Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Tarc (talk | contribs) at 05:16, 13 September 2015 (→Lawrence Lessig a major candidate). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 United States presidential election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 10 days

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidential elections / Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government.

The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 United States presidential election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 10 days

This talk page contains a Request for Comment subpage regarding the remodeling of major party candidate areas. Please visit it here: Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016/Remodeling_of_major_party_candidate_areas.

Candidate photos

So there has been a lot of discussion and back and forth regarding candidate photos. That being said I feel like there should be a centralized discussion where people can post potential updates or changes to the photos used for each candidate. That way it can be assured by multiple editors that the photo meets the standards of WP:NPOV. In addition, I feel like certain photo qualities should be sought.

• Starting out with official photos. If a public domain official photo of the candidate exists I believe that should be used. This is true for any candidate that has been a federal employee (senate, house, cabinet, ect.). These photos are as neutral as possible and that can only help NPOV. If the community feels like it should be zoomed in a little that can happen but I feel like official photos, if available should be used.
• Photos should not be of the person actively speaking. No photo really looks good when the person has their mouth wide open. If there are simple smiling photos available I think those should be used.
• (This one is a maybe) Candidates should be facing the camera. No side profile shots, no photos of the candidate looking in some other direction. If they are not looking at the camera straight on I believe we should pass.

I also made separate sections for each party and we can put decided actions into a collapsed section to avoid clutter. Any other suggestions? --Stabila711 (talk) These points have not been agreed to yet and are only suggestions at this time. Please feel free to post any photos you want until an agreed up set of criteria can be made.

Thanks for working on this, it is important. Although I agree that we need to find libre photographs, so we can use and re-use them on articles at will (without filing new fair-use-proposals *every* time) it is also important to link from the greenboxes below to a couple of places: 1) the 'official' wikipedia photo being used at the candidate's bluelink , which might NOT be a libre one, and 2) the external 'official' headshot of the candidate provided by their campaign, if any, which is almost certainly not libre, but which also is almost certainly going to help us decide what the candidate *wants* to look like, aka give us an idea of which libre photo to select that has maximum likelihood of avoiding WP:BLP-type problems. My point isn't that those pics ought to be *bangvote* options in the greenboxen, just that they should be linked unto from the greenboxen, so that people bangvoting on the available libre images have an idea of what a high-quality option looks like, and thus know whether widening the search is likely to help. p.s. Strongly agree with prefer-official-photo-iff-libre, and STRONGLY agree with aiming to have a pleasant-looking photo that shows the candidate at their best, smiling and otherwise well-posed. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Democratic candidate photos

Lincoln Chafee

Hillary Clinton

Jim Webb

Bernie Sanders

Republican candidate photos

Lindsey Graham

George Pataki

John Kasich

Marco Rubio

Ted Cruz

Rand Paul

Mike Huckabee

Chris Christie

Vermin Supreme

Vermin Supreme is listed without party... but will be running as a Republican this cycle.

His kick-off campaign event is this coming weekend (Labor Day 3 day weekend)

Facebook link = https://www.facebook.com/events/1602222333365733/

-- , 128.119.143.92 (talk) 20:07, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

The boston.com article we cite doesn't mention that he's running as a Republican. Has any independent source reported this? —C.Fred (talk) 20:12, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

• Facebook is not a reliable source. We need something else that shows that information. --Stabila711 (talk) 20:13, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

There is no published source *yet* I heard of his running as a Republican yesterday, in a personal communication from the candidate. But this weekend's events should generate much media, so sourced confirmation should be forthcoming. -- Terry Franklin, terryfranklin@yahoo.com 128.119.143.121 (talk) 15:22, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Joke candidates do not deserve mention here. Tarc (talk) 15:37, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Then why does this article include "Deez Nuts"? – Muboshgu (talk) 16:20, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I have removed that one. A person who is prohibited by the US Constitution from holding office is by definition not a candidate for said office. Tarc (talk) 21:25, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree. Someone also has continuously attempted to slip this "person" into the navbox. Dustin (talk) 21:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

See comments at the "Constitutionally ineligible candidates" section, please. We should not, in our role as wikipedians, be deciding who is in, and who is out; we should let the sources be our guide. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:44, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Flipping order of major parties every month

