Talk:Electoral-vote.com

Linear Regression

During the campaign I was very intruiged with this site's use of least squares linear regression to "average out" the results of many polls in a state. If I recall correctly, the linear regression map was VERY similar to the map that came up on election night... that is until he changed the rules in early September because he didn't like the answer he was getting showing a decisive Bush win. I would be interested in seeing someone write a paragraph or two regarding the accuracy of using linear regression to average out the biases of the several poll takers.Elipongo 04:30, 15 September 2005 (UTC)

I second that - something needs to be noted here regarding this man's liberal bias. During the 2004 campaign he linked many stories supporting Kerry and even said he was very depressed when Bush won. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.99.148.218 (talk) 21:13, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

Do you have any reliable sources covering the unreliability or bias of the statistics on the site? Interwebs (talk) 21:20, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

He's definitely liberal. http://www.electoral-vote.com/evp2008/Info/general-faq.html#republican has, as a FAQ, "I hate this site. Is there one run by a Republican?" His answer is "Yes. Take a look at electionprojection.com. It is run by someone who has devoted his life to Jesus and is strongly biased in favor of Republicans in his commentary (but his numbers seem to be OK)." Tuanomsoc (talk) 04:44, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

That's not a statement supporting his liberalism, that's merely a statement that another site exists which is biased to the right. Again, where are the reliable sources pointing to the site's political affiliation? I'm not opposed to including the description if these reliable sources can be cited. Interwebs (talk) 12:57, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Here is your answer via the wayback machine. This information, surprisingly is not available in 2008.

[long copyvio removed]

http://web.archive.org/web/20041102014915/www.electoral-vote.com/info/votemaster-faq.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 (talk) 08:09, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

Where are the reliable, third party sources that claim this website has a political affiliation? I've seen two statements from the author of the site that he may lean to the left. However, I've yet to see any reliable, third-party source which states that the poll-aggregating website itself leans to the left. Interwebs (talk) 12:57, 10 September 2008 (UTC)

I remember reading that page you posted from the internet archive when it was posted on the site. Even before seeing that page, it was clear reading through the daily (or near daily) commentaries where his political alliences are, but that he is trying to remain impartial. I think if he though it was necessary to put on his site, it should be put here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.241.2.141 (talk) 01:01, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

I hate to beat a dead horse, but I'm still looking for reliable, third-party sources that we can cite in the article to support all these assertions. See, for example, the final sentence of the introduction of this article for an example: RealClearPolitics.

Additionally, it's not clear to me whether the comments on this talk page are concerned with the website author's political bias or bias in the website's function, a poll aggregator. For example, RealClearPolitics has been described by critics in third party sources as utilizing selection bias in its poll aggregation, resulting in potentially skewed results. For example, the RealClearPolitics article correctly notes that the site has been described as "conservative leaning" because critics have accused the site of not only conservative editorial bias, but also conservative cherry picking of polls. On the other hand, Andrew S. Tanenbaum, the author of electoral-vote.com, as well as Nate Silver, author of FiveThirtyEight, while both professed liberals from an editorial standpoint, have not been met with similar accusations of poll selection bias as far as I am aware. I would be happy to consider any such sources if they exist.

Finally, please continue the discussion here without editing the article so that a consensus can develop. P.S: sockpuppetry is not going to be helpful for your position. Just provide better third party sources, and we can reach an agreement. Interwebs (talk) 03:40, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I think the recently added line about 'liberal perspective' is inappropriate. The content of what he writes is from his perspective, which is biased to whatever his point of view is. No where does he claim he is a liberal and there is no citation from a notable source to label him as such. The writer hardly represents liberalism, he just represents a dude who finds the Bush presidency distasteful. This article should be about the website, not his perceived bias; unless there is a notable source claiming such; which there isn't.leontes (talk) 19:15, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Leontes, though I began attempting compromise last night considering no one else was backing me up on this. In the interest of building consensus, however, I will note that political descriptors, in the absence of reliable third party sources, are inappropriate in this article. I will also note, again, that some commenters here appear to be confusing the electoral-vote website with the electoral-vote author. This Wikipedia article is about the website, NOT the author, who has an article of his own. Interwebs (talk) 19:20, 18 October 2008 (UTC)

I have posted many times the authors own archived site http://web.archive.org/web/20041102014915/www.electoral-vote.com/info/votemaster-faq.html that not only introduces himself as a liberal but as an activist liberal, at that. Just because the site has not garnered enough 3rd party stories about it, doesn't mean a primary source, directly from the authors mouth, proudly trumpeting his liberalism on his FAQ page and his daily blogging immediately below his poll numbers. In addition, the polling he decides to collect on his website leans left. For instance, look where he had kerry bush the day before the election in 2004 as opposed to most other news sources. Even today, his aggregate of polls will be further left than most other sites. Something, just something, even if it is one word needs to be on here about his liberal bias. I know wikipedia has an incredible liberal bias, as noted on its on wiki page, but can we please be rationale here. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 (talk) 04:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

