Talk:2012 United States presidential election/Archive 13

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Margins of Victory

I am attempting to create a stack graph of state margins and electoral votes, but I can't find the per-state margin of victory data anywhere! Even percentages and vote counts are missing. Does anyone know where I can find it? —Kelvinsong (talk) 15:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/as-nation-and-parties-change-republicans-are-at-an-electoral-college-disadvantage/ for the 'preliminary margins as of November 8, or of course you can stick any site's popular vote totals into a spreadsheet and subtract to find 'em as well. That said, prepare to update said graph in a month or so with the final figures if you make one (or else have the graph deleted as obsolete data). SnowFire (talk) 17:56, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

http://www.google.com/elections/ed/us/results Hover or click on a state for the results. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 21:59, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Cabinet reshuffle

I believe this section should be moved out of this article, as it has nothing to do with the article's title. Maybe move it to Confirmations_of_Barack_Obama's_Cabinet#Cabinet? 64.128.27.82 (talk) 18:52, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

I think this section should be moved out of Wikipedia and into the tabloid press. Good grief, it's nothing but a bunch of rumors. Delete it, for the sake of Wikipedia credibility. RenniePet (talk) 17:21, 11 November 2012 (UTC)

Absoutely agree with the previous two editors. Remove the section for goodness sakes. It doesn't belong in this article. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 00:46, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all above. If this section belongs anywhere on Wikipedia, it's in the Obama Cabinet article.--Cjv110ma (talk) 22:38, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

This page is no longer semi-protected, so anyone who's interested enough can go ahead and make the edits. RudolfRed (talk) 21:02, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Turnout

The turnout estimate in the infobox currently links to an article that estimates that 126 million voters turned out this year, which in turn leads to their estimate of a turnout of 57.5%. Given that nearly 124 million votes have been counted, and that more than 2 million still remain to be counted in California alone, I think that such an estimate is self-evidently a bit low. I would suggest returning to an estimated range, which I believe was 57.5-60% before this recent edit, until the vote count is complete (i.e., all 50 states and DC have completed and certified their vote tallies). Spiderboy12 (talk) 15:04, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

• As the editor who has been keeping tabs on the estimates, I could agree to this. No need to rush having a single estimate if there are still a nontrivial # of votes to be counted. I, Jethrobot ^{drop me a line} (note: not a bot!) 16:07, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• Based on CNN's estimates of uncounted votes in each state, the total votes for president will be about 133 million, which is more than the 131 million votes for president in 2008 and a little over 60% of the voter eligible population. Fourfourfive (talk) 16:13, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't we, more or less, regard this as a moving target for the time being? The information is presented already, but as canvasses and recounts (were applicable) continue, these numbers are going to keep changing. It seems enough that we have a snapshot presented, which can be updated to a final version once the states have completed and certified their vote counts. Otherwise, we'll be chasing moving targets for weeks. Elcid89 (talk) 21:56, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

True. The numbers will keep moving for awhile as more votes are counted. Especially in California and Washington state. I've been following David Wasserman from the "Cook Political Report". He's keeping tabs here. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 03:10, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the link to David Wasserman's spreadsheet. As for this comment, it kind of makes my point. Wasserman's major party vote total now exceeds 124 million. The Wikipedia tally for minor party candidates is over 2 million. Hence, the still-incomplete vote tally is over 126 million--at least 126.1 million--already matching the turnout predicted by this article. I'll change the turnout estimate (replace it with a range) later today when I have a bit more time. Spiderboy12 (talk) 17:22, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

getting the art right

I abhor large blank spaces in these things. I tried to get the map in the results section on the same line with the graph but I can't. Everything else works fineEricl (talk) 18:39, 15 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 16 November 2012

I made a previous detailed edit request for the results from California. I have surveyed the results from the following source: http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/ I have found that their numbers for the following states also appear to be more current than in the Wikipedia article: Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Idaho (Romney only), Louisiana (Romney, Stein), Michigan, Minnesota, Oregon (Romney, Johnson, Anderson), Vermont (all except Johnson), and Wisconsin. For these states, please consider adopting the numbers from the above source. Checking the appropriate Boards of Election in the listed states may provide corroboration. Of course, the associated totals will also require corresponding changes. Thank you very much!

140.90.73.186 (talk) 12:38, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Not done: {{edit semi-protected}} is not required for edits to semi-protected, unprotected pages, or pending changes protected pages. This page is no longer under protection. You can go ahead and make the edits yourself. RudolfRed (talk) 21:20, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

Campaign Summary

Shouldn't there be a detailed summary of the campaign like in the other election articles? The election is over so why not do it now? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.18.160.213 (talk) 01:02, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

There is a summary and links to articles which cover the campaign in more detail, in the section titled "Campaigns". If you think the current summary needs a bit more text, no one is stopping you from doing so. --Jayron32 01:44, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Official state websites for election results

There don't seem to be any official webpages with the latest election results for the following six states: Illinois, Maine, Massachusetts, Mississippi, New Hampshire, New York. The only option seems to be to use the latest figures quoted by various media organizations, (although they haven't been updated recently).

In addition, the official websites in the following five states are not being updated in line with the figures already quoted by the networks before they stopped updating their figures: Alabama, Connecticut, New Jersey, Ohio, West Virginia. Once again, the only option seems to be to use the most recent figures from various media organisations.

There are minor differences between the official figures being reported in two states and those quoted by media organizations: Michigan, Minnesota. Ajs41 (talk) 17:48, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Votes by states table

The votes by state table is very well done. I am thinking it would be interesting to display the vote % and not just the raw numbers (or is this planned anyway after all the results have been certified?) It would be ideal to display the table like it was done for the 2008 election: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2008_US_Presidential_Election. If adding the vote percentages would create too many columns, one could maybe remove the detailed columns for secondary candidates. In the 2008 table, there was also a column giving the Obama-McCain vote percentage margin for each state. This is a very useful feature, allowing to sort the table from the most democratic to the most republican state in terms of vote margin. Would it also be possible to add the Obama-Romney state-by-state % margin? Patphilly (talk) 09:28, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

For the state-by-state table, personally I would not object to listing Obama / Romney / others in raw vote and percentages. The others are broken down in the national total, and most did not receive votes in all states. [edit] (Can we get some kind of consensus on which "others" should be in the table?)    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 21:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Sure, we can display fewer candidates as far as I'm concerned. In fact it is not necessary in case some people prefer to keep some small candidates. In the table for the 2008 election, there was enough space to show the vote count and vote percentage for Obama, McCain, 4 additional small candidates and "others". I suppose there is a person who is updating the numbers as they come. Would be great if that person could directly add the "%" columns in his/her own table. Patphilly (talk) 22:55, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Global stock markets

United States presidential election, 2012#Reactions

(quote) "Global stock markets fell noticeably after the President's re-election. Specifically, the Dow Jones Industrial Average, NASDAQ and S&P 500 all fell over two percent the day after the election.[165]"

All three of our specific global stock markets are USAmerican. --P64 (talk) 17:39, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

3 consecutive pres rule?