So an IP editor flipped the order of the Republican and Democrat parties and I actually like it. I feel like this should be done every month that way the article can appear more neutral. I was going to add a comment to the two sections regarding this but I wanted to make sure there were no objections before I did so. Thoughts? --Stabila711 (talk) 23:42, 1 September 2015 (UTC)

No. It should be in alphabetical order.--William S. Saturn (talk) 03:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

Ok well then the third party sections needs to be reorganized. It is all over the alphabetical map. --Stabila711 (talk) 04:01, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

I adjusted it. David O. Johnson (talk) 16:59, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn, what is the wiki-policy rationale for your negation? User:Etmina suggested such a rotation-system, at the discussion-page about what layout to use for the candidates-section. We already have a sources-based distinction in non-alphabetical layout, which is that we put the two major parties at the top, since they get the most coverage, and it would be WP:UNDUE to list the "AAAA American Awesome Party" at the top of the wikipedia list. Although there are pragmatic reasons to avoid flipping the ordering, I don't see the wiki-policy reasons. Can you clue me in? What ordering-system do we use for British parties, do you know? 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:31, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Third Parties being the ones who could win only?

Should we only include the Libertarian and Green Parties in the third parties section, and leave the rest for the main third party article as none of them have enough ballot access to qualify? This has been done for previous elections (2008 and 2012), so should we do it for this one? Or should we wait until other parties obtain enough ballot access? Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 14:41, 2 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm neutral on the Prohibition Party and Independent candidates that don't have ballot access in any state but opposed to removing the other third party candidates. Theoretically, all other third parties listed have enough ballot access to win the presidential election. If none of the candidates get 270 votes then the House votes for the President based on the top 3 candidates. It's possible that all a third party candidate would have to do to make the top 3 is win 1 electoral college vote, and from there they could when the presidential election! Prcc27 (talk) 02:07, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
  • I'm the one that added the Ballot data for the parties and the Veterans, American Freedom parties, and while OPPOSED to removal, I can understand the reasoning as outlined as that is what we ultimately did after the 2012 Presidential election. For the time being the only parties that are being included in that section are those with ballot access, the exception being the Prohibition Party because they should be on the Mississippi ballot shortly (they were rejected on a technicality). Later in the year (or next) when the admission dates for ballot access are beginning to pass however we should definitely redefine the criteria to a stricter standard (say 135 Electors), and then once admissions have closed, to the basic standard of 270 Electors, a three-phase system. This way we can take into account that most of these minor parties or candidates will not be able to attain decent ballot access until around next Summer given the efforts required, while giving a fair shake to everyone. --Ariostos (talk) 21:15, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

I think this is a good plan, but I think we should set the guidelines as something like this: once at least a certain amount of parties obtain 100 possible votes (I'd say five parties) then we remove those that don't have that amount. But I think thats something that we can discuss later down the line. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 00:23, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I'd say including the Prohibition Party because you think they will be on the ballot in Mississippi is WP:CRYSTAL and if that's the reasoning we're going with then I think it should be removed! Also, did you guys completely ignore what I said about it being possible to win the presidential election with only one electoral college vote? I think the third parties need to be left alone unless they don't have any ballot access. Prcc27 (talk) 21:42, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Actually, this has been done before. The idea is to only list people who have a shot at winning. The odds of that even happening are astronomical, and more than likely a party that doesn't have ballot access in enough states to win will not finish third in the election. So early in the election season its hard to say who'll have a chance outside of the obvious (Libertarians, Greens, and Constitutions). Its a good idea to list only the ones who have a chance, but at this point we should list all of them. As soon as a few more parties get 50 electoral votes, we should cut it down. Once more get 100, we should cut that down too. And once people stop applying to be listed on ballots, we'll list the parties/candidates with 270 electoral votes. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 01:21, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

