![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on December 15, 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
can someone include information about the constitutionality of faithless elector laws? and if someone were to be punished or fined, that it could be challenged against the original intent of the constitution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.72.196 ( talk) 11:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I have removed from the opening sentences two supposed names for this effort, for which I could find no source actually using those terms. It is frequent that people feel that a Wikipedia article has to start with a title of sorts in the first sentence, but if you read through MOS:BOLDTITLE, that's not the case. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 03:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( non-admin closure) Regards, -- Frmorrison ( talk) 15:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The title of the article and the article itself repeatedly refer to this as a "revolt", without a clear source. This seems to me to fail in our goal to have a neutral point of view at least, and can reasonably be seen as failing accuracy altogether. A revolution is an attempt to overthrow power that is in place. Trump is not the president of the United States. The electors would not be warring against the government, they would be doing their appointed role in the selection of the next president. Can I get some support for moving this to simply Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016, and removing the word "revolt" from the text unless it is quoted or at least cited? -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 03:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. As for deletion, consensus is currently against that as well, and even if it weren't, RM isn't the correct place to discuss that. ( non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 →
2016 United States Electoral College – Both more succinct and more commodious.
kencf0618 (
talk) 06:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
The RNC is stating that they are fairly confident that Republican electors (except for Suprun) will vote for Trump, according to this piece. Not sure how to work that into here. 331dot ( talk) 13:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the article makes it sound as if the RNC or Trump's team threatening reprisals is unusual, or a form of coercion. Are editors aware that these electors all took pledges? And that the laws of 29 states and DC threaten electors who violate their pledges with legal reprisals? And that these laws have been found constitutional by SCOTUS?
Srnec (
talk) 14:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Aside from the guy in Texas, one Democratic elector in Maine has said they will vote for Bernie Sanders. [1]. I think the faithless votes (which will likely be few) should be listed here(either just the votes or the people making them too). 331dot ( talk) 12:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
1. Are electoral college votes secret? 2. If they are secret, how did Colorado officials know which elector to replace? Thorbecke2012 ( talk) 02:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The following is written: "In Texas, at least two electors were faithless". Now if I understand it correctly, it should be either two or three. If so should it not be clearer to write something like "In Texas, either two electors or three electors were faithless". It now seems as if the number of faithless electors could have been much higher. Am I correct? AntonHogervorst ( talk) 20:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Faith Spotted Eagle's wiki page is written with her surname being Spotted Eagle, not Eagle. Which is correct? Spotted Eagle seems more likely to be the correct form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.50.155 ( talk) 15:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
As we don't know if either of the faithless electors in Texas who voted John Kasich and Ron Paul for president, voted for Carly Fiorina for vice president. It's possible that 8 electors voted. GoodDay ( talk) 07:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I have found one source (the Austin American-Statesman newspaper's website: Statesman.com) that states that Christopher Suprun voted for Carly Fiorina and William Greene voted for Pence, without ambiguity. On the other hand, while I find any number of sites that state only that Carly Fiorina received one vote for Vice President without mentioning who voted for her, they make no statements regarding why the elector isn't identified. [1] Terr1959 ( talk) 20:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The contention that Barry Bernie Sanders was the first Jewish person to receive an electoral vote has been removed from the page, first based on the contention that 1964 Republican nominee Barry Goldwater was Jewish (Goldwater's father was Jewish, but he identified as Episcopalian), and then based on the contention that Sanders "doesn't count as Jewish either; he is not religiously Jewish". Sanders is certainly not a Christian, so he's the first of something to receive an electoral vote. How should this be reflected in the article?
bd2412
T 14:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Best to clarify what kind of electoral vote Sanders got. There's been 2 Jews (for example) who've gotten electoral votes for Vice President. Nathan got 1 EV in 1972, wile Lieberman got 266 EV in 2000. GoodDay ( talk) 00:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
References
I removed this line from the article because the source is now out of date: electors have been replaced in accordance with state law. It is equally true that these laws have not been challenged, and now that they have been applied that is the more notable fact. It is not routine for laws to be "vetted" by courts and it has no bearing on what the law is. The line was restored, but it is still a POV attempt to cast doubt on laws that have been on the books for decades and have now been applied without any fuss. Unless somebody is aware of a challenge to the Republican secretary of state of Colorado's replacement of a Clinton-pledged elector who tried to vote for somebody else? Srnec ( talk) 13:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
" Faith Spotted Eagle and Winona LaDuke (for Vice President) became the first and second Native Americans to have electoral votes cast in their names."
