Talk:Third-party and independent candidates for the 2016 United States presidential election/Archive 2

External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 1 one external link on United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016. 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 http://web.archive.org/web/20160315171155/http://www.dunham2016.com/ to http://www.dunham2016.com/

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) 17:12, 21 July 2016 (UTC)

American Freedom Party
If I am not mistaken the AFP has decided to endorse Donald Trump for President. What should we do with the party in the article? Remove it completely or make a note that it ended up not running a candidate. Political Boss (talk) 18:02, 8 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I suggest deletion. The section has information about former candidates, but this article is primarily about candidates, not a stub for former candidates.  User:Dhalsim2 (talk) 08:00, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Reform Party nominates De La Fuente
Rocky De La Fuente is now the nominee of the Reform Party (Source: http://ballot-access.org/2016/08/09/reform-party-nominates-rocky-de-la-fuente-for-president/).

Please update this article accordingly. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B845:32DC:B081:535C:7B0B:DE51 (talk) 20:55, 9 August 2016 (UTC)

Sort Order
Although the division between parties with 270 electoral votes and those with less makes sense, I believe that the threshold of 50 is arbitrary and meaningless. I propose that instead, all parties with less than 270 electoral votes are listed in a single section and sorted by the number of electoral votes. Right now, each subsection is almost (but not quite) sorted alphabetically. User:Dhalsim2 (talk) 08:10, 10 August 2016 (UTC)


 * I agree. This proposed change to the sorting order is more practical and user/reader-friendly than the current set-up, IMO. What's the significance of "50 electoral votes", anyway?--Newbreeder (talk) 15:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

I think a designation of "Single state access" would make more sense. FreePressPublications (talk) 16:16, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * How about the sort order be based on these criteria (in this order, in the case of ties): electoral votes, number of states, alphabetical?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhalsim2 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Combining American Delta and Reform Parties
Since Rocky De la Fuente is the nominee of both parties, I propose that these sections be combined together and the electoral votes be added up. WaunaKeegan11 (talk) 16:02, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * No they shouldn't. They are separate entities.  Several other candidates sought the Reform Party nomination.  No one other than De La Fuente sought the American Delta Party nomination.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:07, 12 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree that these should be merged, as they will represent a single "ticket" in the general election. The Reform primary candidates can be listed as a subsection of the combined ADP/RP heading. The same standard would apply to the Natural Law Party, Peace and Freedom Party and American Independent Party, as they announce their nominees. Bcharles (talk) 22:11, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * That's an illegitimate argument and a made up standard with no precedent.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:33, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The AIP will nominate Donald Trump. Based on your logic, we should add AIP/Republican Party. That is wrong on many levels, particularly in the presumption it creates that somehow these parties have merged with each other.  The Natural Law Party nomination is different since there is no indication the nomination was challenged. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:38, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * The AIP has neglected to run or support an independent ticket. They have instead chosen fusion with the Republican ticket. So yes, they are now part of the GOP/AIP ticket. That is if the CA SoS allows such fusion.
 * When parties share a ticket, they are essentially merged for that election. Bcharles (talk) 03:22, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't think that's true at all. Do you have a reference to back up that assertion? --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:32, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm speaking conceptually, not literally. Consider a race car team. The members all have their own homes, families and careers, but for the purposes of the race, they function as a single team. Likewise, several parties that share a candidate, work as a team to get their message out and maximize their vote. Bcharles (talk) 18:08, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Formatting of Libertarian & Green Party lists
Why are these two parties formatted so differently? The GP list shows delegate counts for candidates, while the LP list shows how many primary votes candidates received, even though the delegate count at convention was not in any way tied to the handful of primaries that happened. FreePressPublications (talk) 16:17, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Good question, and good observation. Both the GP and LP candidates should be listed in order of delegate votes received at the parties' nominating conventions, since that was what determined the nomination for each party. This is particularity true of the LP, given that its primaries are non-binding, and all of the convention delegates are unbound.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:13, 17 August 2016 (UTC)

