Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 11

Archive 5

←

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

→

Archive 15

Infobox inclusion, again

There's an edit war currently unfolding with regards to the candidates featured in the infobox, with some editors declining to discuss their edits. The most recent discussion of any substance about this issue is at Talk:United States presidential election, 2016/Archive 10#For Third Parties, should we include Write-In Access for the Purposes of Organization and the Infobox, and it mostly endorses (many) previous discussions. However, more discussion is always welcome and certainly better than violating the 1RR restriction in place on this article. In short, there are three live (as opposed to merely hypothetical) issues open:

A) Should Darrell Castle be featured in the infobox?

B.) How should Castle be positioned in the infobox?

C.) How should Gary Johnson be positioned in the infobox?

Any other issues are a distraction from these - Stein and Castle can't get 538 electoral votes, and no other minor candidate can get 270. The issues above need to be resolved in line with consensus, either the previous existing consensus or new discussion below. They should not be edit warred over. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:02, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

The issue regarding the inclusion of Castle was previously discussed, it was agreed that the policy from 2012 regarding infobox inclusion would be implemented here. Any candidate who has ballot access to 270 electors will be included in the infobox, this includes states in which a candidate has to file a list of electors to qualify as a write in. Castle now qualifies under this scheme. It is possible that De La Fuente may as well. I doubt any other candidate could feasibly make it to 270 at this point, even with filing slates of write in electors. XavierGreen (talk) 16:32, 4 September 2016 (UTC)

Castle should not be in the infobox. Putting him there gives him undue weight, suggesting to our average, uninformed reader that he has a chance of being important in this election, which he does not. Polls are what matters, not ballot access. The Constitution Party is incredibly unimportant. Earthscent (talk) 05:14, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I thought there was also a criteria of being at at least 5% in any independent poll? Calibrador (talk) 05:23, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

That has been used in the past, and seemed like a good compromise then. Earthscent (talk) 05:26, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Well I think the three criteria of being Constitutionally eligible, ballot access to at least 270 electoral votes, and at least 5% in any independent polling should be used as the infobox criteria. Calibrador (talk) 05:40, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree with both; I think Calibrador and Earthscent have reasonable ideas. We should adopt that. My point of contention, though is that it just really wouldn't know that – and, in our common sense, yes Johnson and the Trump and Clinton do all have 538 votes, but in reality it is important to distinguish between those types of perceptions and actually the two major candidates who will both win states, and Johnson (as well as Stein), who have really absolutely no chance of becoming president. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 21:19, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

The consensus was that polls were not used for infobox inclusion in 2012; all six candidates who had the requisite ballot access were featured. I support continuing this for this cycle, which would mean Castle should be included. (Note that actual popular vote results have been used for inclusion after the election; I'm not sure if it's ever been used before the election.) As for placement, I'd support putting Johnson in the top row only if he gets ballot access in all 51 jurisdictions, otherwise the infobox should remain with two candidates per row. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 09:57, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I definitely agree with you about the being on the ballot in 51 jurisdictions part, and being in the first row if that happens. Calibrador (talk) 10:37, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

The consensus has been for many years that, to be included in the infobox, a candidate needs to be on the ballot in enough states to mathematically win a majority of electoral votes. If there are reliable sources that say that Castle is on the ballot in enough states to total a potential of 270 electoral votes, then he goes into the infobox; if not, he doesn't. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:53, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

There is a difference between pre- and post-election inclusion. Consensus for pre-election inclusion is that they can mathematically win a majority of electoral votes (270). The consensus for post-election inclusion, if I recall correctly, was dependent on the percentage of votes received. And if I recall correctly even further, that cutoff was 5% of the popular vote. The last time this happened was in the 1996 election where Ross Perot got 8.4%. --Majora (talk) 18:58, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with the status quo, according to the source though, Castle has passed the 270 mark again. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:01, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I'm one of the ones that added Castle to the infobox and I think that he should be re-added. The previous consensus says he should be listed and I feel like we should stick with that. I'm sorry but the 5% polling idea would be a little silly, and it would mean we would have to remove Jill Stein from the infobox. Polling is not entirely accurate, and it is an arbitrary criteria for inclusion. Having enough ballot access to win a majority of electoral college votes is pretty straightforward criteria, and it doesn't fluctuate throughout the election season like polls do. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:56, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27: The 5% is only for post-election inclusion and is based on the popular vote. Can't get much more straightforward there. Consensus for pre-election inclusion seems to be in favor of including him. However, I don't think we should be doing three photos across. As that messes with smaller screens and pushes the lead all the way over to the left making it hard to read. --Majora (talk) 20:05, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but Calibrador was suggesting that that be the criteria for pre-election inclusion. I don't oppose using the 5% popular vote threshold as a requirement for post-election inclusion. Anyways, I'm not sure if I know how to put him in a third row; do you know how to do that? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:11, 5 September 2016 (UTC)

I just implemented it with a third row, you do it by adding a page break in the code right before you want the information to spill onto a third row.XavierGreen (talk) 17:59, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I'd also like to note that the 2012 rules which were adopted here previously through consensus include only states where a slate of electors has to be filed to qualify as a write in candidate. This is a very important distinction, there are states which allow write in votes and yet do not demand a slate of electors to be filed IE, New Jersey (most of these states will not count write in votes unless write ins are a majority or plurality of votes cast.)XavierGreen (talk) 18:02, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

I want to point out that at the end of the cycle those with less than 5% of the vote are going to be deleted anyways per consensus. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:05, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

If Johnson makes it to the 1st row, and if he's on the ballot in every jurisdiction with electoral votes, then what does Castle have to do to make it to the 2nd row? It seems weird arbitrarily placing Castle there when people obviously don't mind having 3 people in the same row (i.e. Clinton/Trump/Johnson in row 1). What if Stein and/or Castle make it on the ballot in every jurisdiction with electoral votes? Would they also be put in the 1st row? If we're going to keep Castle in the 3rd row- I oppose adding any third party candidate e.g. Johnson to the 1st row for the most part. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:12, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright. Sure, RedLime, I agree. It definitely looks better now. But, as I had said before on many posts here, it should have three rows when there are the six candidates. The rest of the article gets pushed aside, which needlessly stretches the introduction. And, more importantly, there are three distinct tiers for these candidates – the two major-party nominees, who consistently receive above forty percent in the polls, or, at the lowest, the high thirties. Then, actually, the major third parties, whose candidates are featured in almost every new poll and usually get support within the single digits. The other two, whose inclusion at the top I vehemently oppose, are very rarely mentioned by the public or discussed in the media. They also have very low recognition figures, as opposed to the others – depending on the source, between thirty and eighty percent of American voters have heard of Johnson and Stein. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

The only issue with having three pictures in the same row, as it stands, is due to picture size. The formatting gets all wonky and people with smaller screens are forced to read a tiny column of text that is supposed to be the lead. That really is not acceptable from an accessibility standpoint. If you look at the last time there were three people in one row, United States presidential election, 1996, the pictures were shrunk. In this article each picture stands at about 135x200 (I only looked at Clinton's to get an estimate). On the 1996 page they are 115x153 (again, only looked at Clinton's (Bill this time) to get an estimate). --Majora (talk) 22:16, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The standard for election pages across Wikipedia is to have candidates listed in the infobox in rows of three, see for example German_federal_election,_2017, French_legislative_election,_2017, Chadian_presidential_election,_2016, Australian Capital Territory general election, 2016, Georgian parliamentary election, 2016, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 22:34, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

The US does not have a parliamentary system or any type of proportional representation. Parties can get 15-25% in the US and never win one state or seat in Congress ever, not the same in those countries you listed. That's a fallacious comparison and not applicable to this election. 2601:589:4705:B31D:2875:7808:34C6:4680 (talk) 02:32, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

The standard for most countries around the world is to have more than two parties that actually do anything. The U.S. is strange like that and "standards" don't really matter all that much if the local consensus is against it. --Majora (talk) 22:35, 6 September 2016 (UTC)

As Sparkie82 has said, there is no consensus to remove him, either. Why include him when we haven't agreed to on that 'talk page' that you always mention? And I can't see why any of you think I'm trying to be hostile – my goal here is to give this community some feedback and improve its ethical dimension. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If Castle is going to be in the infobox, how about someone add a cropped version of his portrait so it matches the other photos (same size, proportions, etc.). As of now it looks very lazy. Calibrador (talk) 04:15, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

There are a couple of face crops in the file history of the current image that could be uploaded separately. I don't know why they weren't already, given how much attention has been paid to images on this discussion page. I agree that a face crop would better match the other images in the infobox. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 05:01, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

Local consensus does not necessarily prevail here. There is already a consensus across election pages for Wikipedia to have rows of three for other countries as well as for the United States. There is a row of 3 candidates for the 1992 and 1996 elections. Ross Perot made it to the 1st row for having ballot access in every jurisdiction with electoral votes just as there is consensus to do the same if a Johnson, Stein, Castle, etc. gets complete ballot access. Many people on this talk page think the 1st row should have up to 3 people and should be reserved for candidates with complete ballot access. The 2nd row is reserved for candidates that don't have complete ballot access and since the maximum capacity for row 1 is 3- the maximum capacity for row 2 should also be 3. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:52, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

At this point, the only way De La Fuente or the Party for Socialism and Liberation can achieve 270 is through write ins. I don't think any of the others can make it at this point, even with write ins.XavierGreen (talk) 17:38, 7 September 2016 (UTC)

@XavierGreen: keeps adding Castle into the infobox. There is no consensus to make that change. XavierGreen has attempted to re-add Castle at least three times on Sept. 6th at these edits: [1][2][3] I am politely asking XavierGreen to remove Castle from the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

@XavierGreen:, please remove Castle from the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

I repeat, if there are multiple, reliable sources that say that Castle will be on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical possibility to achieve at least 270 electoral votes, then he can be added. Until then, he should not be in the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:04, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

He already has ballot access to more than 270 electoral college votes, the consensus here was to use the same inclusion criteria from 2012, and he meets that criteria. Also, I did not "attempt to re-add Castle three times on September 6" as you incorrectly assert above. My initial edit was not reverted, and one of my subsequent edits on that day were to correct mistakes I had made in the infobox coding for his entry. My third edit had nothing to do with the infobox at all: it added some minor ballot access information to the sections on other candidates entries in the body of the page. XavierGreen (talk) 19:21, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

The article says he is only on the ballot in states totaling 207 electoral votes. That's not enough to be included in the infobox. The consensus states that a candidate must be on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical possibility to achieve 270 electoral votes (not write-in votes, but on the ballot -- please read the consensus from previous years for details.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

XavierGreen, please remove Castle from the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:49, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

No; but that hasn't been the consensus – they hadn't, in that way, originally agreed on using this for the infobox as the 2012 criteria. I agree that only "on the ballot", as in not including write-in votes, are counting. And the overall rolling average, anyways, does not include him. There are four major candidates in this election, if you would actually like to put it that way, and Darrell Castle is not one of them. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 22:26, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

The 2012 rules as adopted here specifically included write in access where such access required a candidate to file a list of electors. This is outlined thoroughly in the discussion above, as well as the talk page archives here.XavierGreen (talk) 21:15, 8 September 2016 (UTC)

As you know clearly enough, XavierGreen, there was never a consensus on that. To Sparkie82, though, I think you should rephrase your criticisms a bit. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Ballot Access News released a story today that Johnson will be on the ballot in that state. The Libertarian Party still has yet to update their own ballot access map on their website, however (http://ballot-access.org/2016/09/09/rhode-island-secretary-of-state-says-three-independent-presidential-petitions-have-enough-valid-signatures/). Okay, so now that Gary Johnson has total ballot access in all 50 states and D.C., I believe his picture should be included in the first row. Maybe we should wait until we get confirmation by the Libertarian Party updating their own ballot access map, but the issue remains of whether Johnson should be in the first row, and I believe he should. Someone else here on this talk page suggested a 5% polling rule for the first row. That proposal was rejected but it may be worth noting that, even if we were to use that rule, Gary Johnson should be included in the first row because he has been consistently polling nationally at about 8% for some time now. In moving Gary Johnson to the first row, I believe Castle should be moved to the second so that we can go back to having just two rows. Not only does having three rows just seem clunky and annoying, but if Johnson is moved to the first row, it would simply be silly to have one row for Stein and one row for Castle. VladJ92 (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

Having ballot access to every electoral vote is a symbolic milestone. Johnson's chances of winning hardly increased tbh. Ask yourself this: if Johnson had ballot access to every electoral vote, but Trump didn't have ballot access in Washington, D.C. would you place Johnson in the first row and Trump in the second row? I'm worried that putting Johnson in the first row would violate WP:UNDUE. Do the reliable sources view Johnson as being on the same level as Clinton and Trump? If not (which I'm sure they don't), why would they be on the same level (row) in the article? Maybe making it to at least one of the CPD debates would be reasonable criteria for inclusion in the 1st row since the reliable sources would most likely cover a third party candidate more than they have been doing. But I highly doubt Johnson's ballot access milestone will result in significantly more coverage. I am however open to having 3 people in one row i.e. Johnson, Stein, and Castle in the 2nd row. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:22, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

The CPD has a 15% polling requirement and they can choose their own set of polls, so that would be a much stricter requirement than the old 5% polling requirement that already doesn't have support. I doubt that such a standard is workable this year. I'm not saying it's good or bad, just unlikely to get support. Personally I don't like a standard that lets polling organizations control who can be considered by simply not polling those they don't like. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 23:51, 9 September 2016 (UTC)

I totally understand not wanting to use polls as criteria for inclusion in the 1st row. But if Jill Stein also gets ballot access to every electoral college vote, she would probably remain in the 2nd row even though Johnson and Stein would belong in the same row in my opinion. Clinton and Trump get far more coverage and as a result only having those two in the 1st row would be an example of applying due weight. If the reliable sources start covering the election as a three-way race then maybe it would be acceptable to include Johnson (or whomever) in the 1st row. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 00:49, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I don't think that would have to be the case. The bias would be noted by many longtime editors here, and would be replaced. Petitioning for ballot access has ended in every state already, and Jill Stein is still a bit far from 538, even with her write-ins. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:28, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Summary

• Castle cannot appear in the infobox unless there is an change in the long-standing consensus that says that the only candidates in the infobox are those who are on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical possibility to obain 270 electoral votes. (That consensus was reached with scores of editors and changing it would require a well-publicised RfC with unanimity from many editors, not just 2-out-of-3 editors during a holiday weekend.)
• There is a consensus, recently reached here on this article via RfC, as to the order of the candidates in the infobox based on previous electoral results.
• There has never been a consensus as to the number of rows or the number of candidates per row.
• The use of polls for making these type of editorial decisions has been discussed many times and rejected for many reasons, including the fact that polls are unreliable. (Actual election results, however, have been used as a criterion, although they too have the inherent problem of arbitrariousness.^{(Is that a word?)}

Also, changing the inclusion criteria for the infobox to accomodate specific candidates or for specific elections seems like a biased way to handle these election articles. See Stare decisis Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:03, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

But, that here, is obviously only talking about the ballot votes: again, not the write-in ones. Done!198.84.229.179 (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

So it happened four years ago, with the Socialists or Communists? I forgot who exactly that party consisted of, though.198.84.229.179 (talk) 22:00, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

There was a subsection added to this discussion titled "Row of three". I refactored it as a sandalone discussion. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:13, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

Just to be clear; there is consensus to include write-in access (as long as they have a slate of electors) for inclusion in the infobox. This has already been discussed this year and in 2012. Unless you can provide a link to this "long-standing consensus" you are referring to- Castle should remain in the infobox. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 13:50, 10 September 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27: That is not correct. The consensus is that candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to get to 270 electoral votes are included in the infobox, not write-ins. Here is a link to the consesus from 2012: [4]

Specific quotes from the 2012 discussion that established the consesus:

"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."

