Talk:2020 United States Senate election in Maine

Primary Dates

It would help if the date(s) of the Primaries was/were listed. Is it the same as the presidential primary, March 3rd? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rskurat (talk • contribs) 01:14, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Ballotpedia has the Primary listed as June 9, 2020. I am looking to see if there are further sources for this, and also if Instant Runoff Voting will be used in these primaries and/or the at the General Election in November.--Davemoth (talk) 16:13, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

NPOV

I've removed the following text from the article as a violation of NPOV:

"With respect to her vote on Kavanaugh, she has also made many other anti-abortion confirmations in spite of her claim of being "pro choice" on the issue of abortion. In addition to her contradictory moves on abortion,"

A couple of issues with the above, which is cited to an opinion piece in the partisan source salon.com:

1. Were these confirmations "anti-abortion"?...Some of the judges likely were personally pro-life, but there are multiple factors being considered in judicial confirmations. Characterizing them as "anti-abortion" is a matter of opinion, not fact. Likewise with referring to "anti-abortion Trump judges."

2. The language of "in spite of her claim of being "pro choice"" is clearly biased, suggesting that there's reason to to believe that she is not pro-choice.

I've also removed the wording "apparently partisan moves." Apparent to whom, exactly? Obviously her political opponents characterize them that way, but this isn't something that Wikipedia should be asserting.

The article needs to be more thoroughly checked for NPOV and watched to avoid such bias being reintroduced. -2003:CA:874E:476C:4C57:3F4D:8EE4:4ACE (talk) 00:19, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

References

If you feel that any article needs to be monitored, it is up to you to monitor it, not others. 331dot (talk) 00:58, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

I'll do what I can to keep an eye on this page, but I'm also bringing this issue to the attention of the broader community. There had been some serious POV-pushing in the article's lede. I've now already edited it to remove the most egregious NPOV-violations, but the same or similar could be added back to the article at any time, so it's important that this discussion here puts that in the public record. -2003:CA:874E:476C:4C57:3F4D:8EE4:4ACE (talk) 03:10, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Changes made today by Pickle Mon bring back some objectivity to this article and help avoid some loaded language. There are several statements made in Background that could use some citations or reworking. Imho we are close to being able to remove the NPOV template.--Davemoth (talk) 15:35, 24 March 2020 (UTC)

Nominee

I invite KingOpti101 to discuss their concerns here. Collins and Savage are not the nominees of their parties until the primary has concluded, even if they are the only candidates. 331dot (talk) 21:20, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

Polls

I invite Smith0124 to discuss their edit here to gain a consensus. 331dot (talk) 19:15, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

These polls aren’t giving any context. They are distracting from the focus of the article. Hypothetical polling is fine but too much of it is distracting and messy. We also need to not have polls from before the 2018 midterms, there’s no way that most people have made up their minds before then and candidates hadn’t announced their intentions. Smith0124 (talk) 03:07, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

They give the context of whom was being thought of as a potential candidate. Shawn Moody was the GOP nominee for Governor, hardly little known to Maine voters and it is reasonable that some might see him as a candidate for another statewide office. Please point me to a policy that has a date based limitation on polling. We have Opinion polling for the next United Kingdom general election, which doesn't even have a firm date, and the polls started right after the last election. We also have Opinion polling for the next German federal election, and Nationwide opinion polling for the 2020 United States presidential election which started in March of 2017. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

Tell me why polling from over three years before an election is in any way valid. You gotta let stuff play out first before a decision is made. In this case, this was before Kavanaugh, Impeachment, Gideon’s entry into the race, the 2018 midterms, and most of Trump’s presidency. Smith0124 (talk) 18:41, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

You should address your question to the pollsters, not me. Wikipedia is here to summarize what reliable sources say, and that includes polls. 331dot (talk) 18:55, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

That's unrealistic. We should be preserving the integrity of the page by having a base level of vetting for the polls. We do it with information, we should do it with polls too. Smith0124 (talk) 20:31, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

When you establish and define that standard so it can be applied wiki-wide, and have consensus for it, okay. But you haven't done so yet. As you do not have consensus for your changes, I again request that you self revert. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 21:04, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

No, just because you don’t like it doesn’t mean I’m forced to get a consensus. I can just as validly ask for you to get a consensus in order to oppose it, especially since you’re the one who is asking for a consensus.Smith0124 (talk) 22:21, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The consensus is demonstrated by the hundreds upon hundreds of articles that have this information, which I have already demonstrated. Typically, in a dispute, the article remains as it was beforehand until the dispute is resolved. WP:BRD. It is not a matter of me not liking your changes, you haven't offered reason for them other than your personal preference. 331dot (talk) 23:44, 26 May 2020 (UTC)

The reason is that the polls are outdated and were conducted years before the actual election. Smith0124 (talk) 00:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

You make it sound like they were conducted decades ago. That's your personal preference, not a Wikipedia guideline. Again, speak to the pollsters if you don't like how they conduct polls. 331dot (talk) 01:15, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

