Talk:President-elect of the United States/Archive 1

Archive 1

Older discussions

Earlier discussion can be found at talk:President-elect. --Modocc (talk) 18:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Electoral College role

In the United States, one is the President-elect from the Electoral College vote, not the popular vote. Can somebody help change all of it? 151.185.60.250 (talk) 15:23, 9 December 2008 (UTC)

No Seal

No office of President-elect exists. It is a convenient reference. It has no seal, so the seal has been removed. President-elect gets to use the seal when he becomes president but not before then. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.155.175.34 (talk) 19:58, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Since the seal if for our current POTUS, I agree with the removal. Modocc (talk) 22:02, 16 December 2008 (UTC)

Pre-election “President-elect”

U.S. Presidents are elected by the Electoral College at an election in December (or later, by the House of Representatives.) Voters can’t vote for President in November and it is legally impossible for anyone who is not and elector (or, sometimes, a congressman) to vote for a candidate for President. The election of electors is just a currently popular way of selecting electors and in some years (1796, for example) a MAJORITY of states chose their electors through their legislatures—meaning that there were NO votes (other than those of the legislators) cast for any presidential candidate in most states of the union. What happens in November is not an election of a president, but the selection of electors. They elect the President of the United States and they do it in December. No one can be anything-“elect” until the election is held and the votes are cast. Polling the presidential electorate (the Electoral College) strongly suggests that the Democratic candidate will be elected on December 15th, assuming the electors vote according to their pledges and beliefs.

The problem with the forgoing is not that it is inaccurate, but that MOST people—including most voters and most “educated” people are ignorant of some or all of it. Even members of the press use the word “president-elect” on a (still) candidate before the election not because they don’t know there is an electoral college, but because they really don’t really know when the Electoral College does its thing. In other words, they don’t know WHEN the presidential election happens. However, embracing the ignorance is not what encyclopedias are all about and there are plenty of things that are widely said that are, nevertheless, objectively and incontrovertibly bogus. On December 15th this will probably subside, but reinforcing ignorance in the mean time is abominable. 1800? 1876? 2000? The history is there and disinforming people only makes them, and our system of government, vulnerable to abuse.

This article must not gloss over the facts, but should teat them fairly.

Criticality (talk)

All reliable sources refer to Obama as the President-elect. Modocc (talk) 03:09, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

That is simply not the case. Even the existing quotes on the page to from the U.S. Congressional sources make it clear that the electors' votes must be case before there is a "president-elect." Criticality (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 03:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC).

Presently, he president elect is the "apparent" winner. The eventual winner etc. He has the title by virtue of the 1963 law. Modocc (talk) 03:39, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The 1963 law uses the word as a term of art--tha'st why it say "terms . . . as used in this Act shall mean . . ." Even a person actually elected and who is really a "President-Elect" is not "President-Elect" under the statute if the election is contested because their "success" may not be "apparent" under that statute. Federal law also defines the word "State" to include "District of Columbia" in many many places. Yet, outside of those statutes, D.C. is not a state. Criticality (talk) 04:08, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

The president-elect, would not be titled president-elect if they were not the apparent winner, or the results are seriously contested, and if really close, perhaps not even be referred too as such until the votes are certified in January. Yet even your FOX source can be cited that Obama is the president-elect. Beginning with "President-elect Barack Obama is looking very presidential these days." and continuing with "As president-elect, Obama is also given the same highly classified intelligence briefings that President Bush receives on a daily basis." Modocc (talk) 04:27, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Which is the whole point. The President-elect is someone who has been elected, not apparently elected or soon-to-be-elected or bound-to-be-elected. That is what words like "heir-apparent" and "presumptive winner" mean. The president-elect (or senator-elect or grand poobah-elect) is a person has been elected but has yet to take office. That is what the first line of the article (correctly) says. Unless you are going to claim that the President is actually elected in November rather than in December (or later), then the term would not apply to Obama by the article's own thesis. My edit explains the use of the term in both its proper and improper sense. Yours either contradicts itself or implies that a President is elected in November. Is the latter your claim? Do you really believe Obama has been elected to the Presidency? If you don't then do not call him "President-elect," which means he has been elected. If, on the other hand, you believe that a person is [insert office]-elect when their ultimate election seems just overwhelmingly likely, then you can start using the term in October, if the polls show a candidate virtually assured to win, barring calamity, then they are as good as elected. Hence "elect"? Isn't that Obama's situation, "virtually assured to win barring calamity"? The term is often abused, largely due to ignorance and indifference that should not be endorsed. People in this country call the Westminster Palace clock tower "Big Ben" not because it is properly known by that name, but because they are almost universally ignorant of the fact that it is the bell in the tower is "Big Ben" and they don't know that. You could just change that article to make it say what they think. All better then. Criticality (talk) 05:35, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

"...do not call him "President-elect,"..."? It does not matter what you nor I believe, call or declare the TRUTH. The FOX citation does not say its "erroneous" to refer to Obama as president-elect. Are they wrong for FOX to also write "President-elect Obama..."? As to the technicalities, the November ballots did give us a choice in this matter. Nevertheless, its what reliable sources have established that matters most here, and they do not, in general, qualify the general election result as you suggest. President-elect is the common usage and it is correct for the purposes that it is used for. To say otherwise is a fallacy. The FOX source does not say the reliable sources are "erroneous". It doesn't say it is "erroneous" either, and the "not president-elect" commentary is a distortion of the "technicality" that electoral votes need to be cast and certified prior to the inauguration. Even with such stipulation, the general election was an election and Obama, by all accounts, won. He and the losing candidates were on the ballot... Modocc (talk) 05:43, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

You state “the November ballots did give us a choice in this matter.” That is true if you mean a choice of electors who we expect will vote for a Presidential candidate we support. You say that reliable sources “do not, in general, qualify the general election result as you suggest.” Really? Only when the “reliable” sources speaking inaccurately. You may see it said that Obama won the presidential election in November—which is inaccurate. People will say all sorts of things true and false and will contradict themselves (the same way the article correctly contradicts itself). As I said before and as you want to finesse it is false to say “Obama was elected President in November as such.” Take a look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Electoral_College The expression is a careless one that is false on its face, but conveys a different but related truth, namely that the enough electors endorsed by Obama were elected in November to put him in a position to win the election in December, which he will—probably. So the November papers say “Obama elected President” even though they know it is literally false, just like calling Obama “President-elect” is false. It is false, but who wants to say “presumptive president-elect”? Won’t sell papers that way. And the newspapers the day after the November election are not going to say “People of America vote for a majority of electors who promise that they will vote for Obama for President.” But that IS the truth and that IS what Wikipedia’s article on the Electoral College actually says. The devil is in the details and the encyclopedia should be accurate. Should is say “Obama elected President in November”? That’s what you are claiming it should say. You should go over and edit the electoral college article then. It says Obama was not elected president in November, even though most of the newspapers and most people colloquially say he was. That’s because the Electoral College encyclopedia article is trying to be accurate. Either Obama has, as of now, been elected President or he has not. It can’t be both true and false at the same time in the same respect. You say he was elected, I say he was not and you can find at least as many newspaper citations to support you assertion as I can mine. Yet the Wiki article on the electoral college says something different—-it agrees with my position, that the election is scheduled for December, and it is correct in this regard and should not be changed. To you the words you deride as insignificant, the Electoral College article is technically correct but colloquially wrong. I think that the article on President-elect of the United States should be technically correct, proper and accurate rather than inaccurate, technically wrong, and improper. That Obama is president-elect is technically false and it is inaccurate, but it has a colloquial, soft but sincere truth to it inasmuch as people cast votes (my ballot said “electors for Barak Obama.”) in support of their candidate. Of course, these votes did help their candidates, but only by electing someone else to a different office. I knew what I was doing—-I was voting for my candidate’s political cronies, whom I expected to do their job in December by voting for him. I assume you did the same. How will Wikipedia describe what we did? Accurately? Colloquially? Erroneously? Technically correct? Or technically wrong? If the encyclopedia wants to be accurate, it should describe what is technically true. It can describe what is colloquially believed, but it should qualify such statements accordingly. Millions voted for Obama and they are thrilled that he won in November because they voted for his electors. They want to see him as President ASAP. And we will all observe as he is elected on the 15th of December and assumes the office on January 20. But affection and desire will not make it happen faster than that. This article should be accurate based on objective realiable sources. I assert that my edit does this much better than the others proposed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Criticality (talk • contribs) 06:47, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

I have put on a slightly smother edit that you may (or may not) believe does justice to our discussion. Criticality (talk) 07:01, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

