Talk:2010 Maine gubernatorial election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Order of parties listed[edit]

Pretty simple folks - major parties, then third parties, then independents. Democrats have a majority in both houses of the legislature, as well as the Governorship, so they should be listed first. Republicans are the minority party, so they should be listed second. Greens have no elected officials and are a third party, so they come next, and independents are of course last due to not having a party affiliation, having questionable ballot access, etc. Its not a value judgment on any of the parties, its simply the way to order it due to notability and relevence.

No more cute little tricks to get third parties or independents unusual advertising by listing them first, this is the way its done on the other articles, lets try to make this encyclopedic, shall we? FreeRight (talk) 22:58, 7 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair enough. But regarding the recent comment you made in your edit summary when you reverted my edit: "...it is inappropriate to be listed alphabetical or list independents first... it is simply an attempt to promote Alex Hammer..." My response to that is that I have no idea who Alex Hammer is (never even heard of him until just now), and I'm certainly not trying to promote him in any way; rather, I was trying to deal with the editor(s) who kept moving the Republican section to the top and moving the Democrat section to the bottom. In listing them in alphabetical order, my intention was to keep things more neutral. I had no motives other than that. —BMRR (talk) 18:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Granted. You have my apologies, we've had an insane amount of vandalism from Hammer people trying to find any way they can to promote him over the others. FreeRight (talk) 22:02, 2 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

What about the order of candidates' names? Can these be in alphabetical order, or are they supposed to be ordered in some other way? Currently some of them are alphabetical and some of them are not. —BMRR (talk) 19:27, 8 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nevermind; looks like they're all in alphabetical order now. –BMRR (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Dawn Hill[edit]

Dawn Hill has withdrawn from the race. Reference: "Rep. Hill drops out of Maine gov. race" - SeacoastOnline.com –BMRR (talk) 19:09, 1 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Paul LePage web site[edit]

Paul LePage needs a link to his campaign site, since he doesn't have any article on facebook. What's the correct way to do this? Can we make an "external Links" section? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.114.202.214 (talk) 15:01, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to LePage's references. –BMRR (talk) 20:36, 25 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Greens[edit]

There will be no Greens on the ballot this year: "Green candidate drops out of governor's race" - PressHerald.com. Quote: "Her announcement means the Green Independent party will not have a gubernatorial candidate on the November ballot." –BMRR (talk) 20:57, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I reverted your deletion, which is abrupt and incorrect. While there will be no Greens this fall, the Green campaign for governor is notable and should be included on the page. I also added a sentence confirming withdrawal.--TM 21:04, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Since it has been confirmed that neither Williams nor Quinlan will be on the ballot, shouldn't you add a note about Quinlan as well? And if we're going to list all of the candidates, even the ones that withdrew from the race, shouldn't you put Dawn Hill back on the list? –BMRR (talk) 22:19, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would add a source on Quinlan but I don't know of it precisely. As far as Dawn Hill is concerned, I am not going to do it, but I think her status as a former candidate is notable, so go for it.--TM 22:23, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm hesitant to move Quinlan until a source says more directly that he's dropped out, but I'm going to move Williams from Confirmed to Declined. —C.Fred (talk) 22:47, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I would rather put her campaign in a "withdrawn" category. It is very likely that other Dems and Reps will also withdraw before the primary. She and others didn't "decline" to run, they lacked the infrastructure to do so and thus withdrew.--TM 23:09, 15 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Removing potential[edit]

I think it is safe to remove the "potential" category, as the official listing of candidates has been released [1]. Cool?--TM 11:33, 16 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hammer's status[edit]

