Talk:2020 United States presidential election in Arizona

Marking the race as called
Decision Desk HQ has just called the race for Biden. I'm going to update this to reflect that. If there's an issue, we can discuss it here, as I'm somewhat new to election articles. Cpotisch (talk) 04:42, 12 November 2020 (UTC)


 * You may want to see the related discussion at the talk page for the main 2020 election article. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 04:46, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Huge discrepancy
The elections box and results table have Biden at 49.36% and Trump at 49.06%, however the County result table has Biden at 49.22% and Trump at 48.91%.

Please correct for the right one, which I don’t know which one is right because the Arizona SOS website is down. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.243.76 (talk) 15:58, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, is the cause of the discrepancy.  The difference is in the "Other" column (and the resulting changes to percentages in all columns), which is presumably due to write-ins that were not included in the state's certified total.  --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:15, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Alright, then I will fix the totals to exclude write-ins, but still include the write-in data in the article. Election Tron (talk) 17:49, 19 January 2021 (UTC)


 * UPDATE: I decided to keep the table for the useful additional data, however I added a note above the table that explains the discrepancy so readers can understand. Election Tron (talk) 18:02, 19 January 2021 (UTC)

Do we have any coverage of the April/May 2021 audit being conducted of Maricopa ballots by Cyber Ninjas?
I'm looking at several Arizona election articles and I'm not seeing it. There's mountains of RS this is verifiable and notable. Is this because Wikipedia isn't covering this yet or because the article is in plain sight and I'm not finding it? BusterD (talk) 14:16, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think this article would be the place to cover it, but obviously the purported audit itself is controversial for a number of reasons. I think that we as a project try to avoid getting roped into publicity stunts, so I would suggest using this talk page discussion to develop proposed language to be added. BD2412  T 17:35, 5 May 2021 (UTC)
 * This is a big story, especially now that there are some Republicans calling this effort idiotic. This may need to be put into an article of its own, but for now it can remain a section within this article. Banana Republic (talk) 14:35, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would suggest moving it to the aftermath section, since it is well after the fact of the election. There are three controversial points relating to the audit that have been substantially reported in the news, which should probably be included, these being 1) the lack of experience of the firm engaged to lead the recount; 2) concerns about the use of improperly colored pens that could taint the ballots being counted; and 3) testing for bamboo on the theory that ballots smuggled from China would be made of the substance. I recall seeing rumors online that one of the ballot counters was a participant in the January 6 storming of the Capitol, but I don't know if that has been reported in reliable sources. BD2412  T 17:10, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Yes, it has. The individual is Anthony Kern. See this story in the AP. It's already in his biography, but I don't know if that needs to be in this article. Banana Republic (talk) 19:34, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I've put together a scraping of some sources on my sandbox, mostly local, which might prove useful. Sorry that they are not all completely formatted. BusterD (talk) 20:48, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I expect that when the effort concludes, either by legal process or through the auditors claiming to have completed their work, this will end up being be notable enough for its own article, which can be more detailed. BD2412  T 21:04, 10 May 2021 (UTC)
 * It all depends how quickly they can bring this audit to a conclusion. Banana Republic (talk) 01:43, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * My sense is that the how is more important than the when. If the audit is stopped early through some legal process, that will be news. If it finishes quickly and the company doing it says that it has found, for example, thousands of bamboo ballots, that will also be news. Probably the only way that it does not come out to anything is if it finishes quickly and the company says they found nothing amiss. BD2412  T 02:29, 11 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I created a draft page for the audit a while back, but I haven't done anything with it because the audit was being covered here. Do you think we should do anything with a main page?  Thanks! HailtoArizona  22:28, 14 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think we will know sooner rather than later whether any shenanigans will come to light that make this a notable event. However, as noted above, with Republican officials repudiating it, it seems unlikely that the outcome will be taken seriously no matter what is reported after that. BD2412  T 02:28, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Via reasonable calculation it seems we have already learned something reliable sources are not yet covering. The sources say 12% of the ballots were processed between April 22 and May 9. Not counting interruptions or holds, at this pace the audit might continue until mid-September. It appears Wikipedia has indeed been "roped into a publicity stunt." BusterD (talk) 17:37, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Well, it's not that we don't provide coverage of publicity stunts if they are reported in reliable sources. It's just that we take care to avoid overstating their significance. BD2412  T 18:45, 15 May 2021 (UTC)
 * Looking at the size to which the section has grown just from reporting in the past few days (even with the audit suspended), I think we're near the tipping point of needing a separate article for this. I would expect that a new wave of coverage will accompany either the cancellation or resumption of the audit. BD2412  T 01:21, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * , it's looking that way, yes soibangla (talk) 01:30, 18 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree it's starting to look like new article time. What would be the best neutral but concise pagename for such a new creation? BusterD (talk) 15:33, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * What do you think about combining it with the existing page Post-election lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election from Arizona, and nudging that article name a little to accommodate audits without lawsuits? Rjmail (talk) 17:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for others, but I could see the argument for keeping all post-election disputes in one pagespace. At this moment I'm leaning towards a separate article but I do like the suggestion made by User:Rjmail above. My primary concern in spinning off detail from this page is that the new target NOT become a magnet for partisan disrupters of either political persuasion. BusterD (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I can't speak for others, but I could see the argument for keeping all post-election disputes in one pagespace. At this moment I'm leaning towards a separate article but I do like the suggestion made by User:Rjmail above. My primary concern in spinning off detail from this page is that the new target NOT become a magnet for partisan disrupters of either political persuasion. BusterD (talk) 18:12, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

