Talk:2012 United States presidential election/Archive 10

Karger and other minor candidates
Is this a reliable source? It says Fred Karger has officially ended his campaign for president. I can't find any other sources that say this, however, and I'm not sure if this one meets WP:RS.--Green4liberty (talk) 19:17, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Is Karger even notable enough to be included here? Mr.   Anon  515  00:26, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Karger meets inclusion standards and appeared on the ballot in several primaries.--NextUSprez (talk) 03:50, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * As it is now only the "major" candidates are included in this article leaving it to the main article (Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012) to mention all of them. It is true that he has been in at least two primaries, but is that in itself enough to include him in this general article about the presidentiel election, where the republican primary is only a section. As for now he is not even inlcluded in the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 article. What are the criteria to be included?
 * And opening up that discussion I really think that the same criterias should applie for both the democrats as the republican primaries. It is a little weird that every pererinal democratic candidate are listed even though Obama ran practically unapposed except for these gentlemen that ran pereninal against him to put focus on an issue or to uphold the fine democratic (not the party but the metodh ) primary traditions of America. But the many many fringe republican candidates are not mentioned. Personally I think it would be best to keeping to the major candidates in this article. That means only Obama for the democrats and maybe not even McCoutter for the Republicans. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:52, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Stein clinches and Stein image discussion
Jill Stein entered today (June 5) with 161 delegates. 55 others were allocated to Roseanne Barr, Kent Mesplay had 9.5, and Harley Mikkelson had 3.5, with 7 delegates uncommitted. It seems like nearly all of the 401 delegates but MI's are bound by their state parties. This left 88 delegates to be allocated. 8 more delegates had been allocated at state conventions before today but I have been unable to find results for them. Stein has won every primary so far except GA, OR, ND & SD (Barr) and HI & IA (delegation tied between Stein & Barr).

60 delegates allocated for 13 states & 4 territories are not currently planning on sending delegates to the Baltimore convention, lowering the number needed for a majority & to win the nomination from 201 to 171. There are provisions in the national Green Party's bylaws for those 13 states to register in the next couple of weeks, but there isn't much time left for that & I think until they announce they are sending delegates, it would be safe to say Stein is the presumptive nominee if she's met the threshold of having commitments of a majority of those delegations who as things stand now are the only ones going to the National Convention in Baltimore. States who don't have an affiliate registered with the GP Presidential Campaign Support Committee include: AK, ID, KS, LA, MO, MT, NV, NH, OK, UT, VT, WV, and WY, as well as the territories of Guam, N. Mariana Islands, Puerto Rico, and the U.S. Virgin Islands. Excluding these states, that leaves 341 delegates for Baltimore.

Therefore, Stein needed 10 more delegates entering today's proportional CA primary, which has 65 delegates. 10/65 delegates rounds up to 16%, so winning at least 20% of the vote would be enough of a margin above that to ensure she gets those 10. Winning 62% of the vote would give her the 40 delegates she needs to clinch even in the unlikely event all 60 absent/disqualified delegates show up in Baltimore. The results of CA's Green primary are here. At the time of posting, Stein is winning the primary with 49% of the vote. Overall delegate status has been posted by the national party here. Information on delegates not listed yet in that spreadsheet for states that have already held conventions can usually be found on the respective state party websites (many of which are unfortunately not designed all that well). If the current percentages hold when the vote is certified, Stein will have won 32 delegates, Barr 26, Mesplay 7. Bringing everybody's total to: Stein 193, Barr 81, Mesplay 16.5, Mikkelson 3.5, 7 uncommitted, with 40 delegates outstanding (32 unallocated from: AL (4), KY (4), NE (4), NM (4), TX (12), 2 each from the Lavender & Women's Caucuses; 8 unknown from: IN (4) & NC (4)).

There may not yet be media sources declaring her as such, but the math backs it up. If you've got the majority of delegates, you've got the majority of delegates to win. Seems pretty straightforward. I don't know if this is considered Original Research or not, but you guys can check out the primary sources I included & see for yourselves. Some of these numbers are also available at this site.

If she's added to the infobox, we should find a good picture of her "campaigning", if we stick with the photos of the other candidates we have right now. Can we just grab any image that fits or do we have to get permission to use a specific image to upload? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 04:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)
 * that is rather complex. Read Licensing on Wiki Commons Jack Bornholm (talk) 05:37, 6 June 2012 (UTC)


 * OK, it seems the Stein campaign has crunched the numbers too & have come to the same conclusion I did. Our numbers aren't exactly the same but the conclusion, that she is the presumptive nominee, is. Here's the campaign's press release, and a report from the Washington Post.


 * Now that we have confirmation, we'll need a good picture. This image is, according to this page, free to use by us. I'm also partial to this one or this. A couple of the ones from this album are also nice, if we can get permission to use them. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 01:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Whatever photo you think is good. I like any of them more than the terrible cat lady picture that is the only possibility right now. But you will have to upload the photo to Wiki Commmons and be sure to get the right copyright, licensning and description when you do so. There is helpfiles and articles thate explains it there. If you dont it will soon be challenged and erased. As it seems to be no present argument against Jill Stein as the presumptive nominee I will put her name and (for now) the only avaible photo in the infobox. Everyone is free to discuss that further in this section. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:17, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I cropped the first photo you mentioned and uploaded it to Wiki Commons. (I hope I got the right Copyright on it, please check). Not saying it has to be that photo, just for now. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Though I prefer more formal photos in the infobox, I think this is the best of the "campaigning" photos, if we can get permission to use it.--Rollins83 (talk) 12:30, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The photo currently being used for Stein is not licensed correctly. The photographer needs to explicitly release it into the public domain or state that it is under a creative commons share-alike license. This can easily be obtained by contacting the campaign, and then forwarding the photographer's explicit statement to OTRS. Additional information on how to do this can be found here.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * If that doesn't work out though, there's a great number of properly licensed photos on Flickr. Any of these can be easily uploaded to Commons using the Flickr tool, no downloading necessary.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:47, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * On the campaign download page it says: "You can download these high-resolution images for use in publications or online". Is is simply the campaign that have got their legal terms wrong or is there different more strict rules when it comes to Wiki Commons? As I read the statement on the download page I could freely use, without asking further, this online on my personal website (if I was a supporter of the Greens) or in my small town printed newspaper (if I was a newsman). Is that totally wrong? Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:54, 7 June 2012 (UTC)
 * That's how I understood it too- seems to me that they're giving permission for any website to use those images. And thanks, Jack, for uploading & cropping it- I can't do it myself until I get around to making an account. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 00:50, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I attempted to upload this photo, which I feel is preferable to one currently being used, using the Flickr tool. I have never used this tool before, and it seems simple enough, but for some reason I couldn't get it to upload and don't have time right now to fool with it anymore. If someone else agrees that that's a good photo, and knows how to work the Flickr tool, please upload and add to the page. Thanks.--Green4liberty (talk) 16:00, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually think she look more grandmother in chief than commander in chief on that picture. Naaa, she just looks cold but it is better than the one we have now. I dont know anything about flickr though. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:06, 8 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the current picture grown on me, especially since it's been "cleaned up". I withdraw the request to replace it.--Green4liberty (talk) 18:43, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I just cropped an image from Flickr where she is speaking. There is a strange black object in the background, so I have requested at the photography workshop for it to be brushed out. In my opinion, it fits nicely with all the others.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Okay the object has been removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Although the image is much better now with the object removed, and I agree that it is better to have a more serious image here then the one of her laughing, the current image is highly distorted by some kind of rendering. Ultimately, another image which does not have a distortion like it does here should be used. Also, people need to try not to get too attached to the particular image they post -- not easy, I know.  But we need a professional looking high quality image that reflects the candidate themselves.GreenIn2010 (talk) 22:00, 9 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Just wanted to say that while I like, more than many of the alternatives, the current image of her speaking (as it matches the "campaigning" style of the other photos), I don't consider it "high quality." It's OK for now, but we should continue to look for a photo that matches the resolution of the other candidates, and makes her look less drawn. If anyone has contacts with her campaign to properly license such a photo for us that would be very helpful. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 01:46, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Jesus as a candidate?
Apparently Bill Keller (televangelist) has started a campaign to get his audience to write-in Jesus for president, instead of Romney or Obama. Already the campaign has 100,000 volunteers and is still growing; that's about 0.1% of likely voters so far, which means that in a close election it could be a spoiler (most likely tipping the election to Obama). The campaign's been mentioned in several news sources like, and. Worth mentioning? 173.165.239.237 (talk) 05:26, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont know if it is notable. Does the humor in it count? It sounds like a fun and crazy fact I would like to read as a sidenote. (Didnt Jesus issue a shermaneqsk statement last time anyone tried that, 2000 years ago John 6:15}) Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:49, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * In other news, Wikipedian User:A7x has apparently decided that he will start his own campaign asking American voters to write-in a duck that blows shit out of its mouth for president, instead of Romney or Obama. He also hopes to get 100,000 frustrated volunteers to join his frivolous cause. One could wonder if his campaign should also be included due to WP:NPOV.  :P — stay ( sic ) ! 12:10, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lmfao. Seriously though, should he be included? Even if it can be proven without a doubt that Jesus lived & was all he said he was, can he become President? Of course not. He is certainly notable, but come on, the man is dead. However if the Second Coming occurs between now & November, or it becomes clear that the Zombie Apocalypse is truly upon us, then all bets are off. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 12:36, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually he wouldnt be eligible on several accounts according to the constitution: "No person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President; neither shall any Person be eligible to that Office who shall not have attained to the Age of thirty-five Years, and been fourteen Years a Resident within the United States." Since he is not born in USA or was a Citizen in 1789. He is only 33 years old (I am sure only years as a human counts) and have never been a resident of the U.S. But seriousely this got me thinking. What would happen if a person not eligible was elected by write-in to a office in the US. Of course no president would ever be elected by write-in but some official, like a city counsel man or something, at some level of goverment must have been the last 200 years. Anyone know a good article to read about this funny thought. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:59, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Lisa Murkowski, the senior US Senator from Alaska, recently won re-election as a write-in candidate in 2010. It's a pretty notable and remarkable feat, considering that she has defeated both her Democratic and fellow Republican challengers, and the last time such an event occurred was during the 1950s by the late Senator Thurmond. — stay ( sic ) ! 23:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually the Mayans predicted the world, and possibly civilization, would come to an end on December 21. However that is after the presidential elections on November 6, so I guess Jesus won't be having any part of the elections. Mostly likely, it's plausible that Mr. Bill Keller is somehow affiliated with the infamous Westboro Baptist Church. In that case, it would be best to give a deaf ear to the bible thumpers and move on. — stay ( sic ) ! 23:33, 15 June 2012 (UTC)
 * They really didn't, though.  tomasz.  00:28, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It is nothing to do with this article but just to clarify. The ancient Mayans simply predicted that their calendar system would come to the end of its cycle in our year 2012. What would happen after that they didnt say. Today we simply go out and buy a new calendar to hang on the wall - I guess if any Mayans today still uses their old calendar that is what they are going to do too. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:48, 16 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the age-limits in the Constitution have been fudged a few times in the past to allow a few famous faces to become senators before the required age of 30, including Henry Clay in 1806 and Joe Biden in 1972, just to name two examples. Considering how much fuss there was over Obama's natural-born citizenship, though, I'm sure the Supreme Court would invalidate the election of any candidate who didn't meet the requirements. Furthermore, as far as including the write-in campaign in the article, our criteria thus far has been ballot-access. So unless the campaign legitimately tips the scale of the election or scores an unusually high amount of the popular vote, it should remain out of the article. Somehow I doubt that many of those volunteers will actually drive to a polling place, wait in line and write-in "Jesus Christ" when they're staring at a real ballot. 143.236.34.54 (talk) 13:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Besides the fun and also the interesting fact we have been sharing I guess the real questions is should we have a section with "funny facts" (or something like that) in this article? Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:53, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * No. See Manual of Style/Trivia sections.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm guessing what would happen is the electors would then all choose whatever candidate they would want. Remember, in the 1872 election the runner up candidate died shortly after the election, so his electoral votes were divided into the electors' personal choices. No doubt something similar to that would happen. Mr.   Anon  515  15:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but only if Jesus (or rather, his supporters) successfully filed as a write-in candidate (with full slates of electors) in enough states to "win." In states that he did not, then the recognized candidate with the most votes would have picked the electors, and they would likely go on to vote for that 'runner-up' candidate. I wonder if states check whether write-in candidates are alive or not before making their elector candidates eligible to be on the ballot? Since Peta Lindsay's electors are not barred from making it, I'm guessing the answer is no. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 01:58, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Info box and the candidates
I think it is abundant clear that 1.) Marco Rubio cannot be considered as the presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee 2.) No individuals without support of the Democratic Party or Republican Party can be said to have any mathematical chance of winning 270 votes in the electoral college.

