This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted from this draft on 16 November 2022 by reviewer Robert McClenon ( talk · contribs). U.S. Congress This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) events(s). Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles Politics: American This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force.

This is something I have noticed on all other election pages, not just for the U.S., the "leader since" section has apparently been removed, what exactly was the point of this happening? Zedonathin2020 ( talk) 15:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC) reply

This was discussed here and here, and implemented here. 5 editors wanted it removed for various reasons, and no one expressed support for keeping it. Cilidus ( talk) 04:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC) reply

Hello, everyone.
I noticed that, after the House map with retirements was updated to include Porter's retirement, Carol Miller's district in WV was incorrectly marked to indicate Alex Mooney's retirement. I'm not very well versed in editing Wikipedia election maps, so if someone could fix that mistake, that would be much appreciated. PrusBis6187 ( talk) 17:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Good catch! To piggyback off of this, can someone please tell me where I can go to learn how to make Wikipedia election, county and precinct maps? Thank you! C. W. Edward ( talk) 06:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC) reply

This might be a good place to start: https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginaryelections/comments/lfw079/comment/gmr39ar/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 PrusBis6187 ( talk) 04:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC) reply

Should an incumbent or potential candidate saying they are planning to run be considered as being a declared candidate? As of the writing of this question, the status of Wiley Nickel, NC-13, is marked as running. The source given states that he is planning to run, not that he has declared that he is running. Please let me know if this question has already been discussed elsewhere at some point. C. W. Edward ( talk) 06:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Planning to run shouldn't be the same as running. Przemysl15 ( talk) 07:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC) reply

Hello, everyone.
When it has come to the wikitables in US House, Senate, and governor election pages, party switches for politicians in the electoral history or "first elected" columns are usually indicated with simply insets or notes to say that they changed their party affiliation during their tenure. For example, see Jeff Van Drew for NJ-2 from this page (bolded):

However, it feels as though party switches and general affiliation changes are common enough on election wikitables that having to use an inset each time is a bit awkward to do. As such, I am proposing that party switches be changed to a similar style to how nonconsecutive periods of service are indicated (for example, see Kweisi Mfume):

Returning to the example of Jeff Van Drew, this rendered for party switches could look like this:

Or, for examples of people who had longer periods of service, here's what they could look like:

Thank you for your consideration, and I hope that this proposal will ultimately be implemented. PrusBis6187 ( talk) 22:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC) reply

This is late but support. ~ Politicdude ( About me, talk, contribs) 16:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC) reply

This is also late, but I like the idea. However, is there a way to clear the ambiguity between the year the member switched parties and when they were re-elected? In the Amash example, the box could be read as if he was re-elected in 2019 and 2020 under the Independent and Libertaraian banners respectively. Thms7 ( talk) 15:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

Hello, everyone.
After the Supreme Court's ruling this morning that will now require Alabama to redraw its congressional map with a second black district, the state was grayed out on the 2024 US House map. However, Ohio and North Carolina's maps are still shown on the map, even though it is an absolute certainty that neither of those maps will be used for the 2024 elections; NC's map, as a court-drawn map, was only going to be in place for the 2022 elections, and OH's map would have been in place for 2024, but it was struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court.
With all this in mind, seeing as Alabama has now been grayed out, should NC and OH be grayed out as well? Thank you! PrusBis6187 ( talk) 03:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC) reply

To Whom It May Concern:

Hello, my name is James Speaker, an Independent Write-In Candidate in New York's 26th Congressional District. I've officially filed with the FEC, and have had some coverage regarding my filing. I'd like to request that my name please be added to the declared candidates list, please? If any questions or concerns, I can be contacted at speakerforcongress@ gmail.com. Thank you for your time and assistance. 67.222.113.10 ( talk) 11:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC) reply

