Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 18

Most votes ever cast sentence bias
In the first paragraph, we find the following sentence:

"Biden received the most votes ever cast for a presidential candidate in an American election, beating Barack Obama's record, as did Trump."

This seems to place bias in favor of Biden. As Biden is shown to be the winner of the election earlier in the paragraph, perhaps

"Biden and Trump each surpassed Barack Obama's record of the most votes ever cast for a presidential candidate in an American election."

would be better; attempting to show equal footing for the two major candidates. LuciusAreliusVerus (talk) 13:08, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree it can be worded better to convey that both Biden and Trump surpassed Obama's record for most votes, however I do think Biden should ultimately get a specific mention in the sentence considering that he is going to end up with the actual record total once all votes are counted. So for example something like "Biden's total of [insert final vote count here] is the most votes cast for a presidential candidate in an American election, with both Biden and Trump surpassing Barack Obama's record of 69.5 million in 2008." I wonder if we could also tie this sentence in with a sentence about the election's record breaking turnout, once the votes are counted and the final turnout percentage is known? Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 13:42, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We should say Biden and Harris received the most votes ever cast in an American presidential election. They couldn't have and did not tie for first place alone. Of course the news outlets that called her "unelectable" this summer may still favour Biden in word choice now, but facts are Wikipedia's thing, not preference. InedibleHulk (talk) 02:19, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Candidate table
There are some inconsistencies in the table: Heitordp (talk) 12:00, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Joe McHugh and Kyle Kopitke had more ballot access than some of the candidates listed. Should they be included too?
 * 2) Princess Khadijah and Cancer Scott had the same ballot access as Mark Charles and Joseph Kishore, although they had less write-in access. Should they be included too? What criteria should be used for inclusion in the table? Should write-in access be considered at all? The text above the table also needs to change accordingly.
 * 3) The Birthday Party was not a real political party, it was only a label that Kanye West invented and it was listed on the ballot only in Louisiana, which allows labels freely. A similar situation occurs with Brock Pierce, who used label Freedom and Prosperity only in Louisiana, and Jade Simmons, who used label Becoming One Nation only in Louisiana and in Wisconsin's write-in list. Should those candidates' labels be included, or should we mark all of them as independent? Should Kanye West's label be treated differently because it includes the word party? In addition, Brock Pierce was listed with political parties in two states, Gloria La Riva and Rocky De La Fuente were listed with different parties in some states, and Donald Trump and Joe Biden were listed with additional minor parties in New York. Should any of these parties be mentioned in notes?
 * 4) Should we add colors to other political parties such as Bread and Roses and Approval Voting? Should we add different colors also to each independent candidate?
 * 5) Rocky De La Fuente's two vice presidential candidates are listed in separate rows, but Gloria La Riva's and Jade Simmons's alternative vice presidential candidates are mentioned only in notes. Is there a reason to split only the first case? Is it because Kanye West was also a presidential candidate? Also, his home state in the vice presidential column is shown as Illinois but in the presidential column as Wyoming. He had residences in both states but voted in Wyoming and ran his campaign from there.
 * 6) Rocky De La Fuente lives in California, Bill Hammons lives in Texas, and Adrian Wallace lives in Kentucky.
 * 7) Dario Hunter's party is the Oregon Progressive Party. I suggest keeping the name in the table as simply Progressive but adding a wikilink.
 * 8) The hyphen in vice-presidential, in the table header, is more common in British spelling. I suggest removing the hyphen.
 * Currently, the inclusion criteria is "Any candidate with ballot access (not write-in) who has a Wikipedia page or is the nominee of a party with a Wikipedia page is in the table". I would suggest changing that to be consistent with Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election, with an exception for Jade Simmons as she is in the ballot access table, meaning that Segal, Huber, Charles and Kishore would be removed.


 * I would support using the colours over at the Third-party page for candidates in the table.


 * No objections to fixing home states, or the hyphen.


 * Not sure on the Hunter Oregon Progressive link, since he was also on the ballot in Colorado.


 * With the whole De La Fuente-West situation, Peltier officially withdrew from the vice-presidential nomination, so I don't think that that situation is comparable. Maybe Simmons should have a two-colspan as well, but her alternative vp only had write-in access in Florida so I doubt it is necessary. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:09, 6 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for explaining the current criteria. Based on that, Tom Hoefling and Jesse Ventura would have to be added too, but I prefer your suggestion. The criteria in the minor candidate article is to have ballot access to more than 15 electoral votes, while in the ballot access table it's to have ballot access in more than one state and ballot plus write-in in most states. I'll combine both for the candidate table.
 * You're right, Dario Hunter was listed in Colorado as simply Progressive. I also agree that the other vice presidential candidates are not comparable to Kanye West because they withdrew or only had write-in access. However, Kanye West was listed for vice president by the American Independent Party, not the Alliance Party, so the party row should be split too. And what do you think about item 3 above? Heitordp (talk) 14:04, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Once the final results are in, 2020_United_States_presidential_election should be consistent with 2016_United_States_presidential_election, which has a threshold of 0.05% of the popular vote or electoral votes received. It should not list each person who received zero coverage in the media and less than one vote in two thousand. Ballot access is undue. Reywas92Talk 08:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I second that. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:47, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. The other criteria are temporary. Heitordp (talk) 02:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Central issues of the election
Hi everybody, what do you think about inserting this paragraph in the head of the article?

"Central issues of the election included the impact of the ongoing COVID-19 pandemic, which has left more than 230,000 Americans dead, as well as its economic impact; protests in reaction to the police killing of George Floyd and others; the confirmation of Amy Coney Barrett to the Supreme Court, after the death of Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg; Trump's withdrawal from the Paris Agreement; and Biden arguing for protecting and expanding the Affordable Care Act, with Trump pushing for its repeal."