"The election of 2012 marks the first time since 1820 that three consecutive American presidents have achieved reelection..." There should be a better way to phrase this; as it stands, this is false because FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower were all reelected. I understand the premise that Truman was in a sense not reelected (since he hadn't been elected in the first place), but I feel there is some confusion to this. It does say in the wiki article for the 1948 election that "...Truman was a war leader who managed to win re-election," as well as "...Truman is the most unpopular leader to win re-election..." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.206.179.6 (talk) 03:37, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Rounding up percentages

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Romney currently has 59,660,339 votes out of a total of 125,212,688 votes. That is a percentage of 47.647% to 3 decimal places. If you write this to 2 decimal places it is 47.65%, but if you write it to 1 decimal place it is 47.6% not 47.7% because 47.647% is below 47.650%. Ajs41 (talk) 01:57, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Ajs41, you would be absolutely correct IF the Results chart percentage was rounded to the thousandth, instead of the hundredth. But it's not. That's the flaw in your argument. ALL election article result charts are rounded to the hundredth (2 decimals), not the thousandth (3 decimals). Therefore, the infobox percentage, which is always rounded to the tenth must be based on rounding from the 2 decimal (hundredth) figure. So, rounding 47.647 to the tenth would indeed be 47.6. But that is not how it's done. It's rounded from the hundredth (Results chart) to the tenth (infobox), just as in every election article. So, 47.65, Romney's current figure on the Results chart, must be rounded up to 47.7 because of the 5 (hundredth). If his number was 47.64, THEN it would be rounded down to 47.6. See the Rounding Calculator in my post below. :) --76.189.101.221 (talk) 08:01, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is true, but it's the way it has been done for the past couple of elections. Let's just wait for the state vote counts to catch up the county votes (which actually have it at 50.72 to 47.60) and then we can reflect that. —Bruce Wayne of the Rap Game (talk) 03:50, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't make sense. Rounding is a mathematical function, not an electoral practice. The fact that "it's the way it has been done for the past couple of elections" only means that the articles for the past couple of elections have errors in them. When we have the opportunity to be accurate, why choose to be inaccurate?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:00, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

If only one decimal place is shown it should be 47.6 percent. Binksternet (talk) 04:17, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup. Precedent is never a justification for being intentionally incorrect. AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:26, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, I guess you guys are right. Bruce Wayne of the Rap Game (talk) 04:55, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The infobox percentage should absolutely be 47.7. This is not an opinion, but a mathematical fact. The method for ALL election articles is to show the vote percentage on the Results chart to the hundredth (2 decimal places) and in the infobox to the tenth (1 decimal point). There's no debate about this and Wikipedia never begins with or uses the 3 decimal (thousandth) figure, such as 47.647. So, currently Romney's total is 47.65 on the Results chart. That's our starting point. The infobox percentage is and must be taken directly from the Results chart and is rounded to the tenth (1 decimal point). If the last digit is 1 to 4 it gets rounded down; if it's 5 to 9 it gets rounded up. Therefore, 47.65 gets rounded up to 47.7, and 47.64 would get rounded down to 47.6. This is standard math, by far the most common form of rounding, and the way it is done in every election article. If you want the proof, go to this Rounding Calculator. In the "Round" field, enter 47.65. In the "to" field, choose "Tenths (+1 decimal place)" in the dropdown menu. Then click the "Calculate" button. You will see that the Rounded Number will be 47.7. Thanks. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 07:51, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Utter garbage - the 'mathematical fact' is that the rounded figure can only be 47.6. Precedent is never a justification for being intentionally incorrect. The 'starting point' is the raw data. I don't give a toss whether innumerate contributors got this wrong before - we will get it right now. If you persist in altering this against consensus and common sense I will ask that action be taken to prevent you editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 12:56, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

• Comment - I'm not sure any of this matters right now. The vote numbers are, and will continue to be, changing. We can almost regard the numbers as "test edits" right now. Since I, or other editors, will come here when the numbers are finalized and update the page. To be honest, the 47.6 or 47.7 debate isn't going to matter. Romney's final tally will be around 47.0. The votes that are left out there are from heavily Democratic precincts. So I think as long as someone isn't vandalizing the page, we should just let the numbers be updated(or stay where they are) until the final certifications. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 13:46, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

@User 76.189.101.221: If that is the way it is done in every election article, then every election article is wrong. You can never round from already-rounded numbers. Rounding by definition introduces a margin of error, and to "double round" only increases the margin of error. ... And Dave, thanks for trying to calm the waters. I will just add that when the time comes to finalize the infobox, it (as well as the table) should be rounded using raw data. And if necessary, we should go back and check every other election article to make sure they are done accurately.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 14:40, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

First, now that Romney's percentage on the Results chart is 47.63, the infobox figure can be, and is, 47.6. For any editor to come on here and get hostile and threatening towards me for explaining how rounding works, using terms like "utter garbage" and "intentionally incorrect", and threatening action towards me, is beyond belief. Not to mention a complete violation of civility guidelines. Raging towards another editor over an editing issue, particular a minor one such as this, is completely inappropriate. In terms of the calculation for a candidate's percentage, Wikipedia has a set process in place for every election article, which is why they are all consistent with each other. I was told that many very experienced editors, including administrators, were involved in creating the standards for election articles, which of course includes how results are calculated. First, each candidate's percentage is rounded to the hundredth, which is standard for election results. Not thousandths (such as 47.647), not ten thousandths (47.6473), not hundred thousandths (47.64735), etc. That hundredths figure is entered into the Results section. Next, each of the major candidates' percentage is then presented in the infobox, in tenths, based solely on the figure in the Results figure. Common rounding, the most used form of rounding in the world, is used. If you feel that the process should be changed, then you can do that in the appropriate manner. But a few editors having a short discussion on one article's talk page, with no outsiders even aware that it exists, does in no way constitute a consensus against a longstanding, established procedure. To AndyTheGrump, I strongly suggest you calm down and cease from attacking other editors who are focused on content. You have a long history of being banned from editing, including your most recent one for "personal attacks or harassment". You need to control your temper and treat other editors respectfully or you will surely find yourself continuing to be sanctioned. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 20:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Still garbage. You are introducing an error by rounding twice. That a mistake has been made previously is no reason to intentionally perpetuate it. If you persist in attempting to introduce false information into a Wikipedia article in this way, I shall call for you to be blocked from editing. AndyTheGrump (talk) 20:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Again, AndyTheGrump, I would remind you to treat editors in a civil manner so that you do not continue getting yourself blocked from editing. Your threats and insults will certainly not help your cause. There's been no determination that any mistake has been made by the very experienced editors who created the election articles process. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 20:27, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The process was flawed if all the percentages were rounded up. No need to defend a flawed process! Rounding does not always go up: 47.75 rounds up to 47.8 but 47.65 rounds down to 47.6. See Rounding#Round_half_to_even. Let's stop with the personal comments and stick with working toward a better article. Binksternet (talk) 21:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

There's been no determination whatsoever that the process is flawed. A few editors having a non-publicized discussion for less than one day cannot and does not constitute a consensus, particularly when it involves a well-established process and a vast number of election articles. This issue was thoroughly vetted years ago among dozens of very experienced editors and administrators. Common rounding, the standard process used most in the world, has already been clearly explained, along with the provided calculator. Wikipedia uses the most-used form of rounding, Rounding#Round_half_up, not Rounding#Round_half_to_even. So, no, 47.65 does not round down to 47.6 with common rounding. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 21:30, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