I see that Thesavagenorwegian is having a similar discussion with you. This should demonstrate that it isn't just me who feels as I do.331dot (talk) 01:25, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

You know I can’t “talk to the pollster” so stop suggesting it. And in terms of an election 3 years too early isn’t much different than a decade too early. It’s the same problem, but let’s not go off on a tangent. Also, the the endorsements thing, the LGBTQ Victory Fund took away their endorsement, ids not on their page anymore. Smith0124 (talk) 02:52, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Of course you can speak to them. They have email addresses and phone numbers. I wasn't kidding. 331dot (talk) 08:38, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Regarding the endorsement, fair enough, though I think it would be better to put "withdrawn" on it than removing it outright, as their withdrawal doesn't change the fact that they had endorsed him. Or, if they had endorsed another candidate put "endorsed Ross until X date") 331dot (talk) 08:40, 27 May 2020 (UTC)

Request for comment

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.

---

Should this article contain all relevant polling or should it be limited by certain criteria such as date and/or the subjects polled? 331dot (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)

• I would also add that my opinion is that the changes should be reversed until Smith0124 has consensus for those changes or a broader policy covering all election/polling related articles, but they have declined to self-revert. 331dot (talk) 00:41, 28 May 2020 (UTC)
• I'd argue that the current RfC wording is incredibly loaded and favourable to one side of the debate (and I say this with no further background in the original dispute other than the prompt itself): all "relevant" polling is, by definition, relevant. A better, more fullsome description of the previous dispute you are trying to resolve, with some context and examples, and with a good-faith description of the competing views (as each camp would themselves describe them) would be much more helpful for respondents arriving to provide input than "Should all the good stuff be kept, or should we needlessly limit ourselves as this other person suggests. As a general rule, it is true both that A) there should not be arbitrary limitations on what polling data is covered here and also B) as a pragmatic matter, there has to be some limit as to what is covered, and it is just impossible to say where we are relative to those two overlapping principles without more detail on the specifics. I'm going to do some digging to figure out what those specifics are in this case, but I recommend that the RfC OP develop a somewhat more substantial and slightly more neutral wording to the prompt to assist any further respondents off the bat, perhaps reviewing WP:RfC for pointers if necessary. Snow ^{let's rap} 14:14, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Or nevermind: 331dot, it would seem that Smith0124 has been indef blocked as a sock. If they were your sole editorial opposition on this matter, and no one else is still carrying their argument forward, this can be procedurally closed as no longer an active editorial dispute. Unless of course you would prefer to have some consensus to point to in the future, in which case the discussion can be left open until there is some small degree of discussion. I am prepared to to add my editorial opinion on the matter if it will be helpful, but I will refrain from investigating the matter further until I now how you will proceed: that way I can neutrally close the discussion procedurally as someone who not yet formed an opinion on the underlying dispute, if that is the option you favour. Snow ^{let's rap} 14:21, 16 June 2020 (UTC)

Snow Rise It would seem that there is no editorial dispute any longer since the other user was not acting in good faith by socking, so I would be of the opinion that closing this neutrally is the way forward. 331dot (talk) 14:51, 16 June 2020 (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.

House vote on ethics order of Alleged Sex Offender removal from office

This has nothing to do with providing unfactual or erroneous material about a living person.

These are the facts as reported by various Maine and national media:

1. Information was submitted sometime in the first half of 2018 to Maine authorities that rep. Bates was accused of underage sexual behavior with girls where he teaches (an all-girls school in Maine). 2. Gideon did not call for his removal or investigate. 3. The Bollard magazine published additional allegations. 4. Gideon, in response to the publication, asked for him to resign. 5. Bates resigned. 6. House rep. Sutton brought an ethics vote against Gideon for improper handling of the situation. 7. The House voted along party lines to reject the vote.

I welcome any additional facts, things I am missing. But, again, this is an important aspect of the campaign, just as the two candidates positions, controversial or otherwise. But I will not have you continue undoing the contribution for incorrect reasons. First you say it is unsourced (untrue). Then you say it is not factual (clearly false). Then you say it is irrelevant, and uses bizarre language. Your reasons are bordering on the absurd, and again, I will raise the concern of vandalism once again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:9479:6E32:CFCF:841 (talk) 03:43, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Here are a few of the references:

https://bangordailynews.com/2018/08/28/politics/maine-house-to-vote-on-investigating-handling-of-allegations/

https://bangordailynews.com/2018/08/20/news/democrat-accused-of-sexual-misconduct-resigns-maine-house-seat/

https://freepressonline.com/Content/Download-the-current-issue-as-a-pdf/Eye-on-Augusta-2015-18/Article/Eye-on-Augusta-House-Rejects-Order-Calling-for-Ethics-Investigation-Concerning-Sexual-Misconduct-Allegations/93/778/60709

https://www.pressherald.com/2018/08/08/republican-lawmaker-calls-for-vote-on-ethics-committee-investigation-into-allegation-against-dillon-bates/

