Talk:2012 United States presidential election/Archive 9

Archive 5

←

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

→

Archive 14

Romney, presumptive nominee?

I thought a candidate had to get a majority of delegates, before being called the party's presumptive presidential nominee. GoodDay (talk) 05:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I think our article presumptive nominee makes it very clear. Although he does not quite have a majority, he has indeed secured "enough delegate commitments...to be assured - barring unforseen events - of the eventual nomination." There is absolutely no reason to believe he will not be nominated - there are no remaining major competitors, and Romney will not withdraw or be usurped - so we can safely assume he is the presumptive nominee. Reywas92^Talk 19:00, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

It is a safe assumption, indeed. Also quoting from the aforementioned article: "A candidate may be considered a presumptive nominee after all other major competitors have dropped out and it is considered unlikely that the candidate will withdraw, be usurped, or be otherwise removed from the race." That certainly applies to Romney. That said, we should probably get a consensus on this before identifying him as the presumptive nominee on the page. If, for no other reason, to head off potential edit wars.--JayJasper (talk) 18:19, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The fact that no media organization (or RS if you will) says he isn't the nominee should be evidence enough. Hot Stop 18:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The RNC have no declared him the presumptive nominee Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:26, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Right you are, Jack. Now we have the sources to verify it.--JayJasper (talk) 18:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

The RNC does not decide who the presumptive nominee is, and it's actually illegal under GOP rule 11A to help a candidate while there is still opposition. The delegates decide, and the delegates have not spoken --Coching (talk) 16:43, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

It is not illegal, Rule 11(a) states: "The Republican National Committee shall not, without the prior written and filed approval of all members of the Republican National Committee from the state involved....." As long as the got the paperwork they can do what they want. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I mentioned this briefly further below, but since the subject of RNC Rule 11(a) originally arose up here, I'd like to mention that I have yet to see a source that confirms that this necessary paperwork has been filed. Indeed, this event suggest some RNC members would be unlikely to oblige.173.28.205.74 (talk) 02:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the benefits do not out-weight the un-encyclopedia-ness of including speculation. I can foresee events that would allow the other remaining candidate to win the nomination.Antony.trupe (talk) 03:39, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Until he secures a majority of delegates he should not be the presumptive nominee. Beside Wikipedia is not a Crystal Ball.BenW (talk) 22:57, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Both Obama and Romney's picture need to be removed until both are NOMINATED. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.214.237.222 (talk) 04:14, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree, it's still too early to tell who the nominee will be, especially with Paul on the rise with gaining delegates (who I'm not saying will win, but still has a chance of beating Romney with the primaries still months away from ending). This seems way to much like something you'd see on CNN or some other old media station, and it's incredibly unencyclopedic to be placing speculation of nominees in the infoboxes. Please make it empty for the time being. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 06:06, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Calling Romney the presumptive nominee at this point is no more speculative than the networks calling Washington D.C. for Obama in 2008 with 1% of the precincts reported. The vast majority of the media (mainstream or otherwise) is in general election mode and so are both Obama and Romney. Hmmmmm, if this website had been around in 1996, I wonder if we'd get LaRouchies complaining about Wikipedia 'prematurely' referring to Clinton as the Democratic nominee. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bjs501180 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Using the term "presumptive" is implying that Romney already has the nomination and now all that is needed is the formalities, while some may deem it appropriate, many don't, whether he is or not is actually largely irrelevant. It is a false statement, and until he gets 1,444 delegates it will continue to be so, if ignored it will become a lie. It insults my American grammar to have to read that until Romney gets the majority of delegates, it may be a formality, but if so, the least you could do is accomidate the system that our fore-fathers invented. Don't lie to me.

The probability of Romney getting the nomination, while high, is not high enough for Wikipedia to use the word "presumptive" because nobody knows for sure what the delegate numbers are (the media reports some numbers, but they're not true--and yes, the media lies sometimes, it's not free from bias or corruption). I request that the pictures be removed on the basis of excessive speculation. --Coching (talk) 00:32, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with Coching. We should not be giving a false impression here that Romney is the "presumptive" nominee, because guess what, he's not. This would pretty much be like the media, telling lies and giving wrong information just to boost a candidate, in this case, Romney. JDC808 (talk) 01:13, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Guess what? He is! The media's not lying, as much as you would like to believe: the RNC has indeed declared Romney the presumptive nominee! JayJasper has kindly provided sources confirming this above. Reywas92^Talk 02:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Remember the time the Newspaper said "Dewey defeats Truman" and Truman won? Remember the time they called Iowa for Romney but then later called it for Santorum? Just because the media says something will happen does not make it so. BenW (talk) 05:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

HAHA, sorry, had to put this in: Ron Paul has recently won most of the delegates for iowa (look it up); this race is far from over, and I resent people who pretend otherwise.

This is directed at Reywas92. The RNC officials don't decide who the nominee is. Whether or not the RNC says someone is the presumptive nominee before the national convention is irrelevant (it's actually illegal by GOP rule 11A). The RNC is fraught with corruption and bias as well, and have engaged in election fraud this election cycle, so they are not a trustworthy source. Delegates pick the nominee, and the delegates have not spoken yet. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Coching (talk • contribs) 16:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Read rule 11 again, as long as the whole of RNC agrees in writting it is ok to support who ever they want and call him what they want. And again it is not the media calling Romney the presumptive nominee, if it was I would agree that we couldnt use it to much. But it is the RNC, you know the guys that are the leaders of the party, the guys that runs this election. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:44, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Notwithstanding rule 11, the RNC does not decide who the nominee is, as I said earlier. Delegates choose the nominee. Basing one's presumption on the words of officials who are vulnerable to bias and corruption, and who don't decide who the nominee is, is therefore irrelevant. As much as it might seem like the RNC "runs the election," as you put it, that's just not the case. They organize the structure on which the election runs, but voters and delegates run the election. --Coching (talk) 05:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to offer a compromise solution: We could put an asterisk by "presumptive nominee" following Romney's name and have a qualifier saying "according to the RNC and reliable media sources". The asterisk and qualifer can then be removed when Romney reaches the needed delegate count. How about it?--Newbreeder (talk) 18:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

I'd say that'd be a fair compromise for the time being, though really needing that emphasis on the RNC being the ones who declared it rather than the election itself. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 22:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

That's not a compromise at all, it's a ruse to keep things the way they are while still being deceitful about basing the prediction on hard evidence, when it isn't. The RNCs word does not carry the weight of voters and delegates, and the media, at least the major national media, has been shown by the Pew Research Center to have been significantly biased against Ron Paul, which calls into question the solidity of such sources. A better solution would be to have Romney and Ron Paul's picture next to Obama's --Coching (talk) 05:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The suggestion was not intended to be a ruse, but rather a clarification that while Romney has not yet gathered all the delegates he needs, he as been officially declared the "presumtive nominee" by the RNC and by reliable outside sources. The idea is to make the distinction between him and Obama, who is the presumptive nominee by virtue of having won the delegates he needs to be nominated. I hardly see how this is "being deceitful" about what the title is based on, when it's merely clarifying.--Newbreeder (talk) 19:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

How about we change it to "everybody in the world who doesn't support Ron Paul?" Hot Stop 06:24, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't find a single reliable source that projects Romney to have at least 1,144 delegates, which is the nominal number. I wasn't even restricting my research to the official RNC count. I checked CNN, NBC, FOX, ABC, and CBS. None of them are even projecting him to have the nominal number, and they, unlike the RNC, make projections in nonbinding contests before the official delegates are selected. I would also like to add that the person who reverted my edit accused me of edit warring, despite that fact that it was the first edit I made, and I did not revert the revert. Do we not assume good faith anymore? FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 19:18, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

And please tell me, what definition of "presumptive nominee" says he must have a majority of delegates? Wikipedia's definition is only that there are enough delegates to be assured the nomination, which Romney does. As much as you want to deny reality, Romney will clearly be the nominee. I can't wait until he actually does have 1144 delegates, and you Ron Paul folks are still claiming "Oh but actually some of them aren't bound to Romney, oh but actually those that are bound will break that promise at the convention, oh but actually some states' numbers are still just biased estimates, oh but actually Santorum and Gingrich will release their delegates who will vote for Paul." Mr. Romney is already the presumptive nominee, and the RNC is indeed a reliable source for this. I hope you have fun casting a write-in vote in November. Reywas92^Talk 19:46, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I suggest we ignore Reywas92 based on excessive bias. He says he "can't wait until [Romney] actually 'does' have 1144 delegates." --Coching (talk) 16:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Why are you calling me "Ron Paul folk"? I haven't mentioned Paul at all, yet you're flaming me as if I did. When Romney does get 1,144 pledged delegates, then he becomes the presumptive nominee. The RNC website, which you admit is credible, shows that Romney has not yet achieved the nominal amount of pledged delegates. At least some distinction should be made to let readers know that, unlike Obama, Romney still hasn't clinched his party's nomination. FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 22:23, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

If you don't like the RNC and media calling him the presumptive nominee, take it up with them. Hot Stop 22:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The RNC's own website shows that lacks the delegates to be the presumptive nominee. Like I said before, at least some distinction should be made to let readers know that, unlike Obama, Romney still hasn't clinched his party's nomination. 132.241.128.68 (talk) 23:50, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

But they still call him the presumptive nominee [1] Hot Stop 00:12, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The media does not have him as the presumptive nominee. For example, here is CNN's website: http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries.html Notice how they have declared Obama to be the presumptive Democratic nominee, but they have yet to declare a presumptive Republican nominee? FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 05:33, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You know what the solution to this is? Don't put anybody in the box for the Republican nominee UNTIL one of the two have legitimately become the nominee. It's as simple as that and there won't be any arguing. Putting Romney there will make the average reader believe he is the nominee without giving Paul a chance. 173.81.115.107 (talk) 02:16, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

You guys do realize that there's two candidates running, right? Picking one over the other would violate WP:CRYSTAL and well as WP:NPOV. Zach Vega (talk to me) 22:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The RNC has declared Romney the presumptive nominee.--NextUSprez (talk) 22:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It shouldn't matter who is labeled the "presumptive" nominee. Anything less than a 100% chance that a presumptive nominee becomes the official nominee is enough to violate WP:CRYSTAL. Also Romney isn't even at 1144 yet. TL565 (talk) 03:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Crystal says "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included" so clearly this is okay. Hot Stop 11:33, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And after that it says, "though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view." Zach Vega (talk to me) 11:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Reliable sources and the RNC calls him the presumptive nominee. So should we. Sorry if you and Ron Paul disagree. Hot Stop 11:55, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What is it with you and Ron Paul? And we're being biased? No one here isn't even talking about him. Like I said before, it doesn't matter who is the "presumptive" nominee, it still doesn't get rid of the issue of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:NPOV. TL565 (talk) 23:01, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We're violating WP:NPOV by pushing one candidate over the other when the primary season is far from over. Zach Vega (talk to me) 20:39, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

There's a good solution that was listed that you guys have overlooked. Don't put anyone in the infobox until it's official. P.S. I believe Hot Stop is a Romney fan which is why he keeps bringing up Ron Paul. He wants to keep his candidate in the box, as opposed to being neutral and waiting until it's official. He keeps bringing what the RNC and so called reliable sources have "declared" due to this reason. 129.71.208.130 (talk) 20:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, how dare I use reliable sources to make my point. Hot Stop 20:29, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Why does the picture of Romney look like he has a sunburn? And, the Republican Party said Romney is the 'presumptive' nominee (until the first vote at convention). You may find this table interesting: *The Green Papers: "Republican 2012 Delegate Count, Current Summary". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think we need to define "presumptive"--is he presumptive subjectively or objectively? Because clearly party officials saying they want to help a candidate only constitutes them wanting to help, it does not constitute making the candidate the objective "presumptive" nominee--if it did, Texas and California should abstain from voting because the RNC has already picked the nominee. The officials' snippets of support for Romney makes him presumptive to the officials, but not presumptive objectively, see the difference? Wikipedia is presenting Romney as presumptive objectively, for which, I would argue, there isn't enough evidence. If party officials choose the nominee, then why does anyone vote or participate in the delegate process? So we either use better evidence to show that Ron Paul's chances are so low that it's not realistic to consider him, using more than just the opinion of party officials, who are not free from bias, or we let reason be drowned out by the fallacy of appeal to authority. --Coching (talk) 16:06, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Here's how wikipedia defines Presumptive nominee.--NextUSprez (talk) 16:09, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Then it is clear from the description on that page that Romney is NOT the presumptive nominee. Here's why:

• "presumptive nominee is a political candidate who is all but assured of his or her party's nomination, but has not yet been formally nominated."
  • Romney doesn't qualify under this definition. He is not "all but assured" because he hasn't collected enough delegates (1144) to simply wait to be formally nominated, nor is it clear whether he will collect them before the Republican National Convention.
• "In the United States, the presumptive nominee is the candidate who has not yet received the formal nomination of his or her political party at the party's nominating convention, but who has acquired enough delegate commitments through the primary elections and caucuses to be assured - barring unforeseen events - of the eventual nomination at the convention."
  • This also mentions having enough delegates "to be assured" the nomination barring unforeseen events. This isn't a question of "what is the probability that he will get enough delegates in the future?" This is a question of "does he have a majority of delegates (1144), such that barring unforeseen event, he is assured the nomination?"
• The description lists examples of presumptive nominees, and mentions Romney as preferred by the RNC, but this creates a problem, because if we go by the definition at the start of the article, we see that Romney cannot objectively be called the presumptive nominee, but if we go by the examples, then the definition of presumptive nominee should be "a candidate who is declared as such by his/her party." So we have a contradiction here. --Coching (talk) 17:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

"A candidate may be considered a presumptive nominee after all other major competitors have dropped out and it is considered unlikely that the candidate will withdraw, be usurped, or be otherwise removed from the race." Hot Stop 21:28, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. Ron Paul is still running. Zach Vega (talk to me) 00:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Precisely. If Reince Priebus came out a bit high tomorrow and declared Elmer Fudd to be the Republican Party's presumptive nominee, does that make Fudd the presumptive nominee? (That's a no) If he declared 2+2=5, does that mean the sum of two and two is five? Statements, even from "official" sources, must be grounded in reality and the rules (still) in place governing primaries & delegate selection. Wikipedia's own definition, which you quoted above, essentially says that a candidate becomes the presumptive nominee only if they have clinched commitments from a majority of delegates (1144) and/or all their major competitors have withdrawn or suspended their candidacies. Mr. Romney has two official competitors at this time- Fred Karger & Ron Paul. I would hope that everyone recognizes that Paul is a 'major' candidate (as already acknowledged by the fact he is included in the GOP primaries infobox, and has received more than twice the portion of the popular vote than the threshold to be included for the general election infobox (5%)), and Karger is not, for the purposes of that definition and this discussion. Because most of the RNC's "automatic delegates" officially maintain neutrality until the convention, we should stick to the pledged delegate count, which I have not seen over 900 or so for Romney from any media source. As for Rule 11a, I have not seen any evidence that the RNC has filed the appropriate paperwork to satisfy the rule, but if anyone else has, I welcome them to come forward with a source.173.28.205.74 (talk) 22:16, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

We're letting ourselves get led by hyperactive news sources. The new media are trying to wrap up the prez election before it actually occurs. GoodDay (talk) 16:32, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

If the pro-Romney folks are so confident that he'll be nominated, then what harm is there in telling the truth on Wikipedia we obviously don't have WP:CONSENSUS on the matter if there is so much debate about it on this talk page. An RNC endorsement is not equal to being nominating for an office. The 2010 cycle tells us that. FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 00:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't mean "we shout louder - we're right" Hot Stop 15:37, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Dude, we can't pick a candidate to put on a pedestal. That'd violate WP:NPOV. Zach Vega (talk to me) 15:53, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The RNC did that, dude. We're just reporting what they said. If you'd like to complain to them, do so. Hot Stop 15:58, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The RNC ≠ the Republican Party- please keep in mind that distinction. The Republican Party is made up of all registered Republicans in the United States and her territories. Those Republicans are all represented, in theory, by the delegates duly assembled on the floor of the GOP National Convention. It is those delegates that choose the nominee, and it is those delegates that vote on the party's rules & platform. This is in keeping with the general model of our government, which by design bears closer resemblance to a Roman-style republic than a Greek-style democracy. As for using the RNC's statements as a source for speculation, Wiki's rules allow so-called "expert" sources, but only if those sources are also reliable. Please read my statement above regarding Elmer Fudd. If Mr. Priebus, Mr. Romney, or anyone else wants to claim that Romney is the presumptive nominee by virtue of having the committed support of 'enough' (aka 1144) of the delegates, then they must provide evidence of that support. Otherwise, they lose whatever reliability they may have claimed to have had. The RNCs own website currently has Romney well below 900, much less 1144, and every mainstream news site I have seen (whose numbers are a bit inflated, given they are based on projections) still have him below 1000. Romney only has the public support of approximately 1/3 of the 120 or so automatic delegates, as most choose to remain officially neutral until the convention. Therefore, I believe it best to stick to the bound/hard delegate count (regardless of how 'bound' those delegates may or may not be) Don't get me wrong, I personally believe Romney will get there, probably after the California primary on June 5, but I don't let my personal beliefs lead me to jumping the gun, and neither should they for Mr. Priebus or anyone else.173.28.205.74 (talk) 17:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Stein, presumptive nominee?

