Talk:2006 United States Senate elections/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Tradesports numbers keep changing

How about removing the exact numbers from Tradesports and only keeping the classification leans/favored/etc.? The problem with having the numbers in the table is that they keep changing. Anyone interested in the numbers can go to the Tradesports website. --KarlFrei 14:22, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

An understandable comment. However, there are two difficulties -- first, the classifications here are more or less made up by convention among the editors of this and related articles -- Tradesports itself does not set those classifications. So, technically, they may be considered problematic from a NOR standpoint to begin with. The other problem is that some races teeter between two rankings on a regular basis because it hovers at one of our boundary lines (such as, say, 52% to 57%) making the race seem more volatile than it really is. Thesmothete 03:40, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps the classifications should be replaced by something more neutral? Words like leans and favored have a meaning to people. For instance, we could use A = 50%-60%, B = 60%-90%, C = 90%-100%. I think translating numbers into these categories does not count as original research. The shifting of the boundary between A and B (was 55%) is to avoid your second problem, because I think there are more races that hover around the 55% mark than around the 60% mark. --KarlFrei 08:41, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. I'm guessing the A, B, and C correlate to Leans <party>, Favored <party>, Safe <party>. The problem with that approach is that once any poll hits the low 50's it's within the margin of error so to call it a lean might be inappropriate. Also, shifting the scale only changes at what values the races bounce back and forth between at. So instead of bouncing from Leans to Favored with races around 67, races will bounce between Leans to Favored when they are around 60. Another option is to do away with the range titles completely. Just put 57 (D) or 50 (Tossup). Basically reduces the options for bouncing around. Either they are above 55 and a party, or below 55 and a tossup. --Bobblehead 21:45, 27 September 2006 (UTC)

But that does not solve the original problem, which is that these numbers keep changing. Also, I expect less bounces to happen with the new scales. Finally, I would not name a party for any race within the 40%-60% range but only call it 'A'. Another possibility is to call the classes RR,R,T,D,DD (and explain what it means above the table). T (tossup) could also be C, for 'competitive'.

I think the new system looks a lot sloppier than the old numbers. I realize that the update of the numbers can be quite a task, but the fact that is has exact numbers takes away the fudge, and misunderstnading that the new system represents. I would at least like to see numbers on here for the 7-10 races where there is either an expected switch, or that is within 10 pts.D-rew 19:40, 30 September 2006 (UTC)

Please explain to me how the new system "represents misunderstandings", given the key above the table. About the "fudge", I would say that the exact numbers suggest a too high degree of accuracy, given that the numbers in Tradesports change by the day (or by the hour). Finally I do not see what you learn from the fact that Tradesports gives some race a value of 96% instead of 91%. About the 7-10 expected switches, I would argue that those are exactly the races where the most changes occur (apart from races where the incumbent is a clear second favorite), which was the whole reason for removing the exact numbers. --KarlFrei 12:59, 1 October 2006 (UTC)

Why are the Market-based indicators even included in this article? They amount to no more than virtual share trading or gambling odds and as such have no place in an article on these elections and their political processes. Fanx 16:45, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

New summary table

Maybe I'm missing something, but isn't the new summary table redundant to the text that is in that section? So basically we're providing a summary of a summary. Realistically, either the table or the text should go, there is no reason to have both. --Bobblehead 15:09, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm biased, of course, but I'd rather keep the table than the text (perhaps some text is needed to provide links, terminology, etc. The reason I created the table is that I found the text not to be very helpful for comparison purposes. We could also move the tradesports text into the same section. Thesmothete 15:30, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Oddly enough, I'm the other direction. I find the table to be too much detail. I don't think the Safe and Favor columns aren't really necessary as those races aren't really the important ones for control of the Senate, especially to the detail of listing every state in those columns. That sort of detail is why we have links to the sites. If someone wants more information, they can follow the links and get the detail of exactly which states are Safe and Favored. I also find tables to be an eye sore in an article and prefer the use of text when it can be done effectively and the existing text does that. --Bobblehead 16:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Just musing out loud: perhaps you both have demonstrated why text and tables are a good idea? One of you prefers one, one prefers the other. (FWIW, I think the table should go right _under_ that section). I'm happy to have the table included. -- Sholom 17:29, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

We don't need both. The article is already rather lengthy, no sense in making it longer with redundant information in the form of the text and the table. I'm definitely against having both, my preference is to have only the text, but I won't lose any sleep over just having the table. --Bobblehead 17:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I find the table makes it easier to see at a glance how the different commentators rate the races, and compare among them -- for example some seem to be more cautious in calling races "tossup" than others, which is something you can pick up in a second or two, but otherwise have to carefully read and compare all that text. Since the "safe" races are quite similar (though not identical) for each rater. Because there is a meaningful difference in notability between "favored" and "safe" I would oppose deleting the "favored" information. ("Safe" generally means that you don't even have to bother later in the election to see if it's changed status -- there is no chance it could become competitive. Whereas "favored" means it could become more competitive at any time.) Based on this discussion, I will try to cut down the size of the table and reduce the text to make it all smaller. Thesmothete 20:01, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and colored the states in the analyses table. Thoughts? If y'all don't like it, feel free to revert. On another front, since we've gone table on this one, what about transcluding it like I did the complete list table? IMHO, it makes editting the table a touch easier to keep track of and it gets rid of the whole article size issue. --Bobblehead 15:16, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

I like the color coding, especially for the "no clear favorite" column, but I'm left thinking that the asterisks to show possible seat flip are redundant now. --StuffOfInterest 15:38, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

A good suggestion. Could put the color legend down below and remove the single asterisk. I'll go ahead and do that.--Bobblehead 15:46, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

The font colors are a big improvement. They make the table even more effective and useful. Thesmothete 17:23, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

Transcluded complete list table

I went ahead and transcluded the Complete list table. Editting works the same, just click on the edit link in the section header, but instead of editting the main page, all changes are made on United States Senate elections, 2006/Complete list. Knocked 13k off the article size with the move. --Bobblehead 18:19, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Is _that_ the table you were talking about above? Or is this a separate issue? -- Sholom 19:06, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Separate. The table I'm talking about above is this one: United_States_Senate_elections,_2006#Non-partisan_election_analyses. The complete list I don't have an issue with as it has a lot of information in it that is not in the article itself. --Bobblehead 20:05, 4 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, the transclude was a noble experiment, but it looks like the reference tags does not support it. The count for the links works fine, but they are not displayed in the references section.--Bobblehead 19:29, 5 October 2006 (UTC)

New analyses sites

The Electoral-Vote.com one seems to meet the non-partisan analysis of the section header and is just a collection of polls, so nothing surprising there. However the Election Projection site appears to be rather partisan (check out the ads) and it's a blog. I've actually heard of Electoral-Vote.com and it has an entry in Wikipedia, so it's at least notable and it was also fairly accurate in the 2004 president election. However, I don't know anything about Election Projection, so can't form an opinion beyond that it's a partisan site and is a blog. So, what is everyone else's opinion on keeping the two new polls? I'm in favor of Electoral-Vote, but leaning towards no on Election Projection. --Bobblehead 15:01, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I love Electoral-Vote, and followed them closely during the 2004 elections. The biggest surprise was finding out who created the site. As a meta-analysis site it is hard to deny the independence. Definitely a keep, but label it as being a composite of other polls (perhaps even list at the top of the chart). As for Election Projection, the ads bothered me a bit but what really did me in as seeing that it has New Jersey listed as leaning Republican when most current polls show the Democrat slightly in the lead. Either the site maintainer is slow updating or showing a bias. Either way, it makes the site suspect enough that I would drop it. --StuffOfInterest 15:13, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

(edit conflict)In defense of Election Projection, they don't have a tossup category and it was only the most recent polls that have shown Menendez with a "lead". What surprised me most was that they didn't have Nevada as a Safe. Ensign has had a 20 point leads in all the polls, except Zogby's latest, that I've seen. --Bobblehead 15:23, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

I can live with that. Being that a reasonable number of polls are listed, even if this one has a slight lean it doesn't weigh too heavily in the overall collection. --StuffOfInterest 15:25, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

Electoral-vote.com is an excellent site; it got a LOT of hits in the 2004 election (I have no idea if that remains true for 2006). It should definitely stay. Regarding Election Projection, aside from its possible partisanship, my problem with it is that you have to subscribe to see most of the content. What are the ratings based on? Polling? The whims of the site moderator? Why are there only 680 subscribers? I don't think it is hurting anything, necessarily, to include the projection in this article, but I wouldn't be sad to see it go, either. · j e r s y k o talk · 15:16, 6 October 2006 (UTC)

E-V, it's pretty much been covered above, it's a collection of polls, so that's that. As for Election Projection, yes it's based in a blog, and yes the maintainer is unabashedly conservative, but the ratings are fairly nonpartisan in their construction. Taking the criticisms point-by-point:

• The formula for Senate seats is 80% composite of polls from the past month, 15% net approval rating for the incumbent, 5% "state partisanship" which is based on historical trends, with an adjustment for certain things (Ohio has a DEM adjustment due to the massive problems with the Ohio GOP). If the incumbent is not running, the factors are 90%/5%/5%.
• For New Jersey, the site creator expressed surprise that Kean was leading, but it was never as much as 3 points, and it came mostly from the polls below (from 9/25 to 10/2). In the daily updates, Menendez took the lead back on Thursday, but his lead is razor thin, though it would be a little bigger if Strategic Vision were disregarded/discounted as partisan.
  • Monmouth/Gannett, Kean 44-39
  • Rutgers/Eagleton, Menendez 45-44
  • Mason-Dixon, Menendez 44-41
  • Possibly some older FDU and Strategic Vision polls which have since been replaced.
• For Nevada, it's because of the category breakdown. The two polls listed average to Rep +16, but the other factors drag the overall result down to 14.7 at last update. The site considers 5.0-14.9 to be "Moderate", and the lower end of that is definitely "leaning" while the top end is "favored", but in the free data, there's no distinction. With the new net approval rating of +19 for Ensign, it should move to "Strong"/Safe with the next update.
• The site has few paying members because he's only asked for paying members for roughly a month or so. Weekly updates are free, weekdaily updates with the exact numbers are available for "name-your-price". Since the daily updates are behind a password, they're not free, and can't really be put in the page. Some of the other listings are at times up to a week old, so that shouldn't be too big a problem.
• No, I'm not the guy who runs it. I am quite the liberal, and in fact that's part of the reason I'm going to the site so often now, because I like to watch the site owner squirm.

Also, a similar formula had pretty good results for the 2004 presidential election. I don't trust his house projection formula as far as I can throw it, so I don't think that should be listed on that page. Jonpin 08:51, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

Connecticut race ratings

Seeing as how Lieberman and Lamont are both considered to be Democrats for the purposes of the table, in rankings where those two are considered to be the only two with a chance, should the race be listed as safe? I ask because Election Projection's listing had CT moved to "Favored", but it's essentially Lieberman 50-ish, Lamont 40-ish, Schlesinger negligible, so it's certain to be some shade of blue. Jonpin 09:00, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

The catch is that Lieberman is not "safe" for the Democrats. He threatens to bolt to the GOP is he wins but is mistreated (eg loses chairmanship). Rjensen 16:28, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

That may be true, but Cook, Sabato, and Rasmussen all say that it's safe Dem. Sabato in fact says that Lieberman says he'll caucus with the Democrats. Jonpin 20:57, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

It's safe Dem on election night--but Lieberman has threatened this week to switch parties if Lautenberg is given his seniority. Of course, Lieberman is getting the GOP vote on election day. The Hill Tuesday 03 October 2006: "Lieberman said he would keep his senior position in the caucus, even though he lost Connecticut's Democratic primary, and is running against Democratic nominee Ned Lamont, whom the Senate Democratic leadership has endorsed. "That's what I've been told," said Lieberman in an interview Friday, before Congress recessed for the election. "Caucuses like to keep as many members as they can, not discourage membership," implying that leaders risk his defection to the GOP if they strip him of seniority." [1] Rjensen 21:08, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

14 Super Safe Races

How about including the 14 races that are super safe for Democrats or Republicans? These would include California, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, and Wisconsin for the Democrats and Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Texas, Utah, and Wyoming for the Republicans. It might look like this.

Doing this will give a better overall picture and it is possible that a state in the "Safe" column in most of the 7 reporting sources may actually move into the "Super Safe" when it is in all of the 7 reporting sources. Likewise, something could happen (say another scandal) where a "Super Safe" candidate could find themselves in a race.

<chart removed> user:mnw2000 22:49, 7 October 2006 (UTC)

First problem is that there isn't a difference between "Safe" and "Super safe" on your chart. The only reason we have some of the safe listed below rather than in the fields themselves is space issues and Safe really isn't that important so doesn't need the detail of having every state listed. If one of the Safe states suddenly becomes competitive, or one of the analysis sites changes it from Safe to something else, we can handle it the same way we did Nevada. Remove the state from the summary section at the bottom and put the state into the table itself. --Bobblehead 18:04, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

Super-safe isn't a category that exists in any of the underlying sources of information. It is a category we would be creating based on our own survey about whether there is consensus that the seat is safe. I believe this would violate WP:NOR. I'm not sure such a category even has any validity. FOr example, if we asked a bunch of parents which kids are "in" or "out" of the community pool, and there was some disagreement among the parents because a few of the kids were sitting on the edge with their toes in (and whether that qualified as "in" or "out" of the pool) nonetheless we would not create a new category of "super-out" of the pool merely to describe those kids about whom there was not disagreement. Thesmothete 18:34, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

I think the lack of the 15 races that are safe according to all sTources in the chart itself is misleading. Now there are NO races that are safe for Republicans according to the chart. Once would have to look at the fine print on the bottom to note that Republicans have eight safe seats. We should find some way to express this in the chart.

To be really fair, the chart should include ALL states where there are races. user:mnw2000 18:33, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Hmm. How about moving the blurb about the 15 states to the top of the table instead of having it at the top? Something along the lines of "This table only includes races where at least one analysis has the race list as not being "Safe". <state list> are rated as "Safe Democratic" and <state list> are rated as "Safe Republican" by all analyses". --Bobblehead 20:21, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

Sounds like a good plan. Here is my suggestion:

Races where one party is considered safe by all sources are not included in the chart. Currently these include:
SAFE DEMOCRAT (8): California, Delaware, Hawaii, Massachusetts, New Mexico, New York, North Dakota, Wisconsin
SAFE REPUBLICAN (7): Indiana, Maine, Mississippi, Nevada, Texas, Utah, Wyoming

user:mnw2000 23:47, 11 October 2006 (UTC)

74.34.134.178 changes

This article has been changed quite extensively. The polling information has been removed. The key races analysis has been removed. What is the story? user:mnw2000 21:46, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

It's called vandalism. If you see mass deletions without explanation either in the edit summary or on the talk page, it's generally safe to assume the page has been vandalized. Just revert the changes and leave a warning message on the editors talk page. --Bobblehead 21:48, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

Discrepency for Determining Majority

In the section "2006_Senate_Elections#Major_parties", it seems to be stated that independents are included when calculating majority:

"To control 51 seats, a majority in the Senate, Democrats would need a net gain of six seats (as long as independent candidate Bernie Sanders wins Jeffords' seat in Vermont and continues to caucus with the Democrats as he does in the House)."

However, in the "United States Senate" article, under "United_States_Senate#Officers", it says that independents are not counted when determining majority:

"Independents and members of third parties are not considered in determining the majority party."

I don't know which one is correct, but this appears to be a conflict. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 163.231.6.85 (talk • contribs) .

Good catch. The sentence in the Senate article is unsourced, so I don't know if it's true. If it is, perhaps it means independents who do not caucus with one of the major parties aren't counted. Anyone have a definitive answer? · j e r s y k o talk · 13:40, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Finding a source for this may be a challenge, because there's no actual rule for it, and it's more or less assumed that that's the way it works (by definition, the majority party gets it's majority with a majority of the votes, which includes any independent who votes for them to have control). I will edit the Senate article to correct the misleading statement, though. Thesmothete 14:49, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

Wasn't the Senate 50-50 early in Bush's first term until Jeffords which from Republican to Independent. The Senate was then 50-49-1. Don't you need to have 51 votes to be a majority (out of 100). Wasn't it a plurality? user:mnw2000 06:01, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Senate was considered to be Republican-controlled at first because of Dick Cheney's tiebreaker, and when Jeffords turned indy it became Democrat-controlled because they had a plurality.

The line in the Senate article that was removed isn't misleading, the one in this article, above, is. The article should explain that the Democrats only need 50 seats to control the Senate if Sanders is elected, but 51 if he isn't, and why (because Sanders caucuses with the Dems and 50 would be a plurality).

If the Republicans win Jeffords' seat, in my book, it should be considered a GOP pick-up but not a Democratic loss. Thus the Democrats need to pick up X seats to reach 50, or X+1 if Sanders loses. Which means, in effect, that Sanders DOES count as a Democrat picking up (or retaining) a seat, but both articles should go into more detail.

Can you imagine what the majority-party system would be like if we had three major parties? Morgan Wick 00:31, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

It's not about a plurality. In this case, it's about a majority. When Jeffords turned Indy, the Senate became Democratic-controlled because with his support, they had a majority. Similarly, if Sanders wins, the Dems will only need 50 seats because his caucusing with them will bring their effective vote to 51. It's interesting that the Dems had a plurality in the 2001-2003 Congress and that they may enjoy a plurality once again in the next Congress, but the main point is that if they get 50 Dems plus Sanders, they'll have a majority for voting purposes.--RattBoy 22:54, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

If it was about who caucuses with who, then we would have heard a lot more about that when the switch occurred in the national media. In other words, the key point in Jeffords' switch wasn't changing party affiliation to indy, it was changing caucus affiliation to Democrat, according to you. I hadn't even heard that had happened. (But we all know how competent the media is...) Morgan Wick 03:56, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

Well, I can't control what you hear on the news. Of course the key point was that he changed party affiliation to Independent. Concomitant with that was his announcement that he would caucus with the Democrats (which was duly reported at the time by NPR). That meant that he voted with them on issues of Senate structure. For e.g., he voted for Tom Daschle as Majority Leader—and thus the vote for Majority Leader (and for issues of committee leadership, etc.) was 51-49, not 50-49-1. (See the Jim Jeffords article: "Jeffords made a deal with the Democrats according to which he votes with them on all procedural matters…") That's a majority.--RattBoy 10:03, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

I'm not quibbling whether he had changed his caucus affiliation, I'm quibbling with what the key point is. Sadly for a self-proclaimed liberal, I haven't listened to a second of NPR, meaning I've heard more Fox News than NPR... Morgan Wick 21:55, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

If Democrats and Republicans politicians can agree on anything, it is that a two-party system is best for both of their parties. Democrats and Republicans like only having to deal with one viable opponent rather than having to share power with a list of small parties like they do in countries that have Parliamentary systems like Germany and Israel. Whether this system is best for the voters is another questions. user:mnw2000 20:03, 24 October 2006 (UTC)

See Avigdor Lieberman. Septentrionalis 19:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Cook Political Reports

Considering the referenced policy of Cook Political Reports to not list an unindicted incumbent's race as worse than a toss-up, and considering that this reference is not immediately visible to the reader, how can we justify putting their admittedly inaccurate information first in the list of unbiased sources? CPR may be unbiased with regard to party, but they are by their own admission biased in favor of incumbents. There is no other way of reading this policy, and it is rather misleading to prominently display a number of races rated as tossups by supposedly unbiased sources when such ratings are really just deferential measures and do not represent real predictions at all. 172.153.204.41 07:05, 31 October 2006 (UTC)

The section is called "Non-partisan election analyses." This should not (and does not) imply that any of the included sites are unbiased one way or the other with regards to incumbents or challengers in general, so I see your criticism as misplaced. I personally don't agree that "either party has a good chance of winning" (taken from Cook's definition of a toss-up) fits the Pennsylvania Senate race, for example, anymore, but I think that referencing Cook's "incumbency tradition" below the table, as has been done, makes this a nonissue. As for its position on the table, the Cook Political Report is first because of alphabetical order, not because it deserves to be "first on the list" any more than the other sites. I see no problem with the present layout. Bridge Partner 04:14, 4 November 2006 (UTC)

"Notable Races"

While it may seem that both Arizona and Washington are no longer competetive, the average results from recent non-partisan polls show a closer race in these states than in Maryland, which is still included in the list of notable races. As it is also difficult to show notability, I believe that the course of inclusionism is wise in this case. I am adding both states back to the article. Stealthound 18:18, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Washington and Arizona

Both of these races are deemed other than "safe" by most of the commentators we have cited in our own table. Removing them was inappropriate. I intend to re-ad them. But to avoid a revert war, I am mentioning it here, first, in case it would benefit from discussion. Thesmothete 18:19, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Washington and Arizona seem to be about as competitive as Michigan, which was removed some time ago. I was only trying to achieve parity with Michigan's removal. True, while not considered truly "safe," compared to the other incumbents mentioned, I felt like Cantwell and Kyl were no longer noteworthy. Bridge Partner 18:27, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Stealthound and Thesmothete. If anything needs to be done to the list of races, Michigan should be added back. Removing Washington, which is by most accounts less than a 10 point race at this point, is difficult to justify other than by reference to subjective notability concerns. We should be less concerned with notability in determining what races to include here, but even so, Washington, at least, meets any reasonable standard. · j e r s y k o talk · 18:37, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm going to put Michigan back up. Bridge Partner 18:55, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Why not put 'em all in?

Why not list them all, in alphabetical order. (I agree it is useful to know which one's are currently D or R, which ones will be open, etc., but that can be in a table up top). For those races which are "safe", just keep the description brief. Heck, there's only 33 of 'em in total. Thoughts? -- Sholom 19:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

I don't have a problem with that, although it might not be worth it to add them all at this point since there are only a few days left until the election, after which it will be easy to point out party switches or "notable" race results. Bridge Partner 23:23, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Probably enough to link from the list of state names above the table. It would mean we'd have to mask including font; but that's not really a problem. Septentrionalis 03:16, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

what day is the voting happening?

this article mentions that the house and senate races happen on the same day. is it today? it doesn't say when the voting happens. --75.11.13.72 14:38, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Check the article's first sentence ;) · j e r s y k o talk · 14:45, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

Other

I was going to update some democratic primary result, but I noticed the new results include an "other" category. The question is, should I still list "other" under the democratic party? Or is there an "other" template?? --Tuvwxyz (T) (C) 22:47, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

A way for voters to compare candidates quantitatively ...

I recently stumbled on to these great US Congress and Governor race pages. I was very much impressed with the information presented and the ease of use in finding information on candidates and the various issues as well as biographical information. I am also impressed by the wikipedia principles, focus on facts, and management of opinions, all of which is highly consistent with my online book at [[2]]. In fact, I am absolutely amazed at what I see as accidental compatibility.

Thus, taking advantage of being able to link freely to wikipedia.org, I linked my home page to the three key pages (Senate, House, and Governor races) and encourage visitors to my web site to go to wikipedia.org to get info on the candidates as they do a quantitative analysis (Appendix A of my online book at technidigm.org) and come up with a score for each candidate if they want to have a logical approach to deciding for whom to vote next week (and in the future, as well).

Since technidigm.org focuses on integrity, being on-the-level, facts, and research to arrive at solutions to issues, it seems that wikipedia.org's requirements for links to external sites like mine might be met. Being new to this venue, I am not quite sure whether my Technidigm-2000 12-element framework would be greeted positively or not, and I really do not know how to proceed with pursuing the links, even if it is viewed as potentially beneficial.

Basically, I think there is potentially a high level of synergy between wikipedia.org's info and my candidate evaluation criteria. While it is a bit late to do much more than link up the web sites, it is probably worth doing and thus give the wikipedia users somewhere to go with all that info, and they may even decide to actually evaluate and compare the candidates systematically rather than emotionally.

The goal for my web site is to get people to vote intelligently and, also, to encourage political candidates to elevate the political climate in the US.

I would appreciate any insights and recommendations. Charlie Jones 04:37, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Germantown, MD cjones@technidigm.org

(See Appendix B of online book for bio on me, if you like.) technidigm.org

Welcome, Charlie. Your set of criteria is of course a useful tool for you to rank candidates so that you can cast votes in accordance with the set of qualifications you find valuable. There are an enormous set of interest groups that publish ratings based on voting history, and an even larger number of issue groups and media outlets that make endorsements based on whatever considerations they deem relevant (ideology, experience, issue positions, whatever). As such, my view is that your personal set of criteria for rating candidates is unencyclopedic (as unencyclopedic as mine would be). I don't believe that we should insert a link to your site.--Inonit 12:31, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for the polite remarks and insights. Your logic is excellent, of course, although there seem to be many wikipedia references to the views of special interest groups and other entities with agendas to promote, which would seem to fall under the unencyclopedic heading except for their more prominent positions as newspapers, magazines, or political parties, etc. For example, through wikipedia I was able to link from Menendez (NJ) to the Republican web site that disparages him. It is difficult to see how that promotes a NPOV other than by averaging out the left and the right of the political dialogue. Those of us who seek to elevate the overall discussion seem to be left out of the discussion as non-relevant.

I have been thinking about all of this for many years and wrote a book on the subject, looking for ways to cut through the polarizing special interest groups that you mentioned and come up with a generic paradigm to help our largely neglected silent majority who have to tolerate these elections and the associated campaigning and concurrently encourage politicians to raise their standards as well. Since you have probably not read that book, I can see why you would categorize me as one of them, too, and you might even do so after reading the book, as well.

Again, I am very impressed with the work that has been done on wikipedia site for the election process and hope it continues. The visitors to my site and those who read my free book at least have someplace to go to get the information they need to perform their candidate evaluations! That is really neat from my perspective. Thanks!

Charlie Jones 21:35, 3 November 2006 (UTC)

You might want to get involved at Campaigns Wikia; they seem to have a more free-form approach to things. (I'm not sure they have any traction, but that's another matter). John Broughton | Talk 22:53, 3 November 2006 (UTC)