Talk:2020 United States presidential election/Archive 29

Archive 25

←

Archive 27

Archive 28

Archive 29

court outcomes

A phrase in the fourth paragraph states, "by filing 63 lawsuits in several states (all of which were later withdrawn, dismissed, or overturned by various courts)".

• This is not accurately worded. A court can overturn a previous court ruling, but it cannot "overturn" a lawsuit filing.
• The structure of the parenthetical phrase makes unclear what all the prepositional phrase "by various courts" applies to: just "overturned"? the entire series "withdrawn, dismissed, or overturned"? Neither of these readings quite makes sense, as a court could dismiss a lawsuit, but presumably the plaintiff would be the one to withdraw it.
• The list of outcomes covers cases that never received a ruling (withdrawn or dismissed) and (ambiguously) cases that received a ruling that was later overturned, but not cases where there was a ruling that still stands.

2605:A601:AADC:2100:C2FA:4802:5984:FA49 (talk) 14:33, 3 July 2021 (UTC)

Cpotisch corrected the first two problems the day after I reported them (https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=2020_United_States_presidential_election&diff=1031959790&oldid=1031913122), though this editor didn't reference this thread so I didn't notice it before. The third problem still stands in the new wording, which claims all suits were "withdrawn or dismissed". This table shows that to be an incorrect summation: some of the suits did produce rulings. 2605:A601:AADC:2100:C2FA:4802:5984:FA49 (talk) 23:24, 12 July 2021 (UTC)

Restoring this thread from the archive: the problem has not been addressed, so the archival was inappropriate. The lead makes a factually inaccurate statement, which is something that ought to be corrected in a high-profile article. 2605:A601:AADC:2100:C2FA:4802:5984:FA49 (talk) 11:34, 15 August 2021 (UTC)

This inaccuracy remains unaddressed. I have nothing new to add; just renewing the thread to keep the archiver from eating it. 2605:A601:AADC:2100:C2FA:4802:5984:FA49 (talk) 01:53, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

Remove Insurrection terminology?

Yesterday, a new Reuters report, mentioning the current status of the FBI investigation into the Jan. 6 riot, has said that there is "scant" evidence that that incident was coordinated in advance and intentionally plotted to overthrow the government, what would be generally considered to be a coup, or an insurrection. As the article states, "One source [in the FBI] said there has been little, if any, recent discussion by senior Justice Department officials of filing charges such as 'seditious conspiracy' to accuse defendants of trying to overthrow the government". There seems to be little logical basis to maintain that this was an insurrection, when multiple sources in the FBI, as well as all of the charges of the individuals involved in the Capitol riot seem to present that the official position of the legal system and the government as a whole is that this was only a riot. Should we continue to consider this to be an insurrection, despite credible disagreement? I'm not talking about the impeachment articles, since that was simply the charges that were made against Donald Trump, but about the description of my previous edits, as well as where it states that the Jan. 6 incident was "widely described as an attempted coup". I hope we can all reach consensus on this issue.Nousername46000 (talk) 05:14, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

I'd like to chip in my two cents here,for whatever they might be worth in this particular case. My opinion is that, since the substance and tone of Wikipedia content is based on what a majority of the reliably-cited sources say, the terminlogy used in a majority of those sources is the phrasing we should use here. Since legal action is still being taken against the participants in the January 6 event, there are a lot of moving parts to consider, including the currently-ongoing congressional probe into what happened. With that in mind, if only a few sources have shied away from using the "insurrection" terminology (which currently seems to be accurate), then with the bulk of cited sources using that teerminology still, it could be disingenuous and a disservice to those reading these articles to prematurely and preemptively use a limited number of sources to determine the correct terminology. As the aftermath of the January 6 events contines to unfold, and more sources cover those events without using the term "insurrection", it would likely be both appropriate and preferable for Wikipedia to do likewise. Since the "insurrection" terminology remains prominent in most of the cited sources for the time being, any elimination of that phrasing here might not be advisable until that changes. But that is no more and no less than my own opinion, based on my understanding of the applicable Wikipedia policies. I am more than happy to join and support the consensus once a majority of editors weighing in are on board with changing the terminology. But for now, in view of the reasoning I outlined here, I'd say we should stick to what the majority of sources say. Hope my perspective, such as it is, is helpful to this discussion. --Jgstokes (talk) 05:53, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

• I agree with Nousername46000 the lead in the main article 2021 United States Capitol attack describes them as "rioters" after discussion as it the more Commonname and is NPOV.Pharaoh of the Wizards (talk) 06:29, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• I agree with the original post. There is no need to wait for previously cited sources to change their tune. Outdated sources are outdated. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 22:57, 21 August 2021 (UTC)
• I also agree with Nousername46000. FBI conclusions and court outcomes are more credible sources than media stories, where hyperbole is part of the business model. 2605:A601:AADC:2100:C2FA:4802:5984:FA49 (talk) 21:26, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
• I agree. "Riot" is a more appropriate term.--Jack Upland (talk) 08:35, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

References

The same FBI that bungled the Larry Nassar and Brett Kavanaugh investigations? Not exactly a paragon of reliability and bedrock investigation these days, so their "findings" should not be regarded as something that dictates Wikipedia article names. As it is reliably sourced, it is worth a mention in 2020_United_States_presidential_election#Post-certification, that's all. ValarianB (talk) 11:56, 21 September 2021 (UTC)

How interesting - Steve Bannon admits he helped plan 6 January Trump rally to ‘kill the Biden presidency in the crib’. ValarianB (talk) 11:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

Margin Swing

In the table for Results by state, there's a column called "Margin Swing." There's no mention of what this means or how the figure is calculated. A footnote would be helpful to define this column. I suspect it's how much the margin swung from the 2016 election, but I'm just guessing. I hesitate to modify the page based on a guess. —MiguelMunoz (talk) 22:25, 24 September 2021 (UTC)

You're correct, I added a footnote with the definition. Rundquist (talk) 00:21, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

Arizona's post-certification "audit" found the margin of Biden's win was undercounted. Should we update the margins?

Arizona's post-cerification "audit" shows that the margin of Biden's win was actually UNDER-reported. (The "audit" recorded 99 additional votes for Joe Biden, 261 fewer votes for Donald Trump, and 204 fewer votes for Jo Jorgensen.) Should we update the results (at both the state and national level) to reflect these new margins on the grounds that they are possibly more accurate? Or should we stick with the original, certified numbers on the grounds that they are the official results?