Also, who erased the discussion about this from the talk page? It was here a few days ago, and not now. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:9479:6E32:CFCF:841 (talk) 03:51, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

According to the log nothing has been erased from this page. What you want to post is either the Republican or your own position on these events, and not a neutral account of the events. Gideon states that she did not act the moment she heard the alleged accusations because she had no hard evidence, but warned Bates that if she did, she would demand he resign- which is exactly what happened. Senator Collins' campaign and the Republicans are trying to spin it as a dereliction of duty- which they are free to do- but we can't, for the reasons described to you. Undue weight and BLP Policy issues. I don't know if Neutrality has anything to add. 331dot (talk) 08:56, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Nothing much to add - I agree that this content would be inappropriate here for exactly the reasons you mentioned. In encyclopedia policy terms, this content is undue weight, off-topic in this article, and in an case distorted. WP:COATRACK also applies. Neutrality^talk 15:32, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Whether this is a talking point used by Republicans is irrelevant. Nearly all of the content on Gideon's page, and Collins' for that matter, has been used by campaigns. I think you are fighting this too hard, and it suggests you and Neutrality are pushing an agenda on Gideon's page as well as US Maine 2020. I'm not a Republican and not pushing an agenda, but a vote on an ethics claim 51-72 is something significant. It doesn't have to be belabored, and can be done in a neutral, brief manner. But I think your saying it is inappropriate is basically motivated by your politics. I also noticed Neutrality adding a lot of content that ran like an ad. I understand you may want to use wiki to advance your candidate but it's inappropriate. You still haven't said which of any of these facts is disputed. You just don't like it being mentioned. That's not how wikipedia works.

So, I am seeking someone to resolve it that doesn't have bias in this. But we need to reach some type of consensus. It should be fact based. If you want to keep it small to protect your candidate, I'm open to that, but sexual offense is significant, potentially not handling it well is significant, and merits being on the page, just as the other candidate's decision to not impeach is significant. People's decisions in office are precisely what are supposed to be on this page, even if they don't portray your candidate in a positive light.

Also, re: Neutrality, I see zero basis for it being undue weight (a vote on your handling of something is significant). How Gideon's actions while in office are 'off-topic' is laughable, given your additions of all her accomplishments in office. Should we only mention the items that Maine voters tend to like. Distorted?! Reporting an ethics vote is distorted?

I'm not being paid to monitor wikipedia. Are you two? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4A00:4FE0:98F7:32E3:5AC7:3161 (talk) 01:12, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

I have no political motivations; only motivations based in WP:BLP. If you have hard evidence I am being paid to edit, I'd love to see it. 331dot (talk) 01:55, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

As to what is wrong- "potentially not handling it well" is not valid article content. That's Republican spin and not an accurate account of events. Maybe you aren't a registered Republican voter, but you are clearly sympathetic with Senator Collins or against Speaker Gideon. 331dot (talk) 01:59, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Even House Minority Leader Fredette didn't see this as a big deal, as stated in the BDN: "The House could vote on Sutton’s request Thursday, but it’s unclear whether it will win enough support. Democrats control the chamber and House Minority Leader Ken Fredette, R-Newport, said in a statement after Bates’ resignation that the House “can put this matter behind us.” A politically motivated effort to embarrass Speaker Gideon should not be phrased as such here. 331dot (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

• It would have been more appropriate to continue discussion (consensus) rather than to use control and suppression (have user: Airplaneman lock the page.

I didn't say you were paid; I asked, given your persistence in repeatedly undoing my edits after I make the improvements you ask for.

WP:BLP: Yes, I agree about using neutral language, heavily referencing, etc. But having a vote on someone for a potential ethics violation as Speaker of the Maine House, 51-72 is something to mention.

Your conclusions are also specious: be more circumspect in your inferences. I am not sympathetic with Senator Collins, nor am I against Speaker Gideon. I believe that important, well-sourced references to key events expand knowledge. I fear you are motivated to protect Gideon, which is not acceptable.

As to your conclusion about Fredette: he said they didn't likely have enough votes, and, once Bates quit, that this was something they could move on from. It doesn't mean it wasn't a significant event.

I'm happy to pare down the blurb, but to suppress it and not allow it is wrong, unethical, and partisan.

Who said: 'potentially not handling it well'? She had 51 people vote that her handling of it was unethical. Trump wasn't convicted, but he still had a substantial minority of people vote to impeach him. That is noteworthy even though he is a living person.

I have given a very clear, fact-based account of what happened. You have not. You still have failed to explain which of any of the facts I cited which are inaccurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:681:4a00:4fe0:d919:70a6:e3db:eec1 (talk)

Please read the Biographies of Living Persons policy before commenting further. Wikipedia has a strict policy about how living persons are written about. Removing violations of this policy is not vandalism, as noted at this policy which states "Removing contentious material that is libelous, biased, unsourced, or poorly sourced according to our biographies of living persons (BLP) policy"(my emphasis) is permitted. Republican spin is not appropriate for this article. Use Facebook or Twitter if you want to tell the world about GOP talking points. Please also review policy on undue weight.

