Jump to content

Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 17

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20

The popular vote is still being counted. There are millions more to count in CA. To keep the page up to date, would it be okay to use the reporting provided by Dave Wasserman of cook political report http://cookpolitical.com/about/staff/david-wasserman). As he did in 2012, he is maintaining a spreadsheet that shows the most up to date information as votes are counted in CA and other places. That spreadsheet is located here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/133Eb4qQmOxNvtesw2hdVns073R68EZx4SfCnP4IGQf8/edit#gid=19--Casprings (talk) 03:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

We know the popular vote is still being counted. This page is being updated every day by the editors. I would encourage you to assist if you like. However, even though Wasserman's work is very, very good he does not provide the vote totals for ALL of the candidates--just the two major party candidates, Trump and Clinton. We have been using Dave Leip's Atlas which updates more often than ANY reliable source available. Also, Leip provides a vote total for EVERY candidate, 3rd party and major. It is updated four or five times a day. It is a reliable source that has been used on Wikipedia for over a decade. You can read the Wikipedia article about the website here: Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections. You can visit the actual website here: Leip actual website. Also, because Wasserman is using an Excel spreadsheet on Google many of the editors freak out and they think, incorrectly, that Wasserman is not a recognized expert in his field, but of course he is. David Leip's Atlas, for right now, is the best reliable source for the vote totals. I would encourage you, if do not want to use Leip website, then find a reliable source that: (1) updates regularly (at least EVERYDAY), (2) provides the vote totals for ALL 50 states and DC, (3) is a reliable source (without question), and (4) provides vote totals for all of the candidates. For right now, Leip's website is the ONLY source that meets all of these criteria. Wasserman is superior to the Associated Press because he updates every day--the AP updates randomly and NOT every day. But neither Wasserman or AP does the hard work of providing an easy to access vote total for each major candidate and the most popular 3rd party candidates--only Leip does that work. That's a long answer but there will be new editors coming along demanding that this page use some other source. That's fine but those other sources MUST meet the criteria above or it will not work for this page.--ML (talk) 14:25, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Works for me. I saw the discussion on this above after I posted. Not to crystal ball this, I just think as the spread of the election (popular vote versus electoral college) starts to get closer to the 1876 election, this will become of greater and greater historical significance. I think this is especially true if the US experiences civil discord and unrest during Trumps administration. Casprings (talk) 20:28, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Allegations of influence by the Russian government

There's serious allegations of foul play in this election beyond it being "stolen". The chief of the NSA has claimed that the election was targeted by a "nation-state". Other security officials have specifically mentioned Russia as the source of attacks. http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nsa-chief-adm-michael-rogers-speaks-candidly-of-russias-use-of-wikileaks-in-u-s-election/ http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/election-over-russia-still-hacking-n683651 Silenceisgod (talk) 18:42, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't recall reading any stories where Russians have cast votes in this election. That would be the only way they could influence the result. GoodDay (talk) 19:41, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay:Using effective propaganda during an election, to the effect of having people change their votes, is also considered 'influencing' an election. Gsonnenf (talk) 20:01, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
We do have an entire article on it at Democratic National Committee cyber attacks, but I'm not sure this is the right article to mention it in further, howeverm in light of WP:UNDUE and other issues, care has to be given to depth, location, and tone of the coverage of the incident. Simply put, while the information has been covered to sufficient depth to be mentioned at Wikipedia somewhere we already have an article about it, so we're not missing any information, and I'm not entirely convinced this article needs to be further expanded.--Jayron32 20:08, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
There article might be unwieldy, but so was the election. If there's an article on it and it was a likely influence on the outcome, I think it should be at least mentioned. Silenceisgod (talk) 05:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
GoodDay, saying that Russians voting "would be the only way they could influence the result" is obviously incorrect. There are numerous ways that a foreign government could influence the U.S. elections e.g. propoganda, hacking, corruption, etc. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:98B6:D371:89CE:5E5A (talk) 14:48, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd say wee keep it out of this article. GoodDay (talk) 20:57, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
  • This doesn't belong here. "WikiLeaks" and "Russian Government" do not belong in the same sentence. WikiLeaks is owned by an Australian man who moved from Sweden to the United Kingdom and resides at the Ecuadorian Embassy. To redirect attention to Russia is nothing short of a red herring and any claims that "the election was stolen from Hillary" should not cite reports from the top donors of her campaign. We can mention that the DNC leaks did happen and there's a real argument to be made that they may have damaged the Democrats in the election, but the reason why is the leaks themselves; the DNC has only the DNC to blame for emails that they wrote. Enough about Russia. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:27, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

historical trivia

[from "Results"] Trump became the first person since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 to be elected president without having been elected to any other previous office, and the only individual to be elected president without any prior political or military experience. The 27th president, William Howard Taft, had no military experience and had been elected to political office only once, as an Ohio state judge. He then held appointed federal government offices as Collector of Internal Revenue for Ohio's First District, Solicitor General of the United States, a judge of the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit, chair of the Second Philippine Commission, civilian governor of the Philippines, and Secretary of War under President Theodore Roosevelt. The 31st president, Herbert Hoover, also did not have military experience and had never held elected office. However, he had federal government service as head of the U.S. Food Administration during World War I and director of its successor after the War, the American Relief Administration. He also served in the Cabinets of Presidents Warren G. Harding and Calvin Coolidge as U.S. Secretary of Commerce.

As a historian in training, I enjoyed these meticulously researched anecdotes, but within an election article, this paragraph really ought to be considerably shortened.

Additionally, if we're going to include this "prior experience" angle, there are a number of other important contrasting factors to highlight.

I suggest:

Trump became the first person since Dwight D. Eisenhower in 1952 to be elected president without having been elected to any other previous office, and the only individual to be elected president without any prior political or military experience.
Among other presidents with limited political experience, William Howard Taft had only been elected to political office only once as an Ohio state judge before being elected president in 1909-1913, although he had held a number of appointed government positions. Herbert Hoover had never held elected office, but led an important government agency during World War I (the United States Food Administration) and had served in the Cabinets under other presidencies.
Trump is also one of the few US presidents who achieved his prior career success in business rather than in law, education, military leadership, or another civil profession. Excluding the founding fathers, only Herbert Hoover, George H.W. Bush, and George W. Bush had significant experience in business and entrepreneurship in their early lives. In addition, he is the president with arguably the most experience in entertainment media before his political career; he has appeared on 194 TV programs related to entertainment prior to his election. The closest comparison in this regard, Ronald Reagan, had only appeared on approximately 15 television shows prior to his election, though he had greater success as a film actor.

Perhaps another user with semi-protection editing rights can work on this, with appropriate sourcing (which should be easy to find!).65.112.8.77 (talk) 17:10, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@65.112.8.77. Thank you for your thoughtful comment. Please register at WP to get a user name.
I had added the information you refer to after the first sentence of this paragraph, which I did not change, because it gave the false impression that Trump is the only president who had no military or elected office experience. As the paragraph notes, President Hoover had no military experience and was never elected to political office, and President Taft had no military experience and was only elected once, as an Ohio state judge.
On rereading, I agree that the paragraph should be more condensed. Those who want details on Presidents Taft and Hoover can look up their separate articles through the WP links. Therefore, I have used the language you suggest in order to more succinctly make this point. I do not think it is necessary to add that the first five presidents who were also Founding Fathers, were successful entrepreneurs (Washington, Adams, Jefferson, Madison, Monroe) or that Presidents Washington, Andrew Jackson, William Henry Harrison, Zachary Taylor, Ulysses S. Grant and Dwight D. Eisenhower were war heroes and senior officers in the army.
The point being made is that Trump is not alone among presidents in not having military experience or not having been elected to political office. However, he is unique in never having received a state or federal paycheck since he never served in state or federal government in any capacity.
I invite you and other editors to tweak the paragraph in order to improve it. American In Brazil (talk) 22:29, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

