At some point during the edit wars today, the "Stoyevant Party" nonsense crept back into the list of minor-party candidates. There is no evidence for the existence of this candidacy, and none is provided in the listing in any case, so someone should remove it 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I removed it. I google searched for it and I could not find anything. Regardless though unless the editor can source there add it shouldnt be there, so I removed it.LuckyLag360 (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for that. I hope that other editors will watch for this, since it seems very likely that the same content will return, and it's almost certainly just someone playing pretend. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Note that no state ballot lines were listed, only a few write-in states. At least one state ballot line is required to be included here. Bcharles (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
the introductory question: is it technically possible to feed results from all voting maschines directly to infobox? I see it is. If the data are presented bet ween one interface is rather trivial to write a soft to flip the numbers on wikipedia infobox. If we do it, we wont need to watch the mosst sad MSM but all views will go to our website. I can dedicate some programming for this challenging task. And if there is your support we can provide a source. 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
But the machines are already connected to servers[1] and the election judges are merely 'legitimizing decoration' because they do not judge the process. Why not trust more solid base of 5columns (and the the info-neutralization in our WP:5P) but trust some corporate closed source solution ? Corporations works for profit. This issue (electronic voting process) have a lot of refs but is not addressed in this article at all: 'string "mach* not found' and singular "electr*" refer to a crystal ball. 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I agree, too. However, people keep making major changes to the article without a reached consensus, and they're justifiably reverted, yet the person who made the major change in the first place defends themself by saying a consensus was reached, but such a consensus was set out to made only a couple of days ago, with barely anybody having the time to look at it yet. @SPECIFICO: and @Antony-22: are some of the people who say a consensus has been reached. You can't say a consensus has been reached when it has been set out to be made only a couple of days prior! Think about it! If the election were to occur now instead of on the eighth, and it was reported that this was going to be happening on a news channel that isn't viewed often, very few people would vote. This means that the result wouldn't be anywhere near 100% accurate! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I said no such thing about consensus. I am saying that you're a Single Purpose Account that has ignored warnings from half a dozen editors and you should be blocked or banned from Wikipedia toot sweet. SPECIFICOtalk17:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The consensus from 2012 was that we needed documentation that 270 electors had been appointed, which should carry over to this cycle. However, I personally am not making further edits to the infobox regarding De La Fuente and Kotlikoff until the current discussion is closed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Hi Antony, De La Fuente and Kotilkoff were excluded again from the article. McMullin is a write in candidate, this means that for example De La Fuente is in more ballots than him, twice as much, but this should not be an issue because McMullin is registered in more write ins. You were part of the conversation in which the 270 was established as a requirement. Now people needs to follow through. The info box is vital for every candidate that has made an effort to be able to get to 270, it doesn't matter how. There is a lot of us that can edit the article, but we believe in the consensus, while other guys are just making changes. Our next President is going to be the same and it doesn't matter if him or her wins by presence on the ballots or by write ins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Also, I see a lot of accusations coming and going, and the ones who are losing information are our readers. Is as suspicious to take out a candidate without consensus as placing it. Being more negative to erase them because in an information website such as Wikipedia more complete is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
The Last one two exclude the candidates was Jay Coop and look what it says on his Wikipedia page "I am a Millennial Filipino American born and raised in San Diego. However, I'm not a fan of the local teams, but I am a fan of the Chicago Bears, Cubs, Bulls, and Blackhawks. Now's a great time to be a Cubs fan. Politically, I am a Christian democratic socialist. In the first election that I was able to participate in, I supported Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination and intend to vote for Jill Stein in the general election." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:JayCoop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 21:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Please sign your comments with "~~~~". I'm assuming that you think that I'm biased because of my intent to vote for Jill Stein, which could not be further from the truth, because I advocated Castle and McMullin's inclusion. I made that edit because of #A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle, but I did so mistakenly. There is no bias on my part. Jay Coop·Talk·Contributions21:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
A Note on Ordering of Candidates in Infobox Post Election
Since it now appears that Evan McMullin may win Utah and that Gary Johnson may get more than 5% of the vote, it is possible both may qualify to remain in the infobox post election and i would like to note that the standing precedent on how candidates are ordered in the infobox post-election is to order them by electoral college vote first and then by popular vote. For a good example of this see United_States_presidential_election,_1860 where four candidates are included in the infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The 1860 election has four candidates in the infobox as all four won at least one state meaning they all earned at least one electoral college vote. The current consensus is that a candidate must either achieve one electoral college vote or reach at least 5% of the popular vote to remain after the election takes place. If Evan McMullin does win a state, he will remain in the infobox. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, but that's not what i was getting at. What i'm saying is if McMullin wins Utah and say gets 0.5% of the popular vote, and Johnson gets 6% of the popular vote but wins no electoral votes, McMullin would be listed before Johnson in the infobox because it is ordered by electoral college votes first as the 1860 election page indicates.XavierGreen (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
For the record, and in the hopes of staving off a post-election disagreement such as the one we've had for pre-election coverage, I support this existing consensus. Note that even if Johnson won New Mexico, his best-polling state, he would have only five electoral votes, short of Utah's six unless he also won there. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
I would say Electoral College votes should go before popular vote. From a strict perspective also used for FPTP legislature elections, the EVs/seats won are politically more important. JackWilfred (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
This consensus could work as it would still display Johnson's percentage below his image in the infobox, even if McMullin appears before him. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
Write-in qualifications for infobox
I'd like to point out that the figures in the table include 54 electoral votes from six states (AL, NH, NJ, PA, RI, VT) that do not have a process for filling as a write-in. For infobox purposes, we only count write-in access if the candidates have filed a full slate of electors, which is impossible in those states. Subtracting those 54 votes from De La Fuente's 314 and Kotlikoff's 301 puts both of them under the 270 vote threshold, so I am removing them from the infobox.