The old election pages are wrong. It is mathematically wrong to round twice. The correct way is to round from the intial data, there no discussion be had. Bevo74 (talk) 22:02, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

"there no discussion be had"... Sorry, but Wikipedia doesn't work that way. If you'd like to challenge the long-established process of using the worldwide standard of common rounding, you are more than welcome to initiate a formal discussion in the appropriate manner. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

No matter how many times you repeat the same nonsense, it is still nonsense. Wikipedia bases articles on reliable sources, not on flawed 'precedents' that give incorrect results. As for 'formal discussions', can you point out a policy document that states that we should mislead readers by using ourself as a source for data? AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:20, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Please do not patronise me. Wikipedia can work like that for removing errors see WP:Bold. There is no long established process for this, and if there is consider this as the formal discussion. The previous election pages are wrong. They were done in error, the error has now been noticed, so needs correcting. Please let me know why double rounding is the correct process. With repeated rounding 0.4444445 would be round to 1, which is obviously incorrect. Bevo74 (talk) 22:21, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

This is really not relevant, but just to be correct, 0.4444445 would round to 0.444444 and 0, because of rounding to the nearest even digit from 0.5. (1.5 rounds to 2, 0.5 to 0, 2.5 to 2, 3.5 to 4) Apteva (talk) 05:03, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

There's been no determination that the process is wrong or has errors. The opinions of a few editors in a one-day, informal, unpublicized discussion does not override the lengthy, formal discussions of the many experienced editors and administrators who developed this process for the large number of election articles. And, yes, it is in fact long-established. The common rounding system that is currently used is correct. By the way, 0.4444445 rounded to the hundredth would be .44. Rounded to the tenth, it would be .4. .45 would be rounded to .5. It's Rounding 101. Again, if you'd like to challenge worldwide standard rounding, feel free to follow the proper protocol to initiate a formal discussion. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

Apteva, It depends what sort of rounding you use. My example was using the method of rounding a half up,(in my personal experience that is the most common way of rounding, but I appreciate not the only way). With repeated rounding as suggested on this page 0.44445 becomes 0.4445, which on a second rounding would become 0.445, then 0.45, then 0.5 then 1. My point was with abuse of rounding stupid results can be obtained.

To the IP, I was talking about multiple rounding which is what you are suggesting is the proper of way of doing things. I'm sure your Rounding 101, will tell you double rounding is incorrect Bevo74 (talk) 18:07, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Rounding more than 1 time is doing it wrong. R. Baley (talk) 23:38, 19 November 2012 (UTC)

AndyTheGrump, collapsing this entire thread and stating that the discussion is closed is not only outrageous, but a huge violation of talk page guidelines. You have no right to unilaterally declare your opinion as settled law, or, more importantly, to hide this discussion. If you continue your highly inappropriate behavior, you're going to find yourself being reported. It is actions like these that have earned you a long history of editing bans. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 00:23, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Troll elsewhere. AndyTheGrump (talk) 00:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Rounding more than once is ridiculous. If indeed it is done on other pages then those pages ought to be fixed. This is insane. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

It has been said that this issue was thoroughly vetted and discussed by experienced editors and administrators some time ago. Can someone point me to that discussion so that I may see the logic that went into it?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 03:14, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Frankly, I find it hard to believe that any such discussion could arrive at the position suggested by the IP: it seems to run contrary to WP:MOSNUM#Conversion errors as well as both mathematical convention and common sense, and to be advocating using Wikipedia content arrived at by rounding the original data as a 'source' for further rounding. This is flawed on so many levels that even if such a decision was ever arrived at, it wouldn't be remotely tenable to continue the practice (if indeed this has been the practice - I note that the IP has failed to provide a link). AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm in general for a fairly rigorous application of WP:OR, but I do think we're allowed to divide one number by another. The raw votes are just as well sourced as the two-places-after-the-decimal percentages, and the conversion to one-place-after-the-decimal is a routine arithmetical operation, generally allowed. --Trovatore (talk) 03:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Yup: and this is covered in the relevent WP:OR section: WP:CALC "Basic arithmetic, such as adding numbers, converting units, or calculating a person's age, is allowed provided there is consensus among editors that the calculation is an obvious, correct, and meaningful reflection of the sources". The method advocated by the IP is demonstrably incorrect in the particular case discussed if based on the original source. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:37, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I was so shocked by what I read here that it prompted me to post my first ever comment on a wikipedia talk page. Like previous commenters, I am dismayed to read that apparently, in all Wikipedia election pages, scores like 47.446 would be rounded to 47.45 and THEN to 47.5! Like others have mentioned, this is absolutely and mathematically wrong. I don't understand how this user "76" can argue this is obviously correct and based on serious formal wikipedia discussions. It would indeed be interesting to see these discussions if they exist. It is hard to believe that it was discussed among mathematically challenged people, so if that is indeed the policy, there must have been a smart reason to do so. This is really disturbing if this is how all Wikipedia election pages are done. Can somebody check other election pages to see if it was really all done wrong? I am very unfamiliar with editing policies, but is there a governing body that can take this seriously? This mess really needs to be sorted out. Patphilly (talk) 09:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately many editors refuse to use common sense if the result doesn't fit their demands. Otto (talk) 10:16, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added a bit to Rounding#Double rounding about a class action against insurers in america where they tried to argue that double rounding was okay and in fact mandated. The insurers lost their case and had to change to single rounding. Dmcq (talk) 10:26, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

76.189.101.221, this argument is not about the "worldwide standard of common rounding". Except for one post by Binksternet, we all agree that we're using "round half up" rules. Pretending that this discussion is about how rounding works is fallacious and distracting. No one here disagrees that rounding 47.65% to the tenths is 47.7%. Your math is correct, but completely irrelevant, in the same way that 4 + 6 is definitely 10, but it's not what I put in the infobox. The goal of this figure is to give the raw percentage as accurately as possible. And 47.6% is closer to the raw percentage than 47.7% is. In addition, please refrain from hiding behind bureaucracy. I'm looking specifically at the phrase, "Again, if you'd like to challenge worldwide standard rounding, feel free to follow the proper protocol to initiate a formal discussion." This runs entirely counter to the spirit of Wikipedia, and if you need some sort of official rule in order to believe me, see Wikipedia:Bold. KyuubiSeal (talk) 16:31, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I think we have a consensus here... Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:36, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

I was made aware that Michael J presented this issue to the Mathematics Reference Desk and that Dmcq and KyuubiSeal have been involved in the discussion, titled "Dispute over election percentages." In that thread, User:Meni_Rosenfeld, a mathematician, responded. He stated, "Yes, if you go back to the raw numbers and round from that, you get a more accurate 1-dp figure. But that is harder to derive and verify (you'd have to go back to the raw numbers every time rather than using widely-circulated figures). A policy saying the double-rounded value should be used, which is much more scalable and results in only a trivial inaccuracy in edge cases, makes sense." [1] If you'd like to change the long-standing, established process, which involves every election article, you are welcome to initiate that effort via the election articles project, where it was created. It appears that not one editor in this discussion has even contacted them about this issue. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 22:58, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Note. To avoid any confusion, I asked Seb az86556 to clarify which 'consensus' was referred to in the closing statement: see User talk:Seb az86556#Re Talk:United States presidential_election, 2012#Rounding up percentages. As Seb az86556 makes clear [2], the closure was intended to indicate that the consensus in this discussion was clear, and that as per the present state of the article, double-rounding will not be applied. It should also be noted that nowhere has any verifiable evidence of any supposed 'precedent' actually been provided by the IP - which would make any closure in support of such a 'precedent' untenable. AndyTheGrump (talk) 02:23, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

