Jump to content

Talk:2024 United States House of Representatives elections

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Matt Gaetz Resigns

[edit]

Matt Gaetz just resign to become US Attorney General. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Riley Paul Turner (talk • contribs) 04:53, 14 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No "leader since"?

[edit]

This is something I have noticed on all other election pages, not just for the U.S., the "leader since" section has apparently been removed, what exactly was the point of this happening? Zedonathin2020 (talk) 15:13, 26 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

This was discussed here and here, and implemented here. 5 editors wanted it removed for various reasons, and no one expressed support for keeping it. Cilidus (talk) 04:04, 28 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fix Mooney retirement on map

[edit]

Hello, everyone.
I noticed that, after the House map with retirements was updated to include Porter's retirement, Carol Miller's district in WV was incorrectly marked to indicate Alex Mooney's retirement. I'm not very well versed in editing Wikipedia election maps, so if someone could fix that mistake, that would be much appreciated. PrusBis6187 (talk) 17:32, 23 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Good catch! To piggyback off of this, can someone please tell me where I can go to learn how to make Wikipedia election, county and precinct maps? Thank you! C. W. Edward (talk) 06:53, 24 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This might be a good place to start: https://www.reddit.com/r/imaginaryelections/comments/lfw079/comment/gmr39ar/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web2x&context=3 PrusBis6187 (talk) 04:25, 25 January 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Planning to run=running?

[edit]

Should an incumbent or potential candidate saying they are planning to run be considered as being a declared candidate? As of the writing of this question, the status of Wiley Nickel, NC-13, is marked as running. The source given states that he is planning to run, not that he has declared that he is running. Please let me know if this question has already been discussed elsewhere at some point. C. W. Edward (talk) 06:40, 8 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Planning to run shouldn't be the same as running. Przemysl15 (talk) 07:12, 30 March 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New system to indicate party affiliation changes in electoral history and "first elected" sections in House, Senate, and governor election pages?

[edit]

Hello, everyone.
When it has come to the wikitables in US House, Senate, and governor election pages, party switches for politicians in the electoral history or "first elected" columns are usually indicated with simply insets or notes to say that they changed their party affiliation during their tenure. For example, see Jeff Van Drew for NJ-2 from this page (bolded):

District Incumbent Candidates
Location 2022
PVI 		Member Party First
elected 		Status
New Jersey 2 R+5 Jeff Van Drew Republican 2018[a] Incumbent's intent unknown
  • ▌Carolyn Rush (Democratic)


However, it feels as though party switches and general affiliation changes are common enough on election wikitables that having to use an inset each time is a bit awkward to do. As such, I am proposing that party switches be changed to a similar style to how nonconsecutive periods of service are indicated (for example, see Kweisi Mfume):

District Incumbent Candidates
Location 2022
PVI 		Member Party First
elected 		Status
Maryland 7 D+30 Kweisi Mfume Democratic 1986
1996 (resigned)
2020 (special) 		Incumbent's intent unknown
  • TBD


Returning to the example of Jeff Van Drew, this rendered for party switches could look like this:

District Incumbent Candidates
Location 2022
PVI 		Member Party First
elected 		Status
New Jersey 2 R+5 Jeff Van Drew Republican 2018 (Democratic)
2019 (Republican) 		Incumbent's intent unknown
  • ▌Carolyn Rush (Democratic)


Or, for examples of people who had longer periods of service, here's what they could look like:

District Incumbent Candidates
Location Member Party First
elected 		Status
Michigan 3 Justin Amash Libertarian 2010 (Republican)
2019 (Independent)
2020 (Libertarian) 		Incumbent retired.
New member elected.
Republican gain.
District Incumbent Candidates
Location Member Party First
elected 		Status
Texas 4 Ralph Hall Republican 1980 (Democratic)
2004 (Republican) 		Incumbent lost renomination.
New member elected.
Republican hold.

District Incumbent Candidates
Location Member Party First
elected 		Status
Virginia 5 Virgil Goode Republican 1996 (Democratic)
2000 (Independent)
2002 (Republican) 		Incumbent lost re-election.
New member elected.
Democratic gain.

