Talk:2016 United States presidential election in Vermont

Results by County
I am surprised that there isn't a results by county section on this article. Because of that, I have decided to make one myself using the information on the Vermont county articles. I'm first creating it here so I don't accidentally mess it up the article. Once this is complete, I'll transfer the table over to the main article.

--JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

✅ Well, this wikitable has long since been completed and has been transferred over to the main article. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Please dont use left-wing euphemisms
"regarded as one of the most progressive states in the country, with 56.7% of the vote"

"Progressive"? Try liberal, socialist or left-leaning. That`s way more neutral. Actually, Vermont has one of the lowest fertility rates in the US, I would call this pretty regressive.46.93.251.11 (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)


 * Cool story, bro. DrOwl19 (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)


 * ✅ Actually, the statement between commas in the lead was WP:POV and not substantiated by anything in the article, nor did it have anything to do with election results, so I removed said statement. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Accuracy of results
Hi, Thank you for your interest in this article, for supplying the source of your numbers, and also providing an edit summary. Nonetheless, I should note that Vermont Secretary of State Official Results for the 2016 Federal election show...


 * Candidate	Party	Votes	Percent
 * HILLARY CLINTON and TIM KAINE 	DEMOCRATIC	178,573	55.72%
 * DONALD J. TRUMP and MICHAEL R. PENCE 	REPUBLICAN	95,369	29.76% (29.72%)
 * BERNIE SANDERS		18,183	5.67% (5.68%)

...which are different from the numbers that you provided (where noted in parentheses). I can't correct these numbers within 24 hours without violating WP:3RR. Perhaps you would like to. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I was just noticing some of that result percentage variation. I agree that the Sec of State Official results should be used. It looks like some of the existing percentages discount the 5,400 that were either over votes or blanks, but that is not accurate as those people actually voted and should be part of the denominator. I will update all votes after this to reflect the Official SoS numbers/percentages. --Davemoth (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Should Sanders be in infobox?
Sanders finished with over 5% of the vote, but there's been an unofficial precedent with the 2020 Democratic primary articles that a candidate is only included in the infobox if they were actually running. Since Sanders wasn't running and all of his votes were unsolicited he should probably be removed as well.-Shivertimbers433 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)


 * Concur: Sanders was not a candidate in the November contest, nor is 5% a notable apportionment of votes to merit portrayal in the infobox for a candidate that was a candidate, except where a majority was not achieved or an otherwise close contest. HopsonRoad (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)


 * ✅ Seeing no dissent, I have removed non-candidate, write-in vote recipient Sanders from the infobox. I left the discussion of the fringe votes in the lead, however. Conceivably that discussion belongs as secondary information, lower in the article. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Seeing the 5% threshold at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 12, I see that a consensus has been reached that would indicate including Sanders in the infobox. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Exclude I believe the discussion in the prior consensus was applicable to people who actually ran, and people who did not run in the election should not be listed. Reywas92Talk 18:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * That would be my personal choice, as well,, but perhaps this is a question for other members of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums to help resolve, either there or here. That discussion was about candidates. Sanders was not a candidate in this election. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing against consensus?
has made these edits against the above (albeit small) consensus. I have tried to invite him to build consensus at User talk:Matthew McMullin, but it just seems that if I revert his most recent edit, he'll just revert my edit without explanation or discussion. What can be done to resolve this question? HopsonRoad (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hey! I've placed a message on their talk page regarding this with a bit more detail on edit warring. If they continue, you may want to head over to the noticeboard for edit warring.  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 01:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Hi! Please discuss your changes on this talk page rather than battling to keep a specific set of changes. Thanks!  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 01:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Reverting again, especially without any explanation, will very likely lead to a report at WP:AN/EW. Please discuss here rather than edit warring, or it's likely you'll be blocked from editing.  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 00:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Note: has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring.  Bsoyka  ( talk  &middot;  contribs ) 01:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * and Bernie Sanders has been on this infobox for ages now and we cant change it without proper converstation. Usually in all cases if the politican gets 5 precent or more, they are included on the infobox. It has to stay that way. That warning was also totally uncalled for. — Preceding comment added by Phillypaboy123 (talk·contribs) 02:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)‎;


 * Hi,, please remember to sign your posts with ~ . It would be great to point to precedent to illustrate your point. In this case, Sanders was not a candidate, but a write-in. Just because it's been the status for a period of time, is not a sufficient reason to keep the entry. We're looking for a consensus outcome here. It may change from the earlier one as other editors weigh in. The above editor was advised to discuss here, but opted to revert without edit comment repeatedly. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * I agree with 's comment – just because something has been a certain way for some time doesn't mean it isn't allowed to change. There was a discussion above with no opposition after almost a month, so the change was made. The warnings above were absolutely called for because edit warring is never a proper way to handle disputes – rather, a discussion should be had, which that editor opted not to participate in. Thanks for understanding!  Bsoyka  ( talk &middot;  contribs ) 03:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)


 * Comment Coming here after seeing the request at WT:E&R, HopsonRoad is perhaps not aware of the 5% rule, which has been around for a long time (and confirmed in RfCs like this), the rule being any candidate with over 5% of the vote in an election should be included in the infobox (or the second placed candidate in cases where only one candidate has over 5%). Number   5  7  13:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thank you for commenting here, . And if the vote recipient was not a candidate, as is the case here, would the rule still apply? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't see why not. If Sanders received 5% of the vote, that's over the threshold IMO. Number   5  7  13:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Glad this issue was resolved, thanks to both of you for resolving this the right way.  Bsoyka  ( talk  &middot;  contribs ) 15:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)