I could probably find 51 state legislators who would be willing to vote for a resolution saying Governor Mills is a space alien from Alpha Centauri who wants to take over the world. Meaningless. The vote you speak of did not pass.

If you want to provide a historical overview of Speaker Gideon's actions while in office, the place to do that is Sara Gideon, not here. This article is about the election. And even there it must be done according to the Biographies of Living Persons policy. Mere accusations of criminal activity must be written about very carefully, if at all. All actions must be written about accurately and it is not accurate that Speaker Gideon "delayed" anything. 331dot (talk) 20:09, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

A majority voted to impeach Trump, not a minority. You seem to have made the common error of conflating impeachment and removal from office, which are two different things. Trump was impeached, but not removed. 331dot (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Including Savage in the infobox

Savage should be included in the infobox for a number of reasons: she has polled 5% thus far, she is included in both major debates, and the press is discussing her campaign as part of its regular coverage. The infobox is a place to demonstrate quickly to readers which candidates in the election are meeting the above standards. It's not a place for electioneering.--User:Namiba 18:18, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

@Namiba: The only threshold is that she AVERAGES 5% in polling. She’s only even hit 5% once. Your reasoning is deeply misleading and suggests she consistently polls at 5%. 18:24, 22 August 2020 (UTC)

It is my understanding that an average, or at least more than one poll, is needed. Savage actually has a decent shot at that given RCV. 331dot (talk) 16:25, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

@Muboshgu:, see this story about Savage polling 5%.--User:Namiba 17:30, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

Namiba, the way that this page presents poll results, I overlooked those notes. Why is the table combining other candidates with "undecided"? Nevertheless, she's not averaging 5% in polls, is she? – Muboshgu (talk) 18:01, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, she has only been included in 1 poll and, in that poll, she received 5%. As I wrote above, she has been included in all of the forthcoming debates so it is safe to assume that this realistically reflects her campaign's popular support.--User:Namiba 18:04, 28 August 2020 (UTC)

As an update, she's only been included in 2 polls now. She polled at 5% in the former (Bangor Daily News/Digital Research) and 6% in the latter (Fabrizio Ward/Hart Research Associates). Though the data is limited, she clearly fits the requirements. 2605:E000:A444:B00:155C:A071:713E:7EF1 (talk) 23:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

Now that two consecutive polls have demonstrated this support, I am going to readd her to the infobox.--User:Namiba 16:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"Two consecutive polls" have not demonstrated 5% support. The previous poll didn't produce a result for her. Most polls don't have a result for her. Those are 0%, and the average of her results in polls is below 5%. – Muboshgu (talk) 16:37, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

• So the question is, it is an average of 5 in all polls, or just polls where the candidate in question is offered as an option? 331dot (talk) 17:06, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It's rather silly to allow the decision of private pollsters affect our decision instead of of how reliable sources cover the campaign. We need to use common sense here. In polls that have included Savage, she is averaging 5%. All forthcoming television debates include Savage. News stories like this are covering her campaign in an in-depth way.--User:Namiba 17:53, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

It's not an idle decision to exclude third party candidates in polling. I see it as evidence that they aren't relevant enough in the race to belong in the infobox. I get that it's something of a chicken and egg situation, the Catch 22 that third party candidates face, but it is what it is. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:23, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

Regardless, don't you agree that we should let the sources themselves speak, not the pollsters decision to include or not include? Per WP:V, "content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of editors." Polls are just one form of published information and one that is open to manipulation. The sources as a whole should guide us.--User:Namiba 18:55, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

This write up of the AARP poll focuses on Collins and Gideon, giving only a passing mention of Savage, focusing only on how Savage's votes would be dispersed in the ranked choice vote. The article reads as covering a two-person race to me. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:00, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

this story on tonight's debate covers all of the candidates and the strategies.--User:Namiba 19:05, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

That story sure does mention Savage. Most don't give her equal weight as Collins and Gideon though. Looking at the polling again though, this page lists four polls that include a result for Savage, and the most recent one is 1%. If we average those four, and exclude the polls that don't include her rather than count those as 0%, we have (1 + 6 + 5 + 3) / 4 = 3.75%. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:56, 11 September 2020 (UTC)

"Restrictive" ballot access laws

Characterizing Maine ballot access laws as "restrictive" and targeted to small parties is an opinion with an element of WP:RGW added. Namiba, two of the three sources you offered in the edit summary are opinion pieces, and the second is original research. 331dot (talk) 16:24, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I cited a piece of peer-reviewed scholarship, which I've added to the article itself. Here is another source (from the National Council of State Legislatures) and another from the Maine Beacon (https://mainebeacon.com/moody-stakes-campaign-on-repealing-voter-approved-laws/). This isn't a controversial opinion. Maine has been sued repeatedly over its ballot access restrictions. --User:Namiba 16:34, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I would submit that opining about Maine ballot access laws should be done in an article about that topic, not in articles about elections. Something being "restrictive" is an opinion and it's hard to make that clear in a brief passage. Perhaps Maine is interested in preventing the ballot from becoming a free for all as it was for the 2003 California gubernatorial recall election instead of preventing "small" parties from being on the ballot. If the Green Party is not successful in convincing people to become members and sign their petitions, that is not the state's fault. 331dot (talk) 16:47, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