As everyone can read for themselves above, what Seb actually said was, "There is consensus for the method currently deployed in this article for this article". Seb never used or even referred to the term "double-rounding", as much as the editor attempted to force those words into his mouth. The current method continues. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 04:04, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

What is the current method? That needs to be sorted out, because both of you are assuming that your method is already in use, and Seb's comment does not tell us which it is. I have to agree with everything 76 said. Of course, we still don't know what the current method is :P Andy's link below is enough to convince me that he is correct. KyuubiSeal (talk) 04:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

@ 76... Liar. Seb az86556 makes quite clear that the 'consensus' referred to is the one arrived at in this discussion. [3] And your link to where your alleged 'current method' is defined is where exactly? If you can't produce it, it cannot possibly be a 'method' of any sort... AndyTheGrump (talk) 04:10, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Thank you, AndyTheGrump, this is reassuring. This closed discussion was suddenly pretty scary and felt like a pretty undemocratic way to proceed, especially when everybody was making the same logical point except for "76". If that means that the consensus is indeed that double-rounding will NOT be done, then great. But, certainly, it is true that the phrase "there is consensus for the method currently deployed in this article" is very misleading! Hopefully it can be confirmed Patphilly (talk) 20:12, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

I think the link I provided above makes this clear enough - Seb says "I thought it was obvious... I meant the consensus in the discussion". In any case, all Seb was doing was closing the discussion as it was evident that there was a consensus to avoid double-rounding- he is in no position to override policy, as the IP seems to be suggesting. Note also that without evidence that there ever was an agreed double-rounding procedure policy (which the IP has failed to provide, despite being asked to multiple times - and nobody else has found it either), the discussion is moot. We follow Wikipedia policy, which is to accurately reproduce what the sources say, rather than engaging in poor mathematics just for the sake of some alleged 'convention' - and a convention cannot override policy. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:05, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm confused, so are we double-rounding? I do not support such a thing, and the closed discussion looks to me like only the brand-new-IP-editor seemed to be in favor and most were actively opposed... -Kai445 (talk) 05:58, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

No, we aren't double-rounding. The overwhelming consensus above was that we don't. Policy says we don't. Common sense says we don't. Mathematics says we don't. The IP editor has never produced either a rational reason why we should, or any evidence to suggest that the alleged 'precedent' was anything but a figment of his/her imagination. AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:06, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

This may require checking all previous election articles, but if it must be done, so be it.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 06:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Before we do that, I'd recommend that we tackle the more fundamental question first: why are we giving the results to two different precisions anyway? If we think that two decimal places is appropriate for the body of the text etc, why are we rounding it to one decimal place for the infobox? If we'd been consistent in the first place, this would never have arisen... AndyTheGrump (talk) 06:18, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. Good decision. Also, I would be in favor of two decimal places in the infobox. -Kai445 (talk) 06:35, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

OK, everyone, let's get a little perspective. It's not the end of the world if the third-place finisher in the Arizona 2nd Congressional District has a percentage that's off by a tenth of a point in the 2006 election. The IP's claim was that it was wrong to be more accurate, and that needed to be refuted because it would have been a silly thing to allow to become a rule. But I don't see any great need to go back in time and fix previous articles. If anyone wants to, I certainly won't try to stop you, but let's not be slaves to a foolish consistency. --Trovatore (talk) 09:37, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Utah totals

A spreadsheet with most up-to-date data for Utah. The county websites often have more recent data than the state website: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFRjTS1RZ1ZGTnNic3BrRWFmQmxPUWc#gid=0 Ajs41 (talk) 00:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks a lot. If we can get a few more state totals by county (especially California), our numbers will be as up to date as Dave Wasserman's numbers. Fourfourfive (talk) 03:19, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

RfC

Gary Johnson received more votes than all other third party nominees combined. Do you suppor or oppose adding the following sentence (or soomething similar) to the lede [4] ? Pass a Method talk 07:50, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Your introduction should include the text of the content in question, not just the link to your edit where you added the content. The text is: "Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson received the third-largest share of the popular vote." --76.189.101.221 (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose Although he had the best finish of all the third party candidates, Johnson received only 0.9% of the vote.[5] He was an insignifcant, minor candidate and had no effect on the outcome of the race, nationally or in any state. Therefore, I totally agree with the revert of the content.[6] --76.189.101.221 (talk) 08:59, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support: As I wrote above- "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." I would amend the proposed sentence to clarify why his finish might be considered notable, by saying something along the lines of:

"Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson placed third in the election, receiving just over a million votes- more than all other third party candidates combined and a party record." 173.29.133.167 (talk) 09:31, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• How about something like, "Third party candidates did not affect results in any state. The Libertarian party received just over 1,000,000 votes, the Green Party received about 400,000, and the Peace and Freedom Party about 50,000." Apteva (talk) 13:57, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose <1% and 0EV's. If he provided a nader-like upset somewhere, his run may have been notable enough for the lede, but I don't believe it to be so. -Kai445 (talk) 14:51, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Minor candidates don't belong in the lede unless they actually did sometime. Johnson got less than 1% of the vote, didn't impact any states, and was a non-factor in the election. There is absolutely not reason to include him. We didn't even stick Nader in the 2000 lede and he was certainly more important than any of these guys. Regardless, <1% of the vote is not significant enough to include. In a country of 300 million people, 120 million of whom voted, 1 million is not significant - other minor candidates (like Nader) have surpassed it and not been included. Toa Nidhiki05 14:56, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion there's been a lack of discussion about the third party results in reliable sources since the election ended. Third party candidates in other elections have finished with higher total votes and higher percentages than Johnson, and haven't been included (including the aforementioned Nader). So why start now? Hot Stop (Edits) 15:04, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support. Gary Johnson's result is notable not because of vote tally but because of his performance in comparison with a dozen other third party candidates. Gary Johnson received more votes than all other third party candidates COMBINED. Furthermore, due weight on wikipedia goes by its coverage in reliable sources. Since gary Johnsn has been covered sufficiently by almost every major newspaper outlet, he should be included if we are going to go by wikipedia policies and guidelines. Pass a Method talk 17:44, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