Someone that thinks Jill Stein is currently the nominee of the Green Party has no business editing this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:50, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct, Jill Stein is not the official nominee. However, she should be included with the qualifier that she is the presumptive nominee. If we are using this new, looser definition for "presumptive nominee" that appears to have been adopted to allow Mitt Romney to be named as such and therefore justify his inclusion in the infobox, then it is appropriate to do the same for Ms. Stein. If anyone disagrees that this is her position in the Green party primaries, then please discuss that in the section below.173.28.205.74 (talk) 01:11, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

User:William S. Saturn, please maintain WP:CIVILITY. If Mitt Romney is the presumptive nominee of the Republican Party based on speculation of chances, even though he hasn't yet received the required number of pledged delegated to be assured the nomination, then Jill Stein would logically quality as the Green Party's presumptive nominee based on this new, looser standard. FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 01:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Then write 'presumptive', otherwise you'd be making a very big mistake.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:06, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

It did say Presumptive :). I agree if Romney should be in, so should Stein. I dont really have an oppinion about what way it should be, but whatever the concensus becomes the criterias should be consistent and the same for all parties, not as it is right now. It would be the most NPOV thing to treat all parties with enough ballot access equally. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:52, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Has the Green party declared her to be the presumptive nominee? That was the basis for including Mitt, and should be for her too. Hot Stop 15:35, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

They have not. Please refer to my comments & delegate analysis in the section below as to why many have arrived at the conclusion that she is, indeed, the party's presumptive nominee (by virtue of the same relaxed definition Mr. Priebus & the RNC executive staff are apparently using for Romney).173.28.205.74 (talk) 17:26, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Hot Stop have a point though. I have been doing some research trying to find sources saying she is the presumptive nominee and there are plenty. I am just not so sure anyone can be considered reliable. It is possible to flood Google with sites using Stein and Presumptive Nominee in the same sentence, it seems like everyone talking about the Greens (and there is not alot) beside the Green Party themselve is calling her that. But the Green Party have not said so! The Republican Party officials have used the word about Romney. Even if not all keeps the RNC and their decisions in high regard that have to mean something in some way, right? Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:47, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing is I think we're in unchartered waters. I've followed many presidential election cycles closely, and the decision by the RNC to declare a presumptive nominee when neither of the traditional criterion have been met (clinched majority of delegates or no major opponent left running) is, I believe, extremely unusual if not unprecedented for them to do. I'm not what some have derisively called a 'Paulbot', but even I can see that the media's dismissiveness towards Ron Paul is staggering, and has been present from the get-go. So it's no suprise that these sentiments have fed back into the party leadership- to them he does not register as a "major competitor", despite meeting Wiki's standards of being one. That is the reason why they have declared Romney the presumptive nominee earlier than would otherwise be warranted. There is a mismatch between who Wiki considers a major competitor (based on specific vote or delegate benchmarks) and who the RNC does (which is simply based on an opinion). This is a consequence of America's 24/7 news cycle- news has become more opinionated, and those reporters' opinions drive the news, rather than the news driving what they report. Wikipedia would be well served to stay above this fray, and continue to remain an encyclopedia that labels & grants titles only based on facts. Certainly the RNC's comments can be featured in the article, and the reader can draw from that what they will, but to take that extra step away from our own operational definition for "presumptive nominee" is simply not a good idea, or good precedent. You ask if the RNC's comments mean something. They would absolutely mean something if it was the RNC who selected the nominee, and retained the ability to override delegates & voters (as is the case with Americans Elect), but they do not. It does mean that they are another voice joining the chorus of pundits calling an end to the primaries, which adds to Romney's aura of inevitability & momentum, but in and of itself the statement does nothing to alter the nomination process still underway. There are a similar chorus of voices calling Stein the presumptive nominee, which seems to be giving her the momentum she needs. The Green Party usually leaves campaigning & fundraising to the candidate themself. For that reason, and the fact that they don't really have an expectation of winning (amongst other reasons), that urge to end the primary & begin the general election that drove the RNC to make their statement is just not there for the Greens, which is why I wouldn't expect a similar statement from them anytime soon, regardless of how much Stein realistically has the nomination locked up. So comparing the two parties situations is, as the phrase goes, like comparing apples & oranges.68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:03, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

If Miit Romney is being declared the presumptive nominee of his party in the infobox, but Jill Stein isn't being declared the presumptive nominee of hers, then we have some WP:NPOV issues here. FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

With Romney, we have reliable sources that say he is the Republican presumptive nom. If there are reliable sources that say Stein is the presumptive nominee, then she should be in the infobox as the presumptive nom. as well.--JayJasper (talk) 04:56, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

CNN hasn't declared him the presumptive nominee. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/candidates/893, but the have done so for Obama. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/candidates/1918 FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 05:05, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe CNN hasn't, but plenty of other sources have declared him the presumptive nominee. See this.--JayJasper (talk) 05:14, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

CNN is the only major news source who is keeping that detailed of a delegate count. While most of the delegates they have are projected delegates, even with the projected delegates that have not yet officially been elected to the convention in August are taken into account, Romney still hasn't reached the nominal number. FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 05:37, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Jill Stein announced that she has begun her VP search. Searching for VPs, clinching a plurality of delegates, 18 for 18 in state primaries... sure sounds similar to the status of Romney's campaign, and the behavior of a presumptive nominee. Well, except that last part- even Romney is not undefeated in state contests.68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:17, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

That citation you linked to is from Stein's campaign site. Are are reliable independent sources you can cite for this? If so, we'll list her as presumtive nominee on the page.--JayJasper (talk) 18:33, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul withdraws?

Today, May 14, 2012, Ron Paul withdrew from the race. Someone needs to change the "Republican Party nomination" article from Ron Paul being a active candidate to him being a no longer active candidate. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.102.130.241 (talk) 20:34, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

This simply hasn't happened. RoyalMate1 20:55, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul has in fact suspended his active campaign, but will continue to make efforts to accumulate delegates: [2], [3], [4] --JayJasper (talk) 21:02, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

The media is saying Paul has suspended his campaign because he will not contest the popular vote of the remaining 11 primaries. Guess who else isn't competing for votes in those primaries- Mitt Romney, who has adjusted his campaign to focus against Obama, often while fundraising. Does that mean he too has dropped out? Of course not. It simply means nobody (officially) is competing for those votes anymore, so we'll continue to see very poor turnout. Paul aides are already scrambling to repair the damage of this morning's poorly worded press release. Here's a video explanation from a post on Paul's official website.68.58.63.22 (talk) 01:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

No it means that in all pratical ways Romney has won. Jack Bornholm (talk) 06:15, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Incorrect! Paul has conceded that, barring a brokered convention, he cannot win the nomination, but he HAS NOT dropped out of the race. He has said that he is hoping to at least make an impact on the party platform at the convention. http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/ron-paul-i-cant-win-the-nomination-but-im-not-dropping-out/2012/05/15/gIQAuPUNRU_blog.html FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 05:08, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul has already lost the primary election, and even he knows it himself. Mitt Romney is all but certain to win the GOP nomination. That's why the presidential race is now solely between Obama vs. Romney. Don't know why the Libertarian and Green Parties are in the main infobox. Heck, they don't even stand a chance in the presidential election, let alone any federal or state elections. Get rid of those two now! 96.251.26.139 (talk) 01:51, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

Read the above discussion Mr. or Mrs. Demanderson. As a matter of fact, Libertarians and Greens DO have a mathematical chance in any election; federal, state or local. Wikipedia cannot discriminate against political parties simply because they have not historically won elections. Recall that Ralph Nader as a Green candidate drew considerable attention in 2000 and during the 1992 and 1996 elections, Ross Perot had the best third-party performance since Theodore Roosevelt in 1912. 109.14.46.41 (talk) 20:26, 17 May 2012 (UTC)

270 Electoral Votes only?

I was wondering why the names of all the third party candidates who don't have much electoral chance were taken off. I think it's more fair to list all candidates and nominees from parties on Wikipedia on the main article then in the bottom 2012 election box. I mean, what does ballot access really matter? Look at our 2008 presidential election page. It lists 23 candidates. Why shouldn't this page list all the people it use to, regardless of electoral chances? Deathislife (talk) 20:25, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

The navbox you're referring to is a tool for navigating all articles related to the 2012 election, the article is for relevant information about the election. Currently, only candidates who have confirmed ballot status in at least one state are listed on the page. Others will be added if and when they get on the ballot somewhere. A more comprehensive listing of third party/independent candidates who meet WP's notability threshold (including those that presently do not have ballot access) are listed at United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012.--JayJasper (talk) 22:31, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Just to make it clear, only parties that are not going to appear at any ballot anywhere has been hidden in the article (not the navbox). Can you really say you are running a candidate for president if he will not appear at least on one ballot? The info on the other parties have not been erased merely hidden. So if or when one of them get on the ballot in a state we dont need to find all the references and do the work again. We simply add the reference of the ballot access to the others and unhide that party. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:53, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Also note that the 2008 election article lists only the candidates having ballot access in at least one state as well.--JayJasper (talk) 17:11, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Merging all U.S. states presidential primary and election articles

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#Merging all U.S. states presidential primary and election articles into one article for each state. The proposal is to merge all articles on different state primaries (both democratic and republican) and the articles on the presidential election (where such exist) in to one single article for each state. See United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008. It is possible to see how the 2008 and 2012 articles will look like if this large merges was completed. This issue have been discussed for a month on this talkpage without a clear consensus and the merge proposal is so massive that it would be good to get a wide range of editors to comment on it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Modern Whig Party; apparently running a Presidential Candidate

Think they should be concentrating on Congressional races, however...........

Normally I wouldn't bring it up, but they have ballot access in both Florida and New Jersey (43 Electoral), which is significant enough for mention. However I am having difficulty finding reference data outside of their website. Their listed Presidential Candidates are

• Andre Barnett
• T.J. O'Hara
• Michealene Risley
• Buddy Roemer

So it can serve as either an endorsement or a separate ticket, depending on how things go. Still, as I said, I don't have much regarding their participation in this process other than the entries on the Modern Whig Party website, under their candidates section. --Ariostos (talk) 17:22, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

The party has it own article so it is presumably notable. If reliable independent sources can be found regarding its candidates, they should be listed on the page.--JayJasper (talk) 17:50, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I was looking around on their website but couldnt find anything about ballot access. It would be great if you could post a direct link to those info on the party website. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:08, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually count them out. Apparently they had not truly intended to run a candidate, but to endorse a candidate for the Presidency, and even then only if they had won the Americans Elect nomination. However, that option is now out, unless Americans Elect takes a different path that is of right now not all that clear, and far from certain. Of course, this is all subject to change given they very well could endorse a candidate despite this previous pledge

Now as for ballot access, I tried finding hard data, but I can't see anything. Admittedly I used this site at the time without checking the references; with New Jersey there is no link; with Florida there is a link but I can't interpret what it is supposed to be saying since it seems to be talking about committees. --Ariostos (talk) 00:57, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Sources for ballot access?

I noticed there's no citations in the third party candidates section where the parties' ballot access is listed. While the data may be 100% accurate, the sources should be provided on the page to verify, so please add the citations. Thank you.--Cjv110ma (talk) 20:25, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Forgive me. I often find information and tend to add it here, but references, references have never been thing. I can point them out but I am adverse to the sourcing sheet, often unable to fill it out. Suffice to say that all of them are dervied, for the most part, Ballot Access News. --Ariostos (talk) 21:44, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

For Lib. and Green there is two sources in the infobox, and Americans elect already have a reference, just a line above. I have added them all to the ballot access. So now we just have to find references for the less than 270 section. Ariostos, if you put the links here I will be happy to created the references. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

For the Constitution Party, there is here and here, down in the petitioning section.

For the Reform Party there is this.

For the America's Party there is this.

For the Justice Party there is this. Regarding Oregon there is this; technically a different Party (Oregon Progressives), but the same candidate.

Does that cover all the bases? --Ariostos (talk) 20:30, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:20, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

American Independent Party (California)

Considering that they have ballot access in California, and they may possibly run a candidate other than Virgil Goode, I believe they should earn some mention on the page with the other parties. Now, there were (14) Presidential Candidates that the Party was considering running, and proposed entering into their now Open Primary:

• Virgil Goode of Virginia
• Philip Berg of Pennsylvania
• Laurie Roth of Washington
• Todd Palin of Alaska; yes, that Todd Palin
• Wiley Drake of California
• Ed Noonan of California
• George Peabody of Hawaii
• Marvin Antelman of Massachusetts
• Max Rieske of Michigan
• Diane Beall of California
• Walter Nayakik of Alaska
• Veronica Piva of California
• D. Clark Ambassador of Christ [Legitimate Legal Name] of California
• Robert Sisilo, technically outside the states though natural born

However when this list was presented to the Secretary of State it was cut down to (3) of these (14):

• Ed Noonan of California
• Max Rieske of Michigan
• Laurie Roth of Washington

Now the results of the California Primary for the AIP is not binding in any manner, and the true race will be made at their Party Convention in August (formally in June three days after the primary; since moved). Just wondered what others thoughts were on the matter.

Sources here, here, here, and here. --Ariostos (talk) 18:11, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Delaware / Third Parties

Have a feeling I will not get a response given my last couple notes here, but I'll add this regardless. According to this, the Green and Constitution Parties have Re-Qualified for Ballot Access in Delaware. The Libertarian Party had apparently already achieved access in the state as well. I'll be adding it into the ballot counts accordingly. --Ariostos (talk) 00:11, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Winger's original post, as he points out at the bottom of that page, says that the parties "each believe they have succeeded." Also, "the Independent Party and the Libertarian Party already had over 600 registered members in any event, so they were not directly injured by the 2010 change [from 300 to 600 registered members]." So, I took 3 things away from that: 1.) It seems the Libertarian Party is good to go & so DE should be added to their electoral access count, 2.) DE's Election Commissioner still has to get back to the Constitution & Green parties that their membership lists are legitimate and that they made it on to the ballot, and 3.) Americans Elect has truly given up on any idea of fielding a candidate, as they also reportedly missed the deadline to submit electors in AZ (as did the Constitution Party). 68.58.63.22 (talk) 01:30, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

It might be a matter of time and late updating but the two parties own statements (our sources) does not put Deleware in their lists of state with ballot access yet. I dont think we should do either until they themselve do it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:54, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks like the Green Party, along with the Libertarians, are now good to go. The Constitution Party still needs more registrants. Although the Working Families Party is on the ballot, it doesn't look like they're fielding a presidential candidate. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 23:32, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Election photos (first phase)

Option A)

or

Option B)

--Belibaste (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to choose Option A, given that I really don't like the mid-sentence photos—they almost seem too informal for an encyclopedia article). But why not just use Pres. Obama's official presidential portrait (File:Official portrait of Barack Obama.jpg) and the current infobox portrait on Gov. Romney's article (File:Mitt Romney by Gage Skidmore 6.jpg)? Tyrol5 [Talk] 14:13, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I guess the choice is betwin formal or not so formal photos. That put aside there is a big problem with Option A, the picture of Romney is from 2006 and the picture of Obama is from 2008. Both candidates was active in the last presidential election, so I dont think it would be a good idea to have pictures from the last election cycle in this article.

And to my personal vote - I really like the more informal photos, it says the 21st century I think. It is not what we did the last time you might say - Well style changes we are not using their official paintings anymore either. Having good photos that show them still a bit official (the ties) but actively campaigning is better than the more stif headshots I think. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:10, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

I can see what you're saying, but is that sort of informality appropriate for an encyclopedia article on the election that is perhaps one of the most visible sources of information about the election on the internet? We shouldn't be superficial, though. Anything that accurately presents the candidates in an acceptable and appropriate manner (which is a pretty wide range of images) is fine with me. But for the sake of discussion, I'll add a third option below for visualization of my preference:

Option C)

—Tyrol5 [Talk] 16:29, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Option D)

Option E) - Combination of (C) and (D) with cropping.