(outindent)The reliable sources that can be cited aren't just newspaper-selling one-line headliners. Furthermore, I am an American that has filled in one of the little ovals next to a candidate, but do not have a clue who my electoral representative is or how they will vote on the 15th (they are supposed to represent, in good faith, my vote (I say good faith because their actual vote will be contingent on good faith considerations). Whether or not the actual outcome is the same is irrelevant. The first election has transpired and soon another will too. Should the outcome of the electoral vote differ, it won't actually matter. In the unlikely event of this happening, we would simply have a different president-elect declared at that time. In the mean time, Obama is the president-elect because he has been and will be (apparently) elected. The constitution defines process, but it does not define the term "President-elect" or its usage. Its clear that it is widely-used, including with the 1963 law and by Obama and others. The provisional (or electoral) and common usages are not mutually exclusive. These non-exclusive usages should be clear from the fact that "President-elect" is used by the 1963 law and, consequently, by all official mandates associated with it. Had the law said he is "King" or "Presumptive-Prez" for the said purposes, then he would be correctly referred to those titles given the documented transition mandates. The law simply reflects and makes official the many decades of usage. To say his official title is technically incorrect is plain wrong. For one, the FOX article does not say the president-elect title is technically incorrect[indeed, the article even uses the title itself], it says he will not technically become president-elect [in accordance with his title] until the second vote. Its kind of like saying one is not born until one's birthday, even though we are conceived and exist prior to that. The acts of being and becoming are two different things. Obama is president-elect now based on the general election and on what is assumed will happen. Again, this might all change, but it does not change what the reliable sources currently say [Obama is the president-elect, and NOT the "next president-elect", having just noticed that consequential blunder as I was putting up the template; for the sources that actually say differently include the BBC and every source imaginable], in addition to what the law requires of us. Modocc (talk) 07:50, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

• sigh*Do you know that almost all of this disputing occurs entirely within wikipedia users, not viewers? No one who reads and wikipedia except us users really cares about any of this whole "is he technically the president-elect" crap, because we all know he is. People just want to read facts.Saberwolf116 (talk) 13:57, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Another quick note, the 1933 congressional opinion cited (by the 2004 report) is antiquated. Its [sense of "generally accepted"] usage of the term President-elect predates both current law and current use by many decades. Hence, the utility of the source is limited primarily to interpreting questions pertinent to interpretation of the 20th amendment and other president-elect questions at that time it was written. This out-of-context cite just does not hold weight in the lede. Its not a recent authoritative consensus description, and if it were, it of course would be far superior to misconstruing a single unreliable FOX opinion piece; but its not, nor will there be, given the present usage both in practice and in law. Calling Obama the President-elect is not "technically incorrect" usage. In short, current reliable sources establish that addressing Obama by his title is proper and is not "technically incorrect" use as claimed. Modocc (talk) 17:20, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

When I was a kid, we had these purple ink handouts in school produced by a mechanical system called, by all involved, the “mimeograph.” The papers thus printed had a neat chemical smell when fresh. (I should have sniffed them a lot more, I suspect.) It was, of course, not a mimeograph, but a spirit duplicator. Mimeographs used a significantly different technology, but we didn’t understand that. We were all ignorant of that technicality and the misuse of the term was pretty common everywhere. But we did not covert spirit duplicator, through our misunderstanding, into a mimeograph machine.

The reality behind this discussion is, again, that most people are confused about when and how the presidential election occurs. Those who are less confused and more knowledgeable still don’t have a proper expression for what Obama is at the moment. “Presumptive President-elect” is pretty awkward sounding. Being accurate is tedious and takes effort sometimes. The net result of all this is that people misuse the term almost as often as the use it correctly. But importantly, this is not just about frequent misuse of the word, but about confusion about the actual nature of the subject of the word, that is, the election process.

(1) The belief that the President of the United States is elected in the November is wrong. People will state the contrary all the time, but they don’t know any better or they just don’t care. One can play word games all day long, of course. Ambiguity lurks in every corner of human language—I know that as well as any of you, believe me. You can cite sources all day long that say the President is elected in November, the flat earth universe is open to all, just don’t fall off the edge. I could point out simple hypotheticals—like Obama is consumed by a scandal fabricated by his enemies and a majority of college members defect on the 15th and electing Hillary president. It is unlikely, but were it to happen she would really and truly be elected President and earn the title “President-elect.” I could point out, again, that in some past election cycles a majority of states have had no presidential elector candidates on the ballot in November. (Nor any presidential candidates either, of course, because no state has ever had a Presidential candidate on the ballot in November, only electors. U.S. Presidents aren’t elected in November. This is not my fault. It was not my idea. It is not my fault most people don’t know this. Poverty is not my fault. Cancer is not my fault.) Read up on the Electoral College more if this is still an issue--or write Obama an email and ask him. Virtually every "reliable source" that is taking the issue on directly will tell you that the November election only elects electors, not Presidents, that these electors chosen in November have the power to elect a President and that they do that in the election that (usually) elects the U.S. President in December.

(2) The sense of the “[office]-elect” construction is to refer to a person in a post-election but pre-accession condition. What comes before that is mere candidacy, and thereafter after is office-holding. The obvious definition of “President-elect” is “[a] person who has been elected president but has not yet been inducted into office.” That’s offered by the 2000 American Heritage Dictionary. (http://www.bartleby.com/61/99/P0539900.html). Virtually all other dictionaries are similar. But now I seem to have gotten you to the sad point where you feel you need to attack this definition as wrong. Either that or you have to say that the President is not elected by the Electoral College (or House, etc.) but by “the voters” in November. If you really believe that, then there’s nothing more I will say.

To make the hopelessly illogical work, you are proposing to (re)define the term “President-elect” not as “[a] person who has been elected president but has not yet been inducted into office,” but as “a person who is widely recognized to have a very great likelihood of being elected president, regardless of whether the election has been held or not.” The fact that that does not give you pause is a profound mystery to me. What is happening, I surmise, is that the aforementioned utter confusion about our electoral system is being given precedent over the reality of the electoral system. To which I say, yikes! It does account for much of the cited (mis)usage of the word, but it does so by literally embracing confusion, by doing mortal violence to the existing proper/dictionary definition of the word, and by alienating it form every other use of the-elect construction (senator-elect, editor-elect) which continue to demand a person be elected before they are “elect.”

In my edit, I tried to acknowledge the improper use of the word, but did not attempt to reduce the proper and improper use as you seek to do. Your approach is about obfuscation and distraction. So be it.

I had tried to find the definition of “apparent winner” or “president-elect”, due to that question now becoming material, but this is not easily found, even in the law itself. Odd!

In re technicalities: It has been suggested that the technicalities of our system of government are a too annoying and irrelevant for inclusion in Wikipedia. I guess that some sort of terse, common sense generalization is supposed to be better. I will say that, at least in matters of law (and this system is defined in law) the technicalities are the realities. Saying that an encyclopedia must gloss over the technicalities of our electoral system is to say that ordinary people don’t need to know how the system really works. This is kind of what the Electoral College system was invented to address--ordinary people can’t be expected to understand all the subtle issues of state, the President should be elected by a small group of better equipped “electors” who will be chosen as state legislatures shall provide. Good idea! Maybe the Framers were smarter than we thought.

Anyway, political zeal has injected more misology into this environment than I have the patience for. Funny thing is, in two months, reality may set in here because no one will have an ax to grind. In any case, this page is all yours, kids. Have fun! Criticality (talk) 02:38, 12 December 2008 (UTC)

Whatever the reality, please avoid engaging in synthesis of verifiable facts. Modocc (talk) 20:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

If a sitting President has won re-election, he is not referred to as a "President-elect" because he is already in office and is not waiting to become president. Then T. Roosevelt, Coolidge, Truman and LBJ should be removed from the list. There are only 35 President-elects from the US. Agreed? JackOL31 (talk) 12:46, 10 November 2012 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2016

Currently, Donald Trump's entry in the list of presidents-elect states that he is the president-elect from November 9, 2016 to January 20, 2017. This is not the case, as that date has not arrived yet and any number of things could happen that prevent Mr. Trump from being president-elect to that date, from death to an electoral college counter-vote. I propose that this is changed to say November 9, 2016 to Present.

2001:48F8:7052:127F:75DE:D743:13B9:66E1 (talk) 03:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: Given the long history of precedent regarding regarding presidents-elect not dying or being ousted by the electoral college prior to their inaugurations, I think it is reasonable to assume that he will be president-elect until January 20 and see no compelling reason to make this change. Topher385 (talk) 11:01, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

No president-elect until December

Trump is not actually president elect yet. The electoral college has not voted him in to office yet. This article showing his picture before that actually happens makes this article incorrect and does not help the average American understand how their government actually works. It's still a few weeks before that happens, and while it would be completely unprecedented, the electoral college could actually vote Hillary or someone else completely in to office. 538 people from congress still need to cast their ballot in the electoral college to make anyone "president-elect", which someone only has that title for about 1 month. This makes Wikipedia a false source of information. There is currently NO president-elect in the United States of America. It'll probably be Trump, but technically it hasn't happened yet and this article should be updated to reflect that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:5800:F2A2:0:1945:A3E5:3C1F:588D (talk) 16:57, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 November 2016

Within the section about electoral college the year 2016 is not mentioned even though it should be. This in regards to elections where candidates have won popular vote but lost through electoral college Ciarri (talk) 21:54, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: The reason it's not included is that the Electoral College has not yet met to vote in the 2016 presidential election and the result of that vote will not be officially known until January 6, 2017. While we know the likely outcome, and that yes, this will indeed be the 5th time in American history that the winner of the EC vote lost the popular vote, to say so now would only be speculation. Encyclopedias should deal only with facts, and in fact, we can only document 4 times in U.S. history that this has occurred. When this apparent 5th time can be documented as fact, it will most certainly be added. Drdpw (talk) 22:06, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Change that god awful picture of Trump.