Split audit into new article?
I think Audit by Arizona Senate Republicans warrants its own article, perhaps Republican audit of 2020 Arizona presidential election results. What say you? soibangla (talk) 17:41, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I'd like to hear more feedback, but I think you're on the right track. IMHO the more accurate title would be Arizona Senate Republican audit of 2020 Maricopa County presidential election results. I don't think it's ideal but IMHO for titling purposes the important points raised by reliable sources are:
 * This audit was performed at the request of the Arizona state Senate, who authorized the initial funding
 * No Arizona state Senators who identified as Democrats voted in favor of the audit
 * The audit was conducted ONLY on ballots produced by Maricopa County voters
 * The only election race under audit was the 2020 presidential result
 * Any title which doesn't include all four conditions above doesn't match what RS say. Other descriptors reasonably could be used (and are used in multiple RS), for example "partisan," "selective," and increasingly "fraudulent," but IMHO we're beginning a productive discussion with the goal of finding a POV-neutral pagename for this well-documented and clearly notable event (which seems to meet WP:EVENT). BusterD (talk) 18:06, 19 May 2021 (UTC)


 * We would need a daughter article (with an appropriate summary left behind in this one, per WP:SS) if the material on this audit/recount were disproportionately long in the main article. At the moment, that's not the case.  Using the crude measure of how many times I had to hit PgDn to get to the bottom, the whole article (including T/C and references) fills 66 screens, of which the audit material is less than 3.  That's not a problem.  A spinoff is not only unnecessary, but it would also create the problem of crafting the appropriate summary, which might well involve a great deal of disagreement among editors about what was important enough to make the cut.


 * If your concern is that the main article is too long, the Polling section is about four times as long as the section on the audit, so Polling would be a better candidate for being spun off into a daughter article.


 * The audit material certainly has the potential to explode. If Cyber Ninjas report what they consider bombshell conclusions, and some Republicans (including the State Senate) make a big deal of it, and Democrats and other Republicans (including the Board of Supervisors) vehemently dispute every contention, with maybe some litigation as icing on the cake -- then our setting forth all these facts might balloon this section to a length that would justify a separate article.  If we get to that point, I'll agree with your comments about how to title the daughter article. JamesMLane t c 18:35, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I agree with what User:JamesMLane has just written. I disagree that the ONLY reason to create a daughter article is section size (a point I don't claim James makes). But he speaks good sense. I especially agree concerning the contentious nature of a creating a summary about a potentially fraught new page. BusterD (talk) 18:50, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I would just title it 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit. I don't think that the article title needs to specify a party affiliation, or that it needs to contain both "Arizona" and "Maricopa County"; it is only an audit of Maricopa County ballots. It is occurring in 2021 (and is expected to be finished entirely within 2021). BD2412  T 20:25, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I think the above is as close to meeting WP:CONCISE as we can get. BusterD (talk) 22:56, 19 May 2021 (UTC)
 * The reason to specify a party is that this is strictly a partisan project. The official audit by the election authorities, as prescribed by Arizona law, was completed shortly after the election and confirmed the reported results.  If we do spin this off, maybe title it 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audits, plural, to include everything that went on before the Republicans in the State Senate got involved, as well as the subsequent Republican audit.  (Just to be clear, I continue to think no spinoff is needed at this time.) JamesMLane t c 23:31, 19 May 2021 (UTC)