I propose Marco Rubio be delisted as the presumptive Republican vice presidential nominee and that any third party and independent campaigns should not be noted in the candidates info box, but should be mentioned only in the body of this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.44.28.30 (talk) 19:08, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

I've removed Rubio, but there is no reason not to list third parties and independent candidates in the infobox. Ratemonth (talk) 19:46, 18 June 2012 (UTC)
 * The 270 criteria in the infobox have already been discussed in lenght and a consensus was reached as all can read in the top of this page. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:24, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * A candidate other the Democratic or Republican nominee most certainly can have a mathematical chance at winning 270 electoral votes if they appear on enough state ballots to qualify for that many (or more) electoral votes. They may not have a likely or probable chance, but they certainly have a mathematical one.--Green4liberty (talk) 18:39, 19 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. This was already argued-about for a long time. There is no denying the objective, mathematical chance of Gary Johnson or Jill Stein potentially winning the election, (Johnson especially will be on the ballot in 50 states and in D.C.) regardless of the likelihood of such an event. 143.236.34.54 (talk) 14:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)
 * This is somewhat off topic, but does anyone know if Jill Stein qualifies for Matching Funds? I know Gary Johnson does. I'd also like to note that while I don't support Johnson, he is polling very well for a third party in some states like New Mexico. In Arizona, he tips the state from solidly Romney to swing status. Mr.   Anon  515  15:02, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * Stein has not yet qualified for matching funds, but is close to doing so, according to Ballot Access News.--JayJasper (talk) 15:38, 28 June 2012 (UTC)
 * It was close, but she made it: 68.58.63.22 (talk) 02:01, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Americans Elect
As Mr. Anon515 have said this movement does not intend to have a candidate so maybe the candidate section is not the right place for them? On the other hand reaching ballot access in that many states are quit something especially in their first attempt and not running a candidate afterwards even more noteworthy. If we simply delete the info in the candidate section we loose the work editors have done in finding references and writing. So should we keep AE in the candidate section or in what other way should they be mentioned in the article? Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:47, 29 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I shouldn't have removed the whole section but I was not sure at the time what else to do with it. I agree that it is worth mentioning, and should go in its own sub-section (possibly call it "American Elect Controversy"?), rather than the "Ballot access to 270 or more electoral votes" section. Since the party has no candidate, they are not in the race right now, and I don't think it is fitting to include them as a running candidate. Mr.   Anon  515  01:50, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess we can have a whole section only for AE, I dont think we should use the word controversy, since that would only included the problems conserning the fact that they are not running a candidate. Maybe the AE movement, or the AE ballot drive? Should this be a section in the article or a subsection, and if so a subsection of what section? Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:46, 30 June 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine. It would work as a subsection of the "other parties and candidates" section. Mr.   Anon  515  04:50, 1 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Is there any recent evidence that Americans Elect will be running a candidate? If not, then I think they should be moved to the bottom of the "Third party candidates" section (as a subsection of its own, titled "Americans Elect" or "Withdrawn parties or candidates"), so as to give active candidates priority. That subsection could then be expanded a bit to include other information like, for example, why no candidate was able to be nominated. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 01:35, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

Grassroots Party

 * They have apparently nominated their own candidate, have Ballot Access in Minnesota, and are going to seek ballot access in other states. Considering, I believe, our own William Saturn wrote the article in question that mentions this, it would have been brought up shortly anyhow. --Ariostos (talk) 23:32, 7 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The candidate currently doesn't have an article. But there are a plethora of sources about him:, , , , , , ,

--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:35, 8 July 2012 (UTC)
 * That was why I brought it up. He is the official candidate of their party, and he has ballot access currently in Minnesota, but he does not have an article. Thus, I hesitated to include him among the others. --Ariostos (talk) 00:37, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I removed him since he didn't hava an article. As far I know, that is still a requirement to be listed here. There seems to be enough sources about him to create an article about him though, judging from the ones Saturn provided. But still, until the article is actually created, we shouldn't be jumping the gun.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:23, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I put in a article request for this candidate on the request page for politics/government articles.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:46, 9 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I created the article: Jim Carlson (businessman).--Cjv110ma (talk) 22:39, 9 July 2012 (UTC)

Jill Stein
Jill Stein shouldnot be in the lede for two main reasons. Firstly, the Green Party is relatively fringe. Secondly, she is not even the nominee yet. Once she becomes a nominee we will decide whether she's notable enough to be mentioned or not. Pass a Method  talk  06:45, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Question: At what point does a third or lower party become not fringe? And do they have to achieve that while only the current big two parties get their candidates mentioned here? Sounds like a massive bias towards the status quo. HiLo48 (talk) 08:09, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Anyone who isn't a member of the Democratic or Republican Parties are usually considered "relatively fringe" in the mainstream contemporary American politics. Also Mitt Romney isn't even the official GOP nominee, yet. Technically the presidential primaries are still on until the GOP convention in Tampa, FL. It's just that Romney has no viable challengers left; Santorum and Gingrich dropped out of the race weeks ago and have subsequently endorsed Romney. AFAIK, Jill Stein is a nobody who will never win the presidency this coming November. However, this doesn't seem to deter a small group of editors who insist on including the Libertarian and Green Party candidates due to the WP:NPOV clause. Personally, I believe that is nothing more than a silly excuse to include more than two candidates in a system that is biased itself. — stay ( sic ) ! 08:58, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * In the run-up to the elections several think tanks and reports have mentioned Gary Johnson as a 3rd candidate, (see for aexample refs at Thee-way race. Furthermore, the Libertarian Party is not as Fringe as the Green Party. Plus Gary has already been nominated. We should judge notability by reliable sources, and in most cases, Jill Stein is usually left out. Pass a Method   talk  09:28, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Any candidate that has ballot access in enough states to win is included in the infobox until election day when any candidate that recieved more than 5% of the vote is included.XavierGreen (talk) 16:49, 5 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Editors need to realise that Wikipedia isn't just reporting what the sources say. To masses of voters in the US, Wikipedia IS one of the sources. Given the way Google works, it's a major one. Wikipedia must not be seen to be favouring certain candidates. HiLo48 (talk) 22:31, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm in agreement with Hilo48. If Stein is eligible to be listed in the infobox, she should be mentioned in the lead also. Otherwise, it appears biased.--NextUSprez (talk) 23:11, 5 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. A decision was made long ago to no longer make much of a distinction between official & presumptive nominees, as we can see with Mitt Romney's early inclusion. If Romney & Obama are there (despite not being official nominees) & Gary Johnson is there (despite being third party), then so should Stein.
 * Speaking of Stein, her ballot access states have incorrectly been made to be shown in bold. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 01:12, 6 July 2012 (UTC)

As it is mentioned at the top of this article all candidates that have ballot access to enough states to theoritical winning the election (270 or more electors) are listed in the infobox. Feell free to read through the discussion in the archive (It is a very long and in depht I am afraid) Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:00, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

Electoral vote scenarios?
I wonder whether we should be including something like the "Electoral votes" part of the "Campaign" section. How do we decide which polls, or aggregation thereof, to use to assess the current chances of one candidate or another? Even if we could decide that, this is likely to be quite variable and a pain to update every other day. If we're going to go this route, I'd prefer to use Nate Silver's model, which earned praise for correctly predicting every state in 2008 except Indiana (and every Senate race), and is updated daily except weekends, incorporating polls (weighted for partisan bias), economic indicators, and other state characteristics. If we're being generous and call any state that has less than a 70% chance of voting for one candidate or the other a "swing state", then as of today there are only 6 of those- CO, FL, IA, NH, OH, and VA (and only FL & VA for his "now-cast"), leaving Obama with 253 votes & Romney 206. Including odds in all states, Obama is currently projected to get just under 300 EVs. There's also the Obama campaign's map, from campaign manager Jim Messina, which doesn't consider MI to be a swing/tossup state at all, and still leaves Obama under 270, with 243 votes. I can see a place for a general statement (with sources) like "by July, most national polling indicated President Obama had a notable lead. The Romney campaign responded by..." But I would avoid getting into the nitty-gritty of the different scenarios by which each candidate could win. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 02:38, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Realclearpolitics has a useful map that combines all polls. Mr.   Anon  515  02:32, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Candidates or parties?
According to this page, Gary Johnson is not yet on the ballot in Michigan, and that state's SoS is currently being sued for not letting him on. Unless we'd like to count the stand-in they've found of the same name (which we could, since people are technically voting for a slate of electors anyway), I don't think that state should be listed for him yet. His total would be 30 states, with 325 electors. Even counting MI & OK (which is being sued by a bunch of parties for having too early of a petition deadline), his total would be 348, so I'm not sure how it ever got up to 354. I know WP generally frowns on primary sources, but I think they're alright to use for something like this, no?

After checking here and here, Maryland doesn't appear to be a done deal for the Greens. Indeed, a recent post on the state party's site implies they're still petitioning for that. Does anybody have another source that says they made it on in MD? If not, then after adding Illinois and taking away MD, Jill Stein's current total would be 21 states + DC, for 306 electors.