He looks like he is retarded. Allanana79 (talk) 04:37, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a suggestion of a freely-licensed picture for us to use instead? Also, please do not use offensive words when trying to get people to do something for you. It is unlikely to win friends or influence others to help you out. --Jayron32 04:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Grammar/Spelling

This is a serious question and I am soliciting copy-editing opinions here on this Talk page. I am not proposing a change, only asking which people believe to be correct: 1. President elect 2. President-elect 3. President-Elect 4. president elect 5. president-elect

Note that "President elect" is considered a *courtesy* definition, not an actual honorific. (For example, you would not address the president elect as "Mr. President Elect")

Also note that Amendment XX of the U.S. Constitution uses no hyphen, capital P, lower case "e": President elect

Finally, the New York Times has recently been annoying me on this subject, because they seem to switch (just look over the Times from the last two weeks) between "President-Elect" and "President-elect". American Heritage and Mirriam Webster both have all-lowercase, with hyphen entries: president-elect

My personal feeling is that because it is not an honorific it should not be capitalized: president elect and vice president elect, although looks strange next to "President" and "Vice President" is actually grammatically correct. Looking for other opinions. Jasonfb (talk) 21:06, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

#2 IMO, without checking for correctness. Justin15w (talk) 21:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

But the Twentieth Amendment is actually referring to the president elect, i.e. the person who has been elected president. On the other hand, the title President-elect (with a hyphen) was created and defined by Public Law 88-277 to refer not only to the person who has been elected but also to the person who is expected to be elected; so -elect is not used in the common-name, descriptive sense of elect but in a special sense defined by statute. --Boson (talk) 23:13, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

President Missing

Theodore Roosevelt was not in the list. Gj28210 (talk) 06:09, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

When was Theodore Roosevelt President-elect? --Boson (talk) 09:52, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

To clarify Boson's comment: Roosevelt became President immediately upon the assassination of McKinley, and when re-elected was not termed a President-elect, but rather the incumbent President.--NapoliRoma (talk) 00:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 November 2016

Can somebody add the Start date and age template from "April 6, 1789" to "{start date and age|1789|4|6}" to correspond to the President-elect of the United States's foundation date? 173.73.227.128 (talk) 02:48, 26 November 2016 (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. 🔯 Sir Joseph ^🍸(talk) 20:39, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

 Not done for a couple of reasons, 1) President-elect of the United States is not an officially established office, it's an unofficial title, one that has nver been officially been conferred upon anyone by any government entity; 2) there is no hard evidence to suggest that the title President-elect was publicly applied to Washington in April 1789 (I'm not even sure that the press or the general public used it when referring Adams in 1797 or Jefferson in 1801); and 3) Showing the years since G.W. was declared "elected as president" is, in light of 1 & 2, of minute importance and little value. Drdpw (talk) 21:45, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

RE:Re-elected Presidents

FWIW: Re-elected Presidents are also President-elect, between re-election & second inauguration. We just don't use the terminology, because the person is already President. Same with Re-elected Vice Presidents. GoodDay (talk) 18:45, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

• Kinda sorta, but not really. A President-elect is someone who has been chosen for the job, but is not yet allowed to assume the role yet. A re-elected President doesn't qualify, because they're doing the job during that time period. --Jayron32 19:05, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

  Even more to the point, see Presidential Transition Act of 1963 which formally defines who a President-elect is. Your definition is wrong, according to the actual definition of the term as used in the U.S. The act is for, and I quote: "To promote the orderly transfer of the executive power in connection with the expiration of the term of office of a President and the Inauguration of a new President." (bold mine). A serving President who is re-elected is not, under any normal understanding of the word, "new" to the job. --Jayron32 19:08, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm going by the US Constitution, which doesn't differentiate between first term/second term elected President and Vice President :) GoodDay (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Since the Constitution is silent on the matter of Presidents-elect, it cannot possibly inform the discussion. We need to go to the currently active statute that defines them. See the act I cited. --Jayron32 02:17, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Dates

I have two concerns about the #List of presidents-elect section: One: is there a reason why exact dates aren't included for J. Adams, Madison and Monroe? And two: are we absolutely certain that the dates included are indeed accurate? Now, as a case in point, Van Buren is listed as having becoming POTUS-elect on the day of the election; this, I find questionable.--Nevé–selbert 23:24, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

With the exceptions of 1824, 1876 & 2000. I prefer we use the exact Election Day dates, as the polls were all closed, even though the results weren't known yet. GoodDay (talk) 01:20, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, there was no Election Day prior to the election of 1848, neither was there uniformity in the way the various states chose their presidential electors (citizens in some states didn't even go to the polls), so we can't use definitively "when polls were all closed" to denote when a person became president-elect prior to then. Perhaps YBG's musings up-page that the "article would be just fine without [the table]" should be given further consideration. Barring that, a simple solution would be to re-label the "From" column as "Following" and use Election of xxxx in each row. Drdpw (talk) 02:13, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

For the record, I'd be fine with ditching the table too. It's far too trivial, and doesn't really add much to the article. --Jayron32 02:18, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps the table could be rescued by eliminating the individual Presidents and just showing the dates. Something like this:

Election years	General election	Electoral college	Inauguration
1792-????	(None)		March 4
* * *
????-present	November 2-8 (Tue after 1st Mon)	December 13-19 (Mon after 2nd Wed)	January 20

I think such a table might be interesting and maybe even useful, but the current table is IMHO pretty useless. YBG (talk) 06:11, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Lede change proposal to reflect usage by reliable sources

There was an inconsistency that Criticality pointed out and it should be addressed by modifying the lede to reflect the factual usage of president-elect by reliable sources. I would simply do the rewrite myself, but it might need tweaking and I certainly don't want to be warned or hauled to the 3rr board by anyone at this point, hence I propose the following edit:

The President-elect of the United States is an apparent winner of a general election on Election Day of candidates for the office of the President of the United States and a person elected to the office by popularly elected representatives of the Electoral College prior to being inaugurated on January 20. Sitting Presidents who have been re-elected, and Vice-Presidents who have succeeded to the office of President through death or resignation of a previous President, are not referred to as "Presidents-elect". The current President-elect of the United States is Barack Obama.

This edit brings into the lede the current usage of the term "president-elect" (by reliable sources) with regards to both elections, making it more accurate and less subject to dispute. Modocc (talk) 12:23, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Tweaking my first draft I get:

The President-elect of the United States is an apparent winning candidate for the office of the President of the United States following a general election on Election Day held to determine the electors of the President, and is a person elected to the office by the Electoral College prior to assuming the presidency on Inauguration Day. Sitting Presidents who have been re-elected, and Vice-Presidents who have succeeded to the office of President through death or resignation of a previous President, are not referred to as "Presidents-elect". The current President-elect of the United States is Barack Obama.

This version is more descriptive. Modocc (talk) 14:10, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

Modoc, I'd lean toward describing "president-elect" as a term or title rather than as a person. This would reduce the awkwardness of the form "... is an apparent winning candidate...and is a person elected to the office..." Something like:

President-elect of the United States is the title used for an incoming president in the period between the general election on Election Day in November and the swearing-in of a the new president on Inaguration Day. The title is used informally but widely as soon as an apparent winner is identified by the news media, and is formalized when the Electoral College votes in December. Sitting Presidents who have been re-elected, and Vice-Presidents who have succeeded to the office of President through death or resignation of a previous President, are not referred to as "Presidents-elect". The current President-elect of the United States is Barack Obama.

This construction seems smoother to me. I'm a first-time editor here but I've been following the debate on this page and on the Barack Obama page. CouldOughta (talk) 05:15, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Make that Inauguration Day. Even better, "Inauguration Day the following January 20th" CouldOughta (talk) 05:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

And should be "swearing-in of the new president" not "of a the new president". Sorry. CouldOughta (talk) 05:22, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

The GSA formally uses the title almost immediately after the general election, yet the winner is not formally declared until the votes are certified Jan. 6. Other than perhaps quibbling about these details, I do like your suggestion. Modocc (talk) 17:37, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

Perhaps:

President-elect of the United States is the title used for an incoming American president in the period between the general election on Election Day in November and the swearing-in of the new president on Inauguration Day. The title is used informally but widely as soon as an apparent winner is identified by the news media, and is finalized when the Electoral College votes in December. A sitting President who has won re-election is not referred to as "President-elect".

Best choice I've seen except for the Obama part, which shouldn't be included. Lakeshake (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

The current President-elect of the United States is Barack Obama.

"Finalized" is more accurate and avoids implying that there are no other formalities involved. The mention about vice-presidents seemed irrelevant. "won re-election" is more vivid than "have been re-elected", and changing from plural to singular avoids using "presidents-elect" which is a cool plural but there never is more than one at a time. Adding "American" is because there are other presidents-elect.