Need shades in demographic

The shade or red/blue should be proportional to margin of victory among that group.--NetworkOP (talk) 22:45, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

New section: Election was stolen from Hillary Clinton

Investigative journalist Greg Palast reveals that the 2016 presidential election was STOLEN from Hillary Clinton by the GOP controlled states. Greg Palast revealed the stolen elections of 2000 and 2004. We cannot allow the 2016 election to be regarded as legit.

http://www.gregpalast.com/election-stolen-heres/ AHC300 (talk) 11:34, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm afraid that's not a reliable source, per Wikipedia's definition of reliable sources. When the information has been covered by independent reliable sources of good standing, we'll include the information. Importantly, for a subject as widely covered as this election, it would be the sort of thing that would be heavily covered by nearly ever major national and international news source. If one dude's own self-published website is the best place to find the information, it is not reliable by Wikipedia standards, and should not be included in the article. When the BBC, CNN, Al Jazeera, etc cover it, we'll do so as well. --Jayron32 13:38, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I just made a more appropriate section on this, but there are credible, serious allegations of influence by outside governments: http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nsa-chief-adm-michael-rogers-speaks-candidly-of-russias-use-of-wikileaks-in-u-s-election/ Silenceisgod (talk) 18:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

@AHC300. The source you cite is aggressively attempting to sell a book and video based on this allegation. Therefore it is not a reliable source WP:RS. American In Brazil (talk) 03:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

AHC300, your reference is not a reliable source. Wikipedia reports facts not allegations from one individual .Bjoh249 (talk) 08:41, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

@AHC300: I'll make it quick

  • Not a reliable source
  • Unsupported by facts
  • Only one media outlet reporting a 'worldwide scandal'? Give me a break

UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 13:27, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Took out the Nation reference in the first part of article and replaced with ABC News

The Nation is a left wing magazine and website and not a neutral source.Bjoh249 (talk) 23:59, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

You may have intended to remove just that but you actually removed quite a bit more: [1]. clpo13(talk) 00:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Then why did you restore it with only the Nation included? The Nation is NOT a reliable source. The ABC News link gives the facts without resorting to bias. That should be the source used. No sources of any political ideology, whether it be from the left or the right, should be used in the article. Just mainstream sources. Bjoh249 (talk) 08:15, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Look at the link I provided. You not only removed the reference to The Nation but you also took out the text Hillary Clinton will likely lose the Electoral College by 74 votes when they vote on December 19, 2016 and half of the ABC reference. I reverted the entire thing. The ABC reference is still there. I have no objection to you removing the other source so long as you don't break the formatting. clpo13(talk) 17:23, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, I did remove the reference and I made sure not to remove anything else.Bjoh249 (talk) 01:09, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

It should be made clear that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote nationwide rather than the popular vote. Election in the US is decided by popular vote in the 50 states + DC rather than by popular vote nationwide as in for example Russia, Syria, Ukraine. In the case of the 2016 US presidential election, Donald Trump won the popular vote in most of the 50 states + DC while Hillary Clinton won the popular vote nationwide. It is incorrect to state that Hillary Clinton won the popular vote just because she won the popular vote nationwide when in fact Donald Trump won the popular vote in most of the 50 states + DC. In fact, even in Russia and Ukraine which do use the popular vote nationwide system, a candidate must win a majority AKA more than 50% of the votes nationwide in order to win on the first ballot without a run-off, a threshold Hillary Clinton failed to reach in the 2016 US presidential election. 38.121.82.105 (talk) 04:36, 21 November 2016 (UTC)

When the term "the popular vote" is used in United States political history, it always refers to the sum of the popular votes in every U.S. state and territory in which the people of that state vote for president (or, technically, vote for presidential Electors). For the past half-century, that means the sum of the popular votes in all fifty states plus the District of Columbia. I understand that this is not the only way that this term could theoretically be used, and of course this "popular vote" does not determine who wins the presidential election. Nonetheless, this is the way the term is used in all history books, almanacs, etc., and therefore this is the usage that Wikipedia should use. (Prior to the Civil War, not every state conducted a popular election for electors, and therefore the phrase "popular vote" usually needs an asterisk with a footnote explaining that, but since the end of Reconstruction, this isn't an issue.) — Lawrence King (talk) 07:55, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
I saw this on the DRN Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard#Talk:United_States_presidential_election.2C_2016.23Results_section It looks like you guys are doing a pretty good job of trying to reach a consensus here. I have a CHALLENGE for you. Can both sides or both viewpoints be represented in a very short paragraph or one sentence that would be agreeable and in service to readers? Example: Clinton received the higher vote total, Trump won the most electoral votes. TeeVeeed (talk) 15:33, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
IP, this is the US election, not Russian, Ukrainian, etc. Many reliable sources state it as the popular vote and so has been since the adoption of electoral college and the American election. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 15:40, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
TeeVeeed, the article currently makes it clear that Trump won the election, while also stating that he "failed to win the popular vote nationwide". I am not particularly happy with the addition of the word "nationwide", because (as I explained above) the phrase "winning the popular vote" is unambiguous without this addition. But the redundant word "nationwide" does no harm. That being said, while it is certainly possible to put this in a single sentence -- as you yourself did when you wrote "Clinton received the higher vote total, Trump won the most electoral votes" -- such a sentence does not belong in the introduction to this article, because it is misleading. The first paragraph on the 2016 World Series should not state, "The two teams tied with respect to the total number of runs in the series; the Cubs won more games than the Indians" -- because a World Series is won by the team that wins the most games. Similarly, we do not say that "The final outcome of World War II in Europe was that the Germans won in total number of square miles conquered, while the Allies won in terms of who surrendered" -- because that would suggest that both sides "won". American presidential elections, for better or worse, are won by the person who receives a majority of electoral votes. Any other way of measuring victory -- biggest popular vote, most states won, most counties won, most absentee ballots, biggest vote among people who had never voted before -- is not how the election is won, and therefore while it may be worth documenting here, it doesn't belong combined in a single sentence, since that would give undue weight to it. — Lawrence King (talk) 00:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
And this is an election and not a sports game. It is notable that Clinton received far more votes and (not to crystal-ball too much) will become more notable as the vote total she won by passes two million. It is both a highly reference fact and historically significant. Casprings (talk) 06:02, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree it's significant. It is also significant that she won the vast majority of African-American votes, and that the gender gap was the largest in history. All of these facts are notable, but none of them rises to the same level of importance as the fact that the 2016 presidential election made Donald Trump the president-elect. Therefore, the current structure -- with Trump mentioned as winner in the first paragraph, and Clinton's plurality in the popular vote mentioned in the second paragraph -- is very good. We should not combine into a single sentence these two facts, as that would suggest they have equal significance. — Lawrence King (talk) 20:18, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I do not disagree that the other facts are important. However, the reason this is important enough for its position is because he is President when 2.5 million more people voted for someone else. It cuts at the legitimacy of the EC and the future legitimacy of his administration. While there are always mixes of votes from different populations, it is an extremely rare event for someone in the World to take over a position of global significance in an election while receiving less votes. It has happened 4 times in US history. I cannot recall another time it has happened for a single leader who is elected outside of that (I am sure it has, I just can't cite it)Casprings (talk)
I understand that you are expressing your point of view, but Wikipedia articles need to reflect academic consensus. In your point of view, the fact that Trump received only 46.54% of the popular vote cuts at his "legitimacy". As an American, I find it even more problematic that Margaret Thatcher was prime minister of the U.K. for eleven years, and yet received zero popular votes. In the U.K., their system does not permit any citizens to cast votes for candidates for Prime Minister. Instead, British citizens merely vote for a party, and the party picks the Prime Minister. Yet I will not edit Thatcher's Wikipedia article to claim she lacked legitimacy, even though Trump received 46.54% of the American vote and Thatcher received 0.00% of the British vote. — Lawrence King (talk) 22:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
That would actually not be true on a British pm, as they would be elected to parliament from their district. The British system directly elects members is parliament. Other systems elect parties and others have mixed systems. That said, who has the most votes usually gets the power. In this case, sources are heavily commenting on this aspect of the election. For example, http://www.newsweek.com/2016/12/02/rethinking-electoral-college-system-popular-vote-523585.html Casprings (talk) 02:49, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

