Talk:2018 Michigan gubernatorial election

New Target Insyghts poll

Here's a link to a new Target Insyghts primary poll.

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/news/politics/2017/07/31/poll-whitmer-fieger-lead/104178896/

Legionaire Editor (talk) 18:58, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

The only problem is that Target doesn't seem to have a regularly updated website or anywhere to find their polls, so in this case they don't even mention the undecided and "other" percentages. I wonder if it's worth adding without that basic piece of the poll? --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:34, 2 August 2017 (UTC)

Polling

I thought this was fairly obvious, but don't add polls that can't be corroborated or verified. It's even debateable to add a poll commissioned by a major paper if they don't include all of the relevant information. So it's certainly not acceptable to add polls that we never made public and that some columnist had seen or heard second-hand from some unnamed source. Polling is under enough scrutiny as it is, so please be extra careful about this. --Criticalthinker (talk) 22:33, 27 October 2017 (UTC)

Candidate photos

Three parties selected candidates via primaries on August 7th, but the opening section only shows photos of two of them. All three should be included, both for completeness's sake and in the avoidance of bias.

Jack Vermicelli 2warped@gmail.com 24.127.238.196 (talk) 19:33, 8 August 2018 (UTC)

Quite right, though I must add that this particular candidate has received significant coverage from major mainstream media sources. Leaving out candidates is not necessarily bias, and putting Libertarians at the top would be undo in many cases. This is different. I have inserted a photo. Prepare for some objections --Redandready (talk) 21:56, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Infobox

What's the wiki standards for a candidate to be included in an infobox on a page like this? For instance, the Liberatrian Party qualified for "major" party status this year, which means they got to have a state-wide primary instead of a convention like the Democratic and Republican parties. Do you do infobox inclusions by the political rules of their respective state, or does wiki have a different standard? --Criticalthinker (talk) 14:58, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

@Criticalthinker: There are no hard-and-fast rules for how to handle the infobox, but Wikipedia precedent for an infobox pre-election has been to include only candidates of parties who got at least 5% in the previous election, or are polling above 5%. Right now there is some debate going on over whether to change that, but that is how it has been done in the past. Party status, according to state law, is not usually a determining factor. Tillerh11 (talk) 15:21, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

It really seems weird that state law doesn't play any factor in this. In the case of Michigan, it changes a whole lot of rules when a minor party becomes a major party or vice versa. It's precisely because of the Libertarian Party's showing in the last general election (2016), that they were allowed to hold a state-wide primary alongside the Democrats and Republicans this year. --Criticalthinker (talk) 16:31, 10 August 2018 (UTC)

Meeting the 5% Threshold is precisely why Libertarians are now treated as major parties under current election law. That being that 2016 top of ticket candidate Gary Johnson got 5% of the votes cast for Secretary of state in 2014. So it seems like it would be appropriate to include their nominee for now. There is also the matter of notability. Bill Gelineau has received significant coverage from reliable third party sources.--Redandready (talk) 21:54, 12 September 2018 (UTC)

There seems to be an edit war building about this. When I reverted one of them I directed the editor to join this discussion.--Redandready (talk) 01:17, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Here is the link for clarafication regarding the Secretary of State position on ballot access. This editing war needs to stop, especially by people who have not even completed basic research on Michigan's election laws. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Esq4rt (talk • contribs) 17:12, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Election law does not dictate wikipedia policy or consensus. Nevermore27 (talk) 00:19, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

• That said @Esq4rt:, I do apologize for my last edit summary, I was looking at the section below titled "Third Parties". That said, you intimated that this discussion was evidence of consensus, which is just not true. Nevermore27 (talk) 00:23, 22 October 2018 (UTC)

