Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

→

Archive 20

Poll closing times

Is there any particular reason the diagram of poll closing times is still in the article? It was certainly a good thing to have on election day, but now it seems to be information overload, and there are a lot of other maps in the article. I'm thinking this should be removed, or at most converted to one or two sentences of prose. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 12:37, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Apparently, the poll closing times are actually for the 2008 election, as indicated by the file name, see if you can find any references that the poll closing times are the same as 8 years ago. ∼∼∼∼ Eric0928Talk 13:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 November 2016

Since nobody is speaking up with a reason to retain the image above in the article, and since it is out-of-date information in any case, as noted above, will someone please remove the chart of poll closing times (File:Poll Closing Times 2008.svg} from the article? As the popular election is over, this chart serves no purpose that I can identify. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

64.105.98.115 (talk) 00:59, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Done. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:21, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 17:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Reactions: petition

There are several petitions that have been mentioned in the media, notably a petition that asks faithless electors vote for Hillary Clinton as president. Should be included as part of "Reactions"? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:42, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

IMHO, it shouldn't be. If I recall accurately, the same attempt occured in 2000. Attempting to convince 37 electors to defy the popular majority vote of their respective states (in 2016), compared to trying to convince 2 to 5 electors to do the same (in 2000), is extremely unlikely to succeed. GoodDay (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Personally, whether it may realistically happen or not is exactly the most valid reason to not include it. It's an ongoing petition with Lady Gaga even promoting it and therefore notable. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 22:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

As American celebrities do not rule the world that does not mean it automatically requires mention.GuzzyG (talk) 12:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Callmemirela: Lady Gaga has one vote, same as every other American citizen. She's also promoting her latest album - quite good by the way. American In Brazil (talk) 14:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So electors should defy the will of the American people and elect a white supremacist to the presidency?173.67.16.123 (talk) 11:53, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Electors should follow the Constitution (12th Amendment). Now there is one elector in Texas who says he will not vote for Trump because he is not "biblically qualified." He should read the Constitution which says there is no religious test for office (Article VI, Clause 3). American In Brazil (talk) 00:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Final Results

The Federal Election Commission is supposed to officially publish the final results until early January. It can be accessed via their website. Does anybody know exact date for the publishing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by נריה לוי (talk • contribs) 20:30, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Talk pages are for discussing changes to the article, not to seek information about the topic. Use Google. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 04:21, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Michigan

On the first map, Michigan is gray, but the legend only explains red and blue. What does gray mean? Kdammers (talk) 11:57, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:48, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

When are we going to add "Dead" and "Illegals" to the demographics tables?

not a useful discussion for improving the article. --Jayron32 19:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Would be interesting considering over 3million Illegals and a large number of dead voted for clinton. 2A02:8084:4E40:E380:FD43:9411:E884:F4EA (talk) 20:00, 15 November 2016 (UTC) Dear uninformed editor, in case you haven't realized, a dead person cannot vote. Whoever voted dead people in obviously committed voter fraud. Also, only 19 counts of 'dead votes' were reported in the US, all of them in Virginia. Everyone knows that 19 votes have little chance to turn the tide of the election, especially in a state like Virginia with millions of people. It should not be included, because it was illegal activity and is discounted. As for the illegal immigrants, I do not believe that it should be its own demographic. Illegal immigrant votes are technically illegal activity, but it's occurred for years and is simply considered part of the system now. This does not mean I approve of it, I'm just answering your question. Good day! UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 12:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Without going into questions of NPOV (of which there are many), can you provide a Reliable Source that backs that up? jmcgowan2 (talk) 20:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC) It's a myth the white supremacists have come up with to assuage themselves about the resounding rebuke the American people delivered to them on tuesday.173.67.16.123 (talk) 11:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC) Finally someone has admitted that Trump's upset victory was a "resounding rebuke" to white supremacists :). Either way, a source would need to be provided before adding this (or discounting this in general). --1990'sguy (talk) 14:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Snopes says it is unconfirmed, which means it is true. 2A02:8084:4E40:E380:5CFF:6ECD:A849:6960 (talk) 18:06, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Snopes says it is unconfirmed, which means it is unconfirmed, as the words 'unconfirmed' and 'true' are not synonymous. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 18:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Why are we even discussing this? This is so uninformed. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 18:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC) Agreed. Shutting this down. --Jayron32 19:04, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Michigan

Somebody needs to update the electoral map to show Trump has won Michigan. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mctaviix (talk • contribs) 03:18, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Not at this time, he hasn't. [1] General Ization ^Talk 03:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Has New Hampshire and Michigan votes been finalized yet? The problem is that the "projected electoral vote" in the template is not in agreement with the map showing the electoral votes. 70.26.84.232 (talk) 19:40, 12 November 2016 (UTC) http://www.teaparty.org/trump-makes-history-takes-michigan-gains-306-electoral-votes-win-historic-race-199032/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.174.139.140 (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Michigan has not been called, and will likely not be for days or weeks and the official tally is completed. The map and number should both indicate that MI and NH are undetermined until sources declare them. Bcharles (talk) 22:00, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Why is Michigan listed for Trump??? The page says he received 306 EV but all three citations for that claim say 290, with Michigan still undecided. Owen (talk) 02:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The 306 and 232 in the info box are listed as projected electoral vote. In the results section, there is a note saying they are projected as well. They should get updated when everything is finalized. PackMecEng (talk) 03:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Are they projected? None of the three citations make any projection. They show a small lead for Trump but remain too close to project a winner. Owen (talk) 19:17, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

It looks like Trump won Michigan, I located the government website specifically so that the results could not be disputed. That was linked to from http://www.michigan.gov/sos/0,4670,7-127-1633---,00.html Atomic1fire (talk) 20:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

At the present time, the Michigan Secretary of State is reporting that Trump won Michigan by 13,107 votes: http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/2016GEN_CENR.html American In Brazil (talk) 14:13, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the link. The page does not report a "winner", but shows current results, clearly labeled "unofficial". These do not include provisional, absentee, and overseas ballots; not to mention malfunctioning machines, and incomplete or inaccurate precinct reports. The tally is too close to call before full, official results are reported. Don't take my word on that. See AP, CNN, NBC, NYT, etc. All indicate a marginal lead but undetermined winner. Bcharles (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Any idea how long that is going to take? It's over a week ago now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AntonHogervorst (talk • contribs) 20:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz singled out in primary Comment

In the lede, I found this unusual statement:
"Businessman and reality television personality Donald Trump became the Republican Party's presidential nominee on July 19, 2016, after defeating U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, and 15 other major candidates in the Republican primary elections."
Why is Ted Cruz singled out from among the other candidates? Is there a reason that Ted Cruz is mentioned by name, while the others are not? Joshualouie711 (talk) 15:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it's because he lead Trump at one point. If I recall right, Ted Cruz won the first contest in Iowa, plus he won the second most primaries. I can't say for certain, but that's my guess. Nulla Lex Ink. (talk) 19:02, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

John Kasich won Ohio, but he's not mentioned, probably because he didn't give Trump as much of a run for his money. In any case, I find singling out Ted Cruz to be slightly bemusing and advocate removing his name from the lede, as he was nowhere near Bernie Sanders-level resistance. Dschslava ^Δx parlez moi 20:42, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with your point, Joshua. Cruz finished (a very distant) second in the primaries, but it's very odd how he's singled out. If Cruz had been neck and neck with Trump until late in the primaries, then I could understand it. Cruz's name should be taken out of the lead. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 04:16, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so sure Cruz should be taken out of the lede. He was the last significant opponent to drop out of the primaries, leaving Trump the sole survivor. Isn't it important to mention that? American In Brazil (talk) 12:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually, Kasich was the last candidate to drop out. Cruz dropped out that evening, and Kasich conceded the next morning.Joshualouie711 (talk) 17:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Kasich did drop out after Cruz, but he had ceased being a mathematically viable candidate over a month before. Aliiqve (talk) 18:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Cruz should be singled out. He & Trump had way more delegates then the other 15 candidates. PS - Go easy on the Texan, his hopes for the 2020 Republican presidential nomination took a bad blow, last week. GoodDay (talk) 19:51, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay, you really need to stop all your nonsense on this message board. First you want to fight with everyone regarding your ridiculous insistence that the term President-elect be changed to Elected President. Now, you're inserting your irrelevant bias into a discussion. This page is to neutrally discuss changes to the article, not to chit chat about your favorite politician and advocate for him to be highlighted. Your behavior on this board proves that quantity of edits (over 200,000) doesn't necessarily equate with quality of edits. Also, please try to use proper spelling and grammar in your posts. For the record, this article is about the general election, not the primaries. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 03:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Importance of swing states

Yesterday I added "The swing states were crucial to the result. For example, if a total of just 56,921 Trump voters in Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania (6554, 13,754, and 36,613 respectively) had voted for Clinton instead, then Clinton would have won, with 378 electoral votes." This was reverted by Jayron32 with the comment "uncited personal analysis." But if I'm not mistaken, it's allowed to put in simple arithmetic facts, and I think this one is interesting and deserves to be in. It shows how Trump really squeaked by. Eric Kvaalen (talk) 22:07, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Because that is personal analysis. Clinton didn't win those states so she didn't get 378 electoral votes. If she won 50 states she would've had 538 electoral votes, but she didn't.

I guess we better remove this sort of comments from the article United States presidential election, 2004 then: "Had Kerry won Ohio, he would have won the election despite losing the national popular vote by over 3 million votes, a complete reversal of the 2000 election when Bush won the presidency despite losing the popular vote to Al Gore by over 500,000 votes." P.S. sign your comments. --Jaakko Sivonen (talk) 04:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The statement on Kerry and OH is spin, and does not belong in the article. It relates a hypothetical case, that did not occur, then uses it as a basis of comparison to another election. Your statement about Clinton introduces a hypothetical case that involves three states. It likewise uses a scenario that did not occur to spin the results. Bcharles (talk) 06:01, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Updating numbers based on published state results?

Some states, such as California, are updating their results a couple times per day as the count proceeds. The tables don't reflect those numbers. Should they? It's not going to affect the overall result of the election, but it would help counter all the misinformation out there about low turnout. --Nosecohn (talk) 18:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

WP:SOFIXIT. If you have reliable sources, and want to cite those sources, and continue to update results, no one will stop you from making the article better. --Jayron32 19:20, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The text below the table of State results says they all come from the Associated Press. If I start changing the results from individual States, that will no longer be true. Should I just edit that line, appending "unless otherwise noted"?

Random comment

Popular Vote numbers seem to be reversed? 84.45.119.6 (talk) 15:32, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

This comment belongs below. Also, Really? I can't believe this has to be pointed out: Clinton has received more popular votes, but lost the Electoral College.--ML (talk) 15:40, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Rocky yet again

I hate to resurrect this discussion, but apparently not everyone is on board with the outcome discussed here. De La Fuente Ran in the Democratic primaries, was on the ballot in most states, placed 4th by total votes, and received as much media coverage as Lessig or Chafee. He is also as notable a candidate as Jindal or Perry. He lost by an overwhelming margin. There is no need to try to erase him from history as well. Thus i am restoring him to the table of also ran democratic candidates. Bcharles (talk) 08:19, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2016

Change ...businessman Donald Trump from New York... to ..."businessman" Donald Trump from New York...

Landyngill (talk) 04:17, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done per WP:NPOV and WP:BLP. MB298 (talk) 04:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I concur with MB298. That change would introduce a bias in violation of Neutral Point Of View policy. Please read the linked NPOV article. Bcharles (talk) 05:13, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with MB298 and Bcharles. Trump is a businessman and has been all his life - ever since he graduated from Wharton in 1968 and joined his father's real estate firm. American In Brazil (talk) 13:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 November 2016

In the swing states section, change it so Trump won Nebraska's 2nd CD by 3.4 and Maine's 2nd CD by 10.5 - it's no longer TBD. 89.216.30.10 (talk) 17:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 17:51, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 November 2016

Please REPLACE , an alt-right news and opinion website , WITH news

It is a false opinion and has been addressed on CNN and NPR. WilliamIrving (talk) 21:05, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

@WilliamIrving: Which website are you referring to? MB298 (talk) 01:12, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. -- Dane2007 ^talk 05:29, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Projected Electoral Vote

So after everyone seems to have messed with the counts, it now says "Projected" and 290 (Trump) and 232 (Clinton). Yet nobody projects that. It adds up to 522, which is nowhere close to the total of 538. I haven't heard of anyone projecting 16 electors for people besides Trump and Clinton.

I suggest changing Trump's 290 back to 306, since that seems to be what is actually projected.

I stopped bothering with that yesterday. It's just gonna continue to be reverted back to '290', by somebody. Not sure why it's taking Michigan so long to count votes. It's been a whole week, now. GoodDay (talk) 19:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Wait until the 19th, 20th Dec. Actuals are supposed to be in then. wiki user 10stone5. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.77.211.227 (talk) 20:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

We are going to use the majority opinion for the projected count until we have the official results. This is via WP:RS. The associated press result is likely the largest reputable source for 'projected' election results as it has members from nearly every news organization in the US. Minority opinions should be discussed, but not in the info box or primary count. Gsonnenf (talk) 23:06, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Michigan has stopped updating their unofficial results. Their official count will be out later this month. It takes all states a couple to few weeks to complete their official tallies, but MI is too close to call with certainty, until all of the outstanding ballots and corrections are included. Bcharles (talk) 06:44, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The numbers are in: Trump wins Michigan by 10,704 votes. Source is the Detroit Free Press from 23 November, 2016. These are official results and will be certified on November 28. Trump therefore has 306 electoral votes. There will be no automatic recount because the margin is outside the 2,000 vote threshold required to trigger one in Michigan.

Results section

How on earth is this section correct? The REF is this " Popular vote: Unofficial, Electoral Vote: Projected" http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html . That isnt helpful and does not comply with the rest of the page..— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 23:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who this anon editor is (Note: It is Crazyseiko), since they would not sign their comment, but the comment is wildly off the mark. Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections is a reliable source. As the Wikipedia article on the website states, "The site has been used a reference for U.S. election and political data by major media outlets including U.S. News & World Report, The Atlantic, The Wall Street Journal, Roll Call, CBS News, Politico, The Washington Post, and Men's Health . Leip's Atlas has been cited as a "preferred source for election results" by statistician and political pundit Nate Silver."--ML (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

It is difficult when facts get in the way of unresearched opinion.--ML (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Someone has been trying to sneak this http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html into this page as a majority opinion. It doesn't look like a majority opinion source, to tell the truth I'm not sure if it has the weight to be a minority opinion source. I suggest we strip it out of the page and replace it with a majority opinion source. (also you should sign your comment).Gsonnenf (talk) 23:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Also, no one is trying to "sneak" in anything since this particular website (Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections) has been used on Wikipedia many, many times in the past. It is an acceptable reliable source that is used by tons of respectable media sources. See above. Also, to "strip it out" without getting consensus will be looked upon a vandalism since you have provided ZERO evidence that the website is unreliable.--ML (talk) 14:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

The source that you have been pushing is the AP. The AP does not seem to provide the vote for all five candidates. Don't "strip it out" until you find a better source which provides more information than just the two major party candidates.--ML (talk) 01:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

There will be no "strip it out". That's not how Wikipedia works. In 2012, there was a table at the end of the article (just like this one) that provided the results for the top candidates, not just the two major parties candidates. You can review the old chart from 2012 here: the 22:59, 12 December 2012 version of the United States presidential election, 2012 page. The table had a disclaimer attached and all of the editors were quite happy with the disclaimer. The disclaimer stated: "Popular vote count is preliminary. Many states will not certify their results until late November or early December." When the Official results for all of the candidates are presented by the Presidential Election Committee then we will update the chart. In the meantime the numbers will stay until there is a better source. Now, there is a possible better source which is David Wasserman of Charlie Cook's The Cook Political Report and Nate Silver's and ESPN's FiveThirtyEight fame. But just "stripping out" good information without a better replacement is not an acceptable choice. It just sounds like empty rhetoric.--ML (talk) 01:45, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Leip's Election Atlas is a reliable source, if not mainstream, as is TheGreenPapers. Politico reports data from AP updated daily, that includes all candidates on ballot in each state's results. A column for "others" is needed. Bcharles (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I would add the "others" section to the table but I am afraid that I would mess up the whole table so I will leave that to someone else with better table skills than me. As for Politico's AP listing, it does not provide the vote totals for Evan McMullin, or the other minor 3rd party candidates or the write-in total. I just reviewed TheGreenPapers again and I did not see a breakdown in vote totals for all of the candidates. If you can find a link in TheGreenPapers to a detailed breakdown of the votes totals then leave it here. Thanks.--ML (talk) 14:05, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with BCharles that Leip's atlas could be considered a reliable source, and also that it is not a majority source. Most organizations report an election results that is based on currently accepted results rather than votes projected on a more uncertain model. I've been using Associated press result for the infobox, as it has members from all major US news organizations and is considered the proper source under WP:RS. I've tried to have a discussion with ML but he has been rude and keeps insisting an his source is the most 'accurate', which I'm not going to attempt to argue about, because we should be using the majority opinion source not trying to cherry pick the single minority source that we have an opinion of as the most accurate. Gsonnenf (talk) 17:36, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Gsonnenf states incorrectly that the Associated Press "is considered the proper source under WP:RS". Gsonnenf's statement is simply not true. Wikipedia does not pick one reliable source over another reliable source. That is factually incorrect. As I pointed out above Leip's Atlas has been used in Wikipedia numerous times over the years and it quoted in the WSJ, NY Times, etc. The Associated Press does not even provide a breakdown of the votes for all of the top candidates whereas Leip's Atlas does. Also, Gsonnenf states "Most organizations report an election results that is based on currently accepted results rather than votes projected on a more uncertain model." What does this even mean? Gsonnenf seems to be saying that he has learned through his own original research that Dave Leip is reporting vote totals on some other method than what the AP is doing, right? Isn't that what that confusing sentence seems to be saying? I don't know what exactly Gsonnenf is claiming because it is tangled mess of a sentence but it seems he has done his own personal original research and he has found out that Leip is doing something he calls "project[ing] on a more uncertain model." Well, it is fine that Gsonnenf has engaged in some personal original research but that is not what the standard for Wikipedia is. We don't use original research in Wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No original research. What we do know that Leip's Atlas is a reliable source that has been referred to for years and years in Wikipedia and it is an accepted reliable source by WSJ, NY Times, etc. Whether Gsonnenf accepts it is NOT the standard no matter how many times he repeats himself. Also, Gsonnenf has advocated to "strip out" the reliable information that he simply does not like without gaining a consensus for its removal. The table is an essential part of the wrap up of the election on Wikipedia and so far we have one reliable source, Leip's Atlas, that provides the information for the top five or six candidates. There is no other reliable source with this information. Removing the information (or blindly "strip out" the information) without a reasonable replacement makes no sense whatsoever.--ML (talk) 19:33, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

An Atlantic magazine article about the vote totals for the 2016 election referred to and quoted Leip's Atlas. Andrew McGill wrote, "This has happened before. David Leip is the one-man band behind The Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, a website cataloging vote totals all the way back to the early days of the Republic. He remembers seeing much of the same vote-counting hysteria after Election Day in 2012, when it appeared Obama would fall far short of his 2008 total. “They did the same thing—‘Oh my goodness, look at all those missing votes,’” he said. From the numbers he’s seeing, California is due for a record turnout, and possibly other states are as well. It’s too soon to tell, he cautions, if Clinton’s total haul, which sat at 62.4 million as of the morning of November 16, will match or surpass the 66 million votes Obama received in 2012." You can review the quote yourself at: McGill, Andrew. Clinton's Popular-Vote Lead Will Grow, and Grow, and Grow, Atlantic, November 12, 2016. The point is that Leip's Atlas is a reliable source that provides the data we need to fill out the table that has been a part of these types of articles for over a decade. Gsonnenf and the anon editor have not provided any logical arguments to change.--ML (talk) 19:46, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Lets be fair here, as soon as the election commission publishes its report, that will become the main ref.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 21:56, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

What do you mean, "Lets be fair here"? Of course, I am being fair. I stated a long, long, long time ago that when the election commission publishes its report then the table will get updated. So you have no point, whatsoever. Gsonnenf had no point whatsoever. I never made the claim that the Leip's Atlas reliable source will be the final source. Never. You should have read the whole discussion. Gsonnenf for some reason only wants to use the AP source that does not provide a breakdown of the votes for all of the candidates. It doesn't make sense whatsoever.--ML (talk) 23:35, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

So here is the deal, MaverickLittle hasn't read enough of the wikipedia guidelines and rules to understand how sources are used. WP:RS and WP:WEIGHT do decide that large organizations are given more weight than small organizations. The infobox should reflect the AP result because it has more WP:WEIGHT than the Leip source. For the breakdown of 3rd parties, Leip, despite being a smaller source that does a bit of projection math, might be the most prominent source. But Maverick, you're really being sort of abusive and forcing your view without any consensus. We should probably settle this in dispute resolution. Gsonnenf (talk) 16:20, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gsonnenf Since you make the claim that Leip uses "projection math" please show how you came to this conclusion. Please outline what original research you did to come to this POV of yours. I would like see the evidence. You state a conclusionary statement but you don't provide any support such as a reliable source that supports your conclusionary statement. I will be waiting for it until the Presidential Election Commission issues the final results.--ML (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Gsonnenf, Leip's atlas is plainly more updated and accurate than AP, which has stopped updating multiple states, and the consensus here and in other wiki articles is pretty obvious to use Leip. Please don't revert to the AP numbers again. 2005 (talk) 23:36, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@2005: There is clearly not consensus for Leip's source. Some people are leaning towards it not even being a reliable source at all. It is a self published source which means its NOT preferred, and only allowed if the person is an 'expert' in the field and it is referenced by reliable 3rd party source. It is referenced by 3rd party sources but David Leip isn't necessarily a recognized expert in the field. WP:SPS This is currently under dispute resolution here: [[2]]. People in this thread are debating if Leip is even a reliable source, let alone a prefered source. So far Tomruen, crazySeiko and gsonnenf have all questioned its reliability as a source in general. BCharles has stated Leip is not a mainstream source, Maverick has previously accept AP for the info box, you are the only one who has not accepted it and consensus was reached before you even showed up.Gsonnenf (talk) 04:33, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Gsonnenf, please stop with this, and please don't spread it further around the Wikipedia. Most of the comments here support using Leip, while using the AP numbers is quite literally deliberately lying. I linked the Arizona numbers below. AP has stopped updating, but states continue to count. If you are going to continue to insist on your solitary mission to use AP numbers, then have the courtesy to explain why you believe the Wikipedia should be using referencing an objectively inaccurate site. No avoidance please. Why do you want to reference the site using Arizona (and other state) numbers from last week instead of the site using the numbers updated as of today? 2005 (talk) 21:09, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I think your taking this to heart now which is not good idea, What I mean its this is some what a smaller issues. I just wish everyone to be able to sing of the same sheet for the next month.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Crazyseiko (talk • contribs) 16:01, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

No, your statement is simply not true. I'm not taking anything to heart. Besides you don't know what is in my heart. All you know is some writing on a computer screen. This section is designed for a discussion of how to make this particular article better. It is not designed for you to comment, incorrectly, what is or is not in my heart. What is in my heart is not an appropriate topic for this talk page and, of course, you are incorect. The Leip Atlas is the only option for the table at the end of the article. I have asked for an alternative and there has not been one provided.--ML (talk) 16:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Who's Nathan Johnson?

"Nathan Johnson is listed on the ballot as Evan McMullin's running mate with the intention of serving as a placeholder for Mindy Finn."

Huh? Kaldari (talk)

@Kaldari: Read Politico's article about it. The situation is definitely bizarre. MB298 (talk) 05:14, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure what's going on here. Can someone who knows a bit about it straighten this out? American In Brazil (talk) 13:22, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, I read the Politico article. As MB298 says, definitely bizarre. But it should be summarized, if only because McMullin got 20% of the vote in Utah. PS. My friend Nathan Johnson says he doesn't know anything about it! American In Brazil (talk) 13:44, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Presidential debates

PBS hosted a debate between Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. I think this should be included because this has two candidates in the major third parties and independent sections and we also included the free and equal debate, which had only one candidate in the major third parties and independent section. Any disagreements? Billythekid314 (talk) 01:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I think mentioning this would be a good idea. While it (unfortunately) did not get anywhere close to the attention the Trump-Clinton debates got, I believe it should be included. MB298 (talk) 01:31, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Source: http://independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/11/gary-johnson-jill-stein-debate-on-travis-smiley-show/ Billythekid314 (talk) 02:26, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

For completeness, I agree with Billythekid314 and MB298. American In Brazil (talk) 13:19, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

I've added a brief sentence about it. Someone else who is better with tables and maps can updated those two parts as well. --Jayron32 13:48, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Polling failure - suggest add these sources for section on Polling failure

---

Polling failure

Further information: Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016

The election ended in a victory for Donald Trump despite being behind in nearly all opinion polls. After the general election polling misfiring, media analysts differed as to why the opinion prediction industry was unable to correctly forecast the result. BBC News questioned whether polling should be abandoned due to its abject failure. Forbes magazine contributor astrophysicist Ethan Siegel performed a scientific analysis and raised whether the statistical population sampled for the polling was inaccurate, and cited the cautionary adage Garbage in, garbage out. He concluded there may have been sampling bias on the part of the pollsters. Siegel compared the 2016 election to the failure of prognosticator Arthur Henning in the Dewey Defeats Truman incident from the 1948 presidential election.

---

Suggest to add above as new section for the article.

Thank you ! 69.50.70.9 (talk) 05:44, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

This could be incorporated into the section on forecasting, with some balance to maintain WP:NPOV. The swing states section could be merged into forecasting as well. Bcharles (talk) 17:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay that is a good idea, please update here when that's been done. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 18:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

But the 'opinion polls' seems to be correct as of right now. Hillary is indeed leading the Popular Vote count by about 600,000 votes as of this post, and is estimated to be in the lead by over 1% in terms of Popular Vote. Polling only takes into account of Popular Vote, not Elector Vote Count. It is not a failure in polling analysis, but a failure in truly democratic system that is at fault here which makes it impossible for the majority to voice an opinion and creates a faux representation of majority vote/support. For 'national' opinion polls, they seem to be correct as of right now.

No, the opinion polls were wrong. They were state-by-state and they were wrong in those states that flipped over. 69.50.70.9 (talk) 02:13, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they were wrong. And the U.S. does not base its elections on a "simple majority" - and for very good reasons. The electoral college is the chosen system, and it works very well.

Since when does opinion polls offer the same exact measure for each and every individual state? That would be absurd now, wouldn't it? To say that Hillary is leading Trump by the same margin in both Texas and New York for example. They are 'national polls' intended to predict who will win the popular vote because until now, except for 2000, popular vote also predicted the winner of the electoral college vote. From seeing the vote count so far, national polls have been accurate in that Hillary will win the popular vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchfan07 (talk • contribs) 04:43, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton won the popular vote. That's what polls are supposed to measure. I would recommend adding that section to the article on the presential election in Michigan. --Proud User (talk) 23:48, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The fact that this election ended in such a surprise will likely become a significant part of presidential electoral history, perhaps as significant as the 1948 result. I think that the section on forecasting should be renamed in such a way as to reflect that significance, such as "Polling failure", or merge the forecasting section into the results section and call it "Surprise result", or similar. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

---

Popular Vote numbers NOT listed

Why are vote numbers NOT listed or removed from this Wikipedia listing? Every other listing of prior presidential election has this, so why is this excluded/removed here? I am pretty sure it was listed yesterday when I checked. So can we put a lock on from removal of this IMPORTANT, VITAL, HISTORIC data showing a popular president through popular votes not being elected into office because of a rigged system against the majority? Percentage isn't good enough. How much Hillary won by is also very important. That is MY voice, and I will not let Wikipedia and its BIASED members silence it. 22:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It was probably 'temporarily' removed, because not all the votes have been tallied yet. GoodDay (talk) 22:33, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I doubt that, because then it would mean percentage points is also not complete, but was kept. Someone purposely removed it because of its implication. Please add it back in from the NYTimes results page used for percentage points. I cannot because the article is protected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 22:51, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The popular vote count was removed from the infobox because it was unsourced. It was then replaced, with appropriate sourcing. Please review Assume good faith. General Ization ^Talk 23:24, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It being temporary is not a good reason/excuse for its removal while other temporary data was not removed. I expect better from Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchfan07 (talk • contribs) 20:17, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

It is being updated as the sources are updating. As noted above, the temporary removal was because it was not properly sourced. The sources were updated and put back up quickly. PackMecEng (talk) 21:09, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you to whoever for editing this back, because someone had removed this from the Talk page yesterday(at least, it was missing yesterday). And to whoever is doing the vandalizing, please grow up. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchfan07 (talk • contribs) 20:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Turnout

The box in the top right of the page shows that voter turnout was up 3.2 percentage points, yet every analytis I have read shows that voter turnout was down by a lot. Can we correct this? Cite: http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/voter-turnout-fell-especially-in-states-that-clinton-won/ Mannydantyla (talk) 21:08, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The link you cite is from Nov 11. The citation used in the article currently is from Nov 15. It appears your data is out of date. If you can find a more recent data source, you may have something. --Jayron32 21:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Mannydantyla: @Jayron32: Yet, per the first source for turnout used, turnout based on Voting-Age Population, which is the metric used in all previous presidential elections, decreased by ~129 basis points to 53.6%. The difference that Manny cites is due to using eligible voters (VEP) this year and comparing to VAP in 2012, which is apples-to-oranges by definition. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 00:12, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@CaradhrasAiguo @Jayron glad we got it figured out Mannydantyla (talk) 15:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

@Crazyseiko: Read the above and WP:CALC. Although the VAP turnout is not cited explicitly in the Elect Project source, the two requisite numbers (estimated number of [valid] ballots cast, and Voting-Age Population) are both provided by said source, and Division is covered under WP:CALC. Also, this is not the first time I have had to call you out on WP:CIR violations (not to mention your atrocious grammar). CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 14:56, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

@MaverickLittle: No, it is not Original research, as Dr. McDonald provided both VAP and Ballot estimates, so WP:CALC (ironically a subsection of WP:OR) holds here. Also, this is NOT an apples-to-oranges comparison, as every POTUS election article states turnout (and change from previous election) based on VAP. What is Apples-to-oranges is the prior arrangement which displays a 58.1% turnout (based on VEP) and claims turnout rose 3.2% from 2012's VAP turnout of 54.9%. CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 00:03, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Crazyseiko: Caradhras is correct. In your edit summary you ask "MORE ppl voted this time around YET somehow turnout is lower?" The answer is yes, the voting age population grew substantially between 2012 and 2016. The numbers from elect project are:

2016 - Votes = 134,765,650, Voting eligible = 231,556,622, Voting Age = 251,107,404 Turnout: ~58.2%/~53.7% 2012 - Votes = 130,292,355, Voting eligible = 222,474,111, voting Age = 240,957,993 Turnout: ~58.6%/~54.1%

As you can see the voting population grew substantially. The extra overall votes is a function of population growth, not a larger portion of the population turning out. I am also in agreement that simply dividing 2 numbers to show turnout is WP:CALC and not WP:OR. We are presenting the VAP result because the argument between VAP/VEP has already been settled on other elections pages over the course of the years and they chose VAP for the election box. If you object either of the above arguments, or have additional arguments let me know, otherwise we should add it back. Please don't revert with out presenting additional arguments or refuting the arguments made here. If you don't agree and just think the argument here is nonsense or you just don't believe this is how Wikipedia policy works, we can start a request for comment WP:RFC to get the input of other editors and establish consensus.Gsonnenf (talk) 19:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gsonnenf: The due process has worked, and as you have said the process has now been sorted to bring it into line with other pages. Of course with wiki every changing and going improvements I was unaware of the full due process, and if didn't highlight this issue this would not have been resolved. The only part that could cause nonsense is: Over number of voters: It MUST BE MADE CLEAR either with * or # the overall number of people eligible to vote has increase since the last election. This will stop any further confusement on this matter by any new people. --Crazyseiko (talk) 20:25, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Crazyseiko: Hi, I don't understand what your conclusion is. Are you ok with us moving the Voting age percentage back to the infobox as we have suggested? I'm fine with putting an explanation of this in the body text.Gsonnenf (talk) 20:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@Gsonnenf: Yes to both points. --Crazyseiko (talk) 20:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Consider the results of the recent World Series

Consider the results of the recent World Series:

 Game #1 Score: Cubs 0, Indians 6 - Runs: Cubs  0 Indians  6 - Games: Cubs 0 Indians 1
 Game #2 Score: Cubs 5, Indians 1 - Runs: Cubs  5 Indians  7 - Games: Cubs 1 Indians 1
 Game #3 Score: Cubs 0, Indians 1 - Runs: Cubs  5 Indians  8 - Games: Cubs 1 Indians 2
 Game #4 Score: Cubs 2, Indians 7 - Runs: Cubs  7 Indians 15 - Games: Cubs 1 Indians 3
 Game #5 Score: Cubs 3, Indians 2 - Runs: Cubs 10 Indians 17 - Games: Cubs 2 Indians 3
 Game #6 Score: Cubs 9, Indians 3 - Runs: Cubs 19 Indians 20 - Games: Cubs 3 Indians 3
 Game #7 Score: Cubs 8, Indians 7 - Runs: Cubs 27 Indians 27 - Games: Cubs 4 Indians 3

At game #2 the teams were tied in games won (the only thing that matters) but the Indians were ahead in runs (which does not matter).

At game #6 the Indians were ahead in runs made but the teams were tied in games won.

And of course at game #7 the cubs were ahead in games won while the teams were tied in runs made.

My point is that nobody counts runs made. They just count games won because the rules say the winner is the team that wins the most games. And the managers make decisions that maximize games won. If at the beginning the rules had been that the team with the most runs wins both teams would have tried to run up the score rather than giving their best pitchers some rest when the score was lopsided.

Likewise, if at the beginning the rules had been "most pupular votes win" both candidates would have put more effort into highly-populated areas where the electoral outcome was certain and far, far less effort into swing states. Thus we don't know what the popular vote would have been if both candidates had been trying to run up the popular vote total.

My conclusion from this is that we should mention the popular vote but should not emphasize it, just as we should not emphasize other statistical metrics that can not change the rusult. --Guy Macon (talk) 15:22, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Historic popular vote(as of current vote count) but losing election of recent times should be downplayed? First of all, this isn't a 'game', each vote has a person behind it, a citizen. Also understand that congress caps amount of representatives in House, and thereby the electoral college votes each state receives, against the wishes of US constitution, through the Apportionment Act of 1911. Therefore, Popular Vote is more representative of population than an outdated, improperly allocated electoral college system, in my opinion. Electoral college votes will be honored, but doesn't mean popular votes will be ignored, or that it should be ignored. Who knows, maybe this popular vote will create the need and basis for change in the future. Watchfan07 (talk) 20:56, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Its definitely a talked about issue and should be mentioned in an controversies section similar to the 2008 election page. This election is more similar to the 2008 election than the 2012 because it did not involve an incumbent candidate expected to win.Gsonnenf (talk) 21:49, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Color change needed in the Voter Demographics section

Under "First Time Voter" in that section, on the "Everyone Else" line, both the Clinton and Trump boxes should have strong background color; I don't know how to change that myself, or I would already have done so. As it is, the bold color in only the Trump box falsely indicates a win for him among that group, though at 47-47 it is actually a tie. Could someone please take care of this? Thanks. Textorus (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Textorus: Is it possible that, for example, Trump got 47.4% and Clinton got 47.2%? I'd have to check the source. MB298 (talk) 02:25, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@MB298: It might well be possible, MB, but since none of the numbers in this table are displayed with decimal points, it seems to me that, rather than mystifying the reader, we would do well to make the color strength correspond with the simple numbers shown. And btw that is just what CNN does on their exit poll page, which is quite easy to read and understand. Textorus (talk) 06:43, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Controversy Section

This has been a very contentious election compared to the 2012 election and is likely more reflective of the 2008 election (which did not include an incumbent). The 2008 election has a section dedicated to the controversies of their election. I am suggesting we add a controversies sections similar to the 2008 election page. For larger issues we can create a summary and reference to the wikipage that explores the top in depth.Gsonnenf (talk) 21:52, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Really? There wasn't any controversy about the election itself. It had two controversial candidates, and (of course) a number of people didn't like the result, but that is not enough to label the election controversial. StAnselm (talk) 22:57, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The 2008 lists media bias as a controversy. The press and NSA have been claiming Russia influenced the election. Immediately following the election their were large protests and some riots. The press also predicted the election very poorly, so there is some controversy. Also, Comey released some information very close to the election date that Clinton claimed swang the election.Gsonnenf (talk) 05:27, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

We have separate articles on the campaigns. The election article properly should only cover the events on Nov. 9th and Dec. 19th, with enough background to provide basic context. There's no problem with covering well-referenced information on the campaign season at Wikipedia, but I don't know that THIS article is the correct place to do so. Also, citing another article at Wikipedia is not an argument: The errors of other people and of earlier times are not required to be repeated here. --Jayron32 16:41, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll have to disagree with you on that last point. Other articles, of the exact same, are what other editors to via consensus and should be heavily considered. I think its a good argument for it. I don't think that saying 'other people's consensus might be in error' is really an argument. Also the election begins on Nov. 8th, not Nov. 9th, and the media projections were considered a controversy, and after that date, the NSA is saying the Russians influenced the election. So overall I'm going to have say a controversies page is warranted..Gsonnenf (talk) 18:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Vote totals source

Is this a reliable source for Wikipedia's elections? It looks like a personal website: http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS Tom Ruen (talk) 11:32, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The short answer is "Yes, it is a reliable source." Please learn more about the website here: Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. Please join the conversation here: Results section discussion.--ML (talk) 14:13, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is reliable, and is used everywhere on the Wikipedia. The best source for any state data is the official state site. The next best source is uselectionatlas. The Associated Press numbers should never be used further than a few days after an election because they do not update their numbers. 2005 (talk) 20:58, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

@Tomruen: It is the self published personal website of David Leip, but the industry has given it some credibility. It's not a 'majority opinion source' which is the standard for Wikipedia's main source, but it appears to be our only current source on 3rd party voting data. I'd invite you to change the infobox vote total back to a majority opinion source such Associated Press. Also join the discussion that was referenced above. We need more eyes on this data.Gsonnenf (talk) 19:59, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Why use out-of-date sources on vote count?

The Cook Political Report is a reliable source, and their popular vote tracker [3] [4] is much more up-to-date than the current infobox by millions of votes. Their popular vote tally has been repeatedly cited by other reliable news organizations, both left and right (examples: [5] [6] [7] [8][9] [10] [11] [12]). Why does Wikipedia insist on using outdated numbers on the current popular vote ocount for the infobox, which furthermore disagrees with the up-to-date Results section in the same article? 70.36.142.204 (talk) 21:39, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

I Totally agree with that! I suggest taking the source from http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174 because he is doing an amazing job at updating the count result for every states. Right now the numbers would need to be updated on the page. Xerwer (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC) 🍁 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Xerwer (talk • contribs)

Congratulations Xerwer on your first article post in 6 years! We've currently discussing these sources, and some ( at least 4) believe they are minority sources via WP:WEIGHT. We'll probably be going to RfC on these sources as there seems to be alot of impassioned people wanting to contribute. I hope to have a constructive discussion with you.Gsonnenf (talk) 00:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Popular Vote

General question, so please correct me if I'm wrong and excuse my ignorance. But whats the purpose of tallying the popular vote? My understanding is that it has no bearing on the election results and the US Electoral College doesn't even have an official metric for total popular vote. So whats the point because all it seems to do is cause confusion with groups of people on the veracity of the winner. Thanks in advance for clarifications. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.142.95.12 (talk) 06:30, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

We put information into the article based on what reliable sources choose to report per "Balancing aspects." Popular vote is relevant because it shows whether the election was close. Had Clinton won 1% more of the vote for example, she would have won. People reading about elections are normally interested in how close elections were, which in turn helps explain how attractive candidates were, and how successful each side was in its approach. TFD (talk) 06:55, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

and it just shows how Democracy is an ass Govindaharihari (talk) 07:21, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Actually it shows how democratic/undemocratic the American system really is. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 07:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Not only the American version, all democratic systems that I am aware of are severely flawed.Govindaharihari (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

• User:The Four Deuces , hi there, your statement that Had Clinton won 1% more of the vote for example, she would have won where would she have had to do that to win the election, or what would she have won? I tried to get a link to support your claim but couldn't find anything, could you provide a link, if your claim is correct that should be reported in the article, thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 07:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
  • See Nate Silver's article.[13] TFD (talk) 08:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
    • Obama won florida from Romney in 2012 by 0.9 percent http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/results/states/florida - Trump beat Hillary by 1.3 percent http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/florida - its just how it is and has been also previously, it's obtuse imho to claim if this or this had happened and to bother reporting it. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:44, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
    • You can also report that Trump beat Hillary in Florida in 2016 by 33 percent more than Obama beat Romney in 2012. Govindaharihari (talk) 08:47, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Gov - "...all democratic systems that I am aware of are severely flawed." Winston Churchill - "Democracy is the worst form of government - except for all the others." American In Brazil (talk) 13:36, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Mentioning the popular vote is irrelevant. The founding of the country and the attempt to balance the power of large population states and small population states is well documented in the Federalist Papers. The system for choosing the President is NOT the popular vote, but the Electoral College. Continually citing the popular vote promotes a hidden agenda. If the statement is included, then a robust discussion of the Congressional Map and the percentage of red versus the percentage of blue needs to be done. However, that is more appropriately taken up under the Electoral College, not any single individual election. Again, the standard of measure for the Presidential Election is the Electoral College, not the popular vote. Mott Black Coffee (talk) 13:29, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

"Promotes a hidden agenda"... And what might that agenda be, if you don't mind me asking? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Nov 20, 2016 - Suggested Source for National and State Popular Vote Counts

I have been relying on David Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections (Year-2016). This site seems to update 2016 popular vote totals and percentages for both the nation and individual states almost every day. Also, with this source you get a bit more data-info concerning many of the minor candidates which other sources may not show. If you hover your mouse or pointer over a state (you may need to be on a desktop/laptop/tablet with a good-sized screen to do this), you will get a yellow pop-up window showing popular vote percentages for the Top 2-3-4 leaders. If you hover your mouse over a state and then right-click (or left-click, if you are that way), you can then view that particular state's popular vote counts and percentages in a separate window or tab. The District of Columbia (D.C.) link is a little square right of Maryland and Virginia. Fgf2007 (talk) 19:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The popular votes from David Leip's Atlas website (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2016&off=0&elect=0&f=0), are already included in the article as unofficial results. Please check United States presidential election, 2016#Results section. Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 19:59, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

But it is inaccurate to make any claim that two-day old unofficial results from Fox are in any way official. There is no evidence that they are "official" and indeed they are not. This needs to be revised. Wikipedia should never post something that all of us know to be inaccurate. The numbers in the infobox are unofficial and inaccurate two-day-old tallies. If you want unofficial results, that's fine, but they should be as up to date as possible. Please remove them.GreekParadise (talk) 20:03, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I will change header over Fox News results to make clear they are outdated and unofficial. I would welcome removing them entirely, but I leave that to another editor.GreekParadise (talk) 20:16, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with GreekParadise. FOX News is not official. NBC is not official. AP is not official. CNN is not official. NONE of these news organizations is "official". By definition the only "official" vote total is the amount provided by elected government officials and in this situation it is the Presidential Election Commission, of the federal level, and the 51 various secretary of states on the state level, and these groups will not be certifying the numbers for another month or so. So please stop making the crazy argument that your favorite election news source is an "official" source. It makes not sense. Official refers to elected official, not some blow-dried news reader who you like a lot. Anderson Cooper is the not the official source of government election results. It is ludicrous to keep calling FOX News or CNN or NBC official news source.--ML (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

If you check there is a really long discussion in Talk Page about which popular votes should be included in Infobox of the article? The unofficial one from such Liep website or the official and confirmed one from famous News agencies like AP, CNN, NBC, Fox, etc. And most of people agreed it is better to include the official confirmed results in Infobox of article. This does not mean the unofficial results in Liep website are wrong! But it just takes some more time that the famous mentioned official sources, update their numbers. So if you just wait for 2-3 weeks, you could see the official results will be the same as unofficial results after finishing and finalizing the vote counting in all 50 states. Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 20:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Glad to see that several others are confirming David Leip's site as a good source of information. It just so happens that I am doing an election project at another web-site and have been grateful for the info that the Leip site provides. As for doing Wikipedia updates on popular vote counts and percentage, may I respectfully suggest that such efforts need not be exhausted on updating these figures, say, every 6, 12 or 24 hours. Give sources like Leip's anywhere from 24 to 48 hours to update at their end, and then make appropriate corrections here at Wikipedia. Just my two cents worth. Fgf2007 (talk) 20:31, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm fine with Liep. I'm fine with AP and Liep. I'm not fine with insisting, as Koorosh1234 has done, on out-dated FOX numbers. The FOX numbers are NOT the latest unofficial numbers from the AP. See http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-lead-donald-trump-now/story?id=43667918. If WE are going to insist on using the AP, at least we must use their most up to date numbers. As it is, I have simply relabeled the unofficial FOX data Koorosh1234 keeps insisting on using as old and inaccurate, which it indisputably is. Now I think both Koorosh1234 and I should stay out of editing for awhile until other users can decide whether or not to use up-to-date accurate unofficial numbers as I wish, or inaccurate unofficial numbers as Koorosh1234 wishes. But there is no reason to use Fox over the Associated Press. If we want to include both AP and Liep, fine. But FOX is simply wrong here. I would prefer Liep aloneGreekParadise (talk) 20:33, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with GreekParadise. Leip is the ONLY source that is going through the hard work of tallying up the votes for ALL of the candidates and he is doing it every day. The only news sources are not doing that. It only makes sense to use Leip.--ML (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear GreekParadise, please check the election popular votes numbers in AP, CNN, NBC and FOX websites and let me know if there is any difference among them???

AP: http://interactives.ap.org/2016/general-election/?SITE=APQA

CNN: http://edition.cnn.com/election/results/president

NBC: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/president

FOX: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-election-headquarters

If you think the popular vote results in all of these 4 famous News Agencies are wrong, I prefer not to continue the discussion with you! And at last, for me it is important if you still continue doing spam edits in the article! Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 20:52, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

According to the Wikipedia article, Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections is used by some major news media and is the most up-to-date source. Unless that information is wrong, it would make sense to use it. TFD (talk) 22:12, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Just update with Leip's stats every 1-2 days and don't worry about what other sites report. To those saying that showing the popular vote is meaningless - well, without the pop. vote, then you can't justify how the Electoral Votes were determined. This is one of the countless prices that Wikipedia has to pay in order to be the great everyday reference spot that it is. One thing I've always wondered is - why not hide the big state pop. vote chart and let visitors unhide it if they wish to view those figures. The election page might also benefit if certain sections were either condensed down or else placed on separate support pages, just to make reading a little more easier. Fgf2007 (talk) 23:07, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

technicality regarding Maine

Maine was split into 2, ME CD1 and ME CD2. Hillary Clinton won CD1 and its 3 electoral votes while Trump won CD2 and its 1 electoral vote. The infobox incorrectly states that Hillary Clinton won 20 states + DC while Donald Trump won 30 states + ME 2. The correct way should be Hillary Clinton won 19 states + ME 1 + DC while Donald Trump won 30 states + ME 2. Only if a candidate wins all of a state's electoral votes could it be stated that he / she won that state.

38.121.82.105 (talk) 04:21, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton won the popular vote in the state of Maine as well as its 1st congressional district, giving her 3 electoral votes. Trump won only district 2. MB298 (talk) 04:23, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. 38.121.82.105 (talk) 04:43, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Final popular vote results

When will we know for sure the final totals? None of the citations say how much of the votes are left to count.2602:306:CC42:8340:CCF5:CF5:9471:416D (talk) 23:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Usually it can take at least a month since foreign americans and soldiers can vote from abroad and their vote is arriving by mail. Since every states make it's own count, and there is no federal organization giving an exact count, I suggest taking the source from http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174 because he is doing an amazing job at updating the count result for every states. Right now the numbers would need to be updated on the page. Xerwer (talk) 00:19, 20 November 2016 (UTC) 🍁

I agree and will do so. There was an attempted disputed filed a week ago that has been closed. See [[14]] There is no wiki-reason NOT to keep updating results as they come in with reliable sources like the Cook Political Report. And it is better to have current sources than week-old sources. So folks should keep updating, and http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174 is a great source.GreekParadise (talk) 14:49, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please note that officially certified statistics for the popular vote are only available in five states and DC for a smallish total of a few million votes each. That's the only "official" totals available. Source: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19. All totals are unofficial, but Cook Political Report is "compiled from official sources" and updates regularly. Source: http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174. But the Fox Results have not been updated in more than 24 hours.

In sum, NO count is official yet (except 5 small states and DC), but Cook Political Report is "compiled from official sources" and seems to be the most up to date, by virtue of having larger totals for both main candidates. I advocate using ONLY the most up-to-date unofficial source until the official sources for all 50 states plus DC are complete. But to avoid edit warring, I have posted the incomplete Fox Results alongside the more complete (but still incomplete) Cook Political Report results. PLEASE DO NOT EDIT WITH ANY SMALLER NUMBERS. The nature of vote counting is that votes almost always grow. Generally, any smaller vote totals are less complete than greater vote totals. I would advocate therefore, that unless numbers conflict with official sources, we always publish the largest vote totals from any reputable non-partisan sources (such as the Cook Political report, although any other would be fine as well.)

Please do not revert to lower numbers without making a case on the Talk Page first. If someone has a reason to show smaller numbers from earlier periods rather than the latest data, state your case. I would support removing more incomplete data, like the Fox numbers, entirely, but I have left them up for now in order to achieve consensus.

Please note I have seen zero evidence that the Fox numbers are any more official or up to date than the Cook numbers. Even ABC makes clear FOX numbers, which may have been correct two days ago are no longer correct. Source: http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/hillary-clintons-popular-vote-lead-donald-trump-now/story?id=43667918 I advocate their removal entirely.GreekParadise (talk) 19:38, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I do think referencing the Nation in the article is not good. The Nation is a well-known left wing site and the article it links to is very partisan.Bjoh249 (talk) 07:26, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Official or unofficial electoral and popular votes in Infobox?

Are we going to put the official or unofficial results in the Infobox of the atricle? If we are going to put official results in Infobox, we should do that for both electoral votes and popular votes. Which means that putting only 290 electoral votes for Trump since all official sources (AP, NBC, CNN, FoxNews, ...) give only 290 electoral votes to Trump and they have not called Michigan yet. It is not reasonable to put unofficial electoral votes and official popular votes at the same time in Infobox, or vice versa! Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 17:13, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Clinton is nearly 2 millions popular votes ahead of Trump? Something doesn't appear right, ere. Anyways, we should keep the popular votes total out of the infobox, until the tally is complete. GoodDay (talk) 17:18, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I support showing the current popular vote count in the infobox, and believe that we should use the most up-to-date reliable source for those totals, which is the Cook Political Report. The fact that Trump has won the presidency in the electoral college while losing the popular vote is a major element of the story of this election widely discussed in reliable sources. It makes no sense to me to have an outdated count in the infobox and a more up-to-date count cited to Cook later in the article. Cullen³²⁸ Let's discuss it 18:26, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay, nowhere in this article does it say Clinton leads the popular vote by nearly two million. The unofficial results says she leads by over 1.65 million, which is correct based on Leip's data sources. Her lead has been steadily growing since the morning after the election. It makes no sense to suggest that the continuing popular vote count be removed from the infobox, when it's always been included for prior election articles. It's vital, highly sought-after data for readers, so it obviously should be displayed in the infobox. Removing it would be as illogical as your prior insistence that the term President-elect be changed to Elected President. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:98B6:D371:89CE:5E5A (talk) 19:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

If you're going to keep chiming in on a mobile phone. You could at least stop with the continuing put downs of my posts. GoodDay (talk) 20:53, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

If we are going to consider unofficial results, the Cook Political Report (http://cookpolitical.com/story/10174) is not a reliable source. The reason is that the website does not provide any kind of reference for its numbers. The only source that is given, is an Excel web-page (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/htmlview?sle=true#gid=19) that even inside the Excel web-page does not give any references!!! The Dave Leip's Atlas website (http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html) is a much more reliable source for unofficial results. The reason is that it provides a reliable reference for the popular votes in each of all 50 states, that we can simply check the main reference for the popular votes in each state. Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 19:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't know who changed the numbers in the "Results" section but the numbers in the "Results" section should be from Dave Leip's Atlas. To use the AP numbers or other options does not make sense because those other options do not update the numbers for Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. I am going to update the "Results" section with numbers from Dave Leip's Atlas website because it is the only reliable source that provides the numbers for all of the third party candidates, especially Johnson, Stein, and McMullin in particular. If someone can find a better reliable source that provides the numbers for all of the top 3rd party candidates then we can consider that reliable source, but as of yet no one has provided one.--ML (talk) 19:32, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Among AP-based official sources, Fox News provides the votes for Johnson, Stein and McMullin (http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-election-headquarters). Koorosh1234 (talk|contribs) 19:56, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Please stop calling AP vote totals the "official" total. That is simply not true. The ONLY "official" totals are the various total kept by the 51 various Secretary of States in the states and DC. That's it. When the word "official" is used it is referring to elected official. There is no one at the Associated Press that is an official. The AP is a news organization and has not "official" capacity whatsoever. If you really believe that AP is the "official" keeper of the election results from the 50 states then please, by all means, provide all of us a reliable source that supports your claim. I would like to read it. The Associated Press is a "not-for-profit news cooperative formed in May 1846" according to Wikipedia. It is NOT owned or controlled by any state or the Federal government. Please stop calling it an "official" vote keeper. For example in Texas the official in charge of the vote is the Secretary of State and Carlos Cascos, who is the current Texas Secretary of State, is the ONLY person who can certify the vote here in Texas and is the ONLY official source for vote totals. It is NOT the AP. So please stop saying that. It is not true.--ML (talk) 21:43, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I am fine with Liep. It appears to be even more up-to-date than Cook. I am NOT fine with declaring two-day-old popular votes as somehow an "official source." It is not official. Only 5 states and DC have certified their results. But can we have a consensus that Liep is proper? I do like that it is updated several times daily.GreekParadise (talk) 20:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with GreekParadise. There is no official popular vote totals outside of the U.S. Government, so again, I think we should focus on sources that have the most recency and accuracy. Sabot Cat (talk) 17:30, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that you reverted the popular vote totals in the infobox and replaced them with Charlie Cook numbers (which I believe is Wasserman, right Correct me if I am wrong.) However, we have discussed Wasserman many, many times on this talk page. Wasserman is great source and he is acknowledge expert and is not only employed by Cook but also by Nate Silver's 538. But he does not provide the vote totals for all of the candidates. Wasserman only provides totals for the two major party candidates. We have discussed that fact on this talk page. And your comment in the comment line is correct, there is no new agency that provides an "official" set of numbers. They are just reporting. They are not the official keeper of the votes. So you I reverted your work because there has been a consensus develop on this talk page that David Leip's Atlas is the ONLY reliable source that provides the vote totals for all of the candidates and Leip is the reliable source that updates the numbers everyday and provides the most up to date numbers. Please review all of the various discussions on this topic and interact with the other editors before you revert again.--ML (talk) 17:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Reverting without providing a valid reason

@MaverickLittle: Why did you revert my edit without providing a valid reason. —MartinZ02 (talk) 17:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@MartinZ02:I apologize. I reverted a two huge reverts that were made by two other editors and your edit was sandwiched in between. Those two other edits had to be reverted. They made huge changes without discussion and without any reasoning. I have put your edit back in place. See here: revert of my revert.--ML (talk) 17:47, 21 November 2016 (UTC)