Please note the precedent we set could have consequences if any other states or localities subsequently perform "audits" that purport to show a dramatic change in results. ROADKILL (talk) 00:23, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I'd say the official results as reported should not be changed. There will be discussion of the CyberNinjas reported findings in the appropriate article. Regards, Newyorkbrad (talk) 00:41, 25 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree we should keep the official results, unless election officials in AZ adopt the results from the audit as the new official results. Since the audit was not sanctioned by election officials, I would expect this to be unlikely. Mdewman6 (talk) 00:29, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

No. The audit was opposed by elections officials, and was widely denounced as a "sham" by the media. Its conclusions are meaningless. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 00:48, 29 September 2021 (UTC)

The audit was conducted by a quack organization the CyberNinjas and its president its a hard core Trump supporter and a believer in mass voter fraud. So in short, no. Perfecnot (talk) 04:42, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

References

Biased article

This article is biased af 2600:8805:1503:9700:71E6:DEF7:AAE:1B01 (talk) 15:37, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Could you be a little more specific and cite your reasoning? Bkatcher (talk) 16:12, 19 November 2021 (UTC)

Biased Article

This article is very biased, as it doesn’t say anything about the way Biden won, not the possibility of election fraud. 2600:1005:B16E:45E:94BD:30FE:73C5:A001 (talk) 01:49, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

The article is not biased and there was no election fraud. Biden won the election by getting more votes than Trump, especially in the states of AZ, GA, PA, WI, and MI. You are welcome for the explanation. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:13, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

I disagree. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1005:B16E:45E:94BD:30FE:73C5:A001 (talk) 03:17, 21 November 2021 (UTC)

"Alliance" in the infobox

On some United States election artitcles (1792 United States presidential election for an example), it shows 'Alliance' in the infobox for factions with the political party. I think this article should include that with Joe Biden's alliance being New Democrats and Donald Trump's being Trumpism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PatriotMapperCDP (talk • contribs) 13:58, 16 October 2021 (UTC)

That is not for factions, it is for minor political parties that have also nominated the candidate in an electoral fusion ticket. The Federalist Party was a party. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 04:59, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

Pennsylvania Postal Voting Edit

I've noticed that under the Postal Voting section, there's a paragraph claiming that Pennsylvania illegally took away the state legislature's power to regulate elections. It also claimed that these changes made it more likely to lead to corruption in the vote. Now, with all due respect to everyone who works hard to make this article as great as it can be, I find it irresponsible that such an edit, published on 26 October 2021‎ by Tgec17 (he did two, I'm referring to the first one he did) has gone unchallenged for over a week. Since I'm unable to edit the article on my own, this is my only chance to raise awareness about the edit. I recognize that there's a chance that my entry into this talk page may end up being deleted, but I hope that this edit is at least addressed, even it if means leaving it in place. Adrianninerfan (talk) 10:12, 4 November 2021 (UTC)

@Adrianninerfan -- It was removed as part of this edit albeit with an inadequate edit summary. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 11:50, 6 December 2021 (UTC)

Is the lead section too long?

Add your !vote and/or commentary below. Relevant guideline: MOS:LEDE.

• No -- per MOS:LEDE, 4 paras is "rule of thumb" for long articles. This long & detailed article (about a uniquely complicated election) has 5, the last one being brief -- seems fine to me. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 11:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC); added text 12:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

OSCE Report Update

At the time of writing in December 2021, this article contains the following text "The OSCE's election monitoring branch is due to publish a more comprehensive report in early 2021."

This should be updated. Has the "comprehensive" OSCE report been released, and if so, is there anything notable which should be added to this article? 2001:480:91:FF00:0:0:0:15 (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

See here (summary that links to pdf); tbd on whether/how to revise article accordingly. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 09:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Missing space

There is a missing space right before the last sentence of the first section. 173.71.170.75 (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing that out! EvergreenFir (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

Redundant popular vote information.

In regarding Joe Biden having the highest vote tally, isn't it a bit redundant to bring up the 2008 election? The line "...surpassing Barack Obama's record of 69.5 million votes from 2008" doesn't really add anything and seems WP:UNDUE. As if Obama was the only candidate in history to receive the highest popular vote tally in a presidential election. Especially considering Obama broke Bush's record of 62 million votes, While Bush broke Reagan's record of 54 million votes in 2004, Regan broke Nixon's record of 47 million votes in 1984 and so forth. Yet oddly enough in none of those articles is any popular vote "record-breaking" mentioned. Not only that but contextually it also seems to conflate popular vote tallies with general popularity, which is obviously untrue.

There's obviously a natural trend for more recent candidates to receive bigger vote tallies regardless of party as the population grows.

Simply stating that Biden received the most popular votes ever in a presidential election during a high-turnout years seems to be more impartial and fair to both Obama and Biden. I would recommend something like this, "To date, Biden has received the most votes in a presidential election". The preposition to "... to date" makes it seem like a statement with a time constraint, as if to imply it's likely another individual will get more votes. It also comes across as more WP:IMPARTIAL.

Say hypothetically Biden wins the popular vote again in 2024 (likely but beside the point), gets 86 million votes for example. Are we going to have these constant references through articles about vote tallies and recording breaking dating only to 2008? So is this (hypothetical) 2024 article going say, Biden received the most votes ever cast for a candidate, 86 million, which broke the 2020 record of 82 million, which also broke the the former record held in 2008?

The 2008 article references the 2020 article as far as the popular vote which, doesn't seem to add impartial information but fluff, the note about Obama receiving the highest percentage of the popular vote sense 1964 is good information. Constantly making tallies about record breaking the popular vote in elections where the population is constantly growing doesn't make much sense, mentioning Trump getting more votes than Obama also doesn't make much sense either and seems redundant.

I think the standard should be, "As of,... "To date,..." "...Biden has received the most popular votes in a general election" period, with no direct comparisons.

68.189.4.21 (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this change is better for the reasons stated above. Przemysl15 (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep as is -- Just follow sources. When a record of any kind is broken, RS frequently mention the previous record. Where they do, as multiple did here, so do we. Same goes for box office receipts, sports, natural phenomena etc. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 09:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

“Say hypothetically Biden wins the popular vote again in 2024 (likely but beside the point), gets 86 million votes for example.”

What makes you think Biden is likely to win the popular vote in 2024 or even run again for that matter?”Bjohns81 (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The question was posed as a hypothetical, bearing on how to improve the article. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 02:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Change is better-- My main issue is record breaking is never mentioned for the popular vote outside of 2008, which is why I think the phrase "... to date" is more fitting. There's been 59 elections and only 1 mention of the popular vote record being broken. The 2004 Article doesn't state "Bush received the most popular votes in history until his record was broken in 2008". It becomes totally redundant to constantly mention previous elections when the population is constantly growing. I also took issue with the 2020 Democratic Primary page where they neglected to mention Biden receiving the most votes in a Democratic primary. It's not true that when a record of any kind is broken it gets mentioned. Again I tried to get the Democratic Primary page to state that Biden received the most votes in a Democratic primary, and other wikipedians where trying to say "that's irrelevant" and "you have realize the context", check out that page. I get the suspicion the only reason it's been on this page is because it was on chyrons in mainstream media. It doesn't really seem fair to Biden or Obama to conflate "a record broken" with an election that's generally based on EV's and % of popular votes. The subtle implication is that the most recent president-elect is always the most popular one. Putting a spotlight on breaking popular vote records doesn't really seem fair to past candidates. Again it's not about not mentioning it it's about mentioning it in a way where it doesn't over-emphasis it's importance. As such I think the article should state, "To date, (or "As of Nov 3rd 2020"), Biden has received the most popular votes in a presidential election".

As far as your analogy of Sport, Box Office receipts, or Natural Disasters, that doesn't really translate, you don't become President by winning more popular votes, you become President by winning more Electoral Votes. It would be like if a Football team got 700 overall yards in a game but still lost by 20 points. Or if a Hockey team had 130 shots on goal but only scored 2 goals. Even if say, 700 yards was a record or 130 shots on goal, it still wouldn't mention previous records in the article, because that's not relevant. Perhaps you have a page with a running tally of the most popular votes by candidate. Otherwise your going to need to correct 20+ pages on popular vote record breaking so it doesn't come across as WP:UNDUE, because curiously "popular vote record breaking" is no where to be found on those pages, and I think we all know why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_presidential_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_presidential_election.