Three independent candidates will not appear on the ballot due to lack of signatures on petitions. Two of them appear to have accepted this and withdrawn from the race. Alex Hammer, however, is contesting the decision. How should he appear in the section? He was listed as "withdrawn," but an IP editor changed him to "to be determined." I've changed that to "disqualified," since he is not currently eligible to appear on the ballot, though I agree that since he's challenging the decision, he hasn't withdrawn. —C.Fred (talk) 17:17, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"Disqualified" seems fair to me. We should probably put Democrat Donna Dion in that category as well, since she's continuing her campaign as a write-in candidate. –BMRR (talk) 18:04, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd say Dion goes in some other category than "disqualified". She's responded to being excluded from the ballot by running in another manner. Hammer, however, has responded to being excluded by challenging the exclusion. In that respect, his status is not "to be determined"; he's been removed from the ballot. An appeal could overturn that decision, but it doesn't change the current status that a decision has been made. Would "Not on the ballot" be better language for him currently? That would also cover Dion's situation, since she's a write-in and, by definition, not on the ballot. —C.Fred (talk) 18:23, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
How about using "candidates on the ballot" and "write-in candidates" for the Dems section? As far as Hammer is concerned, I think that using "disqualified" for the heading is fair, because the information about the challenge/appeal can still be included next to his name. And if his challenge is not successful, he could still potentially run as a write-in and we could change the heading accordingly. –BMRR (talk) 18:32, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm okay with it, though of course I'm welcome to perspective from any other editors interested in the wording. —C.Fred (talk) 18:38, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it might be time to consider semi-protecting this article. The constant POV edits to the Alex Hammer section are growing tiresome, and the person making them apparently doesn't want to play by the rules. –BMRR (talk) 18:06, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Especially since they don't want to participate in the discussion here. I'm too involved to want to protect it myself, so I'd say if there is one more round of edits without discussion here, send it to WP:RFPP. —C.Fred (talk) 18:15, 8 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question for Mr. Shackelford[edit]

Mr. Shackelford, thank you for updating the election results and predictions. Can you please explain your most recent edits, in which you deleted references, put the candidates in a different order (rather than the previous alphabetical order), and deleted some candidates altogether? This is one of many reasons why it's very important to provide an edit summary before saving your edits. Thanks. –BMRR (talk) 14:43, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed merger of independent candidates[edit]

We have three Independents who are only notable for this particular event. Two of them currently have their own articles. The material in those articles should be merged into the event article, and their personal articles converted to be Redirects to this article. Each candidate should (imo) have links to his/her campaign site, Project Vote Smart page, and FEC page. That's useful information. The current personal articles only include the candidate's campaign site, which means Wikipedia is being used for campaigning, not as an encyclopedia of non-partisan information. There's a difference. Flatterworld (talk) 15:59, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree. Cutler was the assistant director of the Office of Management and Budget and high profile lawyer in Maine. He passes WP:GNG. Shawn Moody is a well known businessperson. I already merged Kevin Scott, given that he has received no real attention during the campaign and has not been a factor. Moody has received support, endorsements and a campaign presence.--TM 16:23, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I concur with merging Kevin Scott and Shawn Moody into this article, but I believe Eliot Cutler is notable enough to continue having his own article: he played an important role in the administration of President Carter, and he worked extensively with U.S. Senator Muskie. He has many important accomplishments under his belt, such as his involvement with crafting the Clean Air Act and the Clean Water Act. Any of these things viewed individually might not make him notable, but when you view all of these things together, it is clear that he is notable. His article needs to be expanded, not deleted. (In many ways he's more notable than Paul LePage, whose only claims to fame before this election were being the mayor of a small city and being the manager of a chain of discount stores.) –BMRR (talk) 23:37, 6 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Kevin Scott[edit]

Should be removed from the infobox. He had no impact on the election and just adds unnecessary clutter and confuses readers. We are not here to report ballots, but the general sense of the race.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:15, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