It's not an opinion. What are opinions are your final two sentences in the above comment, which belie why you want to ignore the existing sources and remove this important piece of context. Savage switched from Green Independent to Independent for a reason. Multiple independent sources have criticized Maine's ballot access laws as overly restrictive toward small parties. This has occurred both within the context of the Senate campaign and as a larger issue. I've presented these sources here. If you have a problem with the specific language in the text itself, let's discuss how to effectively communicate what the sources describe.--User:Namiba 16:55, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I suggest communicating that with an article about the specific topic of Maine ballot access laws(or an addition to Ballot access in the United States) that can be linked to in this article, and that article can make it clear that some people feel that the laws are "restrictive". Taking that position in an election article is a very pro-Green Party position (or even pro-third party in general) and not neutral. I have no problem with stating that the laws affected Savage's ability to get on the ballot(as I had written initially), but I object to characterizing them as restrictive. 331dot (talk) 17:07, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it is "pro" or "anti" anything to reflect what the sources are telling us. Multiple, independent, neutral sources describe Maine's laws as restrictive, tough, or diffuclt. Several link the restrictiveness of Maine's ballot access laws directly to the Savage campaign's decision to change their ballot label and petition type. Let's go with what the sources say and leave politics out of it.--User:Namiba 17:56, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

As I said, I only object to the characterization. I think that it adds politics to take a pro Green Party viewpoint on ballot access within this article and cite various opinions. However, I accept the disagreement on this point, though I maintain my objection. 331dot (talk) 18:02, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Are you arguing that the Maine Beacon, the Saint Louis University Law Journal, WGME, BDN, the National Council of State Legislatures, and FairVote are pro-Green Party?--User:Namiba 18:15, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

No, I am saying that this is not the correct place to note that various people (not the news organizations which are just reporting) have certain views on Maine's access laws in general. The BDN piece notes that the Greens found it 'harder' despite increasing their membership over the last 10 years. The paragraph I initially added describes the difficulties the Green Party had, as the BDN noted. I think that can be done without the descriptive use of 'restrictive" in this article. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

When you look at the numbers of signatures needed per race which are the same for any registered party and Maine and compare the amount of registered Dems or Republicans to independent , you can see the fair point being made. Nobody is arguing that this page should promote complaining from the independent canidates , but to give readers context to how Savage got on the ballot the signature point must be raised. Generaluser11 (talk) 18:21, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

Generaluser11 As I said, I have no objection to noting the difficulty Savage had. I actually added the paragraph initially, but without descriptive language. I object to the characterization as "restrictive" in this article. 331dot (talk) 19:20, 24 August 2020 (UTC)

I agree with 331dot here (and I have removed some content cited to the 2010 St. Louis Law Journal article). This has clear elements of WP:SYNTH (a 2010 law review article obviously does not have a nexus to to the 2020 election in Maine). Text about Maine's election laws can do on Ballot access in the United States, or even on a new article about Election law in Maine (this would not be unprecedented: we have, for example: Political parties and political designations in Massachusetts). Neutrality^talk 05:22, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

As shown above, there is a clear consensus from non-partisan sources describing Maine's ballot access laws toward small parties restrictive. There is no reason to eliminate this context.--User:Namiba 14:41, 29 August 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 September 2020

Edit request to insert a new poll into the 'Polling' section of the page. Reliable source link included!! Darrenmonaghan12 (talk) 14:26, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

https://states.aarp.org/maine/2020-election-poll New poll to add in!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darrenmonaghan12 (talk • contribs) 16:51, 10 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. 🌸 1.Ayana 🌸 (talk) 10:27, 25 September 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sgid 2.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:23, 30 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2020

Please add pictures of lisa savage and Max Linn to this page, and include mention of them in the introductory text. They are both viable candidates given that ranked choice voting is going to be used in this election and the lack of their explicit inclusion in the beginning of this page will likely bias voters away from considering them as real candidates. 2A02:C7F:C638:8100:BC8D:CB89:DD8F:4950 (talk) 12:40, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Linn and Savage are mentioned in the introduction. Their pictures(if ones with the appropriate rights are available) can't be added to the infobox at the top unless they average 5% in polling. Wikipedia is not a voter guide and how voters perceive the candidates is up to them; anyone on the ballot is a "real candidate", but Wikipedia does not give equal time to all candidates, it depends on what reliable sources state. 331dot (talk) 12:48, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 November 2020

Susan Collins Defeats Sara Gideon according to the NY Times https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-maine-senate.html Qxrz (talk) 10:58, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Seagull123 Φ 17:30, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Infobox vote totals