Kevin McCarthy’s removal as Speaker of the House of Representatives will more than likely be a major talking point in the upcoming election as well the events following his removal. I feel there should be at the very least some mention of his removal and the subsequent speaker election fight. McCarthy’s removal and the events preceding and following his removal will definitely be a contentious topic amongst House Republicans going into 2024 and will more than likely have an effect on the elections Phx3216 ( talk) 01:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I absolutely agree with you, however, although it probably will be a major issue in the election, predicting this would likely be considered "Original Research", when you need a "Reliable Source" to verify information to put on Wikipedia. Yakko Walter ( talk) 23:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Dean Phillips is running for President and can easily dropout and run for house. People like Doug Burgum haven't been marked as retiring so I don't see why he should be marked as retiring. Errora 404 ( talk) 19:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC) reply

• Anyone running for another office could drop out and run for re-election. By that logic, the people running for U.S. Senate shouldn't be listed either. Phillips says he's running to win, and if he stayed in until the convention then it would be too late to run for re-election. He should be listed under the retirements. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 17:14, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  With US Senate they can't run for re election after they lose a primary but Phillips can't run until the actual primaries for Minnesota. Burgum has also been labelled as not retiring. Errora 404 ( talk) 17:50, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  In 2008, Joe Biden simultaneously ran for Senate and Vice President, as did Joe Lieberman in 2000. Phillips could absolutely run for both offices if he were to become the Presidential nominee. Besides, his campaign told the Diamond Eye Candidate Report he would be running. (Side note, based on how fast you update Wikipedia with Diamond Eye as a source I’m pretty sure that’s your site) Hotpotato1234567890 ( talk) 17:59, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  "'Regarding the question of running for multiple offices at once, the answer is no,' says Ben Petok, a spokesman for the Minnesota Secretary of State’s Office. 'The short answer is it’s not ever OK to run for multiple offices at the same time,' Petok said. 'Under state law you cannot run for multiple offices in the same election,' even if one is a state office and one is a federal office." BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 20:11, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  Fair enough! Hotpotato1234567890 ( talk) 20:21, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

  Exactly. Delaware, like a handful of states, has a law that exempts its own politicians to allow them to concurrently run for the presidency and another office at the same time. Or at least, it had this law in 2008. New Jersey similarly had such a law active in 2020, which allowed Cory Booker to run even though his Senate term was also up. But most states, including Minnesota, do not allow this. TransTheftAuto ( talk) 06:57, 18 November 2023 (UTC) reply

  By that logic, Doug Burgum should be marked as retiring on the 2024 United States gubernatorial elections page. He currently is not. If that's the standard then it should be consistent across pages.

  I would also note that this was NOT the standard used in 2020. Check out this link: https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections&oldid=904388072. It's the 2020 United States House of Representatives elections page from July 1, 2019. At this time, Tulsi Gabbard, Tim Ryan, Seth Moulton and Eric Swalwell all were sitting members of Congress running in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. None of them were listed as retiring.

  Another example: The 2020 United States Senate elections page on July 1, 2019 ( https://en.wikipedia.org/?title=2020_United_States_Senate_elections&oldid=904388779). Cory Booker, who was running for President at this time, was not marked as retiring on this page.

  In other words, Phillips on this page is the ONLY time that a member of Congress running for President, who has not specifically said they are retiring from Congress, has been listed as retiring. In my opinion, we should follow precedent and remove him from the retirement list. Kevingates4462 ( talk) 22:29, 28 October 2023 (UTC) reply

I made edits before looking at change log but Granger is essentially announcing her retirement. The source cites 'Well placed' news articles and therefore although anonymity around these articles, it provides a source. Errora 404 ( talk) 07:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Would like to bring your attention back to him and reply to a comment made in the previous post. Errora 404 ( talk) 12:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC) reply

I still believe he should be removed from the retirement list for the reasons I stated in the previous thread. I'll leave it up to other editors to decide if they agree. Kevingates4462 ( talk) 03:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC) reply

