Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 21

Nine-Candidate Info-Box Proposal
Please vote, (yes, I said vote, no need to give me a Bible-sized comment on how votes are forbidden on Wikipedia), "Yes" or "No" in bold for changing the info-box to my proposal. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 20:39, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

That's 9 for "no" and 1 for "yes". The info-box will not change to my proposal. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 02:22, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No Other candidates should only be added if they have any electoral votes. In addition, other candidates should only be added if the electors don't vote for Hillary or Trump, but even that's a stretch. Cards84664 (talk) 20:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * First of all, we do not vote. Second of all, it has been consensus that only candidates that receive at least 5% of the national popular vote or one earned vote can be included. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 20:56, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * NO - the third party nominees this year, didn't meet the inclusion criteria. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I think the criteria for inclusion are either receiving 5% or winning a state/DC; for example John Hospers is not included in the 1972 infobox and even Harry F. Byrd isn't included in 1960. MB298 (talk) 22:15, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Glad you mentioned Hospers & Byrd, particulary Hospers. We won't be adding anybody who is a recipient of faithless electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 22:29, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * NO -Unless anybody on that list gets more than one electoral vote on Monday, it's best not change the rules. BTW Harry F. Byrd Should be included in 1960.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting. It might be worth proposing H. Byrd's being added to the 1960 infobox. Though, he didn't actually run for president & thus didn't get 5% of the popular vote. GoodDay (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Though I favor adding Gary Johnson and or Jill Stein.  Ghoul flesh  •  talk 22:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No Pointless clutter. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. "Undue" pointless clutter. 2005 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Clutter, clutter, clutter and more clutter. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  18:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Of course I'd vote yes for my own proposal! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No Pointless clutter. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. "Undue" pointless clutter. 2005 (talk) 01:46, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Clutter, clutter, clutter and more clutter. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  18:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Of course I'd vote yes for my own proposal! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No. Clutter, clutter, clutter and more clutter. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  18:16, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Of course I'd vote yes for my own proposal! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Of course I'd vote yes for my own proposal! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes. Of course I'd vote yes for my own proposal! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 02:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Gary Johnson for Infobox
If Gary Johnson wins any electoral votes on the 19th, do you think we should include him in the infobox? Ghoul flesh •  talk
 * No, he didn't earn them. You have to earn an electoral vote. No faithless electors. Just like 2004. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 22:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * No, as it would be a faithless electoral vote. GoodDay (talk) 22:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)


 * This is different. John Edwards was not a presidential candidate. Gary Johnson is.  Ghoul flesh  •  talk 22:49, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hospers isn't included at the 1972 election article. GoodDay (talk) 22:50, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hospers also didn't have ballot access in all 50 states, nor did he receive a large percentage of the national vote.  Ghoul flesh  •  talk 22:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Actually, he did run in the Democratic primaries, but that's not the point. You have to win an electoral vote based on the popular vote of each state or, for some states, congressional districts. We do not include people who win faithless electoral votes. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 22:53, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I get that. But he was not a presidential candidate for the general election. Byrd is included in the 1960 election infobox, and he wasn't even a presidential candidate.  Ghoul flesh  •  talk 22:55, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 23:01, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If Johnson gets an electoral vote, lets just say he earned it for his honesty throughout the campaign, ay?  Ghoul flesh  •  talk 23:03, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * He won the popular vote in those states, even though he didn't run. That's why he's in there. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 23:04, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It doesn't quite work like that my friend. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 23:05, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Byrd has not been in the 1960 infobox because he was not a candidate. Someone added him today and I have reverted. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:34, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * His name is still there, with the orange little square next to it. GoodDay (talk) 23:36, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Of course he should be shown on the map. I'm talking about the images at the top. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:58, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Let's wait until Tuesday. Should there be a bunch of faithless electors (I hope there will be but I sincerely doubt it) on Monday for any of these people, they should be added (did I mention that Bernie Sanders got over a hundred thousand write-ins?), if not, not. For now, and if nothing changes on monday, let it beArglebargle79 (talk) 23:02, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We can add anybody who gets any faithless electoral votes, but it would have to be in the manner that H. Byrd is added in the 1960 infobox, Hospers in the 1972 infobox, Edwards in the 2004 infobox for examples. GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Consensus is to not include such individuals because they are not candidates and/or did not earn the electoral votes through the election. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:30, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It would be alright to add just his name in the bottom right corner, under the map. GoodDay (talk) 23:33, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No Insignificant third party candidate. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:40, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 4 million votes and ballot access in all 50 states is not insignificant.  Ghoul flesh  •  talk 01:39, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If he gets a faithless electoral vote, then his name (only) & vote will be added to the Map section, but that's it. GoodDay (talk) 01:40, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think his image should be shown in that case either because it is not a vote he earned by winning a state or winning a proportion that enables him to win an electoral vote. I think it likely the faithless elector in Texas will vote for McMullin rather than Johnson and the same applies.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:00, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We've got such faithless electorial recipients through out the US presidential election articles. The more recent are, Byrd in 1960, Hospers in 1972, Reagan in 1976, Bentsen in 1988 & Edwards in 2004. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think anyone is saying the individual should not be listed on the map. The original proposal is to place an image of the individual in the infobox, which I oppose.--William S. Saturn (talk) 02:22, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * We are talking about something highly unlikely, right now. There are three electors, two of which were elected for Clinton, who have announced they were going to be faithless. Should they do as they have threatened and no one else, then let's do nothing with the infobox. If there is a massive revolt, we should have an extra article and a table like we have in the 1872 election page when Horace Greeley dropped dead before the electors met and the Democratic vote was scattered. If it goes into the Congress, we'll have a "Contingency US presidential election of 2017" page. But there's an 86% chance it won't happen. So at the moment let's just do nothing.... Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:07, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Interesting, this election might be the first to see multiple faithless electors going to another presidential candidate, while the candidate they're pledged to is still qualified (i.e alive), since (G.Clinton, instead of Madison) 1808. Also might be the first election to see multiple faithless electors going to another vice presidential candidate, while the candidate they're pledged to is still qualified (i.e alive), since (Watson, instead of Sewall) 1896. Stay tuned, folks. GoodDay (talk) 17:20, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 December 2016
A previous proposal for extending the intro to include more narrative-driven paragraphs was shot down in a past archive. So I made some modifications and am proposing an updated version. This paragraphs can come in between the current first and second paragraphs:


 * Both Trump and Clinton had the highest disapproval ratings of any major party nominees in modern times, due to both facing a number of scandals and personal likability issues. Clinton was bogged down by her controversial use of a private email server while Secretary of State, and Trump was heavily criticized for a number of radical policy positions and offensive remarks. Trump, utilizing the slogan Make America Great Again, campaigned with an appeal to working-class white voters and voters without college educations (among other demographics), by proposing a number of nativist and protectionist policies. Clinton, emphasizing her milestone of becoming the first woman to be nominated by a major party, vowed to continue many of the same progressive policies that had been implemented during Obama's terms of office. Trump labeled Clinton as a member of the political class in contrast to his own status as an outsider, while Clinton attacked Trump as a dangerous radical who lacked the experience necessary to serve in the office. The economy was a prominent issue throughout the campaign season, with particular focuses on such aspects as the slow rates of economic growth, and the impact of various free trade deals on American manufacturing jobs. Other heavily-discussed domestic issues included illegal immigration, the rise of Black Lives Matter and subsequent race riots and police shootings, and rising health care costs as a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare"). Foreign policy issues included the rise of Russia under Vladimir Putin, and a variety of Middle Eastern issues such as the Syrian Civil War, the European migrant crisis, and the insurgence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, all of which contributed to a continuous trend of Islamic terrorist attacks across Europe and the United States.

Again, this paragraph - like with past election article's intros - seeks to add more of an overall narrative to the campaign season: Issues that were discussed, brief campaign tactics, etc., etc. Feel free to suggest any changes that may be necessary. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 23:54, 17 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For. Although, saying that some of the things Trump said had "nativist" tones seems a bit pro-Hillary, as the majority of the people who would also say that some of the things Trump said had "nativist" tones voted for Clinton. Also, instead of saying I.-S.-I.-S.'s full name, just us the abbreviation. That's all I would change. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * For. Although, saying that some of the things Trump said had "nativist" tones seems a bit pro-Hillary, as the majority of the people who would also say that some of the things Trump said had "nativist" tones voted for Clinton. Also, instead of saying I.-S.-I.-S.'s full name, just us the abbreviation. That's all I would change. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 02:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposed Gary Johnson image change in all 2016 election articles
If this image is used everywhere, all three images will have been photographed by Gage Skidmore. I am requesting a vote. Ghoul flesh •  talk 01:45, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Strong oppose. The image being used already is fine enough, captures Johnson at a neutral angle, and the new one captures Johnson at a bad angle and the lighting is terrible. Also, the Trump image is by Michael Vadon and not Gage Skidmore, and there's no reason for all three to be captured by the same photographer whatsoever. MB298 (talk) 01:49, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, but if they are all done by the same photographer, then they will be consistent. The current Gary Johnson image does not fit with the other two, as it has a white background and is not a public image of him.  Ghoul flesh  •  talk 02:12, 18 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm fine with proposing a different one, but I'd prefer a better image. Perhaps one from commons:Category:Gary Johnson in 2016. MB298 (talk) 02:15, 18 December 2016 (UTC)

