Talk:2008 United States presidential election in California

Originial Conflict over Format
Hay there, I was just wondering what your reasoning behind your drastic changes to United States presidential election in California, 2008. All of the information on the page seems pertinent and your restructuring cut a lot of stuff out. – Zntrip 00:56, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok first off a list of candidates is not needed because the list is in the statewide results table. Second, the electors section is messed up. What do you think?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

The list of candidates does more than list their names, it gives some background. I don't know what you mean by the electors section being "messed up", it seems fine to me. With regards to your two most recent edits, the lead is essential to the article and it is redundant to say "statewide results" when it is obvious. Also take a look here, headings needn't be capitalized. – Zntrip 02:34, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're being ridiculus no offense. I work very hard on every other state election article on wikipedia from 2000 to 2008. Please try and work with me to avoid an edit war. The California article we're talking about is too big and has way too many irrelevent things on the page.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please be specific, what is irrelevant? – Zntrip 02:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * It looks much better now. Please tell me whats wrong before undoing it.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:59, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Please do not edit the article until we discuss this a bit.
 * 1) The lead paragraph, while it may be common sense, is necessary. You may already know this, I may already know this, but not everyone does. The article should not written to such an extent that it requires readers to already have an understand of the subject, even a widely known one such as this.
 * 2) The list of candidates gives a brief background, nothing more. While most readers will probably know about Obama and McCain, they probably do not know who Frank Moore is.
 * 3) Why add the word "statewide"? Because you already added it to other articles? The article is about the election in California and there is a section for county results. Even though it is obvious the table lists statewide results, it can easily be deduced. Also, please read Capitalization. Section headings are not capitalized. – Zntrip 03:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You present very poor arguments. Number 1: Do you think people are dumb enough to not already know information already stated in the title of the page and the table? Number 2: The "statewide results" must be distinguished from the county results. You present no legit argument not have that section title. Number 3: Anyone who has accessed that page will have done it through the main page, and even if they didn't they can go the main page to find out basic information about the candidates. The section is totally not needed. Can we please agree with at least one thing?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have addressed your points, but since I don't think we will come to an agreement I'll ask for a third party opinion to help us come to one.
 * 1) Take a look at Lead section. It is supposed to serve as an introduction and a summary. This will inherently contain information that some people will already know, for example, the article entitled Solar System starts with "The Solar System consists of the Sun and those celestial objects bound to it by gravity".
 * 2) The list of candidates just gives some background on each candidate. It is convenient for the reader and such a section is standard for all election articles.
 * 3) I think a solution to the last point that we could both agree on is to have one section called "results" with a subsection for the country results and another for the statewide. The two paragraphs after the lead should also go into the results section. I'll edit the page to show you what I mean. – Zntrip 03:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Really I think the article looks much better know don't do anything to it.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:32, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * I agree with Zntrip and really don't see what your problem with the points he lists are, Jerzeykydd. — Nightstallion 09:43, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

I have reverted all edits by Jerzeykydd, save for third point I made. I suspect Applemanmitch93 is a sock puppet since he only stared editing today and is making edits consistent with those that Jerzeykydd has made in the past. Additionally Applemanmitch93 is using the same “do your think people are stupid” argument. Making new accounts in a situation like this is a classic example of sock puppetry that is not tolerated. – Zntrip 21:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * You're accusing me of using a sock puppet? Yeah well, I don't care how long Nightstallon has been using wikipedia, the fact is that he didn't even present an argument. Not to mention that Nightstallon simply agreed with you on everything and didn't even object to one thing you said.


 * Lets try and prevent an intense edit war. Please try and work with me. The only thing you've done so far is disagree with me on every single edit I do. Lets try and work something out.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:23, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

How about trying to work with me? I have presented to you my reasoning and have even provided one compromise. You have cut out a lot of sections from this article and frankly you haven’t given any satisfactory explanations. If you continue to be disruptive or uncooperative I will report this situation at the administrators' noticeboard. – Zntrip 21:29, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok I'll offer you a fair compromise:


 * 1. Bring back the electors section.
 * 2. Create an election results section, with the statewide and county results as subsections.
 * 3. The current lead section is already compromised of a mixture of what I want and what you want.
 * 4. The list of candidates is unneeded because all of the relevent candidates are in the main page of US Presidential Election, 2008