I ping Basil the Bat Lord, who wanted to start a discussion about that, and Davide King, who thanked me for the edit which was later reverted by Basil :) -- Nick.mon (talk) 17:13, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * @Nick.mon Please see the discussion further up on this page. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:09, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Should Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania really be shaded blue on the map?
I don’t think these 3 states should be shaded for Biden, in light of the fact that Trump is/has been litigating the result in these 3 states. I’m not sure if there will be an appeal for the Michigan results, and unless there is no appeal within the next couple of weeks, I don’t think it should be called either way, at least at the moment. There could be an appeal, even up to SCOTUS, so I think it’s best if they are shaded grey, like the states that haven’t been called for either side.AlJenko98 (talk) 01:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * we do not call results, we simply report what media sources are saying. In this case, every major news source (AP, CNN, NBC, CBS, Fox) has called Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania for Biden. Therefore, they are showed as being for Biden. Thanks, SixulaTalk 01:16, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree with User:Sixula, we cite to what major news sources are reporting and it is undisputed that all the major news sources are reporting. It appears only one news source is disputing the results and at most should have a citation in the article explaining the counterargument. Jurisdicta (talk) 03:56, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What source are you speaking of? Nojus R (talk) 04:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC)`
 * Newsmax (https://www.newsmax.com/), see cnn.com/2020/11/08/media/conservative-media-trump-reliable/index.html Jurisdicta (talk) 04:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * File:ElectoralCollege2020_with_results.svg goes by what ABC News, CNN, Fox News, New York Times, NPR, Politico, and Reuters. (Plus, there was talk of using AP as well, but they don't publish their own electoral maps; instead they sell access to the API from what I can tell.)  Newsmax, was given a no consensus as a source, but this does not read as "Generally reliable" to me.  --Super Goku V (talk) 04:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that articles like this should make it clear that my opinion is Newsmax belongs in the "Generally unreliable" side of things, but even so I did find Newsmax's electoral maps. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin are all called for Biden.  (So far as I can tell, their map is currently the same as ABC News, CNN, New York Times, and Reuters.)  I don't think Newsmax matters with regards to the map.  --Super Goku V (talk) 04:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * We went through this stuff 4 years ago, when folks wouldn't accept Trump's election. As others have said, we go by the sources. GoodDay (talk) 04:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Ohio
Should we mention how this could be the first time since 1960 that Ohio hasn't gone to the winner?  Cards   84664   15:22, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That would be trivia to me, but its noteworthiness could be argued. I would mention one line and that's it. Admanny (talk) 15:34, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It could definitely go into the Ohio 2020 elections article.NightFire19 (talk) 16:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Ohio's status as a bellwether is discussed a lot during presidential elections. Of the 204 presidential elections Ohio has participated in, it has only voted for the losing candidate three times, so I'd say it is noteworthy. BWellsOdyssey (talk) 17:21, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Where are you getting 204 presidential elections?--Khajidha (talk) 18:57, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't things like this are noteworthy. They are used as a predictor of the result, but in this case they are wrong. Statistically speaking it is meaningless.--Jack Upland (talk) 02:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * And I don't see 1960 or sixty years as possessing any faint numerical oomph, as things that last happened a hundred years ago on a night like this (arguably) do. InedibleHulk (talk) 05:23, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Other Wikipedia articles on presidential elections include info on bellwethers, and elections that are first to break a bellwether. For example, the article on 2008 mentions that Obama was the first winning candidate to lose Missouri since 1956. marbeh raglaim (talk) 06:54, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not opposed to including it, since we include something similar for Missouri in the 2008 article. Prcc27 (talk) 07:40, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't oppose it, either. It's not a bad thing to learn, just far from important or useful, in context. Same goes for a lot of stuff that's already here, or in similar articles, go for it! InedibleHulk (talk) 08:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 9 November 2020
Biden electoral votes 279 -> 290, popular votes 75,551,684 -> 75,404,182, Trump popular votes 71,189,789 -> 70,903,094 (data from Associated Press) Herobrine (talk) 13:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Note: That's one source. The preponderance of other sources still reporting 279 as the electoral count as yet.  -- Jayron 32 14:10, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , we go with what the majority of WP:RS say. Thanoscar21talkcontribs 16:04, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Separate out a new section for "Post-election lawsuits"
There have been a large number of lawsuits filed related to the results and counting process of the 2020 election. These lawsuits have been filed by a number of parties (mostly the Trump campaign), in a number of states, and on a wide variety of issues. Regardless of the eventual outcome of these cases, they are a notable facet of post-electon events and have been covered widely by reliable sources, though each individual lawsuit may not have been covered by all possible sources. It would be useful to have the relevant lawsuits enumerated or discussed in a way that is convenient for the reader and not mixed with other post-election events.

There are reliable sources on each of these lawsuits and some of them are already presented in the article as it exists now (in the "Election night aftermath" section). While this is good, there is enough material in the "aftermath" section for it to stand on its own without the lawsuit information. It is logical to separate the legal material into a new section and add to it discussion of the lawsuits which are not currently covered in the article. Of these, I can think of at least one lawsuit regarding Pennsylvania (concerning late-arriving mail-in ballots) and one regarding Nevada (concerning counting of ballots with certain "smudges"). I am sure that there are others which I have missed or which have not yet been filed.

My suggestion would be to list the sections in "Voting Process and Results" in the following order: "Election night" -> "Counting continues after election night" -> "Election calls" -> "Post-election lawsuits" -> "Election protests" -> etc.

104.13.110.123 (talk) 16:22, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Potential for annulment of results
The incumbent president is planning to challenge the election results in court. If the Supreme Court rules in favor of the incumbent, under "Elected President" the phrase "Election results annulled, Donald Trump remains president" must be added and the EV total must be changed to accommodate the court decision. This election has the potential to be the second annulled election in two years; the 2018 North Carolina's 9th congressional district election was annulled in January 2019. We are potentially going to see that election repeated on a national scale, which has never happened before. J4lambert (talk) 14:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia does not call results. If Trump wins the court case despite it being very unlikely then the article will be changed. I do recall seeing yesterday that the NYT gives Trump a 10% of winning the presidency, so there is still a possible chance. However for the most part it is unlikely and literally every media organisation is calling it for Biden. The media does not call the results of the election but the fact that literally every outlet is calling it for Biden makes a clear and consice point. Wikipedia does not get to decide who the president is and we instead rely on the media and source our information from there. A lot of the media thinks Donald Trump is using SCOTUS as a PR stunt to create a press narative than actually trying to win the election. I also see that you used the word "potential" over there. There is a "potential" that the world would end tommorow however I dont think that deserves a Wikipedia article. I can see where you are coming from and if events does turn out to change then it will get changed but the chances are too low. Haris920 (talk) 15:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The incumbent President often does a lot of heretofore unseen things. Unless and until something actually changes, I see no reason to change the current formatting of the text of this article indicating Biden as the President elect.  If something unusual actually does happen, we will actually change the text after it happens.  But not before.  -- Jayron 32 16:00, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The most likely outcome that is going to happen as a result of annulled results in Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin is that Trump would order the state legislatures in those states to appoint loyal electors who would vote for Trump. In the last 4 states, Democratic governors control the government but the state legislature is either controlled by Republicans or is nonpartisan in nature. The first two states have Republican governors and therefore would be able to send Trump loyal electors with legislative approval. Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin have Republican legislatures and Democratic governors, which would disqualify a total of 46 electors from Biden's total. Under this scenario, 27 or 35 electors would be switched to Trump and those 46 electors would remain uncounted, pushing both candidates totals to below 270. A contingent election would be required in this case. Now you think everyone says that each representative gets one vote and that Nancy Pelosi picks the president. However, the constitution states each state gets one vote; California gets the same amount of votes as Montana and the Republicans control more state congressional cohorts than the Democrats. This would enable Trump to remain president despite losing this election. Newsweek published an article in July about this debacle that our country is about to follow. J4lambert (talk) 16:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Electoral vote totals in sections 6.6 and 6.7
The candidate table and results by state table currently state the number of electoral votes each candidate is projected to receive, but they do not note that these are not official totals that could change once electors actually vote in December (especially after seeing how many faithless electors there were in 2016). While I think the information is valuable and should be included, I think we should clarify somewhere in those sections that these numbers are projections (similar to how the article infobox currently says "Projected electoral vote" instead of "Electoral vote"). Thoughts? RunningTiger123 (talk) 17:26, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. ✅ Prcc27 (talk) 19:33, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Naming conventions on candidate table
In the candidate table (section 6.6) the presidential candidates and vice presidential candidates for the Democratic and Republic parties have their middle names listed while third party candidates in general do not.

in various other places in the article Joe Biden, Donald Trump, Kamala Harris, and Mike Pence are named without their middle name (and the title of the articles for each of these people is just their first and last name). I think these four are notable enough under their short name (first name, last name) that inclusion of middle names is unnecessary unless a candidate is regularly called by that name (e.g. Donald J. Trump)
 * I agree. I changed them to their common names. Heitordp (talk) 02:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

First time a party has held the White House for one term since Carter
"This was the first election since 1992 in which an incumbent president failed to win re-election to a second term"

It should also be noted that this is the first time that a party has held the White House for one term since Jimmy Carter for the Democrats.