"... 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)"

Further, the discussion cited above by User:Prcc27 (which was not a discussion about infobox inclusion) says right at the top:

"Yes, but with the understanding that write-in status does not confer notability. IMO, we should only list it for the candidates that have achieved actual ballot access elsewhere. Moreover, it should not be used when calculating eligibility for the infobox."

I'm going to put this link and a summary at the top of this page so there will be more more efforts at consesus creep. If you want to change the consesus, then go ahead and open a well-advertised RfC and try to change it, but don't try to attempt to alter the criteria for inclusion in the infobox by mis-stating or mis-characterizing what was discussed and agreed to in 2012; or by opening a discussion during the Labor Day holidays with a handful of editors. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:07, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

Fine, but per WP:EDITCONSENSUS there was consensus for including all candidates that could theoretically win 270 electoral votes even if they are only a write-in. Virgil Goode was in the infobox in 2012 despite not appearing on the ballot in enough states to win 270 electoral votes. Since he had enough access through write-ins, he was included. That was the consensus through editing in 2012 and it appears that this idea of including everyone that can theoretically win 270 electoral votes is still supported in 2016. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:37, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

See the infobox on the consensus from last cycle, which says that ballot access "includ[es] write-in access in states that have had full electoral slates nominated and certified." That last clause is important, since we need to verify that electors were actually named in the write-in states. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 00:42, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Antony-22: I don't know who put that notice there but it does not reflect the consensus. The discussions that that notice references do not show that there is a consensus for write-ins to be considered, and neither do any other discussions. In fact, the discussion it references here says the opposite, that write-ins should not be considered as an inclusion criterion. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Then where is the discussion that gained that consensus? There is none. Just because someone is able to sneak in an edit, that does not change a consensus that was discussed over a long period by many, many editors and restated continually since then. There are some here right now who keep putting Castle back into the infobox without consensus -- that does not change the consensus that write-ins status is not considered for inclusion into the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 19:22, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

Consensus doesn't require a discussion per the link I provided: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Since nobody disputed or reverted including candidates in the infobox that had sufficient ballot access through being a write-in ; that is what the consensus is. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:52, 12 September 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27: What do you think this discussion is? This discussion disputes the addition of Castle into the infobox! Castle's addition to the infobox has also been reverted here before because he is not on the ballot in enough states to get to 270 electoral votes. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:03, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it has been disputed this year, but it was not disputed at all (from what I can tell) in 2012. The consensus in 2012 was to include candidates in Castle's situation per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. But the consensus this year is still being determined and only now has this already established consensus been challenged. Until consensus changes, we are stuck with the old consensus. The whole point of the 270 electoral college threshold is so that every candidate that can theoretically win is included in the infobox. Since Castle can theoretically win, why should he be excluded? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:10, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The inclusion in on the basis of write-in was disputed and discussed at length in 2012 Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2012/Archive_9#Number_of_candidates_in_the_infobox. The consensus was to use the 270 EV threshold using states where candidate appears on the ballot. I support using that sensible, objective criteria. Bcharles (talk) 21:42, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

After re-reviewing the discussion I found that an IP address user advocated for including write-ins with a slate of electors and another user (William S. Saturn) called it a "good statement". In fact, William S. Saturn was the only person that explicitly said don't include write-ins (but that statement was made before they praised IP's comment on write-ins). While some specifically said they only wanted to include people on the ballot in jurisdictions consisting of 270+ EVs (perhaps not even intentionally meaning to exclude write-ins with elector slates in their statements)- others simply said "ballot access" to 270+ EVs should be the requirement which doesn't necessarily exclude write-ins. So no, there was not consensus for excluding write-ins with sufficient ballot access. The editing pattern reflects this very clearly. Including all candidates that can theoretically win enough electoral votes to win the election is way less subjective than only including some candidates that can theoretically win the election. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:27, 13 September 2016 (UTC)

The phrase, "only wanted to include people on the ballot in jurisdictions consisting of 270+ EVs" very explicitly excludes write-ins from the calculation. The term "ballot access" refers to listing candidates on the ballot. "Write-in" is a way to vote for someone who does not have ballot access. The statements you quote were clear, you are just refusing to hear what they say.

The point is not to have some theoretical possibility to win a majority of the electoral college, but to have a meaningful gauge to compare the organization and viability of various parties and campaigns. The threshold of getting on the ballot is a better measure of that strength, and is closer to the possibility of winning a state. Ballot lines for a majority of EV is also a criteria used historically, such as for inclusion in debates (LWV, Free & Equal). Bcharles (talk) 03:15, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

That's not true. Virgil Goode was included in the Free & Equal debate and he wouldn't have qualified if your proposed criteria was used. Thanks for proving that ballot access in addition to write-in access is the criteria historically used for debates and otherwise. From what I can tell, nobody bothered to refute the IP's comment on including write-ins with elector slates. A well established consensus usually includes refutations to opposing views. So, I still don't believe there was consensus for excluding write-access as criteria for inclusion since nobody said they disagreed with their reasoning. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 11:56, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course it is! That isn't why it happened, Prcc27 globe! It says quite well at Castle won't qualify for the debate this year. Kindly, though, you are really just using your own arguments against yourself! 198.84.229.179 (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Just for the record I favor including Darrell Castle as he does have a way to win. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:53, 14 September 2016 (UTC)

@Knowledgekid87: Anyone has a way to win. If some people write your name in as a write-in and after the election you file a suit with the Supreme Court and they select you as the winner in your state and there are only two other candidates with electoral votes split evenly between them, then it goes to the House. Then the House could vote you in as president. But having a chance to win the presidency is not the long-standing criterion for inclusion in the infobox. The long-standing criterion for inclusion in the infobox is to be on the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical possibility of winning 270 electoral votes. If you would like to change that criterion, you need to have a very good reason and then make a case with a well-advertised RfC that persuades all or nearly all of the editors here to achieve a new consensus. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

You statement here is incorrect, a write in candidate in state that requires a candidate to file qualifying paperwork and a slate of electors does not need to file a law suit to get his votes/electors recognized. The states in question count the votes of qualified write in candidates, and should they win - would grant them their electors. That is the entire purpose behind making such candidates file paperwork and a slate of electors to become qualified.XavierGreen (talk) 15:17, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27: I'm sorry, but your view on this issue and of the facts doesn't reflect reality. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:56, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

But, that is absolutely true!198.84.229.179 (talk) 21:35, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

No; an RFC would be very unnecessary. The discussion in 2012 wasn't an RFC (as far as I know) and even if your viewpoint did have consensus back then it obviously changed when Virgil Goode was added to the infobox without dispute. Afaik, everyone with a theoretical chance of winning (including those that could split the electoral vote and make it to the house ballot) are include in the article while everyone with a theoretical chance of winning a majority of electoral votes (the most practical and common way to win) is listed in the infobox. Seems pretty simple to me.. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 14:09, 15 September 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Well said: Uppfeil, that is absolutely true regarding the status for Castle and de la Fuente's campaigns.198.84.229.179 (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Castle clearly doesn't have ballot access to 270 electoral votes and therefore should not be included in the infoboxes. As other users have already pointed out, write-ins are not the same thing as ballot access. If a candidates name is not printed on the ballot then they do not have ballot access. Ebonelm(talk) 18:36, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

If a candidate can theoretically win 270 electoral votes, then such a candidate should be included in the infobox.JC · Talk · Contributions 19:56, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Several users have removed Castle from the infobox, only to have their change reverted. That was true in 2012 as well. His presence is not a consensus, but a dispute that is being re-addressed in this discussion. note from 198.84.229.179: "Can we find who made this post? I can't seem to be able to track down this author. This message isn't being attributed to any editor eight now."

Of course you are, but realize that there can plausibly be a lot more than that. I'm not trying to be angry at you, but I would like to help with the formulation of a better-molded election website. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Respectfully speaking, that isn't true at all. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

@JCRules: A number of candidates have only filed as write-in candidates in various states. If one such write-in campaign successfully files as a write-in in sufficient states to represent 270 electoral votes, should they be considered notable enough to include in the infobox?

Although 36 states provide procedures for filing as a write-in, several specifically say they will not allow them (AR, NM), or will not count them (DC, MS, NE, OR, WA). Some states (e.g. IL) require filing with local officials, making it very difficult to verify who has filed where. Do you count a candidate that has only filed in towns representing a majority of the state population? Some states do not require a full slate of electors (e.g. IN). Some do not require any electors be named, others do not require a filing at all. Some write-in filings are not needed until late October or early November. WY is not due till after the election.

Apart from difficulties of tracking relevant write-ins, the likely hood of getting enough voter awareness to win a state by write-in would take phenomenal resources, well beyond what is needed to get on the ballot. A campaign that lacks the organization and support to get on the ballot does not have a chance of winning, particularly with the profound handicap of not being listed on the ballot. Bcharles (talk) 01:18, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

If you can theoretically win the White House, you should be in the infobox, period. At this time, there are five people who are capable of doing so. Take a look at Senator Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, who won the 2010 election as a write-in candidate. JC · Talk · Contributions 04:44, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

I would like to disagree completely, "JC". There is absolutely no established consensus at all, and I couldn't really think of a reason why, anyone who "could" win should be included in there. In theory, every candidate that has even 1 electoral vote available (House of Representatives), or even someone who doesn't (faithless elector), could win. That is why your argument is invalidated: you say that that would require, in such a sense, a threshold to of 270, but that is just completely not tracked at all – practically, it would make no sense to put write-ins on as part of that list. Strength doesn't come in numbers, it really is the perceived objectiveness of your points.198.84.229.179 (talk) 21:45, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

JC, this is a different scenario. Lisa Murkowski was a sitting United States Senator who lost her party's nomination but had name recognition and the power of incumbency behind her in one of America's less-populated states. Not to mention that she was neck-and-neck with Joe Miller in the polls, which made her a major candidate. The closest analogy I could think of is an extremely, extremely, extremely unlikely scenario where Barack Obama loses the Democratic nomination in 2012 and has no choice but to run as a write-in candidate, in which case he would have a substantial presence in the polls and have the power of incumbency behind him, making him a major candidate. On the other hand, he could have just started his own party and most likely would have had enough supporters behind him to gain 270+ EV ballot access if that happened. But to close out, Castle is not an incumbent elected official and is not even registering above 1% in polls. Apples and oranges.--Guiletheme (talk) 20:02, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

Seriously speaking, I don't think that is needed. On the talk page, there are too many comments about this. I think the discussion on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016/Archive_10#For_Third_Parties.2C_should_we_include_Write-In_Access_for_the_Purposes_of_Organization_and_the_Infobox should be added, so that they can see it. Anyways, I agree with the old consensus in readership that candidates should be major ones in getting to it. I do follow politics quite a bit in fact, and so there is no reason, in my opinion, why Castle should be included here. I certainly do understand your arguments, but in all those of articles I have read, I have seen only one mention of Castle, yet at least 500 each for Stein and Johnson (yes, I do read a lot). And the Castle one was on a particularly "Constitutionalist-leaning" website. That's why they aren't major. And any big polls recognized by RCP, HuffPost, 538, others, or etc, they don't ever have any about the candidacy of Castle. So, I think we should let ourselves look to the outside world a little bit – most polls say that the majority of Americans have heard of Stein and Johnson, in fact, but very few (1-5 percent) know that guy. And so, for the sake of really getting it there, I would recommend that the criteria be changed to being listed in most national polls, or, like before, getting actual ballot featuring in 270 votes, and not just write-in as well. Thanks for considering. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 21:16, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes; this is true. Castle did not receive 270 actual votes, and there fore should not be on the infobox, on this page. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 21:30, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Of course there is no consensus, that's why we are discussing this. Allow me to amend to my original statement, alright? If a candidate can win the presidency without the House of Representatives deciding it because nobody got to 270 electoral votes, then they should be in the infobox. Johnson has access to all 538 electoral votes, he gets on. Stein has access to 522 electoral votes, she gets on. Castle has access to 324 electoral votes, he gets on. McMullin has access to 224 electoral votes; if he gets access to 46 more electoral votes, he can get on the infobox as well. JC · Talk · Contributions 21:56, 17 September 2016 (UTC)

Well, of course. I get that that is what you're saying. But take a look at my argument: there are logical, and practical, reasons why the "top four" are separated from more minor parties like Castle's. It's just that there isn't a most difficult thing to get on the ballot in those many states, and the currency isn't that high. But, if you go back to my other points above, it is clear, from previous and current discussion, that most people, if not a vast majority, believe that only on-ballot states (i.e. no write-ins) count for the requirement of 270. Thanks for taking this into consideration.198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:03, 18 September 2016 (UTC)

As a resident of California, if I were to gain write-in ballot access for the California gubernatorial election, 2018, I could theoretically be elected Governor (and use my WP experience to engage in unforeseen Wikipuffery for my WP article for my glorious reign), but does that mean I get to be included in the infobox for that article even though I wouldn't included in major polls or meet the 5% threshold? I think not. While I will admit to supporting one of the major candidates in the upcoming election, I'm 100% for Stein and Johnson's inclusion on the infobox because they have ballot access in enough states to theoretically win the Presidency. We're talking about the biggest event in American politics, the Presidential election, and no write-in candidate will win, especially since Castle is not beating or even meeting Johnson's or Stein's numbers. Taking Clinton and Trump aside, I would be willing to consider Castle's inclusion and perhaps even advocate for it in the infobox if he were polling equal to or above the major third-party candidates, but since he is not meeting any metric of 270+ EV ballot access, 5% in the polls or at a level reasonably equal to Stein or Johnson, he should not be included. The write-in vote on such a major, nationwide election has not decided or changed the outcome, and I fear it will lead to further muddiness and undue weight if we allow candidates with "theoretical theoreticals" access to the infobox without earning it through solid criteria.--Guiletheme (talk) 19:56, 24 September 2016 (UTC)