His "vote tally" was a mere 0.9% and he had zero electoral votes, so the fact that he had more votes than all the other third party candidates combined is absolutely meaningless. In terms of including Johnson in this article, of course no one is opposed to that. But that's not what this RfC is about. We are here to determine if he should be mentioned in the LEDE. Due weight tells us that a candidate with about 1-million votes and no electoral votes should not be in the lede with the two candidates who each received about 60-million votes and all of the electoral votes. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 20:36, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose, Johnson's impact on this election, was non existant. GoodDay (talk) 20:54, 10 November 2012 (UTC)
• Strong oppose Johnson earned less than 1% of the popular vote and had a negligible impact on the election. Canuck^{89 (chat with me)} 01:56, November 12, 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Long standing standards are 5% or at least one state/electoral college vote for top-of-page (lead/infobox) mention. Johnson gets adequate coverage in body of article. Johnson did not meet those standards (fill disclosure, I voted for Libertarian for every race I could this year, just as I have done in every election I have been able to vote. It doesn't mean he meets the standards of all previous election articles). --Jayron32 02:41, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose as worded If Johnson had no effect on the election, he doesn't deserve mention in the lead. The fact that he won more votes than other candidates who also had zero effect on the election doesn't seem to be a valid reason for inclusion. However, since 3rd party candidates are given significant coverage in the article, and lead is a summary of the article, they probably should be mentioned in the lead in some way. Perhaps something along the lines of "Third party candidates were not a factor in this election." (Similar to the first sentence of Apteva's suggestion).--Wikimedes (talk) 03:55, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
  • What I should say is that Johnson should not be singled out for mention in the lead. The article spends a significant amount of space on 3rd party candidates, so the lead should make some mention of them.--Wikimedes (talk) 07:25, 13 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support Of course he should be included. There's an entire section about third party candidates, why should the lead ignore it? --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:01, 12 November 2012 (UTC)
• Support per WP:LEAD. All major themes in the article body should be summarized in the lead section. Binksternet (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the "most important aspects" of the article. Gary Johnson is most definitely not a "major theme" of Election 2012 or this article. And for the record, the House, Senate and gubernatorial races should not be mentioned in the lede either, or anywhere else in this article. This article is about the presidential election only. There are already articles devoted to the other races. --76.189.101.221 (talk) 05:04, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

• Oppose While Libertarian performance overall did increase under Johnson, he's still a minor candidate in the bigger picture. <1% of the vote and 0 EV doesn't merit complicating the lead in an effort to include him for no reasonable purpose. Third party candidacies, and indeed his candidacy in particular, is well discussed already in the body. Moving it into the lead gives it a degree of merit that it probably doesn't possess. Elcid89 (talk) 22:02, 14 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Undue weight. Otto (talk) 10:00, 20 November 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose Simply put, making ANY mention of Gary Johnson in the article lead at all would contradict the consistent style of prior election articles. I took a look at all prior US Presidential election articles, and a pretty clear pattern emerged; first off, a candidate had to be significant enough to get a portrait in the infobox before even being mentioned in the article. And going back to the 1948 election onward, Two criteria were met: total third-party vote exceeded 5%, and the third party candidate EITHER received at least 5% of the popular vote, OR received at least 2% of the popular vote AND won electoral votes.

Given that there have been candidates who received popular vote as high as 2.74% (Ralph Nader, 2000) or received as many as 15 electoral votes (Harry Byrd, 1960) and have not been mentioned in the lead at all, I don't think that Gary Johnson's performance merits inclusion in the lead at all; he was outperformed by 5 (2 electoral, 3 popularly) who were not mentioned, and only outperformed 6 other "best finish" third-party candidates over the past 17 elections. Only 6 out of 17 elections saw inclusion of the third-party candidate, so placing 12th (10th if you only count popular vote) isn't that significant.

To shed some light on the issue, I assembled the relevant information I referred to above in a table:

Year	Top 3rd Party Candidate	Party	Candidate Vote	Third-Party Vote	Electoral vote	Infobox/Lead Inclusion
1948	Strom Thurmond	Dixiecrat	2.41%	5.38%	39	Found in infobox. Implied (but not named) in article lead.
	Henry Wallace	Progressive	2.37%		0	Implied (but not named) in article lead.
1952	Vincent Hallinan	Progressive	0.23%	0.49%	0	None.
1956	Walter Jones	Democrat (Unpledged)	0.32%	0.67%	1	None.
1960	Harry Flood Byrd	Democrat (Unpledged)	0.42%	0.73%	15	None.
1964	Eric Hass	Socialist Labor	0.06%	0.64%	0	None.
1968	George C. Wallace	American Indepdendent	13.53%	13.89%	46	Found in Infobox. Mentioned separately at end of lead section.
1972	John G. Schmitz	American Independent	1.42%	1.80%	0	None.
1976	Eugene McCarthy	Independent	1.42%	1.90%	0	None.
1980	John B. Anderson	Independent	6.61%	8.31%	0	Found in infobox. Mentioned in lead as third-party after major candidates.
1984	David Bergland	Libertarian	0.25%	0.65%	0	None.
1988	Ron Paul	Libertarian	0.47%	0.98%	0	None.
1992	Ross Perot	Independent	18.91%	19.54%	0	Found in infobox. Mentioned in lead as equivalent to major candidates.
1996	Ross Perot	Reform	8.50%	10.05%	0	Found in infobox. Mentioned in lead as third-party after major candidates.
2000	Ralph Nader	Green	2.74%	3.75%	0	None.
2004	Ralph Nader	Independent	0.38%	0.99%	0	None.
2008	Ralph Nader	Independent	0.56%	1.41%	0	None.
2012	Gary Johnson	Libertarian	0.99%	1.72%	0	None.

I feel that the above table should make the relevant information and trends quite clear. Nottheking (talk) 13:43, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

 Done

"Modern"

I am unclear on this statement:

"Only three candidates of the modern Democratic pary have ever won a majority of the popular vote in consecutive elections: Andrew Jackson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Barack Obama."

First off, it should read party, not pary.

Secondly, how are we defining modern? Can we just list a year there to be more clear?

"Since 1828, only three candidates of the Democratic party have ever won a majority of the popular vote in consecutive elections: Andrew Jackson, Franklin Delano Roosevelt, and Barack Obama."

I don't like these kinds of statements as it feels more like trivia than useful information. Is there a better way to do it? 66.211.206.7 (talk) 23:16, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I am wondering how Andrew Jackson is considered a "modern" president too. —Kelvinsong (talk) 23:21, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm inclined to agree. The section, as constructed, has a slight feeling of POV pushing about it. It's not necessarily trivial information, but it could be presented from a more neutral perspective and it's probably occupying more real estate than it merits. Elcid89 (talk) 21:53, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

The question is whether Jackson's party is considered the modern Democratic Party, I think. It is one thing to note Roosevelt and Obama, but I think Jackson is reaching too far in the past.Parkwells (talk) 21:37, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

All American presidents are modern. I'm not really aware of any historical framework that sees modernity as post-dating the presidency of George Washington. I mean, how late can the Middle Ages be considered to go?--Icowrich (talk) 01:25, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I believe it's a way to disambiguate between the Democratic Party and the party that preceded it, the Democratic-Republican one Hot Stop (Talk) 23:09, 16 November 2012 (UTC)

It's also yet another of the many examples of meaningless "superlatives" that are entirely trivial and add nothing to the understanding of the subject of the article. --Jayron32 00:42, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Third Democrat to be elected to second term?

