Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections/Archive 12

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

State Results of the 1984 and 1988 elections

Why does every single state's result page have 10 paragraphs about the general election, and Ronald Reagan's two terms in office? Those articles are way too long and should have everything that is not directly about that state should be removed. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 05:53, 26 January 2018 (UTC)

Consensus-seeking discussion notice

Notifying project members of a consensus discussion taking place at Talk:Trump–Russia dossier. Discussion is currently found in sub-section titled Seeking consensus to restore content challenged by _____. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 00:09, 18 April 2018 (UTC)

RfC notification

There is an RfC at the Trump-Russia dossier talk page found here that members of this project might interested in taking part in. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 01:23, 30 April 2018 (UTC)

McAfee 2020 campaign

See Talk:John McAfee#Media attention and false news (permalink). --Krinkle (talk) 04:28, 8 October 2018 (UTC)

Gender versus sex as a column heading

Andante03 has been changing "gender" to "sex" in column headings for voter demographic charts in US presidential election articles. I am wondering if Andante03 has discussed this anywhere, & how other editors feel about this. Peaceray (talk) 02:31, 25 November 2018 (UTC)

Should Draft:Donald Trump 2024 presidential campaign be moved to mainspace?

Historically we have waited until there is an official declaration to move a draft campaign article to mainspace, but we have a weird situation here. First, as noted in the draft, recently Trump has basically said that he is running, but waiting for a politically opportune time to make an official announcement. Moreover, as with the case of planned movies that never get made (e.g. Gambit (unproduced film); Star Trek: Planet of the Titans), there has been substantial coverage of the expectation surrounding a potential Trump campaign—to the extent that the possibility has served as a disruptor for other potential campaigns. In other words, even if Trump never officially declares (or ultimately declares that he is not running), the expectations that he has intentionally fueled have had a real-world impact that has been covered in reliable sources. BD2412 T 19:00, 18 July 2022 (UTC)

Request for comment regarding Tudor Dixon

There is a request for comment at Talk:Tudor Dixon § Request for comment: sentence in lede that may interest members of this WikiProject. Please participate at the talk page. ––FormalDude (talk) 21:13, 29 October 2022 (UTC)

"Parliament" diagrams on presidential election articles

I've noticed on some US presidential election articles from the late 1800s that someone has added "parliament" diagrams showing the breakdown of electoral votes. Here's the one from 1896: [1]. Not sure how prevalent these are but they're on at least three of the articles and I don't think they're at all appropriate -- the electoral college is not a parliament or legislature and never meets as a single body. Thought I'd try to get a sense of people's thoughts here rather than on each individual page. --Jfruh (talk) 04:33, 18 February 2022 (UTC)

I think that they should be removed; they don't serve any purpose and give the wrong impression. Ariostos (talk) 20:29, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Help With Summarization

So I want to expand the 1928 United States Presidential Election page greatly, provide real in-depth information on the Pre-convention races and the general election itself, but I'm terrible when it comes to summarizations of the information at hand. I can do it in small doses fine, I've done so for the smaller parties involved in the race, but there is far less information to parse in those cases, hence making it easier for me to put together a section. The 1924 US Presidential Election sections for the Preconvention races for the Republicans, Democrats and Progressives are examples of my difficulty in breaking information down into smaller chunks. Essentially, what I am asking for is if someone would be willing to actually take the information/research I gather, whether it be bullet points or the sources themselves as I dig them up their call, and write it up into new expansive entries. Ariostos (talk) 20:39, 14 November 2022 (UTC)

Discussion on whether or not to include being CEO, host, author, etc under Candidate Experience

I've started a discussion regarding this at Talk:2024 Democratic Party presidential primaries, which has more troublesome entries. Aaron Liu (talk) 15:30, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Democrat always comes first in the Electoral Map Color Legend

With the exception of the 1860 election, the democrat is always shown first on every electoral map legend at the top of every election article. This is regardless of whether the democrat won or lost. I know we take care to rid Wikipedia of all bias. This is obviously not true bias, but I think it should be changed so that the winner is the one on top. Just makes more sense. I would like y'all's thoughts. Trajan1 (talk) 04:19, 1 May 2023 (UTC)

I agree with the winner-on-top idea. It's beneficial to the reader in identifying the election winner at a glance, while avoiding appearance of bias. I see no downside to doing this. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 00:53, 3 May 2023 (UTC)

Twitter Space with Ron DeSantis and Elon Musk merge proposal

There is currently a discussion at Talk:Twitter Space with Ron DeSantis and Elon Musk regarding a proposal to merge the article. Thank you. ––FormalDude (talk) 19:49, 27 May 2023 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Content assessment

 You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:Content assessment#Proposal: Reclassification of Current & Future-Classes as time parameter, which is within the scope of this WikiProject. This WikiProject received this message because it currently uses "Current" and/or "Future" class(es). There is a proposal to split these two article "classes" into a new parameter "time", in order to standardise article-rating across Wikipedia (per RfC), while also allowing simultaneous usage of quality criteria and time for interest projects. Thanks! —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 07:15, 2 July 2023 (UTC)

Cross-posting from WT:E&R

See WT:E&R#Potential sockpuppetry to change B&W images to AI-colored ones at US presidential election articles. —CX Zoom[he/him] ^{(let's talk • {C•X})} 21:46, 28 July 2023 (UTC)

'Electoral votes needed to win' prior to 12th amendment

Apologies if this has been discussed previously, I searched but couldn't find anything.

For the four Presidential elections that occurred before the 12th amendment (each member of the Electoral College being able to cast two votes for President) the Wikipedia articles currently list in two places the number of Electoral College votes supposedly needed for a candidate to win that election. In each case the 'electoral votes needed to win' is shown as 50% + 1 of the number of Electors who cast votes at that election.

The problem is that under this system achieving 50% + 1 did not in fact guarantee a candidate election victory or even second place.

Consider the 1792 election as an example. 132 Electors each cast two votes with the following outcome: Washington - 132, Adams - 77, Clinton - 50, Jefferson - 4, Burr - 1

The Wikipedia page tells us that a candidate needed 67 votes to win. The fact that Adams achieved 77 votes and didn't win should immediately demonstrate a problem. Of course it could be argued that Adams did 'win' in the sense that he achieved enough votes to be elected Vice President. However, imagine if 30 of the 77 Electors who voted Washington + Adams had instead cast their votes for Clinton + Adams. In this situation we would have the following outcome: Washington - 102, Clinton - 80, Adams - 77, Jefferson - 4, Burr - 1

I'm not sure what the solution is but clearly the currently listed votes needed to win is incorrect. Ultimately under the original system there was no number of votes that would guarantee a candidate victory. A candidate could get 100% of Electors to vote for them and still fail to win, a candidate could get 50% + 1 to vote for them and win, a candidate could get 50% + 1 to vote for them and finish third. The only guarantee was that a candidate would finish in the top two if they could get 66.7% + 1 to vote for them. 80.43.70.21 (talk) 14:25, 8 September 2023 (UTC)