Talk:Third-party and independent candidates for the 2016 United States presidential election/Archive 1

Johnson is now an actual, not a potential candidate
Gary Johnson has announced he is running for the Libertarian nomination in 2016. Source:http://reason.com/blog/2014/11/04/gary-johnson-ill-run-in-2016-to-provide. Please upgrade him from "potential" candidate to official candidate on the page. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B10F:DF87:B3B4:980E:C17:774 (talk) 13:18, 5 November 2014 (UTC)


 * ✅ by User:ALPolitico.--JayJasper (talk) 17:23, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Green Party candidate Jill Stein launches exploratory committee
Sources: http://www.bloomberg.com/politics/articles/2015-02-06/green-pary-s-jill-stein-exploring-run-for-the-white-house

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/power-players-abc-news/meet-the-woman-trying-to-turn-the-white-house-green-233137109.html

http://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/02/06/green-party-candidate-jill-stein-considers-second-run-for-president/tNGrbmsmiTMXkjcJg92aNK/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eli755 (talk • contribs) 18:34, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Marc Allan Feldman is now an actual candidate for the Libertarian Nomination for President
Marc Allan Feldman is now an actual candidate for the Libertarian Nomination for President.

I am registered with the FEC:

http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandidateCommitteeDetail.do?candidateCommitteeId=P60005725&tabIndex=3

I have an active website, accepting donations, at:

http://www.VotesNotForSale.com

I have an active Facebook page at:

https://www.facebook.com/VotesNotForSale

I have been included as a speaker at the recent state Libertarian conventions in Kentucky and Georgia

http://www.lpky.org/state_convention2015_agenda

http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2015/03/liveblogging-from-2015-libertarian-party-of-georgia-convention/

I currently serve as Region 3 representative on the Libertarian National Committee (Kentucky, Indiana, Ohio, Michigan)

https://www.lp.org/lnc-leadership

I was a candidate for Ohio Attorney General in 2010. My campaign is noted on Ballotpedia and Politics1

http://ballotpedia.org/Marc_Allan_Feldman

http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm

I have requested a bio page on Wikipedia at: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requested_articles/Biographies/Political_figures

--Mfeldmanmd (talk) 16:33, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Waka Flocka Flame
Waka Flocka Flame is listed here as a candidate, but he's listed at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Endorsements_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016 as having endorsed Clinton. These can't both be true, can they? 71.105.96.33 (talk) 17:59, 27 July 2015 (UTC)


 * He's ineligible to serve as president (see http://www.newsledge.com/waka-flocka-flame-rolls-a-presidential-bid-with-one-small-problem-14975), so maybe he's no longer a candidate. I'm okay with him being removed from this list. Anyone else have an opinion? —The Sackinator (talk) 18:26, 27 July 2015 (UTC)
 * He gone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NOwakaNOflockaNOflame (talk • contribs) 18:47, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * Has he endorsed Clinton? If he has, is that an indicator for removal from this list? —C.Fred (talk) 19:57, 2 August 2015 (UTC)
 * No. At best it is a cause for listing him as withdrawn, not removing him from the list completely.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:02, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

Zoltan Istvan Party Status
I noticed that Zoltan Istvan is listed as an independent however he is technically running under the Transhumanist Party Platform, which while without an independent page is mentioned in both his bio page and the page for Transhumanist politics.

Should we leave him as Independent or move him to Transhumanist Party. I would personally think the second would be the better idea. Political Boss (talk) 13:14, 25 August 2015 (UTC)

Constitutionally Ineligible Canidates
Why are candidates who cannot legally be a candidate on here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Baseballcow13 (talk • contribs) 02:19, 12 September 2015 (UTC)


 * Legally speaking, anyone can run for President of the United States. They can't hold the office itself, but they can run for it.  In the past, people such as Peta Lindsay (who was 28) and Roger Calero (born in Nicaragua) have been nominated by third parties as the nominee for President.  They can be listed due to this.  If they were to win, however (it is beyond unlikely that that will happen), they wouldn't be allowed to hold the office.  Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 16:40, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Nathan Norman
The page for Nathan Norman says he's running for the Libertarian nomination. Should he be added here? --71.105.96.33 (talk) 03:20, 7 September 2015 (UTC)


