Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 04:38, 29 October 2016

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 United States presidential election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Warning: active arbitration remedies The contentious topics procedure applies to this article. This article is related to post-1992 politics of the United States and closely related people, which is a contentious topic. Furthermore, the following rules apply when editing this article: You may not make more than 1 revert within 24 hours on this article (except in limited circumstances) Changes challenged by reversion may not be reinstated without affirmative consensus on the talk page Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. Further information Enforcement procedures: Violations of any of these restrictions should be reported immediately to the arbitration enforcement noticeboard. Editors who are aware of this topic being designated a contentious topic and who violate these restrictions may be sanctioned by any uninvolved administrator, even on a first offense. With respect to the WP:1RR restriction: Edits made solely to enforce any clearly established consensus are exempt from all edit-warring restrictions. Edits made which remove or otherwise change any material placed by clearly established consensus, without first obtaining consensus to do so, may be treated in the same manner as obvious vandalism. In order to be considered "clearly established" the consensus must be proven by prior talk-page discussion. Reverts of edits made by anonymous (IP) editors are exempt from the 1RR but are subject to the usual rules on edit warring. If you are in doubt, contact an administrator for assistance. Whenever you are relying on one of these exemptions, you should refer to it in your edit summary and, if applicable, link to the discussion where consensus was clearly established. The contentious topics procedure can be used against any editor who repeatedly or seriously fails to adhere to the purpose of Misplaced Pages, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process. Contentious topics sanctions can include blocks, topic-bans, or other restrictions. If you are unsure if your edit is appropriate, discuss it here on this talk page first. Remember: When in doubt, don't revert!

Order of candidates in the infobox: It has been agreed by consensus from an RfC at the article United States presidential election, 2016 that US presidential election articles will use the following criteria for ordering candidates in the infobox : order based on results of the candidates or their parties from the previous presidential general election. Link to previous discussion: here

The following images have been discussed:Hillary Clinton (consensus link)  Not contestedDonald Trump (consensus link) C Under discussion, see hereGary Johnson (consensus link) C Under discussion, see here

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Template:WikiProject Donald Trump Template:WikiProject Hillary ClintonPlease add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Elections and Referendums This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. United States: Presidential elections / Government Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. Government (assessed as High-importance). Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Politics High‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

This article is or was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment. Further details are available on the course page. Peer reviewers: Heathercutajar.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016 United States presidential election article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24Auto-archiving period: 7 days

CountdownOnly -2998 days until the Election Day!

A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle

Should Presidential candidates Evan McMullin and Darrell Castle, who have enough votes through write-in access to win the presidency be included in the infobox alongside candidates with enough ballot-access votes to win the presidency?--Guiletheme (talk) 20:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC) As a committed voter for one of the major candidates, I have no dog in the fight between including or excluding them. However, it looks extremely unprofessional of us here at Misplaced Pages for an average Internet user to come to this page as a reference and see Castle and McMullan here one day, removed the next, another user adds them back, another removes them, ad nauseum. We need to have a call for consensus, because it makes it confusing for our readers and most importantly, Misplaced Pages's credibility to have these candidates removed and readded for the same reasons, about the write-ins, ballot access, etc.--Guiletheme (talk) 17:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

More background: Castle and other write-ins are not currently in the infobox because of a consensus reached about four years ago. Here's a link to the original consensus for infobox inclusion in presidential election articles: (Number of candidates in the infobox). The most recent attempts to add write-in candidates started with an attempt to add Castle to the infobox during a discussion on Aug 23 at 735891756, which was challenged (reverted) at 736056459. The addition of Castle and other write-ins have been proposed/challenged/discussed ever since at discussions on this article, including the thread #Infobox inclusion, again and several other threads without reaching a consensus to add them. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• I agree! I consensus shall be put into order! I vote to keep Castle and McMullin in the info-box because they're both are able to reach 270 e.-v.'s, even though write-in states would be required. I also suggest, to make it easier to count votes, that everyone should make their vote in bold, like I did. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 18:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - If they have a potential to win the election, then I think they should be in the infobox, especially since further down on the page it indicates their ballot access and how many write-in votes they have access to / would need. jmcgowan2 (talk) 19:46, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - I am officially neutral in this matter, but I do have to pick a side and I'll pick keep since deletion does not create a better article in this instance. Everyone interested in the topic the article relates to has heard of Clinton and Trump by now, and most have heard about Stein and Johnson, but Castle and McMullin can theoretically win the election and they should be listed alongside the other candidates with enough access as well. Six candidates balances the infobox nicely, we aren't adding undue weight and it does protect Misplaced Pages from accusations of bias, along with providing voters and interested parties information about every candidate with a theoretical path to victory. My goal for this page is to be a neutral, authoritative source for information going into the election since many people use Misplaced Pages as a "starting point" to learn about the topic. --Guiletheme (talk) 19:56, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That's 3 for "keep" and 0 for "don't keep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk • contribs) 20:09, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

We still need a bit more input (and debate, if necessary) for true consensus.--Guiletheme (talk) 20:12, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Guiletheme: What do you mean by that? Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 20:18, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:Consensus is the policy that guides implementing a consensus regarding an article. I have asked other editors to add their input and their opinions so we can achieve a true consensus. Unfortunately, we cannot have a definitive consensus with just three votes and not even a day to debate. In the meantime, I would suggest that Castle and McMullin stay unless a consensus is determined otherwise.--Guiletheme (talk) 20:21, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Guiletheme: Oh, I see. Thanks. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 20:24, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Guiletheme: Also, can you please the edit the area where you wrote about the consensus so that it'll tell people to write their vote in bold? Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 20:28, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep In 2012, the Constitution and Justice Parties were both included in the infobox prior to the election, both of which needed write-in access to reach the 270 EV threshold. The message at the top of the 2012 article's talk page stated that "any candidate with a mathematical chance of winning 270 pledged electoral votes, and thus the election, is included in the infobox... including write-in access in states that have had full electoral slates nominated and certified." I support continuing this approach. It is for voters to determine who will get the electoral votes, and we should not act as gatekeeper and deny infobox inclusion to any candidates who have a possibility of winning the Electoral College. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 20:35, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

That's 4 for "keep" and 0 for "don't keep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk • contribs) 20:40, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Don't Keep -- Literally any American old enough could be listed if we're going to count people who could hypothetically win through write-ins. If a candidate is not on the ballot in enough states to get 270 Electoral Votes, they don't belong in the infobox. Mizike (talk) 20:41, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

In most states, candidates must file in advance in order for write-in votes to count, and we additionally require that they've named a full elector slate, which doesn't always happen. That being said, I think it would be reasonable to require that all infobox candidates must have actual ballot access in at least one state and/or be notable enough for a Misplaced Pages article, just in case someone unnotable happens to file for write-in access in the requisite number of states. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 04:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

That's 4 for "keep" and 1 for "don't keep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk • contribs) 20:42, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

@Jmcgowan2:, @Guiletheme:, @Antony-22:, and @Mizike:, thanks for voting! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 20:47, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

It's not a vote. See WP:NOTVOTE. Also, the running totals aren't really necessary. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 21:14, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Delete, as they (along with Johnson & Stein) will be eventually deleted, after November 8. GoodDay (talk) 21:04, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Don't keep per GoodDay. Also Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin a few things. We do not need a running tally as I'm assuming we are all at least moderately intelligent human beings who can count. Please stop doing that. Also, Misplaced Pages is not a vote.

  Guiletheme, RfCs run for an entire month. Putting the end of this one a few days before the actual election, making the entire process pretty much moot. I've already mentioned this previously on this page as a reason why a RfC on this is going to solve nothing but meh. Whatever. --Majora (talk) 21:15, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

  • I think an abbreviated RfC would be appropriate in this case, lasting perhaps a week. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 21:23, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @GoodDay, Majora, and Antony-22: That's not a valid reason. We can't just assume that none of the third party candidates will meet the already agreed upon post-election inclusion criteria of receiving at least 1 pledged EV or 5% of the popular vote. This reasoning goes against WP:SPECULATION. This RfC is about pre-election inclusion criteria so it doesn't matter which candidates will or will not remain after the election. As for the RfC end date... one month is the suggested length, but we can certainly request that it be closed before then. I'd say 2 or 2.5 weeks is more realistic than 1 week. But even if this RfC doesn't close until a month and becomes moot, at least in 2020 we'll have a thorough discussion we could look back on. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• Well, I understand why you might want to keep them in for now, but I am one of those most stanchly opposed to putting Castle and McMullin in the 'infobox', as much as I respect all of your viewpoints. My opinion is that, in order to preserve all of Misplaced Pages's "neurality and lack of bias" that you mentioned above, I vote to remove Castle (as well as McMullin) from the infobox, as well as the major parties section, the debates section, and the conventions section. From what I can see, simply getting to a 'mathematical majority', as the Constitution Party has done, does not equate to endorsements from a powerful sitting president and actually being considered a viable contender – what do the people here think is the likelihood that they, or any third-party, for that matter, will win? I think that it's just not right that Castle and McMullin get, in essence, the same treatment from us as Clinton or Trump do. And, in the very least, if they're included, I'd suggest that there be three rows, with the current ordering, as I have done multiple times before. The first would constitute Clinton, on the left-hand side, of the incumbent Democratic Party (she's generally the one with the highest support). Trump is there as well – as a major-party nominee, he has received full ballot access. The third one is Johnson, who finished short of only Obama and Romney when he got his party's nomination in 2012, is completely over the map, and usually gets inside of the high single-digits in polling. Then comes the last 'major' third-party candidate, Jill Stein, who, I believe, received one-third of a percent last time around and is also frequently mentioned in the media (both of them are in about a quarter to a third of the articles that I read). After that would be Darrell Castle, who actually belongs to a party and has more 'ballot access' than McMullin, the independent who just recently entered and also has more than 300 – when you count write-ins, of course. Again, I wouldn't much mind if most editors let all of them in, against my wishes, as long as the intent from a lot of you is clear. However, I'd highly recommend that you consider, and implement, this proposal. I also completely agree with Guilletemme that we should keep the top part consistent, though I wouldn't care whether or not we left them – that is, of course, until a consensus is reached. Antony-22's approch looks fair, too, but just because it happened four years ago doesn't mean it should again – even if we can't agree. There was also quite a bit of debate around how we should organize it at that time, as well. And, just for the record, this new system hadn't been implemented, or even brought up, prior to 2012. Similarly, Mikaze, although my vote goes in the same direction as yours does, I just can't see how every adult would be included as of yet. In fact, it will probably be just six of them – for the entire rest of this year. Finally, I don't think a simple 'majority-vote' would amount to a consensus, but, then again, if I'm the only one advocating for four candidates, I guess that would be sufficient to keep all of them. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)
• After the election is over, keep Johnson and Stein with their total number of votes listed. For now, Castle should not be on the infobox because he will not be on the ballot. Surely he will receive votes as well, so after the election is over, re-add him his number of votes. McMullen should be removed for now and re-added once someone can get a picture of him to put in the infobox. As of right now, I add to the consensus of "don't keep" for Castle. BrendonTheWizard (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 02:27, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

People yelling at me for using a term that's "not appropriate" for a consensus and for counting "votes", which is supposedly "not good". Also, I'm getting a picture of David Evan McMullin that I posted on this site deleted due to "non-fair-use" reasons. Maybe we should have a consensus about if I should or shouldn't quit Misplaced Pages. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

Oh, please. This really isn't something to get that worked up about. Misplaced Pages does a lot more damage than this. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

In what way are we doing damage? MartinZ02 (talk) 15:02, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

No, I didn't mean it that way. Sorry if you took it offensively, I regret it that my comment rubbed the wrong way with some editors. That's not what my message was in explaining it to Yuri, but I'm sorry about that, and I take back my positions. I apologize for any inconveniences caused. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Nobody was yelling at you. Just informing a new editor who, understandably, may not know the inner workings of Misplaced Pages how things function around here. Constructive criticism is one of the cornerstones of Misplaced Pages. Right up there with collegiate collaboration. It is not malicious. It is purely informative. --Majora (talk) 21:49, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

I understand, and my opposition to Yuri's comments are the same. Perhaps you could've done that in a more polite way, though? And, as a sidenote, not everything has to be bolded or italicized.

• I don't know who wrote the comment above but I'd like to provide a link that explains why it is a good idea to avoid excessive emphasis. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - they appear to meet the inclusion criteria from the 2012 presidential campaign page, which was adopted by consensus here earlier.XavierGreen (talk) 22:29, 3 October 2016 (UTC)

This, to me, is the best argument for keeping these candidates. But I definitely think that in future elections the inclusion criteria should not include people who can only win via write-in -- doing so just looks silly and opens things up to including Vermin Supreme and the like in the infobox (no offense to Vermin Supreme intended). Mizike (talk) 14:11, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Castle and McMullin are not currently in the infobox because they don't meet the criterion, which is to be on the ballot in enough states to reach 270. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep, but renegotiate who should remain after the election. JC · Talk · Contributions 06:17, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep. 1. The standard should be to include those candidates who have a mathematical chance of winning 270 electoral votes. 2. For determining the previous, write-in access should be counted in those cases where a candidate has named a slate of electors, those electors can be voted for, and the votes for those electors would be counted. That includes some, but not all, forms of access to the write-in mechanism. 3. I am personally dubious that McMullin meets the preceding standard (Castle does meet it). However, in this case editors are edit warring over those two as a bloc, and voting here over those two as a bloc. As Castle ought to be in the infobox, I support the option that puts him in the infobox. 4. None of the preceding matters. This RFC will not conclude until near election day. The edit warring will not cease before election day regardless of the RFC outcome. The revert restriction that exists on this article to prevent such edit warring will not be enforced before election day either. After election day, Castle, McMullin and Stein will all be removed from the infobox regardless of the outcome of this RFC. It is therefore pointless. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 14:50, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

That's 7 for "keep" and 4 for "don't keep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk • contribs) 19:34, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

