Talk:2022 United States House of Representatives elections

Is a FEC filing equivalent to declaring candidacy?
I see that someone added candidates who have filed with the FCC in each race, but I'm not sure whether that's tantamount to formally declaring candidacy, as many individuals often file but never run. Do we usually rely on FEC filings, or is it better to use other secondary sources? --WMSR (talk) 21:42, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

For now, I think the FEC candidacy statement is the best preliminary source. --69.121.243.76 (talk) 21:40, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

The filing of the FEC Statement of Candidacy, as well as the filing of the FEC Statement of Organization should be sufficient. Endqualifiedimmunity (talk) 23:33, 7 February 2021 (UTC)

If someone files with the FEC, it is equivalent to simply filing the necessary paperwork. It is by no means a declaration of candidacy. A good example is David Perdue, who filed to run for U.S. Senate, but decided to not run. Ltothel (talk) 00:49, 22 September 2021 (UTC)

Minnesota’s 1st
Need a source on Rep. Jim Hagedorn’s Independent challenger. Also need source to determine if “Independant” is a typo or a party the candidate filed for. --69.121.243.76 (talk) 21:41, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Vacancies
Should the retirements section be changed to vacancies to account for other types of vacancies besides retirements or am I just over thinking things? Dickeyaustin786 (talk) 13:48, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Never mind! I saw how the 2020 page was done and they have deaths listed under Special Elections and Resignations listed under a separate category Dickeyaustin786 (talk) 13:50, 6 April 2021 (UTC)

Map
Could someone please make a map with retirements and incumbents. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 19:03, 16 April 2021 (UTC)

Here’s one (Maybe fix up the colors, then take a screenshot, and of course, maps are to be redrawn): https://www.yapms.com/app/?m=9hga Muhibm0307 (talk) 04:15, 9 May 2021 (UTC)

Reapportionment edit
I believe that S1 (For the People Act) has provisions that would ban partisan gerrymandering and put the redistricting process in the government. Does it make sense to put that information in the article, especially if it means the elections will be affected by this cycle because of it? I'm curious. Thanks in advance for the response. Losipov (talk) 21:56, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Texas 7 Congressional Candidate
Can someone fix my citation for Wesley Hunt? I'm not sure the proper format so I've been copying other citations with the appropriate info, apparently it has resulted in a dead link Dickeyaustin786 (talk) 05:41, 8 July 2021 (UTC)


 * Fixed. I reckon it is a dead URL because somehow the URL in the citation you added uses the Google domain name which went nowhere. Next time, please edit the URL so that the news website becomes the domain name, eg. https://www.google.com/s/abc13.com/republican-wesley-hunt-congress-2022-election-democrat-lizzie-fletcher/10868449/ => https://abc13.com/republican-wesley-hunt-congress-2022-election-democrat-lizzie-fletcher/10868449/. Also, you shouldn't include the candidate's campaign website as a citation, including when a reliable source you added already verified their candidacy, per editnotice.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 00:18, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Thank you! I only added the campaign website because this one jack ass editor would have been likely to block my editing privileges because of the dead link. I was just covering my base Dickeyaustin786 (talk) 01:54, 9 July 2021 (UTC)

Invitation to a RfC on Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums
Hi everyone, I would like to invite y'all to a RfC started by me about RfC: Convention for House of Representatives special elections in the United States which is related to a section of this article. Please leave your suggestions if you're inclined to. Thanks! ---CX Zoom(he/him) (let's talk&#124;contribs) 12:43, 16 July 2021 (UTC)

Retirement
idk how else to say this but I think we should create a sortable wikitable or the retirements anyone disagree if so please tell me why Cookiemonstericecream (talk) 18:02, 9 August 2021 (UTC) seeing no objection i will proceed Cookiemonstericecream (talk) 15:13, 11 August 2021 (UTC)

page structuring
Is it worthwhile perhaps for a chart to be made with all the states PVI and predictions together to get a better feel collectively of each parties standing in regard to majority of seats without counting each of the districts from each state? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.3.199.73 (talk) 23:36, 29 August 2021 (UTC)

Iowa
Iowa has released their new maps and Ashley Hinson is running for re-election in the new 2nd District, Marinette Miller Meeks is now located in the 3rd district, and the 1st district has no incumbent. I have no idea how to fix this to show Miller Meeks and Axne in the same district Dickeyaustin786 (talk) 00:39, 30 October 2021 (UTC)

Nunes
Nunes isn't Retiring!

He is resigning at the end of the month!

He won't be the Incumbent in November, so he doesn't technically count as a Retirement! Dickeyaustin786 (talk) 01:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Is There a Guarantee That California 22 Will Have a Special Election?
When Republican Duncan Hunter resigned on January 13, 2020, Governor Newsom did not call a special election. He let the seat be vacant until the current Congress. Do we know that Newsom won't let Nunes' seat be vacant for that long? EvanJ35 (talk) 16:26, 7 December 2021 (UTC)


 * @EvanJ35: This article says, California must hold a special election. Maybe in Hunter's case, Newsom could decide differently because he resigned in the election year while Nunes will resign in 2021? Just speculating. This only says "Based on the timing of the resignation, a special election will not be called" which might also allude to the fact that the primaries for the normal election were already under way. Regards So  Why  16:50, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Politics1
(Courtesy ping) I know that Politics1 has sometimes been used as a source for candidacies in future U.S. election articles. However, regardless of your opinion on its reliability, I believe we should draw attention to its FAQ page question no. 4 which states that an "Active Candidate" also includes those who have only filed paperwork or publicly expressed interest. Because Wikipedia's list on declared candidates usually only include those who have explicitly declared that they will actually run, especially this article which has no list for potential candidates, Politics1 thus should not be used as a source for declared candidacies and should not generally be used for this article, I think.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 03:19, 25 December 2021 (UTC)

Politics1 keeps track of which candidates have declared their candidacies. Therefore I think that it should be used. Thomascampbell123 (talk) 03:53, 25 December 2021 (UTC)


 * To be clear, this is not about the source being unreliable. This is about a source containing one thing, ie. a broad list of "active" or, looking at the website's own FAQ ("an 'active' candidate includes anyone who has publicly announced their intention to seek the office and anyone who has filed papers to form a committee and/or raise money for a possible bid the office"), moreso "publicly expressed interest" –&#32; and then the source is used to cite another crucially different thing, ie. a much more narrowly defined list of those who have actually declared their candidacies. I don't think the source itself actually tracks explicitly declared candidates, only those "active" and potential candidates. TL;DR: this is more an issue of instead of .  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 13:26, 26 December 2021 (UTC)

Virginia
The VA Supreme Court approved the new districts Dickeyaustin786 (talk) 02:10, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Primary dates
These are not mentioned yet. If they are known, they should be added to the page.

