Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 20

Bernie Sanders Popular Vote Totals
Since Bernie Sanders won a electoral vote and is mentioned in the results box at the bottom of the page, his official popular vote totals should be included as well. In several states, Bernie Sanders was officially awarded popular votes via write in most notabely in California where he received over 79,000 votes [].XavierGreen (talk) 05:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I would agree with this. There are some problems that should be addressed. In CA, his official running mate was Rep. Tulsi Gabbard rather than Senator Warren. The write ins from Vermont and New Hampshire (the only other states with write ins reporting for Sanders) did not have a running mate attached to them. Just food for thought. Perhaps the Gabbard or no VP would work better as a footnote and the 102,000ish votes cast for Bernie (79,341 in CA, 18,183 in Vermont, and 4,493 in NH) would be counted next to Bernie's name in the chart. Sources: CA: and  NH:  VT: . Teak the Kiwi (talk) 05:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * What do you mean exactly with Tulsi Gabbard being the running mate in CA, when apparently Sanders hadn't proclaimed himself at all as a candidate?, (talk) 03:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * California allows (or probably more accurately, doesn't disallow) people to get 55 people to sign up as electors for a ticket regardless of whether that person wants to run. Ron Paul was an officially recognized write-in in 2008 and 2012. The write-in tickets are for two people, not just a president. CA only counts these write-ins that have officially registered with the SoS. Rep. Tulsi Gabbard was chosen by the person who filed the paperwork to be on the ticket with Bernie Sanders. I'm guessing that she wanted as much of a part in it as Bernie (which is to say she was drafted against her will as a candidate too). Most other states don't factor in a VP with write-ins. Hope that helps. Teak the Kiwi (talk) 03:52, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a link | See Page 4. Gabbard would've received the votes for VP in CA if Bernie somehow had won on write ins. Teak the Kiwi (talk) 03:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Definitely not. Sanders received hundreds of thousands of write-in votes, but it is impossible to know how many write-ins he got because most states do not give a crap enough to break their write-ins down into specifics.  It is objectively false information to only list the totals of the states that have rules to report the votes versus those who don't.  Obviously only an idiot encyclopedia would say Sanders received write-in votes in three states, and nobody anywhere else wrote him in.  More than a dozen states allowed his name to be written in but most don't report any write-ins individually.  Sanders was not a candidate.  The fact he got some votes may merit mention in the body of the article, but he should not be listed with the "candidates" because he was not a candidate.  Darrell Castle and Gloria La Riva were a "candidate"; Bernie Sanders and Colin Powell were not. 2005 (talk) 06:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think he should be included in this article's infobox, but I think that he might warrant inclusion in a couple state-level articles' infoboxes. Dustin  ( talk ) 07:09, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't about the infobox at the top of the page, its about the results section at the bottom which states various minor party candidates who achieved more than 100,000 votes, the two major party candidates, and the electoral vote getters. Sanders is already mentioned in the box since he got an electoral vote. What i am suggesting is that is official popular vote total be included there as well.XavierGreen (talk) 07:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * He's included in the Vermont infobox. MB298 (talk) 07:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That should be removed because it is false information. sanders was not a candidate.  Sanders did not as an "independent".  Sanders did not have Elizabeth Warren as a "running mate".  This is all blatantly false information.  He got an Electoral vote.  That's all.  He was not a candidate in this election and this article should not pretend he was. 2005 (talk) 08:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * He actually was an official qualified write-in candidate for president in California.XavierGreen (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That doesn't make him a candidate! All it takes is 55 people pledging themselves to the write-in before the vote.  Sanders was on the ballot against his consent, and it is, if nothing else, rude and false for the Wiki to call him a 'candidate" and list him with the candidates.  There should be a candidate box and then faithless elector infor mation below it.  As for the "running mate" line, those are just pure lies in the article.  Slander even. 2005 (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've added now "at least 102,017" and "at least 0.08%" for Sanders and "at least 1,365" and "at least 0.00%" (sic, lol) for Kasich. When it comes to Sanders' running mate, I added the footnote (b) The faithless elector cast its presidential vote for Bernie Sanders with Elizabeth Warren as the running mate. The exact amount of popular votes have been published for 3 states, of which in California the official running mate was Tulsi Gabbard and in New Hampshire and Vermont there weren't any running mate attached to Sanders. It was possible to vote Sanders as a write-in candidate in 12 states. ., (talk) 07:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As to Sanders in the general. He got the votes. He came in third in Vermont as the result of a genuine campaign to "draft" him. He came in THIRD in Vermont and did better than one candidate on the ballot in California. In 1964 Henry Cabot Lodge, II, who was not a candidate, won the New Hampshire primary on a write-in. Should he have been excluded from the NH primary page? (<<<comment by Arglebargle79)
 * Sanders popular vote impact and faithless elector can and should be on this page somewhere. He should not be in the "candidates" box, and should not have a "running mate" attached to him. 2005 (talk) 19:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Powell and Paul also received a smattering of write-in votes, by the way, after taking a quick look at the Vermont totals. Fryedk (talk) 20:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's not get faithless electoral votes mixed up with popular votes, as one doesn't correlate to the other. Write in votes for Sanders on November 8, don't necessarily relate to any electoral votes he got on December 19. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree with GoodDay, in addition we have no clean way of separating out Sanders' write in votes from the (other) total available from Leip's numbers, so his write-ins get duplicated if they are listed next to his name. We shouldn't put effort into picking apart write in candidate vote counts in the Results box.Travis McGeehan (talk) 18:30, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sanders faithless elector is totally different than him being a "candidate", and also totally different than any popular votes he got. Same with Kasich.  The box as it is now is embarrassing.  It's as if it was put together from someone on Mars who has no idea how the US system works.  2005 (talk) 19:36, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I've removed the popular votes-in-question, as they don't relate to the electoral votes-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay, that is inconsistent with other articles that attempt to quantify how many votes people who received electoral votes received. (For example, the 2004 United States presidential election page.) We should try and quantify the number of votes that each of the individuals that received write-in votes received. Plus, are we supposed to remove Donald Trump's vote total from Washington, then, because he did not receive an electoral vote from that state? Unless we are going to redo all previous election pages to be consistent with this one, we need to make this election page consistent with all previous elections.