The one problem that George H.W. Bush had coming into the 1992 campaign was that he was a President who had followed on from a member of his party Ronald Reagan who had served for two terms.

This was a problem that neither Carter nor Trump had when they lost.49.3.72.79 (talk) 17:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

It is not trivia it is about how long people waited until they voted for change since Carter - 12 years for Reagan and George H.W. Bush, 8 each for Clinton, George W. Bush and Obama and finally only 4 for Trump. There is also the fact of the 22nd amendment which prevents anyone from running for a third term. That is why Reagan could not run and H.W. Bush did and won in 1988 and why it added to the total of 12 years of Republican control of the White House. That is why because of 12 years H.W. Bush lost as a one-term president in 1992 because Clinton made a strong case for change.49.3.72.79 (talk) 05:48, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that one political party failed to be elected to a second consecutive presidential term may be more notable -- certainly it's a less recent occurrence -- but I don't think we should be filling the article lead with trivia, so this election should be compared to either the 1992 election or 1980 election but not both. I think it's easier to convey that "the incumbent failed to win a second term" though if we want to keep the trivia concise. Corporal (talk) 05:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It may be worth mentioning in the Presidency of Donald Trump article, but probably not here. -- Jayron 32 12:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

That would be good mentioning it in that other article but I still think it should be mentioned here as well otherwise it gives a misleading impression that George H.W. Bush had the same difficulty in achieving re-election than Trump did. Bush did not, his task was much harder in that he had the difficult task in making a case to the people to extend Republican rule to the total of 16 years.49.3.72.79 (talk) 15:11, 9 November 2020 (UTC) From the 1980 election article: "Also, Carter was the first incumbent Democrat to serve only one full term since James Buchanan and lose re-election since Martin Van Buren; Grover Cleveland served two non-consecutive terms while Harry Truman and Lyndon B. Johnson served one full term in addition to respectively taking over following the deaths of Franklin D. Roosevelt and John F. Kennedy."
 * Like most other factoids about the election, unless this is receiving significant coverage already, we should wait a bit and see what the WP:RSes focus on in terms of what's important about this one. --Aquillion (talk) 23:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

All that was stated without the citation, which isn't needed, can be included in that article, then what I had asked to be included in the 2020 article shouldn't be a difficult ask.

The fact that certain things have not been said in sources does not make it untrue. It just mean that the writers concerned hadn't thought if it.

Wikipedians should be able to make their own assessments without checking to see whether it has been stated from outside source(s) and don't quote me Wikipedia rules as I don't feel that you are getting what I am saying.

At least one media outlet I know of does not give Wikipedia any credence. If that is the attitude to Wikipedia from the media in general then I don't see Wikipedia owes them any favours. 49.3.72.79 (talk) 06:14, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Using different color for contested states
I would propose using a different color for states the Trump Campaign is filing legal suits in. Regardless of ones opinion on the merit of the challenges, they should be represented on the map for accuracy of current events. My other option would be keeping them their current color but adding an identifier on the map to show they are contested BlackBird1008 (talk) 23:58, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Can you provide examples of reliable sources which are doing the same thing? 109.159.88.9 (talk) 00:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are plenty of reliable sources highlighting the legal challenges. It would add value to the article to identify them on the map in one location, or as one user said, in the litigation section. As they come and go it can be updated BlackBird1008 (talk) 01:46, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose. But maybe we could add a separate map in the litigation section. Prcc27 (talk) 00:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, just another proposal with no basis in reality. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:06, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: Having them on the litigation section, maybe. Having them on the actual top map, no way. All WP:RS have called these states (unless they haven't, then grey) and having them a different colour is WP:OR and doesn't follow WP:RS, not to mention WP:UNDUE. Thanks, SixulaTalk 02:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose, per Sixula. Herbfur (talk) 02:27, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There is only a handful of states that Trump campaign has filed lawsuits and are not map-noteworthy. Regardless, there is only a tiny amount of votes at stake in those lawsuits compared to massive margins. Admanny (talk) 02:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I can respect that, I disagree on the fact of accuracy. Just because the media is calling a race and ignoring a topic doesn’t mean we shouldn’t include all facts. BlackBird1008 (talk) 02:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is an encyclopedia, not a news source. We don't include original research and simply summarize what the reliable sources say. Nojus R (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Strong Oppose - this has already been addressed above. Reliable sources are not ambiguous about the winners of the states they called. --WMSR (talk) 04:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Both - Mostly opposing as File:ElectoralCollege2020 with results.svg should only be about who won the states until December, when it will be updated with how the pledged electors voted. However, the 2004 presidential election article has a section called 'Election controversies' along with a map of the number of problems reported in each state.  If a similarly named section, a new section named 'Trump challenges' (or similar) or a new sub-section of the existing 'Voting process and results' is created, then I would support User:BlackBird1008 making a map of states where the Trump campaign is suing.  --Super Goku V (talk) 10:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump's own people won't challenge election results
For convenience with my cellphone, these tweets lead to more info from RS:
 * https://twitter.com/RachelAbramsNY/status/1325934210612342785
 * https://twitter.com/ryanjreilly/status/1325942262476517376
 * https://twitter.com/rgoodlaw/status/1325989117231063041
 * https://twitter.com/NoahBookbinder/status/1325992042196070401
 * https://twitter.com/ktbenner/status/1325987873330487297
 * This is a five-alarm fire

Valjean (talk) 05:44, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Per Anderson Cooper in that last "newsletter", "Anecdotes from people on social media is not evidence" (emphasis Brian Stelter's). That aside, you seem to be missing a whole case here. What do you want our own people to do with this infodump, articlewise? InedibleHulk (talk) 06:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can't do much with cellphone right now. Experienced editors know what to do with info from the RS (which is not the tweets). There is no rush. -- Valjean (talk) 06:37, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The tweets show some relevant quotes to cite. Start there and read more from the RSes. -- Valjean (talk) 06:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm a Master Editor IV, and I have no idea what you want us to do with this. Relevant to what, quotes about/by whom, which section? Does the talk show Reliable Sources count as an RS, or am I supposed to find the right link within its "newsletter"? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Are you pointing at Trump person William Barr saying "specious, speculative, fanciful or far-fetched claims should not be a basis for initiating federal inquiries"? Prosecution firm Porter Wright Morris & Arthur alleging "irregularities" in Pennsylvania voting? "I must regretfully resign", Richard Pilger? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Barr is Trump's ally in lying about unproven massive voting fraud. He's asking the DOJ to go fishing, IOW he's pushing Trump's conspiracy theories without having evidence, and Pilger and the lawyers are saying "Hell no. Don't misuse us in your specious crusade." That's the gist of what's happening. -- Valjean (talk) 07:40, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * So because Trump's people are preparing to challenge, and those opposed are stepping down or away in dismay, your headline predicts Trump's own won't challenge? Which quote from which lawyer did you paraphrase "Hell no" or "specious crusade" from? Didn't you say some quotes themselves were relevant? InedibleHulk (talk) 07:54, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Direct links to the articles: Growing Discomfort at Law Firms Representing Trump in Election Lawsuits - The New York Times, Barr Hands Prosecutors the Authority to Investigate Voter Fraud Claims - The New York Times -- Related articles that might contain more information to use: Trump campaign lawyers worry about pushing lawsuits that could undermine election: report - The Hill, Barr tells prosecutors to investigate 'vote irregularities' despite lack of evidence - The Guardian, Barr OK for election-fraud investigations roils Justice Department - Politico, DOJ's top election crimes prosecutor quits in protest after Barr tells federal attorneys to probe unsupported allegations of voting irregularities - CNN, DOJ's election crimes chief resigns after Barr directs prosecutors to probe voter fraud claims - NBC News. Personally, I think there is something that can be added to the article, but the only current things to add would be a sentence about Barr's memo and a sentence about the resignation since nothing else has occurred yet as far as I can see. --Super Goku V (talk) 09:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That seems reasonable. InedibleHulk (talk) 10:08, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

