Talk:Third-party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election/Archive 1

(top section)
This article incorporates material from United States presidential election, 2020. --Metropolitan90 (talk) 05:29, 16 August 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:52, 20 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Sam Seder 2020 campaign logo.png

Question: Declared candidates and notoriety
Hello. I am very definitely a declared Green Party candidate for President, and have been in the past. Obviously I won't add myself. But I am interested in learning the criteria for inclusion. Do the same rules of notoriety apply? Thank you -- Alan Augustson, https://run-alan.run 73.26.137.239 (talk) 23:56, 14 April 2019 (UTC)

Is this page necessary?
Most of the info here is already on the 2020 United States presidential election article (just with the exception of the Prohibition Party, AFAIK). It's a pain to maintain multiple lists, so maybe we should redirect this to the main election article? David O. Johnson (talk) 21:49, 24 May 2019 (UTC)

Constitution Party
Is Don Blankenship the only notable candidate for the Constitution Party?— Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 16:36, 20 November 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion: You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
 * Felix Biederman.jpg

Transhumanist Party?
I've found their site and they have nominated a ticket for 2020? I doubt they will have ballot access. Should I add them? Baconheimian (talk) 21:47, 22 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Someone tried to add them a while back, as neither the party or their nominee had a page they were deleted. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:48, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
 * Seeing as there is now have a page for both the party, and the candidate, I think they now merit inclusion on the page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.82.109.34 (talk) 19:19, 31 January 2020 (UTC)

Elizabeth Warren has dropped out of the Democratic Primary and Presidential races, so what will happened for her WFP ticket endorsement
Elizabeth Warren has officially dropped out for both her party and presidential races, as seen from current news, so what going happened for her Working Families Party ticket endorsement, and maybe think it will go to Bernie Sanders? 152.27.20.2 (talk) 18:36, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Criteria for inclusion
Just wondering, why are the Libertarians and Greens excluded from the 2020 page? In 2016 and 2012 they were included. Parties with less than 270 electoral votes were just given their own subsection. Catiline52 (talk) 00:13, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Because there is no need for them to be here, all of their content is already on other pages. Duplicating that here would just be a content fork. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:26, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Shawn Howard (notability and possible conflict of interest)
I could not find coverage of this candidate in reliable sources. A campaign website, filing document, and write-in ballot access are not indicators of notability. Also, the IP addresses 2601:6c0:8000:6430:e88c:a64c:f4b4:2fde, 2601:6c0:8000:6430:948c:6d39:c48d:ecf5, and 2601:6c0:8000:6430:e827:53f1:9d5c:715d all come from the Estero, Florida area, which is where the candidate's address is in his FEC statement. 70.122.40.201 (talk) 03:02, 1 June 2020 (UTC)

Why not just an article for all third-parties
Why exclude third-parties with more than 270 electoral votes? This does not conform with the similar articles that were created for past elections. What is the rationale for that? SecretName101 (talk) 21:25, 7 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree, it was set up by one individual editor, which is fine, WP:BOLD is good. However, we should look at establishing consensus whether we should continue the trend by previous elections. I agree that all third parties should be included. Catiline52 (talk) 00:15, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree, the Libertarian and Green parties are already covered at the main article, and in their own primary pages. Adding them here would do nothing to improve coverage, since this is a less “senior” page, so to speak. If you look back at the pages for the 2016 and 2012 elections, the Libertarians and Greens were given much less coverage than they are getting on the 2020 election page, and for 2012 there is no Libertarian primary page, meaning that there was a reason for them to be included on those pages, but those reasons do not apply to this cycle. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:08, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know that that is true. I remember pretty seeing similar coverage in 2016. SecretName101 (talk) 02:51, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

American Independent Party
Why is Phil Collins listed as the only candidate seeking their nomination. Rocky De La Fuente is also seeking their nomination, and the primary is non-binding. Additionally, during both the Reform Party national convention and the candidate Q&A sessions, Rocky indicated that he had the support to get the AIP nomination. Given the likelihood that Rocky has just as much of a chance to win the AIP nomination, it should either also be included on Rocky's info on this page as a possible state (in much the same way it is included for Phil Collins) or the AIP should be given it's section on this page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:9000:D118:604A:18B1:1560:104:5940 (talk) 13:21, 23 June 2020 (UTC)

Kanye West home state
Where are we getting Georgia being his home state from? Yes, he appears to have a home in Atlanta (in addition to a ranch in Wyoming), but it seems that his primary residence is in Los Angeles, California. SecretName101 (talk) 03:21, 5 July 2020 (UTC)

Ballot Access Map and Other Parties
I'd like to propose that we update the way we list the states candidates have ballot access in, similar to how the 2012 page looks. It looks much better than just listing off the names of states, and I'm fine updating them on commons and replacing them with each new update. I'd also like to add in that maybe we should list parties that only give ballot access in one state as "Additional Party Nominations." For example, here's what I created with Gloria La Riva's campaign:

Peace and Freedom Party candidates
The Party for Socialism and Liberation had ballot access in six states in 2016, while the Peace and Freedom and Liberty Union parties only contributed one state each- they are basically one state parties, after all. The Liberty Union Party is purely Vermont based, and the Peace and Freedom Party has only achieved ballot access outside of California once in the last 20 years (Roseanne Barr in 2012). And I also think we should add in the other candidates who ran.

