Hmm...I don't know that I have any specific problems with this suggested format, but you seem to have formulated it without any discussion (correct me if I'm wrong on this.) Several months ago, we had some discussion of how to format these articles at Talk:U.S. presidential election. Were you aware of this? john k 23:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why is it the colour scheme for the Democrats is red and the Republicans is blue when everyone knows it is the other way around? If that is how Americans identify those parties that way then non-Americans should do the same.
It is not even the way the American media does it. Basically, every four years they switch the colors between incumbent and challenger party. So in 2004 the incumbent party (GOP) was red and the challenger party (Democrats) was blue. In 2000 the incumbent party (Democrats) was blue and the challenger party (Republicans) was red. In 1996 the incumbent party (Democrats) was red and the challenger party (Republicans) was blue. In 1992 the incumbent party (Republicans) was blue and the Challenger party (Democrats) was red. In 1988 the incumbent party (Republicans) was red and the challenger party (Democrats) was blue. In 1984 the incumbent party (Republicans) was blue and the challenger party (Democrats) was red. In 1980 the incumbent party (Democrats) was red and the challenger party (Republicans) was blue. It's only in the last two times that we've had Democrats/blue Republicans/red, and that's a coincidence. Given the prominence of stupid "Red America"/"Blue America" nonsense, that may change, but there's certainly no long-standing convention of coloring the Dems blue and the Republicans red. john k 14:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The color scheme as it is only dates back to 1996. The official urban legend is that the Republicans got the color red as booty when they won the Cold War. In the years before, and after the invention of color television, the Republicans were blue and Democrats red. I remember the Fords chanting "Go Blue! Go Blue!" during the 1976 election coverage. (drinking beer in the TV room at my college dorm with all the other political junkies...in '04 I went to bed early and saw the declaration of the winner after I got up the next day) Ericl 16:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The earlier comment about the incumbent party makes sense. Blue was often used for Republicans, and Red was the often used for Democrats until either the 1992 or 1996 election. Democrats did not like the association with the color red (i.e., the color of communism) and no doubt the use of Blue for Republicans had similar connotations around wealth or royalty (i.e., "blue bloods").
We could continue to debate the nuances involved in assigning particular colors to American political parties, but one fact remains: for the past decade, using blue for Democrats and red for Republicans has been the undeniable standard, in everything from news media to casual discussion. To use a different scheme for elections of old is, to say the least, confusing for many. What's worse, the maps here on Wikipedia don't even adhere universally to a particular scheme. Be it red blue, pink, purple, yellow or green, a standard should be set. -- Omertop 18:49, 10 February 2008
Please, for the sake of conformity, I know that the colors were once switched, but considering red=Republican and Blue=Democrat is universal all over, I believe on this site, all electoral maps shoudl be fixed accordingly. The reason, I believe this pattern holds so well is purely mnemonic, not anything to do with "communism" and plus, red is blood, and blood is toughness, which the GOP believes it is. Fixing the pre-1980 maps to the scheme of the 1980-2004 maps will make studying them and election results far easier for historical purposes. Tallicfan20 ( talk) 03:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The biggest problem with the blue-is-democrat-and-red-is-republican-maps is that red is used for republican and blue for democrat in most lists etc. e.g List of Presidents of the United States! What is more the colored bar bellow the picture of the presidential candidates use the same color scheme as the List of Presidents of the United States however the map (in the same box) often uses a completly different color scheme. To avoid the resulting confusion the same color scheme should be used everywhere! I propose (as used in List of Presidents of the United States):
Laukster ( talk) 12:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The Democrats were represented by red and the Republicans by blue until the 1980 election, when it was switched. By who, I'm not 100% sure, but that's when the change happened. I think the election pages before that should show the democrats as red and republicans as blue, since that's what they were at the time of those elections. 142.177.154.189 ( talk) 01:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Those of you arguing that the maps should be switched: who's you're opponent? No one is stopping you from changing things. Go, make the change, do it! -- RobLa ( talk) 02:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I very strongly object to this recent decision to practice a quasi-revisionist history of sorts on the documentary evidence of past elections. Perhaps it makes sense to color Republicans Red and Democrats Blue as far back as 1996 or 1992, but when you get back further, you start to mess with historical nuance. For example, the term 'Lake Reagan' no longer holds much historical importance if the map used to represent the 1984 election has Mondale as blue, rather than Reagan.