216.138.61.221 (talk) 04:06, 12 January 2022 (UTC)

Notability of politicians
If a politician is one of two primary politicians for US Congress in 2022. W2, who has had articles written about him with all large state papers in past elections, does that make this candidate notable?

What policy can I look up about this? Quiet2 (talk) 03:35, 30 January 2022 (UTC)

Redistricted retiring incumbents
Should redistricted incumbents who are retiring be listed with their current districts or their new districts? For example, David Price currently serves in NC-04 and is listed as such in the “retiring incumbents” section but he’s technically being redistricted to NC-06. Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 23:02, 31 January 2022 (UTC)

Map colors
I think that new districts or districts without an incumbent should have a light gray colour, rather than blue or red.

Splitting Article Tag
Hi all, the cleanup tag stating that is article is too long was placed by User:Onetwothreeip in late January, but there's been no subsequent discussion. I'm starting this discussion here so we can either split the article or remove the tag. In my opinion, this article follows the standard format of 2020 United States House of Representatives elections and 2018 United States House of Representatives elections, and I'm not sure what would be split. What are other editor's thoughts on this? Wildfire35 (talk) 01:40, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Far too much detail on the election in each seat, which can be moved to the election articles for each state. Instead we can provide a brief summary per state in this article, saying how many Democrats and how many Republicans are defending seats in each state. I'm not aware of any other election Wikipedia covers where the candidates and results for each contested seat are in the main election article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 06:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi all, just wanted to add that I think this article is one of the best lists of declared candidates for office in the United States publicly available and splitting it may make it a less helpful resource. That being said, it is very long. I'd be opposed to changes to the state sections, but splitting the apportionment section out entirely may help with article length. --TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 18:16, 11 February 2022 (UTC)


 * Hi, thank you for your comment! The reapportionemnt section has already been split out to 2020 United States redistricting cycle already, the small summary remaining is necessary per Wikipedia's splitting guide. while this may not be how other election articles are structured, all of the US House Election pages on Wikipedia dating back to at least 2010 (and probably farther) have been structured this way, so I'm worried that making such a drastic change and removing large swaths of content from only this election article could be confusing. Wildfire35 (talk) 22:37, 11 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I would support moving the content to the articles for each stats not only for the 2022 article, but the other articles we have as well. They are all similarly too large. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

The article is well within the guidelines specified in WP:AS and so doesn't need to be split for any "format" reasons. From an "informational" viewpoint, the article is an excellent source of information and splitting it makes no sense. After November, the article will essentially be OBE and can be archived. Based on the consensus against splitting and the fact that it is within guidelines, I'm going to remove the tag. VarmtheHawk (talk) 00:08, 6 March 2022 (UTC)

A splitting article tag was placed on this article by an anonymous user without any discussion. I am removing it. VarmtheHawk (talk) 23:49, 7 March 2022 (UTC)

In case the discussion of article length ever comes up again, I'd like to note that an RFC on the 2020 United States House of Representatives elections reached a consensus of not splitting the article. Orser67 (talk) 19:23, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Wonky footnotes
Does anyone know why the footnotes are wonky from footnote 1007 to 1050 and/or can fix them? Kaltenmeyer (talk) 04:39, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I have no idea. Perhaps, because the article is too large, it can't load all of the citations.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 05:10, 14 February 2022 (UTC)


 * According to the following link, this page has exceeded Post-expand include size, breaking a number of the templates. Is the only option to split it, or does someone who is familiar with templates know how to fix this? https://en.wikipedia.org/w/api.php?action=query&list=categorymembers&cmtitle=Category%3APages+where+post-expand+include+size+is+exceeded&cmprop=title%7Ctimestamp&cmlimit=500&cmsort=timestamp&cmdir=desc&format=xml Wildfire35 (talk) 02:50, 15 February 2022 (UTC)
 * I'm all for reliable sourcing, but does the article really need five times more citations than 2018 United States House of Representatives elections? Certes (talk) 15:28, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The 2018 article is on the large side at 353,191 bytes and 220 sources. This article, at 569,050 bytes and 1063 sources is breaking at the seams. What's different between 2018 and this year? More candidates running? – wbm1058 (talk) 19:35, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Actually the problem is that it's still primary season. This same issue happened two four years ago, indeed then all the references were broken! Only after the losers in the primaries are culled out the the article does it reduce down to a reasonable size. – wbm1058 (talk) 19:54, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Interesting. If such detailed analysis won't be kept after the primaries, should we carry it now?  (I realise that trimming the losers before the results are known would be rather difficult.) Certes (talk) 19:58, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The problem was avoided two years ago, although someone did plant a very long at the top of the article. I think the solution was only putting a single citation for the entire candidates column in the column heading, as was done for California, rather than have a citation in each individual candidate's box. – wbm1058 (talk) 20:26, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
 * Switching citations from templates to plain text may also help. CMD (talk) 04:15, 21 February 2022 (UTC)


 * I've fixed it for now using the stopgap replacement suggested at WP:Village pump (technical)
 * Replaced all  with   – if or when the article is reduced in length by culling some content, this change may be reversed.
 * When in mode, look at the bottom of the page for the Parser profiling data (you may need to click the arrow to expand this)
 * Post-expand include size is currently 2,036,509 bytes; the maximum allowed is 2,097,152 bytes, so we still don't have much headroom. The first thing to go when the limit is exceeded will be the large "navigation box" at the bottom of the article. – wbm1058 (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2022 (UTC)

Could some of this be fixed by keeping just official Secretary of State filings as sources? For instance, TX and KY only have the SoS filings as sources, since it is after their filing deadlines. However, OR, CO, NE, MD, and others have both web articles and SoS filings as their filing periods are ongoing. Could we remove the web articles for candidates that have filed and then switch the remaining web articles when the remaining candidates officially file? Sorry if this is confusing Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 01:41, 22 February 2022 (UTC)
 * That's actually how I began handling filing periods back in Nov/Dec when TX began filings. However, I switched over to the dual web/SoS citing method as a compromise after a user noted that SoS filings are considered primary sources by themselves - and this (as you mentioned) has been the unspoken default since. I will note again, as others have mentioned, the article size will naturally cull down with primaries beginning soon (ex. TX's primaries will eliminate a whole swath of candidates next Tues). Ultimately though, I still personally see no problem with removing web articles for filed candidates as a principle, and I think it's something that merits further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zenmaster190 (talk • contribs) 17:12, 23 February 2022 (UTC)
 * The size of this article may come down later, but it is barely editable on mobile as it is now. ActivelyDisinterested (talk) 17:09, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