According to this article, the Socialist Workers Party has ballot access in FL. I think we already have a source for CO, but what of the other 5 states they "expect" to be on (IA, LA, MN, NJ, WA)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:47, 10 July 2012 (UTC)

I was wondering if we're counting, for the purposes of ballot access (and by implication, whether they have even a possibility of winning), the candidates or the parties? If we're counting the candidates, I don't think Peta Lindsay & the PSL should be listed because neither she nor her VP are old enough to serve. Even if she won those states, her electors would have to cast their ballots for someone else, or not be counted at all. If we're counting for the parties, then I think MI can remain listed for Johnson (perhaps with an asterisk), since even if the LP loses that case, they'll put another name on their ballot line.

While I'm at it, I thought I'd try asking again about the eligibility of Tom Hoefling & the "America's Party" to be listed. If it is true that his party is not on another state's ballot, he wouldn't be on the FL ballot either, which would mean he'd revert to having no ballot access, justifying his name being hidden again. The original info on this is here. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 02:01, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * we have been using the party ballot access, not the candidates so far. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:31, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 July 2012
Jill Stein has selected Cheri Honkala as her running mate. See http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-503544_162-57469720-503544/running-mate-revealed-green-party-running-mate-that-is/. Please make note of this in the appropriate area(s) of this article. Thank you.--75.206.142.243 (talk) 15:46, 11 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Which party? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:35, 11 July 2012 (UTC)

✅ That would be the Green Party. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thatotherdude (talk • contribs)  17:54 11 July 2012 (UTC)

Bill O'reilly
This article says Bill Oreilly is the leading republican candidate, and it won't let me edit it to Mitt Romney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.90.191.191 (talk) 06:28, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The vandalism has been reverted. If you'd like to edit this article I encourage you to create an account.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:39, 13 July 2012 (UTC)

Fathers
Not sure if belongs in main article, as could be just interesting trivia, but this is the first US Presidential election in 156 years where both major candidate's fathers were born outside the United States. Obama's father was born in Kenya, and Romney's father was born in Mexico. Last election it happened was 1856 where James Buchanan (D) father was born in Ireland, and John C. Frémont (R) father was born in France. Sheppa28 (talk) 12:56, 10 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Might be worth adding after Romney becomes the official candidate. Mr.   Anon  515  04:01, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Worth adding if there are reliable sources that discuss this fact.--JayJasper (talk) 05:23, 11 July 2012 (UTC)
 * And just how does that significantly relate to the candidates themselves? Under the U.S. Constitution, they're still eligible to run for the presidency, regardless of which country(ies) their fathers were born in. — stay ( sic ) ! 07:56, 13 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's not an eligibility issue, just an interesting bit of trivia. LonelyBoy2012 (talk) 03:10, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It's a pretty cool fact, but I have heard much media coverage of it. So it would be a little to undue at this point.   Hot Stop   17:40, 19 July 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama
Obama is a definite canidate not presuputive candidate — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.118.0.232 (talk) 12:18, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * He's only listed as presumptive because he hasn't officially been nominated by the Democratic Party yet. Now, we all know he is going to be nominated, there are no doubts, but we keep to the book so to speak. Until he is nominated at the DNC, he will remain listed as the presumptive nominee. --Ariostos (talk) 13:49, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * It doesn't even say that he's a presumptive candidate. It says he's the presumptive nominee. There's quite a difference there. -- 70.57.74.73 (talk) 15:10, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Info box and the candidates, II
Presumptive presidential nominees, shouldn't be included in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Still waiting for a logical argument why not, all you've said so far is just rude and silly. Ratemonth (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why are you and others, in such a 'bleeping' hurry to place Obama/Biden & Romney in the 'bleeping' infobox, when they're not yet NOMINATED by their parties. PS: PLEASE don't tell me about the presumptive stuff, as I already understand it. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * If you already understand it, then neither of us likely have anything else to say to each other about it. Ratemonth (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)


 * So you only think the third party candidates should be in the infobox? (the green party have its convention this week). Wouldnt it look confusing if the two main candidates for President wouldnt be in the infobox? Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The Republican & Democratic parties prez nominees can be added, when those parties have prez nominees. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no interest in discussing the logic behind the two different wievpoint it really comes down to who support or opposse that the Dem and Rep presumptive candidates should stay in the infobox. Both candidates have by now secured a majority of delegates and I guess we have been discussing this in depht before. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The logic is before us, neither party has nominated anyone for President or Vice President. My goodness, anyone the 3 forementioned individuals could die or drop out of the race before the delegates cast their votes. Therefore, why the rush to place Obama/Biden & Romney (for example) into the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * A candidate that have been nominated can die too Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * We'd deal with that after the nominees are chosen. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Why can't it be dealt with just as easily before the nominees are chosen if someone were to die or drop out? -- 70.57.74.73 (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Support for keeping the Republican and Democratic parties presumptive nominees in the infobox. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oppose inclusion of candidates, until they're actually nominated by their respective parties. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support keeping it as it is. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support keeping the presumptive nominees in the infobox. Ratemonth (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support keeping presumptive nominees in this infobox, and elsewhere that GoodDay seems to want to be disruptive about this issue and ignoring consensus. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support keeping the major party presumptive nominees in the infobox, in keeping with WP's policy of reflecting the consensus of reliable sources. Besides, it is abundantly clear that neither of the upcoming major party conventions is a brokered convention, and it would misleading to imply such.--JayJasper (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support Of course they should be included. Wikipedia is the source millions of Americans will use to find out about candidates. Pedantically pretending that Romney and Obama aren't candidates helps nobody. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support It's fine as is, as long as the "presumptive" labels remain where appropriate. Now, there is some room for debate on the definition of "presumptive nominee" (an objective vs. subjective one), but the time for that discussion has, for now, passed- it is clear that Obama/Romney have committments from the majority of their party's delegates. Barring something dramatic & unforeseen, that won't change. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Support keeping the Democratic and Republican presumptive candidates in the infobox; also support removing any irrelevant third-party candidates from the infobox. Seriously man, wake up. You would certainly be living in Imaginationland if neither Obama or Romney wins the election. — stay ( sic ) ! 03:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
 * support no reason for removing them has been given. Its been well established at this point that they'll be the nominees.  Also, I'd support removing the also-rans.   Hot Stop   17:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Snowball support It is common sense to include the presumptive nominees in the infobox. So you think that because of the miniscule chance that someone will die, they still are not the presumptive nominee? Should we just delete most of United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics because these athletes could die before actually competing? Nonsense. Reywas92 Talk 18:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Strongly Support keeping the presumptive nominees in the infobox, as long as they are clearly tagged "presumptive" and the link to Presumptive nominee page is provided for clarification to anyone unclear of the meaning of the term. Kind of a no-brainer, really. We'd look silly if we didn't include them. As for the possibility that one of the candidates could "die or drop out" before the convention, I think the PN article covers it: "the presumptive nominee is the candidate who has not yet received the formal nomination of his or her political party at the party's nominating convention, but who has acquired enough delegate commitments through the primary elections and caucuses to be assured – barring unforeseen events – of the eventual nomination at the convention". I also support keeing all candidates who have a mathematical possibility of winning the election based on ballot access per the current consensus (see top of this page).--Rollins83 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 July 2012
Chuck Baldwin gains ballot access in Kansas since he received the nomination of the Reform Party of Kansas which already has ballot access in Kansas.

207.177.29.217 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)


 * It is not yet clear whether or not Baldwin has accepted the nomination as he was not a declared candidate for the party's nomination.--JayJasper (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2012
lp.org/2012-ballot-access shows that Gary Johnson does not have ballot access in either Maryland or Michigan. The electoral vote total for Gary Johnson is 325. For the Peace and Freedom party, there are 55 electoral votes in California. For Americans Elect, they have 265 electoral votes. Peta Lindsay has 32 electoral votes.

Bradyolson18 (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll make the necessary changes. Americans Elect I'm not so sure of though, so I'll have to do some digging to confirm beforehand. --Ariostos (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a brief explanation and apology for my miscalculating the present Electoral College ballot access for the Libertarian Party. I transcribed the electoral college votes for Alabama instead of Alaska while creating my list, thus the overrepresentation by 6. I agree that the current correct number is 325. Thanks for catching my error.Ctconnolly (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Unofficial lists of candidates issued by state election offices
Am I correct in my understanding that their is consensus amongst editors to include in the calculation of a candidate's "Party Ballot Access" to electoral votes, the electoral votes that are represented by unofficial lists of candidates issued by state election offices?Ctconnolly (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, Ariostos, XavierGreen, and myself agree that the candidates on such documents should be included, albeit for different reasons. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I believe everyone's reasons are as follows: Ariostos believes they should count because they are, for now, the best information available for determining who will be on a state's ballot; Xavier thinks they should be counted b/c they would be more accurately titled "incomplete" rather than "unofficial" lists; and I think they should be, because the state appears to be presuming those people meet their state's ballot access laws and will therefore be on the ballot, just as the RNC is presuming their party's nominee will be Mitt Romney (and he, regardless of underlying facts, was placed on this page as soon as they issued that statement). However, the opinions of 3 editors do not necessarily constitute consensus. What are your thoughts? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of the above rationales.-JayJasper (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with all of the above as well. Since the deadline for new jersey is today, there should be an "official" list coming out with in the next few days for that state.XavierGreen (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Knowing more than I did yesterday about the nature of unofficial lists, I am now also supportive of the ability to include unofficial lists of candidates issued by state election offices. I say this primarily because the alternative of waiting for official lists, which may not be issued until after the Democratic National Convention in September, seems to me a less acceptable alternative.  Worth noting as well is the likelihood that these unofficial lists will evolve with time prior to final official lists being issued by state election offices.  Citations may need to be updated in the future as the unofficial lists change.Ctconnolly (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Write-In Candidate Status

 * A query I have. Was checking up on Stein's website, and she has apparently gained Write-In status in Nevada, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Indiana, something I wasn't looking for beforehand. Now, I realize that we are mainly concentrating on straight ballot access, but should we make a list of Write-In states as well, considering votes for the candidate are valid there? --Ariostos (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, but with the understanding that write-in status does not confer notability. IMO, we should only list it for the candidates that have achieved actual ballot access elsewhere. Moreover, it should not be used when calculating eligibility for the infobox.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright. I'll start inputting them then. --Ariostos (talk) 06:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with William that if a candidate is exclusively a write-in candidate, then that does not confer a sufficient degree of notability to be included in the article. The second question- whether to count those states towards the candidates 'infobox total'- I think goes back to the question I posed earlier of whether we are considering ballot access for the parties or for the candidates. There was not much debate then, but Jack offered his view that we were counting access for the parties.

If that is the case, I would advocate a tweak in that approach in order to count ballot access for parties exclusively in lieu of that party having an official nominee. Once a nominee has been chosen, any state where that candidate is on the ballot should count toward their total. This would be justified if the obtainment of official write-in status conveys the acceptance of a slate of electors pledged to that candidate by the state's Secretary of State. It's worth looking into, but I believe any state that has a filing process for write-in candidates would make considerations for also having a corresponding slate of electors on file.

