Talk:Third-party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election/Archive 2

Ordering of candidates
The previous discussion has centered around a semantic point: whether write-in access is ballot access. While I still think it should, especially based on the content that was on the page (i.e. the ballot access maps) I am willing to concede that there are valid arguments against that point. However that whole debate misses the broader question - what should be the preferred ordering of candidates? I think we can all agree that being on the ballot in states with 270 electoral votes is better than having write-in access only in those same states. However, my contention is that the point of having access to the ballot is to get elected, and so it seems like we should favor candidates who actually are mathematically capable of winning the election. Any other ordering seems to favor something other than what an election is actually about. Redeemedmonkeycma (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Another thought - Supposing that Roque de la Fuente actually was on the ballot in Alabama (and therefore was on the ballot for the same number of electoral votes as Gloria La Riva) - we would not view La Riva's position as equal to De La Fuente's, because she has write-in access to more electoral votes. Comparing Kanye West and Brian Carroll - I would think that Carroll should be viewed in a stronger position being on the ballot in states with 66 electoral votes and with write-in access in states with 228 electoral votes (totaling 294), than West on the ballot in states with 84 electoral vote but with write-in access in states with only 51 (totaling 135). Redeemedmonkeycma (talk) 20:51, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'll reiterate the point I made in the previous thread, 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 millions of people to the list as according to you they have "ballot access" and are therefore entitled to be on this list. This is a clear attempt to put one candidate that certain users support higher on the list than they deserve. Lyonbra (talk) 21:09, 20 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Did you even read my point? By continuing to focus on the definition of ballot access, it sure looks like you didn't. Redeemedmonkeycma (talk) 16:50, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes I did, and it has become painfully clear that supporters of a certain candidate are choosing to ignore the common definition of ballot access and turn this into a partisan cause. You never answered why you're not adding millions of American citizen names. They are all write-in candidates in 7 states totaling 60 EC votes, and are entitled to be here based on your previous assertions. Lyonbra (talk) 21:00, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Your insistence on making this about the definition of ballot access when I started this section of discussion by ceding to your point of view on that question makes me give pause about what your motivations are. As for the millions of Americans - they are not necessary because they fail the definition of candidate. Redeemedmonkeycma (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * The only possible instance where write-in status could count toward the theoretical possibility of winning the election is when a slate of electors is submitted AND the write-in votes will be counted. Even so, the vast distance between write-in status and actual being on the ballot makes it so that it is hardly worth considering even if it were really possible to win those electoral votes in all of those write-in states.  Okcgunner (talk) 17:52, 21 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm glad someone is at least engaging with in good faith. I believe you have something of a point with your first point, but given the Supreme Court case this year it would seem that states where electors are bound by state law would also be fine (indeed in this case it seems odd for states to require any candidate to provide electors).  On your point about the distance - is it your contention that West is in better position than Carroll, being on the ballot in 12 states to Carroll's 8, even though votes for Carroll will be counted in 30 states, but only 17 states will count votes for West?  It seems to me that Carroll's position is better than West's (though probably not better than some of the other candidates he is now above), and so it seems strange to me to value the counting of write-in votes as nothing.  Redeemedmonkeycma (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes, I'd absolutely say that West is in better position and will receive far more votes as will La Riva, Fuente, Blankennship, and Pierce. While there have been small-scale wins by write-in candidates, the largest being Murkowski's second term in Alaska, those are exceptions that prove the rule not just in that they are extremely rare but also in that they nearly always are a special case.  Murkowski was the incumbent.  Other successful write-in campaigns involve something detrimental that hits the candidate(s) with ballot access or a write-in candidate who has some overriding attribute.  These things that can change a smaller race simply don't have any realistic chance of occurring in the only election of national scope that we have in this country.  Show me the instance where a state tally of write-in votes in the presidential race for an alternative candidate has been greater than the number of votes for a candidate whose name was printed on the ballot.  Okcgunner (talk) 16:22, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) Your point about Kanye would seem to be a point against either using "states where a candidate is on the ballot" and "states where a candidate is able to win electoral votes." Given that none of these candidates will make more than a marginal impact on the election, projected popular vote would seem the best way to order them prior to the election.  2) The US Presidential election is 51 separate state elections, so it seems that if we are talking "ability to get presidential electoral votes" then Senate races are certainly applicable. 3) However, your point about special cases is well taken.  It seems that all of the instances of a strong 3rd party run that I see are one-hit wonders in unusual circumstances.  So it would seem that we should favor candidates like Kanye West and Brock Pierce over candidates like Gloria La Riva and Roque De La Fuente. 4) "Show me an instance..." - Just looking at 2016 Evan Mcmullin faired better as a write-in than some candidate actually on the ballots in Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, and Wisconsin; there are also a number of states where the write-in total (not divided into candidates) is much higher than a candidate on the ballot.  5)  2016 Kansas vs. 2016 Indiana gives an interesting data point on comparing the effect of ballot status vs. write-in status.  Those two states have very similar vote profiles - 56-57% for Trump, 35-38% for Clinton, 4-5% for Johnson; and every other candidate is a write-in - except Jill Stein, on the ballot in Kansas but a write-in in Indiana.  In Kansas Stein got 1.97% of the vote, while in Indiana Stein got 0.28% by write-in (still well above any other write-in).
 * Given that there isn't a single candidate in the history of US presidential elections who has ever come anywhere close to carrying a state as a write-in in the general election, a write-in winning actual electoral votes is about as likely as a self-publication winning the Booker Prize. Jah77 (talk) 13:25, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * But there have been successful write-in campaigns for state-wide office, e.g. Murkowski's second term as Senator for Alaska. So the analogy would be more like a self-publication getting votes for the Booker prize, given the knowledge that self-publications had won some slightly lesser prize. Redeemedmonkeycma (talk) 15:41, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * We're not talking about statewide office here. Just because a self-publication has once won the literary award of a local book club doesn't make self-publications viable contenders for the Booker. Jah77 (talk) 21:18, 22 September 2020 (UTC)
 * In the United States, the Presidential Election is actually comprised of 51 separate state Presidential elections, which award a total of 538 electoral votes. The only way your "local book club" analogy works is if the choice of that local book club would count towards the selection of the Booker Prize. Redeemedmonkeycma (talk) 15:48, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure what you're trying to say. The fact remains that write-ins have never come anywhere close to winning a state in presidential elections, and I don't see what statewide or local elections have to do with that. Jah77 (talk) 08:58, 27 September 2020 (UTC)
 * There seems to be a whole lot of misinformation about how write-in candidacy works, how easy it is to attain, how many write-in candidates exist, etc. Allow me to ignore these for now and go to the heart of the matter which is ordering, Wikipedia precedents of the past, and the reasonings behind the precedents. It is universally agreed upon that post-election, candidates should be sorted in order of their national popular vote.  That vote tally is their notability in the context of the election.  (Outside of the election certain entertainers and celebrities will certainly be more notable than political candidates, but of course we are referring to the specific context of the election in question.)  Agreed about post-election ordering?  In previous third party election pages on Wikipedia, there was a consensus that pre-election ordering should be objectively determined using a metric that most closely approximates post-election results. The tally of electoral votes was clearly agreed upon (instead of state counts and other potential metrics). I don't believe that this challenge is now being challenged, and believe that there is still consensus here.  As to whether the metric should be only access with printed ballot access or included write-in access, it was determined that the total electoral votes (including write-in access) was a better approximation of post-election results than printed ballot access only.  Regardless of which of those two potential metrics is used, the Libertarian and Green candidates are going to be the third and fourth highest vote tallies, respectively.  Among all the candidates below the Libertarians and Greens, printed ballot access is worth about three times as much (in terms of percentage of the vote) as write-in access, but because many of these candidates rely on many more states for write-in campaigns than printed-ballot access, that sum adds up significantly.  See this summary table for substantiation of my claim.  Neither exclusively printed ballot access nor equally-valued write-in access achieves a great approximation for post-election vote tallies.  A system where write-in access to electors count as 1/3 of the value of printed ballot access to electors would be closest approximation.  However, I'm not sure how a scaled index value would be appreciated by the reader.  If full weighting of write-in votes or zero weighting of write-in votes are considered, the full weighting is the preferred approach.  This is evidenced in the practice and consensus of 2016.  See |the last pre-election edit from 2016, as well as all preceding edits.  Dhalsim2 (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * And to clear up some of the misinformation:
 * - There are not thousands of registered write-in candidates. As of a few days ago, there were 64 (once you exclude Alabama, Iowa, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Rhode Island and Pennsylvania).
 * - The ease of filing as a write-in candidate varies greatly from state to state, but most require the candidate to have a full set of notarized electors. Some states require a substantial filing fee, a petitioning of 500 signatures, etc.
 * Dhalsim2 (talk) 05:52, 28 September 2020 (UTC)
 * Write-in candidates are not actually on the ballot, so it is misleading to give it the same weight as actual access. Quite frankly, I do not think it should be mentioned on this page at all. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:49, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Misleading to give write-in access the same weight as ballot access: totally agreed. However, is also misleading to give them zero weight. Don't think they should be on this page at all?  Let's minimize opinion and look at objective data.
 * {| class="wikitable sortable"