68.189.4.21 (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't perceive bias in simply following what multiple RS say about Biden's PV record. I think your objection would better be handled by improving sourcing in other articles, and as a matter of fact, I googled for Bush's '04 PV record, and found it's already right there in the lede of our '04 article. BTW, due weight is a function of how any given article reflects the range of mainstream RS, not of how it compares to other articles (or of editorial preferences, e.g. your view that PV totals aren't that important: it's up to RS, not us, to make that call). As for "to date": maybe, but OTOH, in these excessively interesting times, who really knows what the future holds? Anyway, Happy New Year/editing! --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 11:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC); added a bit, 02:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

That tidbit in the 2004 article was added recently. I still think the following phrase -As of "date" Biden received the most popular votes in a presidential election, is better than - Biden received more than 81 million votes,[8] the most votes ever cast for a candidate in a U.S. presidential election. And strike the whole "Biden surpassed Obama's record...", to me that doesn't seem fair to Obama or Biden. Who knows what the future holds, but it's very likely Biden's record will be broken in 2024, and if not in '24 then definitely in '32, You'd be hard-pressed to find a popular vote record lasting more than 12 years,but that's the whole point. Until the popular vote becomes the way in which a person gets elected in America, emphasizing it seems more like WP:PUFFERY. There's been many many elections where someone held the popular vote record and young readers may think or assume that means that that candidate was more popular or worthy of more adulation. Bringing it to light in a lede or a header doesn't really serve much of a purpose. This trend didn't occur until about 7 years ago on Wikipedia. Again if Elections where based on popular votes, sure, or a more objective way to state it would be overall % of the total vote, which is already done, that would be sufficient.

Curiously, if you look at any other political race (Gubernatorial, Congressional, Senatorial) in America, no where is the most popular votes or popular vote record mentioned. Again I think popular vote totals and records are for another page. Saying it was a landslide, saying it was a referendum on Trump, all good relevant information, but saying "Biden has the most popular votes in history" seems like WP:PUFFERY. Not only that but it comes with so much unnecessary redundancy for future and past elections. 68.189.4.21 (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The answer to "what about the children?" is that Wikipedia is not censored -- and once again your objections seem to be about what properly-weighted RS say, and to Wikipedia's policies on citing them accordingly. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 01:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with censorship. Wikipedia is not censored, has nothing to do with this. When i'm talking about young readers, I'm also talking about foreigner readers or those not familiar with American Democracy as well. No where did I mention children, you did that, because it's an automatic pattern for you. Finding out Biden has received the most votes ever has nothing to do with explicitly graphic material or carnal knowledge. I don't know if you're trying to misunderstand me on purpose. That's literally a Straw man of what i'm trying to contend. If you saw an add on the radio or tv that said, "Our restaurant, Restaurant-A has served 50 million people!!! Compare that to Restaurant C which has only served 20 million people!" When Restaurant C went out of businesses 30 years ago, the most charitable thing you could say is that is WP:Puffery, or exaggerated praise. At worst you could probably say that it is misleading or manipulative. Well isn't there more people now than there was 30 years ago? Wouldn't there be more opportunities to serve people if they have been in businesses a longer time? To say Biden received the most votes ever, while factually true, gives a connotation -to many-,especially with those unfamiliar with America, of being the most popular candidate ever, especially when it's in the lede. Like I have noted previously, it's not mentioned in ANY Gubernatorial, Senatorial, or Congressional race in the lede. As far as it being RS, yes it is, but this information regarding the popular vote didn't come out till days after the election, and has no bearing on the actual results. I don't think it should be mentioned in the lede in any America article concerning elections. As Dr.Ostermeier, notes, setting popular vote records are incredibly common in American politics, https://smartpolitics.lib.umn.edu/2020/11/15/joe-biden-is-the-35th-candidate-to-set-a-presidential-popular-vote-record/. Thusly it is WP:UNDUE 68.189.4.21 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 1 September 2020 and 11 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Lshane23. Peer reviewers: SumayyahGhori, Mberk11, Crazy326459, Wiki811pedia, Mvmarsha.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 25 January 2021 and 12 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Dpe12. Peer reviewers: Strr34, Aah153.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 16:40, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Unsupported statement

The following statement in section Campaign issues: Racial unrest is not supported by the linked source:

"Although a majority of the protests were peaceful, widespread riots and looting also occurred."

The linked source directly contradicts this. Nowhere does it mention "widespread riots and looting." The source describes the protests as "remarkably nonviolent," "overall levels of violence and property destruction were low," "protesters displayed an extraordinary level of nonviolent discipline," etc. See the following paragraph:

"These figures should correct the narrative that the protests were overtaken by rioting and vandalism or violence. Such claims are false. Incidents in which there was protester violence or property destruction should be regarded as exceptional — and not representative of the uprising as a whole."

It doesn't get much clearer than that.

There is nothing in this source supporting "widespread riots and looting;" in fact, it directly contradicts this. This line should either be removed, amended to say there was remarkably little violence, or cited with an appropriate source. 108.205.174.131 (talk) 15:13, 23 February 2022 (UTC)

I think we should change it to properly show what the source is saying. Przemysl15 (talk) 11:56, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Done [1] --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 07:00, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Popular Vote

All I wanted from Wikipedia is the totals of the 2020 Popular Vote. In this incredibly long sense article all I saw was:. "The election saw the highest voter turnout by percentage since 1900, with each of the two main tickets receiving more than 74 million votes, surpassing Barack Obama's record of 69.5 million votes from 2008. Biden received more than 81 million votes,..."

Nowhere do you give the totals for the 2 Candidates. I was already aware Biden got 81 million. I vaguely seem to recall that's 7 million more votes than Trump? But I was looking to verify the count. The statement that "each of the two main tickets receiving more than 74 million" doesn't qualify as a verified total to me. Why would you not bluntly state the numbers, especially when there's been such a bruhaha over the election. I use Wikipedia to verify and back up information. Please make this clear right at the beginning. The bit of info on how many votes each State gave the Candidates was interesting but still didn't help. 2600:1012:B054:EAB9:E8A7:ECCC:B110:3FA1 (talk) 03:33, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

The precise popular vote totals are listed three times in the article, including once at the top in the infobox and twice in the Results section. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 13:26, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

2020 Election

Im new to this, but i have found pieces of this description.of the 2020 election to be somewhat biased and in places inaccurate. I understand it is a heated controversial topic with feelings firing instantly at the mention, but i do feel omiting info, partially giving details or speaking opinion rather than fact benefits no one. People , I assume , when searching on topics want to know the whole answer not part. For example, he didnt lose 64 cases. For technicalities, many courts refused to hear the case. There is no mention of the , numerous states, senators filing lawsuits and going before.supreme court who refused to hear case. thousands of affidavits signed under risk of jail, perjury stating fraud, non partisan eye witnesses , no mention of the states changing their election laws unconstitutionally or allowing ballots violating election laws. No mention of 2 sets of electors sent to vote. No mention of the audits and canvasing results verifying inaccuracies. No mention of illegal campaign donations targeting voters and creating voter suppression in certain states, 500,000 donations and directions placed on officials. zuckerburg.. conflict of interests, poll witnesses not allowed in to view or suffering harassment. Numerous Chain of custody breaks in numerous ways, software compromised on election equipment, connections to the internet verified in front of senate. Also the most secure election comment was referenced then the person stating this said he did not verify all aspects of the election. He focused primarily on foreign influence. Just a thought, maybe we can paint a more accurate portrayal of 2020. Andstillirise (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Andstillirise Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and not Trump talking points designed to grift from supporters, made without actual evidence and rejected in every court in the land(including his own judicial appointees) that he and supporters want to be true as a way to explain his losing. Please read WP:FRINGE. However, if you are interested in collaboration with others, please offer independent reliable sources to support your claims and detail the specific errors. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Please list some sources which provide the details of specific changes you think would improve the article. "Many people are saying this" does not merit consideration for Wikipedia. A list of claims with no sources is not equivalent to a single claim with a list of sources; in fact, a single source is more valuable than any number of unsourced complaints. 2001:480:91:FF00:0:0:0:15 (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Andstillirise-- I agree entirely. I was rather surprised when I read the entry, since I do not usually find Wikipedia to be so editorial. Talk Page responses like: “…not Trump talking points designed to grift from supporters,” from 331dot, or whoever it is, very much highlight the issue. No one has suggested citing Trump talking points as objectively factual, either. But the fact that a case was not heard on the merits, for example the SC petitions, does not mean that there were none to be heard. To imply so is not encyclopedic, but misleading. “None of the protests were legally successful” sufficiently and impartially conveys the facts.

