Talk:2004 United States presidential election/Archive 3

Ongoing event?
Given that the electoral college has not met, should this be marked as an ongoing event? PhilHibbs 11:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

NOTE on formatting
It drove me crazy for a bit, so I wanted to warn page editors that the two map images *do* stack correctly in page view mode, even though they *don't* in diff mode (which is what I commonly look at).

UPDATE: I'm wrong; looking at it now on Mozilla 1.6/Linux, they're stacked horizontally; the resulting Dutch wrap of the text lead is disconcerting. I suggest that they be *forced* to stack vertically; does anyone know how to get that done? Baylink 03:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Rural versus Urban
How about rural versus urban voting patterns? I think there is an even more solid pattern here than geographical distribution. Ed Sanville

Great idea
The 2004 election timeline is a terrific idea. I am glad to see people working on it already. As a high school history teacher, I intend to use this as a resource. The more well-informed I can stay on the election, the better I can teach my students. keep up the good work! and i'll probably be helping here too! Kingturtle 02:30 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)


 * Glad you like it. However, it's six months later, and there are still gaping holes, like no biography of Michael Badnarik, former State House candidate from Texas, a stub for Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, none for Carol Miller, New Mexico Green, David Cobb, Green legal advisor to the party and former candidate for Texas attorney, nor even Cynthia McKinney, former Congresswoman from Georgia or Paul Glover, creator of Ithaca Hours.  It took some time before even all Democrats were covered, which is kind of surprising.


 * Perhaps your students can chip in and help by digging up biographies of the above, and filling them in?

I really like it. My only gripe is the picture of the country with the words: "Quick! Hurry up before the polling stations close! Vote peace! Vote prosperity! Vote Kerry!" superimposed. I have a screenshot in case they change it. I think it's in very bad taste.


 * It was in very bad taste; I think it lasted about 10 minutes. I was (one of) the one(s) who yanked it until the corrected image could be put back up.  Baylink 18:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

making the table live?
I have taken the 2000 table and updated it for 2004. It's below:

Should we put it in the article space? And for those who are wondering, Nader is running as the candidate of the RPUSA, but he has only pledged to use the RPUSA if he can't get on the ballot as an Independent himself.

Comments? - iHoshie 07:27, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd say put it in the article space as soon as Bush is formally nominated on September 1. --Goobergunch 17:41, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd say be consistent on the middle names. Either provide all of them or none of them; e.g. Michael Anthony Peroutka, etc. --Locarno 20:42, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)
 * Thanks 4 the Cn. on Peroutka. The reason I didn't put it the first time was do the fact I could not find it. Looks like i'll be digging into some FEC filings... :) - iHoshie 06:19, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You may want to check out the discussion on Talk:U.S. presidential election. There's a movement afoot to change the table format. -- RobLa 06:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to take the sources out, as these refer to the 2000 election. There should be a single source for the vote count as this is still changing. -- Bernfarr 04:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Malcolm Mackerras Prediction
I just heard Malcolm Mackerras interviewed on Australian radio again, just the hour before the polls closed in the USA. He reiterated his prediction (his word) of a Kerry victory. His earlier (February) prediction was Kerry:287, but he said that the numbers he gave today (Kerry:316 v Bush:222) were what he has been saying "for months" and so he said them again, but conceded that the margin was likely to be narrower. Peter Ellis 00:42, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

so much for that Daddydog 06:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can someone explain concession?
I see that the maps are giving Ohio, and indeed Florida, to Bush, even though to the best of my knowledge, a significant number of absentee ballots remain to be counted in those states? Those elections supervisors and secretaries of state don't *work* for the candidate, they work for us voters, and I can't see that a) they have any call to stop counting just because Kerry says "enough", or b) this is a topic someone shouldn't already have brought up. Anyone got an authoritative reference on this, keeping in mind that it has to be, by nature, *Ohio* law that is being quoted? Baylink 23:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

UPDATE: Courtesy of AskMetafilter: http://slate.msn.com/id/1006461/ Yes, they *will* keep counting. Baylink 23:57, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I looked at that article, and for those unfamiliar with US law and tradition I'd like to make a point. It's true that concessions have no legal force in terms of election law. Suppose a candidate said "I will get 55% of the vote or I will not serve because I want a clear victory." OK, election night it is obvious he will get 52% and being a man of principle (remember, this IS a hypothetical ;-)) he concedes to his opponent. Well, that wouldn't change the process at all. It's like a candidate who dies but gets elected anyway (think Missouri, 2000), the challenger does not automatically get the job as second in line.


 * However, concessions do have a couple of important purposes, the most important probably being that tells the failing candidates' followers to "hang it up, we fought the good fight, let's move along." No more fulminating, no more grasping at straws, like at Wikipedia, where a lot of us can't accept that their our candidate lost, so it must be rigged. But the concession also avoids "poisoning the well." Most candidates will want to run for something again in the future, or otherwise be in public life. The only candidate I know of who ever came back succesfully from a bad concession speech was Nixon. A bad concession speech will haunt the candidate, his party, and maybe the country.