Do you think we need a sentence after the second one saying "Between the election and the Electoral College vote, a series of events based on statutory law formalize the President-elect's status." ? It seems unnecessary to me but it could go in. CouldOughta (talk) 04:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Its important that there be included a reference to the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 (without necessarily specifically mentioning it). Also, the detail about the media coverage is at about on the same level as the act, thus for improved balance we can significantly trim this to: "The title is used for the apparent winner[ref] and finalized...". That would address my concerns. Modocc (talk) 16:32, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, lets include the congress's role in the process: The title is used for the apparent winner and is finalized when the Electoral College votes in December and when their ballots are counted in a joint session of Congress on January 6. At this point, I think we should move this to the article space. Modocc (talk) 17:25, 13 December 2008 (UTC)

References

Requested edit

This article does not answer my question.

Is the President-elect an official title or it is just a term made up to describe the incoming President?

What is the definition of President-elect? Is it whom the press assumes will be President due to winning enough states? Or is it after the electors vote?

Is it theoretically possible that Trump could be President-elect and then Hillary becomes President-elect after the electors vote? Or would Trump just have been the "mistakenly assumed to be President-elect but wasn't"?

This Wikipedia article could be improved by addressing these questions in the text of the article. Lakeshake (talk) 17:12, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Answer: the answer seems to be in the talk pages. It is an official term. So put it in the article Lakeshake (talk) 19:02, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It's already in the article. The lead sentence of the article gives the definition, with a reference, and the article later discusses the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, which formalizes the term.

It's certainly possible for the person designated "president-elect" to change before the inauguration. As the article mentions, the president-elect is first designated by the GSA Administrator, solely for purposes of getting the transition moving as quickly as possible. Either the Electoral College vote or Congressional confirmation process can change who the president-elect is.--NapoliRoma (talk) 20:15, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Archiving

Any objections to automatic archiving for threads that have been dormant for 90 days? --Boson (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

Given the size of this page, under 50,000 bytes, and the number of years it's taken to get that large, 8, I'm not sure a 90-day auto-archive is necessary. Is there a particular reason why you're suggesting it? Drdpw (talk) 18:34, 16 December 2016 (UTC)

No particular reason. I felt that people would be more likely to read previous comments if there were less of them. The nature of the topic means that most of the comments will be four years old. --Boson (talk) 11:44, 17 December 2016 (UTC)

A list for the Vice Presidents-elect

Shouldn't there be a table listing all the incoming vice presidents at the #Vice President-elect section? I think there should be.--Nevé–selbert 23:58, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

No, it should just be an added column to the preceding table. Can't have one without the other. Consequently, the two sections should probably be merged. YBG (talk) 00:26, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it isn't as simple as that. There have been a) several Presidents who were elected with different VPs for different elections, and b) also VPs who served under two consecutive presidents. How would you shoehorn Henry A. Wallace or George Clinton into the list. Which is not to say we shouldn't create a list, but your solution doesn't work, because there is not a 1-to-1 correspondence between President-elects and VP-elects, in the case of Wallace, he was a VP elect while his president (FDR) wasn't the President-elect (since FDR was re-elected in 1936) and George Clinton has the opposite problem, he would NOT have been the VP elect when Madison was elected, since Clinton was Re-elected VP in 1808. --Jayron32 00:35, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

You are absolutely correct. But I think the best way would be to add an extra column to the table and a few rows with '(None)' in the President-elect column. Oh, and two rows with '(None)' in the VP-elect column. YBG (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Why should a Vice President-elect list be created and added to this article? It's of secondary importance in an article titled "President-elect of the United States. Drdpw (talk) 00:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I suppose so. Even the President-elect table is a bit of a reach. The article would be just fine without it. Maybe just mention the following stats

• The number of Presidents-elect there have been (the times an election has resulted in a new President)
• The number of times the President has changed without having first been President-elect (due to death or resignation of the predecessor)
• The number of times there has been a President-elect without a VP-elect (twice when a VP continued but the President changed)
• The number of times there has been a VP-elect without there being a President-elect (when a president changed VP's for subsequent terms, e.g., Lincoln, FDR)
• The number of times a VP has entered office without having been a VP-elect (Ford, Rockefeller)

Even this seems to be spilling more ink than it is worth, but having a complete table with the superfluous dates seems way over the top. And the VP-elect? If being VP isn't worth a bucket of warm piss, what does that say about being VP-elect? YBG (talk) 01:51, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Like --Jayron32 01:58, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Not worth a tinker's dam. Drdpw (talk) 02:06, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Simple and straightforward, I'd say. Of all the men elected VP, only Ford and Rockefeller were appointed.--Nevé–selbert 15:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

How about adding some informative material, such as what YBG suggests above, and as another editor did by adding the notation about G.F. & N.R. Being VP-designate not -elect? Drdpw (talk) 17:51, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Your immodesty is extraordinary.--Nevé–selbert 17:58, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

When the 25th Amendment does & doesn't apply.

I had to fix up the paragraph via splitting. A vacancy during the transitional period from Election Day to before the Electoral College votes concerning the Vice Presidency, isn't handled by the 25th Amendment. GoodDay (talk) 20:09, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

A good distinction to make; thanks for putting it in. Drdpw (talk) 20:44, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

once again, grammar and seal

Hello, I'm not a native speaker of English. Why is it "President-elect" and not "President-elected"? Is "elect" past tense? If so, it should be "elected". Even if it is future, since the electoral colleage has not voted yed, it should be "President-to-be-elected" ... Can someone explain it from a grammarian's point of view? Is "-elect" an adjective? And how can the hyphen be explained, grammatically seen? And Trump uses this red self-made seal. In this seal, there is no hypen between "President" and "elect". Why is that? I'm sure that the guys working for him checked the correct spelling before, didn't they? I'm really thankful for a solid, linguistic answer on this. I just want to understand your language better. Thank you, Natascha. 80.171.228.35 (talk) 22:22, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

Elect is being used as a postpositive adjective in this case. As for Trump's seal, it could just be a personal preference for him. Calidum 03:52, 14 January 2017 (UTC)

Wikipedia: Left-Wing Bias?

I personally believe that Wikipedia should be ashamed of itself on hopping on the Big Media bandwagon (the top 5 TV networks made over US$192 billion in 2018, excluding telecom assets) and, with a left-wing and anti-Trump bias, declaring Joe Biden and Kamala Harris as winners of the election. Many states are disputed or close calls. There are investigations and court cases about irregularities, faulty vote counts on machines, and more. Wikipedia should stop limiting itself to parroting Big Media talking points, and instead, it should fairly present every valid reception of this election by political parties and independent investigators. --LABcrabs (talk) 18:37, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Smaller sources are absolutely fine, so long as they are somewhat reliable. In this particular instance, every reliable source, big and small, left and right, are in agreement, so I don't see how this is indicative of any bias. If left wing sources said one thing and right wing sources said another, then it would be different, but that isn't the case. Awoma (talk) 21:36, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

@Awoma: Every reliable source? Not quite. Check out this article from AllSides: https://www.allsides.com/blog/biden-projected-winner-or-president-elect Ganymede94 (talk) 12:17, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

It does look like every reliable source, yes. Looking at the article from AllSides, they mention the Washington Examiner and Voice of America as not using the term president-elect for Joe Biden. However, the most recent articles on this topic from both sources do indeed use this term. See here and here. The remaining outlets covered, Epoch Times and Newsmax, do indeed not use the term president-elect. However, neither is considered reliable. There is no consensus around Newsmax, and there is a consensus that Epoch Times is unreliable. I should say that my response here and the links I give do postdate the AllSides article, and important things have happened in between (such as Biden winning Georgia and Arizona). In turn, the AllSides article postdates my comment above. It seems like the comment was not true when I made it, but may very well be true now! Awoma (talk) 12:45, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2020

REMOVE If the result of an election is unclear or disputed, [1] no person is normally referred to as president-elect until the dispute is resolved.

This statement is opinion, it is not fact or law by any means, this statement politicizes the article by the author. Mwinkca (talk) 22:15, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

See #Contradiction in article for discussion about that line.  Nixinova   T   C   22:30, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump was called President-Elect the day after the 2016 election even though vote recounts were later done. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 22:39, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

But Clinton had conceded to Trump. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 107.179.255.54 (talk) 03:55, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Presumptive?