 * I have done work on the page. There's sources to the official campaign website and to politics1.com and green papers. I read on an interview that he won't file with the FEC because he doesn't plan to raise funds. I can't find the link to the interview. He should be added. His home state is Pennsylvania. --Giant Bernard (talk) 21:24, 7 September 2015 (UTC)

--It appears he is 24 years old and thus not qualified to be president per the Constitution. see rodericke.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3BA6:9CA0:A59C:DDC8:F414:852D (talk) 03:46, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

Libertarian Presidential Candidates 2016
The Libertarian Party has published its current list of Presidential candidates. The 2016 Presidential candidates currently recognized by the Libertarian Party are: •Marc Allan Feldman •Darryl Perry •Steve Kerbel •Rhett Smith •Cecil Ince None of these candidates are currently listed on the Wiki page. Those listed under Libertarian Party are not currently recognized Libertarian candidates. Mfeldmanmd (talk) 19:20, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
 * None of the above candidates have been shown to meet the notability benchmarks of WP:GNG or WP:POLITICIAN, which presently is a prerequisite for inclusion on the page. Currently, there is talk of revising the inclusion standard (see here and here) to make "recognized by the party" a primary factor for inclusion, though I'm not sure that would include candidates not having standalone wikipedia articles. But for the time being anyway, the ones listed in the article meet the benchmark and the ones listed above do not.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:58, 24 September 2015 (UTC)

Redo the Page?
Should the page match the 2012 Third Parties and Independents section? That looks so much better than this to me- what do you think? Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 12:45, 21 August 2015 (UTC)


 * Probably a good idea. Please provide a WikiLink.--DThomsen8 (talk) 16:06, 24 October 2015 (UTC)

Vermin Supreme - now a Democrat?
Should Vermin Supreme be switched to the Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016 page instead? He is entered in the Democratic primary in New Hampshire. (See, and under Election Information, click on "Candidates Filed" to download the list. I don't have a direct link to the PDF but he is the second-to-last candidate listed on the last page.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 06:15, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * Yes. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:25, 22 November 2015 (UTC)
 * ✅ He has been removed from this page and re-classified as a democrat.--JayJasper (talk) 22:15, 23 November 2015 (UTC)

Orphaned references in United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "The Hill": From Rick Santorum:  From John McAfee:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 17:51, 26 December 2015 (UTC)
 * ❌ none of the above. All the best: Rich Farmbrough, 13:14, 24 February 2016 (UTC).

and the...SWP?
the socialist workers party launches a candidacy... where in the article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.17.48.179 (talk) 01:46, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The SWP has now been added to the article.--JayJasper (talk) 20:22, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Bob Whitaker drops ticket
The Candidate for the AFP Bob Whitaker has dropped out of the race due to conflicts with the heads of the party supporting Donald Trump according to the SPLC and Huffington Post. http://m.huffpost.com/us/entry/donald-trump-american-freedom-party-emails_us_5702b470e4b0a06d580659c7?cps=gravity_5059_5312041833243711483&kvcommref=mostpopular

https://www.splcenter.org/hatewatch/2016/04/06/white-nationalist-support-trump-falters-resignation-american-freedom-party-presidential Political Boss (talk) 23:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