Thank you for your consideration, and I hope that this proposal will ultimately be implemented. PrusBis6187 (talk) 22:56, 2 May 2023 (UTC)[reply]

This is late but support. ~Politicdude (About me, talk, contribs) 16:20, 21 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
This is also late, but I like the idea. However, is there a way to clear the ambiguity between the year the member switched parties and when they were re-elected? In the Amash example, the box could be read as if he was re-elected in 2019 and 2020 under the Independent and Libertaraian banners respectively. Thms7 (talk) 15:30, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Notes

  1. ^ Van Drew was first elected as a Democrat and switched to the Republican Party in December 2019.

Gray out OH & NC like with AL?

[edit]

Hello, everyone.
After the Supreme Court's ruling this morning that will now require Alabama to redraw its congressional map with a second black district, the state was grayed out on the 2024 US House map. However, Ohio and North Carolina's maps are still shown on the map, even though it is an absolute certainty that neither of those maps will be used for the 2024 elections; NC's map, as a court-drawn map, was only going to be in place for the 2022 elections, and OH's map would have been in place for 2024, but it was struck down by the Ohio Supreme Court.
With all this in mind, seeing as Alabama has now been grayed out, should NC and OH be grayed out as well? Thank you! PrusBis6187 (talk) 03:37, 9 June 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Request

[edit]

To Whom It May Concern:

Hello, my name is James Speaker, an Independent Write-In Candidate in New York's 26th Congressional District. I've officially filed with the FEC, and have had some coverage regarding my filing. I'd like to request that my name please be added to the declared candidates list, please? If any questions or concerns, I can be contacted at speakerforcongress@gmail.com. Thank you for your time and assistance. 67.222.113.10 (talk) 11:33, 17 August 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Removal of Kevin McCarthy?

[edit]

Kevin McCarthy’s removal as Speaker of the House of Representatives will more than likely be a major talking point in the upcoming election as well the events following his removal. I feel there should be at the very least some mention of his removal and the subsequent speaker election fight. McCarthy’s removal and the events preceding and following his removal will definitely be a contentious topic amongst House Republicans going into 2024 and will more than likely have an effect on the elections Phx3216 (talk) 01:53, 26 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I absolutely agree with you, however, although it probably will be a major issue in the election, predicting this would likely be considered "Original Research", when you need a "Reliable Source" to verify information to put on Wikipedia. Yakko Walter (talk) 23:21, 20 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Phillips

[edit]

Dean Phillips is running for President and can easily dropout and run for house. People like Doug Burgum haven't been marked as retiring so I don't see why he should be marked as retiring. Errora 404 (talk) 19:54, 27 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kay Granger

[edit]

I made edits before looking at change log but Granger is essentially announcing her retirement. The source cites 'Well placed' news articles and therefore although anonymity around these articles, it provides a source. Errora 404 (talk) 07:28, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Dean Phillips

[edit]

Would like to bring your attention back to him and reply to a comment made in the previous post. Errora 404 (talk) 12:03, 1 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe he should be removed from the retirement list for the reasons I stated in the previous thread. I'll leave it up to other editors to decide if they agree. Kevingates4462 (talk) 03:28, 2 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
With regards to the status of 2020 candidates which you raised, they were each running in states that allow candidates to simultaneously run for Congress and the Presidency or where the law is unclear-- Hawaii (Gabbard), Ohio (Ryan), Massachussetts (Moulton), New Jersey (Booker), and California (Swalwell). See: https://ballotpedia.org/Running_for_U.S._Congress_and_the_presidency_simultaneously. Conversely, Phillips is running in a state that does not allow this, which means that as long as he is running for President, he is not running for reelection and is essentially 'retiring'. If he drops out of the Presidential race, then the page can be updated at that time to indicate that he is no longer retiring, but for the time being I agree with @BottleOfChocolateMilk that he should be listed as retiring since he is currently not seeking reelection. Wildfire35 (talk) 03:36, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
What about Doug Burgum. He hasn't been listed as retiring Errora 404 (talk) 19:45, 10 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Can we now consider the matter settled? Phillips' own local paper has independently verified he will not run for reelection. If we exclude him on the list because he "may change his mind" then there's no point in having a retirement list at all, as anyone can change their mind up to their state's filing deadline. TransTheftAuto (talk) 18:31, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, it’s now settled. I will say I believe the fact that he made this announcement validates the opinion that he should not have been included originally. But now that he has officially announced retirement, of course he belongs on the list Kevingates4462 (talk) 19:41, 24 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Brian Higgins