 * Consider this scenario. In 2000 the election kept going on stuff like hanging chads, pregnant chads, dimpled chads, and many many lawyers. This was not good for the country (imagine if the 9/11 attacks had occurred then, when leadership was uncertain) on many levels, but it was tolerated essentially because Gore got a 1/2 million lead on the popular vote so there was sentiment to check every possibility, but, nevertheless, he was never ahead in the Florida recount. Still the vote went on because of the appearance of illegitimacy. OK, fast forward to 2004. A lot of the country was dreading a drag-out like 2000. The Washington Post editorially admonished the candidates that they should avoid that, at least twice. So now look at Ohio. Suppose Kerry makes the calculation that if almost all the provisional ballots are legitimate, and almost all are for Kerry, and this then puts you in reach of a recount, and you claim enough fraud, etc., etc., and Kerry wins Ohio by 10 votes. Then what? The country has been dragged through another horrendous lawyer-fest, to find a candidate who "lost" by 3.5 million votes getting the Presidency when his party spent that last four pillorying Bush for "losing" by 1/7 that number. And he would face an extremely hostile Congress. Doesn't make for a happy Presidency, does it? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * On the other hand, plenty of people wouldn't be at all happy with letting the opposing candidate become President if it could possibly be averted. Some Democrats have criticized both Gore and Kerry for being too "nice" and not fighting all-out on issues that could legitimately be contested.  When a mob of Cubans stormed a Florida election office and forcibly stopped a recount that would probably have helped Gore, it was certainly one among many factors that impaired Bush's chance for a happy Presidency -- but I'm sure many Republicans would rather put up with four years of hearing "We wuz robbed!" than with four years of Gore in office. JamesMLane 00:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can someone please explain the curious total?
I see that Bush got 274 Electoral votes, and Kerry got 252. This adds up to 526. Yet the total in that column reads 538. Can someone please explain the missing 12 votes? Is this some new kind of math? Pacific1982 13:14, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)
 * Iowa and New Mexico, which will almost certainly be Bush states when all is said and done. I'll update it.

You might want to wait until the provisional ballots are counted. There may still be enough out there to swing Iowa and New Mexico. Maybe even Wisconsin and New Hampshire. But these are merely moral victorys and wont bring Bush below 270 regardless. Daddydog 06:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I know that Wisconsin does not have provisional ballots because they have same-day registration in that state. New Hampshire has same-day registration too, so I imagine they don't have provisional ballots either. Ohio, on the other hand, requires citizens to register 30 days before an election, according to the Ohio Secretary of State website, so they can validate that your information is correct. A provisional ballot is provided to those who are not registered and is counted once their identity and residence can be verified. --Mr. Brown 07:16, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

The major networks have now called New Mexico and Iowa for Bush. That brings him up to 286 and gives him 2 states that Gore won in 2000. 68.220.231.134 17:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Claims" about margin
The following statement in the text was true but it just feels wrong to put it his way: "Several other claims have been made in attempts to either magnify or minimize the magnitude of Bush's victory; all of the following are accurate (based on the currently available, uncertified vote totals as of 5-Nov-2004)...." It seems to be a little self-consciously "on the one hand, on the other hand". I left the facts in but removed that introductory phrase. In addition, some of the interesting features about the election, like the small number of states that changed hands as compared with 2000, don't fit readily into the category of claims about the margin, but this listing of factoids seems to be the best place to include them. JamesMLane 01:37, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Corrupt voting machines"
I noticed this towards the beginning of the article, before the results of the election are shown on the page. Am I crazy for calling this a NPOV violation? I believe a better wording, such as "erronous voting machines" would be better than outright calling them corrupt. --Mr. Brown 07:39, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)


 * It's not a violation of NPOV to report a charge that's made, as long as we don't adopt it. An earlier version was indeed improper.  It read, "Note: These figures are based on returns which came in large part from corrupt voting machines."  The current text makes clear that this is charged, not necessarily established.  As for whether we're reporting the charges accurately, yes, some people go beyond suspecting innocent malfunction and say that there was deliberate chicanery. JamesMLane 08:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Get well soon Elizabeth
This coming from a Republican who was against the Kerry/Edwards ticket from the very beginning. But I know the toll that cancer can take on a person and their family. And I wish them nothing but the best as they fight this horrible disease. Hopefully she'll have a speedy recovery. Daddydog 07:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wrong colors
The colors are all wrong on the electoral vote map. Cause all the other maps on wikipedia have the Republicans as blue and the Dems as red. Even though hardly anyone has it that way anymore, but for the sake of conformity- you guys need to make Bush's states blue and Kerry's red. Either that or go redo all the other maps from the previous elections (I tend to be a perfectionist). Daddydog 08:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * The first alternative is unacceptable, given the widespread currency of the "red state - blue state" division in this form. I agree with you that changing all the old maps would be an improvement, but it would also be a lot of work.  They'll be changed when and if someone cares enough about the point to change them. JamesMLane 08:13, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Concur. All new maps should be Red-Rep; someone should create a link page to which all the old borken maps can be linked so that some motivated soul can fix them.  Baylink 23:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it would be too hard to repaint it, using the 'fill color' option in mspaint, lol Daddydog 08:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * I think we should use purple and green as the party's colors just to be different Zen Master 01:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Purple America
http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg

I think this image should be shoe horned in somewhere... but I'm unsure where it would go. RoyBoy 22:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)


 * Good idea. I stuck it underneath the map of electoral votes near the top of the page. J3ff 20:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Missing Election Controversy Information?
This page seems somewhat redundant to the info on the "2004 U.S. election in progress" page, should an effort be undertaken to combine the two pages? There is little mention of any electronic voting or other controversies on this page (which happens the page linked to from the front door...). Zen Master 01:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I found an election results map which shows quite an accurate picture, integrating population density. http://www.bopnews.com/archives/002292.html. I'm not sure when placed in this article that would infringe copyright. Whyerd 08:33, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

map
I made a map!

http://img125.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img125&image=ElectoralCollege2004-Large.png

ok, uploaded and done. did I do it right? Pellaken 01:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC) Hopefully this will hold everyone over till the official map comes out.

Comparison with other Congressional results
This addition caught my eye: "The election marked the first time that an incumbent president was re-elected with increased margins in both houses of Congress since Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1936 election. It was the first time for a Republican since William McKinley in the 1900 election." I can't quickly find results for 1964, but I thought LBJ brought in larger Democratic majorities in both houses. Some people would say he was being re-elected (incumbent returned to office) and some wouldn't (he was elected in 1960 but only to the Vice Presidency). If his party's majorities did increase, and the quoted addition to this article depends on the second interpretation of "re-elected", then I think it would be better to reword to avoid the ambiguity. Something like: "The election marked the first time that an incumbent President won his second bid for the White House with increased margins in both houses of Congress since Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1936 election. It was the first time for a Republican since William McKinley in the 1900 election." JamesMLane 08:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Could Wisconsin still go to Bush?
I hear that a lot of absentee military ballots still have yet to be counted in Wisconsin. Since the military is big time Republican, and Wisconsin was so close- is there a chance it could still go to Bush?

There aren't enough absentees left to sway the outcome in Ohio or New Mexico from what I hear, but Iowa is another state that could change once the ballots are all counted. But I kind of doubt it, since most absentees are military vote.

Bush may still have a shot at winning Wisconsin, which would bring him to 296 electoral votes.

Wisconsin Law says that absentee ballots need to be received by election day, and are counted along with the rest of the ballots at their local precincts. As such, it would be very unlikely that any adjustments in the unofficial returns would change the margin by over 12,000 votes. pm06420 05:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Added the cartogram
I added the cartogram displaying the Presidential popular votes, in which the sizes of counties have been rescaled according to their population. I'm not sure if it is usually a good idea to propose such a change first in an article such as this, I can imagine it probably is. However I figured I'd make the change and if people don't like it it'll just be removed. Jacoplane 12:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
 * I think that cartogram is a good addition to this article. It's interesting to look at. -- J3ff 01:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Redirect problem
Someone is trying to be funny. From the "Presidential election" page, the 2004 election redirects you to the article on "penis"

Congratulations on search engines
The #1 search on Lycos for the week ending November 6, 2004 was '2004 Presidential Election': http://50.lycos.com/

I don't know what that search produced that week, but on November 10th that search shows this Wikipedia entry as #2. and #3 was http://www.opensecrets.org/presidential/index.asp)
 * (If you're curious, #1 was http://dir.yahoo.com/Government/U_S__Government/Politics/Elections/Presidential_Elections/2004_Presidential_Election

This is where the Wikipedia entry appeared in the non-sponsored sections of some additional search engines:
 * 5 AOL
 * ??? Ask Jeeves
 * 7 Clusty
 * 5 Google
 * 2 HotBot
 * 2 Lycos
 * 8 MetaCrawler
 * 1 MSN
 * ??? Teoma
 * 3 Vivisimo
 * 12 Yahoo!

So, congratulations and appreciation to everyone who worked on this entry. I thought you might enjoy this as a record of your achievement and popularity. :-)

60 million votes
According to Yahoo, Bush's popular vote count has climbed to 60,366,889. Can anyone correlate with any other source? I understand that states have not turned in their official tallies, yet, and presume that those official reported tallies will ultimately be reported here, but if, say, two or more sources report higher totals than what are here, I'd say we should update. 170.35.224.64 19:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)