention will offer the nomination when the delegates vote, and Trump needs to accept it. ( SOURCE) What are your opinions? Thanks! Itsyoungrapper ( talk) 23:27, 19 July 2016 (UTC)
The 45th and 48th president of the United States...what? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.112.57.124 ( talk) 16:54, 21 July 2016 (UTC)
Should we remove the list of prospective running mates for Clinton, until her actual previous shortlist comes out? The media speculation was just that, and they were, in my opinion, quite baseless. The predictions were made without any insider information, so...
I think they should be kept until Clinton comes out at the convention with a few more on Kaine, or doesn't. Should it be changed?
Rep.donsman456 ( talk) 14:55, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I know that we have discussed a lot about Trump's photo, but I would like to propose you another one. What do you think about this image?
Thank you. -- Nick.mon ( talk) 22:18, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
Can we change the image for Gary Johnson to this one from a better angle. Perhaps crop it a little at the top? -- Bensin ( talk) 01:37, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
Is this a good picture to replace the hunched over the podium glancing off to the side one currently being used.
ShadowDragon343 ( talk) 16:45, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
But it's not consistent... have you looked at the other three pictures? Take five seconds and do a google image search. 68.110.99.8 ( talk) 18:59, 24 July 2016 (UTC)
So when Trump confirms officially that Pence as his VP and that Weld is the official VP for LP. Can we format running mates like this under the header Running mate on the party ticket header?
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Mike Pence | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
50th
Governor of Indiana (since 2013) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[1] |
William Weld | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
68th
Governor of Massachusetts (1991–1997) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[2][3] |
Good? Bad? Your thoughts Thoughts? -- TDKR Chicago 101 ( talk) 18:45, 15 July 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Donald Trump | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chairman of
The Trump Organization (1971–present) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Campaign | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() ![]() Running mate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[1] [2] [3] |
Gary Johnson | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
29th Governor of New Mexico (1995–2003) | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Campaign | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
![]() Running mate | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
[4] [5]{{center| |
![]() | |
Donald Trump / Mike Pence | |
---|---|
![]() President CEO of The Trump Organization |
![]() Vice President Gov. of Indiana |
Campaign [6] [7] [8] |
Gary Johnson / William Weld | |
---|---|
![]() President Fmr. Gov. of New Mexico |
![]() Vice President Fmr. Gov. of Massachusetts |
Campaign [9] [10] |
References
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
In the section of withdrawn Republican candidates, Bobby Jindal is shown to be still governor of Louisiana, even though his term ended in 2016 when John Bel Edwards took office.
74.129.50.194 ( talk) 04:15, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I really don't think they should be in there. Whatever your political position, I think we can agree that they will not be a major player this election. I support including the Libertarians, but the Greens I oppose in the wikibox. If support for them grows, it can be reconsidered, but I don't think they are important enough now. Baconheimian ( talk) 23:21, 23 July 2016 (UTC)
I very much think they should be there. Many Bernie Sanders supporters have flipped to supporting Stein. And donations and social media attention for Jill Stein has exploded. She will be on the ballot in 45-48 states. She definitely deserves to be there until election day. Cax17 ( talk) 22:28, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
A user is making more than one revert per 24 hours:
I also do not believe there was a consensus for that change. -- Proud User ( talk) 17:29, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of bureaucracy, one provision of the 1RR restriction is specifically that "Clear vandalism of whatever origin may be reverted without restriction". You shouldn't be afraid to revert edits that are clearly vandalism; that includes both of the above. 64.105.98.115 ( talk) 02:39, 28 July 2016 (UTC)
Links here and here.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.205.30.34 ( talk • contribs) 17:05, 25 July 2016 (UTC)
I'm not proposing we do this, but has there been any discussion on adding the Constitution Party candidate, Darrell Castle, once he attains ballot access to 270 electoral votes? Cax17 ( talk) 02:35, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi, we haven't discuss Clinton's photo yet, I would like to propose you one. What do you think about this image? Good, bad? thoughts? From my own perspective it looks far more better than the one we have right now.