It seems that now that the audit is causing the integrity of the machines to be questionable for future use, it seems that the audit has implications beyond the 2020 elections, and should indeed have its own article. Banana Republic (talk) 17:26, 21 May 2021 (UTC)
 * I have created 2021 Maricopa County presidential ballot audit. The title (like some ballots) is provisional and subject to change. With the release of the AZ SOS's report on issues with the audit, this is clearly its own beast now. BD2412  T 02:54, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Thanks for alerting me, but there does not appear to be consensus for your move. For my part, I will continue editing this article.  No information about the Maricopa County process should be removed from this article unless and until there is consensus about doing a split and, crucially, about what kind of summary to leave behind here, pursuant to WP:SS. JamesMLane t c 12:35, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I have not removed any content from this article. Consensus is never required merely to create a new article; the topic need only meet the WP:GNG, which this audit now clearly does based on in-depth reporting relating to different aspects of it over a span of several months. It is also historically remarkable that a former president reportedly believes this audit will cause them to be restored to the presidency this year. BD2412  T 13:09, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * For what it's worth, I think everything is about as it should be. The content will likely require a new article, but moving the content is premature. How exactly that is done will make more sense once the audit is complete. Rjmail (talk) 14:40, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
 * I don't think "complete" is an applicable concept here. The audit is increasingly being characterized as incorrect in its conduct to the extent that there can't really be an outcome at this point. BD2412  T 15:15, 5 June 2021 (UTC)

Put me on record as favoring the split, and this article should have nothing but a mention that there was a controversial audit, with all the details in the newly created main article. Banana Republic (talk) 15:05, 6 June 2021 (UTC)
 * Seems easily notable enough for its own article. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:07, 11 June 2021 (UTC)


 * BananaRepublic, the treatment you suggest would be contrary to WP:SS. Regardless of whether one agrees with having a separate article, the audit is part of the story covered by this article.  The reader of this article will be better served if it includes the basic information about the audit. JamesMLane t c 08:50, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

At this point, I'd be in favor of the split, with maybe a note in the main article that says something like: The audit has continued for  days (maybe a day calculation here). To date, the findings have lacked the justification to change the election results. Rjmail (talk) 13:47, 9 August 2021 (UTC)

Updated Maricopa numbers
Maricopa County Recorder's office.

Trump/Pence: 995,665 Biden/Harris: 1,040,774 Jorgensen/Cohen: 31,705 Other: 7,942 Total: 2,076,086

As far as I can tell, we don't have a source for our numbers. This is better than that. Renard Migrant (talk) 00:13, 11 June 2021 (UTC)

Unprofessional and potentially biased section
The last paragraph of the introduction of the article might include some unprofessional word usage and potentially biased views, as shown by the usage of phrases such as "former President and his radical supporters..." and "something of a humiliation for its instigators". But entirely removing the paragraph is also not viable because the legislature audit is a major event in the Arizona election. So is it best to leave the paragraph as is, rephrase it, or entirely removing it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by David Jiang DB (talk • contribs) 19:48, 8 November 2021 (UTC)
 * You raise good points. I have rephrased this paragraph accordingly.  --Spiffy sperry (talk) 20:04, 8 November 2021 (UTC)

Trump's weak 2016 narrative setting up 2020 loss is a joke.
Sure, Trump beating Hillary by only 3.5% in 2016 as opposed to the average 10% Republican wins from the three prior elections is noted, however the guy went on to gain over 409,000 votes in 2020, where Republican gains over 12 prior years was only collectively a little over 148,000. Although objective, Joe Biden outperforming 2016 Trump numbers and Obama Trump numbers by over 500,000 votes is a joke, in a historically Republican state, it's a joke. You should change the part where you allude to this was coming to Trump because of what is 2016 numbers were. 24.153.113.226 (talk) 09:09, 29 May 2023 (UTC)

Is the popular vote count in the table wrong?
Biden won Arizona in 2020 by a small margin. However, the numbers in the table state that Trump won the Popular vote by more than 50.000. That cannot be true. What went wrong with the numbers there? Or am I not seeing something? The french site states it correcty, by the way. 2A02:810B:103F:FAB4:9CEA:A71A:E009:9823 (talk) 08:09, 24 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The table was reverted to the correct numbers shortly after you asked this question. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:11, 24 January 2024 (UTC)