Don't edit anything until we agree on something. Lets agree on something so we can get on with our lives.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:37, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * 1) I agree that the electors section should be restored.
 * 2) Once a again I agree
 * 3) I think the original lead is better than the current one. The original one had the date of the election, explained that both the President and and Vice President are voted on, and that electors are involved. The current one just says Obama won, this of course should be mentioned, but so should the other things.
 * 4) I still think the list of candidates is important, esp. since some candidates are not on the main election page and because this is standard in all election articles. It doesn't go into that much depth, so I don't understand your objection to its inclusion.
 * 5) I would also like to make a point about the order of the sections. The results should really be last for two reasons 1) the table is restricted by the infobox and 2) the results are chronologically last. – Zntrip 21:52, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok so we agree on the first 2 points.
 * I disagree with you on the lead. It doesn't need the date (already on the infobox). Everything else you mentioned is pretty much common sense that's totally unneeded.
 * My objection to the list is that its really not necessary.
 * I strongly disagree that the results should be last. I will not accept anything that doesn't. The reason why is that when people read the article they care about the analysis of why it happened and the results. The primaries and other BS should be on the bottom, especially the electors section because most people couldn't care less about the electors.

You gotta try and give a little in order to come to compromise. Remember, I really don't want the first 2 points, but I gave a little. Now you gotta give a little, please bro I'm begging you. The page really looks fine.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let’s take a look at some other election articles for what appears to be the general consensus. The article United States presidential election, 2008 is a good model. The lead includes information that is in the infobox. This information is important: the date, what the election is about, whether it is a direct or indirect election, and who won.
 * Following the same format on United States presidential election, 2008, the background and candidates come next; in our case it would be the primaries, candidates, and electors sections.
 * Afterwards are the results and analysis. There really is no reason for the results to go first. If someone wants a quick summary of the article he or she can take a look at the infobox or the lead paragraph, that’s what they are for.
 * You seem to have a preconceived notion that anything but the results does not belong on the article. The article has to be more than the outcome of the election.
 * Since I doubt we’ll come to an agreement on these last few things, I suggest we silicate third party opinions or check Dispute resolution for other options. – Zntrip 22:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)




 * We can't have any people that agree with me? – Zntrip 04:53, 8 June 2009 (UTC)
 * No I'm saying you can't just bring your "friends" on to agree with everything you say without any explanation to back it up like what Nightstallon did. Look, I don't know, lets see what happens.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:32, 8 June 2009 (UTC)

I restructured the lead paragraph to me more in line with the policy per Amatulic's suggestion. I also removed information about other elections that Semocrat08. Do you want to reconsider the list of candidates or the order of the sections? – Zntrip 22:58, 11 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm Ok with the lead paragraph, as most articles in general have them. I'm still not ok with a list of candidates. As far as the order of the sections, what specific order do you want? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Jerzeykydd (talk • contribs) 23:42, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

The format that I think makes the most sense is Primaries, Failed election reform, List of candidates (we can talk about this later), Electors, Analysis, and Results. – Zntrip 00:54, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Failed election reform should be last, because it has very limited relevence to the election and is nothing more than a side note. When people read the article, they couldn't care less about who the electors are, thus should be one of the last things mentioned in the article. In my opinion, the order of the article right now is fine.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:24, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Everything you said is simply untrue or fallacious. You said election reform had “very limited relevance” to the election. It is actually vary relevant. If California had changed the way it allocated its electoral votes McCain would have gotten 20 votes. That is significant.

You also claim to know that the readers don’t care about who the electors are, and therefore that section should be last. Not only is this statement based on an unquantifiable observation, but even if it were true it wouldn’t matter. Sections are organized logically, not by reader interest. It is logical to have the election reform and the primary sections first because of chronology. It is logical to have the electors section before the results because the first section gives the reader the background to understand what the electoral votes mean.

Look, this is ridiculous. I have written arguments based on logical conclusions and Wikipedia policy. We even have two other editors largely, if not wholly, agreeing with me. You on the other hand have made unsupportable claims and have been refuting my points without explanation. I can’t find a single valid argument in any of your comments. If you can’t defend yourself, I suggest you stop wasting everyone’s time. I will change the article as I have previously specified. If you have any objections I expect you to formulate a logical explanation, which we could perhaps discuss. – Zntrip 04:59, 12 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what you mean by It is logical to have the election reform and the primary sections first because of chronology. That makes no sense. Plus, what would the analysis be last, after the election results.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:17, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Are you serious? Your proposed order is based on your personal preference. Having things in chronological order makes the most sense. If you are reading an article about an election the results are meaningless up front without any background. I don’t think I can deal with this any more. If you have any other concerns take a look at Dispute resolution and try to figure something out. I will consider any additional reverts of my edits to be vandalism. – Zntrip 21:53, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Points of Conflict
I tried to take some months off from this major argument. However, I'm still not ok with the following things:


 * 1. The list of candidates is completely unnecessary.
 * 2. The lead should have the 2 paragraphs. There is no reason why there shouldn't be.
 * 3. There has been a general consensus on all other presidential election articles that has been agreed upon that since the electoral votes are only effected by statewide results (except Nebraska/Maine) that the results section should only have the statewide results and than have a seperate section for Results Breakdown of county and CD results.

Amatulic
I'm responding to a request on Third opinion. It looks like you guys are slowly working things out. In my opinion: That's what I think, for what it's worth. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:10, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
 * The current lead, recently changed by Semocrat08, doesn't comply with WP:LEAD. It should summarize the rest of the article, not serve as an introduction to an essay.
 * The list of candidates is important and should be kept.
 * I have no opinion on where the election results should appear. Up front is fine. At the end is fine. If precedent is established by other similar articles, I'd say go with that format. In that case the results should be last, but the results should also be summarized up front in the lead section.
 * The electors section is OK, but the list of non-notable names strikes me as unnecessary detail. It doesn't hurt to be encyclopedic, however.

America69
I have read the discussion above from June, and now, and I have come to several conclusions about the page.
 * Point 1 - Concerning the list of candidates, I can see both sides. On the one hand, Jerzey makes a solid point, not one of the 2008 election pages currently display a list of candidates like this page. However, to me, and I may be wrong so correct me, I think Zntrip wants the list of candidates, as in past California elections, I have always seen more candidate acceptions on the ballot then other states. So either way, both sides are right in a way, although if you wanted this page to model all the others, I would agree with Jerzey.


 * Point 2 - I'll make this one brief. Again all pages model the format of two paragraphs at the beginning. The first reads, in general, about when the election was held, how many electors, and includes a link to the Wikipedia 2008 election page. The second paragraph goes into, in general, who won the state, the margin, and some other minor facts. This page does not include that, and again, it does not look like all other 50(including D.C) state's pages.


 * Point 3 - I have to say, that besides for the two things listed above, the page bascially models all of the 50 others(including D.C). I have always felt strongely about coming together to build a good encylopedia. I truly see a chance to come together, and I hope that happens.


 * Conclusion - I hope this helps. I will check back here for a few weeks to see where I can help, and to see if there are any questions about my response(s). I truly hopes this helps. Thanks! America69 (talk) 14:38, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Timmeh
I'll address Jerzeykidd's argument, point-by-point.


 * Point 1 - Honestly, I have the same opinion as America69 on the candidates list. However, to keep consistency with the other election articles, I'd tend to side with removing it unless you could at least make it a little neater and add some sources.


 * Point 2 - The lead should be a summary of the article. Guidelines say the lead for this article should be three or four paragraphs. I suppose it could be two, but one paragraph is not enough.


 * Point 3 - I agree with Jerzeykidd in that it was agreed that there should be a separate results breakdown section. That seems to make more sense, too, per his reasoning. The format also seems to be used in most other election articles of this type. Tim  meh  21:24, 4 October 2009 (UTC)

Continued Arguments
Please be reasonable. No consensus was reached on the talk page for the lead. It wasn't even the subject of the recent discussion. Polling is not a substitute for discussion and the opinions of others are not a vote of confidence for your position; they are simply other editors' opinions. If you want to reach any sort of conclusion you have to be willing to have a discussion. I would like to know why you object to the lead that existed before your latest edit. As for the list of candidates, I assumed we reached a conclusion at the talk page as proposed by Highground79. – Zntrip 22:15, 13 October 2009 (UTC)
 * The lead should be three to four paragraphs and summarize the article per the lead section guideline. Consensus does not have to be reached to satisfy that guideline. Tim  meh  00:12, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