@Namiba: Please update the whole infobox if you want to update the vote totals. Adding a local reference while leaving the NYT reference—and not updating the percentage reported in—is very messy. And I think we need some consistency in the sources we use for Senate elections across the country. We shouldn't be using a hodgepodge of local sources. I personally don't care if Savage is in the infobox or not; that's between you and Muboshgu. Also, me reverting you adding votes without a reference is not edit-warring. Citations are obviously required for this. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 23:27, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Namiba, you are edit warring. The results are unofficial and there is no way to know if Savage hit 5%. Self-revert now please. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:28, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I am not edit warring. I have updated the totals with the best information available. I have not engaged in any edit-warring whatsoever. The infobox should include the most up to date information available and I've yet to see a convincing argument here for bad numbers.--User:Namiba 23:31, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Namiba, having two sources cited at the same time for the results is absurd. Also, you didn't even add a reference for your first change to the vote count. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 23:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

You're right. We should remove the New York Times, which is old information. I am being accused of edit-warring so I don't want to go and fix it lest I am accused once again.--User:Namiba 23:37, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Namiba, I used the NYT because it's what we're using at 2020 United States presidential election and other pages, and I think some consistency is good for that. The NYT says these results were updated 54 minutes ago, so I don't think they're "old information". Also, your source has Savage at 4.9%, yet you've entered 5.0%, which is incorrect. Regardless, I'm on your side on her being included. I think since she qualified before the election, she can be kept in until we have full results showing her below 5%. ― Tartan357 ^(Talk) 23:40, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Sara Gideon picture is missing

Not sure what happened there. It's missing on older revisions too, so maybe something happened to the source image. It loads a "Blank svg image".

--100.4.147.106 (talk) 12:10, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

Repeated efforts to add an image of Speaker Gideon have been deleted because of licensing issues. If you have an image of her with a license that allows its use on Wikipedia, you can read about uploading it at WP:UPIMAGE. Note that the most likely way you would able to do that would be to take an image of her yourself. 331dot (talk) 12:16, 3 February 2021 (UTC)

FBI Investigation against Collins

Is this worth mentioning now or shall we wait until the FBI itself or Susan Collins issue a statement?

https://www.alternet.org/2021/05/susan-collins-investigation/ FCE64 (talk) 22:44, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Collins is not being investigated, the donor at issue is. Her campaign has denied any knowledge. 331dot (talk) 22:48, 18 May 2021 (UTC)

Savage should be removed from the infobox

Given Namiba reverted without any real explanation - Savage should be removed from the infobox. She was only recently added (without any explanation) less than a month ago. Under the five percent rule, which is longstanding policy for American politics articles, you have to receive 5% to be in the infobox; Savage only won 4.95%, which is less than 5% the infobox incorrectly reports her as receiving. Moreover, she didn't have any impact on the race, as the margin of victory for Collins (8.6%) was far larger than Savage's 4.95%. There's not any real argument to contravene policy and include her here. Toa Nidhiki05 16:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

No real impact? Do you really believe that? Politico: "The independent candidate who could decide the Senate" would disagree. Savage was treated as a serious candidate throughout the election. Moreover, if we round 4.95%, which we need to do, it rounds to 5.0%.--User:Namiba 16:32, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I don't think we should be quibbling over .05 percent of the vote, or for that matter anything greater than .5%. She should be included. 331dot (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Being “treated as a serious candidate” isn’t the standard for being in an info box. It’s hitting 5%, and she didn’t do that, nor did her vote share have any impact on the result. Toa Nidhiki05 16:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

If that's the standard then Sara Gideon should be removed from the box, since her vote share didn't affect the result. 331dot (talk) 17:03, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The standard is to include the top two candidates, regardless of vote share. Beyond that, candidates need to have received 5% of the vote - which Savage did not receive. Her vote total was not larger than Collins's margin of victory. There's no real argument to violate decades-long consensus here. Toa Nidhiki05 17:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

As I said I don't think we should quibble over .05% of the vote. 331dot (talk) 18:25, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not quibbling. The standard is 5%, and she didn't get it. Toa Nidhiki05 18:27, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

That's a hyperinterpretation of the standard(which is not a policy) that we should not get wrapped up in. 331dot (talk) 18:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not a hyperinterpretation. The standard is 5%. I've never seen a page with a candidate with less than 5% get here unless it was extremely close, and even then you don't see it. Heck, I've seen candidates get 4.99% and not get on (2020 United States Senate election in Kansas. If the standard is 5%, that's the standard - not 4.95%. Toa Nidhiki05 18:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

When the standard does not allow for common sense things like rounding there's something wrong. I see nothing that says rounding is not permitted under any circumstances whatsoever written in stone for all time. 331dot (talk) 20:42, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Whether rounding here is common sense is entirely debatable. Is it the 5% rule, or the almost 5% rule? This might be genuinely useful to know for other articles, since there are other ones where candidates have received 4.95% of the vote or greater and these pretty uniformly don't include them in infoboxes. Toa Nidhiki05 20:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I think it depends on the actual number of votes. A half of a tenth of a percentage point here is only about 4000 votes. That would be a greater number in Kansas or California. 331dot (talk) 22:28, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