I think we've traditionally used photos from the election cycle that is the subject of the article. The photo of Obama in Option A is from his 2008 campaign, so it is outdated, not sure about the Romney photo. The more recent the picture, the better. Also, I agree with Jack that B is the best choice. The candidates appear to be in "campaign" mode which is appropriate with the campaign in full swing. After the election, we can opt for more formal photos.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:23, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Did a quick check and found the Romney photo in option A is from 2008 as well. Both "A" photos are outdated for this election cycle.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:26, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

My English is very bad, but I will try to say two things. Romney / Obama in 2005/06 are not very different of Romney/Obama of 2012. Moreover, that the candidates appear in campaign is not an incentive. We must opt for formal photos in the beginning. Option A or Option C are the best options.--Belibaste (talk) 17:53, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If formal appearance is the key factor, then Option C hands down. The photos are more recent, and look more "presidential".--NextUSprez (talk) 18:03, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

This option is also good. [5]--Belibaste (talk) 18:09, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately the Romney Skidmore's #3 is very unflattering since his eyes are basically "missing". I would prefer Option C since they are both "presidential" looking as NextUSprez suggested. ViriiK (talk) 19:35, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

If it is going to be C the photos should be cut a bit so the two candidates heads will appear at same height. But that would be easy to do, no problem. Dont want to do the work before the decision is taken (I still vote for B ) Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:47, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

There wasn't much I could do about the brightness of the Romney image, but I think it looks alright. What do you think? Tyrol5 [Talk] 02:18, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

In my opinion, is a +good option.--Belibaste (talk) 08:27, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Number of candidates in the infobox

I know this is a bit premature but I think we should have a clear consensus on this:

• Who are going in the infobox. Only the two major parties candidates or everybody that have a change of winning (on the ballot in enough states to actually win a majority) ???

In past election articles it is mostly only the two major party candidates, witch is logical as the others have got very few votes. As you can see in 2008. But since this is an ongoing/future election wouldnt it be a more NPOV to list all the candidates that will appear on the ballot in enough states to win in the infobox. When the election is over and the two major party candidates again have got 95% of the votes the thirdparty candidates can simply be removed. Right now I think America Elect and the Libertarian party have reach the benchmark. Here is the reference to how many states they are on the ballot:

• Libertarian [6]
• America Elect [7] (At the end of the press release)
• Green Party [8]

The Libertarian will nominate their candidates this week, so maybe we could talk about this now? Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

This not premature at all, as this very issue was debated ad nauseam during the 2008 cycle, so it is important to get a consensus ASAP before all hell breaks loose yet again. That said, here's my $0.02 worth: I agree that it would more NPOV to list all the candidates that have ballot status in enough states to theoretically the win the election by electoral vote count. Of course, we should list the major party candidates at the top of the infobox (per WP:DUE as well as just plain common sense). The third party candidates should be listed alphabetically by party name (e.g. Americans Elect, Constitution, Green.....). Following the election, we enforce the current standard for post-election listing in the box, which to my understanding is to include only the candidates that receive electoral votes (for reasons other than a faithless elector) and/or those who 5% or more of the popular vote.--JayJasper (talk) 20:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't we have a pre-election standard too? I'd say only to include candidates who are receiving at least 5% in polls. There is no compelling reason to include candidates who we can reasonably conclude will not get many votes in the election. This may certainly change if other candidates are being included in national polls, but at this point only the D and R should be in the infobox. Reywas92^Talk 22:52, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually according to the poll standard you are mentioning Gary Johnson (running for the Libertarian ticket) and Roseanne Barr (Running for the Green ticket), should be in the infobox. Since they bot have received more than 5% in a poll in 2012 see the wikipedia article on the polls. I guess we can agree that no one that are not actually a nominee or presumptive nominee of a party shouldnt be in the infobox. But what if a the green party are not reaching ballot access in enough states and their candidate couldnt even theoritical win, should Roseanne Barr then be in the infobox (if/when she secure the nomination) just because she has been polling well? So now we have 3 suggested benchmarks:

• The candidate have received at least 5% in a poll
• The candidate (or his party) appears on enough state ballots to actually win the election
• The candidate is the Nominee or Presumptive Nominee of his party (if not running as independent)

Should all these 3 benchmarks be reach before a candidate is put in the infobox? Do you have more benchmarks or do you disagree with any of them? Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:43, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds good, but the polling should show a little consistency with more than a couple polls by PPP. Also, the benchmark to even be invited to the debates is 15%, should ours be perhaps 10% instead? If both Barr and Johnson were in the same poll, their individual numbers would likely be lower but the sum around the same, as None of the above is polling about that same number, although it never actually does that well. Reywas92^Talk 19:55, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

The problem with consistency is that it is a wide concept to use as a benchmark. If we adopt such a policy different editors could editwar about how many polls requires to be consistent, simply because they want to include or exclude a certain candidate. According to this discussion there was a bit of troubles about it last time. Would you happen to have a source for the 15% benchmark on access to the presidentiel debates? As I understand it are the debates arranged by a bipartisan (only Dem and Rep) committee and as a starting point is only for the two parties candidates. They have allowed a third candidate once or twice, but that was after hard pressure and much debate, not simply because the third candidate reached a benchmark agreed about beforehand. I would like to learn more about this 15% Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:04, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Almost by mistake I found the 15% rule myself (reading a news article on Johnson). It is in the box below. Personally I think we could included persons in the infobox that doesnt meet those standards. Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The Commission on Presidential Debates rule of including candidates: "They must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to have a mathematical chance of winning a majority vote in the Electoral College, and have a level of support of at least 15 percent of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations, using the average of those organizations’ most recent publicly reported results at the time of the determination.”

I have put Johson in the infobox. He has just been nominated for president by his party, he has been polling 6/7 procent in the only poll he have been in, and his party are on the ballot in enought state to technically win. But is that enough to get into the infobox? I think we should have a consensus on the benchmarks candidates should meet before they go to the infobox. And a consensus is not made by 3 editors. So to get some interest for this discussion I have take the provocative step to include Johnson, I hope you forgive me. Please join the discussion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:29, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Can it be argued that exposure (media, wikipedia, etc) influences polls to a great deal? Therefore should we put polls aside as a determining factor in deciding which candidates to include? Instead include those candidates that have the ballot access and organization necessary to win the election. That would be those with a party organization or significant wealth. American's Elect (of which I am an online delegate) has postponed its first online caucus due to low support for the declared candidates, they may not even have enough active delegates to nominate anyone. The Libertarian Party is actually functional, the largest third party (citation needed), and has a candidate that has been a Governor and participated in a few Republican debates, therefore I support Gary Johnson being listed. I am unaware of the Green party status in this election. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.35.105 (talk) 00:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney should NOT be put in the box until the Republican nominee has been officially decided. JDC808 (talk) 03:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The Green Party currently has three candidates competing for the nomination: Jill Stein, Rosanne Barr, and Kent Mesplay. They are currently on the ballot in 21 states, with an aim to get on in 45. Their convention is in July in Baltimore. If the info box is to include candidates who win their party's nomination and who appear on enough ballots to win the presidency, then the Green nominee should definitely appear in it eventually. Thingscouldbebetter (talk) 04:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Everyone, this could have major implications if a third party is put in the box. We obviously cannot put all third parties in the box because the box would be too large. In the 1992 presidential election, Ross Perot is included in the box (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992). I think we should use the 5% or more in a standard poll (which we should decide on). It may be difficult to find polling data for third parties. cpsteiner. I do not think that we should accommodate every activist on this page who insists that their minor party candiate that is not polling well be listed. —Preceding undated comment added 04:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC).

I think this sort of infobox can hold upto 9 candidates, I dont think that many will be on the ballot in enough states. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I totally oppose the use of polls in deciding who appears. The names appearing here will influence polls. We MUST be independent of them. HiLo48 (talk) 05:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is a PPP poll (http://www.publicpolicypolling.com/pdf/2011/PPP_Release_US_041912.pdf), with Gary Johnson at 6% (Q9). Also the 5 largest political parties compared here (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_parties_in_the_United_States#Major_Third_Parties). Just info for further discussion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haimson (talk • contribs) 05:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Why not let past ballot access performance decide future inclusion for consideration by voters? For example, in 2008, the Libertarian, Constitution, and Green Parties all appeared on enough ballots to possibly win 270 electoral votes. Objectively speaking, they could all have mathematically won the presidency. Would it be a disservice to voters to include the nominees of these parties in the infobox once they reach that threshold of ballot access for this election? Thingscouldbebetter (talk) 17:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

If we should only use the ballot access benchmark I think it should be all parties reaching enough ballot access in this election, no matter how they have done in the past. Example: If the Greens dont make it this time around it doesnt really matter how they did in the past. If American Elect makes it why should they be punished for being new in the field? Personally I think that it is so hard to get on enough ballot that just to do that should be enough, but I am open to arguments. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:39, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, yes, I totally agree with you. That's a good point about Americans Elect, for instance. If a candidate has the nomination of their party and is on enough ballots to win the presidency, they should be included. Thingscouldbebetter (talk) 19:27, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

The weakness of the polling benchmark can be seen with Virgil Goode, a former US representative, that have been nominated by the Constitution Party and will appear on the ballot in enough states to mathematically being able to win. But I havent seen a single poll asking about him. So no one actually know how much, or how little, support he has. Right now Gary Johnson (Libertarian) [9] and Virgil Goode (Constitution) [10] are nominated by their parties and will appear on enough ballots. So in the spirit of NPOV I have added Goode to the infobox (since Johnson is already there to create attention for this dicussion). I dont say they should stay there, but welcome more editors to giver their say. If only the ballot access and the nomination benchmark will be followed it is likely that there will be 6 candidate in the box (Green and America Elect being the two last), so I dont think anyone should worry that every small candidate then would have to be included. It is actually quit a job to get ballot access. But again, what do we say? Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, I completely agree. It seems to me that it's very much in the spirit of NPOV to do this. Thingscouldbebetter (talk) 21:13, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Any polling % used as an inclusion benchmark is almost certain to be viewed as arbitrary. That's why I advocate the "ballot access in enough states to win" criterion, and believe it to be a neutral, objective and simple .--JayJasper (talk) 21:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I think you are right, it can't really get above 6 candidates. I think that would be fine. Any ideas why it would be a bad idea to include all 6? I assume that after the election, only those who received at least 5% of the vote or 1 electoral vote would remain for posterity, while the rest would be removed. The idea I guess is to not let Wikipedia fall into the same trap that broadcast media has by confining the narrative and thus influencing the outcome. We want to limit bias... right? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haimson (talk • contribs) 22:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jay. The candidates with enough ballot access (not write-in status) to win the election should be included here. Wikipedia influences the polls, not vice versa.

After the election, all candidates with electoral votes or who polled above 5 percent in the popular vote should be included.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

• I'd favor including only candidates invited to the debates (and in the interim only listing the two major ones). As an aside, I removed the "who should appear here" note in the infobox. Hot Stop 01:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Based on what?--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

? Hot Stop 01:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What is the basis for using the criteria established by the two major parties to shut out minor parties from the presidential debates? What is the basis for giving greater weight to two candidates (Obama and Romney) than two others (Goode and Johnson), who will appear on the same (or about the same) number of ballots? Perhaps you can say that the two major parties receive a greater amount of press coverage, but press coverage does not determine what is and what isn't. It is fact that all four of the men currently on the infobox have a mathematical shot of winning. The function of the infobox is to display the winner, so to exclude those who could win (and perhaps even influence such an outcome) is not fair or objective. We have no crystal ball to say that one candidate or another will win the election, but we do know objectively who can. --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Having all four in there gives undue weight to minor candidates. The fact that Obama and Romney get a vast majority (if not all) media coverage separates them from the rest of the field. The infobox should reflect that. Hot Stop 13:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you just completely ignore what I wrote above? With your logic, you might as well go to List of Presidents of the United States and remove Millard Fillmore and William Henry Harrison since George Washington and Abraham Lincoln receive more coverage.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:35, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

yes, that's a logical conclusion to reach. Fuck the presidents no one cares about Hot Stop 18:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That is just disrespectfull Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's no worse than WSS's blatant misrepresentation of my comments. Hot Stop 02:49, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

And to Sir Richardson, the Green and Americans Elect nominees should be added to the infobox when they are named. Since they currently do not have nominees there is nobody that can be added.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/ William. Note that WP:DUE is applied by listing the major party candidate at the top of the infobox.--JayJasper (talk) 17:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

William S. Saturn makes fantastic points here. Who gets included in debates is, honestly, a subjective exercise. There are many subjective choices made in media coverage as well. Where do you set the bar? Jill Stein of the Green Party is going to be on PBS' “To the Contrary” in June. Maine Public Radio just had a segment on her appearance there. I'm positive that other media outlets have talked about Goode and Johnson as well. My point here is that it's not Wikipedians' job to arbitrarily set a bar for entry into the discussion. I standly firmly behind the decision to include anyone who could mathematically win the presidency until proven that they cannot (i.e., until after the election). Thingscouldbebetter (talk) 17:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I proposed the following guidelines for including candidates in the infobox, adpated from a previous proposal:

• The candidate have received at least 5% in a 2 concurrent national polls in which they were listed
• The candidate (or his party) appears on enough state ballots to actually win the election
• The candidate is the Nominee or Presumptive Nominee of his party (if not running as independent, in which case they must be a declared candidate)

Under these conditions Gary Johnson and ONLY Gary Johnson would be qualified to be positioned within the Infobox; if at such a time Johnson were to drop below 5% in two concurrent national polls we could then also drop him until he once again fulfilled the required criteria above. Is this agreeable? --Ariostos (talk) 17:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the first criteria for the reasons I mentioned above. I agree completely with the last two. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I also disagree with proposal #1, but fully agree with #2 & #3 for reasons stated in previous threads.--JayJasper (talk) 19:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I disagree with the first proposal too, but agrees with the two others. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:26, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Oddly enough that still invalidates the Virgil Goode given his is, definitively, only within reach of 135 Electoral Votes; Now even if we were to take the states were the results are being certified and count them, he would be at only 152, and even if negotiations with the California affiliates succeed, that is only 207. Greens and Americans Elect under those conditions would make it however. --Ariostos (talk) 18:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like you have a good source, or can find you way around an already stated source, could you please share it You are right, 152 according to themselve according to this source: [11]. I will remove them for now, even though the discussion has not concluded it seems to be a beginning concensus on at least the two last criterias (if not all) Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

If that's the case then Goode should be removed until the CP gets the necessary ballot access.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:29, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I've removed Goode for the time being, though a better fitting photo for Johnson should be used in order to fill that white space that is present. As for sources, Ballot Access News has a good track record, and they update their tracker of such on a monthly basis, sometimes including the smaller outfits such as the Justice Party; its "Big Four" which it definitively tracks though are the Libertarians, the Greens, the Constitution, and Americans Elect. At the very least, I have not found anything to contradict them on such. --Ariostos (talk) 20:52, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree that Ballot Access News is an excellent & reliable independent source.--JayJasper (talk) 20:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Here is an interesting quote from Ballot Access News, "The Green Party presidential candidates will debate each other in San Francisco on Saturday, May 12. The debate will include Roseanne Barr, Kent Mesplay, and Jill Stein." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:05, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've thought about putting in a note next to the Gary Johnson data in the infobox to advise those who would normally delete it to come here first, but I actually don't know how to "hide" it so it doesn't appear within the Main Article. Can that actually be done in Wikipedia format? --Ariostos (talk) 12:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

start with < !-- and then your text, --> (Just remove the space beetwin < and -) Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:38, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Alright I put a note in there telling those who would normally remove him to come here. Hopefully that will disuade most from simply deleting his presence and actually promote some discussion on the issue. At least we won't have to argue about other candidacies until June. --Ariostos (talk) 14:54, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

My two cents: I'd also like to voice support for including all candidates who have the nomination of a party with enough ballot access to theoretically win. The choice of a cutoff value for the polls is essentially arbitrary (why should it be 5%? Why not 10%, or 2%?) and is thus likely to lead to drama. I'd like to propose that the ordering should be based on the amount of ballot access, so that candidates with access to either more states or more electoral votes are listed earlier, with the two top-leftmost spots reserved for the two major parties.