Comment added by wolfsden3: I have undone the change made by user Nevermore27 because their argument was that Bill Gelineau was not polling at 5% or greater. In Michigan "major party" candidates are not arbitrary based on polling numbers. In Michigan you are considered a major party when Michigan law (MCL code) tells you that you have to have a primary rather than a caucus. Minor party's caucus and major party's primary. Primary's are tax payer funded to a degree, state organized and not everyone qualifies. Major party's should be in the info box since other two major party candidates are represented. The link to the PDF below is also referenced elsewhere on the references page that I didn't post but I posted it here for your convenience. As a likely non-Michigan resident I don't think you're aware that Michigan has three major party's as does New Mexico. There might be one or two others with this unique distinction this election cycle. You can not disqualify a major party candidate from the info box based on arbitrary opinion. I would also like to add when you look at each candidate, republican, democrat and the libertarian they all had to do the exact same things mechanically, 15,000 signatures, debate other candidates, campaign to win their primary, etc. Mechanically they all did the exact same things but the Green, Tax Payer, Constitution, etc party's (the minor party's) didn't have to do any of it. The infobox as noted elsewhere in the talk section (I"m new here sorry) also talks about the difference between major and minor party's and to not think of them in terms of "third party's". States don't classify party's as first, second, third, fourth, etc. State classifications are either major or minor regardless of polling data.

STATE OF MICHIGAN POLITICAL PARTY STATUS

Major party requirements vs minor party requirements

Wolfsden3 (talk) 09:37, 27 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said above, no state's ballot laws dictate Wikipedia policy, or in this case a consensus that has been argued and reaffirmed since 2008 at minimum. Just because I'm "the only one griping" doesn't make me wrong or you right. Nevermore27 (talk) 00:06, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

As I said, Bill Gelineau is a major party candidate equal to the other two major party candidates and as such you can't remove him from the info box. In fact, other wiki pages should also include libertarians that have reached this status. What makes you wrong is you classifying him as something different. Where does wiki policy state that only democratic and republican candidates get info box rights? It doesn't. If anyone is listing a major party candidate then all major party candidates should be listed. What is your argument for excluding Bill Gelineau on major party status grounds? Please speak to this. Party's in every state in the US are classified in two ways, major and minor. Bill Schuette, Gretchen Whitmer and Bill Gelineau are all classified as major party candidates and not minor party candidates and on those grounds you can not include only two of the three and arbitrarily exclude the other. That is political bias. Wolfsden3 (talk) 06:36, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

@Wolfsden3: First of all, stop reverting me right now. There is Wikipedia policy in place called WP:BRD: Bold, Revert, Discuss. You were WP:BOLD in adding Gelineau. I reverted you because that is not the consensus. Then, the next step is to Discuss. One thing that you may not do is just revert again. That is called an WP:EDITWAR. If you want to change consensus, then I encourage you to continue making your points. But if you revert me one more time I will submit this to dispute resolution.

Second: Consensus for elections pages is (and has been for 10 years) to only include candidates in the infobox if they have gotten 5% percent in at least one poll. Or, if the party got at least 5% of the vote in the last election of the same type. Gelineau has not, and the Libertarian Party did not. Elections pages that include the Libertarian Party's candidate are only there because one of these criteria were met, not because they are a "major party" under the state's election laws. In fact, I added many of them myself, you can check that. I have no bias for the two major national parties or against the Libertarians, but there has to be a threshold. If you want to change that via consensus, I have no problem with it. But until that happens, this is the last stable version, and it will remain that way until a new consensus is reached. Nevermore27 (talk) 03:01, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

