Talk:List of female United States presidential and vice presidential candidates

Write-in candidates
Some write-in candidates did receive votes in presidential elections, for example according to http://www.ballot-access.org/1996/allvotes96.html and http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe1996/presge.htm, the other FEC records, http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G00/PresidentLong.html , http://www.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ElectionsVoter/results1980s.aspx?Section=425 & http://serform2.sos.state.oh.us/sos//results/80/1988/pres.htm http://serform2.sos.state.oh.us/sos//results/90/1996/gen/gen.htm and United States presidential election, 2004 (detail):

Ellen Linea W. Jensen
"Washington Peace. For President, Mrs. Ellen Linea W. Jensen', 50-year-old Miami grandmother and astrologist who claims to be in close communion with George Washington "on the other side"; for Vice President, a man whose identity Mrs. Jensen doesn't feel free to reveal. Candidate Jensen, who says she was a "Himalayan Master" in a previous incarnation, promises to stamp out Communism "within nine minutes" of her inauguration. Though her party is "very loosely organized" and has only "a bare possibility" of getting on the ballot in Texas and Washington, Mrs. Jensen believes she is a shoo-in, since her horoscope is favorable." "It's a Free County" TIME Magazine September 1, 1952 Did she actually get on the ballot? Possibly Ellen W. Jensen (October 29, 1897 —	October 13, 1991) of Washington (from Social Security Death Index).

Agnes Waters
Agnes Waters candidate of American Women's Party or National Woman's Party, founded by Blanche Winters, a right-wing party in 1948 or 1952. Ballot status, write-in? Шизомби (talk) 15:54, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
 * 1944, 1948, 1952, 1956 write in candidate. Vote totals unknown. Шизомби (talk) 14:29, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

1980
This site http://serform2.sos.state.oh.us/sos//results/80/1980/presEle.htm says Deirdre Griswold's running mate was Naomi Cohen, not Gavrielle Holmes. It says Angela Davis' running mate was Ed Clark (also the Libertarian Party candidate for President that year), not Gus Hall. It says Wretha Hanson was Barry Commoner's running mate, not La Donna Harris. Commoner received 8,564 votes. It says Matilde Zimmerman's running mate was Richard H. Congress not Andrew Pulley. This Johnson County, Iowa site http://www.johnson-county.com/auditor/returns/8011rtn.htm has Hall/Davis, DeBeery/Zimmerman, Commoner/Harris, and Griswold isn't present. This site http://www.elections.state.ri.us/Misc_Elect/1980.htm has Hall/Davis, Griswold/Holmes, Debeery/Zimmerman, and Commoner isn't present. This site http://www.co.wood.oh.us/Boe/Wood%20County,%201980-1989.pdf has Griswold/Cohen; Clark/Davis; Commoner Hanson (Wretha Wiley Hanson); Congress/Zimmerman.

1984
This site http://serform2.sos.state.oh.us/sos//results/80/1984/presEle.htm says Gavrielle Holmes' running mate was Milton Vera not Gloria LaRiva, and that Melvin T. Mason's running mate was Matilde Zimmerman not Andrea Gonzalez. This Johnson County, Iowa site http://www.johnson-county.com/auditor/returns/8411rtn.htm has the Mason/Zimmerman ticket but not the Holmes one at all. This site http://www.elections.state.ri.us/Misc_Elect/1984.htm has Holmes/Vera, Mason/Zimmerman.

1988
This site http://serform2.sos.state.oh.us/sos//results/80/1988/presEle.htm says Naomi Cohen was Larry Holmes' running mate, not Gloria LaRiva. Perhaps there was some reason LaRiva couldn't be on the ballot in Ohio? 12:03, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Multiple running mates
http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/index.php/about-us/historical-information/presidential-candidates has different info than Wikipedia, and doesn't specify which states tickets were on the ballot in.