Bernie Sanders was an official candidate, even though he was not officially running. He received 79,341 votes in California; 4,493 votes in New Hampshire; 18,183 in Vermont; at least one in Alabama; at least 593 in Georgia; and at least seven in Illinois. Total currently known votes: 102,618.

John Kasich received 1,365 in New Hampshire; 823 in Vermont; at least one in Alabama; at least 157 in Georgia; and at least one in Illinois. Total currently known votes: 2,347.

Ron Paul received 98 votes in New Hampshire, 25 in Vermont, and at least one in Alabama. Total currently known votes: 124.

Colin Powell received 25 votes in Vermont. Total currently known votes: 25.

As far as I can tell, Faith Spotted Eagle did not receive a vote, but someone, who has more spare time than myself, may be able to help fill in those boxes.Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 23:10, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They don't relate, however. None of Powell's popular votes in Vermont, has anything to do with his 3 electoral votes in Washington, for example. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But none of Trump's popular votes in Vermont have anything to do with his 304 electoral votes in the United States of America, either. I believe that we should have vote totals for candidates, if known.  Otherwise, the "Other" column at the bottom is misleading.  Obviously, we need to make sure that the totals add up at the end.  I understand that this is the most complicated electoral college vote since 1872.  I know that it will be difficult, but I feel like not doing our best on this article is misleading and lazy.Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * They are votes for Colin Powell. None of McMullin's write in votes got him any EVs, but we count those. The Green Papers has a better list of write ins than Leip's does. Perhaps those should be used. The 1896 election includes all votes for Bryan despite the fact that not all of his electors votes for his chosen running mate. We can use footnotes for specifics. Teak the Kiwi (talk) 23:28, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with GoodDay about not listing the write-in votes for everyone who got faithless EVs. The count might not be important to the electors' votes, but it is missing data that we do have in part. United States Presidential Election, 2004 lists the write-in vote total of five for John Edwards, so doing the same here is harmless at worst. Include the information. -- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 23:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Viewership
why isn't PBS included? 5.34.72.4 (talk) 15:21, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

Map error
Would someone please fix Fort Bend County, Texas on File:2016 Presidential Election by County.svg? It is colored Trump, but Clinton won it according to Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:17, 22 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Another thing: File:2016 Presidential Election by County.svg and File:Alaska Presidential Election Results 2016.svg have Alaska's results based off its State House districts (which is a break from AK maps from previous elections). However, every other state has results based off counties, and File:United States presidential election results by county, 2016.svg shows Alaska's borough results, which is consistent with the other 49 states (boroughs are AK's county equivalent). The other two maps should be changed for consistency. It would be great if this, as well as the error above, would be fixed. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:20, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Actually, if someone would change Alaska's results in every map in this article to show its boroughs, that would be appreciated. I feel that my requests are falling on deaf ears, I have to admit, though. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:30, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

One more thing: File:United States presidential election, 2016 Cartogram.png does not show the fact that Trump won Maine's second district. This should probably be included. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 23:57, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