[edit]

Higgins has announced his resignation is February 2024. Please add a special election action box. Errora 404 (talk) 18:47, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Al-2 and NC-6

[edit]

These two districts are new districts have no incumbent, therefore should be marked as new districts, just like CA-3 or NC-13 last election, just to name a few. Errora 404 (talk) 08:13, 9 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

No reply will be perceived as a agreement Errora 404 (talk) 14:51, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin McCarthy

[edit]

The former speaker is resigning as a representative, at the end of 2023. That means going into 2024, there'll be at most 220 Republican members. Therefore, we shouldn't be having 221 in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 01:36, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Won't there be a special election to fill the seat in early 2024? – Muboshgu (talk) 01:38, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
One that could easily be won by a person of another political party. GoodDay (talk) 02:08, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Not in that district. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:09, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We won't know until then, so best to be accurate that starting in 2024 & until the special election is held? The Republican seat count (if there's no other changes) will be 220, due to the vacancy. GoodDay (talk) 02:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
We know that Republicans currently have 221 seats. That will go down to 220 when McCarthy resigns. It will then (most likely) return to 221 when the special election concludes. Other deaths and resignations happening before the November 2024 elections cannot be foreseen. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:54, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Fine, will do it your way & wait until McCarthy's resignation takes effect. GoodDay (talk) 03:00, 11 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

New York

[edit]

All of them have reelection websites (except Espailat, who doesn’t apparently need one) and all of them are requesting money, at least according to my SPAM filter. Please fix this. Xxxxx

1[1] 2[2] 4[3] 5[4] 6[5] 7[6] 8[7] 9[8] 10[9] 11[10] 13[11] 15[12] 16[13] 17[14] 18[15] 19[16] 20[17] 21[18] 22[19] 23[20] 24[21] 25[22] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.18.11.67 (talk) 12:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC) --64.18.11.65 (talk) 14:11, 24 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ https://www.nicklalota.com/
  2. ^ https://garbarinoforny.com/
  3. ^ https://despositoforcongress.com/in-the-news/
  4. ^ https://www.congressmangregorymeeks.com/
  5. ^ https://www.gracefornewyork.com/
  6. ^ https://www.reelectnydiavelazquez.com/
  7. ^ https://hakeemjeffries.com/
  8. ^ https://voteyvette.com/
  9. ^ https://www.dangoldmanforny.com/
  10. ^ https://nicolemalliotakis.com/
  11. ^ https://www.facebook.com/TWU4Espaillat
  12. ^ https://torres.nyc/
  13. ^ https://bowmanforcongress.com/
  14. ^ https://www.lawlerforcongress.com/
  15. ^ https://www.patryanforcongress.com/
  16. ^ https://www.marcforus.com/
  17. ^ https://paultonko.com/
  18. ^ https://eliseforcongress.com/
  19. ^ https://www.brandonforcongressny22.com/
  20. ^ https://nicklangworthy.com/
  21. ^ https://claudiaforcongress.com/
  22. ^ https://www.votemorelle.com/

New GA Congressional map

[edit]

A federal judge today upheld the new congressional map in Georgia that was passed by the state legislature in a special session on November 29. Is anyone working on updating the map with the new GA map? Here's a link to what it looks like (I don't know if anyone's made a shapefile or SVG of it yet): https://twitter.com/RedistrictNet/status/1740461060803707366 PrusBis6187 (talk) 21:27, 28 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Boebert moving

[edit]

I'm confused as to why on the district map CO-3 is listed as "Vacant". Yes Boebert is moving to a new district but she is still the representative for CO-3 even if she isn't running there. TheFellaVB (talk) 09:25, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