FAQ created
Based on the clear pattern of questions from new users and IP editors, I WP:BOLDly created Talk:2020 United States presidential election/FAQ. Please modify or update as needed. My goal was to reduce energy and time repeating the same information.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The situation is still very fluid at present moment and I don't think the FAQ would come that handy but nonetheless useful (for now). Admanny (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

A point was brought up at WP:ERRORS whether the election refers to the Nov general election, or does it also include the Electoral College vote in December. That could give background on the 2nd sentence of the lead currently reading "The Democratic ticket of former vice president Joe Biden and U.S. senator from California Kamala Harris defeated the Republican ticket of incumbent president Donald Trump and vice president Mike Pence." It would seems like it refers to the Nov election, as the lead sentence reads: "The 2020 United States presidential election was the 59th quadrennial presidential election held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020."—Bagumba (talk) 11:51, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

How are state prediction sites chosen?
How are the firms used for showing the outcome predictions chosen? IIRC, in the past Princeton Election Consortium has come very close to a correct prediction, but they are not included. Apologies if this methodology is easily accessible on the wiki; I can't seem to find it. LuciusAreliusVerus (talk) 13:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It's not an official process. On Wikipedia, there seems to be a discussion at . —Bagumba (talk) 13:31, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Total of electors
Hi everybody, I'm french and I have to say it's very difficult for foreigners to understand how the whole process works... Especially hard to get is why it takes so long to have the results. For example, Alaska still lags at 56% after a week ! But the main incomprehensible thing for me is the total of electors. They are 538. At this point you write 279 for Biden and 214 for Trump, total is thus 493 (which you write as well on this page). But the only missing are Alaska (3) and Georgia (16), it means 19. And 493 + 19 = 512 !!! What about the other 26 ??? Thanks a lot for helping me !!! Jagellon (talk) 20:46, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You forgot about Arizona (11) and North Carolina (15). 512+26=538. Nojus R (talk) 20:47, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The confusion was probably because someone added Arizona and North Carolina to the table of results by state and didn't update the total. I removed these states as they haven't been projected by many (or any) sources yet. Heitordp (talk) 21:15, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , don't feel bad. The proces is difficult for us natives to understand. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:18, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The process is difficult for some lawyers to understand. —valereee (talk) 14:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

RFC on newly redacted portions of the Mueller report
Should the following be appended to the Foreign interference §?

For relevance, pls see my comment in Discussion, below.

Humanengr (talk) 17:33, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Survey

 * No It's about the 2016 election. power~enwiki ( π, ν ) 17:39, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Pls see my comment in Discussion below. Thx, Humanengr (talk) 17:50, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No Not unless there's any evidence that this has any impact. It seems to belong on Mueller report, not here. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:03, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Has the criterion of evidence that this has any impact rather than straightforward relevance been applied to anything else in this article? Humanengr (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No Does not appear pertinent to this election cycle. KidAd   talk  19:13, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It seems that experts anticipated (see points #6 and 7 in Discussion below) the Mueller investigation (of which this is part-and-parcel) would, in fact, be pertinent to this election cycle. Humanengr (talk) 20:16, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * No, completely irrelevant to the election, also the quote you added to the article previously was not the quote that was actually in the article. While I do not wish to throw aspersions, I must call into question the motives of Humanegr in this particular situation, given he, as far as I can tell, made up a quote and added it to the article. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:02, 3 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Link please Humanengr (talk) 22:04, 3 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Yes Reliable sourcing below and in the thread two above clearly believe that this may have an effect on voters in the 2020 election, even though the report is about the 2016 election. I do not think it is of monumental importance, but given the importance of the Muller Report in general, the inclusion of the report in the article already, and the length (or lack there of) of this proposed addition, I think this is perfectly weighted for the article. Przemysl15 (talk) 03:01, 4 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, obviously. Coverage connecting this to the election is too slight to justify inclusion here.  If we included every single news item that anyone tangentially brought up as an argument related to the election in the immediate runup to it, we would have every news item from the month before the election listed. --Aquillion (talk) 20:08, 6 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I'm not seeing good enough evidence that it had any impact on the 2020 election whatsoever. I follow this stuff VERY closely and in fact was unaware until reading this Talk page.  This is really just a coda on 2016. Denzera (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No. Fails verification. The passages didn't indicate anything about what prosecutors could or could not establish. R2 (bleep) 17:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion
Relevance to this article is indicated by this July AP analysis:

and by the following points from this earlier VOA article, in particular, points #6 and 7: Humanengr (talk) 17:49, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged irregularities in the 2020 United States Presidential election
You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Alleged irregularities in the 2020 United States Presidential election. — Bilorv ( talk ) 20:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction in introduction
The following two sentences in the introduction contradict each other:
 * The Democratic ticket of former vice president Joe Biden and U.S. senator from California Kamala Harris defeated the Republican ticket of incumbent president Donald Trump and vice president Mike Pence.
 * Voters selected presidential electors of the Electoral College who in turn will vote on December 14, 2020, to elect the new president and vice president.