I think this looks better and offers more information than the previous way.
 * I like the idea of putting the additional parties in the bottom section. I don't think the maps should be included in the wikitable, but instead separate and put on the right side of their corresponding section. Catiline52 (talk) 06:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * Including additional candidates probably isn't a good idea, there's already a lot of information on one page. They should be included in the relevant party page. Catiline52 (talk) 06:53, 26 May 2020 (UTC)
 * I disagree on the additional candidates; I honestly don't think there's enough information about them. For example, Joe Schriner ran for the American Solidarity Party's nomination and lost but is considered withdrawn on the page. He didn't withdraw, he lost the nomination. One thing that would probably be good is if the additional candidates were in collapsed tables (similar to the main page's handling of GOP and Libertarian candidates). For reference, this is what it'd look like:



Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk)


 * Well, I think the map should be shrunk somewhat, but other than that I support the second option. Devonian Wombat (talk) 09:03, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks for the inclusion of the maps! However, I don't think the additional candidates section is of WP:NOTE. The only reason most of the presidential tickets are notable is because they lead a presidential ticket. None of the Constitution Party candidates other than the winner are notable. The addition of primary information clutters the page and impedes readability. The vote should also not be included in the ticket table, it should be kept in the similar style as the Republican/Democrat/Green/Libertarian etc ticket style (The only minor alteration being the inclusion of a multiple party section, since most major parties don't have that). Catiline52 (talk) 00:52, 31 May 2020 (UTC)


 * I disagree, again. I think it'd be better for information purposes to include other candidates for these parties. And most of them aren't going to have their own pages, so this is really the only place to list all of them. And I really fail to see how this is hard to read. Compare this page to the 2016 and 2012 pages. 2016 genuinely looks messy and is pretty hard to read. 2012, on the other hand, is extremely clean and fairly easy to read, and in my opinion, this is as well. Putting additional candidates in the collapsable section helps keep it from being too cluttered. If people want to see the additional candidates, they're able to open and view them. If they don't, then there's no problem. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk)


 * I like the formatting and content inclusion changes that Vote 4 DJH2036 has made. The page looks good!  There is one aspect of it that I really don't like though.  The maps that have been used are in PNG format.  That makes changing them more difficult than need be, when plenty of SVG maps are available.  I know that Vote 4 DJH2036 is willing to make the image updates, but if not available to do the updates for whatever reason, this makes it harder for others to contribute to.  Can we please switch back to SVG maps?  --Dhalsim2 (talk) 23:32, 12 July 2020 (UTC)

Brock Pierce
He has achieved ballot access in Oklahoma, article should be updated accordingly. See here XavierGreen (talk) 02:23, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

Images
Would it be appropriate for me to reach out to parties and ask if I can use photographs of their candidates and upload them here? It really bothers me to not have them here. Baconheimian (talk) 17:51, 20 July 2020 (UTC)


 * I think that would be a good idea, but I'm not quite sure the Wikipedia protocol on this. Buscus 3 (talk) 21:44, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Kanye West
Not a regular editor but Kanye just declared his run. I'm not a Kanye fan and am skeptical if he'll follow through but...should we add him? Kinda Weird though. EDIT: Seems someone already did. But Kanye is more notable than other candidates so as much as I'm not a fan(I'm a progressive and connected activist) I don't know if he should be deemed major-providing of course he follows through. I dislike Kanye but I dislike Jorgenson too so that's not a factor. I assume we would wait for polls? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buscus 3 (talk • contribs) 21:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

Kanye West ballot access
So I've noticed that so far, Kanye West has gotten onto the ballots in Oklahoma and Illinois as an independent and not under the Birthday Party ticket. Should the differentiation be made clear in the article, or is it ok without any distinction? If it should be changed, how would the difference be shown? Buscus 3 (talk) 21:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion
The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion: Participate in the deletion discussion at the. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:53, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * La Riva 2020 Ballot Access 7-29.png

Requested move 5 July 2020

 * 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 after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 

Minor party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election → Third-party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election – This would make the title and subject matter of this article uniform with those used for similar articles during past presidential elections. There is not a clear benefit to varying from what has been done for past elections, as we currently have done. SecretName101 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2020 (UTC) —Relisted.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 12:24, 12 July 2020 (UTC)  —Relisted.  P.I. Ellsworth    ed.  put'r there 02:07, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed, it'd keep the article series standard with previous elections. Catiline52 (talk) 04:17, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Naming should only differ if their is an accepted reason for why the uniform name is not appropriate for this election year.  --Super Goku V (talk) 05:01, 5 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment. This article was renamed from the target title with . The edit summary was "This article has a different scope from previous articles, as it does not include parties with over 270 electoral votes." There is no evidence of discussion for this previous page move.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 05:15, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Disagree, the article scope is different, and I would like to point out that the article was only at the title "Third Party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election because it had been moved there unilaterally from the current title, which as far as I know is what this article was at originally. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:27, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Move logs and page history support that the original mainspace title was United States third-party and independent presidential candidates, 2020, August 2018. It was renamed to Third-party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election (target title) in November 2018. Then it was moved to its current title in November 2019 and moved back to the target title in March 2020. Yours was the next rename in April 2020. It's been back and forth, and this article's title really needs to be stabilized. Hopefully, a consensus will be achieved.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 05:59, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I just want to point out that I see no conversation from that move. A single user made the decision to move it here without discussion. SecretName101 (talk) 19:39, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Think I found a "discussion" (here), which was brief and doesn't seem to really say that we should name this/format this differently than past elections. SecretName101 (talk) 19:53, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , you cited a "consensus" in retitling this article in November 2019. Where was that consensus made, and where can it be found today? Was it the conversation I found? SecretName101 (talk) 19:59, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That conversation was to achieve consensus to recreate this page, which deleted during that time frame to merge with the 2020 United States Presidential election page. The consensus was to revive the page to cut down on the length of the aforementioned page and for undue wieght concerns for minor parties, which is why the archived talk page discussion you found is on that page and not on this one. However, consensus was to create the page for candidates who did not have ballot access in enough states to win outright, which did not include the Libertarian or Green Parties, who were to stay on the main page. Thus, the title "Third Party and independant candidates" was no longer accurate, as the Libertarian and Greens are considered Third Party as opposed to Major party and I decided, by myself as you correctly stated prior, to change the name to "Minor Party and independant candidates" to more accurately reflect the fact that the page was no long a cumulative list of ALL Third Party candidates. While the decision I made by myself is clearly not a prior consensus, I was one of three people who commented more than once in that discussion, the others being A. Randomdude0000 and Reywas92, and neither of them objected. Randomdude0000 additionally asked for other people to weight in, but no one did. While a lack of objections is not a suitable substitute for a consensus, at the time I viewed this as splitting off a new page from the main page and the old "Third Party and Independant Candidates" page was not a prior version of this page but a base to build the new page off of, as half of that page (i.e. the Greens and Libertarians) was being moved somewhere else. In essense, I felt that old page was being split in half, with the Libs and Greens moving to the main page and the other candidates to this page. If I remember correctly, when I dug through the history of this page to try and revive it the boxes for the Libs and Greens were very outdated and I ended up just copying the candidates from the main page to here instead of undoing the deletion of the page by taking the old assets. In hindsight, one of us should have opened an RFC at the time, but I did not think that there was significant enough interest in the page to justify one and I expect the other two felt the same way, though I wont speak for them. It is good there is a wish for consensus now, and of course whatever is decided here will be better than my ad hoc solution, but I feel that the name is actually accurate to this day, as the Libertarians and Greens are not on the page, so I feel that the name shouldn't be changed, or if the name IS changed, the Libertarians and Greens moved from the main page to here.