FL District 2
Florida District 2 candidate Linda Brooks is listed here as a Democrat, but on her campaign website she states that she is running as an Independent. I'm guessing there was a mix-up by whoever wrote the article currently listed as a citation. --75.112.177.131 (talk) 04:54, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
 * It looks like your right about the website, but it probably isn't WP:RS for us to make a change. We need a good secondary source in order to make the change on this page (especially since there is currently a secondary source describing them as a democratic candidate, even if the mention is a mistake by the newspaper). If you can find any news reporting that refers to Linda Brooks as an independent candidate we can make that change.--TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Special elections
Is there a reason why in the Special elections​ section, there is not a listing for the special elections for the following: TX-6 (Ron Wright's death) OH-11 (Marcia Fudge's resignation) OH-15 (Steve Stivers's resignation) LA-2 (Cedric Richmond's resignation) NM-1 (Deb Haaland's resignation) Mr. College (talk) 02:23, 27 March 2022 (UTC)


 * They were all held in 2021, not 2022, see 2021 United States House of Representatives elections.  — twotwofourtysix (My talk page and contributions) 02:47, 27 March 2022 (UTC)

Guam retirement
After Del. Michael San Nicolas (D-GU) announced that he was running for governor of Guam on April 19, I added his name to the list of Democratic retirements at the start of the article, yet this was removed later that day under the reasoning that because Nicolas is unable to vote on legislation on the House floor, his retirement would have no effect on the balance of power post-2022. However, as shown in the article for the 2014 House elections, Del. Donna Christian-Christensen (D-VI) retired to run for governor of the Virgin Islands, and her retirement was listed in the 'Incumbents who retired' section of the article, with the description of the Democratic retirements reading "Sixteen Democrats (seventeen, including the delegate from the Virgin Islands) retired from their seats." As such, I wanted to ask if it would be appropriate to add Nicolas' retirement to the list of 2022 Democratic retirements in this article, and if so, how that addition should be phrased. Ajs2004 (talk) 00:40, 29 April 2022 (UTC)
 * I think it is right to include, especially based on the 2014 and 2016 articles inclusion of the Virgin Islands and Puerto Rico delegates retirements in prior articles. I re-added with a note to look at prior articles before reverting.--TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 15:49, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Redistricting
Why are redistricting races between 2 Republicans being listed as Republican loss when incumbents decided to retire? Dickeyaustin786 (talk) 05:27, 17 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Because there is one less Republican in the delegation following redistricting. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 16:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

New York
Shouldn't New York 17 still indicate that it's Mondaire Jones and Sean Patrick Maloney's seat? Jones is carpet bagging into the 10th but can't that be noted in Incumbents decision? He is the incumbent for 17 not for 10, 10 has no incumbent! Every time I change things I get threatened, so I figured I'd ask about this since it makes no sense to me! Dickeyaustin786 (talk) 12:38, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Prior election pages used the term redistricting for anytime an incumbent runs in a district numbered differently from their old one, following redistricting processes. The exact geographic layout of the district isn't taken into consideration when defining incumbent status. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 16:01, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

I think the method used ten years ago has zero merit here. Mondaire Jones represents 0% - not an inch - of the territory in the new 10th district. He doesn’t even represent any part of NYC. Therefore, he shouldn’t be labeled the incumbent. I think that’s perfectly fair and reasonable. Stormy160 (talk) 19:48, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Are there any other cases where an incumbent ran in a different geographical located district following redirecting. If so, we can follow that style. If not, we should try to be consistent. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 19:50, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

If it counts for anything, when Mario Diaz-Balart ran in his brother’s district in 2010 he was listed like a redistricted incumbent on the page. I think for the sake of page uniformity, Jones should be listed as the 10th district incumbent with the note about moving. Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 19:55, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * This sounds just wrongly done and like a totally different scenario. Stormy160 (talk)
 * Technically, that one says "Moved from x district", not "Redistricted from x district", so it does make a distinction from people being placed in a differently numbered district, though it didn't occur after a redistricting.67.173.23.66 (talk) 20:14, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * There are cases where a district was changed significantly and an incumbent lived outside the district but was labeled as the incumbent anyway. But the redrawn district always included at least part of the previous district. NY-24 is a good example of this. But this is a totally different situation, here we have an incumbent jumping across the state to an entirely different district with little in relation to his current one. So no, its not consistent. Stormy160 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 19:59, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I'll add that we shouldn't try and use one blanket solution for every scenario. The table should be simple and easy to read, but also truthful. Jones going to an entirely new, unrelated district is different from an incumbent running in a reconfigured district. Stormy160 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 20:02, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Perhaps we could say "Moved from the 17th district" instead of "Redistricted from the 17th district." The fact of the matter is that he is an incumbent representative who's running in a particular district, even if it doesn't contain his old district.67.173.23.66 (talk) 20:10, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I think giving Jones that spot in that column implies he's the incumbent, regardless of the text underneath it, when he's clearly not. His status in this district is no higher because he comes from a totally different area, and therefore he should be listed the same as all the other candidates. Basically, he can't go to anyone there and say "I'm your congressman". Stormy160 (talk)
 * I'm not sure listed the seat as open is entirely accurate either, since there is an incumbent representative running in that district, albeit from a different area, and it wouldn't be treated as a break in service if he won.67.173.23.66 (talk) 20:18, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * There is precedent for that, an incumbent choosing to run in a different district therefore leaving their seat open is always labeled an open seat. And Jerry Nadler represented very little of the new 10th.Stormy160 (talk) 20:22, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * To be fair, the ones labelled as open seats are ones that have no incumbent representatives from anywhere running, so this case is an outlier in that regard.67.173.23.66 (talk) 20:28, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think that circles back to the original point of Jones isn't an incumbent for any part of this specific district (or even any part of NYC as said before) so he shouldn't be labeled as such. He's the incumbent of the 17th district, so that's what the table should reflect. Stormy160 (talk) 20:33, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * In any event, we should try to keep the table from being bogged down in too much detail, since it's more a summary of the race results.67.173.23.66 (talk) 20:40, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Regarding the Arizona case, it's referring to the fact that Paul Gosar, who has since become much more notorious, was then the incumbent for the 1st district and intentionally planned to run there, but facing a rematch from his predecessor Ann Kirkpatrick, who would reclaim the seat, he moved his residence to the open 4th, and the page lists him as the incumbent in the 4th district section, not the 1st.67.173.23.66 (talk) 20:46, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Is there any major difference between Gosar moving to run in AZ4 and Jones moving to run in NY10? Because it seems to me these are the same issue (moving to a district with no overlap of your old district). If there are no distinguishing factors for Jones case why are we not labelling this the same way we did with Gosar in 2012? TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 16:36, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I suppose technically in that case, the new district did contain a little of his old, but not where he lived. The only other cases where a representatives were elected to a completely different geographical area where ones who returned after a gap in service, such as Jim Cooper and Dan Lungren. Though personally, I think what matters the most is his status as an incumbent member of congress and the location is getting into more detail than should be put into the table.67.173.23.66 (talk) 16:44, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Hi all, just wanted to add a comment that discussions of a candidate's incumbency status should include a discussion of what reliable sources say about the issue. We should follow the consensus already established in secondary sources. Also, we should keep in mind WP:NPOV and be careful about terms like "carpet bagger". Here is a list of sources that I found that discuss Jones's incumbency status (Please feel free to add to the list):
 * "It seems like there’s a conflict," Rep. Ritchie Torres, D-N.Y., told POLITICO. "New York 17 is primarily in Congressman Jones’ district. He should be regarded as the incumbent."- Yahoo News Context of 17th district
 * "Rep. Sean Patrick Maloney's controversial decision to run in the 17th District could see him face off in the primary against freshman Rep. Mondaire Jones, another incumbent unmoored by the redistricting process." - WESH 2 Context of 17th district
 * "Rep. Ritchie Torres (D-N.Y.), a first-term lawmaker who along with Jones is an openly gay Black man in Congress, argued that Jones should be viewed as the incumbent in New York’s 17th by default, and accused Maloney allies of “thinly veiled racism” for arguing that Jones would be a better ideological fit in a different seat." - Huffington Post Context of 17th district
 * "Jones will be taking on former Mayor BILL DE BLASIO, but no other incumbents are expected to challenge for the open seat." -Politico Context of 10th district
 * "Now, with Mr. Jones deciding to run in the newly drawn Manhattan-Brooklyn 10th Congressional District, both incumbents can avoid a nasty primary, and he will, instead, face former New York Mayor Bill de Blasio, among several others in the primary scheduled for August 23." Washington Times Context of 10th district
 * "Rep. Mondaire Jones, another Democrat who would face a fellow incumbent in a re-election bid for his Westchester County seat, announced he would forego re-election for his district and would instead run for the newly reconfigured 10th Congressional District, which covers portions of Lower Manhattan and Brooklyn. The 10th District seat is not expected to draw competition from any other incumbents, but former New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio previously announced he would run for the seat." UPI Context of 10th district

