Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums

Specific trivia format in U.S. presidential election articles

I noticed that a lot of presidential election articles for U.S. states contain trivia of the form "This candidate was the first Democrat/Republican to win the presidency without X County since year YYYY." Examples: last paragraph of the lead of 2020 United States presidential election in Ohio, last paragraph of 2016 United States presidential election in California#Analysis. As far as I can tell, trivia of this form is very rarely noted outside Wikipedia, unlike similar forms of trivia such as "This candidate broke the streak of X County voting only for one party.". Should trivia items of this form be removed if not supported by a reliable secondary source, even if the trivia is verifiable? Helpful Raccoon (talk) 01:22, 5 October 2024 (UTC)

I see no reason why it should be removed, particularly if the information is verifiable. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 14:41, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Because it is about as useless as other kinds of trivia that are frequently removed from U.S. presidential election articles, see here and here for examples. At the very least, it should not be in the article lead. Helpful Raccoon (talk) 19:03, 6 October 2024 (UTC)

Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States has an RfC

Talk:Ranked-choice voting in the United States has an RfC for possible consensus. A discussion is taking place. If you would like to participate in the discussion, you are invited to add your comments on the discussion page. Thank you. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 18:29, 18 October 2024 (UTC)

Request to improve Lead section of 2024 United States presidential election

Thank you for your contribution to Wikipedia. Would you Please help neutrality of 2024 US election article?

• Any suggestions or solution example: Create the RFC of 2024 U.S.A

presidential election article as it was hastily closed by a specific user?

1. There were many opinions that the biased article in the US presidential election article should be improved.

2. An RFC for improving neutrality was started, and when opinions for improving neutrality came in, it was hastily closed less than two days after the RFC was created.

3. I would appreciate it if you could help improve Wikipedia articles by suggesting the solution; Examples Open another RFC or reopening the relevant RfC so that the opinions of users who want to address neutrality can be posted.

link : [[1]] Goodtiming8871 (talk) 01:21, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Standard title for articles covering all elections of a country/state/territory/province

The articles for United States elections (e.g. 2024 United States elections) and US state elections (e.g. 2024 Texas elections and all the others in Category:2024 elections in the United States by state are formatted as "[year] [country name] elections". But looking in Category:General elections by country, it looks like most other countries are formatted "[year] [country name or demonym] general election", e.g. 2024 United Kingdom general election.

I think these articles should be titled "[year] [country name] elections", e.g. move 2024 United Kingdom general election to 2024 United Kingdom elections. Because these articles are a summary of many different elections. And don't use the demonym (e.g., 2022 Malaysia elections, not 2022 Malaysian elections)

I bring this up because @Number 57: reverted my move of 2024 Puerto Rico general election to 2024 Puerto Rico elections. I was hoping to make it consistent with the titles of all US state/territory elections. Waiting for your input before I mass move all of the articles in Category:General elections in Puerto Rico. HertzDonuts (talk) 17:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

Harmonisation of Category names is usually discussed on Wikipedia:Categories for discussion rather than on project pages, and even if there was consensus here on this project, the regulars at CTD might have a very different conclusion. CeltBrowne (talk) 18:50, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

This has been a point of contention before, 57 has a long-held affinity for "general election" regardless of the circumstances of the elections. Nevertheless, the issue is often that people are discussing two different things — either one election (typically parliamentary) or multiple elections (like in the case of Puerto Rico). I think it is fair to retain "general election" for the former (like the UK example) and move to "elections" for the latter, although it's likely that 57 will oppose discussion of such a move. Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:26, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

it should be "election" in the singular. It is one single event, not a bunch of unrelated contests. COMMON NAME applies to article titles. US election articles are the exception in this regard. But no one in the UK would refer to a general election as "elections". Gust Justice (talk) 19:27, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I firmly agree that the UK page should remain as is; however, the issue is that in many other places (like many US states) the various elections in a year can be separate, distinct elections that oftentimes occur on completely different days. The votes happening in Puerto Rico are for several different offices in different tiers and branches of government — putting them all under the title "general election" doesn't make much sense. It does not work in the context of systems with multiple elections, especially if some are on different days (like in the US, France, Nigeria, Senegal, etc.). For the US, "general election" can't work considering that it is not a clear, common term as it typically refers to the main, non-primary election and these pages regularly include the primaries. "Elections" is neutral and gets the point across without needing to be modified on a case-by-case basis. — Watercheetah99 (talk) 19:45, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree the Puerto Rico article (and the rest of that series) should be moved. The reason they're like that is becuase the person who wrote them named them "general election" to distinguish from primary elections, as they also created articles like 2016 New Progressive Party of Puerto Rico primaries. But that's inconsistent with other articles in the US and should be fixed. I don't think the UK article needs to changed though. Reywas92^Talk 20:24, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