 * In short, there was no prior concensus and I made the name change by myself. The prior consensus I was referring to was the one for the recreation of the page, which the two other editors engaged in agreed on. Now that there is a proper consensus building formula, I feel that the current name best reflects the state of the page, and either should not be changed, or should have the contect changed to reflect the new name. WittyRecluse (talk) 22:47, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Thank you for your timely response providing insight WittyRecluse. SecretName101 (talk) 20:06, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No problem, hope I addressed your concerns and answered your questions properly. WittyRecluse (talk) 07:17, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment: The suggestion seems to imply that there are only three parties to consider, which makes no sense. Lots of different parties are discussed. Or is it only me that sees it that way? —BarrelProof (talk) 20:41, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Please see Third party (United States) for explanation.  P.I. Ellsworth   ed.  put'r there 21:26, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * But the question is does it make any sense for the scope to differ. I'd argue, none at all. SecretName101 (talk) 03:13, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And I'd argue it does, if we are considering the most likely way for someone to find this page, the link from 2020 United States presidential election, they'd already have scrolled past the Libertarian and Green parties. What sense does it make to then just show those two again? Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:01, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * So we'd format the template the same way we formatted 2016 and previous years' templates. You are stating a problem that doesn't exist to justify this difference from previous elections' conventions. Next argument please. SecretName101 (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t know if you are incapable of behaving in a reasonable manner or if you simply choose to be a smarmy know-it-all, but my points still stand. Next argument please. Devonian Wombat (talk) 13:13, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * They really don't. Your only argument was a supposed "problem" that doesn't exist. SecretName101 (talk) 17:51, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: When people say third-party in the US, the Libertarian and Green parties come to mind for most people. They are the third and fourth-largest, respectively. So, moving the page to the new title would mean expanding its scope to include them. They’re large enough, though, to merit their own pages and separate coverage; we already have articles for them towards that end. “Minor” makes the most sense based on the way content is currently organized, and the way the content is organized also makes sense due to the chasm of media coverage separating the Libertarians and Greens from the parties/candidates on this page. The candidates here receive substantially less coverage than the Libertarians and Greens. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 03:47, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * When people say third party, it encompasses ALL third-parties, not just those with the largest memberships. SecretName101 (talk) 00:51, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Agree: The name "Third-party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election" would be consistent with previous elections and would make Infobox navigation more intuitive. Right now the Infobox navigation has to include an exceptional case for this one year. For those that dispute the meaning of the phrase "third party" please check the article explaining that term. It doesn't imply that there are only three parties, nor does it imply any special status to the Libertarian or Green parties.  The term broadly refers to any party that isn't one of the two major parties. --Dhalsim2 (talk) 23:17, 9 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Oppose: The current title is appropriate, as it provides a useful distiction between big-name "third parties" (such as the Greens or Libertarians) and minor, fringe, or novelty parties (i.e. Legal Marijuana Now Party, PSL, or Socialist Action) KidAd (🗣️🗣🗣) 04:32, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And how is such a distinction is impossible to make in an article retitled as a suggested it to be? Look at how they formatted the 2012 article, those with more ballot access were listed first and seperately. SecretName101 (talk) 00:48, 12 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Comment I don't like either option. Why not creating a parent page for candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election and link it to all the respective candidates and parties. The way information is structured presently, it gives prominence to Dems and Reps, and leaves pretty much everyone else in the shadows. Not fair. Mikus (talk) 20:11, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment I agree with Mikus. I think it would be an excellent idea to create a parent page for Candidates in the 2020 United States presidential election, for the reasons explained in the above comment. It would probably be a better way to maintain fairness and neutrality while still adhering to WP:WEIGHT. For uniformity purposes, we may have to do the same thing for the past presidential candidate pages as well. But that is probably doable. Sal2100 (talk) 22:03, 12 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Giving equal prominence to the Republicans and Transhumanists is exactly the sort of thing that constitutes an WP:WEIGHT violation. What you are proposing would be completely unfair, because it gives equal prominence to random nobodies and actual candidates. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:09, 13 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Okay, point taken. I've stricken out my comments supporting Mikus' proposal. That being said, I think it may be appropriate and helpful to have all notable candidates (and those nominated by notable parties) in a list form. List of candidates in the 2020 United States presidential election with, of course, due weight given by listed the major party candidates first and most prominently. I've always thought it would be helpful to have a page where all notable candidates could be found in one listing. Sal2100 (talk) 15:16, 25 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose "Minor" is accurate.  Nevermore27  (talk) 02:00, 15 July 2020 (UTC)
 * And "third party" is also accurate though. Is it not? SecretName101 (talk) 17:47, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Let's hypothetically say we set a precedent that all future years see the "Minor party and independent candidates" name used. There is a possible problem with that title. Say an independent candidate with ballot access on-par with the Libertarian and Green parties runs in one of those elections. It has happened before (Ralph Nader in 2004 and 2008, for instance). The title "Minor party and INDEPENDENT CANDIDATES" seems to include all independent candidates, not just minor ones (since "minor party" is a term, the word "minor" does not appear to be modifying the term "independent candidates"). If we aren't including those with larger ballot access in such articles, that title poses a problem. SecretName101 (talk) 18:08, 18 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. The current title and structure of the article implies that the Libertarian Party and Green Party are not minor parties. This implies that they are major parties, which they clearly are not. This is in addition to the inconsistency with the articles for earlier presidential elections. Therefore, the article should be renamed and an additional section should be added for parties and campaigns with access to enough electoral votes to theoretically win. ALPolitico (talk) 07:30, 19 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree. Normally, it should be a third-party as it was known instead of "minor party".  SMB   99   thx   Email!  06:55, 20 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Agree Consistent with past practice and also involves less subjectivity; all reasonable people can agree on what constitutes a "third party" in modern U.S. politics, but there's considerable room for debate on what constitutes a "minor party". Orser67 (talk) 03:18, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Comment: Some of the comments here seem to be based on the idea that the Green Party and Libertarian Party are not "minor parties". I'd bet money that the vast majority of people would consider them to be minor parties, so either some clarification of the title is needed or those parties should be discussed in the article. If that clarification is not in the title, it should at least be in a hatnote. I have just added such a hatnote. There are only two parties in the United States that are really major parties (and those that aren't major are minor). —BarrelProof (talk) 17:22, 22 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Oppose: Even the Greens and Libertarians are minor. A "Third party" is one that actually has a non-theoretical chance to win a state. The last time we had that was the Reform party in `1996. Yes, there have been a number of times where the state totals for a minor party candidate were higher than the margin of victory for a major party candidate, but only one minor party candidate had a chance to actually WIN a state since 1992 when Ross Perot nearly got an electoral vote in Maine, and that was Even McMullen in Utah just prior to the Comey revelations about Hillary's emails. As this article doesn't include the Libertarians and Greens, none of these groups are going to be anywhere beyond "asterisk" statue. Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:41, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That may be your definition of a third party, but that is not the accepted definition of a third party. SecretName101 (talk) 21:06, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * you might want to see how "third party" is defined, and then assess your vote. Because your stated basis for opposition is grounded in a non-accepted definition of third-party. You can find another reason to oppose it, but your currently stated reason opposition is faulty. SecretName101 (talk) 19:36, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * , please stop bludgeoning the discussion by replying to everyone who disagrees with you. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:09, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Might I point out, I never disagreed with Arglebargle's opposition, just the fact that they drastically misrepesent what "third party" is accepted as meaning in their stated basis for doing so. SecretName101 (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2020 (UTC)