Thank you. -- User:Angelgfg12345 ( talk) 12:06, 26 July 2016 (UTC)
I think we should move forward on changing it. TexasMan34 ( talk) 04:27, 27 July 2016 (UTC)
What about creating Controversies section or something similar to that which will include alleged Russian hacking, Clinton controversies, Trump controversies etc.? Just a small description of controversial things that happened during the race. Or it can be included in Background category, I think this will be appreciated. Itsyoungrapper ( talk) 15:21, 29 July 2016 (UTC)
Hi All,
As previously suggested, I have moved the Swing states section entirely onto this page. If there are any suggestions for improvement, please feel free to express them. Also with the user's request, the "Pundits' Projections" are now in a new section; however, it does seem like it needs some polishing. If it could be linked to one of the other pages, it may look more professional under a different umbrealla. In addition, I would also like to a stronger or more accurate name for the section regarding the states' ratings. Thank you!
Rhea — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rep.donsman456 ( talk • contribs) 03:20, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
Could whoever keeps adding ballot access without valid sources PLEASE stop? Just because we turn in petitions does NOT mean we have ballot access there. Secretary of State has to announce it. Green Party has NOT gained ballot access in Pennsylvania, Missouri, Nebraska or New Jersey. Those are all pending, unless you can cite the campaign itself or the secretary of state. The New Jersey citations are UNOFFICIAL. Secretary of States can invalidate signatures. Libertarians are NOT on the ballot in Pennsylvania, New York or New Jersey. Blog and c-list news citations do not count - they're just talking about filing petitions. Filing a ton of signatures makes it more likely, but it is not confirmed. Gloria LaRiva, Rocky DeLa Fuente, Monica Moorehead and Darrel Castle also need to have their New Jersey access removed from this page until further confirmed. 2601:283:8300:A75A:4113:9F4F:AFDD:5614 ( talk) 03:51, 3 August 2016 (UTC)
I am proposing to place in a ballot access table for all parties that have access to over 50 electoral votes. Please reply about any ideas or concerns about this. An unfinished prototype is available below to update and edit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WaunaKeegan11 ( talk • contribs) 22:24, August 2, 2016 (UTC)
Democratic Party | Republican Party | Libertarian Party | Green Party | Constitution Party | American Delta Party | America's Party | Reform Party | Party for Socialism and Liberation | American Independent Party | Peace and Freedom Party | Other Parties | |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
States | 50 (and DC) | 50 (and DC) | 39 (NOT DC) | 26 (and DC) | 19 (NOT DC) | 10 (NOT DC) | 2 (NOT DC) | 4 (NOT DC) | 5 (NOT DC) | 1 (and DC) | 1 (NOT DC) | 11 (NOT DC) |
Electoral votes | 538 | 538 | 433 | 409 | 175 | 538 | 538 | 538 | 527 | 503 | 514 | 370 |
% of population (EVs) | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - | - |
Alabama | On ballot | On ballot | In-Progress | In-Progress | In-Progress | In-Progress | In-Progress | In-Progress | In-Progress | In-Progress | In-Progress | In-Progress |
Alaska | ||||||||||||
Arizona | On ballot | |||||||||||
Arkansas | ||||||||||||
California | ||||||||||||
Colorado | ||||||||||||
Connecticut | In-Progress | |||||||||||
Delaware | On ballot | |||||||||||
Florida | ||||||||||||
Georgia | ||||||||||||
Hawaii | ||||||||||||
Idaho | ||||||||||||
Illinois | ||||||||||||
Indiana | ||||||||||||
Iowa | In-Progress | |||||||||||
Kansas | On ballot | |||||||||||
Kentucky | In-Progress | |||||||||||
Louisiana | On ballot | |||||||||||
Maine | ||||||||||||
Maryland | ||||||||||||
Massachusetts | In-Progress | |||||||||||
Michigan | On ballot | |||||||||||
Minnesota | In-Progress | |||||||||||
Mississippi | On ballot | |||||||||||
Missouri | ||||||||||||
Montana | ||||||||||||
Nebraska | ||||||||||||
Nevada | ||||||||||||
New Hampshire | In-Progress | |||||||||||
New Jersey | On ballot | |||||||||||
New Mexico | ||||||||||||
New York | ||||||||||||
North Carolina | ||||||||||||
North Dakota | ||||||||||||
Ohio | In-Progress | |||||||||||