The current 'Stemoc' picture of Gary Johnson is excellent. Also you don't 'vote' unless you've exhausted discussion, in which case you create an WP:RFC.Gsonnenf (talk) 16:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2016
The entry for Pennsylvania in the detailed table has a small error. For Other voters, the number shows 21.572 instead of 21,572. A decimal point instead of a comma. MdVaNc (talk) 16:04, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks for pointing that out - Arjayay (talk) 17:30, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Edit request.
Democratic candidates: Sorted by reverse date of withdrawls. Align the table's title with the Republican one. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 8.40.151.110 (talk) 19:54, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Faithless electors
FWIW, there's been faithless electors already. For example, Clinton has got only 8 of 12 electoral votes from Washington (state). GoodDay (talk) 20:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I propose we make the faithless electors a lighter shade of the party color from the one they're defecting from and all grouped together, with the map designating 'Faithless' as a collective group, regardless if they support different candidates. Sabot Cat (talk) 20:55, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

So far, faithless electors have stated intentions to vote for Bernie Sanders or John Kasich. Here are the colors I think will work best:


 * Bernie Sanders: azure
 * John Kasich: pink

--Proud User (talk) 21:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The Mainer who voted for Sanders was forced to change his vote to Clinton, another one in Minnestota was arrested and replaced. In Washington State it went Three votes for Colin Powell and one for a certain Faith Spotted Eagle.

For vice President it was one each for Elizabeth Warren, Susan Collins, Maria Cantwell and Winona LaDuke. There hasn't beren this many scattered electoral votes for VP in two centuries Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I recommend it's best we wait until all 538 electors have voted. Then we can make the proper changes :) GoodDay (talk) 21:18, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The color I propose for Colin Powell is navy. The votes for Vice President will not appear on the main map. --Proud User (talk) 21:20, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Being that Colin Powell is a Republican, he should be an off shade of Republican color. Alternatively, it might be better to just use grey and the number 4 and put a note outlining the specifics.Metallurgist (talk) 21:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that Powell's shade should be on off shade of Republican red. I also agree that we should wait until all the votes are in so the changes can be made in one edit. Jvikings1 (talk) 21:49, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * If many people receive faithless votes, it might be more usefull to use grey indiscriminately, for the map and to give more details in the body of the article. The legend would read: (Red) Trump, (Blue) Clinton, (Grey) Faithless votes; or something like this. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:13, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree. The 1872 election saw votes for six candidates, and I doubt we'll see more than 3 candidates receiving votes per state. Doing tests with Washington, all 3 can fit on, and the states yet to vote either don't put the text in the land mass (Hawaii, DC) or are much bigger (California, Texas). JackWilfred (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would use salmon pink for Colin Powell. In 1976 the faithless vote for Ronald Reagan used salmon pink. If Kasich also recieves a vote I think he should be salmon pink and Powell should recieve a lighter shade of the same salmon pink. JackWilfred (talk) 22:21, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

According to LawNewz. Texas has voted 36 Trump, 1 Ron Paul, 1 John Kasich. I propose that Ron Paul be a lighter shade of Libertarian gold to denote that he is a Libertarian, but not the Libertarian Presidential nominee. JackWilfred (talk) 22:45, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

-- Mažka (talk) 21:44, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The sentence in the introduction that state: "faithless electors have appeared for the first time since 1988" is incorrect. There were faithless electors in the 2004 vote in Minnesota. The updated sentence referring to multiple faithless electors for the first time since 1896 is also incorrect.
 * More interesting. It's the first time since 1808, that multiple faithless electors have voted for another person, other then the pledge qualified presidential candidate. GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

We should mention in a footnote to the map if some electors do not vote that way, but it has no relevance. What matters is who won which state and who won the election overall. TFD (talk) 22:23, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * People who get a faithless electoral vote, get mentioned however. See previous US presidential election articles. GoodDay (talk) 22:25, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The map should reflect how the electors actually voted, assuming they didn't get replaced.--Beneficii (talk) 22:37, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

I should point out, all these changes to the article (including my own) might be mooted, if aforementioned faithless electors votes are denied & they're replaced with new electors. GoodDay (talk) 23:01, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * As much I find US elections entertaining as hell, this is why I prefer Canadian elections. So much simpler and less of headache. Callmemirela  🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  23:11, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

The colors of Paul and Kasich should be switched IMO, since Paul is now a member of the Libertarian Party, which has yellow as its official color. Powell's votes should be a different shade of red or pink.-- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 23:16, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Although I think Powell's vote should be a purple-ish color, since he's a Republican that got an elector from a state that went blue.--WhyIsItWereHere22 (talk) 23:27, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * That would certainly help the difficulty I'm having finding two shades of salmon pink that look different enough. Each candidate would then have a different colour. Clinton blue, Trump red, Powell purple, Kasich pink, Paul yellow, Eagle green or cyan. JackWilfred (talk) 23:29, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree as well (with both ideas). In fact, I was just about to propose that when I saw that it was already suggested. Jvikings1 (talk) 00:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Proposal: The infobox shows currently only the actual amount of electors. Both the forecast based on the election result (306 vs. 232), and the actual amount of electors (304 vs. 228) should be shown on two different rows. , (talk) 23:40, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, see other US presidential election articles for examples. GoodDay (talk) 23:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * 6 faithless electors is in my opinion an unusually large number, and the faithlessness was widely covered in media both after the election and for several days before it, in for example . In 2004 for example it has even been speculated that the single faithless vote was an accident since nobody didn't admit it, but in this case I arrived at the article explicitly to see how many faithless votes were given, and this is likely to be common due to the coverage. Giving the numbers in the table makes it easy to see the difference immediately., (talk) 00:08, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

In opening up this entire discussion, I did so on the assumption that we didn't have to wait until January 6, 2017 for Congress to count the votes. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Do we have any amounts of popular votes for the 5 receivers of electoral votes other than Trump and Clinton? I have so far only found this article that states that Sanders got 22,000 votes in 2 states and Kasich 1,365 votes in one state, while there is 12 states that allow write-in candidates and count the amount of votes even thoug it would be small. , (talk) 02:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 December 2016
Please change that the Electoral College hasn't voted yet.It has already voted. 173.71.122.30 (talk) 23:09, 19 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting wait.svg Already done DRAGON BOOSTER   ★  14:19, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Faithless electors (part 2)
Should we add John Kaisch, Collin Powell, Spotted Eagle, and Ron Paul to the main info box? The first stone (talk) 00:15, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No because they've received their electoral votes faithlessly. GoodDay (talk) 00:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, see above Sabot Cat (talk) 00:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes for Colin Powell No - as per 3family6, map mention is fine represent others by a note. Receiving three electoral votes, even if from faithless electors, is noteworthy enough to WP:IAR, IMO. DarjeelingTea (talk) 00:35, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, see GoodDay's answer. ArcherRafferty (talk) 00:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, I personally could see Powell included if the votes for him had some sort of effect on the outcome, but the outcome has not changed. The policy to exclude candidates that have received faithless votes alone should stand. JackWilfred (talk) 00:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No, as per GoodDay and established consensus to only include candidates who received at least five percent of the national popular vote or one earned electoral vote. Faithless electoral votes are not earned. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 00:42, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes, for Colin Powell, I agree with DarjeelingTea — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.61.211.195 (talk) 01:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No - mentioning them in the map is fine. This would be consistent with other presidential election articles.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 01:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * no. Follow precedent set by other presidential election articles. MB298 (talk) 01:41, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No Earlier maps illustrate faithless electors, but if we're going to include them, please get the map right. The faithless elector vote for Sanders from Hawaii is missing.
 * Yes, for only Powell. TyEvSkyo (talk) 02:11, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Faithless Electors (Part 3)
Can we please move that massive paragraph on all the EC anomalies into the main body instead, rather than the lede? Maybe include one major, encompassing couple of sentences in the lead, to the effect of something like this: "In the official Electoral College tally on December 19, there were seven faithless electors who cast votes for candidates other than Trump or Clinton. With seven different candidates receiving at least one electoral vote, this election marked the highest amount of candidates with electoral votes since 1872."

