Talk:2020 United States House of Representatives elections/Archive 1

Cook PVI column
Can we eliminate the "2017 PVI" column? It doesn't seem helpful or relevant to the 2020 election, and presenting it without the "Cook" label obfuscates its status as subjective analysis rather than a fact. The tables in this past election summary article are too complicated and wonky (duplicating the Cook PVI info all over the place), and it seems most readers won't know how to interpret what the Cook PVI is. Moreover, we shouldn't be biased toward promoting The Cook Political Report over other analysis. Replicating this outdated information preemptively into this article about 2020 seems like a poor precedent to continue. -- RobLa (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I disagree. It's a useful statistic that helps the reader better understand congressional districts. It's standard practice for elections forecasters to look at Cook PVI or something similar, so it make sense for Wikipedia to include that information as well. And the 2017 PVI is in no way outdated or subjective; it's a statistic based off of the results of the two most recent presidential elections. Orser67 (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
 * I concur with the above, though I'd note that there are competing metrics (e.g. FiveThirtyEight's "partisan lean", though it isn't published in full anywhere except on individual district pages). Mélencron (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Picture
Walter Jones's seat should be removed from the map of retirees, as the seat will be filled before 2020.

Dbwarrak (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Serrano retiring, please update. Also Jones's seat should be gray, as User:Dbwarrak brought up. PerhapsXarb (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

FEC Filing
Just to make sure: Is FEC filing enough reference that the incumbent is running for reelection? Dbwarrak (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Page size
It's not even election year, yet, and this article has 424,934 bytes of wiki-markup. That is too big by far. What's the best way to sub-divide it? Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Counterpoint: It would be too big if it were a traditional encyclopedia page. Almost all of the page is tabular data, someone landing here is likely to search for the data/references/links they want. The House/Senate/Governors pages are great election resources and lots of people check them for the regularly updated polling information. I would suggest keeping the template for the House page as close as possible to the Senate/Governor pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.26.151 (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Templates
Please be careful when editing Plainlist or other templates. —GoldRingChip 11:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC) ! United States Virgin Islands At-large
 * I was cleaning it up someone messed it up and the brackets were showing outside the code and on the page. I removed the ones that were showing. That was it. Wollers14 (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually the brackets were correctly outside the code. That's where they belonged.  See on this edit, the correct Plainlist code should have been:
 * Stacey Plaskett
 * |Democratic
 * 2014
 * Incumbent's intent unknown.
 * nowrap | TBA


 * }


 * with the result:


 * If one counts the number of "" then one will see they match. Plainlist is a tricky template! Thanks for all your housekeeping; keep it up!!  —GoldRingChip 16:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah if you look at the history you'll see that I reverted for the reason that I made a mistake because I did remove the correctly used ones that did not appear in the lists. I only removed the ones that did. No harm intended. Wollers14 (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Moving results tables to the state articles
As with the 2016 article, this article is far too large and there is no reason for these tables to be included here. , why did you claim that I had deleted the table in the California section? You're obviously aware this was a lie since you then removed it from the California article, so you definitely knew that I moved it there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Should this be applied to House election pages for other years as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:D50B:956D:27EA:F213 (talk) 17:25, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I get that it's a big article, but it's covering a large topic with lots of components (441+ races). I think readers are better served by having a single article to go to for the high-level picture rather than having to skip among 56 different articles. Carter (talk) 19:02, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Should anything be done with the 2016 article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:D45C:C378:4:8140 (talk) 21:27, 3 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Here's the discussion regarding that article if the points are relevant here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:71E2:6315:179F:958E (talk) 23:23, 4 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Of course the tables should be moved from the other articles as well, at least those very large articles. We don't need to have all the election results in the main article for the election. A summary of the results by state should still be available on this article, but not the detailed tables which would be much better in the state articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Seems like a lot of work would be needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:9902:3719:D656:9490 (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't think it would be much work, but I am willing to start, especially with this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Has this been decided by others as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:515C:E557:DA4:F90C (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I really like having one article that has all the election results and therefore strongly oppose this proposal. If a change is made, I don't think that the 2016 United States House of Representatives elections article should be the model; it takes just as long as this article does to navigate, yet contains less pertinent information. The main House election article should either list all the races and the results as it currently does, or only list the races that were particularly close and/or saw a non-incumbent win election. Orser67 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Should the tables be moved back at the 2016 article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:D0EA:FA66:EFED:5E40 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Also, I strongly oppose splitting the race ratings into its own article. Orser67 (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm also in the strongly oppose camp. The size of the article alone isn't enough of a reason to diminish the utility of having all the results in one article. Carter (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This change is absolutely ridiculous and should be reversed immediately. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Should the change be reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:8143:B06B:42CA:DD9A (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * All of the individual results should absolutely not be in this article. The results should be in results articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * All the previous election results have their results on the main page. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, there should probably be consistency among the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:D0EA:FA66:EFED:5E40 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
 * This is a terrible change and should be reverted. Having all the results in one location is much more user friendly, even if it does create a long article. AWiseishGuy (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Since the above discussion is at it's most generous 3-3, I have decided to restore the pre-move status quo until a consensus can be established. I personally think a good solution would be collapsing the state tables, which would keep the info on one page while also cutting back on it's length. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm up for any solution, so long as all of the race results are viewable in one article (whether that's here or in a separate list article). Orser67 (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd be okay with collapsing state tables. Carter (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
 * That would still be inconvenient as it would prevent users from being able to Control+F search for specific candidates or races. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.185.156.170 (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The results of the elections would certainly still be on this article, it's just the extended details that are being moved to the state articles, like how we treat other elections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I apologize if I wasn't clear before, but my concern is having the election winner, other major candidate(s), and their respective share of the vote for all 435 races all on one page. I'm not sure what you mean about "how we treat other elections"; the Senate elections articles list all races with the percentage of the vote won by major candidates, the presidential election page lists the percentage of the vote won by each major presidential candidate in each state. I think what you and other editors have done with 2016 United States House of Representatives elections is the worst of both worlds, since it's a long article (from the reader's perspective) that lacks pertinent information. Orser67 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Onetwothreeip, may I ask why you took it upon yourself to enforce your viewpoint on the article before the discussion had even ended. Of course they should be moved eventually, but not before the primaries have been held. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Certainly. The discussion did end, as no further discussion was taking place. The article is far too large so I moved these details to their appropriate place, in the state articles. This is how we deal with large elections, and what we have done with the 2016 elections which were similarly large. There is no precedent for waiting to split the article once a certain stage of the election has happened, or for any particular event. The article is very clearly the longest article on Wikipedia, and none of the elections have started. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
 * WP:HASTE. The length of the article in and of itself is not a reason to break the utility for readers. Carter (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The article is currently 506,233 bytes - Wikipedia's longest - and so has no utility for many of our readers. Andy Mabbett ( Pigsonthewing ); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * "This is how we deal large with elections". Can you point to any other article that received a similar treatment? Other than the 2016 House elections, which as far as I can tell, you and two other editors agreed to break up a few months ago. Orser67 (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , length of the article actually is a cause to break it up. The reasons are because of its accessibility to readers. I can point to the results articles of British, Australian, Spanish and European Union elections to name a few. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * , Article length is a reason to consider breaking up an article, but not the sole reason to do it. I don't see how dividing it improves accessibility for readers when that would require readers to jump among 56 different articles. Carter (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * You're talking about dividing it up by subdivision. British has a results page that has the result by constituency, as well as a list of all MPs elected; these pages are not broken down by subdivision and don't seem to support your argument that the US House election results should be listed only by state. I also have to say that it's rather annoying to have an editor who has never previously contributed to this article come in and decide to blow it up because of some abstract concern about article size that isn't mandated by any policy. It would be one thing if you were interested in working with engaged editors to come up with a consensus-based solution, but you seem intent on ramming through your proposal without regard for what anyone else thinks. Orser67 (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * No we'll still have results on this article, we just won't have every district in such detail on this article. This isn't the results article, this is the main article for the House elections, which requires prose. There will still be results for every district on this article, it's only that these very large tables are being moved. Our other articles that list results all in one page are far more abbreviated while those in more detail are split geographically, so let's not pretend this article is normal among Wikipedia election articles. Article size is well established. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Only listing candidates and the percentage of the vote won in each race on the state pages would do a disservice to readers, who should be able to view all of that information for all 435 races on one page. As I've stated three times now, the system you're proposing where only the district and the winner is listed in this article is the worst of both worlds because it makes the page long from the reader's point of view, yet lacks pertinent information. And nothing in Wikipedia:Article size requires this article to be split. Orser67 (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * We can still have the results for all districts on this article, just not with all the detail that we currently have them. For further detail, readers can find this in the state results articles. This would still be more generous than our approach for all other elections that Wikipedia covers. For example, the first article you have used as an example only has the votes for each party in the general election per constituency and with no information on the candidates. The second example is not a summary of election results, it is simply a list of the elected members of the House of Commons. The results for that general election actually do have results articles that are split by region, and you will not find the results of every single constituency on the main election article. None of those articles cover the primary elections either, which are covered by American election articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The important part for me is that they have 600+ constituencies and still list the percentage that each party won in each constituency on one page, rather than going with your proposal of breaking up the results by subdivision. Orser67 (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I have nothing against a single list of all general election results for this election, if it's done in the ways that those election articles do them as well. Just because there are articles of other countries that briefly detail the results of the election in every constituency, obviously does not justify an article where we have detailed results for both the primary and general election for every constituency. What is critical here is that the election articles for those countries split the detailed election results by region, even if they have a brief summary list for all the results. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I could live with using the British elections as a compromise model. My preferred solution, though, would be to move the current list of candidates/elections to a separate list article, keeping the list exactly as it is currently. Then, this main page could be used to give an overall summary of the elections. Orser67 (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I oppose that solution, a separate list page would be poorly maintained as most traffic is towards this article, just look at the state pages for proof of this. We should keep the page in one place, removing results, the most important information to a separate page keeping this as a glorified stub is a terrible idea. If the consensus is maintained that the results table be removed, I maintain that this move should be only temporary, once primaries are completed they should be moved back, having readers click 50 links to get the complete results is simply not a good idea Devonian Wombat talk 08:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * With that in mind, I'm wondering abut what was done over at 2016 United States House of Representatives elections, as there are no percentages there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:6496:979A:C4A2:CDF6 (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * It would be good to get some consistency across articles. With that in mind, perhaps an RFC would make sense. Orser67 (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I'm in the support camp. I'm grateful that Onetwothreeip is embarking on this work.  As it stands, there is no room for prose in this article to describe the story of this election as it evolves.  Per WP:NOTSTATS, this article shouldn't just be a collection of 50+ tables with little supporting prose.  Having the tables down in the state-level articles will make the information much easier for local editors (within each state) to participate in maintaining and updating the information. -- RobLa (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
 * I don’t understand why in the senate article can remain the table result. What is the exact reason that this article have to change, but the senate article don’t. The original reason is size of this article, right? As a foreigner who has used wikipedia to learn about US election, I do want to know the results. How did the parties gain or lose? How close each district compare to recent election. If the article remain the same, I can quickly compare the results with previous election. At the first place, I don’t want to know generic ballot polls as well as rating. If there are sections need to move, both should be moved first. The cook’s PVI and showing that incumbents retire or not help me a lot better to understand how about each district is. I also want to know all the results in the same page. I visit US House of Representatives election articles, because I want to know the results of all US House of Representatives election. Moreover, the 2016 election article is absolutely unattractive. The US election pages make me more interested to learn, unlike other countries ones. So, I oppose. Noncommittalp (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Do you think the changes to the 2016 article should be undone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:3DE2:F231:E347:238A (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
 * The issue is that any article that would contain all the current state tables would be too long, and they don't even contain any results yet. I think the best way to display all the results in one article is to simply have a table of the results by party, without the candidates or the primary elections, for every district. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
 * If the consensus is maintained that the results table be removed, I maintain that this move should be only temporary, once primaries are completed they should be moved back, having readers click 50 links to get the complete results is simply not a good idea Devonian Wombat talk 08:58, 1 December 2019
 * What results tables? The tables being moved don't have any results in them. When there are actually any results, we can certainly have them in this article. I don't see anybody disagreeing with moving the details over to state articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Hold on a second there, Onetwothreeip. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, but it seems pretty clear to me that, aside from myself, at least three users on this page have objected to "moving the details over to state articles." And I personally only said that I could "live with" using the British elections as a compromise model. Orser67 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * And to clarify, I think I made it pretty clear that my preferred solution is definitely not to move the details over to state articles, but rather to have a separate list that contains the results for all House races. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I feel like you just misrepresented mine, hopefully just through a misunderstanding. Orser67 (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * There is no indication of consensus over the need to move any of this article away from this page. Nor has a compelling case been made for the move beyond a flat WP:LENGTH guideline argument that ignores that article's notes that some times it maybe best to keep a page intact rather than split (WP:SPLITLIST) and that there is no need to rush to split a long article (WP:HASTE). Carter (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I would like to point out that with this conversation, the discussion could be interpreted as anything from 4-3 to 3-5 against-for making the changes. I’m not actually sure whether this constitutes consensus to make them, and the different ways you could interpret statements means we should probably hold a A/B/C vote on the issue so we can wrap up this discussion. Devonian Wombat 20:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I support holding an A/B/C vote as well. Orser67 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Orser67, what's the issue then? I support having an article that outlines results for all districts. Nothing I've done prevents that.
 * Tcr25, the length of the article was clearly a major issue. Not only was it too large as it was, this was before any primary election or general election results were added to it. I think we would all agree that there needs to be room for actual results to be in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Orser67, what's the issue then? I support having an article that outlines results for all districts. Nothing I've done prevents that.
 * Tcr25, the length of the article was clearly a major issue. Not only was it too large as it was, this was before any primary election or general election results were added to it. I think we would all agree that there needs to be room for actual results to be in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Ratings
Should the separate ratings page be deleted, since the table is on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:C3E:3096:A538:BD59 (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, it could be used to hold old race ratings, or include a larger number of race ratings (from other sources). It also holds old generic polls, which is useful. The name should probably be changed to "2020 United States House of Representatives election ratings and generic ballot polls". Orser67 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Long article
The reason this article is long is singularly because there are references for every single candidate in every single race. So that's a citation template for each ref, and that pushes the servers past their extremes. However, once individual state deadlines pass, then each state's elections division can be a SINGLE reference for each state. —GoldRingChip 01:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It's good that over time the size will decrease somewhat due to references being consolidated, but I have to object to adding 10,000+ bytes by needlessly expanding (D) to (Democratic) and (R) to (Republican) in every single instance. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for a vote
We've now had a long-running debate on the future of this article, and it hasn't yet led to a consensus. In order to try to come to a consensus, I propose we hold a vote on what to do with the individual races and invite comments from all editors who have participated at this article and other House election articles. So far, I have seen three major proposals:


 * Option A (advocated by User:Devonian Wombat): status quo, essentially. Keep all races and information currently in place in the article.
 * Option B (advocated by User:Onetwothreeip) : do not list each individual race on this page, instead having the races listed on state pages (e.g. 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts).
 * Option C (advocated by me, User:Orser67): Do not list each individual race on this page, but instead have them listed (in essentially their current form) at a separate list article.

Is this a reasonable description of the options being advocated here, and are there other options that should be considered? Orser67 (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I think this is fine, and I vote Option A, I feel everything should be on one page, and I also think a separate list page, while it would help cut back on the length (Which I will admit is a problem, though not a massive one) would end up poorly maintained, as the traffic going to it would be minimal. Devonian Wombat talk 20:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Since B and C are not mutually exclusive, we can certainly have both. I have no issue with an article that lists the results of all the House races. That's a completely separate issue to whether these tables should remain on this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I don't see them as mutually exclusive; in fact, I'm genuinely apathetic as to whether these tables are included at state articles. However, to be 100% clear, my proposal is that the races stay in exactly the form that they are now, and are just moved to a separate list article that lists all 435 races (plus the delegate races). So under my proposal, the list article would list the PVI, the incumbent (with party and year of first election), the incumbent's status, all the notable candidates in the race, and the percentage won by each candidate (once the race has occurred) for all 435 races. So it would have significantly more information than 2016 United States House of Representatives elections currently does. Orser67 (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I vote Option A, though I also believe in consistency among articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:9005:120C:473B:F4B6 (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I also vote Option A and agree with User:Devonian Wombat's rationale. Carter (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I vote Option C. I think that there is a reasonable concern about having the main article on House elections be such a huge size, whereas I think that anyone going to a list article should reasonably expect it to be fairly long. But my main concern is that all the races be listed in one place, so Option A would be my second choice. Orser67 (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Would anyone object if I invited other editors who recently have edited the 2016, 2018, and 2020 House articles on their talk pages? I think it would be good to get as much input as possible, but I don't want to be accused of Canvassing. Orser67 (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * How about we move these tables away from this article, replace them with whatever editors want to replace them with, and have an article similar to Results of the 2017 United Kingdom general election for all the results? I feel that people are thinking that removing tables from this article is intended to be the end of restructuring, when that's simply not the case at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * You can propose something else if you want, but that's not what I'm proposing. Orser67 (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * They should be pinged, an issue as large as this needs as much input as possible. Devonian Wombat talk 20:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
 * It shouldn't be phrased as a choice between these three options. Especially when one of the options has been attributed to me without my consent. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I am fine with counting B and C votes together for the purposes of deciding whether the tables should stay on this page. If there is a consensus to overturn the status quo, I'm sure we can have the discussion about what specific format to use then. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Then tell me how you want it phrased, Onetwothreeip. We've been discussing this for over a month now and I'd like to finally end this discussion sooner rather than later. Orser67 (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I vote Option A. All articles should remain consistent, to have one article deviate from the others does not make sense, also it causes a repetition of the information on the individual state election articles, serving no purpose. VietPride10 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * We should remove these tables from this article, or drastically cut them down. Whatever should replace them is another matter. The article is simply far too long, reducing the utility of this article and the information in this article for readers. We could move the largest of these tables to articles of their own, rather than any already existing article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Onetwothreeip, I'm not sure how to ask this any more clearly: what do you want Option B to say? Orser67 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Actually forget it, I'm just going to start the RFC. Orser67 (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * I think the whole idea doesn't make sense. All I'm saying is the tables should be removed from this article or significantly reduced. I'm not against listing individual races on this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