All 3 initial sources I found refer to Jones as an incumbent, although 2 are quotes from another legislator and not ideal. I did not find any source that specifically referred to Jones as not an incumbent or that argued he is not a real incumbent. If other users have found sources that say this please include them for discussion. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 21:09, 21 May 2022 (UTC)

Incumbent of the 17th, not the 10th. Stormy160 (talk) 23:16, 21 May 2022 (UTC)


 * The WESH 2 story actually uses incumbent unmoored, which seems to imply the incumbent status follows the candidate if they move districts. Which I think is what those arguing to list Jones as an incumbent are arguing. Does the NYT piece cited refer to him as an incumbent or say he is not an incumbent or is it silent on the issue? (It's paywalled so I can't check) TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 23:27, 21 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The sources regarding him as incumbent seems to be from when he was considering running against Maloney. In any case, he is undoubtably an incumbent member of congress, the question is regarding where he should be placed in the table. Personally I'm of the mind that since this page is for the 2022 elections, where he's running in that election should take priority, but others may think differently.67.173.23.66 (talk) 00:16, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

NYT doesn’t explicitly say he’s not the incumbent but the way it’s worded sure implies he’s not. And as I said before, I don’t think you're an incumbent if you can’t go to anyone in the district and say “I’m your representative”. That seems to a bare minimum standard to me.

I’d also like to say I don’t think Jones running in a new district should be labeled a loss, since it’s not. That seems convoluted to me, I guess it’s kinda hard to wrap one’s head around the concept that he’s leaving a district but it’s not a loss for that district because that district has another incumbent while at the same time we aren’t losing that member of congress they just aren’t an incumbent anymore. Ughhh!!! Stormy160 (talk) 00:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * I totally understand that and think we need to note the uniqueness of the case whatever we decided. However, I think most WP:RS are going to colloquially refer to him as an incumbent (see "Jones will be taking on former Mayor BILL DE BLASIO, but no other incumbents are expected to challenge for the open seat." -Politico) and absent sources arguing a separate criteria, I think whatever we decide should follow how WP:RS describe him. A lot of sources are silent on him being an incumbent, a few mention he is an incumbent, but I have found none that say he is not an incumbent. I think we should take this into account when deciding how we note it. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, most sources for elections mark incumbents as such regardless of where they run, so the elections returns for primary on sources such as the New York Times would probably mark him as incumbent even if he doesn't represent any of the current area, though the primary is quite a ways away.67.173.23.66 (talk) 00:23, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * That's my thinking as well. And WP:RS ("Wikipedia articles should be based on reliable, published sources, making sure that all majority and significant minority views that have appeared in those sources are covered") seems to indicate that we should follow what reliable published sources do. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 00:40, 22 May 2022 (UTC)
 * The loss thing seems to be the standard for whenever two incumbents are placed in the same district, as shown on the other pages, as well as examples on this page. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 00:18, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Why not keep things simple, the incumbent (third column) should be listed for the district number they represent in today's congress. Nadler in the 10th, Jones in the 17th and Maloney in the 18th. There should be a line for the 27th district, with Jacobs as the incumbant, which lists lost seat in the status column. All the candidates running in new districts would be listed in the candidates column which could include their current status. 2603:7000:3202:32B7:DDC4:E23F:6974:318C (talk) 13:50, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Not's not how prior election pages did it and we should remain consistent. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 15:21, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

Oh man, that looks idea really complicated and will confuse people. Stormy160 (talk) 19:49, 22 May 2022 (UTC)


 * Regarding the concerns about it being misleading putting him in the column, unless he changes his mind about where he runs, it will be true that he will be an incumbent member of congress and for this election, he's running in the 10th district. The table is meant to be a summary of the 2022 results, so it should reflect his status regarding where he's running. The detail about him being from a different area is appropriately discussed on the individual subpage for the state, so the table should try to keep it simple when describing his status.67.173.23.66 (talk) 02:37, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, this is what the section for the two affected districts looked like prior to the disagreement:

67.173.23.66 (talk) 02:54, 23 May 2022 (UTC)

I think for the sake of uniformity and consistency, the above format should be used. Also a good point about how this is about the 2022 elections and where the incumbents are running, so the fact that Jones chose to move to an unconnected district seems a little irrelevant to the conversation and I don’t see why he can’t be labeled as “redistricted” Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 16:16, 23 May 2022 (UTC)