Eugene McCarthy: " he came to have a grand total of 15 running mates in states where he was required to have one. At least eight of his running mates were women." http://special.lib.umn.edu/rare/mccarthy.phtml

Possibly there are others of Nader's and Fulani's too... and in any case, the specific vote totals for specific tickets need to be run down. Шизомби (talk) 15:20, 10 July 2008 (UTC)

NPOV
Both of these lists completely excluded any candidates from the two major parties until just now, when I added some candidacies to the presidential list. Information should be added to the vice presidential list, and then the NPOV tag should be removed. • Freechild   'sup?   16:16, 11 January 2008 (UTC)


 * You did not read a clarification in the list then: "Not included are women who lost a nominating convention or primary election for their party's nomination, write-in candidates, or fictional candidates." Which would remove from listing everyone from the Democrats and the Republicans except Geraldine Ferraro. Because the rest only run for Party nomination. They did not reach the final election. Dimadick (talk) 15:05, 16 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Using the criteria of winning a nominating convention or primary election for a party nomination is an irrelevant bar to set in this case, as smaller parties have been obviously more likely and able to nominate women than larger parties where their have been larger fields of candidates to choose from. I removed this language from the article; if it is re-included there should be a source that supports the assertion that party nomination is the appropriate high-water marker. • Freechild   'sup?   15:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
 * I strongly disagree that smaller parties have "obviously" been "more likely and able to nominate women." There's no "obvious" reason why they would, nor any obvious reason why the two majors wouldn't. Also, the proof is on the positive, is it not?  Isn't it your responsibility to source why you made your move?  Шизомби (talk) 04:47, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
 * NPOV? You're not making that accusation in good faith.  It's the two main party's fault for not selecting female candidates, not the list's.  Additionally, your claim that those parties were "completely excluded" was completely spurious.  Ferraro was on there.


 * It had been purposely narrow, to exclude nominees, since the number of nominees would likely be huge. I certainly would be interested to know what nominees there have been, but that might be better handled by a separate table, or an entirely separate list.  The longer a list gets, the less useful it tends to be, less readable anyway.  Separating out that info would also let it be handled better, in that one could identify how many votes they got in primaries or other standards to show how they performed, which would be more useful than simply identifying them.


 * I'm inclined to revert, though I'd like to hear other opinions. As of the moment, I think tomorrow, I'll separate out the Dem and Rep contenders who did not receive the nomination into a separate table on this list.  The problem is identifying all the third party candidates meeting that criteria....  Шизомби (talk) 04:43, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

What about candidates who failed to get a nomination for a major party but then ran as an independent? That is still a candidate! I am thinking in particular of Shirley Chisolm. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.43.97.121 (talk) 22:51, 2 June 2008 (UTC)

Losers of primaries
http://www.jofreeman.com/politics/womprez03.htm may be helpful. Шизомби (talk) 00:34, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

Straw polls
Not sure how to handle them, as they can include people who aren't running for president at all, or who are not running for a specific party's nomination at all. E.g. in 2008, Barbara Boxer, Cynthia McKinney, Candice Miller, and Condoleezza Rice got votes in these, but they were not running for the Democratic or Republican nominations. I suppose the solution is to do somewhat as Project Vote Smart does, "All "Announced" candidates have formed or announced a Presidential exploratory or campaign committee with the Federal Election Commission or filed a statement of candidacy. "Potential" candidates have publicly expressed an interest in a Presidential campaign or their interest has been suggested by the media." Thus, to include votes for announced candidates, and exclude votes for potential candidates. Though I could see how the latter could be interesting to include as well. Шизомби (talk) 15:37, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Sarah Palin
I have added Sarah Palin to the list along with a note that while it has been widely reported by media, McCain has not made an official announcement. Once he does, I (or someone else, depending on whether I am home or away) should remove the note. Smartyllama (talk) 14:55, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Cheryl Lindsey Seelhoff 2008
Stumbled across this http://cheryllindseyseelhoffforpresident.wordpress.com/ indicating an intention to run for President under the "Free Soil Party" but no mention of a vice-presidential candidate or ballot access that I've come across yet, or whether she received any write-in votes. Might deserve further investigation; she does seem to be someone who may merit an article of her own even if she doesn't qualify for this list. Шизомби (talk) 00:23, 7 October 2009 (UTC)