The entire third paragraph is problematic. E.g.:

“Trump and numerous Republicans attempted to subvert the election and overturn the results, falsely alleging widespread voter fraud and trying to influence the vote counting process in swing states.”

This, intentionally, I am sure, gives the subjective impression that Trump and “numerous Republicans” were attempting to illegitimately, even illegally, (subvert. falsely alleging) influence a process that they knew was not corrupt, as they alleged. That is not factual. There is no evidence at all that warrants dismissing the idea that they honestly believed they were challenging an illegal or rigged outcome and were right in doing so. There are no facts, including court actions, that support subversive intent. Venqax (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Venqax, how is that not factual? It's exactly what happened. That's why the whole event was planned for January 6, the day the House of Representatives counted the electoral vote, i.e. the day they could execute a coup. Peter Navarro just described it in detail on cable TV last night.[2] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If I can jump in here as well, Wikipedia is not concerned with detailing what others may have believed, just the facts of the matters at hand. The pertinent fact, verified by sources, is that all efforts to prove those beliefs were meritorious failed because there was no concrete evidence. All court cases were dismissed for lack of evidence and standing, and despite this, Trump and his devotees are still casting doubt on the results of the latest election, all while insisting that the reults will be reversed at some point, with Trump being reinstated before the 2024 election, or that continuing to cast doubt on those results will somehow aid Trump in a 2024 reelection bid. Those are the facts of the matter. Anyone can believe and assert anything, like the sky is green. But facts, logic, and reliable incontrovertible evidence proves otherwise. If Wikipedia had to devote focus on the feelings, apinions, or assertions of any individual, any article about any public figure, event, or occurrence would be unwieldly in length, tone, and presentation. What is in the article as it is has been crafted by adherence to the policies involved in such articles. 'Nuff said. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I should note that last year there was a commenter here predicting that everything was going to blow up after the completion of the Arizona audit. marbeh raglaim (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

The fact that much of the large increase in mail-in voting was attributable to states changing their election laws is something that I think we should consider mentioning in the article. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 07:54, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

Find some sources and I imagine no one will complain about adding that information, as it seems to be relevant. Przemysl15 (talk) 14:14, 20 January 2022 (UTC)

It seems that our fellow contributors who complain of an inaccurate portrayal of events often lack RS to portray them more accurately. Either the sources are being eaten by the deep state, or maybe the article is as close to accurate for a general overview as we can get it. Tyrone (talk) 09:57, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

I think it is factual to say the 2020 election was perhaps one of the most controversial elections. It is factual to say the Trump legal team filed numerous unsuccessful lawsuits in relation to election practices and alleged voter fraud. There were numerous unsuccessful senatorial objections on Jan 6th to the electoral vote submission count. Joe Biden was elected the 46th President, scheduled for inauguration on January 20th. As far as the Jan 6th riot, to be fair and accurate i would like to see the results from the investigative committee because the only definitive comments are by DOJ stating it was not an insurrection and the arrests/convictions. I think properly it deserves more attention commentary. Andstillirise (talk) 19:25, 2 May 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 May 2022

LGBT voters ratio among Biden voters to Trump voters is 64:27 2603:6081:7943:279C:D850:E971:4014:AB19 (talk) 04:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. EvergreenFir (talk) 05:04, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Kamala Jamaican

Kamala Harris is Jamaican, not African-American, please fix this issue. Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 18:42, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Greenhighwayconstruction, please read Talk:Kamala Harris/FAQ. – Muboshgu (talk) 18:48, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 22 June 2022

Second paragraph, line 2: Change Biden's running mate, Harris, became the first African-American to Biden's running mate, Harris, became the first Black. Kamala Harris is of immediate Jamaican descent through her father. <ref>https://www.washingtonpost.com/nation/2021/01/13/donald-kamala-harris-father/</> Adrierising (talk) 20:06, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done See section immediately above. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 20:11, 22 June 2022 (UTC)

New report (July 2022): critical review of election-fraud claims

Should the following report be referenced? It appears to be a notable piece of work, conscientious and thorough. https://lostnotstolen.org//wp-content/uploads/2022/07/Lost-Not-Stolen-The-Conservative-Case-that-Trump-Lost-and-Biden-Won-the-2020-Presidential-Election-July-2022.pdf 2601:601:1501:8320:6DE4:B5CB:2040:EC74 (talk) 23:58, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Accuracy of assertion re vice presidential succession to presidency

Section of concern: "Biden became the second former vice president, after Republican Richard Nixon in 1968, to be elected president without having succeeded to the office on the death of a previous president."

I don't believe this is true. Gorge HW Bush was surely a case of a Vice President succeeding Reagan to the Presidency in 1989 not as a result of the latter's death, making Biden the third such case? 195.89.130.7 (talk) 08:16, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Bush was a sitting vice president when he won election to the presidency, not a former as Nixon and Biden were. 331dot (talk) 08:19, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

The first part is true, Nixon and Biden are the only former VPs to be elected. But the second part is misleading, implying the only other VPs to be elected president first became president upon the death of a previous president, which is not true (e.g., H.W. Bush, Adams, Jefferson). Mdewman6 (talk) 16:27, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

This section perhaps causes the most confusion on the entire article and I don't feel it is particularly important so perhaps it would just be best to remove it. Przemysl15 (talk) 16:34, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

We can just model a statement following what seems to work in the 1968 United States presidential election article regarding this point. Perhaps something like "Biden became the second non-incumbent vice president to be elected president, following Richard Nixon in 1968." Mdewman6 (talk) 17:15, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

Agree with Mdeman6's wording. Finally, we have unambiguous wording on this feature of the election, which like much else in this section is still encyclopedic -- still historically notable, per RS -- even if it's not very important in the big picture. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 02:51, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

It is trivial, I concur with the call for removal. ValarianB (talk) 17:23, 12 July 2022 (UTC)

How is it confusing? GoodDay (talk) 12:36, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

The Wisconsin Supreme Court says ballot drop boxes aren't allowed in the state

I think this info should be added to the article.