@Nevermore27: I don't mind being in an edit war. You're the only one who's "fighting". You're suggesting treating all major party candidates unequally and that isn't fair. Wikipedia as noted by other users doesn't have a hard rule about 5% in the polls. You seemingly only want to use 5% because that has been some kind of loose standard over a decade. You don't speak to the major party status I asked about and on those grounds Bill Gelineau should stay as should ALL major party candidates. The framing of your narrative and that of Wikipedia about polling numbers is a biased measure since polls can be manipulated. Why would anyone want to base who shows up in the info box on something that can be manipulated? To me this makes no sense and state laws, election laws, how states categorize party's is a better measure. Major vs Minor party status and not polling data should be what determines info box listing regardless of how it has been in the past decade. Whomever created those loose guidelines didn't think about how polls can be manipulated. If we took a poll on this page I think Bill Gelineau would get 75% in our poll.Wolfsden3 (talk) 18:16, 31 October 2018 (UTC) @Nevermore27: Apparently I've been whacked by the wiki whacker bot. I've appealed to the great and mighty whacker bot in wiki world. This entire argument of 5% is absurd and I've pleaded my case. I think you're wrong to base info box listing on manipulative data controlled by corporations and party's but should rather base info box listing on how states categorize. Major or minor. Major party's get info box listing and minor one's don't. This is in my view 100% unfair. I'm sure you disagree. I'd love to hear why you think it should be based on poll numbers of 5%. Why not bump it to 25%? Wolfsden3 (talk) 18:36, 31 October 2018 (UTC)

I reviewed the history and this discussion, and Nevermore27 is alone on this. When one editor keeps pushing against the consensus by constantly performing the same reverted edit, it is disruptive editing. Please stop it.--Libertyguy (talk) 06:07, 1 November 2018 (UTC)

I too support the inclusion of Gelineau in the infobox. I agree Nevermore27 is the only person who is against this.-- Kruggsy (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 03:15, 2 November 2018 (UTC)

References

Third Parties

Candidates beyond the Republican and Democratic parties should be allowed to be displayed in the infobox regardless of political status.

• Please see my response on Talk:United States Senate election in Michigan, 2018. Tillerh11 (talk) 01:22, 13 August 2018 (UTC)

I think instead of "Third Parties" which should be spelled "Third Party's" I think you mean "Minor Party's". There is a distinction between major and minor not third. You're either a major or a minor. I think all major party candidates should be in the major party info box and minor party candidates should be in a minor party info box. This is how the states classify and categorize laws on how those party's behave according to their candidate selection process. You either caucus (minor party) or you primary (major party). In Michigan for example for the first time in 50 years the libertarian party had to primary and where on the primary ballot making them a major party since they benefited from tax payer dollars paying for them to be on the ballot, paying for a primary at public polling locations, sending information to county secretary's, etc. Forgot to sign my comments here: Wolfsden3 (talk) 06:38, 29 October 2018 (UTC)

No endorsement box

We need a box for no endorsement. For example, governor Rick Snyder is not endorsing a candidate for Michigan governor as shown at [1]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:02, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Unless there is some existing standard at wiki for no endorsement, I don't support this. I don't even know how you'd do it; there's really no such thing as a negative endorsement. --Criticalthinker (talk) 11:25, 24 September 2018 (UTC)

Billions of people could go in every "No endorsement" box. This is silly.--Redandready (talk) 01:14, 11 October 2018 (UTC)

Protection

• Someone when they get the time, request that this page be put under temporary protection. This should have been done the last dozen times ago in this editing war. --Criticalthinker (talk) 18:59, 19 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I tried, was declined. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• We need to change the site image to something neutral so no candidate shows up in previews. Right now the preview from other pages shows the Democratic candidate alone. This is not right. How about that state seal which is also on this page? Neutral! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Buildsit (talk • contribs) 21:47, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
  • I don't think there's anything intentional about the page preview picture? I think it's just an automatic thing. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:40, 24 October 2018 (UTC)

• This article was semi-protected on November 2. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:58, 4 November 2018 (UTC)

Supporting citations

It is VERY VERY important to make sure the edits match the supporting citations. I prevented an edit war by making sure the citation supports the edit. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:33, 5 November 2018 (UTC)

map

Can someone make a new SVG map, whoever made it utterly fucked up the SVG. Thanks. MB298 (talk) 07:33, 15 December 2018 (UTC)

No primary endorsement box for Gretchen Whitmer in the democratic primary

There needs to be an endorsement box for whitmer in the democratic primary WavyPhoton (talk) 00:34, 6 October 2023 (UTC)

No more Abdul endorsement box

It somehow got deleted when trying to make another one WavyPhoton (talk) 00:35, 6 October 2023 (UTC)