In a race as close as this one, Kevin Scott's votes are very important to indicate in the infobox. Moreover, sources covering the election included Scott [2][3][4][5]. Having received significant coverage during the election and being part of the general election story is more important than the number of votes for a candidate in terms of inclusion on Wikipedia.--TM 05:31, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not familiar with the "rules" regarding gubernatorial election infoboxes, in terms of who can be included and who can be excluded. (Where would one find such rules, assuming they exist?) That said, despite the low number of votes he received, and despite the fact that he never polled above 1% during the campaign, he did appear in every televised debate, he received significant coverage in the media, and he is now a household name in Maine. I think many Mainers would find it confusing if he was not in the infobox, considering that he was on the ballot and is now widely known. –BMRR (talk) 05:33, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There are no rules per se, discussions have taken place here and on various other talk pages. For a current discussion, see Talk:Massachusetts gubernatorial election, 2010#RfC - Jill Stein--TM 19:01, 7 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah there are no rules and thats the problem.--Metallurgist (talk) 08:46, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@TM -- Kevin Scott had no effect on the race. The margin between LePage and Cutler is over 1%. As for your sources, the first one only makes a nonserious, passing mention. The 2nd and 3rd are generic profiles that are always provided (this is where many body info should come from), but do not constitute notability. The 4th is mention of a debate that appears to be a minor debate since it lacked the Republican candidate. I could be wrong. But nonetheless, it does not create any notability at all. 1% is cupcakes in this election with 4 candidates earning over 5%.

Shawn Moody certainly could have had an effect, by contrast, and probably did. He earned over 2 times the gap of the top two and may have siphoned votes for people that meant to vote Cutler but only thought Independent. Thus, he is significant.--Metallurgist (talk) 08:53, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Scott was included in all of the major debates, I just posted one of them. Whether another candidate choosing to come is not important here. Scott is part of the story of the election. Those looking at the election results who are familiar with the election would find it out not to include him in the most important part of the article, the infobox.--TM 14:41, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As TM said, Scott participated in all of the major debates: these were hosted by Maine's ABC, CBS, NBC, and PBS affiliates. (Check out the external links section of the article.) LePage chose not to participate in the debate that aired on MPBN (PBS), and he received a lot of criticism for that, precisely because it was a major debate that took place toward the end of the campaign. The fact that Scott got tons of exposure/coverage/publicity — just as much as the major candidates — and still only received 1% of the vote, is notable and should be highlighted, not swept under the rug. The infobox is meant to summarize the article and provide a quick at-a-glance overview. Scott was a major part of this race, despite the low number of votes he received. Finally, on an unrelated note, I'd just like to thank everybody who participated in this article over the past year or so. It's one of the best 2010 gubernatorial election articles on Wikipedia. I just checked out some of the others and many of them don't even have results posted yet. –BMRR (talk) 19:35, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Being apart of every debate does not make someone a major candidate. He barely got 1% of the election, which makes him a minor candidate.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:31, 8 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In my opinion, being included in every major debate does make someone a major candidate. There have been many, many debates in which the hosts of the debates chose not to include candidates who they viewed as unimportant. If they thought Scott wasn't a major candidate, they wouldn't have invited him. Scott was given just as much coverage and attention as the others, and he had just as much opportunity to get his message out. That didn't translate into votes on election day, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a major candidate. What if Mitchell or LePage had only received 1% of the vote? Would you not include them in the infobox? The number of votes that someone receives on election day is not a very good indicator of whether they were a major candidate or not. They might just be really unpopular, or they might have made some sort of horrible blunder in the last weeks of the campaign, or they might have withdrawn and told their supporters to vote for someone else; none of that means they weren't a major candidate. –BMRR (talk) 01:36, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Elections and their infoboxes are more than just the results. Kevin Scott, as an active candidate profiled by multiple mainstream outlets and included in all the major debates, is an integral part of the 2010 election for Maine's governor. Results are only part of the story. I wish exclusionist editors would realize that results are not all that are important to an election.--TM 05:13, 9 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is quite sad I help a wiki where we treat Kevin Scott, who had no major impact on the election and did not affect the election either way, with undeserved favorability, in violation of WP:DUE. What makes participating in debates more important than popular support? In addition, to those arguing it would 'confuse residents of Maine', it would not; he is featured in other places in the article, such as the vote total and candidates sections. And since when were we supposed to cater to Maine's residents more than everybody else, who might be confused as to why a guy with 1% of the vote is up there?
Also, 5 people on an infobox honestly looks ridiculous and silly; 4 would be a nice, 2x2 graph. Toa Nidhiki05 17:30, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The title of this article is "Maine gubernatorial election, 2010" — not "Final results from the Maine gubernatorial election, 2010." The article is about the entire election process from start to finish, not just the vote tally. "What makes participating in debates more important than popular support?" I never said that debates are more important than popular support. I said that whether or not someone is allowed to participate in a major mainstream debate is a good indicator of whether or not he or she is a major candidate. "And since when were we supposed to cater to Maine's residents more than everybody else..." I never said that, nor did I imply it. I was simply responding to Metallurgist's assertion that readers would be "confused" by Scott's inclusion in the infobox. I really don't think readers will be confused either way, but if they are, they might be just as confused by his exclusion as others might be by his inclusion. "Also, 5 people on an infobox honestly looks ridiculous and silly..." Surely you're not suggesting that a fifth candidate should be excluded from the infobox on the grounds that five candidates are not as aesthetically pleasing as four. –BMRR (talk) 23:26, 10 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I suggested it. I like how you dodged my WP:DUE point, so I'll spell it out further for you:

Neutrality requires that each article or other page in the mainspace fairly represents all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in proportion to the prominence of each viewpoint. Giving due weight and avoiding giving undue weight means that articles should not give minority views as much of or as detailed a description as more widely held views. Generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.

And before you say this does not apply here...

Undue weight applies to more than just viewpoints—also to images, wikilinks, external links, categories, and all other material, as well. An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject. For example, discussion of isolated events, criticisms, or news reports about a subject may be verifiable and neutral, but still be disproportionate to their overall significance to the article topic. This is a concern especially in relation to recent events that may be in the news. Note that undue weight can be given in several ways, including, but not limited to, depth of detail, quantity of text, prominence of placement, and juxtaposition of statements.

Clearly, this states we should give minority views (or, in this case, candidates) coverage in proportion to their prominence. This means that Kevin Scott is not on the same level as the other candidates, proven by both popular support (ie. minority viewpoint); unless evidence can be provided to prove this candidate is prominent, I will be removing him without further notice. Toa Nidhiki05 00:56, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I hope you won't be disruptive and remove Scott before the discussion is complete.--TM 01:07, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Unless you can provide reliable sources proving he is a notable candidate (and not just a minor, un-notable one), I will. This is a clear violation of WP:DUE, and, by extension WP:NPOV, which is one of the five pillars of Wikipedia. Toa Nidhiki05 01:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am aware of the guidelines of Wikipedia. I am also aware that BMRR and I have both shown that Scott received regular, statewide coverage and was included in all of the major debates. That is the definition of a major candidate in an election. A minor candidate would not have received widespread coverage and would not have been included in the debates. It is the exclusionists burden to disprove this.--TM 01:30, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So you agree that the views of a small minority should be given equal weight? Your argument is a clear violation of WP:DUE and WP:NPOV, and your lack of respect for these rules (and they are rules, the main rules of the website) is disturbing. Also, the burden is not on me to prove it is not in violation; it is the burden of those who added him and support his addition to prove he is notable.
Your main indicators, debates and coverage, prove nothing; fringe views like NASA faking the moon landing, 2012 apocalypse theories, and the 9/11 'Truth' movement are reported in news all the time. Why? They create headlines, and thus make revenue. A fringe candidate being covered in the news is not a sign of notability. And to your other point, debate coverage, Jimmy McMillan and the Rent is too D*** High Party were in a debate, and got extensive coverage because of his wacky views. Does that make him a major candidate? Of course not! Toa Nidhiki05 17:21, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You have repeatedly twisted the words of those that disagree with you. Scott's views are not the question here. In this election, Scott, Moody, Mitchell, Cutler and LePage all received substantial statewide coverage; they were all included in almost all of the statewide and high profile debates. McMillan was included in 1 debate, not all of them. It is simply a different situation. The result is immaterial to Scott's inclusion in the infobox because he, like all of the other candidates, received a significant amount of coverage related to the election. For the last time, the infobox is for covering the main points of the entire election process, not just the result In this particular election, all of the candidates are part of the story.--TM 18:43, 11 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OK, everyone involved in this little spat needs to take a step back and relax for a couple days. We don't need an edit-war to erupt over this innocuous situation, nor do we need more squabbling on the talk page.