The California factor
Just a thought. Should we mention in this article, that with California removed from the totals, Trump would've won the national popular vote by about 1.5 million? PS - I haven't checked the other US presidential elections articles for this 1-state difference situation. Was thinking on this, given so much protesting over Clinton's near 3 million national popular vote victory. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There doesn't seem any reason to show hypothetical results with California removed over any other state removed. Clinton won DC, Hawaii, and I think 1 more state, but a higher percentage than she won California. So its not like California was the bluest state. Also Trump had states he won by a vote even strong than Hillaries vote in California. So unless there are decent media references to why it means anything? I know some are trying to use it to show Trump had popular vote *except* California, but I don't know why that is meaninful, since Clinton had popular vote even if you remove any other 1 state except california. Dacium (talk) 05:13, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nothing hypothetical, the math is there. Also, it put a hole in the suggestions of abolishing the Electoral College. GoodDay (talk) 05:19, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Putting a "hole" in one side of any debate is not the purpose of Wikipedia. WP:NOT --Beneficii (talk) 08:23, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's no reason to do this. Without California, Al Gore would have also lost the 2000 popular vote. Without Texas, John Kerry would have won in 2004. There's far too many hypotheticals. Without California the Republican would win the popular vote in practically every election. MB298 (talk) 05:25, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, in the 2000 situation, Gore difference was only 500,000 votes nationwide & so California wasn't nearly as big a factor. As for 2004? Bush won the prez election anyway, so no comparison to 2016. GoodDay (talk) 05:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There's still far too many hypotheticals. MB298 (talk) 05:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking of straight math. Anyways, it's a suggestion for ya'll to consider. GoodDay (talk) 05:47, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't seem like a necessary fact to include. That's pretty much like saying "well, Donald Trump would've won the popular vote if you take out the states that didn't vote for him," which seems silly. The same goes in reverse for Hillary and Republican states like Texas but with electoral votes instead. Dustin  ( talk ) 06:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is significant but I would phrase it differently. We should explain why Clinton's popular majority did not translate into electoral votes and mention California.  That way we avoid hypotheticals.  If the U.S. had annexed Canada and Mexico, Trump would have lost in a landslide.  TFD (talk) 06:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This is like saying, "If you take out all of the states Obama won in 2012, Romney would have won the popular vote." Give me a break! Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 19:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree with others here - this time, California would've been the decisive state if the US went by popular vote. But is that really a meaningful thing to note? Any more than estimates regarding which possible Clinton supporters stayed home in states that this election were key to an electoral victory?
 * I don't think it's worth noting in an encyclopedia. Prcc27❄ (talk) 20:24, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I think this should be included only if California secedes from the Union or is destroyed by an earthquake. Objective3000 (talk) 20:26, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I completely support mentioning California. This election is different than the 2012 or most other elections because the losing candidate received for popular votes than the winner (even though Clinton only received a plurality, not a majority). In other elections, I would fully support not adding something like this, however because this election is so unusual, and because there has been so much talk about the Electoral College, this fact should definitely stay. It gives perspective to the whole Electoral College debate and this election. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:27, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sod California results, Clinton lost, she knew the rules. More focus on how Bernie Sanders was the correct candidate that would have had a better chance against Trump but Clinton used her leverage to get the nomination  and then how Clinton ran a very poor campaign which resulted in Trumps victory are much more reportable here. Govindaharihari (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, with California removed from the picture. The national vote total would be
 * Trump - about 58,495,826
 * Clinton - about 57,090, 822

AFAIK, of the 5 presidential elections that resulted in the popular vote runner up winning the White House. This is the only one, where just one state was the difference. GoodDay (talk) 21:38, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, this election cannot be compared to any other recent presidential election except the 2000 election, where the winner of the election did not win a majority or plurality of the popular vote. Adding this fact puts this election into perspective. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:03, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In the 2000 election, California wasn't the  only  state, though. There were many states to chose from, that if removed, would've gave Bush the most nationwide popular votes. GoodDay (talk) 22:14, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Adding this information is trivial and unnecessary. There is no valid reason to mention what the vote totals would be without California. This is like saying if California's votes didn't count in 2000, Bush would have won the popular vote, "so we gotta mention that." No, this particular discussion is nonsensical and needs to end. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 22:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In 2000, there were other states to chose from for picking out, to give Bush the popular vote lead. In 2016, there's only one. GoodDay (talk) 22:16, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This isn't a board game. You can't remove states. Basic logic, if you removed Hawaii, Mickey Mouse would have won. That is a true statement because you can't remove Hawaii. Objective3000 (talk) 22:18, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course you can't just remove any states from the election. I support adding this because it adds a helpful perspective to the election. Maybe 20 Dem states would have had to be removed for Trump to receive a plurality or majority in the popular vote, but in this case it was only one. This is relevant in the current Electoral College debate. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:23, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * California also has more people than Canada. There's no good reason to include this tidbit. Dustin  ( talk ) 22:46, 23 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And if California became a country, it would have the 7th or 8th largest GNP in the World. This is WP:TRIVIA. Objective3000 (talk) 22:50, 23 December 2016 (UTC)
 * What in the world do these two comments have to do with the fact that without California, Trump would have won the popular vote? If you are going to disagree with inclusion, please do so directly rather than spewing trivia to prove your point (I don't think it actually is proving your argument). The fact that California alone decided the popular vote (rather than multiple states) amidst a controversial Electoral College debate is very different than the state's population or economy. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 23:32, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

If you take away New York, Massachusetts, and Illinois, what happens?The same thing. 70.120.214.103 (talk) 02:17, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not in this election. Only by taking away California would Trump lead in the popular vote. Take away the other states you mentioned, and Clinton would still lead. GoodDay already made that clear already. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:25, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I was implying the three states combined70.120.214.103 (talk) 03:07, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And that's because California contains twelve percent of the population. This is almost as bad as saying Trump only failed to win the plurality of the popular vote because of people who didn't vote for him. The most-populous state in the union happens to be Democratic-leaning. With this kind of argument, almost any election with a popular vote margin of less than a couple million votes could be claimed to have been "just California," which paints an improper picture. Dustin  ( talk ) 02:30, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It is unlikely that California would have affected the popular vote in "any election" like this one. The state single-handedly decided the winner of the popular vote, unlike any other recent presidential election, including the 2000 election, I believe. This is important considering the whole Electoral College debate going on today, which resurged again because of this election. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:43, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, if Calexit succeeds, we won't have this debate again. That being said, I agree with Dustin. 38 million people live in California, the majority of whom vote Democratic. California wasn't close whatsoever in this election, and it was a given that Clinton would easily win the state. In United States presidential election in California, 2000, there is a mention that, "California is also almost certainly what helped Gore pull ahead in the popular vote." Maybe a blurb like that should be mentioned on the California page, but it's too insignificant to be included in the main article. MB298 (talk) 03:15, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

