This article was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As the 2012 election gets closer, it would make sense to keep a list of all the candidates who have filed officially with the FEC across the country. 24.13.227.191 ( talk) 05:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please change the color scheme in the election results map back to how it was during the 2006-2010 elections? I think it looks better the other way and it is consistent with previous election result maps. Thank you! Mailman903 ( talk) 20:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Though the 2012 elections for the House of Representatives is still two years away from now, I think now might be a good time to address issues regarding how the Race Ratings table should be created in regard to redistricting and reapportionment. If two incumbents of the same party are drawn into a single district, I believe that the color in the incumbent space should be colored as that of the incumbents, but should be classified as "(open)" (see EX-1 in chart below). If two incumbents of two differing parties run against each other in the same district or there is a race in a new district where no incumbent is running, then I believe it should be uncolored and classified as "(open)" (EX-2). If an incumbent runs in a district numbered differently than the one he or she currently represents, then I believe that the incumbent's name, party and color should be placed in the incumbent column, but should be placed in the row of the newly numbered district he or she is running in (EX-3). I have created an example chart below in case if anyone did not understand what I have typed above. What do you think of my proposal? Fuelsaver ( talk) 19:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
District | Incumbent | Cook | Rothenberg | CQ Politics | Crystal Ball | RealClear |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EX-1 | (Open) | |||||
EX-2 | (Open) | |||||
EX-3 | Smith (R) |
Eventhough though the new districts for the 2012-2020 elections haven't been drawn yet, the Cook Political Report has already made ratings for the upcoming cycle. Should a Table section be created now or should it be delayed until the districts have been finalized? I have already created a chart should everyone decide to include it in the article now. Cells that are blank indicate that there is currently no rating for that particular race yet. Also, where it states "(Open)" indicates new seats to be created for states as a result of the 2010 census. So what are your thoughts? Fuelsaver ( talk) 22:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
District | Incumbent | Cook [1] | Rothenberg [2] | Roll Call [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] | Crystal Ball [12] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
AZ-1 | (Open) | Tossup | Leans D | Tossup | Leans D |
AZ-2 | (Open) | Tossup | Pure Tossup | Tossup | Tossup |
AZ-9 | (Open) | Lean D | Safe D | Tossup | Leans D |
AR-1 | Crawford (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Leans R | Likely R |
AR-4 | (Ross) (D) | Likely R | Safe R | Likely R | Likely R |
CA-3 | Garamendi (D) | Lean D | Leans D | Leans D | Likely D |
CA-7 | Lungren (R) | Tossup | Pure Tossup | Tossup | Tossup |
CA-9 | McNerney (D) | Lean D | D Favored | Leans D | Leans D |
CA-10 | Denham (R) | Lean R | Leans R | Leans R | Leans R |
CA-16 | Costa (D) | Likely D | Safe D | Likely D | Likely D |
CA-21 | (Open) | Lean R | Leans R | Tossup | Leans R |
CA-24 | Capps (D) | Likely D | Leans D | Leans D | Leans D |
CA-26 | (Gallegly) (R) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts R | Tossup | Tossup |
CA-31 | G. Miller (R) | Tossup | Leans D | Tossup | Leans D |
CA-36 | Bono Mack (R) | Likely R | R Favored | Likely R | Likely R |
CA-41 | (Open) | Lean D | D Favored | Leans D | Leans D |
CA-47 | (Open) | Likely D | D Favored | Leans D | Leans D |
CA-52 | Bilbray (R) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts R | Tossup | Tossup |
CO-3 | Tipton (R) | Lean R | Tossup/Tilts R | Tossup | Leans R |
CO-6 | Coffman (R) | Tossup | Pure Tossup | Leans R | Leans R |
CO-7 | Perlmutter (D) | Safe D | Safe D | Likely D | Safe D |
CT-5 | (C. Murphy) (D) | Likely D | D Favored | Likely D | Likely D |
FL-2 | Southerland (R) | Likely R | Leans R | Leans R | Likely R |
FL-9 | (Open) | Tossup | Leans D | Likely D | Leans D |
FL-10 | Webster (R) | Likely R | R Favored | Likely R | Likely R |
FL-13 | Young (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Safe R | Safe R |
FL-16 | Buchanan (R) | Likely R | R Favored | Likely R | Likely R |
FL-18 | West (R) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts R | Leans R | Leans R |
FL-22 | (Open) | Tossup | Leans D | Leans D | Leans D |
FL-26 | Rivera (R) | Lean R | Leans R | Leans R | Leans R |
GA-12 | Barrow (D) | Lean R | Leans R | Tossup | Leans R |
HI-1 | Hanabusa (D) | Safe D | Safe D | Likely D | Safe D |
IL-8 | Walsh (R) | Likely D | D Favored | Likely D | Likely D |
IL-10 | Dold (R) | Lean D | Leans D | Leans D | Leans D |
IL-11 | Biggert (R) | Tossup | Pure Tossup | Tossup | Leans D |
IL-12 | (Costello) (D) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts R | Leans D | Tossup |
IL-13 | (T. Johnson) (R) | Lean R | Tossup/Tilts R | Leans R | Leans R |
IL-17 | Schilling (R) | Tossup | Leans D | Leans D | Leans D |
IN-2 | (Donnelly) (D) | Lean R | R Favored | Leans R | Leans R |
IN-8 | Bucshon (R) | Likely R | R Favored | Likely R | Likely R |
IA-1 | Braley (D) | Likely D | Safe D | Safe D | Likely D |
IA-2 | Loebsack (D) | Likely D | Safe D | Likely D | Likely D |
IA-3 | Boswell (D)/Latham (R) | Tossup | Pure Tossup | Leans R | Leans R |
IA-4 | King (R) | Lean R | Leans R | Leans R | Leans R |
KY-6 | Chandler (D) | Likely D | D Favored | Leans D | Leans D |
ME-2 | Michaud (D) | Likely D | D Favored | Likely D | Likely D |
MD-6 | Bartlett (R) | Likely D | D Favored | Leans D | Leans D |
MA-6 | Tierney (D) | Lean D | Leans D | Leans D | Leans D |
MI-1 | Benishek (R) | Lean R | Leans R | Leans R | Leans R |
MI-3 | Amash (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Safe R | Likely R |
MI-7 | Walberg (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Likely R | Likely R |
MI-11 | (McCotter) (R) | Likely R | Tossup/Tilts R | Safe R | Likely R |
MN-1 | Walz (D) | Solid D | Safe D | Likely D | Likely D |
MN-2 | Kline (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Likely R | Likely R |
MN-3 | Paulsen (R) | Solid R | Safe R | Safe R | Likely R |
MN-7 | Peterson (D) | Solid D | Safe D | Likely D | Likely D |
MN-8 | Cravaack (R) | Tossup | Pure Tossup | Tossup | Tossup |
MT-AL | (Rehberg) (R) | Likely R | R Favored | Likely R | Leans R |
NV-3 | Heck (R) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts R | Tossup | Tossup |
NV-4 | (Open) | Likely D | Leans D | Safe D | Likely D |
NH-1 | Guinta (R) | Lean R | Leans R | N/A | Tossup |
NH-2 | Bass (R) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts D | N/A | Tossup |
NJ-3 | Runyan (R) | Lean R | Leans R | Leans R | Likely R |
NJ-5 | Garrett (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Likely R | Safe R |
NM-1 | (Heinrich) (D) | Likely D | Safe D | Likely D | Likely D |
NY-1 | Bishop (D) | Lean D | Pure Tossup | Leans D | Leans D |
NY-11 | Grimm (R) | Lean R | Tossup/Tilts R | Likely R | Likely R |
NY-17 | Lowey (D) | Solid D | Safe D | Likely D | Safe D |
NY-18 | Hayworth (R) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts R | Tossup | Tossup |
NY-19 | Gibson (R) | Tossup | Pure Tossup | Tossup | Leans R |
NY-21 | Owens (D) | Lean D | Pure Tossup | Tossup | Leans D |