Or something or other to that extent. But that massive bit of trivia is just that, and thus belongs in the body, not the lede. 104.52.53.152 (talk) 01:53, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It'll likely be branched off onto another article :) GoodDay (talk) 01:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * There is definitely too much information about faithless electors in the lead as I write this comment. Some historical context is appropriate - but the lead shouldn't read like a history lesson about past elections. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Faithless Electors (Part 4)
Can we please change the colors of Colin Powell and Spotted Eagle's electoral vote boxes on the map? They are very similar and hard to distinguish from each other. I'd suggest black, pink, or brown. Fryedk (talk) 02:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd say the color for Spotted Eagle is fine, but Powell's color should really be changed to some shade of burgundy or deep red to reflect that he's a republican.-- Molandfreak  (talk,   contribs,  email) 02:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * In an earlier discussion, I suggested purple, since it would reflect the fact that he's a red Republican voted by a blue Democrat elector.--WhyIsItWereHere22 (talk) 06:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 December 2016
In the Chart Under Section 8 Results:

Please Change the "Electoral Vote" column totals for Donald John Trump from 306 to 304 Please Change the "Electoral Vote" column totals for Hillary Rodham Clinton from 232 to 227

Please add row for Colin L. Powell with link to his Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colin_Powell), under "Party Affiliation" column put Republican and under "Electoral Vote" column put "3"

Please add row for Bernie Sanders with link to his Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bernie_Sanders), under "Party Affiliation" column put "Democrat" and under "Home State" column put "Vermont" and under the "Electoral Vote" column put "1"

Please add row for Faith Spotted Eagle with link to his Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faith_Spotted_Eagle), under "Home State" column put "South Dakota" and under the "Electoral Vote" column put "1"

Please add row for John Kasich with link to his Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Kasich), under "Party Affiliation" column put "Republican" and under "Home State" column put "Ohio", and under "Electoral Vote" column put "1"

Please add row for Ron Paul with link to his Wikipedia page (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ron_Paul), under "Party Affiliation" put "Libertarian" and under "Home State" column put "Texas" and under "Electoral Vote" column put "1"

Source: The New York Times - http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016/12/19/us/elections/electoral-college-results.html Crazyninjamaster (talk) 02:12, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * No - Please see how it's done in other US presidential election articles, concerning faithless electoral winners. GoodDay (talk) 02:17, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The 1988 and 2004 tables do have faithless electoral winners, the 2004 table even mentioning his popular vote count, 5., (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  04:08, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Fake candidates in state election infoboxes
This is the infobox currently being used for the article on United States presidential election in Hawaii, 2016:

And this is for Texas:

The infobox is not like that for Washington state, which has four faithless electors. Should we be putting these fake candidates in statewide infoboxes, even if they receive an electoral vote? --Proud User (talk) 02:27, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't mind third party nominees in those article infobox if they got at least 5% of that states' popular votes. Otherwise no, they don't belong by getting faithless electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 02:29, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I've been the one adding those candidates in the infobox; it's due to United States presidential election in Virginia, 1972. I think, while we shouldn't be adding them to the national article, they should be added to the state article if they receive one or more electoral votes within the states. MB298 (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * But what about the example shown above where the candidate gets 0% of the vote but a faithless elector votes for them? --Proud User (talk) 02:32, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Hospers should be remove from the 1972 example, aswell. If he didn't get atleast 5% of that states' popular vote. GoodDay (talk) 02:34, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I would add both fake candidates and candidates getting at least 5 % of votes., (talk) 02:38, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * A potential problem is how crowded the infobox would become: --Proud User (talk) 02:54, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I'd use the 5% threshold rule for these articles, as a decider. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

We should include the candidates that received votes from faithless electors in the state infoboxes. It is good to show how the electors voted per state. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheSaint250 (talk • contribs) 03:20, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

I support including any candidates which received electors in a state. The electoral college vote is much more important than the popular vote in actually deciding the election. 5% of the popular vote is also an acceptable threshold I think, but it should be both. --DrCruse (talk) 03:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Consensus is to exclude non-candidates and/or candidates who did not earn electors by winning a state or the requisite portion of a state.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:45, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * This consensus is for the nationwide election page. I support including faithless vote recipients in state pages. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:21, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * It's nonsensical to have two different consensuses for state and national. What is the rationale? --William S. Saturn (talk) 17:47, 20 December 2016 (UTC)
 * The consensus for the nationwide infobox also applies to state infoboxes. That is why Evan McMullin is in the Utah infobox, but not in the Florida infobox. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 18:24, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 December 2016
The electoral vote percentages for Clinton and Kaine in the charts from the "Results" section are incorrect. Both currently are 42.38% but should be 42.19% 109.96.221.6 (talk) 19:01, 24 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made.  B E C K Y S A Y L E S  05:10, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Certified state results
According to the "Results by state" section in this article, Indiana, North Carolina, and Washington state still have not certified their results. Would someone please check this? It is awfully late for a state to still have not certified their results, and I thought I read recently about all 50 states having certified their results. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:35, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

All 50 states have "certified" their results. Having said that, some of the states tweaked their "certified" numbers within the past week. I want to believe that we will be able to talk about final numbers within the next two weeks or so. However, I really have nothing concrete to base that on.Wilkyisdashiznit (talk) 08:00, 30 December 2016 (UTC)

Can we really consider De La Fuente a major candidate for the Democratic nomination?
De La Fuente meets none of the laid-out criteria for being listed as a major candidate, none of them. He was never featured in any Democratic primary polls, he was not covered by major networks, and he was never invited to appear in any of the debates or forums. He was never listed as a major candidate during the primary, why are we retroactively casting him as such without any clear reason to do so? SecretName101 (talk) 06:19, 10 December 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with you on all those points. I assume he is being included by virtue of having had widespread ballot access during the primaries despite failing to garner any significant attention. He really wasn't what I'd call a "major candidate," though. Dustin  ( talk ) 06:43, 10 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Possibly by virtue of ballot access. However, that was not one of the aforementioned criteria, nor do I beleive it should be (that, however, may be contrary to the concensuconcensus of other editors). I'd reiterate your thought, he was definitely not what I'd call a "major candidate" either.Should De La Fuene removed? I hope more users will chime/in here so we can reach a consensus.SecretName101 (talk) 17:35, 14 December 2016 (UTC)


 * As to De La Fuente, please remember that Lawrence Lessing, who wasn't invited to any of the debates either, was listed as a major candidate. Plus, his getting on most primary ballots by petition, a remarkable feat in itself, is notable. So yes, he should remain listed as a major candidate. Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:03, 16 December 2016 (UTC)


 * Yes. De La Fuente placed in fourth-place. That is not an argument for inclusion as a "major candidate". He placed fourth in what what regarded as a two-way race. He placed behind a man who only campaigned during a single caucus (and who still managed to receive approximately twice the number of votes Rocky received).
 * If "uncommitted" counts as a candidate, then he finished fifth. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 22:26, 30 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes his ability to be included on ballots in so many states is notable. But that does not make him a major candidate. He was never considered a competitive contender. He was never even really considered a potential factor in the race for the nomination. He was, therefore, never a major candidate.


 * Lessig is a somewhat different case, and even he barely qualifies for inclusion as a major candidate.


 * Lessig was interviewed by NYT and Bloomberg News. He received serious coverage by CNN, The Atlantic, The Guardian, Forbes, Huffington Post]]. De La Fuente hardly received anything more than the occasional public-interest fluff-piece.


 * Lessig made appearances on Real Time with Bill Maher and other shows. The biggest interview that De La Fuente appeared to have was an online interview with some guy name Barry Nussbaum.


 * Lessig was included in polling by such organizations as Monmouth in his brief campaign. I can found three reputable polls that De La Fuente was included in during the entire primary season. In one poll De La Fuente was polling behind O'Malley in Texas, nearly two-weeks after O'Malley had withdrawn from the race. In the other two (one for New Hampshire and the other for North Carolina) De La Fuente was polling at 0% (zero).


 * Lessig was endorsed by notable individuals. De La Fuente had no notable endorsements at all.


 * Lessig was mentioned on late-night shows such as The Late Show with Stephen Colbert. I do not think De Le Fuente was ever mentioned by a late-night show during either the primaries or thegeneral elections (even "Joe Exotic" received mention on Last Week Tonight with John Oliver).


 * We are pushing-it when we consider Lessig major, but we are being plain-silly when we say that De La Fuente was. SecretName101 (talk) 05:03, 25 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Lessig was featured in three major polls while I can't find a single one that included De La Fuente. I'm 50/50 about including Lessig as a major candidate, but I think De La Fuente should definitely be removed as one.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 00:25, 27 December 2016 (UTC)
 * De La Fuente got less votes than Martin O'Malley and the latter suspended his campaign after the Iowa caucuses, the first race. Not really major. Jay Coop &middot;&#32;Talk &middot;&#32;Contributions 00:57, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Ron Paul and the votes cast for him
For Ron Paul's faithless vote, it should be listed as Republican, not also Libertarian, as the source also claims it to be there "primarily a Republican" and ran last for the party in 2012, not for the Libertarians in 1988? 72.141.9.158 (talk) 15:21, 31 December 2016 (UTC)
 * Which source? There are only two in this Wikipedia article that mention Ron Paul - one doesn't mention his political affiliation, and the other one very clearly identifies him as Libertarian. When Ron Paul retired from politics, he reverted back to the Libertarian party, and so it is a Libertarian that he received an electoral vote.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 16:12, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Is it really true that non US citizens were not allowed to vote in California?
There are certain claims they were allowed as long as they have a driver's license. Can anyone provide a source that having a driver's license does not add that person to the voter registry? 216.165.202.95 (talk) 15:42, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, non-citizens can't vote. Please keep fake news off of here. Objective3000 (talk) 15:46, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Can you provide a source? Gracias. 216.165.202.95 (talk) 15:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Actually, it is up to you to provide a reliable source that such utter nonsense is true. But, if you insist . Or, look up the law. Objective3000 (talk) 16:04, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I strongly oppose any mention of Russia in this article
The source of the leak is Wikileaks. They are investigative journalists. They are allowed to leak whatever the fuck they want to the public. Even if it were Hillary Clinton's emails instead of John Podesta's emails, they can also leak them.