Source: https://www.npr.org/2022/07/08/1100696685/wisconsin-supreme-court-ballot-drop-boxes-disability-assistance

Hi there 25132dre4rgd (talk) 15:17, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

No, that isn't relevant to the 2020 election. --SarekOfVulcan (talk) 15:33, 13 July 2022 (UTC)

It is relevant, because ballot drop boxes were used in the 2020 election. This ruling means that those votes in the 2020 election were illegal. Hi there 25132dre4rgd (talk) 15:40, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Your source does not make that claim. You will need a reliable source that ties this case to the election. Przemysl15 (talk) 18:22, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 September 2022

The current text reads as follows: "GSA delays certifying Biden as president-elect Main article: Presidential transition of Joe Biden § Delays in initiating the transition Although all major media outlets called the election for Biden on November 7, the head of the General Services Administration (GSA), Trump appointee Emily W. Murphy, refused for over two weeks to certify Biden as the president-elect. Without formal GSA certification or "ascertainment" of the winner of the election, the official transition process was delayed.[472] On November 23, Murphy acknowledged Biden as the winner and said the Trump administration would begin the formal transition process. Trump said he had instructed his administration to "do what needs to be done" but did not concede, and indicated he intended to continue his fight to overturn the election results.[473]"

I believe some of this text to be heavily biased & unnecessary per the context of "GSA delays certifying Biden as president-elect". The text I proposed be removed are the following in order of appearance: - "Although all major media outlets called the election for Biden on November 7," on the basis that newscasters & viewership have no legal grounds & may only represent public opinion instead of fact - " Trump appointee " as it is unimportant unless this is proven to sway the head official's opinion on the matter. While it is a statement of fact, it appears to be for dishonest reasons. - " Trump said he had instructed his administration to "do what needs to be done" but did not concede, and indicated he intended to continue his fight to overturn the election results.[473]" as it seems irrelevant to the passage; fluff without need.

In summary, I believe the topic would be better served if the article read something to the affect of the following:

"GSA delays certifying Biden as president-elect Main article: Presidential transition of Joe Biden § Delays in initiating the transition The head of the General Services Administration (GSA), Emily W. Murphy, refused for over two weeks to certify Biden as the president-elect. Without formal GSA certification or "ascertainment" of the winner of the election, the official transition process was delayed.[472] On November 23, Murphy acknowledged Biden as the winner and said the Trump administration would begin the formal transition process.[473]"

Thank you for your time in reviewing my comment. I believe this is an important subject to get correct & separate from fiction & mudslinging. 96.27.160.54 (talk) 17:03, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 19:43, 6 September 2022 (UTC)

Is it accurate

In intro - " This is the second time in American history, after Harrison in 1892, that the Republican Party was voted out after a single term, and the first for either party since 1980. " Is this accurate statement ? What about daddy Bush ?? M.Karelin (talk) 07:06, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's accurate. Bush Senior only served one term, but that was after two terms by Ronald Reagan, so it was three consecutive terms by the Republican Party. Trump and Benjamin Harrison are indeed the only Republicans ever to serve a single term immediately preceded and followed by president(s) of a different party (in both cases Democrats). marbeh raglaim (talk) 09:34, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

My problem with that sentence is not with its accuracy, but with questions of whether it is significant or trivia. I feel like that entire paragraph is mostly trivia. It is not repeated in the body of the article and it is largely unsourced. Neither the paragraph in the intro nor the body of the article provides enough context to the random facts such as that for the reader to understand how they fit into the broader picture of American politics both in the election being discussed and historically. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 14:12, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I don't really have a dog in this fight. I had no involvement in writing this line (I've worked much more on the Statistics section, which is where this kind of analysis should be, if at all), and I do know a lot of these election articles are rife with trivia, which I admit I have a weakness for as I'm something of an election nerd. If I could make one small defense of the possible relevance to the above factoid, it's that the relative rarity of a party being voted out of the White House after a single term says something about historical stability in American presidential elections (presidents who get voted out are themselves relatively infrequent historically, and that's something which I do think is relevant), and possibly points to some historical oddness to 2020. I do think I have seen sources by prominent analysts commenting on how 2020 defied the pattern of parties almost always getting at least two consecutive terms, but I'm not ready to look them up right now. marbeh raglaim (talk) 22:22, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

I think this article is littered with WP:NOTTRIVIA violations, this being a perfect example, and I think this line and all the other trivia lines should be removed. Przemysl15 (talk) 06:34, 17 September 2022 (UTC)

"Factually speaking, there’s no question that the 2020 presidential election was the most secure, transparent and verified election in American history."

CNN, may have some use here on in a sub-article. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 09:25, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

Biden is actually the SIXTH Vice President to become President without succeeding to the office on the death or resignation of the previous President.

The second paragraph under the "statistics" heading under the "results" section ends with:

"Biden is the fifth vice president to become president without succeeding to the office on the death or resignation of a previous president."
Biden is actually the sixth, the first 5 are:

1. John Adams (VP under Washington, elected to the Presidency in 1796)
2. Thomas Jefferson (VP under Adams, elected to the Presidency in 1800)
3. Martin Van Buren (VP for Andrew Jackson's second term, elected to the Presidency in 1836)
4. Richard Nixon (VP under Eisenhower, elected to the Presidency in 1968)
5. George H. W. Bush (VP under Reagan, elected to the Presidency in 1988)

And Biden (VP under Obama, elected to the Presidency in 2020) makes 6. Jeffmalarts (talk) 21:21, 21 September 2022 (UTC)

This information should just be removed from the article per WP:Trivia imo. Przemysl15 (talk) 04:26, 23 September 2022 (UTC)

"Arvin Vohra presidential campaign, 2020" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Arvin Vohra presidential campaign, 2020 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 25#Arvin Vohra presidential campaign, 2020 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 13:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

"Ken Nwadike Jr. presidential campaign, 2020" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Ken Nwadike Jr. presidential campaign, 2020 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 25#Ken Nwadike Jr. presidential campaign, 2020 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 13:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

"Michael E. Arth presidential campaign, 2020" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Michael E. Arth presidential campaign, 2020 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 25#Michael E. Arth presidential campaign, 2020 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 13:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

"Robby Wells presidential campaign, 2020" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Robby Wells presidential campaign, 2020 and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 September 25#Robby Wells presidential campaign, 2020 until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. TartarTorte 13:42, 25 September 2022 (UTC)

A mention of the Republican nomination process in the introduction for sake of completeness.

Leading from "Biden secured the Democratic presidential nomination over his closest rival, Senator Bernie Sanders, while Trump secured re-nomination against token opposition in the Republican primaries. GillettDaniel (talk) 21:29, 29 September 2022 (UTC)

I've added a mention of this. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:51, 30 September 2022 (UTC)

Biden is the SIXTH VP to become President without the President he served under dying/resigning

I posted this before and I'm posting it again because this article is STILL wrong.

The second paragraph under the "statistics" sub-heading under the "results" heading says: "Biden is the fifth vice president to become president without succeeding to the office on the death or resignation of a previous president." Biden is the SIXTH. The first five were:

1. John Adams (VP under Washington, elected President in 1796)
2. Thomas Jefferson (VP under Adams, elected President in 1800)
3. Martin Van Buren (VP under Jackson [Jackson's second term only], elected President in 1836)
4. Richard Nixon (VP under Eisenhower, elected President in 1968)
5. George HW Bush (VP under Reagan, elected President in 1988)

and Biden makes six. The 538 article that mentioned as a source (reference 312- Azari, Julia (August 20, 2020). "Biden Had To Fight For The Presidential Nomination. But Most VPs Have To". FiveThirtyEight.) doesn't say ANYWHERE how many VPs have ascended to the Presidency without the President they served under dying/resigning. Maybe there's some confusion because Adams and Jefferson were from different parties and wound up serving together, or because Richard Nixon himself wound up resigning the Presidency, or maybe because Nixon and Biden are the only two to ascend to the Presidency after leaving the Vice Presidency rather than going DIRECTLY from VP to President, but the fact is that Biden is the sixth.