How can readers have faith in the credibility of the popular vote numbers in this article when there's so much inconsistency in the content about it, and only one source each is used in the infobox and the Results section. These numbers should match throughout the article and multiple sources need to be used to verify those numbers. So why is only AP being used in the infobox and only Dave Leip being used in the Results section? Those two don't even match, and AP is always a step behind in updating the count. Why not use multiple, high level, mainstream sources that all provide the same numbers, like CBS News, CNN, Fox News, and NBC News? All four of them have the exact same current numbers: Clinton 62,523,126, Trump 61,201,031. Obviously, the numbers will continue to change for awhwile, but at least these four very reputable sources will always match, and give confidence to readers that the numbers they're seeing are reliable. Perception is reality to readers, so when you inexplicably limit different sections to a single source to verify important data, and those sections contradict each other, why would a reader trust either? And if you're going to illogically use just one source, then at least use that source throughout the article whereever the popular vote count is shown. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 09:32, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

This problem will not be resolved until mid December when the offical are made clear before the collage vote. --Crazyseiko (talk) 15:53, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree.--ML (talk) 17:11, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Crazyseiko, the official... what? You missed the point completely, which is about illogical sourcing of important data that is continually being updated here. The Electoral College* vote has absolutely nothing to do with the matter at hand, which is the national popular vote. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 18:40, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi, The FOX, CNN, CBS, AP, PBS, all agree with each other within a few hours, so I agree we should be sourcing them as mainstream sources, i believe they were all sourced earlier in the infobox, but someone stripped them out. The Leip source doesn't agree with these majority opinion sources, its only in the article because it provides 3rd party voting data. In the results section this is stated. Perhaps we can add more of these consistent mainstream sources, and not report the minority source for the Clinton/Trump count. For Leip, we can only present their data for the 3rd party sources to maintain consistency. Does that sound good to you 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672?
Keep in mind we have discussed this in other talk page sections, and took this to dispute resolution, but MaverickLittle refused to participate. Gsonnenf (talk) 18:15, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, it sounds good to me. Currently, it makes no sense and destroys the credibility of editors in the eyes of readers. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 18:37, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Your insistence on including information that you know is factually inccorect has gotten bizarre. It's obtuse to say "FOX, CNN, CBS, AP, PBS" when they all use AP data, and AP has stopped updating. AP/CNN/NBC/etc are all showing the current Arizona numbers as Trump1,021,154/Clinton936,250. These numbers are more than a week old. The current numbers according to the official state site are Trump1,252,401/Clinton1,161,167... which are the numbers Leip uses. Now please stop entering objectively false, deceptive, inaccurate, bizzarely inappropriate data in place of the best source with the clear consensus and, gasp, the current information. 2005 (talk) 20:44, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi @2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672:, if you could go ahead and get it done that would be great. I'm currently in a dispute resolution with MaverickLittle and this very similar 2005 guy. I may have, in the admins opinion, violated 1RR so I may be sanctioned for 24 hours. Anyone else who's involved in this discussion and would like to like to figure this out, I'd invite you as well. @Crazyseiko:,@Bcharles:,@CaradhrasAiguo:,@Tomruen:. This is the AN Edit War dispute: [[2]]

Here we go again. Someone has changed the popular vote numbers in the first table in the Results section, but instead of using the source in the table (Dave Leip) they used the sources in the infobox (NBC News and CNN). Again, this makes no sense. It continues to confuse readers and makes the editing seem chaotic. And because only the numbers for Trump and Clinton were changed in the table (and not the other candidates), it now makes the Total of all the popular votes incorrect! The person who did this obviously has no common sense because s(he) didn't realize changing numbers for individual candidates will also of course change the total. In any case, if Leip is the source being presented for the table in the Results section, then you obviously must use the latest numbers from Leip. Do not simply copy the numbers from the infobox using the infobox's sources, because readers have no idea where the hell they were obtained. If you want the numbers in the Results table and the infobox to match, then use the same source(s) in both places. When a reader sees data somewhere in the article, they will click the link attached to that data to verify its accuracy. So whomever is sneaking in these illogical changes needs to stop it. Someone please correct the numbers. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:98B6:D371:89CE:5E5A (talk) 11:51, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with this anon editor. The Dave Leip's Atlas is the ONLY reliable source for 3rd party vote totals. This was changed against consensus. There is disagreement on a lot of issues but one issue that has been complete agreed upon is that Leip is the ONLY reliable source for up to date 3rd Party vote totals. I will update the Results section to the most recent numbers. Please do not change to another source until you get consensus from the vast majority of the editors of this page first.--ML (talk) 19:36, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, I recommend we not show the popular vote, until it's finally tallied. Best we avoid any disputes or possible confusion. GoodDay (talk) 21:00, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

That is not an acceptable alternative. Election Day is over. Trump is going through transition. Your recommendation is never been followed in the past. In all of the previous presidential elections, there have been disputes and confusion but the editors worked through the issues and vote totals were presented as they came in. Your alternative recommendation does not solve anything. It actually makes the situation worse for readers of Wikipedia that are looking to learn more about the election. It is nonstarter as far as I am concerned. Also, your opinion is a very, very minor one that there are very few editors that agree with you. It does not solve anything and it ignores all of the better solutions.--ML (talk) 21:24, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
GoodDay, you really need to stop being disruptive with your continuing non-sensical suggestions. We obviously do not eliminate vital content simply to "avoid any disputes or possible confusion". Disputes and confusion are inherent in polarizing articles like this one. Our job as editors is to fix problems, not run from them. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:98B6:D371:89CE:5E5A (talk) 04:05, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Again, please stop with the put downs. GoodDay (talk) 04:56, 21 November 2016 (UTC)
Hi 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:98B6:D371:89CE:5E5A, Most of the people do agree with you. Thanks for your comments.Gsonnenf (talk) 05:58, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

Not trivia

Re [3]. This isn't trivia. It's actually quite historic.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:31, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