propose new table for additional women
I propose to add another table, to list women who were asked to be candidates for President or Vice President, where either the woman who was asked or the person who asked her is notable (and is the subject of an article in Wikipedia), where the request is sourced either in this list or in the related article, and if the woman does not qualify for a table already in the list. I discovered one such woman and I think it's historically important that a popular President in the 1950s thought a woman could win the Presidency, since he asked her, even though she didn't run. I'll wait a week for any comment and, if known, any additional women. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:59, 14 June 2013 (UTC)
 * Done. Nick Levinson (talk) 19:03, 22 June 2013 (UTC)

propose re-adding table of women considered for candidacies
A table of women invited to be candidates was recently deleted. However, the scope of the table and the instructions for populating it (in a comment visible only in edit mode) were clear (not too amorphous), it qualifies for due weight, it is historically interesting, and the notability required for populating the table means the table would qualify for Wikipedia even as a stand-alone page. Probably Rice, Palin, or Clinton qualifies, assuming we know of someone notable and with a Wikipedia article who invited her candidacy, and I guess Feinstein or Landreau too, and in that case we can add each to the table. The possibility of adding any or all and perhaps others does not mean the table should be deleted. If the table were to get to be too large, that would probably be due to modern cases when being a woman who is a candidate is less newsworthy without more, but if that happens we could set a year as a cut-off or limit it to Presidential invitees, on the basis that only older cases or for the top office warrant weight, but the table would not be too large with just six women. I propose essentially to revert the recent deletion. As an alternative, I could create a new article for the table, but I think there's both relevance and room to include it in this article. I'll wait a week for any response. Nick Levinson (talk) 17:16, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * I read the edit mode comment at the time: "Either the woman asked or the person or other entity asking must be notable and be the subject of an article in Wikipedia. Do not list any woman who was a party nominee or a candidate for party nomination in the same election." But that doesn't help, because it doesn't define what the section header of "women considered for candidacies" actually means.  Does it a woman was seriously considering it but decided not to?  Not very seriously considering it?  Someone else was mentioning her name?  How seriously?  Do you count someone like Eleanor Roosevelt, based on something like this account, even though she said she had no interest?  What about, say, Ella Grasso, who per this page was "mentioned" as a possibility for both president and vice president.  Mentioned by who, some serious power brokers in the party or by some drunken pol in a bar one night?  Whatever became of those mentions?


 * And in modern times, the list of women touted as possible vice presidential candidates is almost endless. I gave two names for 2004 and Kerry before, but per this WaPo piece from the time, there are nine different women mentioned.  How many of those were ever under serious consideration?  How many were just put there by a bored reporter engaging in idle speculation?  Women mentioned for McCain in 2008 included Marsha Blackburn, Elizabeth Dole, Kay Bailey Hutchison, Condi Rice, Christie Todd Whitman, and others I'm no doubt forgetting.  How many of those were real?  And so on.


 * In the end, the definitional problems of this kind of list are insurmountable. And in politics, talk is cheap; it is always better to describe actual actions rather than talk.  Wasted Time R (talk) 23:59, 16 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Okay. That's comes down to a problem of weight. The editors of each article presumably keep closer tabs on the weight of various items of information. I suggest we add as a criterion for the table that the fact must be in the Wikipedia article. Then the report would not belong in this table unless it was also in the article. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:26, 17 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Using one WP article to determine the contents of another WP article is generally bad practice. For example, the Ella Grasso article doesn't talk about her being considered or mentioned for president or vice president, so by your rule she would not be listed here.  But that article is only 546 words long and is quite threadbare; if someone were to do an FA/GA-level treatment of her life, the article would likely be around 5,000 words and would mention the national angle.  So I don't think your approach is viable. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:21, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Exactly: As long as it's not in the Grasso article, it wouldn't be in this list, but if it entered the Grasso article in the future, it could be added to this list at that time. I'll add a criterion: The statement should be sourced in the other article (being sourceable wouldn't be enough, a source must have been cited in the other article). So, if someone wants to add a name and can cite a source, they should add it to the article about that person along with the source, so that editors who usually watchlist that article can respond if they think there's a problem. If there's another way to judge weight, please suggest it. I'll wait a week for any response. Nick Levinson (talk) 15:02, 28 October 2013 (UTC)