NY-22 | Hanna (R) | Likely R | R Favored | Likely R | Leans R |
NY-23 | Reed (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Safe R | Safe R |
NY-24 | Buerkle (R) | Lean D | Tossup/Tilts D | Tossup | Leans D |
NY-25 | Slaughter (D) | Lean D | D Favored | Leans D | Leans D |
NY-27 | Hochul (D) | Tossup | Pure Tossup | Tossup | Leans R |
NC-7 | McIntyre (D) | Tossup | Leans R | Leans R | Leans R |
NC-8 | Kissell (D) | Lean R | R Favored | Likely R | Leans R |
NC-11 | (Shuler) (D) | Likely R | R Favored | Likely R | Likely R |
NC-13 | (B. Miller) (D) | Likely R | Safe R | Safe R | Safe R |
ND-AL | (Berg) (R) | Likely R | R Favored | Likely R | Likely R |
OH-6 | B. Johnson (R) | Lean R | Leans R | Leans | Leans R |
OH-7 | Gibbs (R) | Likely R | Leans R | Likely R | Likely R |
OH-16 | Sutton (D)/Renacci (R) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts R | Tossup | Tossup |
OK-2 | (Boren) (D) | Lean R | R Favored | Leans R | Leans R |
PA-6 | Gerlach (R) | Likely R | R Favored | Likely R | Likely R |
PA-7 | Meehan (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Likely R | Likely R |
PA-8 | Fitzpatrick (R) | Lean R | Tossup/Tilts R | Leans R | Leans R |
PA-12 | (Altmire) (D)/Critz (D) | Tossup | Pure Tossup | Tossup | Tossup |
PA-18 | T. Murphy (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Likely R | Safe R |
RI-1 | Cicilline (D) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts D | Tossup | Tossup |
SC-7 | (Open) | Likely R | Safe R | Likely R | Safe R |
TX-14 | (Paul) (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Likely R | Safe R |
TX-23 | Canseco (R) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts R | Tossup | Tossup |
UT-4 | Matheson (D) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts R | Tossup | Tossup |
VA-2 | Rigell (R) | Likely R | Leans R | Leans R | Likely R |
VA-11 | Connolly (D) | Solid D | Safe D | Safe D | Likely D |
WA-1 | (Open) | Lean D | Tossup/Tilts D | Tossup | Leans D |
WA-6 | (Dicks) (D) | Likely D | Safe D | Likely D | Safe D |
WA-10 | (Open) | Likely D | Safe D | Likely D | Likely D |
WV-3 | Rahall (D) | Likely D | Safe D | Likely D | Likely D |
WI-7 | Duffy (R) | Lean R | Leans R | Leans R | Leans R |
WI-8 | Ribble (R) | Lean R | R Favored | Leans R | Leans R |
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
Why format the losing incumbents in '''bold'''?— GoldRingChip 15:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not familiar enough with the table formats to make them link to at-large district pages. For Alaska it doesn't matter because using "1" for the congressional district redirects to the at large district. Montana doesn't do this though, so it needs to be corrected by someone who knows how. Rxguy ( talk) 04:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Please use the links to earlier elections that go to the individual states' election. It will then redirect to the general national election.
The problem is that they don't all redirect and adding #Massachusetts takes the page directly to that state's results. Isn't that better than simply linking the the general election? Rxguy ( talk) 16:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you need to list every single previous election year? We know elections are held every other year, there is no need to repeatedly link to every election since the incumbent's first. This is just silly, also because most of those before 2006 are redirects to the national article. Talk about clutter, the year elected is enough. Reywas92 Talk 13:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
New district lines have been finalized in every state but Kansas (see here). And at least six prognosticators have issued ratings: Cook, Rothenberg, The Hill, Sabato, Roll Call, and Daily Kos Elections. (I am the editor of the last site on that list. In case that makes me look as though I have a dog in this fight, I'll just say that I have no intention of editing the article. I just think having the ratings table is a good resource, whether or not Daily Kos ratings are included.) Roll Call unfortunately hasn't gathered its ratings in one place (though they should eventually appear here); rather, they are spread across a series of regional articles: Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, Mountain, New England, New York, Plains, South, Southwest, and West. DavidNYC ( talk) 23:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it is time to add the map of the congressional districts around the United States under the pictures of Boehner and Pelsoi, such as this one: File:US Congressional districts.svg Has anyone created the updated one with the 2012 lines? NBA2020 ( talk) 19:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I generally like redlinks, but I think putting all top-two finishers in, say, California in redlinks is premature because a congressional primary win alone is not sufficient for WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN and those who are notable officeholders already have articles. Hekerui ( talk) 18:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be retaining the old predictions as well as the new ones? Otherwise, this becomes less of an encyclopedia, and more like a news website or political website. We need to keep old figures for historical purposes. It will be strange after the elections when just the predictions, which will be almost all correct by then, are left. See, for example, {{ Historical article}}.— GoldRingChip 15:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
By the way, The Hill has new ratings. DavidNYC ( talk) 17:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
How should we list Representative Thaddeus McCotter. He didn't really "retire" and he wasn't "defeated." He failed to make the nomination ballot because too many signatures were fraudulent. Instead of proceeding as a write-in or something else, he gave up. So what do we call it? I don't think we should create a new section just for him, but I can't figure out how to pigeonhole his race. — GoldRingChip 20:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Why are primary battles featuring two incumbents in redistricted areas (AZ6, CA31, IL16, so on) being denoted as <party> loss in the table? These are primary elections, no party has yet won or lost the seat; this kind of wording creates the impression that a seat has already changed party hands. Sher eth 16:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be "special election"? – H T D 04:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Can anybody work on posting results in the next day or so, and editors can use this section to work on the logistics of this; maybe splitting up states or something? I wish I could help with this, but I'm extremely busy; but this Wikipedia article is a source that a lot of people might look to for final results of individual races. Academic Challenger ( talk) 07:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Another problem: Results are now posted, but only by percentage. The actual vote numbers should also be on the page. I would like to get the total vote for all candidates by party, for the whole country and also by state, but this is impossible. This seems to be a common problem; the NY Times site has these numbers but not in such a way that they can be used. Would it be possible to post a spreadsheet? Is this in accordance with Wikipedia policy? Jonrysh ( talk) 16:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The preliminary rapport from OSCE: LIMITED ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION - United States of America – General Elections, 6 November 201.