While I'd have to read the actual state statutes to be certain, according to this article, those states that bind their electors do so for the "candidates who won a majority {not plurality?} of the popular vote in the state, or for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector." If that is the case, the states are placing the emphasis on the candidate rather than the party (putting aside the likelihood that such state laws are unconstitutional anyway).

Ariostos, I like how you have listed Stein & Goode's ballot access in such a way as to distinguish between the two types. I was going to advocate the use of asterisks, but your method may be neater. However, as I mentioned, I would support adding the two totals together for consideration of the infobox, as long as it has been confirmed that electors have been filed with those states. Before moving Stein ahead of Johnson, I would check to see if GJ has filed as a write-in candidate anywhere. I don't think he has, since he still has a chance, last time I checked, to be listed on all 51 ballots (the MI & OK lawsuits notwithstanding).

Speaking of the infobox, I'm not sure it is necessary to have the note on top of the article explaining why certain candidates are there. If editors wish to question the inclusion of the third party candidates, they will do so on this talk page, where they will be immediately greeted with the similar explanatory note that I wrote on the top. If it must be there, I would ask if there is a way to place it into the infobox itself. The second part's inclusion (concerning our post-election standard) is something I more firmly object to, as it is the sort of note directed more towards editors than readers, as it has to do with the format of the article, rather than its content. It would be like placing a note saying "after the election, we will include here a map of the state-by-state results, with the winner's name & numbers made bold."

On a different note, I thought I'd try asking once more about the eligibility of Tom Hoefling & the "America's Party" to be listed. If it is true that his party is not on another state's ballot, he wouldn't be on the FL ballot either, which would mean he'd revert to having no ballot access, justifying his name being hidden again. The original info on this is here. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Regarding Tom Hoefling, from what I gather is that he is concentrating on running a Write-In Campaign/Front Porch Campaign. He is also aiming for the AIP endorsement. For the time being I suggest we leave him up, and if he fails in California, look towards removing him.
 * OK, I agree that he can stay for now. The AIP convention is planned for August 11. If he does not win that, and there is no evidence at that point that he is listed on any other ballot, then he should be removed. I'm pretty sure that the Florida statute requires the candidate to be listed on the another state's ballot, so that write-in status wouldn't count. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * On a similar note, I am having difficulty finding the current Write-In States for candidates; I know for a fact that Tom Hoefling sought that status in North Carolina and other states, but I don't know if he was successful. The State Secretarys' websites don't help much either. Any ideas how to go about it? --Ariostos (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmm. Short of sending an email to the SoS's office, or making a quick phone call, I'm afraid I don't know. A SoS should publish a certified list of all write-in candidates at some point before the election, but when that will happen will vary from state to state, as the deadline for filing varies. If there is nothing on their website, we'd have to see if the candidate has said anything (as Stein has). 68.58.63.22 (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Can someone provide a link to the Florida law itself that explicitly states that a party must have secured ballot access elsewhere in order to secure a spot on the Florida ballot? There's many particulars to that statement, such as whether Florida considers write-ins as qualified in other states.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Here- see Section (4)(a). Since they are saying the party needs to be established & admitted to the ballot in another state, it would seem write-in candidacies do not count. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you for that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Upon further inspection of the link provided by 68.58.63.22, it seems to be not so cut-and-dry. Section (4)(b) says candidates affiliated with a minor political party not having ballot access to any state other than Florida can be listed on the ballot if they have a petition signed by 1% of Florida's electors. So the question is, does Hoefling have the necessary number of signatures needed to put him on the ballot regardless of whether or not he has ballot access anywhere else?--JayJasper (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh, I see now that Hoefling is now ballot-qualified in Colorado as well, so it's now a moot point where he's concerned. Still, we should keep Section (4)(b) in mind for any other candidates that may yet emerge that this may apply to.--JayJasper (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The 1% petition called for in (4)(b) wouldn't have applied to Hoefling because the AMP is a national party w/ a national convention. If he wanted to get on the ballot using that method, he would have had to reorganize the AMP to be a Florida-only party, or created a new party just for that state. It's also worth noting that in 103.022, write-in candidates are required to submit a slate of electors, which is important to know with regards to the question of whether or not to count the write-in states for Goode or Stein (see 3rd bullet point of the list below). 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * After re-reading (4)(b), it appears you are correct. Thanks for the clarification.--JayJasper (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * 68.58.63.22, are you proposing we change the current criteria to look at whether an electoral college slate has been selected in enough states rather than whether ballot access has been attained? I am not sure if every state requires a slate to be selected in order to actually appear on the ballot.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * For parties that have an official nominee, yes. There are 4 possibilities:


 * Write-in only/independents: I think we've agreed that candidate that are exclusively write-in candidates or independents need not be included, as that would give them undue weight. Exceptions would be someone who is already well known for a different reason (e.g. celebrities)
 * An independent candidate with ballot status should be included, and such candidates have been included in past election articles. Agree that "write-in only" candidates should not be included.--JayJasper (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * You're right. Independent/nonpartisan candidates need not be write-ins, although some states require them to have some sort of party label. See: Connecticut for Lieberman. Otherwise, I think they'd have to go the write-in route in those states. Still, most people who could pull that sort of thing off in enough states would be well-known enough to be listed here. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks. Just wanted to clarify that not all exclusively indedendent/nonpartisans are to be excluded from the page.--JayJasper (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Candidates that are on the ballot solely by virtue of their party having a place on the ballot: These candidates are being tallied correctly under the current setup.
 * Candidates with a mix of write-in & party ballot access: This is so far not being considered for the EV access total. Candidates of national parties (like the Greens) who realize they won't have access to the ballot as a party have apparently decided to go the write-in route as a Plan B (barring a lawsuit). That can only happen once they know who their nominee is, since a write-in is for the candidate, not the party. Therefore counting the states where they have successsfully filed as write-ins would be valid only once they are the nominee of a party with access elsewhere. You are correct, William, that we would need to confirm whether write-in status means a slate of electors has been filed. But since that's what people are actually voting for when they vote for any of the listed candidates, it would seem that accepting a candidate without accepting their electors would be pointless, as they would have no one to vote for them in the Electoral College in the extraordinary event that they win the popular vote.
 * Candidates that are using the ballot lines of different parties in different states: Possible if Goode or Hoefling win the AIP nomination, or if Anderson, Alexander, or Lindsay win the P&F nod. If we are following the candidates rather than the parties, the access for each of their parties should be tallied together. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Tom Hoefling is also ballot qualified in Colorado, see page 2 here [].XavierGreen (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Suprised to say the least that Randall Terry is still maintaining his Independent Presidential Campaign, combined with his House Campaign. Guess we should place him back on in the back section (Full Third Party List, not Election Page). I'll update the charts, so to speak. --Ariostos (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Alright, either I am really bad at navigating their websites, or most states, even unofficially, don't release any Presidential lists till after registrations are done. :/ --Ariostos (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)


 * Who knew that CO was that generous with its ballot access laws? 11 candidates not including Obama & the GOP. While that list is technically unofficial, I suppose we won't have anything more official than that until at least September (after the Dem convention), so I think we can use it. Since that list appears to be recognizing Hoefling as the AMP candidate rather than as a write-in, I think he's good to go. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The people on the colorado list will definately be listed regardless of whether it says official or not. All Colorado requires to be listed on the ballot is the payment of $500 and the signature of some paperwork. The people on that list are ones who have paid $500, so unless they personally withdraw they are 99% likely to be listed on the ballot. I expect even more candidates to be listed eventually (Prohibition Party, ect) since the deadline is in mid August. I believe Randall Terry only has write in status on the colorado ballot rather than full ballot access. Louisiana also requires merely a check for $500 and some paperwork, though they haven't published any list of candidates on their ballot yet.XavierGreen (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ariostos that if we are counting CO's unofficial list for all the recognized candidates there, we should be able to use similar documents from other states, including NJ.

I just checked two different online electoral college calculators and Johnson's 30 states (so not including MI) add up to 325 EVs, not 331. Therefore, Stein should be put ahead of GJ. Even if he did have access to 331, I still think Stein should be listed as having more due to her write-in states. Speaking of which, those 4 states (IN, NC, NV, OK) total 39 EV, not 46. The Green's 327 total appears correct.

Americans Elect ought to be moved to a different section as was recently discussed here. If we can't agree on where to move them within the article, then I would support deleting the section altogether, since they aren't participating in this election, ballot access notwithstanding. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)
 * There should be at least some mention of Americans Elect since they did attain ballot access and had a formal selection process in place.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems important at this point that the editors of this article reach consensus regarding whether or not the electoral votes from the write-in states of candidates who have a mix of party ballot access and candidate write-in access will be included in these candidates' individual electoral vote totals. Our decision may, in the future, effect inclusion in the infobox and the order of listing in the section presently titled "Third parties". If the editors decide to change the title of this section back to "Third party candidates", then Americans Elect should be removed from this section, and, if desired, placed elsewhere in a new section. Americans Elect is in the unique situation of being a party with ballot access in many states that will not have a candidate in any state. I'm generally all for inclusiveness in political and electoral processes, yet, at present, I am in favor of the exclusion of write-in states for any candidate for the purposes of calculating ballot access to Electoral College votes. If we want to consider including all the potential write-in states of candidates with party ballot access in other states, we would need to research every state's write-in laws. In some states, it may be the case that anyone's name, real or fictitious, can be written on a ballot and counted by election officials. In such states it could then be granted that anyone could win a majority or plurality of the popular vote of that state and be awarded that state's electoral votes. This scenario would include candidates with party ballot access in other states, even if they took no formal steps to gain write-in candidate access in states where anyone's name, if written in, is counted.Ctconnolly (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * This unoffical lists published by the various state election divisions consist of candidates that the respective state believes meet the criteria and will be placed on the ballot. The only reason they are labeled as unofficial is because they may be incomplete since the deadlines havent passed yet and further candidates may be added until the deadline, ect. States will regularly amend their official lists after the deadlines when candidates are removed from the ballot due to successful challenges ect.XavierGreen (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)


 * I can't imagine a state having a formal process by which to file as a write-in candidate, but yet not require that those votes be counted, or leave the door open for write-in candidates who didn't file to win their state's electoral votes. Otherwise, what would be the point of having such a filing process for write-ins? Sure, as long as there is write-in space on the ballot, any name could hypothetically win the popular vote, and the state could tally the non-registered names as a courtesy, but even if they did do that, where would that leave them if they got the most votes? With no electors. At least in Florida, electors are only appointed by the Governor if an elected elector dies before the Electoral College meets in December. Otherwise, write-in electoral slates have to have been filed with the state as part of the process of becoming an registered candidate.


 * All this is to say that if there is evidence that someone has filed as a write-in candidate, and their paperwork has been accepted by the state, I believe it to be a safe assumption that they have also filed a slate of electors, thus making it possible for electors of that candidate's choice to represent that state in the Electoral College if that candidate wins. I realize that reading through 51 sets of election law to confirm that my argument is correct is a chore that most people would not like to undertake. Therefore, I suggest we could just start with IN, NV, NC, and OK, and go from there. As more states release their lists of candidates, we will find out if anybody other than Goode & Stein are going this route, just as we would use those lists to add any new parties to the article. I'll get this party started...