With regards to the status of 2020 candidates which you raised, they were each running in states that allow candidates to simultaneously run for Congress and the Presidency or where the law is unclear-- Hawaii (Gabbard), Ohio (Ryan), Massachussetts (Moulton), New Jersey (Booker), and California (Swalwell). See: https://ballotpedia.org/Running_for_U.S._Congress_and_the_presidency_simultaneously. Conversely, Phillips is running in a state that does not allow this, which means that as long as he is running for President, he is not running for reelection and is essentially 'retiring'. If he drops out of the Presidential race, then the page can be updated at that time to indicate that he is no longer retiring, but for the time being I agree with @ BottleOfChocolateMilk that he should be listed as retiring since he is currently not seeking reelection. Wildfire35 ( talk) 03:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

What about Doug Burgum. He hasn't been listed as retiring Errora 404 ( talk) 19:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Can we now consider the matter settled? Phillips' own local paper has independently verified he will not run for reelection. If we exclude him on the list because he "may change his mind" then there's no point in having a retirement list at all, as anyone can change their mind up to their state's filing deadline. TransTheftAuto ( talk) 18:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Yes, it’s now settled. I will say I believe the fact that he made this announcement validates the opinion that he should not have been included originally. But now that he has officially announced retirement, of course he belongs on the list Kevingates4462 ( talk) 19:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC) reply

Higgins has announced his resignation is February 2024. Please add a special election action box. Errora 404 ( talk) 18:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC) reply

These two districts are new districts have no incumbent, therefore should be marked as new districts, just like CA-3 or NC-13 last election, just to name a few. Errora 404 ( talk) 08:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC) reply

No reply will be perceived as a agreement Errora 404 ( talk) 14:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The former speaker is resigning as a representative, at the end of 2023. That means going into 2024, there'll be at most 220 Republican members. Therefore, we shouldn't be having 221 in the infobox. GoodDay ( talk) 01:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Won't there be a special election to fill the seat in early 2024? –  Muboshgu ( talk) 01:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

One that could easily be won by a person of another political party. GoodDay ( talk) 02:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Not in that district. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 02:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

We won't know until then, so best to be accurate that starting in 2024 & until the special election is held? The Republican seat count (if there's no other changes) will be 220, due to the vacancy. GoodDay ( talk) 02:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

We know that Republicans currently have 221 seats. That will go down to 220 when McCarthy resigns. It will then ( most likely) return to 221 when the special election concludes. Other deaths and resignations happening before the November 2024 elections cannot be foreseen. –  Muboshgu ( talk) 02:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Fine, will do it your way & wait until McCarthy's resignation takes effect. GoodDay ( talk) 03:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC) reply

All of them have reelection websites (except Espailat, who doesn’t apparently need one) and all of them are requesting money, at least according to my SPAM filter. Please fix this. Xxxxx

1 ^[1] 2 ^[2] 4 ^[3] 5 ^[4] 6 ^[5] 7 ^[6] 8 ^[7] 9 ^[8] 10 ^[9] 11 ^[10] 13 ^[11] 15 ^[12] 16 ^[13] 17 ^[14] 18 ^[15] 19 ^[16] 20 ^[17] 21 ^[18] 22 ^[19] 23 ^[20] 24 ^[21] 25 ^[22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.11.67 ( talk) 12:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC) -- 64.18.11.65 ( talk) 14:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC) reply

A federal judge today upheld the new congressional map in Georgia that was passed by the state legislature in a special session on November 29. Is anyone working on updating the map with the new GA map? Here's a link to what it looks like (I don't know if anyone's made a shapefile or SVG of it yet): https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1740461060803707366 PrusBis6187 ( talk) 21:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply

I'm confused as to why on the district map CO-3 is listed as "Vacant". Yes Boebert is moving to a new district but she is still the representative for CO-3 even if she isn't running there. TheFellaVB ( talk) 09:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