In addition, the polling he decides to collect on his website leans left. - do you have a source for this? Otherwise, it's merely original research, and we cannot place it in the article. Interwebs (talk) 12:10, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I have read your argument carefully, and I do not think that this sentence is merited on the webpage. The blog in question that you site does not claim to be liberal, in fact the webmaster claims on his site [1] to be libertarian and who leans towards Democrats. Also, I have done some reading of his previous posts and it appears he does discard polls of both a republican and democratic bias, which I think may merit a mention on the page. Regardless, even this, I think, does not merit a sentence on this page which is about the website. If you had a notable source that both provided a rationale for why a bias is important and a bias itself, I would see it being relevant, but as it is, I think Interwebs is right in that any statement would constitute original research. leontes (talk) 22:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Then why is his polling usually left to most other aggregates? Further, all I want to have on here is what his blog postings lean left, which they do. Just because nobody is taking the time to write if this site is either right or left doesn't negate the fact that it is. Sure currently he claims to be a libertarian but his archived page from 2004 shows he is dedicated to the liberal cause. I know I won't win on wikipedia because it is so unbelievably biased, but I am just trying to bring some fairness to this site. Just read bill oreilly's wiki page then Keith Olberman's the disparity is hilarious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.6.173.150 (talk) 01:20, 22 October 2008 (UTC)

Indeed, 4 years later, back in the election, you can clearly see that this man is biased toward liberalism/democrats. Why is it such a big deal to note that? The author himself has concluded he and his website is liberal biased with references! I have a feeling if I put it on there, it will be removed, though. I think it's clear the census is there are well referenced sources and even the own author that he has a liberal bias, why isn't this included? nezZario (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2012 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Electoral-vote.jpg

Image:Electoral-vote.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot 22:07, 29 October 2007 (UTC)

Similar sites?

Shouldnt the article mention other websites that offer similar information? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.133.246.126 (talk) 04:57, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Removal of relevant information about Tanenbaum and website

Aprock followed me over here and removed my addition "The site content is produced solely by Tanenbaum." This is important information needed to evaluate the usefulness of this website and is supported by the first reference:

Who is Behind This Website?

Me. Just me. To make it crystal clear, this Website is my personal project. I paid for it myself and did all the work myself except as noted in the Acknowledgements section on the Welcome page...The opinions expressed here are my own.

He also removed the important information as to exactly who Tanenbaum is--a computer science professor. Drrll (talk) 15:29, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

No information has been removed, however the copy has been edited to be more encyclopedic. The first sentence of the article clearly states that it is his website. With respect to various details about other activities for which he is notable, there is a separate article about him which goes into the details. aprock (talk) 17:07, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

I'll give you the point that the first sentence "clearly states that it is his website." I do think, however, that it's important for the reader of this article to readily see exactly who Tanenbaum is without having to consult his article. Drrll (talk) 19:15, 26 January 2011 (UTC)

Tanenbaum's involvement in the site is quite clear in the article. I've added his occupation to the first sentence. aprock (talk) 00:18, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

Dead Site

The last updates appear to have been in December 2014. The site has a prominent Dec. 07 banner at the top. Is the site now dead, or does it only update when conducting analysis? -Ashley Pomeroy (talk) 14:46, 13 June 2015 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Electoral-vote.com's predicted electoral vote map on Nov. 8, 2016.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 10:52, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Notability

I'll be frank: I hadn't heard of this website before I landed on this page via the random article function here on Wikipedia. However, having looked through the linked references, I cannot help thinking that this article is based on self promotion by the website's creator. Of the listed sources, all except 2 are links to the website. The other 2 sources imply that this website was regularly checked by some people in 2004 and 2008, but one of them is completely trivial, and while the other gives a brief description of how the site works, I gather that the site has changed since 2004. Was this website a 5-minute wonder back in 2004 that has limped along for the following 15 years? I suppose if this site was fairly accurate in predicting previous elections and people noticed, it might be notable. Of course, then people would have written exposes along the lines of, "This formerly obscure website accurately predicted the outcome of the election! Here's how they did it: ..." Such articles are also better places to find sources for methods and history than the website itself. Rockphed (talk) 17:34, 9 July 2019 (UTC)

I think this is a sourcing issue, not notability. I'm removing the notability tag; you're welcome to take this to AfD, but I think you'd be wasting your time. Certainly the site isn't as prominent as it was early on, especially when there was speculation about the identity of the Votemaster, but notability isn't temporary. I agree that the article could use more third-party sources. --BDD (talk) 14:36, 14 May 2020 (UTC)