No, it simply wasn't. Firstly, you're lying. And, more importantly, everyone involved here here has told you to stop. Please respect the Misplaced Pages guidelines. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• These decisions are made based on the quality of arguments, not the raw vote tally. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:43, 4 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, then, in that, case, my humble opinion brings me to accept all of your arguments, but it doesn't seems like many of you are interested in reading my stances. I really respect all of you and how you conduct yourselves here, so please do think about reforming how this page, and others like it, function. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• • • @Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin:. Yuri, please stop keeping a running tally of opinions. It's disruptive and makes it look like a popularity contest, which we have explained it is absolutely not. We are not taking this to a vote. We're soliciting reasoned opinions to create a consensus. Both sides have made cogent points and when we reach consensus, I will respect and do my part to enforce it. To be brutally honest with you, I've been a political consultant and I can guarantee Evan McMullin and Darrell Castle will not win the election. They won't swing the election one way or another unless decisive states come down to hundreds or tens of votes. If it were up to me, I'd have Clinton and Trump in the top of the infobox, Johnson and Stein in the bottom and nobody else there. However, the closest thing we have to a consensus includes Castle and McMullin being included on virtue of their write-in access and their presence there hurts nobody.--Guiletheme (talk) 07:52, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree on that part, Guillemme. I'm very doubtful that Castle will get even a thousand votes, perhaps just a hundred or two, from actually informed people who actually want to vote for him (what I mean is that they understand his positions, researched him, at least somewhat agree with him, etc.), rather than just randomly selecting one at the ballot box or making a 'protest' vote without even knowing who their vote will go to. I do think, however, they'll be especially unlikely to tip the states. Firstly, in places where he, or the slightly more popular McMullin, are eligible to receive votes (even with write-ins included, which are states where their count will very possibly be zero), only represents about 30 percent of America's population when you count not just filing for it, but also the submission of a slate of electors. So it's virtually impossible for them to do anything. And, of course, I see what you're saying about a 2012 consensus, but firstly that wasn't really a consensus, as Sparkie82 pointed out, secondly it's outdated (four years ago), thirdly I don't think it's the right idea, as do many (that's just my opinion though), fourthly it's been refuted by this thread, proving that the majority of us want Castle and McMullin removed (although I completely agree with those of you, who have told Yuri to stop counting 'votes', and . But from what I can see this certainly does not represent any real popular support – or otherwise – for whatever "consensus" you've been bringing up, and so, in the short term, until we reach a real agreement (which may be ], of course) there is absolutely no reason why we should be keeping them on the article. As not-very-well-constructed-or-formed an idea as it was for Yuri to turn the discussion he thankfully started into a plebiscite of sorts, it certainly shows that the majority (not that that's the standard, but supporters of inclusion have less than half) here would not want them in the infobox. And I think it should be changed to reflect that, because I think that everyone who has voiced their thoughts this past week here have all had good arguments, and ideas as to how they support them and why (thanks Shumogul for helping) on both sides. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Don't keep The 2012≥ election page has Obama and Romney only, and that's how most of them are. Nader isn't included in 2000, in spite of his real impact. Why include people who aren't on enough ballots for 270 EV? They're not gonna get the write ins in the states that allow it. I am sure Stein will be removed after the election, and Johnson probably will too. Why keep McMullin and Castle now? – Muboshgu (talk) 19:49, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
  • That's because we have one criteria for pre-election inclusion and one for post-election inclusion. The post-election inclusion currently is to keep candidates that get at least 5% of the popular vote and/or 1 pledged electoral vote. The pre-election inclusion does not need to match the post-election inclusion (in fact it didn't match in 2012). Saying we should keep candidates off the infobox because you speculate that they will be removed after the election goes against WP:Speculation. That's why including all candidates in the infobox that can theoretically win 270+ Electoral Votes seems less arbitrary and less subjective. The only problem I can think of with including write-in status for the inclusion criteria is the possibility of the infobox being overcrowded. So far that doesn't seem to be an issue though. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:00, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
    • As I've seen mentioned above, this whole RfC doesn't matter much anyway, because it'll close a few days before the election, after which point all third party candidates except for Johnson (if they pull in the votes current polling suggests) will be removed. So I generally look at this clutter and think, what's the point? – Muboshgu (talk) 20:15, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - This really is no big deal, they each now have a way to 270 votes so why not include them? Everyone except possibly Johnson is going to be deleted anyways per the 5% consensus mark. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:53, 4 October 2016 (UTC)
• Keep - --Ariostos (talk) 04:37, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude write-in candidates - Castle and other write-in candidates are not currently in the infobox because of a consensus reached at (Number of candidates in the infobox). The reason given at that consensus and at other discussions since then is that it is too easy to get write-in status -- all it takes in most cases is to file a form. To get on the ballot, however, generally requires nominating signatures and is a better gauge of notablity/weight. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:13, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Sparkie82: I'm sorry, but a viewpoint in 2012 that was not enforced does not override a unanimous consensus in 2016 that actually took place on this article's talk page and not another article's talk page. You do have a point about notability/weight though. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Do not keep They don't have a chance of winning, and unlike Johnson and Stein, they don't even have a chance of affecting which major party candidate wins. Putting footnote candidates in the infobox is confusing to the many users of Misplaced Pages who are almost entirely ignorant of American politics. Our criteria for inclusion in the infobox should be based on polling, not on ballot access. Earthscent (talk) 12:10, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • • Castle and other write-ins are currently not in the infobox because that Aug 23 proposal to add Castle was challenged (reverted) at 736056459 and has been challenged continually since then. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
      • You're wrong about that. Castle and McMullin are in the infobox, and have been for a week. I don't want them there, but I can't understand why you keep to say that. And I don't think those blurry and unclear photos of Castle and his running mate look that good, either. He shouldn't be on there, as there is no source saying anything about Mindy Finn being McMullin's VP pick. Just doesn't seem right to me. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Earthscent: In a close election *any* candidate can affect the outcome. Basing the criteria on polling is very arbitrary and can be inaccurate since sometimes polls get things wrong e.g. Bernie won Michigan even though the polls predicted a Hillary landslide. In fact, your argument is not very popular on this talk page as most people either fall in the ballot access criteria or ballot & write-in access criteria camps. Many Americans don't even know the names of the Vice-presidential candidates. Nonetheless, Misplaced Pages articles are meant to inform people about stuff they don't no, not reflect the ignorance of the readers. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:32, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @Prcc27: I'm not saying to exclude them from the article entirely, just the infobox. Putting them there gives them undue weight. If we include McMullin and Castle in the infobox we ought to have a picture every single third-party and independent candidate, including write-in candidates. Our infobox should have dozens of pictures in it. These two are no more important than any of the others.Earthscent (talk) 11:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
      • @Earthscent: While you do have a point about us possibly giving undue weight by including Castle and McMullin, I disagree with the last sentence you made in that paragraph. Being able to theoretically win a majority of electoral votes makes you way more important than someone that does not have that theoretical chance. Including anyone in the infobox that does not have a theoretical chance of winning 270 electoral votes would unquestionably violate WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Winning a majority of electoral votes is the most common way to be elected President of the United States. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:53, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
        • @Prcc27: Is either Castle or McMullin polling enough in a single state to possibly tip the outcome? I don't think so. (But if I'm wrong please let me know). Polling is a much better criteria than ballot access. Earthscent (talk) 22:10, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
          • @Earthscent: Bush won Florida and thus the presidential election by just over 500 votes and 8 third party candidates (including those without 270+ EV ballot access or even 270+ ballot/write-in access) in Florida got more than 500 votes. Thus they arguably had an effect on the outcome of the 2000 election. It doesn't take that much to tip a swing state and thus the presidential election from one side to the other. Misplaced Pages maintains a neutral point of view whereas polling agencies do not which is why they pick and choose which candidates to poll. If polling is better criteria than ballot access then why would we include Stein or even Johnson when they aren't even polling high enough to be projected to win at least 1 electoral college vote? Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball which is why your proposal to use polling as criteria for inclusion hasn't gained that much popularity. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:37, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

@Earthscent: "Is either Castle or McMullin polling enough in a single state to possibly tip the outcome? I don't think so. (But if I'm wrong please let me know)." In case you haven't been following this RfC and/or the statewide polls- McMullin is currently polling within the margin of error in Utah. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 09:42, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• • • Being able to effect the outcome of the election can't be a criteria because it relies on WP:Crystal_ball, based on unreliable polling. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
      • Any citizen 35 years old or older can theoretically get 270 electoral votes if the courts are brought into the process. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:22, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Do not keep most have already been said. I am all for having more than two major parties candidates in the infobox even though it has never happened that any other have become president. But only those who have their name on enough ballot so they will win. With the interesting and growing problem of ballot access this show a certain importance and organization, simply adding write-inn oppertunities does not. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:06, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude write-in candidates: only those with ballot access should be included. Technically anyone can be a write-in candidate, if people wanted they could vote for me as a write in and I'm not 35 or even an American. If Castle and McMullin are included then I should be placed in the less than 270 electoral votes section. Ebonelm (talk) 15:58, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

This is off base as we are talking about candidates that achieved MORE than 270 EVs through both normal, and write in means. As JC points out below, this isn't an easy thing to do. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:41, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

Apart from Castle only has 207 potential electoral votes with ballot access and McMullin only 84. The point is that the established consensus has been the need to have ballot access to 270 electoral votes and neither of these candidates have this. Castle and McMullin shouldn't even be in the infobox while this discussion is taking place as they do not meet the current consensus. It is only a small group of editors who have repeatedly added them that has resulted in this bizaare situation where anyone who tries to revert to the established consensus is told they are violating consensus. Ebonelm (talk) 20:26, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

If consensus was established, we wouldn't be having this discussion. There are two sides: candidates must have ballot access to 270 electoral votes versus candidates must have ballot or write-in access to 270 electoral votes. When did the former suddenly become established consensus and don't bring up 2012, because that was 2012. Precedents can be overturned. JC · Talk · Contributions 20:44, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

The reason why Castle and other write-ins are not currently in the infobox is because the consensus has been, since 2012, to include candidates who are on the ballot to 270 EV, not write-ins. A proposal was made on Aug 23 to add Castle and it was challenged (reverted) at 736056459 and we've been discussing it since then. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:15, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I guess not, but I'm pretty sure the "write-in" candidates can't get there. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@Ebonelm: Which consensus are you referring to; the unanimous consensus that said write-in access should be part of the inclusion criteria? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Sparkie82: If it's so easy to get write-in status, why is it that there are only two people who have clinched access to 270 electoral votes without ballot access? The first person that is under 270 electoral votes is Kotlikoff with access to 218 electoral votes. When you say that consensus has been against including them, you are wrong, because we are in a heated debate today. JC · Talk · Contributions 18:38, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @JCRules: I agree, there is no consensus here to change the previous criteria from 2012, which states that only candidates who are on the ballot to 270 EV's are included. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
• Don't Keep - Remove Castle, Macmullin and write-ins Ballot access qualification is over except for several lawsuits which are not likely to change any ballots. Having candidiates without access to 270 electoral votes in the infobox is just waste of time, as they will be removed after the election anyway. (Undue weight.) KingAntenor (talk) 20:39, 5 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, both candidates do have access to 270 electoral votes (through ballot access and write-in access). "They will be removed after the election anyway" isn't an example of WP:UNDUE WEIGHT- it's an example of WP:SPECULATION. I could speculate that Jill Stein or even Gary Johnson will be removed after the election so why not remove those two while we are at it? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 20:54, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

That's 9 for "keep" and 10 for "don't keep". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk • contribs) 21:59, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't know why you continue to do this, a handful of editors have already told you to stop as it is getting disruptive. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:24, 5 October 2016 (UTC)

KnowledgeKid87 puts it exactly right: I am telling you now, firmly, to stop. As I have told you many times already, it is not a Misplaced Pages policy to count votes, especially on a talk page (anywhere, in fact). In addition, you've miscounted quite a few, which adds to the inaccuracy and simple illegitimacy about this. I understand that you might not yet be fully acquainted with the rules so far, and I am woefully unequipped, as well. But when multiple experienced role models tell you why you shouldn't be acting in this way, I would highly encourage you to listen. I very much value your contributions, and those of everyone in this community, so it would be very unfortunate if you had to lose your editing rights. This is my last time telling you to do this – I don't want to warn you again, or lodging a complaint about you. Again: please stop doing this. Thank you for your respect. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - I do think we should keep both candidates. Even though they can only win with write-in votes, it's still mathematically possible for them to win. Also, consensus from 2012 stated that "The candidates will appear on enough state ballots to actually win the election (270 electoral votes)". To add on, Misplaced Pages should be a reference for the public or those interested in the topic, thus should be impartial. If only the 'major' candidates are included, viewers wouldn't get the complete picture of the candidates available and it would seem like Misplaced Pages already predicted loss for the 2 candidates even before the election. Thus, I do support keeping them in the infobox until after the election and I don't see why they shouldn't be if Johnson and Stein is there. ~ Appleseed w (talk) 12:54, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, most of the argument against what you're saying is that Libs and Greens has 270 without write-ins, while Castle and McMullin would bead them. That's where the uncertainty lies, and as you can clearly see – a lot of heated debate over it. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Strong don't keep - The infobox looks ridiculous right now. Castle and Macmullin aren't featured in polls like Johnson and Stein, even if they have access to 270 electoral votes (only by write-in -.-) that makes them even more unlikely to win. Ghoul flesh • talk 21:27, 6 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Actually, both candidates have been featured in polls- just not as many polls as Johnson, Stein, Trump, and Clinton. Johnson and Stein have been featured in significantly less polls than Clinton and Trump so should we remove Johnson and Stein from the infobox as well? Moreover, Johnson being featured in significantly less polls hasn't stopped him from appearing in the same row in the infobox as Clinton and Trump. There is already consensus on this talk page not to use polls as criteria for inclusion. And appearing in more polls doesn't necessarily increase your chances of winning like you say it does. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:56, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

But Ghoul Flash specified 'like'... 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, with this argument, one can also say that Johnson and Stein might as well be removed too since none of them qualifies for the debates (similar argument to polls). In my opinion, I still think that those who has a mathematical chance of winning the presidency should be included as Misplaced Pages should be impartial and I do not see any harm in keeping all 4 of them. ~ Appleseed w (talk) 04:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

I certainly do want to keep the four candidates who actually have 270 votes – not Castle and McMullin! If you're talking about the debates, that would be a good criteria – the candidates who make the CPD-sanctioned ones should have the necessary support to get in the top row on the article, while the candidates who have gotten into the minor "Free, Fair, and Equal" ones (which I hadn't ever heard of but have existed on this site for an eternity) would be places in the second row. Now the others who I don't know of write-ins I studiously oppose – but they will not be in even those four-party debates like last year, according to sites added on their website, so if they're in – which they probably won't be – they'd just have to be put in the second row. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• • They are included... Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:57, 6 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't see where they are, but wouldn't they be nationally shown? 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• • By the way, the infobox looking "ridiculous" is not a valid argument. JC · Talk · Contributions 00:17, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

Can I kindly ask, that, you give a reason for it? In my opinion, anything that's sensible, true, not overly offensive, etc. is a valid argument. I'd like to hear your ideas on this. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:42, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Do not keep - The infobox looking ridiculous IS a valid argument, in the sense that if you are going to include McMullin, you need to have a photograph of him. There is a photo of Castle. The way it looks now, at first glance, I thought there was a formatting error. If McMullin is so obscure that no one who contributes to Misplaced Pages can even find a photograph of him, e.g. from his campaign manager, then I find it absurd to include him as a presidential candidate. I don't know anything about Castle, but he has a decent separate Wiki bio article and a photograph. If I had to keep one, it would be Castle. One more point to consider: If you do NOT keep Castle and McMullin, which is how my RFC should be counted here, as DO NOT KEEP McMullin and Castle (and by Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin's running total, which doesn't bother me), then Jill Stein should get moved up to the top row with the other three. I don't like to see Hillary, Trump and the Libertarian candidate guy together on top, and Jill Stein on her own, on the bottom. With four candidates, there would be enough room to fit all four of them in one row in the infobox. Someone above, I think it it was Prcc27🌍, rhetorically asked whether Stein or Johnson should even be included. Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are third-party candidates that receive mainstream press coverage, have national name recognition (whether positive or negative isn't the point, rather, the fact that they are interviewed on television and discussed widely), and definitely are above the radar online, e.g. on Twitter and reddit. reddit is no great arbiter of notability, but Twitter mentions and trends and visibility IS monitored and used for indications of significance. Both are included in polls, but some of the prior comments says that should not be considered, although the fact is that there are four and only four candidates who show up in the polls. Given that we are so close to the election now, and no one can even find a photo of McMullin for his WP bio article or here, I think it is needlessly confusing to include him in the info box. Castle has a photo but none of the other attributes that I mentioned with respect to Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, so I think it causes confusion to include him in the infobox. Just please, please don't make the info box a 2x2 grid for the photos, with Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump on top, then Jill Stein and Gary Johnson below, if at all possible.--FeralOink (talk) 12:30, 7 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @FeralOink: Hey, could you strike out your "do not keep" text in order to avoid confusion? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 11:58, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Im sorry but this is sounding a lot like a WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT argument. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:13, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

@FeralOink: Finding a photo for McMullin is a separate issue being covered in a separate section of this talk page. Let's please focus on the issue this RfC is addressing i.e. inclusion criteria. FYI, the current consensus is to only reserve the top row for candidates with ballot access in 50 states & D.C. So if the other two candidates are removed Jill Stein will remain in the second row and Gary Johnson would likely remain in the first row. Once again, the claim that McMullin and Castle don't show up in the polls is false. There have been polls that include those candidates. The infobox is supposed to inform the readers, not just tell them what they already know. Including candidates in the infobox that many Americans haven't heard of isn't such a bad idea since infoboxes are a good way to give a brief overview of the the information in the article. Yes WP:UNDUE WEIGHT is an issue, but since Castle and McMullin have a theoretical path to 270+ EVs, have been included in polls, and have been invited to a debate I'd say including them in the infobox doesn't violate that policy. In fact, not including them in the infobox could violate WP:NPOV since excluding them would imply that they don't have a reasonable chance at winning. It's not up to Misplaced Pages to make this assumption per WP:CRYSTAL. So for now I'm going to have to say that we should keep Castle and McMullin in the infobox. For the record I also do not have a problem with Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin's running total. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:18, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

There wasn't really a consensus for that, and if I'm right, it was revoked. I don't think that Gary Johnson should be in top row (again, just my opinion). And you always keep talking about how they've been included in polls, but I couldn't find any! There have been thousands of polls this cycle, I'm not exaggerating, that have featured Johnson and Stein. All of the major pollsters do it, and even all of the usually recognized ones, more than 80% of the time talks about both of them. Whereas none of the major pollsters (CNN, NBC, ABC/WP, Fox, etc.) have ever mentioned either Castle or McMullin in them, and none of the ones I have ever looked at do, either. It just goes against our role of undue weight. When you say it should be an overview of the election, it's completely false, because whether you look on our own Misplaced Pages page, or online in the media articles, which is where most people get their information from – television, newspaper, radio, etc – it doesn't talk about either candidate at all, in much detail, and I've read hundreds upon hundreds of articles – very likely, thousands – that at least talk about Johnson's or Stein's candidacies. On the other hand, I've gone to maybe only about ten or perhaps less about McMullin, all in the duration of two or three days. Even more, I haven't come across a single one about Castle, rated more highly, and the one time I found him, I had to search him up in order to get some feature form like the 'Atlantic' or something like that. And, also, since when have those two been "have been invited to a debate," as you say? I thought the site specifically gave only Johnson and Stein (and the other two major ones as well, of course). And I just really don't see how their removal would violate any other guidelines here, either, now. So there really isn't any reason why that should continuously happen. Also, I didn't really have any grudge against Yuri's "vote-counting" either, but since so many established authorities oppose it and feel it doesn't go well with Misplaced Pages, I'd just recommend against it. It's actually helpful, though, and think it at least gives a picture of this situation, and as to how much support we're getting for Castle and McMullin here. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 16:16, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• You can find polls that they have been featured in by reading Statewide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016 and Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016. The Free and Equal foundation announced on Facebook that Castle was invited to the debate. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 17:14, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

On there are more than a hundred polls that include Johnson and Stein, while only three include McMullin, two others "Independent", and none Darrell Castle or the "Constitution Party".