There are few candidates who manage to attain Write-In or Ballot Access to (270) Electoral Votes in any of our Presidential Elections, as it stands now the grand total including McMullin is only (6), just as it was in 2012, and if a person is truly able to cast a valid vote for a candidate in a State, whether by checking off a box on the ballot or writing in their name by hand, I don't believe there should be any difference in recognition. They are not liable to do nearly as well, that is true, but it remains with Write-Ins that a voter can vote for them, and by extension they could earn electors in those States. There is no escaping that fact, even when factoring in probabilities, and objectively it is the right decision to include them. However you are right in that this would not carry over to articles not involving the Electoral College, and indeed a different metric might need to be found to make it more fair for all the Parties involved (potentially a combination of polls and existing Party Status). There isn't a clear method presently. --Ariostos (talk) 00:17, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

It seems you are putting too much focus on the ability to vote for a candidate, and the potential number of electoral votes represented. The threshold is meant to measure viability or strength of a campaign. Other measures, such as funds raised/spent, popularity in polls, and media exposure, all have limitations in their ability to be fairly applied across diverse campaigns. The measure of ballot lines achieved is a relatively neutral way to gauge campaign organization and ability to mobilize forces in an election. Write-in filings are a much lower bar, and don't demonstrate the ability to score points in a national election. Bcharles (talk) 05:16, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I was trying to make a point about undue weight with my theoretical gubernatorial candidacy and I think the electoral college makes undue weight even more of an issue with electoral college based elections, since if a candidate doesn't advertise or have high name recognition, the only other way an average voter can discover they are running is by seeing their name on the ballot. A grand compromise might be to have tiers in the infobox as follows:

• Candidates appearing on ballots in all 50 states + DC (Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump)
• Candidates with ballot access to 270 or more electoral votes (Gary Johnson and Jill Stein)
• Candidates with write-in access to 270 or more electoral votes (Darrell Castle and Evan McMullin)

I would think this satisfies Wikipedia policies on due and undue weight. And to be blunt, I don't think Castle or McMullin's achievement of being eligible for 270 electoral votes through write-ins is even equal to Stein and Johnson receiving ballot access in states where they can reach 270 electoral votes. However, it would give readers quick information as to which candidates are theoretically eligible to win and make things more reference-based than popularity-based and definitely not advocacy-based, which this article has done a good job of avoiding.--Guiletheme (talk) 05:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

That seems like a good idea. Though Johnson does have all 538 votes in his pocket, I don't think he should be listed on top, with Clinton and Trump. It's easy enough for a generationally popular nominee like him to collect that amount, especially considering the perceived flaws of the Democrats and Republicans. And then, of course, I'd still oppose the inclusion of Castle and McMullin. If there continues to be a deadlock, as exists currently, and absolutely no solution is in sight, I'd support your idea. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I would list Johnson alongside Clinton and Trump, because he does appear on the ballot in every state and Washington, D.C. JC · Talk · Contributions 06:07, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

You may as well leave Castle & McMullin in the infobox, since they (along with Johnson & Stein) are going to be excluded after the election is held. Leaving them there for 6 more weeks, should do little harm. GoodDay (talk) 14:59, 25 September 2016 (UTC)

I agree 125% with this statement, why are people making such a huge fuss over nothing? If the candidate can achieve 270 EVs through whatever process then they have a shot (WP:NPOV), does this mean it will work though? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:41, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

Okay; then what do you say that they don't come? And you're calling this situation "nothing".198.84.229.179 (talk) 22:38, 26 September 2016 (UTC)

NOTE: There is IP (198.84.229.179) who is vandalizing this thread with legitimate-sounding edit summaries. If you have participated in this thread, please verify your edits. It looks like sections by XavierGreen, Prcc27, Antony–22 and myself have been effected. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:03, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

User Ramires451 is also vandalizing this talk page. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:30, 27 September 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that. I'm new here. I was just trying to fix some issues regarding the spacing before some entries in this article. It sometimes seemed a bit weird when read from the outside. I wasn't trying to vandalize this page, but just some mistakes. I hope (I think) that they're fixed. Again, sorry; I had made those edits out of good faith, and I will avoid making such intrusions. If there's something I've brought up that you'd like to fix, though, please do so.198.84.229.179 (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I will ask this time; is it ok if I try to attempt some of the tab-ins which look weirdly constructed? If not, I'll leave those decisions up to you.198.84.229.179 (talk) 22:08, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Changing indent levels to be more consistent is routine refactoring and is permitted. I do it myself sometimes. I'd avoid changing the paragraph breaks within a comment, though. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 02:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Alright, fair enough. That sounds good. It just seemed unusual that people would sometimes indent it backwards two, or move it forward by three for no reason. But thanks! 198.84.229.179 (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Those changes were wholesale changes to the wording of comments, and inserting signatures in the middle of people's comments to conflate attribution, not just formating. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:32, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I do apologize for that. I won't do it anymore. Again, sorry. I didn't know that there were rules regarding that. I thought we could change, for example, how you misspelt "formatting, above". Thanks for telling me, though. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

For all intents and purposes, we should include every candidate that has ballot or write-in access to at least 270 electoral votes until after Election Day. In advance, I would like to say that we should keep all candidates that receive at least one electoral vote or register at least 1% of the national vote. JC · Talk · Contributions 06:58, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

That's pretty much agreed. I do, however, remember the criteria, pre-election, to be at 270 'on-ballot' votes, counted, only. And, afterwards, the criteria for 2012 – not that it mattered – was one or more electoral votes, from what I know. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 01:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

An attempt was made on 20:00, 23 August 2016 to add Castle to the infobox. It was immediately reverted on 21:30, 24 August 2016 and a discussion has been ongoing ever since but there is no consensus to add him. Therefore, don't try to put him back in. Sparkie82 (t•c) 16:01, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Also, an administrative action has been filed against those who keep adding him back in without consensus. Sparkie82 (t•c) 16:07, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Sparkie82: You were the one that removed Castle at 14:30 on 24 August 2016 without discussing your edit even though a discussion was already going on at the talk page. It usually isn't a good idea to revert someone without discussing it at the talk especially given how many people voiced support for the edit you reverted. So please don't call it an "attempt to add Castle" when you were the one that attempted to remove him after a unanimous decision at the talk page was made to include him. Nobody came to the talk page to defend removing Castle until 5 September (a week and a half after the unanimous decision). It is quite clear that in this discussion users either support using write-in access as criteria i.e. both Castle and McMullin would be included or users support only using ballot access as criteria i.e. neither would be included. Your edit removing Castle but not McMullin goes against both arguments on this talk page and therefore it did not have consensus so I reverted you. Until the unanimous consensus in August is overridden, please do not remove candidates from the infobox or else you might be the one that will need administrative action. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 17:26, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

I sure don't think any of those ideas are needed, as Castle is currently in the page – but not McMullin. Again, I am about to voice my support for only Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein on there. I think the majority with only 'ballot access' is just a natural cut-off. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Put Castle back in already, he has access to well over 270 EVs to win. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:10, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27: Someone tried to add Castle about 35 hours into that late-August discussion and I reverted it. Many others here have reverted the addition of Castle. Many have voiced opposition to adding Castle, yet some still try to add him to the article infobox. The reason that write-ins are not part of the criteria for inclusion in the infobox is because all it takes in most cases to get write-in status is to just file a form. This is why write-ins were rejected when the criteria for infobox inclusion in presidential election articles was originally establisted here. But of course, this is about the fourth time we've been over all of this. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:51, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we have done it very many times. But we aren't seeing the review here, yet. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 01:10, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

The Constitution and Justice Parties were both included in the infobox before the 2012 election despite needing write-in access, reflecting the actual consensus at the time.

I feel like we're not getting anywhere with this (very long) unstructured conversation. Perhaps we should set up a formal RfC and be settle this once and for all (until 2020). Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 20:44, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

So, in that case, can we continue with the indenting? I think a few more comments right here would be okay. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Castle in not currently in the infobox. There is clearly no consensus to add Castle or other write-in candidates to the infobox. An attempt was made to add Castle to the infobox on Aug 23 at 735891756, which was immediately reverted at 736056459 and the addition of Castle has been challenged/discussed ever since without reaching consensus - do not reinstate any challenged edits Sparkie82 (t•c) 23:15, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus to remove him either. JC · Talk · Contributions 23:21, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Does it really flippin' matter anymore? Any formal RfC would take a month to run and longer then that to close. By that time it will be the actual election and all the third party candidates would likely be kicked out of the infobox for not receiving anywhere near the necessary percentage of the popular vote to remain. This back and forth has turned into a quagmire. Just leave the infobox alone. It has absorbed enough of everyone's time as it is already. --Majora (talk) 23:24, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, but just because you're right doesn't mean you should really enforce any closure on this topic's discussion. For some reason, people are wrangling all over a complete non-issue. Then again, I'll admit that I participated quite a bit, and the page's edits have stagnated before it actually developed a strong opinion on that idea as well. So, if people really want to debate about it, they have the right. I'm nonetheless standing firm on my position, though, as it only makes sense that, if any third parties are included, it should just be the Libertarians and Greens. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, kindly speaking, that doesn't look like the consensus right now. I know that there are a lot of editors who would like Castle included, but my view is that this page should really reflect real-life developments, and not just a generally meaningless number. When there are no responses to any of my posts, the situation pretty much stagnates. I understand the subjectivity of the 'major' label, but what other criteria could we use, in order to ensure that the infobox representation is fair? I never actually went into the article and modified the status of such a contentious issue. More importantly, though, I think that the best way would be to discard with the current standard. Of course, it will be very difficult to achieve consensus, as we have seen here. But I think most of us would agree that Gary Johnson does not belong with the Democrats and Republicans, at least this year. If it was Ross Perot or perhaps even Ralph Nader, then the circumstances could maybe allow for a row of three. But, though many people in the news talk about him, as well as Jill Stein – to a lesser degree, of course – their influence on this election is minuscule. Furthermore, even if third parties are headed for a historic success this year, neither of them will actually tip a state, or even break into the double digits and produce a different victor. And the others, mostly Darrell Castle, from the discussions on this page, are, still, less important. I don't think you could find a single mainstream article – NYT, WP, WSJ, CNN, ABC, NBC, Fox, Britain's BBC, or anything like that – that mentions him. Even McMullin, the only one who's gotten consistent coverage, was in the news for just a few days or so. Sites like Vox, Slate, Haaretx, Al-Jazeera, and the dozens of smaller outlets probably don't have any words dedicated to them, either. And I haven't seen any uniformly recognized opinion poll – national, state, or otherwise – that includes anyone other than Clinton, Trump, Johnson, or Stein. Ballot access is just not a useful measure of a candidate's real value to the campaign – if the rules were tighter, the Greens and Libertarians would have had a much harder time getting past the halfway mark, while a theoretically unpopular candidate like Michael Bloomberg could easily build the connections necessary for doing so. Just because some person could win the election doesn't mean they'll get anywhere close – I'd say that Castle's chances of winning a state are somewhere around a ten-thousandth of a percent. So, to reiterate, my feeling is that frequently visited Wikipedia articles like this one should be very accurate, and I really don't feel that 'ballot access' is a good way to measure any person's support, or whatever it is that we are using for the infobox. Many users have rightfully brought up the issue of undue weight, and that is something that I'm dedicated to fixing. As of right now, I don't have particularly good ideas as to what concrete benchmarks we should be setting for nominees in any sections on this page – or future ones, for that matter – which is why I'm in favor of leaving the situation as it is, for the month that's left. Meanwhile, I'll hopefully come up with something that everyone here can stomach, and I'd encourage all of you to do the same, as well. You probably all know my stance on this by now, so I don't think any further repetitions will be needed. I have one final note, concerning my hope that you can reflect on my concerns, and at least understand, if not accept, why I don't think Gary Johnson should go on the top, or why Darrell Castle should not be in there at all. My position would go the same way for every such situation that arises in the future. I make my decisions not based on political ideology, implicit bias, or similarly egregious reasons, and the other editors have done a great job of maintaining the neutrality of every discussion here. We should base our opposing stances on merit, and solve them by their popularity – as well as the significance of each particular judge, and their argument's legitimate validity. Finally, my foremost priority at this forum will be placing an interest in the proposals that are eventually put forward, as the ultimate objective is to find a common ground where we can all happily stand – for 2020, and beyond. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It's the media who decides who is going to be in the polls. It's not fully representative because it does not present all of the options available. They were late in adding Johnson and Stein, and they are choosing not to include anyone else, and when the third party candidates garner between 10–20% of the vote in the polls, their influence is not minuscule. It's like expecting Fox News to give Obama and Romney equal treatment. You're just not going to get it. JC · Talk · Contributions 18:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

It's WP:SPECULATION to assume that a third party won't tip a state. In fact, Gary Johnson polled at 24% in his home state of New Mexico and was just 2.2% shy of being within the margin of error of Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. Furthermore, if he were to win NM and neither Clinton nor Trump won 270+ EVs, Johnson would have a good chance of being elected president. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I see your point, Prcc27. I didn't think that Johnson would be so high up before reading FiveThirtyEight's [article] today. But, still, I meant that, at least in my eyes, the chance is very small. And, sorry if this offends you, but common sense really dictates that Johnson isn't going to be on the same stage as Clinton or Trump. Not that I support his or Jill Stein's exclusion from the debate, but perhaps that would be a better gauge of a concrete criterion that could be used. And the 'third-party debates' noted on the website will only invite those four, so I'd be okay with their ideas on this page, too. And, of course, I'm starting to recognize the value of your argument. Still, though, I recommend that you carefully consider my suggestions. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 21:39, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

How Come Candidates That Require Some Write-Ins In Order To Get 270 E.-V.'s And Have Enough Write-In States, (For Example, McMullin And/Or Castle), Are Not In The Info-Box?