@Vote 4 DJH2036: Well if you want to get technical the odds of any third party winning are close to "astronomical" AFAIC. When was the last time a third party candidate got at least 25% of the vote in any of the states? (1992). When was the last time a third party candidate won the presidential election? (never). But keep in mind that there have been a few instances in American history where no candidate has gotten a majority of electoral college votes and it went to the House and/or Senate. And the odds of no candidate winning a majority of electoral college votes are not "astronomical" per se; in fact there are 15 realistic tie combinations and there's always the possibility that a faithless elector could affect the results of an election! And just because parties have been left out before does not mean it should be done again. It is WP:CRYSTAL to leave them out because you assume they do not have a shot at winning. Heck, if we were allowed to do that I could get rid of every political party but the Democrats since I predict they will win and they have a somewhat significant advantage over everyone else. If the Green Party is on the ballot in every state and wins no electoral votes, but the Prohibition Party is only on the ballot in Mississippi and they campaign strong and hard enough to win the state's electoral college votes guess who has a better shot at winning the presidential election? (hint: the Prohibition Party). But please tell me how Libertarians, Greens etc. have a shot at winning while the other parties don't? How do we even decide who has a shot; what is the criteria? If candidates under 35 are listed and have absolutely no chance of winning unless some sort of miracle happens like a new constitutional amendment or the Supreme Court makes a corrupt decision then why shouldn't we list political parties that actually have a shot at winning even when the current system is set up the way it is? Prcc27 (talk) 06:38, 8 September 2015 (UTC)

Constitutionally ineligible candidates

So, judging from the archives of this talk page, and the fact that Waka Flocka Flame has remained on here for a long time despite the fact that he's ineligible, I was under the impression that notable candidates who were ineligible stayed on the page with a note that they were ineligible. Also, some people question Ted Cruz's eligibility. However, today some people seem to have been edit warring over Deez Nuts, saying they can't be candidates because they are ineligible to hold the office. Note, that, in all three edits where Deez Nuts was removed, Waka Flocka Flame (right above Deez Nuts) was left alone. In past elections some ineligible candidates have attained ballot access.

Do we need to rehash this issue, or is there a general consensus to leave them on the page with a note about their eligibility? ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 21:52, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

Pinging those involved in this issue @NextUSprez: @Muboshgu: @Tarc: @JayJasper: ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 21:59, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• Frankly it seems a little silly to me that all anyone that wants a mention on a soon to be high trafficked Misplaced Pages article has to do is mention they are running for president regardless if they can actually occupy the office. Hypothetically, if the person who plays Mickey Mouse publicly says they are running for president do we add Mickey Mouse because they are notable and they have "announced" their candidacy? I have always been for the removal of both Waka and Deez but I left them alone because of the previous conversations. If this is coming up again, over a year from the election, it is probably going to continue to come up. So perhaps we should settle this once and for all. My !vote is to remove them since they can't actually occupy the office anyways and having them on here serves no purpose besides a little bit of extra publicity. --Stabila711 (talk) 22:02, 3 September 2015 (UTC)
• Personally, I'm for adding a separate section on joke/publicity candidates. I feel like this article should be more than a list of who's running, and discuss the election in a more encyclopedic tone. I feel like joke and publicity candidates (like Nuts, Limberbutt McCubbins, Crawfish B. Crawfish, and others) have had a greater than usual influence on this election thus far (especially since Nuts was polling so high in a few polls) and encyclopedic coverage of the election that leaves out a discussion of their impact is not complete. However, I haven't, mostly because I don't have a ton of time on my hands, but also because it's hard to write a section like that without the benefit of hindsight. However, there are benefits to doing it now, like getting Flame and Nuts off the list of serious candidates, while providing answers for people who may have seen that poll where Nuts was polling at 9% and are curious. ~ ONUnicornproblem solving 22:29, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• I'm not opposed to "joke candidates" in itself, but I am opposed to listing those who are prohibited by the Constitution from holding the office that they claim to run for. A 15 year old teenager "running" under a fake name is not a candidate. I suppose of "Vermin Supreme" actually files papers somewhere to be an actual candidate, he earns a spot somewhere. But hell will freeze over before we have an article listing the likes of Clinton, Biden, Paul, and Trump next to "Deez Nuts". Tarc (talk) 22:41, 3 September 2015 (UTC)