• Okay, your point is well taken about this RfC topic being inclusion criteria, and also that it has already been established who will appear in the top row and the bottom row, based on ballot access and so forth described above by Prcc27 and others. I still object to leaving the infobox as it is now, without a photo for McMullin, because it is confusing. Put something in place of his photo if you can't find one, but please don't have the information about McMullin crammed in next to Castle, making it not immediately apparent that they are in fact two separate individuals, not one with a really long name or party or description. Yes, upon closer examination, it becomes clear that McMullin is actually a separate candidate, but having an infobox that is asymmetric and incomplete is not up to our standards on articles. This is an important article, and we should do our best here. I will withdraw my prior "Do Not Keep". I am not advocating for or against inclusion of one or both of McMullin and/or Castle. I do feel strongly that someone MUST make that infobox be at an acceptable level of clarity for readers, and maintain consistency with our WP infoboxes in general. My motivation for initial comment on this RfC was to provide corroboration in response to Ghoul Flesh's observation that the infobox looks ridiculous, so I don't think I am totally not constructive in having commented. The infobox currently looks amateurish and unencyclopedic. It could even be misinterpreted as vandalism, as that could be an initial reaction to seeing photos with proper aligned captions for five of six candidates, yet a blank space for the sixth one (McMullin). There, I've expressed myself, and will not interfere further, as I don't want my peripheral concern to distract from the quite important goal of reaching a consensus soon, certainly before the election!--FeralOink (talk) 09:09, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll stop. Quite a few of you have asked me to stop counting "votes" in this consensus. I was just trying to show how many people were on this side, and for the other. I'm still not totally sure why you guys are saying what I'm doing is not appropriate for the consensus, though. But, in a democracy, the majority rules, and the majority has told me to be quiet. (Still need a bit more clarification on why what I was doing was wrong, though.) Thank-you for taking the time to read this. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 22:33, 7 October 2016 (UTC)

• Very well. Keep in mind that Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 00:17, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it's okay. He's apologized. And he wasn't referring to Misplaced Pages as a democracy, though you are certainly right that this isn't the place to count votes. I do think, however, that as long as it wasn't too repetitive, disruptive, or distracting, or really harmed the editing environment here, it wasn't all that bad an idea. There were just a lot of pleasure over it, and Yuri didn't acknowledge that until now. Again, thanks for following the wishes of the many users who have disapproved of your actions, it's responsible and helpful on your part. I don't know that much about the rules here, though, so I can't help much. But definitely someone who has been here for a time can tell you. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 00:55, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

Since we're no closer to reaching a consensus, I'll propose one of my own. Since every Presidential election is different and we pretty much have Clinton, Trump and Johnson with full ballot access in the top three, Stein with 480 leading off the second row followed by Castle and McMullin being included on virtue of write-in access, I move that the infobox stay as is. I believe it is fair because the three candidates with full ballot access are on the top three positions of the infobox according to previous election results from 2012, the one with 270+ ballot access leads off the second-tier of the infobox and the other two who can theoretically win through write-ins round out the field. Remember, this will change after the election. It's not our job to determine who can or cannot win before the election for eligible candidates, since I can guarantee one major-party candidate will lose, seeing how both rabid Clinton supporters and rabid Trump supporters will lay down their arms on November 9th because their candidate either won or lost (barring a repeat of 2000.) I am now convinced through the arguments above that a candidate is at least serious enough if they have a path to 270 through write-ins and a slate of electors. Castle and McMullin are at running serious campaigns in terms of policy and getting access and neither of them are perennial or frivolous candidates, such as Deez Nuts, whose inclusion I would definitely challenge even if he managed to get 270+ write-in access due to his ineligibility (age) and his fake name. Once again, I have no dog in the Castle/McMullin fight, I'm voting for a major candidate who I feel is in their appropriate place in the infobox. Can we reach this as a compromise knowing that the infobox will change post-election and will most likely only include Clinton and Trump, barring Johnson, the most likely of the rest, or one of the other three getting 5% or > and/or an electoral vote?--Guiletheme (talk) 06:45, 8 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm really sorry, but this is a resolution that I would have to oppose. It doesn't seem neutral at all to just say that Castle and McMullin be left in the infobox, when a clear majority (though, of course, that isn't a threshold – but it's far from a consensus, as many of the write-in proponents say) oppose their inclusion. As I have said, and a few others have supported, there are many reasons why it should be split into two rows, with Clinton/Trump in the first (qualified, presumably, for all 3 of the most likely presidential debates), Johnson/Stein in the second (the other candidates who have 270, and in fact far more, just through ballot access and without needing write-ins), and definitely Castle/possibly McMullin in any potential case involving write-in candidates being included in the third row (just look at any of my above comments regarding how candidates in the infobox should be placed. And, again, if Castle an McMullin are indeed removed, they would have to be taken off of the major candidates section, the conventions sections, etc. But, no grudges about it, if they are in the infobox, they should be included in all the above sections, and vice versa. So as much as I would respect any decision on your parts or a consensus regarding inclusion prior to this election, this resolution is, in essence, widely opposed, and I am one of those who have contributed the most to that idea, and results of an official RfC.

Agreed. The election season ends in exactly a month from now (or less in a month, depending on your timezone) and we should be forming a consensus on post-election criteria, which is currently: a candidate must receive at least five percent of the national popular vote or receive at least one electoral vote. Up to this point, nobody has challenged the post-election criteria. JC · Talk · Contributions 01:41, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm opposed to it, although I guess there is already a consensus about that. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Do not keep Imo, we should only include such candidates when they are routinely featured in national polling. Orser67 (talk) 03:21, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • How many times do they have to appear in national polls for it to be considered "routinely"? Whatever number you come up with is very arbitrary. 270 EVs is not an arbitrary number which is why we should either use ballot access or ballot access/write-in access as criteria. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 11:55, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • To add to Prcc27's comments, let's take Russia for example. The government runs the polls and can include/exclude candidates and fix the numbers. When Russia conducts its "elections", would you decide by the polls who would be included in the infobox? JC · Talk · Contributions 16:19, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, the problem is that we don't live in Russia, and, by all accounts, we have free and fair elections where votes are counted legally and properly (at least it's what we have to assume, in case anyone else disagrees with even that). The major news corporations aren't really owned by, or beholden to, the government, and when Castle or McMullin were included, they were from minor advocacy groups (and got very low support, compared to Johnson and Stein). 198.84.229.179 (talk) 20:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment Can we all please wait for this RfC to close before implementing any possible consensus? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Yes, please stop adding write-in candidates to the infobox. A neutral administrator has already determined that there is no consensus to add write-in candidates to the infobox. See: Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:02, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    • They said that your edit seemed (their emphasis) to have consensus. The only discussion pertaining to write-ins with a clear (and unanimous at that) consensus is the one in August which actually favors including the write-ins with access to a majority of electoral votes. All the other discussions since then have been very divided including this one. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:03, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
    • P.S. it's a little hypocritical of you to continue to revert the infobox after you reported me for supposedly edit warring. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:08, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Strong keep for numerous reasons. Castle and McMullin have the ability to win the election, as they have access to over 270 votes. Whether they can/will shape the election is irrelevant, and we should follow WP:CRYSTAL. Also, they have been invited to the Free & Equal Elections Foundation along with the Trump, Clinton, Johnson, and Stein. In addition to this, there is no reason to remove them from the infobox. Leaving them in the infobox will inform voters more about the candidates in the election, that there are two more choices on the ballot in many states. --1990'sguy (talk) 19:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
• Comment I just asked for full protection of the page, the edit warring isn't helping anyone as it appears this issue needs to be addressed/closed soon. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:51, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

• Additional note – Adding on to what Knowledgekid87 has said in his request, remember there is a WP:1RR in place, and as editors we should seek consensus before changing as per the "ACTIVE ARBITRATION REMEDIES". Adog104 01:56, 10 October 2016 (UTC)

• Remove The arguments for inclusion are hard to follow and fleeting. These candidates barely meet WP:NOTABILITY, let alone infobox inclusion. Only Gary Johnson and HRC/DT are polling above 5% nationally. I agree that the infobox looks ridiculous. Keep Trump, Clinton, Johnson and Stein only. Remove all others. KingAntenor (talk) 07:58, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @KingAntenor:Redundant: You have already bolded "do not keep" a few days ago. While discussion is helpful, bolding your opinion twice is very unnecessary and it could make it seem like the "remove" camp has more supporters than it really does. Barely meeting WP:NOTABILITY still counts as meeting WP:NOTABILITY. Show me a Misplaced Pages policy on infoboxes that says these candidates cannot be included. Funny how you bring up 5% national polling but argue that Stein should remain even though she (along with Castle and McMullin) average below 5%. You haven't even proposed any criteria for which candidates should be included (unless you think Stein should also be removed). Prcc27🌍 (talk) 14:07, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
  • I agree with Prcc here, above you did place in bold "Don't Keep - Remove Castle, Macmullin and write-ins". Giving your opinion in bold twice on the matter is generally frowned upon here on Misplaced Pages. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:38, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
    • The consensus seems to be to remove Castle and Macmullin since they receive little to no media coverage and/or support per above. I did not realize I had already voted. I would have thought this discussion would be over by now. People will attempt to add the lesser candidates until election day regardless. KingAntenor (talk) 17:54, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
      • @KingAntenor: You must have selective attention, because there is no consensus. Half says remove, half says keep. Saying that Castle and McMullin shouldn't be included because of "little to no media coverage" is not a valid point, because that is arbitrary. Go to Google News and you will find that Politico, CNN, and the Los Angeles Times, among many other sources have covered McMullin. JC · Talk · Contributions 18:10, 10 October 2016 (UTC)
        • Well, JC, that was only for a few days, when McMullin was in the news. I still don't know why they did it, but you certainly won't find Castle on any major news networks, or, otherwise, some news networks. In the meantime, while this dispute is being resolved by the lead editors, I'm of the opinion that McMullin and Castle should be removed, if only temporarily. Their inclusion, although acceptable the first time in, was immediately objected to, and it's been a contentious issue – ever since then. And since you mentioned it, the portion who want them removed is a majority of the editors here (or at least it was a few days ago, although that doesn't really mean much). Also, Prcc27, I think your views are a bit misleading, as Castle isn't in any polls of the states included in the Misplaced Pages page you continue to reference. And only two pollsters ever included McMullin nationally, both within a week of each other. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 02:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
          • Please re-read the article and you will see that he was polled in Nevada and Utah. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
            • I intended to respond to the user @JC earlier but my link was broken. It was essentially his same link but replaced with the Constitution nominee. Darrell Castle has not been covered by Politico, CNN, or the Los Angeles Times. (At least not broadly, and certainly not in polls.) He has received attention in sources such as Deseret News, which is owned by the Mormon Church, and also this post in May from the Huffington Post: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/judy-frankel/trump-hillary-haters-take_b_10110720.html But other than that I know of exactly two polls he has ever been in (1-2% at best), usually included w/ Macmullin or other obscure figures. I affirm that he should be removed due to WP:UNDUEWEIGHT. KingAntenor (talk) 07:23, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Comment: This discussion will likely not be resolved before election day, so it relates more to unknown candidates and parties in the 2020 election cycle. Please consider what criteria should hold beyond the given names and particular circumstances for the current election. Bcharles (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• Don't keep: The 270 electoral vote threshold for ballot lines obtained is a standard that demonstrates campaign strength and potential. The inclusion of write-in states, masks the lack of support and organization sufficient to achieve ballots for half of voters. The pretense that one could win a state with write-in votes, in spite of the inability to gain that ballot line, is sophistry. Bcharles (talk) 02:13, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
  • An Alaskan senator won a senate race as a write-in so that viewpoint is not "sophistry". Prcc27🌍 (talk) 13:34, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Alaska is represented by a single congressional district. That analogy could hold in 2008 when castle had ballot lines for 49% of the electoral vote, he would have needed to win all states that he was on the ballot and any small state by write-in. This year he would need to win states representing 63 electoral votes by write-in, with no signs of broad support, funding, or organization. That is not a remotely plausible scenario. McMullin is even farther afield. Bcharles (talk) 18:21, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

• What does Alaska being represented by a single congressional district have to do with anything? All senate elections are statewide elections. I hate to repeat myself over and over but we aren't supposed to make decisions based on speculation per Misplaced Pages policy. You keep speculating that these candidates won't win the election, but that's your point of view and we're supposed to edit articles in a neutral way. If we used "signs of broad support, funding, (and) organization" as criteria for inclusion then Stein and/or Johnson would possibly fail this requirement also. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:08, 11 October 2016 (UTC)

Update: for everyone arguing we should use polling as criteria for inclusion I would just like to point out that McMullin is the *only* third party candidate polling within the margin of error in a state. So McMullin is more likely to win the presidential election than Stein and Johnson according to polling. I'm not saying we should use polling as criteria, but this refutes the argument that McMullin isn't polling high enough. If McMullin does in fact win Utah then he will also be included in the infobox after the election per the current consensus on post-election inclusion criteria. This proves how silly everyone is for saying "McMullin should be removed now since he is going to be removed after the election anyways." Well, we don't know that, and even if we did it's not up to us to speculate. And for everyone saying he hasn't received enough coverage from the reliable sources... him polling this high in Utah has given him more news coverage than he had before. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 16:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah this is big, I would say if McMullen is tied for winning a state he needs to be included. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:10, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