Similarly, before 2000 - and even since, to some extent - the academic standard for coloring election maps has been the traditional Republican Blue/Democrat Red scheme. The original source for these maps - the US National Atlas - continues in this scheme. The standard was well enough engrained that it is nearly unconscionable to see the 1936 election map covered in blue; or the 1860 election map emblazoned with a Red North.
The argument of 'this is the way we do it now, so we should go back and revise all the other maps' doesn't hold much water, except as a practical bowing to the lowest common denominator. Rather than distorting historical records to fit the mindset of today's population, we should be educating today's population about the historical record. -- patton1138 ( talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If the Archival source of the maps uses a particular color scheme, why would you go back and edit them? The maps are now lower quality than the originals. Also, you're sacrificing the historical accuracy of one hundred years of map color schemes to fit your 10-15 year old color schema. Where is the commitment to historical accuracy? The amount of effort involved would be better spent on adding additional content, instead of doctoring the record. If this is the philosophy, why not change the flag in the
French_and_Indian_War article to a 50 star US flag for the colonies? After all, that's the modern convention ...
ryan (
talk) 14:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
66.167.253.89 03:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC): A preview view of U.S. presidential election, 1952 caused the Uspresidentialelections template to be laid out more narrowly than it appears in the finished product. To reproduce, edit that article, then view a preview version.
When I do it (as an anon contributor I have no user style customizations), I get something that looks like this
U.S. presidential elections 1789–1799: 1789 | 1792 | 1796 1800–1849: 1800 | 1804 | 1808 | 1812 | 1816 | 1820 | 1824 | 1828 | 1832 | 1836 | 1840 | 1844 | 1848 1850–1899: 1852 | 1856 | 1860 | 1864 | 1868 | 1872 | 1876 | 1880 | 1884 | 1888 | 1892 | 1896 1900–1949: 1900 | 1904 | 1908 | 1912 | 1916 | 1920 | 1924 | 1928 | 1932 | 1936 | 1940 | 1944 | 1948 1950–1999: 1952 | 1956 | 1960 | 1964 | 1968 | 1972 | 1976 | 1980 | 1984 | 1988 | 1992 | 1996 2000–2049: 2000 | 2004 | 2008
In other words, I get a narrow and tall version of the box.
What's particularly strange is that it is only rendered narrowly when the Uspresidentialelections template is positioned after the "See also" section and before the "External links and references" section. If I move it between "Results" and "See also" or after "External links", it previews fine, probably similar to what it looks like here:
Template:Uspresidentialelections
Other than an assumption that its a weird CSS interaction, I'm puzzled what's going on here and thought I'd try to bring it to someone's attention.
Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. -- maru (talk) Contribs 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
There's an error on the 1932 election page. Pennsylvania's electoral votes is listed on the map as 38, but it should be 36. I don't know how to change it.
I propose that we make and all "United States presidential election, yyyy" articles intergrated with the series header. What I mean by this is using the template like the one used in the presidents bios, that gives the previous president(in this case, previous election) as well as a general summary. This will make for a consistant and standard description of the elections and allow the reader to take each election in historical context with ease. I would do it myself but 1) I am unsure of how to do it and 2) that fact that a similar idea has not been implemented seems indicative that there is some good reason not to. Tmchk | Talk 00:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It's too bad this failed. As a result we now have failure to attend to the lower level articles. See, for example, [1]. ALL presidential elections at the state level are written in this style, endlessly repeating the material in the higher level article for each state, mindlessly. There are few editors who are interested. Mercifully, probably not very many readers either. Student7 ( talk) 20:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States presidential election, 1800#1801. — GoldRingChip 15:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The depiction of the border of the part of Massachusetts that is now Maine is incorrectly depicted as the modern border for the elections 1788-89, 1792, 1796, and 1800. It is depicted correctly from 1804 onward, gaining its modern shape in 1844 after the Webster-Ashburton Treaty that ended the Aroostook War. I encourage someone who is more skilled and familiar with these maps attempt to fix this. I know it's difficult given the weird borders of the states and territories in these early elections. Mdewman6 ( talk) 01:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)
Hmm...I don't know that I have any specific problems with this suggested format, but you seem to have formulated it without any discussion (correct me if I'm wrong on this.) Several months ago, we had some discussion of how to format these articles at Talk:U.S. presidential election. Were you aware of this? john k 23:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)
Why is it the colour scheme for the Democrats is red and the Republicans is blue when everyone knows it is the other way around? If that is how Americans identify those parties that way then non-Americans should do the same.