The first time I posted about this, someone said the entire statement about how many VPs have become President without succeeding on the death or resignation of their successor should be removed because it's irrelevant. Please, either remove the sentence entirely OR fix it to say Biden is the sixth, because as it currently stands that statement is just sitting there, being wrong. Jeffmalarts (talk) 21:44, 2 October 2022 (UTC)

Okay, I've changed it. I'm not removing the line myself, at least until there's a discussion over it (or the broader issue of extraneous trivia on the page). marbeh raglaim (talk) 00:56, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

I think now is a good time to have the discussion about extraneous trivia on the page, so I'll open a heading below in a few minutes. Przemysl15 (talk) 02:44, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Less Polarizing Language

Some of the wording in the articles could be toned down to make the article is neutral. EmpereorPaul (talk) 12:37, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Rather than an ambiguous handwave at a 50,000-article, perhaps you could cite a passage or two that you find objectionable. ValarianB (talk) 13:25, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Only second time a republican party was voted out since 1892?

The first section says: “This is the second time in American history, after Harrison in 1892, that the Republican Party was voted out after a single term, and the first for either party since 1980.”

This doesn’t seem to be correct since George HW Bush was voted out after one term in the 1992 election of Bill Clinton. 24.229.207.185 (talk) 16:38, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

As has been brought up before, this is the sort of trivia that could benefit from a discussion on relevance. Nonetheless, George H. W. Bush was preceded by a Republican president, so the party was not voted out after a single term. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 17:26, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2022

Do not include VAP in turnout rate calculation, since noncitizens have never been eligible to vote and should not be counted for this purpose, and this population is not comparable to the population used to calculate turnout rate for previous elections. Only include CVAP. Also, CVAP turnout increased 11.1 pp from the 2016 election, not 5.4 pp as shown 70.36.193.68 (talk) 09:16, 8 October 2022 (UTC)

@GigachadGigachad: It's the other way around. The turnout rates shown in articles for previous elections are based on VAP, not CVAP. For example, see the source for the turnout in the 2016 article: "Percentage of Voting Age Population casting a vote for President: 55.67%"[3] Also see the numbers from the US Census Bureau: VAP 56.0% 2016, 61.3% 2020; CVAP 61.4% 2016, 66.8% 2020.[4] Whether considering VAP or CVAP, the increase in turnout from 2016 to 2020 was about 5.4pp, not 11.1pp. I agree that CVAP is a better number, but since the previous articles use VAP, the 2020 article should also show VAP for comparison.

Alternatively, I suggest changing the turnout rates in the articles on all previous elections to CVAP, or at least showing both VAP and CVAP. Or VEP, which is even more accurate as it also excludes people who cannot vote due to previous criminal convictions. This source can be used:[5][6] In this case, the increase from 2016 to 2020 would be about 6.7pp, a little higher than what the Census estimated. But it's definitely not 11.1pp. Heitordp (talk) 05:13, 16 October 2022 (UTC)

I think showing VAP, VEP, and CVAP all would be useful, as, while I think VEP should be the primary as it is the most accurate, the difference between VEP and the others can show important information about things like voter suppression and felony disenfranchisement. Przemysl15 (talk) 08:23, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

If the data is there, all of them can be included (though it should be done in a way as not to overwhelm new readers with a bombardment of data points). BogLogs (talk) 23:25, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{Edit semi-protected}} template. Aaron Liu (talk) 11:42, 26 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2022

Please fix this horrible setence in the lede: "Trump became the first Republican, and first incumbent president of either party since 2004 to increase their share of the popular vote, and the first losing incumbent to do so since 1828."

First, Trump is obviously not the first Republican to increase his popular vote. This is either false, or it means "first republican since 2004 and first of either party since 2004" which is stupidly redundant.

Second, "Trump becamse the first...to increase their share..." is bad grammar. Singular "they" may be appropriate generally, but definitely not for a specified person whose gender is known. Either use the male pronoun, since every president has been male, or rephrase the sentence if it must be gender neutral.

My suggested replacement: "Trump became the first incumbent president since 2004 to increase his share of the popular vote, and the first losing incumbent to do so since 1828." 1.145.236.142 (talk) 07:50, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Done Elli (talk | contribs) 08:04, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 October 2022 (2)

The lede says "However, on January 7, one day after the violent Capitol attack and two months after Biden's victory was declared, Trump acknowledged the incoming administration without mentioning Biden's name in a video posted to Twitter."

Please either clarify who "declared" Biden's victory, or remove that part. If it means the media, they don't have the power to declare anything, they merely report. If it means officials in various states, this should be specified and sourced. If it means the electoral college (the most obvious meaning) "two months" should be changed to "two weeks". If the meaning can't be clarified or sourced, please change the sentence to "However, on January 7, one day after the violent Capitol attack, Trump acknowledged the incoming administration without mentioning Biden's name in a video posted to Twitter." 1.145.236.142 (talk) 08:05, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: This is covered at length in the article. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 09:16, 28 October 2022 (UTC)

Removal of Extraneous Trivia on this page

There have been several mentions of the trivia in the page needing to be looked at, both from me, users like marbeh raglaim in the thread above, and others, and so I thought it would be a good idea to form some sort of consensus on what should be done about the amount of trivia included on this page, if anything needs to be done at all. I feel that, because of WP:nottrivia, which states that "data should be put in context with explanations referenced to independent sources", and becuase this page currently contains a lot of data, in the form of trivia points, that are not used to make broader points, the trivia in the article largely should either be removed or contextualized.

What qualifies as trivia and what qualifies as not trivia I have a little more trouble with, as something like "it was the first election since 1992, and the first in the 21st century, in which the incumbent president failed to win a second term" is pretty clearly important and relevant, as it is a pretty good indicator that there was significant disgust at the incumbent, but perhaps by virtue of being in the lede it feels to me like it can go without being contextualized, as that is done later in the article. Other information in the lede, like "[t]his is the first election since 1880 in which both major party candidates won the same number of states" I think is very clearly trivia that doesn't belong anywhere in the article, and should be removed. I've picked examples from the lede here because I would be very willing to go through the article and be WP:BOLD and edit a lot of the trivia out/change some of the trivia, but I wanted to make sure there was a broad consensus for changing the way trivia is in the article before I went through such a time consuming process. Przemysl15 (talk) 02:58, 3 October 2022 (UTC)

A bit late, but yes I agree some of the trivia can be removed. Even the first point you mentioned, about Bush sr, isn't even that important as one president since 1992 not being reelected is only 1 of 4 (Clinton, Bush, and Obama being the other 3). Or another way of saying it is of the 5 presidents since 1988, 3 have been reelected (a big shrug for me).

All the articles could do with a bit less trivia so I say go for it if you haven't already. BogLogs (talk) 23:22, 17 October 2022 (UTC)

Strongly agree, there is way too much random trivia in the lead. This is a problem that most of the presidential election articles share. Like you said, some of the trivia is historical and important (like Trump being first to lose re-election since '92 and Biden winning states like GA for the first time in decades), however a lot of it is extraneous and irrelevant. Basil the Bat Lord (talk) 04:42, 1 November 2022 (UTC)

Howard Stern was Joking

Hi all - Howard Stern stated on his 9/19/22 show that he was not actually running for President. Not sure if his section/Bradley Cooper’s should be taken out, moved, or updated, hence my post here.