Does anybody know what criteria are used for elections in other countries? The recent French election for example displayed five candidates before the April 22 election,[12] and after that only the two candidates eligible for the May 6 runoff.Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 23:19, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Jack Bornholms plan works for me. Johnson is clearing the 5% threshold that Ive always supported. Can we stop boosting nobody candidates? This comes up every time and rarely does a third party. We had this dispute in Massachusettes 2010 for governor when the green candidate was in the debates, but otherwise accomplished absolutely nothing. Im all for third parties, but we cant act like they have any influence on the race when they absolutely dont. Johnson is the rare breed that makes the cut, but even then he may fall short in November.--Metallurgist (talk) 03:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Jack Bornholm, from reading your arguments above, I can safely assume that you're a supporter of the US Libertarian Party and a Gary Johnson fan. While that may be the case for you, there is no widely-circulated proof or evidence that Gary Johnson is a popular third party candidate among the general public. In every presidential election, there has always been only two major candidates, at least since 1996. The US political system is also largely a two-party system, and that's how the average American voter sees it. So I think Gary Johnson should be removed from the main infobox until he actually does get more than 5% of the popular vote in this coming November's election. Just my two cents. —stay (sic)! 13:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

You couldnt be more wrong on that, before reading this article (and the republican primary article) I had no idea who Gary Johnson or the Libertarian Party was. I dont take any site in american politics (or any other politics for that matter) since I am an european and really apolitical. I am sure that Mr. Johnson and his party are seriouse people that believes in what they say, but I most admitt that they way the talk and believes their views can save the world reminds me more of a religion than are political party. I understand that your system is a two-party system and the third party has not chance of winning, but it has from time to time the chance of winning one state, and even more often the chance of influencing the result by "stealing" votes from the two major party. I also believe that articles in Wikipedia has to be NPOV and that is why I started this discussion. I have no part of this election, who ever wins, it will not effect my life even a bit. I am not trying to argue for one candidate or the other. And I think it is wrong if we end this discussion by simply saying that Johnson gets to stay, then it will just start all over again after the Green Parties convention. I think we should make a concensus on some criteria all candidates should meet. Then it will not be about who like what candidate and endless discussion to that effect, but simple benchmark that needs no discussion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with having Gary Johnson in the infobox, he is going to be on the ballot in all 50 states and has been getting over 5% in the polls which should qualify him to be there. 15:29, 9 May 2012 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.197.25 (talk)

I dont think we should say if we want Johnson or not Johnson. But instead agree on some criterias the (third party) Candidates should meet. When I read this through I can see a concensus for for the first:

• The candidate will appear on enough state ballots to actually win the election (270 electorial votes)  Done (concensus reached)

The other criteria is the pollings:

• The candidate have received at least 5% in 2 national polls

Maybe we could simply state if we support or oppose this criteria?

Oppose I will start, I have already argued for this. So just to get us going. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose As I've state previously in this thread - polling percentages are arbitrary.--JayJasper (talk) 17:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose arbitrary polling standards are unnecessary.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose There's no way we can use this until polling actually includes every candidate who could mathematically win, and we can't reenforce the arbitrary judgement of polling outfits of who to include in polls with our own arbitrary judgement of what those polls should mean. Thingscouldbebetter (talk) 19:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

• FYI having all three on one line really squeezes the lead too much. Hot Stop 17:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Is it possible to have Johnson appear under the images of Obama & Romney? I tried that, thinking it might help overcome some of the "undue weight" objections, but couldn't get it to work. Does anyone know how to do that?

As far as I can count only the Green Party have access on enough ballots (281 electorial votes). So it would be possible to put a question mark as their candidate and have it like I have done in my sandbox: User:Jack Bornholm/sandbox. I dont think it is possible to just have Johnson in below the major candidates. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe just a blank space in the image slot with "to be determined" in the text (I think that would be more encyclopedic than a question mark) would do the trick.--JayJasper (talk) 18:00, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have done that in my sandbox User:Jack Bornholm/sandbox Check it out. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:05, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I believe that would work.--JayJasper (talk) 18:06, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I will put it in the article and see what the reaction will be then. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:09, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Gary Johnson receiving at least 5% in the election, and therefore eventually featuring in the infobox in terms of the election results, is a definite possibility. I am extremely skeptical at the notion of the Green or Constitution parties doing so, though. Sir Richardson (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont believe any third party candidates will be in the infobox after the election, but that is just my guess. What is important right now is who should be in the infobox before the election. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:57, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sir Richardson, I can't see the Green candidate getting anywhere near what Gary Johnson will in the election so am sceptical about them being there in the infobox. 20:49, 9 May 2012 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.197.25 (talk)

Formerly I was opposed to having other candidates in the Infobox other than Johnson, who has shown a manner of resilience within the polls, but considering we have, with other elections, candidates present with little to no chance of being relevant in the grand scheme of things, it seems best from an unbiased point of view to allow them to be present till the results come in. At that point, should they attain a level of support that is negligible, then they could be removed since there would no longer be claims of bias with the election being done. --Ariostos (talk) 19:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I removed Green party for now. Give me a break, TBD is NOT a candidate and will therefore never be on a ballot anywhere. Wait til they nominate someone then it can be readded. CTJF83 22:14, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read the discussion above. The Green Party TBD is there to make two rows, so the third candidates are not in the same row as the major canidates, please address this problem, everybody understands that TBD is not a candidate. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:22, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

That's stupid, why does it matter if 3 are on the top row. Also there should be some way to put just 1 in the 2nd row. Also if there must be, put Green party last since there is no candidate. I see above move people opposing Green party all together. CTJF83 22:24, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I see 3 people supporting 4 candidates and 3 opposing Green party, so not sure how anyone thinks that's a consensus. CTJF83 22:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont think we are discussing Green Party or not. But the criteria for including third candidates, and if you read the whole discussion I think you would agree with me that there seems to be forming an concensus for including all candidates that are on enough ballots to cover 270 or more electoral votes. But we will see when the concensus are formed. Two good suggestions, please find a way to make 2 rows with 3 candidates, and you are proberly right it would look better with the empty slot (green) at the right. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:32, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm horrible at tables, but I don't think there would be an opposition to an actual candidate to be ahead of a TBD. CTJF83 22:35, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Doesnt matter, I think I solve the problem. Right now there is a candidate in the fourth spot, it is simply nameless. It was enough to put in a picture (found a file with a picture of nothing) without any text to cheat the template to believing there is a candidate more. Should make everybody happy and we can go back to talking about the general criterias instead of discussion specific parties. The last always leads to partisanship and stupid arguments. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Did you or no one else try hiding the 4th spot? User:Ctjf83/Sandbox CTJF83 22:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just got the idea. It seems to work, at least on my screen. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:46, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Seeing as Johnson is the 'only' presidential nominee, he & his running mate should be the 'only' ones in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 02:45, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Barack Obama can be included now because he never had serious opposition (even by the most charitable (and still reasonable) definition I can imagine- having an opponent who appeared on enough state ballots to challenge him for a plurality of pledged delegates) in the primaries and has already clinched the requisite majority of all delegates, bound or otherwise. To put it another way, he has met the true and traditional (not media-driven) definition of a "presumptive nominee."

As an encyclopedia, I believe we must use objective, rather than subjective-based information whenever there is a choice. Polls are inherently subjective, as polling firms must make decisions on a variety of factors, including who is important enough to include in a poll, who is polled (and how), and how that information is post-processed for demographics. I agree with using ballot access as a minimum criteria for inclusion in the infobox, as it is both an objective measure, and a practical one that eliminates most minor candidates. While it is theoretically possible for a candidate to win without 270 pledged electors on election day (e.g. if no candidate gets 270 votes, and/or there are faithless electors), I would agree that this sort of result, which is rare to begin with, is further unlikely to lead to the election of a 3rd party candidate given the wholly bipartisan composition of the House of Representatives. I would go further and suggest that for now it is the only criteria used, unless the number of candidates who meet this threshold becomes unmanageable (say, greater than 6), at which other criterion can be discussed. I remember before the French presidential runoff this year there were 5 or 6 candidates listed on that page, and I don't think that was controversial, nor did it appear cluttered, to me anyway. As far as the placeholder for the Green Party candidate is concerned, I would just point out that Jill Stein, having swept all the primaries so far [13], is just as much a "presumptive nominee" at this point as Mr. Romney, as neither have yet clinched the required # of pledged delegates to be nominated, but are generally regarded as the "inevitable" winner (I'm not even sure if Kent Mesplay meets the natural-born requirement) If we seek consistency on this page, both Stein & Romney should be included. If we also seek objectivity and non-bias, neither should be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.205.74 (talk) 06:44, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Never mind on the Mesplay comment. “According to an April 2000 report by the CRS, most constitutional scholars interpret the natural born citizen clause as to include citizens born outside the United States to parents who are U.S. citizens.”[14] But my point still stands- neither he nor Barr are accruing an appreciable # of delegates. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.28.205.74 (talk) 06:55, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Obama and/or Romney could die or drop out of the 2012 race, before their respective party conventions. There's not 100% gurantee they'll be their parties presidential nominees. GoodDay (talk) 16:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Why is there such a panic to have Obama/Biden & Romney/tbd in the infobox, now? These people have not been nominated for President or Vice President (something that'll be handled by convention delegates); nobody will be nominated by the Republicans until August & the Democrats until September. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Where I am from we say that the only thing that are 100% is death and taxes. I dont know if you have that saying in America. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:38, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

A consensus has been reached to include presumptive nominees in the infobox. Being an incumbent and never having faced serious primary competition, Mr. Obama will be the Democratic nominee, barring death or a major scandal. Following your logic, we shouldn't list a winner after Election Day or report electoral vote totals, because electoral college votes won't be counted, nor a "winner" legally declared by Congress until January 7, 2013. The real issue here that needs to be decided is what the definition of a "presumptive nominee" is. Using the rationale being bounced around in the talk section above, both Romney & Stein are presumptive nominees. I strongly disagree with this, as it assumes Romney will have a majority of bound delegates- they are essentially presuming presumptiveness, which is a slippery slope. My preferred layout at this time would be 2x2, with Obama and a Republican placeholder on top, then Gary Johnson & a Green placeholder on the bottom (unless Americans Elect has also reached enough state ballots?) Second best would be Obama, Romney, Johnson, Stein, with GJ listed third b/c he has reached greater ballot access and is an official rather than presumptive nominee. Third best I suppose is the current setup of Stein before Johnson. If AE ends up being included, I would suggest 2 rows of 3, with the 3rd person on the first row determinable by polling or quantity of ballot access (GJ is expected to end up on all 51 ballots, whereas the Green & AE parties may not).173.28.205.74 (talk) 22:46, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

As far as I know the only four parties to have ballot access in enough states to win is of course Democrates and Republicans and then Green and Libertarians. For now, bot American Elect, the Constitution and the Reform party is working seriousely to achive this goal. The future will tell if any of them makes it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

It was mentioned somewhere that if the republican presumptive nominee should be in the infobox, then the presumptive nominee of the Green Party should be too, as the green party have enough ballot access. I am mostly a reader to the whole discussion about Romney should be in or not, but the writer talking about Jill Stein is right. She is the presumptive nominee fromt the Green Party, having won 16 out of 16 primaries hold so far (They havent had primaries in all states in the past, dont know about this year) and should be there. Of course I know he can in no way be compared to the Republican candidate, but NPOV and all, I am putting her in. But please lets have the whole presumptive nominee debate in the sections designated for that. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:52, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

You're right, only 4 parties have enough ballot access to win. As of today, Americans Elect has ballot access in 27 states electing 256 electors. [15] The Constitution Party has access in only 17 states, and other parties are even further behind. However, given AE is on the verge of getting to the 270 threshold, we should begin brainstorming how to treat them in the infobox, especially if they don't have an official nominee when they get there.173.28.205.74 (talk) 23:19, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I support three on top and three on bottom.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:23, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

With 5 candidates in the infobox I dont think there is much choice. It can either be (1) two rows of 3 with an empty space in the end of the first or second row or (2) Three rows of 2 with a empty "fake" spot (a image of nothing) at the end of the last row. I have fouled around with it in a sandbox and I think the second option would be the best. But considering that AE's spot simply will be a blank and it will create a empty spot I think the best grafic solution (If not the most NPOV) is to wait until there convention next month before putting AE in, if they get passed the threshold before their convention at all. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

I mostly agree. The AE convention is only a month away, and that is soon enough to keep them off the infobox until they have a nominee, at which time we can put them in if they've met the threshold. If they meet it before June 12, I would be ok with putting a placeholder for them in early, but only if there were also proper placeholders for the GOP & Green parties. As for 2 rows vs. 3 rows, I would agree that if we end up with 5 to 6 qualifying candidates, that 3 rows of 2 is better unless one (or more) of the 3rd party candidates earns full ballot access (50 states+DC). If that happens, they should be moved up to the top row, which would help to show that the nominees listed there are true nationwide candidates with a notably broad base of support. All others can be sorted by ballot access, with the alphabetical name of their party as a tiebreaker.173.28.205.74 (talk) 00:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. It would be nice if we states a easy reference to the ballot access after each third candidates name. It should be a reference that are updated (not just a newsletter). If anyone knows such reference then please add them or write them here and I will add them. Right now it is hard to check who has access to winning most electoral votes. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:09, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't edit them back in, but I'd like to point out that the Green Party does have ballot access in enough states. As of today, they are on the ballot of 20 states+DC, which together have 293 electors, by my count.[16] It's slightly out of date, but even this map from the party itself shows 270+. [17]173.28.205.74 (talk) 03:12, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Are there any reliable sources that state that Jill Stein is the Green presumptive nominee? I searched and couldn't find any, so I switched to TBD in the box where it says nominee. I see that the party has ballot access enough to get the 270 electorl votes, and that's why it's in the box. But I don't think anyone should put in there as the presumptive nomineee until there are sources that say it, like there is with Romney. As far I know, the green party hasn't declared her the presumptive nomiee like the RNC did with Romney. If anyone can show otherwise with good sources, then she should placed back in the infobox.--I.C. Rivers (talk) 15:08, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The thing to realize about these third parties is that finding "official sources" will not be easy, as 99% of the media focuses on the Democratic & GOP races. Doing a cursory Google search for "green party presumptive nominee" reveals various sites referring to her as such in an informal way. However, given we do want to be grounded in facts here, I researched the Green Party's delegate process, and found it prescribed here. Delegate status through April from the party is here, while Stein's website on primaries looks like it's kept more current. The delegate breakdown is thus: There are 401 allocated for the National Convention, but only 397 are seated, because 4 are disqualified due to Guam & the N. Mariana Islands not having a recognized affiliated local party. So 199 votes are needed to win. Of 129 allocated thus far, Stein has 96.5 (75%), 19.5 Barr (15%), 6.5 Mesplay, 1.5 Mikkelson, 7 Uncommitted. There are 169 delegates to be determined from upcoming primaries/caucuses, and 97 delegates from 21 states & 2 territories that will essentially serve as "superdelegates", since their states have no direct election method with which to try to bind them. It is important to note that Barr & Stein are the only 2 candidates the party recognizes, and only Stein can clinch (in the hard count) before the convention. The earliest she can do so is after the June 5 California primary which, ironically, is precisely when Mr. Romney is expected to clinch 1144 in the RNC's own hard delegate count. The reasons the GNC has not come out and declared Stein the presumptive nomine are threefold: 1. They have more respect for Ms. Barr than the RNC does for Dr. Paul, 2. Barr brings the party 10x the media attention the Greens would otherwise receive, and 3. unlike the RNC, the GNC is eager to bring new people into their party. I will reiterate, if I had my way neither Stein nor Romney would be included, but it is very important to maintain consistency & NPOV. If someone here is a Barr or Mesplay fan and wants to keep Stein out of the infobox, take it up with the folks in the above section who insist Romney should be in there.173.28.205.74 (talk) 22:20, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a good chance Gary Johnson could win New Mexico (unlikely I know but it isn't outside the realms of possibility, he is very popular in New Mexico after all) or at least have a very strong showing in that state, this alone should warrant Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party be above the Green Party and it's candidate in the infobox at least between now and the election 14:59, 11 May 2012 (GMT) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.112.197.25 (talk)

That would be a very subjective criteria, that a candidate might win a state. Almost Crystalball. I think we should keep to criterias that can not be discussed, ex. Ballot Access or Alfabetical. If someone is popular or not is very subjective. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Libertarians & Greens

Why do these party tickets get to be in the infobox, when they aren't in the previous US prez election article infoboxes? GoodDay (talk) 00:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please read through this section (yes, I know it's getting pretty long). A consensus appears to have been reached to include candidates that have a mathematical chance, however small, of winning 270 electoral votes on Election Day. After the election, any candidate that fails to win at least one pledged electoral vote, or does not earn at least 5% of the popular vote, will be removed.173.28.205.74 (talk) 01:05, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Groovy. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Well put, I agree that it must be the consensus from this discussion Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:51, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

The parties in the infobox should follow the method of other countries elections

In ALL other countries' elections on wikipedia, the infobox only includes parties that currently have representation in the legislature. So, yes, the USA is a 2-party system (although even THAT is arguable from the point of view that the USA is a one-party system with two factions), but I digress: As sad as it is, the Democrats and Republicans should be the only parties shown in the infobox because they are the only 2 parties with OFFICIAL representation in the federal legislature. For example, the Canadian federal election last year: the Green Party of Canada won its very first seat to the Canadian House of Commons in the Parliament of Canada, and so as a result, it is now included in the infobox, whereas before, the infobox did NOT include them (the election before that only included the Greens because they unexpectedly gained a seat AFTER the election when a member crossed the floor).