Since Greeley was dead by the time the 1872 Electoral College voted, would not the 63 electors pledged to him voting instead for living alternatives, be technically 'not faithless'? GoodDay ( talk) 02:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
In 1836, all 23 Virgina electors abstained in the vote for vice president, the only time that faithless electors moved the decision outside of the electoral college. As per Faithless electors, "The loss of Virginia's support caused Johnson to fall one electoral vote short of a majority, causing the vice presidential election to be thrown into the U.S. Senate for the only time in American history." Unscintillating ( talk) 16:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
With three semicolons, this is definitely a run-on. It really needs to be changed and replaced in order to flow better, and it's very hard to decipher from one reading what it means, IMHO. Comments? Suggestions? Thank you. BETTERmaid ( talk) 00:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Mdewman6: You reverted my edit, saying that the information shouldn't be in the lede. I disagreed with deleting the information, and put it back, requesting you to put it somewhere else if you want. But then you reverted that, saying I can't revert a reversion! But you just did that -- you reverted my reversion. I don't agree with the idea that you can just revert something, and then force the person who did that edit to discuss on the talk page. I know from experience that these discussions on talk pages usually don't come to a consensus, so whoever did the reversion wins! I don't see why you can't do as I asked and put the information somewhere else in the article if that's what you think. But now you have changed your argument and you're saying that it's not "encyclopedic" and that the information is found elsewhere. No it's not! That's why I added it! If you don't think it's "encyclopedic" (whatever that means), then rewrite it in a better way! I don't see why you force your will like this. Please Ping me. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 09:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)
![]() | This article was nominated for deletion on December 15, 2016. The result of the discussion was keep. |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
can someone include information about the constitutionality of faithless elector laws? and if someone were to be punished or fined, that it could be challenged against the original intent of the constitution? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.138.72.196 ( talk) 11:52, 9 December 2016 (UTC)
I have removed from the opening sentences two supposed names for this effort, for which I could find no source actually using those terms. It is frequent that people feel that a Wikipedia article has to start with a title of sorts in the first sentence, but if you read through MOS:BOLDTITLE, that's not the case. -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 03:05, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: moved. ( non-admin closure) Regards, -- Frmorrison ( talk) 15:15, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The title of the article and the article itself repeatedly refer to this as a "revolt", without a clear source. This seems to me to fail in our goal to have a neutral point of view at least, and can reasonably be seen as failing accuracy altogether. A revolution is an attempt to overthrow power that is in place. Trump is not the president of the United States. The electors would not be warring against the government, they would be doing their appointed role in the selection of the next president. Can I get some support for moving this to simply Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016, and removing the word "revolt" from the text unless it is quoted or at least cited? -- Nat Gertler ( talk) 03:55, 12 December 2016 (UTC)
The result of the move request was: not moved. As for deletion, consensus is currently against that as well, and even if it weren't, RM isn't the correct place to discuss that. ( non-admin closure) JudgeRM (talk to me) 16:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016 →
2016 United States Electoral College – Both more succinct and more commodious.
kencf0618 (
talk) 06:25, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
The RNC is stating that they are fairly confident that Republican electors (except for Suprun) will vote for Trump, according to this piece. Not sure how to work that into here. 331dot ( talk) 13:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)
Currently, the article makes it sound as if the RNC or Trump's team threatening reprisals is unusual, or a form of coercion. Are editors aware that these electors all took pledges? And that the laws of 29 states and DC threaten electors who violate their pledges with legal reprisals? And that these laws have been found constitutional by SCOTUS?