It is not even the way the American media does it. Basically, every four years they switch the colors between incumbent and challenger party. So in 2004 the incumbent party (GOP) was red and the challenger party (Democrats) was blue. In 2000 the incumbent party (Democrats) was blue and the challenger party (Republicans) was red. In 1996 the incumbent party (Democrats) was red and the challenger party (Republicans) was blue. In 1992 the incumbent party (Republicans) was blue and the Challenger party (Democrats) was red. In 1988 the incumbent party (Republicans) was red and the challenger party (Democrats) was blue. In 1984 the incumbent party (Republicans) was blue and the challenger party (Democrats) was red. In 1980 the incumbent party (Democrats) was red and the challenger party (Republicans) was blue. It's only in the last two times that we've had Democrats/blue Republicans/red, and that's a coincidence. Given the prominence of stupid "Red America"/"Blue America" nonsense, that may change, but there's certainly no long-standing convention of coloring the Dems blue and the Republicans red. john k 14:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)
The color scheme as it is only dates back to 1996. The official urban legend is that the Republicans got the color red as booty when they won the Cold War. In the years before, and after the invention of color television, the Republicans were blue and Democrats red. I remember the Fords chanting "Go Blue! Go Blue!" during the 1976 election coverage. (drinking beer in the TV room at my college dorm with all the other political junkies...in '04 I went to bed early and saw the declaration of the winner after I got up the next day) Ericl 16:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
The earlier comment about the incumbent party makes sense. Blue was often used for Republicans, and Red was the often used for Democrats until either the 1992 or 1996 election. Democrats did not like the association with the color red (i.e., the color of communism) and no doubt the use of Blue for Republicans had similar connotations around wealth or royalty (i.e., "blue bloods").
We could continue to debate the nuances involved in assigning particular colors to American political parties, but one fact remains: for the past decade, using blue for Democrats and red for Republicans has been the undeniable standard, in everything from news media to casual discussion. To use a different scheme for elections of old is, to say the least, confusing for many. What's worse, the maps here on Wikipedia don't even adhere universally to a particular scheme. Be it red blue, pink, purple, yellow or green, a standard should be set. -- Omertop 18:49, 10 February 2008
Please, for the sake of conformity, I know that the colors were once switched, but considering red=Republican and Blue=Democrat is universal all over, I believe on this site, all electoral maps shoudl be fixed accordingly. The reason, I believe this pattern holds so well is purely mnemonic, not anything to do with "communism" and plus, red is blood, and blood is toughness, which the GOP believes it is. Fixing the pre-1980 maps to the scheme of the 1980-2004 maps will make studying them and election results far easier for historical purposes. Tallicfan20 ( talk) 03:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
The biggest problem with the blue-is-democrat-and-red-is-republican-maps is that red is used for republican and blue for democrat in most lists etc. e.g List of Presidents of the United States! What is more the colored bar bellow the picture of the presidential candidates use the same color scheme as the List of Presidents of the United States however the map (in the same box) often uses a completly different color scheme. To avoid the resulting confusion the same color scheme should be used everywhere! I propose (as used in List of Presidents of the United States):
Laukster ( talk) 12:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)
The Democrats were represented by red and the Republicans by blue until the 1980 election, when it was switched. By who, I'm not 100% sure, but that's when the change happened. I think the election pages before that should show the democrats as red and republicans as blue, since that's what they were at the time of those elections. 142.177.154.189 ( talk) 01:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
Those of you arguing that the maps should be switched: who's you're opponent? No one is stopping you from changing things. Go, make the change, do it! -- RobLa ( talk) 02:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I very strongly object to this recent decision to practice a quasi-revisionist history of sorts on the documentary evidence of past elections. Perhaps it makes sense to color Republicans Red and Democrats Blue as far back as 1996 or 1992, but when you get back further, you start to mess with historical nuance. For example, the term 'Lake Reagan' no longer holds much historical importance if the map used to represent the 1984 election has Mondale as blue, rather than Reagan.