The second sentence contradicts the first as it indicates that no winner has been chosen in the 2020 United States presidential election yet, as the election won't occur until 14 December 2020, while the first statement says that the election already happened and Joe Biden has already defeated Donald Trump. I should also point out that the first sentence has no sources, while the second sentence is sourced. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 03:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * They're both correct. The voters in each state select the slate of electors that their state sends to vote in the Electoral College. The Biden-Harris ticket has garnered enough pledged electoral votes (More than 270) to win the majority of the Electoral College and win the election. Herbfur (talk) 04:00, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * While 33 states have laws that punish faithless electors for not voting for the candidate that they pledged to vote, that is not true in all 50 states, most notably Pennsylvania and Georgia. And so there is actually nothing preventing for the Republican Party controlled states in Georgia or Pennsylvania to convince its electors to vote for (or amend its electoral rules such that they choose electors that would vote for) Donald Trump instead of Joe Biden on 14 December 2020, at odds with the state's popular vote. One more faithless elector from another state with no laws on faithless electors, such as Illinois or New York, who switches their vote from Joe Biden to another candidate on 14 December 2020 would leave Joe Biden with only 269 electoral votes, which would result in a contingent election. So until 14 December 2020 and the electoral vote, it is not guaranteed that the Biden-Harris ticket would win the election. This scenario of course would yield a constitutional crisis in the United States considering the precedent for the past century, but looks to be absolutely legal in the United States today, and the Republican Party under Donald Trump looks to be breaking with precedent and headed in that direction with its recent actions in the past week. 73.168.5.183 (talk) 04:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The Democratic and Republican parties each appoint their own sets of electors. Brad (talk) 07:21, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The scenarios you describe as "possible" are so fantastical that they have never before happened in 230+ years of Presidential elections. I see no reason to change the language of this article because some weird event, which has almost zero chance of happening except in your imagination, may happen for the first time this year.  The article reports the results of elections in the same way that all elections have been reported by every reliable source in the past, as well as by every reliable source this year currently writing about this election, your weird little fantasies about how the electoral college would somehow go rogue this one year notwithstanding.  This is how elections are written about, and we will not change this one article because you say we should.  -- Jayron 32 16:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Your argument seems to be based on your own speculations as to what could happen with the Electoral College vote. This is clearly in violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Even then, these speculations are very unlikely. Even with the 279 Electoral Votes that Biden has won, it would require the most faithless electors in recent (if not all of) American History to overturn the election results. Biden is on track to win 306 Electoral Votes, which makes any scenario of faithless electors changing the outcome (which has never happened) even less likely. Appointing a separate slate of electors, after the people have voted, has also never happened. In ~1800, legislatures did change the elector appointment methods when they learned that the people were likely to vote for the other candidate, but that's a far cry from actually reversing the results of an already-completed election, and would employ a method not used since the 1840s. These are just fringe ideas that have almost no chance of occurring, even disregarding WP:CRYSTAL. Let's leave the speculation out of the encyclopedia. Herbfur (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics reverses Pennsylvania call
RealClearPolitics, which is often cited as authoritative by media during presidential campaigns regarding its opinion polling averages, has reversed the call of Pennsylvania and now displays the present result as Biden 259 - Trump 214 with four states still uncalled. https://www.realclearpolitics.com/elections/live_results/2020/president/

Some of their reasoning here: https://www.realclearpolitics.com/articles/2020/11/10/the_media_should_not_have_called_this_election_144624.html

Should this be relevant towards whether this article displays a "certain" result in Pennsylvania, seeing as court challenges are ongoing? Also note that if mail-in ballots are rejected as invalid at the same rate that normally occurs (around 1-2% of mail-in ballots in recent elections are rejected) that alone could alter the outcome.  85.144.218.248 (talk) 15:39, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is inaccurate, they never called PA. As for that opinion piece: The author "was nominated by President Trump to serve as U.S. labor secretary. He is the author of "The Capitalist Comeback: The Trump Boom and the Left's Plot to Stop It." I don't think this should change anything we're doing here. Sam Walton (talk) 15:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This is false. RealClearPolitics never called Pennsylvania. Carter (talk) 15:49, 10 November 2020 (UTC) (sorry, overlapped with 's posting.
 * Besides the objections noted above, this is one source. Even if we concede that this source is as reliable as any other, a preponderance of the rest of the reliable sources still have Pennsylvania going to Biden.  Unless and until the rest of the sources also say Pennsylvania went to Trump (or whatever), we should continue to report what most others are reporting.  -- Jayron 32 15:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The current consensus is to add a state to the map once the following media outlets unanimously project a state: AP, Reuters, CNN, Fox News, ABC, NBC, CBS, BBC, NPR, PBS, New York Times, Wall Street Journal, Politico, Bloomberg, Los Angeles Times, USA Today, Washington Post, and the Guardian. That being said, I'm not necessarily opposed to adding RealClearPolitics to our list of sources (we would probably want to add The Cook Political Report too though). I disagree with Jayron32. If we do include RCP in our criteria, Pennsylvania would be removed from the map and infobox given that the current consensus is to add a state when the media unanimously call a state. Prcc27 (talk) 16:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you point to that consensus please? I've read this page through several times, and I don't see it.  I may have missed it, however.  -- Jayron 32 16:47, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * This was discussed at the RFC. Prcc27 (talk) 17:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I read that discussion. I don't see half of the sources, or more, that you listed above mentioned in that discussion.  -- Jayron 32 17:45, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I thought you were asking about the consensus to only add a state when there is unanimous agreement. The discussion on which sources to use was archived by a user, so I would check the archives. The section is called Election Night Prep. Prcc27 (talk) 17:57, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am unarchiving this discussion. Just because a user made a false claim (perhaps in good faith), doesn't mean the entire discussion has to be shut down. Plus, do we really want to clutter the talk page with even more discussions..? While it may be false that RCP didn't reverse a PA call, it is true that they still haven't called PA yet. Prcc27 (talk) 19:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * My opinion is that we should come to a consensus on what race callers to use before implementing anything. I don't know much about RCP's procedures and I certainly haven't heard of them as a reliable/notable race caller before. I think it would be best if we used the Outlets listed here. These are the major outlets, and I think we'd be running into a notability problem if we keep adding more and more race callers. Herbfur (talk) 20:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * RCP is not in our list of reliable sources, and that is for a damn good reason. This is an organisation that said both Connecticut and Indiana were lean states, they are not reliable enough for this sort of thing. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:38, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I looked into it and it doesn't look like RCP meets the standards of WP:VERIFIABILITY. It seems like it's a self published source with no oversight, so I don't think we should be using it to call races. Herbfur (talk) 20:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Jumping the gun?
The voting is over. One side has come out victorious in the count. The other side has disputed the counting, as per the statutory provisions in the US election codes.

So, the election result is still under dispute.

Let the dispute get settled, through the statutory procedures. Till then, it would be most unwise to proclaim anyone as the winner.