It's not really saying the seat is vacant, just that there is no incumbent running in the election. Normally, open seats occur due to retirements, in which case the incumbent's name could be kept with the current district and the incumbent status box simply grayed out with the label "Incumbent retiring." However, because Boebert is instead running for reelection in a different district, she is listed under that district and, thus, can't be listed under the 3rd district. A similar case would be with redistricting (e.g. Alabama in 2024), where two incumbents would be drawn into the same district, leaving one of the incumbent's seats as an open seat without an incumbent up for the election. Simply put, CO-3 is listed as having no incumbent for the 2024 election because, as of the election, it is an open seat due to its incumbent running in another district, rather than simply retiring. Hope this helps. PrusBis6187 (talk) 19:39, 31 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Kathy Manning

[edit]

If Wiley Nickel and Jeff Jackson's seats are shown as retiring why is Manning's seat shown as grey. All three represent (in old districts) parts of the new districts hence there should be consistency. Dashing24 (talk) 18:32, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

From what I can tell, Manning was bunked into the same district as Virginia Foxx, leaving the 6th district as an open seat. Thus, even though Manning is retiring, it was within the 5th, rather than 6th, district. PrusBis6187 (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Election Prediction

[edit]
The Republican Party's chances of holding its slender house majority have been considered weak,[3] in part due to the 118th United States Congress being among the least productive since the 72nd Congress of 1931 to 1933.[4]

Can someone explain why this is here? The first source cites a quote that says the republicans will hold a two seat majority after the new year which is obviously wrong because they currently have a 7 seat majority. The second one on the other hand talks about how congress has a low approval rating but that includes the democrat controlled senate. The article also does not state anything that would suggest what is stated in the article; congress has hovered around a 15 percent approval rating since 2010. Opinion polling has also shown that the republicans are likely to retain its majority.

Louisiana's new map has been signed into law

[edit]

Louisiana's new map has been signed into law. Can this page be updated? 140.194.40.42 (talk) 20:44, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the reason it hasn't been updated yet is because there's still some legal stuff that has to take place now that the state legislature passed a new map. In addition, given how the map was drawn, there may be a possibility of it being rejected by the courts. PrusBis6187 (talk) 22:25, 26 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should still add it, because for now, the map is the law of the land. Many things could hypothetically happen, but we don’t wait to see if they do NathanBru (talk) 17:39, 28 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Independent color templates

[edit]

User:PrusBis6187 initiated WP:BRD from my bold edit of changing the color shading for Independent politicians. As in my edit summary, my contention is there is nothing distinguishing an American independent politician vs. an international independent politician, it's simply someone who does not identify with a political party, so there is no reason for there to be a separate color, much less a whole suite of color templates for American independents in a slightly different shade of gray. I'd love to see these all removed, so I am starting that process. Nevermore27 (talk) 16:46, 30 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]

@Errora 404 I'm not sure what you meant in your edit summary, but it was not called for. There clearly has not been a discussion and there definitely has not been a consensus, as evidenced by the fact that two different people reverted this edit. Please seek consensus before making this edit. WMSR (talk) 19:31, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I'd suggest any responses be directed here Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Template:Party shading/Independent (US) (just an FYI). Talthiel (talk) 19:58, 8 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Article may need to be trimmed or split

[edit]

This article currently has a post‐expand include size of 1975856/2097152 bytes, which is at the limit. It either needs to be trimmed, simplified, or split. – Jonesey95 (talk) 16:34, 21 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

As filing deadlines and primaries pass, this article will become a lot smaller. This happens every election cycle. Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 19:49, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Race rematches (if applicable)

[edit]

There is a strong chance that many races could become rematches of previous years (although, of course, not yet certain). Would it be worth adding a secton on race remataches if that becomes applicable, or adding it to a spearate, linked page (such as with the current "election ratings" section)? Thms7 (talk) 16:27, 25 February 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Mid-decade redistricting changes" section

[edit]