It seems like the only candidates in the info-box are the ones who can get 270 e.-v.'s without needing any write-ins. McMullin and Castle have enough write-in states to reach 270 e.v.'s. How come they're not included? Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 13:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Because McMullin supposedly doesn't have enough write-access and Castle was removed despite consensus to include him in the info box. This is already being discussed on other sections. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 14:44, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I have looked into such a proposition, and it seems to be an idea that I would support, in the event that no consensus is reached on this issue in the near future. However, this indiscretion most certainly does not pertain to the current situation. From what I know, previous discussion this year indicated that ten points of the popular vote – or any number of electoral votes – are needed to be included, post-election. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 17:37, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

An edit warrior removed them, I have readded them, as indicated above there is no consensus to change and in the ongoing discussion several individuals who opposed their inclusion originally have not switched towards supporting inclusion up to the election returns come in. Regardless, once the election returns come in only candidates who win electoral votes or win 5% of the popular vote nationally will be included per the standards set forth for us presidential election page infobox inclusion across all the US Presidential election wiki pages.XavierGreen (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, guys, for the responses! Glad they're back in the info-box! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 16:32, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 September 2016

Please change the candidate images, as right now it looks like Wikipedia has endorsed Hillary with the best photo. Trump looks like he has no idea what is going on, here is a better photo to use: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnnnext/dam/assets/160118134132-donald-trump-nigel-parry-large-169.jpg Here is one for Evan Mcmullin: https://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/mcmullin.jpg?w=1462

Jashanr (talk) 03:31, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

| image2 =

The village pump voted against opposing Donald Trump in any way shape or form literally last week as supporting any political agenda is firmly against the first pillar of Wikipedia. And this image has been argued over ad nauseum, your only sollution is a non-free image which is not allowed. Please stop. --85.76.100.41 (talk) 12:30, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The image you recommend says 'Nigel Parry for CNN' right on it, indicating that it's copyrighted and unusable on Wikipedia, as mentioned above. Also, saying that it makes him look 'like he has no idea what is going on' is very opinion based. Personally I think that image shows him with a thoughtful look on his face. jmcgowan2 (talk) 19:41, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

I added a picture for Evan McMullin. But, it's not the one you wanted to use with the staircase because it just wasn't formal. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 18:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Remove Darrell Castle and Evan McMullin from infobox?

Are we sure that these two candidates should be included in the list of major candidates? Stein and Johnson are both on the ballot on enough states to win, and both are pretty widely covered in national polls. But Castle and McMullin don't seem to be major enough to warrant a place in the top section. It seems to me that they should stay in the Major third parties and independents section, but a place at the top makes the infobox unnecessarily cluttered. Should remove them from the infobox? pluma♫ ♯ 01:09, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there has been some chatter about McMullin and Utah. Potentially playing a spoiler role of some sort due to the Mormon disdain for Trump in the normally very red state. This is why we include people who have enough ballot access, including write-ins, to mathematically make 270 electoral votes. This is only pre-election. Post election has a different consensus. That of percentage of the popular vote gained. --Majora (talk) 01:16, 28 September 2016 (UTC)

I think we should merge this section with that of "write-ins" and "infobox inclusion, again". What say you? 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:18, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

They should be removed, unless we want to include all 300 people running for President. There should only be 4 in the infobox because there are only 4 in enough ballots for 270. No write-ins. KingAntenor (talk) 16:52, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

Castle and McMullen are not in the infobox. There was a discussion at [5] as to whether or not they should be added, but there is no consensus to add them. You can discuss it there if have something new to add to the discussion. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:06, 29 September 2016 (UTC)

They are indeed in the infobox. Clinton, Trump, and Johnson are on the top row, and Stein, Castle, and McMullin are on the bottom row. (I have no preference whether they are in or out, however.)    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:09, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Castle and McMullen will not appear on the ballot in enough states to win. Trump, Clinton, Johnson, and Stein will be on the ballot in nearly all states and have the potential to win without needing to rely solely on write-in access. Castle and McMullen should be removed from the infobox. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:58, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

Castle and McMullen should be included until we have consensus if we are going to delete them or not. Quite frankly, I'm sick of everyone making a mountain out a molehill on the inclusion of candidates that will have a marginal impact at best according to the polls. I'm fine either way with their inclusion or deletion since the next president is either named Hillary Clinton or Donald Trump.--Guiletheme (talk) 16:40, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

McMullen was deemed to not have the EVs needed to win even with write ins so he was removed, Castle though is another story. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:53, 30 September 2016 (UTC)

No, I think. It really isn't, of course, but I think that someone this unimportant, like a no one-knows-who Darrell Castle, has no reason to be put in. Let us use logic, and say that only the candidates who are able to win, without needing the write-ins, are included. But, then again, of course, they aren't disputing that with an opinion, as to who is getting on there. Stein and Johnson are featured in virtually – really, virtually – every single poll. Castle, and McMullin? Never, as far as I know – except for a few internal polls that might have been conducted. I lost the link to those, though. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:55, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

It's highly likely that Johnson, Stein, Castle & McMullin will all be excluded, after November 8. Having them all there for these last 5 weeks, won't do any harm. GoodDay (talk) 10:14, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

If a candidate or candidates receives at least 5% of the vote or a single electoral vote, those candidates should remain post-election. JC · Talk · Contributions 12:22, 1 October 2016 (UTC)

Was that page with the references supposed to be here? It did take up a lot of space. And we need to combine this section with three and four, anyways. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

If a candidate is legally viable, they should be in the infobox. Period. That includes write-ins. I don't think there's any argument about this. Real contenders should appear. If you get universal ballot access, you get to be in the top row. This is by far the most sensible way to do things. Determining their "major" status and polling numbers has nothing to do with it. You may be correct in saying Darrel Castle has no shot, but that's your opinion - there's no 100% objective standard to determine this. DaCashman (talk) 06:09, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. JC · Talk · Contributions 06:46, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

There is consensus for Castle to be included. I feel like people should stop removing him and he should be re-added. There is no consensus for the status quo version of the infobox because we already agreed that Castle would be included and that Johnson would be in the 1st row. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 09:18, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I think Castle should be included, even though it is extremely unlikely he will remain there past election day. McMullin currently is not on the ballot in enough states. I believe after election day only Trump, Clinton, and Johnson will still be there, but if they've got a shot at winning 270 EVs, however miniscule it is, they should be included. MB298 (talk) 20:23, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

Explain to me how Castle remains but McMullin cannot. Castle doesn't have 270, but the write-ins push him over, so does McMullin. JC · Talk · Contributions 20:28, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

My opinion here aligns with that of JCRules. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 21:24, 2 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the idea of "If a candidate or candidates receives at least 5% of the vote or a single electoral vote, those candidates should remain post-election," perhaps even lower. So long as they actually appeared on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win, were included in the national polls during the general, and/or received a noteworthy amount of the vote once the election took place, they should be currently present and remain in the infobox even after the general election takes place as they noticeably have at least some impact on the election, certainly more than the third party candidates have in the past. The same cannot be said for Castle. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:39, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

@Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin: When McMullin appears on the ballot in Colorado, New Mexico, Utah, and etc., it will not be saying "Independence Party of Minnesota". Instead, he will be on those ballots as an independent. It is best to refer to him as an independent on the infobox. JC · Talk · Contributions 17:53, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I see. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 17:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 October 2016

In the third paragraph of the lead section, can some editor please change the single misspelled instance of "Darrel Castle" to the correctly-spelled "Darrell Castle". Thanks.

64.105.98.115 (talk) 20:59, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

I have made the edit as requested. Another option would have been to just omit the first names of Castle and McMullin after their first mention. NameIsRon (talk) 21:07, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, but it's easier to request a spelling fix than a change of style. Thanks for making the edit. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 21:21, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 October 2016

Monica Moorehead has write-in status in Ohio, a source for this, and the correct electoral vote total, but Ohio isn't listed.

104.231.243.40 (talk) 22:55, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Done clpo13_(talk) 23:05, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Mc Mullin's ruining mate is Nathan Norman not Nathan Johnson

Please correct. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FB90:442F:DF45:0:3C:39F1:8501 (talk) 17:38, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

"Nathan Johnson" is correct; see https://www.evanmcmullin.com/politico_gets_it_wrong_on_mcmullin_vp_pick . Do note however that most sources covering this say that Johnson cannot now be substituted out on most ballots, contrary to the McMullin campaign's opinion found at that link. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 21:17, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

The rumor mill and a heads up

I'm sure everyone here has heard of the Access Hollywood tape. There are rumors circulating around the web as to whether Trump or Pence might actually withdraw from the race. If there's any validity to these, then we've got to be ready to re-edit this article. If Trump does, then we'll have to do a large section on that. If Pence does (which seems more likely at this stage), it'll of course be different. As of now, it obviously can't be in the article yet. But we should start thinking about itArglebargle79 (talk) 19:11, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I strongly suggest going slow in how we handle any such news (or, especially, rumors, speculation, innuendo and the like). Early voting has already started in many states, and misreporting anything might have real consequences, as it did when Wikipedia participated in misreporting about Grant Shapps. Moreover, any early reporting about such a move is likely to contain misinformation regardless. If Wikipedia prioritizes the earliest reporting over the most correct reporting, that will spread bad information. Having said that, if the GOP (or Trump, or Pence) makes any such move, of course the article must report it - but correctly. Giving minimal information is always preferable to giving false information, in matters with this sort of gravity. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 22:03, 8 October 2016 (UTC).

I don't want to get into a bias towards recent events here. Let's see how things play out over the next week. If this leads to a major change in the GOP ticket, than it should be included, if not, then it would lead to bias towards recent events and I agree with the above IP.--Guiletheme (talk) 06:17, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

New wonderful photo

Skidmore took a really good shot of Trump, in my opinion.

It's high quality, and he looks very good here. The current picture is 1.5 years old, and isn't relevant to everything that's been going on with Trump right now. He's a presidential candidate now. So are we doing this, or does someone actually have a problem with this? User1937 (talk) 08:37, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, that this is an appropriate and VERY recent photo of Trump. It was taken less than a week ago (and about 100 miles north of me, which is kind of cool but irrelevant). Anyway, the photo is current, it is realistic in that it captures some of Trump's distinctive skin coloring variegation (I am a Trump supporter and one of the 5 souls who actually am willing to list my name as a WikiProject Donald Trump member, so I am not making that remark with disparagement.) Trump looks his age here, which is an important concern in this election, as age and health are concerns for both the Democrat and GOP candidates. All that aside, the photo is well composed, in that Trump isn't tilting his head at an odd angle, doesn't have a podium microphone obscuring half his face, or any of the other problematic issues that we have found in considering what image to use for the infobox. Good find, User1937! I don't know if we'll be able to effect any actual change, as I spent some time last night on the Trump image discussion page, which has been quibbling about nuances of different photos for over two months with no end in sight. For what it is worth, I agree with you and would like to see this image of Trump used for the infobox.--FeralOink (talk) 09:22, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I agree! User1937 (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I've mostly stayed away from the discussion of particular Trump images, but this one looks to be superior to the others. If it can be used without first requiring a month's worth of discussion, I say use it. If it would require any significant portion of the remaining time before the election to agree, then any new image discussion is pointless regardless of quality. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 13:00, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I think so too. User1937 (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Feel free to add your comments. Hopefully we can finally reach consensus on a new photo, as this one is very good in my opinion! User1937 (talk) 14:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

• This is the best available portrait I've seen so far, and we've all seen many. Straight, no mic in the way, as natural an expression as we'll ever get. I've cropped the portrait here, and click this link for how the infobox looks with this picture. Unless legitimate opposition is voiced, I suggest we change the portrait in a few days. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:11, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment – There is widespread opposition to this picture at Talk:Donald Trump#New wonderful photo, so it doesn't look so "wonderful" to many editors and we should refrain from using it here. Better have a consistent picture across all Trump articles. — JFG ^talk 13:07, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

So it is. Too bad, let's just see how that other discussion ends and follow that consensus. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Remove the Constitution Party from infobox

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

---

Name a single national poll that includes them. This feels like an attempt at giving him free publicity. The party's not going to fare any better than any of the 300 nobodies not included in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.152.99 (talk) 12:53, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Please do! Earthscent (talk) 20:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

We use ballot access and/or write-in access as criteria for inclusion, not polling. Your viewpoint has already been rejected. This section is very unnecessary as there is already an RfC on the matter. I invite you to take your concerns there because any discussion here would just be a waste of time. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:14, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

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

We Need A Picture For Evan McMullin

It's been a long time since Evan McMullin was first put in the info-box. There are many images out there on the internet of him, but none on Wikipedia. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 21:35, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

McMullin is not in the infobox and there was never consensus to add him. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Here are four, randomly ordered images I found of him.

https://heavyeditorial.files.wordpress.com/2016/08/evan-mcmullin-twitter.jpeg?quality=65&strip=all&strip=all (I actually tried using this one before, but it got take down because it wasn't a fair-use image.)

http://theresurgent.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/09/Evan_McMullin_told_us_what-4eb034b5027dfac9ea6432e70f6f43c2-1144x858.jpg

https://static01.nyt.com/images/2016/08/08/us/08fd-mcmullin/08fd-mcmullin-jumbo.jpg

http://media.npr.org/assets/img/2016/08/08/mcmullin_wide-141f323a7ab77f56cf96f5e991fb993341bea68a-s900-c85.jpg

@Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin: We need to find a free image of him on the internet, though. The last image that somebody attempted to use was not free. —C.Fred (talk) 21:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@C.Fred: I was actually the one to try to use that "non-fair-use" image. I'd really like to know if somebody has been able to find a fair-use image of him. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 21:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

You can't claim fair use for an image of a living person. It's conceivable that a free image can be made available at some point, so therefore NFCC isn't met. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:57, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: Oh, okay. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 22:01, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

We should at least have a placeholder photo for McMullin. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 12:07, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Should this be in ITN?

There is a discussion regarding the suitability of this article for the "In the News" section of the main page on the project's talk page. Interested editors are invited to join the discussion. -Ad Orientem (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Request: add image from debate

File:United States second presidential debate, 2016.jpg

--Proud User (talk) 18:28, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I would consider just adding it to United States presidential election debates, 2016, there are already a lot of tables among other things in this article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:12, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 10 October 2016

Mike Maturen of the American Solidarity Party now has write-in access in enough Illinois counties to theoretically win the 20 electoral votes. This content:

|American Solidarity Party |Mike Maturen
sales professional and magician from Michigan |Juan Muñoz
of Texas |9
(192) |Colorado
(Alabama, Georgia, Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont)

should be changed to this:

|American Solidarity Party |Mike Maturen
sales professional and magician from Michigan |Juan Muñoz
of Texas |9
(203) |Colorado
(Alabama, Georgia, Illinois (Cook, Kane, Sangamon, and Dupage counties), Iowa, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Ohio, Oregon, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Texas, Vermont)

Note the addition of Illinois and its respective counties, and the new total of electoral votes.

Dhalsim2 (talk) 15:37, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

References

Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:19, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done I added IL for several candidates that have filed with most counties. Listing specific counties is not needed. Bcharles (talk) 17:47, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Remove the Constitution Party from debates list

According to both sources cited in the article – the news conference and the Facebook video – Castle doesn't qualify for the debates. Please change the number of qualified candidates to four, as the Free and Equal's foundation clearly states that only Clinton, Trump, Johnson, and Stein were invited, and not Castle. Since this is the criteria for the "major candidates" section and "conventions" section as well, he must be removed from there as well.