A consensus notice should not be added to the talk page until after this RfC is resolved. We should refrain from adding a consensus notice that links to a discussion that took place on a separate article. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• Remove. The infobox looks ridiculous and is totally inconsistent with past election articles. (I'm not watching this page so please ping me if you want my attention.) --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 22:31, 12 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @DrFleischman: Actually, the infobox is very consistent with past election articles. In past election articles there were 2 separate inclusion criteria: one for before the election and one for after the election. This was probably done in order to avoid violating WP:CRYSTAL. In 2012 before election day, Virgil Goode was included in the infobox even though he could only theoretically get 270+ EVs with the help of write-ins (Castle and McMullin are in the same situation). You can go through the article's history to see who was included in the infobox before the election. Castle and McMullin would have been included in the 2012 infobox since they would have met the pre-election criteria. The current consensus for post-election inclusion is getting at least 5% of the national popular vote or at least 1 pledged electoral college vote. Although polls are not entirely accurate, according to polling Johnson has a good chance of meeting this criteria by getting 5%+ popular votes and McMullin (a candidate you support removing) could also meet this criteria for post-election inclusion if he wins Utah (he is polling within the margin of error in the most recent Utah poll). Why should McMullin be excluded and Stein included when McMullin is more likely (according to polling) to be in the infobox after election day than Stein is? Saying the infobox looks ridiculous is an I don't like it argument. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:53, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pinging me. I'm not going to do the research myself, but if you can produce evidence that we're using the same criteria that we did in 2012 (with diffs and/or links to 2012 consensus) then that will go a long way toward convincing me. --Dr. Fleischman (talk) 23:40, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

• @DrFleischman: As you will see in this discussion (please read all the subsections as well), there was a consensus to include all candidates with a theoretical chance of obtaining 270+ EVs and users in that discussion agreed to include Virgil Goode in the infobox. You'll also see the post-election criteria discussed as well. Here is the article in Nov. 2012. Notice that Virgil Goode and Rocky Anderson were included in the infobox. Scroll down to the "Major third parties" section and you'll see that both Goode and Anderson had less than 270 EV ballot access but had 270+ EV access when you include write-in access. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 00:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

Discussions in 2012, as well as edits to remove Goode and Anderson, which were reverted, show that there was not consensus to include candidates based on write-in votes. Bcharles (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The following notice is at the top of this talk page, but an editor keeps removing it, so I am adding it here because it is pertinent to this discussion:

Infobox inclusion: It has been agreed by previous consensus from the article United States presidential election, 2012 that US presidential election articles will use the following criteria for inclusion of candidates in the infobox: The candidates will appear on enough state ballots to actually win the election (270 electoral votes)  Done Link to previous discussion: here

Write-ins (including Castle and McMullin) are not currently in the infobox. The most recent attempts to add write-in candidates started with an attempt to add Castle to the infobox during a discussion on Aug 23 at 735891756, which was challenged (reverted) at 736056459. The addition of Castle and other write-ins have been proposed/challenged/discussed ever since. Since the addition of write-ins to the infobox is challenged, they should not be reinstated (re-added) to the infobox. If you see them there, just remove them. Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:31, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• A consensus on a related article isn't necessarily applicable on this article. However, many people in that discussion actually supported including candidates with a mathematical chance of winning (which is evident with how many supported including Virgil Goode). Your consensus notice is very unnecessary and redundant. A link to the discussion you are referring to has already been included in this RfC many times. And you need to stop picking and choosing which consensus discussion to bring up. The most recent consensus discussion was the unanimous decision to include write-in access for inclusion criteria. So you should stop POV pushing by either including the unanimous discussion from August in your consensus notice or don't include a consensus notice at all. Calling me an "ass" for removing your POV-pushed consensus notice is a violation of WP:CIVIL. Your disruptive behavior is getting really irritating to say the least. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 09:59, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

The two day discussion in August of this year was not a "consensus", which requires notifying editors of the discussion and allowing time (usually 30 days) for varied positions to be expressed and addressed. There has not been a formal consensus process on this issue before now, but a consensus on one article would hold for related articles. Bcharles (talk) 22:00, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• There is no official procedure for achieving consensus because Misplaced Pages is not a bureaucracy. Notifying editors of a discussion is only done when consensus isn't clear, but at the time consensus was very obvious. It is quite clear that consensus was achieved in August per WP:CONACHIEVE: "Ideally, (consensus) arrives with an absence of objections". There were no objections made on the talk page for several days. Also, the consensus in 2012 was to include write-in access as inclusion criteria. When an edit like Virgil Goode being included in the infobox remains on the article for several months without being disputed on the talk page, that edit has consensus per WP:EDITCONSENSUS. So if consensuses on other articles are in fact binding on related articles then that means the current consensus is to include Castle and McMullin per what we did in 2012. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:05, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep - it does not seem WP:OFFTOPIC and at the moment not exceeding due WP:WEIGHT too much by including. Otherwise --- First, this is in advance of the event so the perspective may shift later and ... for now I'll just prefer to err on the side of being encyclopedic bit too much info and bit too inclusive rather than too short. Second, precedent here that Ross Perot appears in United States presidential election, 1996, and further back in United States presidential election, 1912 individuals are included at small percentages. Third - possible significance to the story as in if McMullin takes Utah, or if Florida is so close that the other party candidates make the difference, as Ralph Nader did in 2000. Markbassett (talk) 23:27, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

• Remove - Neither Darrell Castle nor Evan McMullin have been featured in any of the five (5) major polls selected by the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD): the ABC News-Washington Post, CBS News-New York Times, CNN-Opinion Research Corporation, Fox News, and NBC News-Wall Street Journal. So as such, neither Castle nor McMullin qualified for the first step in debate participation. I vote to remove the candidates from the infobox. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 00:26, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
  • @Charlesaaronthompson: Please keep in mind that this is not a vote (see WP:VOTE). Polling is not a fair way to decide whether candidates should be in the infobox because the pollsters choose not to include the other candidates, only giving the people answering these polls only four choices, which is not fair at all. A few months ago, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were not even included in the polls that you speak of, but were brought in because of the coverage that they were getting. However, they should remain in the infobox until the election because it was already decided in this discussion that, if a candidate achieved ballot or write-in access to 270 electoral votes, such a candidate shall remain, and Darrell Castle and Evan McMullin have already crossed the threshold. JC · Talk · Contributions 07:06, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
    • @JCRules: Does that mean we have to include all other candidates then? That would really clutter up the infobox, IMO. I only said I wanted to remove Darrell Castle and Evan McMullin because only having write-in access to 270 electoral votes is not a good indicator of the viability of a presidential candidate. Common sense says that none of the four third-party or independent candidates currently listed in the infobox will in all likelihood win any state's Electoral College votes in 2016, because no third-party or independent candidate has won any electoral votes since 1968. My opinion is to only include candidates who will receive electoral votes. Unless McMullin wins Utah's six (6) electoral votes (or Castle wins any state's electoral votes), there is no compelling reason to list either candidate in the infobox of the main article. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:23, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
      • @Charlesaaronthompson: No, there are only six candidates that have ballot or write-in access to at least 270 electoral votes, so there shall only be six candidates in the infobox and others shall be added if they cross the threshold. By the way, Lisa Murkowski is one example of a candidate that was elected to the U.S. Senate after running a write-in campaign, so it is arbitrary to assume what "is not a good indicator of the viability of a presidential candidate." Taking WP:SPECULATION into account, it is unfair to presume that third-party and independent candidates will not receive an electoral vote. Current consensus for post-election criteria for inclusion in the infobox is that a candidate must receive at least five percent of the national popular vote or at least one electoral vote, and neither you nor I have results of the November 8 election. JC · Talk · Contributions 07:34, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
        • @JCRules: BTW, those polls I listed are a reliable indicator of the overall level of national support each candidate enjoys. Also, it is not unfair to presume that third-party and independent candidates will not receive any electoral votes, because recently past elections have consistently demonstrated that third-party and independent candidates won't receive any electoral votes. History is a pretty reliable indicator of how the vote will turn out on November 8 and how it will be tallied afterwards. So, according to your logic, the only third-party candidate who should be listed in the infobox then is Gary Johnson, because he's the only one who is currently polling higher than five (5) percent right now (Jill Stein is at about 2.2 percent, so I say remove her from the infobox, because she is currently failing to poll higher than 5 percent.) Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:45, 15 October 2016 (UTC)
          • @Charlesaaronthompson: First of all, they are only given four options in those polls and are not allowed any other options. With regard to " logic," I said "post-election criteria for inclusion in the infobox." Post-election. This is the month before the election, and neither you nor I have the final results of the election. If we were back in time during the Iowa caucus and took the media's word for it that Donald Trump would fail, would we snub Donald Trump? The analogy is, nobody knows the end result. A third-party candidate could be the first in decades to win an electoral vote, but we shouldn't remove them on the notion that they will not out of pure speculation. JC · Talk · Contributions 07:55, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

Just to let everyone know, I have placed Evan McMullin ahead of Darrell Castle because of ballot and write-in access totals. McMullin has access to 465 electoral votes while Castle has 409 electoral votes. JC · Talk · Contributions 20:11, 15 October 2016 (UTC)

McMullin's total is only that high if you include anticipated states. Read the source carefully. I have revised his total to reflect that. Bcharles (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

• Keep Is this page about the US presidential elections? Is it about the likely winners? Is it a page that speculates, like news media do, about the 'major' candidates to the the exclusion of candidates who, conventional wisdom says, cannot possibly win or even influence the outcome? The page is entitled to suggest it is about the presidential election, not a sub-set of it. That suggests to me even if the field included 50 candidates with little chance of winning, they should all be listed. By all means also include concise text explaining the factors that make the chances minimal for minor parties and independents to have any chance at determining outcomes. But don't pre-suppose these outcomes; to do that makes you a pundit, not an encyclopaedic editor. This goes to the question of whether political attitudes in the USA, as shaped by news media that are seen elsewhere in the world as largely propaganda organs for corporate owners, are reliable guides to what is and what is not a 'fact'. The page here either joins the propaganda route, or reflects a reality in which this election is being fought by more than two contenders. Think of it in historical terms too: if African or Chinese readers, 20 years from now, want to know who ran in this presidential election, would it be accurate to say there were only two candidates? Four? Six? I came here via an invitation from Legobot to comment; I am not an American and have no right to vote in the coming elections. Peter S Strempel | Talk 07:23, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

@Peterstrempel: I agree with your perspective for inclusion in the article, but inclusion in the infobox featured at the top of the article needs more limited criteria. The requirement of ballot lines for a majority of the electoral vote is somewhat inclusive but focuses on major candidates (4 in this election). It seems that including states with ballot access and write-in filings adding up to a majority, dilutes the focus, and is more difficult to maintain, with new write-in filings coming in until election day. Bcharles (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like discussion is starting to slow down significantly given the above comment came 3 days after JC's comment. Furthermore, the level of support for the "keep" and "remove" camps doesn't look like it will change that much especially since the margin between the two camps hasn't been changing that much throughout the duration of this RfC. Many people have expressed concern that the election will be or will almost be over by the time this RfC is over which would render the discussion here moot. As a result, we should definitely consider having this RfC formally closed by an admin ASAP. If nobody objects, I'll make the request myself. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 09:00, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd say do it. There's not much new being said here, and closing this early is the only way it will mean anything. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 13:09, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

As two weeks have passed and discussion does not seem to be evolving further, it may be time to close. A resolution will help in future presidential election articles, even if decided late in this cycle. Although the title mentions Castle and McMullin, De La Fuente and Kotlikoff may reach the threshold being discussed before the election. Bcharles (talk) 18:56, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

So my inclination is to remove, so that we include only those with ballot access to 270 votes not as write-ins. I'd like to add a further question before we close though - does McMullin's potential to win electoral college votes change things? Multiple polls have him over 20% in Utah, and multiple independent reliable sources have discussed this possibility (, , . On that grounds, I may be inclined to keep him as an exception despite absence of ballot access; perhaps we need to add a caveat that anyone regularly polling over 20% in any one state should also be included, even if they don't have requisite access, as they may win electoral college votes? Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 07:05, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

As someone who worked in politics, there will be many more candidates becoming eligible for 270+ electoral votes the sooner the election approaches and the infobox will get out of control. It's not fair for Kotlikoff to be left off and Castle to be left in since they have the same criteria for eligibility.

1. 270 or more electoral votes through ballot access OR 2. 10% or more national support through reputable polls OR 3. 20% or more support in a single state from reputable polls

Ordered by the results of the 2012 election, which means you'd see Hillary Clinton, Donald Trump, Gary Johnson, Jill Stein and Evan McMullin. Personally, I'd like Clinton and Trump to be in the top part of the infobox seeing how Democrats and Republicans won electoral votes in 2012, and Johnson, Stein and McMullin in the bottom since they did not win any.--Guiletheme (talk) 10:27, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Polling isn't entirely accurate so I'm not sure if we should use it as criteria. I don't like your proposal for infobox ordering because how could McMullin win electoral votes in 2012 when he didn't even run? We should focus on achievements from this election like ballot access (the current criteria for being in the top row) not achievements from the last election. But this RfC isn't even about infobox ordering. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 11:54, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That's fine if you don't like it, but do you have a better idea? I'm not trying to be snarky, I'll support any plan that can get consensus and will stop the infobox from turning into a fiasco with 10 or more candidates.--Guiletheme (talk) 21:49, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Compromise. I'm reversing my earlier decision. I dreaded the day that a seventh candidate would be added to the infobox, but that day has come. It's crowded and the criterion is just going to lead to more candidates being put in the fold. Here is the compromise that I am offering for everyone.

1. A candidate must have ballot access (not write-in access) to at least 270 Electoral College votes.
2. A candidate must be polling at least five percent in a state poll conducted in October.

The following are the post-election criteria:

1. A candidate must receive at least five percent in the national popular vote.
2. A candidate must receive at least one Electoral College vote.

In this discussion, both sides are holding their ground, so everyone has to make a concession. This is the compromise that I'm offering, similar to the one above. With this as the criteria, only five people qualify to be in the infobox pre-election: Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Stein, and McMullin. The order would be decided by the number of Electoral College votes that the candidates have ballot access to. This compromise is not perfect, but this is probably the best we can do concerning a compromise. The following is just speculation, so don't give me a link to WP:SPECULATION. These five candidates are the ones with the highest probability to remain post-election. Clinton and Trump are guaranteed spots, Johnson will if he remains over five percent, Stein if she can gain more support, and McMullin might win Utah. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 17:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, I mean, in response to your statement, I do believe that a lot happens before Election Day, and, generally, there are indeed more readers visiting this page in the years prior to the election than those who come here after. I've seen that these results have been skewed by the opinions of similar editors on local, regional, and national elections across the world. It's just not fair that it could – and probably would – happen. Upon reading JCRules' compromise, it does seem reasonable, though I don't understand why, in both cases for the less certain pre-election inclusion, a candidate must reach both of your criteria (you used the word 'must'). Also, correct me if I'm wrong, but I haven't seen any major polls with Stein above 5% in any state, so I don't think she would be included under your standards. Additionally, unless a candidate, in your view, could get into the infobox by meeting just one of your ideas, McMullin would have to be taken off, too. I'm really appalled that eight candidates, and probably more, could be coming – in fact, it's been happening quite a bit, not least in recent days. As of right now, I'd honestly be okay with McMullin being in the infobox, given that he's shot up to within the margin of error in most Utah polls. Castle really isn't doing anything right now, though. And I am indeed quite sure that whoever is ultimately in the infobox will get to be included in the 'major candidates' and 'conventions' (if applicable) sections, as well. But, although it's a creative idea, removing the infobox just really won't work. It's supposed to give some essential information about the election, and an overview of the entire article, which is why people like Kotlikoff and de la Fuente shouldn't be in there. As for FiveThirtyEight, I guess we can use their default (polls-only) percentages in the forecast, but only for states that one or more of the projections list as competitive. 198.84.229.179 (talk) 23:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm no fan of the current seven-person infobox either, even though I am a fan of Kotlikoff. Under my preferred standard (count write-in access only if there is an official slate of electors to be voted on, named before the election - so not counting the nine states that allow blanket write-in access) Kotlikoff wouldn't be there - though McMullin wouldn't either, and Castle still would be there. I can't support a polling requirement, though. Polls can be shaped to ensure a particular result, or to prevent one - such as by not polling any third-party candidate at all. By your standard, offered in good faith, Castle would rank below Deez Nuts. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:11, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Strong Keep - I have come to see no reason to discriminate on the basis of Write-In Access given the only difference between that and physically being on the ballot is a lack of visibility, and the vote for such a candidate is itself equally valid in both case whether written in or checked from the provided list (and thus the votes for electors for said candidate). To do otherwise is to set a standard above what is technically the minimum requirements to seek the Presidency, and a violation of the Neutral Point of View Misplaced Pages is meant to express. --Ariostos (talk) 18:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

There should be one criterion and one criterion alone. A third party candidate must have at least 5% in a statewide poll taken in October. That's it. There are three minor party candidates who qualify, Johnson, Stein and McMullin. I'd go with the "must be able to theoretically win the election" but McMullin is WINNING Utah at the moment. Should he actually do that, Johnson and Stein should be removed from the from the infobox entirely even though the Johnson will most likely get far more votes.