It's not really saying the seat is vacant, just that there is no incumbent running in the election. Normally, open seats occur due to retirements, in which case the incumbent's name could be kept with the current district and the incumbent status box simply grayed out with the label "Incumbent retiring." However, because Boebert is instead running for reelection in a different district, she is listed under that district and, thus, can't be listed under the 3rd district. A similar case would be with redistricting (e.g. Alabama in 2024), where two incumbents would be drawn into the same district, leaving one of the incumbent's seats as an open seat without an incumbent up for the election. Simply put, CO-3 is listed as having no incumbent for the 2024 election because, as of the election, it is an open seat due to its incumbent running in another district, rather than simply retiring. Hope this helps. PrusBis6187 ( talk) 19:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC) reply

If Wiley Nickel and Jeff Jackson's seats are shown as retiring why is Manning's seat shown as grey. All three represent (in old districts) parts of the new districts hence there should be consistency. Dashing24 ( talk) 18:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC) reply

From what I can tell, Manning was bunked into the same district as Virginia Foxx, leaving the 6th district as an open seat. Thus, even though Manning is retiring, it was within the 5th, rather than 6th, district. PrusBis6187 ( talk) 23:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The Republican Party's chances of holding its slender house majority have been considered weak,[3] in part due to the 118th United States Congress being among the least productive since the 72nd Congress of 1931 to 1933.[4]

Can someone explain why this is here? The first source cites a quote that says the republicans will hold a two seat majority after the new year which is obviously wrong because they currently have a 7 seat majority. The second one on the other hand talks about how congress has a low approval rating but that includes the democrat controlled senate. The article also does not state anything that would suggest what is stated in the article; congress has hovered around a 15 percent approval rating since 2010. Opinion polling has also shown that the republicans are likely to retain its majority.

Louisiana's new map has been signed into law. Can this page be updated? 140.194.40.42 ( talk) 20:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I think the reason it hasn't been updated yet is because there's still some legal stuff that has to take place now that the state legislature passed a new map. In addition, given how the map was drawn, there may be a possibility of it being rejected by the courts. PrusBis6187 ( talk) 22:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I think we should still add it, because for now, the map is the law of the land. Many things could hypothetically happen, but we don’t wait to see if they do NathanBru ( talk) 17:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC) reply

User:PrusBis6187 initiated WP:BRD from my bold edit of changing the color shading for Independent politicians. As in my edit summary, my contention is there is nothing distinguishing an American independent politician vs. an international independent politician, it's simply someone who does not identify with a political party, so there is no reason for there to be a separate color, much less a whole suite of color templates for American independents in a slightly different shade of gray. I'd love to see these all removed, so I am starting that process. Nevermore27 ( talk) 16:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

• This is not the place to have this discussion. That gray color is used on *all* US election pages, not just this one. In order to change that procedure, you'd need an RfC at a place like Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums or Wikipedia:Village pump (proposals). BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 22:09, 30 January 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Errora 404 I'm not sure what you meant in your edit summary, but it was not called for. There clearly has not been a discussion and there definitely has not been a consensus, as evidenced by the fact that two different people reverted this edit. Please seek consensus before making this edit. WMSR ( talk) 19:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

I'd suggest any responses be directed here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Template:Party shading/Independent (US) (just an FYI). Talthiel ( talk) 19:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

This article currently has a post‐expand include size of 1975856/2097152 bytes, which is at the limit. It either needs to be trimmed, simplified, or split. – Jonesey95 ( talk) 16:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC) reply

• Nope. BottleOfChocolateMilk ( talk) 19:01, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

As filing deadlines and primaries pass, this article will become a lot smaller. This happens every election cycle. Hotpotato1234567890 ( talk) 19:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

There is a strong chance that many races could become rematches of previous years (although, of course, not yet certain). Would it be worth adding a secton on race remataches if that becomes applicable, or adding it to a spearate, linked page (such as with the current "election ratings" section)? Thms7 ( talk) 16:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC) reply