 * The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Rocky De La Fuente Update
I just wanted to get everyone's opinion on this because I feel a bit uncertain about it. So I saw that someone had updated the text box for the ballot access map to include all the information from the Alliance Party website. They have a "On, or fully Expect to be on, the ballot" section, which was suggested to be added to the blue section for De La Fuente, and a "In progress" section which was suggested to be added to the light blue. I'm not sure if we should keep these changes because they aren't very specific to the actual situations in each state and I think it's a bit of a leap to assume that they have officially gotten on the ballots for all the states for the "On, or fully Expect to be on, the ballot" section. Also, why was De La Fuente given California in light blue in the first place? Anyways, I hope I can get some clarity. Buscus 3 (talk) 22:19, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I’d say we should stay away from using that map, even if it is completely true and they will get ballot access in all of those states they haven’t actually got it yet. Also, “in-progress” should not be marked on the map, because it can mean almost anything. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:55, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

"Notable" in lead
I'm having trouble understanding your revert. You wrote:


 * "The lead very clearly specifies third parties" I'm not sure what the point of saying that is. I only removed the word "notable".
 * What is the example at 2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries?
 * I see the example there, and we should absolutely get rid of that, too. Readers should not be expected to understand Wikipedia policy to understand mainspace content. We've always kept a very clear separation between article content in the mainspace and content serving to improve the encyclopedia in other namespaces.


 * I'm well aware that the article you linked to is in the mainspace; it's still an inappropriate way to mention the policy, though, since it is an encyclopedic article about the notability policy on Wikipedia, and the only relation to this page is that the policy applies. That page should only be linked to if the topic of notability itself is encyclopedically relevant.
 * There's no reason to state in a lead that an article's subject is notable. Notability is a requirement for us to have content on a topic, but we don't state in the lead of every Wikipedia article that it's about a notable thing. Policies are not intended to be explicitly mentioned in articles as a means of justifying content. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 11:51, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I believe this section from the Libertarian primaries page answers those questions; "The following is a list of declared candidates who meet at least one of the following criteria: a) meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines; b) have participated (or have been invited to participate) in at least two Libertarian Party-sponsored debates or c) have received substantial media coverage." This includes a mention of notability and a link to it and an explanation of the rules regarding candidate inclusion. Given that this page has already been subject to numerous instances of COI editors adding parties who do not meet the criteria for inclusion, I believe having an explanation of the rules in the lead helps alleviate the chances of constantly happening over and over again. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:58, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I found the example at the Libertarian primaries and commented on it above. Mentioning policy in the mainspace is inappropriate. Policies belong behind-the-scenes on Wikipedia. If there's disruptive editing, we deal with that through established means such as arbitration or page protection. Can you point to any discussion of policy in which an exception was made? I don't think there is one, and since many, many pages are subject to COI and disruptive editing, this is hardly an isolated situation. This is a pretty big deviation from the accepted use of policies, and if there hasn't been a discussion on this already, you should start one at Village pump, Wikipedia talk:Policies and guidelines, or Wikipedia talk:Notability. Content in articles must be in accordance with policies, so the acceptance of content into an article sufficiently implies that polices are satisfied. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 12:10, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * We could just change it to "the follow third parties and/or candidates who have a Wikipedia page" I'd wager that would be understood. Devonian Wombat (talk) 12:17, 9 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I think you're missing my point; article content is reader-facing, not editor-facing. If we need to place editor-facing warnings about perennial content issues, we put template messages at the top of talk pages, and/or place warnings on the editing screen. Content about improving/maintaining an article does not belong in the article itself. Such content is not encyclopedic information about the article's subject. If there's disruption, we deal with that separately. Many far more controversial articles have perennial editing problems, but we don't mention those problems in the articles themselves. Take a look at Talk:Muhammad. It's bombarded constantly with people trying to add honorifics and remove images, but it's not explained in the lead of the article how the treatment of honorifics and images was decided. Instead, they have warnings and an FAQ on the talk page, and they deal with disruption as it comes. They even had to make issue-specific talk page subpages to have a place to dump all those requests. I understand what you're trying to accomplish with this, and I think we should place a boxed message on this talk page for it. If that doesn't suffice, we can seek page protection or a message that appears on the editing screen. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 12:32, 9 August 2020 (UTC)

Mark Charles ballot access
I'm honestly not sure how to make one of those maps that show which states a candidate has ballot access to but I'm popping in to say that, according to his website, Mark Charles will appear as a write-in candidate in 29 states + D.C. (listed below) for 347 possible electoral votes. In addition, Charles has also stated that he has enough money raised to appear on the ballot in 3 states: Colorado, Louisiana, and Vermont (20 electoal votes or 367 total). He's only waiting because he needs to select a running mate and intends to do so sometime before August 5, the filing deadline in Colorado.