We should look at previous election pages for guidance. Look at 2000. Ralph Nader isn't there, even though he got over three million votes. In 1960, Harry Byrd (okay, unpledged electors who had previously said they would support him) won two states, and he's not in the infobox! Write-ins actually winning sre very rare. Several people here were very much against even mentioning write-in results in the primary pages. leave it as it was....please?Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:22, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I just reverted an attempt to close this discussion early. Although it may seem like a consensus on this is not possible, I think we should continue the discussion, perhaps with more suggestions for compromise. Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:34, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Sparkie82: There was already a consensus to close this RfC. If you didn't want it to be closed early you should have said something before. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Compromise - Throwing out a suggestion for a compromise: Since the reason for differential treatment of candidates lies in the WP principle of weight (and notability), maybe candidate weight could be more clearly indicated in the graphical treatment within the infobox. For example, candidates with 50-state ballot access on the top row, then in a subordinate section show candidates with 270 EV ballot access, and then subordinate to that show the names (no photos) of other candidates who are distinguished somehow by press coverage, write-in filings, etc. Sparkie82 (t•c) 09:48, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Considering you just put Gary Johnson in the 2nd row, why are you saying candidates with 50-state ballot access should be at the top? If you truly believed that, you wouldn't have moved Johnson to the 2nd row against consensus. Anyways, everyone should check out my sandbox to see if they like the compromise. If you have any suggestions let me know or make a version at your own individual sandbox. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 10:37, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

• Point of order: is it at all proper to unilaterally revert the closure of a discussion? Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 17:49, 20 October 2016 (UTC)
  • Not at all, which is why I am re-archiving this RfC. If anyone wants to propose a compromise feel free to make a new discussion. But in the meantime, the consensus is to include write-in access. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Antony-22: Re point-of-order, RfC's run for at least 30 days unless everyone agrees to end them. There is interest in this discussion and other editors have explicitly requested above that the discussion run at least 30-days. There are a couple of compromises on the table. What you think? Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:29, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

@Sparkie82: "Contact the editor who performed the closure and try to resolve the issue through discussion. If you are unable to resolve the issue through discussion with the closer, you may request review at the Administrators' Noticeboard." Also, "Deciding how long to leave an RfC open depends on how much interest there is in the issue and whether editors are continuing to comment." There has been little interest in this RfC for a while and users went without commenting for a several days. There is nothing that says everyone has to agree for the RfC to end; there was a clear consensus to end the RfC early. Other editors have not explicitly requested above that this discussion run for at least 30 days. In fact, they were actually complaining about it. I suggest you go to the closer's talk page and resolve this issue and if that doesn't work go to Admin noticeboard. But you aren't supposed to undo an RfC closure without first doing these things. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:34, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Write-in qualifications for infobox

I'd like to point out that the figures in the table include 54 electoral votes from six states (AL, NH, NJ, PA, RI, VT) that do not have a process for filling as a write-in. For infobox purposes, we only count write-in access if the candidates have filed a full slate of electors, which is impossible in those states. Subtracting those 54 votes from De La Fuente's 314 and Kotlikoff's 301 puts both of them under the 270 vote threshold, so I am removing them from the infobox.

It's worth considering whether we should institute extra criteria for candidates who need write-in access to get to 270. Perhaps they should need actual ballot access in some number of states (notably, Kotlikoff only has on-ballot access in two states), or their campaign is notable enough to have its own campaign article. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 20:55, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd argue against removing those States as counting for Write-Ins given the votes themselves are still validated, and I'm sure (I can't confirm) that there exists a process in each of these States where electors would be appointed to represent the Write-In candidate in December. Personally though I don't know what the system is should that theoretically happen. As for extra criteria, we should stay safe with requiring at least one State with ballot access; at the moment the only other candidate who would be on the precipice would be Tom Hoefling should he make it in California, making it nine candidates. --Ariostos (talk) 21:08, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The consensus in 2012 was that we needed to verify that a full elector slate was filed, even in write-in states requiring registration. We should look into the process if a write-in candidate in a "free" write-in state wins. In any case, the RfC above is split down the middle on whether write-in access should count at all, and I don't think there'd be consensus for including free write-in access. I'm happy to hear more viewpoints. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 21:24, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

I know, I was one of the ones that was involved in those discussions at the time when the issue of Write-Ins came up then. People here are a bit more open to the idea now than they were then, but its still a major struggle against inertia. If I have the time I'll see if I can get in touch with the Elections people in Pennsylvania, all the while hoping that this isn't some legal black hole they've never thought to cover; that's the big one of the lot. --Ariostos (talk) 21:38, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Write-in status shouldn't count. It never has before in a general and shouldn't now. In the NH primary pages, even though a write-in candidate came in third, his votes aren't counted. McMullin and Castle shouldn't be there, except that McM is actually WINNING Utah in the latest polling, so he should stay. Stein should be OUT as soon as the election is over as it looks like she won't be getting 5% nationally. Arglebargle79 (talk) 22:39, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

That Write-In "candidate" in the case of New Hampshire is actually just the scattering of various Write-Ins, which likely included a multitude of candidates. You can't really count that as a single person; it would be akin to balling all the votes for Kasich, Cruz and Bush together and saying that those votes should be considered for first place, without specifying how many of those votes are for Kasich, Cruz or Bush. --Ariostos (talk) 23:32, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Honestly, I'd rather leave De La Fuente and Kotlikoff off for now until there is a consensus to add them, given that the 2012 consensus would have excluded them due to lack of elector slates in those six free write-in states. It would also avoid everyone going crazy about their order in the infobox, which we don't have clear criteria for. I'm not going to double-revert, though.

Can we at least "audit" the write-in access for Castle, McMullin, De La Fuente, and Kotlikoff to ensure that they have actually named electors in enough write-in states to qualify? Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 17:58, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Regardless of what we decide, De La Fuente now has enough access in the "non-freebie" states. Does anyone know what happens if a write-in wins in a "freebie" state? Could they file for a slate of electors after the fact or is there no process that exists for write-ins? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:25, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

We need to verify that a full slate of electors has been filed before it counts for infobox purposes. Some states such as New York don't require a full slate to be filed, so it wouldn't count unless we verify it manually. (Some states do require that a full elector slate be filed; I checked some of the larger ones and TX, FL, IL, and OH do this.) That's how we did it in 2012. So no, if New York is excluded, De La Fuente still isn't over the 270 EV threshold. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 03:15, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel like the multiple threads of discussion here are getting out of hand. @Ariostos: Would you possibly agree to temporarily remove De La Fuente and Kotlikoff from the infobox until we can verify the filing of electors, and whether they can actually win electors in the "free" states? Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 17:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel like we need a note in the infobox explaining why De La Fuente and Kotlikoff don't meet the criteria for inclusion. Otherwise, the readers will be very confused as to what the criteria for inclusion is. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 01:35, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

It is absurd to distinguish among all of the various modes and means of filing for write-in access. Write-in access is, in the broader frame of the election, rather trivial. Way too much editor time, and too many disputes, are tied up in this small facet. If the ruling holds that we include write-in states for calculating notability, then there is no reason to exclude a subset of these states. If we consider the possibility that a candidate could win with write-in votes, then it does not matter which states. There are explicit means to declare electors after the election in some states (e.g. OR WA), and constitutional provisions for resolving the slate in others. - Of course we could avoid all this by just focusing on states that each candidate actually has a ballot line. Bcharles (talk) 02:26, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Auditing the write-in access

We need to verify that the candidates have actually filed full elector slates in each write-in state for it to count. There are two ways to do this: some states require all write-in candidates to file slates (which you can usually verify in their laws), while for the others we need to manually verify that they have filed electors. I've put a list of the current claimer write-in states; let's add a reference to each to show whether or not electors have been filed. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 18:16, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Okay, I've gone through all the states below. I've been able to find evidence of electors being filed for 159 electoral votes for Kotlikoff (AZ, FL, IN, KY, ME, MD, MA, MI, ND, OH, TX) and 87 for De La Fuente (AZ, CA, IN, MD). Combined with their 17 and 147 votes of on-ballot access, neither meets the 270 threshold for the infobox. Feel free to update or challenge the items below, but my opinion is that both candidates should be removed from the infobox until we can document the necessary electoral slates. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 17:41, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Kotlikoff

• Alabama - * No provision for filing electors
• Alaska - N No electors listed
• Arizona - Y Full slate required
• Florida - Y Full slate required
• Georgia - Unknown
• Idaho - N No electors listed
• Illinois - Unknown
• Indiana - Y Full slate required
• Iowa - * No provision for filing electors
• Kentucky - Y Full slate required
• Maine - Y Full slate listed
• Maryland - Y Full slate required
• Massachusetts - Y Full slate required
• Michigan Y Full slate required
• Montana N No electors listed
• New Hampshire - * No provision for filing electors
• New Jersey - * No provision for filing electors
• North Dakota - Y Full slate required
• Ohio - Y Full slate required
• Oregon - Unknown
• Pennsylvania - * No provision for filing electors
• Rhode Island - * No provision for filing electors
• Tennessee - Unknown
• Texas - Y Full slate required
• Utah - N No electors listed
• Vermont - * No provision for filing electors
• Washington - Unknown
• West Virginia - Unknown

De La Fuente

• Alabama - * No provision for filing electors
• Arizona - Y Full slate required
• California - Y Full slate required
• Delaware - Unknown
• Indiana - Y Full slate required
• Maryland - Y Full slate required
• New York - ? Full slate not required
• Oregon - Unknown
• Pennsylvania - * No provision for filing electors
• Washington - Unknown
• West Virginia - Unknown

@Antony-22:, @Ariostos:, @Arglebargle79:, and @Prcc27:, we need more time, at least a week, before we reach a consensus! Keep them there for now. Also, if those states don't accept write-ins, then why are they listed as write-in states for the candidates at the bottom of the article in the first place‽ Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The states indicated as "not listed" do accept write-ins, but apparently do not require filing of electors. I was confused by this as well, as the candidate is listed as a write-in in each of these states. I changed the notes to "no electors listed", to clear that ambiguity. Bcharles (talk) 14:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bcharles:, you mean some candidates could legally win some of these write-in states, yet they won't win any of those states's electors? If so, who do those state's electors go to? Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 16:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I feel like we might be violating WP:OR leaving them out. If there's a procedure after a write-in wins a state then we should just include the other two candidates. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 16:22, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, @Prcc27:. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 16:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin: If a candidate wins any state by write-ins, the electors will be worked out, by post election filing, or state legislature appointing, or other state procedure. The electors would be pledged to vote for the state winner, but a candidates filing of electors helps ensure that they are faithful. Bcharles (talk) 18:34, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bcharles: Do you have a source for that? It's also possible that the write-in votes will have no effect even if they win; remember that the process in controlled by the major parties. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 19:58, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

A Note on Ordering of Candidates in Infobox Post Election

Since it now appears that Evan McMullin may win Utah and that Gary Johnson may get more than 5% of the vote, it is possible both may qualify to remain in the infobox post election and i would like to note that the standing precedent on how candidates are ordered in the infobox post-election is to order them by electoral college vote first and then by popular vote. For a good example of this see United_States_presidential_election,_1860 where four candidates are included in the infobox.XavierGreen (talk) 23:09, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

The 1860 election has four candidates in the infobox as all four won at least one state meaning they all earned at least one electoral college vote. The current consensus is that a candidate must either achieve one electoral college vote or reach at least 5% of the popular vote to remain after the election takes place. If Evan McMullin does win a state, he will remain in the infobox. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:35, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not what i was getting at. What i'm saying is if McMullin wins Utah and say gets 0.5% of the popular vote, and Johnson gets 6% of the popular vote but wins no electoral votes, McMullin would be listed before Johnson in the infobox because it is ordered by electoral college votes first as the 1860 election page indicates.XavierGreen (talk) 03:11, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

For the record, and in the hopes of staving off a post-election disagreement such as the one we've had for pre-election coverage, I support this existing consensus. Note that even if Johnson won New Mexico, his best-polling state, he would have only five electoral votes, short of Utah's six unless he also won there. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:32, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I would say Electoral College votes should go before popular vote. From a strict perspective also used for FPTP legislature elections, the EVs/seats won are politically more important. JackWilfred (talk) 15:01, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

This consensus could work as it would still display Johnson's percentage below his image in the infobox, even if McMullin appears before him. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:17, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Request for clear consensus regarding the infobox (4, 6, or 8 candidates?)

Both the 2012 and 2016 articles for the United States presidential elections showed clear consensus that any candidate with enough ballot access can be displayed prior to the election and those that reach at least 5% of the popular vote remain after the election takes place. Whether or not to show candidates with write-in access remains disputed with rough consensus for continuing to show Castle and McMullin. As of now, eight candidates are being displayed, two of which may need more citations to determine if they can theoretically win. There was no consensus for this. While Misplaced Pages is not a vote, the infobox has been topic of controversy on this talk page. The addition of the seventh and eighth candidates requires a consensus.

Who should be displayed before the election? Who should be displayed after the election?
Until the general election results are known, which of the following options should Misplaced Pages decide on for the infobox?
Option I. Four candidates - keep Johnson & Stein, remove the rest

• (Top two: Clinton, Trump)
• (Bottom two: Johnson, Stein)

Option II. Six candidates - keep McMullin & Castle, remove the rest

• (Top three: Clinton, Trump, Johnson)
• (Bottom three: Stein, McMullin, Castle)

Option III. Eight candidates - keep all

• (Top three: Clinton, Trump, Johnson)
• (Middle three: Stein, McMullin, Castle)
• (Bottom two: De La Fuente, Kotlikoff)

My opinion is inclusive of any who can theoretically win; while I would prefer that it shows only those with ballot access, Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball. That being said, if even write-in access is not enough for one to win, they should instead be displayed later in the article as non-major third party candidates.

Additionally, I would like to discuss post-election inclusion and exclusion.

The current consensus for post-election results is to display any candidate that either takes a minimum of 5% of the popular vote or a minimum of 1 electoral college vote. This is a reasonable position though I would consider lowering it to 2% as in recent elections (such as 2012's presidential election) no one third party candidate achieved one full percent; only when combined did they surpass 1%, making anything higher unusual and by extension significant. Additionally, despite only receiving 2% of the vote in 2000's presidential election, many believed that Nader played a role in the election (and some even criticize Nader as the sole cause of the election's outcome). For that reason, I believe 2% is a viable threshold for a candidate to be displayed in the infobox after the election's results are declared, but I acknowledge the current threshold of 5%. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:36, 19 October 2016 (UTC) .

The current consensus is fine, if the candidate gets less than 5% of the vote then we should not include them in the info-box. As for before the election, we just had a huge discussion regarding that. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:45, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

• Here's a chart that shows the scores obtained by the third best candidates since 1900. I think it shows very well that 5% is an adequate threshold to separate the few truly significant 3rd candidates. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 01:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

The question is not how many candidates, but what objective criteria should be applied regardless of specific names. Bcharles (talk) 02:39, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This chart is convincing that 5% does show a truly significant candidate, though I must ask if the 5% threshold applies to continuing to have sections for these candidates later in the article as well.

Is there consensus on if we should keep information regarding these candidates and/or their campaigns later in the article even if not in the infobox?