How to get listed
How does a declared independent candidate get listed here? Note rodericke.com Thanks  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:3BA6:9CA0:A59C:DDC8:F414:852D (talk) 03:43, 23 September 2015 (UTC)
 * As I understand it, the person has to be notable enough to warrant having a separate Wikipedia article about them. And that is determined based mostly on the basic notability criterion for people, which says, "People are presumed notable if they have received significant coverage in multiple published secondary sources that are reliable, intellectually independent of each other, and independent of the subject." (See WP:BASIC.) --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:09, 24 September 2015 (UTC)
 * This standard seems ridiculous in this context, IMO. This is essentially a list article. Of U.S. minor party candidates. Very few such people are going to be notable in their own right outside of being a minor party presidential candidate. ⇔ ChristTrekker 22:16, 8 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with ChristTrekker. The general notability guideline applies specifically to who or what qualifies for a standalone article, not what can or can't be included in an article or list. The candidates pages for the D's and R's at least mentions some of the non-notable (by WP standards) candidates, this one should too. How about we include NN candidates running for a party's nomination that are verifiably recognized as an official candidate by the party in question. For independents, how about they be included if their candidacy can be verified by at least one reliable outside source. Thoughts?--NextUSprez (talk) 17:34, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree. The separate article standard is meant for inclusion in the main election page and on the template. All recognized candidates for the major third parties should be included.  The LP lists its recognized candidates here.  In addition, all independent candidates that receive ballot access in at least one state should be included but that is yet to be determined at this point. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:57, 13 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm okay with including all candidates formally recognized by a party. As for independents, if we're going to include only the ones that have confirmed ballot access in at least one state, we're going to have to remove all the ones listed currently. Instead of making of making ballot access an exclusive standard for inclusion, we could add: confirmed write-in status in at least 2 states; and candidacy confirmed by at least 2 reliable secondary sources, aside from an FEC filing (the reason I say this last part is because there are now more than 1,500 candidates and counting who have filed with FEC, many of them obvious jokes. So an FEC filing alone, especially in this election season, cannot be trusted to verify a legitimate candidacy).--Cojovo (talk) 17:10, 22 February 2016 (UTC)
 * I think it's clear from WP:GNG and WP:NNC that the metric used on this page currently is too strict. I think I'm tracking with Cojovo on this. For partisan candidates, formal recognition of candidacy by the party (assuming they have ballot access in even one state—which should weed out joke parties) ought to be sufficient; for non-partisan/independent candidates, FEC filing plus ballot access (including recognized write-in) in at least two states (counts as one citation, and the requirement of two weeds out many single-state joke candidates) plus confirmation cited from two add'l sources. A truly non-partisan candidate able to get on the ballot in multiple states in a nation with a duopolistic system as entrenched as the US's is notable in itself. &#x1f609; It can be a challenge for even the smaller parties. ⇔ ChristTrekker 18:00, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

This article - http://www.politics1.com/p2016.htm - has a whole list of independents and "hopeful write-ins". Richardson mcphillips (talk) 16:59, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Article scope
I think this article (and versions for other elections) would stand on its own more easily if it was titled "United States presidential candidates, 2016", and the Democrat and Republican candidates added too. That would also avoid the use of the weird "third party" term, when there are more than three, in the title. Horatio (talk) 02:38, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'd also suggest, to reduce clutter, that it only lists the candidates that actually contest the election, not every politician that's trying to get the nomination for their party. The others can go in party-specific articles. Horatio (talk) 02:46, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I disagree completely. There's no reason to reduce or increase the scope.  Third party (United States) is a recognized term.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:14, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree with William S. Saturn that there's no reason to broaden or lessen the scope. There are separate articles for the major party candidates (see Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016 and Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016) as well that follow the same basic guidelines as this one.--NextUSprez (talk) 18:18, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * My problem was that I was looking for a list of candidates for the 2012 election and it was hard to find, I don't think it exists on a single page. Horatio (talk) 22:45, 1 June 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm currently working on something similar for 2016. I still have a large amount of work to do on it though. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:31, 1 June 2016 (UTC)

Write-in ballot access
In 2012 we counted write-in access, after verifying that a slate of electors had been filed, in determining whether a party had 270 electoral votes of access. The Constitution Party has filed for write in access in Texas, which requires the selection of electors in order to register. I believe it should be listed here, in a separate under the regular ballot access states. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:18, 12 June 2016 (UTC)

Eugene Puryear
Eugene Puryear is constitutionally ineligible because he is under 35. Nutcracker100 (talk) 17:17, 4 July 2016 (UTC)