Stern on 9/19: “Did anyone think I really was? I mean, I’m not gonna run for President. You make me President I don’t even know if I’d accept it.”

Baba Booey to you all. Boomerthebobcat (talk) 04:49, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm not sure what this is in reference to. Howard Stern is not mentioned at all in this article. --Jayron32 14:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

I assume the post was meant for Talk:2024 United States presidential election. PrimeHunter (talk) 21:07, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

My apologies - it was meant for 2024. Not sure how I made that mistake. Reposted on the correct page. Boomerthebobcat (talk) 23:35, 8 December 2022 (UTC)

Edit Request Concerning General Election Campaigns

Add to General Election Campaigns, Ballot Access: (Color = Gold [or] Dark Purple), Presidential Candidate - Aaron Liebowitz, Vice Presidential Candidate - Connor Miller, Party or Label - Unionist Party, Ballot Access - 8, Electors - 66, Voters - 11.4%,

Citations remaining from the campaign presence online Campaign Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/liebowitzmiller2020/?hl=en Campaign Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/liebowitzmiller2020/ Campaign Website(No longer in use): https://liebowitzmiller2020.com/ Party Regional Instagram: https://www.instagram.com/unionistpartyny/?hl=en 108.30.149.79 (talk) 05:41, 16 December 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Please provide sources independent of the campaign to demonstrate notability. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 02:02, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 January 2023

rfpp request LAWFHUII19 (talk) 17:11, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:14, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

Post-Election Lawsuits

Hi all,

Every once in a while when reading this article, I pay attention to the “heading”/intro (does Wikipedia have a term for it?), one part of which mentions the post-election lawsuits and other attempts by Trump and many other Republicans to subvert and overturn the election and its results. The article mentions that at least 63 lawsuits were filed and that Trump lost all of them. However, I distinctly remember Trump winning one of these otherwise ridiculous suits; while looking online, I found a PolitiFact article that corroborates my memory. They mention at least 64 lawsuits, with only one Trump victory. (If you have not been able to tell this by post, I am not a Trump supporter; I am very much a staunch Democrat.) Should this intro section be modified? Technically, this section is not currently entirely accurate, and I don’t want to spread misinformation (or possibly even embolden election deniers who might think we’re “erasing” their sole win). I just wanted to hear everyone’s thoughts, and I worried it would be very quickly reverted if I changed it without trying to get consensus among the article’s regular editors and/or readers.

Thank you and hope to hear your thoughts, |EPBeatles EPBeatles (talk) 07:54, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm months late to this, but that court decision was later overturned, thus meaning that he lost every suit. Cpotisch (talk) 02:18, 5 March 2023 (UTC)

Using Voter Eligable Turnout instead of Voting Age Turnout

I think the Voter Eligable Turnout should be used instead of Voting age Turnout because US Election pages till 2012 election used the Voter Eligable Turnout calculated by the US Election project, https://www.electproject.org/2020g RogerTheBear (talk) 19:48, 3 April 2023 (UTC)

I think we should display both. Przemysl15 (talk) 03:27, 5 April 2023 (UTC)

Why use Edison Exit Polling?

Edison exit polling was quite inaccurate this year. Also now AP and Fox have left and made their much more accurate poll as well AP Votecast.

Why not instead use the much more reliable Cooperative Election Study which surveyed three times as many respondents, is much more transparent, and was accurate, with only a median error of 0.6% per state compared to actual election results? Even AP Votecast is better than Edison. Abbasi786786 (talk) 20:03, 12 January 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that we should either have multiple sources for the exit polling or use one of these over Edison. Przemysl15 (talk) 09:47, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, but at least the organizations that use Edison, didn’t prematurely call Arizona. What source do you have that Edison is less accurate? Prcc27 (talk) 17:08, 26 May 2023 (UTC)

This article is too long

We are here to be an encyclopedia guys, not list every single thing related to a topic. The goal is to provide the most informative and relevant information on a topic. I might come off a bit contrarian by saying this, but WP:RECENT certainly applies here. To be frank, it's just too damn long, in part (imo) thanks to recency bias. Is there anything that can be cut? I mean just skimming through this for example: Why the huge paragraph on Maine RCV? Why the huge "background" section on how the presidential election works? That seems to be something more fit for the US President article, or a general presidential process article, then the 2020 US Presidential election article. No other Presidential Election Article (except 2016, another sufferer of recency bias IMO) has all that. Alexcs114 (talk) 03:25, 30 May 2023 (UTC)

First election since 1992

The introduction currently includes It was the first election since 1992 in which the incumbent president failed to win a second term. I suggest we delete that, as:

• It is misleading. In three of the seven elections since 1992, an incumbent president wasn't even running. (It is more clearly stated in the article body, as Trump is mentioned as the first president since 1992 not to, so it looks like we're counting presidents rather than elections.)
• It's not that impressive. Breaking a run of 30 in a row may seem like a major variance. Breaking a run of 3 really isn't. If you don't cut it off at a point designed to make it look interesting, it quickly becomes less interesting -- out of the last eight presidential reelection campaigns, half (Ford, Carter, Bush Sr., Trump) failed.

Misleading trivia is a good thing to scoop from the intro. I'm avoiding article editing at this point, but recommend that others consider this concern and act appropriately. -- Nat Gertler (talk) 15:33, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

 Done Prcc27 (talk) 15:46, 25 June 2023 (UTC)

"Simultaneous elections"

2020 United States presidential election § Simultaneous elections needs a minor update, because it uses the future tense. —Lights and freedom (talk ~ contribs) 20:53, 28 June 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 July 2023

The final paragraph of the lead says, in part, "The Trump campaign... continued to engage in numerous attempts to overturn the results of the election by filing 63 lawsuits in several states (all of which were withdrawn or dismissed)". But that link, specifically its "Counts" section, says that not all suits were withdrawn or dismissed: in six of them, the court made a ruling (one for the plaintiff, five against).

The lead is for giving an overview, but it shouldn't summarize in such a way that it factually misstates the case. The simplest change would be to make it say "(most of which..."; a more involved but more precise change would be to say "(all but one of which were withdrawn, dismissed, or resolved against the plaintiff)". 2605:A601:AB56:CB00:3580:897A:4655:F715 (talk) 00:18, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

 Done Changed to ... by filing numerous lawsuits in several states (most of which were withdrawn or dismissed) ... Xan747 (talk) 01:31, 4 July 2023 (UTC)

Date of election

"The 2020 United States presidential election was the 59th quadrennial presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 3, 2020." This is factually incorrect. The date of the presidential election was December 14, 2020. There was a series of 50 independent State elections (and one in Washington D.C.) on Nov 3 to choose the 538 people who would vote in the presidential election. 70.27.151.248 (talk) 09:44, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

That is what is considered to be "the election" by independent reliable sources since the meeting of the electoral college is a formality(as most of them are required to cast their votes for their pledged candidates). This is the case with every article on every US presidential election. If these are all wrong, you will need to start a much broader discussion about it. I suspect you are not the first person to bring this up so I suggest you do some research looking over talk page archives first before attempting such an enterprise. 331dot (talk) 09:57, 15 July 2023 (UTC)

Incorrectly-cited statistic on voting by ethnicity

This article stats that The Democratic Party won black voters by 75%, the lowest margin since 1980, but its citation (359, https://www.brookings.edu/research/2020-exit-polls-show-a-scrambling-of-democrats-and-republicans-traditional-base) states that The Black Democratic margin—while still high, at 75%—was the lowest in a presidential election since 2004.