I understand the need for this section, but I think it is a bit bloated. I think that having a table with all the information is too much, especially because most of the maps will not be changed. The "change in partisanship" section I feel is particularly wonky because the numbers it provides are not directly sourced. Alabama and Louisiana's changes are pretty obvious, but I swear I've seen the New York part change 2 or 3 times in the past few days. This falls too much into trying to be a crystal ball, especially considering the elections haven't happened yet. I'm going to make some changes to it, and if you disagree with them, let's talk about it here. OutlawRun (talk) 22:51, 3 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I think the "change in partisanship" section is basing changes to districts in regards to past results, so for example if a district voted for Biden under its former shape but now voted for Trump in its present one, that would be a loss of one Democratic seat, I think, so I could be wrong @OutlawRun Talthiel (talk) 20:31, 4 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
The problem I have with it is how ill-defined it is. What are we counting as "competitive" and what are we counting as leaning towards one party? It's not stated in the article nor do I think all the numbers are cited, considering how many times the NY numbers changed. I also don't think we need to detail every state that didn't end up having their maps change. I think it bloats the article way too much to have it in there. OutlawRun (talk) 00:19, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I definitely agree on the 2nd part. The article is already bloated as it is, and I think for now you could remove the states from the chart which didn't redistrict this cycle, just not the whole chart. Talthiel (talk) 02:03, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I think we should be able to do like double digit for any is D and less is competetive. Also even if the districts don't change there was still litigation resolved concerning the matter, that should be kept. Errora 404 (talk) 19:39, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So firstly, I agree that litigation that actually went through should be kept, I do not believe it serves value to have the chart, and article, be filled with unnecessary information regarding "unresolved" redistricting, as it does not add any new information. But secondly, I also think there should be a standard devised for deciding whether a D/C/R seat was gained, lost, or maintained before we go about editing that chart in or out since as @OutlawRun pointed out that it is not entirely consistent on whether a district "changed" its partisanship, such as in New York. @Errora 404. Talthiel (talk) 19:56, 5 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Since it seems the litigation on the matter has ended, I don't see much of a point in listing the ones where the districts didn't change. 98.228.137.44 (talk) 22:59, 29 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Incumbent’s intentions and this page

[edit]

There seems to be a problem with figuring out the intent of incumbents’ intentions on running for reelection for some reason. Here’s the deal with that: First of all. ALL incumbents are running for reelection unless otherwise announced. Many retire, yes, but those who will replace them need to know right away, and with the notable exception of Senator Menendez, ALL of them announce their retirements well in advance of the primary out of curtesy. This is a tradition that has been going on since the 18th century.

Take New York, for instance: We are halfway through the petitioning period. ALL incumbents are running for another term because, ALL are petitioning and raising money. But Some administrators refuse to believe this, as local political organizations (clubs), or campaign sites, or major social media are somehow ‘unreliable.’ The simple fact is, is that when it comes to incumbents in uncompetitive districts, campaigns are for the most part barely existent and not covered by “reliable” media. Take the 13th Congressional district in New York. Several clubs have endorsed Congressman Espellot (sic) and no one is running against him. Yet, according to Wikipedia, his intent is still “unknown.” Why is this? Were the clubs that endorsed him and are currently collecting signatures that have to be turned in in 2 1/2 weeks LYING about it? No. They aren’t.

Also, if someone files paperwork, that means they’re running. Period. Please, don’t mislead the readership about this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.231.109 (talk) 12:44, 12 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

64.18.11.70 (talk) 10:35, 21 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Errora 404 I think it might be helpful to read this and discuss things without just reverting someone's edits. Not part of the editing, just noticed the person whose edits you keep reverting talked about it here. Talthiel (talk) 15:55, 30 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mike Gallagher will be replaced with a special election

[edit]

According to https://docs.legis.wisconsin.gov/statutes/statutes/8/50/4/b

"A vacancy in that office occurring between the 2nd Tuesday in April and the 2nd Tuesday in May in the year of the general election shall be filled at the partisan primary and general election."