While it is significant to this article that Clinton received more votes than Trump the fact this has happened before is only of significance to articles on the presidential election system in general. Why do you think it is important to this article? It's odd that editors would think the Clinton Foundation or the restarting of the email investigation are irrelevant to this article, but want to add historical trivia. TFD (talk) 05:46, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
It's historic because it has only happened twice in modern times and never by this big of a margin.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:07, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Note also that, primaries aside, the entirety of the lede is about the *outcome* of the election, rather than the campaigns. This is one of the outcomes of the election.Volunteer Marek (talk) 06:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
This is textbook trivia, and definitely not lede worthy. It's no different than the Cubs not having won the world series in 108 years. The popular vote has no significance, it's not even mentioned in the Constitution. Athenean (talk) 06:21, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Re:Athenean, While Popular Vote isn't mentioned in the Constitution, Electoral College votes are derived from the amount of House members, but Congress capped House members in 1911, and thereby the Electoral College votes each state receives, AGAINST the U.S. Constitution. I suggest you learn the Constitution before attempting to quote it. Had House members been increased and allocated accordingly to population, like it was mentioned in the Constitution, Hillary would have won through electoral college votes, not Trump. And that IS important. Watchfan07 (talk) 20:40, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Wait a minute. So you think that putting in a significant historical fact into this article, about the actual outcome, is "textbook trivia", but you also think that putting in a list of "celebrities who promised to move out of US if Trump won" into the Donald Trump article [4] is not trivia at all. Do I have this right? Largest margin of victory in popular vote while losing the electoral college = "trivia". Celebrity gossip = "not trivia". Seriously? Volunteer Marek (talk) 08:09, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
Let me repeat myself: The popular vote doesn't matter'. Really, it just doesn't. Not even as a consolation prize. In any case, it's already in the lede. What you have failed to explained, nark aside, is why this poorly written tidbit of trivia [5] deserves to be in the lede. In case you're wondering why it's poorly written, consider that the comparison to Nixon and Kennedy is completely nonsensical because they won their election, whereas Hillary lost'. Athenean (talk) 23:45, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Let me repeat myself: The popular vote doesn't matter'. Really, it just doesn't. That's kinda a sad statement, albeit true in a practical sense. Which is perhaps why it is important. Objective3000 (talk) 01:04, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Repeating the statement "the popular vote doesn't matter" doesn't make it useful. By that logic, nothing matters in the article besides a one sentence statement Trump won and the Electoral College numbers. Of course the popular vote matters in an article like this, and those numbers certainly matter more than say any mention of Rick Perry's name or Clinton winning the Guam caucus. Whether some sentence should be in the lede, or phrased a certain way, those are different issues. There are hundreds of statements in this article that "don't matter" in comparison to the Electoral vote totals, but the information should be in the article. The popular vote numbers are one of the most important things that "matter" in this article, even if they are not the most important thing. 2005 (talk) 01:50, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
My two cents - Even though the popular vote is not mentioned in the Constitution and the President is elected by the Electoral College, the College itself is picked by the popular vote in 51 separate elections (56 counting Maine and Nebraska). And in today's world of communication the popular vote is looked at by the nation as a whole, as well as the rest of the world, as significant, even if it is not the determining factor in a U.S. Presidential Election. I believe it should be left in. American In Brazil (talk) 13:03, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree. The split between the Electoral College and the popular vote has received extensive coverage, and to just ignore it or refer to it as having "no significance" seems inaccurate at best. Dustin (talk) 17:51, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
  • It's a question of how much to discuss it. Mentioning that it's the fifth in history to feature the inverted vote is fine, canonically itemizing every one of the prior ones, and bringing up the minutiae of it is trivial for this article. We don't need to list the prior elections in this article, and we don't need to (in the lead) overanalyze the numbers and statistics. State the numbers, state it's the fifth time, and that's enough. --Jayron32 13:11, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jayron32. I think mentioning in the lede the election years that the vote was flipped, with WP links so the reader can easily look them up, is reasonable and does not take up too much room. @Athenean - Piece of trivia - I grew up 10 blocks from Wrigley Field and I think that the Cubs not winning the World Series for 108 years is significant. You can take the kid out of Chicago but you can't take Chicago out of the kid. American In Brazil (talk) 13:28, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

It is VITAL that the extremely rare loss of the popular vote in an electoral vote victory is mentioned in this article. No one who knows anything about American history can dispute how extremely important it is.

Following 1824, the first time it happened, the grievances from Jackson's loss to JQ Adams would last for decades. Following 1876, the second time it happened, Rutherford B Hayes was called "Rutherfraud" throughout his Presidency. And the "Great Compromise of 1876," entirely caused by this popular vote/electoral vote discrepancy led Union troops to agree to leave the South and brought Jim Crow back to the South after a decade under Reconstructionist rule. This election fundamentally changed American history. Following 1888, the third time it happened, Grover Cleveland -- who won EV and PV in 1884 and only the PV (but not the EV) in 1888, came back in 1892, based on the perceived illegitimacy of his 1888 EV loss to be the only President in American history to serve two non-consecutive terms. In 2000, the fourth time it happened, there was tremendous uproar and the US Supreme Court for the first time in American history decided the election by forbidding Florida from counting all the votes. 2000 was called a "coup d'etat" and has never been defended by any of the five Supreme Court justices who ruled in Bush v. Gore. It led to the largest Presidential protests in American history. And yes, in 2016, the fifth time it happened, led again to massive protests -- the kind that are simply unseen when a President wins with the most votes.

Calling it "unimportant" is a clear subjective pro-Trump point of view that has no place in wikipedia. EV wins with PV losses are objectively historic and have always led to profound consequences throughout American history. This cannot be disputed.GreekParadise (talk) 23:36, 22 November 2016 (UTC)

This may be WP:OR; but it's very convincing. Objective3000 (talk) 23:49, 22 November 2016 (UTC)
That's why it is mentioned in this article. In the second paragraph, in fact. Are you proposing a change, or are you satisifed with the current position in the second paragraph? — Lawrence King (talk) 01:05, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm fine with the current text and position. I'm only concerned with the concept that it is "trivial" -- which suggests it shouldn't be in the lead at all, if anywhere. Objective3000 (talk) 01:14, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
This sort of thing happens in parliamentary systems all the time. In the United Kingdom general election, 2015, the opposition won 64% of the vote and the government won over 50% of the seats. In the [[Canadian federal election, 2015], the opposition won 60% of the vote, and the new gpvernment won in a landslide. By giving each state the same number of electors as congressman plus two extra there is no intention that the results reflect popular vote. In fact the system was in place before citizens were allowed to vote for electors. By all means mention that Clinton won more votes than Trump, but this not the place for a detailed discussion. It injects a POV to delegitimize the election. TFD (talk) 22:38, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
Not exactly sure if you are familiar with US politics, if you aren't, please refrain as you are only causing confusion. The citizens here directly choose the person they are voting for, well, right now each individual state does based on each state's popular vote. The problem here is that amount of electors are based on the amount of representatives in office in addition to the 100 senators, which was capped by Congress in 1911, and this gives lower populated states much more say in the election and their votes worth more compared to more populated states. I would suggest you Google to see the problems with US electoral system. And also, in the two elections you mentioned, the UK 2015 election and Canada 2015 election, the popular vote winners were indeed chosen for the leading roles. So, I am very confused by that you are trying to convey, or trying to assert by 'This sort of thing happens in parliamentary systems all the time'. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchfan07 (talk • contribs) 01:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Michigan's 16 EVs

Why Michigan's 16 Electoral Votes has not been added to President-Elect's 290 EVs (to show a sum of 306)? 79.76.124.54 (talk) 15:23, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Michigan is still counting provisional and absentee ballots so results are not official. 🔯 Sir Joseph 🍸(talk) 15:29, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Sure, but we could add a note mentioning this point of detail. 100% of precincts have reported their results[6] and local newspapers have called the race long ago.[7] Michigan election officials say that with the current 13,000 vote difference those extra ballots have no chance to change the outcome[8] and local laws only allow for recounts when the difference is under 2,000 votes.[9] Millions of readers turn to Wikipedia worldwide to learn verifiable facts about this election and it's embarrassing that the USA don't seem to be able to fully count their votes after a week… — JFG talk 16:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Counts also include absentee ballots and mail-in just an FYI. Counting every vote does not take 2 seconds to do. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 16:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 Done. Added NBC report of 290 to Detroit Free Press report of 16 in Michigan per WP:CALC. — JFG talk 17:01, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Notably, however, CNN, ABC news, CBS News, Al Jazeera and I got tired of looking, but it looks like every major national or international news site has not yet called it for Michigan. --Jayron32 17:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree that AP, AlJazeera, CBS, CNN, Fox, NBC, and NYT outweigh a local paper. This is undetermined, likely until full, official results are reported. Bcharles (talk) 19:12, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
admit it, you almost used the word "trump", instead of "outweigh" there... I have returned the article to the prior state it was in, pending the official results, or a more broad-based reporting in national or international sources. --Jayron32 19:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Oh, come on now… The AP is being sloppy or overly cautious, like they were during the primaries when results from some states took several weeks to be reported. I remember countless edit wars on "Did Bernie really get 16 electors to Clinton's 15 or was it rather Hillary getting 17 over Bernie's 14?", or "Cruz is mathematically eliminated" vs "convention delegates will deny Trump the nomnation". Sure, Michigan may yet flip to Clinton like the Electoral College may yet stage a rebellion; both are about as likely as an asteroid hitting the Earth before Christmas. We'll report it if and when it happens. Meanwhile the election is settled, nationwide as well as in Michigan. — JFG talk 02:07, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
@Bcharles: The local paper is not guessing, they are calling the election result as "final" based on their reporting on the ground, including the Michigan State Department in charge of elections, which we could quote as well. State Dept says "final unofficial results", in which "final" means the outcome won't change and "unofficial" means there are still some odd ballots to count but they won't make a difference. All the news outlets you cite can be considered a single source as they copy their numbers from AP. I would argue that the local RS with feet on the ground in Michigan carries more weight than the AP aggregate (and for the record, this particular newspaper was strongly endorsing Clinton so you can't call them biased towards hiding the result either). Finally, our own article counts 306 in detailed results tables below, and the lead + infobox should reflect article contents. Accordingly, I will be reverting the total electoral votes to 306 vs 232. — JFG talk 02:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

