Talk:2014 Michigan Attorney General election

Order of sections
I don't want to push my POV too hard here. That's particularly important, perhaps, for someone who's running for an office that's supposed to provide justice and fairness For the People. But I would like to invite others to consider whether the page is still somewhat biased towards the Republican and Democratic parties.

For one thing, their candidates are listed first, even though the alternative parties nominated their candidates months earlier. Also. . . Wikipedia and its editors can't control who is mentioned or not in polls, of course. Still, it would be nice (and arguably less biased) to show a column for everyone on the ballot, and then let the results for each poll show when they were and weren't similarly inclusive.

But how can I say this would be less biased? Because Gallup polls have consistently shown for years that there are more people who identify themselves as neither Republican nor Democratic than as either one. In fact, the latest poll as of this typing (September 2014) showed independents were nearly an absolute majority at 47% versus 26% Democrats and 25% Republicans.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/15370/party-affiliation.aspx

So what would you say to putting the section on the chronologically earlier alternative-party nominations ahead of the August 5 R & D primaries? Polling could still be listed in the order that the candidates will appear on the ballot -- the rule I followed when I added myself and the other two alternative-party AG nominees to the top-right corner box of information.

John Anthony La Pietra -- Attorney General For the People (Green Party of Michigan nominee for AG, 2014) 107.192.44.27 (talk) 00:12, 10 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nomination dates has nothing to do with the order in which parties are listed. Listing them "chronologically" would be completely unworkable - for example, how do you list who comes first when primaries are held on the same day? What if someone drops out and is later replaced? The way it works at the moment is the most simple: the incumbent party is listed first. In this case, the Republicans. Then the other major party, in this case, the Democrats. Finally, the minor parties. Tiller54 (talk) 20:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Nomination order has nothing to do with the order in which parties are listed on the ballot, true. But there's nothing necessarily wrong with listing candidates of minor parties (a more pejorative term than "third", BTW) first if they qualify for the general-election ballot first -- unless you're biased against those parties . . . and they can't qualify later in Michigan, by state law (MCL 168.686a, to be precise). For other states or other circumstances where other laws dictate otherwise, chronological order would still be a reasonable basis for standardization on Wikipedia pages. Tie-breakers should go in the order of appearance on the general-election ballot, which is also determined by law -- and easy to check via official pages like this one, though it will be updated after this year's elections.
 * jalp-gpmi == John Anthony La Pietra of the Green Party of Michigan
 * (you've driven me to sign up again, since my old account seems to have been old enough to be tied to my now-outdated e-mail address)
 * Jalp-gpmi (talk) 23:22, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * BTW, Tiller54, I put myself last of the three alternative-party nominees because that's where the Green Party is on the ballot this year; we might well wind up behind the Natural Law Party in 2016, if they're still on, because they have a Secretary of State candidate this year and we don't. (My original order came from the timing of our conventions, but I'm already compromising on time as a tiebreaker -- as I have on terminology, lumping the alternative parties together but not the major parties, and more.)  I put the initials back in for Messrs. Altman and Van Sickle because that's the way they wanted their names to appear on the ballot -- and the way the names are on the official list, and the way they will be on the ballot.  And I corrected the reference text for the external link to my campaign Facebook page to match my campaign committee's name; see here.  Just saying -- I'm working for accuracy here, as well as neutral POV.  Both goals motivate my restoration of another tidbit of information -- the fact that the alternative parties in Michigan nominate by convention (or caucus for offices within a county or district), which should be mentioned to match the mention of Republican and Democratic nomination by primary.  If you'd like, we can even cite the state statute that says so again.  And I do hope you can come to understand the necessity and appropriateness of these corrections.  If there were an independent candidate in the race (running "NPA", with "No Party Affiliation"), the article should mention that he/she got on by qualifying petition and maybe cite this section of state law as well.
 * jalp-gpmi == John Anthony La Pietra of the Green Party of Michigan . . . Jalp-gpmi (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * Hi Jalp-gpmi. First off, I'd just like to ask that you be as concise as possible in your posts to talk pages. As to your specific points: ballot order is determined differently in every state. On Wikipedia, the way the parties are ordered is kept consistent: the incumbent party first, then the other major party, then minor parties and independents. If an independent or third party is the incumbent, then they are listed first.