First of all, it is obvious that a policy needs to be drafted when it comes to this general issue. Those who are interested can join the discussion on the talk page for WikiProject Elections and Referendums and input suggestions there. (As Namiba and Jerzeykydd have already done.
Next, if one looks at the past pages of Maine gubernatorial elections, it may give a clearer idea on what the past consensus has been.
If there is still an issue, we can always call in a neutral editor for a Third Opinion. However, whatever that editor rules, that is what we stick with, OK?
Now please, let us remain civil, and continue work on this great article. Bkissin (talk) 15:03, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I am fine with seeking a definitive 3rd opinion on the issue. I have asked the other editor in an edit summary to accept it as well but I was subsequently reverted. Let us end this petty, ridiculousness which makes Wikipedia an ugly rather than useful place.--TM 21:12, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Looking back at a few other Maine gubernatorial election articles, I found two instances in which candidates were not included in the infobox, despite meeting the mythical "5% rule" that a couple of people have been touting. So I went ahead and added those candidates to the appropriate infoboxes. That said, I still disagree with the notion that a candidate has to have a certain number of votes to be included in the infobox. I also disagree with the idea that including someone like Scott in the infobox is somehow giving his candidacy more weight than it deserves. If that's the case, why include him in the article at all? He was on the ballot; does that mean that the Secretary of State's office gave his candidacy more weight than it deserved? That argument just doesn't make sense to me. –BMRR (talk) 22:30, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can't do that!!! It will spark numerous edit wars.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:33, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I can't do what? –BMRR (talk) 22:35, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
P.S. If you're going to scream at me via edit summary, you could at least be more specific. I have no idea what "YOU CAN'T!" is referring to. –BMRR (talk) 22:49, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nevermind. Sorry. The candidates you added met the 5% criteria. I read incorrectly.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:50, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I tend to agree with this comment, titled A British perspective, located on the talk page Bkissin linked to above. This is the English Language Wikipedia, not the American Wikipedia. If we're going to have standards for election articles, they should be consistent across the entire project. –BMRR (talk) 23:29, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
One, that blatantly violates NPOV and DUE, which I will not bother repeating again. Two, they have a more multi-party system, with at least 10 parties in Parliment; candidates routinely win with less than 40% of the vote. Three, broad standards won't work, since the US (or for that matter, France, Sweden, Germany, or any other country) all have unique political systems, ranging from two-party to multi-party. Having a unique standard for the US, given it's broad role in international politics and the world at large, is not bad or inappropriate.
Also, I oppose bringing in a binding third-party; I think the informal, unbinding Mediation Cabal would be a much better start. If we still have dispute after that, I can understand bringing in a binding third-party, but currently, informal mediation is the best idea IMO. Toa Nidhiki05 23:55, 15 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Needs more discussion at Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#5.25_Threshold_rule_needs_a_vote. 4 to 5 people is no consensus for something of this magnitude.--Metallurgist (talk) 22:03, 16 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Maine gubernatorial election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:59, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on Maine gubernatorial election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 30 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Maine gubernatorial election, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:26, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

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

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:21, 2 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Maine_gubernatorial_election&oldid=1212495733"