Incorrect, his is the Presumptive President Elect (which is not redundant). The President Elect, is the person elected President for the next term following the current term, not the 'presumptive winner of the election'. Not all votes have been counted, there are pending legal challenges, and states have yet to certify their votes. There is no President Elect until the (1) Electoral College votes, (2) there is a concession by the Presumptive loser, (3) the GSA signs off making the President Elect conditionally official based on the final results of the process. This page needs to be updated until we finish with our election, regardless of how we may feel about President Trump. Any other treatment is disinformation and threatens our Democracy. — Preceding unsigned comment added by WikiTruth42 (talk • contribs) 23:10, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

There's nothing to presume. It's simple math and numbers - he won. --50.69.20.91 (talk) 19:19, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Formal voting of the United States Electoral College is on December 14 (conducted in Pennsylvania and other state legislature houses controlled by Republicans ... ), notwithstanding Trump's legal challenges... Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

"Presumptive" means "it is presumed", which is accurate until the Electoral College votes. Until then, while it might be a foregone conclusion that Biden has become president-elect, it is not yet factual to state that Biden IS president-elect. Drdpw (talk) 19:38, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Is there a legal definition of the term, User:Drdpw? The article is called President-elect of the United States, and WP:COMMONNAME tells us that an article title is a natural-language word or expression that indicates the subject of the article. The media is calling him the President-elect, not the presumpative president-elect. Is there a guideline other than COMMONNAME that's more about usage, and less about article titles? If there was serious dispute I could see it, but even the right-wing USA media is calling him the president-elect. It's good enough for FoxNews, but not good enough for a neutral? Nfitz (talk) 20:08, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Another editor has now removed the word presumptive and put this in the edit summary: Under the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 the General Services Administration gets to decide who is President-elect for US Government purposes. This appears to have now happened per link As it's now operationally official as well as hard-baked in the public consciousness, continuing to use the word does seem a bit silly. Drdpw (talk) 20:46, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Your link is to an ethics plan that must be submitted by an "Eligible Candidate." Specifically, the Biden-Harris document uses the language: "Should Vice President Biden become the President-elect." There is nothing about this source that confirms the selection of a President-elect. 174.194.153.215 (talk) 22:41, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

That's true - this was there a couple of days ago. Still, the media - even the right-wing pro-Trump media - is now using the term President-elect. Are there reliable sources only using the term "presumptive"? Nfitz (talk) 22:49, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Pro-Trump media is not using the term President-elect. Fox News is not pro-Trump or particularly right-wing. The pro-Trump people who are on the network are still referring to him as just Joe Biden and referring to the election of Joe Biden as a future possibility (words like "if elected.") Same with actual right-wing pro-Trump outlets. -72.217.69.113 (talk) 04:26, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

An addendum, just in case there's any confusion on the stance of Fox News: They're currently punishing any personalities who speak in favor of Trump's challenges. Newsmax, however, has not wrongly called Biden the president-elect. https://www.newsmax.com/newsfront/jeannie-pirro-election-fraud-voter-fraud/2020/11/07/id/995958/ -72.217.69.113 (talk) 06:53, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Newsmax is not a reliable source. What Newsmax does or doesn't call Joe Biden is not relevant to WP. Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 07:04, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The term [Office name]-elect has been around for a couple of centuries, and is in fairly widespread usage internationally. The term presumptive might be misunderstood; the title President-elect is given to the presumptive winner of the presidential election. Saying presumptive president-elect would be redundant. As for presumptive winner, yes, there's ambiguity around when that happens. In this context, presumptive means that, notwithstanding an event or events that would change the status quo, the president-elect will become president. A recount, court challenge, unanticipated event or any combination of these can change the status quo and change who will become president. That is, the title of president-elect does not confer electoral advantage, nor does it prejudice the other candidate(s) rights under law. In the present context, Biden is entitled to be called president-elect. He's the presumptive winner. That doesn't guarantee he will become president, but there would need to be an actual change (not a possible change) in the tally of votes such that Biden is no longer the presumptive winner of the election. As a side-note, according to Miriam-Webster, there's a historical link between Associated Press and the title of president-elect in the US. I did some research to ensure I had the major points described above right. I don't have the time to devote to substantial editing of this article, but I hope this helps someone who does. Prime Lemur (talk) 21:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020 (2)

PLEASE ADD:

"If the result of an election is unclear or disputed, no person is normally referred to as president-elect until the dispute is resolved." RoPaul513 (talk) 20:17, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Unclear what you are quoting from. Neutrality^talk 04:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

George W. Bush was not referred to as the President-Elect until Al Gore offered concession to Bush and officially honored him with the title, "President-Elect." on December 13, 2000. Given the court challenges pending currently, Joe Biden should not yet be referred to as "President-Elect" per the Bush precedent. https://www.history.com/this-day-in-history/al-gore-concedes-presidential-election Wftjet (talk) 17:50, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Yeah, calling Joe Biden the President Elect is not accurate. No states have been certified and no electoral college votes even cast, let alone enough to deem someone the president elect. Additionally, no one has conceded, and various legitimate legal challenges have been brought to US courts, including SCOTUS. Wikipedia is tarnished by such politically misleading information. Iamandrebulatov (talk) 18:26, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

On the other hand, Donald Trump was named President-Elect the day after the 2016 election even though several recounts were later conducted in that presidential race. Maybe that is a more appropriate comparison. Liz ^{Read! Talk!} 18:41, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The reliable sources refer to Biden as the president-elect. We follow the reliable sources. Neutrality^talk 19:05, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020 (2)

Suggest re-writing to "The election is still being contested in many states that may change the outcome, but appears Joe Biden will be the President Elect.

Joe biden has not "defeated incumbentDonald Trump" yet, as it is still being contested. 73.249.88.61 (talk) 13:41, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not making this determination, but rather repeating what has been reported in multiple reliable, published sources. You're welcome to take this up with those sources directly. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

|}

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

Please add the following disclaimer:

Joe Biden has not won the election as of 11/12/2020 at 4:52 pm est. Media companies are very powerful, but do not have to power to call an election and name a president. This article is misleading and dangerous to easily manipulated minds. 47.18.92.16 (talk) 21:54, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done You don't need any certain power to call an election; all you need is a calculator. Wikipedia is simply reporting what reliable sources are stating. Tiderolls 22:04, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 November 2020

The Joe Biden picture caption should be more clear and state "unofficially declared president-elect", as it otherwise could be interpreted that he is officially declared president-elect. 94.234.55.75 (talk) 05:53, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done Same as the last two/three times this same request was made. Biden is the president-elect, as stated by all the reliable sources. The title is not a trademark or something that is unilaterally bestowed by Donald Trump, so it's not at all clear what "official" even means in the above question. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 13:27, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit requests on 11 November 2020

Joe Biden is not yet "president-elect", he's a best "favorite to be" or "provisional" "President-Elect" until the existing precesses are exhausted or Trump submits no-one has that title. OspreysPJs (talk) 01:42, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

As of November 10, 2020. Mr. Biden has not conclusively won the majority of the votes. Just today North Carolina went to President Trump. The votes are going to be recounted in Georgia and other states. Surferjohn54 (talk) 04:08, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Remove Biden, he is not President Elect yet, the process is nowhere near complete, the electoral college does not even meet till mid December. The media has made calls that are also still in dispute. The vote isn't even finished counting yet.04:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)Averageamericanx (talk) Averageamericanx (talk) 04:20, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done The reliable sources state that Biden is the president-elect of the United States. Neutrality^talk 04:58, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 13 November 2020

Joe Biden has yet to be selected by the Electoral College. Under the Constitution of the United States, the title of President Elect is formally conveyed upon a candidate only by the Electoral College. This may happen on December 14, 2020 for the most recent presidential election. Jrcastine (talk) 11:25, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Wikipedia is not making this determination, but rather repeating what has been reported in multiple reliable, published sources. You're welcome to take this up with those sources directly. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 16:07, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Jrcastine, "President-elect" has been widely used before the EC vote in past elections too. Perhaps it's an informal term. —Bagumba (talk) 06:43, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 14 November 2020

This dead horse requests that you stop beating it. Gsquaredxc (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Biden has not defeated Trump yet due to trump still not conceding and Supreme Court might rule that Trump won the election like Bush won in 2000 via the Supreme Court while the media claimed Gore won 2000 election 71.169.163.201 (talk) 23:22, 14 November 2020 (UTC)  Not done See the FAQ at the top of this page.--Jasper Deng (talk) 23:30, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Removal of any 2020 nominees until official election results.

This dead horse requests that you stop beating it. Gsquaredxc (talk) 04:48, 16 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
As the legal proceedings for determine the next president of the United States is still underway it is irresponsible to say who the next president of the United States will be. Wikipedia should be the source of factual information on the internet. The next president can not be determined until all lawsuits, legal challenges and recounts are resolved. If we are to put forth that Joe Biden is the next POTUS it should be added that as of the time of writing the article he is the candidate leading the race and not the next POTUS. It should also be noted that while president-elect is an “unofficial term” it is an official term but only after the electoral college meets and casts their votes for who will be the next POTUS. WulfNorth (talk) 14:38, 15 November 2020 (UTC) WulfNorth, see the FAQ at the top of the page (or Talk:President-elect of the United States/FAQ).—Bagumba (talk) 15:18, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Hey Bagumba, when did terms decided by the Electoral College get decided by the media and reliable sources? WulfNorth (talk) 16:20, 15 November 2020 (UTC) Wikipedia is based on WP:SECONDARY sources. When those sources are widely reporting something, that's what Wikipedia should be saying. Binksternet (talk) 16:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC) If you have new reliable sources that support your interpretation, feel free to establish a new consensus.—Bagumba (talk) 16:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2020

This dead horse requests you stop beating it. Gsquaredxc (talk) 19:41, 17 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
He has not been determined to be president elect only states can grant this and they have not, the media doesn't elect presidents. 71.201.111.218 (talk) 13:09, 17 November 2020 (UTC) Declined. Asked and answered; see WP:RS. --Yamla (talk) 13:21, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

*Projected* President Elect

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.