Why should Wikipedia jump the gun? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2409:4073:309:B47F:7DD3:B9D5:4C82:7BAB (talk) 10:17, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and almost all of then state that Biden has won and that any legal challenges have little chance of success. If sources state Biden is the winner, then that's what we state.  You are free to believe as you wish. 331dot (talk) 10:20, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The BBC here calls Mr Biden "US President-elect", but states "his win remains a projection as key states still count votes". It gets its lead from CBS:, , , and  all state "projected" win. Bazza (talk) 13:36, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The CBS sources are from a few hours after the projection on Saturday. By now, even they are in line with the preponderance of other sources, which are calling him the unqualified president elect.  For example This story doesn't mention "projected" or "presumptive" or any other similar word in the text (though links to Saturday's early stories do).  That leaves the BBC standing alone in hedging.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 14:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The BBC doesn't hedge: it takes its lead from network in the National Election Pool. Not sure why you don't read what I wrote and referenced? There is no issue about Mr Biden being called president-elect. There are still references (in this case CBS) which I gave above which you can visit now (as per timestamp for this entry) which state the election result is "projected". Bazza (talk) 14:41, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The new one you just added to your prior post is dated November 7. The BBC one you just posted now is dated 6 days ago.  At some time in the past, it may have been appropriate to use the "projected" language in this article.  We no longer live in that past.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:03, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Prior to this post, I have only made two others to this talk page, at 13:36 and 14:41 today; so please explain how I added to the first of those. The one I posted at 14:41 links to the BBC explanation of what "projection" means for non-US readers (like me) and clarifies that the BBC does not make any "projection" (or "hedge") itself but takes it from reliable US sources; it was, as you say, published six days ago but I fail to see how that is relevant. You're saying that the CBS articles I linked to are out of date, but I can't find out when the result became "official" (or whatever it is you call it over there) and who made that decision. Bazza (talk) 16:35, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I never said it was official. I'm merely pointing out that you have not established that the preponderance of reliable sources are using the language you wish to see inserted in the current article.  If you can establish that the preponderance of reliable sources are using the phrasing you wish to see added, we may have something.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:37, 9 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Dear pro-Trumpists, please give us a break. Trump is the loser of this election as much as all the previous losers who lost their elections. His opinion of the results is of no consequence to the way we verify facts.  The election has been called for Biden by every major media outlet, even by Fox News and the Wall Street Journal, two publications owned by Rupert Murdoch, a strong Trump supporter.  The results are not even close, certainly not the way they were with Bush v. Gore.  Your man has been called a sore loser because instead of conceding graciously, he's alleges cheating without any evidence, the way a spoiled child would throw a tantrum.  Please don't come to Wikipedia in an attempt to support his strategy, because we don't report on wild speculation. Rest assured that if verifiable facts come out related to any alleged vote fraud, we will report them when they do. Jehochman Talk 16:53, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Who is that aimed at? It looks like anyone who's trying to get some clarity on how this works. Please don't insult me by assuming you know how I would have voted in an election I am prohibited from taking part in. There are some readers and contributors to Wikipedia who, living in jurisdictions where such things are done differently, are struggling to understand your election system, in particular who decides who's won and when. I am one of them; where I live, it's up to a 93-year old expert to invite a participant to win. Bazza (talk) 17:02, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I am addressing the pro-Trumpists who visit this page. I don't know if you are one of them or not because I have no way to verify what you say.  The way it has always worked is that Wikipedia reports the consensus view of major news sources who "call" the election.  Some time next month the Electoral College will meet to formally elect the president because this is assumed to be just a custom and has not resulted in any surprises since 1876 United States presidential election, and it's very unlikely to this year either. Jehochman Talk 17:07, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. WP:DGF is a nice read. I didn't vote because I'm British, not American, and glad not to have to put up with the electoral circus we've had in our own news for some time now. Having said that, it's been interesting to follow the emerging outcome, although it's still unclear to me how the result is formally determined; I hadn't realised what looks like the formal bit isn't really. Regardless, all of my friends and neighbours think your country's decision to have Mr Biden as your new head of state for the next four years is a Good Move, and I agree with them. The other bloke is a joke, and we'd laugh at him even more if he wasn't so dangerous. Bazza (talk) 17:50, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * There are numerous legal cases ongoing regarding problems with polling. No one should call the election until the states resolve it all by 8 Dec. 71.220.219.16 (talk) 18:14, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The article states, By November 7, Biden and Harris were declared winners by all major news outlets projecting the results, including ABC, the Associated Press, CNN, Fox News, NBC, The New York Times, and Reuters, which is completely accurate. — <i style="color:#8000FF">Czello</i> 18:59, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Until the results are certified nobody one. If Trump wins in the courts this site will say that he stole the election.Guitarguy2323 (talk) 23:39, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
 * No, if there are legal arguments that persuade the courts to overturn the current results, this site will explain that and reflect it based upon how reliable sources report. Carter (talk) 00:15, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

70 percent of Republicans don’t think the election was free and fair
See here:

"After the presidential race was called for Democratic candidate Joe Biden, Republicans’ trust in the election system plummeted, while Democrats’ trust soared, according to a new POLITICO/Morning Consult poll.

Multiple new organizations announced Biden as the election winner on Saturday after four days of counting in several swing states. Following the news, 70 percent of Republicans now say they don’t believe the 2020 election was free and fair, a stark rise from the 35 percent of GOP voters who held similar beliefs before the election. Meanwhile, trust in the election system grew for Democrats, many who took to the streets to celebrate Biden’s victory on Saturday. Ninety percent of Democrats now say the election was free and fair, up from 52 percent before Nov. 3 who thought it would be.

Among Republicans who believed that the election wasn’t free and fair, 78 percent believed that mail-in voting led to widespread voter fraud and 72 percent believed that ballots were tampered with — both claims that have made a constant appearance on the president’s Twitter thread. Like President Donald Trump, a majority of the people that thought the election was unfair, 84 percent, said it benefited Biden.

The lack of trust in the election system has led to Republicans being more skeptical about the election results. Although only 18 percent of Republicans had said the results would be unreliable prior to Election Day, now 64 percent feel the same way following Biden’s victory. By contrast, 86 percent of Democrats say they trust the results.

Republicans were particularly wary of the results coming out of swing states, especially in Pennsylvania, which counted votes for four days before delivering Biden a decisive win on Saturday. Sixty-two percent of Republicans said the Pennsylvania results would be unreliable, a stark contrast to the 8 percent of Democrats who held the same beliefs.

Distrust is similarly high in Wisconsin (55 percent), Nevada (54 percent), Georgia (54 percent) and Arizona (52 percent). The skepticism has particularly been fueled by the Trump campaign, which has filed more than half a dozen lawsuits in states like Pennsylvania, Nevada, Michigan and Georgia since Election Day. Two days after the race was called for Biden, Trump continues to tweet out that “Nevada is turning out to be a cesspool of Fake Votes” and “Pennsylvania prevented us from watching much of the Ballot count.”

However, despite their lack of trust in the results, Republicans are split on whether or not the outcome will change. Thirty-eight percent of Republicans believe the results will be overturned, while 45 percent say it’s unlikely.

The POLITICO/Morning Consult poll was conducted Nov. 6-9, surveying 1,987 registered voters. Some interviews were done before the race was called, but the majority were after the official call. The margin of sampling error is plus or minus 2 percentage points."

Count Iblis (talk) 16:52, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * What's the suggestion for incorporating this into the article, specifically? Btw, do these polls break down the numbers by day? That would be interesting (Trump looks like winning = "yeay fair elections!", then couple hours later, Trump starts to lose = "rigged!")  Volunteer Marek   16:59, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * 70% of Republicans are more than entitled to that opinion. It does not change what reliable sources have reported about the results of the election. --WMSR (talk) 17:04, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * "Entitled to their opinion" means absolutely squat. What specifically are you referring to when you say "what reliable sources have reported about the results of the election"?  Volunteer Marek   18:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The fact that a large fraction of Republicans don't accept the results should be mentioned. Acceptance of election results by the public is what makes democracy works. Count Iblis (talk) 17:13, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The devil is in the details here. We aren't putting the giant paragraph you wrote above into the article.  I think one single sentence, with in-text attribution to the specific organization and poll, and put in the appropriate section of the article, may be sufficient.  What text do you propose to add, and where do you propose to add it?  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 17:16, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Yeah, I think *something* about this should be added but I'd like to see a specific proposal.  Volunteer Marek   18:07, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I concur with the above editors, a sentence or two about this should be added, but a full paragraph is too much. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:34, 10 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Support this should be added to reflect the sentiment of Trump voters during this election as voter confidence is a big political issue this year BlackBird1008 (talk) 17:22, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