Alabama, Arizona, California, Delaware, the District of Columbia, Georgia, Idaho, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin, and Wyoming.

IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 10:38, 7 July 2020 (UTC)
 * I don’t think we’re actually showing write-in access right now, though we probably should at least mention it. Since he’s not actually on the ballot in those states yet, I don’t think we can actually show him as on the ballot until he does file. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:20, 7 July 2020 (UTC)

At the very least, I think we can make/put up a ballot access map for Charles/Moyowasifza-Curry showing Colorado since their Secretary of State has confirmed their access to the CO general election ballot. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.168.173.210 (talk) 19:14, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

Candidates without confirmed ballot access
Since a candidate who isn't on the ballot anywhere is hardly a candidate at all, I assume the ones under this section are listed because they could still theoretically gain ballot access somewhere. If that's the case, what is the last state deadline for ballot access registration - i.e. the date by which we can say for certain whether someone is or isn't on the ballot in any given state? Jah77 (talk) 10:21, 12 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Looking at the first source on the article (you got to scroll down on the source a bit), it seems that September 4th is the last date that some states will accept petitions to appear on the ballot. I would assume once every state has released the names of the candidates on their ballot, then we can remove the no ballot access section. Buscus 3 (talk) 08:41, 13 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Since September 4th is only a few weeks away, it probably won't make much difference now, but do we really need this kind of "waiting list"? Wouldn't it make more sense to require a party or candidate to have confirmed ballot access in at least one state before they can be added to the article in the first place? Jah77 (talk) 12:16, 13 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, just because they do not have ballot access, it does not mean they will get no votes or that they have no campaign. Remember, write-in votes exist. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:36, 14 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Write-in votes may exist, but a) do the candidates listed have even confirmed write-in access, and b) are write-in-only campaigns considered notable if they haven't received significant media coverage? I didn't think they were. Jah77 (talk) 09:13, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, all of them do, because all candidates for president automatically have write-in access in Oregon under state law. Also, a few campaigns with ballot access haven’t received significant coverage either, and one of the candidates who hasn’t (Jeff Mackler) has, as can be seen here: The Real Socialists to the Left of Bernie Sanders. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:00, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
 * What does it mean that "all candidates for president automatically have write-in access in Oregon"? Does it mean that they also count votes for undeclared candidates like Mickey Mouse, Santa Claus etc.? If so, should Mickey and Santa also get listed as "candidates without ballot access"? And when it comes to write-in campaigns attaining media attention, I'm talking about the kind of national media attention received by things like the Eagles guitarist Joe Walsh's write-in run in 1980; Mackler getting a mention in one article is not quite in the same ballpark. Jah77 (talk) 23:23, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Updates
Can someone please keep up with the updates to Kanye West’s (and other candidates) maps? Some of these maps don’t line up with what states they have ballot access with (for example they’ll have ballot access in 3 or 4 states but the map only shows 1). 2601:248:300:7950:787E:56AB:12AC:17FE (talk) 05:58, 21 August 2020 (UTC)
 * ✅ — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 09:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Jorgensen on Ballot as Independent
I saw on Twitter from a couple official Libertarian Party sources that Jorgensen is on the ballot in some states as an independent instead of under the Libertarian Party line (think I saw AL and TN named specifically). Should this be noted in her ballot access map? Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:38, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I would say it shouldn't. There are generally two paths to ballot access: major party status, or direct petitioning for an independent candidate. Major party status is often difficult to get, and campaigns are strategic about where they attempt to get that. The language on ballots varies by state, but it's not necessarily the case that she'll be listed as an "independent" in states where they pursued that method of access. For us to make a distinction, I think we would need some clearer information in a reliable source about the language on the ballots. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 09:37, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, the fact that she is procedurally listed on the ballot as an Independent in any state is a completely irrelevant detail that should not even be noted. Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:44, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Ballot Access Maps
Who is in charge of the ballot access maps? I'm curious because it looks like they need to be created or updated for some candidates. Also, if the website or program that generates the maps can be disclosed to me, I would be willing to do the work myself. Buscus 3 (talk) 21:52, 18 July 2020 (UTC)


 * Nobody is in charge of them, and it's okay to overwrite the files on Commons to make obvious updates. I've been updating many of them myself. No special program is needed; you can just download a blank map such as c:File:Blank US Map (states only).svg and color in states with a vector graphics editor such as Inkscape or Adobe Illustrator. Be sure to keep everything in SVG format. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 13:11, 22 August 2020 (UTC)


 * Thanks! I appreciate it. Buscus 3 (talk) 20:06, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Rocky De La Fuente Sources
I pretty much completely overhauled the sources for Rocky De La Fuente because the | IPR August newsletter didn't seem particularly reliable for the ballot access data because of the wording with the ballot access map. I was able to find sources for most states that are shown to have ballot access, but I couldn't find anything that shows that De La Fuente got ballot access in Washington and Alaska. In fact, the | Alaska Division of Elections website has a list of presidential candidates that doesn't include his name. Additionally, I can't find a list of candidates on the | Washington Secretary of State website. If there is a source that I missed, please correct De La Fuente's section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buscus 3 (talk • contribs) 00:00, 22 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I don't know if you did this or someone else, but I noticed that Delaware and South Carolina were removed from his map, and I'm not sure why; the Alliance Party has ballot access in both states as a result of their merger with the Independent Party of Delaware and the American Party of South Carolina, respectively. 2605:E000:A444:B00:ECC3:6B9C:5191:E02A (talk) 02:40, 27 August 2020 (UTC)