198.84.229.179 (talk) 01:57, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

•  Not done Read the comments to the video. They commented saying Castle would be included. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 09:59, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Just go to that first page, the source says not Castle, just Johnson and Stein. And, watch the video, it shows pictures of Stein and Johnson, but never mentions Castle or McMullin. Even the thumbnail of the first result on the other source (Facebook) puts their October 4 post, a video, at the top. It gives Trump, Stein, Johnson, and Clinton (why that order?) and not Castle. Anyways, if they've invited Castle, they would've extended the same invitation to McMullin to now. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Well I'm not sure why they aren't making their invitation more public, but once again on that video they replied to a Facebook user complaining about Castle not being invited that he was in fact invited. It's very likely McMullin was invited too but I'll ask them so we can get confirmation. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 17:19, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks very much for that, Prcc27. As much as I disapprove of those two in either the debate or the infobox here, it is definitely a healthy move to ask for fair representation, as it seems Virgil Goode and the others also went, in 2012. But either remove both of the sources about the debates and their invitations or get them to fix it, if either Castle or McMullin were indeed invited. We can't say one thing on the article, but point and direct readers to a contradictory "fact". 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Free and Equal responded that they had invited anyone who was on the ballot for at least 10% of voters. That adds Castle, De La Fuente, La Riva, McMullin, and Kennedy. I updated the article. Bcharles (talk) 18:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Free and Equal has apparently updated their criteria to ballot lines for 15% of electoral vote. That barely keeps McMullin and narrowly excludes Kennedy (SWP). Bcharles (talk) 19:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Evan McMullin photo

I realize the infobox says 'Please consult the talk page before changing photos in the infobox for this page', although in this case, none existed at all for Evan McMullin, and I was able to find one I could reasonably massage into a photo that could be used here. If someone has better, that would be excellent of course, but I equally suspect this is better than 'none at all' and IMHO isn't a really bad image. Skybunny (talk) 19:06, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Awesome work extracting that portrait. I think it was perfectly justified not to consult the talk page since McMullin's portrait has not been the subject of dispute so far. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:16, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I also support your addition of the photo in this particular context Orser67 (talk) 03:13, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

McMullin is not in the infobox and a neutral administrator has determined that there is no consensus to add him (or any other write-in candidates) to the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 17:53, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sparkie82: He's not in the infobox because you removed him yourself. Please name this "neutral administrator" and the specific discussion of which this occurred, because there was no consensus to remove these candidates. JC · Talk · Contributions 17:59, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

@JCRules: See: [6] and please remove the challenged edit you just reinstated to the page. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:12, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

He was not in the infobox before this over-sized discussion got started and his addition (and the addition of any write-ins) has been continually challenged. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:15, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

While Castle and McMullan should not be in the infobox because of the general rules for these things (neither have been recognized by any national pollsters, while Stein and Johnson have), McMullen has been listed in a number of state polls, and is in a statistical tie with Trump and Clinton in Utah (!). The question is: Not whether Castle will be on the infobox NOW (it looks better aesthetically with six instead of five), it's whether or not Stein will be there on November 9th. Henry Wallace isn't in the infobox for 1948, nor is Harry Byrd Sr in 1960's. If McMullen wins Utah, and I'm not saying that he will, only that it's well within the realm of possibility, he should be in the infobox ahead of Johnson, who will get far more popular votes than him no matter what happens. In 1860, Steven Douglas came in 4th in the electoral college while coming in second in the popular vote.

Regardless, Castle is not a major candidate and shouldn't be up there, but leave him there anyway.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:46, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Would this photo of Evan McMullin maybe work a little better? I'm not sure how to crop it correctly, but if anyone feels it's better than the one that's currently being used, please go ahead and get it formatted correctly. Sterling32157 (talk) 16:50, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There is one candidate missing on this table

Other major candidates

Main article: Democratic Party presidential candidates, 2016

The following candidates were frequently interviewed by major broadcast networks and cable news channels, and were listed in publicly published national polls. Lessig was invited to one forum, but withdrew when rules were changed which prevented him from participating in officially sanctioned debates.

Clinton received 16,849,779 votes in the primary.

@Sammythesquirrel123: STOP. Although this edit came from an IP address, it is obvious that you or an individual editing under this username is one and the same due to the similar grammar and infatuation with Rocky De La Fuente. I can give you a summary of why De La Fuente is not included in the infobox. First off, he was included in no notable polls. No media outlet considered him a major candidate. The entire reason he received as much votes as he did is because his unviable campaign stayed in longer and appeared on more ballots than the major candidates that dropped out. There were only two major candidates after the withdrawal of Martin O'Malley Iowa caucus, and the majority of his votes either came from people who wanted to protest against Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders. In fact, De La Fuente would not even meet Wikipedia's general notability guideline had he not run for president, and did not even receive major media coverage after his inclusion. Owning car dealerships and being a businessman does not make one eligible for inclusion on Wikipedia. Also, you need to answer this question: Are you Rocky De La Fuente, someone who knows him or paid by his campaign?--Guiletheme (talk) 07:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

I dont know who samythesquirrel123 is, the only thing i want is wikipedia to have all its information complete and rigth and if i see that there is a candidate that should be on one place or another i am going to say it and if he has better numbers that other candidates i dont see why you dont want to have it there

@Guiletheme: STOP.. Wikipedia is represented to be “a free online encyclopedia that allows its users to edit almost any article… (and) the largest and most popular general reference work on the Internet...” The terms “encyclopedia” and “general reference work” would appear to suggest that all credible information (properly referenced) should be accessible to the public rather than just that which complies with the opinion of a single individual. While you may choose to demean me personally and the information in general, the reasons given for Rocky De La Fuente’s exclusion are at best sophistic. While it is correct to state that De La Fuente was not included in the “notable polls,” it would be naïve not to recognize that individuals without instant name recognition are never included in such polls. In fact, Lawrence Lessig wasn’t initially included in the polls even though he has a nationally recognized reputation in a related field of study. I also find it interesting that you are so readily willing to dismiss the only poll that actually counts: the poll in which citizens cast their votes. You do not seem to have a problem with the extremely short campaigns of Lincoln Chafee or Jim Webb, neither of whom campaigned beyond the month of October (the same month that De La Fuente entered the race). You also seem to think their inclusion in a few polls outweighs the 67,457 votes De La Fuente received as compared to the zero, two and four votes that Chafee, Webb and Lessig received, respectively. Correspondingly, you categorically state that “the majority of his votes either came from people who wanted to protest against Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.” I have looked for a citation that could corroborate that claim, but I have yet to find one. Conversely, De La Fuente happens to have competed longer and received more votes than any Hispanic American in Democratic presidential primary history. It might be reasonable to conclude that a certain percentage of the 67,457 votes that De La Fuente received (and certainly more than the 6 total votes the Messrs. Chafee, Webb and Lessig collectively received) just might have reflected legitimate votes for De La Fuente as opposed to the assumption that they were cast in protest of one of the other candidates. In fact, it is highly probable that Latino voters felt a pride similar to that of the 95 percent of African American voters who cast a ballot for President Obama in his last two election cycles. To dismiss De La Fuente’s importance to the Latino community and deny that community a role model borders on a type of bias we all try to avoid. As for the assertion that De La Fuente “did not even receive major media coverage after his inclusion” (in Wikipedia), I must assume that networks like ABC , CBS and NBC don’t count. Correspondingly, the significant coverage he received from Hispanic television must not count either (i.e., the ongoing coverage he received from Azteca, Telemundo, Univision, etc., including a nightly series by Azteca and interviews by Jorge Ramos on Al Punto). Finally, neither Wikipedia nor the presidency is reserved to individuals who have already established generic fame in a specific field. Every political candidate runs for a first time at some point. De La Fuente is relatively well known in his prior fields of accomplishment. While Lessig had a political element associated with his academic reputation, even that wasn’t enough to initially include him in the polls; it took money (i.e., he began to outraise Hillary Clinton, so the media was forced to acknowledge him). On the other hand, those with a political pedigree often are born into it rather than meriting it based on personal accomplishment. For example, Chafee simply followed in his father’s footsteps and built upon the family name. He even was named to the United States Senate upon his father’s death rather than having initially earned the seat. So, the question becomes: Who deserves inclusion? I would recommend erring on the side of a minority candidate who was a “Survivor” of the primary because he did it in a way that reflects the motto of that popular show: Outwit, Outplay and Outlast. In addition, he remains in the race, has a theoretical path to 270 electoral votes, and has garnered the nomination of the Reform Party; a party that was formed around another businessman who lacked any political experience, Ross Perot. In answer to your last question, I happen to have met De La Fuente at an event and was impressed by his sincerity and also by the respect he demonstrated for a homeless man I saw him encounter when he was leaving. It’s not something I suspect I would have seen from either of the leading presidential candidates this year. Do I think he can win? No. Do I think Hispanic Americans deserve to know that he ran? Yes. Do I think he deserves to be treated with dignity and respect? Yes. I believe you do as well, so I won’t demand that you answer whether you have allowed political or any other bias to enter into your decision process. De La Fuente’s inclusion or exclusion will speak volumes.Pablo1291 (talk) 02:45, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not convinced with your capricious interpretation of what Wikipedia is, media coverage and the polls. I'm not going to change my mind about De La Fuente's inclusion nor the inclusion criteria because of your personal feelings about him. However, I'm not in charge of that. You're welcome to put a request for comment tag on this sub-comment section and see if any editors with a substantial, varied edit history who isn't part of the handful that have edited Rocky De La Fuente articles advocating for him and nothing else on Wikipedia will support his inclusion.--Guiletheme (talk) 07:07, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

If anyone thinks it gives added relevance to this discussion, Ballot Access News editor Richard Winger said that De La Fuente is now a confirmed write-in in California. I would also like to add that, despite his low numbers in both primaries, he overcame significant petition requirements. He had to get 10K signatures in North Carolina, as well as 12K in Michigan. He also had more ballot access in the primaries than Martin O'Malley. However, he still wasn't on every primary ballot like Clinton and Sanders. He missed the ballot in New York, the the FLDP kept him off the ballot in Florida. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.120.101.23 (talk) 22:47, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

California Write-Ins

Today, while talking about the record number of write-ins in this year's election, ballot access expert Richard Winger mentioned that both Rocky De La Fuente and Evan McMullin had qualified as write-ins in California. The actual write-in list in California doesn't come out for a few more weeks, but this is a very reliable source saying that these two men have qualified and not just filed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.120.101.23 (talk) 21:02, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Source: [7] Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:45, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

BAN points to Green Papers listing two candidates, but also notes that California has not released any info yet. I have no idea where Green Papers got their info as they give no source. Bcharles (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

De La Fuente's website also lists Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, Oregon, Virginia, and Washington as confirmed write-in states that are not currently listed on Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.120.101.23 (talk) 20:04, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

I did not find this on his website. Could you post a specific link to the page. Bcharles (talk) 05:07, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

On the front page of Rocky2016.com, there is a map that looks to be based off of the 270towin.com color chart. Also, as a further note, Connecticut has been added to the list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.120.101.23 (talk) 22:00, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps it is the browser i am using, but i do not see any map on the front page of Rocky2016.com. Could someone else confirm if they see a map or not? Bcharles (talk) 16:49, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Swing state Utah?

So, the 4 sites we use to catalog states as swing states have Utah as "Lean R" (RCP and Sabato) and "Likely R" (Roth. and Cook). New polls have shown a close race due to McMullin's numbers. Should we put Utah in the Swing states box? I say this considering, for example that PA is rated "Lean D" by 3 of them and "Likely D" by one of them. --yeah_93 (talk) 19:51, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Im not sure, nobody is calling the state a tossup yet. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 19:53, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Utah is quite an interesting situation. Perhaps wait for a few more polls to come out, but I agree, the dynamics of the race has definitely changed a lot with the recent surge of McMullin. Sleepingstar (talk) 09:28, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Other states not marked as "tossup" by any site are included. I think the criteria should be being rated as "tossup" by at least one site or being rated as "lean" by at least two sites. So Utah and possibly other states should be included. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 10:42, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

I updated the ratings with all states in which at least one of Rothenberg, Sabato, or Cook had a rating other than safe. I didn't do the same with RCP because their ratings seem to be quite a bit different and frankly I don't know if they're a reliable source in the same way as the other three sites (for example, I've seen reliable media sources cite the other three, but I've never seen anyone refer to RCP's race ratings). Orser67 (talk) 18:33, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

The latest is that it's now "lean McMullin" he's ahead in he latest polling.Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:25, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Result of election

At what point do we decide that we have a result for this election, and e.g. start describing one of the candidates as "president-elect"? What if Trump appears to have lost but refuses to concede defeat? PatGallacher (talk) 12:59, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

I would suspect we would go with whatever reliable sources were saying; if they call HRC president-elect then we would too, and simply note whatever view Trump takes or if he is exercising legal options to change the result(assuming they call HRC president-elect despite that). 331dot (talk) 13:01, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

If a candidate is certified of winning the necessary electoral votes by the Secretary of State or voting authority of each state, then they should be noted as President-elect. The only time I would advocate against that is if we have a repeat of the 2000 election where a decisive state is in limbo and has not certified their results.--Guiletheme (talk) 21:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Russia?

I find it shocking that there isn't one mention of Russia in the article, considering how much it's been in discussion, especially considering the US has accused them of trying to alter the election. What's the reasoning this isn't in the article? --47.188.47.96 (talk) 14:07, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Formal announcement of such only occurred on Friday. There isn't much info out at this point. This will require careful wording. Objective3000 (talk) 15:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Why 2 tiers of candidates in info box,w with Gary Johnson on top?