It is not known who the hackers are. It could be Wikileaks themselves. The hacking software is a commercial one from Ukraine. I doubt the FSB would use such a software to hack John Podesta's gmail.

All that is certain at this point is the leakers are Wikileaks. I strongly oppose anything to do with Russia in the article.

Anything that is not certain should not be included in the article. Only facts should be included in the article. Wikipedia should be a fair and balanced source of facts. Opinions should not be included, even if they are from the US intelligence. We do not live in Nazi Germany where opinions dictated over facts. I think doing so is irresponsible and frankly dangerous. 216.165.202.95 (talk) 15:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * At least let a discussion continue for a day before resorting to Godwin's law. Objective3000 (talk) 16:08, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

popular vote and citizenship
It is said that Hillary Clinton got more popular vote. Donald Trump got more popular vote outside of California. California has millions of Mexican illegals. Illegals are able to vote. Anyone in California is on the voter registry as long as they have a driver's license. It is therefore unknown whether Hillary Clinton had more votes from American citizens. 204.197.185.4 (talk) 16:19, 1 January 2017 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as an "illegal". Non-citizens cannot vote. You have provided no sources. WP:RS Objective3000 (talk) 16:50, 1 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is more than "said" about HC getting the popular. Its fact. Google it. And "illegals" are unable to obtain DL and DLI if they do not have the proper paperwork.L3X1 (talk) 16:53, 1 January 2017 (UTC)

I am wondering if in 2020 if there are several million fewer votes out of California after the illegals are deported will the conversation be that national voter ID suppressed the minority vote or will it be that illegals did vote in 2016. In any case it's irrelevant because California is irrelevant.173.66.18.9 (talk) 18:04, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * As is your edit. WP:NOTFORUM Objective3000 (talk) 18:21, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Percentage
The article says HRC won by 2.1% but the infobox suggests otherwise. There needs to be more clarification. Prcc27❄ (talk) 00:24, 2 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I agree. Most everything I have been reading about the popular vote has Clinton's winning vote margin at 2.1%, not 2.0 as the infobox currently states. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 20:46, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

Remove table in "Aftermath" section
What's the purpose for it? I don't understand. If anything, shouldn't it be included in the 'Results' section? Or perhaps the prognostications and projections subcategory? I haven't found any editor defending it, and I don't see what it's doing there. Plus, it does admittedly look at least a bit unpolished and unprofessional, and the inclusion of certain states is arbitrary, why not Maine or New Hampshire or Nebraska's district or Virginia or Colorado or Arizona or Ohio or Georgia or New Mexico or Texas or another group? Besides, it's just inserted not at the top of the section or at the bottom, but right in the middle of a more coherent textual flow. And there's three groups of sources in it,with five, four, and eight, respectively, that clog it up, aren't where they are supposed to be, don't accurately describe or back up the content, and are placed in the wrong locations. Shouldn't we just remove it, or at least relocate and fix the table? Ramires451 (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It might be a good idea to add more swing states, but the table should ultimately stay. The fact that pre-election polling predictions were so inaccurate was widely reported in the media after the election. Even in the swing states that ultimately went Dem had much narrower margins than polls predicted. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 23:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Sanders is the first Independent to receive an electoral vote since George Washington
Independent Senator Bernard Sanders is the first political independent to receive an electoral vote since George Washington in the election of 1792. I don't have any source for this fact, but just going through every electoral college vote since the presidential election of 1788-89, every third party candidate is associated with some form of an established political party. For example, James B. Weaver in 1892 was associated with the Populist party, making him not an independent, just a minor party candidate. Millard Filmore in 1856 was associated with the American "Know-Nothing" Party, thus not an independent. While, Sanders is associated with no political party, although he recently changed affiliation back to independent after his presidential run. George Washington, of course, was 'nonpartisan,' basically the same as a political independent.

As such, a sentence should be added stating the fact that Sanders, by electoral vote count, is the most successful independent in presidential politics since George Washington; of course, with the stipulation that he had just recently changed his affiliation back from Democratic. The sentence would best fit either in the section titled, "Results by State," after stating he had the most successful write-in campaign in American presidential history or in the section about faithless electors, right after the statement that LaDuke is the first Green Party member to receive an electoral vote.

Thank you for your time. Wharmer (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * You may be right, but it is only significant if major media have noted the fact. TFD (talk) 19:57, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Regardless of major media recognition, is the fact not important? Especially given how the American presidential election system has been organized along party lines since 1796, and the entirety of the political system before then arguably.
 * See WP:OR Objective3000 (talk) 20:15, 3 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Secondary sources determine what is important, per "Balancing aspects." Not only that but, per Objective3000, OR applies.  We would have to research all electoral college voting since 1789 to determine if the statement was true.  TFD (talk) 01:21, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: Firstly, you would need a RS that states that Sanders is the first independent to receive an elector vote. You would also have to disregard your own statement that George Washington was basically an independent. Sir Joseph (talk) 21:43, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I'm going based on wikipedia says, that Goerge Washington is "nonpartisan." Although I don't have a source saying he is, it is just my observation. Would it appropriate to say that it "appears to be," rather than something more definitive if there is no media source stating so? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wharmer (talk • contribs) 00:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I'd also like to point out that any Electoral Vote is not official until January 6th when Congress Officially counts them. That also emans that DJT is not president elect until that date also. L3X1 (talk) 21:45, 3 January 2017 (UTC)

Faith Spotted Eagle is also politically independent, so she should be mentioned too, if we mention this in the article.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 22:01, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Assuming that Washington electors voted before Hawaii electors (matter of hours), Spotted Eagle would be the first since George Washington. But, when the roll call occurs at the joint session of Congress (Jan 6), Hawaii's totals will get mentioned first. But, when Biden announces the results - it's all 50 states & DC, thus Sanders & Spotted Eagle are recognized simultaneously - assuming faithless electoral votes will be counted. GoodDay (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2017 (UTC)
 * According to her page on Wikipedia, she ran as a Democrat for state house, so it is plausible she could be a registered Democrat but it just isn't known. If she is an independent then yeah, her and Sanders would appear to be the first independents to receive electoral votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wharmer (talk • contribs) 00:02, 4 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Arkansas, Georgia, Illinois, and Massachusetts, North Dakota, Tennessee and Texas also have open primaries, so Johnson, McGovern, Carter, Dukakis, George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, Gore, George W. Bush, Kerry, Obama and Romney should be considered independents too. TFD (talk) 04:00, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * None of those were independent candidates.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)
 * But they were not "registered Democrat[s]" or registered Republicans, which is the distinction Wharmer makes. TFD (talk) 16:19, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

???? This seems factually incorrect. Bernie was neither independent nor was he the first of Faithless elector history since George Washington to see an odd vote. He was a Democratic candidate who didn't win the nomination. It seems an homage that an elector voted for him since it didn't matter anyway, caveat I've not seen RS saying so. And in elector history, I would point to 1968 vote for George Wallace,
 * Wharmer didn't say the first to receive an odd vote, but first independent to receive electoral votes (since Washington). Sanders went independent after failing to get the Democratic nomination. You are correct in that it was a homage - one of the sources I read quoted Mulinix that he only voted for Sanders because at that point he already knew that Trump had enough votes, and his vote wouldn't change that.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Wallace was a candidate of the American Independent Party. I think John Anderson was the only officially independent candidate whose campaign attracted any note, but he did not receive any electoral votes.  TFD (talk) 07:47, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * same with Perot. MB298 (talk) 08:45, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * There also was McMullin in this election, who was only on an official party roster in one state. But, he got no faithless electoral votes [edit:], faithless or otherwise.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Let's not forget Faith Spotted Eagle, folks. GoodDay (talk) 16:49, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I didn't - see my initial comment in this section.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 17:39, 7 January 2017 (UTC)

Anti-Trump attacks
I object to the removal of my addition, as well as this user's false edit summary.