 * When sorting third parties, sometimes they'll have their own sections like on this page. If there's a single section covering all of them, then they're sorted alphabetically by surname per the manual of style for lists. In the case of this article, there's no practical purpose for having a separate section for each minor party. I would argue that having separate sections for the Republican and Democratic primaries would be pointless as well because there's no polling or results boxes, but there was another candidate who dropped out of the Democratic primary and there would otherwise be nowhere to put that information. As for how names appear on the ballot, again, Wikipedia just uses their common name.
 * As for "I corrected the reference text for the external link to my campaign Facebook page to match my campaign committee's name", please don't. Just leave it at the neutral "x for Attorney General".
 * I would argue there is more purpose in having pages about individual races in specific states show people the party order and candidate names they'll actually see on the ballot than there is in having such pages obey made-up standards that don't match the real world. Wikipedia rules could apply to generic pages (or lists in pages) where there is no real-world rule, but there's no need for them otherwise.
 * The purpose of having a separate section for each party is to treat them all neutrally/equally. (BTW, as the state's official candidate list shows, the Democrats and Republicans also nominate attorney general candidates at state conventions -- along with candidates for secretary of state, lieutenant governor, four statewide education boards, and justices of the state Supreme Court.  Though the latter are officially non-partisan positions.  There was no primary for the R & D candidates here -- just some maneuvering on the D side before the convention.)
 * And as for link reference text, please note that there's no point to including "for Attorney General" in an article about that race and candidates in it unless it's part of the Website's name. Either that phrase should be dropped for everyone, or all campaign committees and their Websites should have their accurate names -- which you can find by going here and searching for all active committees for attorney general candidates.  Either of those options would be neutrality to me; the bonus of added useful information decides the question for me in favor of the latter option.  Jalp-gpmi (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)
 * I would argue there is more purpose in having pages about individual races in specific states show people the party order and candidate names they'll actually see on the ballot than there is in having such pages obey made-up standards that don't match the real world. Wikipedia rules could apply to generic pages (or lists in pages) where there is no real-world rule, but there's no need for them otherwise.
 * The purpose of having a separate section for each party is to treat them all neutrally/equally. (BTW, as the state's official candidate list shows, the Democrats and Republicans also nominate attorney general candidates at state conventions -- along with candidates for secretary of state, lieutenant governor, four statewide education boards, and justices of the state Supreme Court.  Though the latter are officially non-partisan positions.  There was no primary for the R & D candidates here -- just some maneuvering on the D side before the convention.)
 * And as for link reference text, please note that there's no point to including "for Attorney General" in an article about that race and candidates in it unless it's part of the Website's name. Either that phrase should be dropped for everyone, or all campaign committees and their Websites should have their accurate names -- which you can find by going here and searching for all active committees for attorney general candidates.  Either of those options would be neutrality to me; the bonus of added useful information decides the question for me in favor of the latter option.  Jalp-gpmi (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)

POV: Bi-Partisan *IS* Partisan
I appreciate in general the work of Tiller54 to maintain this page, and I am glad for a bit of clean-up he/she has done 23:35, 21 October 2014‎ to my edit adding information about the three other candidates on the ballot in this race, who had previously been left out. And I'm willing to plead no-contest to POV for using a term that is not yet in wide popular use ("alternative party" instead of "third party") if Tiller54 will plead no-contest to the same POV charge and accept the correction of her/his "tidying" out information about those parties which leaves them treated unequally and unfairly as compared to what are usually called the "major parties". In fact, more voters nationwide self-identify as neither Democrats nor Republicans than as either (see this historical Gallup poll). And since, in Michigan, we don't have to declare party affiliation when we register to vote, the "independent" percentage is likely even higher here. So it is particularly important to cover all parties and all candidates in Michigan fairly and equally. Giving two parties preferential treatment may be "bi-partisan". . . but when there are six parties, bi-partisan *IS* partisan.