Ballot Access for Libertarian Pary
According to the ballot access website (https://www.lp.org/2016-presidential-ballot-access-map), New York is not yet included so why does it say that on the Wikipedia page? I don't want to delete however without getting an explanation. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Espnfan8123 (talk • contribs) 20:13, 11 August 2016 (UTC)

Evan McMullin update
He now has ballot status (in Colorado). This article will need to be updated accordingly.SecretName101 (talk) 13:50, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

US Pacifist Party Ballot Access
Bradford Lyttle of the US Pacifist Party has ballot access in Colorado. Here is a link to the Colorado SOS website with his name among the certified presidential candidates.

LINK: http://www.sos.state.co.us/pubs/elections/vote/generalCandidates.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.209.8.227 (talk) 20:34, 12 August 2016 (UTC)

American Delta Party / Reform Party ballot lines
WaunaKeegan11 I am reverting your revert of my changes to American Delta Party and Reform party. Several of the states mentioned have been filed, but not yet confirmed by the SoS. It is not good to count chickens before they hatch. The SoS rejected Rocky's filing both in PA and WA, which will require injunctions to reverse these decisions. Rocky submitted 2,000 signatures in CA (of a required 178,000). He will sue, and will likely force some revision to the requirement, but probably not enough, nor soon enough to help him this election.

The Reform Party has ballot lines in FL, LA, and MS, So I moved these states from ADP to the Reform Party. Bcharles (talk) 19:57, 13 August 2016 (UTC)


 * "The pages on wikipedia need to match and he is likely to win those lawsuits anyway." -from edit summary
 * The pages on Wikipedia need to match reality. As an encyclopedia it is not our role to predict the outcome of lawsuits. As ballot lines are confirmed, they should be added. Bcharles (talk) 23:24, 13 August 2016 (UTC)

-footnotes-

Bold structural change
I propose that we eliminate the "Ballot access to 270 or more electoral votes" and " Ballot access to fewer than 270 electoral votes" headings, in order to distinguish the party sections better. I would leave the "No ballot access" section for whatever parties and candidates fit there. Bcharles (talk) 22:26, 13 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Why? This shows which parties have enough ballot access to potentially win a majority of the electoral votes. --William S. Saturn (talk) 01:15, 14 August 2016 (UTC)
 * It is easy to see which candidates have access for more than half of electoral votes in any case. The 50% cut off is somewhat arbitrary, being relevant to some parties, but not much to others. My main reason for the change is so that it is easier to see where each party section begins. Now the smaller headings seem to all run together. Bcharles (talk) 02:45, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

fusion
This article should be amended to note that there are also fusion candidates in States such as New York, that are not included.Theoallen1 (talk) 20:02, 14 August 2016 (UTC)

Examples? --Political Boss (talk) 10:31, 15 August 2016 (UTC)


 * The New York Conservative party, the Working Families Party (in New York), The New York Independence Party, the Woman's Equality Party and the American Independent Party in California. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:42, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Socialist Workers Party
the section seems to be missing.--82.113.98.251 (talk) 19:37, 20 August 2016 (UTC)

---Still missing, someone must really hate them. Workers World Party trolls? Party of Socialism and Liberation? Hmmm....

Write-In Access Counts?
So. The Constitution PARTY is about to reach 270 Electoral Votes access. The problem is that is when you tally in Write-In votes. Their real access is like 180 or something, so the question is do we move them to the 270 category or not? Political Boss (talk) 06:18, 21 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Over at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third-party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2012, both the Constitution and the Justice parties are included in the over 270 category though you have to include write-in access for them to have access to more than 270 electoral votes. VladJ92 (talk) 14:44, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Constitution Party of Idaho
Should this not be a separate section again, since they nominated Copeland instead of the national ticket? If Copeland has agreed to be a stand-in or something, I can understand that (and, if so, a note should be added), but, from what I have seen, that is not the case. By the logic that is currently being utilized, should we mention the Reform Party of New York nominating Donald Trump instead of Rocky De La Fuente? ALPolitico (talk) 09:59, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
 * This is noted in Copeland's entry under the Constitution Party candidates. I do not believe the Reform Party of New York has officially nominated Trump yet but if it does I plan add a note to his entry here under AIP.  It will read, "Will appear on the ballot in New York as the Reform Party nominee." --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:47, 22 August 2016 (UTC)