Fox News is a completely reliable source to use. This article was not commentary and it was completely NPOV. Falsely calling it "not RS for this" says more about the remover than the source itself. :1990&#39;sguy (talk) 00:50, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Sorry but, I was about to remove it myself, but was cooking dinner and had no time to respond. The article is very poorly written, refers to an even worse article, and is clearly a WP:POV. I did a search on better sources, and none of them considered this an "anti-Trump" attack. Indeed, I can't find any ref from the police that investigated this that it had anything whatsoever to do with Trump, other than an off-hand rant. The police, at this point, appear to think it was hatred of the mentally challenged. I do not see how this is helpful to this article. Objective3000 (talk) 01:12, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * However, there was a large anti-Trump theme to the attack (as can be heard in the video), even if Trump was not the motivating factor of the attack (something that I acknowledged when first adding the source). Also, how exactly is this article POV? In addition, which of the three linked articles is the "even worse article" that you refer to? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:20, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The first and the third are not reliable sources. The second source does not support the statement.
 * There was nothing "false" about the edit summary.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:24, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Seriously? The first source was not RS? At the bottom of the source, it clearly states that the Associated Press contributed to it. Is the AP not reliable? --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:31, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Results - Faithless electors
I have several concerns with how the results are tabulated in the case of so-called "faithless electors". In most of these cases people are listed as "running mates" but it isn't really clear that "running mate" is the proper term to describe the relationship between two people whose only connection may be that they were both named on the same "faithless elector"'s ballot. For example, Elizabeth Warren cannot simultaneously be the running mate of both Colin Powell and Bernie Sanders. Dividing the electoral votes of Mike Pence into two chunks of 304 votes and 1 vote doesn't really make sense: Pence received 305 votes, period. The "ticket" of Faith Spotted Eagle and Winona LaDuke is shown as having no party affiliation, but LaDuke apparently does have a past or present affiliation with the Green Party. Constitutionally, electoral votes for vice president are completely independent of those for president. Given the historically high number of faithless electors in this election, I think they should be tabulated independently here as well. Dash77 (talk) 04:09, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * FWIW, a presidential candidate can have multiple vice presidential running mates & a vice presidential candidate can have multiple presidential running mates. See 1836 presidential election :) GoodDay (talk) 05:36, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal for "Results" section
I propose re-adding the fact that Trump won the largest number of electoral votes for a Republican since 1988 and the Clinton received the fewest electoral votes for a Democrat since 1988. Dave Leip's Election Atlas is my source.
 * Trump won the most electoral votes of any Republican since the 1988 presidential election, and Clinton won the fewest electoral votes of any Democrat since the 1988 presidential election.

(the source would obviously be formatted correctly when it is actually added). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 02:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This is incredibly misleading. It makes it sound like Trump won and Clinton lost by historical numbers. But, you could also say that in the elections from 1988, Trump won with the third lowest electoral votes out of eight and Clinton lost, but by less than five of the eight previous losers. In other words, it was a closer than usual election using the same time span as you used and the same electoral numbers. My point is that you can manipulate stats to fit a WP:POV. Which is why we would should avoid constructions like these. Objective3000 (talk) 18:19, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We could add both facts. I don't mind either. If we are going to include truly trivial facts, such as a shooting at a polling place, or that Trump won the most popular votes of a Republican in U.S. history (the U.S. has a growing population), or that Clinton won more popular votes of any candidate (other than Obama in 2008 and 2012, which makes this fact truly meaningless), then we should include this one or remove all of them. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Why exactly was this completely relevant and well-sourced info removed?
I strongly object to this edit.

First off, the fact that Trump won the most counties of any presidential candidate regardless of party, since 1984 is NOT a "useless trivia", as the edit summary falsely states. It really doesn't matter that counties are not a precisely accurate depiction of the entire U.S. population. The fact that Trump won more U.S. counties since 1984 (32 years), which was a landslide election, shows very strong support across the country, particularly in rural portions of the country, and it is not trivial.

I also strongly object to the removal of this statement (which I did not add):
 * "...though she suffered the worst electoral college defeat of any Democratic candidate since Michael Dukakis's landslide defeat by George H.W. Bush in 1988."

I agree that this could have been worded in a more NPOV manner, but the fact is true: the Democratic candidate received the least electoral votes since 1988 (28 years), and to put it vice-versa, the GOP candidate received the most electoral votes since 1988. This is not trivia.

Both information should be restored. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:02, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It is trivia. It's just trying to come up with some measure of something that "Trump won" to pile it on.
 * The second part was worded in a POV manner and without context it still is POV.Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:14, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * US counties vary in population from 89 (Kalawao) to over 10,000,000 (LA). The counties won is a meaningless stat. Objective3000 (talk) 01:16, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * This has nothing to do with the fact that Trump won the most counties. It does have to do with the fact that he won more counties of any presidential candidate since Ronald Reagan in 1984. This is not meaningless trivia.
 * Also, Volunteer Marek, Trump did win. Every reliable source has called his victory "surprising," "an upset," "historical victory," etc. This is one example, and I do not see any reason to believe that it is worthless trivia. It was the most counties since 1984. Besides, there already exists "meaningless trivia" (at least as meaningless as my addition), such as the shooting at a polling place in Azusa, California (what in the world does this have to do with the results?) or both candidates breaking records in the amount of popular votes cast (as the U.S. population is increasing).
 * Also, how is the second part still POV? How does it not have context? Please explain. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:29, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * What does this have to do with counties? He may have also been voted by more people with names that start with G. It's a meaningless stat. One of an infinite number of meaningless stats. Your recent (and past) edits clearly show WP:POV problems. Objective3000 (talk) 01:40, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Remember, we're talking about two different things in this discussion. One is the counties and the other is the fact that Trump won the most electoral votes for a Republican since 1988 (and vice-versa for Clinton). As for the counties, I see no reason why winning the most since 1984 (regardless of party affiliation) is meaningless. Sure it isn't as important as winning the popular vote, but a shooting at a polling place in Azusa, California or winning the largest number of votes in a country with an increasing population are not very meaningful either (possibly even more meaningless in regards to election results). In regards to my edits, I have edited hundreds of political articles (some of them being extremely controversial and touchy subjects that get tens-of-thousands of page views every day), and very few of my edits have been reverted or challenged (particularly as POV). If only a few edits have been challenged out of hundreds or even thousands, that still shows a pretty good record. Attacking my record is thus not a good way of making your point. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 01:51, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Additionally, my questions above were still not answered. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 03:13, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Considering the electoral vote is the method used to elect presidents - not popular vote - I would say electoral vote totals are, in fact, at least equally relevant.  Toa   Nidhiki05  17:33, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Yes, of course electoral votes matter and they are discussed. The removed text was mostly about counties. Counties vary in size from 89 people to over 10,000,000 people. It’s a meaningless stat, and has been discussed in the past. The other removed text: though she suffered the worst electoral college defeat of any Democratic candidate since Michael Dukakis's landslide defeat by George H.W. Bush in 1988 is misleading. It makes it sound like an historical landslide. But, there has only been one Republican president since Bush41. That’s WP:TRIVIA. Objective3000 (talk) 18:00, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * 1--It is not trivia that Trump won more counties than any other presidential candidate, regardless of party, since 1984. No candidate won so many counties in 32 years.
 * 2--How is winning the most counties of any presidential candidate as or more trivial than the random and useless facts already mentioned? Are you telling me that the worthless and silly facts that "Trump received more votes than any other Republican in any presidential election", that "Clinton also won more votes than any candidate, Republican or Democrat except Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012", that "Third party and write-ins were the highest since 1996", and that a shooting occurred in Azusa, CA that closed the polling place, are less trivial than the fact that Trump won the most counties than any candidate since 1984? (and that fact is reliably sourced to PolitiFact). If this fact is trivial, than the others are trivial as well and must be removed. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 19:11, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * If you wish to argue that other stuff should also be removed, you can do that. Counties have no statistical meaning as they vary so massively in population and physical size. (San Bernardino has 20,105 sq. mi. Kalawao County has 53 sq. mi., but only 12 sq. mi. are above water.) There is no standard county. LA County includes LA and surrounding areas. NYC is in five counties. LA County has a larger population than 42 states. But, you are counting this as 1 of 3,000 entities. Some states don’t have any counties. They wouldn’t be counted at all in this kind of stat. Objective3000 (talk) 19:27, 9 January 2017 (UTC)

Is it really true that at least 50 GOP electors were illegal?
Dual office holders for example.

http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/new-report-claims-at-least-50-trump-voter-in-electoral-college-were-illegally-seated/

172.98.146.50 (talk) 03:15, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No. GoodDay (talk) 03:18, 9 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The Constitution says an elector can't hold public office... Prcc27❄ (talk) 21:26, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
 * All 538 electoral votes for President & all 538 electoral votes for Vice President were certified by Congress on January 6, 2017. I'm not aware if there's anybody looking to contest it to the US Supreme Court. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 11 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I think this means federal legislators, SCOTUS, and presidential appointees only, not state office holders. In any case, it would require strong cites. Objective3000 (talk) 21:41, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Revisit Adding Russian Interference in lede
At this point, Russian interference in the election is (IMO) clearly something that requires more WP:Weight in the article. With that, I think we should revisit visit rather there should be a mention of it in the lede. Casprings (talk) 04:01, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be added to the lead as there's no way to prove that any hacking caused Hillary Clinton to lose the election. GoodDay (talk) 04:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Rather it caused here to lose or not, it is far more significant then the fact a few electors were unfaithful. We should try to judge what is historically significant about an election and outside interference is nearly always historically significant. Therefore, more meat needs to be put into this article regarding that, per WP:Weight
 * I disagree. At the very least, we should hold off until/if it's revealed that the Trump campaign & the Russian gov't collaborated. GoodDay (talk) 04:16, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * At this point we do not know whether the Russians tried to influence the election because no evidence has been provided to the public. And no intelligence have not claimed it had an influence.  However, it is becoming part of the narrative, so I would not object to its mention, provided we did not make any claims about the story's truth.  TFD (talk) 05:14, 15 January 2017 (UTC)1
 * no intelligence have not claimed it had an influence? - I don't support propagating this Russian fantasy in the lede but sure if you offer your desired addition we can chat about it. Govindaharihari (talk) 05:56, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * It does not matter whether what they think is true or not, but whether it has obtained wide coverage and that we present it as an opinion. OTOH a couple of weeks ago Comey lost them the election, months ago Sanders was destroying their chances.  The media gave too much coverage to Trump, didn't investigate him, the electoral college, voter complacency, fake news, racists.  I imagine there will be lots of other excuses.  TFD (talk) 07:24, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

I would suggest something like this.