You've made the mistake of assuming that the term "general election" means the same thing across the world - it does not. In the US it refers to all (federal, state, local) scheduled elections which take place on a set date, usually in early November. In the UK it only refers to parliamentary elections. The term is hardly used in non-English speaking countries. And most of the articles in Category:General elections by country only relate to national legislative elections, they exclude other elections such as local elections. For example, there wasn't only the parliamentary election in 2024 in the UK, there was also the 2024 United Kingdom local elections which occurred on a different day. Obi2canibe (talk) 20:35, 25 October 2024 (UTC)

• I reverted the move primarily because it made the article inconsistent with all the others in Category:General elections in Puerto Rico. However, such elections are widely referred to as general elections, e.g. by CEEPUR (the Puerto Rican election commission), Green Papers, Puerto Rico election archive etc. It's also worth noting that there is a different standard for states and US territories, with the latter largely using 'general election' (e.g. 2024 United States Virgin Islands general election, 2024 American Samoan general election and 2024 Guamanian general election (until HertzDonuts moved it). Number 57 01:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

  I think you are right; I will move the Guam general election articles back to the format "[year] Guam general election". HertzDonuts (talk) 13:19, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Inclusion of Vice Presidential Candidates in the United States Presidential elections before the 12th Amendment

I recently added "Vice Presidential" candidates in the infoboxes for the US Presidential Elections between 1788-1800. This was due to:

A: All candidates for either offices received the exact same electoral votes, with no distinction being made for either office, making them all legally equal contenders for the office.

B: In both 1796 and 1800 a VP candidate was viewed as a potential Presidential option by the electors (therefore the VPs didn't really play in de-facto submission to the "top of the (extremely vague and loosely defined) ticket", as was the case with Pickney in the former election being supported by Hamilton as a candidate to be president, and (less definitively) Aaron Burr's (potential) run at the Presidency.

C: Specifically in the case of 1800, the infobox does a poor job conveying why a contingent election was needed, showing a Jefferson and Burr tie in the infobox (reflecting the way the Electoral College truly worked at the time) would make it easily apparent why the contingent election was needed to viewers who only glance at the page.

D: Excluding the "Vice Presidential" candidates from the infobox attempts to mold these first four elections as working the exact same as modern ones, which is objectively not the case.

E: Some State pages (for example: the 1788 election in Virginia) shows the election with Vice Presidential contenders in line with my edits.

For these reasons I am reverting the past reversion by @Gelid Lagopus and seeking that further discussion on this topic take place here.

Thanks, Zed381 Zed3811 (talk) 04:21, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I reverted those un-discussed changes. The 1788, 1792, 1796 & 1800 US presidential election pages' infoboxes have been stable for quite some time. I disagree with adding candidates who got elected vice president. GoodDay (talk) 04:58, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I disagree with the notions of maintaining the pages' "stability" as a reason to avoid much needed changes to the format. The first four elections, in their current state, are not only incredibly over simplified but do not reflect the way elections at that time worked due a the modern view of US Presidential Elections being imposed on them.

Thnaks, Zed381 Zed3811 (talk) 05:07, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

We disagree then, as I still believe candidates who got elected veep, shouldn't be in the infoboxes. GoodDay (talk) 05:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

No reasoning for keeping the article the way it was (in an objectively subpar state) had been given, just WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT Zed3811 (talk) 15:10, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

AGAIN, we shouldn't have candidates listed in the infobox, who were elected vice president, as presidential candidates. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