I understand the need for this section, but I think it is a bit bloated. I think that having a table with all the information is too much, especially because most of the maps will not be changed. The "change in partisanship" section I feel is particularly wonky because the numbers it provides are not directly sourced. Alabama and Louisiana's changes are pretty obvious, but I swear I've seen the New York part change 2 or 3 times in the past few days. This falls too much into trying to be a crystal ball, especially considering the elections haven't happened yet. I'm going to make some changes to it, and if you disagree with them, let's talk about it here. OutlawRun ( talk) 22:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think the "change in partisanship" section is basing changes to districts in regards to past results, so for example if a district voted for Biden under its former shape but now voted for Trump in its present one, that would be a loss of one Democratic seat, I think, so I could be wrong @ OutlawRun Talthiel ( talk) 20:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The problem I have with it is how ill-defined it is. What are we counting as "competitive" and what are we counting as leaning towards one party? It's not stated in the article nor do I think all the numbers are cited, considering how many times the NY numbers changed. I also don't think we need to detail every state that didn't end up having their maps change. I think it bloats the article way too much to have it in there. OutlawRun ( talk) 00:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I definitely agree on the 2nd part. The article is already bloated as it is, and I think for now you could remove the states from the chart which didn't redistrict this cycle, just not the whole chart. Talthiel ( talk) 02:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

I think we should be able to do like double digit for any is D and less is competetive. Also even if the districts don't change there was still litigation resolved concerning the matter, that should be kept. Errora 404 ( talk) 19:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

So firstly, I agree that litigation that actually went through should be kept, I do not believe it serves value to have the chart, and article, be filled with unnecessary information regarding "unresolved" redistricting, as it does not add any new information. But secondly, I also think there should be a standard devised for deciding whether a D/C/R seat was gained, lost, or maintained before we go about editing that chart in or out since as @ OutlawRun pointed out that it is not entirely consistent on whether a district "changed" its partisanship, such as in New York. @ Errora 404. Talthiel ( talk) 19:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC) reply

There seems to be a problem with figuring out the intent of incumbents’ intentions on running for reelection for some reason. Here’s the deal with that: First of all. ALL incumbents are running for reelection unless otherwise announced. Many retire, yes, but those who will replace them need to know right away, and with the notable exception of Senator Menendez, ALL of them announce their retirements well in advance of the primary out of curtesy. This is a tradition that has been going on since the 18th century.

Take New York, for instance: We are halfway through the petitioning period. ALL incumbents are running for another term because, ALL are petitioning and raising money. But Some administrators refuse to believe this, as local political organizations (clubs), or campaign sites, or major social media are somehow ‘unreliable.’ The simple fact is, is that when it comes to incumbents in uncompetitive districts, campaigns are for the most part barely existent and not covered by “reliable” media. Take the 13th Congressional district in New York. Several clubs have endorsed Congressman Espellot (sic) and no one is running against him. Yet, according to Wikipedia, his intent is still “unknown.” Why is this? Were the clubs that endorsed him and are currently collecting signatures that have to be turned in in 2 1/2 weeks LYING about it? No. They aren’t.

Also, if someone files paperwork, that means they’re running. Period. Please, don’t mislead the readership about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.231.109 ( talk) 12:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC) reply

• https://indbrooklyn.org/endorsements/
• https://www.villagedemocrats.org/endorsements
• https://www.didnyc.org/endorsement_jun_2024_primary
• https://www.westsidedemocrats.com/2024-endorsements
• https://www.threeparksdems.org/Endorsements/Endorsements2.html
• http://www.broadwaydemocrats.org/endorsements.html
• https://www.tapinto.net/towns/hoboken/sections/elections/articles/hoboken-dems-endorse-bhalla-for-congress-lament-undemocratic-process-of-hcdo

64.18.11.70 ( talk) 10:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ Errora 404 I think it might be helpful to read this and discuss things without just reverting someone's edits. Not part of the editing, just noticed the person whose edits you keep reverting talked about it here. Talthiel ( talk) 15:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC) reply

According to https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/8/50/4/b

"A vacancy in that office occurring between the 2nd Tuesday in April and the 2nd Tuesday in May in the year of the general election shall be filled at the partisan primary and general election."