 * (Same editor as before, IP address changed when I reconnected to Wi-fi) For what it's worth, following the finalization of the district lines, both Project 538 and 270 to Win both list Jones as incumbent in the 10th district. 2601:241:300:B610:F4EB:C01:E479:38AD (talk) 21:45, 23 May 2022 (UTC)
 * I think we should follow what the WP:RS are doing which is listing him as an incumbent, so I think we should revert back to the prior version that lists him as an incumbent with the footnote about him moving districts. TulsaPoliticsFan (talk) 17:22, 24 May 2022 (UTC)
 * It's been moved. 2601:241:300:B610:D1E4:15D7:6155:A8CF (talk) 22:37, 24 May 2022 (UTC)

Redistricting language
Getting a little frustrated with the number of changes I see made regarding this, but to be clear: all incumbent vs incumbent primary races are considered “redistricting races”, and if an incumbent is changing district numbers, it is proper format to list them as the incumbent of their new district with the line “redistricted from the X district” underneath their name. This is for uniformity and continuity. Do not do this in the incumbent’s intent column. Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 18:34, 25 May 2022 (UTC)

That’s ridiculous. NY-10 is a completely different scenario from someone’s district number changing. This is a representative moving to an entirely new district and that should be reflected in the language. Stormy160 (talk) 16:17, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

The word “redistricted” just implies a new district, which Jones is running in. I don’t see why the non-contiguous factor is so important, as plenty of other representatives are redistricted to different districts than the ones they end up running in. If it really is that important to distinguish what Jones is doing, what’s wrong with just using a footnote? It makes the distinction, but keeps the language and page uniform. Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 21:07, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

“Redistricted” means that Jones was moved into a new district by the map. He wasn’t, he’s still in the 17th district and none of his district is in the new 10th. So no, he wasn’t redistricted into the 10th, he moved there himself. Stormy160 (talk) 21:15, 30 May 2022 (UTC)

I’ll add that I don’t think we need to be so strict about page uniformity, especially at the cost of factual accuracy. We should just tell the whole truth and people will understand. The formatting of the page isn’t changing here at all. Stormy160 (talk) 21:18, 30 May 2022 (UTC)


 * With all due respect, this distinction seems a bit like splitting hairs. The individual page for New York's elections this cycle describes the situation in appropriate detail, so I don't think the main page needs to explain all the minutiae.67.173.23.66 (talk) 04:15, 31 May 2022 (UTC)

It doesn’t, it just gives an accurate account of it in one word. Saying he was redistricted is inaccurate. And thank you, I actually wrote that blurb on the NY page myself! Stormy160 (talk) 16:43, 31 May 2022 (UTC)


 * For what it's worth, as mentioned in the previous section, the closest comparison in terms of incumbents moving, that being AZ-4 in 2012, uses the terms redistricting on that election's page. 67.173.23.66 (talk) 12:45, 1 June 2022 (UTC)

Should write in candidates be listed?
Personally, I don’t think write in candidates should be included but I’m wondering why the consensus is to leave them out. Based on a discussion on user Zemstone's talk page. Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 14:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)


 * I don't think they should be included, either; and I thought I recalled a consensus on this for election articles in general, but I can't find it. The closest I found was Candidates and elections, which notes "this page is currently inactive" and "either the page is no longer relevant or consensus on its purpose has become unclear." It also deals with whether or not candidates should necessarily have their own Wikipedia article, and not whether they should be included in election articles.
 * My reasoning for excluding them is that any old person can declare a write-in candidacy, and as such, there is no secondary source to indicate notability. In this article, one source given was the Arizona.vote website. It appears to be a quasi-official web site offering information on Arizona elections, which could be argued as sufficient to indicate notability.  signed, Willondon (talk)  15:00, 22 June 2022 (UTC)
 * Write in's are legal and the purpose is to show who is really running for office. Arizona makes candidates file and register and This candidate has a committee and FEC ID number as well as Committee ID number. If the law allows the person to run for office and if this person can become a elected official then the candidate must be included in the pool of candidates. who are you to say which canidates are legal or not? The purpose is to educate people on who is running! Nothing more nothing less. Zemstone (talk) 16:29, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

unexplained removal
Over, a substantial amount of referenced material was removed without descriptions in the edit summaries. Why was it removed? Was there concensus for the removal? Should those changes be reverted? -- Mikeblas (talk) 01:07, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

New York’s filing period is over, but for whatever reason only candidates from districts 1, 2, 3, 5, and 16-26 are listed on the state filing page. I believe those candidates removed are from those districts and they are not on the state filing page Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 02:52, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

“Controversy” section
Why is there a “controversy” section if it is just empty? Are we supposed to expect this person will generate controversy? Should all articles have a section titled “controversy”? Tankpiggy18 (talk) 02:08, 25 June 2022 (UTC)

Where are you seeing that on this page? Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 14:17, 26 June 2022 (UTC)

Add a vacancies section?
With the general election approaching fast, there likely won’t be a special election for IN-02, and definitely not for FL-22 when Ted Deutch resigns. The 2020 house election page has a resignation section for those not filled by special election, so I think one should be added here. I think it should be a vacancies section to account for Walorski dying in office and if there’s no special election called. Edit: According to Indiana state law there will be a special election unless the vacancy occurs fewer than 74 days before the general, so this discussion is moot Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 20:44, 3 August 2022 (UTC)

Kevin McCarthy’s seat is Cali 23 not Cali 20 as it says in main section of page
Change 20 —> 23 183.82.29.116 (talk) 13:57, 17 August 2022 (UTC)


 * McCarthy's current seat is indeed the 23rd District, but, as a result of redistricting, his district is being relabeled the 20th. PrusBis6187 (talk) 17:54, 17 August 2022 (UTC)

This is the same for Pelosi’s seat in the info box, I think a note is necessary in the info box but I don’t know what precedent there is for formatting YallAHalla  ☎  20:14, 4 November 2022 (UTC)

Charlie Crist and Ted Deutch
How should Crist and Deutch’s resignations be handled? On the 2018 House elections page, Ron DeSantis resigned after winning the gubernatorial nomination, but is still listed in the retirements section. However, on the 2020 page, there is a vacancies section with the 4 seats not filled by special election. Thoughts? Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 14:04, 31 August 2022 (UTC)


 * Perhaps they should be designated "retired and resigned early"? C. W. Edward (talk) 06:55, 1 September 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn’t mind that, addresses all the issues. Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 13:01, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

Results called?
Where are you seeing races like this one being called already? Vanamonde (Talk) 01:41, 9 November 2022 (UTC)


 * NBC
 * https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-elections/new-jersey-house-results Fenetrejones (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2022 (UTC)

massive new analysis section coming
i shall be moving things out of the lede and into the analysis section at the end of the page. let's make this a well analysed election Godofwarfan69420 (talk) 06:58, 12 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Please move them to the analysis section, the lede is currently bloated with minutia. BogLogs (talk) 14:29, 12 November 2022 (UTC)

Decision Desk just called the entire thing for the Republicans
Kiley(CA-3) and Garcia(CA-25) won their races for the Republican party, putting the total number of GOP seats up to 219 now. 93.206.58.233 (talk) 02:53, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Why are we using only the Decision Desk? Seems WP:UNDUE. Prcc27 (talk) 03:02, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

Massive Republican win in the popular vote count
https://www.cookpolitical.com/charts/house-charts/national-house-vote-tracker/2022

As of 11/15 9 pm eastern time

Republicans 51.4 percent Democrats 47.1 percent

Even when the remaining 25 percent of the vote in California and the small remaining, outstanding absentee ballots from other states are finally in, this margin should still stand between 3 and 3.5 percent in favor of the Republicans.