This whole discussion is pointless; none of this has any relevance to go in the article. OF COURSE California has an outsized effect on the popular vote, and always will, because 12% of the country's population live in California. You hear this kind of what-if talk after every close election - and despite what Trump says about landslides, this election was close, settled by 80,000 votes in three states. Those states gave the electoral college to Trump, and that's what wins elections. The popular vote is of great sociological and historic interest even though it has no effect on the outcome. But there is little attention paid, and no significance attached, to which states contributed to the popular vote. --MelanieN (talk) 21:41, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This was my point. It's like saying, "If those votes didn't count, and that candidate didn't receive them, then they wouldn't have won." But they DID count, that candidate DID get them, and Hillary Clinton did win the popular vote and Donald Trump won by EC vote. So this hypothetical is utterly pointless and irrelevant.70.120.214.103 (talk) 04:00, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Nobody won the national popular vote, as nobody got over 50%. GoodDay (talk) 19:42, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In the United States, "winning the popular vote" means winning the plurality. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Of the 5 US presidential elections-in-question, this is the only one where only one state made the difference. GoodDay (talk) 20:25, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * And I expect there will be plenty more such elections to come because a huge amount of the population lives in California. Its population is larger than most of the world's countries, so I don't see why this comes as a surprise. This statement that Clinton only won the popular vote of California, as portrayed by media sources, seems like a way to paint the rest of the country as somehow anti-Clinton or pro-Trump. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:30, 26 December 2016 (UTC)

The real significance of this and why it should probably be included is that Californians have had the worst reaction to the election of Trump overall. What other states have floated things like "CALEXIT" as a result of their anger towards the outcome of the election? Californians themselves seem irate over the fact that their votes specifically put Clinton over the top of Trump in terms of popular votes but that the limitations imposed by the electoral college reduced California's significance. California is incredibly significant this time around, and Californians are aware of it and angry about it.173.66.18.9 (talk) 12:48, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * First time since 1888 that the losing candidates popular vote advantage came entirely from one state (Texas votes for Cleveland then). Gore's popular vote advantage came from four states. First legislative initiative to eradicate Electoral College came from California (Boxter). --Artaxerxes 14:21, 27 December 2016 (UTC)


 * So, it's a good question for Trivial Pursuit. But, considering the size of CA, hardly surprising. Objective3000 (talk) 14:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

the US election does not have popular vote on the nationwide scale
Each state + DC has its own popular vote, which is 1 person 1 vote. The US election system clearly is not a 1 person 1 vote system on the nationwide scale, which is a necessary condition for popular vote to exist on the nationwide scale. The electoral college system increases the voting power of smaller states and reduces the voting power of larger states. The numbers listed as popular vote in the infobox are the numbers of people who voted, not the popular vote. The US election system does not have popular vote on the nationwide scale, unlike the Russian election system which does and is determined by it.

More American citizens voted for Hillary Clinton than any other candidate. But it is erroneous to say she had more popular vote than any other candidate, because the US election system does not have popular vote on the nationwide scale, i.e., it is not a 1 person 1 vote system on the nationwide scale.

This is a technicality, but it is a very important one, considering the US is just about the only nation that does not use a popular vote system on the nationwide scale, unlike just about any other nation. This is American exceptionalism, and non Americans find it hard to understand and can be confused by popular vote and the US election system.

69.166.119.17 (talk) 15:44, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This has already been discussed, and it has been resolved that popular vote is included in the article. MB298 (talk) 18:39, 25 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Popular vote means U.S. citizens voting. (Popular=people=citizens)  More citizens voting for Clinton=greater popular vote.  TFD (talk) 20:36, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * We know whatcha mean. The US prez election, is actually 51 little elections with the goal of getting the most popular votes in each. GoodDay (talk) 20:40, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * And the Canadian federal election, 2015 was actually 338 separate elections each called by the issue of an individual writ to each constituency returning officer, signed and sealed by the Governor General. (It takes a long time to do that.)  Generally the person with the most votes wins in first past the post parliamentary elections, but it is significant when that does not happen, as in the Quebec general election, 1966, when the Liberals won 7% more of the popular vote but lost the election.  TFD (talk) 22:50, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure what Canadian federal and provincial elections have to do with this? Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  23:14, 26 December 2016 (UTC)
 * All governments work in a similar manner. 😉 White Arabian Filly  Neigh 23:16, 26 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The US is not exceptional in not having a popular vote on a nationwide scale and it is always significant when a party places second in popular vote and wins an election anyway. TFD (talk) 20:32, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

I disagree that it is American exceptionalism. While the popular vote nationally doesn't matter as much in the American election you can find multiple other nations which have deviant systems. In Mexico the current president was elected with only 40% of the vote because they lack the runoff system that Brazil and France have to ensure the president is elected by the majority. In South Africa they vote for parliament and parliament votes for the president, who is not a member of parliament- this system is notable for being very similar to America's electoral system with the parliament serving the role of the electors more or less. And in true parliamentary systems there are a variety of ways things are done- like in the UK with its first past the post system whereby the UKIP party received only a few seats despite gaining millions of votes because they came in second in a great many ridings. And in the Netherlands where they have a total popular vote system where each party receives seats according to their total vote share. All of these nations have their own systems, some of which are just as unique as the American system. It is not exceptional to have a system few or no other countries use.173.66.18.9 (talk) 12:43, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Don't forget Greece, where the party that places first is given an extra 50 seats, otherwise Syriza and New Democracy might not have been the government parties in the last three elections. TFD (talk) 20:35, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