Oklahoma | On ballot | |||||||||||
Oregon | ||||||||||||
Pennsylvania | ||||||||||||
Rhode Island | In-Progress | |||||||||||
South Carolina | On ballot | |||||||||||
South Dakota | ||||||||||||
Tennessee | ||||||||||||
Texas | ||||||||||||
Utah | ||||||||||||
Vermont | ||||||||||||
Virginia | In-Progress | |||||||||||
Washington | ||||||||||||
West Virginia | On ballot | |||||||||||
Wisconsin | ||||||||||||
Wyoming | ||||||||||||
District of Columbia | In-Progress |
References
The table is incorrect as it isn't finished. WaunaKeegan11 ( talk) 15:05, 4 August 2016 (UTC)
What are the sources on the current Libertarian ballot access map? Because the official LP site still has only 36 states listed and several of the states currently on the article map (Pennsylvania, New York, among others) are not on the official party map. 50.27.101.171 ( talk) 15:52, 5 August 2016 (UTC)
I do believe we should reverse that edit, which made Trump first. He is generally losing in the polling averages, as well as the betting and prediction markets! And, besides, some on the other page's discussion forum had decided that incumbency would determine the order as a tie-breaker, until the real results came out.
Thanks for your consideration! 24.246.89.125 ( talk) 15:08, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Set first image or Title Image to a generic Election of 2016 Title Image. When you search in google "When is the next election", currently first thing you see is picture of Hillary. This to some creates bias and should be reviewed to either show a generic election image or show all up for election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ryanarp ( talk • contribs) 16:53, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
To the best of my knowlege, Google looks for faces in an article and if it finds one, it will show it. Showing a generic image will only clutter the article itself while you will still see Clinton's face on Google. Besides, Wikipedia's purpuse is to build an encyclopedia, not make sure Google results are unbiased. -- Proud User ( talk) 21:35, 6 August 2016 (UTC)
I changed the picture of Trump from the current one to this one but was reverted. The reason is simply to have a different picture from the one we currently have in the Donald Trump page, just like we're using this one for Clinton and not this one. Is there a particular reason to keep using the same picture here and in the Trump article ? I just find a bit dull to use always the same photo. Jean-Jacques Georges ( talk) 19:01, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
The picture that you proposed was rejected, that's the reason why we reverted TexasMan34 ( talk) 21:14, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
I'll go with #2, also. TexasMan34 ( talk) 19:32, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
I support the current image, rather than any of the proposed images, for two reasons: personal preference and WP:NPOV. None of the proposed photos are compatible with WP:NPOV. -- Proud User ( talk) 21:04, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
![]() | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||||||||||
538 members of the Electoral College 270 electoral votes needed to win | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
How about this one?
TexasMan34 ( talk) 04:42, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe Rocky De La Fuente should be removed from candidates. My removing him from the campaign finance table was reverted as he is still listed as a candidate for the American Delta Party. However, this is a party he founded as a vehicle for his own candidacy. [1] He has since registered as a candidate in the 2016 Senate election in Florida. [2] [3] His campaign website is solely focused on the Senate campaign and describes his presidential candidacy in the past tense. He does not appear to be actively campaigning for the presidency. [4] Dbsseven ( talk) 23:30, 2 August 2016 (UTC)
References
![]() | This
edit request to
United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
Rocky De La Fuente is now the nominee of the Reform Party (Source:
http://ballot-access.org/2016/08/09/reform-party-nominates-rocky-de-la-fuente-for-president/).
Please update this article accordingly. Thank you.