A longer lead is not necessarily a better one. This lead concisely summarizes the article. As a side note, is there any reason the word "California" is in bold in the current lead? – Zntrip 00:59, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * So in order to come to a consensus everyone has to agree? But what happens if one person isn't open to changing his mind? What happens if 20 editors agree, but one still objects?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:23, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Look, I'm not completely opposed to everything you do, I'm not trying to be an obstructionist, and I appreciate your contributions to articles. I disagree with some of your edits, and I would like to discuss them in the hope of reaching a consensus. I'll make some revisions to the article and if you disagree with any of them we can talk about it. Specifically I'll make minor changes to your lead, a minor capitalization edit, restore the list of candidates, and restructure the results section. I'm also going to move this discussion to the article's talk page. Furthermore I will not immediately revert any edits you might make, but I would appreciate a reason for the difference of opinion that could be the subject of a discussion. – Zntrip 06:10, 14 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Ok it's good that no one here is obstructionist. I have reorganized the talk page to see the arguments and conflicts more clearly. Hopefully, we all can come to a consensus. I will be open minded.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Candidates section
Hey, Zntrip, I just saw that your message on my talk post; I didn't realize you would find my edit so controversial.

The current California election article lists ten candidates who might have received votes but does not differentiate between their relative importance. Barack Obama and John McCain are given the same amount of attention as Chuck Baldwin, who received 3,145 out of nearly 14 million votes cast. Many of the listed candidates, moreover, are not even on the ballot - they are write-ins. If we were to list all the write-in candidates, I might have grounds for adding, for example, Zntrip as a candidate and then adding a sentence about the Zntrip Party (ZP) and its policy of making Zntrip master of the universe.

I am sure we can all agree that the two candidates who got 98% of the vote are of greater importance than those who received less than 1% each under the Wikipedia: Notability policy. Grouping the latter under a shortened list makes sense; moreover, any person interested in third-parties can simply click the link on that person's name and be directed to a lengthy wikipedia article on what Cyndia McKinney or Bob Barr stand for. Therefore I am reinstating my edits; I hope we can come to a consensus on this.

Discuss :) Hadoren (talk) 21:33, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * The warning I left on your talk page was primarily for this edit which is essentially vandalism.


 * As for the list of candidates, I do not agree with your assertion that undue attention is given to third-party and write-in candidates. Throughout the article it is obvious that the Obama and McCain were the main contenders (Bob Barr's picture isn't in the infobox, is it?). In addition, write-in candidates are certified by the Secretary of State, so any write-in vote for the Zntrip Party would not be counted and the vote would be invalid. – Zntrip 22:17, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * Regarding the first point, you and I are reading the table differently (assume good faith); you're referring to the percent of registered voters who actually voted; I'm referring to the percent of eligible voters who voted (which is always less). Most media uses the latter statistic as a barometer of voter turn-out; in any case, I'll just clarify the wording to that extent.


 * Regarding the candidate list, I'll reiterate my previous point. Discussing a candidate who won 36 votes (Frank Moore) in the same context as a candidate who won eight million votes (Barack Obama) implies that their role in California's election was equal - which is not true. The candidate list devotes several times more text to those who won less than two percent of the vote than to those who won 98% of it.


 * I'm really glad we're having this discussion; it's pretty clear we're both extremely interested in politics, and I hope the article gets better as a result. Hadoren (talk) 23:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I am satisfied with the current wording of the turnout sentence, so we needn't discuss it any further.


 * As for the list of candidates, I don't think discussing them equally insinuates that they played an equal role in the election. If anything, it presents a neutral POV and doesn't favor two candidates over the others. – Zntrip 23:51, 30 September 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't understand why Zntrip cares so much about this article. Look, most people agree that a list of candidates is un needed especially considering the fact that you can simply look on one's wikipedia page for the biographies. Not even the main 2008 presidential election article has a list. Just give it up zntrip, it really isn't a big deal. If not, more and more people will complain.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm still unconvinced by both your arguments. Since I don't think we'll reach an agreement, I think a third-party opinion is in order. Would you agree? – Zntrip 22:05, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

If there is going to be a candidate section 'all' the candidates who were on the 'ballot' should be listed (in NPOV order that means alphabetical). To not include them falsely portrays the election as a two man race which it was not. So while the candidates of the other four ballot qualified parties may not have received a significant percentage of the vote they were on the ballot. To not include them would be a matter of opinion rather then a matter of facts, and since Wikipedia is an Encyclopedia the article should strive to present the facts. Currently the article reads "There were also several minor third-party candidates, including Chuck Baldwin, Bob Barr, James Harris, Alan Keyes, Cynthia McKinney, Frank Moore, Ralph Nader, and Ron Paul" This is highly flawed in that it does not distinguish between those who were on the ballot and those who was not this should be fixed! Highground79 (talk) 04:10, 5 October 2009 (UTC)