• I don't agree with leaving them up, but at the same time I'm not opposed to putting them in a new section. The issue with the other candidates you listed (Lindsay and Calero) is that they were officially nominated by political parties. Flame and Nuts are both independents/not affiliated. The parties already had ballot access in some states when their respective candidate was nominated. But do Flame and Nuts have a shot at ballot access? Flame appears at least to be turning up crowds in New York to get on the ballot (http://ratchetfridaymedia.com/blog/its-not-a-game-waka-flocka-flame-for-president-2016-campaign-video/2/). I can't say the same about Nuts. I'd say only list people who gain ballot access, but at this point no Independents that I've seen have any ballot access. Can anyone find any Independents who have the access in any states? Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 00:34, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • It is very rare for Independents to be on the ballot anywhere this early in the campaign season; even big-money ones would only be planning how to go about collecting signatures at this stage. --Ariostos (talk) 03:55, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• Satirical candidates may be allowable to an extent, but I don't see the use in including "candidates" who are under the age of 35 or otherwise constitutionally ineligible to be elected to office. All including them does is provide them with extra publicity. Dustin (talk) 00:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
  • In about over half the states they don't typically bar candidates from the ballot if they are underage, and given how early in the season it is we won't know how serious these efforts are until the deadlines for ballot access begin to close in early spring. --Ariostos (talk) 04:36, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Is there any opposition then to removing "Waka Flocka Flame" and "Deez Nuts", then? Tarc (talk) 14:48, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

• I agree with the idea of a separate section for the ones running despite ineligibity, per ONUnicorn's rationale. For NPOV reasons, we shouldn't label them "joke/publicity" candidates. "Consitutionally ineligible candidates" or something similar would be appropriate, with a summary sentence explaining that these people are running a presidential campaign despite not meeting the constitutionally mandated requirements, and currently do not have ballot access in any states.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:30, 4 September 2015 (UTC)
• I am working on a proposal for ranking the various candidates on a variety of metrics, beyond their form-two-filing. We don't have many in debates, and we don't have many that will get into major nationwide polls. Every cycle there are a bunch of folks thta manage to get onto one ballot, or two ballots, but have little shot at becoming president. Some years, there are constitutionally ineligible candidates that still make plenty of news. In particular, one of the candidates for the Communist Party USA in 2008 or 2012 was underage, but they still got plenty of press-coverage. Misplaced Pages is supposed to reflect what the sources say, in a neutral encyclopedic fashion. If the WP:SOURCES cover the Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert presidential campaigns, then wikipedia should also cover them, without WP:UNDUE weight, and in the most appropriate article. Deez Nuts and Vermin Supreme and other candidates that treat the presidential season as an existential joke slash profound artistic statement, *are* getting press-coverage, and wikipedia should reflect that coverage. But cf the Trump campaign (which at least one WP:RS refuses to put into their news-section and relegates to their entertainment-and-celebrity-section), and cf the Stewart/Colbert ticket (which was invariably covered as entertainment-slash-celebrity). Deez Nuts isn't a bona fide candidate, even if they are a de jure candidate. Vermin Supreme probably *is* a bona fide candidate, and quite frankly, he has an appealing political platform: he will use the full power of the federal government to make sure that every citizen brushes their teeth, and that every citizen has a pony, and he will wear a rubber boot on his head whilst using the bully pulpit, and nothing more ... no warfare state, no welfare state, very back to basics. Anyways, I do believe we should list Limberbutt McCubbins, Deez Nuts, and other not-likely-to-be-bona-fide candidates, as well as folks like Vermin Supreme that might just be bona fide but cannot be described as 'serious' with a straight face. Perhaps in a spin-off article... but if in this article, then definitely in their own section: "candidates who have filed an FEC form two but have not reported raising more than $5000 to the FEC/IRS and have not been featured in nationwide polls and have not been recognized by the RNC/DNC and are constitutionally ineligible to serve and so on". As long as we stick to what the sources say, it should be pretty easy to categorize the 'recognized' candidates (by the WP:SOURCES) as distinct from the 'recognized as entertainment' candidates, whilst sticking to NPOV as the non-negotiable pillar. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:24, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Remove Barr?