It's worth considering whether we should institute extra criteria for candidates who need write-in access to get to 270. Perhaps they should need actual ballot access in some number of states (notably, Kotlikoff only has on-ballot access in two states), or their campaign is notable enough to have its own campaign article. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 20:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd argue against removing those States as counting for Write-Ins given the votes themselves are still validated, and I'm sure (I can't confirm) that there exists a process in each of these States where electors would be appointed to represent the Write-In candidate in December. Personally though I don't know what the system is should that theoretically happen. As for extra criteria, we should stay safe with requiring at least one State with ballot access; at the moment the only other candidate who would be on the precipice would be Tom Hoefling should he make it in California, making it nine candidates. --Ariostos (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
The consensus in 2012 was that we needed to verify that a full elector slate was filed, even in write-in states requiring registration. We should look into the process if a write-in candidate in a "free" write-in state wins. In any case, the RfC above is split down the middle on whether write-in access should count at all, and I don't think there'd be consensus for including free write-in access. I'm happy to hear more viewpoints. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
I know, I was one of the ones that was involved in those discussions at the time when the issue of Write-Ins came up then. People here are a bit more open to the idea now than they were then, but its still a major struggle against inertia. If I have the time I'll see if I can get in touch with the Elections people in Pennsylvania, all the while hoping that this isn't some legal black hole they've never thought to cover; that's the big one of the lot. --Ariostos (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Write-in status shouldn't count. It never has before in a general and shouldn't now. In the NH primary pages, even though a write-in candidate came in third, his votes aren't counted. McMullin and Castle shouldn't be there, except that McM is actually WINNING Utah in the latest polling, so he should stay. Stein should be OUT as soon as the election is over as it looks like she won't be getting 5% nationally. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
That Write-In "candidate" in the case of New Hampshire is actually just the scattering of various Write-Ins, which likely included a multitude of candidates. You can't really count that as a single person; it would be akin to balling all the votes for Kasich, Cruz and Bush together and saying that those votes should be considered for first place, without specifying how many of those votes are for Kasich, Cruz or Bush. --Ariostos (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)
Honestly, I'd rather leave De La Fuente and Kotlikoff off for now until there is a consensus to add them, given that the 2012 consensus would have excluded them due to lack of elector slates in those six free write-in states. It would also avoid everyone going crazy about their order in the infobox, which we don't have clear criteria for. I'm not going to double-revert, though.
Can we at least "audit" the write-in access for Castle, McMullin, De La Fuente, and Kotlikoff to ensure that they have actually named electors in enough write-in states to qualify? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
Regardless of what we decide, De La Fuente now has enough access in the "non-freebie" states. Does anyone know what happens if a write-in wins in a "freebie" state? Could they file for a slate of electors after the fact or is there no process that exists for write-ins? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
We need to verify that a full slate of electors has been filed before it counts for infobox purposes. Some states such as New York don't require a full slate to be filed, so it wouldn't count unless we verify it manually. (Some states do require that a full elector slate be filed; I checked some of the larger ones and TX, FL, IL, and OH do this.) That's how we did it in 2012. So no, if New York is excluded, De La Fuente still isn't over the 270 EV threshold. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 03:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I feel like the multiple threads of discussion here are getting out of hand. @Ariostos: Would you possibly agree to temporarily remove De La Fuente and Kotlikoff from the infobox until we can verify the filing of electors, and whether they can actually win electors in the "free" states? Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I feel like we need a note in the infobox explaining why De La Fuente and Kotlikoff don't meet the criteria for inclusion. Otherwise, the readers will be very confused as to what the criteria for inclusion is. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
It is absurd to distinguish among all of the various modes and means of filing for write-in access. Write-in access is, in the broader frame of the election, rather trivial. Way too much editor time, and too many disputes, are tied up in this small facet. If the ruling holds that we include write-in states for calculating notability, then there is no reason to exclude a subset of these states. If we consider the possibility that a candidate could win with write-in votes, then it does not matter which states. There are explicit means to declare electors after the election in some states (e.g. OR WA), and constitutional provisions for resolving the slate in others. - Of course we could avoid all this by just focusing on states that each candidate actually has a ballot line. Bcharles (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Auditing the write-in access
We need to verify that the candidates have actually filed full elector slates in each write-in state for it to count. There are two ways to do this: some states require all write-in candidates to file slates (which you can usually verify in their laws), while for the others we need to manually verify that they have filed electors. I've put a list of the current claimer write-in states; let's add a reference to each to show whether or not electors have been filed. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 18:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Okay, I've gone through all the states below. I've been able to find evidence of electors being filed for 159 electoral votes for Kotlikoff (AZ, FL, IN, KY, ME, MD, MA, MI, ND, OH, TX) and 87 for De La Fuente (AZ, CA, IN, MD). Combined with their 17 and 147 votes of on-ballot access, neither meets the 270 threshold for the infobox. Feel free to update or challenge the items below, but my opinion is that both candidates should be removed from the infobox until we can document the necessary electoral slates. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 17:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