---

The states have not all certified the results yet. The media does not dictate who is the president elect, they can only project who will be. This page is a bunch of liberal propoganda trying to control the narrative. I noticed you also removed the line saying that if the results of the election are contested the projected winner isn't to be declared president elect until it's certified. Tell me what's so wrong with that? Goes against the narrative? Let me guess voter fraud doesn't exist and never has? This site is a joke. Smangy (talk) 19:44, 16 November 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.

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 19 November 2020

This dead horse requests you stop beating it. Gsquaredxc (talk) 20:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
Change "Joe Biden is the president-elect of the United States, having defeated incumbent Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election." to "According to media reports, Joe Biden is the unofficial president-elect of the United States, which according to media projections, has defeated incumbent Donald Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Officially, Joe Biden would become the president-elect when the electors meet on December 14th, 2020 and send their Certificates of Vote to the National Archives and Records Administration. " 2600:8800:6A00:4B5:254B:65F6:69BE:97D3 (talk) 21:35, 19 November 2020 (UTC) Looks suspicious 2600:1012:B10C:B98F:0:38:6144:7F01 (talk) 22:39, 19 November 2020 (UTC)  Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. :The language you are requesting is already present in the lead: "An unofficial term, president-elect has been used by the media for decades." – Jonesey95 (talk) 23:09, 19 November 2020 (UTC) References The problem with the lead is that "President-elect" is not only an unofficial term; it also appears in the US Constitution, making it a legal term. As law professor Garrett Epps wrote in American Epic (emphasis mine), from a legal perspective: "...in the Constitution’s language, “President elect” and “Vice President elect” are terms that have meaning only in relation to the electoral votes mentioned in Article II and the Twelfth Amendment. (As the luckless Al Gore learned in 2000, “merely” winning a vote of the people works no change in a candidate’s constitutional status.)" At the very least, there ought to be an explanation in the lead that there is dispute around the legal term (which is included in the article), and that the article is relying on the informal use of the term in describing Joe Biden as president-elect rather than the legal term "President elect" as used in the Constitution. Elle Kpyros (talk) 16:51, 20 November 2020 (UTC) "not only an unofficial term" if it's an either-or case then what's wrong with using the unofficial term? It 'also' being a legal term is irrelevant. 2600:1012:B10C:B98F:0:38:6144:7F01 (talk) 18:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Inclusion of the infobox, 2020

After checking versions from November 2016, I included the infobox to reflect the understanding that Biden appears to be the president-elect. That edit was since overturned by User:Zzyzx11:

This is a common or honorific title, not an official political post, and it does not necessarily get used every four years if the incumbent gets re-elected

I do not have an opinion on the legal substance of the argument. I do find the infobox useful and clear, and based on precedent, there was no problem using it four years ago, even starting in November. As far as I know, there is nothing new about the meaning of "president-elect" compared to four or twelve years ago. Even though made in good faith, I don't think the revert was necessary. - Bert Macklin (talk) 19:07, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

There has been no infobox here since at least 2017.[2] The infobox was also previously reverted early today at 17:46, 7 November 2020 by Drdpw [[3] My problem is it may give the false impression that this is a formal political office, with a specific term. In addition, to the reasons in the edit summaries, it does not necessarily start on Election Day. But I will let others weight in. Zzyzx11 (talk) 19:26, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Reverted Edit

I made this edit, which I believed improved the lede in several ways, such as by:

• changing the claim that the President-elect becomes the President on taking the oath (which is what the U.S. Constitution says in Article II, Section One, Clause 8), rather than saying it occurs after.
• noting that the position of President-elect is mostly vacant
• clarifying the material that considers the 25th Amendment (without naming it) to clarify that the VP becomes President and that this occurs when the oath is taken.

I note that I inadvertently added a red link in the process.

LeoC12 reverted the entire edit with the edit summary "No need for citation in the introductory paragraph." Leaving aside that I added no citation and presuming it is the mention of Article II, Section One, Clause 8 that was the reason for the objection, it is unclear whether any other part of the edit was considered nor whether a blanket revert was necessary or appropriate. Noting that WP:REVERT specifically states "Reverting is appropriate mostly for vandalism or other disruptive edits. ... If you see a good-faith edit which you believe lowers the quality of the article, make a good-faith effort to reword instead of just reverting it." It goes on to add "If you object to only part of an edit, consider reverting only that part and leaving the rest alone. The encyclopedia is damaged when positive contributions that should be preserved are caught up and lost in a revert."

Now, I know my changes were not vandalism nor disruptive editing, and they were certainly made in good faith. I don't believe in edit warring, and so I am posting here to request other editors express a view on my changes and consider reinstating some portion of them. I am not suggesting that they were ideal or could not be improved, but I don't believe that they deserved blanket reverting. EdChem (talk) 12:24, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

NPOV / POV pushing

It's all getting a bit wordy and feels like original research. Seems like there a lot of potential for NPOV / POV pushing here. I'd strongly recommend Wikipedia doesn't make the same mistake others are making and just reference some articles which are taking various sides of the story.

here is a good one https://time.com/5903361/contested-election-history/

— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:72b0:f600:e49d:fea6:fdd3:cbdf (talk • contribs) 00:56, 11 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 18 November 2020

Dudes, you left out Johnson!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! (after Kennedy :)) 66.214.133.246 (talk) 03:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: Johnson assumed the role after Kennedy's death; it was not an election. He was the incumbent when he won in 1964.—Bagumba (talk) 04:17, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

former Vice President

Should it be a hyphen or en dash? That depends on whether this term is 'Vice (President-elect)' or '(Vice President)-elect'; which is it?  Nixinova   T   C   18:53, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

> That depends on whether this term is 'Vice (President-elect)' or '(Vice President)-elect'; which is it?

No, it doesn't matter. It's never a dash joining words Swordfishx86 (talk) 19:24, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Fox news is using a hyphen - here. Nfitz (talk) 20:09, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Yes it is, when words with spaces are used the hyphen is replaced with a dash [4] [5]  Nixinova   T   C   21:44, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

I thought a hyphen was just a Greek word for a dash. DavidFarmbrough (talk) 15:13, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

According to MOS:SUFFIXDASH, the en dash is employed as a "super-hyphen" when it refers to a compound word, like "Vice President". It should therefore be an en dash, Vice President–elect, not a hyphen, Vice President-elect. Other sources have different standards for hyphens and dashes and are therefore not relevant to Wikipedia's particular manual of style. Michipedian (talk) 18:51, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Don't do that, as it only messes up the redirects to this article. GoodDay (talk) 05:53, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 17 November 2020 (2)

The President elect isn't decided until December 14 2020. You can't post that Joe Biden is the President Elect until after the electoral votes are confirmed. https://www.archives.gov/files/electoral-college/state-officials/presidential-election-brochure.pdf 162.154.139.18 (talk) 22:57, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

 Declined Covered by the FAQ at the top of the page, please read it. --Yamla (talk) 23:14, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

I agree with this comment. Read what the article says about it, please. Quote: "Both reports make clear that becoming president-elect is contingent upon winning a majority of the electoral votes cast." Pkeets (talk) 04:38, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia is driven by reliable secondary sources, which are unanimous in calling Joe Biden president-elect. Awoma (talk) 08:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

These are all media sources, yes? More official sources within the article already say it's the electoral college and not the media that establishes the "president-elect" position. Perhaps we should add a section on this controversy? Pkeets (talk) 02:26, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Will you stop being so obsessed with who certifies it? Wikipedia is based on reliable sources, not "certification sources". Wikipedia is not the United States government. 2606:6000:60CC:C900:7CCD:E78D:49F:A7A7 (talk) 03:38, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Agree with Pkeets that a section on this controversy might as well be added, since RS are reporting it. Also agreed that it makes no sense to insist on relying on any number of media reports if they are demonstrably wrong about what is, in fact, a legal term in the US Constitution (certainly for the purposes of this article; it would be fine to have a second article about the popular-media definition of the word). Wikipedia is not a newspaper, after all. Elle Kpyros (talk) 01:04, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Ekpyros: Feel free to cite reliable sources that say it is a "legal term".—Bagumba (talk) 07:02, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Sure, from Politifact: "In the most formal sense, Biden will officially become the president-elect after the General Services Administration initiates the transfer of power by “ascertaining” the election results and Congress officially counts the electoral votes on Jan. 6, said Pildes." It's precisely what I stated earlier: that "President-elect" is a term used informally by media, but that the actual, legal definition is the person who has won the Electoral College, not the person whom the media "projects" to win it. There's no reason to avoid making this clear, and, IMHO, no need to rush to describe Biden as such without clarification, given that Wikipedia isn't a newspaper. Elle Kpyros (talk) 15:07, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Further, from Government Executive (emphasis mine): "Under the 1963 Presidential Transition Law (amended in 2010 and 2016), the “president-elect” and “vice-president-elect” are defined as “the apparent successful candidates for the office of president and vice president, respectively, as ascertained by the administrator following the general elections. The law “doesn’t say anything about how to decide—it could be tea leaves or newspapers,” said Jim Williams, who as acting GSA chief in November 2008 determined Barack Obama and Joe Biden were the “apparent winners” of that election (pending formal designation by the Electoral College weeks later). Whether Trump issues a concession should not affect the call, Williams said, because of the shortage of time." More here, explaining that Biden is still in a "pre-elect" phase: "The administrator’s ascertainment is done for the purposes of making services provided by the [transition act] available. Until an ascertainment is made, the statute allows for the Biden transition team to continue to receive the pre-elect services from the government…" Elle Kpyros (talk) 16:03, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