The People who got write in votes and got faithless electoral votes are the same people

 * Should we include non-declared presidential candidates' popular votes in the Results section of this article? GoodDay (talk) 04:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

It's really that simple. Bernie Sanders got over a hundred thousand write-in votes and one electoral vote. It's not about whether the he wanted to get them but that he did. Same with John Kasich, Ron Paul and Colin Powell. They weren't candidates, but they got write-in votes anyway and these votes should be counted if they can be if they also got electoral votes. George Wallace got a faithless elector in 1968, but that's counted under his column, even though it didn't "correlate." Had an elector voted for McMullin or Stein, it would have been the same. The people voted for are the same. It's not that Bernie Sanders and Bernie Sanders were different people. They're not. With the exception of Sanders' write-ins, which totaled over a hundred thousand votes and were thus notable, Kasich's and Powell's wouldn't be unless they got electoral votes. John Hospers and Theodora Nathen, who got an electoral vote from a faithless elector in 1972, also got a couple of thousand votes from a couple of different states, and they're listed on the same line together. 22:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Wallace in 1968, RAN for president in the general election & WON 45 electoral votes via that election. This is why we've added his 1 faithless electoral vote to his total, giving him 46. Neither Sanders, Powell, Kasich or Paul RAN for president in 2016, nor win any electoral votes on their own. AGAIN, any write-in votes they got in November 2016 - DID NOT give them any electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 22:46, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Going through and separating out every write in candidate's votes from the (other) total is infeasible. The styling of the results box also looks much cleaner with dashed lines through the spaces for faithless electors who did not run for president and thus did not receive non write-in votes, which are listed in the (other) category.  The current styling by GoodDay also matches the 1976 and 1988 elections, however the 2004 election lists five votes with John Edwards.Travis McGeehan (talk) 22:57, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

What about Hospers, then? Even McMullin and Jill Stein received write-in votes on places they weren't on the ballot and it was added to their popular total. Also, Henry Cabot Lodge WON the 1964 New Hampshire primary as a write-in and he wasn't a candidate. Adlai Stevenson won the Democratic nomination in 1952 without being a candidate. Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay said this about his deletion:


 * There's no consensus to add it & so far more editors wanted it removed. GoodDay (talk) 22:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Is this true? I cannot find any other editors who think so. So besides him, should we put the popular votes back? Let's have a real consensus one way or another. Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:01, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hospers RAN for president in the 1972 election. There is a note in the Results section at the 1972 article concerning Hospers, just like I added a note at the 1968 article's Results section concerning Wallace. GoodDay (talk) 23:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I could see arguments against including write ins from NH and VT, but Sanders' results in CA were officially counted and recognized (one has to file paperwork saying that 55 people will act as electors for the write in candidate regardless of whether or not said person wishes to run) and reported in the same file as the other four write ins and the five tickets whose names were on the ballot. Given that the results for VT and NH have been posted by the states' Secretaries of State, they should be included. Results for Kasich from NH and VT should be included as well since they are also reported by the state Secretaries of State. Footnotes may be good for clarification of who was the running mate (if any). Since Warren got the Electoral Vote, perhaps give her the slot and say that Tulsi Gabbard was Sanders's running mate in CA and that there was no running mate in Vermont and New Hampshire. Since we don't know who the Kasich elector picked for VP, there should be no needed footnotes saying that his write ins did not have a running mate. Teak the Kiwi (talk) 23:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. None of Sanders or Kasich popular votes, garnered them any electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 23:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I want to make sure that these two talk sections do not diverge off into different directions. The 2004 United States presidential election page handles this differently.  We should try and quantify the number of votes that each of the individuals that received write-in votes received.  Plus, are we supposed to remove Donald Trump's vote total from Washington, then, because he did not receive an electoral vote from that state?  We need to make all of these presidential election pages consistent.
 * That's what I really don't like about that argument of not counting write ins. The votes for Sanders, Kasich, and Powell exist. They can be clarified with footnotes. Teak the Kiwi (talk) 23:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Please show me where any of Sanders, Kasich or Powell's (write-in) popular votes, won them any electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * They didn't. Hospers's faithless vote is counted on the 1972 page with his other results despite not getting any votes in Virginia, where that faithless vote was from. By that logic, we shouldn't include anyone in that info box who didn't get any electoral votes, so no Stein, Johnson, McMullin, or Castle because their results (ballot and write in) did not gain them any electoral votes. It's the exact same as Sanders, except that he got electoral votes. It doesn't matter where they came from. Other elections with split results still include the popular votes with the electoral votes, but use footnotes (see 1896). Teak the Kiwi (talk) 23:40, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders was an official candidate, even though he was not officially running. He received 79,341 votes in California; 4,493 votes in New Hampshire; 18,183 in Vermont; at least one in Alabama; at least 593 in Georgia; and at least seven in Illinois. Total currently known votes: 102,618.

John Kasich received 1,365 in New Hampshire; 823 in Vermont; at least one in Alabama; at least 157 in Georgia; and at least one in Illinois. Total currently known votes: 2,347.

Ron Paul received 98 votes in New Hampshire, 25 in Vermont, and at least one in Alabama. Total currently known votes: 124.

Colin Powell received 25 votes in Vermont. Total currently known votes: 25.