So why is Thomas Jefferson included in the 1796, this is completely arbitrary, there was legally no difference between the Presidential and Vice Presidential election, they were all competing in the same race. Zed3811 (talk) 16:37, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Jefferson was the designated presidential candidate of his party. GoodDay (talk) 16:53, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Yet the endorsement of the party had no actual effect on the way election worked, Adams "led the federalist ticket" yet there was a serious campaign to elect Pickney the "VP candidate" as President, the pre 12th amendment notions of "VP Candidate" were vague and loosely defined enough that it makes no sense to exclude candidates considered to be "running for the Vice Presidency" (a race that didn't legally exist). Zed3811 (talk) 18:42, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I think the "Vice Presidential" candidates should be included in the infobox, even when the congressional nominating causes specifically designated Burr and Pinckney as the junior partners of the ticket. There was no separate vice-presidential election at the time, as separate presidential and vice-presidential balloting didn't begin until 1804. All votes were cast for the presidential election, with the runner-up in that presidential balloting becoming vice president. This system meant that any "Vice Presidential" candidate could potentially become president if they received enough electoral votes, and made it possible for the executive roles to be split between members from different tickets. This is why a contingency election was needed in 1800, as Jefferson and Burr tied in the presidential balloting (mainly due to the incompetence of the Democratic-Republicans) Wowzers122 (talk) 13:17, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I think this proposal makes sense, but I'm afraid of making the infoboxes too confusing. I don't have a strong opinion on this either way, I think it all depends on how the infobox looks visually and whether it is too busy that should determine whether or not this change is implemented. BootsED (talk) 15:50, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

What are your thoughts on the info boxes that I created for including them, I agree they probably could be better and less confusing.

Perhaps by explaining the system a little more indepth at the top?

i.e. "132 members of the electoral college with 264 total votes

67 electoral votes needed to win" Zed3811 (talk) 16:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@BootsED, Aquillion, Muboshgu, Prcc27, HAL333, Slatersteven, and Bob K31416:, you input would be appreciated. GoodDay (talk) 15:36, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

Well for the same reason as Wowzer I say they should not be, as they weren't in fact separate candidates, but rather candidates for the office of president. Slatersteven (talk) 15:40, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

This isn't entirely accurate, In 1796 for example there was a serious effort to install Pickney as president through the works of prominent figures such as Alexander Hamilton, since there wasn't really any true "campaigning" at the time, this pretty amounted to a presidential campaign. Zed3811 (talk) 16:33, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

I support the proposed changes. The “second vote” was a de facto vote for vice president, but was a de jure vote for president. However, we need a footnote to explain the nuances so that our readers understand that the procedure used to be that the runner-up was elected vice-president. Prcc27 (talk) 20:25, 26 October 2024 (UTC)

@Slatersteven: Could you please clarify your comment? Wowzers122 seems to support the changes, but your comment seems to be against the change, even though you said your view is in line with Wowzers122. Prcc27 (talk) 00:46, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Yes I am against the change, but using the same reasons, that they were in fact, presidential candidates. Slatersteven (talk) 11:26, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

• For the curious, this is what the proposal looks like (vs. this current version.) I can understand where it is coming from, but if we're talking about that specific layout, I feel that it makes the infobox too confusing; few readers are going to understand the full context of how early US elections worked and the infobox can't really explain it, so at a glance it makes it look like eg. Jefferson was running against Burr, which is... sort of true but mostly not, not in the sense that a modern reader would understand it. It's simply not possible for an infobox to contain every possible detail about every election for president in a system that has changed its rules over time. I'm not averse to an alternative layout that conveys this in a less confusing manner but I'm not sure what it would look like. (One thing I'd suggest is avoiding putting the VP's pictures there, so there's no at-a-glance confusion with how we structure modern elections.) --Aquillion (talk) 02:15, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

  I agree an new layout could be made that's less confusion, Id be interested in seeing how a version where your proposal is put in place would look. Zed3811 (talk) 02:21, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

Interesting, that suddenly we have a new editor restoring or making such changes to the infoboxes, without discussing it. GoodDay (talk) 23:11, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

what does that have to do with anything. Zed3811 (talk) 23:38, 27 October 2024 (UTC)

A compromise. For 1796 & 1800 elections, put the veep election bit into a footnote, next to the candidate. That way, it won't take up much space in the infobox & still give the fate of the (pre-12th amendment) presidential candidate runner-up. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Requested move at Talk:Negative responsiveness paradox#Requested move 27 October 2024

There is a requested move discussion at Talk:Negative responsiveness paradox#Requested move 27 October 2024 that may be of interest to members of this WikiProject. Alpha3031 (t • c) 00:10, 28 October 2024 (UTC)

Editnotice

I've created an editnotice for the upcoming U.S. elections: {{U.S. current election editnotice}}. Would anyone mind if I added it to the "2024 United States presidential election in <state>" and "2024 United States Senate election in <state>" pages? Also please let me know if you have any feedback on wording. Elli (talk | contribs) 17:07, 29 October 2024 (UTC)

Early American election portraits

Should the portraits used for candidates in early American election articles be updated to ones painted/representing them closer to the respective election dates?