One of the discussions in the summary you linked to states "as always, appropriate exceptions may be made via local consensus." Determining that .05% is close enough is what we are discussing here. 331dot (talk) 18:29, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes, those sorts of exceptions tend to be candidates that were clearly notable, dropped out, or that had an actual impact on the election - and even then, they're quite rare. I've never seen "4.95% is okay because if you round up it's 5%" before. If you're suggesting an RfC, that could certainly work. I'd take the liberty of notifying the appropriate WikiPojects, of course. Toa Nidhiki05 18:46, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

"Those sorts of exceptions tend to be..." means that they aren't exclusively so. There doesn't need to be an RFC, we can have a local consensus here. 331dot (talk) 20:38, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

No, I think we need an RfC. There was never consensus to add this person, so I think it would be best if we took this to RfC. I'll prepare one. Toa Nidhiki05 20:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Is there a particular reason you are here to impose your will on this article? 331dot (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I wasn't aware discussion was an imposition of will on an article. You wanted a discussion on creating a localized exception, I am opening one up to broader discussion since this is a longstanding sitewide rule. Toa Nidhiki05 20:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I overstated what I was trying to say, but you are coming off as very passionate on this. 331dot (talk) 21:05, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Totally understandable. A text-only medium can skew how we interpret or read what people are saying. Toa Nidhiki05 21:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Also, I want to add: What you cite is explicitly not policy and should not be referred to as such. "its purpose is to explain certain aspects of Wikipedia's norms, customs, technicalities, or practices"--User:Namiba 16:45, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It has been confirmed through multiple large RfCs over the last two decades. Toa Nidhiki05 16:50, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

RFCs have confirmed that it is the generally accepted practice but "it is not one of Wikipedia's policies or guidelines" according to the page itself.--User:Namiba 19:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

The page itself isn't policy. The actual RfCs are broad, uncontested, and fairly binding decades-long working practice. I don't see a compelling reason to list Savage here other than "if you round up 4.95% is 5%". THat's certainly an argument... not a good one, though, in my opinion. Toa Nidhiki05 19:30, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

"Working practice" is not policy but you seem to be operating under the assumption that it is. 331dot (talk) 20:39, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It's a standard rule used across the entire encyclopedia. Toa Nidhiki05 20:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's not a rule. 331dot (talk) 20:49, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It's literally called the "5% rule". Toa Nidhiki05 20:53, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

It's not a rule. That is just wrong. I can call it late for dinner, that doesn't make it so. 331dot (talk) 20:57, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Request for comment: Should Lisa Savage be included in the infobox?

Under the five percent rule, only candidates that have received 5% of the vote or greater should be included in election inboxes. Should a local exception be made to this rule to allow Lisa Savage, who received 4.95% of the vote, to be included in the infobox?

Tagging discussion participants 331dot and Namiba. Toa Nidhiki05 20:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Comments

Please place comments below this.

• No, Lisa Savage should not be included in the infobox - She did not receive 5% of the vote, her vote total was not greater than the margin of victory in the election, and neither herself nor her campaign are particularly notable. There doesn't seem to be any real reason to make an exception to this rule. Toa Nidhiki05 20:47, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• This is quibbling over a half of a tenth of a percentage point. We're not talking about a large population where that's a big number, either. Most RS would round that up. I think this is premature as well as the above discussion has not run its course. 331dot (talk) 20:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

We shouldn't be so wrapped up in rules(that aren't even actual rules) that we ignore common sense. 331dot (talk) 21:01, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Why does common sense demand that we include a minor candidate who couldn't even pull 5% of the vote in a third-place finish? --Golbez (talk) 21:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

We're talking a half of a tenth of a percentage point. Most people will round that off and I don't see why we can't do so with regards to applying a "rule" that isn't even a rule. It could certainly be made a rule/policy. 331dot (talk) 22:33, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You say why not, I ask why. If the only justification for adding her is "you can round up to 5%", then maybe she isn't actually that important to include? --Golbez (talk) 22:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

So if she were one vote short of 5%, that would be disqualifying from the box? I know of few if any other "rules" on Wikipedia that are applied so rigidly. 331dot (talk) 22:55, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Yes. The Libertarian in the 2020 United States Senate election in Kansas won 4.99%. He's not in the infobox, or the template, because he didn't get 5%. Toa Nidhiki05 22:59, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I didn't say one hundredth of one point, I said one vote. Would one vote be disqualifying? 331dot (talk) 23:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

I'm trying to understand why this supposed "rule" is being applied so rigidly when our actual rules say we should be a little more flexible. And if no flexibility is permitted, why is this not an actual rule? 331dot (talk) 23:14, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Because it's exceptionally unusual for a candidate that gets less than 5% of the vote to be notable enough to warrant inclusion, and frankly, even getting 5% isn't that impressive. Reliable sources off-wiki tend to regard 5% as a notable threshold. Toa Nidhiki05 23:37, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Then it should be an actual rule/policy that is written down and can specify no flexibility is permitted, not a pseudo-rule. But I get that's beside the point here. 331dot (talk) 23:41, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