The states indicated as "not listed" do accept write-ins, but apparently do not require filing of electors. I was confused by this as well, as the candidate is listed as a write-in in each of these states. I changed the notes to "no electors listed", to clear that ambiguity. Bcharles (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I feel like we might be violating WP:OR leaving them out. If there's a procedure after a write-in wins a state then we should just include the other two candidates. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin: If a candidate wins any state by write-ins, the electors will be worked out, by post election filing, or state legislature appointing, or other state procedure. The electors would be pledged to vote for the state winner, but a candidates filing of electors helps ensure that they are faithful. Bcharles (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@Bcharles: Do you have a source for that? It's also possible that the write-in votes will have no effect even if they win; remember that the process in controlled by the major parties. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 19:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
Unjustified removal of Rocky De La Fuente and Laurence Kotlikoff from the infobox
LuckyLag360 removed Rocky De La Fuente and Laurence Kotlikoff from the infobox without providing a valid reason.[30] When I tried to add re‐add them to the infobox, my edit was reverted by LuckyLag360.[31] The current consensus is to include De La Fuente and Kotlikoff because they can theoretically win 270 Electoral Votes through write‐in access. Since I can't take them back because of WP:1RR, can someone else do that instead? —MartinZ02 (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Remember though in order for new content to be added once it has been challenged a consensus has to be met. Therefor the new content that keeps sneaking in must be reverted every time because it was challenged. If the content added gets a consensus than it can be re added. Until than it should stay out and no one should edit war with this as it only hurts your case.LuckyLag360 (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
@LuckyLag360: Those edits where you remove Rocky De La Fuente and Laurence Kotlikoff from the infobox. There is no consensus which I am aware which says that Rocky De La Fuente and Laurence Kotlikoff should be excluded from the infobox. —MartinZ02 (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@LuckyLag360: Already did that about a year ago. I want you to tell me where it was decided that Rocky De La Fuente and Laurence Kotlikoff should be excluded from the infobox. —MartinZ02 (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
@MartinZ02: Well you should read it again as I dont plan to even address you're assumptions. I assume good faith but you really need to read it before you reply to me. LuckyLag360 (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
This page contains many small maps showing which states a candidate has ballot access in. They show up on Internet Explorer, but not on Firefox. I am guessing this is due to the use of the {{multiple image}} macro, because these maps show up correctly on other pages (e.g., Evan McMullin presidential campaign, 2016) in Firefox.
Is this a known bug? Is it wise that such an important article is designed in a way that doesn't render correctly on a major web browser? — Lawrence King(talk)23:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
Maps show up OK on Firefox here: Firefox 49.0.2, Windows 10 on an HP PC displays maps for Stein (shades of green), McMullin (orange), Castle (violet), De La Fuente (blue-violet), Kotlikoff (yellow-green), Maturen and La Riva. I don't normally use Firefox, and I know I may have misunderstood the original comment ... it seems to me that the page appears essentially identical via Firefox and Chrome ... but if others can describe what platform they are using and how the page renders for them, that may provide clues. When I examine the HTML source in my browser, the maps are just being displayed as .svg images, and the coding seems straightforward. NameIsRon (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
I thought the original post was about maps in the "Other third parties and independents" section. If the comment refers to maps in the "Major third parties and independents" section, I have had no problem seeing those on firefox. If this is still a problem, please be specific as to which candidate maps are not displaying. Bcharles (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
Yes, they were about the maps in that section. But they are showing up for me fine now. And when I look at the revision of the page from the time that I posted the comment above, the maps on that revision also show up fine. I can't explain it, but I guess it's all good. Sorry for taking up your time! — Lawrence King(talk)06:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding newspaper endorsements: Inclusion of Trump endorsements?
Hi. As a disclaimer, this is my first time commenting on any political issues on Wikipedia, and my first time really looking at a potential neutral point of view issue. I think this is worth discussing on the talk page rather than a bold edit, particularly considering the nature of political discussions.
I was viewing the newspaper endorsements section of this article and noticed that it only mentions Clinton and Johnson endorsements. While there are certainly significantly more Clinton endorsements by major news media, I worry that with the current phrasing it is not giving due weight to notable media organizations which have endorsed Trump for this election. Some media organizations, such as the Las Vegas Review-Journal, have a circulation of approximately 220000. On the other hand, The Detroit News, mentioned in the article as a significant organization that endorses Johnson, has a lower circulation of 140000. This does not appear to give due weight to the (relatively small, but significant) organizations that support Trump.
Therefore, I propose that this article integrates content from the main newspaper endorsements page to explain that a handful of news media has endorsed Trump for president. Particularly, I would recommend the inclusion of both Las Vegas Review-Journal and Santa Barbara News Press, the two largest newspaper media organizations that have endorsed Trump. Of course, it is important to note that Clinton and even perhaps Johnson have more or equal support by media organizations, and therefore I would suggest no content revision for the rest of the newspaper endorsements section as it stands currently.