Can someone explain how the decision was made to privilege Johnson in this way? Reps. and Dems. on top - everyone else beneath I would understand, but what was the rationale for this 2-tier info box?E.M.Gregory (talk) 21:00, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Johnson will appear on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC, which is our criterion for being included in the top row. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:53, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Constitution Party ballot access map

According to the "Ballot Access" page on the CP website [8], the party has ballot access in Nebraska and Connecticut. Would someone please add this to the map? --1990'sguy (talk) 21:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Someone has done this. Bcharles (talk) 17:58, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Roque Rocky De La Fuente

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

---

Hi I would like to ad Roque De La Fuente to the infobox due that there are people on it that have the same characteristics than him, and he even have better numbers that some of the people that are at this moment in it. [9] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammythesquirrel123 (talk • contribs) 05:34, October 5, 2016 (UTC)

@Sammythesquirrel123: The criteria for being included in the infobox is having ballot and write-in access to at least 270 electoral votes. At this time, De La Fuente has access to 192 electoral votes. If he gains access to 78 more electoral votes, then he will be listed in the infobox, but that is the pre-election criteria. With current consensus, if De La Fuente receives at least 5% of the national popular vote or at least one electoral vote, then he would be listed in the infobox post-election. JC · Talk · Contributions 05:53, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

User:Sammythesquirrel123, De La Fuente does not match the metrics for inclusion. Judging from your edit history, there also might be a possible conflict of interest. Are you affiliated with the De La Fuente campaign or know him personally? While that's not a disqualifier on contributing to Wikipedia, you're welcome to explain your connection to the campaign so we can best help you contribute here.--Guiletheme (talk) 07:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I am starting to wonder that here as well, this user has been overly eager when it comes to De La Fuente. I understand the passion in this election but @Guiletheme: it has already been explained to Sammythesquirrel123 about the inclusion criteria, nothing has changed since then. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:18, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I‘m a latino who wants neutral information about the elections. Wikipedia should be unbiased and show real information about the candidates. Roque is clearly a more important candidate than the last 3 candidates on the table (Lessig, Chafee, Webb).Sammythesquirrel123 (talk) 03:55, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sammythesquirrel123: All of your contributions have been related to Rocky De La Fuente and I'm just going to come out and ask what everyone is thinking: Do you work for the De La Fuente campaign? And with the innate knowledge of his campaigns contributed from this account, are you Rocky De La Fuente or has Mr. De La Fuente used this account to contribute to Wikipedia? If so, then as a former political consultant and veteran Wikipedia editor, I will tell you that this is a not a good look for the De La Fuente campaign since Wikipedia frowns upon conflicts of interest. Contributions to Wikipedia where an editor is advocating for an entity they have material interest in, especially in politics is highly discouraged, such as the United States Congressional staff edits to Wikipedia. Second of all, Lessig, Chafee and Webb are not in the infobox and have suspended their campaigns. Third, if we were to go with your criteria, it would be considered tendentious editing. We do not include candidates in the infobox because of their ethnicity or the editor's personal opinion as you can see in the spirited discussion above as to whether or not McMullin or Castle should be included because of their write-in access which could theoretically get them to 270 or more electoral votes. While it is too late in most states to get ballot or write-in access for the 2016 election, the only way De La Fuente can be included in the infobox is if he has a path to 270 electoral votes through ballot access or write-in votes. Before we discuss this further, I'd like you to answer if you are Rocky De La Fuente or connected to his campaign in any way.--Guiletheme (talk) 21:34, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I want to add that we have a conflict of interest noticeboard, please answer the question as this can be a big deal regarding article neutrality. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:41, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that you guys are making this personal and the one who is paying for the discussion is this guy Rocky, a friend of mine voted for him and is a big fan, according to my friend ¨is the only true latino candidate¨ I was checking his information on Wikipedia and he had more votes than Chafee, Lessing and Webb. Also the guy withdrew the candidacy in the convention a lot after the other guys.

Rocky has according to Wikipedia article United States third-party and independent presidential candidates, 2016 has access to 314 votes. So if your criteria to be in the info box as you said is to 270 electoral votes, he qualifies.

I am a huge fan of Wikipedia but this arguments are the ones that make people doubt a lot about who manages it. Wikipedia is about giving everyone the access to the best information and this candidate in this case has to be part of it.

If you really want to be neutral and helpful check the dudes information and add him where he has to be added. At the beginning I thought he was a joke candidate, but he has come a very long way and is legit. So to keep this short I finish with this ¨Traditional media has always influenced everyone, that is why the internet is so powerful, but is a huge responsibility.¨ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 16:35, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Our best efforts are toward keeping this non-personal and non-partisan. De La Fuente (along with Castle and McMullin) fell short of ballot lines for 270 electoral votes in the general election. Including states with write-in filings has been controversial (see the above call for consensus), but may prevail. De La Fuente still has not reached that threshold, though he may as days go by. If you know of sources that include additional general election filings, please post them here. Bcharles (talk) 18:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I hope this isn't related. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:22, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Clarinetcousin: The only reason why he came in fourth in the Democratic primaries was because he stayed in the race. Governor Martin O'Malley stayed only until the Iowa caucuses, the first election in the race, and ended up with more votes than De La Fuente would get throughout the entire race. And where did you get the 314 electoral votes? The sources state that De La Fuente has only 206 electoral votes to win, 64 electoral votes short of the threshold. Considering that this is your first edit on Wikipedia, I'm thinking that you are affiliated with the De La Fuente campaign, among other accounts, which is a conflict of interest. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 18:24, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Conflict of interest applies to editing articles. Pointing out concerns and discussing them on a talk page is appropriate behavior regardless. Bcharles (talk) 19:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Reality is adding Darrell Castle, a candidate that's never been featured in any serious national poll, invites everyone and their mother to be added in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.152.99 (talk) 19:54, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@74.59.152.99: Castle is on the infobox because he achieved ballot and write-in access to at least 270 electoral votes, which only six candidates have been able to accomplish. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 20:15, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm well aware of why he is included, I'm saying that the decision to include him openly invites supporters from other fringe candidates to advocate for their inclusion. Write-in access is the only reason he gets over 270, and Mickey Mouse can get ballot access as a write-in. It's just not serious for Wikipedia to disregard the political reality that Castle isn't included in any polling, state wide or nationwide. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.152.99 (talk) 20:40, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

GUYS WIKIPEDIA IS ABOUT POSTING THE TRUTH. If you apply the same criteria to this De La Fuente as with Castle and McMullin he should be there.

I am not part of his campaign so don´t try to destroy my arguments by saying that. Even if I was, what will the problem be of saying something true and supported by other Wikipedia article? Is not that I am telling you to post that he is the best candidate (which by the way he is not hahaha), but the dude deserves to be there that is all I am saying.

Here the article;

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_third-party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2016

He is the Reform Party Candidate.

If you place McMullin and Castle and not Rocky you are being bias. This is not a ranking of how famous a candidate is, or giving your interpretation about why he was fourth of where his votes came from. Is about being fair. Showing the people the truth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 20:25, October 18, 2016 (UTC)

Until De La Fuente gets ballot or write-in access to 270 or more electoral votes, he has no criteria for inclusion. And your reasoning is extremely poor. We're not going to include people because of their ethnicity or what your "friend" thinks about him, nor will we blindly follow a new user/IP that has exclusively advocated for him after users have been blocked for Conflicts of Access because they were linked to De La Fuente's campaign. For all the new users and IP addresses here that have advocated for De La Fuente, as representatives of his campaign either as supporters/associates/paid staff, your monotonous, agenda-driven and blatantly promotional conduct reflects poorly on your candidate and the campaign you are running. Ironically, you're getting people to have less respect for your candidate instead of more.--Guiletheme (talk) 10:17, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Nice Guiletheme, you didn't´t even check the information I provided that shows that is able to be in the info box. I don´t like the ¨ethnicity¨thing you said because it has nothing to do with it, but I get it you are one of those guys that are afraid of being wrong and don´t care what bias resource he uses to get his way. You have a big responsibility, but you haven't been up to the task. Continue your super Wikipedia career! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 14:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

And by the way I am jew, which I know you don´t care because you are bias. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 14:43, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

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

Why are we including third parties/other candidates in the infobox?

Please look through the current discussions on the talk page before opening a new topic.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Why are we including third party candidates like Green, Libertarian, Evan McMullin etc. We have kept it at the two major candidates for the past articles. Why are we breaking that precedent now? It's highly unlikely that they will win anything and it just takes up space. At this point, we should put a list of every candidate running for President. Sp, can somebody please explain to me why we are putting them in? Are we going to remove them after the election is over? Nike4564 (talk) 20:49, 18 October 2016 (UTC) There isn't a precedent being broken. This was done in 2012, see here. And, we don't speculate on Wikipedia. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 20:52, 18 October 2016 (UTC) Please discuss this issue in the RfC above- not here. Thanks. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:05, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Post Election Infobox

I am just wondering what the conditions will be for including a candidate in the info box after the election. Would a third party candidate have to win an electoral vote to be included, or what percentage of the popular vote would they need to achieve? Ralph Nader got 2.74% and wasn't included in 2000, so I'm just wondering what the requirements will be. Chandler (talk) 04:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

At least one pledged electoral vote or at least 5% of the popular vote. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes ,as in all this complaining about how the info-box looks ect... should go away. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:18, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Suggested correction

Hello, Due to the blocking of page I can not edit, I think there is a mistake, if we will put to the presidential candidates by order we should add Mr. Roque De la Fuente nominated by the Reform Party which leaves him for most votes in the number ranked 6th among the candidates, however those shown are (Laurence Kotlikoff and EvanMcMullin), just this error would be corrected, thus avoiding editing into war by the editors. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ursawarrior (talk • contribs) 16:23, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Your god is now on the infobox since he met the criteria. Now that it's occurred, I hope the edits from new users and anonymous IPs advocating for De La Fuente and nothing else will stop.--Guiletheme (talk) 21:44, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Alert to possible CTR meddling in this page

As it is known to the public, the Hillary Clinton Super PAC called Correct the Record has presence everywhere in the Web, including Wikipedia.

It has come to my attention that since the surge of Stein/Baraka's ticket to 6% in the latest IBD/TIPP Poll, people have been trying to imply there's more than 4 choices in this Election Cycle, including irrelevant Campaigns in this Article's infobox like the ones of Darrel Castle, Evan McMullin and Laurence Kotlikoff. The goal of these edits seems to be to dilute the gained legitimacy Stein's and Johnson's campaigns, so that the candidate that receives the biggest impact from Third/Fourth Parties, Hillary Clinton, gets some type of advantage. I ask all Wikipedia Editors that share the same type of goodwill and compromise to neutrality to keep an eye out for this.

It's strange for the wider public, that is used to Libertarian and Green Townhalls now, to be informed of the supposed existence of three additional tickets. This could mean to them that Wikipedia has a biased position in this year's Election. It would damage the reputation of the good people that put legit efforts in these articles. I would hate to see that happening. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2804:14C:B385:1BF:E473:3F45:CD9C:1510 (talk) 19:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

So far this is actually keeping with the system that was established for the 2012 Presidential Election, where by the end we had six candidates in the Infobox, Darrell Castle and Rocky Anderson being included on account of Write-Ins. The problem with Write-Ins however is that they are often recognized quite late, there are still a couple States holding off on confirmation, so it can and will cause a small bump in the number shown when those validations are made. And on the contrary I believe that it improves the neutral position of Wikipedia as it holds to the very minimum requirements one needs in order to attain the Presidency, a bar many candidates, even when accounting Write-Ins, fail to pass. --Ariostos (talk) 19:13, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Can you show us some concrete proof that Correct the Record is here and doing something against Wikipedia rules or is this another attempt to right a great wrong? Our consensus for inclusion at the moment is 270 votes attainable through ballot access or write-in votes. As I have said to the fervent advocates of a certain gentleman running a third-party campaign for President, we are not going to be convinced, swayed or intimidated by anyone's personal opinions. I don't care what cause or candidate anyone is shilling for, but they're not going to do it at Wikipedia.--Guiletheme (talk) 21:40, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Order of the list of candidates in the infobox

There is a clear consensus that the first row of the infobox should contain the Democratic Party candidate and the Republican Party candidate. The candidate whose party received more electoral votes in the previous election should be on the left; the second candidate should be on the right.

There is insufficient discussion on whether third parties' candidates should be listed in the infobox or how they should be ordered. More discussion is needed if editors want to resolve those issues.

Cunard (talk) 22:27, 3 July 2016 (UTC)

There is a long-standing consensus based on discussions in previous presidental articles that presidental general election candidates who have ballot access sufficient to have a mathematical possibility to reach a majority (270) of electoral votes are including in the infobox. The consensus regarding the order of candidates (from this discussion) is that the order is based on previous electoral results, not an arbitrary selection of particular parties. The issue of whether to arrange the candidates as two-per-row or four-per-row was not the subject of this question and there is no consensus on that. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:53, 4 July 2016 (UTC)

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

---

What should the order of the list of candidates in the infobox be? Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Scope: U.S. Presidential (general) Elections

(Publicized at: Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums, Talk:United_Kingdom_general_election,_2015, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics_of_the_United_Kingdom, Talk:Australian_federal_election,_2016, Talk:Icelandic_presidential_election,_2016, Talk:National_electoral_calendar_2016, Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Politics)

Background: Broad consensus has been reached as to which candidates are included in the infobox in presidential elections, however, despite much discussion on the issue, there has never been a firm consensus as to how they are ordered. Previous suggestions include alphabetically, an aesthetic criterion, by ballot access, by poll results, or some other order. Summary of advantages/disadvantages:

Aesthetically - Advantages: Looks nice, graphic quality. Disadvantages: Imprecise, more subjective.

Alphabetically - Advantages: Fair, simple, precise and unambiguous. Disadvantages: Doesn't give extra weight to potentially stronger candidates.

Ballot access - Advantages: Gives extra weight to potentially stronger candidates. Disadvantages: Perception of bias toward established parties, the order changes as ballot access changes.

Poll results - Advantages: Provides a rough indication of candidate's popular support. Disadvantages: The actual election is not based on popular support, polls are unreliable, subject to bias and constantly changing.

Other criterion? Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC)

Comments:

Extended content

Alphabetically - This method is precise and fair, and once settled on, it avoids all future arguments among editors as to which candidates/parties should get "extra weight" in the infoboxes. The order doesn't constantly change based on external factors which are sometimes ambiguous and potential biased. This also more closely follows WP guidelines on the order of lists. Regarding WP:Weight, all of the candidates in the infobox have achieved a threshold that separates them from the hundreds of others who are unlikely to be elected. The difference in elect-ability between a candidate that has 50-state ballot access and one who has 47-state access is inconsequential. Although two parties have dominated U.S. politics for some time, this can change (and historically has changed). Differences between the candidates who have made the cut and appear in the infobox are best handled within the body of the article where the subtleties of weight can be better addressed. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:11, 31 May 2016 (UTC) What is the scope of this RFC? It's phrased and advertised as if it's relevant to all elections, but the argument and forum suggests that it's relevance is limited to US presidential elections. The scope needs to be clarified before continuing. Rami R 12:14, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Thank you. I've clarified in the proposal that the scope is for U.S. presidential (general) elections. Sparkie82 (t•c) 12:19, 31 May 2016 (UTC) @Sparkie82: do you mean future/on-going presidential elections, or all presidential elections? Ebonelm (talk) 16:15, 31 May 2016 (UTC) The RfC is for this article (United_States_presidential_election, 2016). If it results in a firm consensus with a clear standard, then the consensus could be relied upon for 2020, 2024... Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC) Note that this covers the pre-election time period. I believe that there already is a consensus to sort the candidates by actual electoral votes received post-election. Sparkie82 (t•c) 02:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC) Is this meant to address the same issue currently discussed in #Ballot access and the infobox above? If so, will you add a comment there to avoid splitting discussion? 64.105.98.115 (talk) 14:29, 31 May 2016 (UTC) They overlap but are not precisely the same. This RfC is about ordering the candidates, that one is about how to break that order up into rows. (I encourage everyone here to participate in that discussion as well.) Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:34, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Tradition – US elections have essentially been a two-party system for more than a century, so the first row should reflect this reality, otherwise many readers would be confused. Second-row candidates and beyond can be listed alphabetically. For the ordering of the first row, tradition places the incumbent party on the left and the challenging party on the right, i.e. no change from today's placement. — JFG talk 19:44, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Tradition - I see no reason to change a long standing practice done in books, and encyclopedias alike. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:18, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Tradition/keep prior consensus The candidates were consistently sorted by ballot access throughout 2012, with the incumbent party in the first spot. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:32, 31 May 2016 (UTC) Comment - Some newer !votes support using past electoral results to determine the order. This carries an implication that only parties with prior success will have success in the future, which is a subtle case of WP:CRYSTAL. Ballot access is purely objective and reflects a current rather than past situation. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 05:17, 7 June 2016 (UTC) The implication is what you make of it. It is certainly not WP:CRYSTAL since we're not adding any further information. You'll agree that we must find an order, and any order will carry some perceived bias. How exactly do you suggest to order parties with equal ballot access? There are two issues here: inclusion and order. I agree that ballot access should be the criteria for incusion. However, for ordering the candidate, this page should use the same method used on all election articles across WP: previous election results. Ballot access is not precise enough, polls are too volatile, and alphabetical gives undue weight to any minor party whose name startswith A. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC) Tradition - If we are going to include 3rd Party candidates in the infobox, let's not pretend they are as important as the two major parties. --yeah_93 (talk) 01:30, 1 June 2016 (UTC) We need to summarize in the same way as reliable sources. At the moment, they describe this election in a 2+1+1+others way, so Dem/Rep on first line, Lib/Green on second, and lets see if any others get ballot access. Revisit if a 3rd party rises sufficiently to get access to debates (15% in polls). Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:10, 1 June 2016 (UTC) My default position for an upcoming election is to list candidates in order of how well they did last time: that's the usual approach on most election articles and seems sensible. If reliable sources/polls are consistently showing something else, then I would switch to that (recognising that "consistently" can be difficult to define). Were we to get to a point where, say, Stein was consistently being talked about as having a serious chance of winning, but Johnson was being ignored by RS as an irrelevance, then I think the infobox should reflect that. (I do not believe that outcome will happen.) Bondegezou (talk) 09:29, 1 June 2016 (UTC) I think that Bondegezou's suggestion (ordered by votes in previous general election) is a good one. In general I would favour some sort of simple, objective criterion; it will hopefully minimize both arguing about the order and about whether wikipedia is taking/should take a political POV. Second preference would be for alphabetical order (though probably it should be clarified whether you mean alphabetical by party name or by candidates name, and if the latter what you intend to do whilst two of the candidates are still unconfirmed).Caeciliusinhorto (talk) 13:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC) Tradition - The Democrats & Republicans should get the top row. A third & fourth party can be added to the top line if they win any electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 14:09, 1 June 2016 (UTC) Previous result is, I believe, the only method that is impartial, non-arbitrary and rooted in actual facts. It settles the issue once and for all and it has the advantage of mirroring the order used for other election articles (e.g. Canadian federal elections). Specifically, I would order the candidates by their parties' electoral votes in the last election. The tie-breaker would be the popular vote in the previous election. As a second (unlikely) tie-breaker--for example if two brand new parties qualify--we can go alphabetically, either by party or by candidate's last name, or ballot access, whichever the community prefers. In short I suggest we order the parties according to: Party's electoral vote in the last election Party's popular vote in the last election Party's ballot access in the current election Alphabetically by party's short name Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:58, 1 June 2016 (UTC) If no consensus can be reached regarding using alphabetical order, then previous results is preferable to just arbitrarily selecting the Democrats and Republicans to always go first. I'd suggest always putting the incumbent first because sometimes the incumbent will not have the most electoral votes (or no votes, e.g., Ford) or a candidate could switch parties while in office. Then sort the remaining candidates by the candidates'/parties' previous electoral votes, treating "independent" like a party. If there is more than one independent in the infobox, then sort them alphabetically in place. I agree that popular vote could be used as a tie-breaker. Also, I think that the incumbent should be indicated as "incumbent" or "incumbent party" and the previous vote totals shown in the infobox so the sorting order is explicit. If an election was settled in the House then also include those votes in the infobox. Sparkie82 (t•c) 20:33, 5 June 2016 (UTC) I agree that the incumbent candidate or their party should be put first. I think adding other info like incumbency and previous results is too much. Th infobox is cluttered enough as it. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:11, 6 June 2016 (UTC) Actually, including previous total electoral votes prior to the election is less information than is included after the election. Also, including the word "incumbent" is no more than including the word "presumptive", which is currently there for two of the candidates. Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC) I misunderstood, I thought you wanted to include that information even after the election. I'm not against including it until Election Day. However, I still think writing "incumbent" is not needed. That information is included on the infobox's bottom left corner already. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:59, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Rank by electoral college votes in the previous election or, if did not earn an electoral college vote in the previous election, by rank in polls or (if no polls) ballot access.--Proud User (talk) 23:18, 4 June 2016 (UTC) FWIW, if we had stuck with my original idea of not putting any prez or vice prez nominees in the infobox, until after the presidential election results? There'd be no disputing over order of candidates, who to include, when to include etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 16:04, 5 June 2016 (UTC) Traditional Images are sorted by previous electoral college results. No mess. Easy to follow. Less drama if we stick with what we know works. --Majora (talk) 01:31, 7 June 2016 (UTC) What if the sitting president (or their party) did not receive the most electoral votes in the previous election? Sparkie82 (t•c) 00:18, 8 June 2016 (UTC) @Sparkie82: I think you confused electoral college votes with the popular vote. While the winner of the popular vote has not become president four times (most recently in 2000), the candidate who receives the most electoral college votes becomes the President 99.9% of the time. The only time this could not occur is if nobody receives a majority. Then Congress picks and could, in theory, pick someone else. This has not happened since 1824 and is unlikely to happen again. If and when that occurs then we can come up with a different consensus. Until then, we go by the last electoral college results. --Majora (talk) 00:33, 8 June 2016 (UTC) I was referring to the cases in which the House decides, or a president switches parties mid-term, or when a president is not elected at all, e.g., Ford. The possibility of no majority is actually pretty high this year, in fact, one possible strategy being discussed for an alternate candidate is to appear on the ballot in a few key states in order to deny a majority and then win in the House. If the list of candidates is not sorted alphabetically, then I think the incumbent should be first, and the rest sorted by electoral votes (or votes in the House if the election is decided that way.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 01:01, 8 June 2016 (UTC) Alphabetical. This seems the most fair to me. NinjaRobotPirate (talk) 07:01, 14 June 2016 (UTC) I reverted the edit of 04:11, 24 May 2016 by Antony-22 (which added a consensus infobox to this talk page) because we have not yet reached a consensus here. (That edit was made during a previous discussion on the same issue.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 11:37, 14 June 2016 (UTC) Actually it's pretty clear that we reached consensus given the overwhelming majority of opinions in favor of keeping the previous ordering. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:04, 14 June 2016 (UTC) It seems unlikely that we will gain a consensus to order the candidates alphabetically at this time. Given that, I propose using the following criteria for this and future United States presidential election articles: 1. Place the current president in the first position (if she is a candidate in the presidential election that is the subject of the article). 2. Order the rest based on the candidates' previous actual electoral vote totals (or House vote totals if the election is dispositive within the House). 3. If a candidate did not participate in the previous presidential election, then use the number of votes received by the candidate's current party in the previous electoral election (or House votes if the election was dispositive in the House). 4. If there is a tie in the number of electoral votes (or House votes if dispositive in the House), use the number of popular votes cast for the candidates' (or parties') electors to break that tie. 5. Candidates (or parties) who don't have any votes based on the above criteria are placed in alphabetical order following the candidates/parties who do have an electoral history. I think this criteria will cover any situation (under current law). Sparkie82 (t•c) 13:30, 16 June 2016 (UTC) Previous result, even though I don't mind using tradition and polling numbers. I think using the previous result is the most neutral and objective method that there is, and in addition I believe it is used for other election articles. I don't want Wikipedia to give undue coverage to third parties as if it were campaigning for one (and at the same time, I don't want Wikipedia to censor third parties either). I want fair coverage. --1990'sguy (talk) 14:30, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

---

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

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2016

I request that the write-in status for Rocky De La Fuente be updated to include the states of California, Kansas, Maryland, Nebraska, Virginia, and Washington. I also request that Oregon be added to every candidate's write in totals.

Rocky De La Fuente's website has a map that shows his ballot access, as well as current write-in access and "anticipated write-in access", which may or may not be approved in the future. The states listed above, including Oregon, are listed as write-ins, meaning that they are confirmed, or else they would have been included in the "anticipated" column. Also, if you look at the totals for Jill Stein, Darrell Castle, and Evan McMullin, their write-in status is based off their campaign websites' official totals. I am asking that we use the same standard for that of Mr. De La Fuente.

Also, I emailed the Oregon SoS office about their laws regarding write-ins, because I had read conflicting reports about the paperwork. They replied saying that there is so paperwork needed to file, only in the event that a write-in wins. Therefore, every candidate is considered to have write-in status in Oregon.

199.120.101.23 (talk) 00:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

@199.120.101.23: Please post the specific link from De La Fuente's website, as i was unable to find it. Although some candidates may only show one source for their ballot access, all candidates are checked against other available sources by multiple editors.

Thank you for reporting the response from OR SoS. Ballot Access News states that presidential write-ins must file by 11 days before the election, and that OR won't count these unless the total write-ins outnumber the top candidates vote. Bcharles (talk) 04:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Laurence Kotlikoff

has access to 271 ec-votes (254 as write-in), according to the policy that put castle and mcmullin to the infobox he should also be included. Any counterarguments? --Cartinal (talk) 07:58, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 08:30, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Write-in ballot access shouldn't be considered. With that logic, once the states allowing a write-in will exceed 270, everyone will be eligible. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.59.152.99 (talk) 09:41, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, we cannot have every write-in candidate listed in the infobox. 331dot (talk) 09:48, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

So Castle and McMullin should also be deleted int he infobox. Kotlikoff, McMullin and Castle do all fulfill the criteria due to their status as write-ins. Or did some change in the requirements take place, which i am unaware of? --Cartinal (talk) 11:04, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

De La Fuente has:

Electoral votes: 147 (De La Fuente has access to a combined 147 electoral votes as an Independent, via The American Delta Party and via The Reform Party)[47][48]

Write-In included: 314 Electors[47][48]

Anticipated Write-In Included: 404 Electors

Any counterarguments? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 14:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I found it, it's something that comes up if you click the arrows near the top of his home page, and he does intend at least claim that he has confirmed access to about (314) Electors through Write-In Access, California being the big one to put him over the hurdle. I'm not sure if we have outside sources that can verify all that however, so I'm going to hold off on actually making the edit itself. --Ariostos (talk) 16:26, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Requesting clear official guidelines for [post-election] Info boxes for the United States presidential election pages

NOTICE: This thread was prematurely manually archived with this edit: [10] Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Let me say this reaching a consensus every four years to include candidates is already looking problematic and its very inconsistent. Lets look at the 1948 election it lists Strom Thurmond who got 2.4% of the vote. Common consensus has been 5% but they say his inclusion is because the electoral votes. The problem is John Hospers in 1972 got an electoral vote and he is not included in the infobox. If you go really far back to 1852 you have John P. Hale who not only failed to get an electoral vote but also failed to get 5% of the vote. And there are plenty of further examples even further back but I wont list them. On to my point Im simply asking if someone can explain how we could get a set of guidelines that set up simple criteria for who can be in the infobox on US Presidential election pages before and after the election. I think this would be helpful and save time and talk page space for every single consensus being reached or lack there of for third party candidates.

I would propose the criteria for all US presidential election pages be 1% of the National vote or at least 1 Electoral vote to be in the info box after the election. Before the election I propose anyone with enough ballot access (not write in) to win the necessary electoral votes to become President. Let me know how or if this is even possible and what you're thoughts are on this. LuckyLag360 (talk) 23:58, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hey, the post-election inclusion criteria is pretty straightforward without too much disagreement actually: A candidate must win at least 5% of the national popular vote and/or win at least 1 electoral vote (Faithless electors do not count). For pre-election inclusion criteria basically any candidate that has enough ballot access/write-in access to theoretically win 270+ EVs is included. However, it is currently disputed whether or not a write-in can win electoral vote(s) even if they don't currently have a slate of electors. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 00:45, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, Thanks for responding and giving me feedback. If its pretty straightforward why is John P. Hale in 1852 in the infobox when he got no electoral votes and under 5%? And there are many others before him.LuckyLag360 (talk) 00:56, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

There was discussion on this previously, the criteria was 5% popular or at least one electoral vote as a candidate in the election, not a vote by a faithless elector. Fritz1543 (talk) 16:34, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Fritz1543 Okay very well, I would suggest someone make these clear though. How do we archive this discussion as its obsolete now?LuckyLag360 (talk) 17:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I think that the only thing we can do now is wait for the admin to check all the facts. The thing with electoral votes and write ins is subjective, what is not subjective is the fact that 270 is the amount to be our next President, it doesn't matter if it is by write by ballot presence or by write ins. The most fair thing is to include the ones who can achieve it. Today the article is a source of information about a future decision. After the elections the article is a whole different thing, is a record of what happened. Clarinetcousin

@Prcc27: That is the best summary of the current consensus I have seen.

@LuckyLag360: It looks like John P. Hale got 4.9% of the popular vote; perhaps someone thought that was close enough. I think it would be reasonable to start a discussion at Talk:United States presidential election, 1852 if you feel strongly about it. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 22:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I started a discussion at that article's talk page. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:03, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay wonderful everyone, could someone archive this as its obsolete now and I feel wasting space on the talk page. Thanks LuckyLag360 (talk) 16:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Refactor: I added the words [post-election] to the title of this section for clarity. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sparkie82: Well it was for both pre and post election. But this section is  Done because there where already rules which I was unaware of. So if someone could archive it that would be amazing! LuckyLag360 (talk) 16:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 October 2016

Why is democratic party and hillary's face shown beforehand Trump and republican party? This isn't fair.

Allansnackbar (talk) 01:44, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the incumbent party is listed first; President Obama is a Democrat, so Secretary Clinton is listed first. 331dot (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I deactivated this request as it is not a request but a complaint. Consensus is that the incumbent party is first. --Majora (talk) 01:46, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

And Trump first is totally fair? No its based on incumbent party. Post election its based on most electoral votes.LuckyLag360 (talk) 01:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Huh?