 * Indiana law: Apparently, Indiana requires only 1 candidate for elector to be on file. We'd have to find out how many Stein filed with them, but we can count at least 1 toward her total. There is a procedure listed here for vacancies due to absence, but I'm not sure about vacancies due to a failure to submit less than 11 names in the first place.
 * Nevada official campaign guide: According to this, Nevada doesn't count write-in votes at all. So either Stein's site is wrong, or they meant to say she has filed as an independent.
 * North Carolina write-in law and all election law: That law doesn't mention electors. However, this provision would allow for the General Assembly & Governor to "designate" electors if Goode neglected to do so when he submitted his petition.
 * Oklahoma: This document makes no mention of write-in presidential candidates. A quick Google search points to OK not counting write-ins at all, just like NV. So I'm not sure what's going on there.


 * Also, this blog is for the 2008 election, but it still seems like a good starting point. So to sum up, unless they changed their law very recently (or were forced to by a court order), NV & OK don't allow write-ins. Since Stein was suing OK to let her on the ballot last I checked, the outcome of that lawsuit may have been to force the state to get her on as a write-in- but that is just speculation. IN requires at least some electors to be on file, while NC seems not to require that up front, but has a provision for the Governor to name them later if need be. Perhaps one the reasons these candidates never get anywhere is because they spend more time navigating these laws then actually campaigning :p 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks for this info on state write-in laws. If the info on the blog is valid, the variance amongst state policies could not be more extreme.  Compare Oklahoma ("Write-in candidacy for president is not allowed") with New Hampshire ("There are no procedures for a write-in candidate for President.  They all get counted!").  I remain of the opinion to not include write-in states when calculating electoral college ballot access for candidates.  If the majority of the editors of this article decide otherwise then I would encourage them to add these write-in totals to the calculations of every candidate, regardless of the number of states in which a candidate has secured party ballot access.  I see no good reason to award write-in calculations for some candidates and not others.Ctconnolly (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose of counting up ballot access is to determine what would be the most electoral votes that candidate could possibly win on Election Day. To send electors pledged to them, the candidate needs to let states know who their elector candidates are. So you can't just count a state that accepts write-ins for all the candidates, because it needs to be shown that those candidates filed electors with the state, thus becoming "official" write-ins.


 * In an ideal world, every state would have nearly idential ballot access & write-in laws. It's become clear that the reality of the situation could not be further from that ideal. So while it would be most accurate and appropriate to count states where candidates are officially recognized write-ins, it's a bit of an accounting nightmare. So I would suggest the following approach: We will continue to take down and make note of where candidates claim to be officially registered, either as a party's nominee or as a write-in. By default, we will not count write-in states for the purposes of the infobox (inclusion and/or listing order), unless an editor can provide a source(s) that shows a.) The candidate has officially filed with the state and b.) that state's laws require a full slate of electors to have been filed before such a petition is deemed complete. If b. is not met, then another source would be needed to show that the candidate has voluntarily provided an electoral slate, and that slate has been accepted by the state. If all such sources are in order, we'll mark the applicable states within the list of all write-in states claimed by that candidate in such a way as to indicate that it has been confirmed elector candidates exist to be voted for there. This could be done with an asterisk or on a separate line. If an editor goes through all the trouble to find these sources, and they are in order, then I think it is fair to include them. But again, by default, candidates' claimed write-in states will not count. Also, just to reiterate- this would only apply to candidates who are on the ballot as a party's nominee in another state. Candidates who are not listed on any ballot and are therefore "write-in only" are not typically notable enough to be included, per WP:BIO. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * That sounds like a very sensible approach. It has my support.--JayJasper (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The ballot page on Stein's website has been changed to remove OK from the list of claimed write-in states, replaced by Missouri. The total for those four states would now be 42 EVs. However, if we are adopting the criteria above, then only MO's 10 would count for the infobox. That's because NV doesn't appear to support write-ins, NC doesn't require names of electors up front, and IN only requires one name (rather than a full slate of 11). With the addition of PA to her party's ballots, that gives Stein 357 to Johnson's 339. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

What's an infobox?
Obviously I know, but why on earth are we expecting ordinary readers to have a clue? – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what the problem is. If they can't be bothered to find out, does it really matter to them?   Hot Stop   16:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If it doesn't really matter then why is it in the article? – Arms &amp; Hearts (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Are you asking about the note on top? If so, I agree it it unnecessary. It's definitely needed in the talk page, but not in the article. I would be ok with a short note in the infobox that says something like "The candidates pictured here are those who can win at least 270 electoral votes." The rest of the information seems geared towards editors, not casual readers. Infoboxes are there mostly for the benefit of casual readers. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Gotcha, thanks for explaining.  Hot Stop   19:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Just in case anyone missed it, the note was removed due to WP:HATNOTE, which largely limits such notes to redirects to related articles or a disambiguation. If anyone feels the note is still required, I think the infobox is the only place it should be. Rather than the lengthy original, I would suggest the shorter version I posted above. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ballot Watch

 * Forgive me if this is undesirable to have present on the talk page, but I felt it might be of interest, if not least as a heads up. I sent out Emails to a number of the Campaigns in order to hear directly from them where they are and might be on the ballot, in whatever capacity. I included Randall Terry, though only to make sure he was even still running given his website has been inactive. The one response I have gotten so far was from the Miller Campaign, though they were not as open as I had hoped. Apparently they have write-in access in a number of states but failed to specify (or could be pulling my leg). They did mention New Jersey though, and that they are pending in Arkansas (pushing him to 29 Electoral). Officially this is all to be released in detail within the coming week. --Ariostos (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Thank you very much for doing this. However, the content of such correspondence may be construed as original research. To guarantee that we can use the information they tell you, kindly ask them if they'd be willing to make such information public. For example, they could do so by allowing you to post their replies to your emails somewhere, or by adding the information to their website. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'm not liable to actually input any of this into the article itself; the idea was to ask for information, and then work to confirm said information through standard means if possible. For example, if Miller were on the ballot in Arkansas, but there were no standing sources claiming such outside our correspondence, then I would merely list it here until such a time a source came about. Not the best solution, but it is in keeping with the guidelines. --Ariostos (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that the NJ petitions have been certified, but should we be counting states where candidates have filed their petitions, but the state hasn't checked the signatures yet? Supporters of the major parties will typically challenge and scrutinize the signatures whenever they can, which is why candidates file more than they need, to provide a margin of error. Signatures can and are thrown out all the time for various reasons.

All three major-minors appear to have turned in enough signatures in PA, but we shouldn't count our chickens before they hatch. This is especially true for Goode in VA, as I'm sure Republicans will be itching to keep him off the ballot if more polls emerge like the recent PPP one spotlighted here. There's a reason he's not stopping at 20,000 signatures- more than twice the required number. WV has also not been confirmed for the Libertarians, and 3,000 signatures is not the largest of margins. The Greens were already on in WV though.

It might not be a bad idea to post the PA, VA, and WV numbers here so everyone can keep track of who has filed where, but I wouldn't add them to the article until they've been certified. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Case in point: . About 4,500 of his signatures (44%) were ruled invalid. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll leave those ones up for now, though anyone else can take them down if they wish. --Ariostos (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * So Roseanne Barr has won the Peace and Freedom Party nomination. Her website has already been updated, somewhat. Apparently they are aiming for ballot access in South Dakota (3,171), Wisconsin (2,000), Iowa (1,500), and Minnesota (2,000). She certainly has her work cut out for her considering the deadlines, and even then at best that is only another 29 Electoral Votes, for a total of 84 Electoral Votes. They nominated far too late. --Ariostos (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Additional candidates may be on the ballot in Arkansas; American Third Position, Grassroots (I assume), Constitution, Justice. Latter two on as Independents. --Ariostos (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Stein also filed as an Independent in Kansas, rather than by Party. --Ariostos (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Green Party submitted petition in Alaska; waiting for validation. --Ariostos (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding PA, the Greens are officially on the ballot because today was the last day to file a challenge. The GOP has filed petitions agains the CP & LP, so I think PA should be removed for now from each of their EV access totals.

In addition to serving as an aid to editors to determine who belongs in the infobox, I believe the list of states where candidates have qualified to the ballot is useful for readers to know who to expect to see on their ballots come November. To aid that goal, I think it would be useful to mark exactly how those candidates have qualified. It may be confusing to some if they see a name listed under a different party than they expected when they're in the voting booth. For example, by default any of Rocky Anderson's states under "party ballot access" can be assumed to be for the Justice Party. In reality, however, he is on the ballot in MI due to being nominated by the Natural Law Party, and may get on in CT if the Independent Party of CT nominates him (as they're apparently leaning toward doing). Is there a way to neatly mark such states? I was thinking something like the popups for source numbers, but without also listing it on the bottom of the page. The LP party still has a lawsuit pending in OK, but the article implies they have won their case & are on the ballot. The reality is that some local Americans Elect officers got together and held a convention to nominate him for their ballot line. However, this is not a done deal- the national AE party may challenge. See an email from a member of Johnson's campaign here. This is sort of opposite from the problem we're having with Baldwin & the local Reform Party in Kansas. Jill Stein's access in WV through the Mountain party I don't think needs to be marked since it's the recognized affiliate to the national Green Party.

Stein has filed in KS as an independent- if that's validated, should that be listed and marked in this way under party ballot access, or on a separate line? I'd be ok with marking it like my suggestion for the nominations by unaffiliated state parties (if that idea is possible). Virgil Goode & Rocky Anderson also may appear as independents in Arkansas if their petitions are validated.

So Johnson's list should have NJ (waiting for validation), PA (under challenge), OK (the AE nomination being "investigated" by the state) and WV (waiting for validation) removed for now. With WI, his access total is 354 EV (including DC). Connecticut, Maryland & Massachusetts have also received LP petitions but have not been validated. Does someone have a source for him getting on in DC?

For Jill Stein, her petitions in AK, KS (as an indy), and I believe MD have been filed but await validation. Excluding those, the GP's EV access total comes to 369, and her total (for the purposes of the infobox) is 379 after adding MO's 10 write-in elector candidates (which are being included due to MO requiring a full slate to be on file). CT doesn't explicitly ask for electors, so a source would be needed to show they've been filed in order to count for the infobox. SD and NV don't appear to allow write-ins at all.