And here's a fresh USA Today article affirming that Michigan eventual official vote tally won't affect the outcome: [10] retweeted by Mich. Secretary of State:[11]

In spite of the title, the USA Today article just says that the result with Trump leading is not likely to change. The "final" unofficial results simply mean that the state will not continue to update them, and you will need to wait for the official results to be reported later this month. AP supplies data for PBS, Politico and most newspapers. Fox, NBC and others compile their own results and make their own editorial decisions on when to call a race. CNN called NH days before other outlets, NBC still has not called it. Perhaps after being burned by calling elections too early in the past, they are more conservative now. Their is no reason for an encyclopedia to be rushed to call a winner when numerous news outlets have not. Informing readers that there is some degree of uncertainty, that numbers are still being checked and adjusted, says much more than trying to paint the whole canvas as black or white. Bcharles (talk) 05:43, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Why should MI be shaded when the local source even mentions that the AP hasn't called the race there? Plus, there will likely be a recount in MI which just adds more uncertainty. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 16:04, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Gary Johnson in the main box.

Gary Johnson may have only received 3.2% of the national vote, but it is the responsibility of Wikipedia as an open-source encyclopedia to represent candidates that did in fact change the election in a major way (Gary Johnson's overall percentages in Florida, Michigan, and Pennsylvania- the most contested battleground states this year that ultimately decided the election- would have been won by Hillary Clinton had Gary Johnson not done as well as he did).

Along with this, I would suggest amending previous election pages to show major third party candidates that radically changed the vote as well (Ralph Nader in 2000, for example). But this is a start. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:320A:A780:15E2:E3A7:CF88:8233 (talk) 05:53, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

5% is the threshold, and I support that threshold. Calibrador (talk) 06:10, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

5% is completely arbitrary and was proven this election cycle not to matter, as there were multiple state upsets akin to Ralph Nader's run in 2000 this year as well, to almost an even greater extent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:320A:A780:15E2:E3A7:CF88:8233 (talk) 06:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

What source or evidence is there that Johnsons votes would have gone to Clinton and not to Trump, had Johnson not be a candidate? --Gerrit CUTEDH 15:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

This is the same situation as Ralph Nader in 2000, which is universally saw as having been the reason Al Gore lost. Most sources will be from what voters claimed themselves from boards on reddit and through social media outlets. Many bernout voters were split between HRC, Trump, and Johnson, but ultimately that 18% or so (according to bernouts themselves, will cite where I'm reading this) seems to have been what delivered Florida and Michigan to Donald Trump, considering in any normal election former supporters of a Democratic candidate would flock to the one that was nominated. As I said before as well: As the only open-source encyclopedia on the Internet that receives as much support and views as Wikipedia, we have a responsibility to provide the world with an accurate view of important candidates in an election front-and-center. Consider that many people still contest the results in 2000 and do not know about Ralph Nader's involvement. I believe setting a new standard by which we determine which candidates appear in the info box needs to be set. I would say it should be any candidate that has been given major mainstream and social media coverage and notoriety, as well as polling at least 1.00% of the national vote. Here are my sources, and bare in mind that the 18% seems to match up with the national polling from bernouts. Later on I will research what bernout numbers were in May, and adjust them to split them three ways to see if they gave Johnson the apparent boost he had.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Enough_Sanders_Spam/comments/5c4l2r/despite_the_gloating_bernie_bros_they_are_the/ http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:320A:A780:15E2:E3A7:CF88:8233 (talk) 15:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Reddit is a reliable source and can be cited in the article, but the New York Times is just a pro-Clinton opinion publication which does not meet wikipedia's reliable source criteria. 71.182.237.111 (talk) 05:36, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. While we cannot confirm that Johnson tipped the election to Trump, his voter share was well within the margin to do so in Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, and Michigan. If Clinton won those states, she could have won the election. 128.189.147.31 (talk) 16:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

In 1992, many people said the same thing about H. Ross Perot taking votes from George H.W. Bush and giving the election to Bill Clinton. This was found to be not true by the exit polling data. It showed that he siphoned votes from both Bush and Bill Clinton about equally in all states. Perot did not affect the election and he got a helluva lot more votes than Gary Johnson did. The exit poll data is the only way to formulate any kind of reasonable analysis. Everything else is just someones guess or even excuse for their candidate losing. If anyone thinks that voters that chose Johnson (I was one) would vote for Hillary Clinton instead they are badly mistaken. Libertarian ideals are closer to Republican ideals than to those of the Democratic Party.Bbigjohnson (talk) 19:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

I also voted for Johnson, but I'm not a Libertarian idealist and neither is Johnson. Either way, we have a strong civic duty to include Mr. Johnson despite his 4% threshold. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:81 (talk) 20:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

@2602:306:320A:A780:15E2:E3A7:CF88:8233, 2600:387:0:80D:0:0:0:81, and 128.189.147.31: It was decided for all presidential elections that the minimum threshold for infobox inclusion was for candidates to receive at least 5% of the national popular vote or one earned electoral vote. At this time, it does not seem that Johnson received 5% of the vote or earned an electoral vote, so he does not meet the threshold for inclusion. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 22:39, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

As I stated, 5% is completely arbitrary besides being a threshold for receiving federal funding. Consider the implications of including Gary Johnson in the infobox. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:320A:A780:F1F8:F29C:25D3:1ADA (talk) 01:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@2602:306:320A:A780:F1F8:F29C:25D3:1ADA: The definition of "arbitrary" is, "based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system" (Google). It was decided through consensus, not random choice or personal whim, that 5% of the national popular vote or one earned electoral vote shall be the threshold for infobox inclusion. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 01:43, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep Johnson out. It's WP:UNDUE weight for his candidacy. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Keep Johnson out. There has to be a hard pass/fail limit for including third-party candidates by vote percentage, because if you allow one candidate based on arbitrarily almost meeting the hard limit, the next guy comes along and says that his favorite almost meets the limit that is actually in use and ought to be included too. That would make for a huge mess and constant argumentation such as actually was seen in this article prior to the election. The 5% standard is used in other election articles and ought to be universal, and Johnson fails it. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:45, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

It is not so certain that if the Libertarian Party had not been on the ballot Hillary would have picked up those votes in battleground states. Johnson was the Republican Governor of New Mexico and his running mate, Bill Weld, was the Republican Governor of Massachusetts. It could just as easily have been that Donald would have gotten most of those votes. Rather than speculating on "what might have been if only..." let us state what was and leave it at that. That's what an encyclopedia is supposed to do. American In Brazil (talk) 17:08, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