"He also became the third Democrat after Roosevelt and Clinton to be successfully re - elected to a second term." - Woodrow Wilson was not successfully reelected to a second term? Andrew Jackson? Grover Cleaveland as well, possibly, although he was both defeated and successfully reelected.108.131.85.146 (talk) 01:49, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, that is bogus. I'm taking it out. —Karma (talk) 05:08, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

It was "re-elected to a second term with a majority of the vote." Evidently other elections were decided by a plurality, with some votes going to third party candidates. Parkwells (talk) 21:07, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

That would make no sense then, because Clinton never had more than 50% of the vote in either of his elections. Ross Perot garnered a large chunk of the popular vote in 1992 and 1996. —Karma (talk) 23:45, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Pennsylvania totals

The official Pennsylvania election results page isn't being updated with the latest data at the moment. I've constructed a spreadsheet with the latest county results by accessing the official county webpages where their data is more recent than the figures on the official PA website. Link to the spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dDNrd2toVlVBbHhGdU1DNGVxZEpFOGc#gid=0 Ajs41 (talk) 22:22, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. How about instead of getting rid of the official source, you add that in conjunction and update the totals? Karma (talk) 22:40, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

I updated the Pennsylvania results in the votes by state table sourcing your spreadsheet. Fourfourfive (talk) 23:21, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Very nice work, Ajs41. I did notice, though, that in the links column, many of them point to the PA Dept of State's website, not to the individual counties. Not a flaw, just an observation, as the state site usually has a link to the county site.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:22, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Michael J: I've linked to the state site sometimes because a lot of the counties with small populations don't have a results webpage of their own. Another reason is that sometimes the state site has more up-to-date data than the county site. The county website is still given in those cases, in the next column along. For example, at the moment the results for Allegheny county are more up-to-date on the state website compared to the county website. However I've put another column in to explain this with three categories: "County website not available", "State website most up-to-date", and "County website most up-to-date".Ajs41 (talk) 05:25, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

My apologies. I did not scroll over far enough to the right to see column M.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 23:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

New Jersey totals

Another county spreadsheet. The only problem is I can't access the results page for Monmouth County so I'm using the out-of-date Politico data. Can anyone else access this site? Maybe it's something to do with the fact that I'm in England, although I don't know why that would make any difference.

I'm trying to avoid simply copying Wasserman's data, no matter how reliable he is. I want to use the official websites if possible.

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dHNPR0tTRDlZQ0V4bmF3VFpDSmRsa3c#gid=0 Ajs41 (talk) 05:13, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Monmouth county election results can be accessed here.Fourfourfive (talk) 07:53, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

California totals

California spreadsheet with latest data from county websites: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFFIaXBybFU5eTJrdVVqbjEyUUhMVVE#gid=0

The only problem is I'm not able to access the websites for Glenn and Solano counties so I'm having to use the state election results website for these two counties. Is anyone else able to access them at the moment? Ajs41 (talk) 09:30, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I was able to access results for both Glenn County and Solano County Fourfourfive (talk) 09:49, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I still can't access them here in the UK. Would you be able to email the documents? My address is: ajstidwill2002@yahoo.co.uk. Thanks.

Ajs41 (talk) 10:00, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I sent them, but I can't update the table with your results because I don't know how many of the "other" votes are for Hoefling. Fourfourfive (talk) 10:24, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the email, I've updated the spreadsheet now. I made a mistake in not including Hoefling's figures at the start of the process; I might put his separate numbers in later.

Ajs41 (talk) 10:42, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

I added Hoefling's numbers here. Fourfourfive (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I've updated my spreadsheet with the Hoefling figures. I'm going to keep checking the county websites for updates. I don't know whether you want to link to my spreadsheet again or stick with your one.

Ajs41 (talk) 23:16, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

ATTN Anguswalker: Display of state shifts since 2008 needs correction

The column showing how many places a state has shifted in the ordering of the margin between the Democratic and Republican candidate between 2008 and 2012 has errors in it. This file is: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Election-state-08-12.png by Anguswalker. The shift is displayed in the rightmost column with strings of "=" signs and a ">" or "<" indicating the number of places shifted. The errors are as follows:

NJ shifting 3 places Democratic should be 5 places. OR shifting 1 place Republican should be zero shift. MI shifting 2 places Republican should be 3 places. NC shifting no places should be 1 place Democratic. MS shifting 4 places Democratic should be 5 places. TN shifting 1 place Democratic should be 1 place Republican. NE shifting 4 places Republican should be 2 places. WV shifting 8 places Republican should be 9 places.

The above corrections were based upon the ordering of the states in the current version of this graphic. Since then, futher vote tallies would have caused AZ and MO to swap places, and AL would have risen past KS and NE on an amended version of this graphic. I think that Anguswalker should wait until vote counting is complete, verify my corrections and make the appropriate changes, if possible. Thank you very much! 140.90.73.186 (talk) 07:27, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 140.90.73.186 (talk) 07:29, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 140.90.73.186 (talk) 07:31, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 140.90.73.186 (talk) 19:15, 23 November 2012 (UTC) 140.90.73.186 (talk) 16:19, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

ATTN Kelvinsong: Electoral vote stack graphic will need updating

The ordering of the states in the elcetoral vote stack displayed in the file http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/bf/2012_Presidential_Election_EVstack.svg will need to be updated. I'm familiar with the data from http://fivethirtyeight.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/11/08/as-nation-and-parties-change-republicans-are-at-an-electoral-college-disadvantage/ which Kelvinsong used to make the chart. However, some shifts have occurred since the article was posted at fivethirtyeight. Colorado and Pennsylvania have switched places in the ordering. Iowa and New Hampshire have also swapped, as have Montana and Alaska. Arizona is now above Missouri, Indiana and South Carolina in the stack. I would recommend that Kelvinsong wait until vote tallies are complete to update this chart. Thank you very much!

—140.90.73.186 (talk) 19:14, 23 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks! Please remind me on my talk page or something once the vote tallies are complete and I'll update the chart—Kelvinsong 16:33, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

I'm a newby here at Wikipedia. Where is "your" talk page, Kelvinsong? Thanks!

—140.90.73.186 (talk) 17:05, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

All User talk pages can be found with the prefix "User_Talk:" before the username, ie User Talk:Kelvinsong. You have one too, which I added the Welcome message to.

—Kelvinsong (talk) 17:37, 24 November 2012 (UTC)

Percentages

Would someone mind explaining how the President received "92.8%" of the vote with 64,428,975 votes yet his challenger received "7.5%" of the vote with 60,227,548 votes? Simple calculations come up with the following: By adding the two figures, 124,656,323 votes were cast. The President received 51.68% of the vote and his challenger received 48.31%. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Magoodfellow (talk • contribs) 01:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, that was vandalism. Check again. —Kelvinsong (talk) 01:37, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Better Cartograms

I found this site with plenty of interesting election maps, especially the cartograms which are smooth instead of the blocky ones Wikipedia tends to use. The entire page is Creative Commons License, so these images can be added easily: http://www-personal.umich.edu/~mejn/election/2012/. --WikiDonn (talk) 02:41, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I agree, those look a lot better. Nothing is stopping you from adding them, haha. —Karma (talk) 04:11, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I put some up myself. Let me know if there are any objections. —Karma (talk) 05:04, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Ohio totals