! Candidate !! Rank !! Total Votes !! Write-in %
 * + Percent of the vote attributable third party and independent candidates for the 2016 United States presidential election
 * Evan McMullin || 5 || 722,622 || 29%
 * Darrell Castle || 6 || 199,280 || 8%
 * Bernie Sanders || 7 || 105,549 || 100%
 * Gloria La Riva || 8 || 73,636 || 0%
 * Rocky De La Fuente || 9 || 33,114 || 0%
 * Richard Duncan || 10 || 24,306 || 0%
 * Dan Vacek     || 11 || 13,537 || 0%
 * Alyson Kennedy || 12 || 11,743 || 0%
 * Mike Smith    || 13 || 9,318  || 2%
 * Chris Keniston || 14 || 7,245 || 5%
 * Mike Maturen  || 15 || 6,697  || 87%
 * Lynn Kahn     || 16 || 5,729  || 2%
 * James Hedges  || 17 || 5,617  || 0%
 * Tom Hoefling  || 18 || 4,795  || 52%
 * Monica Moorehead || 19 || 4,314 || 6%
 * Emidio Soltysik || 20 || 4,056 || 5%
 * L. Kotlikoff  || 21 || 3,587 || 60%
 * }
 * For about half of the candidates, their write-in votes were a negligible portion of their total votes. However, for others, the write-in portion was a substantial portion of the vote total, including some of the most relevant alternative candidates of the election. So the most basic question comes down to "What is the least misleading way to present candidates on the page pre-election that will most closely approximate their relevance to the election post-election?" Do you agree? Let's agree on what we are trying to solve. I believe that that will help us come to consensus over a solution. Dhalsim2 (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Chris Keniston || 14 || 7,245 || 5%
 * Mike Maturen  || 15 || 6,697  || 87%
 * Lynn Kahn     || 16 || 5,729  || 2%
 * James Hedges  || 17 || 5,617  || 0%
 * Tom Hoefling  || 18 || 4,795  || 52%
 * Monica Moorehead || 19 || 4,314 || 6%
 * Emidio Soltysik || 20 || 4,056 || 5%
 * L. Kotlikoff  || 21 || 3,587 || 60%
 * }
 * For about half of the candidates, their write-in votes were a negligible portion of their total votes. However, for others, the write-in portion was a substantial portion of the vote total, including some of the most relevant alternative candidates of the election. So the most basic question comes down to "What is the least misleading way to present candidates on the page pre-election that will most closely approximate their relevance to the election post-election?" Do you agree? Let's agree on what we are trying to solve. I believe that that will help us come to consensus over a solution. Dhalsim2 (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Monica Moorehead || 19 || 4,314 || 6%
 * Emidio Soltysik || 20 || 4,056 || 5%
 * L. Kotlikoff  || 21 || 3,587 || 60%
 * }
 * For about half of the candidates, their write-in votes were a negligible portion of their total votes. However, for others, the write-in portion was a substantial portion of the vote total, including some of the most relevant alternative candidates of the election. So the most basic question comes down to "What is the least misleading way to present candidates on the page pre-election that will most closely approximate their relevance to the election post-election?" Do you agree? Let's agree on what we are trying to solve. I believe that that will help us come to consensus over a solution. Dhalsim2 (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)
 * }
 * For about half of the candidates, their write-in votes were a negligible portion of their total votes. However, for others, the write-in portion was a substantial portion of the vote total, including some of the most relevant alternative candidates of the election. So the most basic question comes down to "What is the least misleading way to present candidates on the page pre-election that will most closely approximate their relevance to the election post-election?" Do you agree? Let's agree on what we are trying to solve. I believe that that will help us come to consensus over a solution. Dhalsim2 (talk) 20:21, 2 October 2020 (UTC)