Jesse Ventura, Green Party of Alaska
The Green Party of Alaska has chosen Jesse Ventura as their nominee, citing primary rigging in favor of Howie Hawkins. Jesse Ventura is now listed officially by the Alaska Division of Elections as a candidate on the ballot. How do we handle this? Does a draft campaign qualify as major? I have no idea any sort of procedure for this sort of situation. 2605:E000:A444:B00:F9B0:7C50:F36:9EB (talk) 20:10, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Leave a note under the Green Party. I believe a similar thing happened with the Constitution Party of Montana placing Ron Paul on the ballot in 2008 even though he was no longer running for president.William S. Saturn (talk) 20:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course that is only if you can verify the fact.William S. Saturn (talk) 20:25, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * If you scroll down here, it says that the Green Party nominees are Jesse Ventura for president and Cynthia McKinney for VP. The GP of Alaska has also announced it on their Facebook, although I didn't see anything about their rationale. Jacoby531 (talk) 20:59, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

United Citizens Party
We have Howie Hawkins as going for the nomination of the "United Citizens Party" in SC. Outside of one very minor mention of Howie going for the party (not referenced here). Do we have any information about them at all when it comes to this? Their website has been down for who knows how many years. Tipsyfishing (talk) 19:42, 7 September 2020 (UTC)

Constitution Party
I noticed that the Constitution Party of Arizona nominated Sheila "Samm" Tittle for president instead of Blankenship. Since the party is ballot qualified, it looks like Tittle will be on the ballot there instead of Blankenship. Should we add Tittle to the official list of candidates with ballot access? Buscus 3 (talk) 03:04, 22 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No, because neither she nor the state affiliates who nominated her have Wikipedia pages. She had already been nominated by the Constitution Party of New Mexico a while back. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:32, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Ok, thanks. Buscus 3 (talk) 02:50, 23 July 2020 (UTC)
 * It appears that this information is being collected over on 2020 Constitution Party presidential primaries Baconheimian (talk) 22:27, 26 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, everyone who has ballot access should be included on this page.XavierGreen (talk) 20:22, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. People only on the ballot in one state without any campaign infrastructure probably don't need much about them, but I say we should include them in the interest of completeness. Baconheimian (talk) 21:18, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * The inclusion of everyone who has ballot access would be insane, there are hundreds and hundreds of candidates running, most of which don't fit wikipedia's notability criteria. Including every non-notable independent and party would create undue weight issues. Catiline52 (talk) 23:19, 27 July 2020 (UTC)
 * There are not hundreds of candidates who have ballot access. That statement is a blatant falsity. I am not suggesting that every candidate that filed an FEC statement be listed, almost all of those have no ballot access and are not in actuality candidates. For example in 2016, there were only 31 candidates with ballot access and a great many of those only had access in one state. See here [] For single state candidates, there is no need for a map we can merely just list their name state and number of electoral votes.XavierGreen (talk) 14:21, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Also, the mere fact that a person has managed to achieve ballot access in the election is notability enough to be included on this page, as this page purports to be a list of all minor party and independent candidates for the 2020 election.XavierGreen (talk) 14:23, 28 July 2020 (UTC)
 * No it doesn’t, the lead literally states “The following notable political parties and independent candidates”. If you want to remove that word, we should have a proper discussion on the matter. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:05, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * If someone has ballot access, they are notable'.XavierGreen (talk) 14:14, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is not what notability means on Wikipedia. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:41, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That has to do with creating individual pages for people, not whether or not a candidate is notable and worthy of inclusion on a list of candidates. There are literally hundreds of major party congressional candidates who are mentioned on election pages, and yet have no individual wikipedia page.XavierGreen (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2020 (UTC)
 * That is because those pages have different inclusion criteria to this one. This is not exactly a hard concept to grasp. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:37, 31 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This article's title purports to be a page where a user can find a list of all third party and independent candididates, a reader would reasonably expect to find all ballot qualified candidates on this page. There is no rational purpose why the inclusion criteria should exclude ballot qualified candidates.XavierGreen (talk) 17:37, 3 August 2020 (UTC)
 * There are currently 33 candidates with ballot access in at least one state, and only 19 with ballot access in multiple. I do think 33 is a little extreme, so requiring access in multiple states to be considered notable seems like a reasonable balance. 2605:E000:A444:B00:34DA:738:C5E4:1736 (talk) 23:46, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
 * How is a list of 33 extreme, there are high profile wikipedia list articles with dozens upon dozens of entries. For example see List_of_pre-dreadnought_battleships_of_the_Royal_Navy which is a featured list article with 52 entries.XavierGreen (talk) 19:14, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The Constitution Party of New Mexico also chose Samm Tittle as their Presidential candidate, the map should be updated Lyonbra (talk) 22:17, 30 August 2020 (UTC)http://www.constitutionpartynm.com/now-is-your-chance-meet-cpnm-presidential-candidate-sheila-samm-tittle/