RFC on inclusion of House elections

 * The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been an ongoing discussion about the inclusion of each House race and associated details at 2020 United States House of Representatives elections, as well as other articles. Some editors have raised concerns regarding the size of the article, but others have argued that cutting down the information in the article is not justified. Here are some of the options that have been discussed:

-Orser67 (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Option A: status quo, essentially. Keep all races and information currently in place in the article.
 * Option B: do not list each individual race on this page, instead only having the races listed on state pages (e.g. 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts).
 * Option C: Do not list each individual race on this page, but instead have them listed (in essentially their current form) at a separate list article.
 * Option D: List all the races, but cut down on the details listed, shifting the more detailed information to other articles (2016 United States House of Representatives elections being one potential example)
 * Option E: Something else
 * Just a note: from a previous discussion on the page, four editors (User:Devonian Wombat, Carter, VietPride10, and IP editor 2601:241:301:4360:9005:120C:473B:F4B6 have expressed support for Option A. One editor (myself, Orser67) has expressed support for Option C. Feel free to restate your opinions, I just didn't want them to be overlooked in the course of this RFC. Orser67 (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Option A: Once California races can be cited from one reference via the California SOS office, that will GREATLY reduce the size of the article. And more reductions will be made when other states' filing dates pass. This is what happened in 2018. —GoldRingChip 02:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I have to go with Option A. It's the most informative option there is.Wollers14 (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Option A does indeed seem best. Dbwarrak (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Option A makes sense to me. As others have mentioned, the page will get quite a bit smaller as we reach various key dates. In the meantime, I think it's useful to have all of that info on one page. --ACbreezy (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I favor Option A, since lately I'm mainly using the page to scrape a list of candidates. Option C would be a close second though. And I would adapt to other options. KCinDC (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

As stated earlier, I'm in favor of Option A. It's the most informative option, and the tables are quick to scan and see what's happening in each district, which is a benefit for an article covering races for the full House. Carter (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)


 * I vote  Option A.Noncommittalp (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Option A - With lists like this, it's more important that the list be "navigable" (i.e. users can find the information they're looking for in the list) than that the entire list be readable. Per WP:SPLITLIST, there doesn't seem to be a good, natural way to split this list. NickCT (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)
 * The list is already split by state in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I just want to note that while Option C is my own proposal, Option A would be my second choice. Orser67 (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Option A easy access to all info. Bacondrum (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Can we use template to reduce size of this page. Noncommittalp (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Which templates do you think we should use? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Firstly, move the result tables to states’ election articles. Secondly, put cover the tables. Finally, use  in this page. I made an example for Alabama. Noncommittalp (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A single source for retiring incumbents
Hello. I see that the politically moderate Atlantic magazine is keeping a list of retiring House & Senate incumbents. I've checked the list to find that it includes all the Democratic and Republican House retiring incumbents mentioned in the article, and claims several other Representatives as retiring. Can it be used as a temporary overview source for the Retiring Incumbents section (in addition to the sources already present there), like it was in the last elections' article? --Синкретик (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)
 * I have used it to replace the references that were previously used to cite these retirements. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
 * We are also coming to the issue where we have far too many references on this article, and the scripts at times are not able to handle them, instead displaying errors for many of them. While has certainly done good work in contributing to this article, they should be considerably more careful regarding how many references they add to this article. We definitely need to be using references to source multiple candidates each, rather than one each. I intend to remove references using Facebook and Reddit shortly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