These dates are April 9 to May 14. Gallagher is resigning April 19. Therefore, a special election will be held concurrent with the general. Hotpotato1234567890 ( talk) 22:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC) reply

The sentence before this states that vacancies before the 9th would be filled by a special election, but those after are filled by a general, with no mention of a concurrent special election. All reporting to this point has said that there will be no special election and that the seat won't be filled until January 2025. It is not our place to preempt this. OutlawRun ( talk) 03:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC) reply

saying “the vacancy shall be filled” means that a special election will be held. the concurrent general election wouldn’t be filling the vacancy, simply electing a successor to the next Congress Griffindaly ( talk) 04:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

No secondary sources have said that there will be a special election concurrent with the general election, and some have even talked about other Republicans' frustrations with his resignation timing because it won't allow a special election. I doubt this is some kind of mistake or misinterpretation on the media's part, but if it is, it's not our job to correct it. It would get cleared up eventually and we'd report that. As things currently stand, there will be no special election. OutlawRun ( talk) 04:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC) reply

@ OutlawRun I feel like it's a good idea to have that for his reason given in his announcement to run for State AG it came only after his district was wiped, so one can assume that had his district not been wiped, he could have announced another run for Congress, but that part is entirely speculatory on my part. Talthiel ( talk) 20:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC) reply

For about a month, I have been trying to remove disinformation about the New York race. The way it works in NY is that between February 26 and April 4th, candidates for reelection are required to collect 1200 signatures (they usually try to get twice that many to avoid challenges) in order to qualify for a ballot spot. If there are no other candidates qualified, the primary is cancelled.

The way I have been doing this is to add references to local club endorsements and more recently the ActBlue aggrogator. The NY Democratic Party’s lowest rung are local semi-independent clubs, who, during this process, actively go out and gather signatures on petitions. Candidates solicit these endorsements for obvious reasons. Now the thing is, is that someone at WIKIPEDIA thinks that the announcements are somehow unreliable and that the candidates being petitioned for aren’t really RUNNING, so their intentions are UNKNOWN. This is total BS, and refusing to allow these references to be used is spreading disinformation.

What i just did, by removing Jeffies’ and Johnson’s pictures from the top, is that if they’re NOT really RUNNING, then why are they up there? It is NOT Vandalism. If you want to put up their pictures back up, fine, but DON’T LIE ABOUT THEIR CANDIDACIES. 13:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.224.198 ( talk)

Ben Frasier withdrew from the South Carolina Congressional District 1 US House race.

Source: "Candidate Listing". SCVotes. 2024. Retrieved April 2, 2024.

ProfessorKaiFlai ( talk) 15:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC) reply

The source for Gian Jones is about Kevin Thomas. EvanJ35 ( talk) 18:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Sources can have multiple candidates Errora 404 ( talk) 03:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC) reply

California 20 and Ohio 6 both have special elections with two candidates, and the same two candidates in the general election. California 20 says "incumbent renominated," but Ohio 6 says "incumbent to be determined." Both are true for both districts, and I think it should say the same thing for both, and maybe say both for both districts. I am assuming that the difference is because California 20 has an election between two Republicans, and Ohio 6 has an election between a Democrat and a Republican, but I do not think that should matter because in both districts the incumbent will be somebody who was already renominated. EvanJ35 ( talk) 16:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Florida requires their write-in candidates for congressional races to be registered and qualified. Should they be included on the list? https://dos.elections.myflorida.com/candidates/CanList.asp TheRealJackMarshall ( talk) 00:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC) reply