Life & Liberty Party
The Life & Liberty Party had ballot access in Arkansas ans their nominee JR Myers is on the ballot in Idaho via the Constitution Party of Idaho. He is as notable as other candidates in the under 50 electoral votes category and should be included to ensure accuracy of the article regarding the election.--2603:9000:D118:604A:30A0:45B7:C352:D5A6 (talk) 03:34, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Neither he nor his party have a Wikipedia page, therefore they are not notable. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:28, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Yet they still exist and are running. Just because it lacks a page doesn't meant it should not be included, because excluding it would severely damage the accuracy of the page. I mean, for all we know, he could come in third, although unlikely, and excluding him would definitely undermine the accuracy of Wikipedia.Furthermore, Bill Hammon also lacks a page and also does not meet to notability. So, if he is included, then by the same logic, JR Myers should be included. additionally, now there is an incentive to create a page. there wasn't a page for the Alliance Party until they nominated De la fuente. So JR Myers and the Life & Liberty Party should be included, especially since you can easily find source material on both.--2603:9000:D118:604A:30A0:45B7:C352:D5A6 (talk) 11:18, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Just to add on, notability means a specific thing on Wikipedia. People or parties have WP:NOTE if they fit specific criteria that make them "notable" for their own page. At the current moment, neither the person or party have pages, so neither can be seen as notable. Catiline52 (talk) 12:05, 5 July 2020 (UTC)
 * This is purported to be a list of all Minor Party and independent candidates for the 2020 election, if a candidate has ballot access they are included within the scope of this page and should be listed. Mentioning a candidate on a list is different from the notability required for a person to have their own wikipedia page. For example there are a whole host of congressional candidates that are mentioned on the respective wikipedia pages regarding those elections, but are not notable enough to have their own page. If Meyers has ballot access, he must be listed. If OP provides a source, i'll be bold and add him myself.XavierGreen (talk) 18:45, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
 * Of course they should be included here. Their ballot access is verifiable.  All parties/candidates with ballot access should be included regardless of whether the parties have wikipedia articles or not.William S. Saturn (talk) 07:18, 18 August 2020 (UTC)
 * I have restored them to the page, there is a clear consensus here to include and the language concerning "notable candidates" in the article has since been removed by other editors.XavierGreen (talk) 19:12, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Whether a person is sufficiently WP:NOTABLE to have their own article is entirely different from whether information on them is WP:DUE for inclusion in an article that covers a broader topic, such as this list. If people had to be WP:NOTABLE for their own article just to merit a mention in any article, we would have a very hard time writing good articles. Including this candidate appears to be WP:DUE for this article. The point of this list article is to compile information on candidates that may not merit significant standalone coverage, with some exceptions. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 01:50, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Tartan357 said it best and is precisely correct. This page doesn't list candidates for their human notability.  It doesn't cover their positions, ideology, their ideas, or actions.  It is merely a list to enumerate the candidates (as placeholders, not human beings) in the context of the 2020 U.S. presidential election.  Many of them are not notable enough to have their own page and need not be notable in order to be included in a list.  It would be a violation of Wikipedia standards to give many of them their own page.  However, to leave them off the list violates the integrity of the list. Dhalsim2 (talk) 21:55, 13 September 2020 (UTC)

Write in access
This is a really quick question, but I thought I would make sure y'all thought this was a good idea before I did it. Should we remove the drop-down list of write-in access now that it is depicted on the ballot access maps?Buscus 3 (talk) 07:48, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I think that's fine; it's too cluttered with both. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 09:02, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Veterans' Party of America
According to the Independent Political Report source, the Veterans' Party of America was supposed to have an online nominating convention on May 17. Did they ever nominate anyone, or are they still planning to do so? Jah77 (talk) 10:02, 23 August 2020 (UTC)
 * The party's article on Wikipedia was deleted: Articles for deletion/Veterans Party of America, so their candidate might not be notable for inclusion here, if there is one. As far as I'm aware, we don't currently have anything on Wikipedia about them running a presidential candidate, so you'll have to find a reliable source indicating they do for us to have a discussion about it. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 06:20, 26 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I did find a 2020 presidential guide that mentions that Max Abramson as the presidential candidate for the Veterans' Party, but I haven't been able to find any other mention of the nomination, or even anything about Abramson run since June. I think removing him from the page might be a good idea considering there hasn't been any recent news about him and it is getting pretty close to the election, and if he was seriously running I assume that we would have heard about it by now. The party's page deletion is also a red flag for me. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buscus 3 (talk • contribs) 00:11, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
 * No, I disagree. Removing Abramson for that reason would be Original research. Devonian Wombat (talk) 00:48, 27 August 2020 (UTC)


 * So is having a Wikipedia article a requirement for inclusion or not? In the discussion about the Life & Liberty Party above, some editors argued that ballot access is sufficient, and the party was initially included and then removed without further discussion. Jah77 (talk) 12:13, 28 August 2020 (UTC)