Requested move 27 August 2016

 * The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 

The result of the move request was: Moved &mdash; Amakuru (talk) 15:40, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

– Basic requirement of English typography, and MOS:HYPHEN – Tony   (talk)  10:44, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016 → United States third-party and independent presidential candidates, 2016
 * United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012 → United States third-party and independent presidential candidates, 2012
 * United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2008 → United States third-party and independent presidential candidates, 2008
 * United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 1996 → United States third-party and independent presidential candidates, 1996
 * This is a contested technical request (permalink). nyuszika7h (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)


 * Support – This seems straightforward to me, but a bold move has been previously reverted, so I thought it should go through a RM. nyuszika7h (talk) 14:22, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom and Nyuszika7H. Really, someone reverted this move before?  Why?  Dicklyon (talk) 16:53, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per nom. BTW, I am the one who reverted the move previously. I did so because no explanation was given for the move, and I didn't see the rationale. Now, it has been explained and I do see the rationale.--NextUSprez (talk) 20:30, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per MOS:HYPHEN and basic English orthography.  — SMcCandlish ☺ ☏ ¢ ≽ʌⱷ҅ᴥⱷʌ≼  20:57, 30 August 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per MOS:HYPHEN. Simple and plan. Who wants dessert?  CookieMonster755   𝚨-𝛀    19:45, 2 September 2016 (UTC)
 * Support per MOS:HYPHEN.--JayJasper (talk) 20:25, 2 September 2016 (UTC)


 * The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

Darrell Castle Ballot Access and Category Change
I have had to do major edits on the ballot access info for the Constitution Party. A couple of write-in states were included with the normal ballot access states and several states were included as write-ins which the Constitution Party's own ballot access web page (http://www.constitutionparty.com/get-involved/election-central/ballot-access/) still lists as in progress or pending for write-in access; no citations were given for these inclusions. I have particular concern regarding the status of New Hampshire and Vermont. The aforementioned web page includes a map which shows these states as pending for write-in status yet the accompanying list shows them as already having write-in access. This is especially important right now because with the 7 electoral votes of these two states, Darrell Castle has exceeded access to 270 electoral votes, warranting a category change, but without them, the Constitution Party still has access to only 269 electoral votes, including the 4 electoral votes of Idaho where Scott Copeland is on the ballot as the nominee. So I don't know which we should go by- the map or the list. I posted as a question about this problem on the "United States presidential election, 2016" talk page but received no responses. VladJ92 (talk) 15:33, 5 September 2016 (UTC)
 * The CP map which you link to shows NH and VT as write-in. The states AL, IA, NH, NJ, PA, RI, and VT do not require candidate declaration or filing for write-in. Bcharles (talk) 11:21, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Notification of run-off vote
There is currently a poll taking place regarding the infobox image at the Donald Trump article talk page those involved in editing this article might be interested in here. The polling is set to conclude on September 20, 2016. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:17, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

RfC on United States presidential election, 2016 infobox inclusion
There is a Request for Comments regarding threshold for candidate inclusion in the infobox on the United States presidential election, 2016 page. Please add your perspective to the discussion. Bcharles (talk) 00:38, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

No ballot access candidates
The Green Papers has this list showing candidates who are on the ballot AND those who have filed as write-in candidates: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/G16/President-BallotAccessByState.phtml Several of the candidates listed in this article as having no ballot access have not filed as a write-in candidate anywhere, meanwhile several candidates who have filed as write-ins in more than 1 state are not listed. Should this be changed? If so, by what criteria? FreePressPublications (talk) 14:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Polling results
With McMullin getting within striking distance of actually WINNING Utah, I've decided to add that polling data I could find. I hope that's okay.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:53, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

What's TRUMP doing there?
I noticed Bill Saturn decided to revert the work I did, calling them bad edits. Why? The NY Conservative, Working Families, Woman's Equality and Independence parties are genuine third parties who have nominated one of the two major candidates. If it's acceptable to have one fusion candidacy, California's American Independent line, listed, then why not the others?