• 
  1858 portrait by George Healy
• 
  1818 portrait by Gilbert Stuart
• 
  1828 portrait by Charles Osgood

Recently, I restored a version of the 1824 election article that replaced an 1858 portrait of John Quincy Adams with an 1818 one, which is closer to the election date. This change was quickly reverted, so now I'm seeking consensus on this issue and on similar updates for other early election articles that might have this issue, such as the 1828 election for JQA.

I don't understand why we're using using portraits of candidates at much older ages for these early elections simply because they're "one that most people associate with him". JQA did not look that old when the election took place, and the painting itself is from 1858, which is 10 years after JQA's death and 30 years after the election. These aren't biographical articles; they shouldn't be the most recognizable portrait but rather ones more accurate to how they looked at the time. It'd be like using a modern photo of Biden for the 1972 United States Senate election in Delaware because that's hows most people know him. Wowzers122 (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

I believe that Option A or 1858 is the best, as it is the one that has been used the most in history books, books about John Quincy Adams when showing his presidential portrait, as well as other items such as the LBJ Presidential Library & Museum in Austin, TX having the 1858 portrait for Adams on their list of the Presidents and first ladies ~ HistorianL (talk) 00:06, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Pinging parties: @HistorianL:@Dylam X: Wowzers122 (talk) 23:04, 2 November 2024 (UTC)

@HistorianL: In the edit history for 1824 United States presidential election, User @Dylam X: clearly explains why they are altering the image. You reverted without explanation.

Reverts follow. On your second revert, you cited that the users needed consensus first. This is incorrect, the first edit was a WP:BOLD edit and did not consensus first. You have the right to revert, but you need a better reason then "Gain consensus first". Now, you did also cite a second reason and I acknowledge that, but that reason (that it's the image "most associated" with Quincy Adams) is shaky.

A third editor then also made an edit switching to a more time appreciate image. Once again you cite consensus. Well actually, it seems like you did't have consensus, because at that point you had 2 editors seeking a time appropriate image vs one against.

For the record, when I myself I have multiple options to pick for an image of a politician in an infobox, I typically give significant weight to how closely the image matches the person's age at the time. It's far from the only factor, as Image quality is quite important as well, but it is a significant one. What image is "most associated" with the politician is not typically a factor I consider.

If I was to pick one of the three portraits, I would choose either the 1818 or 1828 one rather than the 1858, as they are more accurate to his age. CeltBrowne (talk) 00:11, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

FWIW, Ronald Reagan's photo in 1966 California gubernatorial election is not his presidential portrait. Even Pat Brown, Reagan's defeated opponent in 1966, used a different photo in 1958 California gubernatorial election. If we are doing this for Reagan and Brown or for any 20th- or 21st-century politicians, we'd do the same for politicians from other eras if such an option exists. Howard the Duck (talk) 02:26, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Yes, we should use portraits or photos that most closely resemble the person at the time of election. Sometimes that is not possible (no contemporary portraits, no free photos, bad image quality, etc), but when it *is* possible, it's always the best option. An election is a specific event in time, so it makes sense to aim to represent people as they stood during that moment, rather than aim for something broadly representative — that's something that should be done on their own article. Plus, age and appearance are oftem factors in an election, which is all the more reason to depict the candidates at their approximate age during the election — using a photo where they are much older, or much younger, will lose that context. (Wowzer's example of Biden's 1972 election is a good one: he was, famously, Very Young in that election, and ran on being an agent of change; swap in a photo of Biden as he looks today and that no longer comes across.) For JQA, the 1818 or 1828 portraits would be preferable to the 1858 one. — Kawnhr (talk) 16:16, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Should we show successors in infobox of predecessor, before they take office.

Recently @Wellington Bay: has brought forward the argument that we should show the successors in the infoboxes of their predecessors, before they take office. A few years ago, we had an RFC on this (which I'm trying to find), which concluded we not show them. So, should this method be revisited? GoodDay (talk) 17:27, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

No. The election could be overturned, the winning candidate could die, or civil war could break out and the entire government could fall, before the winner can take office. Jc3s5h (talk) 17:31, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

What about non-elected positions? GoodDay (talk) 17:32, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Here's the RFC-in-question. Perhaps @Mandruss: should be notified. GoodDay (talk) 17:54, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

Thanks for the ping. Yes, the issue has been well settled by RfC, and there are no new arguments that I can see. That should be the end of this discussion. ―Mandruss ☎ 17:57, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

See related discussion, concerning parlimentary opposition leaders, taking place. GoodDay (talk) 18:24, 3 November 2024 (UTC)