You say one, I ask two, you say three, I ask four, at some point there has to be a solid rule, otherwise what's the point of even having guidelines? We already accept that extenuating circumstances can happen, like if she were an otherwise notable candidate or if she were second place or any number of others. And I don't find the argument of "what if number bigger?" to be, on its own, compelling evidence of infobox-level importance. You do. --Golbez (talk) 04:31, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Importance is relative. In a small state like Maine 40,000 votes is a big deal. It wouldn't be in California as a raw number. As I said to Toa I'm really wondering why this supposed "rule" is being applied so rigidly when few if any other rules on Wikipedia are. And it it's going to be that rigid, it should be an actual rule/policy. 331dot (talk) 08:51, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

Is it a lot? It's less than 5%. You say a lot here that it isn't a rule, but it's consensus backed up by a decade+ of consistency. If it were up to me, the threshold would be higher (10 or 15%), but if she didn't even get 5%, how can we seriously say she's noteworthy enough to be in the infobox? I could get if she won a county, but she didn't. The best argument here is rounding. I just don't get it. Toa Nidhiki05 14:01, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Inclined to agree that we shouldn't include. This isn't because we must adhere strictly to the 5% rule, but because there isn't a compelling reason to make an exception here. If Collins had fallen below 50% in the first round, and Savage got the exact same voteshare, I would support inclusion. However, I don't feel strongly about this either way. Elli (talk | contribs) 21:17, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. The 5% rule is well-established. While I'm OK with it being bent for exceptional circumstances`, there don't appear to be any here: Savage got some media attention, sure, but doesn't everyone? 5% might be an arbitrary cut-off, but it is also objective (no quibbling about just how close you need to be to count) and, frankly, extremely generous — if a candidate didn't even reach that then I'm not convinced they're actually worth calling attention to. To that point, this election isn't included in Template:Notable third-party performances in United States elections, and it doesn't seem like anyone's tried to add it. — Kawnhr (talk) 21:43, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• No - If we start making an exception here? There'll be calls for exceptions everywhere. GoodDay (talk) 22:18, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. Should stick to objective cutoff, since how close it needs to be to round up is subjective.2601:249:9301:D570:1469:F023:AE39:1F33 (talk) 23:21, 25 January 2024 (UTC)
• No - I would be very ready to support inclusion in cases where candidates got outsized coverage by sources or there were other extraordinary factors (such as winning a county), but this doesn't seem to be the case with Savage. I think 331dot's argument is persuasive, but it's also important to note that the 5% floor is the arbitrary limit for otherwise not-especially notable candidates to be in the infobox. Changing that arbitrary limit would be fine by me, but there seems to be rather large consensus that 5% is a fair enough number (and as mentioned above, could be seen as over-generous). Simply put, in my opinion, the sources don't show Savage to be special enough to waive the limit. Gazamp (talk) 00:02, 26 January 2024 (UTC)
• No. Less than 5 is always less than 5. No need for rounding; rounding is a convenience in certain situations, but math never rounds in the real world. Even 4.9 is always less than 5. JM (talk) 08:27, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  point of order: no, it's not. .999... is identical to 1. 4.999... is identical to 5. --Golbez (talk) 15:10, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

• Yes Savage received ample coverage throughout the campaign (see the Politico story above as evidence). 5 percent is an arbitrary number which does not necessarily represent how sources cover the election. As always, sources should be the guide and there is no question what the sources say.--User:Namiba 14:15, 26 January 2024 (UTC)

  • Yes - Anyone following this election in the media would be subject to WP:ASTONISH if they didn't even see Savage in the infobox. It was a notable campaign. Garnet Moss (talk) 00:07, 9 February 2024 (UTC)

• Yes for a couple of reasons. First, the 5 percent rule states that they must poll higher than 5%, not that they must get 5% of the vote. From that alone she meets the criteria. That said, if I'm misinterpreting (in the US polls tend to refer to surveys before the vote itself), I think this is a perfect example of WP:IAR. Being a few hundredths of a percent off is close enough. - AquilaFasciata (talk | contribs) 15:11, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• Just as a point of order here - while the page says "poll", the RfCs clearly refer to both polls and election results. See the last five RfCs on the matter, including the 2017 RfC "The standard for inclusion in the infobox of U.S. election articles is: A candidate must receive 5% of the vote." in particular. Polling is used before elections, while the actual result is used after the election happens. The stated exception is for when it's a major-party candidate and the second-place candidate gets less than 5% (see: 2016 United States presidential election in the District of Columbia), or if there's a (for some reason) really unusual local exception - which isn't the case here. Toa Nidhiki05 16:01, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

• No - Less than 5% is less than 5%. We don't hand out pity rewards for having barely failed a threshold. Koopinator (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2024 (UTC)