Talk:2014 California gubernatorial election

	California portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Politics: American

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

[Untitled]

Please edit the page with correct and accurate results with the proper candidates running for the General Election after the Primary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Darius25000 (talk • contribs) 22:01, 1 June 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The Primary

There are no partisan primaries in California anymore; except for President & VP of the U.S., local offices, non-partisan offices (e.g., judges, the Superintendent of Public Instruction, etc.).

All candidates run against each other in a nonpartisan blanket primary and the two top vote-getters run against each other in the general election regardless of their party preference or party registration.

In other words, it is possible for two candidates of the same party to run against each other in general election.

This is due to the passage of California's California Proposition 14 (2010).

72.82.182.12 (talk) 04:12, 14 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, you are indeed correct. I'll add a paragraph on that now. Tiller54 (talk) 00:10, 17 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

---

The sentence that explains the primary is potentially misleading because it states in a general terms which could be confused with specifics; the majority of elections (local and state) are secured by a super-majority of 60%. Only statewide and federal are not. Either we need to say 'for this position' to make it specific, or we need to denote that there is another way a majority can be gained in the primary or we need to ditch the talk about a majority in a Primary (because it's meaningless compared to how the vast majority of elections are done in the states). I don't know. One little change can make something later in the sentence wrong, even if the change itself seems minor. 174.62.68.53 (talk) 03:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

The article is about the gubernatorial election, which is statewide, so I don't think the qualification is necessary. Lagrange 613 09:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence in Intro

Just would like to get some sort of opinion or clarification here. The user 75.15.208.91 (talk) has reverted my edits, 3 times now, to include the sentence "Although expected, Brown has not announced yet that he would seek reelection". It is a more than accurate statement as Governor Brown has his campaign website [[1]] up and running, as well us collected money under the finance name "Brown for Governor 2014"[[2]]. I have reported this user and would like to once again, get some sort of final answer/opinion on this.

Full protection

It pains me to do this, but I am fully protecting the article to stop the edit warring. I say it pains me because one side here is 100% correct. But I won't say which one, or whether the current version of the article is the correct one. Please discuss the matter here on the talk page; I'm hopeful that if you actually have a discussion you'll come to the only version supported by the sources given. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:59, 27 August 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Jungle primary

As this source explains and this page for the 2012 House elections in California shows, it is not only statewide elections that use the jungle primary. Tiller54 (talk) 13:56, 24 January 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox Confusing

The information in the Infobox is confusing.

The Infobox lists partisan nominees for Governor. According to the California jungle primary law, there are no partisan nominees in these types of elections, only the top two vote-getters.

(Moreover, the Infobox lists Jerry Brown as the Democratic nominee. While Brown is, of course, most likely to be the top vote-getter in the primary (and, for that matter, in the general), he is not the only Democrat on the ballot. There is also Akinyemi Agbede, also a Democrat. But, I digress.)

The Infobox should clearly show that the top two vote-getters are not nominees.

Perhaps, the Infobox could use the same phraseology as is used on the California Gubernatorial Ballot (http://www.co.tehama.ca.us/poll_locator/ballots/bt000001.pdf): "Party Preference: Democratic" and "Party Preference: Republican".

72.82.166.158 (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

"Declared" candidates who are not on the ballot

I don't know what is the usual procedure for this kind of article (for which I know there are standard rules and formats). My issue is: several of the people who are listed here as "declared" candidates did not wind up on the ballot. For a couple of them, the source listed was the reference named as "sos voter guide"[3], but they are not actually on that voter guide list; they either didn't complete their ballot application process or did not qualify for the ballot for whatever reason. That means that the "sos voter guide" is not a reference supporting the inclusion of their name. I removed the "sos voter guide" reference from three of them - Michael Strimling, Dennis Jackson, and Richard Ornelas, because the reference does not list them. But then someone re-added it as a reference for Jackson and Ornelas, maybe not realizing why I had removed it. I think in those cases we need to either find another source demonstrating that they are (or were) a declared candidate - or else remove them as unverified. How do we handle this situation? I would guess that as long as there is a source verifying a person as a declared candidate, we can leave them in the "declared" category even if they didn't make the ballot. The ones that did qualify are listed below, in the table for reporting results.

Likewise, I didn't think the "sos voter guide" should be used as a source for additional information like "previously ran for governor in 2010," because that information is not in that source. Comments? --MelanieN (talk) 16:25, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm, now that I look at the ones who were sourced to the "preliminary statewide candidates status report," I find a couple - Geby Espinoza and Hanala Segal - where their only reference source is the "preliminary status report" but they are not actually on that report. I think the "preliminary status report" should be removed as a source for those people since it does not mention them. That would leave them unconfirmed as declared candidates. --MelanieN (talk) 16:45, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

If they declared their candidacies, but didn't make the final ballot, we move them to "Withdrew". As for information like "candidate for Governor in 2010", that isn't necessarily on the voter guide, but their candidacy can be confirmed by clicking through to the relevant election article. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 18:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, that's helpful. Question though: if they are not on the ballot, and the only reference for them was the ballot listing, that leaves them with no reference. Is that OK, for them to be in the "withdrew" category without any reference? --MelanieN (talk) 20:52, 26 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

No, because if someone hasn't seen this discussion or checked the page history, they could remove them for being unreferenced. If we include the ref with them listed and the one with them not listed, that should suffice. Thanks, Tiller54 (talk) 23:43, 31 May 2014 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on California gubernatorial election, 2014. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Neel Kashkari official Fed photo 2015 (cropped).jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 12 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]