2600:1003:B845:32DC:B081:535C:7B0B:DE51 (
talk)
20:51, 9 August 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. |
The Better for America petition in Arkansas has been officially accepted; see http://ballot-access.org/2016/08/10/better-for-america-petition-in-arkansas-is-valid/ . Therefore, please list them in the Other third parties and independents section as having access to six electoral votes. Please note also that they have not declared a Presidential candidate there yet - they will almost certainly nominate Evan McMullin, but this has not yet happened and he should not yet be listed as the candidate. Thank you.
64.105.98.115 (
talk)
03:48, 11 August 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. |
I hate to use an edit request to request a revert, but
this edit which claims to "update" the Libertarian ballot access numbers is pure wishful thinking. Compare it with the Libertarian Party's official ballot access statement
[10] and note that, in particular neither the LP nor the Johnson/Weld ticket yet has access in Ohio
[11]. Therefore, please change this to use the previous count; better yet, use the map found on the Libertarian Party website above, since the older count here also seems to be wishful thinking. Thank you.
64.105.98.115 (
talk)
22:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
This is separate from the above since it isn't a specific request to change one thing to another, but I strongly suggest verifying both the the Libertarian and Green Party ballot access numbers against a good source. The best summary for the greens is at http://www.gp.org/ballotaccess with a similar map at http://www.jill2016.com/ballot_access ; the best one for the LP is https://www.lp.org/2016-presidential-ballot-access-map , and neither of the counts in this article agrees with those. If a state is added here that isn't on one of those maps, a specific source should be provided for it; that is required already but it ought to be enforced. There is way too much wishful thinking in the current numbers. 64.105.98.115 ( talk) 22:49, 11 August 2016 (UTC)
Massachusetts refers to the Green Party as the "Green-Rainbow Party" and should be referred to that way in the Green Party Pages.
It is stated this in both the Green Party of the United States as well as the Green-Rainbow Party Wikipedia pages.
Travis H. O. ( talk) 22:09, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
The #NeverTrump group Better for America (the same group that attempted to recruit Ben Sasse and David French) has just announced Evan McMullin as their chosen candidate. Better for America currently has no ballot access anywhere, so McMullin doesn't currently qualify for a listing on his own merits, but should this candidacy be mentioned in relation to Trump? I'm starting a preemptive discussion, because editors will be adding his name in good faith and a consensus about this will help. So, opinions? 64.105.98.115 ( talk) 16:11, 8 August 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. |
I wish to add or see Evan McMullin added to the list of candidates running for President of the United States. Zorseman ( talk) 17:55, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.
Is linking to a conspiracy theory article in this article appropriate? I really don't think so. I removed it, I was reverted. So a discussion is necessary. Seems so incredibly WP:UNDUE on this article. Remember, this article is going to be viewed millions of times in the next few months. To have that link on here makes it seem like Wikipedia is encouraging these conspiracy theories against a major party candidate. Not only that, it makes it seem like Wikipedia is one sided against one candidate. Completely inappropriate link in my opinion. -- Majora ( talk) 18:39, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
I noticed that there were 2 third party candidates in the main infobox, but when I looked at the pages for previous elections, most of them just had the two candidates (other than the obvious ones like Ross Perot and Ralph Nader).
Will the two added candidates be deleted once the election is over (assuming they don't have any significant effect on the results)? Or have they already met the same criteria for inclusion that Nader and Perot have met? Nikki Lee 1999 ( talk) 19:32, 7 August 2016 (UTC)
I have heard around that candidates will be allowed in the infobox if they achieve over 5% of the popular vote.
Ghoul flesh
talk
03:57, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
It is justifiable to include former candidates in the boxes for the Libertarian and Green Parties since they both have enough ballot access to theoretically win the election and former candidates may run again in four years. The edits already exist for both parties with candidates being included. All that would be necessary is reverting their deletions. Computermichael ( talk) 16:42, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
I believe there should be a cutoff on who gets featured on the main page, otherwise 20 candidates with access in only state will be listed. WaunaKeegan11 ( talk) 03:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)