It is mostly general positive things like: "The 6 November general elections took place in a pluralistic environment and were administered in a professional manner." and "The election campaigns were vibrant and highly competitive." and "Overall, media is pluralistic and diverse and provided voters with a wide range of information and views on candidates, issues, and electoral platforms." and "The overall field of candidates provided voters with a wide degree of choice"
But also comments on voter eligbility: "US citizens who are at least 18 years old on election day and residents of a state were eligible to vote. Some 4.1 million citizens that are residents of US territories were not eligible to vote, while some 600,000 citizens that are residents of the District of Columbia were eligible to vote only for the president. An estimated 5.9 million citizens were disenfranchised due to a criminal conviction, including some 2.6 million citizens who have served their sentences. This is at odds with the principle of universal suffrage and the commitment to ensure proportionality in the restriction of voting rights as enshrined in paragraphs 7.3 and 24 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document."
And alsom comments on voter registration: "Voter registration is implemented at state level through an active system. A number of states launched initiatives to improve the accuracy of their voter lists. Civil society was active in encouraging citizens to register, as well as checking the accuracy of voter registers. Nevertheless an estimated 50 million eligible citizens were not registered to vote, bringing into question the effectiveness of existing measures to ensure that all persons entitled to vote are able to exercise that right."
Read the whole rapport to learn more. Some may be useful in the article Jack Bornholm ( talk) 14:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Just noticed that Oklahoma-2 is shown as a republican hold on the map but it's a republican gain. I can't edit .svg files so I'm just putting it out there for someone who can. Rxguy ( talk) 02:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Just heard someone on TV say that Democrats one the popular vote on the US House of Representatives, but lost the overall election because of gerrymandering... I thought that sounded interesting, so trying to confirm. Did Democrats LOSE seats in this election, or GAIN seats? They would have needed to win 25 seats in order to regain control, right? JDoolin ( talk) 14:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
just a preliminary google search...
Kevin Baas talk 15:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
more...
Kevin Baas talk 17:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The "Results summary" table is way too complicated. Make it simple as in the pages about UK elections. Like "seats before election", "unseated", "gained", "net +/-", "Seats after election". Based on notional results after redistricting (Brits compute that at every election so it IS feasible and anyway in the US you have to do that only once per decade) rather than previous election results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DogTwo ( talk • contribs) 07:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The equivalent article on the 2012 Senate election shows the net gain (2) in the first section. This article should as well--after reading through it, I'm still not sure what the Dems net gain was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.124.21 ( talk) 15:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
There ISN'T any DEM net gain. And what's with this IMMEDIATE EXCUSE making "because of re-districting' after your acknowledgement that republicans continue to DOMINATE the House? Liberal envy, much? 99.185.56.156 ( talk) 19:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Jesse Jackson Jr. was re-elected but he has since resigned. The Democrats are left with 200 seats, not 201. The seat is empty until a special election can be held. Should this be reflected in the results? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.158.224.202 ( talk) 05:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I have to say some people are rather lazy and can't be bother looking while Saying "No previous election result article includes bolding" Complete an utter RUBBISH. Please found some Wiki page of US election results which has BOLDING to help.
ALL those pages have the same thing as in this page, Party with the most vote lost out while the party with less votes won... Bolding shall be added back in by the end of the day-- Crazyseiko ( talk) 09:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence in the second paragraph is way too long. To start, I'd like to completely remove the FairVote clause. They may be nonpartisan, but they are certainly an advocacy organization. The citation states "Using its unique methods for analyzing the underlying preferences of voters, FairVote has determined that the Republican Party has a significant structural advantage in U.S. House elections." FairVote's unique methods determine underlying preferences, not votes. Only the number of votes should be compared to the number of seats won by each party.
The last two clauses can be broken off into a new sentence. More importantly, they need citations. They are clearly opinion without citations. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 03:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I've tried to remove the tag in the article suggesting the article be split before mid-december. My edit was undone. The tag arguing for a split was early December. The above section clearly shows a consensus that opposes it, with nothing new added since December 8, 2012. I will undo the tag asking that this article be split. If you undo me, you should have a good reason. If nothing has been added since December 8, then it would take many months to have a few additions to the discussion. I've had to remove tags for discussions that ended years ago before. I will reiterate what I said earlier. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. It's just a fact that an article about an election regarding those seats will be long. The article has been very useful. These types of articles are most likely not usually read from top to bottom. I've used it to quickly search the winner of an election or seat I'm looking up. That's it.-- Joey ( talk) 19:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The article doesn't inform about the turnout. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The choice to illustrate election results with a conventional surface area map, without an accompanying population-weighted map such as this one [4], is unwittingly POV. It gives an erroneous impression by allowing sparsely populated districts to command a disproportionate area of the map, even though such districts have exactly the same representation as densely-populated districts covering much less surface area. Consequently, such a map overstates the electoral result in favor of a party that tends to win sparsely-populated districts, leaving the article out of compliance with WP:NPOV.
If someone can locate such a map without copyright restrictions, it would be good to add it to restore NPOV. (I hope that consensus would agree that the present map is useful, if presented in the context of other maps to show a more accurate distribution of the vote.)
I'm sure this issue has probably been discussed, somewhere, but surprisingly not here that I could find. - Thanks, PhilipR ( talk) 07:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The article notes the undisputed discrepancy between the popular vote (Democrats won overall) and the composition of the new House (Republicans retained their majority). There is, at a minimum, a significant body of opinion holding that the discrepancy was caused in whole or in part by the predominant Republican control of redistricting after the 2010 census, resulting in gerrymandering that produced a net benefit to Republicans. This viewpoint has been wholly scrubbed from the article.