  • This is a perennial topic of discussion on the presidential election talk pages. The criteria has been for some time now that a candidate needs at least 5% of the popular vote nationwide, or at least one electoral vote (excluding faithless electors). But remember that WP:weight (in the case of candidates) is determined by awareness and amount of media coverage, not by electoral popularity. Since there have been candidates who attract considerable media attention and therefore have significant weight (e.g. Nader in 2000), yet don't necessarily meet the current criteria for inclusion, perhaps the existing criteria should be revisited. But it certainly should not be reviewed in the context of a specific candidate(s), as this discussion is. Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The media barely covered the Johnson-Weld ticket & they don't meet the inclusion criteria here (5% of popular vote, or a faithful electoral vote), so the answer is no to inclusion. GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

If we leave out the Johnson/Weld vote, it will be obvious that the vote count for Trump and Clinton does not add up to 100%, - by over 4%. Readers will be left in the dark about where the rest of the votes went. Therefore, we must include at least the Libertarian Party vote totals. They will be included in the history books, so they must be included in WP. (-- unsigned comment by: American In Brazil [12])
Until we change the criteria, he doesn't go in there. Sparkie82 (t•c) 07:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@Sparkie82:. Then we have incomplete totals becasue Clinton and Trump only add up to 96% of the total vote. American In Brazil (talk) 23:47, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@American In Brazil: That means nothing. None of the people on the infoboxes of the elections will ever add up to 100% unless there were only two candidates in each of the races. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 23:53, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
@JayCoop: Actually, except for the Libertarian and Green party candidates, the other third party candidates are too small to affect the percentage to two decimal places. However, the Libertarian and Green parties had more than 6 million votes, or over 4% of the total vote. They should be included or else the vote percentages will be significantly under-counted. American In Brazil (talk) 01:24, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@American In Brazil: For the United States presidential election, 1948, Strom Thurmond was included in the infobox because he earned electoral votes. For the United States presidential election, 1968, George Wallace was included in the infobox because he received more than 5% of the national popular vote and earned electoral votes. For the United States presidential elections, 1992 and 1996, Ross Perot was included in the infobox because he received more than 5% of the national popular vote in both elections. For the United States presidential election, 2000, Ralph Nader received 2.74% of the vote, but was not included in the infobox because he did not have at least 5% of the national popular vote or one earned electoral vote. Neither Johnson nor Stein received at least 5% of the national popular vote nor did either earn a single electoral vote, so they will not be included in the infobox. This is not arbitrary, this is previously-established consensus. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 19:07, 19 November 2016 (UTC)
@JayCoop: If you do that, readers in the future will be wondering where 4% of the vote went. In addition, in the close states of Florida, Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin, if the Libertarian and Green parties had not been on the ballot, the outcome of the election may have been different. Moreover, it is not possible to earn one electoral vote since the minimum number of earned electoral votes is three. American In Brazil (talk) 09:29, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@American In Brazil: The infobox is NOT a substitute for the whole article. Readers who wonder why percentages don't add up to 100% will simply have to go to the Results section to get a complete picture. On top of this, it is absolutely possible to earn a single electoral vote, as would happen if one won the popular vote in one of Maine's or Nebraska's congressional districts. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 17:45, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@American In Brazil: Above. Let me put this in perspective for you: candidates could get 39%, 38%, 6%, 5%, 4%, 3%, 2%, 1%, 1%, and 1%. Only the candidates with the numbers in bold would be included because they have at least 5% of the popular vote. That is the way it is because of consensus. Gary Johnson did not get 5% of the national popular vote nor did he earn any electoral votes, so he does not get to be in the infobox. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 17:50, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@Abjiklam: When you're right, you're right - I forgot about Maine and Nebraska. Do you think "See Results" in the infobox would be helpful to the reader? American In Brazil (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)
@JayCoop: Ditto the above. American In Brazil (talk) 19:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

@American In Brazil: We already have the table of contents for that. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 19:46, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

The majority of readers won't read the results area- that was my main point from the beginning. We as the largest open-source encyclopedia have a social responsibility to provide an accurate look at this election from a perspective that shows why some states were so close. I propose we change the defining variables necessary for a candidate to be added to the infobox to be any candidate that reaches above 1% of the vote and had major media coverage. Hitting that 1% threshold barely happens to begin with. This is necessary for historical perspectives on this election from the eyes of people who can't or don't necessarily use encyclopedia pages properly and would rather have basic information spoonfed through the infobox. This is how you raise awareness of issues rather than presenting a biased outlook 2602:306:320A:A780:F1F8:F29C:25D3:1ADA (talk) 17:30, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Our job is not to "raise awareness" of people "who can't or don't necessarily use encyclopedia pages properly". And people who "would rather have basic information spoonfed through the infobox" don't give a flip about candidates who got 1%. The 5% or one earned electoral vote is a good rule. 2005 (talk) 21:11, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
It's a social responsibility as an open-source encyclopedia to do just that, considering the sheer amounts of people who come, came, and are coming to this election page for accurate information on this election and others. Not doing this goes against what an encyclopedia truly is. The 5% is arbitrary, just as attaining 15% to be involved in debates due to Ross Perot upsetting the system is. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2602:306:320A:A780:F1F8:F29C:25D3:1ADA (talk) 03:56, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
@2602:306:320A:A780:F1F8:F29C:25D3:1ADA: According to Google, the definition of "arbitrary" is: based on random choice or personal whim, rather than any reason or system. 5% is not "random choice or personal whim" as it was debated and was consensus. The infobox is not a summary. Just use your fingers on the screen or mouse and tap or click "Results" in the contents menu. I would have imagined this to be an easy task. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 04:09, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

The 5% or 1 EV inclusion criteria is best. GoodDay (talk) 06:38, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Lead section

The introduction is too long for readers to attract. It should be skimmed down to no more than four paragraphs, ideally two or three. Too many less important events are filled there. --George Ho (talk) 05:57, 23 November 2016 (UTC)

George, I have to disagree. The 2016 presidential election was complicated and contentious. Many readers do not go beyond the lede to get their information and it should succinctly summarize the body of the article. I think it does. Those who want more information can read on. American In Brazil (talk) 16:46, 23 November 2016 (UTC)
That still doesn't excuse excessive length that would (per WP:LEADLENGTH) repel, complicate and confuse, and scare away readers. Also, most important aspects of the election are popular votes, electoral votes, and candidates on the November ballot. Other parts of the introduction are either less important and should be in just the body per MOS:LEAD#Relative emphasis or probably not in the body and should be moved to there. I don't care much for the third paragraph as it includes many primary candidates. As important as Sanders was, unless electors voted him for presidency, summarizing primary candidates in the intro would be unnecessary. This is nothing compared to the 1968 election when RFK was assassinated. The 1988 election page doesn't mention any primary candidates, including Gary Hart, in the lead. George Ho (talk) 04:29, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
George, your thoughtful comment is worthy of discussion. As I stated above, I believe the lede is succinct in view of this complicated election. On one hand, Sanders was a serious challenge to Clinton in the primaries. Removing him would not shorten the lede very much. On the other hand, moving all primary candidates, other than the party nominees, to the body of the article is perhaps the best approach. I invite other editors to chime in. American In Brazil (talk) 15:40, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The issue about length is mostly due to the skirting around the fact that the electoral college hasn't voted yet. Once they vote in December you can probably merge paragraphs 1 and 2, changing "projected to defeat" to "defeat" and getting rid of "once the Electoral College votes are cast.// Voters selected presidential electors, who in turn will vote, based on the results of their jurisdiction, for a new president and vice president through the Electoral College on December 19, 2016". Similarly the first line of paragraph 5 can be shortened after December. I disagree about the third paragraph on the primaries which is standard in most election pages. Losing candidates have been mentioned before (e.g. Ted Kennedy in 1980, who remained a senator like Bernie) and mentioning the difficulty of the primaries underscores the fact that both weren't too popular this year. I'm not so sure about naming Ted Cruz though, it should probably just say "after defeating 16 major candidates..." ; Bernie ought to be mentioned (like Ted Kennedy) as it was a two horse race, but Ted wasn't even the last person to drop out of the GOP race and did not really have an impact on Trump compared to the other 15. piguy227 (talk) 19:20, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
The primary candidates paragraph might have some importance, but I'm not confident that they are most important to the "November election". Sanders was the main Democratic competitor to Hillary. However, since the 1996 Democratic primaries, the Democratic competition has become less diverse and more of a top two tier or something. We could say, "Clinton and Trump are seen as unfavorable by the general public even after winning the primaries." However, some others would emphasize Cruz and Sanders as important defeated primary candidates. Also, while reading intro to the 2012 and 2008 elections, the introductions mention domestic and foreign issues raised during the campaigns. Why not the intro to the 2016 election? George Ho (talk) 20:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Just for an update, the primary candidates paragraph was moved to a body section "Primary process". George Ho (talk) 00:42, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it worthwhile to mention Donald Trump being the first billionaire elected president?

