This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article was nominated for deletion on 19 November 2019. The result of the discussion was keep.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
Ok, I haven't found the revision that introduced the 48+VP language yet, but it was sometime in the last year. Points in favor of not including the VP at all in the majority number at all are that: We already have the majorities bolded and a note about tiebreakers at the top of the infobox, and that it could be confusing to a reader to see that the VP is present before the election but not after. Points in favor of having the VP in the pre-election majority number: it's accurate, and there's a note right there explaining it if anyone's confused.
I could be convinced either way. What I can't be convinced of is including the VP in majorities where that does not impact whether there is a majority. TheSavageNorwegian 18:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I am of the opinion that the VP indicator should only be there when the VP's presence breaks the tie to determine the majority. I generally think it should be visible as it has been instead of just as a footnote, but other state legislative pages have simply used footnotes to explain lieutenant governors breaking ties or other things like that. We have precedent for the "+VP" indicator going back to at least the 2020 election when Democrats narrowly won control, so I lean on that instinctually, but I could be convinced that it only needs to be in a footnote. OutlawRun (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
While Sanders and King's seats weren't up in 2022, there were still independent candidates for Senate, so shouldn't their vote totals be included in the infobox? Talthiel (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)[reply]
.svg)
