This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
It needs to be noted somewhere in the competitive districts section that NC's 13th Congressional district may be considered competitive. North Carolina redrew its congressional map earlier this year and the new district has not be assigned a Cook PVI yet, but from the new map makes it appear to be one of the most competitive districts in North Carolina. For reference, it contains the cities of Salisbury, Statesville and Winston Salem; all Democratic areas which will moderate the otherwise Republican tint of the district. Additionally, there is no incumbency advantage because no current Congressmen live in the district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.167.197 ( talk) 04:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The "seats needed" part on the front is misleading. Boehner doesn't need 30 seats -- he has the majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:2C00:43B:8D23:53E1:A275:92D7 ( talk) 23:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
After visiting Real Clear Politics's homepage following a revamp, it no longer has any sort links to ratings for elections, thus strongly implying that they will no longer be doing any sort of prognostication for future elections. Should RCP's section on ratings table be removed based on this? Fuelsaver ( talk) 16:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
No, Macraesam17 ( talk) 08:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Should article give indication of when/whether there are deadlines for announcing candidacy? crandles ( talk) 18:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Does this map take into account third party and independent candidates? What about write-in candidates? I don't expect any of those three categories of candidates to win a race in 2016, but I think the description of this map should clarify whether or not these kinds of candidates have been taken into account. I asked this question on the map's talk page question as well. Orser67 ( talk) 19:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
*I believe this should be removed until the general election is over in November. It adds little value now and is confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenderBlur ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
This map doesn't make sense to add right now. With all races having the opportunity to be contested with Write-In candidates, or independents, which are on different filing deadlines often, this could be false information and thus it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenderBlur ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I want to ensure that we're not muddling the page with 'redlinks' since many of these candidates will not be relevant after the primary. However, there are many bad links on this page, it would be great to fix them together. TenderBlur —Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I hope you will all finish updating the full results soon. Sorry I'm not able to help at this time! Academic Challenger ( talk) 20:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear users, where is the result table? Where is turnout data? It is the end of December already! Olek Bokhan ( talk) 20:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I placed the term (Presumed) at the bottom of the infobox, above Paul Ryan's name. The Speaker isn't elected (or re-elected) until the full House votes, in January 2017. GoodDay ( talk) 17:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
a disjoint cartogram should be used: in the map you use, the tens of millions of people in LA NY etc are barely visible this sort of map psychologically gives an edge to the party that holds the sparsely populated western states, which this year is the GOP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 ( talk) 17:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Maps should be shown in a way that is easily understandable for most viewers, cartograms can be hard to understand for some. Macraesam17 ( talk) 08:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
But I understand the point raised here, but if a user wants this information, they can look further on in The California results for example Macraesam17 ( talk) 08:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Is it necessary to include this note for districts with new members? None of the other pages fore previous elections include it and the fact that the section already notes that the incumbents for this districts are retiring/defeated for reelection/not renominated already indicates that winner is a new member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.81.6 ( talk) 19:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
What has happened to the colours of the map, why aren't they the same as the 2014, 2012, 2010 elections and before. They used to be and why have they changed? Macraesam17 ( talk) 08:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States House of Representatives elections, 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The full results table varies significantly from the source (the current link is broken, but you can find it here: [1]). See page 84 of the 2016 PDF. Even the figures for the minor parties are off. What gives? If we're presenting the results in a different way than the source, this needs to be explained. The only explanation given, "does not include blank and over/under votes", does not explain the discrepancies. -- J. E. C. E. ( talk) 15:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@ John M Wolfson: You posted that this page was {{ very long}}. So I trimmed some of it, but still it's not much shorter. However, I now realize that a lot of the page is just references. In fact, 47% of the page is references alone. ( See this demonstration on my own sandbox.) How can it be trimmed without removing vital references? — GoldRingChip 01:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
{{r|1|2|3}}
It seems the issue has come up again. Personally, I think all the election pages should be consistent in format. 67.173.23.66 ( talk) 19:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Onetwothreeip: - You redirected another editor to the talk page to start a discussion revolving around the inclusion of the election results on the page. Personally, I think that not including them is absolutely ridiculous, and your "summary" format is inadequate, but you seem to think otherwise. Also, literally every other elections page includes it in the format, and so if you want to remove the results, you should do so for all of the other articles, instead of just this one. -- Politicsfan4 ( talk) 02:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Not to dig up the past debate on whether the tables should've been kept or not, but dear lord the new formatting was written in the least efficient way possible. I've tried to restore some order by properly formatting the hatnotes (which saves data space) and using the USHR templates for districts (which again saves space), but honestly I'm not sure it's even worth it.-- Woko Sapien ( talk) 20:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, since there's been a fair bit of edit warring going on here, I've deciding to show everyone what it would look like if "skinny" tables were restored. These tables use less data because they:
Please let me know what everyone thinks. Hopefully, this compromise could satisfy both sides and stop any future edit wars. -- Woko Sapien ( talk) 17:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