If Bill and others think the fusion section should be further down the page, that's perfectly fine. I'm cool with that but the "satellite parties" in New York generally do much better than all the other third party candidates do nationwide and have for many decades. When independent candidates are on different party lines in different states, we should combine the sections. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:37, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
 * The American Independent Party is a legitimate third party that does not regularly endorse major party candidates like the others you listed above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:47, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Well, it has this year and it's running a fusion campaign in California. Also, the Independence, Working Families and Conservative parties of New York frequently run candidates of their own for statewide offices, as did the Liberal party back in the day, and the WFP is in several other states besides New York. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:55, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

November 9th suggestion
With the election only two weeks away, I would like to suggest the following revisions. First, the listing of candidates change from state ballot access to popular votes and that these be presented this way: Also, if McMullin wins Utah, he should be listed at under the heading "candidates who have won one or more electoral votes," and if Stein gets that Washington faithless elector, who's threatening to be that, then she should be up there too. 12:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC) Any objections? Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:14, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Seeing none, I'll get cracking. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Not sure exactly what you're proposing. Do you want to remove all the candidates that ran for the party's nomination? --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:00, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
 * No. I just want the results of the general election listed for each candidate and that's the easiest way to do it. I'm thinking about what to do on the ninth when all this insanity is over. The order shoudn't be in number of states a candidate is on the ballot, but by vote totals. We cannot do that NOW but we should have the boxes ready. We will know if McMullin won Utah on the 9th. If he does he should be on top. If not, not. We should organize it this way. Electoral vote on top. Then over a million popular votes, then over a hundred thousand, then over ten thousand...several of the candidates listed near the top will go to the bottom of the list, as the write-ins will not be published in the media, so minor candidates who are only on the ballot in one or two states, will only have those totals published. How do I know this? That's what happened last time and the time before. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:05, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I don't have a problem with the reformat, but you did it in a very sloppy manner, leaving open some tables, changing La Riva's name to "de Riva". You really should use the "show preview" button and fix your errors before hitting the "save changes" button.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:51, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
 * I have no problem at all with constructive criticism like you just gave. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:44, 31 October 2016 (UTC)

Is this page even needed any more?
Now that third parties are on the main elections page United States presidential election, 2016, this pages seems to have marginal value. The only information that this page has that the main election page doesn't is the list of candidates with no ballot access and the failed nominees for the third parties. All the other information is redundant with the main elections page, and as most people are paying attention to that one and neglecting this one, this one seems to fall out of date rather easily. User:Dhalsim2 (talk) 08:08, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
 * Once the election is over, most of the candidates now listed on the main page will be removed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)


 * See WP:Summary style. The idea is that when in-depth coverage would be too lengthy for a parent article, you put highlights in the main article and then go on at length in the more specialized article.  That means that some of the data there might be trimmed.  I should note that has nothing to do with the election being over though -- a page like this is meant to document history, and how the U.S. electoral system worked (or didn't) in the 2010s, and should remain useful in years to come. Wnt (talk) 00:13, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

"Electoral votes:"
There are sections in some of the less-known candidates write-ups with things like "Electoral votes:9". I assume these are the hypothetically winnable electoral votes given ballot access but not supposing write-in can work. Since that's all very hypothetical I think it should be "hypothetical electoral votes" or something - otherwise people from non-US countries might imagine these minor candidates actually won a few electoral votes somehow. And the data should be fleshed out to include similar featuring of potential electoral vote totals for the major third party candidates. Wnt (talk) 00:16, 15 December 2016 (UTC)