2 observations: First, the Republicans have not underperformed pre-election expectations here. According to realclearpolitics Republicans were leading in the house vote on average by a margin of 2.5 percent prior to election day. Secondly, how come that Republicans manage to win the popular vote so easily and Dems still managed to put up a close fight for house control when previously the other way arround seems to be the political norm? In 2020, Dems won the house popular vote by three percentage points and Republicans still came close in winning control of this chamber. Trump lost the national popular vote in 2020 by four points and still missed re-election by a couple of tenthousand votes in AZ, PA and Georgia. Trump also lost narrowly the popular vote in 2016 and easily won the electoral college. Why is this trend now reversed? 93.206.58.233 (talk) 03:11, 16 November 2022 (UTC)
 * This is not a forum. Do you have any specific suggestions for the Wikipedia article..? Prcc27 (talk) 17:24, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

OR-6
I may be incorrect, but should OR-6 be colored as dark blue since it was a new seat and technically a pick up? (like MT-01) 97.120.46.123 (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2022 (UTC)

New York's 3rd congressional district should count as a NYC seat for the map on the side of the page.
The Seat Republican George Santos (who lives in Queens) picked up contains parts of Queens, and therefore NYC, meaning that the Republican Party now has two of the NYC Congressional seats but the Wikipedia maps still shows only NY-11 as the only R seat.

Results section
Since this page is now featured on ITN on the main page, could someone kindly polish up the Results section (i.e. the first one when people scroll down)? I was very surprised to just see a bar showing Democrats winning 222 seats, with only common sense telling me that these are the results from 2020. I have no knowledge whatsoever about how to create such a bar, nor any info on where results currently stand at - so if some kind soul would be willing to take a look at this section, this would be appreciated. Khuft (talk) 15:57, 17 November 2022 (UTC)

Pelosi retiring as leader
Should we add "(retired)" to Pelosi's box in the intro, since she just announced she is stepping away from leadership? Or maybe "retired as leader" since she still will remain in the house? (Give me a second to grab a link to the announcement) Thanks a bunch! --Negrong502 (talk) 17:52, 17 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Here is one from Axios: https://www.axios.com/2022/11/17/nancy-pelosi-announcement-stepping-down Thanks a bunch! --Negrong502 (talk) 17:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I wouldn't add it to the infobox since she only stepped down after the results were announced. Gust Justice (talk) 20:21, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That doesn't seem to affect other pages where leaders stayed in the House/Senate but stepped down as leader after the elections, however. Remember as well that leadership elections amongst elected congressmen and women takes place after the elections, and the House Dems as of now have not yet held their leadership elections for the next congress. (Dick Gephardt was marked as "stepping down as leader" in 2002 United States House of Representatives elections; his retirement from leadership came after the November election, and same goes with Trent Lott in 2002 United States Senate election. I think there is enough reason to list it here. Thanks a bunch! --Negrong502 (talk) 21:53, 17 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The articles you reference as precedent: Dick Gephardt was marked as "stepping down as leader" in 2002 United States House of Representatives elections; his retirement from leadership came after the November election, and same goes with Trent Lott in 2002 United States Senate election are relatively new changes that were added in July 2022 and June 2021, respectively. I do not think that the status of the current leaders of their respective caucuses after the election has taken place or in the next congress is relevant to the infobox for those elections or this one. The edit implies to the reader that the leader stepped down because of the result of the election, which is not a clear or incontrovertible conclusion to draw. The purpose of the infobox is to convey who was the leader of each party at the time the election took place. --Jerik29 (talk) 20:12, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The note was added back. 2601:249:9301:D570:89C9:6676:E687:16B8 (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: Last Election Percentages
The infobox shows "Last election  213 seats, 47.7%   222 seats, 50.8%". As the percentages do not add up to 100%, I'm guessing it isn't the percentage of seats. Is it supposed to be the percentage share of the popular vote? If so, that really needs to be explained, because it is not at all intuitive (or a particularly useful bit of information meriting inclusion, but I suppose that's a different issue). If not, what is it supposed to mean? CAVincent (talk) 06:00, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Infobox: Popular Vote numbers and total turnout
(1) Popular Vote numbers: As of now, there are still some voting districts that are still tabulated (in Alaska, California and Colorado). That is why I wonder where these popular vote figures in the infobox come from. I understand that they are not final, yet. If so, this should be somehow explained in a footnote. (2) Turnout: Could someone please provide numbers on the turnout or indicate where we could get this information from? I assume this number should be out already.--Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 08:20, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Exit poll color coding
The color coding for income levels in the exit polls seems to be reversed. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 13:38, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 November 2022
In the second sentence, please replace "will serve as the majority party" with "will be the majority party". In ordinary English, individuals serve as this-and-that (one says that Pelosi served as speaker and McCarthy will), but parties don't. 175.39.61.121 (talk) 18:08, 18 November 2022 (UTC)
 * ✅ Mucube (talk) 23:50, 18 November 2022 (UTC)

In the lead: It's not just the TWENTY TWENTY electoral loss, it's been a continuous pattern of republicans that's been going on for long time, not just exclusive to a single election.
Here is a reliable source demonstrating that this is something that even now continues up to this date: NBC news: https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2022-election/republican-infighting-escalates-poor-2022-election-results-trump-re-em-rcna57540

I tried editing the lead to reflect this myself. However, they refuse to let me accept this change due to perceived "impartiality", and asked me to discuss here instead before making any edits. But wouldn't you all agree that Republicans have a pervasive history of not being, you know, GOOD SPORTS when it comes to election results and enfranchisement?