Agreed in general, though we don't want to give undue weight to minor publications - I think that this just needs a sentence commenting on Trump endorsements, or lack of: the section needs re-balancing to emphasize the unusual absence of endorsements, and to contextualize the Johson endorsements Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
I've attempted to do this - I've rewritten the section to emphasise the unusual nature of Clinton's support, mentioning the Las Vegas Review-Journal as Trump supporter, and giving the context of Trump's mistrust of mainstream media and use of alternative sources. I've not added the Santa Barbara News Press, which has a significantly lower circulation than the other newspapers mentioned in the summary. I have also more broadly reorgnaised the listed papers to focus on the highest circulation papers. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
Map (NE & ME)
What are we going to do about updating the map with regards to Nebraska and Maine (they split some of their electoral votes by congressional district)? Since it is very likely that the states' statewide electoral votes won't be called by the media at the same time the congressional district electoral votes are called and since it's possibly that some congressional districts won't vote the same way as the state as a whole- what should we do? Should we make a change to the map? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)
In 2012 the entire state of Nebraska was initially colored solid red but I doubt all 5 electoral college votes were projected for Romney all at once thus the map was inaccurate. Are you referring to when Nebraska split its EVs in 2008? In 2008 the entire state of Nebraska was incorrectly colored solid red for 2 days. If we don't have a congressional district friendly map ready on election day we run the risk of repeating this. There currently isn't anything in the text editable map that takes congressional districts into account (AFAIK). I tried making a non-text editable version of a scenario of Maine's statewide and 1 congressional district Evs being called for Clinton and 1 congressional district EV being too close to call but for some reason when I uploaded it to commons there was an error [32]. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
The General election debates subsection devotes its final paragraph to the Free & Equal Elections Foundation debates held last night in Boulder. I happen to think that this content shouldn't be present at all; however, at a minimum it needs to reflect that the debate is in the past and to reflect how it was actually conducted. I suggest substituting the text below, which can just be copied and pasted.
The [[Free & Equal Elections Foundation]] held an alternative debate at the [[University of Colorado Boulder]] on October 25, 2016. Candidates [[Darrell Castle]], [[Rocky De La Fuente]], and [[Gloria La Riva]] attended the debate, which was moderated by [[Christina Tobin]] and [[Ed Asner]].{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BXjmU3Cs7w |title=United We Stand Festival & People's Presidential Debate Live Now from Boulder, CO! |author=<!--Staff--> |date=October 25, 2016 |publisher=[[Free & Equal Elections Foundation]] |access-date=October 26, 2016}}
Before anyone asks, there does not appear to be any independent coverage of this debate; the archived livestream was the best that I could find.
Also, if this debate remains in the table immediately below, it should be modified to add Christina Tobin's name as moderator along with Ed Asner's.
Thanks for updating that section to put the Free & Equal debate in the past tense. I really think there's too much remaining prose about an event that has no third-party coverage, but underneath a fulfilled edit request is not the proper place to argue, so I'll drop it. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)
Would it be helpful to list, in the infobox, the number of electoral votes each candidate has access to? Currently the consensus is that all candidates who can theoretically reach 270 votes are included, which I agree with. Also, I am pleased that Mike Maturen has been added (271 votes), but Tom Hoefling hasn't been, even though he has access to more than 270 electoral votes (and more than Mike Maturen). As the presidential candidates have their home states listed, should the VP nominee too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.106.137 (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
The consensus was to include Castle and McMullin. There is no clear consensus on any other candidates, and that is being discussed here. At the very least we need to document that 270 electors have actually been appointed. In any case, for technical reasons the infobox can display a maximum of nine candidates. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 02:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
In response to the request for a better photo of Evan McMullin, I've created a new section on this talk page comparing the current photo to a viable replacement. I haven't actually replaced it yet as I'm trying to reach a consensus through discussion, please reply if you like it. Thanks! BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
Regarding 5, we could add maps as a link under the electoral vote count. That way we can add maps for as many candidates as folk wish to create without taking up more space. Bcharles (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
That's actually a pretty good idea, @Bcharles:. But, what if a mistake was made on one of the maps? Since they wouldn't have good visibility due to the fact that they're on separate pages, it would be a while until the mistake is corrected. Plus, what's wrong with making a new section on the page just for the maps? Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
There are a fair number of editors who would be checking the maps, particularly while changes are being made to the list of states. The maps would likely be displayed on the candidate, or relevant party, page; and perhaps the United States third-party and independent presidential candidates, 2016 article. The list of minor candidates is already long, and has been mentioned as a possible violation of undue weight. Keeping the information compact helps keep it in perspective. Bcharles (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
On the infobox, change all of Gary Johnson's information to make him number 4 (nominee4, home_state4 etc.), and all of Jill Stein's information to make her number 5, leaving number 3 without a candidate. This will move Gary Johnson to the second row. The reason for this is to conform to usual design standards for infoboxes. In elections with 4 major parties/candidates the top 2 are on the top row with the next 2 on the bottom row. Having 3 on top and 1 on the bottom row looks odd.
There's an existing consensus for candidates with nationwide ballot access to be in the top row, and that includes Johnson. I agree that three over one looks bad, but the remainder of the infobox is disputed at this point. That shouldn't affect the one point that is generally agreed upon. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 20:22, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
What would we have done if we had 5 main candidates with 4 of them having nationwide ballot access? Surely we would have brought one of them down to the second row? Brightgalrs (/braɪtˈɡæl.ərˌɛs/)[1]09:07, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Laying the infobox out like this, as opposed to what is on the article at the moment, is neater and takes up a lot less space.
TedEdwards (talk) 15:22, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Please participate in related discussion further up the page rather than starting a new thread — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:05, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
request for edit for clarity and neutrality in introduction
The portion of the introduction beginning
"Businessman and reality television personality . . ."
and ending
". . . has carried a state since 1968."
is not strictly neutral and has portions that are unclear and potentially misleading to a less than careful reader.
This sentence
"Green Party nominee and former physician Jill Stein has ballot access in enough states to win the electoral college."
in context, can be construed by a casual reader to indicate Stein is the only non-Demopublican candidate for which this is true.