Spreadsheet with latest Ohio county data: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFlPcEExVkl6czQ3S2FRRHF0V0lYeVE#gid=0 I wasn't able to access 3 county websites: Jackson, Portage, Van Wert. Instead I've used data from the Politico website. If anyone can get the data from those sites send me an email at ajstidwill2002@yahoo.co.uk. Thanks. A note about Champaign County: originally the figures were Obama 7,826; Romney 11,852, but the latest county report puts them as Obama 6,806; Romney 10,814: http://voterfind.com/public/ohchampaign/results.htm Some sources are still using the old figures, (such as Dave Wasserman). Ajs41 (talk) 04:54, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added these results to the article. Fourfourfive (talk) 06:01, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request for Obama's Homestate

The article says that his homestate is Illinois, but he was born in Hawaii.MPA 04:22, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Homestate -> where the person lives. Obama, before moving to D.C. and the White House, lived in Illinois. gwickwire | Leave a message 04:23, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Also, it's where he votes. He voted in Chicago during this election, which is his official place of residence. --Jayron32 04:26, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Indeed. That's why Mitt Romney's home state is Massachusetts, not Michigan. —Karma (talk) 05:06, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Or, for that matter, why the Bush's states are listed as Maine/Texas instead of Massachusetts & Connecticut respectively, Reagan as Illinois, or even John McCain as "Panama"... You get the idea. Out of the 43 presidents, 19, in fact, ran for President as a candidate from a state they weren't born in. An interesting note is that it appears every President "from" Tennessee was in fact born in the Carolinas. Nottheking (talk) 08:00, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Analysis section

I've removed a few trivia sentences from the section. Two because they were not true and another because it didn't make any sense. Not to mention none of it is sourced. A section with the title "Analysis"(or any other section of opinion on any article on Wikipedia) can not be original research or synthesis from Wikipedia editors. They must be sourced. And true. Thanks. Dave Dial (talk) 15:37, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

Hurricane Sandy

Should there not be something fairly significant here in regards to Hurricane Sandy? It was a pretty big deal in the week leading up to election day. Just a thought. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JayCatalyst (talk • contribs) 08:07, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Article Probation

I was editing the page when the article probation warning came up. I'd just like to make clear my edit was factual and not intended in a partisan manner. Indeed, I voted for and donated to Obama, and the edit I made is consistent with parallel edits I had made immediately prior to the pages for the elections of 1812, 1832, 1892, 1916, 1940 and 1944. JCaesar (talk) 00:32, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Don't take it personally. All articles directly related to the 2012 presidential election have been placed on article probation until December 11. Until then, the probation notice comes up on every edit made to this & other election 2012 articles. It's an FYI thing, not an indication that you did anything wrong.--JayJasper (talk) 04:06, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

OK. Understand that part, but again, I'd like to repeat: My edit is not POV. I'm an Obama supporter, and my information is factual and verified and not original research and consistent with other edits I made earlier that day to the other relevant elections. As for the phrase "in his prior election victory," it's there so as to distinguish presidents running for re-election, themselves having been elected in the prior election, to presidents being re-elected after someone else had won the previous one. Otherwise, Calvin Coolidge in 1924 and Harry Truman in 1948 also saw electoral and popular losses compared to their predecessor's gains. It's also so as not to have long explanations about FDR's wins in 1940 and 1944 compared to 1932; Cleveland's 1892 win compared to his 1888 loss; or indeed, Jackson's 1832 win compared to his 1824 loss. JCaesar (talk) 22:38, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

That is an automated WARNING message that everyone sees when they edit the page. It has nothing to do with who or what. Apteva (talk) 05:24, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Election results by county

I created spreadsheets for Oregon and Mississippi election results by county. Fourfourfive (talk) 11:17, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

You can update United States presidential election in Oregon, 2012 and United States presidential election in Mississippi, 2012.--В и к и T 11:42, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I've created spreadsheets for Texas and Nebraska results as well. Fourfourfive (talk) 13:21, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

Nice work. I think we may have all the latest results now. It's a question of checking the county websites for updates, which is a bit onerous because there are so many of them. Ajs41 (talk) 19:08, 25 November 2012 (UTC)

I created another county-by-county spreadsheet for New York. Fourfourfive (talk) 20:35, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Dave Wasserman is now using my New York spreadsheet results. He updated the Obama/Romney numbers in three counties where AP data was more up to date, but he's still using my third party total (90766). I don't really mind and I've borrowed data from him too, but I thought it was interesting. Fourfourfive (talk) 22:52, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

I can understand it because checking through the individual counties is very time consuming for one person. Ajs41 (talk) 04:04, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

I've added the table of data to the New York article. —Kelvinsong (talk) 21:48, 27 November 2012 (UTC)

You need to update the New York spreadsheet because at least 20,000 new votes have been reported in a variety of counties. Thanks. Ajs41 (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Please can the person maintaining the New York spreadsheet update with the latest results. Ajs41 (talk) 21:54, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I updated it, but I will probably not be updating my county-by-county spreadsheets any more. If you want to take over any of them, you can make a copy and change the reference on Wikipedia. Fourfourfive (talk) 02:12, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately I don't have time to update the New York spreadsheet at the moment so I'm going to have to use Dave Wasserman's figures for New York for my US national totals spreadsheet: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0At91c3wX1Wu5dFp2dUlkNWlJeGN5NFUxa0F3cXpoLXc Ajs41 (talk) 21:14, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Disclaimer on the Electoral College results?

Might it be proper to include a little footnote on the infobox electoral vote tallies, noting that the actual electoral breakdown won't be known until Jan. 6th? I'd say it was a minor technicality, but the problem is that we won't know until the 6th if there were any faithless electors (for Johnson or Paul, perhaps) or, about equally as likely, some dumb screw-up like when Edwards got a presidential electoral vote in '04. (Paul Ryan already received 5 votes intended for Ron Paul at the RNC.) Point is, the number we have is what the electoral count should be, but we won't know until the Jan. 6th if that's what it actually is, and the convention in articles has been to reflect the official results, with a note about any deviation from the projected ones (see '76 for Reagan, '88 for Bentsen, 2000 for the D.C. abstention, and '04 for Edwards [or "Ewards," as it was actually written]). Footnote-wise, I was thinking something like "The Electoral College will not officially cast their votes until Dec. 17; the results will be released when they are counted by Congress on Jan. 6." — Francophonie&Androphilie (Je vous invite à me parler) 20:25, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

I support the footnote idea, as written above.--NextUSprez (talk) 20:32, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

My recollection is that the EC results are released pretty quickly to the media after the ballots are cast. January 6 is just the date the results are officially reported to Congress; we'll know whether there are any "faithless electors" by late Dec. 17. (I have no objection to the footnote idea.)Spiderboy12 (talk) 02:09, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Not quite. The EC casts its votes on the 17th, and those votes are counted on January 6th. If there are faithless electors, they won't be known until the 6th. The footnote is a good idea until that date. Also remember, the EC is comprised of individuals, not of computers who automatically report results. Individual people can do unpredictable or unintended things. JCaesar (talk) 03:02, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Seeing no objection, and registering that this article is on article probation, but feeling my proposal to be non-sensitive and wholly non-politics-related, I'm going to go ahead and insert a footnote. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 05:48, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