For example, since in the 1997 Canadian federal election, the only parties that won seats to the House of Commons were the Liberal Party, New Democratic Party, Reform Party, Progressive Conservative Party and Bloc Quebecois, they were the only parties included in the infobox. (The Greens existed back then, but because of lack of representation in the legislature, they were not included in the infobox). Parties with no representation in the legislature are NOT included in the infobox, however they ARE included in the article somewhere. Just not in the infobox.

This applies to all countries whose elections have a page on wikipedia. I do not see why the USA should be any different. The Democratic Party and Republican Party are the only parties with representation in the legislature (i.e that have elected members and won seats in the current legislature). Therefore, there should only be 2 parties in the infobox: Democratic Party and Republican Party. It's really very simple and all the other debate is pretty much pointless, as I do not see why the USA (or why THIS election) should be any different. The Libertarian and Green Parties (of the USA) should NOT be included in the infobox, but rather included in the article elsewhere. Like all other countries, like all other election-based articles. IF, and only if, should a third party gain a seat in the legislature, THEN it must be included in the infobox. 99.246.182.5 (talk) 03:40, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

The US does not have a parliamentary system. The legislature is separate from the executive.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:21, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/ William. This article applies specifically to the executive branch, not the legislature. As to why the USA "should be any different": because it has a different system than the other nations described.--JayJasper (talk) 04:45, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Saturn & Jasper are correct- let me explain. The United States is the only nation I can think of that indirectly elects an executive president. Limiting federal elections to parties currently in the legislature in the Canadian example you cite makes sense because that's what people are actually voting for- members of the legislature, not the President (the Queen is the head of state), nor a Prime Minister (who in Canada is appointed by the Governor-General on behalf of the Queen). Yes, the GG usually appoints the leader of the party that wins the elections, but that's just the convention. The Sovereign/GG can legally appoint whomever they please, and the "winner" isn't necessarily the winner if there is a hung parliament or other complicated outcome. Point is, those are legislative elections, not executive elections. As you can see, when it comes to the federal legislative elections (for the lower house) in the United States, the limiting method you mention is already followed.

So in the United States, voters do not vote for President. They vote for slates of electors whose members have pledged to support a particular candidate, who not only does not need to "command the confidence" of the legislature (Obama certainly doesn't for the Republicans in the House), but is forbidden from concurrently serving in the legislature. How states select their electors varies, with most awarding them on a statewide winner-take-all basis, and others dividing their votes by congressional district. Additionally, state laws on enforcing the pledge electors take vary, with some treating them (in the eyes of the law) entirely as free agents. Occasionally faithless electors take advantage of this to make a political statement, or in exceptional circumstances. For any country's elections page, I agree that their infobox needs a threshold for access that limits them from getting too large and detracting from their purpose of quickly providing information to the casual reader. For American presidential elections, the threshold of being on enough state ballots to earn 270 (a majority) of electoral votes is not only (in my view) completely fair and the most NPOV, but surprisingly (some would say depressingly) effective. This is because states each have different laws to get on the ballot, and some set very stringent requirements that are often not met by most third parties, which reflects on their lack of ability to raise sufficient support or money for the general election. Finally, I would say it is not Wikipedia's place to make predictions, which it would be implicitly doing so if it excluded candidates who could technically win, and should be avoided if possible. This could be reconsidered or amended if many more candidates get on enough state ballots, but for now, I would say only having 4 candidates listed is a good indication that the current setup works.68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:11, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

I am aware that the in the US, the executive and legislative are separate. I didn't mean for this article to adopt the exact same method of the other countries. I meant that it should be followed, but OBVIOUSLY adapted to suit the current situation.

The Democrats and Republicans, as far as I know, are the only parties who have elected presidents (I mean parties that still exist) in the U.S, and as such, should be the only two included in the infobox. If and when a president who is not a Democrat or a Republican is elected, then subsequent election articles should include THAT party in the infobox..and so on. Again, I'm not even saying that THIS should be the way it's done, however I am saying that SOME kind of method should be followed that at least adheres as close as possible to these guidelines, which are followed by ALL other countries' elections articles (yes, even presidential elections).

Also, why is THIS election any different than all the other and previous US presidential elections? The 2008, 2004, 2000, 1998 ...etc elections all only list the Democratic or Republican candidate, so why does this election warrant a sudden breakaway from the method previously followed?

In addition, I am against the current method being used here (the idea of a "public opinion support"-based threshold for being included in the infobox), because no matter how you look at it, this could open up the door to all kinds of partisan weasle-edits and could be considered unfair. No matter what percentage of support you decide should be the threshold to being included, it can be considered as unfair to a certain party (and in good conscience and all fairness, once wouldn't exactly be able to disagree with that party's complaint because no matter how you look at it, setting a minimum threshold is an arbitrary decision). As in "why SHOULD 5% be considered the minimum qualifier for inclusion in the infobox...why not 1%...or why not just any support whatsoever?" ...etc.....etc.....etc.... ALL kinds of such unfairness issues are opened up by this.

So, yeah, based on that, and also based on this article's historical method followed, and based on the fact the Dems and GOP are the only 2 parties still in existence who have elected a US president, and also based on the fact that ALL other 3rd and minor parties WILL STILL be included INSIDE the article, ...the Democratic and Republican candidate should be the only two in the infobox. To suddenly deviate from that practice also somehow feels and looks like we are somehow trying to influence public opinion by making 3rd parties more visible...etc...etc..... just a big can of worms... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.182.5 (talk) 03:34, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Why do you discount 1992 and 1996, which have three candidates in the infobox? Also, you seem to misunderstand the criteria used, which is ballot access, not polling.--William S. Saturn (talk) 04:15, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Well, in those elections, Ross Perot seems to have been added after the election and because he had an unusually large portion of the vote for someone running for a third party/independent. Why not do something similar here? If, after the election, there is a candidate with such a substantial portion of the votes, then he/she could be added to the infobox... you know what I mean? Especially considering that there doesn't seem to be any such situation here. This seems to be an Obama/Romney thing more than anything (so far)... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.182.5 (talk) 04:30, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

For further comments would it be possible to sign your "name" by using 4 times ~ It will automatic add your IP address instead of now where Sinebot have to do it each time. See Wikipedia:Signatures or maybe you would like to make an account, it have many advantages one being it will conceal your IP address. See Wikipedia:Why create an account? to read more and/or signing up. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

That's not for us to foresee. At this time, the fairest and most neutral thing to do is to list all the candidates that have secured enough ballot access to theoretically win the election. However, if you are correct, and no candidate other than Obama or Romney wins more than five percent of the popular vote or something from the electoral college, then after the election, the infobox can be edited to reflect that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Presently, the post-election standard is to include in the infobox only the candidates who received electoral votes and/or 5% of the popular vote. That will likely will be applied following this election. As William said, in the interest of upholding WP:NPOV, the pre-election criteria is to include all candidates having ballot status which gives them a mathematical possibility to win the minimum 270 electoral votes needed to be elected. In the interest of upholding WP:DUE, the major party candidates are listed at the top.--JayJasper (talk) 17:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree it is the most NPOV thing to do. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:46, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I very much disagree it is the NPOV thing to do. NPOV states that we give information the due weight it deserves. Putting Gary Johnson along side Obama and Romney, as if he has a significant effect on the elections process or the campaign is not due weight. No poll puts him even close to second place (Stephen Colbert out preforms him), no poll has him carrying a state, and the news coverage of him is negligible (Google News results for the last week: "Gary Johnson", 2380; "Mitt Romney", 138000; "Barack Obama", 196000. That's 0.7%-41.0%-58.3%). Rami R 18:13, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Why does there need to be a differentiation when all three have enough ballot access to win the election? Should we go to List of Presidents of the United States and remove Fillmore because the other presidents receive more coverage?--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:36, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Due weight is being adhered to. Not only are the major party candidates listed ahead of the minor party candidates both in the infobox and in the article, they are given significantly more coverage.--JayJasper (talk) 18:47, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

@William Saturn: that's a strawman argument which has nothing to do with this. This is the main article for this election, and the infobox is expected to cover only major issues (a minor candidate is typically not one of those). Your argument might have been relevant if this was the "Candidates of the election" article, or if I was arguing for removing Johnson entirely (I'm arguing for his removal only from the infobox).

@JayJasper: putting Johnson on a lower row than Obama and Romney does not adequately reflect how little significance he has in this race. Former candidates got more coverage than him this past week, including Newt Gringich, Rick Santorum and Ron Paul; even Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and Herman Cain, long retired candidates, get more coverage than him. All of these people were at a time major candidates for the presidency, all had more of an effect on the process than Johnson is ever likely to achieve, and none them are the infobox. Rami R 19:17, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

I strongly disagree. This is all based on a view that none of the thirdparty candidates will influence this election. Who gave you a crystalball so you can predict the future? Yes I know they will not win the election (never happened) and they will most likely not win any states (only happened a few times) and none of them will proberly reach 5 procent (also only happened a few times) and who knows if they could influence the election by dividing a few votes in a important swingstate (hmm didnt that happen some time). There has been a long discussion about this and it is welcome to continue, but as I see it the concensus reach is the best. If they are on enough ballots they are in the infobox. After the election only the ones winning electors (no faithless counts) or 5% of the popular vote stay. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:16, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

This isn't about predicting who'll win, it's about who is or was significant; and Gary Johnson isn't and wasn't. Should he later prove to be significant, then he can be added to infobox. Rami R 20:35, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

Rami, why should we exclude candidates that have qualified for the ballot in enough states to theoretically win the election? Why must we place arbitrary (and unclear) limits based on g-hits? Most Americans will see a ballot with more than just two names on it. We should not further the lie that there are only two choices. --William S. Saturn (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

We have defined significance as achieving enough ballot access to theoretically win the election. What is your definition Rami?--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:45, 18 May 2012 (UTC)

As I explained above, your definition is flawed, as it includes candidates that do not have an effect on the outcome. I do not have strict criteria, nor do I think that there should be: each candidate should be considered on a case-by-case basis. And Saturn, "we should not further the lie" - Wikipedia is not here to spread the truth, nor to right any wrongs; we document the world as it exists, and in the real world no one has heard of Johnson. Rami R 08:40, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"and in the real world no one has heard of Johnson." That's all the more the reason to list him in the infobox since he will be listed on most voter's ballots. In the real world, there is more than two candidates on 2012 voter ballots. To dispute that is to lie. To claim you know how a candidate will affect an election is also a lie. And to mention "significance" without any definition of that term is to invite unnecessary edit disputes.--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:59, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

"To claim you know how a candidate will affect an election is also a lie" - this works both ways: why are you insisting on including Johnson when there is little evidence he will effect the outcome? Rami R 10:09, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

How do you define the world? I am from Europe and I have heard of Johnson, and not in the Wikipedia. I havent heard of the Green Party before this discussion or the Libertarian Party, but I knew who Johnson was. I think it is dangerous to decided on a candidate to candidate basics who should be in the infobox, that would just be opening up to personal views or maybe even political campaigning. We must have a clear criteria for who is in the infobox that applies to all candidates in a neutral way. And we have such a concensus: "enough ballot access to theoretically win the election". I do not see any reason to change that concensus and open up discussion on what candidate that is important or who may influence the election or not. That would simply lead to endless discussions. All candidates must follow the same criterias, also if those criterias should be different than the current consensus. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:41, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

We all agree that after the election any candidate with less than 5% is gone. This threshold is arbitrary and takes a very firm stance against minor candidates. Why we can filter out minor candidates after the election but not before is beyond me. Rami R 11:36, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

What would the clear and neutral threshold be? Read the whole discussion, it have been suggested to use 5% in polls (witch by the way still would mean Johnson should stay) but it was rejected by several editors as arbitary. Only few polls are made on 3 or 4 way races and it is still just polls. So what other neutral threshold than ballot access are there? Using this threshold would actually be in accordance with the title of this subsection since it is not there parties representation in a parlament that decides in many other election articles but if they have ballot access. Witch is the same thing in most countries in the world. The U.S. are very special with its state ballot access laws. But even other election articles dont have clear guidelines but are different. I have been looking around and it doesnt always seem to be common sense or how correct it is that guides the editors. The articles on the last danish general elections show only two persons in the infobox - As it was a presidentiel election - and that is hugely misleading since Denmark is a kingdom with a modern day parliementary democracy and who becomes the PM are decided by a coalition of parties after the election. So I cant see there is any general accepted Wikipedia way of doing the infoboxes. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:29, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Rami, on your first point, you ask "why are you insisting on including Johnson when there is little evidence he will effect the outcome?" My answer is that his affect on the outcome is not the basis for the criteria used, which is ballot access. Again, you can't use "evidence" to predict the future. As for your second point about the arbitrariness of the five percent threshold, I direct you to Archive 6, where I explain that scholars use the five percent threshold to determine successful third party runs. The number is not arbitrary, but derives from experts, and is based on actual results rather than opinion polls.--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:48, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

After reviewing the archive again, it seems I've already had this discussion with Rami. Why are we having the same discussions over and over again?--William S. Saturn (talk) 16:57, 19 May 2012 (UTC)

Saturn, don't be a dick, we've had a different discussion about what candidates should appear after the election, not before. If we must have a well defined rule, we should use the metric that is used in the real world: being invited to a presidential debate or achieving at least 15% in a single nationwide poll. It's no more arbitrary than the 5% rule we'll use after the election. Rami R 06:49, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Why have we degraded to personal attacks? You asked for a source to back the five percent threshold and I provided one. You keep bringing up examples of what you see as the "real world" while the "real world" stares right at you. The "real world" is what is printed on the ballots throughout the United States. For the purposes of neutrality, in the infobox, we'll equally present candidates with enough ballot access to win the election until the actual election happens. The problem you are having with this is that you are giving too much weight to sources that merely speculate or give the layman's view of events/things outside the actual election. The sources to be stressed are those that deal with what the ballots actually present to the voters.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:14, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

We've degraded to personal attacks because you have repeatedly misconstrued my words and ignored their context. There's nothing "laymen" about not giving undue weight to candidates who have little effect on the process (which is much bigger than just the election day), and there is no speculation that Johnson currently has little to no effect. I repeat my assertion that the only speculation being done here is assuming that he might have an effect come election day. Rami R 07:46, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Actually, I should have stated that you've degraded to personal attacks. I'd like to discuss the matter, but you are completely unwilling to understand or even acknowledge the basis of the disagreement. You keep repeating "significance" over and over and claim you are not speculating, but if you are not speculating about the affect a candidate will have on the election, then what is the basis for the statement "candidates who have little effect on the process"? How in the world is having one's name on the ballot, not affecting the process? The election is the election.--William S. Saturn (talk) 08:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Rami's assertions that Johnson or any other qualified third-party candidate will not have a significant affect on the election are pure speculation. Gary Johnson will be appearing on 50 out of 51 presidential ballots in this country. To remove him from the infobox solely because his party has not historically succeeded in elections is an attempt to use "evidence" from the past to predict the future, which is entirely unencyclopedic. Judging candidates' worthiness of attention based on mainstream media coverage is even more grossly unencyclopedic and demonstrates a bias unworthy of Wikipedia. The Libertarian and Green Parties should stay in the infobox unless and until they fail to meet the threshold of significance used by political scientists and experts, as Saturn pointed out. I will also point out that the use of personal attacks on Rami's part is a pretty clear indicator that he realizes he has lost this argument. 109.14.46.41 (talk) 12:21, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:20, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

Current Libertarian Party statistics:

Seats in the Senate: 0 / 100

Seats in the House: 0 / 435

Governorships: 0 / 50

State Upper Houses: 0 / 1,921

State Lower Houses: 1 / 5,410

Current Green Party statistics:

Seats in the Senate: 0 / 100

Seats in the House: 0 / 435

Governorships: 0 / 50

State Upper Houses: 0 / 1,921

State Lower Houses: 0 / 5,410

Why again is the Green Party in the infobox? They have absolutely no representation in legislation and lack any support in polls. Oh, but they have enough ballot access to theoretically win the election! Odd, I don't know the exact statistics, but how exactly does this matter? I'm sure there are other parties with enough ballot access, but how do you know how many people will vote, seeing as there is no "crystal ball to predict the future"? I believe the Constitution Party also has enough ballot access (Goode) to win theoretically. This is not about neutrality or bias - it's about common sense, along with consensus, of course. I can understand (but not assent to) Johnson's inclusion, as he has ~6% average in polls, but in accordance with Nationwide opinion polling, as far as I've examined, there is absolutely no support for a Green Party candidate, nor is there likely to be any (speculation, but logical), nor are there any members currently in legislation in any houses (again, nor are there likely to be any, seeing as Johnson is losing to people like Sarah Palin, Donald Trump, Stephen Colbert, and others not even in the presidential race by as much as 20% in these polls). And yet we insist that the Green Party has a magical ballot-access free card to justify the infobox inclusion, but not other parties.