Virgil Goode's list should have PA (under challenge) and VA (waiting for validation- the fight has already begun) removed. His own campaign site doesn't even yet claim to have access in those states. This brings his party's access back to 169 EV. As for his write-ins, IN we know (from looking into it when Stein got on there) only requires 1 elector candidate, so can't be counted. GA, IL, NC, and WV don't appear to mention electors in their write-in laws (GA, IL, and WV laws), so can't be counted unless someone finds another source to indicate electors were filed along with his write-in petition. Texas does explicitly require official write-ins to file electors, so TX's 38 EV can count. 169 + TX bring Goode's access total to 207 EV. I'll leave it to the rest of you guys to check the lists for the other candidates. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Considering I put in much of that data, I admit that I have been overzealous. However I still maintain that we include the Write-Ins, if only because we don't count them in the electoral total as it currently stands; if confusion is being raised because of this I can simply remove the electoral count next to them so as to put that issue to rest. I am also going to change Party Access to Candidate Access, since in some cases they are filing only Presidential Petitions, or even as Independent Candidates, and not for Statewide Access for the Party itself. --Ariostos (talk) 17:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Kansas Reform Party
Considering that if nothing changes on Baldwin's end, how should we deal with the Kansas Reform Party's nomination of Chuck Baldwin? Should the Kansas Reform Party be listed under the "Ballot access to fewer than 270 electoral votes" section as a separate party? I think we need to determine how to deal with state parties nominating candidates not otherwise listed here because the Kansas Reform Party might not be the only one. The Independent Greens of Virginia, a conservative Green party that nominated Baldwin in '08, have ballot access in Virginia and could potentially nominate someone not already listed here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * There is still no confirmation on Baldwin's end that he has accepted the nomination, or is even willing to run. I would classify this under what happened in 2008, when the Constitution Party in Louisiana and Montana nominated Ron Paul; I'm honestly not sure how to proceed. As for other parties, we should leave them alone unless they actually endorse a candidate, otherwise it is going to get really cluttered; we don't have any definitive candidates for them anyway. --Ariostos (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Unless he tells the state to remove his name from the ballot or the Kansas Reform Party changes its mind he will be listed. I would list him with the other third party candidates that have less than 270 electoral vote access. We already have a couple single state access people listed already, and to be npov we need to include him if we include other people who have less than 270.XavierGreen (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that he'll have to be included somewhere. However, I don't think just putting him in under the "...fewer than 270 electoral votes" section works well with the current format. It would end up looking like: Reform Party of Kansas/Chuck Baldwin; vice-presidential nominee ???/Party Ballot Access: Kansas- (6 Electoral), which is redundant and I think looks silly.
 * Instead, I think he should be listed in a footnote at the bottom of the Reform Party USA line, with the comment saying something like "The Reform Party of Kansas chose to nominate Chuck Baldwin rather than {insert national nominee's name here}". Given that there is no evidence that he wanted this and will be campaigning (and will not appear on any other ballots, since this is a state rather than a national party), I think it would be undue to give this party it's own line in the list. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Table or list?
I had converted the long list of third-party candidates into a table, because I felt that the list format was unwieldy and hard to read, but it was reverted by someone who thought that the table was more unwieldy. I'm happy to go along with whatever the consensus turns out to be, but I want to give others a chance to comment first. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Simply put, it seemed too clunky, trying to squeeze everything into a small space. --Ariostos (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * This might be a matter of taste, but I feel that the list is more confusing because you can't just eyeball down the columns to quickly compare the parties. Anyhow, I don't want to spend too many bytes on this, I'd rather just get some extra opinions. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs)
 * Comment I could support either layout. Once we start adding more information to the "Campaign" and future "Results" sections, a more concise format may be desired. For now, the existing list works too. On a related note, the table has reminded me that we really ought to figure out how to deal with Americans Elect. I don't like where they are now in the list, and their appearance in the table looks even more awkward. My opinion on the question is here. They're not participating in this election, and I'm pretty sure states won't put a blank AE line on the ballot if they haven't nominated anybody. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ballot Maps with Third Party Candidates

 * Just I random idea I want to bounce off you guys. Should we place small thumbnails, maps, of the states that the various parties are on the ballot, petitioning, in the courts, etc., just as a kind of visual aid? It could also serve to point out what states they are seeking to get onto the ballot without having to add yet another section. --Ariostos (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe on the third party candidates article, but I think it would clutter up this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Added maps for Green and Libertarian parties to linked article. I agree that they don't really have a place in this article, but it is a god idea for the more in-depth articles. ThrawnRocks (talk) 05:34, 10 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Agree. The third party candidates article would be a more appropriate place for it.--JayJasper (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Thumbnails might clutter the page, but what about links? I'm not sure if we're allowed to include links from (publically viewable) social media in this article or another, but a member of the Libertarian Party from Ohio has put together a ballot access map for Johnson that is regularly updated. OK is still shaded red there b/c the LP is still in court, but GJ may be on the ballot due to Americans Elect. I'm sure there are other maps out there too. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Include Major Candidates
I think we shouldn't include John Wolfe, Jr. or Randall Terry or the rest because Obama was really the only major candidate. And I also think that Herman Cain shouldn't be included because I don't think he was really a major candidate. He never held an office. I think we should include Stewart Greenleaf.--Creativemind15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creativemind15 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any arguments to back up your opinions? Ratemonth (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'd be interested in knowing what kind of criteria would exclude Cain, who was included in every primary debate up until the time he dropped out and was at one time considered a front-runner, but would include Greenleaf, who was included in zero debates and only appeared on one primary ballot.-Rollins83 (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please ignore Creativemind. I think it's obvious he's just here to play. Take this for example, which is actually in the main space right now. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not here to play. I'm sorry if you thought so and I am done making fake articles. Herman Cain didn't hold an office and Stewart Greenleaf did. --User:Creativemind15 (talk) 8:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Please, let's assume good faith. I never considered Herman Cain to be a serious contender either, but many people did, hence his inclusion in some of the debates. Stewart Greenleaf certainly was not. It is not always easy to determine what makes a candidate "major", particularly before the primaries begin. Having held a prior political office should not be the sole determinating factor. What if Donald Trump had run? In addition to political history, celebrity, polling and anything else that may contribute to media attention ought to be weighed.
 * However, this whole debate covers subjective criteria. Similar to the infobox, I prefer a bit more of an objective approach- anybody who is or was on enough state ballots to theoretically win a majority of their party's national convention (bound) delegates or appeared in at least one televised, party-sponsored debate should be listed. Those who were not on enough ballots or withdrew before the primaries even began should be removed. That would mean McCotter & Pawlenty would be removed, and Fred Karger would be added. The 4 fringe opponents to Obama would be removed, as none made the ballot in more than 5 states, and no debate was held. These are not meant to be all-inclusive lists anyway. All the names can be found by curious readers in the candidate pages. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I mostly agree with your proposed standards for post-primary inclusion, but disagree with excluding any or all candidates that withdrew before the the primary elections began. To exclude someone like Pawlenty, who: was much chronicled in RS's as a potential candidate well prior to his announced candidacy; was once considered a viable contender for the GOP nomination by a multitude of RS's; and was included in multiple televised debates, dosen't seem to square with WP:DUE. I suggest one more criterion to what you have suggested: include any candidate that was listed on least 5 different major media polls. Why 5? Because that is the standard number used in determining which candidates are included in the debates. To be able to participate in a primary debate, one has to poll (I think) 1% in 5 different polls. To be included in the general election debates, a candidate needs to garner 15% in 5 different polls. Of course, current consensus is opposed to using polling percentages as an inclusion standard on the grounds that they are arbitrary. So we would include any candidate that is listed on surveys of 5 unique major media polling entities (as opposed to 5 different Gallup polls, 5 different Rasmussen polls, etc.), regardless of what % they pull in. Only a select few get listed on that number of major media polls, so it is a fair measure of notability and weight. This would keep Pawlenty & McCotter listed, add Karger, and still eliminate the minor Democratic candidates.--JayJasper (talk) 21:37, 10 August 2012 (UTC)

To remove these candidates will be in line with the 2004 article where Bush is the only candidate under the republican primary section while the main primary article counts 14 fringe opponents. We should do it i the same way with Obama this time around. Right now, in this 2012 article, the republican primary dont include such smaller candidates but only the 12 major onces. To find all the candidates you have to go to the special article on republican candidates. So right now this article implies that Jim Roger is a candidate in the same way Rick Santorum is a candidate and that is of course not true. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:59, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Nomination of 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech for deletion
A discussion is taking place as to whether the article 2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Articles for deletion/2012 Roanoke Obama campaign speech until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion template from the top of the article. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Ballot Access Update
Add on to the ballot access at thegreenpapers.com

207.177.29.217 (talk) 23:14, 10 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'll get to work on it. A lot of stuff we have you don't have over there, but there are quite a few over there we don't have over here. Just take note of that. --Ariostos (talk) 00:22, 11 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Appears to be by above editor. I'll remove the template for now to clean up the category&mdash; Deontalk  07:51, 16 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 August 2012
In Minnesota, the Republican Party has not yet filed to be on the presidential ballot. Stein and Harris are on the Minnesota ballot. Lindsay and Alexander are both on the New York ballot.

207.177.29.217 (talk) 18:46, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you provide reliable sources to verify this?--JayJasper (talk) 19:01, 19 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Closing to clear backlog. The template has instructions for reactivating should you wish to do so. A boat   that can float!   (watch me float!)  08:25, 21 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 August 2012
Carlson, Stein, and Harris are on the ballot in Minnesota Lindsay, Alexander, Johnson, and Goode are on the ballot in New York Johnson and Stein are on thhe ballot in D.C.

207.177.29.217 (talk) 22:36, 21 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: This is too similar to the last request and there are still no reliable sources to back your statements up. A boat   that can float!   (watch me float!)  11:08, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 22 August 2012
Go to ballot-access.org

207.177.29.217 (talk) 15:35, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Not done: please be more specific about what needs to be changed. RudolfRed (talk) 16:13, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

Why 270?
I'm confused about the 270 potential electoral votes threshold among minor parties used through-out the article. Presumably in a scenario where the elected president is neither a democrat nor a republican there's an excellent chance of a 3+ way race. Isn't the winner determined by a plurality of votes in the electoral college, not a majority? Thus requiring only a minimum of 55 (since whoever gets California's votes will have 55, barring faithless electors?) Wily D 14:02, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The winner is not deterimined by pluratlity of votes. A candidate must recieve at least a majority of electoral votes in order to win outright (which currently is 270). If no candidate recieves 270 votes, then there is a special election in which each state delegation of the house of representatives has one vote. The candidates in the election are limited to the top three elecotral vote winners in the regular presidential election. A candidate needs to recieve a majority of votes of state delegations to win (currently 26). If no candidate recieves a majority of votes in the special election, then new rounds of voting continue until a candidate recieves a majority. If voting continues until past the end of the current president's term, the speaker of the house would be sworn in as acting president until 26 state delegations agree on a president. Since the Republican party currently controls a majority of house delegations, a republican victory is virtually assured if a presidential candidate does not recieve a majority vote from the electoral college.XavierGreen (talk) 15:45, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Hmmm, interesting concept. But I do remember the time when Al Gore won the plurality of nationwide votes, but lost the electoral college vote to Bush in Florida, costing him the presidency. However, a few rumors suggested that George's lil brother, Jeb Bush who was governor of Florida at the time, ensured George's "victory" in Florida by wielding his executive power/position. — stay ( sic ) ! 04:09, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * The president of the USA are not elected by the people of USA but by the people of the different states of the union. So from time to time presidents are elected by the majority in enough states but not with a majortiy in the whole population of US as a whole. That is because US is a federal state nothing else. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:53, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * You sound like an old-time federalist, or a modern-day constitutionalist. Lol. — stay ( sic ) ! 22:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I am actually a subject of the royal realm of the danish commenwealth, to stay oldfashioned Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:14, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Indeed, in the united states the popular vote for president does not actually elect the president. When you vote for president you are actually voting for a slate of potential electoral college members that have pledged their support to whatever candidate you have selected. Once they are appointed they can in most instances vote however they please, but because the various parties only put up veteran loyal party members and leaders they dont stray from their pledged candidates to often. A person needs only the votes of 270 electors to become president, the popular vote does not generally matter at all except as the means of electing the members of the electoral college.XavierGreen (talk) 16:14, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Never said the people directly elect the president. Meant to say that Jeb Bush influenced his state government to favor George Bush Jr. for president. Familial and partisan loyalty much? Anyways why bother when the US gov't is run by a duopoly that virtually has no other relevant opposition(s). — stay ( sic ) ! 22:54, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox with third party candidates
So in past years I've seen that only the major parties (i.e.: Republicans and Democrats) have had their candidate listed in the infobox is that changing this year?  CRRays Head90  | Get Some! 23:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It was decided that, up until the election itself, any candidate that could theoretically win the Presidency, as in having ballot access of 270 Electoral Votes or more, can and should be displayed there. However, the normal rules apply after the election itself, in which they will have needed to either win electoral votes, or have attained at least 5% of the vote. --Ariostos (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)