Just clearly state what the intel community of US has stated.Casprings (talk) 14:12, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

OPPOSE The source of the leak is Wikileaks. They are investigative journalists. They are allowed to leak whatever the fuck they want to the public. Even if it were Hillary Clinton's emails instead of John Podesta's emails, they can also leak them. It is not known who the hackers are. It could be Wikileaks themselves. The hacking software is a commercial one from Ukraine. I doubt the FSB would use such a software to hack John Podesta's gmail. It is possible, but we simply don't know the identity of the hackers. All that is certain at this point is the leakers are Wikileaks. So I oppose adding anything to do with Russia in the lede or even in the article at all. Anything that is not certain should not be included in the article. Only facts should be included in the article. Just my 2 cents. 216.165.202.95 (talk) 15:47, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Everything in the statement is a fact as the release of the statement by the ONDI is a fact.Casprings (talk) 15:51, 15 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The suggested text looks good to me. It states the facts as reported by RS and draws no conclusions. And yes, it certainly seems to me more weighty than a handful of faithless electors. Objective3000 (talk) 15:58, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I object to this trash in the lede. There is no consensus here to add it, please stop adding it. Govindaharihari (talk) 16:39, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose – There is enough material in the article about this story, although that could be updated. The purported influence of any Russian hacking or propaganda campaign on election results is inconclusive. — JFG talk 18:03, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Oppose The term "government" is ambiguous. There is a difference between statements by government officials and the government speaking in its official capacity.  We would not say for example that it is the position of the U.S. government that Trump is unqualified for office, although the President said that.  Also, only two of the three intelligence agencies had high confidence, one had medium confidence.  TFD (talk) 19:55, 15 January 2017 (UTC)

Proposal to remove arbitrarily-selected trivia from "Results" section
Certain editors opposed my addition stating that Trump won more counties than any other presidential candidate since Reagan in 1984. This opposition is arbitrary, as several pieces of trivia (much more trivial than my addition could ever be) are already in the "Results" section.

I propose removing these two paragraphs:


 * "According to unofficial totals, Trump received more votes than any other Republican in any presidential election, at least 900,000 more than George W. Bush in 2004. Clinton also won more votes than any candidate, Republican or Democrat except Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Third party and write-ins were the highest since 1996, accounting for over 8.2 million votes, 6.00% of valid votes, compared to 2.4 million and 1.85% in 2012.[3]"


 * "A shooting at a polling place in Azusa, California left two people dead, including the perpetrator, and two others critically injured. The shooting resulted in the closure of polls.[303]"

For the first one, the U.S. population has been increasing, so it is only natural that Trump and Clinton received more popular votes and all or most other candidates (and for Clinton, Obama still received more votes in both 2008 and 2012). For the second one, while this is interesting, I don't see how this really belongs in the "Results" section, at least any more than my addition. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:11, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Your first paragraph makes this sound WP:POINTY Objective3000 (talk) 15:21, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * The second one should def be removed or at least moved out of the Results section. The first part of the proposal, like Objective3000 said, is just POINTY.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:22, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I apologize for the POINTYness. I really do find the exclusion arbitrary, and I stated "certain editors" because only three other editors (and one only made one short comment) ever participated in the discussions. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 15:27, 10 January 2017 (UTC)


 * I included the Trump Republican party votes metric because they had been bleeding hard votes for a few elections despite the point you made about increasing population, but that trend reversed this election. The trivia was removed from the lede which I agree with but it should remain deeper in the article, and the Results section makes sense for it in my opinion.Travis McGeehan (talk) 05:20, 12 January 2017 (UTC)


 * But how is that fact less trivial than the fact that Trump won the most counties of any presidential candidate regardless of party since 1984? If that fact is added, I will not support removing the fact you added, but removing Trump winning a record amount of counties while keeping your fact is quite arbitrary. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 04:38, 15 January 2017 (UTC)


 * As this thread has not received much discussion, I removed the info in question per WP:BRD. This info is not any more notable than the information I attempted to add. --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 21:59, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You deleted without consensus. In fact, without any support for most of the delete. And you are still using WP:POINTY language. Objective3000 (talk) 22:10, 16 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I deleted the info per WP:BRD. The discussion wasn't going anywhere in either direction. Also, only one editor voiced opposition to deleting the info and no editor showed why the info I attempted to add was not worthy of inclusion and why the deleted info was. Additionally, I don't see why my language is still POINTY. I merely stated my rationale for deleting, and I did not use inflammatory wording (at least not intentionally). --1990&#39;sguy (talk) 22:24, 16 January 2017 (UTC)

It might be worthwhile to mention Donald Trump had more popular votes in the general election than any other GOP nominee did
38.121.70.90 (talk) 02:55, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Discussed elsewhere already. Not surprising, as population grows… — JFG talk 04:24, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

foreign intervention is fair game
France helped Henry Tudor kill his distant cousin Richard III to become Henry VII. Even if Russia helped Donald Trump beat his distant cousin Hillary Clinton to become the POTUS, it would have been fair game.

204.197.181.138 (talk) 03:43, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * This isn't a forum.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 04:29, 18 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Even if this isn't a forum, what does France and Britain in the 1490s have to do with anything? UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)


 * Why is an event about monarchies in Britain in the 1490s relevant to the 2016 US presidential election? They're two totally different events. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 20:13, 18 January 2017 (UTC)

Turnout question
Does the article have the turnout for the election, any data on the numbers of registered and non-registered electors and any on electors excluded from voting because of legal bars and other forms of jiggery-pokery? Thanks Keith-264 (talk) 12:10, 20 January 2017 (UTC)

Picture
Now that Trump has an official presidential portrait,, shouldn't we be using that one for this page? Stevo D (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No, because that image hadn't happened yet. The picture shows him as President. We should only use the microphone one. 86.152.144.17 (talk) 17:57, 20 January 2017 (UTC)
 * We use the official photo (at the time) of Clinton for 1992 and 1996, Bush for 2000 and 2004, Obama for 2008 and 2012, so why not Trump for 2016? MB298 (talk) 01:29, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * In agreement. GoodDay (talk) 01:37, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

Lead wording
The lead states,

"Trump took office as the 45th President, and Pence as the 48th Vice President, on January 20, 2017.

The 2016 Senate elections, 2016 gubernatorial elections, and many state and local elections were also held on this date."

Unless the 2016 Senate elections, 2016 gubernatorial elections, and many state and local elections, were also held on January 20, 2017, that wording is clearly both incorrect and misleading. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:39, 21 January 2017 (UTC)
 * ✅ This has been corrected (not by me). — JFG talk 10:06, 21 January 2017 (UTC)

cantidates unpopularity
Trump and Clinton were the two most unfavourably viewed, most disliked, most untrustworty cantidates in history, accoridng to many polls. Shouldn't this be mentioned somewhere, as having two such unpopular candidates has not happened before. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bomberswarm2 (talk • contribs) 03:14, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It is mentioned: "Both Clinton and Trump were seen unfavorably by the general public."  TFD (talk) 04:16, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Official State Results
The numbers listed in the table of state results for North Carolina are identical with those posted on the linked page which now calls them "official" results, so the North Carolina results line should be updated to reflect that these numbers are official. The Washington state results also seem to be official with the numbers already listed in the table. The congressional district numbers for the NE-1 and NE-3 districts need to be updated with the results in the linked document (for NE-1, Clinton at 100,132 and Trump at 158,642 and Johnson at 14,033, the other numbers are still accurate, but this will affect the total number and the percentages listed; and for NE-3, Clinton at 53,332 and Trump at 199.755 and Johnson at 11,668, the other numbers are again still accurate, but the totals and percentages will need to be adjusted), and then the lines for each of the congressional district results should also be marked "official". Also someone should figure out where the congressional district break-downs for Maine came from, because the link to the State's Excel spreadsheet does NOT provide the data in that format. I would have made all these changes myself but I figured out after I'd checked everything that the page is locked, so if a certified editor could look into this and make the appropriate adjustments that would be great. It honestly looks ridiculous that 2.5 months after the election, when the votes were certified months ago and the new President has been inaugurated, that Wikipedia is still offering only "unofficial" results for some states and incorrect data on two Nebraska congressional districts. 107.145.77.108 (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

The Utah results here are outdated as well. I updated the main Utah election page, but can't update this one. See final certified results: https://elections.utah.gov/Media/Default/2016%20Election/2016%20General%20Election%20-%20Statewide%20Canvass%203.pdf.