To be both clearer and more neutral, I suggest replacing the section "Businessman and reality television personality . . . has carried a state since 1968." with the following which adds 1 prefatory sentence, incorporates the existing parts on Clinton and Trump, and revises the remainder:
Three candidates will be on the ballot in all 50 states. Businessman and reality television personality Donald Trump became the Republican Party's presidential nominee on July 19, 2016, after defeating U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Governor of Ohio John Kasich, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and other candidates in the Republican primary elections.[1] If elected, Trump will become the oldest president to take office.[2] Former Secretary of State and U.S. Senator from New York Hillary Clinton became the Democratic Party's presidential nominee on July 26, 2016, after defeating U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. If elected, she would be the first female president.[3] Former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson became the Libertarian Party's nominee on May 29, 2016, defeating Austin Petersen. If elected, he would be the first president since 1850 elected as neither a Democrat nor a Republican.
Six other candidates, though failing to get on all 50 state ballots, will still either be on the ballot, or can be legally written in on the ballot, in enough states, that they could, at least in theory, still get enough electoral votes (270 out of 538) to win the election. In this group, the Green Party nominee and former physician Jill Stein has the most potential electoral votes in the sense that, if she won every race in which she is either on the ballot or eligible to be written in, she would get 522 electoral votes.
In addition, there are at least 18 more candidates, who don't appear to have even a theoretical chance of winning a majority of electoral votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
Minor grammer change
I think the line "the election will determine the 45th and 48th president and vice president" should be changed to "the election will likely determine the 45th 48th president and vice president". Who knows, Obama could resign or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJoebro64 (talk • contribs)
The America's Party (Tom Hoefling/Steve Schulin) ticket need a ballot access map. I have taken the liberty of creating one, incorporating both of the party's official colours. Please add this in the same manner as all the other third party maps:
[[File:Tom Hoefling ballot access (2016).svg|thumb|300px|Ballot access for America's Party
{{legend|#800080|Ballot access}}
{{legend|#60ABFF|Write-in access}}
{{legend|#D3D3D3|Not on ballot}}]]
Tavis Smiley is hosting a forum/debate between Gary Johnson and Jill Stein tonight and tomorrow night on his show, if that would qualify for the debate section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.160.165.63 (talk) 16:12, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Request for help
I figure that since we're slightly more than a week out, we should start getting ready for November the Ninth.
I'll start. I'm going to make templates for all fifty (50) states and the district of Columbia. They will initially look like this: {{2016CAGen}}
Now as you can see it's no way near ready. So what I'd like y'all to do, is find out who's on each state ballot, then go to "Template:2016XXGen", when you get there, put all the state specific information in the template, including every candidate on the ballot (no write-ins, please. There's not going to be any information on those until December at the earliest). Then go to the "US Presidential Election in the whatever" page and place the link in the results section there. We should have it all ready for November the ninth. Rather than edit war about the infobox, let's do something constructive. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:38, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Where exactly will these be used? I'm not sure why we need separate templates rather than just a table on each Election in State article. Reywas92Talk21:44, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
It was how it was done in the primaries. Like I said, they will be used in the individual state election pages, and several others. By making the templates NOW we can have uniform information for all 50 states and DC when the big show is over. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:32, 30 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you for doing that. It's precisely what I was hoping you'd do, and if we can get more people to pitch in, it would be fantastic. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
This is unnecessary for this page. We can have another page specifically for results. If you look at past election pages there is a chart. They are easy to look at and provide results in a very clean way. I would stick to that. Giving each state its own chart will be a bit much. Leave that for the state's individual page. The Democratic and Republican primaries pages do not have individual state charts. Manful0103 (talk) 13:24, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
For this page, most certainly, but this talk page is a perfect place to ask for help for those pages. For those who are, my thanks. Arglebargle79 (talk) 18:30, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
There is zero about the subject should a chapter to be added stating how the election is internationally monitored? The fact women are allowed to run is only one of many signs which mark a demockratic process. 23:10, 31 October 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk)
The lead states that, "Green Party nominee and former physician Jill Stein has ballot access in enough states to win the electoral college." Given that Stein is not likely to actually win the electoral college, that seems like a rather unusual statement to make. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to simply mention how many states she has ballot access in? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 06:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
That makes sense. Something like: "Green Party nominee and former physician Jill Stein had ballot access in 48 [45 states plus the Disctrict of Colombia] for a total of 480 [493] potential electoral votes." The article says that her ballot status in one state (Oklahoma) is pending, but that's probably resolved by now. Sparkie82 (t•c)07:21, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, refactor it however you like. The point is, there is no rationale for the lead to say something like, "Jill Stein has ballot access in enough states to win the electoral college". Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton have ballot access in enough states to win the electoral college too, but the lead doesn't point that out in so many words. Why, then, is Stein being picked out in this way? FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 07:30, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
I have no idea why it's the way it is -- possibly an artifact of some sort. I just updated the proposed wording above with the actual numbers. Does that read right? Sparkie82 (t•c)08:41, 2 November 2016 (UTC)
That should be 44 states plus DC, representing 480 electoral votes, or 89% of voters. A line about having filed as a write-in for three states could be added, but does not strike me as important enough to be in the lead. Bcharles (talk) 01:07, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Edit protection is scheduled to be removed tomorrow, then you can make the edit yourself (rather than bothering an admin to do it) if it can wait until then. We also need a reliable reference(s) to verify the exact numbers. Sparkie82 (t•c)10:25, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The image on the Wikipedia article for Evan McMullin has been replaced recently and it looks rather nice compared to the current one that we have. I do not know if the new image is free but I saw it added to his article so I'm assuming that it could be a viable replacement for what we have now.
What do you think we should use?
Additionally, his color currently is a reddish orange that appears similar to the color being used for Trump, so I am considering changing it to an orange that leans neither to red nor yellow as to more clearly distinguish him.