I understand that only significant information is to be displayed on Misplaced Pages but in this election I find the third parties collectively to play a more significant role than they have in decades. BrendonTheWizard (talk)

I don't think anyone has suggested third parties should be completely omitted in this article. I also agree they deserve mention. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 11:14, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

5% is appropriate since federal funding is available once obtaining that percent in a presidential election. KD0710 (talk) 16:46, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

This discussion should not revolve around which specific candidates should be in the infobox, but what objective criteria we should use. There is already discussion going on above at #Write-in qualifications for infobox on whether De La Fuente and Kotlikoff actually have enough qualifying write-in access to be in the infobox in the first place. Even if they do, I'd support instituting additional criteria for such candidates who need write-in access to get to 270. Some choices would be to require on-ballot access in some number of states or electoral votes, or that their campaign is notable enough to have its own campaign article.

In our case, De La Fuente is on the ballot on more states than even McMullin, and he has the support of the long-established Reform Party (even if it is much reduced from its former prominence). Kotlikoff on the other hand is on the ballot in only two states, has the backing of no established party, and has almost no press coverage. Subjectively, I feel like we should set the threshold higher than that. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 03:31, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

I'll vote for option I with the criteria being 270+ electoral votes ballot access. This is getting out of control. We can put McMullin/De La Fuente/Castle/Kotlikoff in their own special section of third-party candidates with write-in access for 270 or more electoral votes later in the article.--Guiletheme (talk) 04:21, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, absolutely any criterion needs to be an objective standard, not a means to set the line in one place. I think at this point the only standard that will get agreement is "wait two more weeks". 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:52, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Question about the 5% popular vote requirement for keeping candidates in the infobox after the election: there is actually a nonzero chance in this election that McMullin could win in Utah while receiving a miniscule percentage of the popular vote (Fivethirtyeight currently pegs his chances in Utah at 13.6%, but there isn't enough polling to know if that is accurate). I think we have to include any candidate who wins even one electoral vote, no matter their vote percentage. Is there a consensus for this?--Danaman5 (talk) 01:38, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

That is exactly the current consensus. 5% popular vote or 1 electoral vote. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 01:53, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Be sure to note the 1 electoral vote does not apply to faithless electors. Otherwise John Hospers would be in the infobox in '72, Ronald Reagan would be in the infobox in '76, and John Edwards would be in the infobox in '04.--William S. Saturn (talk) 17:35, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Ballot access seems like a reasonable, objective standard for determining the candidates who go in the infobox for a presidential election that's in progress. So I would favor option 1. For infoboxes after an election, I strongly favor the current precedent of 5% or at least one electoral vote (discounting faithless electors), which seems like a great number for capturing whether a candidate was a truly important force as more than just a spoiler. Orser67 (talk) 21:20, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the top six candidates Clinton, Trump, Johnson, Stein, McMullin and Castle should be in the info box. Everyone else is irreverent in the election and does not have enough original ballot access to win and than anyone who gets over 5% can be listed post election.LuckyLag360 (talk) 21:44, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Everybody, keep in mind that Option I was ruled out by the previous RfC. We're only deciding between II and III here. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 22:29, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

How was this ruled out and also what are the "qualifications" to be in the info box. At the very least Johnson has to be there as he has 50 state ballot access and polling well above 5%.LuckyLag360 (talk) 22:34, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

We had a very long discussion which we recently closed that showed a consensus for keeping Castle and McMullin in the infobox. See #A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle above. This discussion is a follow-up to that one on the inclusion of De La Fuente and Kotlikoff.

In general, the rule is that in order to be included in the infobox, it needs to be possible for a candidate to win a majority of the votes in the Electoral College. The ongoing discussions are about what sort of ballot access counts. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 23:19, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Structured discussion

Please consider joining the feedback request service. An editor has requested comments from other editors for this discussion. This page has been added to the following list: Politics, government, and law When discussion has ended, remove this tag and it will be removed from the list. If this page is on additional lists, they will be noted below.

Let's move to collecting !votes so we can actually determine what the consensus is on inclusion of Rocky De La Fuente and Laurence Kotlikoff in the infobox. Keep in mind the previous consensus that the fundamental infobox inclusion criterion is that it is legally possible for the candidate to win a majority of the votes in the Electoral College, and that write-in access counts in principle (see #A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle above). This consensus is not being revisited here. The question here is what kind of write-in ballot access counts. The main considerations are:

• Should we continue to require actual documentation that electors have been selected, as was done in 2012? (See #Auditing the write-in access above.)
• Should we count the 54 electoral votes from the six "free write-in" states (AL, NH, NJ, PA, RI, VT), which do not have a process for advance filing as a write-in candidate?
• Should there be additional requirements for candidates who need write-in access to get to 270 electoral votes, such as requiring that they have on-ballot access for a certain number of states or electoral votes?

Please !vote whether to include or exclude De La Fuente and Kotlikoff, and explain your reasoning. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 00:07, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• If polling above a certain percent is not included in the criteria, the whole thing is fairly meaningless from the point of view of creating an article that will actually inform someone who doesn't already know much about the election. Including barely notable people like Castle and De la Fuente could cause readers to completely misunderstand the election. Putting these people in the infobox gives them undue weight. If all we're looking at is ballot access we will include a lot of people who technically could win but definitely will not win. Including them in the infobox gives a false message to uneducated readers.

But since I've already presented this argument and no one cared about making an article useful for the general public, I propose that the only criteria for inclusion in the infobox is having an article on Wikpedia and having a reliable source stating that you're running for president. An infobox of 20 or 30 is just as useful as one of 6 or 8.Earthscent (talk) 02:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I assume this is an exclude !vote. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 03:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes. But if they are not excluded, I'm not being sarcastic about increasing the infobox to a few dozen people, for this election and for 2020. Earthscent (talk) 14:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

You may not be sarcastic, but your position illustrates why it is important to keep fairly restrictive inclusion criteria for the infobox. If we are actually going down the road of including over a dozen candidates, I would support removing the infobox altogether until the election day, and stop this never ending tedious discussion. The infobox is not a substitute for the whole article, merely a summary of the most important information. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Exactly, the infobox is a summary of the most important information in the article. Castle, De Fuente, etc are NOT important. Ballot access without a poll indicating even a few percentages of support means that he, or any such candidate, is not important for the average reader of the article to know about. People come to this page to learn about the election. Offering them trivia at the top of the page is confusing and stupid. I would say that criteria for the infobox should be national ballot access, plus polls indicating somewhere between 2-5% support. Earthscent (talk) 00:12, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hi guys, I know that couple of days ago I was angry with some of you and I apologize if you got offended by any comment I made. Now let me share with you what I think. Elections in our beautiful country are all about voting for the person that we think that is the best option. Now in a more objective way, of course for him or her to be able to become the POTUS needs to have the mathematic chance of accomplishing it. This year that amount is 270. That is all they need. It doesn't matter if they are write ins or if they are in the ballot is about being able to win. Misplaced Pages is the #1 source of information and the beauty of it is that it usually gives all of us a transparent access to information. We can all agree that today people read less, and this is a pretty big article, so if we send candidates to other areas of the page is not giving them the chance to be seen. Media we know that have always controlled what we see and is subjective, here we have the chance to be fair for once. So bottom line is not just about placing the main candidates (Hillary and Trump) is about giving the ones who have the chance to get more than 269 the right of being seen, they have made a huge effort, lets not take it away from them. The info box is the most seen area of the article, why are we going to make it so exclusive? This is about us being better than the media, is about being good. Probably Hillary or Trump are going to win, but this is not about odds is about merits. After the 8th of November this is just going to be history, today is alive. Love you fellas. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 02:25, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I assume this is an include !vote. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 03:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude. We do not currently have documentation that either of the candidates have actually selected 270 electors, according to #Auditing the write-in access. I would support including either candidate if we can document the requisite number of electors, clarify the situation in the "free write-in" states, and/or they gain access in additional states. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 03:01, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude. Agreed, So we can keep the current six but for the other two they shouldnt be added until they have the proper amount of write in access. LuckyLag360 (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC).

I concur. Kjack1071 (talk) 06:35, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

• Hi, here are some info sources from where you can see that they (the ones currently in the infobox, Kotlikoff and De La Fuente) have access to more than 269 votes.

https://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_for_presidential_candidates, according to this source; ¨An individual can run as a write-in candidate. In 34 states, a write-in candidate must file paperwork in advance of the election. In nine states, write-in voting for presidential candidates is not permitted. The remaining states do not require write-in candidates to file paperwork in advance of the election.¨ Vote Smart, "Government 101: United States Presidential Primary," accessed August 15, 2015. This means that if they are write in they had to apply and fulfill the requirements.

A good link to double check ballot access for the candidates; http://www.politico.com/2016-election/results/map/president

Misplaced Pages Article on third party and independents; https://en.wikipedia.org/United_States_third-party_and_independent_presidential_candidates,_2016

Arizona; http://azcapitoltimes.com/news/2016/10/14/16-hopefuls-seek-presidential-write-in-votes-in-arizona/

More info on write in candidates; http://ballot-access.org/2016/08/27/august-2016-ballot-access-news-print-edition/

Aside note: If someone wants to update McMullin information on that link will be amazing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 05:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• They qualify with the criteria: Electoral + Write Ins > 269. I don't know if any other editors are continuing to take comments on this, but I'm in favor of only listing the candidates who either receive more than 5 percent of the nationwide popular vote, or who receive any Electoral College votes. Since Misplaced Pages is not a crystal ball, I suggest listing only 5 candidates right now: H. Clinton, Trump, G. Johnson, Stein, and McMullin. McMullin is only included in my suggestion because there's a strong possibility that he could win Utah's 6 Electoral College votes. If it turns out he doesn't win Utah, then it's obvious he should be removed, but I think McMullin should be kept until at least after the popular vote totals and Electoral College vote totals are publicly known. Also, I don't believe a candidate should be listed in the infobox just because they can reach 270 or more Electoral College votes with the majority of them being write-in votes. I believe a candidate should be listed if the majority of the possible Electoral College votes comes from the ballot, not write-in votes. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:39, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: please put a bolded "include" or "exclude" at the beginning of your text, to make it clear which you are supporting. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 18:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

1. Sure, but only if we can think of a way to do this while also avoiding a WP:SYNTH violation. But if we do indeed exclude these candidates there would need to be something in the article and/or infobox explaining who does and doesn't have a slate of electors filed for each jurisdiction. Maybe add new colors on the map to indicate which states a slate of electors has been filed for. Otherwise, the readers would probably be pretty confused about what the criteria for inclusion is.
2. Yes, we should count the "freebie" states unless there is a good enough reason to believe that there is no post-election process for filing a slate of electors.
3. 100% no. This would probably contradict the consensus we came up with in the RfC. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: This discussion is too broad, including multiple questions and involving tenuous prior decisions. I recommend focusing on a singe question with no mention of specific candidates. Bcharles (talk) 19:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bcharles: I was hoping to get a quick up-or-down on the extra candidates while mentioning the nuances of the various issues. However, everyone seems to be more interested in changing the infobox themselves rather than having a cogent discussion. We will really need to revisit this early in the 2020 cycle to get an actual consensus, but I'm not sure what we should do to get consensus for the next two weeks. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 02:59, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Unless there is a reasonable reason to believe that there isn't a post-election process for a write-in that wins a state without a slate of electors, I think we should include the other candidates. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:17, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

• Exclude We need to draw the line somewhere here otherwise we could have over 15 candidates in the infobox next time around. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
  • From what I've heard the infobox can only hold up to 9 candidates. I proposed a compromise here. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Exclude I agree with the suggestion above to include only Clinton, Trump, G. Johnson, Stein, and McMullin. But I see that there was consensus earlier to also include Castle, and I guess we'll have to wait until after the election to remove him. People who visit this article are looking for information relevant to the 2016 presidential election, and De La Fuente and Kotlikoff do not belong, other than as part of a paragraph (text only, no pix or maps) acknowledging their attempt to have an influence on the election. Any details about the states where they qualified for the ballot can be included in their own bio articles, and in the articles pertaining to their parties if applicable. NameIsRon (talk) 01:06, 29 October 2016 (UTC)
• Include the named candidates as well as the others who meet the current requirements. Because the infobox only takes 9 candidates, we should remove the pictures of everyone but the two major parties. The whole issue of whether these candidates can actually win because they haven't filed electoral slates is making this overly complicated. I don't trust the legal OR going on here where people are trying to determine whether these candidates could actually win. --JFH (talk) 02:01, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Include. Guys you can´t change the rules of the previous consensus, a lot of people voted. The consensus on the infobox lasts until the elections. It is just 12 days. After that we will make a new one to see who gets included but for now, we got to keep that way. The only ones going crazy about this are the same 3 that want to change it. Take it easy. Check this article: we are looking bad for things like this, we can´t be pulling double agendas into this site, is the most important source of information! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Illdecifrador (talk • contribs) 03:36, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

McMullin's image + infobox color

United States presidential election, 2016

← 2012 November 8, 2016 2020 →
538 members of the Electoral College 270 electoral votes needed to win
Opinion polls
File:Evan McMullin.png Nominee Evan McMullin (current version) Evan McMullin (proposed version) Party Independent Independent

The image on the Misplaced Pages article for Evan McMullin has been replaced recently and it looks rather nice compared to the current one that we have. I do not know if the new image is free but I saw it added to his article so I'm assuming that it could be a viable replacement for what we have now. What do you think we should use?

Additionally, his color currently is a reddish orange that appears similar to the color being used for Trump, so I am considering changing it to an orange that leans neither to red nor yellow as to more clearly distinguish him. The infobox on this section compares the current version of how McMullin appears to my proposed change. Please respond with opinions. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:06, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• Option 1. Light orange line. It looks a LOT better. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 22:48, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• If the image is actually free (the file page currently says it is, but the source is not well provided), I suggest you go ahead and replace the image. This is not controversial in any way since option 1 is superior to 2 in every way. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:53, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• The image should not be used until it is demonstrated to be free--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

In response to William S. Saturn, I tried doing a quick search for this image. This tweet from the verified TeamMcMullin account utilizes the same image, which leads me to believe that not only is Evan McMullin the copyright holder but that he also agrees to release it under free license. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:07, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Still, the copyright on this image is unclear. This should be fixed before we use the image. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:41, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The copyright holder is usually the person who took the photo unless there is some other arrangement made. We need proof that an arrangement was made with the photographer and that the copyright holder agrees to release it under a free license.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:43, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

• I must add that this image will need to be cropped to be in the infobox. I previewed what the infobox would look like with the image replaced, and it's a little too wide. For now, I've changed only the color in the infobox. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:22, 21 October 2016 (UTC)
• I've cropped it. This won't be added to the infobox yet. I'll attempt to find more information about its copyright. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 23:55, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

I've added it to the info-box ONLY because it'll get people more aware of it and more will look into its copyright status. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 00:01, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Posting a photograph to Twitter does not automatically place it under a free license. The image will likely be deleted. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 00:13, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

In case we cannot find sufficient information regarding this image, I've found two more potential replacements on Flickr. This is the first and this is the second. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:08, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

When looking at the version of the article with the new & cropped image, it appears that it is not wide enough now. I'll post an updated version when I can get the dimensions exact. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:12, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard: A photograph needs to be under a Creative Commons license that allows commercial reuse, or in the public domain (e.g. because it was taken by a federal government employee) in order to be used. Neither of those Flickr photographs fulfill those criteria.