 * I don't understand what having wikipedia notability has to do with being listed on this page as a candidate if a ticket has ballot access. All candidates with ballot access can and should be listed in this article. William S. Saturn (talk) 20:18, 1 September 2020 (UTC)
 * What I am trying to say above is that the standard for wikipedia article notability does not need to be the same for inclusion on this page. There is no reason to exclude candidates who have attained ballot access just because an article for the individual or their party has not been created.  The number of candidates is not excessive.William S. Saturn (talk) 07:23, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * It would be good to have clearly defined criteria for inclusion. Personally, I agree that ballot access is a much more tangible criterion than Wikipedia notability. Jah77 (talk) 22:21, 2 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Any and all candidates with ballot access must be included on this page. There is no other criteria.XavierGreen (talk) 19:13, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No, that would be a violation of WP:UNDUE. If someone is not notable, then they do not deserve to be on this page. That is the criteria, and you do not get to overturn it at a whim without a proper discussion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your assertions are baseless. This purports to be a list of Third Party and independent candidates for president in the 2020 election. There are no inclusion criteria listed on the page, a reader would expect this article to cover every single candidate who had ballot access in this election, just as David Leip's election atlas does. See here for example . It cannot be undue to list all ballot qualified candidates on a wikipedia page that purports to be a list of all such candidates. In fact, this article could never hope to proceed to GA status or beyond if it didn't. Would you leave a battleship off of the List of dreadnought battleships of the Royal Navy article simply because its service history was less noteworthy than the others? No, so why you you leave a ballot qualified candidate off here.XavierGreen (talk) 01:40, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Can you please provide a link to the discussion establishing the consensus you're saying is being "overturned"? I cannot find any such discussion. — Tartan357   ( Talk ) 16:52, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Ballot Eligibility Collapsible Lists
, I was looking at your recent edit, removing the collapsible lists of states. I think that your many edits on the page are good, but I'm not totally sold on this one. Your reasoning for removing the lists is your assertion that the maps have the same data, but it's been my perception that map updates often lag updates on the rest of the page, simply because not everyone has the knowledge or inclination to do the map updates. The other value I see in the lists is that they offer explicitness that isn't as apparent in the maps. (It can be hard to see Rhode Island or to notice Hawaii.) Lastly, I think that substantiation of ballot eligibility is important because editors have added quite questionable claims to the page. (You have pointed out Rocky De La Fuente's details, and I concur with you assessment.) Having a reference of substantiation tied to each state (or as many as reasonable) is a good thing for accuracy, but in order to avoid the visual overload of all the references, hiding them in a collapsible list seems the best balance. I'm not totally against your idea and can certainly see some merit, but wanted to point out the short comings for your consideration. What are your thoughts? Dhalsim2 (talk) 18:24, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Is Write-in access Ballot Access?
Should write-in access count towards the 538, 270 or 50 EC votes limits? Certain users are trying to claim that they have "access" to the ballot as a write-in but I think this fundamentally misrepresents what ballot access is.Lyonbra (talk) 20:51, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The purpose of elections is to win elected office. Ballot access should mean the ability to win the elected office through that ballot, and in that case having your write-in votes count matters.  Look at the ballot access maps.  There is a heading of "ballot access" with subheadings of "on ballot" and "write-in access" - clearly showing that the editors of this webpage believe that write-in access is ballot access. Redeemedmonkeycma (talk) 21:31, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
 * See Ballot access. Ballot Access refers to having the name/party/candidate/etc appear on the ballot. The precedent (Third party and independent candidates for the 2012 United States presidential election) is to sort by ballot access, not their ballot access + write-in accessibility. Catiline52 (talk) 00:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I would rather have internal consistency within a single page of Wikipedia. Moreover, why should I trust a definition on Wikipedia that cites for its support another crowd-sourced encyclopedia?  Indeed, the second source in that article (MTSU's First Amendment Encyclopedia) includes a more expansive definition of ballot access. Redeemedmonkeycma (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As I mentioned before, the I'd like to note that the editor that changed the "ballot access" subheadings to "access" states on their page they're a supporter of the American Solidarity Party. The ASP were way down on the page since they don't have ballot access in many states, and this convenient change places them significantly ahead of parties that have ballot access. The reasoning ("consistent with all previous third party election year pages") is wrong, since the only pages that mention ballot access are 2012/2008, which don't include write-in for sorting! Catiline52 (talk) 00:08, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Ignoring the Genetic Fallacy in your argument: Given what you state, and what Dhalsim wrote, the logical inference is that his precedent actually only applies to 2016, which he mentions reordered by vote total after the election - so of course it no longer mentions ballot access! Probably 2012 and 2008 shouldn't either.  So it looks like there is actually a split precedent, with the more recent precedent being the one that makes more logical sense to me - you can't win an election without being able to win electoral votes. Redeemedmonkeycma (talk) 00:43, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Using this unorthodox definition of "ballot access" every American citizen over the age of 35 has "ballot access" to 60 electoral college votes since everyone has write-in access in Alabama, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, and Vermont. I await your edits adding all of these people to the list as according to you they have "ballot access" and are therefore entitled to be on this listLyonbra (talk) 02:18, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yea, I agree that being on the ballot is what should count for ballot access. There will be a third party debate for candidates with access to at least ten states, and Brian Carroll is of course not invited, because he's only on the ballot in eight states. Including write-ins for the calculation of ballot access is kind of misleading in my opinion, and it also gives undue weight to certain candidates. Jacoby531 (talk) 14:26, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll note the specific phrasing at your link is "In order to qualify, candidates must be on the ballot in at least ten states." - studiously avoiding the phrase "ballot access." Further comments I'll make in the section I created below. Redeemedmonkeycma (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Except in the states where a campaign must file a slate of elector candidates for the Electoral College, Washington being the only one of which I am aware off the top of my head, write-in votes for president would not really mean access to those electoral votes. If a write-in candidate for president were to poll enough votes to win a state but not have that slate of electors it would create a constitutional crisis due to the inability to actually claim those electoral votes. Of course, as a practical matter we know that not only will a write-in candidate not win a state it is highly unlikely that they would finish ahead of any candidate with ballot access(barring exceptions like Bernie Sanders in 2016 who, it should be noted, was not running in the general election). The difference between ballot access and write-in access is so great that in my view it is hardly worth the effort to even record write-in access as both the process to attain it nor the manner of accounting for those write-in votes are highly divergent and typically the only people who care about write-in status are those who are emotionally invested in a particular campaign. Okcgunner (talk) 14:08, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * User PutItOnAMap keeps adding in write-in candidates who don't have ballot access in any state. There are hundreds of write-ins in this election, so since there seems to be disagreement even about the inclusion of all candidates WITH ballot access, can we at least agree that write-ins don't belong here? Jah77 (talk) 16:41, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * As long as the consensus of editors on this page deem "write-in access" as "ballot access" in terms of ranking candidates then everyone with write-in access needs to be included in this list for consistency (which would include every American citizen over the age of 35). I disagree with it, but as long as enough people insist on calling "write-in access" "ballot access" I see no alternative while remaining consistent. Lyonbra (talk) 14:05, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Write-in access is a formality that takes virtually no effort to attain; in fact, in some states, as rightly mentioned, there is no filing requirement for write-in candidates, meaning every natural born citizen over the age of 35 is eligible to receive write-in votes in those states. Write-in access is relevant to this page, but it would be grossly WP:UNDUE as a means of determining which candidacies should appear on this page and how they should be sorted. This is not merely about the technical possibility of securing electoral votes; it is about how campaigns are talked about in reliable secondary sources. And for the candidacies on this page, viability and significance are most commonly discussed in terms of ballot access (not write-in access). —  Tartan357   ( Talk ) 02:02, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * No write-in access should not be counted towards the ordering of candidates, it is irrelevant for those purposes. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:21, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

The count in this section seems to be 7 to 1 against considering write-in access as counting towards ordering of candidates. Sounds like consensus to me. Okcgunner (talk) 15:11, 24 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Could an editor please fix the ordering? Catiline52 (talk) 22:24, 24 September 2020 (UTC)

Ventura/McKinney
Wikipedia has an image of Ventura why isn't it used? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.194.182 (talk) 20:32, 27 September 2020 (UTC)

Alliance party map needs updating
https://www.theallianceparty.com/ballot_access They now have 270 to win including write-ins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2606:A000:1014:8AC3:E5A9:79C3:8AFA:6326 (talk) 21:53, 29 September 2020 (UTC)