 * WP doesn't work like that: the editors working on the other articles won't know this one exists, and the editors on this article won't know that the other ones have been modified. And anyway I'm not looking to judge weight, because as I said above, I don't think non-candidates belong here at all.  But I can see that I've completely failed in my attempt to persuade you to this viewpoint, so I'll get out of the way and not raise any more objections.  Wasted Time R (talk) 00:33, 29 October 2013 (UTC)


 * That phenonenon applies to many lists and indexes and we manage okay; an example would be a list of literature of a type, in which every entry also has to be somewhere else in Wikipedia or sourced, and usually it's the former. The problem seems most likely to occur if an invitation to be a candidate appears in an article, is mentioned in this list, then is deleted from the article, but is not deleted from this list. To accommodate your concern, I'll add as a criterion that waiting after the information was added to the article would be prudent, to allow for quick revertings of articles. Nick Levinson (talk) 16:17, 30 October 2013 (UTC)


 * Done. Thanks. Nick Levinson (talk) 21:26, 10 November 2013 (UTC)

Candidate for party nomination tables don't present well
The two party nominee tables in this article work pretty well, since the total number of votes gives an easily understood metric of which candidacies attracted the most support. But the next two tables, the candidates for party nomination, don't present well. It's hard to see at a glance which are the major party candidates and which are the minor; it confuses women who were really running with women who just picked up a stray vote or two at a convention; and it gives incommensurate figures in the same column. Will the reader looking at this be able to tell that Shirley Chisholm is the second-most successful female nomination candidate ever? Not easily. Will they be able to tell that Michele Bachmann was a serious candidate during the year before the primaries and who participated in many presidential nomination debates and who won the Iowa Straw Poll? No. Will they be able to tell that Elvena Lloyd-Dufﬁe's second- and third-place primary finishes are not very significant since Bill Clinton was running for renomination unopposed by any serious candidates that year? No. At a minimum, I think the "Details" column should be split into three - total primary votes, total delegates, and other comments. That would better allow readers to see who the more successful candidates have been. Wasted Time R (talk) 10:42, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 4 one external links on List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080709194210/http://www.ok.gov/~elections/96rpres.html to http://www.ok.gov/~elections/96rpres.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516173748/http://politics1.com/otherdem2k.htm to http://www.politics1.com/otherdem2k.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080516173740/http://politics1.com/othergop2k.htm to http://www.politics1.com/othergop2k.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/20080515223015/http://politics1.com/dems04.htm to http://politics1.com/dems04.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

Cheers.—cyberbot II  Talk to my owner :Online 19:25, 14 January 2016 (UTC)

Mention Edith Wilson?
and no woman has ever become President

might become

and no woman, with the arguable exception of Edith Wilson in 1920, has ever become President

136.63.45.89 (talk) 05:57, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Interesting point, but after doing some research, Wilson herself insisted that she never assumed the full power of the presidency, at best she used some of its prerogatives on behalf of a husband. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 11:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

Nomination doesn't happen until the convention
Hillary isn't the nominee yet. Andrevan@ 16:54, 8 June 2016 (UTC)
 * We should leave the check-mark & x-mark, out, until the convention. Meanwhile, the background coloring is alright, as it's indicated as presumptive presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 21:37, 8 June 2016 (UTC)

I think the sort order should be by date, either ascending date or descending date, i don't care, but right now the ordering seems arbitrary and to sort it by anything other than date of not very encyclopedic. I think the background coloring is unnecessary and demonstrates a violation of NPOV. --Jeff (talk) 16:54, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Others can decide on the ordering criteria. As for the background coloring? whether we like it or not, the Republican & Democratic parties are the major political parties of the USA. There hasn't been a US President or US Vice President from any other political party, since Millard Fillmore. GoodDay (talk) 11:45, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