While I agree with most of the points above it would be worth it to see if any of the other presidential election articles include statistics about each party’s acceptance of the election. And if they don’t would it be worth it to add the respective statistics to each respective article (provided there are statistics of this nature in other elections). For example we add a sentence to the 2016 election displaying the sway of opinion from Hilary will win fairly to Hilary had the election stole from her. As well as display the sway of opinion that trump will be robbed to trump won fair and square. What are your opinions? CaseyP513 (talk) 22:53, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * the only objection I’d have to going back to previous election articles is that Hillary conceded and did not contest the results. This is different because neither candidate conceded and there are multiple lawsuits in multiple states specifically alleging fraud BlackBird1008 (talk) 23:10, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

That is true it is a different situation but it would still be important information pertaining to the acceptance of fair elections. Or if not all elections at least the ones with controversial results. But I see your point in this being a unusually contested election CaseyP513 (talk) 23:56, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020 (3)
change "The President voted by mail" by "The President voted in person in Florida on saturday before election day" 2A01:E35:2E1F:6BE0:E116:C01B:5BBF:F175 (talk) 22:35, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll change it - here's a reference - but please tell me where in the article this sentence occurs. -- MelanieN (talk) 00:14, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Viewership
Should the Viewership section be edited to clarify that these are Election Day numbers only? Atypically, the election results monitoring was covered on TV for several days this year, due to the long time it took to count the votes and make a call.

-KaJunl (talk) 02:46, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I think it should be clarified. It may not be obvious, for the reasons you mentioned. Herbfur (talk) 03:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton information
User:Neutrality, you recently removed information on Hillary Clinton's comments about conceding the election, declaring that such information would need consensus to be added. I agree with you, but there was consensus to add it, see Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 14. I ask that you revert that particular edit, since the article is under 1RR restrictions. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:30, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I see that this was discussed some time ago (pre-Election Day), but I don't see that there was consensus to add it. At least one participant in that discussion said that the addition "has sufficient support unless and until there are objections to that addition ." I am making such an objection now.
 * On the actual substance: this text is undue weight because Clinton's comment was mundane; she merely said that Biden should not concede on election night, given that the shift to mail-in voting means that vote-counting would take some time before results became clear (which obviously turned out to be true). In this tumultuous election, Clinton's comment strikes me as among the least important things.
 * More importantly, the placement of this content under "potential rejection of election results" inaccurately draws an equivalency between Clinton's and Trump's comments, which implicates WP:BLP. So I'm challenging this content, and I don't intend to self-revert given the lack of a prior consensus and the BLP issues involved. Tagging participants in earlier discussion:, , , . Neutralitytalk 20:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As the one who made the statement alluded to above, noting that I felt the material could be added unless and until it is objected to, I will say that the objection offere d here is well-taken. The comments made by Trump about potentially not accepting the election results are far different than the advice Clinton gave Biden about not accepting the election results, since Clinton clearly qualified her remarks by saying that concession should not come from Biden towards Trump on the night of the election.
 * Another point: with that statement made before the election results were in and being analyzed, clearly, the onus is not on Biden here to concede, since he won. And since the race has been called by many major entworks, that begs the question: is including Clinton's remarks even necessary now that Biden has been projected as the winner? Maybe Clinton's advice to Biden played into him waiting for the win, but maybe it didn't, and since there doesn't seem to be a sufficiently neutral yet reliable source post-election that verifies that Clinton's advice directly played a role in how Biden did or did not respond to the results. that changes things post-election that weren't a factor when I offered that initial opinion in the days prior to the election.
 * That being said, if the consensus determines there is a way to include this information in a wahy that satifies the concerns expressed above, I think I'd not have any qualms about supporting that consensus. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 22:42, 10 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Biden is the President-elect, so what Clinton said is trivial now. What I don't readily see in the article is that some (many?) had forecasted before election night that the counts were likely to fluctuate heavily from one candidate to another as different batches were counted (mail vs in-person day of), especially in states that did not start counting until that day.—Bagumba (talk) 08:38, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Alaska
Donald Trump has won alaska via abc news User:Rushtheeditor.
 * Yep, major networks are starting to call the state, it should be added to the electoral map and reflected in Trump's vote count. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 15:15, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 11 November 2020
popular vote count has changed according to the new york times, would like to update it. Mikeybeckjr1 (talk) 13:48, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Consensus is to update every 12 hours. Has it been 12 hours since the last update? Herbfur (talk) 16:09, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox State Count Incorrect
Based on the current map we have, if NC, AZ, and GA are considered as the uncalled states then Biden has won 23 (plus DC, NE-02), and Trump 24 (plus ME-02), not the other way around as the infobox indicates. (Assuming current leads hold, as they likely will, Biden will end with 25+DC+NE-02 and Trump with 25+ME-02) ScorpiumX (talk) 16:49, 11 November 2020 (UTC)
 * You are correct. It looks like put the 24 in the wrong field by mistake when updating Alaska's results.  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 16:52, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Oops my bad. I'm so sorry. User:Rushtheeditor

False claims of fraud section is becoming bloated
Can we please stop adding every single claim of fraud made to that section, it is already too large as it is. We should be adhering to WP:SUMMARYSTYLE here. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:58, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * It may get to the point that it deserves its own article. Until then, I think we should continue adding to it because it is a very major aspect of this election. soibangla (talk) 01:02, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 7 November 2020
According to Fox News and Politico: Arizona has been called for Joe Biden, and Maine District 2 has been called for Donald Trump. That brings the electoral votes to 264 (Biden) - 214 (Trump). Kerim123456 (talk) 02:03, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌. Per the discussions above, the consensus is to wait for news organizations to unanimously project a winner for a state/district. Most news organizations have not called Arizona, and CNN still hasn't called ME-2. Prcc27 (talk) 02:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)
 * DDHQ just called AZ for JRB. – Illegitimate Barrister (talk • contribs), 03:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2020
Prime Minister Frank Bainimarama is the first leader to congratulate Joe Biden despite official results to be released at that time (November 7, 2020 Fiji Standard Time UTC +12).

If it does not apply here, please add it to the International reactions to the 2020 United States presidential election

Sources:

Thanks. 27.123.140.8 (talk) 06:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ The information has been added to the International reactions article, with the Guardian source. Symmachus Auxiliarus (talk) 11:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

"Procedure" section
With Trump digging in his heels, I think the "Procedure" section needs something what officially happens from here. Specifically, there is no mention of when the Electoral College votes are cast (December 14) or when they are ratified by Congress. Adpete (talk) 01:57, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅. I added a short paragraph on the procedures for the electoral college and for vote counting by the incoming congress.  -- Jayron <b style="color:#090">32</b> 16:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Consistency in results by state
States report their election results in slightly different ways:
 * Delaware doesn't explicitly show a total number of votes, but the denominator used to calculate the percentages of the four candidates on the ballot includes only those four candidates. It has a separate table of write-in votes, without percentages. It doesn't report invalid votes (blank and overvotes).
 * Oklahoma and South Carolina show the total number of valid votes, used to calculate the percentage of each candidate. They don't report invalid votes.
 * South Dakota only shows the number of votes of each candidate. It doesn't show total votes, invalid votes, or percentages.
 * Vermont includes invalid votes in the total and uses it as the denominator to calculate the percentage of each candidate.
 * Wyoming shows the number of votes of each candidate and invalid votes. It doesn't show total votes or percentages.