This is Wikipedia, not Politifact, so we are allowed to use RS beyond just Politifact and its so-called legal term. And read the response by Hijiri below. Also note that Trump himself was called president-elect in 2016 in Wikipedia right after the """"unofficial"""" election. 2600:1012:B10C:B98F:0:38:6144:7F01 (talk) 18:06, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

References

President elect article contradictory information

The article states the candidate is considered the president elect when he has won the presidential election and in the same article it states he is considered the president elect at any time between the popular vote and the swearing in. The actual election occurs when the electors vote. That is the only election that can determine the presidency or the path to the presidency. This is blatantly contradictory and needs to be updated to state only the former or only the latter. Why is editing off? Im so glad I donate to this site and now am unable to provide a very factual correction. Thank you Wikipedia for your attempt at open sourced information. One day somebody may get it right. Willswildworld (talk) 00:25, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Willswildworld, I understand your concern but whether Biden is the president-elect is not a decision made by editors like you or me – our verifiability policy says we use whatever wording is presented in reliable secondary sources, and right now that's overwhelmingly that Biden is president-elect. KevinL (aka L235 · t · c) 01:21, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

The lead and "Presidential transitions" section is lacking information on how it is determined who "won". Traditionally, the press calls it, the loser concedes, and then an accpetance speech is given. Because there has been no concession this year, some people are wondering who determines "President-elect".—Bagumba (talk) 06:35, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, be interesting to find RS that are discussing that exact issue in depth (rather than the brief mentions I've seen.) It seems like it would be worth a small section here and at United States Presidential transition, Presidential transition of Joe Biden? —valereee (talk) 12:16, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Valereee, I found this which kind of speaks to the unofficial nature of the term. I might get to at some point if someone else doesn't first.—Bagumba (talk) 14:09, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

I took a stab here.—Bagumba (talk) 16:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Bagumba, I think that looks pretty good! —valereee (talk) 20:07, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

That source also points out that the term traditionally only applied after the electoral college voted. Powers ^T 13:45, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

It says "In the old days", which is not necessarily "traditional". I imagine it was before mass communication existed, but would definitely be worth expanding with sources.—Bagumba (talk) 02:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The argument that we simply defer to RS phrasing as factual evidence that someone has met a (quasi)legal standard, then Al Gore should be referred to as a "former President-elect", no? Elle Kpyros (talk) 00:59, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Ekpyros: I doubt if post-2000 sources refer to him as such.—Bagumba (talk) 06:56, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

I don't think a preponderance contemporary sources ever referred to him as President-Elect anyway. Gore initially conceded before retracting his concession when Florida turned out to be closer than thought. I don't think there was ever a time when Gore was the presumptive winner. Powers ^T 23:42, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

Al Gore was never, as far as I recall, referred to as "president-elect". Drdpw (talk) 23:54, 20 November 2020 (UTC)

wp:weasel

"President-elect has been used by the media for decades". This is the sort of statement that ought to be easily identified with "at least as early as year X". 2601:602:9200:1310:41D1:D48E:77AA:4AE3 (talk) 07:07, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

It's verifiable, so not sure how WEASEL applies. If there are more details available, then by all means expand it.—Bagumba (talk) 07:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Weasel words are words and phrases aimed at creating an impression that something specific and meaningful has been said, when in fact only a vague or ambiguous claim has been communicated. A common form of weasel wording is through vague attribution, where a statement is dressed with authority, yet has no substantial basis. Phrases such as those above present the appearance of support for statements but can deny the reader the opportunity to assess the source of the viewpoint. They may disguise a biased view. Claims about what people say, think, feel, or believe, and what has been shown, demonstrated, or proved should be clearly attributed. 2601:602:9200:1310:41D1:D48E:77AA:4AE3 (talk) 04:37, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

The source given in the article states "For decades news outlets have used the term to describe presidential winners, but there is nothing official about the term" so this isn't a weasel words violation. Awoma (talk) 11:00, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

GSA Declares whom is president elect not the media.

1) At this link, it is shown that 3 USC 102 says: (c) The terms 'President-elect' and 'Vice-President-elect' as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2.

https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhtml?req=(title%3A3%20section%3A102%20edition%3Aprelim) The Wikipedia article currently puts this in a footnote. I think it is misleading to relegate this to a footnote.

2) The Wikipedia article currently states: "Politicians have applied the term to the declared winner, even soon after election night" and then links this article: https://www.nbc12.com/2020/11/10/decision-meaning-behind-president-elect/ However, that is misleading, because it does not include the relevant fact that **usually** the elections are not extremely close and more importantly **usually** a candidate has conceded on election night. To leave out that a candidate has usually conceded before the term is used is misleading. This is not in line with Wikipedia source standards. There is a sentence written by Karina Bolster but there is no evidence for that statement.

• — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:840:8400:EC10:E4E7:7BE5:C385:481E (talk) 18:27, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Can someone fix the Transition act link please? It doesn't go to the text of the law.

President-elect is used when the electorial college determines there are enough votes to officially make the non incumbent the president and they are there is not a debate or a clear winner. The GSA officially declares the president elect and also gives funds to the president-elect trasision team upon their approval. As in Bush / Gore with Florida the GSA did not approve funds until Dec 4th, 2000 and the canadate was not called presiden-elect until that time.

Wikipedia is contradicting itself declaring Biden president-elect.

Joe Biden is pending confirmation from the GSA to be declared president-elect upon review of the states being contested.

News media organizations are not officially able to declare Joe Biden president elect as of yet. 2603:8080:EC05:C57C:D587:A06F:577:DB7E (talk) 04:41, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

When someone becomes the president-elect is not enshrined in law, only conventions. Can you show an RS that states that the President-elect is used when the electorial college determines...? Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 05:58, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The GSA transition overview shows a President-elect from November 4, 2020. EdChem (talk) 12:28, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The problem is that this Wikipedia article itself seems to suggest that the president-elect is confirmed by the GSA: "Since 1963, U.S. federal law has empowered the General Services Administration to determine who the apparent election winner is..." If we accept that as true, then it conflicts with the idea that Biden is the president-elect, because the GSA appears to have made no such judgment. Ultimately, the article must reflect the ambiguity of the term "president-elect." The declarations of media corporations are only one piece of the puzzle, along with the GSA, Electoral College vote, etc. Emphasizing only the colloquial definition that media companies are using will distort readers' understanding of how the US electoral process actually works.LouMichel (talk) 22:02, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

• The construction of {Office}-elect has existed for centuries. There is no evidence that the specific term President-Elect was invented for the Presidential Transition Act of 1963; indeed, the act mandates that the GSA is only ascertaining what is apparent. Notably, reliable sources were hesitant to use the terms for days after Biden seemed sure to win and only applied it once his victory was "apparent." GreatCaesarsGhost 23:32, 8 November 2020 (UTC)
  • My point was more about the wording of the article itself. It seems contradictory for the article to describe the GSA as being what decides "the apparent election winner" and then to pretend that the GSA has no bearing on designating the "president-elect." Either the GSA decides the "apparent" winner, or it does not; the article should be consistent (and clarify why federal law is supposedly less important than the proclamations of media corporations). We might also keep in mind that the election for president hasn't actually occurred yet (the Electoral College hasn't convened), so we are basing the term "president-elect" on an informal, colloquial understanding of the concept. That's okay, as long as it's made clear that this is casual, popular language and not any kind of official ruling (which is why I edited the article to reflect this). LouMichel (talk) 02:29, 9 November 2020 (UTC)
    • Yes, this makes sense. Maybe some we should say something like there is currently no known legal office responsible for calling a candidate "President-elect". I would argue that you become president elect either when your opponent concedes or when some constitutional process officially makes you president elect (Electoral college vote?). I say this as someone who thinks that the rules for these elections should be decided beforehand and trying to kibitz after the fact just leads to heartache for everyone involved.