"Number" column
What purpose does it serve? It seems to rank by vote total, but vote total has its own column (it'd be easy enough to use sort to ensure Hillary 2016 is at the top while her vote total is not finalized). – Muboshgu (talk) 19:54, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The number column is completely unnecessary. If it requires a popular votes, it should come after the actual historic data. Hillary 2016 results should be removed until election results released. --182.161.14.178 (talk) 23:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
 * Nonetheless, it's very important though. It's historically been a major struggle for women to gain votes in elections, even though it might seem like something very standard now. Those votes represent people that want a female President, whether they voted for her in the primaries or in the general election. It's taken centuries for a major party to choose a woman as their nominee about a week ago, so up until November 8, let's inlude Clinton's primary voting totals, which are the second highest for any woman in history. ThiefOfBagdad (talk) 09:43, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Contested Convention/Presumptive Nominee
There is someone editing this article and adding this language:

"Although the establishment and the corporate media have declared her the nominee and based on the assumption that Senator Sanders will back her" "it, needs to be noted that the DNC allotted all the Super Delegates to Secretary Clinton even before anybody else had declared candidacy for the Democratic nomination. Currently several states have resolved, at their state conventions, to eliminate the system of super delegates which is inherently undemocratic."

How is this encyclopedic? I deleted this language. Not only is not encyclopedic but it is factually incorrect. Not "all" superdelegates declared for Clinton before the primaries began.

Also on the table that lists all presidential candidates by popular vote, Jill Stein is listed as "presumptive nominee" and someone changed Hillary Clinton from "presumptive nominee" to "awaiting convention". How is Jill Stein the presumptive nominee from the Green Party but Hillary Clinton is not the presumptive nominee from the Democratic Party? One can cite MULTIPLE news articles declaring Hillary Clinton the presumptive nominee, even President Obama referred to her as such. Even Bernie Sanders has admitted that it is not likely that he will be the nominee. He is no longer talking about trying to flip superdelegates in order to force a "contested convention". 2601:146:C300:A695:5496:E9AA:F83F:B04 (talk) 04:04, 28 June 2016 (UTC)Danny Boy

The presumptuousness of declaring Hillary Clinton the "nominee" was noted long before President Obama's comment about her. Correct my language for its suitability, but not for its veracity, please. This information appearing on Wikipedia must be critical of our electoral process to preserve the history of 2016 in real time. In the entire article, there was not one mention of the Senator Bernie Sanders except the latest and recent reference to Dr. Jill Stein's offer to him on behalf of the Green Party. The word "Presumptive" was injected into the conversation by the media as a last resort to force the idea. So, correct it to sound more "encyclopedic" but do not please dispute the information or delete it. That will be dishonest for an "Encyclopedia." To answer Danny Boy's point: Dr. Jill Stein's party has no other candidate listed as contesting the candidacy. Democrat party has two candidates for the nomination. Quite a significant difference and surely not a valid argument in ~ support of the correction I had made.Hroychow (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 15:49, 11 July 2016 (UTC)

redundancy of "General election candidates" and "Primary election candidates" tables?
The "General election candidates" table was already redundant when it was first added as "Presidential candidates by popular vote" back in March 2016: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates&diff=next&oldid=712773360 It was made marginally less redundant by the arbitrary threshold for that table of 30,000 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates&diff=prev&oldid=712784113  However, given that one can click the vote column in the other tables and thereby have the columns sorted by number of votes descending from the highest number of votes to lowest number, those tables still are quite redundant and contribute to making an already long page that much longer.

The 30,000 threshold was removed on November 10, 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates&diff=prev&oldid=748895584

The "General election candidates" table is headed by the explanation "This list includes female candidates who have run or are currently running for President of the United States in a general election and are sorted by the number of votes they received in the election." It does not explain what makes that table different from the "Party nominees" table that follows it.