So far I copied the numbers exactly as reported, with notes explaining the discrepancies. When totals and percentages were not reported, I calculated them based on total valid votes (including write-in, but not blank or overvotes). This way the numbers are not fully comparable between states, and in case of Delaware the sum of the percentages exceeds 100%. Should we use the same method for all states? This would be more consistent but the totals and percentages would be slightly different from the sources.

I also noticed that in Vermont there were a few write-in votes for candidates already listed on the ballot, such as Joe Biden or Donald Trump. Vermont election law says that these write-in votes should be merged with the standard votes, but it looks like a few were missed. Should we merge them or just mention them in a note?

For the margins, should we use negative numbers for states where Biden had fewer votes than Trump? In the tables for previous elections, all margins are with respect to the candidate who won the entire election, so they are negative in states where that candidate didn't win. I prefer using negative numbers so the table can be sorted by political party strength. Heitordp (talk) 19:53, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Note: Arizona has been called.
Note that although Fox News has called the state while some other networks have not, this is no longer a projection. The Arizona Secretary of State reports that 100% of the vote has been counted, and the margin of victory is larger than that under which the state allows a recount, so this is the final outcome. BD2412 T 04:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Arizona has been called by three separate news stations for Biden.

Fox, AP, and now Decision Desk have all called Arizona for Biden, time to update the count!SuperSaiyaMan (talk) 04:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Those are the same people that called it for Biden days ago. Let's wait for some new calls before we run with it. -- MelanieN (talk) 04:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Calls are rather irrelevant, as they merely look at the ongoing count and guess how it's going to come out when all the votes are counted. In this case, my understanding is that all the votes have now been counted. Granted, there is not yet a source reporting this development. BD2412  T 04:33, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Fox and AP called it several days ago, as did Decision Desk. About an hour ago a big bunch of votes dropped and basically put it out of reach for Trump.  I will look and see if NYT or Reuters called it yet.  I think they might be asleep and it will be called in the morning.  If one of those two get on board, we can post it. Jehochman Talk 04:36, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The networks have not called it. The Republican attorney general of Arizona said today that Trump is "very, highly unlikely" to win enough of the uncounted ballots to win the state. (suggesting that the count is NOT yet complete.) And that there is no evidence of fraud in the state. This is not yet a "call". -- MelanieN (talk) 04:41, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The statement by the Attorney General was reported at 4:30 PM EST, at which time the count was not yet complete. The Secretary of State's update of the vote count to 100% done was within the past hour or so. Of course, it does us no harm to wait until this is picked up by an actual news source. BD2412  T 04:50, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, however, Politico has also now called Arizona. BD2412  T 04:56, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * They called it on the 4th. --Super Goku V (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, the Decision Desk call was about 90 minutes ago David Baron (talk) 05:00, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Per the map in the infobox, we need ABC News, CNN, Fox News, New York Times, NPR, Politico, and Reuters to all call a state for the same candidate to add it to the map. Fox News called it the 3rd and the AP called it on the 4th, leading to NPR calling it also on the 4th as they follow the AP. Politico called it the 4th as well. That leave ABC News, CNN, the New York Times, and Reuters who have not called Arizona for either candidate as of this reply. Decision Desk HQ called it a few hours ago for Biden, but they are not part of the above group and we would still need the other four to do the same. Unless there is a discussion to decide that we can go with what the Arizona Secretary of State says, we must follow the consensus already reached on the talk page to wait until all seven call a state for the same organization.  --Super Goku V (talk) 05:09, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I would add NBC News and CBS News to your list of agencies whose calls we trust. Of course the three major networks all tend to call within minutes of each other. -- MelanieN (talk) 15:43, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * If ABC or NYTimes call it, I'd be ok with discussing changing it here. Both have been the most prudent this election. I don't see any new outlets calling arizona though .  Eve rgr een Fir  (talk) 05:19, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, it's not guaranteed that any media organisation will declare the result just because it's 100% completed. It's possible they may hold of pending legal challenges or recounts. The lead seems to be large enough that they probably will declare it if it's 100%, but the point is we still have to wait and cannot assume what they will do. Nil Einne (talk) 09:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Except, there is no chance he can win. So I support. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 13:32, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Support what? Waiting for reliable sources like ABC News, CNN, NY Times and Reuters to call it like we always do? My small comment was made as small because it was only intended to help clarify the situation to anyone confused. It doesn't matter what we as editors think about anyone's chances. What matters are what the sources are saying, and currently only half of the best ones seem to be saying Biden won Arizona. If and when sources change we follow them. We always wait for the sources, we don't lead them. Nil Einne (talk) 13:44, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * That AZ was called. --HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 16:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

This site says there's about 25k votes left to count- https://arizona.vote/ballot-progress.html Topcat777 (talk) 21:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * As I understand, about just over half of outlets have called Arizona. The consensus was for unanimity of outlets. The New York Times hasn't called it and ABC hasn't either. Let's not change anything until more calls are made, even if a winner is apparent. Herbfur (talk) 21:17, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I suppose we should assume, then, that there is a reason that other outlets have not made a call yet, and go with that. I am surprised to learn that there are still uncounted ballots, but perhaps the "100% of precincts" on the Secretary of State's website reflects some other reporting of information. BD2412  T 21:55, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Okay, now the big networks have generally called Arizona. BD2412  T 04:22, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. All networks have called the state and it should now be updated in the infobox. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:23, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Since this has been resolved, I am going to note here that I have updated the FAQ at the top of the talk page for the remaining states of Georgia and North Carolina. If someone thinks the question is not needed, then that is fine and it can be removed.  Additionally, I am not too fond of the wording, so changes to it are recommended.  --Super Goku V (talk) 04:50, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 12 November 2020 (2)
Multiple sources including Google’s version claim Biden won Arizona. All links to sources are blacklisted. 99% of votes reporting. I say we add it and say Biden has 290 votes. HurricaneTracker495 (talk) 13:23, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * we need ABC News, CNN, Fox News, New York Times, NPR, Politico, and Reuters to all call an election before we update the article. Thanks, SixulaTalk 13:29, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * (EC) This is already being discussed above where it clearly lacks consensus. But also sources which  are are black listed aren't likely to be suitable for Wikipedia. Are you using an URL shortener service or something? Google just uses AP who called Arizona over a week ago. NPR and Politico decided to follow. Fox News independently from AP even before them. The only recent notable one seems to be Decision Desk HQ, but we don't even really use them. We are waiting for New York Times, ABC News, CNN and Reuters. Nil Einne (talk) 13:30, 12 November 2020 (UTC)
 * The networks have now spoken and Arizona has been called for Biden. This is now reflected in the article. -- MelanieN (talk) 17:51, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

A fact we could add
I'm not sure if i'm doing this right... This isn't a big thing, i just thought this little fact could be added, that this is the first U.S. presidential election since 1880 where both major candidates won in an equal number of states. Demon Taka (talk) 20:28, 13 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Interesting, but ultimately a matter for trivia enthusiasts. ValarianB (talk) 20:31, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 13 November 2020
Change the electoral vote tallies for the two candidates to 306 and 232 – North Carolina and Georgia were recently called by NBC news. Kokopelli7309 (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2020 (UTC)
 * ❌ see above. Admanny (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2020 (UTC)