It needs to be noted somewhere in the competitive districts section that NC's 13th Congressional district may be considered competitive. North Carolina redrew its congressional map earlier this year and the new district has not be assigned a Cook PVI yet, but from the new map makes it appear to be one of the most competitive districts in North Carolina. For reference, it contains the cities of Salisbury, Statesville and Winston Salem; all Democratic areas which will moderate the otherwise Republican tint of the district. Additionally, there is no incumbency advantage because no current Congressmen live in the district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.178.167.197 ( talk) 04:43, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
The "seats needed" part on the front is misleading. Boehner doesn't need 30 seats -- he has the majority. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:A:2C00:43B:8D23:53E1:A275:92D7 ( talk) 23:53, 3 April 2015 (UTC)
After visiting Real Clear Politics's homepage following a revamp, it no longer has any sort links to ratings for elections, thus strongly implying that they will no longer be doing any sort of prognostication for future elections. Should RCP's section on ratings table be removed based on this? Fuelsaver ( talk) 16:10, 19 October 2015 (UTC)
No, Macraesam17 ( talk) 08:52, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Should article give indication of when/whether there are deadlines for announcing candidacy? crandles ( talk) 18:15, 12 May 2016 (UTC)
Does this map take into account third party and independent candidates? What about write-in candidates? I don't expect any of those three categories of candidates to win a race in 2016, but I think the description of this map should clarify whether or not these kinds of candidates have been taken into account. I asked this question on the map's talk page question as well. Orser67 ( talk) 19:08, 18 May 2016 (UTC)
*I believe this should be removed until the general election is over in November. It adds little value now and is confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenderBlur ( talk • contribs) 15:08, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
This map doesn't make sense to add right now. With all races having the opportunity to be contested with Write-In candidates, or independents, which are on different filing deadlines often, this could be false information and thus it should be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TenderBlur ( talk • contribs) 17:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)
I want to ensure that we're not muddling the page with 'redlinks' since many of these candidates will not be relevant after the primary. However, there are many bad links on this page, it would be great to fix them together. TenderBlur —Preceding undated comment added 16:16, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
I hope you will all finish updating the full results soon. Sorry I'm not able to help at this time! Academic Challenger ( talk) 20:27, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear users, where is the result table? Where is turnout data? It is the end of December already! Olek Bokhan ( talk) 20:01, 28 December 2016 (UTC)
I placed the term (Presumed) at the bottom of the infobox, above Paul Ryan's name. The Speaker isn't elected (or re-elected) until the full House votes, in January 2017. GoodDay ( talk) 17:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
a disjoint cartogram should be used: in the map you use, the tens of millions of people in LA NY etc are barely visible this sort of map psychologically gives an edge to the party that holds the sparsely populated western states, which this year is the GOP — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.245.17.105 ( talk) 17:43, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
Maps should be shown in a way that is easily understandable for most viewers, cartograms can be hard to understand for some. Macraesam17 ( talk) 08:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
But I understand the point raised here, but if a user wants this information, they can look further on in The California results for example Macraesam17 ( talk) 08:53, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Is it necessary to include this note for districts with new members? None of the other pages fore previous elections include it and the fact that the section already notes that the incumbents for this districts are retiring/defeated for reelection/not renominated already indicates that winner is a new member. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 147.126.81.6 ( talk) 19:11, 5 December 2016 (UTC)
What has happened to the colours of the map, why aren't they the same as the 2014, 2012, 2010 elections and before. They used to be and why have they changed? Macraesam17 ( talk) 08:54, 5 October 2017 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on United States House of Representatives elections, 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: 18 January 2022).
Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot ( Report bug) 10:16, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
The full results table varies significantly from the source (the current link is broken, but you can find it here: [1]). See page 84 of the 2016 PDF. Even the figures for the minor parties are off. What gives? If we're presenting the results in a different way than the source, this needs to be explained. The only explanation given, "does not include blank and over/under votes", does not explain the discrepancies. -- J. E. C. E. ( talk) 15:40, 31 May 2018 (UTC)
@ John M Wolfson: You posted that this page was {{ very long}}. So I trimmed some of it, but still it's not much shorter. However, I now realize that a lot of the page is just references. In fact, 47% of the page is references alone. ( See this demonstration on my own sandbox.) How can it be trimmed without removing vital references? — GoldRingChip 01:35, 8 June 2019 (UTC)
{{r|1|2|3}}
It seems the issue has come up again. Personally, I think all the election pages should be consistent in format. 67.173.23.66 ( talk) 19:01, 6 February 2021 (UTC)
@ Onetwothreeip: - You redirected another editor to the talk page to start a discussion revolving around the inclusion of the election results on the page. Personally, I think that not including them is absolutely ridiculous, and your "summary" format is inadequate, but you seem to think otherwise. Also, literally every other elections page includes it in the format, and so if you want to remove the results, you should do so for all of the other articles, instead of just this one. -- Politicsfan4 ( talk) 02:21, 7 February 2021 (UTC)
Not to dig up the past debate on whether the tables should've been kept or not, but dear lord the new formatting was written in the least efficient way possible. I've tried to restore some order by properly formatting the hatnotes (which saves data space) and using the USHR templates for districts (which again saves space), but honestly I'm not sure it's even worth it.-- Woko Sapien ( talk) 20:57, 24 March 2021 (UTC)
Okay, since there's been a fair bit of edit warring going on here, I've deciding to show everyone what it would look like if "skinny" tables were restored. These tables use less data because they:
Please let me know what everyone thinks. Hopefully, this compromise could satisfy both sides and stop any future edit wars. -- Woko Sapien ( talk) 17:58, 25 March 2021 (UTC)