Talk:2022 United States Senate election in Utah

Keep The Allience

The alliance shouldn't be removed as there is precedent in the 2020 alaska senate race Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 18:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

The alliance tab is specifically reserved for cases of electoral fusion, where the same candidate appears on the ballot under multiple party labels or lines. While McMullin is endorsed by these parties, he isn't listed as such on the ballot - he's only listed as an independent, and is only running under that line. Effectively, that is just an endorsement, not an alliance between parties.

Alaska is actually an unusual exception here as they have a joint Democratic/Libertarian/Independent primary and candidates can be listed as having the support of multiple parties; Gross was actually listed as a Democrat on the ballot, for example, so the alliance thing makes sense to a degree there. In contrast, in another independent vs. Republican race (2014 United States Senate election in Kansas), we don't list an alliance even though Democrats stood down. Toa Nidhiki05 18:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

First off Toa, it was wrong for you to remove the alliance without a discussion on the talk page. Secondly there is a HUGE difference between standing down and endorsing. I also wanna adress some things you said on your edit summary first you said "the alliance tab is for electoral fusion" what wikipedia policy do you have to back that up? Secondly on your edit summary you said "If we listed every party endorsement under "alliance", we'd have Obama as being in an alliance with the Communist Party, given they endorsed him" My response is that The dems UUP, and ASP all have ballot acces, unlike the commie party. Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 22:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

You have noted that the Dems, UUP, and ASP all have ballot access in UT. If they are giving their ballot access to McMullin, please provide a source for that. As far as I know, Utah's laws do not permit the votes from multiple ballot lines to be added together. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

I agree with Toa Nidhiki05. No electoral fusion going on here. He is only on the ballot as an independent. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 22:55, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes tartan, however no wikipedia rule or guideline(that i know of) that states that the alliance tab is for electoral fusion only. Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 23:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Did I say it was a rule? I just don't see why we would do it if that is not the case. What information about the ballot are you trying to communicate with this? ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Tartan I believe I made it clear why we would do it. I said that parties that have ballot access are voluntarily giving up there spot AND SUPPORTING ANOTHER CANDIDATE. Witch sounda a lot like an allence Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 23:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

So like the Communist Party in 2008, then? Toa Nidhiki05 23:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Toa,the office president and senator are complexly different. also may i see a source? Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 23:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)

Here. I am not arguing to add this. I am simply pointing out what sort of nonsense your idea will bring about. Toa Nidhiki05 00:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Nobody is denying that the commies supported obama. Im just asking if they had ballot acsess. Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 01:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

The "alliance" parameter is described in Template:Infobox election/doc as "Political alliance in elections where coalition politics is common". I believe the countries where "coalition politics is common" usually means those with multi-party parliamentary systems and probably don't describe the US but someone might disagree with the documentation here. —twotwofourtysix^{(talk || edits)} 00:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Coalition politics has been in the senate for the past 20 years! The current senate majority is a coalition containing dems and non-dems. Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 01:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

That is a governing coalition once they're in the Senate, it is not an electoral coalition. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 01:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

Yeah but the policy page doesn't specify a difference . There is also precedent witch you are completely ignoring. I have reason to believe that you have not read WP:CON. Additionally there is no consensus and you are borderline edit warring! Greenhighwayconstruction (talk) 16:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

This is an independent vs. Republican race, the "precedent" being cited here is not comparable; what is reflected on the ballot itself is the only relevant consideration here (e.g. VT-Sen 2018 and KS-Sen 2014). In any case there's a clear consensus here that it's not applicable. Stroopwafels (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

You do realize we are capable of reaching any kind of consensus on a talk page. "It's not in the template doc so we do what I want" is not the gotcha you seem to think is. Also, accusing me of edit warring for making a single revert is patently absurd since edit warring by definition requires multiple reverts. Stop digging a deeper hole and move on, the consensus is not with you on this. ― Tartan357 ^Talk 23:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)

WP:ENDORSE requires third-party RSes

Per WP:ENDORSE, personal sites, blogs and so on don't count to list endorsements. The endorsement needs to meet all of:

1. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements by notable people.
2. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources.
3. Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which are specifically articulated as "endorsements".

So it needs a notable subject, a third-party RS and the word "endorsement".

Quite a lot of the "endorsements" here should be cleared out unless an RS meeting all three can be found - David Gerard (talk) 16:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)