These dates are April 9 to May 14. Gallagher is resigning April 19. Therefore, a special election will be held concurrent with the general. Hotpotato1234567890 (talk) 22:14, 22 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

The sentence before this states that vacancies before the 9th would be filled by a special election, but those after are filled by a general, with no mention of a concurrent special election. All reporting to this point has said that there will be no special election and that the seat won't be filled until January 2025. It is not our place to preempt this. OutlawRun (talk) 03:01, 23 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
saying “the vacancy shall be filled” means that a special election will be held. the concurrent general election wouldn’t be filling the vacancy, simply electing a successor to the next Congress Griffindaly (talk) 04:11, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]
No secondary sources have said that there will be a special election concurrent with the general election, and some have even talked about other Republicans' frustrations with his resignation timing because it won't allow a special election. I doubt this is some kind of mistake or misinterpretation on the media's part, but if it is, it's not our job to correct it. It would get cleared up eventually and we'd report that. As things currently stand, there will be no special election. OutlawRun (talk) 04:24, 24 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retirements

[edit]

@OutlawRun I feel like it's a good idea to have that for his reason given in his announcement to run for State AG it came only after his district was wiped, so one can assume that had his district not been wiped, he could have announced another run for Congress, but that part is entirely speculatory on my part. Talthiel (talk) 20:57, 29 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Fighting disinformation about the race

[edit]

For about a month, I have been trying to remove disinformation about the New York race. The way it works in NY is that between February 26 and April 4th, candidates for reelection are required to collect 1200 signatures (they usually try to get twice that many to avoid challenges) in order to qualify for a ballot spot. If there are no other candidates qualified, the primary is cancelled.

The way I have been doing this is to add references to local club endorsements and more recently the ActBlue aggrogator. The NY Democratic Party’s lowest rung are local semi-independent clubs, who, during this process, actively go out and gather signatures on petitions. Candidates solicit these endorsements for obvious reasons. Now the thing is, is that someone at WIKIPEDIA thinks that the announcements are somehow unreliable and that the candidates being petitioned for aren’t really RUNNING, so their intentions are UNKNOWN. This is total BS, and refusing to allow these references to be used is spreading disinformation.

What i just did, by removing Jeffies’ and Johnson’s pictures from the top, is that if they’re NOT really RUNNING, then why are they up there? It is NOT Vandalism. If you want to put up their pictures back up, fine, but DON’T LIE ABOUT THEIR CANDIDACIES. 13:15, 31 March 2024 (UTC)~ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.64.224.198 (talk)

Ben Frasier

[edit]

Ben Frasier withdrew from the South Carolina Congressional District 1 US House race.

Source: "Candidate Listing". SCVotes. 2024. Retrieved April 2, 2024.

ProfessorKaiFlai (talk) 15:03, 2 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

New York District 4 Error

[edit]

The source for Gian Jones is about Kevin Thomas. EvanJ35 (talk) 18:35, 16 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Sources can have multiple candidates Errora 404 (talk) 03:05, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Inconsistency Between California 20 and Ohio 6 With Special Elections

[edit]

California 20 and Ohio 6 both have special elections with two candidates, and the same two candidates in the general election. California 20 says "incumbent renominated," but Ohio 6 says "incumbent to be determined." Both are true for both districts, and I think it should say the same thing for both, and maybe say both for both districts. I am assuming that the difference is because California 20 has an election between two Republicans, and Ohio 6 has an election between a Democrat and a Republican, but I do not think that should matter because in both districts the incumbent will be somebody who was already renominated. EvanJ35 (talk) 16:32, 20 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Florida registered write-in candidates

[edit]

Florida requires their write-in candidates for congressional races to be registered and qualified. Should they be included on the list? https://dos.elections.myflorida.com/candidates/CanList.asp TheRealJackMarshall (talk) 00:23, 28 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Michael LaPierre in South Carolina 3

[edit]