I submit that the Green Party's inclusion in the infobox is just ridiculous and should be removed, seeing as there is (a. No evidence for 5% support in national polls, (b. No presumptive nominee (nor nominee), (c. No current members in legislations, and (d. Lack of significant media coverage. These criteria must be taken into account, and not blindly ignored simply because of mathematical possibility, ballot access, and perceived neutrality; due weight is given due to how negligible these candidates' vote percentages are likely to be. If there is a sudden surge in Green Party support polling, then we will add the party to the infobox. It's really that simple. Since it is virtually nonexistent now, it should not be in the infobox. Ballot access should not be the only criterion for infobox inclusion (as it seems to be), rather, article inclusion only. I agree with the original poster in that the obvious two-party system (seats= infobox position) in America should be upheld, as with his example of the Canadian elections, and I acknowledge the consensus of 5% in polls for infobox inclusion, but I absolutely do not agree with the notion that any candidate/party that has a mathematical possibility ballot-wise to win the election should be included in the election - what if no one votes, writes in the candidate, etc.? Reasonable criteria, such as the US presidential debate requirements, should be taken into account (and met) in order for significant coverage, something an inclusion in the infobox may stir up unneeded confusion.

"Judging candidates' worthiness of attention based on mainstream media coverage is even more grossly unencyclopedic and demonstrates a bias unworthy of Wikipedia". - What? I believe that is a major criterion of notability for Wikipedia, and is of obvious importance to contemporary articles of events such as this. Again, neutrality within reason, please - no official representation in legislation, no Green Party in the infobox. Inclusion of the party, as OP suggested, is completely fine, encouraged, and non-biased (obviously). Inclusion in the infobox already has some assumption of bias for practical purposes (look at other upcoming elections, such as the Greek one in July, only parties with seats in legislation are listed) and it looks as though some rather impractical radical individuals are attempting to ignore this and list everyone with a minute possibility of winning the election in the infobox (Libertarian, Constitution, and Green parties), instead of those who have a reasonable and credible possibility (those with seats in legislation and nationwide polling support).

Delete the Green Party from the infobox, at least. Ballot access should not be the only criterion for inclusion - it should be common sense, ultimately. "Libertarian and Green Parties should stay in the infobox unless and until they fail to meet the threshold of significance used by political scientists and experts" - this I agree to, so, it should be upheld here. Where is the decent media coverage (the 5%, apparently) and political support of the Green Party? RoyalMate1 23:43, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Mostly agree, except I just found out something interesting about Johnson: since getting the Libertarian nomination and becoming an official candidate, there has been only one nationwide poll including him, in which he gets a mere 2%.[18] Are those thinking he's notable still so sure? Rami R 07:17, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

How many times must we repeat that the legislative branch is separate from the executive branch and therefore is irrelevant here? How many times must we point to the sources showing the accumulated ballot access and repeat the fact that the Constitution Party has not yet attained enough access and that the Green and Libertarian Parties are the only third parties that have? Have you people even read this article and looked at the ballot access figures? This is past the point of disruptive. What kind of ignorant question is "Are those thinking he's notable still so sure?" Of course we're sure, he's a former governor who's on the ballot in enough states to win the election. The latter fact is the criteria. These polls you cite are completely irrelevant. The only poll that matters is the one in November. Then and only then can we truly discern who should be in the infobox. Right now, we have a temporary fix that is 100% objective. To continue these ignorant attacks on it is just a waste of our collective time.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:42, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You brought up a lot of points there Royalmate, so I'll try to cover them in order. The Green & Libertarian Parties are in the infobox because they, unlike the vast majority of American third parties, have managed to organize & muster enough support to obtain ballot access on enough states that collectively represent a majority of the Electoral College. There are many roadblocks in place preventing third parties from getting to this point, and the fact they've gotten past that mark should not be trivialized. I guess I need to inform you that no, there are not other parties with "enough" ballot access, so far. The Constitution Party has reached that point a few times in the recent past, but they have not yet done so for this election cycle. If you would care to take a moment to read this article, you'll find that editors have taken care to include the exact extent of ballot access for all the parties (including the Constitution Party) along with up-to-date sources for that information. As for how many may or may not vote, it by and large doesn't matter! What matters is where those votes come from. For example, if every member of the Voting-Eligible Population (citizens 18+ minus felons and the like) in just the states bordering the Atlantic Ocean voted for, say, Obama, he would get at least 70 million votes, roughly what he got nationwide 4 years ago, not including minority vote shares in the other states. However, he would lose, having earned only 168 electoral votes. This means a candidate must draw support from the electorate (or state legislatures, who prescribe the allocation of electors) of a wide enough swath of states, a hallmark of the American government's federal (rather than centralized national) structure. Agree or not, it is how American presidents are elected, so it is important to incorporate our knowledge of this system into any threshold we use.

I'll jump ahead and address another popular vote hypothetical you present- what if no one shows up to vote? While I would love to see this happen for no other reason than the comedic value, alas this is an absurdly improbable scenario, and therefore it need not be considered by Wiki. However, I am a bit bored at the moment, so I will humor your argument- I see two possibilities (ignoring any circumstances that may lead to such an event) 1. A new election is called, with at least some people showing up, realizing their vote may count after all, or 2. The 50 state legislatures & DC Council nonetheless proceed to meet to select electors who will then cast ballots for President, likely in line with the parties who control those bodies. As for write-in votes, just because a bunch of people write Mickey Mouse's name in on the ballot (more than the few hundred who vote for him every time, that is) doesn't mean that Mickey Mouse has any chance of becoming President, because Mickey Mouse has not filed a slate of electors with any state's Board of Elections. Of course, some electors, seeing Mickey Mouse's incredible number of write-in votes, may choose to follow their conscience to respect the will of the people & cast their ballots for him, but I believe a consensus has been reached here to disregard the possibility of faithless electoral votes throwing the election (e.g. the decision not to include candidates in the infobox who got <5% of the popular vote but a handful of electoral votes.) Therefore, I must admit to finding false equivalency in your assertion that including those who can assemble a majority of pledged electoral votes on Election Day is just about as reasonable as including anyone who has expressed an interest in being President, and thus may hypothetically draw countless votes, write-in or otherwise.

You cite the current standards of US presidential debates as being an example of a reasonable benchmark- you may find it interesting that when the nonpartisan League of Women Voters ran them, and even in the early days of the CPD, any candidate who could mathematically win the election (via ballot access in enough states- the benchmark we're using now) was invited to participate. After the League tired of the major parties MOUs & the rise of Ross Perot, the standards tightened and the CPD is now entirely under the control of members affiliated with the DNC & RNC, who for obvious reasons shouldn't be relied on to convey reasonable or unbiased criterion for inclusion. As for polling, you may be interested in this one It is the only one that I'm aware of that includes any of the Green party candidates. That leads me to my next point- how can one rely on polling if most polling firms won't include all the candidates running? As I wrote a couple sections up, "as an encyclopedia, I believe we must use objective, rather than subjective-based information whenever there is a choice. Polls are inherently subjective, as polling firms must make decisions on a variety of factors, including who is important enough to include in a poll, who is polled (and how), and how that information is post-processed for demographics." And again, electors determine the president, not the popular vote.

As far as the Greens are concerned, there is, as far as I know, only one poll that has polled one of their candidates, and they are pulling more than 5%, while other polls don't include them. If you read through the talk page above, you'll see that there are those who believe that the Greens do have a presumptive nominee in Jill Stein (by the same subjective reasoning applied to Mitt Romney). Past performance is no guarantee of future performance, and as much as our (mostly) biased news media would like to ignore this fact, Obama & Romney will not be the only two names on everyone's ballots, and even if another candidate is unlikely to win, other candidates (particularly Gary Johnson) stand a good chance of tilting plurality in some states one way or another. "The threshold of significance used by political scientists and experts" previously cited applies strictly to actual election results, and should not be applied to purposes it was not devised nor imagined for. Of course, it is appropriate to exercise WP:DUE, and I believe that is being adhered to, given that most of the article will cover Obama & his GOP opponent, while those two will (I assume) be listed on top of the infobox throughout the run-up to the election.

Finally, as Saturn mentioned above, this is an executive election we are talking about here, so if anyone wishes to cite foreign election pages to make a point about the layout of this page, I would recommend avoiding pages for legislative elections if you want your point to be seriously considered.68.58.63.22 (talk) 08:08, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I have enjoyed reading all the last (a big long ) comments. Can I just say that the very last point, to stop mixing up executive and legislative elections. As I have already mentioned above I see articles for parliementary elections being treated in the infoboxes as the where elections to elect a PM or president. And it twist and otherwise good article. It is understandable if an american editor are doing needed and good work on a small european or african state's election, but it still show a lack of understanding for the ways of those small states. So a humble prayer to all editors, lets consider all elections in the phramework they are in, not the phramework our own country have. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:36, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Good statements from Jack Bornholm and the IP user above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:11, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

So apparently, any party that has a mathematical possibility (270 electoral votes) of winning will be in the infobox. The Americans Elect Party is essentially defunct but nonetheless retains ballot access to more than 270 electoral votes. Now I'm not advocating their inclusion of course, as there is not even a candidate to vote for, but the advocates for the third party special status are not living up to their standards here - in Saturn's words, "The only poll that matters is the one in November. Then and only then can we truly discern who should be in the infobox", and seeing as that party has "not yet ruled out the possibility of running a viable candidate for president on its centrist platform if such a person can be found", I see no reason to include the Americans Elect party along with the Libertarian and Green, seeing as the defense for the latter parties' inclusions is that they have ballot access, and nothing more. We're setting up an odd prerequisite for the infobox here: on the ballot for 270 electoral votes. Now, let's look at the 2000 election ballot access/results:

Presidential ticket	Party	Ballot access	Votes
Bush / Cheney	Republican	50+DC	50,456,002
Gore / Lieberman	Democratic	50+DC	50,999,897
Nader / LaDuke	Green	43+DC	2,882,955
Buchanan / Foster	Reform	49	448,895
Browne / Olivier	Libertarian	49+DC	384,431
Phillips / Frazier	Constitution	41	98,020
Hagelin / Goldhaber	Natural Law	38	83,714

I believe most of these candidates (7) had adequate ballot access (~35-50 states) for 270 electoral votes (correct me if I'm wrong), and yet they aren't included in the election infoboxes. However, with the assertion that ballot access alone constitutes overdue weight (which is exactly what the infobox does, usually restricted to the major parties) they should have a place in the infobox position even after the election.

Saturn stated that "These polls you cite are completely irrelevant. The only poll that matters is the one in November. Then and only then can we truly discern who should be in the infobox." Again, media coverage is a major criterion for article coverage (due weight), and is certainly not irrelevant. I suppose we should also list "Mickey Mouse" if he gets enough ballot access as well (although he would probably do better than Johnson in some polls).

Unfortunately, we cannot create these temporary criteria for the infobox (like ballot access). The criteria should be relevant and consensual (the 5% of the vote/contemporary polling, major media coverage (only Republican and Democratic), etc.). You insist that we shouldn't use other countries' elections as a basis for this article (legislative vs. executive), while ignoring all other American executive presidential election articles. We cannot use crazy hypotheticals that dictate overdue weight in coverage... the first thing a reader will look at is the infobox, and the inclusion of third party candidates seems to deviate from well reasoned statutes already in place on Wikipedia and in media; in other words, it endorses candidates that by giving them a spotlight they don't deserve, much like a basketball sports announcer who introduces the third-in-line substitution players. Their mention and coverage in the article is fine; their inclusions in the infobox are not, as you can see from the 2000 election, we may find ourselves needing to add around 5 or 6 parties to the infobox, creating even more undue weight, at least until the election, apparently.

I also agree with Rami very much that it is not the NPOV thing to do, that is, to include third party candidates in the infobox or to cover them alongside the major candidates. NPOV states that we give information the due weight it deserves. Putting Gary Johnson along side Obama and Romney, as if he has a significant effect on the elections process or the campaign, is not due weight. Even the near lack of coverage in the rest of the article doesn't balance this. He won't win New Mexico, nor will he get any significant portion of votes. This is not speculation, on the contrary, it is speculation to assume that he will. Equal access to ballot access does not mean equal possibility of election. The infobox is expected to cover only major issues. Third-party candidates are not major issues. They are technicalities. RoyalMate1 21:37, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You are absolutely wrong. The 2000 election infobox has only two candidates because those were the only two to achieve more than five percent in the popular vote. At this time, we do not know which candidates will win more than five percent of the popular vote. Therefore, to be fair, we have established a temporary criteria of ballot access. It would be beneficial if you actually read the article and previous talk page discussion to prevent making such ignorant statements. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:16, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

All candidates on the ballot in enough states should be treated as equals in the infobox. That is giving each due weight that comes from using the fact of ballot access rather than the mere speculation of the news media. To do otherwise is the definition of picking and choosing, which at this time is unacceptable crystal-ballery.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:24, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

The seeming inability of editors to distinguish between speculation and fact is disheartening. Royal Mate claims: "[Gary Johnson] won't win New Mexico, nor will he get any significant portion of votes. This is not speculation, on the contrary, it is speculation to assume that he will." This is a completely backwards and illogical statement. I hope such attitudes are not being applied in other areas on wikipedia.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:54, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I am well aware of why there are two candidates on that article. Please try to save your comments into one edit, as not doing so can result in edit conflicts. What I stated is that with this temporary criteria, there is no reason to exclude the candidates from the infobox entirely. In other words, anyone who is one the ballot with a slight chance is given a spotlight, something Wikipedia should not do. It is not fair to include those candidiates with such miniscule possibilities of significant impact for obvious reasons (at least I assumed they would be obvious, but apparently they are not). Wikipedia should document things for what they are, including their impacts through media and society. Pretending that this election is not a two-race election would be contrary to reality. True, there are other candidates, but they are negligible, and deserve little coverage, as it is in reality. Simply because there are more than two candidates on a sheet of paper does not mean that they are all equal in an election, as there is something called media, polling, and common sense that give insight to what the election's results will be. Pretending that these are worthless until the final election is nonsense. I hope not to sound as though I am backing up speculation here - I am not. The sheer lack of impact from third-parties in the electoral and political spectrum in America is a well known fact.