Write-in candidates not yet on maps for certain states
In Illinois, the following presidential candidates are among those who attained official write-in status: Don Blankenship, Phil Collins, Jade Simmons, Mark Charles  Sources: Winnebago County Clerk: https://winnebagocountyclerk.com/images/VALID_WRITE-IN_4th.pdf  Lake County: https://lakecountyil.gov/DocumentCenter/View/13059  DuPage County Clerk's file dupagewritein_090920.pdf — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.226.234 (talk) 20:11, 29 September 2020 (UTC)  In Ohio, registered write-in candidates that affect the maps include: Dario Hunter, Jade Simmons. An official source: Stark County Board of Elections at https://www.starkcountyohio.gov/StarkCounty/media/Board-of-Elections/clgen20.pdf?ext=.pdf  Jade Simmons is also a write-in option in Arizona according to "Information provided by the Secretary of State's office" listed at https://www.fox10phoenix.com/news/fox-10-voter-guide-2020-arizona-general-election. 107.77.226.230 (talk) 21:59, 3 October 2020 (UTC)  Update: The above is confirmed by https://apps.arizona.vote/electioninfo/elections/2020-general-election/federal/2442/18/0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.226.230 (talk) 23:01, 3 October 2020 (UTC)  I got some more news from Davis County Utah's official list of candidates at https://www.daviscountyutah.gov/clerk-auditor/elections/candidates and West Virginia's Secretary of State's list of "Official Write-In Candidates" at https://sos.wv.gov/elections/Documents/Write-In%20State.pdf We will need to add the following write-in states for the following candidates: Jade Simmons: WV (5 ev), UT (6 ev) Brock Pierce: WV (5) Mark Charles: WV (5) Don Blankenship: WV (5) Roque de la Fuente: WV (5) 107.77.226.230 (talk) 22:40, 3 October 2020 (UTC)  News from Camden County Board of Elections & Registration OFFICIAL ELECTION BULLETIN CERTIFIED WRITE-IN CANDIDATES NOVEMBER 3, 2020 PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES https://www.camdencountyga.gov/DocumentCenter/View/12055/2020-Certified-Write-in-Candidates-in-State-and-Federal-Elections?bidId= tells us that Don Blankenship, Mark Charles, and Jade Simmons are also write-in options in the state of Georgia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.225.41 (talk) 23:28, 5 October 2020 (UTC)  The government of Maryland certified Gloria La Riva as a 2020 presidential write-in option per https://elections.maryland.gov/elections/2020/general_candidates/gen_cand_lists_2020_4_001-.html 107.77.226.215 (talk) 22:27, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Information about kanye's Write-in??
kanye asked voters to write himself on ballot. So do we have any information about the write-in acces? Deniz Demir 28 (talk) 18:24, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I think Ye might have a misunderstanding of the election process. I checked with most secretaries of state.  He hasn't registered as a write-in candidate for any of those that I checked with.  That means that he is only eligible as a write-in for the handful of states that give automatic write-in access to everyone.  A write-in vote for Ye won't be counted in most states. Dhalsim2 (talk) 01:24, 14 October 2020 (UTC)