South Carolina 3's candidates do not include Michael LaPierre. What level of source is needed to include somebody. He is in a poll at https://www.scribd.com/document/732899759/SC-03-Toplines and is that sufficient? For major offices, there are hypothetical polls that were never likely to be elections like Biden vs. DeSantis, but it is unlikely that a House poll will include seven candidates with one hypothetical mixed in. The poll was conducted May 13-14, so it is unlikely that he dropped out since the poll, and the primary is on June 11, so all the candidates are declared by now. He got 1.3 percent, so if somebody reads this and adds him today, he will be removed in 25 days when the primary is, so it is not a big deal. The primary could have a runoff, but if it does, he won't be in the top two. EvanJ35 (talk) 16:39, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Polls with hypothetical candidates and matchups are conducted all the time and are not directly indicative of who is actually running. A reliable source stating that a person is actively running or official candidate listings including their name are substantive enough to add their names to the list. OutlawRun (talk) 21:05, 17 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Nate Schluter - Minn 5th District

[edit]

I accidentally put that Schluter endorsed Simmons for Ilhan Omar's seat, which isn't true. However, I still won't put his name back up as he's not on the main article page. Flames675 (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2024 (UTC)[reply]

MN-4 and MN-6

[edit]

Has Betty McCollum of MN-4 and Tom Emmer of MN-6 announce they are running for reelection. In the 2024 US house page it says that they are running but in the individual MN US house page it still says that they are "potential" candidates. Can someone please clarify this issue please. Liam Pena (talk) 18:35, 2 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map is incorrect in re: CO-3

[edit]

CO-3 is marked on here as "no incumbent" but Lauren Boebert has not resigned, she still represents the district, she's merely running for reelection in a different district. I don't have the ability to change the map myself or I would, can someone address this? Nevermore27 (talk) 14:31, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

i.e. CO-3 (incumbent running in a different district but still in office) should not be in the same category as CO-4 (vacant) Nevermore27 (talk) 14:38, 24 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
For what it's worth there was a discussion about a similar case on Talk:2022 United States House of Representatives elections#New York 2601:249:9301:D570:44CB:7977:AC4C:65F6 (talk) 22:20, 26 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@2601:249:9301:D570:44CB:7977:AC4C:65F6: yeah that's a weird situation, more of a redistricting-initiated issue than this case so I'm less inclined to argue about it. Nevermore27 (talk) 12:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this article is about the upcoming elections. there is no incumbent in CO–03 in the upcoming election. Griffindaly (talk) 05:26, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
@Griffindaly: with respect, doesn't that same logic apply to any district where the incumbent isn't running e.g. retirements? Nevermore27 (talk) 12:48, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
It does, which is why the best solution is probably to use same color as a retiring member, but adjust the caption/label. Since Bobert isn't stepping away from the CO-3 seat until her term is up, it's not too different from other retirements: she's basically "retiring" as the MOC for CO-3 (creating an open seat race in the district) so she can run for the open seat in CO-4. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:57, 27 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]
this is exactly my view as well Nevermore27 (talk) 00:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Tense question

[edit]

So in the section on retirements, and in the tables for each state, the phrase is "X is retiring to run for Y office" shouldn't the wording be, if they were defeated in a primary election, be "X retired to run for Y office"? Apologies if I just am forgetting how grammar works. Talthiel (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Mostly because the retirement happens at the end of the term, but the defeat happened in the primary. Even though both acts have an impact on the race in question, one is still in the future and the other is in the past. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 14:43, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
So is there a way to convey both? Because for example Katie Porter and Barbara Lee are still retiring at the end of their term, but they are not actively running for Senate anymore. Talthiel (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
sorry, I missed the nuance of your question. Maybe it changes to "X is retiring to run for Y office, but was unsuccessful." or "but lost in the primary." with a new reference on the second clause. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 18:31, 9 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Map needs more insets

[edit]

For other countries we have insets for all the big cities with electoral districts that are too small to see on a national map (e.g File:Australian Federal Electorates, 47th Parliament.svg has 11, File:2024 United Kingdom general election - Result.svg has 17, etc), but File:2024 United States House of Representatives elections retirements or losses of renomination map.svg only has three: New York City, Greater Los Angeles and Chicagoland. There are other cities with small districts too, e.g Houston, Phoenix, etc. What insets also do is they show the result better visually. The Republicans have a narrow majority of seats in the House, but the map makes it look like they hold about 75% of seats outside the three cities with insets. Nevada for example looks very Republican even though the Democrats hold three of the nine seats there.