The infobox on this section compares the current version of how McMullin appears to my proposed change. Please respond with opinions. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
If the image is actually free (the file page currently says it is, but the source is not well provided), I suggest you go ahead and replace the image. This is not controversial in any way since option 1 is superior to 2 in every way. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
In response to William S. Saturn, I tried doing a quick search for this image. This tweet from the verified TeamMcMullin account utilizes the same image, which leads me to believe that not only is Evan McMullin the copyright holder but that he also agrees to release it under free license. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
The copyright holder is usually the person who took the photo unless there is some other arrangement made. We need proof that an arrangement was made with the photographer and that the copyright holder agrees to release it under a free license.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
I must add that this image will need to be cropped to be in the infobox. I previewed what the infobox would look like with the image replaced, and it's a little too wide. For now, I've changed only the color in the infobox. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
When looking at the version of the article with the new & cropped image, it appears that it is not wide enough now. I'll post an updated version when I can get the dimensions exact. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
@BrendonTheWizard: A photograph needs to be under a Creative Commons license that allows commercial reuse, or in the public domain (e.g. because it was taken by a federal government employee) in order to be used. Neither of those Flickr photographs fulfill those criteria.
I attempted to find pictures of him from government sources by searching through the websites associated with his past government jobs. The most I could find was a pdf confirming his position as a policy director, but I could not find a photograph. His events could generate photographs of him, there's also the possibility of him showing up at the F&E third party debate on the 25th of October soon, though his campaign has not confirmed the invitation. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
One possibility is to contact Anthony Trueheart at [33]. He's the author of the current portrait and he may be willing to publish a better quality portrait that we could use. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)
There is a photo of him on the Hickly Institute website here, the institute is part of the university which is an agency of the state. While works of the federal gov. are public domain, not sure if that applies to states.Kjack1071 (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
That's a very nice image similar to the one considered at the start of this discussion; if we can verify that it's free to use then it would be excellent once cropped for the infobox. Being that utah.edu is the official state university website and is not registered for commercial purposes, we may be allowed to use this photo, but I'm not sure yet. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
My question about the infobox color is this: who decided it had to be orange? Shouldn't it be a color that reflects his campaign logo? Also, shouldn't consensus be reached as to what the HTML or HEX color code is? Personally, I think that the infobox color for McMullin's campaign should be something like this: reddish-orange Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)
As a result of increased interest in McMullin's color, I'm adding a new infobox right here comparing the colors.
Color Option I: Light orange (We replaced the reddish orange with light through consensus due to it being similar to the color used for Trump.
Color Option II: Reddish orange (We previously had this)
Color Option III: Magenta (high contrast to other colors, not purple to prevent being similar to Castle)
Color Option IV: Black/Grey (Symbolizes being independent but not too light to go unnoticed)
Color Option V: Cyan/Turquoise (While somewhat blue, clearly different from Hillary Clinton and Rocky De La Fuenta)
I'm fine with any of these except for II as we already agreed to get rid of it. Please cast your !votes below.
The preview of how the infobox would look with each of the colors can be found to the right of this post. I will also add that I agree that orange wouldn't stand out enough, so options I and II are not my favorites. Magenta could work nicely; I !vote for Magenta . BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
As the person that changed McMullin's infobox color to orange I wouldn't be opposed to magenta (although I don't see why we would need to change his color since orange seems to be working just fine). I am however opposed to gray because on election day as the map is being filled in people might mistakenly think that the blank states (which would be a lighter shade of gray) have been won by McMullin. I oppose cyan (blue-green) because I feel like we should avoid colors that are somewhat similar to other candidate's infobox colors i.e. Clinton's blue and Stein's green. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
I'd be okay with orange so long as it is not reddish as it was barely distinguishable from the orange/red color being used for Trump. In the first call for consensus on McMullin's image and color in this section, I changed his color from reddish orange to a lighter orange as to make the distinction more noticeable, but I have heard from others that an orange would not stand out as much in the event that McMullin won a state. You bring up a good point with the gray. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I propose orange, which seems to be the color used for the 3rd candidate to win electoral votes; ex. Wallace 1968, Thurmand in 1948. Not saying he'll win a state, but he seems the most likely of all the 3rd party/independents to win one. Kjack1071 (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I also propose orange. However, the HTML color code I propose is #FF5800 , which is Color Option II. I just want the infobox color to be consistent with the HTML color code used in the section of the article discussing McMullin's candidacy. As long as the infobox color code matches the color code used in the section discussing his candidacy, I will support whatever the consensus is. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
The color on his section is also subject to change. McMullin's color was previously a blue; it was changed to orange and can be changed again for the purpose of consistency. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)
I believe that orange is the least desirable choice to use for McMullin because orange is the official color of Christian Democracy[1] and the Christian Democratic party in the United States is the American Solidarity Party. As McMullin is a conservative, his color should be closer to red than other third party candidates. I vote for Option III (Magenta) as he is conservative, but not a hardline conservative, so the softer color is appropriate. Dhalsim2 (talk) 07:23, 29 October 2016
But the American Solidarity Party's official color isn't orange. And you're probably the only person here that associated orange with Christian Democracy. You could probably look up some random political ideology and find that magenta is the official color for it so that's not a good enough reason to avoid using orange. Since orange is a color mixed with red I disagree with your reasoning. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 06:33, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Saying he's "probably the only person here that associated orange with Christian Democracy" is not an argument. It is true that Christian Democracy traditionally uses the color orange. "You could probably look up some random political ideology and find that magenta is the official color for it so that's not a good enough reason to avoid using orange." is also not a valid argument as there is an established system of political colors. Pink/Magenta has no one established use and is used for everything from liberalism to feminism to homosexuality (point being that it has no consistent meaning unlike orange) (additionally, all three examples used for pink can also be used for purple). Another reason to avoid using orange is while we may dismiss any possibility that any independent or third party candidate could possibly win an electoral college vote, Wikipedia is not a crystal ball and the polls have shown that an electoral college vote for McMullin may not be as inconceivable as it seems. If that does happen, a magenta color would stand out far more than an orange. If we do use an orange, it shouldn't be reddish as that would be almost indistinguishable from Donald Trump's color. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Orange is not associated with Christian Democracy in the United States and this article is about the United States. The orange seems to stand out just fine [34]. Maybe magenta would stand out more (I don't know). But, I don't see the point of changing his infobox color right now when it's very possible he will be removed after election day anyways. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 03:05, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Change the color & party for Evan McMullin from "Independent politician" and "E78C00" to "Independent" and use the color shading template "Party shading/Independent".