I'm not sure where 1980 came from, but the citation doesn't reference this year at all, and the paragraph the statistic is written is based on a report entitled "Exit polls show both familiar and new voting blocs sealed Biden's win" , which said citation contains. Zolax9 (talk) 15:41, 17 August 2023 (UTC)

Ohio County, Indiana is wrong, many maps and vote totals are impacted

The county government of Ohio County, Indiana messed up their initial vote totals but then later issued corrected ones, per Dave Leip's Election Atlas. The actual results were 2,392 votes for Trump, 750 for Biden, 22 for Jorgensen. This works out to 75.60% Trump, 23.70% Biden, and 0.70% Jorgensen, the numbers cited on the Ohio County page itself. However, the initially reported results were 2,054 votes for Trump, 668 votes for Biden, 353 votes for Jorgensen, or 66.8% Trump, 21.7% Biden, 11.5% Jorgensen. This messes up almost every single county map for the 2020 U.S. presidential election in Indiana - Trump should be shaded to 70s percent range, not 60s percent range in Ohio County and the swing is going to be different too - and I believe it also impacts the overall election data for Indiana, perhaps even nationwide? I just fixed the county result on the Indiana page, but this deserves a systematic review and bigger fix, to an extent that I'm not even sure of. Journob (talk) 03:50, 16 September 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 October 2023

incluing = including 2603:8000:D300:3650:F148:65F1:720C:E69 (talk) 03:07, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

 Done. Typo fixed. Good catch. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:31, 26 October 2023 (UTC)

Results by State vote count table problem

The Votes column Totals do not agree with the same Totals from this full table cut and pasted into Excel. That is, the article totals v Excel totals disagree: 81283501 v 8209315; 74223975 v 75141558; 1865535 v 1899970; 407068 v 415298; 649552 v 655493; and 158429631 v 160205475. Also, a check on the Libertarian + Green + Other Vote columns shows 2922155 v 2970761. The overall article total v Excel total vote count difference is 1775844. Tegangwer (talk) 03:23, 22 December 2023 (UTC)

Updated results in Prince William County, Virginia

The Prince William County Office of Elections recently issued a correction [7] for their vote totals in the 2020 election. I've updated the article for the election in Virginia, but I figure the changes in this article should be handled by someone with more experience. Chaidantalk 02:12, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The vote totals for Virginia are certified by the Virginia Department of Elections. Any changes to the vote totals for the state, and any resulting changes to the vote totals for the country, should be addressed by the Virginia Department of Elections and the Federal Election Commission before we make any changes here or at 2020 United States presidential election in Virginia. I don't believe a press release from the county is sufficient for our purposes. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 04:58, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

I suggest moving this topic to the Talk page for Virginia's results, which is more likely to be followed by those who are interested in that state. rootsmusic (talk) 02:27, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Fraud

Is there any mention of widespread voter fraud? How dropboxes were used and the postal system used to defraud the American public? It should be mentioned that ballot boxes were thrown in rivers. 2A00:23C7:C603:6A01:F1AB:CB70:D27B:BD6A (talk) 16:29, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

The article uses the term "fraud" 63 times. Iin addition to the entire section devoted to discussion of the fraud claims, the article notes that:

1. "Before, during, and after Election Day, Trump and numerous other Republicans engaged in an aggressive and unprecedented attempt to subvert the election and overturn the results, falsely alleging widespread voter fraud and trying to influence the vote-counting process in swing states" (From the article's intro - citations omitted; check citations in the article)
2. "Attorney General William Barr and officials in each of the 50 states found no evidence of widespread fraud or irregularities in the election." (From the article's intro - citations omitted; check citations in the article)
3. and Trump and his allies were "spreading conspiracy theories alleging fraud" (From the article's intro - citations omitted; check citations in the article)
4. "FBI Director Christopher A. Wray, who was appointed by Trump, testified under oath that the FBI has "not seen, historically, any kind of coordinated national voter fraud effort in a major election, whether it's by mail or otherwise"." (from the section Trump's potential rejection of election results, citations omitted; check citations in the article)
5. "The Trump campaign and the Republican Party both failed to produce any evidence of vote-by-mail fraud after being ordered by a federal judge to do so."(from the section Postal voting, citations omitted; check citations in the article)

I would encourage you to read the article before coming to the talk page asking if the article contains "any mention of widespread voter fraud". The article does indeed contain discussion of Trump's allegations of widespread voter fraud, and discussion of how those claims are untrue. ~ ONUnicorn^{(Talk|Contribs)}problem solving 16:48, 5 September 2023 (UTC)

"It should be mentioned" that posting this kind of misinformation is just an outright lie, and/or is evidence of shocking ignorance. Take it somewhere else. 2600:1700:6970:F5B0:3409:D78C:87FF:B695 (talk) 01:47, 14 November 2023 (UTC)

The last paragraph is written in a biased manner. For example it fails to clarify that American citizens have a right to file lawsuits challenging election results and members of Congress have a right to challenge electoral votes as long as they follow the lawfully correct procedures to do so. Even if the lawsuits and challenges are based on faulty logic or incorrect information.

An example is this preceding comment "'It should be mentioned' that posting this kind of misinformation is just an outright lie, and/or is evidence of shocking ignorance. Take it somewhere else." That was uncalled for and indicates the author is openly biased against the other side. Articles as important as these should be kept strictly neutral. This article gets an F on the neutrality front. 2600:6C50:5CF0:7690:2CFA:408E:8771:2DEF (talk) 19:13, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

American citizens do not have a right to file frivolous lawsuits.[8] Assuming the IPv6 editor above was calling widespread voter fraud in the 2020 election an "outright lie", they are correct. And nowhere in the article does it say that the members of Congress were not allowed to object to the Electoral College vote certification. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:51, 14 January 2024 (UTC)

Maps.

There are FIVE maps purporting to be 2020 results are actually 2016 results.

[9]https://www.reuters.com/article/idUSKBN28C2FR/

and please look at https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election to see that 3 are exact copies, other than slight changes to Hawaii.

Results by county (2020) Matches Results by county. Red denotes counties that went to Trump; blue denotes counties that went to Clinton. (2016) Slight changes to Hawaii, otherwise identical

Results by county, shaded according to winning candidate's percentage of the vote (2020) Matches Results by county, shaded according to winning candidate's percentage of the vote (2016) Once again slight changes to Hawaii, otherwise identical

Election results by congressional district (2020) Absolutelely identical to Results of election by congressional district, shaded by winning candidate's percentage of the vote (2016)

Shaded election results by county (red-purple-blue scale) (2020)

Counties shaded by margin of victory (2020)

These are both based on 2016 results. Just different shading Magundy (talk) 20:45, 27 January 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 4 February 2024

I have county flip maps to upload for presidential elections spanning from 2020 to 1940. PlasmaMcNuggets (talk) 14:01, 4 February 2024 (UTC)

The edit request process is for proposing a specific change in a "change X to Y" format; I'd suggest reaching out to the politics WikiProject, Wikipedia:WikiProject Elections and Referendums, for this sort of general request and offer. 331dot (talk) 16:58, 4 February 2024 (UTC)