Srnec (
talk) 14:26, 14 December 2016 (UTC)
Aside from the guy in Texas, one Democratic elector in Maine has said they will vote for Bernie Sanders. [1]. I think the faithless votes (which will likely be few) should be listed here(either just the votes or the people making them too). 331dot ( talk) 12:12, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
1. Are electoral college votes secret? 2. If they are secret, how did Colorado officials know which elector to replace? Thorbecke2012 ( talk) 02:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
The following is written: "In Texas, at least two electors were faithless". Now if I understand it correctly, it should be either two or three. If so should it not be clearer to write something like "In Texas, either two electors or three electors were faithless". It now seems as if the number of faithless electors could have been much higher. Am I correct? AntonHogervorst ( talk) 20:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
Faith Spotted Eagle's wiki page is written with her surname being Spotted Eagle, not Eagle. Which is correct? Spotted Eagle seems more likely to be the correct form. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.102.50.155 ( talk) 15:43, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
As we don't know if either of the faithless electors in Texas who voted John Kasich and Ron Paul for president, voted for Carly Fiorina for vice president. It's possible that 8 electors voted. GoodDay ( talk) 07:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
I have found one source (the Austin American-Statesman newspaper's website: Statesman.com) that states that Christopher Suprun voted for Carly Fiorina and William Greene voted for Pence, without ambiguity. On the other hand, while I find any number of sites that state only that Carly Fiorina received one vote for Vice President without mentioning who voted for her, they make no statements regarding why the elector isn't identified. [1] Terr1959 ( talk) 20:37, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
The contention that Barry Bernie Sanders was the first Jewish person to receive an electoral vote has been removed from the page, first based on the contention that 1964 Republican nominee Barry Goldwater was Jewish (Goldwater's father was Jewish, but he identified as Episcopalian), and then based on the contention that Sanders "doesn't count as Jewish either; he is not religiously Jewish". Sanders is certainly not a Christian, so he's the first of something to receive an electoral vote. How should this be reflected in the article?
bd2412
T 14:18, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
Best to clarify what kind of electoral vote Sanders got. There's been 2 Jews (for example) who've gotten electoral votes for Vice President. Nathan got 1 EV in 1972, wile Lieberman got 266 EV in 2000. GoodDay ( talk) 00:02, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
References
I removed this line from the article because the source is now out of date: electors have been replaced in accordance with state law. It is equally true that these laws have not been challenged, and now that they have been applied that is the more notable fact. It is not routine for laws to be "vetted" by courts and it has no bearing on what the law is. The line was restored, but it is still a POV attempt to cast doubt on laws that have been on the books for decades and have now been applied without any fuss. Unless somebody is aware of a challenge to the Republican secretary of state of Colorado's replacement of a Clinton-pledged elector who tried to vote for somebody else? Srnec ( talk) 13:47, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
" Faith Spotted Eagle and Winona LaDuke (for Vice President) became the first and second Native Americans to have electoral votes cast in their names."
Since Greeley was dead by the time the 1872 Electoral College voted, would not the 63 electors pledged to him voting instead for living alternatives, be technically 'not faithless'? GoodDay ( talk) 02:05, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
In 1836, all 23 Virgina electors abstained in the vote for vice president, the only time that faithless electors moved the decision outside of the electoral college. As per Faithless electors, "The loss of Virginia's support caused Johnson to fall one electoral vote short of a majority, causing the vice presidential election to be thrown into the U.S. Senate for the only time in American history." Unscintillating ( talk) 16:25, 29 December 2016 (UTC)
With three semicolons, this is definitely a run-on. It really needs to be changed and replaced in order to flow better, and it's very hard to decipher from one reading what it means, IMHO. Comments? Suggestions? Thank you. BETTERmaid ( talk) 00:33, 12 March 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Faithless electors in the United States presidential election, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018.
After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than
regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors
have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the
RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{
source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 20:18, 27 September 2017 (UTC)
@ Mdewman6: You reverted my edit, saying that the information shouldn't be in the lede. I disagreed with deleting the information, and put it back, requesting you to put it somewhere else if you want. But then you reverted that, saying I can't revert a reversion! But you just did that -- you reverted my reversion. I don't agree with the idea that you can just revert something, and then force the person who did that edit to discuss on the talk page. I know from experience that these discussions on talk pages usually don't come to a consensus, so whoever did the reversion wins! I don't see why you can't do as I asked and put the information somewhere else in the article if that's what you think. But now you have changed your argument and you're saying that it's not "encyclopedic" and that the information is found elsewhere. No it's not! That's why I added it! If you don't think it's "encyclopedic" (whatever that means), then rewrite it in a better way! I don't see why you force your will like this. Please Ping me. Eric Kvaalen ( talk) 09:05, 14 November 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 12:55, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. — Community Tech bot ( talk) 13:07, 17 April 2022 (UTC)