As far as I can tell, Faith Spotted Eagle did not receive a vote, but someone, who has more spare time than myself, may be able to help fill in those boxes.Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 23:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's not the same thing. PS- This is getting so frustrating. GoodDay (talk) 23:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Bernie Sanders was recognized by the State of California as a bonafide candidate for president, with write-in access. How he got his elector vote is meaningless, since he is listed in the results section at the bottom anyway, there is no reason why his officially acredited popular vote should not be listed there (California, New Hampshire, and Vermont).XavierGreen (talk) 23:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Forgive me folks, if I'm loosing patient, here. Again, Sanders DID NOT win any electoral votes with his write-in-popular votes. Therefore, having his popular votes in the Results section is merely causing confusion & misinformation. GoodDay (talk) 23:52, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * By your logic GoodDay, all of the popular votes in the results box that Trump and Clinton recieved in the states they lost should be removed, because they didn't win them any electoral votes. XavierGreen (talk) 23:51, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * AGAIN, it's not the same thing. Anyways, do what ever you want. I've had enough. GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 20 December 2016 (UTC) This comment has been moved here assuming that it was meant to be placed here., (talk) 03:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Sanders was not an official candidate in California. No matter how many times you say it, it is still a blatant falsehood.  His write-ins were officially counted because 55+ people asked that they be counted.  That does not make him a candidate.  What makes a person a 'candidate" is they say "I am a candidate".  Just because "Lizard People" had one vote counted in Minnesota a few years ago does not make Lizard People a candidate.  These assertions that Sanders was a candidate are basically BLP violations.  He was not.  Stop saying he was.  Stop trying to list him as one.  Stop trying to pretend some people who didn't even run had "running mates".  Declared candidates are candidates.  People, and animals, who got votes, got votes, but that doesn't make them "candidates".  2005 (talk) 02:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Issue adressed: Since everyone else who received electoral votes, except DT nad HC, were not candidates, there is now a column stating whether the person was a candidate or not. I've divided the electoral vote column into two, one column for the pledged electors based on the popular vote, and one for the actual result. I considered also a separate table for people who weren't candidates but received electoral votes, but the problem is that at least 4 of the 5 persons have also received popular votes, and these persons' popular votes would be in the "Other" section at the bottom of the candidate's table., (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There definitely ought to be a notation of some kind distinguishing the bonafide candidates (Clinton & Trump) from the recipients of faithless electors/write in votes. From a purely aesthetic perspective, I feel like this might be better accomplished with a footnote, as an extra column adds a not-insignificant amount of girth to the table. Nathaniel Greene (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I feel that the candidacy status is such an important piece of information that shouldn't be in a footnote. Someone campaigning to be a president, getting 100,000 votes and after that getting faithless electoral votes is in my opinion a completely different thing than someone just getting random write-in votes and by coincidence also faithless electoral votes. And I'm not American and begun wondering whether Sanders was an independent candidate when I saw that he had gotten 80,000 votes in California., (talk) 04:05, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ... And since 5 fake candidates are listed in a row and after that 5 candidates in a row, it would look good if we could combine the 5 "No" cells with each other and 5 "Yes" cells with each other. The 5 candidates other than DT and HC also got both 0 electoral votes based on popular votes and 0 actual votes in the electoral college. It would look good if we could combine the two "0" cells in each 4 rows. I have no idea myself how I can combine these cells., (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

PS- I'm bleeping through with this discussion & editors who continue to re-add confusing/misleading information into the Results section :( GoodDay (talk) 23:56, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Its legally irrelevant how one gets their electoral votes. There is already a precedent set from 1972, where Hospers was a bonafide candidate in a few states and won a electoral vote from a faithless elector. Hospers popular vote is listed in the results box at the bottom of the page as well. As such, Sanders at least definately should have his official popular vote count included since he was a bonafide candidate for president in California (note this is only votes from California, Vermont, and New Hampshire).XavierGreen (talk) 00:40, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