New page for retiring incumbents
We use separate pages for listing retiring incumbents for the British elections. I dont like having them in a list, so we could just create a new page. The article needs to be broken up anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingWither (talk • contribs) 15:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems like a reasonable idea. The list could be replaced with something like "As of [date], XX Democrats and XX Republican members of Congress have announced their intention to resign at the end of their term rather than seek re-election." and then link to the new article. Carter (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't have any objection to that idea. Orser67 (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the number of retiring incumbents is small enough it fits fine in this article, as it does in all other US election articles, and it is not long enough to warrant its own article. The UK election retirees list has twice as many as we do, and they have excessive detail like date announced, year first elected, and individual citations for each one, all in a table duplicating the names of the parties. Reywas92Talk 05:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, the 2018 article has considerably more retirements and they don't have a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:A5E8:24C:85EA:CEC0 (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)


 * Shouldn't former congresspeople like Katie Hill or Duncan Hunter be listed as "VACANT" in their races? They are not the incumbents for the 2020 races and will either be filled by someone else or still be VACANT at the time of election. Seems misleading to have them still listed 72.23.129.116 (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Took care of those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:443D:583F:A55F:B8BA (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Should Justin Amash have a spot in the infobox?
Independent is not a "party", Amash is not a "leader" of any caucus, it just seems weird to include him.  Nevermore27  (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * I was thinking the same thing. It makes sense to have a line in there showing that one seat is held by an independent, but the rest of it doesn't really apply. It makes more sense to do like 2020 United States Senate elections does and use just the Party, Current seats, and Seats up fields. Carter (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed.  Nevermore27  (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Resignations, deaths, and special elections
Let's try to keep this already long article as succinct as we possibly can. Here are my thoughts:
 * If a special election occurs (or will occur) in 2020 and is already mentioned in the Special elections section, don't repeat it in the Resignations section
 * This article is for 2020 House elections only. If a special election occurred in 2019, it doesn't belong here. That said, I have added a hatnote that goes to the 116th Congress article that lists all 2019-20 special elections.

If anyone strongly disagrees with this, let's please hash out our differences here rather than edit warring. --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * The link to the 116th congress doesn't seem necessary to the article at hand, but the rest looks fine.

I agree that the page is long, but having a complete list of the 9 congressman elected in 2018 who resigned or died is not too much. It shows a transition from the 2018 House elections. I have added all of the accurate information including what happened to each member and whether or not they were replaced. The information added is both relevant and accurate.
 * The other articles don't have such a feature and there is no reason to break with the standard.
 * First, please try to remember to sign your posts (it makes it easier know who's talking to whom). Second, a good point was made that there's no precedent for this in previous articles on House elections. The point of the House election articles is generally to list all House election occurring in year X (in this case 2020). Articles about the specific congressional term (in this case the 116th United States Congress) are better suited for showing the transitions in membership via death or resignation. --Woko Sapien (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You asked to discuss this idea so that’s what I’ve tried to do. I believe that the article should be a different way, and I hope you’re willing to discuss instead of making your own decision and continually deleting what I have added. This article is about the 2020 election and having the special elections from between the 2018 and 2020 elections I believe would be beneficial. It would show the difference between who was elected and would explain who the incumbents for 2020 are. I understand this is not “precedent” but it adds 7 extra people as well as their entire information and how they left their positions after their previous election. I don’t see any good reason why they should be left out. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)
 * A few things...