He started to register for write-in candidate. (Alaska, Delawere, Maryland) Deniz Demir 28 (talk) 21:57, 15 October 2020 (UTC)

Deniz is right. This week https://elections.maryland.gov/elections/2020/general_candidates/gen_cand_lists_2020_4_001-.html has added both Kanye West and Phil Collins as extra write-in choices for Maryland voters. I had written to Kanye's campaign on October 9th to inform them that write-ins won't be counted in most states unless he registers as a write-in with those states' Secretaries of State. They obviously took me seriously. He did miss a bunch of earlier deadlines.107.77.223.188 (talk) 04:54, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Kanye West and Howie Hawkins confirmed write-in choices for Alaska per https://www.elections.alaska.gov/Core/GeneralCandidateList.php Kanye West confirmed a write-in choice for Delaware per https://elections.delaware.gov/services/candidate/genl_wcddt_2020.shtml (which claims his filing was on 09/18/2020). 107.77.223.188 (talk) 05:05, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

Summary table
Several states are expected to publish their lists of write-in candidates in the next few weeks, significantly changing the numbers and maps in the article. To keep track of updates and facilitate verifications, I propose adding a summary table like this: Green means ballot access, yellow means write-in, red means no access. This is similar to a table in the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. Questions:
 * 1) Should this table be added at the top or bottom of the article?
 * 2) If references are in the table, can we remove them from the maps? Some of the references currently in the maps are outdated or incorrect.
 * 3) After adding the table, can we remove the section about candidates with ballot access in one state?
 * 4) I plan to add notes to the table indicating additional state parties supporting a candidate. If so, can we remove the section about fusion tickets?
 * 5) Should the table also include the Republican and Democratic candidates for completeness?
 * 6) Should the table also include candidates with only write-in access? I know that there could be potentially millions of them as a few states don't require write-in registration at all, but maybe it's worth mentioning those that actually registered in various states. Some of them are even expected to exceed access to 270 electoral votes after California releases its write-in list. Maybe list only those that exceed this limit? In any case, I propose adding these candidates only in the summary table, not in the main part of the article.
 * 7) If a candidate claims to have write-in access in a state, but the write-in list published by that state does not include that candidate, and the deadline to register there has not yet passed (such as Howie Hawkins in Alaska), should we mark it as yellow, red, or leave it blank? Should we count it in the total? I prefer leaving it blank and not counting, because the situation is not yet determined.
 * 8) If a candidate claims to have write-in access in a state, but the write-in list published by that state does not include that candidate, and the deadline to register there has already passed (such as Rocky De La Fuente in Arizona), should we mark it as yellow, red, or leave it blank? Should we count it in the total? I prefer marking it as red and not counting, as the state list seems more reliable.
 * 9) Oregon does not require write-in candidates to register. It's true that Oregon only counts write-in votes individually if the total write-in votes are higher than the most voted candidate on the ballot, but it still counts all of them at least as a sum, and if the split does happen it accepts all candidates automatically. Many other states also use this counting procedure, but after the split they only count candidates that had previously registered. So I think that Oregon should indeed be added to all candidates as write-in.
 * 10) Wyoming changed its election law in 2018, repealing the requirement for write-in candidates to register, so it should also be added to all candidates as write-in. The source currently cited in the article for this information is from 2016. Updated sources can be found in the article write-in candidate. Heitordp (talk) 05:53, 12 October 2020 (UTC)

I really like this idea. Perhaps states that allow anyone as a write-in should be another color? Baconheimian (talk) 13:49, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * I like this. We should do it now.  My preferences:


 * 1) Add it to the top of the article.
 * 2) References can be moved from the maps.
 * 3) Yes, remove the table that has candidates with ballot access in one state, but also remove candidate tables who have fewer or equal to 15 or 16 ballot electoral votes.  Most of these candidates have sparce candidate tables anyways, with missing photos and other details.
 * 4) Yes, remove the section about fusion tickets.  This page has always been more about the candidates and less about the parties that they belong to.  That section has always seemed out of place.
 * 5) Yes, include Republican and Democratic candidates for completeness.  This would be akin to the 2016 summary table.
 * 6) We should lean on the side of inclusivity, as this is a list.  As a list, the notability standard doesn't apply.  That said, there are currently 1,232 registered candidates with the FEC.  It would be way out of line to include any/all of them.  There are about 68 that are registered write-in candidates.  Registration should be the minimum criteria, but not all registered candidates need to be included.  Post-election, it should be all candidates that received at least 1000 votes OR that had printed ballot access in at least one state.  This would make it the same as the 2016 criteria.
 * 7) If the deadline hasn't passed, that's iffy.  Your proposal seems reasonable, but the big state in question is CA.  They won't report until October 23rd or 24th.  That is a big state and they are waiting until a time that way too close to the election.  I propose going with your proposal in general, but making an exception for CA only.
 * 8) Don't count, if an official state SoS list contradicts what the candidate's campaign claims.
 * 9) Totally agree with your Oregon proposal.
 * 10) Agreed with your Wyoming proposal.
 * Other feedback: let's make the columns sortable, if possible, on both ballot EC votes and total EC votes, with the default order being the total EC votes. Overall, your proposal is excellent, and we shouldn't wait further to implement.  Let's go for it.  If you need help, reach out to me, and I'll help too. Dhalsim2 (talk) 20:19, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the feedback and encouragement.
 * I prefer to keep only 3 colors for simplicity, but maybe we can add another color later.
 * I can make the columns sortable (updated example above), but the consensus in the previous discussions has been to sort by ballot access so I think that it should be the default order. In any case, the reader may reorder the table by clicking on another column.
 * I prefer to list only candidates with ballot access in at least one state, and add a separate collapsed table listing candidates with only write-in registration, so the information is there for those interested but doesn't occupy an unreasonable space in the article.
 * No candidate seems to have claimed write-in access in California yet, so I don't see the need for an exception. Someone added California to Brian Carroll's map but didn't cite a source, and the candidate's and party's websites still say that it's pending.
 * Most states have published final write-in lists, or allow all or none. Based on the previous election, most other states are expected to publish their lists by the end of October, but some states might only publish after the election (MA, MI, MT, TN), and some might not publish at all (DC, ID, NE, NC, ND, VA). For now I plan to leave them blank, but later we can fill in based on candidates' claims if we think they are reliable.
 * I made a draft in my sandbox. The references still need to be properly titled, which is a tedious task. I plan to do that later, but you can help if you'd like. Heitordp (talk) 10:23, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

This is a fairly minor point, but is it possible to have the states listed again at the bottom of the table? Baconheimian (talk) 14:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Yes. I added the states at the bottom.
 * I added the table to the article and made the other changes described above.
 * I marked write-in status based only on the candidate lists published by the states. If you want to add candidates' claims of write-in registration in a state that hasn't published a list, please add a reference next to the candidate or party name in the table.
 * Is it useful to add columns with the number of states, on the ballot and total? Or would it be too many numbers in the table?
 * I removed the counts in the map legends to simplify future updates. The maps still need to be updated for consistency with the table.
 * I didn't remove the sections on the candidates with access to few EC votes, but feel free to do that if you prefer. Heitordp (talk) 12:20, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Excellent work, Heitordp! You have almost all of the candidates that I've been tracking. There are a few that you're missing, and I see that it's because you have only included the write-ins for states that have published their write-in lists on the web. For the states that haven't done this, I went ahead and called each state election's office and had them read me the list of qualified write-ins over the phone, slowly enough for me to write all the names down. This phone reference is repeatable, but not easily documentable. Is there a good and proper way to capture this? Perhaps it might only be citable if published by the authority (the state itself) or in some notable publication? What if it's published on a blog?  Dhalsim2 (talk) 19:19, 14 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks! I'm impressed that you actually called the election offices but I think that we need to cite something online or printed. Self-published sources are usually not acceptable, but I've cited them before when I thought they were reliable, the topic was objective and no other source was available. So if you post your list on a blog and explain how and when you got the information, I think that it would be acceptable to cite it, just like the candidates' own websites, for a state that hasn't published a list. Heitordp (talk) 05:59, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed with your sentiment entirely. How about this? I'll send my lists to Richard Winger of Ballot Access News, and if he feels that they are reliable enough, he can publish them. Some of those calls that I made were from two to three weeks ago, so before sending them over, I think I'll want to give some states another call to get a the lists refreshed. There's no way that I'll be able to get to all in one day, so I'll pass the lists on as I go along. Dhalsim2 (talk) 19:15, 15 October 2020 (UTC)
 * That's a good idea, Ballot Access News is a reliable source so we can cite it. But it might be easier to contact the states by email and put their responses as PDF files on a server like Google Drive to cite them directly. I contacted some states and received some responses, some of which were already PDF files. I suggest we coordinate to avoid repetitions:
 * ID, MA, MT, NC provided their final list by email, which I plan to add soon. No need to contact them again.
 * MI, TN have not replied to my email yet. Contact again only if there is no response after a few days.
 * CA, CT, KS, MN, MO, NY, WA are expected to publish their list online, as they did in 2016. Contact only if the list is not published a few days after the deadline (see dates here).
 * DC, NE, ND, VA are not expected to publish their list online, as they didn't in 2016. Contact a few days after the deadline, to ensure that the list is final. Exceptionally, since the DC deadline is after the election, we could also request a partial list earlier. Heitordp (talk) 09:27, 16 October 2020 (UTC)