It's not political partialism. It's concrete reality with concrete citeable evidence. I can't wait until 2028 when America is digging its foundation harder then ever before off over the results of elections and the Wikipedia article for that still references only "2020". Flora Wilshire (talk) 16:25, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2022
please change leader2 = Nancy Pelosi (stepped down as leader) to leader2 = Nancy Pelosi Jerik29 (talk) 19:50, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Nancy Pelosi was the leader of the democratic house caucus on election day, Nov. 8, 2022. She announced that she would not be running in leadership, but she remains Speaker and Leader of the Democratic Caucus until the 118th Congress is sworn in on January 3rd, 2023. The current representation that she stepped down as leader is irrelevant to her status at the time of the election.

https://www.axios.com/2022/11/17/nancy-pelosi-announcement-stepping-down https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/118th_United_States_Congress https://clerk.house.gov/Members/ViewLeadership
 * ✅ Jiltedsquirrel (talk) 20:31, 19 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I do have a technical objection to this as we have noted both when a House party leader has resigned or stepped down as a leader due to the results of an election (2006, 2002, 1980), when they lost their seat in the House while leader (1994, 1920), and when they either resigned or retired as a leader prior to the results. (2018, 1994, 1986, 1976, 1938, 1928, 1924) While only the first category is truly post-election, it seems that the status of the House leaders is noted in the infobox when they do not continue to be the leader for the start of a new congressional term.  --Super Goku V (talk) 04:43, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * I did not realize that was the norm. Thank you for pointing that out to me! I have no issue continuing to follow the trend. I also do see the point of not including that information at all since its not directly related to the election itself. Happy to self revert to do the right thing. Should I go ahead and do so? Jiltedsquirrel (talk) 04:49, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * I will admit that while it is the norm, I don't know why it is. While it is repeatedly done, Template:Infobox election doesn't suggest adding a label anywhere that I can tell.  It is possible that someone added it to and older article one day and an editor saw it while working on another page, causing it to spread.  Alternatively, it was a decision on a talk page for another election and has become a rule.  Sadly, I don't know why this has been done and would suggest a discussion on this to see if we should continue doing it.  --Super Goku V (talk) 12:50, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Are these infobox notes done only with US elections? When our government lost our federal election in May, our PM resigned from party leadership, but the infobox doesn't mention his resignation or his replacement.  Same with the previous election, whose infobox doesn't mention the opposition leader resigning as party leader when his party was unable to gain a majority.  175.39.61.121 (talk) 20:08, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Possibly it is just a US think. The only reason I even thought to check is because I had already seen it on the 2018 article prior to this discussion.  --Super Goku V (talk) 08:28, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Even as an American, this sort of change seems stupid and counterfactual. I don't care how long it has been going on.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 16:02, 21 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Well, that is why I suggested discussing it. We might want to have a rule on all related pages not to have these notes if there is a good reason not to have them.  --Super Goku V (talk) 08:30, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * The closest thing I can think of regarding losing re-election as leader is the page for 2007 Australian federal election, which has the note (lost seat) next to the constituency. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 17:55, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. I have reverted the previous edit made based on this edit request, following discussion above, to follow the current convention on other election results pages. Jiltedsquirrel (talk) 17:48, 20 November 2022 (UTC)


 * It seems the note was added back. 2601:249:9301:D570:89C9:6676:E687:16B8 (talk) 23:02, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Republican number moves up to 219 seats
CA-22 has been called for the GOP, 4 undecided races to go. Why does the media refuse to call the Republican candidate the victor in CO-3? I mean the Dem has already conceded the race. 93.206.57.30 (talk) 03:43, 22 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Given the close margin, the CO-3 election has a mandatory recount. It probably will go to Boebert, but it isn't a done deal. And concessions have no legal force.--User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 10:33, 22 November 2022 (UTC)

CA-03 has been finally called for the Republicans
GOP 220, Dems 212, 3 seats to go, one in California, Alaska at-large and CO-03. 93.206.57.30 (talk) 01:23, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Problem with using Decision Desk HQ as a source
You're not supposed to be the quickest in calling races according to Lakasha Jain. It's about getting your races called accurately, which the SplitTicket guys and most major news networks have done. I therefore think Decision Desk is massively overused as a source and shouldn't be used on the Wiki page as a credible source. Yourlocallordandsavior (talk) 02:15, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Nationwide popular vote majority for Republicans for the first time since 2014
In 2016 they also finished ahead of the Dems but with under 50 percent of the vote obtained therefore achieving only a plurality back then. 93.206.52.30 (talk) 03:04, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 November 2022
In the "Open seats that changed parties" section, please remove the entry for Texas's 37th congressional district, as it was not an open seat because it had an incumbent, Lloyd Doggett, who ran and won in that district. Please also move the entry for Texas's 35th congressional district from "Open seats that parties held" to the aforementioned "Open seats that changed parties" section, as, due to redistricting, the district in its new form had no incumbent, whether they be running, retiring or resigned earlier. This is consistent with how the page handles similar cases, such as Illinois's 3rd congressional district, Florida's 4th congressional district, and Texas's 15th congressional district. It is also consistent with how earlier election articles, such as the ones for 2002 and 2012 handled such redistricting cases. The seat was previously listed in that respective section as of this edit. 24.15.214.201 (talk) 22:52, 21 November 2022 (UTC)

Los Angeles on the map
The area highlighted on the infobox map is actually Metro Los Angeles, not Greater Los Angeles (which includes Orange, Ventura, Riverside and San Bernardino counties). SchutteGod (talk) 22:46, 23 November 2022 (UTC)

Leaders’ seats are incorrect?
Unless I’m missing something, the section listing McCarthy and Pelosi as party leaders is not displaying the correct districts for each. McCarthy is elected to CA-23 (not CA-20 as currently listed) and Pelosi is elected to CA-12 (not CA-11 as currently listed).

Could someone either explain what I’m missing or please update the page? Many thanks! Bilgerat78 (talk) 05:00, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Those are the seats they ran for in this election, as the districts were renumbered after redistricting. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 05:17, 24 November 2022 (UTC)

I figured it was something I’d missed. Thanks! Bilgerat78 (talk) 06:51, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 24 November 2022
change colorado's 3rd district status from "incumbent re-elected" to "result unknown" until result is called 174.126.59.244 (talk) 22:04, 24 November 2022 (UTC)


 * ❌ See here. Frisch conceded on the 18th, then everyone called it. She has a small lead, but the rationale was that recounts rarely change the outcome of the race anyway (at least if the lead is bigger than just a few votes). Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 17:46, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Map
Can someone who knows how to edit the map please change CO-3 from "Result unknown" to "Republican hold" per this? Augusthorsesdroppings10 (talk) 17:50, 26 November 2022 (UTC)
 * That very source also states: "Boebert’s narrow margin means the state is required to order an automatic recount." Thus, the result won't truly be known until that recount is finished. I don't expect it to cause Boebert to lose, but her win isn't a complete certainty yet. Concessions are just words with no legal force. --User:Khajidha (talk) (contributions) 20:10, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2022
In the sentence describing the Republican majority if Republican wins CA-13, change 5 to 9, as 222 minus 213 = 9 2601:88:8002:1CD0:415D:60D5:A68B:486F (talk) 22:03, 26 November 2022 (UTC)