The "Primary election candidates" table was added on November 11, 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates&diff=cur&oldid=748895584

The "Primary election candidates" table is headed by the explanation "This list includes female candidates for a party nomination for President of the United States who ran in at least one primary or caucus, sorted by the number of votes they received during their run." It does not explain what makes that table different from the "Not nominated by party" table that follows it. Patsy Mink, the most recent addition to the "Primary election candidates" table is Patsy Mink https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_female_United_States_presidential_and_vice-presidential_candidates&diff=749400611&oldid=749220454 who received 8,286 votes. That's below the 30,000 threshold for the "Presidential candidates by popular vote" table from which the "Primary election candidates" table had been created. She was already on the "Not nominated by party" table.

Perhaps there is a justification for having redundant tables (and/or a way of making them not so redundant), but at present the justification doesn't appear in the article. Any editor who can justify them ought to add an explanation to the article that indicates what makes those tables different than the other tables! The photos are a nice addition, at least, and I'm glad there's some other editors who at least find the topic interesting enough to get involved!

For my own part, I think better things to focus on would include: sourcing information, adding candidates who aren't in the article at all (I recently found some that were missed), determining for third party candidates the extent of their ballot access, finding a better way of listing information in the "Details" columns, which has never been satisfying the way it is. Maybe adding columns for the percentage of the total popular vote.

Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 00:35, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 5 one external links on List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160812114235/http://elections.gatehousemedia.com/why-sanders-will-ultimately-back-clinton/ to http://elections.gatehousemedia.com/why-sanders-will-ultimately-back-clinton/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724161813/http://www.texasalmanac.com/politics/prez.pdf to http://www.texasalmanac.com/politics/prez.pdf
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051120102116/http://serform2.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ to http://serform2.sos.state.oh.us/sos/
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20051120102116/http://serform2.sos.state.oh.us/sos/ to http://serform2.sos.state.oh.us/sos/
 * Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.thirdpartywatch.com/encyclopedia/index.php?title=Socialist_Equality_Party

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 02:25, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Electoral vote tables
The table of female candidates who had received electoral votes for VP was removed in this edit by a since-blocked editor. I've restored it and added a table for presidential candidates as well. Obviously, we knew Hillary Clinton was going to get electoral votes today, but as it turned out there were a total of two women who received EV's for president and five women who received EV's for vice president today as well. The list of women who received electoral votes for either office is extremely relevant to this page. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 03:55, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150126085532/http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/jofreeman/polhistory/chisholm.htm to http://www.uic.edu/orgs/cwluherstory/jofreeman/polhistory/chisholm.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080612131017/http://politics1.com/p2008-gop.htm to http://politics1.com/p2008-gop.htm
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201173021/http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19990830/ai_n14247867 to http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn4158/is_19990830/ai_n14247867
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090107093331/http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/index.php/about-us/historical-information/presidential-candidates to http://www.peaceandfreedom.org/home/index.php/about-us/historical-information/presidential-candidates

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 12:03, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added tag to http://www.tribstar.com/opinion_columns/local_story_117191351.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090202095215/http://www.nangarrett.org/index.php to http://www.nangarrett.org/index.php
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080905143005/http://www.newamericanindependent.com/VPMAP.html to http://www.newamericanindependent.com/VPMAP.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 05:36, 25 May 2017 (UTC)

Elizabeth Gray received 5,449 votes for president.
http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/R — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:8B97:D9D0:122:2657:57BB:B826 (talk) 13:26, 31 July 2017 (UTC)

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on List of female United States presidential and vice-presidential candidates. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060207083017/http://www.speaking.com/speakers/lenorafulani.html to http://www.speaking.com/speakers/lenorafulani.html
 * Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090201153149/http://library.syr.edu/digital/collections/g/GerritSmith/453.htm to http://library.syr.edu/digital/collections/g/GerritSmith/453.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Cheers.— InternetArchiveBot  (Report bug) 07:02, 30 December 2017 (UTC)