I made some changes to reduce the table size. Please let me know if you still think it causes problems. Heitordp (talk) 07:55, 30 October 2020 (UTC)

I added back the vice presidential candidates in a collapsed column. Please let me know if it doesn't work for you. Heitordp (talk) 16:51, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Write-in access discrepancy
The Green Papers has provided a comprehensive list of the ballot and write-in access of all presidential candidates. See. The Green Papers is a reliable source. Why is there such a discrepancy between the write-in access on this page and on the chart from the Green Papers? William S. Saturn (talk) 07:40, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Both this Wikipedia article and the Green Papers are primarily based on the official lists of write-in candidates provided by each state, but the Green Papers just seems to take a little longer to update. For example, the Green Papers currently doesn't list any write-in candidate in Virginia, which published its list a few days ago. This Wikipedia article already has a link to that list on the first row of the table. I expect that the Green Papers will eventually update its page with the same information.
 * For the few states that haven't yet provided a list, both this Wikipedia article and the Green Papers temporarily rely on claims from individual candidates, but this Wikipedia article uses more claims, with links to each candidate's website. For example, for Kansas, the Green Papers lists only one write-in candidate, in italics (it notes that "Candidates for office appear on this page in italics where 'The Green Papers' does not yet have independent confirmation from a legal election authority that the person has been officially certified to appear on the ballot."), while this Wikipedia article lists 7. Again, after the state publishes its official list I expect that both websites will show the same information.
 * Another discrepancy occurs for states that allow all write-in candidates, without requiring registration. The Green Papers doesn't list any write-in candidate there, only only one or two in italics. I prefer the approach of this Wikipedia article, which marks all candidates in such states, with a different color. Heitordp (talk) 09:11, 2 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks for the explanation.William S. Saturn (talk) 21:18, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Official candidates
The state governments are the ones that administer the election and determine the candidates to be listed on the ballots or accepted as write-in candidates. This article is based on the lists of candidates provided by the states. The "$5000 rule" only determines whether people are considered candidates for the purpose of the federal law that requires them to report their campaign contributions and expenditures. Candidates who register in a state but spend less than $5000 are still valid candidates and their votes are counted, they are just extremely unlikely to win due to a very limited campaign. Conversely, registering with the FEC doesn't make the person eligible to receive votes anywhere. Heitordp (talk) 00:05, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Reordering by vote totals
While the official vote totals aren't exactly in yet, we have enough to be able to see who got what nationwide, so I changed the order from the semi-fantasy "what they COULD get" to what they actually got.Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:04, 16 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I agree to reorder the candidates by approximate votes received, but we shouldn't mention the numbers yet as they are still changing every day. In particular, several states are still planning to break down write-in votes by candidate individually, so some candidates may still move between thresholds. For now, I suggest grouping all candidates into one section, ordered by votes counted so far, with only one minimum threshold such as the 2,000 votes that you selected. After all states certify the results, we can add a table listing the exact numbers, similar to the article on the previous election, citing the official websites of each state, and select new thresholds if desired.
 * I suppose that you added the votes of Phil Collins and C.L. Gammon to order the Prohibition Party. I'm not sure if that's appropriate, but in that case we should add a note explaining it.
 * US presidential candidate Joe McHugh is not the same person as the Irish politician. See their photos: In any case, Fine Gael is not a US political party and was not mentioned ony any US ballot.
 * Write-ins are not a single candidate, so I suggest moving that section to the bottom. "None of the above" was not listed on any ballot, the exact term was "None of these candidates", and it existed only in Nevada. I also suggest moving that section to the bottom as it's not a real candidate.
 * Jesse Ventura and Cynthia McKinney have photos on Wikipedia, so we should add them to their table along with short descriptions like the other candidates. We also need to re-add Mark Charles's table from a previous article revision, as he has exceeded 2,000 votes.
 * The table at the bottom is incomplete and it adds no information beyond what is already included in the collapsed summary tables at the top. I suggest removing the bottom table. Heitordp (talk) 23:14, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
 * Fine. I agree with everything you say. Lets.do itArglebargle79 (talk) 02:07, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Summary table
, et al., now that we're in the post-election phase, I think we should come to a consensus on a post-election summary table. I propose that we do something similar to what was done in 2016, but with some of the updated features that Heitordp included for 2020. How about something like this: As of right now, there are 25 candidates that would meet the criteria of having 1000 votes. Dhalsim2 (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