jalp-gpmi (John Anthony La Pietra) Jalp-gpmi (talk) 21:17, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
 * The preferred term in Wikipedia is 'minor parties.' Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:42, 22 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I beg your pardon, Steelbeard1 -- I had been responding to Tiller54's change between the other two terms I mentioned. Actually, "minor party" is arguably even more prejudiced than "third party", since the latter could be strictly a description of order on a ballot without necessarily implying that these parties and their candidates must be lesser and lower, now and forever, than the "major parties" and their candidates.  But I was saying that I'm willing not to contest the particular term used to refer to me, my friends, our friendly other-alternative rivals, and our candidates as long as we're treated fairly -- as the official, ballot-qualified parties and candidates we are.  (Without even considering the growing number of people who are fed up with being leaned on to lean towards one of the "major parties" for fear of electing the other -- note that poll I linked in.)  As my father might have said, "I don't much care what you call me -- as long as it isn't late for dinner."  All too often in the mainstream media, we aren't called to dinner at all -- or if we are, it's to the kiddie table as "also-running" candidates doomed to be also-rans.  Which might not be true if people had independent sources of information which told them there are more independents than either Republicans or Democrats -- or even told them enough substantive about those alternatives to be comparable.)  I've come to expect that mistreatment from the MSM -- but I expect better of Wikipedia and its claim to neutrality on POV.
 * jalp-gpmi (John Anthony La Pietra of the Green Party of Michigan) . . . Jalp-gpmi (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)
 * jalp-gpmi (John Anthony La Pietra of the Green Party of Michigan) . . . Jalp-gpmi (talk) 23:27, 23 October 2014 (UTC)

5% threshold for infobox
I would appreciate knowing whether this is a private rule of Tiller54 or a more general rule -- and, in either case, how it was derived. Without that background information, the rule is arbitrary and absorbs the POV of the mainstream media which all but ignores [alternative-/third-/]minor-party candidates. . . including them (us) only in a few late-season stories as "also running" candidates. It's bloody hard to reach any arbitrary minimum percentage in polls if nobody gets to hear substantive news about your campaign no matter what you do. But I will forbear from correcting the infobox to include all candidates on the ballot for this election if someone will provide verifiable information on these points -- and if the POV-neutral information I have added back to the main page is not deleted again.

jalp-gpmi == John Anthony La Pietra of the Green Party of Michigan. . . Jalp-gpmi (talk) 23:48, 23 October 2014 (UTC)


 * That's one, as a bad old joke says. I'll hold off for one or two more unfair deletions before correcting the infobox again.  But I'm still waiting to hear about the source and derivations of the 5% rule.  (I'd even take a hint in the form of a link to the information, if it's an actual Wikipedia rule and therefore documented somewhere in here.)
 * jalp-gpmi == John Anthony La Pietra of the Green Party of Michigan . . . Jalp-gpmi (talk) 18:55, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed on numerous talk pages including here, here and here. For further information, there is a template here and an article here that detail "Notable third party performances in United States elections", which is defined as "obtain[ing] at least 5.0% of the vote." Tiller54 (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)
 * It has been discussed on numerous talk pages including here, here and here. For further information, there is a template here and an article here that detail "Notable third party performances in United States elections", which is defined as "obtain[ing] at least 5.0% of the vote." Tiller54 (talk) 20:59, 26 October 2014 (UTC)


 * I see the 5% rule has been discussed. It hasn't been adopted as a rule, that I could see -- there's not even a consensus on it.  And "notable third party performances" isn't the same thing, of course.  But I'll take this as an honest attempt to address my concerns, and not count it as "two".  Jalp-gpmi (talk) 04:48, 28 October 2014 (UTC)