If there had been no faithless electors this year. We likely wouldn't be having this entire discussion. What a mess, readers will be possibly mislead into thinking that Powell's 25 votes earned him 1 electoral vote. Mislead to think that Sanders votes in California, somehow got him 1 electoral vote in Hawaii. Mislead to think that there was a Sanders-Warren ticket. What a mess, folks. GoodDay (talk) 18:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I absolutely agree with that first part. If there were no faithless electors for them, I would have no issue with them being lumped under "other." I'm really not sure how it is misleading. Clinton's popular votes in Wyoming didn't get her anything and they're still included in the totals. If we include a clearly marked footnote(s), any reader that actually cares will read it and be informed about where the faithless electoral votes and popular votes for Powell, Sanders, Kasich, and Paul came from. Teak the Kiwi (talk) 18:37, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Those of you who are pushing for popular votes to be shown, for those who got only faithless electoral votes, are merely making a mess of the Results table. Honestly, yas are trying to force a square peg into a round hole. As for Clinton & Trump, footnotes would be required if any of their earned electoral votes went to the other. Trump lost 2 electoral votes, but none to Clinton. Clinton lost 5 electoral votes, but none to Trump. Again, all this commotion is only happening because a few people got faithless electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The situation of having multiple faithless electors makes the table a mess. Adding popular votes doesn't make it any bulkier since there's already a popular vote column. We should have a footnote saying that Clinton and Kaine lost 5 EVs to faithless electors, that Trump lost 2, and that Pence lost 1 vote to a faithless elector. Teak the Kiwi (talk) 18:55, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Compromise
To avoid confusion/misinformation. I recommend that the Results section in this article & all the other US presidential elections articles, be devided into 2 sub-sections. One sub-section would have the electoral votes & the other sub-section would have the popular votes. GoodDay (talk) 00:43, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I don't think there is any confusion or misinformation, a simple note stating that a particular individuals electoral vote was recieved due to faithless elector (or electors) would be sufficent. XavierGreen (talk) 01:04, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I have now divided the electoral vote column into two, one column for the pledged electors based on the popular vote, and one for the actual result., (talk) 03:27, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with XavierGreen. We did that with 2004, this is no different. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 01:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes, of course. There is no reason to make one false box instead of two non-false boxes! 2005 (talk) 03:01, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Agree with this change, though - for the sake of space - might the current column headers be shortened to read "Pledged" and "Actual?" Nathaniel Greene (talk) 03:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * I would appreciate, if we're going to do the write-in votes next to faithless elector candidates, that whoever is investigating write in candidate totals would subtract those votes from the (other) total, and if the words "at least" are not used next to any of the counts. The table looks very sloppy when the counts don't add up and with words in the number boxes.Travis McGeehan (talk) 01:28, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The problem is that we know the amount of the candidate's popular votes for sure, but when it comes to the "fake candidates" we don't know the amount of popular votes. It would look quite sloppy to have for example "102,618" for Bernie Sanders when we know that the amount isn't 102,618. One choice could be change the explanation from "Popular votes > Count" to "Popular votes > Known count". 102,618 could be perhaps regarded as a known count., (talk) 03:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The only vote totals that matter are the official ones. Write-in votes that were not counted were not recognized, so why should they be recognized here. The only write-in votes that matter are ones that were recognized in the official totals. For Bernie Sanders, this is only his vote totals for (California, Vermont, and New Hampshire). Any other parital or unofficial tallies are meaningless. For example rhere are write in votes for Jill Stein and other candidates that were not counted as well, but we dont mention them because they arn't part of the official totals and thus not bonafide votes under the law for a candidate.XavierGreen (talk) 03:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Oh, I didn't understand that the election works like that. I understood that if 14 states recognized the write-in votes for the fake candidates and some states for Stein and Johnson, they have to be counted and the information is at least somewhere in the archives of the election authorities. It's perhaps worth to note below the box that the votes for Stein and Johnson include only ballot votes and those write-in that happen to have been counted., (talk) 05:51, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That's not a bad idea. This election is quite difficult to quantify given the high number of faithless electors (ironic considering one of the people who got EVs is named Faith). The chart is currently getting out of control. Two separate charts might work better. I'm not sure that we need a column for "Electoral Vote "Based on the Popular Vote." That's not really a useful statistic. The column "Ran for President" seems a bit unnecessary. A footnote would do just fine and keep the chart a bit thinner.I'd say that a footnote should also state that Nathan Johnson was Evan McMullin's listed running mate. Teak the Kiwi (talk) 04:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Disagree - I'm sorry, but the current set-up of the results box is an absolute mess, and I can't in good conscience support keeping it that way even while I understand the reasoning that lead to it being established as such. What we should do is simply do what we've done with the 1872 Presidential Election results table, additionally listing the write-in votes for the Presidential candidates, whilst also leaving footnotes explaining the situation. It shouldn't be anymore complicated than that. --Ariostos (talk) 04:24, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I took a look at the 1872 infobox and it actually works out decently. I rescind my previous comment from 04:21 UTC Dec. 21st 2016. We'll need a lot of footnotes, that's for sure. I might work on something in my sandbox. Teak the Kiwi (talk) 04:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But if the table lists only actual electoral votes, many people would assume that Bernie Sanders got 1 electoral vote with his 102,000 votes. And when I look at United States presidential election, 1872, I have know idea about what candidates the electors rebelled against, if anyone, and how many electoral votes Horace Greeley would have gotten if he had been alive = how many electoral votes he got based on the popular vote. It's probably something like 220, but it could be as well more as Ulysses S. Grant's 286 electoral votes, if Grant's voters were very concentrated in a few states. So the 1872 table lacks in my opinion important information as I don't know who would have won without the death and possible rebels., (talk) 05:09, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * It needs some spit and polish, but this is the basic idea..... --Ariostos (talk) 05:07, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

(a) Donald Trump won 306 electors, but two rebelled and voted for other persons.

(b) Hillary Clinton won 232 electors, but five rebelled and voted for other persons.

(c) ''These noncandidates received votes from Electors who were pledged to Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Vote totals are based off recognized Write-ins.''

(d) See Breakdown by ticket below.


 * From there, again like the 1872 article, we would have a more in-depth breakdown of the votes for the different tickets. --Ariostos (talk) 05:08, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * That should work. One minor issue is that Mike Pence got 305 EVs and Donald Trump only got 304. One Texas elector (unknown if it was one of the two who voted against Trump or if it was another) voted for Carly Fiorina as VP.Teak the Kiwi (talk) 05:17, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I know, but for some reason the template has been set-up so that it automatically records the VP Electoral vote as being the same as the Presidential Electoral vote. I'm not sure how to edit it so that you could put in a separate figure. --Ariostos (talk) 05:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Also this was me in a rush trying to cobble together what I had in mind; I'm sure there are other glaring errors. --Ariostos (talk) 05:22, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I understand. I attempted to make a chart using both the 1872 template and the current 2016 box. I couldn't get it to remove columns and use separate votes for Pres and VP. Hopefully there's a workaround. Good luck and hopefully we can all agree on something presentable that does a good job of showing all the intricacies of this election. Teak the Kiwi (talk) 05:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If you want to make such changes, you have to edit the following templates: Template:Start U.S. presidential ticket box 2016, Template:U.S. presidential ticket box row 2016, Template:U.S. presidential ticket box vp subrow 2016, ‎Template:U.S. presidential ticket box rowspan 2016. ‎‎These templates were created by me only for this election and allow also separate votes for the president and VP., (talk) 05:38, 21 December 2016 (UTC) E: Also note that the 2016 templates have columns for the party of the vice president. Previously they have had the same affiliation, but Faith Spotted Eagle's running mate is a Green and Bernie Sanders's a Democrat.