I was planning to add a separate table with the results, but I like your idea of merging everything into one table. I propose several changes:
 * 1) Collapse the popular rank row and reduce its font.
 * 2) Add a collapsed row with vice presidential candidates, and change the "state" header into presidential, vice presidential and party.
 * 3) Change the last header to "others". Not all of those votes are for undisclosed write-ins.
 * 4) Compress the line height to 1.2, use font size 85% for all headers, and set the column width to a minimum value, letting the names wrap. This way the table takes less space and the names are more legible. If desired, parts of some names may be set to no wrap.
 * 5) To align numbers to the right, the parameter align=right should be added to every cell that uses a coloring template.
 * 6) Use a different color for unregistered write-in.
 * 7) Add a gray background and bold to the entire bottom line, like the headers (with direct code instead of ! to avoid centering).
 * 8) Add all notes and references that are in the current tables, in addition to the references for election results (not shown in the example below). Multiple references for the same state may be merged.

Additional questions:
 * 1) How many candidates should we include in the table? The threshold of 1000 votes results in 25 candidates, as you said. Should we let the table get that wide?
 * 2) What should we do with candidates that received fewer votes? Separate collapsed tables?
 * 3) Would it be useful to add a column of electoral votes per state, a column of total popular votes per state, and a row of ballot access per candidate? If so, where should each one be? Should they be collapsed too? Heitordp (talk) 06:22, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Heitordp, I love each of your recommendations. They are all huge improvements. My thoughts on your questions: In looking at the table for 2016, which I created, I regret making it as wide as I did, because I don't feel that the benefit of adding the candidates with fewer than 1000 votes makes up for the poor presentation. Having said that, you have worked wonders with collapsible columns. Might that be a solution for this table? If so, then perhaps each set of collapsed columns could either a fixed number (say 20 columns at a time) or grouped in tiers based on logarithmically decreasing vote count (say one set of columns for >10,000 votes, one set for 1,000 - 10,000 votes, one set for 100 - 1,000 votes, one set for 10 - 100 votes, one set for 1 to 10 votes, and one set for 0 votes, but at least registered as a write-in in one state). We should definitely also have the EV column and the total popular votes per state. I'm not sure what you mean by ballot access per candidate. Do you mean a pair of number for ballot access and registered write-in access? If so, I think that is worth consideration, but it should be tested for visual appeal. It is probably worth including but might potentially make the table too busy. I like the idea of the EV column being to the right of the state names (or VP names, if they are included) and the popular vote state totals to be at the far right. However, if this far right placement interferes with any column collapsing, then having it to the left of the Biden column makes sense too, especially if it's visually distinct, such as bold. These additional data columns for EV and state totals are important enough that I don't think they should be collapsed. Hey, once this is done (or maybe even before it's done), would it be worth it to reformat 2016 to match? :) Dhalsim2 (talk • contribs) 07:36, 25 November 2020 (UTC)


 * I'm glad you like it.
 * It's relatively easy to collapse whole tables or rows, but collapsible columns require a lot of repetitive code, because the parameters must be added to each of their cells. I collapsed one column in the current article, but I wouldn't recommend applying it to so many columns unless we make a template or module. Also, grouping all candidates in the same table would make it way too wide when fully expanded. I prefer to split the candidates into separate collapsed tables, like in the current article.
 * You understood correctly, I meant the EVs to which each candidate had ballot or write-in access. In the example above, I put them in collapsed rows like the vice presidential candidates so the table doesn't get too busy. I also added the EV and total votes in the positions that you mentioned.
 * I made a few more changes: moved the popular rank numbers to the sorting row; made all headers collapsible, with the presidential candidates and parties initially visible; moved the show/hide controls below the table title; simplified/fixed the code that compacts the table width. Is that better?
 * It's a good idea to reformat the 2016 table too. Heitordp (talk) 22:36, 26 November 2020 (UTC)