Some information was deleted by this edit. See also numerous sources cited by Kevin Baas above. I'll add this source, which quotes Joe Scarborough -- a former Republican Congressman -- in support of the point: "It was just gerrymandering from 2010 that gave us the majority."
It's ridiculous that the only occurrence of the word "gerrymander" in this article is in the title of one of the sources.
Wikipedia should present all sides fairly. I'm not aware of any respectable POV that says the district lines had no effect on the outcome. There is legitimate dispute about the extent of the effect -- for example, I think the Brennan Center made an estimate of the number of seats swung through gerrymandering and concluded that the Republicans would have held a majority even without it, although with a substantially narrower margin than what they actually have. If there are reliable sources about post-2010 gerrymandering by Democrats, arguing that there was some offset to Republican gerrymandering, that should also be included. Suppressing the entire discussion, however, is not the solution. JamesMLane t c 04:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The NYtimes article you quote still says that the GOP would have won the House 220 to 215 if electoral re-drawing had been fairer GOP would have still won( Coachtripfan ( talk) 19:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC))
The Democrats won slighly more votes in the House than the Republicans - yet the Republicans won more seats. It may seem at first glance this is down to "gerrymandering". However, research would indicate that it is mainly due to the first-past-the-post electoral system in single member constituencies. Put simply the Democrats are piling up massive majorities in their urban seats - whereas the Republicans have their vote more evenly spread out. They have more seats but with fewer massive majorities. Democrats more seats with mega majorities but fewer seats. It's the way votes are distributed. Gerrymandering vs winner takes all voting It should be noted that FairVote wants to abolish single member seats in favour of proportional representation in multi-member seats. ( Coachtripfan ( talk) 19:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC))
Fairvote's analysis stops short of saying how the 2012 election would be split under their preferred method, House under "Fair Votes". They have a model assuming a 50-50 split in the public vote. They suggest 48 out of the 435 seats would be "balanced" ie swing seats which could go either way. It is possible to win the public vote but not a majority of the seats under their multi-member seat system.(From their figures I give the Republicans a 231-204 advantage in the House on a 50-50 split). Like single member seats it's how the votes are distributed.
Under the "fair vote" system though particular states and regions would be less dominated by a particular party as they are under first-past-the-post but the overall result by not be much different.
In short, keeping single member constituencies but having impartial boundary reviews may be fairer for the over-all result than going down the route of multi-member seats. ( Coachtripfan ( talk) 14:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC))
I got a different figure when I did the math.
Using figures from the next-to-the-last page in the referenced pdf file from Haas, Karen L:
59,214,910 votes were cast for Democratic candidates and 57,622,827 votes were cast for Republican candidates.
59,214,910 - 57,622,827 = 1,592,083
1,592,083 more Democratic votes rounds off to 1.6 million.
The percentage is correct, though:
59,214,910 + 57,622,827 = 116,837,737
1,592,083 / 116,837,737 = 0.013626445 which rounds off to 1.4%
Becalmed ( talk) 07:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I modified the section regarding Representatives that retired by adding a third category to the existing "seat held" and "Republican/Democrat gain": Seat Eliminated by Redistricting. When John Olver (D-MA-01) retired, his seat wasn't "gained" by Democrats even though the new MA-01 was won by Democrat Richard Neal (erstwhile incumbent in MA-02); Olver's district was eliminated in redistricting and Neal's new district (which included quite a bit of Olver's old district) was renumbered as the MA-01. Given that MA had 10 districts (all 10 held by Democrats) prior to the 2012 elections and 9 districts (all 9 held by Democrats) following the 2012 elections, one really can't say that the Democrats "held" al 10 districts; one was eliminated by redistricting. The same holds true for the districts formerly held by retired Democrat Maurice Hinchey and retired Republicans David Dreier, Bob Turner and Steve Austria.
I also included as each retired Representative's successor the person who succeeded him or her in the new district that would be deemed to be the successor of the retired Representative's old district, irrespective of numbering. Thus, when Republican Connie Mack IV retired from his (heavily Republican) Cape Coral-Naples-Fort Myers FL-14, his successor was Republican Trey Radel of the renumbered FL-19 located in the same area, not Democratic incumbent Representative Kathy Castor, whose Tampa-St. Pete FL-11 was renumbered as the FL-14 in redistricting. The section on Representatives who retired already listed Mack as a Republican who retired and whose seat was held by the GOP; it was inconsistent (and misleading) to name Democrat Kathy Castor of the new FL-14 as his "successor."
Please let me know if you agree with my changes.
AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 15:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States House of Representatives elections, 2012. 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) 22:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I think that it's best to at least have a secondary expression of the popular vote for this article, and possibly other HoR elections articles, for the races that are effectively uncontested--such as the LA-2 race and various races in California, as well as others. What are your thoughts? Nuke ( talk) 02:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
It's necessary to add a line, "New member elected" when the incumbent retires, dies, resigns, or loses. The seat might not be filled, for example, due to fraud or redistricting. There might be other reasons, as well. (Also an issue at 2010 United States House of Representatives elections.) — GoldRingChip 21:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
District | Incumbent | Results | Candidates | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Location |
2017 PVI |
Representative | Party | First elected | ||
North Carolina 9 | R+8 | Robert Pittenger | Republican | 2012 | Incumbent lost renomination. Results void and new election ordered. [1] Republican loss. |
|
Conversely, I don't think readers would be confused if a non-exceptional election didn't have the "New Member elected" note. I think readers could look at the following example and see that a new member was elected.