McMullin formerly worked for the House Republican Conference; perhaps they published a public-domain photo at some point in the past? Also, McMullin has a number of public events coming up: Saturday in Boise, Idaho, Monday in Jackson, Wyoming, Tuesday in Lakewood, Colorado, and Thursday in Richmond, Virginia and Buena Vista, Virginia. Perhaps someone living close to one of those locations can show up and take a photo. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 00:17, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

I attempted to find pictures of him from government sources by searching through the websites associated with his past government jobs. The most I could find was a pdf confirming his position as a policy director, but I could not find a photograph. His events could generate photographs of him, there's also the possibility of him showing up at the F&E third party debate on the 25th of October soon, though his campaign has not confirmed the invitation. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 00:30, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

One possibility is to contact Anthony Trueheart at . He's the author of the current portrait and he may be willing to publish a better quality portrait that we could use. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:37, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Does this look good? Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 12:45, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Better than what we have now, though a less blurry picture would be even better if we can get one. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 17:46, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

This is certainly much better than the original image. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 19:06, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a photo of him on the Hickly Institute website here, the institute is part of the university which is an agency of the state. While works of the federal gov. are public domain, not sure if that applies to states.Kjack1071 (talk) 06:33, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

That's a very nice image similar to the one considered at the start of this discussion; if we can verify that it's free to use then it would be excellent once cropped for the infobox. Being that utah.edu is the official state university website and is not registered for commercial purposes, we may be allowed to use this photo, but I'm not sure yet. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:29, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I emailed the McMullin campaign press secretary who said that they had other pictures up on[REDACTED] but were taken down. conversationscreenshot here.Kjack1071 (talk) 18:08, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

My question about the infobox color is this: who decided it had to be orange? Shouldn't it be a color that reflects his campaign logo? Also, shouldn't consensus be reached as to what the HTML or HEX color code is? Personally, I think that the infobox color for McMullin's campaign should be something like this:  reddish-orange  Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 07:47, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should use orange, because if he wins Utah - a real possibility according to the polls - it wouldn't stand out very much on the map in comparison to the Republicans' red. I think we should go for the shade of purple being used in FiveThirtyEight's Utah forecasts for McMullin - http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/utah/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sabot Cat (talk • contribs) 22:21, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

!Vote on Evan McMullin's Infobox Color

← 2012 November 8, 2016 2020 →
538 members of the Electoral College 270 electoral votes needed to win
Opinion polls
Nominee Evan McMullin (Option I; current) Evan McMullin (Option II; former) Evan McMullin (Option III; new) Party Independent Independent Independent   Nominee Evan McMullin (Option IV; new) Evan McMullin (Option V; new) Party Independent Independent

As a result of increased interest in McMullin's color, I'm adding a new infobox right here comparing the colors.

• Color Option I:  Light orange  (We replaced the reddish orange with light through consensus due to it being similar to the color used for Trump.
• Color Option II:  Reddish orange  (We previously had this)
• Color Option III:  Magenta  (high contrast to other colors, not purple to prevent being similar to Castle)
• Color Option IV:  Black/Grey  (Symbolizes being independent but not too light to go unnoticed)
• Color Option V:  Cyan/Turquoise  (While somewhat blue, clearly different from Hillary Clinton and Rocky De La Fuenta)

I'm fine with any of these except for II as we already agreed to get rid of it. Please cast your !votes below.

The preview of how the infobox would look with each of the colors can be found to the right of this post. I will also add that I agree that orange wouldn't stand out enough, so options I and II are not my favorites. Magenta could work nicely; I !vote for  Magenta . BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:47, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I vote for  Cyan/Turquoise  LuckyLag360 (talk) 22:08, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

As the person that changed McMullin's infobox color to orange I wouldn't be opposed to magenta (although I don't see why we would need to change his color since orange seems to be working just fine). I am however opposed to gray because on election day as the map is being filled in people might mistakenly think that the blank states (which would be a lighter shade of gray) have been won by McMullin. I oppose cyan (blue-green) because I feel like we should avoid colors that are somewhat similar to other candidate's infobox colors i.e. Clinton's blue and Stein's green. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:01, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

I'd be okay with orange so long as it is not reddish as it was barely distinguishable from the orange/red color being used for Trump. In the first call for consensus on McMullin's image and color in this section, I changed his color from reddish orange to a lighter orange as to make the distinction more noticeable, but I have heard from others that an orange would not stand out as much in the event that McMullin won a state. You bring up a good point with the gray. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 02:59, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

That's probably true, so in that case I support magenta as well. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 03:10, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I propose orange, which seems to be the color used for the 3rd candidate to win electoral votes; ex. Wallace 1968, Thurmand in 1948. Not saying he'll win a state, but he seems the most likely of all the 3rd party/independents to win one. Kjack1071 (talk) 03:57, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I also propose orange. However, the HTML color code I propose is  #FF5800 , which is Color Option II. I just want the infobox color to be consistent with the HTML color code used in the section of the article discussing McMullin's candidacy. As long as the infobox color code matches the color code used in the section discussing his candidacy, I will support whatever the consensus is. Charlesaaronthompson (talk) 15:52, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The color on his section is also subject to change. McMullin's color was previously a blue; it was changed to orange and can be changed again for the purpose of consistency. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 21:21, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Maps don't show up on Firefox

This page contains many small maps showing which states a candidate has ballot access in. They show up on Internet Explorer, but not on Firefox. I am guessing this is due to the use of the {{multiple image}} macro, because these maps show up correctly on other pages (e.g., Evan McMullin presidential campaign, 2016) in Firefox.

Is this a known bug? Is it wise that such an important article is designed in a way that doesn't render correctly on a major web browser? — Lawrence King 23:27, 22 October 2016 (UTC)

Maps show up OK on Firefox here: Firefox 49.0.2, Windows 10 on an HP PC displays maps for Stein (shades of green), McMullin (orange), Castle (violet), De La Fuente (blue-violet), Kotlikoff (yellow-green), Maturen and La Riva. I don't normally use Firefox, and I know I may have misunderstood the original comment ... it seems to me that the page appears essentially identical via Firefox and Chrome ... but if others can describe what platform they are using and how the page renders for them, that may provide clues. When I examine the HTML source in my browser, the maps are just being displayed as .svg images, and the coding seems straightforward. NameIsRon (talk) 06:08, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I thought the original post was about maps in the "Other third parties and independents" section. If the comment refers to maps in the "Major third parties and independents" section, I have had no problem seeing those on firefox. If this is still a problem, please be specific as to which candidate maps are not displaying. Bcharles (talk) 18:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yes, they were about the maps in that section. But they are showing up for me fine now. And when I look at the revision of the page from the time that I posted the comment above, the maps on that revision also show up fine. I can't explain it, but I guess it's all good. Sorry for taking up your time! — Lawrence King 06:47, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Unjustified removal of Rocky De La Fuente and Laurence Kotlikoff from the infobox

LuckyLag360 removed Rocky De La Fuente and Laurence Kotlikoff from the infobox without providing a valid reason. When I tried to add re‐add them to the infobox, my edit was reverted by LuckyLag360. The current consensus is to include De La Fuente and Kotlikoff because they can theoretically win 270 Electoral Votes through write‐in access. Since I can't take them back because of WP:1RR, can someone else do that instead? —MartinZ02 (talk) 00:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

This is being discussed here. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 01:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The reason was clear and understandable. A consensus on whether they should be added has not been reached.LuckyLag360 (talk) 03:09, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@LuckyLag360:, that's exactly what I said! It hasn't been a week, yet people like @SPECIFICO: say a consensus has been reached! But, it hasn't! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk • contribs)

Remember though in order for new content to be added once it has been challenged a consensus has to be met. Therefor the new content that keeps sneaking in must be reverted every time because it was challenged. If the content added gets a consensus than it can be re added. Until than it should stay out and no one should edit war with this as it only hurts your case.LuckyLag360 (talk) 21:15, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@LuckyLag360: Your edits has also been challenged. —MartinZ02 (talk) 17:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@MartinZ02: What edits? LuckyLag360 (talk) 19:07, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@LuckyLag360: Those edits where you remove Rocky De La Fuente and Laurence Kotlikoff from the infobox. There is no consensus which I am aware which says that Rocky De La Fuente and Laurence Kotlikoff should be excluded from the infobox. —MartinZ02 (talk) 19:18, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@MartinZ02: Do me a favor and read this please WP:Consensus LuckyLag360 (talk) 19:25, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@LuckyLag360: Already did that about a year ago. I want you to tell me where it was decided that Rocky De La Fuente and Laurence Kotlikoff should be excluded from the infobox. —MartinZ02 (talk) 19:34, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@MartinZ02: Well you should read it again as I dont plan to even address you're assumptions. I assume good faith but you really need to read it before you reply to me. LuckyLag360 (talk) 20:33, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@LuckyLag360: It was decided in an August 2016 discussion to include candidates who have achieved ballot and write-in access to at least 270 electoral votes. Can you point to a more recent discussion that nullified this consensus? So far, you have diverted the discussion away from that fact. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 21:01, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

I never claimed that. Everyone is wondering where it says they have access to 270 electoral votes? Source it please.LuckyLag360 (talk) 21:14, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@LuckyLag360: There are 23 sources provided for Kotlikoff and 17 sources provided for De La Fuente. In both cases, the states add up to more than 270 electoral votes. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 21:20, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

@JayCoop: Well if thats the case than talk to an admin about it. LuckyLag360 (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2016

This edit request to United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

At some point during the edit wars today, the "Stoyevant Party" nonsense crept back into the list of minor-party candidates. There is no evidence for the existence of this candidacy, and none is provided in the listing in any case, so someone should remove it 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I removed it. I google searched for it and I could not find anything. Regardless though unless the editor can source there add it shouldnt be there, so I removed it.LuckyLag360 (talk) 03:48, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for that. I hope that other editors will watch for this, since it seems very likely that the same content will return, and it's almost certainly just someone playing pretend. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:02, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Note that no state ballot lines were listed, only a few write-in states. At least one state ballot line is required to be included here. Bcharles (talk) 14:50, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@Bcharles:, that's true, also, @LuckyLag360:, thanks for removing it! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 16:41, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

voting machines?

the introductory question: is it technically possible to feed results from all voting maschines directly to infobox? I see it is. If the data are presented bet ween one interface is rather trivial to write a soft to flip the numbers on[REDACTED] infobox. If we do it, we wont need to watch the mosst sad MSM but all views will go to our website. I can dedicate some programming for this challenging task. And if there is your support we can provide a source. 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 03:27, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Having a voting machine connected to a website could result in some hacking, which could change the result of an election. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 13:12, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

But the machines are already connected to servers and the election judges are merely 'legitimizing decoration' because they do not judge the process. Why not trust more solid base of 5columns (and the the info-neutralization in our WP:5P) but trust some corporate closed source solution ? Corporations works for profit. This issue (electronic voting process) have a lot of refs but is not addressed in this article at all: 'string "mach* not found' and singular "electr*" refer to a crystal ball. 2601:248:4301:5A70:201:2FF:FE98:B460 (talk) 21:03, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

References

1. • http://money.cnn.com/2016/08/09/technology/voting-machine-hack-election/
   • https://www.bloomberg.com/features/2016-voting-technology/
   • the servers were indeed an issue of the machine s design http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/06/magazine/06Vote-t.html
   • http://www.democracynow.org/2016/2/23/could_the_2016_election_be_stolen

Admin enforcement needed

Multiple reverts by Gagarin -- Please. SPECIFICO talk 14:32, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, this page has already been locked fully before. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree, too. However, people keep making major changes to the article without a reached consensus, and they're justifiably reverted, yet the person who made the major change in the first place defends themself by saying a consensus was reached, but such a consensus was set out to made only a couple of days ago, with barely anybody having the time to look at it yet. @SPECIFICO: and @Antony-22: are some of the people who say a consensus has been reached. You can't say a consensus has been reached when it has been set out to be made only a couple of days prior! Think about it! If the election were to occur now instead of on the eighth, and it was reported that this was going to be happening on a news channel that isn't viewed often, very few people would vote. This means that the result wouldn't be anywhere near 100% accurate! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 16:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I said no such thing about consensus. I am saying that you're a Single Purpose Account that has ignored warnings from half a dozen editors and you should be blocked or banned from Misplaced Pages toot sweet. SPECIFICO talk 17:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The consensus from 2012 was that we needed documentation that 270 electors had been appointed, which should carry over to this cycle. However, I personally am not making further edits to the infobox regarding De La Fuente and Kotlikoff until the current discussion is closed. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 18:16, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

@SPECIFICO: I think you should read WP:GF and WP:CIV. —MartinZ02 (talk) 20:52, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Hi Antony, De La Fuente and Kotilkoff were excluded again from the article. McMullin is a write in candidate, this means that for example De La Fuente is in more ballots than him, twice as much, but this should not be an issue because McMullin is registered in more write ins. You were part of the conversation in which the 270 was established as a requirement. Now people needs to follow through. The info box is vital for every candidate that has made an effort to be able to get to 270, it doesn't matter how. There is a lot of us that can edit the article, but we believe in the consensus, while other guys are just making changes. Our next President is going to be the same and it doesn't matter if him or her wins by presence on the ballots or by write ins. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 20:43, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Also, I see a lot of accusations coming and going, and the ones who are losing information are our readers. Is as suspicious to take out a candidate without consensus as placing it. Being more negative to erase them because in an information website such as Misplaced Pages more complete is better. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 21:04, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

The Last one two exclude the candidates was Jay Coop and look what it says on his Misplaced Pages page "I am a Millennial Filipino American born and raised in San Diego. However, I'm not a fan of the local teams, but I am a fan of the Chicago Bears, Cubs, Bulls, and Blackhawks. Now's a great time to be a Cubs fan. Politically, I am a Christian democratic socialist. In the first election that I was able to participate in, I supported Bernie Sanders for the Democratic nomination and intend to vote for Jill Stein in the general election." https://en.wikipedia.org/User:JayCoop — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clarinetcousin (talk • contribs) 21:14, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Please sign your comments with "~~~~". I'm assuming that you think that I'm biased because of my intent to vote for Jill Stein, which could not be further from the truth, because I advocated Castle and McMullin's inclusion. I made that edit because of #A call for consensus on McMullin and Castle, but I did so mistakenly. There is no bias on my part. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 21:55, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking into the situation. Ks0stm 22:10, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk · contribs) and WaunaKeegan11 (talk · contribs) each blocked 72 hours for violating the 1RR restriction. Ks0stm 22:44, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

To-Do List (I'll Add-On When I Find More Things We Need To Do)

1. A photograph for Scott N. Bradley. He's Darrell Lane Castle's vice presidential candidate.

2. Roque "Rocky" De La Fuente Guerra and Laurence Jacob Kotlikoff need their own sections here. They're in the info-box, so, why not?

3. A photograph for Edward Emory Leamer. He's Laurence Jacob Kotlikoff's vice presidential candidate.

4. A better photograph for David Evan McMullin. The one that's there has his mouth weirdly open and it's generally blurry. LOOK HERE!!!

5. Ballot/write-in access maps for Joseph Allen Maldonado (158), Mike Smith (164), Monica Gail Moorehead (188), and Thomas "Tom" Conrad Hoefling (225). Anybody who is able to get at least 150 e.-v.'s, but not 270 e.-v.'s, should still get their own maps, in my opinion. We have maps for Gloria Estela La Riva (174) and Michael "Mike" A. Maturen (198), so, why not them, too?

I would like you guys to give me suggestions for what to add to this list. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 00:07, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

We need a better picture for McMullin. Has anyone contacted his campaign to see if they might release a photo under Creative Commons? Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 18:04, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Antony-22:, I put your idea in my list. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 18:32, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Second request:  Done. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 19:13, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27:, thanks! Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 19:19, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

In response to the request for a better photo of Evan McMullin, I've created a new section on this talk page comparing the current photo to a viable replacement. I haven't actually replaced it yet as I'm trying to reach a consensus through discussion, please reply if you like it. Thanks! BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:18, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

@BrendonTheWizard:, I gave my opinion. Also, I put a suggestion for checking out your idea in my list. Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 22:57, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Regarding 5, we could add maps as a link under the electoral vote count. That way we can add maps for as many candidates as folk wish to create without taking up more space. Bcharles (talk) 14:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

That's actually a pretty good idea, @Bcharles:. But, what if a mistake was made on one of the maps? Since they wouldn't have good visibility due to the fact that they're on separate pages, it would be a while until the mistake is corrected. Plus, what's wrong with making a new section on the page just for the maps? Yuri Alexeyevich Gagarin (talk) 16:36, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

There are a fair number of editors who would be checking the maps, particularly while changes are being made to the list of states. The maps would likely be displayed on the candidate, or relevant party, page; and perhaps the United States third-party and independent presidential candidates, 2016 article. The list of minor candidates is already long, and has been mentioned as a possible violation of undue weight. Keeping the information compact helps keep it in perspective. Bcharles (talk) 18:18, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

Added maps for three socialist parties. Added available maps as links under Electoral vote count. Bcharles (talk) 09:28, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 24 October 2016

This edit request to United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Regarding newspaper endorsements: Inclusion of Trump endorsements?