 * Should there be a link to an article about independent politicians after Faith Spotted Eagle's name, when she's not a politician? I'd sugggest using a "none" as is currently done in the article..., (talk) 06:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The compromise thing above looks really good, but might I suggest one tweak: Instead of listing the running mates as "running mates," it might be better to list them as "vice presidential candidates" and give Warren 2 electoral votes instead of having her listed twice. Also, remove the blank spaces between them. It looks better.

Also, this has been the weirdest election since 1992 the EC vote just confirms it. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:50, 21 December 2016 (UTC) This chart looks fine, except that it states that Sanders was a non-candidate, when in fact he was a qualified write-in candidate in California.XavierGreen (talk) 15:47, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Bernie Sanders was not a candidate. He was a write-in in California because there were enough people willing to be electors for him. He did not ask for it and did not run.  Toa   Nidhiki05  17:58, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In agreement. I don't know where this Sanders was a candidate notion is coming from. Sanders didn't consent to having his name on any November 8 ballot. IMHO, some are trying to pound square pegs into round holes. GoodDay (talk) 18:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually thats false, he issued a statement stating that it was OK for voters to write him in in non-battle ground states, and he was recognized as a candidate for the election of president in California by the state government there.XavierGreen (talk) 21:12, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Here's a source that I found: . Teak the Kiwi (talk) 22:15, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't matter that he didn't want to be on the ballot. He received votes, both popular votes and an electoral vote. If he hadn't received an electoral vote, he could just be lumped with other, but since he is in the infobox (due to getting an electoral vote), it makes no sense not to include the officially reported write ins (CA, NH, and VT) as well. He didn't want the electoral vote either, but he still got it. Teak the Kiwi (talk) 18:25, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * How did popular votes in CA, NH & VT, earn him an electoral vote in Hawaii? This is the basis of my no-correlation argument for excluding popular vote totals of those who received faithless electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 18:34, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I addressed this in another comment chain: How did popular votes for Hillary in Wyoming win her electoral votes in Colorado? They didn't, but they are still included as a reflection of the official results. There is no difference because of how they got the votes (faithless and popular). The results are the results. Including Bernie's electoral vote and not his popular vote is misleading. Teak the Kiwi (talk) 18:39, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That exception has always been made for presidential candidates who've won pledged electoral votes in November. Why change it now? This push by some of you, to treat Sanders (and the other faithless electoral recipients) as being the same as Clinton & Trump, is merely messing up the Results table. GoodDay (talk) 18:53, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Seriously, if enough people were willing to be electors for me I could be put as a write-in in California. Does that make me a candidate? Of course not! And neither does Vermont, where you can literally write in anyone and have it count. He was not a candidate. It's absurd to say otherwise.  Toa   Nidhiki05  04:23, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Legally it would make you a candidate, and you would be subjected to FEC regulations regarding campaign finance if you spent any money regarding the campaign to elect you for president, as would any group that spent money to further your election to president. The law says he was a candidate, the state of california officially recognized him as one.XavierGreen (talk) 16:19, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Faithless electors are notable enough for inclusion. It doesn't matter if they were a candidate or not; they still received electoral votes which is kind of a big deal. Readers are definitely looking for the information as well. I was actually trying to figure out who the faithless electors voted for vice president since that information was much harder to find. I didn't find it until it was added to wikipedia. Prcc27❄ (talk) 09:50, 24 December 2016 (UTC)

Dedicated section for faithless electors
I have created a dedicated section to document faithless electors, combining content which was in the lead and in the aftermath sections. The lead now contains only a brief summary of the event, per MOS:LEAD. I would recommend replacing the bulleted list of results with a table, but seeing the debate about the appropriate table format, I'll leave this task to my fellow editors. — JFG talk 07:41, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh jeez, the Results table is such a mess. If only all 538 electors had voted the way they were pledged to :( GoodDay (talk) 18:56, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, they didn't. We need to adapt to a situation that's fairly unprecedented. clpo13(talk) 18:57, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think we're caught up in one of those Bernie or Bust waves ;) GoodDay (talk) 18:59, 21 December 2016 (UTC)


 * The table is actually okay, it's the election and the preceding campaign that was the mess. The electoral vote was unprecedented, as those pesky "anti-faithless elector laws" were triggered for the first time. It's been fun, folks (editing the articles, not the election itself). If it had went like it was supposed to, it would have been Hillary beating Jeb Bush in the most boring election in since 1996, but it didn't. The Queen of England is deathly sick and Naples, Italy is about to be blown to kingdom come by a supervolcano. Life goes on....Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Why do you Americans keep calling her Queen of England? GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 22 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I always just call her "The Queen" because frankly I couldn't name a single other queen on the planet  Toa   Nidhiki05  17:46, 22 December 2016 (UTC)