As of now, the consensus seems to be closely split between orange and magenta. I also oppose use of yellow as Yellow is used to represent Libertarianism. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:13, 7 November 2016 (UTC)
Currently this section (and the infobox, for that matter) simply lists Mindy Finn as McMullin's running mate. This is not true. In the 11 states he has ballot access to Nathan Johnson is the listed Vice President with McMullin. I am aware he was a filler candidate. However Finn is on the ballot in 0 states. This fact should be added to the article in a more prominent way. I do not know why only administrators can only edit this article. I assume it is due to consistent edit wars. That seems abuse-of-power-y. (But that's just my opinion.) KingAntenor (talk) 23:48, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Oppose, Finn is McMullin's running mate, all the while Johnson is a placeholder. However, a note should be left to mention this. By the way, I am the one who requested full protection at WP:RPP due to edit warring. There is no abuse of power Jay Coop·Talk·Contributions23:54, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
The section on McMullin's candidacy should mention both Johnson (as the gentleman whose name will be on ballot lines and who any electors will in principle be pledged to vote for) and Finn (as McMullin's intended running mate). Note that there's no realistic path for either person to serve as Vice President - if there's a three-way split in the Electoral College, the House of Representatives will select the President from among the three candidates with the most electoral votes, but the Senate selects the Vice President from the top two. In that sense it doesn't really matter. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 01:48, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Support any elector that votes for Mindy Finn is a Faithless elector. Johnson was supposed to be a placeholder, but that ultimately failed. We should explain the situation about both Nathan Johnson and Mindy Finn, but Nathan Johnson should be listed in both the infobox and in the candidate gallery. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 03:29, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Question: You say that the placeholder plan "ultimately failed". I'm wondering what that means: does McMullin now consider Johnson his running mate? Or are you saying that they had hoped to have Finn's name on the ballots, and that failed?
For what it's worth, McMullin's website says, "In the event that the election is pushed to the House of Representatives, Nathan Johnson would then resign as the Vice Presidential nominee to be replaced by Mindy Finn." I'm not a constitutional lawyer, but I think this is nonsense -- for two reasons. First, the Twelfth Amendment limits Congress to voting for candidates who have received electoral votes; it says nothing about such candidates being allowed to resign and designate their replacements. Second, while the House must choose the president from among the top three candidates, the Senate must choose the Vice-President from among the top two. So even in the fanciful McMullin-becomes-president scenario, the VP will be either Kaine or Pence. — Lawrence King(talk)04:35, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
They wanted to have Finn's name on the ballots, but they are stuck with Johnson. Even if Johnson made it to the top two on the Senate ballot I'm not convinced that they would be able to give Mindy Finn the vice presidency. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Support using Johnson's name, while keeping Mindy Finn's name somewhere as well. Based on what Prcc27🎃 explained, Johnson needs to be listed here, since he's on the ballots (and even the write-ins require his name, not Finn's, to be written). However, we do need Mindy Finn's name, if for no other reason that people who have heard of the McMullin/Finn ticket will be very perplexed and think we simply made an error. It would be nice to have both names in the Infobox, but if that's not practical, Johnson's should appear there. Both names should be mentioned -- and the situation explained -- in the §Evan McMullin's candidacy section of the article. — Lawrence King(talk)06:26, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Please remember that the presidency/Vice presidency is an INDIRECT election. Everyone is voting for presidential electors. Should McMullin win Utah, then Ms. Finn will get the states electoral votes, not Johnson. In 1912, Vice president Sherman was dead when the election happened, and the electors voted for someone else for VP. Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:23, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Arglebargle79, that is quite true. However, many states have laws requiring electors to obey their pledges, and many have laws requiring electors to vote for the candidates named on the ballot. Exactly how these laws are worded, and what the McMullin electors in each state have publicly said about their vice-presidential vote, is unclear. Prcc27🎃 suggested that any elector that votes for Finn would be a "faithless elector", but that term is usually reserved for electors who break their public pledges, not for those who break the law -- because these laws are a relatively new development. If someone actually knows what the over 400 McMullin electors have each publicly said, we could solve this matter (albeit by violating WP:NOR). But since we don't know, I don't see how we can simply ignore what the official ballots and official state write-in rules say, in favor of a VP swap that McMullin personally supports. Comparison: If Hillary Clinton publicly requested her electors to vote for Joe Biden instead of Tim Kaine for VP, such a request would have no legal status. — Lawrence King(talk)21:40, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Support keeping Finn's name in the most prominent places but mentioning the situation with Johnson somewhere in the article text. Finn has been appearing with McMullin extensively at events, and the campaign and reliable sources refers to her as the vice-presidential nominee. Johnson's spot on the ballot is a legal technicality ultimately of little practical consequence, but since his appearance on the ballot may confuse voters, perhaps putting "Nathan Johnson (placeholder) under Finn's name would be a good idea. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:08, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