 * Of course consensus can change before the election.  Hot Stop   23:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course. --Ariostos (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah theoretically, but let's be realistic here. Most polls only give you the options of the major party candidates and I would wager to guess ~95% of Americans only know of the major party candidates.  CRRays Head90  | Get Some! 23:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * What Americans know has no relevance to this.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)
 * How can it not considering they control they outcome of the election?  CRRays Head90  | Get Some! 00:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Because the basis of reality is not on what the average Joe knows. It's based on what is.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah and the reality is that the third party candidate will most likely struggle to gain 5,000 votes country wide. Judging from the polls I mentioned before and precedent in previous elections. They don't get enough coverage to have a serious chance at the win.  CRRays Head90  | Get Some!</b> 01:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep them off: I'd say keep them off because unless there is a similar Ross Perot / Bull Moose Party challenge. If a certain candidate was earning more than 5% of the polls based on Rasmussen, Ipsos, Gallup, etc consistently, then I would endorse putting those candidates on the list. 3rd Party candidates today have nil-to-none chances unless it's someone significant.  Gary Johnson barely counts outside of Colorado and I have not seen a poll where he registers consistently more than 3%.  Rasmussen for example already did research today on the 3rd party question .  ViriiK (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Apparently you are not a political scientist and do not read large amounts of polling data. Gary Johnson has regularly exceeded 10% in polling in his homestate of New Mexico and has exceeded 5% in many national polls (5% is the level at which candidates are included in infoboxes of past elections). See [] and [] for lists of polls that have included him. He reglarly polls near 10% in several western states. The effect that Gary Johnson has on the election could very well be a similar vote splitting effect that the Progressive Party had in the 1912 presidential election.XavierGreen (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Though it's rather lengthy, it might be helpful for those who missed this discussion to look through it in order to see the arguments and rationales that lead to the current consensus.--JayJasper (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyone that believes third party candidates will only get a total of "5,000 votes country wide" seriously should think about commenting on a topic that they are more familiar with. Since polls are not concrete as ballot access, they should not be used as a crystal ball to jump to conclusions. As John Zogby told me, "the value of a poll is not to predict but to create accurate results that can be interpreted." --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like the Third-Party Mafia has invaded and infiltrated Wikipedia. The United States is a de facto two party system. Even if the polls show that third party candidates have a 10% polling rate, the candidates have a snowball's chance in hell of even spoiling the presidential election. In other words, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are like the chosen sacrifices from their respective political parties to compete in this election. Nobody expects them to win, and they're nothing more than mere rubber stamp candidates. I'm starting to wonder if some of the editors here are being paid by the Johnson or Stein election committee. — stay ( sic ) ! 18:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If one of these candidates pulls 10% of the vote, I'm not sure how it can be argued they didn't have an effect on the election. Most "sacrifices" become so involuntarily, unlike these candidates. I'm not sure what you mean by a "rubber stamp" candidate. If anything (and I'm taking your term very loosely here), voting for a major party nominee is "rubber stamping" the de facto two party system you speak of. The only argument that can be made is that their inclusion in the infobox gives them undue weight, but you are hardly the first to have made that argument, and frankly, it's not going to win out. The policy of excluding undue things is to avoid cluttering up pages with fringe ideas, items or people. With most states having very tough ballot access laws, a candidate must have very good organization, resources, and popular support to get on to a majority of ballots. The existence of those things is enough evidence that they are not fringe candidates, regardless of whether they have a realistic chance of winning the election. This is also an objective criterion that is easier to source and harder to fiddle with. Besides, 4 pictures doesn't appear 'cluttered' to me. You can view the most recent lengthy debate that was had over this at the link on the top of the page. Archives for earlier election talk pages will contain similar discussions- you'll see this really has been debated ad nauseum. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is every discussion about this topic starting with: If anyone thinks that a third party candidate will win.... NO ONE DOES! Ok, maybe the candidates themselve in a weak moment, but that they are not winning is not an argument to keeping them out before the election. They have got the ballot access in what is proberly the hardest country in the world to get ballot access enough to theoretical win. In other words they are not going to we all know, but they are officially in the race, they will play a role in the election maybe even pivotal in some states for the winner and we are staying neutral. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)


 * The problem seems to me to be that the Green and Libertarian candidates being included right alongside the Republican and Democratic candidates is a major deviation from the norm. That is, when I glance at the page, it seems to me as though, miraculously, there are not one, but two third-party candidates that pose a threat to the American supermajority parties. What's worse is that the introduction is also misleading (it simply states who the third party candidates are), so that one must go down to the third parties section or one of the nationwide polling articles in order to accurately absorb the information.


 * I still advocate for the exclusion of the third party candidates, not because it is unlikely for them to win or acheive a modest amount of the votes, but because they are misrepresented. The Green and Libertarian parties do not have 100% poll access, but they do have enough for a majority. Just having a plausible chance of winning an election however does not merit equal frontrunner status with the other candidates; other criteria need to be taken into account (and no, polls are not crystal balls, they are information completely relevant to the article and election). I believe it would be more appropriate to include more information on the third-party campaigns and exclude them from the infobox than to include them in it and exclude coverage of third-party campaigns in the light of NPOV. I also really don't think having the other candidates' images below the major candidates' tells anyone anything, as they occupy equal space, and so that is a silly solution.


 * Perhaps the exclusion of the candidates' images but not their names would be more appropriate, I remember that solution being experimented with at the 1920 presidential election article.  Royal Mate1  19:37, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I could support Royalmate1's idea of keeping the third-party candidates' names in the infobox but removing their images. I think a sound case has been made for including these candidates in the box, but I also think Royalmate has a valid point as well about misrepresentation. His suggestion might be a better way of applying WP:DUE than just listing Johnson and Stein under Obama and Romney. Perhaps we could restore the images of Johnson and/or Stein if either or both gets 100% ballot access nationwide or if either/both qualify for inclusion in one or more of the debates with the major party candidates.--Green4liberty (talk) 20:26, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, that seems reasonable.  Royal Mate1  21:03, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I may also add that a clarification in the introduction, such as "The Libertarian and Green Party candidates are Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, respectively, although they do not have 100% ballot access", or something similar to that, could be implemented.  Royal Mate1  21:12, 21 August 2012 (UTC)
 * One problem is that right now one one have 100% ballot access, not even the democrats and the republicans. Mostly because that local deathlines have not yet been reached. What ever we do I think it is important to have clear benchmarks otherwise we will have an ongoing campaigning on this page for every candidate, important or not. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:20, 22 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure if I completely understood what you've stated, but it's my understanding that the major party candidates do get put on ballots after their conventions. Seeing as both candidates have a majority of delegates, however, I think this could be overlooked (presumptive nominee). I couldn't find any sources for major party ballot access, as almost all news sources deal with third party access.  Royal Mate1  00:35, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Republicans and Democrats actually have to get ballot access just like everyone else. Nothing in the state or federal laws give a special place to any parties. Normally no one consider this and rightly so because everyone knows that these two big "private" partymachines will be on every ballot everywhere. But implementing in the article that the libertarian right now are not having 100% ballot access would imply that they are behind in some way to the big parties on the ballot area. And as I can see at a glimt they are actually going just as well as the two "real" parties. This doesnt happen every year and it doesnt say anything about the votes a third party will get. But this year the libertarian party seems to be on the track for full ballot access just as the DEM and REP naturally are. But they all still have to sign the papers and make the signatures just as everyone else and if they for some insane reason decides just to stay home and drink beer they will not automaticely magically been on every ballot. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:43, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Inauguration day
Doesn't the inauguration take place on January 20 as the constitution says? If it takes place on January 21, would Romney be president on that day or on the 20th should he win election? --78.51.107.147 (talk) 14:53, 22 August 2012 (UTC)

From what I can remember from 4 years ago, if the inauguration is on a Sunday (which it will be next year), the president is inaugurated a day later. I don't know about whether Romney, if elected, would be assumed to be president on the 20th or the 21st. A boat  that can float!   (watch me float!)  17:32, 23 August 2012 (UTC)
 * He becomes President on the 20th. The inaugural wouldn't be until the 22nd because of MLK day.  <span style="font-family: comic sans ms,sans-serif;"> Hot Stop   18:01, 23 August 2012 (UTC)

Since 1937 all presidential inauguration have been at january 20 according to the 20th ammendment section 1:
 * "The terms of the President and Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin."