 * Love the improvements. It just keeps getting better and better. I appreciate your UI design skills. I do understand and agree with what you're saying about excessive width if all the candidates were kept in one table. Given that, the decision on where to divide tables becomes very important and may potentially be contentious readers and editors of this page.  Here is my proposal:
 * Table 1: 20 candidates; minimum 2000 votes; Joe Biden (~80m) through Mark Charles (2,618 currently)
 * Table 2: 16 candidates; those with printed ballot access in at least one state OR a minimum of 1000 votes (whether registered as a write-in candidate or not) Sam Tittle, C.L. Gammon, J.R. Myers, Tom Hoefling, H. Brooke Paige, Christopher Lafontaine, Kyle Kopitke, Ricky Sue King, Princess Khadijah Maryam Jacob-Famboro, Blake Huber, Joseph Kishore, Richard Duncan, Jordan "Cancer" Scott, Gary Swing, Keith McCormic, and Zachary Scalf; notably absent, due to these requirements, are Bernie Sanders (852 votes) Mitt Romney (227), Tulsi Gabbard (220), Todd Cella (218), Kasey Wells (151), Andrew Yang (100), John Kasich (97), and Vermin Supreme (30).  Dhalsim2 (talk) 00:15, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * I prefer to avoid horizontal scrolling, so I still find 20 candidates too much for one table. I also prefer to find a natural threshold based on the ratios between votes of consecutive candidates. In this case, it seems natural to split the table after Brian Carroll, who had more than 5 times the votes of Alyson Kennedy. That's by far the highest ratio after the first 4 candidates, leaving the first table with 10 candidates, just like the example above. If needed, we can name that threshold 0.01% of the total votes.
 * After that, all ratios are <2 so any split is arbitrary. I suggest including all candidates with more than 10 votes and splitting based on the screen width. We may be able to fit 15 candidates per table if we leave the party blank for independent candidates and don't add the columns for others and total votes to those tables. This way it looks like we'll need a total of 5 tables. We can collapse the tables for the candidates with fewer votes. How many tables do you prefer to display without collapsing? I suggest just the first one. Heitordp (talk) 04:51, 29 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , agreed that one uncollapsed table is best and agreed that reasoned, more natural boundaries are better than completely arbitrary boundaries, and yes, let's leave out "independent" for independent candidates. It's understood about the desire to minimize/eliminate horizontal scrolling, but five separate tables seems like A LOT. Before we settle on where splits might go, can we get a table started for some concrete measurements? Perhaps in your sandbox or mine? I won't have time to create such a table going today, but I can get one going tomorrow, if you haven't already started by then. If I do it in my sandbox, feel free to edit it there.  Dhalsim2 (talk) 19:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
 * , I gave some more thought about your proposal to cut off the first table, right after Brian Carroll, and I think that that makes sense based on that 5x ratio and a clean 0.01% threshold. Let's do it. However, I still think that five separate tables is an inordinate amount. For the subsequent candidates that are to be included (>10 votes, per your proposal), can we pack them all into a single table, perhaps by using vertically-oriented names?  As their vote counts won't take up much space, this would seem like a better compromise than having many tables. Dhalsim2 (talk) 17:59, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * I agree. Since these candidates have votes with fewer digits, we can pack more candidates by using vertical names, and also reducing the font size of digits if needed. The table might still exceed the screen width, but if it's collapsed I'm not really concerned. We could also increase the minimum votes to 100 or 1000 as you suggested, to reduce the number of candidates. I can try to do an example in my sandbox to estimate the sizes. Heitordp (talk) 23:52, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
 * , I did get an example going in my sandbox if you want to take a look. There are certainly tweaks that will be desirable, but the basics are in place. Dhalsim2 (talk) 00:01, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * That looks very good! Let's use that format. Heitordp (talk) 00:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * After filling out the table in my sandbox a bit more and getting through the Vermont results, I must strongly advocate for not going down to candidates with double-digit vote counts; there are some silly and meaningless candidates if we go that low, including Condoleeze Rice, Michelle Obama, and Ron Paul. The long tail of these results also means that the table is way too long.  I'm going to cut my sandbox table off at 100 votes, but I do think we should consider using the 2016 criteria of "candidates that got at least 1000 votes or were on at least one state ballot".  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dhalsim2 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Agreed. Heitordp (talk) 12:57, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

You've done an impressive work on compiling results from the counties, but I see a few problems putting this information in the table: I also added a collapsed table with results for more candidates. I included only declared candidates (on ballot or registered write-in anywhere) with more than 1000 votes. But I'm not opposed to different criteria if you prefer. Heitordp (talk) 15:18, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * 1) In the case of discrepancies between counties and their state, such as in Texas and New York, I think that we must show the numbers as reported by the state. Even if they are incorrect, that's what has been certified as the election results. We should mention the discrepancies in notes, but I think that altering the totals would be WP:OR.
 * 2) In the case of states that haven't published write-in votes, I don't mind putting a number compiled from the counties, even if it's partial and without a source, but we should note it appropriately and not alter the totals. Also, the Wikipedia articles that you cited don't have sources for those numbers and we can't cite Wikipedia itself as a source. Those citations were also repetitive as the articles were already linked in the state names, so I removed them.
 * 3) I expect that Georgia, Kansas and Pennsylvania will eventually publish their write-in votes, or that they will be available from the FEC report as they were in the previous election, so the compilation by counties from these states should be temporary. The only exception seems to be New Jersey, so for this state I added a reference with links to the county results that I could find.
 * Your suggestions sound reasonable and good. I'll make a point of adding references to the state election pages. The collapsed table with a 1000 vote requirement looks pretty good. I personally think it would be better if, when uncollapsed, the VP candidates remain collapsed by default. That would have it match the main table and the second table VPs are even less relevant than the main table VPs. Perhaps a best option is to tie the VP collapse option together for both tables. That's doable, right? Dhalsim2 (talk) 20:31, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
 * Thanks. I also wanted to make the VP and ballot access rows collapsed by default, but apparently that doesn't work in a collapsed table if the code is set for an entire row. I repeated the code for each cell so it should work now. I also combined the options for both tables as you suggested, moving them to the top of the section.
 * Should we also repeat the code to collapse the columns of the third table? Should we even keep that table? Heitordp (talk) 14:25, 16 December 2020 (UTC)