"All candidates on the ballot in enough states should be treated as equals in the infobox. That is giving each due weight that comes from using the fact of ballot access rather than the mere speculation of the news media" - unfortunately, this too, is nonsense. This is what I was talking about - using only one criterion for infobox inclusion. We need to give due weight to the fact of the amount media coverage too, much more so than ballot access. I do not believe that the media is "mere speculation", nor do I ignore its impact on society and elections. Therefore, I am not being biased by concluding that third-party candidates should not be given anything more than minimal coverage, for that is what we see in media, polling, etc.. I don't see why this is so hard to comprehend. Before you accuse me of ignorance, you should probably not do so in ignorance by stating that I must not have read the prior discussions to disagree with your arguments. RoyalMate1 23:27, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

You are being incredibly biased. The statements you are making about third parties are so ridiculous that they do not even reflect what is said in the news media. "The sheer lack of impact from third-parties in the electoral and political spectrum in America is a well known fact." Are you aware of the 1968, 1980, 1992, or 1996 presidential elections? Are you aware of the Nader effect in 2000? Are you aware that Gary Johnson is polling over 20 percent in New Mexico? Are you aware that Virgil Goode is polling 5 percent in Virginia and may even swing the state to Obama? I am not using polls to justify inclusion, but I am asking since your statement reveals a telling ignorance about third party politics in the United States. In your arguments, you continually fail to realize the difference between fact (reality) and your's or other's personal speculation (opinion). This personal speculation is not expert opinion. It should not be given equal or even close-to-equal weight as reality (ballot access). The comment about 2000 seemed very disconnected since this discussion is about an ongoing rather than a finished election. Lastly, I will discuss the matter how I like. You don't see me complaining to you for not being able to keep your postings succinct. I'd expect the same courtesy about how I choose to edit.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:51, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

Again, I am well aware. And I believe I am aware enough to realize that such polls, statistics, and third-party tickets are worthy of note, such as in this election. What I am saying, however, is that something as simple as infobox inclusions should be consensual and fair. That appears to be what everyone is not in consensus with. I don't see why we're confusing readers by making it seem as though the election is currently between four parties. Technically, it's between many parties. Four (or really, five) have the gained the ability to be on ballots that would accumulate 270 electoral votes. Two dominate the race. If and when the latter changes (which would be caused by media coverage, by the way, as very real as ballot access) we should reflect that. Currently, we're fooling people due to bureaucracy (at a superficial level, at least). My comments about the 2000 election were an example of possible overcoverage. Had that been on ongoing eletion, like this one, you would likely be supporting their negligable entries in the infobox. I never meant to appear disrespectful or ignorant, but we must take more into account than ballot access for representative coverage. RoyalMate1 00:22, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

"I don't see why we're confusing readers by making it seem as though the election is currently between four parties." Because it is. At the moment, four parties can theoretically win the election. That is fair and objective fact. The ballot printers don't have a problem with this. They don't just print two names. Why should we?--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:28, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

I can't even believe this is still being debated. For just one second, let's forget about all prior United States electoral history, because as has been pointed out NUMEROUS TIMES, using "evidence" from the past to predict the future is not encyclopedic---it is speculation. Pure, biased speculation. Now, as I was saying, let's disregard all prior electoral history. We have four candidates who can win the election. Why would we just display two of them? That would be ridiculously biased. Wikipedia does not operate according to mainstream media coverage. Wikipedia does not operate according to hypothetical polling, especially when only a small handful of polls taken have even included more than two of the possible candidates. Arguing to exclude two candidates from the infobox because the powers-that-be aren't paying attention to them is entirely unworthy of the word "neutral." It propagates the lie that there are only two choices. It propagates the lie that my vote doesn't count unless I cast it for one of two men. You may think that in all practicality I *do* only have 2 choices, but it is not reality, and it is not for Wikipedia. The problem with the infobox is not a spacing issue. It is not an aesthetic issue. Your problem with allowing people whose ideas do not fit into 2 pre-defined political moulds share the stage they have lawfully qualified for is beyond me. 109.14.46.41 (talk) 10:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Quoting William Saturn: "Are you aware that Gary Johnson is polling over 20 percent in New Mexico? Are you aware that Virgil Goode is polling 5 percent in Virginia and may even swing the state to Obama?" ... So now it DOES matter how popular a candidate is in the real world rather than the supposed theoretical ballot-access reason?

As for the above comment, the evidence "from the past" is NOT being used to "predict the future", but rather it is being used to refer to an established guideline and methodology.

No one is saying that the other 2 parties shouldn't be mentioned. They should. But in the infobox, keeping with the way past elections were entered, the 2 major parties should be included. And, ALSO like the previous elections, if AFTER the election, a third party candidate had a significant showing (like Ralph Nader..etc), he would be added accordingly. Just like the past elections.

According to the histories, this was how the previous elections were done, and straying from that arbitrarily just feels like we are trying to portray the election as something it is not.

Just because a candidate has a theoretical chance at winning doesn't mean he/she should be in the infobox. They should be included in the article, of course, but the infobox, being a place where one can get a quick reference of what the major general scene looks like. For example (this example being a parliamentary election is irrelevant because the concept remains the same): In a past Canadian election, the Green Party candidate, although she had ballot access in all 308 ridings in each province and city (which, just like in the U.S, in Canada there are also standards that a candidate must qualify to have ballott access), meaning she theoretically and mathematically had just as much equal chance at winning the election as the 3 main\major candidates. However, she was not included in the infobox because, when ALL factors were taken into account (media coverage, support, polling, participation in official televised debates, and yes, even ballott access) (and MANY more), she was still a very minor candidate. As such, she was definitely given due weight inside the article, of course, but not included in the infobox, which is meant to be an accurate reflection of the reality of the going-ons in the real world, not based on simply one (arbitrary or not) factor. ALL factors are to be taken into consideration, and as such, to show the going-ons as realistically and accurately and real-world-based as possible. Also, whether this is a parliamentary or executive election, in this case, makes no difference, because it is the same concept, as I was talking about the leaders/candidate election. Another example, in Canada (and again, it's the same principle, and applies regardless of whether it is an executive election or not): Gilles Duceppe, leader of the BlocQuebecois, despite only having qualified for ballott access in the province of Quebec (meaning that there was no way, mathematically or theoretically, that he could have won the election because he only had ballot access in Quebec), was STILL included in the infobox in the 90's because, despite never being able to form government due to ballot access restrictions, he was still considered a major factor in the election due to media coverage, public support in places he DID have acesss, and many other reasons (one of them being that the main issue he was campaigning on happened to be a huge issue back then). So, the infobox included him (especially when AFTER the election, despite being theoretically/mathematically INCAPABLE of winning due to only being on the ballot in ONE province, in the one province that he WAS on the ballot, he did exceptionally and unbelievably well). So, basically, the infobox reflected the real-world levels of all the possible factors (from media coverage to ballot access to public support to inclusion in the official televised debates to whether they were running on a hot issue...etc...etc..etc..). Yet, also, the infobox didn't include the Green candidate (despite, unlike Gilles Duceppe, her being on the ballot in ALL areas and provinces and therefore theoretically being able to win the election). It is based on the real-world happenings and the realistic and reality-based result of taking ALL the real-world factors into account. (And, this is the same whether it is a parliamentary, presidential, executive or legislative election, and whether they are separate or not). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.246.182.5 (talk) 19:16, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

I said very clearly, "I am not using polls to justify inclusion, but I am asking since your statement reveals a telling ignorance about third party politics in the United States." Everything else you typed above is completely irrelevant to this page. This discussion has run its course.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:52, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

You keep talking about "reality-based results" without realizing that what you are essentially doing is attempting to define reality for everyone else and, therefore, predict results of an election that has not happened yet. Do you see where that's not okay? As I said, there are 4 candidates who can win the election. I don't care if it's a major party or a minor party. That's completely irrelevant because YOU do not get to define a "reality" for us where only two of them deserve special recognition. Looking at them as individuals, Gary Johnson has had more electoral success in his life than Mitt Romney---if we're now using the past to define "reality," can't I then make the argument that Gary Johnson deserves to be at the top of the infobox? You don't want to open up that can of worms. All four of them qualified, all four of them got the ballot access, all four of them get the same playing field on Wikipedia. Maybe not in the media, but on Wikipedia. Now that we are effectively arguing in circles, I agree with Saturn that this discussion has run its course. 109.14.46.41 (talk) 09:02, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand why candidates that can achieve 270 electoral votes are being included with the other candidates that can achieve ALL of the electoral votes in the infobox. Exlusion from the infobox isn't about election prediction but rather encylopedic coverage. Unless a party is registered in all states, and therefore at a truly equal mathematical chance for the office, they shouldn't be listed in the infobox. That seems like a fair compromise.

Currently, the Libertarian Party is eligible for 331 of the 538 electoral votes, and the Green Party 293 of 538, compared to the Republican and Democratic 538 of 538. If and when parties are eligible for all 538 electoral votes (not looking at electoral success, media coverage, or anything else), they can have infobox status. That way, we aren't defining reality, predicting the election, or anything else except covering it fairly. While it is true that four candidates can win at the moment, they certainly do not have an equal chance at doing so, even if we look solely at ballot access -- the infobox should reflect that. RoyalMate1 22:59, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

A candidate doesn't need to be on all state ballots to win the election.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:43, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but there is unequal ballot access, therefore undue weight in the infobox. RoyalMate1 00:19, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

Oklahoma have gone Republican ever since the realignement in the 60's. So if it solely comes to the chances of the Democratic Party to win, it really doesnt matter if they are on the ballot in Oklahomo, they will win it when pigs fly. This is not France, the United States are a federation and that is why the current ballot access 270+ consensus have been agreed about. It is a federal criteria. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:16, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

After the election, candidates are sorted by how many electoral votes they receive. Seeing as we obviously don't have that information yet, we are instead substituting in how many electoral votes they could receive. So, since the Dem & GOP parties have full nationwide ballot access, they are listed in their own row on top. As I wrote further up in this section when discussing the infobox's layout, "...I would agree that if we end up with 5 to 6 qualifying candidates, that 3 rows of 2 is better unless one (or more) of the 3rd party candidates earns full ballot access (50 states+DC). If that happens, they should be moved up to the top row, which would help to show that the nominees listed there are true nationwide candidates with a notably broad base of support. All others can be sorted by ballot access, with the alphabetical name of their party as a tiebreaker." In this way, the two major parties (and anyone who may earn a spot next to them in the future) are given due weight at the very top.

If I am mistaken and ballot access is not the exclusive criterion for how all the eligible candidates are sorted (and then alphabetical order), please correct me. If it is not, we should establish a consensus on the matter to head off any further debate if, say, Gary Johnson gets on all 51 ballots (e.g. would Romney/Paul still be listed second before him despite 'L' coming before 'R'). 68.58.63.22 (talk) 06:59, 28 May 2012 (UTC)

A possible note to editors

This section turned out to be quite lengthy, but yielded lots of good discussion & consensus. However, once archived, there will probably be lots of people visiting the site wondering why it's not just Obama/Romney in the infobox, and will ask lots of questions about it here. I expect quite a bit more traffic after the summer once we get closer to the election. Does anybody think it would be a good idea to create a short summary & "sticky" it to the top of this page? Something along the lines of In the spirit of WP:Crystal & WP:NPOV, any candidate with a mathematical chance of winning 270 pledged electoral votes & thus the election is included in the infobox. Candidates are sorted by the amount of ballot access they have obtained, which is necessary to win those votes. Is there anything else that should be listed at the top? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 00:50, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Or, they could simply not be in the infobox. If any third-party candidates become popular, and people start to wonder why they aren't covered at the top of this article, then by all means they should be included. But until that happens, they're still covered in the article in a fair, reasonable manner. Mathematical chance cannot be the only criterion. Once any candidates have proven to be formidable opponents in the election (e.g., significant media coverage, invitation to debates, etc.) they can be covered in such a manner. NPOV is not subject to just mathematical possibility (at least I thought so). RoyalMate1 03:01, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Could you please stop beating this dead horse? If the criteria is not clear you just open the door for electioneering and a battleground atmosphere. You've shared your views; they've been rejected. Now it's time to move on to what the IP mentions. The statement he suggests should be listed at the top of this page to show the consensus that has been reached so we can avoid such nonconstructive discussion. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:17, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:14, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

Agree w/ IP's suggestion, and w/ William & Jack that consensus has been reached. The only thing I might add to the proposed note is "in keeping with WP:DUE, the major party candidates are listed at the top of the infobox."--JayJasper (talk) 17:25, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

OK sounds good! I've added the note, plus a word on infobox eligibility post-election. Once this is archived I'll also add a link to this discussion. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 00:13, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Minor Parties in Florida

Apparently there are a number of minor parties that have ballot access in Florida that had not previously been labeled with such, here:

• Prohibition Party
• Party for Socialism and Liberation
• Socialist Workers Party
• Boston Tea Party

There is no mention of the Modern Whig Party/Florida Whig Party, so I am assuming that they have lost access, though they still display themselves as having it. However, the article mentions they (the former four) are not recognized by the FEC, so I am not sure how this might effect things. --Ariostos (talk) 21:45, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

The article says that a party to have ballot access need to "be on the ballot for President in at least one other state besides Florida". I dont think any of the mentioned parties are on the ballot in another state beside Florida. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:49, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Wouldn't this provision also apply to Hoefling & the "America's Party"? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 09:27, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Photocaucus

¿B, C/E option or D option? ¿Opinions?--Belibaste (talk) 18:24, 31 May 2012 (UTC)

 By the moment (with double vote, in case of tie): O-B (6), O-C/E (7), O-D (0).

• Only B: Jack Bornholm, Ariostos & William S. Saturn
• Only C/E: Tyrol15, Virilk, 99.165.226.1 & Belibaste
• 1ª B, 2ª C/E: NextUSprez, 68.58.63.22 & JayJasper

Belibaste would you please stop erasing others comments and trying to force a certain way of counting votes? We dont normally vote when a consensus is made, I start to understand why so and also why a caucus cannot be online. I dont think it is a good idea to decided now what photos should be used after the election is over. Who knows maybe the most fantastic presidential photo of both the candidates still havent been made. And a unknown editor right now loads his camera to take it . Let us simply decided what photo should be in the infobox right now. I believe that NextUSprez, William S. Saturn, 68.58.63.22, JayJasper and myself thinks that it should remain option B for now. Am I right? Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:40, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

You are right. My comment should not be misconstrued to say I support only a certain option, when I said I'd support something different after the election. The tally should only look at the present, otherwise it misrepresents my comment.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:46, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Mister Bornhold. The situation: I have done a few rules and a interpretation, days later, you want to change the interpretation. This has generated confusion (you say that I am only pro-D without asking if I preferred to choose only one). I have instituted the double voting because there were more than two options and users gave two opinions. I think that we should ask directly to users fity-fifty to choose really C/E or B.--Belibaste (talk) 23:02, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I am not sure I understand your double voting system, if I have two votes I would like that they both are cast for option B, so I should be counted twice in that colum. Normally we simply discuss a problem until at consensus appears. If it does not appear after some time (a week or so) it is possible to seek help, but it is rarely needed. It is ok to have a vote at the end of a dicussion, but this is a good example in that we all should be carefull in how we interpreted others words. Some nice articles that I have found interesting: Wikipedia:Consensus and Wikipedia:Dispute resolution Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:08, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

¿Don't understand? I explain. You can not vote twice for the same option. Moreover, you only said "vote by the B" (1 preference, 1 vote). Other users said "the B but the C/E I liked" (this means that they like the two options and in case of draw or adjusted result that is important). In addition, could you show me the votation in which won the current photos?--Belibaste (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I think you have been misunderstanding the comments of other editors. William S. Saturn, NextUSprez, 68.58.63.22 & JayJasper all says that they want option B for now. They do not say they like C/E for now, they say quit clearly that they want option B for now and then they talk about changes in the future. They do not say they like option C/E for now, that is something you put in their mouths. For all you and I know they could be hating option C/E as the present photos. It is rare that we vote so formally on things, consensus are normally not made in such a strict way. The last discussion is archived here: Talk:United States presidential election, 2012/Archive 8#Pictures of Candidates Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:53, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

So in the tally at the top some editors are counted one time and others are counted two times? I agree with Saturn the tally should only look at the present. Right now I can count 7 for keeping the established consensus for now (option B), that is NextUSprez, William S. Saturn, 68.58.63.22, JayJasper, Ariostos and myself. And I can count 4 for chancing it now (Any other option), that is Tyrol15, Virilk, 99.165.226.1 and Belibaste. So for now the old consensus on the photos in the infobox stands. I dont think it is necesary to show the pictures in the infobox for a time before the consensus might change. The photos is nicely displayed in this discussion for all editors to see and readers that dont know about this discussion will not go to take part in it simply because the article change. A change should first be made when a consensus is changed. Without taking a vote I also see a consensus about restarting this discussion when the election is over.Would I be correct in saying that a new consensus might be:

• The Photos of Obama and Romney "campaigning" (B) stays until November 6, 2012. At that time a new consensus should be made, the suggestion from this Quorum would be to then use two more presidentiel photos as in the example C/E.

This discussion have only been going on for a week, so of course more time will be needed to allow for more comments from newcoming and old editors. But this is my suggestion to a Consensus. Not much different from the consensus reached last time this was discussed. Then it was not discussed as thoroughly as now so this discussion have much value. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

To continue voting. Then we will act.--Belibaste (talk) 08:07, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Excuse me, but the votation has not yet ended. We should expect the final answer of double voters. And we must also wait for a response from users whom I have invited to participate. In addition, some users if said that the C option also like it (NextUSprez & JayJasper). Please, wait.--Belibaste (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Be carefull not to be Canvassing, because that is compromising the normal consensus decision-making process it is looked upon as disruptive behavior. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:57, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Not insinues accusations, please (I could accuse you when you included me in the Group of D voters, removing a vote of the Option C, without asking my opinion). Users who reported that they liked the two options have the right to be completely defined. Let us stop this discussion until they do so.--Belibaste (talk) 10:13, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I am talking about Canvassing, I dont know if you have been doing so without wanting it of course. If so I am sure you will only be happy to learn more about the ways of consensus making. Even if you would have been canvassing I wouldnt put you on any report for disruptive editing so you could be blocked. I am not acussing you of anything but believes that everything have been done in good faith. Maybe an editor that knows more about canvassing can take a look? Here is an example: User talk:Arjayay#Photocaucus, as far as I can see you have done it almost the same way with the other 13: [19]. This may all be good and correct, but it is my experience to threat very carefully when it comes to canvassing. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

If you've not accused me, sorry for believe it as well. Well, I have asked opinion has users who have contributed to the article in the last week (not guided by their "recognized views") and I have not been biased in the approach to the question (hello, this option or this option?). Now, I ask you, are you going to wait for double voters be defined unequivocally or you'll still insisting that the vote be closed?--Belibaste (talk) 10:31, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Where do you get that I think the vote should be closed? From my comment above, I qoute myself: "This discussion have only been going on for a week, so of course more time will be needed to allow for more comments from newcoming and old editors. But this is my suggestion to a Consensus." I dont think your talling system are any good and have stated what I see as the current tally. But I have also stated that consensus making is not a voting process where the majority simply rules but The goal in a consensus-building discussion is to reach a compromise which angers as few as possible (qoute from Wikipedia:Consensus). I dont think a running tally is in the spirit of Wikipidea Consensus building at all. Instead of discussion many parts (including my own) have been reduced to simply a vote where discussion to reach the best approched was more called for. Instead everyone should use the time not to discuss voting in a caucus but building a consensus. But since we are voting, then we are voting. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:52, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Our communication is really problematic. Languaje matters. We wait to NextUSprez, 68.58.63.22 & JayJasper are defined and then already talk of "¿B or C/E?".--Belibaste (talk) 11:01, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Option C/E)

Option B)

Option D)

Discussion

• B Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:48, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• D (or C). --Belibaste (talk) 22:20, 31 May 2012 (UTC)
• Tyrol5 was proposed the option C. I think that he preferred the C. ¿No?