District | Incumbent | Results | Candidates | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Location |
2017 PVI |
Representative | Party | First elected | ||
North Dakota at-large | R+16 | Kevin Cramer | Republican | 2012 | Incumbent retired to
run for U.S. Senator. Republican hold. |
|
References
This article was nominated for deletion on 4 November 2010 (UTC). The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
As the 2012 election gets closer, it would make sense to keep a list of all the candidates who have filed officially with the FEC across the country. 24.13.227.191 ( talk) 05:39, 6 August 2011 (UTC)
Can someone please change the color scheme in the election results map back to how it was during the 2006-2010 elections? I think it looks better the other way and it is consistent with previous election result maps. Thank you! Mailman903 ( talk) 20:14, 30 December 2012 (UTC)
Though the 2012 elections for the House of Representatives is still two years away from now, I think now might be a good time to address issues regarding how the Race Ratings table should be created in regard to redistricting and reapportionment. If two incumbents of the same party are drawn into a single district, I believe that the color in the incumbent space should be colored as that of the incumbents, but should be classified as "(open)" (see EX-1 in chart below). If two incumbents of two differing parties run against each other in the same district or there is a race in a new district where no incumbent is running, then I believe it should be uncolored and classified as "(open)" (EX-2). If an incumbent runs in a district numbered differently than the one he or she currently represents, then I believe that the incumbent's name, party and color should be placed in the incumbent column, but should be placed in the row of the newly numbered district he or she is running in (EX-3). I have created an example chart below in case if anyone did not understand what I have typed above. What do you think of my proposal? Fuelsaver ( talk) 19:47, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
District | Incumbent | Cook | Rothenberg | CQ Politics | Crystal Ball | RealClear |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
EX-1 | (Open) | |||||
EX-2 | (Open) | |||||
EX-3 | Smith (R) |
Eventhough though the new districts for the 2012-2020 elections haven't been drawn yet, the Cook Political Report has already made ratings for the upcoming cycle. Should a Table section be created now or should it be delayed until the districts have been finalized? I have already created a chart should everyone decide to include it in the article now. Cells that are blank indicate that there is currently no rating for that particular race yet. Also, where it states "(Open)" indicates new seats to be created for states as a result of the 2010 census. So what are your thoughts? Fuelsaver ( talk) 22:09, 9 December 2010 (UTC)
District | Incumbent | Cook [1] | Rothenberg [2] | Roll Call [3] [4] [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10] [11] | Crystal Ball [12] |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
AZ-1 | (Open) | Tossup | Leans D | Tossup | Leans D |
AZ-2 | (Open) | Tossup | Pure Tossup | Tossup | Tossup |
AZ-9 | (Open) | Lean D | Safe D | Tossup | Leans D |
AR-1 | Crawford (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Leans R | Likely R |
AR-4 | (Ross) (D) | Likely R | Safe R | Likely R | Likely R |
CA-3 | Garamendi (D) | Lean D | Leans D | Leans D | Likely D |
CA-7 | Lungren (R) | Tossup | Pure Tossup | Tossup | Tossup |
CA-9 | McNerney (D) | Lean D | D Favored | Leans D | Leans D |
CA-10 | Denham (R) | Lean R | Leans R | Leans R | Leans R |
CA-16 | Costa (D) | Likely D | Safe D | Likely D | Likely D |
CA-21 | (Open) | Lean R | Leans R | Tossup | Leans R |
CA-24 | Capps (D) | Likely D | Leans D | Leans D | Leans D |
CA-26 | (Gallegly) (R) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts R | Tossup | Tossup |
CA-31 | G. Miller (R) | Tossup | Leans D | Tossup | Leans D |
CA-36 | Bono Mack (R) | Likely R | R Favored | Likely R | Likely R |
CA-41 | (Open) | Lean D | D Favored | Leans D | Leans D |
CA-47 | (Open) | Likely D | D Favored | Leans D | Leans D |
CA-52 | Bilbray (R) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts R | Tossup | Tossup |
CO-3 | Tipton (R) | Lean R | Tossup/Tilts R | Tossup | Leans R |
CO-6 | Coffman (R) | Tossup | Pure Tossup | Leans R | Leans R |
CO-7 | Perlmutter (D) | Safe D | Safe D | Likely D | Safe D |
CT-5 | (C. Murphy) (D) | Likely D | D Favored | Likely D | Likely D |
FL-2 | Southerland (R) | Likely R | Leans R | Leans R | Likely R |
FL-9 | (Open) | Tossup | Leans D | Likely D | Leans D |
FL-10 | Webster (R) | Likely R | R Favored | Likely R | Likely R |
FL-13 | Young (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Safe R | Safe R |
FL-16 | Buchanan (R) | Likely R | R Favored | Likely R | Likely R |
FL-18 | West (R) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts R | Leans R | Leans R |
FL-22 | (Open) | Tossup | Leans D | Leans D | Leans D |
FL-26 | Rivera (R) | Lean R | Leans R | Leans R | Leans R |
GA-12 | Barrow (D) | Lean R | Leans R | Tossup | Leans R |
HI-1 | Hanabusa (D) | Safe D | Safe D | Likely D | Safe D |
IL-8 | Walsh (R) | Likely D | D Favored | Likely D | Likely D |
IL-10 | Dold (R) | Lean D | Leans D | Leans D | Leans D |
IL-11 | Biggert (R) | Tossup | Pure Tossup | Tossup | Leans D |
IL-12 | (Costello) (D) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts R | Leans D | Tossup |
IL-13 | (T. Johnson) (R) | Lean R | Tossup/Tilts R | Leans R | Leans R |
IL-17 | Schilling (R) | Tossup | Leans D | Leans D | Leans D |
IN-2 | (Donnelly) (D) | Lean R | R Favored | Leans R | Leans R |
IN-8 | Bucshon (R) | Likely R | R Favored | Likely R | Likely R |
IA-1 | Braley (D) | Likely D | Safe D | Safe D | Likely D |
IA-2 | Loebsack (D) | Likely D | Safe D | Likely D | Likely D |
IA-3 | Boswell (D)/Latham (R) | Tossup | Pure Tossup | Leans R | Leans R |
IA-4 | King (R) | Lean R | Leans R | Leans R | Leans R |
KY-6 | Chandler (D) | Likely D | D Favored | Leans D | Leans D |
ME-2 | Michaud (D) | Likely D | D Favored | Likely D | Likely D |
MD-6 | Bartlett (R) | Likely D | D Favored | Leans D | Leans D |
MA-6 | Tierney (D) | Lean D | Leans D | Leans D | Leans D |
MI-1 | Benishek (R) | Lean R | Leans R | Leans R | Leans R |
MI-3 | Amash (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Safe R | Likely R |
MI-7 | Walberg (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Likely R | Likely R |
MI-11 | (McCotter) (R) | Likely R | Tossup/Tilts R | Safe R | Likely R |
MN-1 | Walz (D) | Solid D | Safe D | Likely D | Likely D |
MN-2 | Kline (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Likely R | Likely R |
MN-3 | Paulsen (R) | Solid R | Safe R | Safe R | Likely R |
MN-7 | Peterson (D) | Solid D | Safe D | Likely D | Likely D |
MN-8 | Cravaack (R) | Tossup | Pure Tossup | Tossup | Tossup |
MT-AL | (Rehberg) (R) | Likely R | R Favored | Likely R | Leans R |
NV-3 | Heck (R) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts R | Tossup | Tossup |
NV-4 | (Open) | Likely D | Leans D | Safe D | Likely D |
NH-1 | Guinta (R) | Lean R | Leans R | N/A | Tossup |
NH-2 | Bass (R) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts D | N/A | Tossup |
NJ-3 | Runyan (R) | Lean R | Leans R | Leans R | Likely R |
NJ-5 | Garrett (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Likely R | Safe R |
NM-1 | (Heinrich) (D) | Likely D | Safe D | Likely D | Likely D |
NY-1 | Bishop (D) | Lean D | Pure Tossup | Leans D | Leans D |
NY-11 | Grimm (R) | Lean R | Tossup/Tilts R | Likely R | Likely R |
NY-17 | Lowey (D) | Solid D | Safe D | Likely D | Safe D |