Should Roseanne Barr be removed? She seems to have endorsed Bernie Sanders on Twitter, with a followup tweet that says she isn't running. Should we remove her due to this? I'd say so. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 02:04, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I can't find those particular tweets; if you can provide links that would be helpful. --Ariostos (talk) 03:58, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Sure. Here is the main Tweet: https://twitter.com/therealroseanne/status/606867807326765056. And here is the subtweet: https://twitter.com/therealroseanne/status/606870680357855232. To me the last tweet says she isn't running, mostly due to the fact that she didn't deny that she wasn't and she was talking him up. Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 10:59, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

No, she should not be removed. The Peace and Freedom Party does not nominate someone until after the Democratic convention next year. Just because she is promoting a candidate in the Democratic primary does not mean she is not going to end up running on another ticket, especially given the unlikeliness of Sanders receiving the Democratic Party's nomination. Until we have independent sources indicating that she is not running, we should keep her up.--TM 12:31, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with TM that we need a more definitive "I'm not running" statement from Barr before we remove her.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:33, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Good point. I will look for a definitive no, but I agree with y'all.Vote 4 DJH2036 (talk) 17:15, 4 September 2015 (UTC)

Potential candidates

Democrats:

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/10/us/politics/big-name-plan-bs-for-democrats-concerned-about-hillary-clinton.html?hp&action=click&pgtype=Homepage&module=second-column-region&region=top-news&WT.nav=top-news — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.211.104.84 (talk) 10:04, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Where does Perry go with his campaign suspended?

CNN is reporting that Rick Perry has suspended his campaign. Where, if anywhere, should he go in this article now? —C.Fred (talk) 21:27, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

I think we should have a suspended section but should the section go just on the main page or the candidates page? We have not been including minor candidates who withdraw on the main page (Larose, Lynch) but maybe major ones should be? What about the Republican primary page? ObieGrad (talk) 21:29, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• In the past election articles they were left with everyone else but a note was made besides their name telling when their withdrew and who they endorsed (if that information is available). That way we can maintain a true list of who ran for president along with refs for when they dropped out. --Stabila711 (talk) 21:47, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

Nobody ever terminates their campaign, they always 'suspend'. It belongs in 'withdrew' section, because that is what he's done. See the Republican candidates page, I've used a frosted out image for Perry, in a withdrew table.   Spartan7W §   21:48, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

• Alright so I moved Perry to a new Withdrew section. Thoughts? --Stabila711 (talk) 21:55, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

That looks good. RfC closes either Saturday or Sunday for the candidates section update, and its looking like the circular portrait option inside the table will have the most votes. In this case, withdrawn candidates can be kept, their images frosted, and have strikethroughs. This is fine for now.   Spartan7W §   21:57, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

There's no way that's going to happen. The circle images are almost universally loathed.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I would ask you both to halt the hyperbole. This is supposed to be a calm discussion about the merits, not a wiki-bickering contest. It is untrue that the circle-images are "universally loathed" and it is silly to say such a thing. It is also untrue that the RfC will be decided based on "the most votes" because it is WP:NOTVOTE but rather a policy-backed merit-based calm discussion. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

The reason that people 'suspend' their campaigns, rather than 'withdrawing' from the race, is related to fundraising. Santorum'12 did not 'withdraw' from the race, he simply 'suspended' his campaign, because he needed to continue raising money to pay down the campaign-debts already incurred. Perry is an odd case: he has something like 18 million bucks in his super-PAC under the Barbour nephews, but was only able to raise around a million bucks of hard-money for his official FEC-registered campaign effort from non-Citizens_United-type donors. Thus, he has plenty of money, but cannot spend it. I think he is literally 'suspending' and is *not* necessarily withdrawing-but-calling-it-something-else (whereas Santorum'12 was literally-withdrawing-but-for-legal-reasons-calling-it-suspending). Time will tell, of course, but wikipedia should stick to what the sources say. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:34, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Electors