Results section
Highground and I came to compromise a few months ago (on my talk page) that all of the election articles would be split into two sections: the "Results" section that would only have the statewide results and than a "Results breakdown" section with the county and congressional district results. The purpose behind this for people unfamiliar with U.S. politics to understand that the statewide results are the only results that matter. The county and CD results are only extra information that has nothing to do with how the electors vote. The exception to this is Nebraska and Maine, in which the CD results do matter.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:17, 15 October 2009 (UTC)


 * Now that I understand the logic behind this preference, I can say that agree with it. It could be confusing for someone unfamiliar with US politics. I'll change the article so that there are two section. – Zntrip 21:31, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

Vote numbers and percentages
The percentages for the counties do not add up to 100%. Someone might want to check the numbers against those on the California Secretary of State's website. --Kurykh (talk) 03:36, 30 January 2011 (UTC) Yeah, you're right. Nice catch! I just checked the county breakdown against the website of the Secretary of State of California, and the county breakdown does add up. It looks like the problem is with them. When you add up the county results, you come to 277,408 less votes cast for McCain than the official totals list.Smooth pappa (talk) 17:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Understanding the article in Europe
I do not know if Americans understand this article or not. Europeans won't.

The article tells us: "370 of the 441 delegates from California are selected from the results of the primary. 241 of these delegates are awarded at the Congressional district level, and the remaining 129 are selected by the statewide primary vote." Okay so far.

Then (Feb. 6th) it tells us - with "100 % precincts reporting" - that Clinton got 42 and Obama got 23 delegates. That's a sum of 65. How does that number suit to the others? All of the numbers in the article seem inconsistent. Maybe they are right, but it's not possible to understand why.

Could anybody explain these numbers?

Michael B., Austria


 * The 42 and 23 may have been part of an estimated allocation of the 71 "superdelegates"; see below. Wdfarmer (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

370 delegates vs 441
"370 of the 441 delegates from California are selected from the results of the primary. 241 of these delegates are awarded at the Congressional district level, and the remaining 129 are selected by the statewide primary vote. Candidates must receive 15% in the district or statewide to receive delegates."

The 370 delegates part is well explained, but what about the 71 delegates that differs between 370 and 441? How and when are those deleates awarded? Hasselby (talk) 12:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * The remaining 71 delegates get assigned by Chelsea Clinton. --Jon Stewart —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.186.232.27 (talk) 13:38, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
 * For our European viewers: "That was a joke, son." The remaining 71 delegates are "superdelegates". Under Democratic Party rules, they are free to assign their support to any candidate, regardless of public opinion.  The Democratic Party created superdelegates in order to allow public participation in the nominating process, without giving up too much of the influence that the party bosses had held in the past. Wdfarmer (talk) 02:10, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

Updated voters and delegates
I've updated the voter numbers, and recomputed the percentages and the totals, for both this article and its summary section, based on the latest California Secretary of State numbers. Those numbers don't match CBS News or The Green Pages at the moment.

I've also updated the delegate count in both articles, which was out-of-date or vandalized.

Wdfarmer (talk) 02:14, 11 February 2008 (UTC)

placement of the key
Why does the key appear before the chart and not after? It should be after. Kingturtle (talk) 13:09, 6 March 2008 (UTC)

delegate count
the stated source is not showing a delegate count. Please update the citation. Northwesterner1 (talk) 11:53, 8 March 2008 (UTC)

LA County Recount
No mention of the LA recount? Does anyone know what effect this had on the delegate count? http://www.nctimes.com/articles/2008/03/05/news/politics/16_36_323_4_08.txt 86.145.1.63 (talk) 08:33, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 one external links on United States presidential election in California, 2008. 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:
 * Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081030041546/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_ec.htm to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/elections_ec.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090614004022/http://innovation.cq.com/prezMap08/ to http://innovation.cq.com/prezMap08/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090422070127/http://vote2008.thetakeaway.org/2008/09/20/track-the-electoral-college-vote-predictions/ to http://vote2008.thetakeaway.org/2008/09/20/track-the-electoral-college-vote-predictions/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081113052923/http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/election_2008/pres-general/electors_november2008.pdf to http://www.sos.ca.gov/elections/election_2008/pres-general/electors_november2008.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 16:30, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on California Democratic primary, 2008. 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:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110608092338/http://www.democrats.org/page/-/dem_convention/call.pdf to http://www.democrats.org/page/-/dem_convention/call.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 06:47, 29 July 2017 (UTC)