NY-18 | Hayworth (R) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts R | Tossup | Tossup |
NY-19 | Gibson (R) | Tossup | Pure Tossup | Tossup | Leans R |
NY-21 | Owens (D) | Lean D | Pure Tossup | Tossup | Leans D |
NY-22 | Hanna (R) | Likely R | R Favored | Likely R | Leans R |
NY-23 | Reed (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Safe R | Safe R |
NY-24 | Buerkle (R) | Lean D | Tossup/Tilts D | Tossup | Leans D |
NY-25 | Slaughter (D) | Lean D | D Favored | Leans D | Leans D |
NY-27 | Hochul (D) | Tossup | Pure Tossup | Tossup | Leans R |
NC-7 | McIntyre (D) | Tossup | Leans R | Leans R | Leans R |
NC-8 | Kissell (D) | Lean R | R Favored | Likely R | Leans R |
NC-11 | (Shuler) (D) | Likely R | R Favored | Likely R | Likely R |
NC-13 | (B. Miller) (D) | Likely R | Safe R | Safe R | Safe R |
ND-AL | (Berg) (R) | Likely R | R Favored | Likely R | Likely R |
OH-6 | B. Johnson (R) | Lean R | Leans R | Leans | Leans R |
OH-7 | Gibbs (R) | Likely R | Leans R | Likely R | Likely R |
OH-16 | Sutton (D)/Renacci (R) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts R | Tossup | Tossup |
OK-2 | (Boren) (D) | Lean R | R Favored | Leans R | Leans R |
PA-6 | Gerlach (R) | Likely R | R Favored | Likely R | Likely R |
PA-7 | Meehan (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Likely R | Likely R |
PA-8 | Fitzpatrick (R) | Lean R | Tossup/Tilts R | Leans R | Leans R |
PA-12 | (Altmire) (D)/Critz (D) | Tossup | Pure Tossup | Tossup | Tossup |
PA-18 | T. Murphy (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Likely R | Safe R |
RI-1 | Cicilline (D) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts D | Tossup | Tossup |
SC-7 | (Open) | Likely R | Safe R | Likely R | Safe R |
TX-14 | (Paul) (R) | Likely R | Safe R | Likely R | Safe R |
TX-23 | Canseco (R) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts R | Tossup | Tossup |
UT-4 | Matheson (D) | Tossup | Tossup/Tilts R | Tossup | Tossup |
VA-2 | Rigell (R) | Likely R | Leans R | Leans R | Likely R |
VA-11 | Connolly (D) | Solid D | Safe D | Safe D | Likely D |
WA-1 | (Open) | Lean D | Tossup/Tilts D | Tossup | Leans D |
WA-6 | (Dicks) (D) | Likely D | Safe D | Likely D | Safe D |
WA-10 | (Open) | Likely D | Safe D | Likely D | Likely D |
WV-3 | Rahall (D) | Likely D | Safe D | Likely D | Likely D |
WI-7 | Duffy (R) | Lean R | Leans R | Leans R | Leans R |
WI-8 | Ribble (R) | Lean R | R Favored | Leans R | Leans R |
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
{{
cite web}}
: Check date values in: |accessdate=
and |date=
(
help)
Why format the losing incumbents in '''bold'''?— GoldRingChip 15:40, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
I am not familiar enough with the table formats to make them link to at-large district pages. For Alaska it doesn't matter because using "1" for the congressional district redirects to the at large district. Montana doesn't do this though, so it needs to be corrected by someone who knows how. Rxguy ( talk) 04:46, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Please use the links to earlier elections that go to the individual states' election. It will then redirect to the general national election.
The problem is that they don't all redirect and adding #Massachusetts takes the page directly to that state's results. Isn't that better than simply linking the the general election? Rxguy ( talk) 16:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Can you please explain why you need to list every single previous election year? We know elections are held every other year, there is no need to repeatedly link to every election since the incumbent's first. This is just silly, also because most of those before 2006 are redirects to the national article. Talk about clutter, the year elected is enough. Reywas92 Talk 13:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)
New district lines have been finalized in every state but Kansas (see here). And at least six prognosticators have issued ratings: Cook, Rothenberg, The Hill, Sabato, Roll Call, and Daily Kos Elections. (I am the editor of the last site on that list. In case that makes me look as though I have a dog in this fight, I'll just say that I have no intention of editing the article. I just think having the ratings table is a good resource, whether or not Daily Kos ratings are included.) Roll Call unfortunately hasn't gathered its ratings in one place (though they should eventually appear here); rather, they are spread across a series of regional articles: Mid-Atlantic, Midwest, Mountain, New England, New York, Plains, South, Southwest, and West. DavidNYC ( talk) 23:40, 17 May 2012 (UTC)
I think it is time to add the map of the congressional districts around the United States under the pictures of Boehner and Pelsoi, such as this one: File:US Congressional districts.svg Has anyone created the updated one with the 2012 lines? NBA2020 ( talk) 19:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
I generally like redlinks, but I think putting all top-two finishers in, say, California in redlinks is premature because a congressional primary win alone is not sufficient for WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN and those who are notable officeholders already have articles. Hekerui ( talk) 18:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't we be retaining the old predictions as well as the new ones? Otherwise, this becomes less of an encyclopedia, and more like a news website or political website. We need to keep old figures for historical purposes. It will be strange after the elections when just the predictions, which will be almost all correct by then, are left. See, for example, {{ Historical article}}.— GoldRingChip 15:00, 21 June 2012 (UTC)
By the way, The Hill has new ratings. DavidNYC ( talk) 17:34, 26 June 2012 (UTC)
How should we list Representative Thaddeus McCotter. He didn't really "retire" and he wasn't "defeated." He failed to make the nomination ballot because too many signatures were fraudulent. Instead of proceeding as a write-in or something else, he gave up. So what do we call it? I don't think we should create a new section just for him, but I can't figure out how to pigeonhole his race. — GoldRingChip 20:03, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
Why are primary battles featuring two incumbents in redistricted areas (AZ6, CA31, IL16, so on) being denoted as <party> loss in the table? These are primary elections, no party has yet won or lost the seat; this kind of wording creates the impression that a seat has already changed party hands. Sher eth 16:57, 19 October 2012 (UTC)
Shouldn't that be "special election"? – H T D 04:26, 7 November 2012 (UTC)
Can anybody work on posting results in the next day or so, and editors can use this section to work on the logistics of this; maybe splitting up states or something? I wish I could help with this, but I'm extremely busy; but this Wikipedia article is a source that a lot of people might look to for final results of individual races. Academic Challenger ( talk) 07:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Another problem: Results are now posted, but only by percentage. The actual vote numbers should also be on the page. I would like to get the total vote for all candidates by party, for the whole country and also by state, but this is impossible. This seems to be a common problem; the NY Times site has these numbers but not in such a way that they can be used. Would it be possible to post a spreadsheet? Is this in accordance with Wikipedia policy? Jonrysh ( talk) 16:14, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
The preliminary rapport from OSCE: LIMITED ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION - United States of America – General Elections, 6 November 201.