Hi. As a disclaimer, this is my first time commenting on any political issues on Misplaced Pages, and my first time really looking at a potential neutral point of view issue. I think this is worth discussing on the talk page rather than a bold edit, particularly considering the nature of political discussions.

I was viewing the newspaper endorsements section of this article and noticed that it only mentions Clinton and Johnson endorsements. While there are certainly significantly more Clinton endorsements by major news media, I worry that with the current phrasing it is not giving due weight to notable media organizations which have endorsed Trump for this election. Some media organizations, such as the Las Vegas Review-Journal, have a circulation of approximately 220000. On the other hand, The Detroit News, mentioned in the article as a significant organization that endorses Johnson, has a lower circulation of 140000. This does not appear to give due weight to the (relatively small, but significant) organizations that support Trump.

Therefore, I propose that this article integrates content from the main newspaper endorsements page to explain that a handful of news media has endorsed Trump for president. Particularly, I would recommend the inclusion of both Las Vegas Review-Journal and Santa Barbara News Press, the two largest newspaper media organizations that have endorsed Trump. Of course, it is important to note that Clinton and even perhaps Johnson have more or equal support by media organizations, and therefore I would suggest no content revision for the rest of the newspaper endorsements section as it stands currently.

Anyway, that's my view, but I'm definitely interested in what other editors have to say. Thanks! Appable (talk) 07:12, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed in general, though we don't want to give undue weight to minor publications - I think that this just needs a sentence commenting on Trump endorsements, or lack of: the section needs re-balancing to emphasize the unusual absence of endorsements, and to contextualize the Johson endorsements Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:03, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

I've attempted to do this - I've rewritten the section to emphasise the unusual nature of Clinton's support, mentioning the Las Vegas Review-Journal as Trump supporter, and giving the context of Trump's mistrust of mainstream media and use of alternative sources. I've not added the Santa Barbara News Press, which has a significantly lower circulation than the other newspapers mentioned in the summary. I have also more broadly reorgnaised the listed papers to focus on the highest circulation papers. --Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 08:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2016

This edit request to United States presidential election, 2016 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The General election debates subsection devotes its final paragraph to the Free & Equal Elections Foundation debates held last night in Boulder. I happen to think that this content shouldn't be present at all; however, at a minimum it needs to reflect that the debate is in the past and to reflect how it was actually conducted. I suggest substituting the text below, which can just be copied and pasted.

The ] held an alternative debate at the ] on October 25, 2016. Candidates ], ], and ] attended the debate, which was moderated by ] and ].{{cite web |url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-BXjmU3Cs7w |title=United We Stand Festival & People's Presidential Debate Live Now from Boulder, CO! |author=<!--Staff--> |date=October 25, 2016 |publisher=] |access-date=October 26, 2016}} 

Before anyone asks, there does not appear to be any independent coverage of this debate; the archived livestream was the best that I could find.

Also, if this debate remains in the table immediately below, it should be modified to add Christina Tobin's name as moderator along with Ed Asner's.

Thanks in advance for updating this section. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 19:07, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done Bcharles (talk) 09:19, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for updating that section to put the Free & Equal debate in the past tense. I really think there's too much remaining prose about an event that has no third-party coverage, but underneath a fulfilled edit request is not the proper place to argue, so I'll drop it. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 10:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Map (NE & ME)

What are we going to do about updating the map with regards to Nebraska and Maine (they split some of their electoral votes by congressional district)? Since it is very likely that the states' statewide electoral votes won't be called by the media at the same time the congressional district electoral votes are called and since it's possibly that some congressional districts won't vote the same way as the state as a whole- what should we do? Should we make a change to the map? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:40, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

See Nebraska in the map at the 2012 election article. GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 26 October 2016 (UTC)

In 2012 the entire state of Nebraska was initially colored solid red but I doubt all 5 electoral college votes were projected for Romney all at once thus the map was inaccurate. Are you referring to when Nebraska split its EVs in 2008? In 2008 the entire state of Nebraska was incorrectly colored solid red for 2 days. If we don't have a congressional district friendly map ready on election day we run the risk of repeating this. There currently isn't anything in the text editable map that takes congressional districts into account (AFAIK). I tried making a non-text editable version of a scenario of Maine's statewide and 1 congressional district Evs being called for Clinton and 1 congressional district EV being too close to call but for some reason when I uploaded it to commons there was an error . Prcc27🌍 (talk) 00:25, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Oops, I meant 2008 :) GoodDay (talk) 00:57, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

Tom Hoefling Map

At this point, shouldn't Tom Hoefling have his own map showing in which states he has ballot access and write in access? 162.104.116.120 (talk) 22:23, 27 October 2016 (UTC)

the Washington Post article on editing this article

There is an article in the Washington Post about the editing of this very page. I thought it so unusual that I'd post it here. Arglebargle79 (talk) 00:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Hmm... want to discuss more images then? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:34, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

More info in the info box?

Would it be helpful to list, in the infobox, the number of electoral votes each candidate has access to? Currently the consensus is that all candidates who can theoretically reach 270 votes are included, which I agree with. Also, I am pleased that Mike Maturen has been added (271 votes), but Tom Hoefling hasn't been, even though he has access to more than 270 electoral votes (and more than Mike Maturen). As the presidential candidates have their home states listed, should the VP nominee too? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.5.106.137 (talk) 02:20, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The consensus was to include Castle and McMullin. There is no clear consensus on any other candidates, and that is being discussed here. At the very least we need to document that 270 electors have actually been appointed. In any case, for technical reasons the infobox can display a maximum of nine candidates. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 02:48, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Limit the infobox to people who have ballot access in at least five states

Laurence Kotlikoff and Mike Maturen have on-ballot access in only two and one states respectively. Given the ease of registering as a write-in candidate in many states, I believe the threshold for infobox inclusion should be set higher than this. I propose that, regardless of any present or future consensus on whether and how to count write-in states, candidates must be listed on the ballot in at least five states to be included in the infobox. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 03:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Support - But make the criteria 10 states, this is getting crazy. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 03:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)
• Why five? Why ten? – Muboshgu (talk) 03:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Five seems like it would exclude people who get on-ballot access in the few states where's it's very easy to do so. If there's a consensus for another number, I'm happy with that. For comparison, McMullin has access in 11 states. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 03:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Why base the criteria on how many states they have on-ballot access in instead of on how many electoral votes they have on-ballot access to? Prcc27🌍 (talk) 03:23, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

My feeling is that each state represents a certain amount of labor to qualify for the ballot, and filing in multiple states rather than large ones is a better demonstration of a campaign's organization and reach. In other words, getting access in CA/TX/NY/FL would be "too powerful" in qualifying candidates for the infobox relative to others who qualified in many small states. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 03:30, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose -With only a week and a half before the actual election, the point is going to be moot anyway. So leave it as it is for that short period of time and remember the infobox may very well have only two or three candidates on November 9th. I understand that this election is giving everyone here agida, and this argument over the infobox is digital figiting while waiting for the ninth to arrive. The argument is for the most part pointless at this stage. The light at the end of the tunnel is fast approaching! Arglebargle79 (talk) 11:11, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Oppose. There is one week till the election, let the article be as complete as it can be, the 270 limit makes sense because that is what a candidate needs to be President, but other limits are kind of arbitrary. We should be talking about the after the election criteria, rather tan trying to take candidates out of sight. User:ClarinetCousin —Preceding undated comment added 14:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree strongly with ClarinetCousin/User:Arglebargle79. Let's let the election happen, then have a discussion of the issues in a few months time so we have a clearer consensus for future races. Super Nintendo Chalmers (talk) 14:49, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Infobox overload

There are 10 candidates with ballot access/write-in access to 270+ EVs and only up to 9 candidates can have their photo displayed in the infobox. While the RfC is clear that write-ins must be included in the infobox (although it doesn't address elector slate filling); per WP:UNDUE it wouldn't hurt to have a footnote for the write-in candidates and require that a candidate get on-ballot access to 270+ EVs before having their photo displayed. And if on election night one of the write-ins is projected to win electoral vote(s) we could add them back to the infobox. The footnote would read "Candidates that only have access to 270 or more electoral votes with the help of write-in access: Darrell Castle, Evan McMullin, Rocky De La Fuente, Laurence Kotlikoff, Tom Hoefling, and Mike Maturen" (see my sandbox). I think this is a fair compromise that addresses all concerns which WP:CON actually says we should do. To those saying election day is almost here anyways.. Our readers are probably very confused as to what the actual criteria for inclusion is, especially with all the edit warring. Our readers deserve clarity and we should try our best to avoid edit wars. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 15:09, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Well they don't seem to understand how a census works. So unless an admin does there job we'll just have to work with what we are allowed to do which is using are one revert per 24 hours. LuckyLag360 (talk) 17:25, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

At this point something really needs to be done. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:03, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree we need to figure something out, but the current version (with 6 candidates) is not by any stretch a consensus. The consensus is to include everyone with 270 including write ins. If there is an issue with the infobox not allowing more than 9, we at least shouldn't be removing eligible people who have been added. Please revert to the version with 9 candidates until a new consensus is made. --JFH (talk) 18:10, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Per the above discussions it is disputed for those candidates and their 270+ access votes. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:12, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The close of the previous RfC is worded a bit ambiguously. I interpreted it to mean that there was rough consensus to include McMullin and Castle specifically, but there was not enough discussion to determine consensus on any other candidates because they began to be added very late during the discussion. Perhaps we should ask for clarification. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 18:15, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) At the very least, Castle and McMullin have 270 EV including only on-ballot access and write-ins where we have verified that electors have been appointed; none of the other candidates in question have achieved that. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 18:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

In any case we still have the problem that the info-box cant hold more than 9 people. We need some kind of criteria here that is better defined. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:17, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I still support verifying that 270 electors have actually been appointed, which was the rule in 2012. However, this cycle has revealed some nuances (such as states that have write-ins without advance registrations) for which there is no consensus whether to count. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 18:21, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The problem with the write-ins is that we have kinda dived into WP:OR/WP:SYNTH by coming to our own conclusions about which candidates have filed for a sufficient amount of electors (or if it is even necessary to do it at this stage). I lean towards just including all of the write-ins with access to 270 EVs in the infobox because it's up to the reliable sources not us to claim who does and does not have a theoretical shot at winning a majority of EVs. But there's nothing in the RfC that requires us to provide a photo for the write-in candidates and the closer did say we should seek a compromise. But I definitely do agree that we should ask the closer for clarification. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

McMullin is a huge write in candidate guys, but that doesn´t matter becuase he mathematically win. Our next President is the same person it does not matter if he or she wins by write in or ballot presence, the consensus was already made, now you are trying to change it. talk —Preceding undated comment added 18:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

De La Fuente has more than 270+ EVs and it would be totally unfair to remove him from the infobox. As long as a candidate is mathematically able to be elected as president with 270+ EVs, the candidate must be able to be placed in the infobox and be counted as a legitimate candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sammythesquirrel123 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• I'm not suggesting we remove him, I'm suggesting we add a footnote about him because there isn't enough room in the infobox for everyone... Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Prcc27 that including everyone but the two majors without images is a better compromise than the current one, which arbitrarily leaves out maturen--JFH (talk) 18:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Well I was actually suggesting that we leave Jill Stein and Gary Johnson's images in the infobox since they have on-ballot access to 270+ EVs, but at this point I'm somewhat open to that if there's a way to do that without violating WP:NPOV (which I'm not sure there is, especially since Johnson has ballot access in every state/district). Prcc27🌍 (talk) 18:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

As a compromise, I'd go for keeping the six candidates we have now with pictures, since that was the consensus, and then add any others without pictures.

Again, just because a candidate has registered as a write-in in states that add up to 270 EV, it doesn't mean they are able to be awarded electors in those states, and thus they would not be mathematically able be elected. Like everything else on Misplaced Pages, the burden is to find sources that affirmatively indicate that electors will be awarded. It is not clear right now that this is the case in all states. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 21:19, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• I guess I can back that compromise. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:06, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Including pictures of some just because they were added earlier seems arbitrary. I don't understand the other issue of electors. --JFH (talk) 22:31, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• @Jfhutson: Let me see if I can clear things up. When a candidate wins the popular vote in a state they don't automatically get that state's electoral votes. They have to have a slate of electors that will vote for them in December (which is when the Electoral College meets in their respective states). The argument is that the write-in candidates (excluding McMullin and Castle) do not have enough elector slates to vote for them in December. They may be able to theoretically win the popular vote in states consisting of 270+ EVs but that doesn't necessarily mean they can theoretically win 270 EVs unless they do the necessary paperwork. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 23:45, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Since everyone refers to the old consensus and the old consensus has been challenged by a lot of people I think we need a fresh new consensus. Because right now everyone is wasting time on interrupting the old consensus. So someone should call for a vote on who should be included and who shouldnt be and why. And than have a vote. LuckyLag360 (talk) 21:27, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

That discussion is going on here. Antony–22 (⁄_contribs) 00:11, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

request for edit for clarity and neutrality in introduction

The portion of the introduction beginning "Businessman and reality television personality . . ." and ending ". . . has carried a state since 1968." is not strictly neutral and has portions that are unclear and potentially misleading to a less than careful reader.

This sentence "Green Party nominee and former physician Jill Stein has ballot access in enough states to win the electoral college." in context, can be construed by a casual reader to indicate Stein is the only non-Demopublican candidate for which this is true.

To be both clearer and more neutral, I suggest replacing the section "Businessman and reality television personality . . . has carried a state since 1968." with the following which adds 1 prefatory sentence, incorporates the existing parts on Clinton and Trump, and revises the remainder:

Three candidates will be on the ballot in all 50 states. Businessman and reality television personality Donald Trump became the Republican Party's presidential nominee on July 19, 2016, after defeating U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, Governor of Ohio John Kasich, U.S. Senator Marco Rubio of Florida and other candidates in the Republican primary elections. If elected, Trump will become the oldest president to take office. Former Secretary of State and U.S. Senator from New York Hillary Clinton became the Democratic Party's presidential nominee on July 26, 2016, after defeating U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders of Vermont. If elected, she would be the first female president. Former Governor of New Mexico Gary Johnson became the Libertarian Party's nominee on May 29, 2016, defeating Austin Petersen. If elected, he would be the first president since 1850 elected as neither a Democrat nor a Republican.

Six other candidates, though failing to get on all 50 state ballots, will still either be on the ballot, or can be legally written in on the ballot, in enough states, that they could, at least in theory, still get enough electoral votes (270 out of 538) to win the election. In this group, the Green Party nominee and former physician Jill Stein has the most potential electoral votes in the sense that, if she won every race in which she is either on the ballot or eligible to be written in, she would get 522 electoral votes.

In addition, there are at least 18 more candidates, who don't appear to have even a theoretical chance of winning a majority of electoral votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.96.210.230 (talk) 19:22, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Swing states?

The table of swing states seems to omit a couple. Most political sites including 538, Politico and BBC America News include Michigan and Virginia as swing states, and 538 even throws in Minnesota as well. Granted, given the current polling these states seem unlikely to go into the Republican column, but there still seems to be a consensus that these are swing states.86.160.47.112 (talk) 19:26, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

• All unassessed articles
• B-Class Elections and Referendums articles
• WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
• B-Class United States articles
• Low-importance United States articles
• B-Class United States articles of Low-importance
• B-Class United States presidential elections articles
• High-importance United States presidential elections articles
• WikiProject United States presidential elections articles
• B-Class United States Government articles
• High-importance United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States Government articles
• WikiProject United States articles
• B-Class politics articles
• High-importance politics articles
• WikiProject Politics articles
• Misplaced Pages requests for comment