For the record, the footnote I've added currently reads, "Projected results based on popular vote. The Electoral College will vote on December 17. The results will be read before a joint session of the newly sworn-in Congress on January 6; only then will the official president-elect (and vice president-elect) be determined. The Electoral College theoretically reserves the right to act independently of the popular vote." — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 21:16, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Sounds like a good idea; no issue with it. —Theopolisme 21:42, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Home state

Isn't Romney's primary residence in New Hampshire, not Massachusetts? 75.76.213.17 (talk) 04:27, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

He is registered (and voted in) Massachusetts, that determines what the home state is. Sexyparty (talk) 04:36, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Totals accuracy

How accurate are the vote total shown here? Everywhere else shows 62-63 million for Obama. Example Politico.com has the number 62,611,250. How are these total derived? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.108.137.41 (talk) 04:16, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

All the totals are sourced: you can see this by clicking on the references. Most of the media stopped updating their totals about two weeks ago so their data is out-of-date. This includes Politico: their 62,611,250 figure is not correct. I'm managing Google Spreadsheets for a number of states: Ohio, Pennsylvania, Illinois, New Jersey, Utah, California. These spreadsheets have the latest data from the official county and state websites which are being updated on a regular basis. Ajs41 (talk) 05:00, 30 November 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the information. Does the Federal government post an official tally of the popular vote?71.108.138.174 (talk) 08:52, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

That's precisely the problem: they don't. Which is why amateurs like myself are having to keep a running tally of the results. Ajs41 (talk) 13:36, 1 December 2012 (UTC)

The FEC will probably post an official tally next year, when it's all done. But yeah, until then it's a little more complicated. Good job. – ʎɑzy ɗɑƞ 18:20, 2 December 2012 (UTC)

This guys results spreadsheet seems to be more up to date than the results here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/lv?key=0AjYj9mXElO_QdHpla01oWE1jOFZRbnhJZkZpVFNKeVE&toomany=true#gid=19 Podex (talk) 13:47, 5 December 2012 (UTC)

Actually Dave Wasserman's figures haven't always been up-to-date. For example his California figures were not updated for a few days about two weeks ago. But now there are only a few states still to certify it's likely most people keeping a running total will have almost identical figures. Ajs41 (talk) 21:13, 7 December 2012 (UTC)

Updating total

It appears that different people are updating the candidates table, the vote-by-states table and the infobox separately. I personally don't care what method is used to update them, but could we please keep them consistent with each other. That also means making sure the lines in the tables add up properly. Thank you.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 00:44, 9 December 2012 (UTC)

Popular Vote Statistics

Is this correct? Popular vote: Obama: 65,464,068 Romney: 60,781,275

Politico lists these as the correct figures: Obama: 62,611,250 Romney: 59,134,475

Politico is outdated. —Karma (talk) 21:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

United States presidential election, 2012 of Wikipedia appears to omit the DC votes from final tally

I'm a first timer. Perhaps a footnote on a corrected total to incorporate the Washington DC vote total. I think someone who is an experienced long-time contributor on this topic could do the best job of making this correction. jWilliamm ```` — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwilliamm (talk • contribs) 23:53, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

Washington DC is included. In the table of votes by states, it follows Delaware. The vote total in the infobox is the same as in the table.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 15:46, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Finals for NE, NY, WV?

Today is the day that the Electoral College casts its vote. Will we have final popular vote totals from Nebraska, New York and West Virginia?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 15:20, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

West Virginia released official results online today and Nebraska's results may be official/final but I can't find an official source for them. New York extended the deadline for its final canvass due to Hurricane Sandy and it still has hundreds of thousands of votes left to tally. For the electoral college, New York certified the winner as Barack Obama based on a preliminary vote count. Fourfourfive (talk) 21:27, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Nebraska Secretary of State's Office lists 100% reporting.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 22:00, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the fact that 100% of precincts are reporting results does not mean that the results are final. Fourfourfive (talk) 22:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, numbers often change slightly between the preliminary and official reports. Early reports may, depending on state, fail to include early voting, absentee voting, or overseas military voting. – Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 02:11, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

NPOV issue in State changes to voter registration and electoral rules

I've put up a {{POV-section}} template on State changes to voter registration and electoral rules. I think it's a difficult issue to stay neutral on, since the Republicans never really were able to respond to the Democrats' accusations of gaming the system, and to the evidence that voter fraud almost never occurs, and, IMHO, the objective conclusion is that their efforts were, in fact, attempts to better Romney's changes in swing states - or, at least, it's one of those cases where you can't really give equal weight to the Republican argument, simply because it was poorly made and rather weak. That said, the section, as currently written, hardly acknowledges the Republican POV whatsoever. What prompted me to put up this tag was when I noticed that the only mention of voter fraud was in scare quotes, and was quickly followed by some dismissive verbiage. I've reworked it a little, so that it doesn't look like full-on editorializing, but it still has a long way to go. It still mostly reads like the laws were unambiguous efforts toward disenfranchisement, instead of the sensitive, controversial political issues that they were. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 10:17, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

The republican POV is that they were attempting to reduce voter fraud in all of these cases. There is, however, no evidence of voter fraud to base these actions on. So, to include the republican POV makes this section look less neutral. The fact is that there really is no way to frame this section that doesn't reveal the true motivations.--I am One of Many (talk) 10:40, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the Republican POV is a weak argument. But right now we're hardly acknowledging that there was any argument whatsoever. We have line after line of criticism, with essentially no acknowledgment that there were people who supported the laws. I don't think we need to pretend that the Republicans weren't lying through their teeth, but we do need to give their explanation equal weight.... there's tons of well-sourced refutation of it, but that means we should cite that refutation, not simply ignore the argument. — Francophonie&Androphilie^{(Je vous invite à me parler)} 13:16, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I have added the republican point of view and cited Fox News. That is the best we can do, so I think you can remove the neutrality issue.--I am One of Many (talk) 03:09, 19 December 2012 (UTC)

Memorable expressions/phrases

I restored the section. Given that the majority of the expressions/phrases associated with the election have independent articles, I would think that it would be proper to link to them from this article, without using a "See also" section for their placement. In one case, Romnesia, the article redirects here, so it should be proper to have a short description of it here (it is otherwise not mentioned). As for references, they are all in their appropriate articles (with the exception of Romnesia, which has no article, so references are given here). Victor Victoria (talk) 19:07, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Colorado result

The Colorado result shown in the article does not correspond with the footnote. For Obama, the official result in the footnote is 1.323.101, in the table of the states results in the article it is 1.322.998. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Andreas Hornung (talk • contribs) 20:06, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I updated the results so the numbers should now match. The total number of votes is 2,569,520 instead of 2,569,516 because there were 4 write-in votes for Randall Terry that are listed separately from the other results. Fourfourfive (talk) 21:45, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

Certificates of Ascertainment

Are the totals listed in each state's Certificate of Ascertainment of any relevance when listing the vote count? I did not check every state, but some differ from the totals we have. I am not saying we are wrong, I just am curious what these figures mean.    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:37, 21 December 2012 (UTC)

Federal law requires the states to file Certificate of Ascertainments along with their Electoral College votes by a certain date, even if they are not done counting. For example, New York filed a Certificate of Ascertainment with vote totals as of December 10, but they are still counting votes today. They will presumably supplement the official record once they complete the counting and certify the final vote totals. Rillian (talk) 14:08, 27 December 2012 (UTC)