That's correct, although I don't find the Romney image in Option D all that unflattering; we all know what eyes look like, and it's better than the mid-sentence still, I think. Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:11, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I think also that que image D of Romney is not unflattering. Moreover, the two photos show well their faces and both have a similar size (in the opcion C, is necessary cut the photo of Obama).--Belibaste (talk) 18:06, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Obama in option C and D is the same photo simply cut in two different ways. It is very easy to cut the Romney C version in the same fashion Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:14, 1 June 2012 (UTC)

Is possible, but i don't know the method. ¿You can make the cut? If you can make the cut, we can see the composition.--Belibaste (talk) 21:47, 1 June 2012 (UTC) And don't forget to match the brightness. Romney's photo is too dark.

• ViriiK said that que C is very "presidential".
• NextUSprez ¿C or B?

B is my first choice before the election, then E (combo of C and D) after the election.--NextUSprez (talk) 14:18, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

• B during the campaign. Maybe C afterwards? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 04:31, 1 June 2012 (UTC)
• C definetely during the campaign. The current photos being displayed (B) are definetely in favor of Romney. Obama looks evil in Option B and his face is in the dark. Option A, which was similar to the 2008 election photo is much too plain and un-natural compared to 2000,2004,1996,1992. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.226.147 (talk) 13:24, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

Just as a note for future reference, Option E is technically the "new" Option C, since cropping on both pictures was required for aesthetic consistency, as was done on (E). Tyrol5 [Talk] 17:11, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• I agree with the IP 68.58.63.22, B during the campaign, and something else afterwards. B shows their current state. Moreover, the blue tint to the Obama image and red tint to the Romney image reflects a good contrast between Democratic blue and Republican red.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:30, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that the contrasts are not good guides (the photography of Gary Johnson has a very blue tint but his color is yellow, and ¿how will we choose when appears the green candidate?). In my opinion, is most correct choose photographs where the face appears clear and the countenance serious. A picture worthy of a presentation card (the official portrait of the president-candidate and a presidential photo of the other candidate).--Belibaste (talk) 20:58, 2 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support B during campaign, per others who have noted the images have a "campaign" look to them. Support E post-election, per others who have noted the photos have a "presidential" look to them.--JayJasper (talk) 17:18, 4 June 2012 (UTC)

I am in favor of B --Ariostos (talk) 23:59, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

To clarify, I am in favor of B. We can re-assess after the election.--JayJasper (talk) 16:23, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I was asked on my talk to solve a doubt about which option I definitely prefer. For the time being, it is B.--NextUSprez (talk) 20:30, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

• Support C/E for the infobox. The "campaigning" photos are fine for the body of the article, in the appropriate sections, but I think the formal photos are most appropriate for the lead section of the article.--Rollins83 (talk) 12:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

PHOTOCAUCUS (final round) *VOTATION OPEN*

• Only B: Jack Bornholm, Ariostos & William S. Saturn
• Only C/E: Tyrol5, Virilk, Belibaste, 99.165.226.1, Prcc27[20], Taketa [21], Rollins83 & Creativemind15.
• 1ª (before elect.) B, 2ª (after elect.) C/E: NextUSprez, 68.58.63.22, JayJasper, & 166.249.207.66

*B: 7

*C/E: 8

Option C/E) Option B)

This tally is being changed by several editors (including myself) and as that is in violence with Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Others' comments because we are in effect erasing and/or chancing other editors remarks. No one is in charge of the talkpage but all discussion are leading to making the article better and getting consensus. I dont believe we should included references to other peoples talkpages or even to old discussions as some (including me) have done. All in all this tally is a very bad idea and should be removed. It has already been removed from two other sections on this talkpage and moved down to this. It all clouds the good guidelines in Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Own comments.The way we edit it is in violence with good Wikipedia ways in my opinon. We should continue to discuss the subject in the normal way used and if anyone would like to sum up the tally they should do so in their own signed comments that are not to be changed or removed by others. This discussion is now fragmented acros 3 sections of this talkpage and two usertalkpages, this fragmentation have to stop. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:23, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I think that this discussion [[Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#Merging all U.S. states presidential primary and election articles into one article for each state] about a very different subject shows that it is possible to both "vote" give oppionons and discuss in the same time without fragmenting the whole subject. THis is just a example, but I have seen houndredes of such discussion that have lead to good results with out a tally. Notice also that without moving, removing or chancing own or others comments by subsections this has been made a structured discussion. I have taken part in that discussion and noticed that some editors have put these subsection in, but they havent changed, removed or dublicated any comments, not even their own. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:34, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Stop your attide, Jack Bornhold. One thing: This votation is this votation.

I asked some users if they wanted to participate in this votation. Two of this users have responded my question in his user page and I have registered their votes (with a link to demonstrate the veracity of the vote). You not protestaste when Ariostos (one of the users who I asked) voted the same as you.

Moreover, you want make new votes (all pro-B) with three persons involved in a votation opened and closed in 13 May 2012 (a votation without Option C/E). Sorry, but this is not seriously.--Belibaste (talk) 20:41, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not think it is in good Wikipedia Talkpage practice to ask other editors in the way you have done, it is normal to invited them to a discussion not to ask them a direct qouestion on their talkpage and when they are answering at their own talkpage then use their answer in this talkpage. That is why templates have been made to invite other editors to join discussion, not to control the discussion by fragmenting it. Againg this is NOT a voting system, why do you insisted simply to make this about a vote instead of following normal procedures in consensusmaking. This is by far the most fragmented and disruptive discussion I have seen. If this tally and the total focusing on voting hasent happened I think we would have reached a good concensus by now, and I dont really think it would be B, but I dont know. Going into a normal consesusmaking process you have some references and when you come out you think the result was much better than what you started with. I think I am starting to get a attitude, but you have hat one from the start by trying to control this whole discussion and turning in some sort of campaign. And my name is not Bornhold, you have written that twice now. Again I say we do away with this tally and do it the normal way, by discussion and if we want a strawpoll, as I am sure we do we simply does it by everone showing ther support for whatever they think is rigth as it is normally done. As it is now this tally shown nothing but a campaigning non consensus building attitude. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:08, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I would like to repost a updated version my comment from the discussion above before this one was also started (making 3 sections with the same discussion): I agree with Saturn the tally should only look at the present. Right now I can count 7 in the thre section on this talkpage for keeping the established consensus for now (option B), that is NextUSprez, William S. Saturn, 68.58.63.22, JayJasper, Ariostos and myself. And I can count 5 in the thre sections on this talkpage for chancing it now (Any other option), that is Rollins83, Tyrol15, Virilk, 99.165.226.1 and Belibaste. Without taking a vote I also see a consensus about restarting this discussion when the election is over. Not trying to stop anyone for speaking and discussing more, I am looking forward to hear new good arguments, but my suggestion to the consensus would be (The wording migt be a bit wrong):

• The Photos of Obama and Romney "campaigning" (B) stays until November 6, 2012. At that time a new consensus should be made, the suggestion from this Quorum would be to then use two more presidentiel photos as in the example C/E.

What is my arguments for this? I think it is correct to follow the general consensus in the many presidentiel election articles from all the different years in using a more presidentiel photo, but that is all elections that are history. This is a current event, so lets have a little different photos for now, campaigning photos as some have called them. It will not only show the infobox in a little "lighter" fashion it will also make this article different in look from the other presidentiel election articles. After the election I agree with others in these discussions that it would be better to have more formal photos. I dont think we should decided what excact photos that should be. If the change should happen after the election it is still close to a half year in the future and I think the editors at that point should decided what of the avaible photos that looks most formal. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:20, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Well stated, Jack. I agree 100%.--JayJasper (talk) 21:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

The argument "We stay in campaign" and "need photos of campaign" does not make sense. This is an article enciclopedic and no matter if we are or are not in a campaign. We need encyclopedic photos in all seasons.--Belibaste (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you consider the current photos to be unencyclopedic? Why? As I understand it an encyclopedic as Wiki can also have not formal photos as there is many of in different articles. It is simply a question about how formal it is appropriate to be the special place of an article. I find these photos very encyclopedic and dissent, but I understand that in the special place we are discussing (the infobox) others might find them to informal for different reasons I am happy to hear. But what do you find especially unencyclopedic about these photos? Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:06, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

You do not confuse my words, mand. It is not "encyclopedic" or "not encyclopedic". It is "formal" or "informal". Y, si no te importa, déjame en paz ya.--Belibaste (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

Disculpeme, pero usted no puede ser juez y parte. Sí, estoy de acuerdo contigo en que este debate es lo más perturbador que ha parido madre. Y te lo digo en mi idioma, porque ya te toca a tí tener que utilizar el traductor de google para entender las parrafadas de tu contertulio. Yo no he pretendido controlar en ningún momento la votación. Simplemente la gente empezó a manifestar dos opiniones (primero esta y luego esta para después de las elecciones) y yo organicé el asunto poniendo la doble votación, para que así, en caso de empate, hubiera un elemento que inclinara la balanza por uno u otro bando. Usted se manifestó conforme, pero luego empezó a insistir en que todos los votos eran B, sin preguntar primero a los interesados. Incluso me adjudicó usted a mí entre los votantes del D, sin preguntarme mi opinión (si lo hubiera dicho, yo le hubiera respondido "si solo hay que votar a uno, entonces paso mi voto al C, y tan amigos). Si no le gustan los términos en los que planteo la pregunta, usted me lo podría haber dicho claramente, en lugar de escribir párrafos y párrafos enteros que sabe perfectamente que me cuesta entender una barbaridad. Además, usted reacciona al supuesto "error" añadiendo uno más gordo, involucrando sin preguntar a los participantes de una votación de hace un mes en la que no estaba registrada la opción que yo defiendo y a la que usted se opone con tanto denuedo. Y, en lo que respecta a la fragmentación a la que usted alude, es simple y llamante una serie de rondas. En la primera fue eliminada la opción A, en la segunda fue eliminada la opción D y finalmente han quedado dos, las más votadas, B y C/E, que son las que pasan a la ronda final. No creo que nadie tenga dificultades para entender esa estructura.--Belibaste (talk) 21:24, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Maybe this is put in the wrong language wikipedia by mistake? This is the english wikipedia, not spanish (or portugeese?). See Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Good practices the article have both a spanish and portugeese parallel article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:33, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Escribo en esta lengua para que vea que si a usted no le resulta fácil entenderle a mí tampoco me resulta fácil entender sus farragosas parrafadas. En fin, veo que, como dice el refran, si no tienes padrinos al final no te bautizan. Elimine los votos pro-C que quiera, métase con mi manera de organizar cuando la votación está ya demasiado avanzada para reformular, intervenga para exponer sus quejas justamente cuando vaya a perder la votación... está visto que mientras hay amigos hay margen. Faça vosté el que li eixca de la figa, piu de gos.--Belibaste (talk) 21:48, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Hvis det var et responds til min kommentar ovenfor så må jeg desværre skuffe dig, jeg forstår ikke hvad du siger. Du forstår sikker heller ikke hvad jeg siger nu, når jeg taler mit modersmål. Det er derfor det er en god ide at skrive på engelsk i den engelske wikipedia så alle de mange skribenter der kommer mange steder fra kan forstå os. (translation: If that was an answer to my comment above I must disappoint you, I do not understand what you are saying. As I am sure you dont understand what I am saying right now when I am speaking my mother tongue. That is why it is a good ide to write in english on the english wikipedia so all the editors from around the world can understand us.) Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:15, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Qué cansinez destilas. I don't speak english (I need the google transtalor for understand you words). And you write long paragraphs, you involved to complain just when you're losing, you criticism me by things that you also do and you establish consensus without my opinion. The time is abundant. You said it. You let that talk the people. And don't speak with me more because I probably do not respond you (I'm on vacation). Sta + ver. --Belibaste (talk) 21:39, 14 June 2012 (UTC)

If you dont speak english why are you trying to create consensus (that is done by talking) in the english wiki? Have a good holiday in any case. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:47, 15 June 2012 (UTC)

Option C/E 100%. I would go with Option B if Obama's picture was switched out. It highly favors Romney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.165.226.147 (talk) 23:21, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

I like options C/E and B. I have to go with compromise 166.249.207.66 21:04, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

As requested, I'll clarify that I prefer B for now while the candidates are actively campaigning, and something more formal after the election. That could be E, or it could even be something that hasn't been taken yet. In other words, I agree with the proposed consensus written above. However, I do think there might be some room for compromise. What if we used photos of them campaigning (that is, their mouth is open) in a suit? I don't really like the current Obama photo anyway, as half his face is in the dark. I'm thinking something like this, or this (cropped). All 4 candidates photos ought to match a bit more. We should use a photo that shows a bit more of Johnson's torso, such as this one. The current photo for Stein isn't great but I understand we're still working on finding a better photo that is properly licensed (see below section). 68.58.63.22 (talk) 08:57, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I dont understand the suit thing, but I guess that must be a culturel difference. I thing you are right that we should consider how all four photos look together. Most likely will their only be two after the election. Licensing is a big problem. I like the pictures you have posted but how would it be possible to use any of them? Maybe it would be possible to find suggestions among the photos that are already uploaded to Wiki Commons? If you write File:Obama in the search box you will get all the pictures uploaded in that categori. And likewise with the other candidates. I think the options are limited but it would be good for someone else to take a look. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:48, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't matter to me whether they're wearing a suit or not. I just thought it might be a point of compromise towards those who want something more formal, since we're not getting anywhere with this voting. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 21:39, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

I really am tired of the Obama and Romney pictures up in the infobox now. Please put Option C/E up!!!! PLEASE!!!!!!! Creativemind15 (talk) 15:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Would it be possible to explain more about why you are tired of these pictures? That would be most helpful. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

How about we either: A) Keep the Romney picture and change the Obama picture to his official portrait. or B) Go with Option C/E. I think we should keep the style of all of the other presidential election infoboxes because the Obama photo... doesn't seem right. It's him campaigning. We could the change the Obama photo to a better one of him campaigning because the Romney picture is a good campaigning picture. Creativemind15 (talk) 14:42, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any suggestions to a better "campaigning" photo of Obama, preferbly already oploaded on Wiki Commons? I kinda like the one of Obama now. He looks deciceve and in charge but you can still see the hope guy from 08 underneath. On the other hand Romney might be a little pink (even though the red/blue symbolic isent wasted on me, I really like that!). But I guess photos is a question of taste. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:59, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

We can do either File:Obama Chesh 5.jpg (even though it's from 2008) or File:Obama portrait crop.jpg and for Mitt Romney, we can do either File:Mitt Romney 2007 profile portrait.jpg (even though it's from 2007) or File:Mitt Romney by Gage Skidmore 6 cropped.jpg, or File:Mitt Romney by Gage Skidmore 3.jpg, or File:Mitt Romney by Gage Skidmore 4 (x).jpg, or File:Mitt Romney, 2006.jpg (even though it's from 2006), or File:Recorte de Romney in Mesa, Arizona.jpg, or File:Romney portrait.jpg (someone should crop it though), or File:Romney Skidmore.png or File:Romney1.JPG. Creativemind15 (talk) 10:51, 18 June 2012 (UTC)

Wauw Obama really looks evil on the first one you mentioned. He looks like he is going to kill the whole electorate if they dont vote for him Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:18, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Haha!! That's funny!! He does look really mad!! Anyway, (besides that picture) you should put one of these Obama and Romney pics up. The other election infoboxes don't show them campaigning. Creativemind15 (talk) 18:25, 24 June 2012 (UTC)