It is mostly general positive things like: "The 6 November general elections took place in a pluralistic environment and were administered in a professional manner." and "The election campaigns were vibrant and highly competitive." and "Overall, media is pluralistic and diverse and provided voters with a wide range of information and views on candidates, issues, and electoral platforms." and "The overall field of candidates provided voters with a wide degree of choice"
But also comments on voter eligbility: "US citizens who are at least 18 years old on election day and residents of a state were eligible to vote. Some 4.1 million citizens that are residents of US territories were not eligible to vote, while some 600,000 citizens that are residents of the District of Columbia were eligible to vote only for the president. An estimated 5.9 million citizens were disenfranchised due to a criminal conviction, including some 2.6 million citizens who have served their sentences. This is at odds with the principle of universal suffrage and the commitment to ensure proportionality in the restriction of voting rights as enshrined in paragraphs 7.3 and 24 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document."
And alsom comments on voter registration: "Voter registration is implemented at state level through an active system. A number of states launched initiatives to improve the accuracy of their voter lists. Civil society was active in encouraging citizens to register, as well as checking the accuracy of voter registers. Nevertheless an estimated 50 million eligible citizens were not registered to vote, bringing into question the effectiveness of existing measures to ensure that all persons entitled to vote are able to exercise that right."
Read the whole rapport to learn more. Some may be useful in the article Jack Bornholm ( talk) 14:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)
Just noticed that Oklahoma-2 is shown as a republican hold on the map but it's a republican gain. I can't edit .svg files so I'm just putting it out there for someone who can. Rxguy ( talk) 02:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Just heard someone on TV say that Democrats one the popular vote on the US House of Representatives, but lost the overall election because of gerrymandering... I thought that sounded interesting, so trying to confirm. Did Democrats LOSE seats in this election, or GAIN seats? They would have needed to win 25 seats in order to regain control, right? JDoolin ( talk) 14:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
just a preliminary google search...
Kevin Baas talk 15:52, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
more...
Kevin Baas talk 17:02, 11 November 2012 (UTC)
The "Results summary" table is way too complicated. Make it simple as in the pages about UK elections. Like "seats before election", "unseated", "gained", "net +/-", "Seats after election". Based on notional results after redistricting (Brits compute that at every election so it IS feasible and anyway in the US you have to do that only once per decade) rather than previous election results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by DogTwo ( talk • contribs) 07:30, 8 December 2012 (UTC)
The equivalent article on the 2012 Senate election shows the net gain (2) in the first section. This article should as well--after reading through it, I'm still not sure what the Dems net gain was. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.251.124.21 ( talk) 15:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
There ISN'T any DEM net gain. And what's with this IMMEDIATE EXCUSE making "because of re-districting' after your acknowledgement that republicans continue to DOMINATE the House? Liberal envy, much? 99.185.56.156 ( talk) 19:16, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Jesse Jackson Jr. was re-elected but he has since resigned. The Democrats are left with 200 seats, not 201. The seat is empty until a special election can be held. Should this be reflected in the results? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 222.158.224.202 ( talk) 05:11, 28 November 2012 (UTC)
I have to say some people are rather lazy and can't be bother looking while Saying "No previous election result article includes bolding" Complete an utter RUBBISH. Please found some Wiki page of US election results which has BOLDING to help.
ALL those pages have the same thing as in this page, Party with the most vote lost out while the party with less votes won... Bolding shall be added back in by the end of the day-- Crazyseiko ( talk) 09:54, 15 November 2012 (UTC)
The first sentence in the second paragraph is way too long. To start, I'd like to completely remove the FairVote clause. They may be nonpartisan, but they are certainly an advocacy organization. The citation states "Using its unique methods for analyzing the underlying preferences of voters, FairVote has determined that the Republican Party has a significant structural advantage in U.S. House elections." FairVote's unique methods determine underlying preferences, not votes. Only the number of votes should be compared to the number of seats won by each party.
The last two clauses can be broken off into a new sentence. More importantly, they need citations. They are clearly opinion without citations. Mnnlaxer ( talk) 03:03, 22 November 2012 (UTC)
I've tried to remove the tag in the article suggesting the article be split before mid-december. My edit was undone. The tag arguing for a split was early December. The above section clearly shows a consensus that opposes it, with nothing new added since December 8, 2012. I will undo the tag asking that this article be split. If you undo me, you should have a good reason. If nothing has been added since December 8, then it would take many months to have a few additions to the discussion. I've had to remove tags for discussions that ended years ago before. I will reiterate what I said earlier. There are 435 seats in the United States House of Representatives. It's just a fact that an article about an election regarding those seats will be long. The article has been very useful. These types of articles are most likely not usually read from top to bottom. I've used it to quickly search the winner of an election or seat I'm looking up. That's it.-- Joey ( talk) 19:51, 1 January 2013 (UTC)
The article doesn't inform about the turnout. -- Piotr Konieczny aka Prokonsul Piotrus| reply here 21:37, 12 January 2013 (UTC)
The choice to illustrate election results with a conventional surface area map, without an accompanying population-weighted map such as this one [4], is unwittingly POV. It gives an erroneous impression by allowing sparsely populated districts to command a disproportionate area of the map, even though such districts have exactly the same representation as densely-populated districts covering much less surface area. Consequently, such a map overstates the electoral result in favor of a party that tends to win sparsely-populated districts, leaving the article out of compliance with WP:NPOV.
If someone can locate such a map without copyright restrictions, it would be good to add it to restore NPOV. (I hope that consensus would agree that the present map is useful, if presented in the context of other maps to show a more accurate distribution of the vote.)