The article refers to the electors as electing the President and Vice President. While in a hypertechnical sense that is true, the reality is that the voters of each State and D.C. decide which ticket wins the election. The article should reflect this fact. SMP0328. (talk) 02:46, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Two words: faithless elector. —C.Fred (talk) 02:52, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• There are also four instances where the popular vote did not decide the President. The latest occurrence of this was in 2000. Al Gore actually won the popular vote but the electoral college overrode the popular vote and made George Bush the president. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:08, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I know this may be too early to discuss but since it is the electors that elect the Pres/VP and not the voters; shouldn't we wait until the electors vote before updating the electoral college map on the article? In the meantime we could have a map of election results by state without the electoral college votes listed on them until the electors do in fact vote. And I think the map should only be colored in once a state's election results have been certified. So IMO even when a state is projected it should remain gray. Going off of projections could be problematic since different outlets of media make projections at different times and sometimes those projections are wrong i.e. Florida 2000. Prcc27 (talk) 03:13, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Looking at the previous election map () it looks like it was updated right along as soon as a state was decided or determined "safe." Are you talking about keeping the map in grey until the votes are certified in January of 2017? --Stabila711 (talk) 03:24, 12 September 2015 (UTC)
  • @Stabila711: Good question... I think the general rule should be once all the votes are in. Before the electors meet the electoral college map in the infobox should remain blank and there should be a separate map for the popular vote by state somewhere in the article. Once every vote in that state has been counted then they should be colored in on the popular vote map. As or the electoral college map in the infobox... I think it should be updated after the electors vote in December with a note that the electoral votes haven't been certified by congress yet. I would also support a footnote for state's with all the votes counted while awaiting the state official to officially certify the results on my proposed popular vote map. Prcc27 (talk) 03:51, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

No faithless elector ever came close to affected the result in an election. While technically the electors could vote to make Howard Stern the new President, the article should reflect what has happened in every Presidential election: the ticket of the party a majority of the electors are enrolled in wins the election. SMP0328. (talk) 03:58, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

SMP0328's assertion is fundamentally flawed. The present wording of the lead accurately describes the manner by which the presidential election process occurs. As is it is both enumerated in the 12th amendment, and how it is carried out in practice.   Spartan7W §   04:15, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

• Not to mention faithless electors have come close to affecting the results of an election. In 1836 several electors voted for a different VP candidate than whom they pledged to vote for and the Senate ended up deciding the outcome of the election! Prcc27 (talk) 04:17, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

So one exception that did not affect the end result swallows the rule? Electors are mere functionaries. The article should give the impression that they are deciding the election. SMP0328. (talk) 00:57, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Bona fide & Other

I have seen the term bona fide used to describe candidates that a party officially recognizes. I believe this is a less arbitrary (and therefore fairer) categorization than "featured in major polls" as is currently in use to differentiate candidates. I propose we categorize candidates as "Bona fide" and "Other" based on whether the party recognizes the candidacy.

The Democratic Party has issued press releases recognizing the five candidates currently in the section titled "Candidates featured in major polls." Lincoln Chafee, Hillary Clinton, Martin O'Malley, Bernie Sanders, and Jim Webb. The party has not issued a press release for any of the other Democratic candidates.

The Republican Party recognizes 18 candidates in its Official Straw Poll. The difference between that list and the list currently in use on this page is the Official Straw Poll's inclusion of Mark Everson. With my proposed categorization, Everson would be moved from "Other" to "Bona fide." No other changes would need to be made.

Thoughts? --William S. Saturn (talk) 07:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I agree with this mostly, except that Everson has not been included in any major polls, debates, not have I seen him on any networks in any significant measure. The categorization I like best is 'major candidates' defined by 'significant polling performance and/or current or previous holder of high office, thus including Governors like Gilmore and Chafee. I don't know how to boil that down into a concise sentence.   Spartan7W §   13:35, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Here is how it can be made simple: "The Democratic Party recognizes the following candidates seeking its 2016 presidential nomination.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.democrats.org/|title=Democrats.org|archiveurl=https://web.archive.org/web/20150817193704/http://www.democrats.org/|archivedate=August 17, 2015}}</ref>

--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:05, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

If we decide to do this, I would strongly prefer "recognized" as the verbiage chosen... (whoops, William meant to say 'bona fide' aka good-faith-slash-legit-candidate... collapsing my complaint).

    Anyways, that said, if we are precise in our language, I *do* think it makes sense to say that Everson is 'recognized' by the RNC, but not 'recognized' by CSPAN/FOX/CNN, and not 'recognized' by Monmouth/Quinnipiac/PPP/Rasmussen/etc. Along the same lines, until fairly recently, Sarah Palin was 'recognized' by the major polling firms, and by the RNC straw poll, but no longer is (ditto for Mitt Romney). There is some encyclopedic meat here, in terms of which names are officially 'recognized' by various bodies as being 'serious' candidates WP:NOTEWORTHY of consideration. Eventually, there will also be primary-ballot-'recognized' candidates, too, which is the wiki-traditional way to "sort" which candidates were serious and which were not. (More on that later... I'm still working on an answer to a question William S. Saturn asked me a couple weeks ago, in another browser-tab.)