This is a historic first.

45.58.89.143 (talk) 02:03, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Not so sure that's true. John Kennedy was the heir to a fortune worth at least $1 billion in today's dollars. And starting with the first president, George Washington was the owner of 8000 acres of prime Virginia real estate, now filled with luxury homes, upscale shopping centers and high-rent office parks. At the time of his death in 1799, Washington was one of the richest men in the United States. American In Brazil (talk) 02:24, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Mentioning he the first billionaire is highly irrelevant to the campaign and election itself. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:28, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
We know he is a billionaire from his tax returns, right? Oh, wait.... 2005 (talk) 06:37, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
^ lol someone's on suicide watch. --Donenne (talk) 07:13, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
No. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:98B6:D371:89CE:5E5A (talk) 16:31, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
A tax return does not show net worth - only income - it's an income tax. And it's not a first. As I pointed out above, George Washington and John Kennedy were billionaires, when adjusted to today's dollar. American In Brazil (talk) 19:23, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Unadjusted for inflation, which is often too difficult to compute accurately, Trump is the first billionaire elected president. No millionaire can afford to operate a Boeing 757, which costs millions a year to operate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.245.44.6 (talk) 22:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
In comparing different periods in U.S. monetary history, you have to account for inflation. An egg in 2016 does not cost the same as an egg in 1916. Kennedy traveled in a private helicopter before he was elected president. Further, Trump's jet is operated (and no doubt deducted as a business expense) by his company. Many large companies have private jets for their executives. Since it was used in his campaign, its expenses were paid for by his campaign fund, same as Hillary's plane. As for Washington...well, I'll grant you that he didn't travel in a Boeing 757 but he lived like one of the wealthiest men of his time, which he was. Good old George was nobody's fool. It's no accident he's on the $1 bill. "First in war, first in peace and first in the hearts of his countrymen." - John Marshall's funeral elegy. And, I might add, America's first "billionaire" president. American In Brazil (talk) 23:59, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
It's trivia. And we do not know if he is a billionaire. TFD (talk) 18:54, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree it's trivia and not pertinent to the election. It should be left out. American In Brazil (talk) 02:41, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Remove the George Soros rumor

This article is spreading the myth that the electronic voting machines were rigged by George Soros. Problem is Soros doesn't have ownership of Smartmatic and even if he did the fact that Hillary did worse in counties using electronic machines shows there wasn't any pro-Hillary shenanigans going on. This is an encyclopedia meant to give unbiased opinions not a news blog. 107.77.172.25 (talk) 09:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Please see WP:RS. We have provided one, and you haven't. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:17, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
I couldn't find Soros in the article. Can you point to the section you are referring to? Watchfan07 (talk) 17:36, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
Yesterday there was a section about the electronic machines claiming Soros owned the voting machines in 16 states. This is a well known hoax.
http://www.snopes.com/george-soros-controls-smartmatic-voting-machines-in-16-states/ 107.77.172.86 (talk) 20:18, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

The section "Electronic vote tampering concerns" which has snuck into the current article has much of the same problem. It may be that Clinton will ask for a recount in those states (or not), and it may be that the relevant Secretaries of State grant her a recount (or not; anyway they won't do it on Jill Stein's say-so), and those recounts may or may not be allowed by the courts (Bush v. Gore is a substantial precedent to deny recounts close to December 19), but none of that justifies the extensive current section, nor the reliance on one person's opinion, nor the implication in Wikipedia's voice that the opinion in question is a disinterested scientific conclusion that must be entertained "for the purpose of disproving" it. That material should go, unless and until there is a recount actually undertaken somewhere. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 22:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Stein has apparently raised a couple million for the recounts. But, at this point I agree that it should be removed or minimized. Objective3000 (talk) 22:25, 24 November 2016 (UTC)
It seems a recount will indeed happen seeing as $4.3 million has been already raised for it. In two states in question, Trump won with a small margin, 27K votes in one and 10K votes in another. Not as close as Bush vs. Gore in 2000, but due process is due process. WatchFan07 01:25, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Then mention it briefly. Objective3000 (talk) 01:27, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
The amount of money raised is not any guarantee that it "will indeed happen". If there is in fact a recount or an attempt by any state to undertake one, then of course that would belong in the article. I don't see how it belongs there now. In any case, the attempt to promote this by waving an academic at it definitely doesn't belong in the article and won't under any conceivable circumstance on the future. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:56, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Why don't we wait until a recount is actually approved. Right now it is pure speculation.--ML (talk) 18:05, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
“The Commission is preparing to move forward with a statewide recount of votes for President of the United States, as requested by these candidates,” Wisconsin Elections Commission Administrator Michael Haas said. WatchFan07 23:22, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Based on that information I would support mention of the Wisconsin recount where appropriate. The deadline for requesting a recount in Pennsylvania is Monday November 28 [13] and in Michigan it's Wednesday November 30 (and can't be done until Monday in any case) [14]. Unless and until something happens in those states before the deadline, there is no purpose in covering them. I will repeat yet again that a single self-selected professor is not the arbiter of whether there has been vote fraud; that claim, and the mention of what a great guy the professor is, do not belong in the article. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:39, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Voter Turnout

There have been editors who have attempted to put in the article the incorrect notion that Voter Turnout for the 2016 Presidential Election was something like 53.7% or 53.9%. This number is not only wildly incorrect, but it is also based upon poor original research. And of course everyone knows this: Wikipedia:No original research. But that has not stopped caradhrasaiguo or gsonnenf from putting in the article the 53% numbers and then attributing these incorrect numbers to an well-known expert in the field, Dr. Michael McDonald, professor of Political science at the University of Florida. See his work website: Univ of Florida Political Science Dept, Dr. Michael McDonald. See also his Voter Turnout website: United States Elections Project.

Dr. Michael McDonald is the leading expert in this area and he has been talking openly in the media that he believes when the vote counting is done that the percentage will be about 58%--not the fake 53% that caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf keep putting in the article. This 5% difference is significant and it is NOT consistent with what the expert claims and therefore is not a "meaningful reflection of the sources."

The 5% difference is based upon the fact that the voting has not been completed. Various editors have been asking that Voter Turnout not be placed into the article until ALL of the votes have been counted because no one can determine Voter Turnout until all of the votes are counted. It is simple common sense. But common sense has not stopped the dynamic duo.