In 2009, January 20 was a tuesday. Where does it say that the inauguration can not be on a sunday? Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:59, 27 August 2012 (UTC)

Query
What is the right article for discussing events during the campaigns? I'm interested, for instance, in writing about the way in which Todd Akin's comments affected national campaigns, rather than containing the material solely within local articles (or - name any other event) but I don't see the right article in which to do so - the Timeline of the election contains only very official events like people entering and dropping out of races. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 21:46, 25 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If the event happened in the primary season it would be best to put it into the primary articles. This is the general article for the general PRESIDENTIEL election so if this man have a impact at the general presidentiel election beyond a single or two newscycle or beyond his own reelection campaign this would be the place. But not every little comment by everyone running for office in the general election can be included. Maybe this is better covered on his own article, it is actually already written quit good about it there. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:33, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, yes, it is covered in other articles. But that's the whole point - it has had, and is predicted to have, impact on the presidential race. I can write a little bit about it for this, but it seems out of place, hence wondering if there was a better article - but perhaps people just haven't felt like writing more. –Roscelese (talk &sdot; contribs) 22:20, 27 August 2012 (UTC)
 * If it have had an impact on the presidentiel election this is the article to write it in, just a question where . This is an article in its making and it might need a new section telling about the course of the campaign. Covering the time where the primary articles (especially the republican one) left off. Be very careful not to include any crystalballing (that being prediction or speculation on what effect it will have in the future) but keep to what is already historical facts. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:06, 28 August 2012 (UTC)

Ballot Access Update
ballot-access.org shows that Virgil Goode, Peta Lindsay, and Gary Johnson are on the New York ballot. Minnesota's secretary of state's site now shows that johnson, stein, goode, anderson, dean morstad, carlson, harris, and lindsay are on the minnesota ballot. The district of columbia's elections site shows gary johnson on the ballot

207.177.29.217 (talk) 17:03, 23 August 2012 (UTC)


 * We need the exact address that explicitly says that, and I'm not even sure if the source is reliable. Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ballot-access.org is a blog; therefore, it is not reliable. A boat   that can float!   (watch me float!)  13:16, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is Mitt Romney still listed as "presumptive"
Mitt Romney secured the official nomination of the Republican Party at their National Convention, on August 28. He has the official backing of the party; there's no reason to continue to list him as the "presumptive" nominee. 128.84.125.137 (talk) 00:22, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Justice Party candidate not on ballot in TN
Wikipedia has Tennessee listed as one of the states of which Rocky Anderson is on the ballot. However, the State of Tennessee does not have him on their list. http://state.tn.us/sos/election/cand/2012NovemberCandidates.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.187.204.37 (talk) 15:59, 31 August 2012 (UTC)

Change Obama/Romney pictures on infobox
I really think the Obama photo now is really bad. I don't care about the Romney one, but we should just change them! I know there was already a consensus but I can't stand the Obama photo. We should change it to his official portrait. --Creativemind15 10:30, 1 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creativemind15 (talk • contribs)

If the official portrait is the one you've been trying to change it to, please don't use that one because his eyes look closed in it. Ratemonth (talk) 15:20, 1 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe you could say why you hate it? I mean that one editors taste tells him that it is bad photo dont really merrit it should be changed. There must be som rational reasons why it is bad. Personally I think it makes him look in charge and presidentiel, much more than his official photo. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:43, 1 September 2012 (UTC)

At least crop the Obama photo. You can't see his eyes in the photo now. At least find another Obama picture on Wiki Commons. User:Creativemind15 (talk) 12:59, 1 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.149.186 (talk)

Typo Edit Request
Hello, I cannot edit this page, but notice a typo here: "Bachmann, who finished fifth in Iowa, withdrew after the caucses." (The typo being that "caucuses" is missing a 'u.')Thanks.--75.18.185.180 (talk) 05:14, 4 September 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for spotting the typo.--JayJasper (talk) 05:17, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Number of Democratic Candidates
To treat a some fringe democratic candidates the same as the seriouse republican candidates is to imply that there was a democratic race. Older articles with the same setup do not do so. In 2004 Bush was the incumbent president and even though many perinnial candidates was on the ballot as the article Republican Party presidential primaries, 2004 shows the article on the general election: United States presidential election, 2004 does only list Bush as a candidate. So I have removed the candidates from this article in the same manner. There are of course still in the subjects main article: Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2012. I am looking forward to hear any arguments against this if it is undone. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:39, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

Comparison of US Presidential Candidates, 2012
I do not know if there is enough data out there yet, but it would be beneficial to create a page comparing the presidential candidates policy positions in a manner similar to Comparison of United States presidential candidates, 2008. If I find the time, I'll try to set one up myself in the next week or so. 98.82.9.78 (talk) 19:28, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Such an article briefly existed, but it was mostly just a collection of section headers with no actual content. It was recently deleted as discussed here. I'm not sure if it is possible to retrieve what was deleted to use as a template, but if you do wish to re-create that page, be sure it has at least some content first before uploading it. Good luck! 68.58.63.22 (talk) 03:30, 6 September 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.133.167 (talk)

Edit Request - VP nominees inappropriately added to candidate photo galleries
Somehow, without anyone noticing, on August 14th Creativemind15 changed the longstanding format of having the candidate photo galleries for each party showing the presidential candidates only, by adding the VP nominees (Biden and Ryan) and, in the Republicans gallery, adding the words "Nominees" and "Withdrew". (Creativemind also did this in the 2008 article yesterday, but it has already been reverted.) The galleries for each party is only supposed to list the presidential candidates; only those who ran for president. The VP nominees are only supposed to be listed in the infobox. This is what the candidate galleries looked like before the changes were made. This is the first of multiple changes, where Biden and Ryan were inappropriately added.. Then it was changed to put the Pres/VP nominees on their own lines as "Nominees" and split all the remaining candidates into their own area with the word "Withdrew" added for the Republican gallery.. Please put the galleries back to way they correctly were at 21:09, 14 August 2012‎. You can look at all previous election articles to verify the format: 2008,2004, 2000, 1996, and 1992, etc. Only the presidential candidates are listed. Thanks. --76.189.126.159 (talk) 22:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Seems reasonably, at least it should be some comments before a old consensus going back several cycles are changed. So I am chancing it back to the old form. If the VP should be pictured under the primary gallery then lets talk about it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:42, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Jack. :) Yeah, the format has been long established going back through decades of presidential election articles. What I think happened here is that other editors simply did not notice that this major change had been made. Those galleries are for presidential candidates only. --76.189.126.159 (talk) 22:49, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Sorry about that guys! I was just testing it out and I just wanted to save it for the day and I forgot to revert it back the next day! I'm willing to help out with candidate info and new pictures if you want me too! Have a nice day! --Creativemind15 (talk) 22:58, 5 September 2012 (UTC)


 * While I truly appreciate your apology, I don't understand your explanation. I don't get why you would make such a major, inappropriate change to a long-established format if you were planning on reverting it back. You cannot do live testing and save edits temporarily in an article. Also, that change in the 2012 election article was initiated three weeks ago, yet in the past 24 hours you did the exact same thing in the 2008 article. It's been fixed, as well. So, again, thank you for your apology, but please do not do testing in an article. Thanks. :) --76.189.126.159 (talk) 23:27, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Applying due weight to the top row of the infobox
Gary Johnson is on the ballot in 43 states + DC, which total 467 EVs, not 493. I think this is the third time I've brought something like this up- I don't know why his numbers keep getting inflated. It's possible it's just an adding error, but please remember to adjust the EV total when adding or removing a state.

The 7 states that we don't have confirmed for him yet are AL, CT, KY, MI, OK, PA, and RI. MI & OK are in the courts, and the GOP just filed a challenge to get him off the ballot in PA. I'm not sure about the status of the other 4. However, it might be timely (given the impending end to the ballot-access-petitioning season) to raise the question of how, if at all, to acknowledge the milestone of Johnson reaching full ballot access. We could talk hypothetically about other candidates as well, but at this point it doesn't appear anybody else has a shot to be on every ballot other than Obama, Romney, and Johnson, and GJ only in the event he and/or the LP win the last couple challenges/lawsuits.

The note on the top of this page (which is meant to encompass and represent all points of consensus regarding the infobox) states "Candidates are sorted by the amount of ballot access they have obtained, which is necessary to win those votes. In keeping with WP:DUE, the top row is reserved for major candidates on all 51 ballots." I worded the note this way to reflect two things: First, that ballot access (which may or may not include 'official' write-in states per this discussion) is the only measure by which we decide which candidates go in the infobox, and in what order they appear, with party names serving as a tiebreaker alphabetically, and the incumbent listed first if there is one.

The second part of my excerpt concerns the layout of the infobox- in particular, who is entitled to a spot in the top row. There was agreement that in the case where there were enough candidates who could win the election that more than one row was needed to showcase them all, that WP:DUE should apply to the top row only and limit the candidates that appear there to those who are "major." The follow-up question to that, which went unanswered, is what the definition of "major" would be. Just the big two? Those invited to the debates? Those who reached a particular polling average? Those who received matching funds from the FEC and/or raised a particular sum of money? You see the problem- we get back into the debate we had over the question of who gets into the infobox at all. Since it is all but certain that the Democrats & Republicans will be on every ballot (despite skirmishes like the recent challenge in WA, which I believe went Romney's way), I felt comfortable going ahead and linking the definition of "major" to our objective criterion of ballot access. It is not often that a third party reaches full nationwide ballot access- I believe Ross Perot in 1992/96 was the last one to do it, and maybe Buchanan in 2000. Back before AE made their no-nominee announcement, it was discussed whether to have (when there are 5 to 6 eligible candidates) 2 rows of 3 pictures/blank spot or 3 rows of 2. Back then, I wrote "As for 2 rows vs. 3 rows, I would agree that if we end up with 5 to 6 qualifying candidates, that 3 rows of 2 is better unless one (or more) of the 3rd party candidates earns full ballot access (50 states+DC). If that happens, they should be moved up to the top row, which would help to show that the nominees listed there are true nationwide candidates with a notably broad base of support." Jack voiced his support for this proposal, but I did not incorporate it into the note because I did not feel it was discussed by enough editors to be regarded as consensus (regardless of Jack's great standing around here), and it could potentially be controversial to picture Johnson directly next to Obama & Romney- particularly if we are strictly following the guidelines, which would dictate that Johnson be pictured between Obama & Romney, given that there is a 3-way ballot access tie, and 'L' comes before 'R' (although such an arrangement wouldn't be all that bad, since Obama would be on the far 'left', and Romney the far 'right'...)

Given that Goode (in my opinion) should now be included in the infobox (see above discussion: "What to Do with Constitution Party"), the 2 rows vs. 3 rows question should be resolved, along with whether or not Johnson deserves to be in the top row if he does get on every ballot (and more broadly for future elections, the definition in this context of "major"), as he currently expects to. Even if the majority opinion here turns out to be that Goode should not appear there yet, it seems likely that the date GJ is confirmed for that 51st ballot and the day Goode crosses the 270 threshold for ballots his name is printed on (which is a subset of all states with which he has submitted a slate of electors) will be very close to one another, if the current trajectory of the situation continues.

Stein's count with the current list here ought to be 402, not 403. However, she has also been confirmed for the ballot in VA. I have seen conflicting information re her MT petition, with BAN saying she didn't have enough valid signatures, but her website & the WP article on her campaign think otherwise- perhaps she's challenging? Without MT but with VA her total comes to 32 states+DC for 415 EVs. 68.58.63.22 (talk) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.29.133.167 (talk) 01:43, 6 September 2012 (UTC)

Token opposition?
The term 'token' should probably be explained to the non-US users (see Democratic primary) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.181.165.227 (talk) 07:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)
 * Why? Do you consider the word Token to be a special american word that are not used in other english languaged areas of the globe? The concept itself I think is known in every political system in the world. Of course it is more common, even a problem, in countries like US and UK with only single winner constituencies, but it is used everywhere, especially in the way in this connection. With a partyleader that everyone wants to win but so he is not running unopposed someone is running against him as token opposition. I know that it is not look upon as undemocratic to run without opposition in US as it is in many other countries, but that just mean that the term Token opposition maybe should be explained to US readers since Non US readers are more family with the term. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:55, 7 September 2012 (UTC)