Abbey Bartlet (talk) 19:27, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Electoral Vote "Scatter"? Ridiculous and Wrong Terminology
The infobox calls the faithless electors "scatter." That terminology is quite wrong. "Scatter" is, at best, a statistics term. Electors who do not vote for their pledged candidate (assuming no death or withdrawal) have always been called "faithless electors" and must continue to be. No political scientist uses the term "electoral vote scatter" nor does anyone in professional politics. If the person who introduced this "scatter" term claims otherwise, cite your source.

Also, the page is woefully inadequate because it does not contain a chart for VP electoral vote. Sadly, this is a failing shared by numerous similar pages since the adoption of the 12th Amendment. I am unable to fix these matters, but I encourage a Wikipedia editor to do so. Wikipedia's credibility depends on people using terminology consistent with real-world users and on complete data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.19.121 (talk) 09:51, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

I see no one cares about this. Typical for Wikipedia. God forbid articles be written in a professional manner using terms of art employed by those of us who use them professionally. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.169.19.121 (talk) 04:03, 9 January 2017 (UTC)


 * If I can point out that, in your second post, you took up a rather hostile tone. This likely made users uncomfortable commenting on your discussion.

Wikipedia is a community of volunteers covering an endless number of topics. It was a single-day lapse between your first and second posts. Next time practice more patience with these things. You'll get far better results. SecretName101 (talk) 09:22, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * I would favor replacing the instance of the term "Electoral vote scatter" with "fathless electors"SecretName101 (talk) 09:24, 28 January 2017 (UTC)

Gary Johnson historical achievement
In the results section of the article, I believe it should be mentioned that Gary Johnson won the highest vote total for the Libertairian party in history. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.100.214.179 (talk) 09:54, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * It was still a disappointment considering he was running against the two most unpopular mainstream party candidates ever. It's probably worth pointing out, but we should reduce the excessive detail about Johnson's poor performance as a candidate.  TFD (talk) 13:58, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

Didn't Trump end up winning the popular vote?
I read somewhere that he did — Preceding unsigned comment added by The first stone (talk • contribs) 15:54, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * No. Objective3000 (talk) 15:59, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by The first stone (talk • contribs) 16:34, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
 * California was the difference. GoodDay (talk) 13:46, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * That's really not a proper statement. You could just as well say NY, IL and MA were the difference. (Someone else should hat this.) Objective3000 (talk) 15:03, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * You can't say NY alone, IL alone or MA alone, however. Same situation occurred in 1888, with Texas. GoodDay (talk) 15:05, 28 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Clinton won California by over 4 million votes and received almost 3 million more votes than Trump nationwide. In no other state did she win by this number of votes, hence reliable sources frequently mention it.  Understanding how Trump won the election is informative to readers and his supporters should not see it as undermining the legitimacy of his presidency.  The electoral system provides proportionately more weight to votes from smaller states than larger one.  If California votes had been weighted the same as Alaska votes, Clinton would have won the election.  TFD (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:02, 29 January 2017 (UTC)
 * Uh, no. If the EC was different, the campaign would have been different. You can't just declare Clinton would have won.
 * If you just refuse to account for every single person in a state with a Republican plurality or majority who voted for the Democratic ticket, then yes, it was only California. This is ridiculous though because California constitutes 12% of the U.S. population, a higher amount of people than live in Canada in its entirety. Of course California has a dramatic effect on the popular vote. These discussions never get anywhere, so please stop bringing this up. The IP said "Didn't Trump end up winning the popular vote?" and the answer was no. There was no need to launch into another discussion about who was responsible or why. Dustin  ( talk ) 20:05, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

New York Times forecasting controversy
I don't see a compelling reason for this revert:

The omission introduces WP:NPOV issues because the Forecasting section now quotes NYT staff directly from nytimes.com, relying entirely on a primary source, hence making the section read more like uncritically sourced pollster trivia, not less.

I propose to add back the removed text, perhaps adding further media coverage if the existing Verge and New York Magazine articles written about NYT's forecasting controversy aren't sufficient: Quartz, Daily Dot, Slate. A random selection of international coverage of the incident highlights relevance and historical significance: France Germany, Dominical Republic

Takers? OliverHargreaves (talk) 04:09, 2 February 2017 (UTC)

Results by congressional district (maps)
Would it be possible for some-one to add a map with only the winning candidate by congressional district, not shaded by margin, in the results section? Thank you. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 03:09, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of section for 'newspaper endorsements'
Could an editor explain why this section is really crucial/necessary for, or to, the article? It doesn't seem to be significant enough to me. Thank you. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 03:11, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Add table?
I've copied the source here, in case anyone would want it. I would recommend that it goes into the 'forecasting' section, since that's where it seems best-fitted. In any case, I'd appreciate if taken a look at.

The following table displays the final winning probabilities given by each outlet, along with the final electoral result. The states shown have been identified by Politico, WhipBoard, and the New York Times, and the Crystal Ball as battlegrounds.

An explanation would go something like what has been written at swing state:

By Election Day, even less states were in play. FiveThirtyEight's final polls-plus forecast predicted 18 states, plus the second congressional districts of Maine and Nebraska, with an interval of confidence lower than 90%. However, every major forecaster, including FiveThirtyEight, the New York Times Upshot, prediction markets aggregator PredictWise, ElectionBettingOdds from Maxim Lott and John Stossel, the DailyKos, the Princeton Election Consortium, the Cook Political Report, Larry Sabato's Crystal Ball, and the Rothenberg and Gonzales Report, called every state the same way (although Cook and Rothenberg-Gonzales left two and five states as toss-ups, respectively). The sole exception was Maine's second congressional district. Of the forecasters who published results on the district, the Times gave Trump a 64% chance of winning and PredictWise a 52% chance, FiveThirtyEight gave Clinton a 51% chance of winning in polls-only and 54% in polls-plus, Princeton gave her a 60% chance, Cook labelled it a toss-up, and Sabato leaned it towards Trump.

Thanks! 72.141.9.158 (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Potential addition of section for swing states
It seems a bit more plausible on here than it is for the swing state page. Please check the link for the precise form, although that's definitely not set in stone and I'd be welcome to any changes. They'll definitely needed to be adjusted somewhat to be put on this page. What are your thoughts? 72.141.9.158 (talk) 03:38, 3 February 2017 (UTC)

Trump lost the popular vote by the third worst margin of a winning candidate
The lead used to have incorrect information in it. It said, Donald Trump "lost [the popular vote] by a greater margin than the four other presidents who lost the popular vote." This is factually incorrect. The four previous presidents who lost the popular vote were John Quincy Adams (1824), Rutherford B. Hayes (1876), Benjamin Harrison (1888), and George W. Bush (2000). The margins by order of size were 10.5% (Adams), 3% (Hayes), 2.1% (Trump), .8% (Harrison), and .5% (Bush). That puts Trump third, not first. The only way in which Trump was first was by total number of votes, which is not the natural reading of the statement. Or he was first among the more recent three (leaving off Adams and Hayes).

I don't have a problem with this particular piece of trivia being included somewhere. I do think that it is rather trivial for the lead. First is one thing. Third, well behind first, is something else. Particularly considering that unlike Samuel Tilden, Hillary Clinton did not win a majority of the popular vote. So he is well short of second qualitatively if not quantitatively. If put elsewhere, it should be explained properly, in appropriate context. The lead already links to United States presidential elections in which the winner lost the popular vote which has a table showing all the results in comparison. Perhaps that is sufficient. Mdfst13 (talk) 05:28, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

Incorrect vote totals?
It seems like something is wrong with the Clinton/Trump vote totals. When I add up the state totals using the same numbers in the chart, I get 65,844,952 for Clinton and 62,979,860 for Trump, as opposed to the 65,845,063/62,980,160 listed. Is there an error in the formula? Is my spreadsheet broken? Please help.

ETA: Given the incorrect Utah number, the totals should be 65,844,954 and 62,979,880.

Abbey Bartlet (talk) 17:32, 24 January 2017 (UTC)

Looks like some of the vote totals in the chart were not certified. We have been using Dave Leip's US Election Atlas website as a source of truth for this. The latest totals are Trump: 62,985,105, and Clinton: 65,853,625. The preferred (and consistent with historical Wikipedia pages on US presidential elections) source of truth is the FEC report on the election. Once available, my expectation is some helpful WP editor will come along & source this information from there & link it. Happysomeone (talk) 17:01, 26 January 2017 (UTC)

For what it's worth, the FEC now has their official results page up http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe2016/2016presgeresults.pdf It is not the full report sadly, so it does not have voter registration numbers. That won't come out until July, according to their calendar. It does give official votes cast results, however. 108.80.193.145 (talk) 19:29, 7 February 2017 (UTC)Frank (Not an WP editor, just someone who signed up for email notifications from the FEC : )

The polls were more biased to the left than described
Arizone was presented as swinging state (NOT republican) Iowa was presented as safe D (not lean R at all) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.112 (talk) 13:06, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

another Repetition of above. BETTERmaid (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Mississipi "close"?
In the final paragraph of Battleground States, it lists the result of Mississpi as "relatively close" and as a result "taking experts by surprise". Considering that Trump won that state by 17 points, and given that most pre-election polls I've seen have given a slightly narrower margin (the fivethirtyeight forecast listed as source gave him just a 13 point lead in the lead-up to the election), I don't understand why this claim was made.222.65.41.186 (talk) 15:40, 8 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Clinton performed approximately 3 points worse than Obama did both times. MB298 (talk) 00:26, 9 February 2017 (UTC)

Me neither. seems weird. BETTERmaid (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of lead size
"This was the first time since the landslide 1984 re-election of Ronald Reagan that Wisconsin voted for the Republican nominee, and the first time since 1988 that the Republican nominee won the states of Pennsylvania, Michigan, and Maine's 2nd Congressional District, though the results in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan were very close."