Similarly, before 2000 - and even since, to some extent - the academic standard for coloring election maps has been the traditional Republican Blue/Democrat Red scheme. The original source for these maps - the US National Atlas - continues in this scheme. The standard was well enough engrained that it is nearly unconscionable to see the 1936 election map covered in blue; or the 1860 election map emblazoned with a Red North.
The argument of 'this is the way we do it now, so we should go back and revise all the other maps' doesn't hold much water, except as a practical bowing to the lowest common denominator. Rather than distorting historical records to fit the mindset of today's population, we should be educating today's population about the historical record. -- patton1138 ( talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)
If the Archival source of the maps uses a particular color scheme, why would you go back and edit them? The maps are now lower quality than the originals. Also, you're sacrificing the historical accuracy of one hundred years of map color schemes to fit your 10-15 year old color schema. Where is the commitment to historical accuracy? The amount of effort involved would be better spent on adding additional content, instead of doctoring the record. If this is the philosophy, why not change the flag in the
French_and_Indian_War article to a 50 star US flag for the colonies? After all, that's the modern convention ...
ryan (
talk) 14:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
66.167.253.89 03:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC): A preview view of U.S. presidential election, 1952 caused the Uspresidentialelections template to be laid out more narrowly than it appears in the finished product. To reproduce, edit that article, then view a preview version.
When I do it (as an anon contributor I have no user style customizations), I get something that looks like this
U.S. presidential elections 1789–1799: 1789 | 1792 | 1796 1800–1849: 1800 | 1804 | 1808 | 1812 | 1816 | 1820 | 1824 | 1828 | 1832 | 1836 | 1840 | 1844 | 1848 1850–1899: 1852 | 1856 | 1860 | 1864 | 1868 | 1872 | 1876 | 1880 | 1884 | 1888 | 1892 | 1896 1900–1949: 1900 | 1904 | 1908 | 1912 | 1916 | 1920 | 1924 | 1928 | 1932 | 1936 | 1940 | 1944 | 1948 1950–1999: 1952 | 1956 | 1960 | 1964 | 1968 | 1972 | 1976 | 1980 | 1984 | 1988 | 1992 | 1996 2000–2049: 2000 | 2004 | 2008
In other words, I get a narrow and tall version of the box.
What's particularly strange is that it is only rendered narrowly when the Uspresidentialelections template is positioned after the "See also" section and before the "External links and references" section. If I move it between "Results" and "See also" or after "External links", it previews fine, probably similar to what it looks like here:
Template:Uspresidentialelections
Other than an assumption that its a weird CSS interaction, I'm puzzled what's going on here and thought I'd try to bring it to someone's attention.
Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. -- maru (talk) Contribs 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)
There's an error on the 1932 election page. Pennsylvania's electoral votes is listed on the map as 38, but it should be 36. I don't know how to change it.
I propose that we make and all "United States presidential election, yyyy" articles intergrated with the series header. What I mean by this is using the template like the one used in the presidents bios, that gives the previous president(in this case, previous election) as well as a general summary. This will make for a consistant and standard description of the elections and allow the reader to take each election in historical context with ease. I would do it myself but 1) I am unsure of how to do it and 2) that fact that a similar idea has not been implemented seems indicative that there is some good reason not to. Tmchk | Talk 00:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)
There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB ( talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)
It's too bad this failed. As a result we now have failure to attend to the lower level articles. See, for example, [1]. ALL presidential elections at the state level are written in this style, endlessly repeating the material in the higher level article for each state, mindlessly. There are few editors who are interested. Mercifully, probably not very many readers either. Student7 ( talk) 20:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States presidential election, 1800#1801. — GoldRingChip 15:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)
The depiction of the border of the part of Massachusetts that is now Maine is incorrectly depicted as the modern border for the elections 1788-89, 1792, 1796, and 1800. It is depicted correctly from 1804 onward, gaining its modern shape in 1844 after the Webster-Ashburton Treaty that ended the Aroostook War. I encourage someone who is more skilled and familiar with these maps attempt to fix this. I know it's difficult given the weird borders of the states and territories in these early elections. Mdewman6 ( talk) 01:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)