    p.s. There *have* been de facto presidential candidates this cycle, who were not yet de jure candidates: Jeb Bush from December 2014 through early June 2015 was a de facto candidate, for instance, and Hillary Clinton was a similar situation, already running (and everybody knew it) but not yet filing with the FEC. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 21:22, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

I meant "bona fide" rather than "de facto." I have corrected my error above. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:30, 12 September 2015 (UTC)

Okay, thanks.  :-)     I was wondering what WP:SOURCES you saw calling him that. And yes, Everson is a 'good faith' candidate, and that is a valid distinction to make. However, I would urge some caution here; we do not want to list every good-faith-candidate, as being at the same level as Everson. 'Deez Nuts' is plausibly not a good faith candidate, aka they are making a joke, not actually running a campaign. So in that sense, the bona fide candidate distinction is helpful. However, I don't think RNC recognition is mandatory to be considered a bona fide candidate: being a good-faith candidate is a statement about the intent of the candidate, and is not influenced by whether other groups recognize their candidacy. Everson is a de jure candidate (filed FEC form two), a bona fide candidate (is really in good-faith running for POTUS), *and* is an RNC-national-party-officially-recognized candidate as of March-through-August 2015 on their official website (one of 18). Everson is *not* recognized by FOX, nor by UnionLeader/CSPAN, nor by CNN, whereas by contrast Gilmore is recognized by one out of the three (FOX), and Graham is recognized by all three (but only thanks to a last-minute rule-change by FOX). In terms of polling, Everson is recognized by none of the major nationwide polling-firms, Gilmore is sometimes recognized by them, Graham is always recognized by them. Will be interesting to see whether Perry remains 'recognized' by the pollsters and the broadcasters ... and the RNC straw poll. My suggestion is that we take a large set of criteria into account; filing FEC form two is not enough, but raising actual money, getting into polls, getting into debates, and getting onto ballots (plus getting *votes* after getting onto those ballots) are some of the things I'm working on putting down. More later. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:04, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I am defining "bona fide" as meaning recognized by the party. This is the definition that was given to me by election law expert Richard Winger. See this article and discussion from Ballot Access News. I have seen it used this way in other contexts such as when the Everson campaign used the term in its FEC complaint challenging Everson's exclusion from the August 6 debate.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Not disagreeing that Everson is bona fide, in the legal sense (and the everyday sense). He is, on both counts. But he's not the only one; what makes him a corner-case is that he is RNC-recognized, and was almost CSPAN-recognized. He's also raised a considerable amount of funding, see http://thegreenpapers.com , which similar to the ballot-access website is one of the WP:BLOGS that is a plausible exception to the rule. If the sources are using 'bona fide' to mean RNC-recognized, then wikipedia can also do so, I just doubt that is the case, since 'bona fide' has a normal meaning in the legal world (and I expect that is the way Everson is using the term in his FEC complaint -- I've skimmed it but don't remember that bit one way or the other). Anyways, will do a bit of digging, and read the links you provided, thanks. 75.108.94.227 (talk) 00:49, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Lawrence Lessig a major candidate

Since Lawrence Lessig has a campaign page, has been included to the introduction to the Democratic section, and might make it to the first debate according to his 2016 website. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 03:40, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• He has only been mentioned in one poll so far and his website can't really predict whether or not he is going to be included in the debate. Give it time. If he is included in more polls we can move him. Right now, he is still a minor candidate in my mind. --Stabila711 (talk) 03:42, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

If we use what I proposed above, he would still be an other. That is, until the party officially recognizes his candidacy. This is pretty cut and dry and much simpler than basing the determination on polling firms.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:52, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

Lessig is an almost trivial entry into the race, along the lines of Jim Gilmore on the Republican side, a "candidate" who isn't even cracking a half-percent. Extra care needs to be taken here as well, given that the Misplaced Pages's figurehead/co-creator has an active role in his campaign. Tarc (talk) 05:16, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• C-Class Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
• C-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• C-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• C-Class United States presidential elections articles
• Mid-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• C-Class United States Government articles
• NA-importance United States Government pages
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles