Talk:2012 United States presidential election/Archive 12

This is an archive of past discussions about 2012 United States presidential election. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 10

NH results up

According to CNN, Obama leads Romney 28-14. Romney and Obama are tied in Dixville Notch with 5 apiece. In Hart's Location, Obama leads Romney 23-9. ~~If you could add these to the table, I'd be happy.~~ TruPepitoM Talk To Me 05:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It probably isn't useful to constantly update the popular vote totals with the returns of every single precinct in America. Perhaps a sentence of prose in the article about Dixville Notch, which has a sort of historical curiosity long associated as the "first in the nation" to vote, but otherwise I would oppose any sort of non-contextual infobox stats, or any other continuous stream of popular vote updates. WP:DEADLINE certainly applies here. When the final tallies become official, this article can reflect that in the infobox. --Jayron32 06:14, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur with Jayron. House1090 (talk) 06:17, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It helps somehow for me. Those are small towns with a small population which can give the results to the media within a minute. 12 people live in Dixville, 43 in Hart's. Small steps lead to big endings. Plus, Gary got a vote in Hart's Location. I'm going to end my coverage as I am still in school. If I see a newer result, I'm not going to publicize it. Thank you. TruPepitoM Talk To Me 06:29, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I also concur with Jayron's comment- there are plenty of other sites out there to visit and spam the refresh button with to check the minute-by-minute updates. Regarding vote totals, at what point does that information usually get put into an election article? Do we put in the numbers the networks report at the end of Election Day, or do we wait for everything to be certified? Do we put in the projected electoral votes or wait for the official count? I know people will be eager to put in results as soon as possible, but that could result in what I still see in the 2008 article, where the candidates have different vote totals in the infobox, expense summary, ballot access, and result tables. Would it be too much to ask people to wait until final tallies are made available? This is an encyclopedia after all, so I think we ought to take the long-view on what goes in, avoiding including things that we know will change quickly. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 06:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that we could update the electoral college totals and list of "states" won once such states become "called" in the media, to the point where they aren't in dispute at all by any media outlet. However, states that are "too close to call" shouldn't be updated until they are actually official (and that could take weeks or months, c.f. United States presidential election, 2000). The popular vote numbers, however, should wait until the official final tallies are in and registered as official, there will likely be some small disputes over these until well after the election. --Jayron32 06:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Near the bottom of the article, there is a table and map ready for results, but they are currently hidden by  marks. Once the results come in, someone should un-hide that and update it. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:21, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No mention of Puerto Rico statehood referendum?

Puerto Rican status referendum, 2012.

Why is there no mention of this in the opening paragraph, after it mentions the concurrent senate, house, and governorship elections?

Lionboy-Renae (talk) 19:46, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

There are thousands of elections and referenda happening in the United States and related territories today, it isn't possible to give every single one equal access to the lead paragraph. There is a separate article titled United States elections, 2012 which covers all U.S. elections during 2012, including the Puerto Rico status referendum. --Jayron32 19:45, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

But this is significant. Way more significant than any other referendum happening today. What if Puerto Rico becomes a US state tomorrow? Then aren't you going to regret not mentioning this in the article?

The current text reads thus.

As specified in the Constitution, the 2012 presidential election will coincide with the United States Senate elections where one-third of the Senators will face re-election (33 Class I seats), and the United States House of Representatives elections (which occurs biennially) to elect the members for the 113th Congress. Eleven gubernatorial elections and many elections for state legislatures will also take place at the same time.

I propose the following change.

As specified in the Constitution, the 2012 presidential election will coincide with the United States Senate elections where one-third of the Senators will face re-election (33 Class I seats), and the United States House of Representatives elections (which occurs biennially) to elect the members for the 113th Congress. Eleven gubernatorial elections and many elections for state legislatures will also take place at the same time. Puerto Rico will also be holding a referendum on whether to remain a territory of the united states, become the 51st state, or become a sovereign nation.

Lionboy-Renae (talk) 19:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

You forgot two words in your explanation, the words "to me". Insert them after the word "significant" and before the word "than". There are many referenda that are significant to someone. --Jayron32 20:11, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

"What if Puerto Rico becomes a US state tomorrow?" The statehood would require the approval of US Congress first... --89.27.36.41 (talk) 20:40, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Read the title - "US presidential election 2012" - wrong article for the Puerto Rico referendum to get top billing. Apteva (talk) 23:41, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

If this is an article exclusively concerning the presidential race, then why does it mention the congressional, gubernatorial, and state legislature races, in the introductory section?

I think the potential addition of a 51st state to our union is more significant than any state legislature race in this country; I don't think that's a matter of opinion.

Lionboy-Renae (talk) 00:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I think our OP has a point. Many of the "other" things people are voting for are regular events anyway, and while other referenda may have high local significance, the Puerto Rican one has international implications. Wikipedia is global. Think globally. HiLo48 (talk) 00:48, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Polls closing time should also be given in GMT

Polls closing time should also be given in GMT in paranthesis since wikipedia has a global and not only American readership. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.140.67.60 (talk) 21:59, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

No one here is stopping you. --Jayron32 22:01, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, that person can't make the changes because the page is semi-protected so IP's and new users can't edit it.--NextUSprez (talk) 22:08, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

It's been added. Apteva (talk · contribs) said that the 7:00 PM close time on the East Coast was 0:00 GMT, but because it's Daylight Savings Time in (most of) the U.S., it's actually 23:00 GMT. At least...I think that's right. Another editor is welcome to double check me. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 22:54, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

See[1]. The US went off of DST on November 4. Apteva (talk) 23:26, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

Haha, I'm an idiot. Thanks for that. I got them switched around...and I even live here! I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 23:44, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

2012 Cartogram ?

Is there any updated cartogram available ? Yug (talk) 03:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Per State articles? Wisconsin

Fixed I thought we had a separate WP article for the election results each state. I can't find that at the moment. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

United States presidential election in Wisconsin, 2012 is the page for Wisconsin. I found it by going to United States presidential election, 2008 which linked to the page for Wisconsin, 2008 and I changed the URL. I'll update the 2012 article to link to the state pages for the elections. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Fixed I'm puzzled as Fox News is calling Wisconsin for Obama with 12% of the vote counted and Romney leading 230,000 to 172,000 votes. At this instant it's 15% counted and still at 240,000 to 212,000 in Romney's favor. Thus I wanted to look at the WP article for Wisconsin to see if they used some method other than majority vote for the entire state. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:17, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've moved the question about Wisconsin to Talk:United States presidential election in Wisconsin, 2012. --Marc Kupper|talk 03:53, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Re-election projection

Better get ready, looks like projections are calling for Obama's re-election now. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 04:20, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

I certainly agree! -Ano-User (talk) 04:23, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

CNN has projected Obama is re-elected. --Wingtipvorte^X PTT ∅ 04:24, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Ohio problem

The Republicans do have a point as of now if the totals end and they are within 250,000 votes then we wont know the official results of the election until 10 days later, of course this is if Obama wins no more major states this is just a thing to keep in mind and watch. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:36, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

In addition Romney is not ready to concede to Obama. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

What should we do? GoodDay (talk) 04:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears that Karl Rove is demanding a recount from Fox News or something - he doesn't agree with their statistics (?), at least according to the BBC - but all the other major media outlets are saying that Ohio is definitely an Obama win. I suppose that as long as Romney hasn't conceded, and there is a mathematical possibility that he can, we can only report that almost everyone is calling it for Obama. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:57, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

As of now, all major news networks are sticking with their Ohio->Obama projections. When one or more redacts their projections (which I'm kinda thinking will happen), then we should change it on the page. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I retracted it for now, waiting for more results to change, notwithstanding the media. CrazyC83 (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If Obama wins Florida or Virginia then Ohio wont be an issue I just want to say though that the dust has not yet settled. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Note that now that Obama has Colorado, even if Romney wins Florida, Virginia, and Ohio, Romney will still lose to Obama's 272 Electoral votes. Canuck^{89 (what's up?)} 05:24, November 7, 2012 (UTC)

Yes now I think it is safe to say that Obama has won its up to the editors here if you want to wait until it is official. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:25, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Wait a sec. Nobody was elected President & Vice President tonight. The people elected tonight were the 538 Electors. We gotta wait until they vote December 17 & the results are annouced January 6, 2013 - Hahahaha. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It's perfectly acceptable to say Obama has won the election, which he has, as long as he is labeled as the projected President-elect (or President-designate if you prefer), and the electoral votes are asterisked as such. As you say, it won't be official until January. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 11:45, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Projection by state section

Yes right now it is unsourced but I think that when the official results do come in we can always redo it to show this, I dont want to lose all of the linked articles by stste for this election in one easy to find place. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 06:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Added ref for everything but AK and FL. The FL ref is more like a blog. Apteva (talk) 07:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Okay thanks =) Its 2:09AM(USA E.S.T) here so im getting some sleep, the results should be online later today for the election. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 07:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So why is Florida shown for Obama in the table? 96.234.3.57 (talk) 07:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I changed Florida to "undecided" as that's how all seven networks have it at the moment.^[2] Individual reporters such as this one have called Florida but I'd wait until the main networks report. --Marc Kupper|talk 08:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Really all the states are decided other than FL. They are no longer projections. That NYT link which shows which networks have called which states is no longer current. I say get rid of all the projection (e.g. (Consensus projection)) comments. Also the NE comment about 4th and 5th is probably very old. 96.234.3.57 (talk) 10:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Lead

It seems silly to devote so much space in the Lead to the four "mathematically eligible" candidates who never attracted any noticeable following. Suggest the paragraph about them be deleted from the Lead; the issue and references can all be covered in the body of the article.Parkwells (talk) 16:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I concur; they didn't win any electoral votes and Gary Johnson is the only one to even reach the 1% mark. Toa Nidhiki05 16:49, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Just because they're in the Infobox (per policy at top of Talk page) does not mean that we should waste space and content on them in the Lead. It should deal with reality, not far-fetched possibility that is now closed off. Let's get serious here.Parkwells (talk) 16:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually they're out of the infobox since none got enough votes. Hot Stop (Edits) 17:04, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Cartogram - Error in state abreviation

Arkansas should be AR in the election cartogram at the bottom of the article. Instead it is AK, which Alaska (which is also correctly identified as AK). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 157.185.6.158 (talk) 17:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It appears to have been corrected. Thanks for spotting the error.--JayJasper (talk) 18:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Google Counts Weird Regarding Virgil Goode

I couldn't believe that Virgil Goode would only attain ~4,000 votes across all the nation, so I did a hand state by state count; he actually has at the moment 113,990 votes. I'll do similar counts with other candidates just to see if they are also off, though I doubt it will be to that degree. --Ariostos (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Please be certain to add references for where all the information comes from per WP:V. Apteva (talk) 21:37, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

We obviously need a more reliable source for third party vote counts. Does anyone know of one?--NextUSprez (talk) 21:46, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Maps

Maps need updating.. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.26.136.14 (talk) 19:27, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Stock market drop? What on earth is going on?

This article says "Specifically, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, NASDAQ and S&P 500 all fell over 2 percent the day after the election.[121]."

Excuse me. I'm writing this at 14:54 Eastern time on "the day after the election." THE MARKET IS STILL OPEN!

WHAT ON EARTH ARE WE DOING HERE?????

Poihths (talk) 19:58, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this can be reworded but according to the experts down on wall street the drop is mostly due to what is going on in Europe (Germany's rate of groth is slowing down) and the looming cliff here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:03, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I also agree and I propose to delete the word "solely" in this paragraph, as it implies the unproven conclusion that there is a connection between the election result and the market movement. --Lanenabrdu (talk) 21:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

It seems silly to try and say that this is a reaction to Obama being re-elected, as Wall Street loves Obama. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.115.47.163 (talk) 22:10, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Same Sex Marriage

Done This is by no means a necessary edit; however, with the important ballot initiatives that are mentioned (including legalizing marijuana in Washington and Colorado) I think it is extremely important to mention that Maryland, Maine, and Washington all legalized same sex marriage by POPULAR VOTE. Same sex marriage has been proposed to the people via referendum 32 times before, and all 32 times it was struck down. This is an extremely historical occurance to have these states agree by popular vote to legalize same sex marriage. This is my suggestion to add to that section. Thank you! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.2.129.108 (talk) 21:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

When to call a state

Here is how I think it should be handled:

Runaway red or blue states: declare at the first media source to confirm on an exit poll. State the source of the projection (i.e. media outlet)
Somewhat red or blue states: ignore exit polls, but declare at the first media source to confirm on results. They aren't normally called on exit polls anyway.
Swing states: wait for consensus. At the first media source calling it, add a note "source (i.e. CNN, MSNBC, Fox News) projects (Obama/Romney) victory" then let several come in. CrazyC83 (talk) 22:51, 6 November 2012 (UTC)
Is anyone working on tables, like these: United States presidential election, 2008#Result? Apteva (talk) 23:32, 6 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it will be hard to do the tables in advance of the official results being published state by state. As I see that the Secretries of State or other official election boards are publishing the vote results with 100% precincts, I've been adding them to the appropriate state pages, but most states don't have all of the votes in at this point. Once they do, it should be a rather quick table to put together. Smooth pappa (talk) 02:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Debate Section

Please consider converting the bullets in the Debate Section into a Table. 64.128.27.82 (talk) 15:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

A table is doable but in the long run it would be better if that section used prose rather than bullets. Converting the existing text into a table makes a later conversion into prose more difficult. Here's an example of how the list would work as a table. If people love the look of the table vs. what's at

Date	Moderator^[1]	Debate^[2]	Location
Wednesday October 3	Jim Lehrer	First presidential debate	University of Denver in Denver, Colorado.
Thursday October 11	Martha Raddatz	Vice-presidential debate	Centre College in Danville, Kentucky.
Tuesday October 16	Candy Crowley	Second presidential debate	Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York.
Monday October 22	Bob Schieffer	Third presidential debate	Lynn University in Boca Raton, Florida.

As I was finishing this up I saw that someone else posted the list in table format at United States presidential election, 2012#Debates. I thought about linking the dates to the articles like that but there's a WP:MOS guideline on that links should be intuitive. I'll look for that. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:35, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The MOS section I was thinking of is WP:LINKCLARITY and also WP:EGG. --Marc Kupper|talk 00:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I like the look of the new table. The information in the table should be static, so there should be no reason to convert to prose to add information? I'll let a few other folks comment, and if all wish the table converted, I would like to see it added to the main article. Thank you! 64.128.27.82 (talk) 14:44, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Important add - strange method of voting in NJ

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Done It should be added in some section that in New Jersey law allowed voting by email. ^[3]

It is vital because this probably can lead to mistakes, also it was first time in history that usual people in the USA state can vote by email. Also there should be added controversies section because quoting abc(so not bad source): "The changes to polling rules in New Jersey are just one example of the ongoing problems and controversies at polling sites around the country, as civil rights groups and campaign-affiliated attorneys all monitor voters' access to polls and other issues that could infleunce the outcome of the election. "

Should we not also mention the disaster in New Jersey, which forced polling locations closed, as they are under water from both hurricane Sandy and a nor'easter? While, that is common knowledge today, in the future, readers will not have that information available to them otherwise. I'd attempt it, but it wouldn't be with the appropriate style of the article.Wzrd1 (talk) 02:20, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Third party results?

When is the estimate for adding the main third party results to the article? (Libertarian and Green, namely, although Constitution and Justice would be interesting information somewhere lower.) I collect information on third party results and need the numbers. Coolgamer (talk) 19:55, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

The info in included in the Results section.--JayJasper (talk) 20:01, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Well it is way off as Goode took over 100,000 votes nationally and Justice Party got 35,000+ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.70.120 (talk) 21:39, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

that's been mentioned in the above thread "Google Counts Weird Regarding Virgil Goode".--NextUSprez (talk) 21:42, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone know of a more reliable source for this information?--NextUSprez (talk) 21:44, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Got this....http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/11/working-totals-for-third-party-presidential-candidates/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 198.91.70.120 (talk) 21:47, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

would this be better?--NextUSprez (talk) 21:52, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This site seems to have a good tally of everyone, including what looks like a much more accurate count for Goode. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 02:03, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This is what Google had:

Candidate	Party	Percent	Vote	Electoral Votes
Barack Obama	Democrat	50.3%	60,398,485	303
Mitt Romney	Republican	48.1%	57,598,903	206
Gary Johnson	Libertarian	1.0%	1,139,562	0
Jill Stein	Green Party	0.3%	396,684	0
Roseanne Barr	Peace and Freedom Party	<0.1%	49,426	0
Rocky Anderson	Justice party	<0.1%	34,521	0
Tom Hoefling	America's Party	<0.1%	28,594	0
Jerry Litzel	Independent?	<0.1%	12,984	0
Jeff Boss	Independent	<0.1%	12,984	0
Randall Terry	Independent?	<0.1%	12,985	0
Merlin Miller	American Third Position Party	<0.1%	12,894	0
Jill Reed	Independent?	<0.1%	12,108	0
Richard Duncan	Independent?	<0.1%	12,108	0
Andre Barnett	Reform Party USA	<0.1%	4,711	0
Chuck Baldwin	*Reform Party (Kansas)	<0.1%	4,711	0
Barbara Washer	Independent?	<0.1%	4,711	0
Tom Stevens	Objectivist Party	<0.1%	4,013	0
Stewart Alexander	Socialist Party USA	<0.1%	3,897	0
Virgil Goode	Constitution Party	<0.1%	3,819	0
Will Christensen	*American Independent Party	<0.1%	3,819	0
James Harris	*Socialist Workers Party	<0.1%	3,437	0
Jim Carlson	Grassroots Party	<0.1%	3,169	0
Sheila Tittle	*Independent	<0.1%	2,499	0
Peta Lindsay	*Party for Socialism and Liberation	<0.1%	1,525	0
Gloria La Riva	*Party for Socialism and Liberation (Iowa)	<0.1%	1,525	0
Jerry White	Socialist Equality Party	<0.1%	1,138	0
Dean Morstad	*Independent	<0.1%	1,107	0
Jack Fellure	Prohibition Party	<0.1%	519	0
None of these candidates		<0.1%	5,753	0

Note that Tom Hoefling's vote count is listed twice on the website, as Tom and as Thomas. That there should be any counts that are identical is questionable. Votes are still being accepted until Friday, November 9 in New Jersey, so obviously final results will not be available for some time. Apteva (talk) 22:21, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I've been using Politico and adding the state results (multiple times) gives somewhat different numbers than those listed above. According to Politico Johnson received 1,158,390 votes not 1,130,000 and Goode had 98,755 votes. Given the differing numbers, who should we use??Coinmanj (talk) 02:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

these are the numbers for the states in which stood the candidates on the ballot. where can I find numbers for the third party write-in votes ? 89.204.139.117 (talk) 14:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The numbers in the table listed above are highly suspicious; How is it that so many candidates received exactly the same number of votes as another candidate? Google must be doing some math rather than counting individual votes here (i.e. extrapolating percentages across the total number of voters) and running into rounding and significant figure errors, rather than actually reporting the counts: How else could one explain how so many of the candidates have the same number of votes as another candidate? I don't trust the above table for accurate representations of the number of votes for the minor candidates. It just looks wrong. --Jayron32 18:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

As others have noted the Google results seem rather suspect. Here is a PDF with every state total listed (for Johnson), and general election results. This was compiled by myself and is only accurate up until 3 PM yesterday, however you can do that math yourself and clearly see Johnson has more votes than listed and that we should reconsider using Google. Coinmanj (talk) 22:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Unrelated elections

There is mention in the lead about the marijuana, same-sex marriage, and Puerto Rico referendums. Although these items were on the ballots in various states at the same time as the presidential election, I don't think they have anything to do with electing a president. Why are these items in this article? 72Dino (talk) 23:34, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

See #Same Sex Marriage, above, and #No mention of Puerto Rico statehood referendum?. If neither had passed there would be no point in mentioning them, which is why they were not included until now. This is the main article for this election, and since they passed they are quite significant, and should be mentioned, briefly. Apteva (talk) 02:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

But they don't have anything to do with the presidential election. Now, I would like to see the mention of them retained, along with the information about the Senate/House of Representative elections, but shortened to remove unnecessary detail. The intro should ideally be 90% about the presidential election, retaining very small mention of the other things that were happening at the same time to guide readers to other related topics they might have been looking for/want to read. EryZ (talk) 02:48, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I don't think more than a mention should be necessary. If a person wants to know more they can simply clink on the article link and find all the relevant information there. The article is already rather long and contains a lot of info, no need to add to the confusion or turn the article on a single event, the presdiential election, into an article about our entire 2012 election. Just my opinion. Coinmanj (talk) 02:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

There's an article titled United States elections, 2012 which is where they should be mentioned. Mentioning the major offices being decided very briefly, which is how the lead originally started, seems fine, but cherrypicking all of our favorite inititives that passed seems unreasonable in this article. Having a brief note about the other office holder elections being held on a national scale seems fine, local state politics doesn't properly belong in this specific article. It does belong at Wikipedia so don't try to act like you're being slighted if your favorite issue doesn't make the lead paragraph in this one article, but lets keep things properly organized. --Jayron32 06:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree. I think the best solution is a fairly prominent link—maybe even a hatnote—to United States elections, 2012, rather than a paragraph in the lede about initiatives that have nothing to do with the presidential election. —Caesura ^(t) 13:59, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I have added a hatnote and removed information on unrelated elections. --Jayron32 18:39, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(Not done yet). Almost no one is working on that other article, so until the information gets added there and that article come up to snuff a brief mention would be appropriate in this article. On Tuesday, 502,438 came to this article to find out election results, and yesterday 1,119,979. How many viewers did the other article have? 19,722 on Tuesday, and 28,950 yesterday. This is a no brainer to keep a brief mention here for now. In a week or a month it can be stripped clean, after viewer counts drop. Apteva (talk) 21:21, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, its because this article is linked from the main page right now in ITN. But I take your point, WP:DEADLINE and all that. I think that long-term, we should plan to strip that paragraph back out, because it really is incongruous. Again, no one is arguing that Wikipedia should not include the information in its proper place, but ultimately it doesn't make for good writing to veer off of the topic too much. Merely because this article gets a lot of hits is not, of itself, a reason to make it actually worse merely because people will be looking here for information. --Jayron32 21:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Absolutely strip clean this article in a month or so, maybe sooner, but right now the other article is a joke compared to this article, with its 9 references vs. this article's 129 references, despite it being only about one election vs about thousands and thousands of elections. Apteva (talk) 21:37, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Gary Johnson in the main infobox?

I have removed Gary Johnson from the main infobox as he got only 1.1 million votes which was less than 1% of the total vote. The last candidate to get over 2 million votes was Green party candidate Ralph Nader back in 2000 as for being in the infobox with the Democrat and Republican this is for 1996 when with 8.4% of the vote Ross Perot got 8,085,294 total votes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:56, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I will lay down some of my reasons, your free to debate them (no irony intended) but here I go...

Gained over one million votes, a highest for a libertarian in U.S [presidential] election history.
A handful of media coverage over his campaign and had a strong following from American voters.
Had some airplay for his campaign ads on national TV.
Electoral vote and carried states don't mean anything. Like come on, you might as well remove Ross Perot from 1992 and 1996.

My two cents, I hope you considered. Cowik (talk) 06:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I can compare this to Ralph Nader, Ralph got the highest for a Green Party candidate in election history with more than double the vote Gary got. Media coverage goes for almost all of the candidates. In 2000 there were ads for Ralph Nader as well. As for Ross Perot even though he carried no states he still got a huge number of the popular vote which stands out notabe wise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 07:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

To be honest, I think Ralph Nader should be in the infobox for 2000, he at least got over 1% of the vote so he should be up there. But thats just my view on the subject not everyones. 74.198.150.69 (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

IMHO, only candidates who get an electoral vote, should be in the infobox. PS: excluding those who get faithless electoral votes. GoodDay (talk) 07:11, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sometimes a candidate who receives no electoral votes is substantially important enough to be placed in the info box; this is not such an occasion. Johnson received less than one percent of votes and was generally a non-factor in the election. Perot and Teddy Roosevelt are examples of third-party candidates who had a significant impact on a presidential election, Johnson can claim no such relevance. I would be shocked to learn most (non-Johnson) voters were even aware of Johnson's existence prior to entering the polling both. 74.88.254.80 (talk) 07:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

This issue is dealt with in one of the message boxes at the top of the page, specifically the note that a candidate is put in the infobox if and only if they meet one of the following two conditions:

Win at least one electoral vote
Get at least 5% of national popular vote

Since Johnson did neither, he should not be listed in the infobox. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 07:44, November 8, 2012 (UTC)

Oh come on, 1%? Thats a bit harsh, I think it should be how much votes he got that should matter. 74.198.150.69 (talk) 16:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Just noticed now, that's the inclusion criteria. Of course, those who get a faithless electoral vote, are also excluded - example: Reagan in 1976. GoodDay (talk) 07:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

My 10 cents - I agree Johnson cannot be given the same prominence in the infobox as the main two candidates. As has been pointed out, the fact he failed to gain even 1% of the vote (that he got above 1 million is irrelevant, the American electorate goes into the tens of millions) nor an electoral college vote means Johnson is not on the same level as Obama and Romney, and we should not give the impression otherwise. Redverton (talk) 11:23, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

An alternative idea would be to create a link at the bottom of the infobox for "Minor results" or a similar wording (e.g. "Other results", "Third Party Results", etc.). What does everyone think about that idea? 64.128.27.82 (talk) 15:14, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

The major problem with that is that it is not uncommon for major third-parties to get around 1% of the vote; 5% is considered the threshold for a major third-party campaign and Johnson didn't even come close. There is no reason he, or any other third party, should be in the infobox. Nader's campaign was far more significant and we don't include that. Toa Nidhiki05 17:01, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the third-party candidates should not be listed in the infobox, but I believe there should be a link at the bottom of the infobox, such as, "Third Party Candidates" in a really small font. Otherwise I feel we are censoring the fact there were more than 2 candidates running for President. 64.128.27.82 (talk) 19:15, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) No one is censoring anything; information on the third party candidates currently takes up a resonable amount of the article text. The presence, or absence, of some fine print in a sidebar is not censorship, so lets step back from the emotional rhetoric a bit, m'kay. --Jayron32 19:47, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Disclosure first, I am a Johnson supporter, however I agree than only candidates who received an electoral vote should be included in the info box. Johnson is mentioned several times in the article and in the results box (with the other candidates). Johnson's campaign was a pretty good one (spent $2 per vote compared to Obama's $10), but he shouldn't be in the main info box. Coinmanj (talk) 19:45, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Extremely useful map

Could we please have a map like this one Electoral county by county 2012? It is the best one I have seen anywhere.91.39.97.80 (talk) 08:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Election Infobox Totals

Something that is missing from the Election Infobox and that ought be included are the relevant "totals" as between the two main candidates. E.g., "509 electoral votes total" from the 303 electoral votes + the 206 electoral votes. It is a minor change to make, and would be quite helpful. After all... viewers DO want to know how many people voted in total, and what percentage of the VAP voted for the two main candidates.

Are such "totals" present in the "election infoboxes" of similar wikipedia pages? Perhaps not, but such absences ought not be taken to mean that such "totals" should not be present. Rather, including such "totals" might be appropriately added to this page and others like it in times to follow with the new custom starting from here.

That said, there is not any true, standard format for similar pages even with templates being utilized. Indeed, reviewing them will reveal quite a bit of variety.

--MercWithMouth (talk) 11:24, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It is an interesting idea and thank you for proposing it. However, I don't think I can get behind it. Your change would include stating the total electoral college vote between the two candidates, but since they both swept up all the votes that idea is made redundant because the total electoral college votes available is listed at the top of the infobox. The only purpose served by your change as carried out on the article earlier, would be to include a total on the votes cast for the two candidates - I do not think it is worth creating a new column in the infobox just for that, when the total figure can just as easily be put in the introduction and further down. Sure, it's less prominent, but again I do not believe it's worth creating a new column in the infobox just to include that total. As always, I'll stay open-minded to your subsequent arguments. Redverton (talk) 11:31, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Preliminary report from OSCE

The preliminary report from OSCE: LIMITED ELECTION OBSERVATION MISSION - United States of America – General Elections, 6 November 201.

It is mostly general positive things like: "The 6 November general elections took place in a pluralistic environment and were administered in a professional manner." and "The election campaigns were vibrant and highly competitive." and "Overall, media is pluralistic and diverse and provided voters with a wide range of information and views on candidates, issues, and electoral platforms." and "The overall field of candidates provided voters with a wide degree of choice"

But also comments on voter eligbility: "US citizens who are at least 18 years old on election day and residents of a state were eligible to vote. Some 4.1 million citizens that are residents of US territories were not eligible to vote, while some 600,000 citizens that are residents of the District of Columbia were eligible to vote only for the president. An estimated 5.9 million citizens were disenfranchised due to a criminal conviction, including some 2.6 million citizens who have served their sentences. This is at odds with the principle of universal suffrage and the commitment to ensure proportionality in the restriction of voting rights as enshrined in paragraphs 7.3 and 24 of the 1990 OSCE Copenhagen Document."

And alsom comments on voter registration: "Voter registration is implemented at state level through an active system. A number of states launched initiatives to improve the accuracy of their voter lists. Civil society was active in encouraging citizens to register, as well as checking the accuracy of voter registers. Nevertheless an estimated 50 million eligible citizens were not registered to vote, bringing into question the effectiveness of existing measures to ensure that all persons entitled to vote are able to exercise that right."

Read the whole report to learn more. Some may be useful in the article Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:52, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Florida.... must have Florida....

Florida.... must have Florida.... 188.221.129.72 (talk) 15:08, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Obama will probably keep it- from what I've heard, most of the outstanding ballots are in Palm Beach & Miami-Dade counties, as were most of the problems. I will say though, regardless of who you were rooting for, it's nice to know who the winner is without having to wait for Florida to sort itself out. At this point, they should just split the electors 50-50 (give the 1 extra to Johnson) and call it a day. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 15:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I thought about adding Florida last night. The problem is that the official source does not say how far along in the count they are. It only reports the totals at the moment. I saw a news article that says there were 200,000 votes left to count with Obama leading by 50,000.

You'd think a 50,000 vote lead with 200,000 left to count would be enough to call the election. However, Florida has a rule that there's an automatic recount if there's a less that 0.5% difference between the top candidates. Last night the difference was 0.57%. At this instant it's 49.89% for Obama and 49.25% for Romney meaning Obama's lead is now 0.64%.

I suspect Florida will be called around Saturday at noon which is the reporting deadline. Until then the situation changes too much to be keeping Wikipedia updated. --Marc Kupper|talk 15:58, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Update to my previous comment -

As of November 08, 2012 10:49:57 AM (time in Florida) the numbers were

Obama / Biden DEM 4,173,275 49.89%

Romney / Ryan REP 4,120,025 49.25%

Total 8,365,120 (total is for all candidates and not just Obama/Romney)

As of Thursday, November 08, 2012 11:39:40 AM the numbers were

Obama / Biden DEM 4,179,777 49.90%

Romney / Ryan REP 4,123,963 49.24%

Total 8,375,631

Apparently they are updating either in real time or near real time. --Marc Kupper|talk 16:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it's finally over

http://ivn.us/2012/11/07/president-obama-wins-florida-in-extremely-close-race/

http://elections.huffingtonpost.com/2012/results/

--TheAmericanizator (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I wish editors would STOP adding Florida's electoral votes to Obama's total. Florida has not been decided, yet. Romney's concession is irrelevant. GoodDay (talk) 23:40, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Inaccurate statement

The sentence: Compared to John McCain's performance in the previous election, Romney gained the electoral votes of North Carolina, Indiana and Nebraska's 2nd congressional district. Should be changed to: Compared to John McCain's performance in the previous election, Romney gained the electoral votes of North Carolina and Indiana, but lost Nebraska's 2nd congressional district. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.16.3 (talk) 20:20, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

No he didn't. Obama won Nebraska's 2nd district in 2008. Romney won it this year. Nebraska and Maine divide their electoral votes by congressional district, so the state vote can be split in those states. This has nothing to do with how the congressional race for that seat went. The article is correct as written. --Jayron32 20:30, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry; thanks for correcting my mistake; I'll read more carefully next time! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 140.32.16.3 (talk) 22:09, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Issues

This section was also added by request (one even wanted a voter guide so they would know how to vote). Some of the election issues are very well known and clearly should be included. While this was titles "Campaign issues" it was not intended to be a list of all the campaign elements, just those that affected the election. It was not added until after the election was over because it was not intended to be a voter guide, but a guide to what issues were the most important.[3] Apteva (talk) 23:05, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

A comparison of the first to last edit does not show much change.[4] I actually did not want to create the content, but just add a boilerplate with the hope that others would add the content. I only put in the items that seemed to be mentioned the most. It is possible that immigration could be mentioned. Evidently religion was made a non-issue because Obama did not want it to backfire. Apteva (talk) 23:53, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 November 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

President Obama has won Florida. Requesting to update information in number of electoral votes, electoral college map, percentage of votes, and number of votes. http://ivn.us/2012/11/08/president-obama-wins-florida-with-the-independent-vote/ Wadeappleby (talk) 00:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done. For Florida, we are either waiting for official government results, or all major news networks to project the race. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You originally said "No major news networks have called it", and now you want to wait for all of them, after their attention has moved on. Pointless! You realise that this is no longer a news story outside of Florida, and the Florida newspapers and others have called it, and Romney has conceded, meaning there will be no recount. Stop wasting everyone's time. 81.156.183.237 (talk) 00:47, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Has a major network called it yet? Not that I can see, of course this will change, but what is the rush? This is not a news site. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Florida automatically recounts if the difference is .5% or less between votes in the state. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to jump into this conversation but huffingtonpost said that Obama has won. Also your map Electoral College 2012 Map says that Obama has won Florida. And Wikipedia needs to fix it because people look on Wikipedia for information quickly. If wikipedia cannot fix it errors and lock a page from other people's edits, then its pointless for people to try to continue it. I love wikipedia but if they could not care less about a article they locked, then hy go to it. --Rvh4350 (talk) 01:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In fairness, the electoral map / article mismatch is my fault. I thought I was making a non-controversial update to the map, then went to the article to update it as well, but saw the talk page disputes first and figured I should hash things out here before making any changes to the article. SnowFire (talk) 01:43, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That is easily fixed. And already has been. Apteva (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Warning Just a friendly reminder, keep the RR's down to three. United States presidential election, 2012 is subject to sanctions, see Wikipedia:General sanctions/2012 Presidential Campaign/Log. Apteva (talk) 01:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Winner

The 2012 election was also the first time that a senator won an election against a Governor. In fact, in all previous bids for reelection by an incumbent which failed, the winner was a Governor and the incumbent was never a Governor, except for Jimmy Carter. Barryfadams (talk) 14:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

He won: [5] -- FutureTrillionaire (talk) 05:28, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup =) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:31, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

This isn't Wikinews - there is no rush to announce the results. Apteva (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

I was about to post something similar. When in doubt, we should always wait for a clearer picture to emerge. Leave the live news reporting to the proper outlets. --84.44.230.252 (talk) 05:35, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

If only we had had ~~Wikipedia~~ ~~Wikinews~~ Wikipedia in 1948. :) Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 05:51, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah yeah, read up on our policies, funny guy. --84.44.230.252 (talk) 06:14, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Mitt Romney is making an concession speech right now. It is over. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.136.99.73 (talk) 05:56, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Thou misseth the point, O Unsigned One. Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 06:11, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

So are you. --84.44.230.252 (talk) 06:16, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Speaking (typing) in farcical Olde English is considered a personal attack now? I'm done for! Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:08, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

You know I was agreeing with you, yes? Evanh2008 ^{(talk|contribs)} 09:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Romney made his concession speech... Obama surpassed Romney's votes... I would have to say he's won. JoThousand (talk) 06:15, 7 November 2012 (UTC)

Playerstroke (talk) 02:13, 8 November 2012 (UTC)Would it be worthy to mention that this is the first time since Woodrow Wilson in 1916 that an incumbent president has won reelection with fewer electoral votes then previously?

See #First president to lose electoral votes since Wilson? Not really. below. Apteva (talk) 11:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Romney concedes Florida

http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/08/3087995/romney-campaign-we-lost-florida.html

UPDATE THIS ARTICLE! ITS OVER! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.121.23.59 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2012‎ (UTC)

That's irrelevant, as it doesn't stop the counting of the state's votes. GoodDay (talk) 22:57, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It wont affect the result, but its a notable personal reaction. BTW- the article is missing both Rmney's concession and Obama reation that nightLihaas (talk) 07:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 8 November 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

| electoral_vote1 = 332 69.113.48.157 (talk) 23:22, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Florida hasn't decided yet. Why are editors claiming they have? GoodDay (talk) 23:27, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done. No major news network has called Florida yet. Therefore, no change. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:33, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

It's now been conceded: http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/08/3087995/romney-campaign-we-lost-florida.html http://www.slate.com/blogs/the_slatest/2012/11/08/who_won_florida_romney_camp_concedes_obama_won_the_swing_state.html http://politicalwire.com/archives/2012/11/08/romney_campaign_concedes_florida.html

Romney doesn't cause Florida to stop counting their votes. Florida does. Don't make this request again please. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

If you actually read the links, you'll see that the remaining votes come from Democratic-leaning areas, and the state's been called because of that. That's how calling a state works. 81.156.183.237 (talk) 00:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Also Huffington Post has already called Florida for Obama. There is absolutely no way Mitt Romney can pull a surprise in South Florida. Keeping Florida undecided right now is only a technicality because it's clearly going for Obama.[1] --Raymond SabbJr (talk) 00:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done and not likely to be done. We have previous consensus saying we will wait for network consensus, a vast majority of major networks calling FL for Obama before saying he won. There is no network consensus he won Florida. So stop requesting this. It will not be done. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Done. But not necessarily now. FYI, that consensus, while noble, was immediately and consistently ignored. But please quit edit warring over this issue as doing so will get the article being locked down and somebody being blocked. Apteva (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

In case anyone cares, I have already requested full protection for this exact issue. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:34, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm interested in adding FL at this point. Why wait until Noon tomorrow (when the unofficial results will be reported). -Kai445 (talk) 17:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

While I enjoy seeing what the news reports none of this really matters. The Electoral College hasn't voted yet and until they do any EC count is purely speculative. I strongly suggest waiting until the electors have actually decided who is president and who gets how many votes before making any changes to the EC count on the article. For those who don't know, the popular vote does not determine who is president, the electoral college does and not every state mandates that they vote according to the popular vote. Coinmanj (talk) 21:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Florida does have such a law. -Kai445 (talk) 23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oddities in the lead paragaraph

Done If there is some rationale for not clearly stating the winner in the lead paragraph or two at this point, can that rationale itself be stated? Compare this lead to the lead of the 2008 election article, in which, like any good newspaper story, the first sentence states the most important and relevant information: that this election had a winner, and who it was. In contrast, this article's lead contains a lot arguably esoteric data about timing and projections, only to have a passing reference to Obama winning deep within the intro. If there's some reason for consensus around not declaring Obama the winner yet (votes not certified? Electors haven't met?), could someone add that to the lead? Because the omission of a direct, simple mention in the opening graf or two of the fact that Obama won is a little strange. Moncrief (talk)

Looking at that, I see no reason not to simplify it. But I'll leave it up to someone else, I don't want to mess this up. Also, since I see you are a sysop, would you mind looking at either my AN/I report over this or the RPP for this page? Thanks! gwickwire | Leave a message 04:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

First president to lose electoral votes since Wilson? Not really.

When I encountered it, article's lead said:

Obama became the first President since Woodrow Wilson in 1916 to be elected to a second term with fewer electoral votes than in his first victory ...

I've removed that line because it's misleading. It ignores the fact that FDR, though he got more electoral votes in 1936 than 1932, got fewer electoral votes in 1940 than in either previous contest, and the fewest of all in 1944. The common sense reading of this statement will be one in which the reader infers "re-election", or "final run for the White House" and not strictly "second term".

I think it's also too narrowly construed. Truman had a second term, even if his first was not one in which he was at the top of the ticket. He won fewer votes as a Presidential candidate than a Vice Presidential one. The same phenomenon is true of Coolidge, too — though obviously not of LBJ.

I also think it's a fairly trivial negative point to make in the lead. Of all the negative inferences that could be made about Obama's performance now versus 2008, his electoral vote count is not a particularly strong one. His electoral victory slipped from 67.84 to 61.71. Assuming Florida goes his way. he'll have beat both challengers by basically 2:1, for a total batting average of 64.77. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 06:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Something of this sort is a good idea to include, but we'd need to specify that we're only talking about presidents who got fewer electoral votes in their second victories than in their first. It definitely isn't something that belongs in a summary, and that's what the lead should be. Nyttend (talk) 06:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There's nothing wrong with the statement. Roosevelt was elected to a third term, in 1940 & a fourth term, in 1944. GoodDay (talk) 06:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I know. That's precisely my point. I think the average person under 40, particularly the average non-American person, cannot be assumed to know that there was a time in America's past when it was possible to have more than 2 terms. Thus, when they see "second" term they will think it's synonymous with "final" term, when it really isn't. Two of the three FDR re-elections followed exactly the pattern implied by the 2012 election: slight diminution of numbers. Plus, I think it's misleading to suggest that the drop-offs from 1920 to 1924 and 1944 to 1948 somehow don't "count" in this comparison, because we no longer elect Vice Presidents according to the original wording of the Constitution. Coolidge and Truman both lost electoral votes they had gained in 1920 and 1944. Not to mention Bush 41. When you start to think about the number of individuals who have lost electoral votes versus the previous election, they're not that hard to find — especially if you add in those people who actually lost the election.

Plus, it's really quibbling. We're talking -33 votes when there was already a -6 vote built in. So it's actually a net 27 vote loss. Is that really significant enough to talk about in an historical sense? I can understand mentioning the flat statistics, but by saying you have to go all the way back to Wilson to find a similar thing, I think the original statement is making a mountain out of a molehill. And it's just wrong — or at the very least misleading — to boot. I mean, c'mon, the 1912 election basically had no opposition becuase TR imploded the Republican party. Naturally the results would be significantly worse for Wilson the next time, when he fought against only a single opponent. The situations aren't at all analogous so it's hardly fair to make the comparison. Raw facts are the only thing that should be presented here — not this massive overreaching for historical context. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 08:09, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

My argument against the inclusion of this statement is that this was the guaranteed outcome in the Electoral College unless President Obama won a state in 2012 that he had failed to win in 2008. Because of the census changes to EV apportionment, the net change in the 2008 electoral map was -6 EV. Even if the President had perfectly replicated the electoral map in 2008 (thus including NE2, IN and NC), he was bound to lose EV totals without a new state. --Baryonyx (talk) 07:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, I see whatcha mean. GoodDay (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

For what it is worth I also axed the trivia about since FDR. Trivia in general is frowned upon, and certainly does not belong in the lead. Apteva (talk) 08:41, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Why is Florida red in the map?

All the ballots still have not been counted, no major network has projected a winner in Florida, and both the Obama and Romney campaigns are indicating that Obama probably won Florida, so why is the state red on the map here?--50.4.162.0 (talk) 11:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, that map is simply wrong. Please correct it or remove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 90.60.164.253 (talk) 11:28, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Are you looking at this map File:2012 General Election Results by County.png? That is a county map. Most of the United States is uninhabited, by choice. Most of the population is concentrated in urban areas that make up a very small portion of the land area. Apteva (talk) 11:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Someone fixed the map, and Florida is gray again. Thanks to whoever fixed it. --35.16.15.222 (talk) 12:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Paragraph removed

I have removed the following paragraph from 2012 United States presidential election/Archive 12#Election:

The 2012 election was the first time since Franklin D. Roosevelt's reelection in 1944 that an incumbent president has won by a slimmer margin than in his previous victory; it was the first such occurrence for a two-term president since Woodrow Wilson was reelected in 1916. It was also the first time since Andrew Jackson's election to a second term that a President won reelection with a decline in the popular vote share, and only the second time after 1792, when George Washington was reelected, with a decline in the number of votes. The unemployment rate at close to 8% was the highest for a reelected president since FDR in 1936.^[4]

This graf was in the middle of a portion of the article that was talking about genuine firsts (i.e. first evers) and was thus incongruous. I've no real objection to it being included somewhere in the article, but it certainly didn't belong where it was. It should be in another section which tries to delineate some of the characteristics of the election, such as the changing demographics captured by exit polls, the role bad polling had in allowing a number of news outlets to mischaracterize the race as a "tossup", the nature of the coalition of women and minorities Obama used to win, the diminished votes of third party candidates as compared with other elections since 1992, and other characteristics. CzechOut ☎ | ✍ 12:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Popular vote totals for each state and the USA

I was unable to find a simple, easy-to-read spreadsheet with the popular vote in each state and the national totals so I've created one which I'm updating with the latest information. The link is below:

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFp2dUlkNWlJeGN5NFUxa0F3cXpoLXc#gid=0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajs41 (talk • contribs) 14:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I see why you want to get a start, but it's probably worth pointing out that a lot of the numbers can change, as states begin to certify the results. As of last night, when I was digging around, a lot of states had not yet received 100% of the vote yet. As of right now, for example, Washington has appx. 600,000 ballots yet to be counted.Smooth pappa (talk) 16:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Final electoral result

Obama: 332

Romney: 206[6]

Romney conceded Florida[7]

Can we update it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Partyclams (talk • contribs) 23:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done. Romney's concession does not determine who won Florida. The votes do. See above for more. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:24, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Home State Loss Inaccuracy

"The election marked the first time since 1972 that both members of a major-party presidential ticket did not win the electoral votes of their home states."

This is inaccurate as Al Gore lost Tennessee in 2000. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.178.82.154 (talk) 23:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

He said first time that BOTH candidates lost their home states. Joe Lieberman won Connecticut. 72.92.235.239 (talk) 00:27, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Al Gore's running mate won his home state in 2000. gwickwire | Leave a message 00:29, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Article name

This should be a trivial move - to United States presidential election of 2012. The rationale that we have always done it this way "All of the presidential election articles currently have the same title format I feel there should at least be a d" not withstanding. Apteva (talk) 22:00, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I know its good to be WP:BOLD but a change such as this will effect the format of ALL of the United States presidential election articles not just this one and wanted to get editor input here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

You're asking for all of the articles to replace the "comma" with "space" "o" and "f". Is that correct? If so, it isn't a trivial move, as it will involve retitleing well over 50 articles. I have no opinion, in thus current post, over whether or not such a move should or should not be done, just that the decision to do so needs to occur after a centralized discussion, notice of which should be posted on the talk page of all potentially affected articles. --Jayron32 22:29, 8 November 2012 (UTC)

I'd prefer the proposed name over the current one. Less choppy, more fluid and prose-like and arguably even clearer! The main thing is it just reads and looks better. EryZ (talk) 07:51, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that there is not a problem IF we move each election article in wikipedia, as all election articles in wikipedia (every country, every office etc) have the same format.--The Theosophist (talk) 13:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, if that is what people want to do, the correct way to do that is to start a centralized discussion somewhere (may I suggest Wikipedia:WikiProject United States) and leave a notice on every election related article at Wikipedia with a pointer to the centralized discussion. If we're going to change the way we format U.S. elections article, its a LOT of elections. There have been well over 50 presidential elections, as well as all of the senatorial and house elections articles we'd have to move, etc. etc. Doing so may or may not be a good idea, but if you want to, you need to do it right. --Jayron32 17:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I oppose renaming the article, as it is just more trouble than its worth. As Jayron & others have pointed out, we would have to rename all other election articles (of every country, state, locality, etc.) to maintain uniformity in title formatting (which is useful, among other reasons, for ease of navigation and reference for readers). To get an across-the-board consensus would basically require that a "proposal to rename" notice be placed on every election article on the site (and there is virtually a TON of them) to link to the aformentioned centralized discussion that would need to take place. Not that the re-titling idea is a bad one on its own merits, it's just far too much of a chore - IMO - for a move that even the proposer refers to as "trivial".--JayJasper (talk) 18:27, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I also oppose the renaming of every single article as it is making a mountain out of an anthill. if editors really feel otherwise though as suggested post it over at Wikipedia:WikiProject United States. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:39, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Oppopse an immediate rename. Regarding the OP's comment on "we have always done it this way" - that's called "consensus" on Wikipedia. Apteva, you will need to build a much stronger case if you want to change the consensus. Ultimately, it's going to impact thousands of articles. --Marc Kupper|talk 17:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think a better name for the individual state articles would be 2012 United States presidential election in Louisiana, for example, to avoid an of of or in in or of in or in of construct. US of 2012, though is better for this article (United States presidential election of 2012) Apteva (talk) 21:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I oppose this change for all the reasons stated above. This is just a waste of time.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

As per many of the rationales stated above my fellow editors, I oppose this modification. Simply too much work for too little gain. —Theo polisme 23:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I also oppose per other comments above. This is a name change against Wikipedia-wide consensus and will require renaming a very large number of articles. As an example, there are currently 125 London by-election articles that use the current naming convention. Road Wizard (talk) 01:24, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention that every link throughout Wikipedia leading to every one of these articles would have to be changed as well. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 17:08, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

The links part is a non-issue. When you move or rename an article a redirect is automatically created that points from the old name to the new name. However, a reason for opposing "2012 United States presidential election in Louisiana" is that most people will be typing "United States presidential elect..." in the search bar and you'd then want the hints/offers to be relevant. Another is that in English we tend to read most to least important from left to right. Thus the order of country, office the election is for, state or region, date of election" makes more sense. If an article is about a national election in for a particular year the result is syntactically the same. --Marc Kupper|talk 20:10, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Florida

Why is Florida being added to Obama's total? The state hasn't decided yet. GoodDay (talk) 00:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Romney has conceded defeat. http://www.miamiherald.com/2012/11/08/3087995/romney-campaign-we-lost-florida.html

That's not good enough. Romney doesn't decide, Florida does. GoodDay (talk) 00:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What exactly would qualify for you? If you mean the actual certification blah blah blah then the entire map should be empty for a month or so. A concession from the Romney campaign is in fact about as relevant as you can get. SnowFire (talk) 01:13, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Romney's concession does not halt the counting of the votes. GoodDay (talk) 01:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

This is true for, say, California as well, where not all votes are counted yet I believe. It's true for all states, actually, that haven't yet tallied up absentee ballots and the like fully. Yet no one disputes California will end up for Obama at the end. If the Romney campaign is not disputing Florida, that means Obama has won it. SnowFire (talk) 01:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. Florida may have a mandatory recount (by Florida law), and it's possible Romney won. We won't know for a while. That's like saying "Obama's not disputing California, so Romney won it." No, Obama won California, but there's just no reason to dispute it. If there's enough split to not have a mandatory recount, there isn't an outlet for the Romney campaign to get a voluntary recount without a suit. So, they will just let it take its course. Obama has not won. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Lots of things are "possible." However, Obama has a lead that is greater than the amount that would trigger a mandatory recount, and the areas left uncounted are indisputably thought to favor Obama. I see above that the networks "calling" a state was considered good enough for purposes here; the Romney campaign making an "admission against interest" certainly qualifies as far, far more trustworthy than television networks (which are not reporting on it because the election is over and it's a footnote).

I'm not sure if you misread my meaning intentionally or if I was unclear or what, but by "dispute" I mean dispute in the sense of "contend for" not "object to." Thus the Obama campaign is absolutely disputing for California in the sense of "claiming to have won it." The Romney campaign is not claiming to have won (=disputing) Florida.

I could go further into why there's approximately a 99.999999999% chance that Obama will be declared the winner of Florida, but even if you think it's more like a 99.8% chance, our opinions don't matter here. The Romney concession is absolutely a sufficient secondary source to mark Florida as Obama for now, and in the bizarre event of alien mind control rays + a wild recount that flips 50K votes, we can flip it to Romney. SnowFire (talk) 01:42, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Florida hasn't decided yet. There's no rush to put it in any candidates column. GoodDay (talk) 01:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The Romney concession has nothing to do with the results legally. The Romney concession means nothing. gwickwire | Leave a message 01:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

GoodDay: And as already pointed out, this is silly since technically no state has decided. We have a reliable secondary source giving us a concession from the only candidate who matters (unless Gary Johnson somehow secretly won Florida?). Let's repeat that again: a concession. It's over, the paperwork doesn't matter. Of course there's no rush, which is the reason to wait until today rather than earlier, but the time has come and Florida has been decided, and both campaigns agree that it's an uncontroversial fact Obama won it. Wikipedia can and should report that.

gwickwire: We're going in circles at this point, but "network consensus" has even less to do with the results legally. Legally every state is up for grabs until the electoral college sits down and votes in December. If you said that we should have every state as unaccounted for, that would be a consistent position. But once we start using secondary sources for "okay the electors haven't voted yet but this is what it's going to be," you have to stick by that standard. All the other states are not using the super conservative "wait until it's officially stamped" standard, so Florida shouldn't either. SnowFire (talk) 01:57, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Florida isn't going to be added to Obama column, until the major networks call it for him. Until then, we'll sit tight. GoodDay (talk) 02:03, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Last time I checked, we report what is reported in reliable sources. These ([8] [9] [10] and [11]) appear to all report that Obama "is the winner" in Florida. And so, much like we have done for the other states, we have no need to wait for an official count of all votes given what reliable sources have already reported. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 02:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree this is crazy, Romney's campaign gave Florida to Obama and there is no possible way for Romney to get Florida now given how many votes have been counted. Per the reliable sources change Florida blue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The Romney campaign gave 'nothing' to Obama. Florida decides for itself. GoodDay (talk) 03:16, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) In 2000, George Bush conceded to Al Gore, and then ended up winning the election, after both of them ended up conceding to each other a few times and many recounts. Florida has not finished counting, and it has not gone for Obama (yet). Stop adding this. This is now at AN/I at the bottom of the page. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:18, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Bush never did concede to Gore :) GoodDay (talk) 03:22, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

He had made a private call to Gore, according to some sources. He never made a public speech however. gwickwire | Leave a message 03:26, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I Support adding Florida to the Obama column after noon EST today when the unofficial tally must be completed, provided that the margin remains over 0.5%. There is no reason to wait for anyone or anything else at that point. -Kai445 (talk) 14:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Udate. As of 6:20 AM EST there is no change. The NYTimes and google still report 303/206 for the EV count. Apteva (talk) 11:23, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Huffington Post has called Florida for Obama. [12] Also, I expect the Supreme Court to intervene soon and stop any Florida recount. HowardMorland (talk) 12:35, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Update. As of 3:45 PM EST there is no change. There will not be a recount, but Florida is still counting votes, and expects to have results by noon on Saturday (05:00 GMT). Apteva (talk) 20:50, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
If anyone wonders why no recount, it would be like re-arranging the deck chairs on the Titanic - it can not affect the results. Apteva (talk) 21:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Update. Florida is requiring all counties to finish counting by Noon Saturday, but will not be announcing a winner until the votes are certified on November 20. A recount is not done unless the difference is less than 0.5%. The margin is over ~~2.5%~~ 0.5% right now with all but one county finished with their counting. I would expect networks to declare the state for Obama sometime over the weekend, but they could wait until November 20. Apteva (talk) 04:37, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I see that Florida has been re-added to Obama's electoral vote count, even though the state hasn't announced the results yet. I suppose it's futile to be accurate about this. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

While a few electoral map apps have failed to properly update, out of the 5 major news networks in the United States, NBC, Fox, CNN, as well as CBS (though lacking an article, just the "breaking news" banner) have ALL called the state for Obama now, leaving out only ABC news. (similarly, the Associated Press likewise has called the state.

Given that technically, NONE of the states have actually cast their electoral votes, (that will happen in December) and Florida is NOT the only state to have yet to declare an "official winner," it is now improper to exclude Florida from the map; while Romney's concession might not have been sufficient, when combined with 4/5 of the major US news networks, (plus the AP) I think it's fully safe to place it here. Remember, Wikipedia is about verifiability, and right now, given that the majority of reliable sources have called it, that's what Wikipedia should report. Nottheking (talk) 18:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Since major US news networks have made the call? 'tis alright. GoodDay (talk) 19:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request - content about non-presidential races

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Please remove the following two paragraphs from the lead. They do not belong in this article. This article is about the presidential election only; there are no presidential election articles for any prior years that include content about any other races. There are separate articles where content about those races are supposed to go: United States elections, 2012, United States Senate elections, 2012, United States House of Representatives elections, 2012 and United States gubernatorial elections, 2012.

"As specified in the Constitution, the 2012 presidential election coincided with the United States Senate elections where one-third of the Senators faced re-election (33 Class I seats), and the biennial United States House of Representatives elections to elect the members for the 113th Congress."
"Eleven gubernatorial elections and many elections for state legislatures also took place at the same time, as well as many local ballot initiatives."

Thanks. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 04:46, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

There's a recent discussion about half way up this page (it's been an active talk page, so it's moved up quickly) where a tenuous compromise was reached over this exact issue. The decision was made (though it could be unmade with more input from you and others) to keep the tangentially related paragraphs in this article temporarily until the article rotates off of the main page (it is currently in Wikipedia:In the news right now) because the readership of this article is many orders of magnitude higher than any other election related article. Once the readership goes down, everyone seems to agree that those paragraphs should be removed. For the record, I initially removed the paragraphs myself, but this upset some people, largely because of the high readership of this article, so the compromise to keep them in temporarily, at least until it rolls off the main page, seemed reasonable. If you have additional input on the topic, page up to the section here titled "Unrelated elections" and add your opinion. --Jayron32 06:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

You didn't provide a Wikilink to the "recent discussion" you referrred to, and I can't find any such discussion regarding putting content about Senate, House and governor races in this article. They clearly do not belong in an article that is solely about a presidential election. This is why no prior presidential election article has any content about other races. It would be equivalent to having an article about a governor's race and including content about state House, state Senate, and mayor races from around the state. It's putting content about oranges into an article about apples. The Senate, House and governors content should be removed immediately from this article. Btw, governors are not even national (federal) races, so it makes it even more ridiculous to have the governors content in this article about the presidential election. Thanks. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 22:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done and not likely to be done. There's no reason to remove it, and there are already discussions that established a consensus against removing it. If you're really that adamant on removing it, open a RfC over it. Otherwise, this edit request will keep getting denied. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:37, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The main discussion is at #Unrelated elections. Apteva (talk) 02:23, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

@Gwickwire, because YOU say "there's no reason to remove it" doesn't make it so. And apparently you didn't read what Jayron32 posted at above at 06:08, 9 November 2012. So your "not likely to be done" wording is your opinion only and carries no weight. Obviously, there IS a reason to remove it, which was clearly explained. This article is about the presidential election only and has absolutely nothing to do with Senate, House or governor races. There are articles devoted to those races. And thanks Apteva for providing the link to the prior discussion. As expected, it shows no consensus whatsoever, contrary to Gwickwire's false claim that "there are already discussions that established a consensus against removing it"; just a couple editors arguing with other editors who said exactly what I'm saying. This Senate/House/governor content needs to be removed from this article. It's non-sensical and isn't included in any previous presidential election articles. What's the title of this article?? --76.189.101.221 (talk) 05:12, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Jayron referred to it as a compromise - we took the details out of the lead, and left them in the article, with the understanding that they will be removed some time within the next month, after the traffic dies down and after United States elections, 2012 gets improved. I am not sure there is any need to take out the remaining reference to other elections. But there is plenty of time to discuss that, before anything will be done. My guess is it can be trimmed a little but not removed. It started out as details of several issues, and what is left is sort of the intro to that section that was deleted, and now appears in the body (other than the California vote, which needs to go somewhere in the US elections article). Apteva (talk) 05:40, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done Wait until the traffic equalizes - give it a week at least. Right now it is at 182,776[13] vs. 6,969[14]. The other article needs to be worked on as well, which hopefully will happen in the next few weeks. Apteva (talk) 05:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, Apteva. Thanks. A week is fine. Jayron32 said the compromise was to "keep them in temporarily, at least until it rolls off the main page". And no one, except Gwickwire, said "not likely to be done". I would suggest that Gwickwire stand down and let other, more neutral, reasoned and friendly editors handle edit requests from now on. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Nobody else is going to close them any differently than Glickwire. But note the info has to go somewhere else, it can not just be removed from here. And if the traffic is still unbalanced in two weeks, or three, I am still going to have reservations - unless it drops to say less than 1000 views a day. It was a million the day after the election, and is 180,000/day now, and probably dropping rapidly. Apteva (talk) 05:47, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes, of course that info can go somewhere else... into the applicable articles where it's meant to go: United States elections, 2012, United States Senate elections, 2012, United States House of Representatives elections, 2012 and United States gubernatorial elections, 2012. But not here. Do you see content about non-presidential races in previous presidential election articles? No. And you're ignoring the fact, which I've stated multiple times, that Gwickwire inappropriately said "not likely to be done". So based on that alone, you are closing it differently than him/her. As I said, Gwickwire needs to stand down and stop acting as the "boss of edit requests" for this article. I will leave this in Jayron's hands as indicated in his comment above. I see he's an administrator. Thanks. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 05:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Third

Politics outside the two-party system has been widely discussed in the media. I don't see how that can be undue weight. Pass a Method talk 20:44, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course it should be included. I don't know why this guy keeps removing it.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:45, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

We don't generally note people who receive such a small portion of the vote, especially ones that don't actually influence the election. The way you word is is particularly bad, because it doesn't mention that Gary Johnson received a very miniscule portion of the vote. 5% or 1 electoral vote is the threshold for inclusion in the lede and/or infobox, as said at the top of the page. It is ridiculous to keep including him, in the first paragraph of the lede, when he failed to even get 1% of the vote - one fifth of what that criteria. ~~I am going to remove, per our policy, as this places undue weight on the weak performance of a minor candidate.~~ Toa Nidhiki05 20:49, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Additional details can be covered in the body per wp:lead prose. Pass a Method talk 20:53, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What percentage he got is very important - his goal was to pass 5% and he failed. His performance isn't significant to be included in the lede because he failed to meet the criteria of 5% or 1 electoral vote - he couldn't even get one-fifth of the total vote. Mentioning him alongside the main candidates, whichbeat him 61-1 and 59-1 is absurd, frankly, as is not including his percentage of the vote if you are going to mention him. <1% of the vote is not significant to be included, per our due weight policy. Johnson was a non-factor in the election and his total and campaign can be found in the body. Toa Nidhiki05 21:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

What does the infobox have to do with a mention in the lead? Plus, you are wrong on the infobox requirements; a candidate must get 5% or win electoral votes, not like John Hospers who received one from a faithless elector.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

One sentence is not undue weight for a candidate who got more than a million votes and more votes than all other 3rd party/write-in candidates combined.--Newbreeder (talk) 20:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Yes it is when the candidate failed to get even 1% of the vote. Mentioning a non-factor candidate who had no impact on the election and failed to meet the criteria for a significant third-party campaign in the first paragraph of the lede is absurd. Toa Nidhiki05 21:01, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Actually arguing with you is absurd because you think you know what you're talking about, but you are actually very confused.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

So you already resort to insulting me? Perhaps you can elaborate on why a candidate who got less than 1% of the vote should be given the same amount of weight in the first paragraph of the lede as candidates who got at least 59 votes for every 1 vote he had. Toa Nidhiki05 21:10, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, i would be glad to debate you, but you appear to ignore every point that's given to you, and then reply with strawmen arguments. Pass a Method talk 21:12, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any idea what a straw man argument actually is? We don't mention minor candidates in the leda; receiving <1% of the vote pretty much makes you a minor candidate. There is nothing special about the Johnson campaign or performance that warrants his inclusion in the lede, especially the first paragraph. He had no influence on the result (his 1 million votes wouldn't have swung it, in other words) and failed to meet the criteria for a historically significant third-party campaign. Toa Nidhiki05 21:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(ec) There are much worse things that can be said since you seem unable to differentiate between including something because it is covered in reliable sources versus percentage of vote received. Furthermore, you removed the context and inserted an unofficial total, which may vary greatly with the actual.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:17, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

So the totals are good enough that we can put them in the infobox and tables and update them when needed, but mentioning Johnson's current vote is somehow wrong? Interesting logic there. Toa Nidhiki05 21:19, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

1 million votes in itself is significant for a third party candidate. Why can't you see that you are basing every argument you make on your own subjective viewpoint? Suddenly, receiving less votes than the margin of the election disqualifies one from being mentioned in the lead despite widespread coverage? Where, outside your own thought pattern does this derive? --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:25, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

1 million votes is an entirely subjective number on your part - we've had candidates get over twice as much and not be noted. In a country of 300 million where 120 million voted, 1 million is not very significant. 5% or 1 electoral vote is the threshold for a notable third party campaign for a number of reasons - for example, any party that gets over 5% is eligible for public funding. However, Johnson failed to get even 1% at this point and shouldn't be mentioned alongside candidates who outperformed him 61-1 and 59-1. It violates due weight rather clearly. The Johnson campaign simply isn't historically notable. Toa Nidhiki05 21:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Toa Nidhiki05, i find it pretty interesting how you've had 4 editors disagree with you in the past few hours, but you think you can singlehandedly trump four editors. Whats the word for that again? Pass a Method talk 21:31, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

When have I ever said I trump 4 editors? I think policy trumps the opinion of you four, but not me personally. And I haven't removed the content during this discussion at all. Toa Nidhiki05 21:36, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Why do you ignore the fact that weight is assigned by coverage in reliable sources and not vote totals?--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:48, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, Gary Johnson's tally of votes was more than all other third party candidates combined. I'd say that is notable. Pass a Method talk 21:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(deindent). Our 'unspoken policy' here is to only put them in the lead if they have 5% of popular vote or 1 pleged electoral vote. Gary Johnson has neither. He is in the article, just not in the lead. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:00, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

That's an infobox rule.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:02, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think it applies quite well to the lead as well, because the lead and infobox are the first things someone sees when they come to a page. gwickwire | Leave a message 22:08, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

The lead is an overview of the article and considering there is a complete section about third party candidates, there's no reason to continually delete the mention from the lead based on an infobox rule.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:11, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I oppose his inclusion too. Post-election, there hasn't been enough media attention paid to him to make him worthy of inclusion in the lead. He didn't pull a Ralph Nader and swing the race from candidate to another. Hot Stop (Edits) 23:06, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
Weak support (for inclusion): Strictly speaking, the 5%/1 EV consensus on top refers only to the infobox. Seeing as the lead paragraphs occupy a similar position as the infobox (but are not quite as constrained spacially), due weight must be more strongly applied there. That said, Johnson did receive more media coverage (little as it was) and more votes than all of the other third party candidates combined, probably b/c of the Ron Paul factor. So, on balance, I think he ought to have one sentence in the lead, and no more. Regarding Nader, there is no evidence he "swung" that election, as that assumes his voters would have all voted for Gore and not someone else (or abstained) if he wasn't on the ballot, and that Gore wouldn't have won a recount. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 00:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
I don't get why all the debate. The policy is clearly laid out for the infobox (not so sure about the lead) This would be a great bit of info to mention on the libertarian party's wiki page. But it doesn't belong in the top level results of the national election. Of course it warrants a mention in the article, but he really didn't have nearly enough impact to make the lead or infobox Smooth pappa (talk) 01:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
Isn't really notable enough for lead, although 1 sentence in intro, perhaps included with an umbrella of 'minor candidates' or something, is somewhat reasonable. The intro should detail the whole election. Including a mention of him and other minor candidates would be alright in my opinion, not so much because of 1 million votes or whatever, but because it gives a broader picture of the election as a whole. EryZ (talk) 07:15, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 9 November 2012

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

I believe the sentence

"The election marked the first time since 1972 that both members of a major-party presidential ticket did not win the electoral votes of their home states."

is not correct. Obama won the electoral votes of his home state of IL. Romney did not win the electorial votes of his home state of MA. This information is taken from the Electorial Vote map publish on this wikipedia page, and also from many newspapers. 144.189.100.28 (talk) 23:55, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done. The line is saying that both the Republican candidate for president, and the Republican candidate for vice president didn't win their home states. Think of it as Rpres and Rveep not winning, or Dpres and Dveep not winning their home states to put this statement in, if that makes more sense. gwickwire | Leave a message 23:58, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It is correct (if a bit trivial). "Both members of a major-party presidential ticket" means the Presidential and Vice Presidential candidate from the same party. Neither Romney (Massachusetts) nor Ryan (Wisconsin) won their home states electoral votes. --Jayron32 23:59, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

Technically, Romney's home state is Michigan since that is where he was born. Not that it makes any difference since he lost Michigan also. --Katydidit (talk) 01:49, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Home state is defined as where the candidate lives. Home -> place of house gwickwire | Leave a message 01:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Wrong. Home -> permanent/primary residence, not "place of house". Many people have houses in multiple states. And, yes, Romney's permanent residence is in Massachusetts. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 05:28, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Romney himself has referred to Michigan as his home when campaigning there this year. --Katydidit (talk) 02:01, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

I think that just means it was his home, growing up. He voted in Massachusetts, "near his home".[15] Here is another slightly less than trivia - this was the first presidential election with neither major candidate a white male protestant. Though I am not sure why Mormon is not considered protestant. Apteva (talk) 02:20, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Because Mormonism didn't arise as part of the theological changes of the Protestant Reformation. There are not merely "three" strains of Christianity. While most faiths can be classified as Protestant, Catholic, and Orthodox, there are a lot of Christian denominations that deny easy categorization into any of them, especially faiths that were founded as late as Mormonism was, some several centuries after Protestantism. Or to put it simpler: Protestant is not a synonym for "Western Christian but not Catholic". --Jayron32 03:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Third Party Candidates

At least from my browser, the "Major third parties" section seems a bit messy. The maps don't seem to line up quite right. I would think that each party would start on its own line left justified as the Libertarian Party header is. I also think that perhaps the "Major third parties" should just be eliminated and each party having a section as the Democrat and Republican Party do. I think that currently it would not be NPOV since it is severely biased toward two parties. The "third party candidates" regardless of how may votes they may have gotten, were still on the ballot in nearly all the states. It might be a good idea to include other third party candidates that ran for each third party. For example the Green Party had other candidates besides Jill Stein. ^[5] This would then be at least consistent between the parties. Busfault (talk) 11:53, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

'Major third parties' isn't biased at all - they are third parties and, compared to the hundreds of minor ones, were more major than the minor ones. To note this is important, as none of them had a realistic chance of getting a single state or even a miniscule portion of the vote. Noting their minor status is important.

As for the second idea, that isn't bad, but we have other pages for that - the convention articles for the third-parties. These are linked and thus give the viewers that information. Toa Nidhiki05 14:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Eh I started off with just a formatting thought, but went off on a tangent. My main want of an edit is around the formatting around the third party candidates. The maps start lining up with other candidates/parties. I just thought it could be a bit cleaner with something like a line break between the 3rd parties. Fair enough that they are on other pages. But then why would the "other" Republican candidates be listed on this page since Mitt Romney was chosen by primaries the other candidates listed on the page are even less important than the 3 party candidates. Busfault (talk) 16:43, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

How is this handled on the other United States presidential election articles? GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

County-by-County map has some errors

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:2012_General_Election_Results_by_County.png

First thing I noticed was Alachua County in Florida, which is colored in red but went to Obama. I'm looking to see if there are any other errors for either candidate, but I'm not good with editing these maps, so if someone could fix it and other errors caught, it would be great! Frightwolf (talk) 15:14, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Also the File:US Presidential Elections 2012.png tree map is odd - why is Florida bigger than Texas, instead of being the same size as New York? Apteva (talk) 15:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Answer: Low voter turnout in Texas and New York - no point in voting when the result is pre-determined. Apteva (talk) 16:11, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Please, this is a place to discuss the article itself, not for a debate on the issues. Thank you. → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 16:58, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Errors in Article

Under Green Party, "Write-in Access" it gives a sizeable list of states, followed by "11 electoral votes." I didn't do the math, because 11 electoral votes is impossible for the list of states given. The overall total number of electoral votes the Green Party had access to uses the 11 electoral vote figure, and is also incorrect. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.147.104 (talk) 21:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

My mistake, I see how it works now. Please ignore this post. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.189.147.104 (talk) 22:02, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Reactions

"Global stock markets fell ... Specifically ..."

Our three specifics are all from USA. --three American market indexes if I understand correctly. --P64 (talk) 23:48, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

^ Blake, Aaron (August 13, 2012) "Presidential debate moderators announced: Crowley is first woman in 20 years", The Washington Post. Retrieved August 15, 2012.
^ Kiely, Kathy (October 31, 2011). "Fall 2012 Presidential Debates Set". National Journal. Retrieved October 31, 2011.
^ http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/jersey-extends-email-voting-friday-election-workers-inundated/story?id=17653589#.UJqVU4bNHiM
^ http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-07/obama-defies-history-on-economy-wins-with-coalition-vote.html
^ http://www.gp.org/ebulletin/2012/green-party-primary-results.html

[moderators-1] Blake, Aaron (August 13, 2012) "Presidential debate moderators announced: Crowley is first woman in 20 years", The Washington Post. Retrieved August 15, 2012.

[debates-2] Kiely, Kathy (October 31, 2011). "Fall 2012 Presidential Debates Set". National Journal. Retrieved October 31, 2011.

[3] ttp://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/jersey-extends-email-voting-friday-election-workers-inundated/story?id=17653589#.UJqVU4bNHiM

[4] ttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-07/obama-defies-history-on-economy-wins-with-coalition-vote.html

[5] ttp://www.gp.org/ebulletin/2012/green-party-primary-results.html

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]