• I'd like to bring attention to this rather irresponsible article by cnn- https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/10/tech/biden-lost-pennsylvania-fact-check/index.html

"Misinformation channels claim Biden is no longer President-elect. That's not true." I think the implication here is that because Media(?) declared biden he is president elect, therefore he is president elect. I guess they don't remember dewey defeats truman. This seems to be their proof: "Major outlets like CNN, NBC News, the Associated Press and Fox News have all projected Biden as the winner in Pennsylvania, and none are backing away from that call. " I mean, I'll probably leave the country if the guy is re-elected, but seriously, am I the only one who finds this rather chilling? I thought politicians were just stating the obvious that the media doesn't declare the winner, it honestly never occurred to me that the media actually thought they declared the winner. (He very likely is, but that's totally beside the point. I hope we all understand this) Rupert Murdoch has been quoted by the press as not being happy with Donald Trump. Does Rupert Murdoch declare who is the president elect? I guess that early arizona call is getting more clear.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2001:569:72b0:f600:e49d:fea6:fdd3:cbdf (talk) 23:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

If you don't trust any reliable sources (it's all "media"), then you can always do the mathematics yourself. Biden won, regardless even of the result in Pennsylvania, which Biden won. Awoma (talk) 19:31, 21 November 2020 (UTC)

Incorrect information in first section

The first section of this article incorrectly claims that “An unofficial term, president-elect has been used by the media for decades. Politicians have applied the term to the declared winner, even soon after election night.”

This is not correct.

In 1933 terms “President elect” and “vice president elect” were added to the US constitution in Section 3 of the 20th Amendment. https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxx Thus, it is not an “unofficial term.” It’s a position identified in the US constitution.

In 1963, the presidential transition act defined the “president-elect” and “Vice President-elect” specifically in Sec 3 (a) (7) (c) as “such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of the President and Vice-President in accordance with title 3, United States code, sections 1 and 2.” https://www.gsa.gov/cdnstatic/Presidential_Act_of_1963.pdf

The act, and other following laws go on to define the access and authorities of this title/office and provide funds for them.

So, while things may or may not have been unofficial before 1933 and poorly defined from 1933 to 1963, from 1963 onward we have a precise legal definition of how someone becomes president-elect and Vice President-elect. Per the statute, the President-elect and Vice President-elect are identified by the GSA administrator following the general election to select the electors from each state.

It’s not at all vague, unclear, or “unofficial,” and some candidates have been designated president-elect by the administrator as early as 1am the day after the election. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/18/opinions/obama-gsa-administrator-transition-turner-roth/index.html

There is even an “Office of the President-Elect” defined in memorandums by the GSA as “The Presidential Transition Act, as amended, authorizes the Administrator to seek an appropriation for the purposes of the transition of the Executive Branch of the Government in an election year, some of which is designated specifically for use at the request of the President-elect and Vice President-elect (referred collectively herein as the Office of the President-elect).” https://www.factcheck.org/2020/11/biden-did-not-invent-the-office-of-president-elect/

The article should be updated to remove the incorrect claim that the title “President-elect” is “unofficial” as the title was added to the US constitution in 1933, and is explicitly defined in acts of Congress going back to at least 1963.

RajanPB (talk) 06:33, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

@RajanPB: Your comment contradicts itself on a number of points. For one thing, the 1963 act explicitly defines the term only "as used in this Act", but the fact that the term was used, undefined, in a 1933 constitutional amendment clearly shows that the term was already in use for 30 years before it was defined, in a particular law, as being subject to the recognition of the "Administrator of General Services". Moreover, our article on the General Services Administration implies it didn't exist until the late 1940s -- when it was used in the 20th Amendment, was it referring to an official title that would not exist for more than 15 years after the amendment was passed!?

These kinds of problems are why Wikipedia doesn't rely on original research based on primary sources like this, as you are suggesting the article should do. I think it is highly unlikely that any reliable secondary source will be found to support your assertion that Biden is not the president-elect because Emily W. Murphy has not formally granted that title to him.

Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 06:44, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

If what you're saying is true, then you need to find a reliable secondary source supporting it. Without that, what you've written here can't be incorporated into the page as it would constitute original research. Awoma (talk) 09:30, 22 November 2020 (UTC)

Contradiction in article

In this article it says this: "If the result of an election is unclear or disputed,[1] no person is normally referred to as president-elect until the dispute is resolved."

As the Trump administration is not conceding the election and is going to be litigated doesn't that qualify this election as "disputed" and thus Biden (by the article's logic) wouldn't be referred to as the president-elect?

--Brboyle (talk) 23:25, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

The last time this happened, was 2000, when none of the networks called the election. This time, even the right-wing media have called the election and are calling Biden the President-elect. Reliable sources, and even unreliable right-wing sources are using President-elect. Can you. User:Brboyle provide a source for the current situation, not using the term? No reasonable person would seriously dispute the overall result - perhaps merely quibbling over some details. The article probably should be reworded to deal with the unexpected situation that there'd be unreasonable people involved. Nfitz (talk) 03:18, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The confusion probably stems from the fact, as this article states (though its source suffers from link rot):

There is no indication when that person actually becomes president-elect.

Since when someone becomes the "president-elect" is not enshrined in law - only in conventions - it is not incorrect for media outlets to use it, and therefore we should use it as well until an RS disputes this.

Fizzbuzz306 (talk) 05:55, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Sources within the article state that a candidate is officially "president-elect" when the electoral count is taken. Stating Biden is president-elect is pretty hasty, given the circumstances. Pkeets (talk) 02:16, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

No one should, in an official sense, be called president-elect until "formal voting by the members of the Electoral College takes place in mid-December". The article should preface that with "presumptive". Bobiki (talk) 19:10, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

Bobiki Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, not necessarily what is official or legal. If reliable sources call Biden president-elect, then we do. We don't wait for formalities (and there is no formal or legal definition of "president elect"); reliable sources can do math and see what the official vote will be. If you disagree with the sources, you will need to take that up with them. 331dot (talk) 20:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC)

GSA Administrator Emily W. Murphy letter to Joe Biden

Added image of GSA letter to the page, feel free to move it to a different location, remove it, and/or discuss. Thank you, Right cite (talk) 00:27, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

@Right cite: I'm not sure if making content edits to silence the trolls is a good idea, since that's usually what page protection is for. I'm assuming this will be removed from the article once Biden is sworn in, Trump tweets out that he was just kidding with all the subversion of democracy, or the change otherwise becomes unnecessary to protect the article from vandalism? I haven't seen a precedent for such an image being included to this article during the 2008 or 2016 transitions, let alone indefinitely. Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 15:07, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I think it's Ok to leave the image of the letter in the article, even after Biden's inauguration. The political heat of the present moment aside, the letter provides interesting and informative detail about how the GSA notification of the President-elect actually works, what kind of language is used, etc. Personally I find this kind of information a lot more interesting than the logos of the transition teams. If somebody could find texts of similar GSA letters for some of the previous transitions, that'd be pretty interesting too. Nsk92 (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

I would prefer to see a few key sentences quoted and a summation of its contents. Regarding the image itself, while informative, gets lost in the clutter of transition logos; something(s) need to go. Drdpw (talk) 21:58, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Is this official?

The article does nothing about explaining if this title is official or just informal. 2601:602:9200:1310:F83C:3903:6F05:D2EF (talk) 01:23, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

The 3rd sentence reads "An unofficial term, president-elect has been used by the media for decades."—Bagumba (talk) 01:28, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Read under "Congressional Reports." Quote from the article "Both reports make clear that becoming president-elect is contingent upon winning a majority of the electoral votes cast." Pkeets (talk) 04:36, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

It quotes what "Some commentators" think, and then another quote from a committee from 1933. The "Both reports make clear ..." was unsourced, and I've removed it as possible WP:OR.—Bagumba (talk) 04:54, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

What are you going to do about what the reports say? Pkeets (talk) 05:04, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

They say what they say. It's WP:EDITORIALIZING to conclude that they "make clear" unless a secondary source(s) made that observation.—Bagumba (talk) 05:41, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Wait, why is that in the 3rd sentence and not in the first sentence? As in "The president-elect of the United States is an unofficial term used for the person who has won a presidential election in the United States but has yet to take office as president. 2601:602:9200:1310:41D1:D48E:77AA:4AE3 (talk) 07:09, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

Per WP:ISATERMFOR, as this article is more about the person than the word.—Bagumba (talk) 07:47, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

There's still a big dichotomy within the article in regard to what establishes Biden as the "president-elect." The media is not a government branch, so really has no say in the matter. It's just troubling that Wikipedia is making such a strong a statement of fact before the electoral votes are in. Certainly it would be more discriminating for the article to call Biden the "projected president-elect'? Pkeets (talk) 02:32, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

FWIW, this same article was calling Trump the president-elect 4 years ago.[6] What is the rationale for a different interpretation now?—Bagumba (talk) 14:07, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

It is official. The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 says:

linked from the GSA transition law page (which has other substantiating law) says:

(b) The Administrator shall expend no funds for the provision of services and facilities under this Act in connection with any obligations incurred by the President-elect or Vice-President-elect before the day following the date of the general elections held to determine the electors of the President and Vice President in accordance with title 3, United States Code, sections 1 and 2, or after the inauguration of the President-elect as President and the inauguration of the Vice-President-elect as Vice President. (c) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of the President and Vice-President in accordance with title 3, United States code,

sections 1 and 2.

This has been the law for 58 years as of this writing. I'd recommend this article be marked as having multiple problems. I'm a subject matter expert but a lousy wiki editor -- the syntax makes me insane. So if someone could take it on to fix this, the world (minus a few people who will argue with anything) will appreciate it. Shava23 (talk) 22:17, 27 November 2020 (UTC)