I'm sure this issue has probably been discussed, somewhere, but surprisingly not here that I could find. - Thanks, PhilipR ( talk) 07:48, 18 January 2013 (UTC)
The article notes the undisputed discrepancy between the popular vote (Democrats won overall) and the composition of the new House (Republicans retained their majority). There is, at a minimum, a significant body of opinion holding that the discrepancy was caused in whole or in part by the predominant Republican control of redistricting after the 2010 census, resulting in gerrymandering that produced a net benefit to Republicans. This viewpoint has been wholly scrubbed from the article.
Some information was deleted by this edit. See also numerous sources cited by Kevin Baas above. I'll add this source, which quotes Joe Scarborough -- a former Republican Congressman -- in support of the point: "It was just gerrymandering from 2010 that gave us the majority."
It's ridiculous that the only occurrence of the word "gerrymander" in this article is in the title of one of the sources.
Wikipedia should present all sides fairly. I'm not aware of any respectable POV that says the district lines had no effect on the outcome. There is legitimate dispute about the extent of the effect -- for example, I think the Brennan Center made an estimate of the number of seats swung through gerrymandering and concluded that the Republicans would have held a majority even without it, although with a substantially narrower margin than what they actually have. If there are reliable sources about post-2010 gerrymandering by Democrats, arguing that there was some offset to Republican gerrymandering, that should also be included. Suppressing the entire discussion, however, is not the solution. JamesMLane t c 04:56, 18 February 2013 (UTC)
The NYtimes article you quote still says that the GOP would have won the House 220 to 215 if electoral re-drawing had been fairer GOP would have still won( Coachtripfan ( talk) 19:12, 21 September 2013 (UTC))
The Democrats won slighly more votes in the House than the Republicans - yet the Republicans won more seats. It may seem at first glance this is down to "gerrymandering". However, research would indicate that it is mainly due to the first-past-the-post electoral system in single member constituencies. Put simply the Democrats are piling up massive majorities in their urban seats - whereas the Republicans have their vote more evenly spread out. They have more seats but with fewer massive majorities. Democrats more seats with mega majorities but fewer seats. It's the way votes are distributed. Gerrymandering vs winner takes all voting It should be noted that FairVote wants to abolish single member seats in favour of proportional representation in multi-member seats. ( Coachtripfan ( talk) 19:56, 21 September 2013 (UTC))
Fairvote's analysis stops short of saying how the 2012 election would be split under their preferred method, House under "Fair Votes". They have a model assuming a 50-50 split in the public vote. They suggest 48 out of the 435 seats would be "balanced" ie swing seats which could go either way. It is possible to win the public vote but not a majority of the seats under their multi-member seat system.(From their figures I give the Republicans a 231-204 advantage in the House on a 50-50 split). Like single member seats it's how the votes are distributed.
Under the "fair vote" system though particular states and regions would be less dominated by a particular party as they are under first-past-the-post but the overall result by not be much different.
In short, keeping single member constituencies but having impartial boundary reviews may be fairer for the over-all result than going down the route of multi-member seats. ( Coachtripfan ( talk) 14:26, 22 September 2013 (UTC))
I got a different figure when I did the math.
Using figures from the next-to-the-last page in the referenced pdf file from Haas, Karen L:
59,214,910 votes were cast for Democratic candidates and 57,622,827 votes were cast for Republican candidates.
59,214,910 - 57,622,827 = 1,592,083
1,592,083 more Democratic votes rounds off to 1.6 million.
The percentage is correct, though:
59,214,910 + 57,622,827 = 116,837,737
1,592,083 / 116,837,737 = 0.013626445 which rounds off to 1.4%
Becalmed ( talk) 07:12, 9 October 2013 (UTC)
I modified the section regarding Representatives that retired by adding a third category to the existing "seat held" and "Republican/Democrat gain": Seat Eliminated by Redistricting. When John Olver (D-MA-01) retired, his seat wasn't "gained" by Democrats even though the new MA-01 was won by Democrat Richard Neal (erstwhile incumbent in MA-02); Olver's district was eliminated in redistricting and Neal's new district (which included quite a bit of Olver's old district) was renumbered as the MA-01. Given that MA had 10 districts (all 10 held by Democrats) prior to the 2012 elections and 9 districts (all 9 held by Democrats) following the 2012 elections, one really can't say that the Democrats "held" al 10 districts; one was eliminated by redistricting. The same holds true for the districts formerly held by retired Democrat Maurice Hinchey and retired Republicans David Dreier, Bob Turner and Steve Austria.
I also included as each retired Representative's successor the person who succeeded him or her in the new district that would be deemed to be the successor of the retired Representative's old district, irrespective of numbering. Thus, when Republican Connie Mack IV retired from his (heavily Republican) Cape Coral-Naples-Fort Myers FL-14, his successor was Republican Trey Radel of the renumbered FL-19 located in the same area, not Democratic incumbent Representative Kathy Castor, whose Tampa-St. Pete FL-11 was renumbered as the FL-14 in redistricting. The section on Representatives who retired already listed Mack as a Republican who retired and whose seat was held by the GOP; it was inconsistent (and misleading) to name Democrat Kathy Castor of the new FL-14 as his "successor."
Please let me know if you agree with my changes.
AuH2ORepublican ( talk) 15:15, 24 January 2014 (UTC)
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on United States House of Representatives elections, 2012. 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) 22:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)
I think that it's best to at least have a secondary expression of the popular vote for this article, and possibly other HoR elections articles, for the races that are effectively uncontested--such as the LA-2 race and various races in California, as well as others. What are your thoughts? Nuke ( talk) 02:10, 12 August 2018 (UTC)
It's necessary to add a line, "New member elected" when the incumbent retires, dies, resigns, or loses. The seat might not be filled, for example, due to fraud or redistricting. There might be other reasons, as well. (Also an issue at 2010 United States House of Representatives elections.) — GoldRingChip 21:15, 3 October 2020 (UTC)
District | Incumbent | Results | Candidates | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Location |
2017 PVI |
Representative | Party | First elected | ||
North Carolina 9 | R+8 | Robert Pittenger | Republican | 2012 | Incumbent lost renomination. Results void and new election ordered. [1] Republican loss. |
|
Conversely, I don't think readers would be confused if a non-exceptional election didn't have the "New Member elected" note. I think readers could look at the following example and see that a new member was elected.
District | Incumbent | Results | Candidates | |||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Location |
2017 PVI |
Representative | Party | First elected | ||
North Dakota at-large | R+16 | Kevin Cramer | Republican | 2012 | Incumbent retired to
run for U.S. Senator. Republican hold. |
|
References