At this point Nathan Johnson is no longer just the "placeholder" running mate anymore. Nathan Johnson is the de jure running mate and Mindy Finn is only the de facto running mate (essentially just a figurehead). Prcc27🎃 (talk) 21:51, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Opposed to changing out Finn's name for Nathan Johnson's, though I'm aware with the problems regarding the faithless elector laws. The last time in "recent" history where this might have come up was in '68 when George Wallace carried Georgia, where his legal running-mate there was former Georgian Governor Marvin Griffin. They would later cast their electoral votes for Curtis LeMay, thus being "faithless", but there weren't any laws in Georgia forbidding that, nor to my knowledge have there been any such laws to that effect. I suppose instead we can look to the Republicans of 1912 for a compromise, with the situation regarding Nicholas Butler and James Sherman. True Sherman died and was technically replaced entirely, but we could use the format used where Sherman is mentioned to say that Mindy Finn is "represented by Nathan Johnson". --Ariostos (talk) 23:04, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
Please make these updates and changes to McMullin's section: drop "additional endorsements" from parties without wikipedia pages; add write-in states KS and MO; drop "write-in anticipated" list, as no significant states left; add WY to "no ballot access" (at this time); add and update refs; update total EV to 451; as below:
Bcharles (talk) 14:37, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
The table of swing states seems to omit a couple. Most political sites including 538, Politico and BBC America News include Michigan and Virginia as swing states, and 538 even throws in Minnesota as well. Granted, given the current polling these states seem unlikely to go into the Republican column, but there still seems to be a consensus that these are swing states.86.160.47.112 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
538 does not label states as swing or safe, but just rates them on a continuous scale. BBC attributes their labels to RCP. Politico lists "battleground states" a little broader than the term "swing state". They include MI and VA which their polling average lists as 9 point and 12 point spreads. Hardly swing states. Bcharles (talk) 16:10, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, Minnesota is included in many maps because of a couple polls conducted by KSTP, a station owned by Trump donor Stanley Hubbard, which made a point out of only polling land-lines. I recently read an interesting article [[35]] which explains how there are far fewer polls being done in Minnesota and other states due to rising costs (including cell phones costs more money because those numbers have to be tied to an address), standards (in-person interviews are more accurate than robocalls and legally required by the FCC for cell numbers, but cost money in labor), and changes in the newspaper industry mean much less money in their budget for polls. Additionally, there are fewer polls done because of fewer statewide races this year. Ironically, MN no longer being considered a battleground after 2012 also has led to fewer polls being done here, so a few outliers like KSTP that show Trump beating Clinton in MN can skew the results to make MN look like a battleground when it most likely isn't. National pollsters like Rasmussen & PPP have pulled back considerably as well. IMO Trump's got about the same odds of winning NY as MN, but it is what it is. From what I've read, Michigan and Virginia along with NH and CO were considered swing states, and after the debates and sex assault thing were moved to "lean democratic" and were no longer considered toss-ups. Personally I'd argue for comprehensive inclusion and have all of them in the table, but at the same time there are probably good reasons to omit VA, MI, MN, NH, and CO. <> Alt lys er svunnet hen (talk) 16:34, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
This was discussed here. Until a different consensus emerges, states that do not have at least one of the included ratings indicating them as swing states, don't belong. Bcharles (talk) 15:39, 6 November 2016 (UTC)
Please replace the "swing states" table with the updated table below. Ratings from the four sites included have been updated to the most recent reports.
For Hoefling (Americas Party), add AK, KS, KY, MO, NE, WI, making his EV total 369. Add refs and "not on ballot:" list, as below:
Bcharles (talk) 04:26, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
I am the campaign manager of the Maturen/Muñoz 2016 campaign. The work was commissioned specifically for the use by the campaign. Does putting it on Wikipedia not qualify as acceptable use? Dhalsim2 (talk) 05:37, 1 November 2016 (UTC)
As the campaign manager, you should not edit the candidate article nor related campaign and election election articles, as that would violate Conflict of Interest policy. Please review WP:COI.
I should be clear that my edits focus on discrete, objective facts such as map updates, electoral vote updates, providing citations for write-in access, etc. Dhalsim2 (talk) 22:57, 4 November 2016 (UTC)
The creator of the campaign logo can upload the image to wikimedia, declare it as his own work, and specify a CC license for it. It would then be available for use. Alternatively you can provide documentation of the license as described at WP:PERMISSIONS.Bcharles (talk) 22:14, 3 November 2016 (UTC)
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. Also, the file link is a redlink — Andy W. (talk) 18:08, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
Maturen now has confirmed write-in access in Kansas.[5]
Please move Kansas from the anticipated list and put it in the confirmed list with the above reference. Increase the electoral vote count from 326 to 332 and move his whole section to the section above America's Party, as he now has higher ballot access than Hoefling.
No provision for filing electors [1]
No electors listed [2]
Full slate required [3]
Full slate not required [28]
Done Thanks to JackWilfred. - Bcharles (talk) 19:41, 31 October 2016 (UTC)
Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the 
Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. — Andy W. (talk) 18:07, 5 November 2016 (UTC)
![[32]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/b/bd/20161027001824%21Test.svg){kind=link}
![[34]](https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/41/ElectoralCollege1968.svg){kind=link}