 * 1) I am discussing this with you; no final decisions have been made. Even if I had personally made up my mind, I don't rule Wikipedia let alone this article. Wikipedia is governed by the consensus of its editors, which is precisely what I'm trying to facilitate: giving you a chance to make your case and build a consensus.
 * 2) Any edits of yours that I've reverted were to avoid an edit war. Starting a discussion on the Talk page was meant as a good faith effort to resolve the dispute.
 * 3) The information you added is most certainly accurate. But a page for the 2019 special elections already exists and the 2020 special elections are already included in this article.
 * 4) My point about precedent was not to discourage you, it was to explain why you're facing resistance on your proposed changes. But things can change if editors make a cogent and thoughtful case for why things should change. You said the changes would be beneficial, so by all means, please expound on that.
 * Cheers! --Woko Sapien (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The point that I have been trying to make is that all of the special elections in 2019 and 2020 should be on this page. While there is a page for the 2019 House elections, this is not a specific Congress. The current page is the one that shows House elections into the 117th Congress. This is similar to how the 2018 House elections are elections into the 116th Congress. This would be a helpful improvement so that in the future, there is clear progression between the elections into each Congress. I understand this is not precedent, but I’m trying to make an improvement to the page and the format instead of simply following the “precedent”. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * These articles have long been about documenting the House elections within the specified year, not cataloging all the elections taking place between one Congress and the next. What you're proposing would be a herculean (and some might say unnecessary) overhaul because it would then have to be applied to all previous House election articles. But if you can build a strong consensus among other editors, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. --Woko Sapien (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand how the previous pages have worked as I have read all of them as well. There are a total of 9 congress seats which were opened/required a special election before the 2020 normal house race. If there were a section which stated elections to the 117th Congress, I would agree that these elections would best be suited there. However, there is no such page. Having the elections on this page shows the transition between the last “regular” elections (midterms) to these elections (presidential year). I don’t believe that the changes are unnecessary as they would show clear transition between Congresses and with the accurate and complete information which I am proposing to add, will explain why the members of the previous congress were not running again. It would set up a new precedent which would be more helpful (and not that long) instead of just only following the old precedent. I hope this helps Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop adding the 2019 elections and the special elections that will be held before November's general election they are redundant to add and makes the page longer. The special elections for 2020 are already listed as is their reasons for the incumbents leaving before the end of their terms. Wollers14 (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand that it makes the page longer but I believe there should at least be the members who were elected in the 2019 special elections. It shows progression and there are only three of them. As the 2020 special elections are over, the results can be moved to this section as well Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

They are shown on other pages like the current Congress page so there isn't really a need to show it on this one. The page will change after the 28th with Ohio's primary and the next Special election being held. Also the previous election pages do not show the previous year's elections. Wollers14 (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Members of the house
The non voting members of the house are still considered members and therefore should be in the info box, right? Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the infobox is for showing membership as it pertains to the majority and minority. Since non-voting delegates don't factor into the majority or minority, they're not included. Some friendly advice, don't try to change that. It will be reversed almost immediately. --Woko Sapien (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The map needs updating
The map still shows Amash as an independent incumbent. This should be changed to represent he is now a libertarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FalteringArc2 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)
 * Has Amash officially affiliated his congressional seat with the Libertarian Party. I see one article (in Reason) that is using Amash (L-Mich.), but nothing else. If there's a reliable source that indicates a party change (not just seeking the Libertarian nomination the same way independent Bernie Sanders sought the Democratic nomination), then it should all be updated. Otherwise, it should stay independent. Carter (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What if winner is not in doubt?
In a race, such as those in California, there might be only candidates from the same party. Should editors assume that party is the winner before the election is held? Should such an assumption be made if a candidate is running unopposed?

Yes: There's no doubt, for example that there will be Democratic hold in California's 53rd district because only Democrats got through the best-of-two primary. Also, we shouldn't pretend like the obvious isn't going to happen… that would make editors seems either stupid at worst or pedantic at best.

No: Being pedantic is what encyclopedias are about, this isn't a newspaper. There's no real harm in waiting until the actual results are in.