It needs to be removed until the votes are fully counted. It is as simple as that. It is false and it is not supported by a reliable source and caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf are falsely claiming that the number caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf are making up is supported by the leading expert in the field, when it isn't.

However since caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf have taken it upon themselves to decide the true number of votes and to decide the number of eligible voters and calculate the Voter Turnout on their own--even though they are merely Wikipedia editors and are not experts. This is original research. Especially since the people that specialize in it--such as Dr. Michael McDonald--say that it cannot be determined until all of the votes are counted and McDonald is estimating a different, much higher number.

caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf keep reverting other editors and jamming into the article's infobox his original research number. This violates Wikipedia in all kinds of ways. Caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf claim that their edits have the consensus of the talk page and that could not be further from the truth. There are various editor who do not agree with their false calculations.

caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf have edited article to state that Voting Turnout is 53.7%. You can see one of the edits here: Gsonnenf's false claim that U.S. Elections Project reports 53.7% Voter Turnout. The fact is that Dr. McDonald has claimed publicly that he believes the Voter Turnout is NOT finalized but it should be about 58%--not caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf's made up 53.7%. Please see Dr. McDonald's 58% Voter Turnout Estimate here: On November 14, 2016, Dr. Michael McDonald stated 58%--not the false number Gsonnenf uses

When you compare caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf's made up number (and they are NOT experts, just a Wikipedia editors) with the number that has been posted by Dr. McDonald on his Twitter account (and quoted in the New York Times), you can easily see that caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf are engaging in original research--which is verifiably incorrect and caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf are flat out making up a number and then--to put the icing on the cake--they incorrectly claim that Dr. McDonald supports the false 53.7% number. Dr. McDonald does not support any such thing. He estimates 58% or more and the difference between caradhrasaiguo's and Gsonnenf's false number and McDonald's true number way, way, too large to state that the C&G number is a "meaningful reflection of the sources"--which is Wikipedia requires.--ML (talk) 16:10, 25 November 2016 (UTC)

I thought it was because (as you can read above) the overall number of voters who can vote has increase so even if turnout is higher its still lower then last time? If that is not the case what the deal then? I'm confused and I was told off and it was sent to Dispute broad.... --Crazyseiko (talk) 19:48, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
I don't know who said what to you. You should provide a link to the comment where you were "told off". But I can tell you this that the two editors above caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf were making up their own numbers. They were using early vote totals to make the calculation, which were wildly wrong because even now the final vote total is NOT complete. Also, two editors would not allow anyone to disagree with their screwed up process. Also, these two editors refused to acknowledge that McDonald has been estimating a Voter Turnout of about 58% ever since Election Day--much higher than their false numbers. They just refused to listen to another opinion on the matter (mine for example and other editors) and they just refused to acknowledge that they were misusing McDonald's raw data. I don't know these two were ones that commented to you, but I can say that even though the counting is still not done the total number of voters has gone up about 5.2 million votes, up from 2012 to 2016. According to David Leip's Atlas, in 2012 there was 129,237,642 total votes and in 2016 there was 134,421,870 total votes, an increase of about 5.2 million, which is about a 4.01% increase in the total number of votes. McDonald states that in 2012 the Voter Turnout was 58.6%; See Voter Turnout history. He currently estimates that for 2016 the Voter Turnout will be 58.5%; See Voter Turnout 2016. Obviously, even though the raw number difference is about 5.2 million votes the actual percentage difference is much smaller. 58.6% versus 58.5%--a 0.1% difference. Voter Turnout for 2012 and 2016 is essentially the same. But you could not tell that from the mad scribblings of caradhrasaiguo and Gsonnenf who were both (1) just flat out ignoring what McDonald was estimating, (2) using incomplete numbers, and (3) using the wrong denominator in the equation--which lead to an impossibly low number of 53%, a number that was not based upon reality, just plain garbage (as the old saying goes garbage in garbage out).--ML (talk) 22:09, 25 November 2016 (UTC)
Here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:United_States_presidential_election,_2016#Turnout and https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution_noticeboard/Archive_144#Talk:United_States_presidential_election.2C_2016.23Results_section I kept taking out the Turnout details and that what happen, so I was right alone. great... --Crazyseiko (talk) 17:49, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
caradhrasaiguo removed the real Voter Turnout number, supported by Dr. Michael McDonald. Now, of course, caradhrasaiguo is the editor that kept putting in the fake, false number of 53%. You can review caradhrasaiguo's unnecessary removal of the real number here: lack of common sense removal of the real number of 58%. Now, caradhrasaiguo refuses to participate in this discussion (probably because he has no logical defense to his 53% number and the discussion above absolutely destroys any reasons that he given for the fake, false 53%. But even though he refuses to discuss he is using our discussion as an excuse to remove the real number of 58%--seems like disruptive editing? Yes, yes it is.--ML (talk) 19:23, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
There was more disruptive editing by Gsonnef when he reverted back to the fake, false number of 53% and once again Gsonnenf attempts to support his false number by using Dr. Michael P. McDonald's work as the support for Gsonnef false number. At this point, that type of editing representing disruption to prove a point.--ML (talk) 22:24, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Undermining the US elections

This page already mentioned the recount in Wisconsin. But regardless to results of this recount, the actual story is much bigger and involves significant and successful propaganda efforts to undermine/direct elections in US. Here is a couple of review refs [15][16], but there are many more. This should probably be described on the page. My very best wishes (talk) 14:48, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Your citations include an opinion article and an irrelevant article about fake news. Your opinion does not belong on Wikipedia. DaCashman (talk) 06:37, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request to Electronic vote tampering concerns section

The wording of this section falsely implies the extent of the possible vote tampering. As per this article from the Detroit Free Press (one of the two major newspapers in Detroit, MI, and a supporter of Hillary Clinton):

http://www.freep.com/story/news/politics/2016/11/23/michigan-elections-director-casts-doubt-hacking-claim/94327842/

According to the CNN report, based on a report in New York Magazine, the scientists informed John Podesta, Clinton's campaign chairman, and Marc Elias, the campaign's general counsel, that Clinton received 7% fewer votes in Wisconsin counties that relied on electronic voting machines, and said that could point to hacking. Though they hadn't found evidence of hacking, the pattern pointed to the need for an independent review, the report said.

In addition, the above linked article states:

Chris Thomas, the longtime director of Michigan's Bureau of Elections, said Michigan doesn't use the electronic voting machines identified in the report as being the sources of potential hacking. "We are an entire paper and optical scan state," Thomas told the Free Press Wednesday. "Nothing is connected to the Internet."

Michigan (16 votes), and probably Pennsylvania (20 votes), are only being included in the recount, because their votes are need with Wisconsin's 10 to change the results of the election. Also, these three states had the narrowest margin of victory for Trump.

Vstr (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, as I've posted above, nearly all of this section needs to go. The Wisconsin recount material can stay, but the rest is unfounded. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 21:56, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Even though Michigan uses paper ballots, it is still being read through an electronic scanner. The argument Mr. Halderman makes for Michigan recount in a blog post is as follows: 1) "No state is planning to actually check the paper in a way that would reliably detect that the computer-based outcome was wrong" or has been tampered with. 2) "Examining the physical evidence in these states — even if it finds nothing amiss — will help allay doubt and give voters justified confidence that the results are accurate." That being said, an attacker would have to tamper with dozens or hundreds of machines to affect the state election, but not impossible. WatchFan07 22:47, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Tampering during the election is indeed possible, but there's also the possibility of a defect in the voting machines' software, firmware or hardware, with a systemic effect on vote counts. The recount might even show that Trump's vote was under-counted, consistent with what Trump himself warned about before election day. The people donating to the crowdfund might wind up paying for a recount that shows Clinton and Stein lost by even more than reported. Wikishovel (talk) 15:47, 27 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_17&oldid=1136474256"