This map shows a map of congressional districts used in the 110th Congress (2007-2009), with 19 insets. They are for (in order shown, from left to right, first row then second row): Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, Denver, Dallas, Houston, Minneapolis, St Louis, Chicago, Miami, Detroit, Boston, New York City (outer), New York City (inner), Philadelphia, Baltimore, Washington DC, Atlanta and Central North Carolina. It also includes insets for Alaska and Hawaii (like the current map does) and the non-voting delegates (which the current map doesn't). Of course that map is up to 17 years old now, so it would look different now and might even have more insets for cities.

Any thoughts? Schestos (talk) 01:51, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that more insets are needed, especially for cities like Dallas and Houston where the districts are very narrow and hard to tell apart. OutlawRun (talk) 02:56, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I found this file which has more insets but unfortunately many of the insets are incomplete (e.g Phoenix) while others are too small (e.g Houston and Dallas). Some are fine though (e.g Miami and Honolulu). Schestos (talk) 03:05, 19 August 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Noting unopposed candidates

[edit]

There are a handful of candidates running unopposed. Should we do something to note that the Democrats/Republicans have already won these seats? Esolo5002 (talk) 01:57, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]

No, unless the election rules are that unopposed candidates are not on the ballot and are automatically deemed the winner. (That usually only happens on primary ballots, not general elections.) It's always possible (albeit not likely) a candidate could die, withdraw, or be defeated by a write-in candidate. —Carter (Tcr25) (talk) 13:58, 28 October 2024 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I know its irrelevant in political terms but has an symbolic effect. 2003:DA:C73A:6000:E5E0:DB14:9536:FB3E (talk) 20:39, 7 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Found it. Cook political report offers a national popular vote tracker, right now Republicans are leading by nearly 5 percentage points.
2024 House Vote Tracker | Cook Political Report 2003:DA:C73A:6000:E5E0:DB14:9536:FB3E (talk) 19:23, 8 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Leading races

[edit]

Please do not include uncalled races, including in the current seats category. Theoallen1 (talk) 12:31, 11 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I updated current seats.

[edit]

Per the House of Representatives' Party Breakdown page, the number of current seats were wrong. GOP has 221 going in, Dems have 213, which means Dems need 5 more seats to win. Hanada12 (talk) 17:33, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Please disregard - I understand from another member that these figures reflected the number of seats PRE-election which were 220 and 212, and that 2 new members were sworn in after election day, giving us 221 and 213 now. Hanada12 (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Ohio 9th district

[edit]

This race should be changed from Democrat hold to close to call for now as no news stations have called the election for Kaptur yet. 66.203.39.124 (talk) 16:54, 15 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

 Done I did read some sources that said Kaptur won, but AP and others haven't called it yet. (AP, ABC, CNN, and NBC. Can't find CBS's election map anymore.) --Super Goku V (talk) 10:41, 16 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Alaska

[edit]

The NYT has not called Alaska yet due to ranked choice voting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:58, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

I don't believe we are using NYT for covering who wins. --Super Goku V (talk) 06:34, 19 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

"Seats before" vs. "Last election" and vacancies

[edit]

Is it standard practice to only include the seats won at the last election vs. the seats won in the listed election in the infobox for US House elections? A lot of pages for state legislative elections and others will have the separate "seats before" tab to show any changes that occurred due to party switches or special elections. This does bring up the question of whether to count vacancies or not. My preferred solution to that, and I think a lot of media companies report it like this, is to count vacant seats towards the party that vacated them. That would mean that, regardless of pre-election vacancies, The "last election" tab would show 222-213, and the "seats before" tab would show 221-214 because Democrats flipped one seat in a special election. I think this does the best job showing which seats actually flipped in the election while still accounting for the fact that seats did flip in the interim. What are others' thoughts on this? OutlawRun (talk) 23:25, 17 November 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2024_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections&oldid=1258355571"