What do you think? —GoldRingChip 20:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Is there a law or a regulation define if candidates who won primary die or suspend campaign before general election can replace by another candidate? However, I think No. Noncommittalp (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Maybe, probably, there is? But I think that stretches over to WP:OR. —GoldRingChip (he/she/it/they) 14:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. It is not a stretch of the imagination that a candidate running unopposed or a party with both candidates in the top-two general will win. It can be counted as a hold for the party. Reywas92Talk 18:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes since previous election
Is there any reason to have this, since none of the other election pages have them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:901:D32:3A5C:3C32 (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Personally, I believe that there is need for this. I have been trying to find a way to make elections such as “2020 House elections” transition better from the last election (2018). I feel this way adds it in neatly. This would set a new precedent, but I think it would be helpful to viewers to see it like this. For me at least it is better visually. Please leave it up until there is consensus to remove it, I really appreciate it. I’m interested to hear your opinion as well. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The section is largely redundant and/or not related to the House elections as they occur in the year 2020. Wjrz feels very strongly they are necessary, as is his right, but his claim that his section is popular with other editors is patently false, as he has garnered no support from other editors. I believe the section was added in good faith, but I'd personally be in favor of removing it because it seems to add more clutter than useful new information. I'll ask for his thoughts on this since I know he's done a lot on Wikipedia's House of Representatives articles --Woko Sapien (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I also think it's redundant and/or unrelated. Suggest delete. —GoldRingChip 13:39, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel like it shows a transition since the previous election which relates to the 2020 elections. For example, Van Drew from NJ ran as a Democrat in 2018 but now as a Republican in 2020. The deaths and resignations show why previous incumbents are not running again or are under the “retiring” section. Would anyone think there’s a way to make the section more relevant? Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)


 * The problem is you're (A) repeating 2020 special elections which are already contained in the "Special elections" section, (B) rehashing the 2019 special elections that don't really belong here and are already linked in the "First elected" column of the individual candidates, and (C) listing the party switchers, but I've already added footnotes for Amash and Van Drew explaining their situations. I'm sure your intentions are noble, but you're simply adding information that's already stated elsewhere in this article in some way, shape, or form. The truth is we've been through this multiple times already on this talk page, and so far no other editors have endorsed your changes. --Woko Sapien (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Should it be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:DDF4:963B:F5CC:FE7A (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say yes, eventually. But deleting it right now seems like it'll just continue the edit war. --Woko Sapien (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this section is better than the special election section. It adds more information about the candidates and can be more easily updated as the time goes on. I can add the links to each individual special election if we decide to delete the section on this page. The 2019 special elections are a transition from between 2018 and 2020, two election years. This shows a clearer transition between the two elections. I like that Van Drew and Amash are in this new section because it’s a more prominent occurrence. It also shows the differences in the info box on the top. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I think the Wjrz’s transition should be in 116th United States Congress. What happen in the 116th Congress should be there. Obviously, it has been there. Noncommittalp (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If nothing else, the article should be consistent with the format of other election pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:85F1:8E13:84E7:E5D9 (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * If you look through the talk page, you'll see that I've tried to make these points abundantly clear to Wjrz on numerous occasions. His philosophy seems to be precedent and consensus don't matter, he'll do whatever he wants. I don't think he's being malicious, just stubborn. But if no other editor comes here and argues his section should remain, I think it should be deleted by the end of the week. --Woko Sapien (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
 * By my tally, of the editors who participated in this thread, there are four in favor of deleting to one in favor of keeping. Since no other editors endorsed Wjrz's section, I think it's safe to say the consensus is to delete. I will do that at some point today. --Woko Sapien (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry everyone for being absent the past few weeks. I have been doing other edits. Yes, it’s clear consensus shows that this does not belong. I will not revert it for this reason. I was attempting to make a bold edit but it’s clear consensus was against this. I am trying to find a way to incorporate this information which I believe is useful, but of course everyone’s opinion matters. I am not sure why User:Woko Sapien previously made assumptions on what type of editor I am, especially since I have listened to them before and I took their advice (using their as a non-gender specific pronoun) but I do respect Wikipedia policy and I want to make it better and try bold edits, even if they are reverted. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Libertarian Party "Seats Needed" and Infobox
Hi all - so my edits keep getting undone - so perhaps we need another discussion here - as per the above I don't think it's needed so was going to remove - please can you illustrate whether you support or oppose this course of action Guyb123321 (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.
This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding Libertarian Party information. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "2020 United States House of Representatives elections". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 18:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer)


 * link to archive of discussion Carter (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

John Mason is Running in Minnesota's District 5 But Isn't Listed
Democrat John Mason is a primary challenger in Minnesota's District 5 according to his website at https://johnmasonmn.com/ but he is not listed among the candidates. I don't know if he filed to run, but a candidate's own site should be a valid source about something basic and factual like the office he or she is running for. I am not saying to get anything else from his site. EvanJ35 (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Where are the independent candidates?
Title says it. I find it hard to believe there aren't any independents in the House or running for any House seats