NOTICE: This thread was prematurely manually archived at this edit: [11] Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:05, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Who removed the day countdown on the infobox? (Sorry, I couldn't find the value to put it back)— JJBers (talk) 18:49, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm guessing the guy who is edit Waring with me (Which I will only do what is allowed, 1 revision per 24 hours). He undid everything back to my edit so everything after that was also taken away.LuckyLag360 (talk) 19:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I found it and added it back. For future reference the code is:
(-2742 days from now) LuckyLag360 (talk) 19:24, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Do we not trust readers to figure out how far away the election is on their own? Most people have calendars either physically or on their phones. 331dot (talk) 10:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Many are not smart enough especially Trump himself who thinks election day is November 28th. So no I dont trust voters.LuckyLag360 (talk) 15:51, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

If people can figure out how to type in a web address and get to this page I think they can figure out how to determine how far away the election is. Is such a thing a standard component of this type of article? 331dot (talk) 16:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd beg the differ but to answer your question I have no idea. It was on this page before I started editing. The guy asked about it being removed. It was removed by vandals. So I added it back. If you know something I dont about it on why it shouldnt be there feel free to list it here and remove it from the article. Thanks LuckyLag360 (talk) 16:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The person who last removed it (Impru20) was not a "vandal" as far as I can see; [12] They claim a policy reason for removing it, though I'm not sure what that is. 331dot (talk) 16:37, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

40 percent of American voters are morons. —MartinZ02 (talk) 17:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

"Hi, I'm MartinZ02. I live in Stockholm, Sweden, and I spend my free time playing video games. I'm 14 years old.". Don't go making assumptions of bad faith or attacks, including of the American electorate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:46, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about whether or not people can figure out how many more days there are until election day, it's about making it easier for the readers so then they don't have to figure it out on there own (and possibly make a mistake). It really doesn't hurt to put the countdown in the infobox. What specific policy it even violates is what I would like to know. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:28, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. —MartinZ02 (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@Muboshgu: I'm pretty sure no one felt insulted from what I just wrote. Also, even if what I just did actually counts as assuming bad faith, you still shouldn't act uncivil. —MartinZ02 (talk) 18:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I did. I think it's uncivil to declare "40 percent of American voters are morons". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:39, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Everyone should note the reason for adding this content is not because we think American voters are morons, We find it will be a useful addition to the article. If it is against policy explain and it will be removed. If there is another reason to remove it, explain and it will be removed. Thanks LuckyLag360 (talk) 19:11, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

(ec) I honestly don't know what policy might support keeping this out(I pinged the user who said there was one for comment) but it not being harmful is a poor argument in favor. Readers potentially making mistakes with their own math or calendars shouldn't be our responsibility; readers should have a certain level of competence. 331dot (talk) 19:13, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

WP:COMPETENCE only applies to editors. —MartinZ02 (talk) 19:23, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the letter of it does, but the spirit of it should be relevant to readers as well; otherwise we would write articles as the Simple English Wikipedia does. 331dot (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

it not being harmful is not the argument. The argument is its a useful addition to the article. LuckyLag360 (talk) 21:36, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Prcc27 says above "It really doesn't hurt to put the countdown in the infobox." It's part of the argument, at least. 331dot (talk) 21:41, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

My argument is that we shouldn't exclude it just because people don't like it. But keep in mind that both links are just essays. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:50, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't dislike it, I think it is unnecessary since it is very easy to figure out on one's own, just as we write articles here assuming a certain level of competence and reading ability. I certainly am not going to edit war over it, but that's how I feel. I do thank everyone for commenting thus far. 331dot (talk) 21:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A lot of readers that aren't going to figure it out on their own (because why would they take the time to count how many days there are until election day?) might find the information useful even if searching for that information was not their immediate intention. This has nothing to do with competence nor reading ability. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 22:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

First, I'm inclined to argue for inclusion here if only because the arguments against being comprehensive here seem weak. However, a couple thinking-out-loud/too-much points: When we say "xx days from now," does that timer start at 12:00 Western Standard Time or Eastern - so if someone checks this page on November 7th at 1:00 AM, might it still say "2 days from now" because of time zone differences? Could that (very slight) risk of misleading some people outweigh the benefits of having the timer in the first place? Perhaps a countdown clock in hours would mitigate this, yet this might resemble a news ticker and look a bit unencyclopedic. Also, does anyone know of a precedent for a timer in any other election articles? And FWIW, there is also WP:EXCESSDETAIL. Thanks, <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 22:53, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Election day starts on the East Coast so the clock should be set on Eastern Time if it isn't already. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 00:59, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

The template might actually be set on UTC time so unless that can be fixed, I'm against its inclusion. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 01:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Why does UTC determine whether you want it included or not, Im sorry I dont quite understand. LuckyLag360 (talk) 01:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Because a countdown linked to a European timezone for an American election is pretty useless. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 04:05, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Good point I was not aware of that. If thats the case I support removing it unless it can be in an American time zone (preferably eastern time). LuckyLag360 (talk) 16:22, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

It's bad enough that CNN uses an annoying count-down clock for everything politics. Must we dumb down this article with one of those clocks, as well? GoodDay (talk) 16:25, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I dont buy the dumb down argument, regardless no one is going to be reading the countdown clock unless we can get an American time on it instead of european. LuckyLag360 (talk) 16:32, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Adding List of United States presidential electors, 2016 as link in article... and asking for help

Rather than tripping over everybody on this article, I'm merely asking if it would be appropriate to include a link to a list of elector candidates that I'm trying to gather from various state agencies and other news services? If anybody wants to take a bit of a break from this article and help me out trying to find sources of information for the states I haven't found any information about, it would be appreciated too. --Robert Horning (talk) 06:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

OK. It will be good idea to add list of elections. One can later mark which one was rigged. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 08:44, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I've added a link to Template:US 2016 presidential elections series. In gathering the information, please remember to include the references to the original sources. This will actually help greatly in figuring out who has filed an elector slate where, which is important for determining who is included in the infobox. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:06, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I am trying as best as I can to get the information directly from the state election officials rather than from news services if I can. The State of Deleware claims that they have not yet received the slate of electors from the political parties yet... in spite of state law that requires them to be filed by September 1st. This is far more frustrating to dig up than I anticipated and I'm getting some bureaucratic push-back, along with having to do some really heavy digging for even the stuff I've found so far. Still, thank you for all of your help in this. --Robert Horning (talk) 22:18, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

If you have information that can help verify whether write-in candidates have actually filed electors, it would be great if you could also add it to the section above. Thanks! Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 18:39, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If someone tries to add write-ins into the infobox, revome them

The reason why Castle and other write-ins are not currently in the infobox is because the consensus has been, since 2012, to include only candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to be able to achieve 270 electoral votes, not write-ins. The most recent attempts to add write-in candidates started with an bold attempt to add Castle to the infobox during a discussion on Aug 23 at 735891756, which was challenged (reverted) at 736056459. The addition of Castle and other write-ins have been proposed/challenged/discussed ever since at discussions on this article, including the thread #Infobox inclusion, again and several other threads without reaching a consensus to add them. There is a RfC currently under discussion with no consensus to change the criterion to add write-ins to the infobox, therefore, any edits that try to put write-ins in the infobox should be be immediately reverted. Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

WE AGREED IN THE CONSENSUS THAT WE WOULD KEEP THEM!!! FORGET WHATEVER HAPPENED IN 2012!!! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 11:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking at the info-box I am starting to have second thoughts but this is just me. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:10, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I dont want to add gasoline to the fire but I was checking out some of the information and I think that if the criteria is to order them by amount of electotal votes + write ins Castle should be be number 5, De La Fuente 6, McMullin 7 and Kotilkoff 8. It is just a suggestion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 186.54.160.228 (talk) 13:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sparkie82: I'm finding your edits very disruptive. It was decided on 22 August that candidates that have crossed the 270 electoral vote threshold with ballot and write-in access would be included. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 18:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

There was no consensus to make that change and my edits are not disruptive. Removing a reinstated challenged edit is required to comply with WP guidelines, not disruptive. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:37, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I've tried telling them about that unanimous consensus from August, but every time I bring it up they ignore me (and they even said on their talk page that they are going to ignore me from now on). Sparkie82 has been very disruptive but the admins don't seem to care enough to do something about it I guess. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 October 2016

Please remove all the candidates who aren't Clinton, Trump, Johnson or Stein from the main section. Even including Johnson and Stein is over the top let alone this. Why? Because it's absurd. Almost all previous elections had tonnes of candidates but they weren't included in the main section.

188.2.97.237 (talk) 16:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Not done: There is extensive discussion on this subject. We can make this edit only once a consensus is reached. Making edit requests for this is useless. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:08, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Please do explain why including Johnson and Stein is "absurd." Johnson is on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC. Both Johnson and Stein will not only be capable of winning but will be on the ballot in enough states of winning. Both Johnson & Stein are included in national polls. Both Johnson and Stein receive media coverage and town halls, even if nowhere near the media coverage of Trump and Clinton. "Why? Because it's absurd." is not giving a reason for why you believe this is "over the top." I do ask "Why?" but your reasoning is insufficient. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:04, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Rocky, Laurence, Gloria and Hoefling

Should Rocky de la Fuente and Laurence Kotlikoff be moved up to Major Third PARTY Candidates now that they have secured the 270 Electoral Votes needed like we have done for the other Candidates?

Also Tom Hoefling has more EV Access than Gloria La Riva and yet her map is featured and not his. Political Boss (talk) 17:41, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

First request:  Done

Second request: too be honest, I don't think Gloria's map should even be listed since she isn't even a major third party candidate.

---

De La Fuente's infobox color is now indistinguishable from Castle's infobox color. I would fix it myself but I don't want to violate WP:1RR. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Gloria La Riva's map shouldn't be there, as you say. Also, De La Fuente's map follows some horribly complicated scheme that isn't documented in the map legend. And I agree that the candidate color keys in general are a mess. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 01:28, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

De La Fuentes map uses 4 colors (On ballot, write-in, lawsuit, off ballot). There is a vertical stripe patern defined for states with write-in and pending lawsuit. It is easy to set the appropriate fill color or pattern with a text editor. Bcharles (talk) 02:04, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

---

Tom Hoefling has write in access to 297 electoral votes. Should he be included in the section "Major third parties and independents" or at the very least, have his own map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.104.118.94 (talk) 06:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Sigh!, or "march madness" in October

This is not crystal ball: The only candidates who are capable of receiving electoral votes are Clinton, Trump and McMullin. That's it. If a faithless elector in Oregon votes for Stein like he's threatening to, then that might be slightly different, but that's highly improbable. Most states that permit write-in votes don't have lists they give out at the polls, so nobody has any idea who these people are, and they won't get more than a dozen votes, if that many, in any state they have write-in "access."

McMullin may be an exception because of all that publicity he received by surging in Utah, he may get some traction elsewhere. I dunno. But I do know this. Someone should start working on a sandbox version of the post election permanent article NOW and post a link on this page so we can start a joint effort to get ready before going for our next poll fix.Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Why are you acknowledging that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and immediately contradicted that by stating why you believe only three candidates can win, even using words like "highly improbable"? The consensus is prior to the election, a candidate's requirement to appear on the infobox is the theoretical ability to win by having access to 270 electoral college votes. That does not mean that they must poll high in states. Winning an electoral college vote (or reaching at least 5% of the popular vote) is the post-election requirement. If you would like to speak about states specifically, as of now Gary Johnson is polling competitively with Trump and Hillary (though not enough to win the state as of now) in the state of New Mexico. As for who will win the state, we cannot know until the results are in. We can assume Hillary will win it, but that doesn't mean that we should exclude him from the infobox as of now. He, like Stein, can theoretically win at least 270 votes on ballot access alone, and for that reason is currently displayed. The reason why the other candidates in the infobox are a topic of debate is write-in access. As of now, the consensus is that they stay for the time being due to the potential to theoretically win. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. BrendonTheWizard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 00:40, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The polls as of now are beginning to matter, and thus should be taken into account. I never said Johnson should be taken out of third place on the infobox, However, Laurence Kotlikoff is only on the physical ballot in two states. He has no real campaign anywhere is listed in no polls. McMullin, on the other hand, is tied with Trump (or ahead in at least one poll) in Utah, and ahead of Stein in several states. There is theoretical and theoretical. Kotlikoff does not have a theoretical chance to win anything. In a trial, juries are told that to find a person guilty, his or her guilt must be determined "beyond a reasonable doubt" not an "absolute doubt." The test here is not whether a candidate has a "theoretical" chance or winning the election (only Clinton and Trump have that), but a reasonable chance of either winning a state or being a spoiler, i.e. getting a higher vote total than the margin between the two top candidates, thus directly affecting the election. There are only four candidates who qualify under this test: Johnson, Stein, McMullin and Castle.Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:02, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Fivethirtyeight (Nate Silver) in Swing table

Is there any reason we don't include fivethirtyeight's predicted outcomes in our swing state table? It's a reliable and well regarded source! --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 21:35, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

FiveThirtyEight's election forecast does not conduct polls, but rather makes predictions on who will win. FiveThirtyEight should not be included in the article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:58, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I personally would trust 538 over most sources. But, I don't think they have a long-term reputation. Objective3000 (talk) 00:02, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

None of the sites that are included in the swing state table conduct polls. All do analysis of polling and other data, similarly to FiveThirtyEight, which has a decent track record. The problem is that FiveThirtyEight does not identify or distinguish any "swing states", but just rates states on a continuum. That makes it arbitrary as to which states are labeled tossup, tilt, lean or safe. Bcharles (talk) 16:24, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I ended up realising that that was the major difference. We'd have to translate their model - eg 55-45 as tossup, 40-60 as tilt, 35-65 as lean or something. Perhaps not for this election but it may be good to think of a way to integrate into 2020 (by which time the site will have had a longer term reputation as well). --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 19:26, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 October 2016

In the table of independent candidates, please remove the recently-added "Stoyevant Party" entry. It appears to be a hoax, and in any case there is no source given for any ballot access. Thanks to whoever look after this. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 15:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Done. Thank you for catching this. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Party logos

People, please stop adding logos before checking the license. Those logos cannot be included because it is a copyright violation. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 18:09, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

They've been on Wikipedia for a LONG time now, so I don't see why you're suddenly contesting them, Mister/Miss/Misses @JayCoop:. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 18:42, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

They're being used in certain articles with a fair use rationale. If you want to use them on this article, you need to provide a separate rationale specific to this article, per WP:NFCC. clpo13_(talk) 18:45, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, please be aware that mere decoration ("it looks nice") isn't a valid rationale. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)