No - in fact if the result turns out to be 222 to 213, as is likely, it will constitute a 5-seat majority (not a 9-seat majority). Think of it this way: 218-217 (one seat majority - if one member changes their vote you lose your majority), 219-216 (two seat majority - if two members change their vote you lose your majority), 222-213 (five seat majority - if five members change their vote you lose your majority). --Mrodowicz (talk) 15:38, 27 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Okay, I understand, but I would posit that this is not intuitively obvious. I see the analogy to a sports playoff series: e.g., 2 wins out of 3, 3 out of 5, 4 out of 7, 5 out of 9, etc. Would it be fair to say 222-213 gives the GOP a 9-seat margin, cushion, edge, surplus, excess, lead, or advantage vs "majority"? 2601:88:8002:1CD0:415D:60D5:A68B:486F (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2022 (UTC)


 * The Republicans definitely have a 9-seat lead, but I don't think some of these other terms can be accurately applied, such as margin or cushion (the margin or cushion is 5 seats). I favour leaving it as is, as I see no need to complicate things when one gets into the 5 vs 9 debate. I think that if you have to pick one, it is the 5-seat margin which really matters in the framework of congressional politics. --Mrodowicz (talk) 03:49, 1 December 2022 (UTC)

thankyou
to all those who made this excellent page possible — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:192:4701:BF60:9D36:9F25:F116:8C5F (talk) 00:54, 27 November 2022 (UTC)

Contradictory Michigan District Flip
Hi. The map on this page depicts MI-13 as being a Democratic flip, but the Michigan specific page depicts it as a hold. One of these two versions is wrong, and I believe it to be the map on this page: Michigan didn't gain a district in Census (actually, it lost one) and MI-13's predecessor district was blue, so it can't be a pick-up. Can someone correct this? EditMaker120 (talk) 04:18, 30 November 2022 (UTC)


 * Additionally, if CA-03 is depicted as a GOP pick-up here, CA-04 should be depicted as a Dem pick-up as well because the districts switched numbers. EditMaker120 (talk) 04:22, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Finally, FL-23 is not a Democratic pick-up. It is a direct successor to the old FL-22 and not a new seat or a flip. FL's new district can be fairly described as either FL-28 (numerically) or FL-18 (geographically) but FL-23 is not numerically or geographically a new district. EditMaker120 (talk) 04:27, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
 * Florida is not listed as a pick up. 2601:249:9301:D570:5CC1:CD41:E118:8AAE (talk) 02:48, 10 December 2022 (UTC)

Burying the lede
I find it surprising that the article takes 3 paragraphs and 13 sentences to even mention that the Republican Party won a majority in the U.S. House of Representatives. Seems to me this would be a topline takeaway. LordofChaos55 (talk) 16:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

Error
Nancy Pelosi’s Congressional District is not 11th, but instead 12th. Please rectify, thanks. 101.127.78.139 (talk) 04:54, 23 December 2022 (UTC)


 * After the redistricting in California, post-2020 US census, her city San Francisco is now in CA's 11th congressional district. And in 2022 House elections she ran from this district. &#8212;CX Zoom[he/him] (let's talk • {C•X}) 08:53, 24 December 2022 (UTC)

In the third paragraph, the article attributes democratic gains in Ohio to the state supreme court overturning gerrymanders. However, each set of maps that were submitted were rules to be unconstitutional gerrymanders. Eventually, a federal court ruled that it was too close to the election to draw another new set of maps and allowed the state to use a set of maps that have already been found to be an unconstitutional gerrymander. Based on this, I don't think it's correct to attribute democratic gains to the redrawn maps. 2601:408:C200:3C60:60EB:8ECD:5906:2F84 (talk) 17:09, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2023
In the table at the top of the page, the next year for house elections is 2023. Can you please say "2023"? Please. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:CCE8:E2DF:41A6:666A (talk) 00:16, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * Unclear what you are asking for. The House elections are every two years, the next one will be in 2024, which is what the infobox links to.  RudolfRed (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * No, 2023 is next, because there will be a House Election in Virginia's 4th District. So the info box needs to say "2023 is next". Thanks. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:CCE8:E2DF:41A6:666A (talk) 00:46, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * The link goes to the regularly scheduled election for the next Congress; that's the standard set up for these infoboxes. — Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:12, 17 January 2023 (UTC)
 * There is a "2023 United States House of Representatives elections" page, so the 2023 election is next. Can you please fix the info box? Please. 2601:40A:8400:5A40:60C1:CA49:27AD:5418 (talk) 19:01, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Table Coloring
I see that the state by state, seat by seat tables have solid blocks of color for the partisan vote index and for the incumbent, but not for the winner? Is there a strong reason for this? I would expect that readers of an encyclopedia would most benefit by having the incumbent and the winner highlighted. Jd2718 (talk) 00:18, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

Idea for change in format to indications of party affiliation changes in electoral history/"first elected" columns in wikitables
Hello, everyone. When it has come to the wikitables in US House, Senate, and governor election pages, party switches for politicians in the electoral history or "first elected" columns are usually indicated with simply insets or notes to say that they changed their party affiliation during their tenure. For example, see Jeff Van Drew for NJ-2 from this page (bolded):

However, it feels as though party switches and general affiliation changes are common enough on election wikitables that having to use an inset each time is a bit awkward to do. As such, I am proposing that party switches be changed to a similar style to how nonconsecutive periods of service are indicated (for example, see Kweisi Mfume):

Returning to the example of Jeff Van Drew, this rendered for party switches could look like this:

Or, for examples of people who had longer periods of service, here's what they could look like: Thank you for your consideration, and I hope that this proposal will ultimately be implemented. PrusBis6187 (talk) 21:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

Pelosi stepping down as leader
shouldn't the infobox have Pelosi retiring as Democratic house leader? 72.24.214.237 (talk) 22:40, 19 July 2023 (UTC)


 * the change in leadership took place in the following Congress, after these elections took place. it’s not particularly relevant to an article about the elections. Griffindaly (talk) 22:46, 19 July 2023 (UTC)

Opinion polls
Shouldn't there be a section on opinion polls, showing e.g. a list of generic ballot polls for the house prior to the election. That is the standard for other first-past-the-polls elections like the UK House of Commons too 11:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC) 159.86.201.134 (talk) 11:31, 21 September 2023 (UTC)

Oregon Map
Can someone fix the oregon map. It shows that there was a democrat gain and a Republican gain NathanBru (talk) 22:48, 10 December 2023 (UTC)

Voter turnout
Didn’t there used to be at the top of the infobox the percentage for total voter turnout compared to registered voters nationwide what happened to that? Rabbipika (talk) 16:15, 16 January 2024 (UTC)