Victoria Woodhall’s inclusion
The page mentions Woodhall as the first woman to run, however she was constitutionally unable to be president due to her age. This should be reflected on the page, either in her picture at the beginning, adding the first eligible woman, or removing Woodhall. IEditThingsForYou (talk) 18:25, 3 July 2019 (UTC)

2020 female Democratic presidential candidates: when will they be added to the list?
In the 2020 Presidential election cycle, there are currently 6 women in the Democratic Party running for President: Elizabeth Warren, Kamala Harris, Amy Klobuchar, Kirsten Gillibrand, Tulsi Gabbard, and Marianne Williamson. When will they be added to the list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.156.6.30 (talk) 21:08, 22 July 2019 (UTC)

Candidates who received electoral college votes
This seems to be the only table unsorted by date as a default. Any issues with making this change? --Mr. Vernon (talk) 05:16, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

Debate stage content
"Debate stage" should be defined better in some way.

"As a major party nominee, Clinton became the first woman to participate in a presidential debate"; "Prior to the 2020 United States presidential election cycle, only five women throughout history had made it to a debate stage: Democrats Shirley Chisholm (in 1972), Carol Moseley Braun (in 2004), and Hillary Clinton (in 2008 and 2016), and Republicans Michele Bachmann (in 2012) and Carly Fiorina (in 2016); there had never been more than one woman on the debate stage at one time, and there had never been more than two women running per party at one time." etc.

Multiple women have been in debates prior to third party primaries, and multiple women who were third party nominees for president have been in debates with other third party candidates. Sometimes those may have involved more than one, or more than two running per party.

The distinction that the article text seems to be trying to make has to do with major party candidates. That should be explicitly stated in some way. The type of debate should also be specified, and it might not hurt to have specific dates and citations. I leave it to the active editors of the list to work out the best wording, though. I'm barely a lurker at present. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 04:05, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

2020 Libertarian Candidate
We should add the 2020 Libertarian candidate for president, Jo Jorgenson:  Dkalweit (talk) 21:01, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 05:50, 5 August 2020 (UTC)

Images in multiple image box
I question the highlighting of Jill Stein and Jo Jorgensen in the multiple image box. Their candidacies are certainly of some note, but surely there are more notable "firsts" than being the first nominee of third-parties. For instance, Geraldine Ferraro being the first major-party VP nominee (for the Democrats) and Sarah Palin being the Republican Party's first female VP nominee. Or Margaret Chase Smith being the first female candidate for a major party's nomination. SecretName101 (talk) 00:05, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Considering that edit is not even correct (Cynthia McKinney was the first woman nominated by the Green Party), I'm removing it for now and we can discuss inclusions first. I personally think Woodhull and Clinton should be the only images, unless a woman is elected vice president in this upcoming election (which is a strong possibility), when she can be added as well. { [ ( jjj 1238 ) ] } 01:27, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Didn't even think to question. Should have occurred to me that McKinney was the first Green Party female nom, I spent a lot of time improving the 2008 Green Party primaries article years ago. SecretName101 (talk) 00:26, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Would a new section be appropriate for women that have run for both vie and president? I believe jo Jorgensen is the first female to have run for both Vice President and president. Tgmod (talk) 02:55, 8 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That isn't true anyways, Gloria La Riva, for instance, has already run both as a Presidential and Vice-Presidential nominee. SecretName101 (talk) 00:29, 9 July 2020 (UTC)

Number of votes, percentage
The lists General election candidates by popular vote and Primary election candidates are currently listing number of votes, and sorts by that number. What is the rationale behind that? I don't have enough context to know whether this is a consistent reliable indicator over the decades, but it would make much more sense to me to add the percentage of the total vote, and sort by that percentage instead. For all I know, the 1964 primaries were held in a very different fashion, and if 7100 votes was actually out of a total of 25,000 that would give an entirely different meaning to the number. Any thoughts? effeietsanders 03:18, 20 August 2020 (UTC)


 * That could involve a fair amount of work, but would probably be a useful data field if anyone was inclined to create it. As it is, though, two years out, a number of the smaller vote tallies haven't been added. Шизомби (Sz) (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2022 (UTC)