The bold section has no relevance to the statement preceeding it. The bold section belongs in results, not the opening. Obama won Indiana, North Carolina and Nebraska 2, three solidly republican states in 2008, all by smaller margins that Trump carried these three states, and there isn't any reference to the margins in that opening. Bomberswarm2 (talk) 14:15, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Agree with bomber, but I don't know that Obama's margins were smaller, even though that Motnana, missouri, etc. very close in 2008. Anyways, don't think it should be up on there, at all, really. Also, me-2 is not a state, shouldn't be mentioned since it's already said that trump is the only candidate to split maine's votes since the new rule/law was made and instated, also only worth 1 vote and doesn't count on map (faithless, etc. and not). Also, other states were part of firewall (nc, fl, nc is actually a swing statte, and also others in bush/obama states and so on. BETTERmaid (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Provisional votes? Crosscheck votes?
I'm trying (unsuccessfully) to find out how many provisional votes were cast, how many of those were thrown out, and how many votes (if any) were invalidated due to the Crosscheck program.

Is there any way to find this information from a reputable source?

Thank you. Therealex (talk) 23:02, 14 February 2017 (UTC)

Not that I know of, but...you can try to check. BETTERmaid (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Note a
In state-by-state tallies, Trump earned 306 pledged electors, Clinton 232. They lost respectively 2 and 5 votes to faithless electors. Pence and Kaine lost one and five votes, respectively. This basically means that Pence has lost one pledged elector. 306-1=305, but in the results it says 304. Can someone please explain this? Ping or mention me if you have an answer. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:16, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think it's about the ticket. 304 votes for ticket of trump-pence, 1 for some one-else (I dont remeber) and pence. but his total is actually was 305, trump is 304. BETTERmaid (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I think the "some one-else" was Ron Paul. Emir of Wikipedia (talk) 22:44, 16 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Yep! BETTERmaid (talk) 02:35, 18 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 February 2017
The current election map shows Maine's First district in red. and the second (north) district in blue. Please change the color of the Second District to red, and the First to blue. Harry Snyder (talk) 19:28, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
 * ❌ The electoral map in this article does not show specific districts. With regard to Maine, it simply shows that 3 of the state's Electoral College votes went to Clinton (blue) while 1 went to Trump (red). The geographic placement of the "1" has nothing to do with the locations of the districts.  See similar representations for Texas and Washington state which also had split electoral votes (due to so-called "faithless" electors rather than Maine's distinctive at-large/district-based electoral scheme).   General Ization   Talk   19:37, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Popular vote source
The current popular vote totals and percentages as listed in both the info box and the popular vote table in the article is not the same totals as found in the source cited. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 20:14, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Final vote tallies
Numbers on page are uncorroborated and unsourced. Dave Leip and Cook Political Report refuted these numbers PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 22:00, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Screwy percentages?
I am puzzled by something here. Perhaps someone can explain it; if not, perhaps it is a problem that needs correcting.

In one chart (Ballot Access), the Johnson/Weld Libertarian ticket is credited with receiving 4,489,233 votes, and a percentage of 3.27% of the total. In a second chart (showing the Popular Vote as a percentage only), the Johnson/Weld Libertarian ticket is credited with receiving 3.15% of the total. And in the text itself, I read this sentence: "With ballot access to the entire national electorate, Johnson received nearly 4.5 million votes (3.28%), the highest nationwide vote share for a third-party candidate since Ross Perot in 1996..."

Now, I can understand there being slight variations in how votes, and percentages, get counted in the above cases.

But then, immediately under the Heading 8 of this article, "Results," how do we find a chart that shows "Presidential candidate" Gary Johnson with 4,310,762 votes, but only 1.88% (!) of the popular vote? How does that happen? How does Johnson suddenly drop from over 3 percent elsewhere in this text to under 2 percent here? Particularly when the other minor-party presidential nominee in this race, Jill Stein of the Greens, consistently shows up as receiving 1.06% of the vote in all of those contexts?

[Ballot Access chart]  Stein/Baraka   1,457,222 [votes]   1.06%

[Results chart] Jill Stein  1,480,067 [votes]   1.06%

[Popular Vote chart showing only percentages] Stein  1.06%

[Text:] "Stein received almost 1.45 million votes (1.06%), the most for a Green nominee since Ralph Nader in 2000."

By any measure shown here, Johnson received more than twice the number of actual votes as were cast for Stein. So I don't see how Johnson's alleged 1.88% of the vote in the "Results" chart can be accurate.

Incidentally, when I total up all the popular-vote percentages under that Heading 8 "Results" chart — including all of the various minor candidates plus the "Other" vote — they don't reach 100 percent. Adding up the percentages for Trump, Clinton, Sanders, Johnson, Stein, McMullin, Castle, de la Riva, and the generic "Other" gets one to only 99.39 percent.

The credited source for this chart (Leip, David. "2016 Presidential Election Results," from Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections) doesn't support these figures either. That link shows, for example, Jill Stein with (again) 1.06% of the vote, but Gary Johnson with 3.27 %. What's the cause of the discrepancy here?

NicholasNotabene (talk) 01:23, 21 February 2017 (UTC)


 * So fix it. Final results were not available till long after the election and not all results may have been updated or re-calculated.  TFD (talk) 04:04, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Put districts into a seperate table
It caused a summing error before, and the 5 districts are in a seperate table in the elections 2000 - 2012.

On a related note, the listed total votes and actual summing of votes are different. Double counting Maine and Nebraska or single counting them, neither of them are the same as the total votes.

Bomberswarm2 (talk) 09:02, 21 February 2017 (UTC)

Exit polls
Should we mention that Trump over-performed the previous nominee (Romney) among whites, African-Americans, Hispanics/Latinos, and Asian-Americans, in the section dedicated to the exit polls? It only mentions the religious breakdown (Muslims), but not by race. Thank you. 72.141.9.158 (talk) 03:07, 3 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Nah - goes against the "Trump is a racist" narrative, which is prevalent by the Wikipedia editors/mods. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.132.10.250 (talk) 15:36, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Polls were more biased to the left than described
Iowa was presented as SAFE D (not lean R). Arizona was presented as a swinging state (not lean R). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.112 (talk) 13:08, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * Do you have some reliable sources we can read ourselves so we can add this information to the article? -- Jayron 32 14:26, 7 February 2017 (UTC)
 * And is Trump truly right-wing? I'd say he's a mix.-- 3family6 ( Talk to me   &#124;  See what I have done  ) 15:49, 7 February 2017 (UTC)

3family6, irrevelant to discussion topic. And iowa was not safe d anyware! almost everyone called it somewhat republican. not true, according to source included. BETTERmaid (talk) 22:40, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

Edit: From quick search 1. http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_elections_electoral_college_map.html Take a look at the map. Many states were shown in gray - as polls average indicates them as swinging. 2. - Arizaona : http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/az/arizona_trump_vs_clinton-5832.html Although described in recent polls as "lean R", during time, most of polls so tie and "lean D". "lean D" for 3.5 months - 3 months from May to August and a half month in October. Either was is not "lean R" but swinging. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.138.239.137 (talk) 11:27, 24 February 2017 (UTC) Can someone put it in the article? those states were presented as swinging or Democrat in polls. Not R anyway.

Vote Table Margins
In every Wikipedia page on elections except this one, the popular vote winner is given the positive number margins in the table showing vote totals state-by-state. Could someone alter this table to match the others? 207.98.144.226 (talk) 16:47, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Petition for SCOTUS to nullify the elections
I saw on Twitter that there was a petition for the Supreme Court to hear the case about nullifying the elections due to Russian hacking. It's Twitter, so I was skeptical. Turns out it's true. Secondary source, primary source. I have no clue if it should be included? I am not very familiar with these kinds of edits. Callmemirela 🍁  &#123;Talk&#125;   &#9809;  14:42, 23 February 2017 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't add it, as a US presidential election has never been nullified. This gave me a good laugh, though. GoodDay (talk) 16:56, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * True, but not going anywhere. Although I was thinking of petitioning SCOTUS to reverse the election of Warren G. Harding. Objective3000 (talk) 19:10, 23 February 2017 (UTC)


 * This has received too little attention in relation to overall coverage of the election to be included. We don't even include it for 2008, when it received far more attention.  We do mention it in the 2000 election article, but it was daily news.  Note though that in 2000, the litigation was conducted before the electors had voted.  TFD (talk) 15:14, 28 February 2017 (UTC)
 * If this gets legs, there will be secondary RS reporting that will guide any content decisions. Right now, we have none. SPECIFICO  talk  15:18, 28 February 2017 (UTC)