Jump to content

Talk:2010 United States Senate elections in Illinois

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

Two elections?

[edit]

The article states "Two elections for this seat will be held: One is a special election whose winner would serve immediately until January 3, 2011, finishing the 111th Congress; the other is the general election whose winner would serve in the 112th Congress, starting January 3, 2011." without citation. Does this mean that the election would actually unseat Roland Burris before the end of his term? While the circumstances surrounding Burris's appointment are certainly unusual, I find it unlikely that he could be replaced by a popular election. Having been sworn in, it seems that he could only be removed from the 111th Congress by means of [expulsion] by the U.S. Senate. Also the way I read the sentence as it stands implies that one candidate could win the special election but not the general election. Again, I find it unlikely that such a confusing ballot would be brought before the voters or that an election would be held that would only fill the office for two months. Can a citation be found to verify this information, and if it is correct can it be reworded to clarify the nature of this election or expanded to illuminate the notable details of this process.--67.165.152.69 (talk) 07:48, 5 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Burris's appointment only lasts until the election. He isn't being unseated, his term is just limited to the time before an election can be held. Coemgenus 13:39, 29 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Endorsements

[edit]

The endorsements section on the Democratic primary took up about a quarter of the page length, and included a number of people of questionable importance. I've left what I thought was the most important endorsements, and took out the following:

70.171.32.200 (talk) 19:27, 4 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h i j k l m n o p q r s t u v w x y z aa ab ac ad ae af ag ah ai aj ak al am an ao ap aq ar as at au av aw ax ay az ba bb bc bd be bf bg bh bi bj Cite error: The named reference endorsementgiannoulias was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Daily Kos poll

[edit]

Why is a Daily Kos poll being cited as reliable for the general election? It's obvious that they support Alexi because of their strong liberal standing. 76.217.101.26 (talk) 17:17, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The poll was conducted by Research 2000, a reputable polling firm. There's no reason to believe that they would allow the ideology of the site which commissioned the poll to affect their results. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:26, 8 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Green Party

[edit]

The Green Party is a established Major Party in IL. Please do not remove the Green candidate from the front page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.234.36.194 (talk) 02:39, 26 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editsemiprotected}}. I would like the Article to be rolled back before the Edits taking out the Green Party Candidate. Kommie27 (talk) 13:08, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


There are only three recognized parties in IL. The Green Party is one of them. This page should be reverted back. 69.24.39.18 (talk) 13:50, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done, by someone else.  fetchcomms☛ 22:19, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to see a source for that... where does Illinois "recognize" parties, and what makes them "major"?—Chowbok ☠ 21:59, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

What makes them an established "major party" is ballot access. Welcome to the game Mike Labno. 207.56.64.194 (talk) 20:36, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually what makes them a established party is their showing in 2006. See here:

http://www.thonline.com/article.cfm?id=294721

Kommie27 (talk) 04:51, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Actually (actually) what makes a party "established" in Illinois is state law. Established political parties have lower petition requirements for ballot access than do "new" political parties. No such thing as "major" or "minor" parties under Illinois law, only "established" or "new" parties. Established party candidates are required to file at least 5000 petition signatures to gain access to their party's primary ballot. New party candidates are not able to have a primary (the party doesn't technically exist in the eyes of the law) and are also required to file at least 25,000 signatures of registered voters to gain general election ballot access (Timeout Chicago, June 24, 2010) in order to file a slate of statewide candidates. Recently, only Libertarian Party candidate Michael Labno was able to gain ballot access for the US Senate election in Illinois by virtue of the Libertarian slate filing more than 25,000 signatures with the state Board of Elections. Once on the ballot, a "new" party becomes "established" under state law by virtue of having at least one of its statewide candidates receive more than 5% of that cycle's votes, [the Green Party did in 2006]. As of right now, only the Democratic, Green and Republican parties are considered "established" in Illinois. A given "established" party needs to continue garnering 5% or more of the vote in statewide elections in order to maintain its status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cardinal91 (talk • contribs) 03:48, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major Candidate photos

[edit]

Photos in the sidebar need to be edited. As it stands, Giannoulias' photo is larger in width, which could be misconstrued as implying preference. 71.49.59.87 (talk) 10:44, 12 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"The word from insiders in both major parties is that the Libertarian Party's Michael Labno has pretty well fended off challenges to his nominating petitions, throwing a potential curve into what is now viewed as a very tight race." [1] Ejmarten (talk) 07:08, 18 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Special Election

[edit]

In the box at the bottom of the page, it lists this election as a special election. Why is that? The last election to this seat was in 2004, 6 years before 2010. Senate elections are held every 6 years, so I don't understand why it's listed as a special election. Dunnsworth (talk) 02:46, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Illinois law, the way it's written, would require an election for the last two months of the current term. However, it does not appear Illinois is doing this, so all references to the special election are being excised. Thank you for pointing these out. -Rrius (talk) 03:10, 20 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Danny Davis

[edit]

I removed Danny K. Davis from the list of declined Democratic candidates as the given reference 404s and I can't find any mention of him having considered running elsewhere (there are, however, lots of articles on him declining an appointment to the seat). If anyone else knows of a source covering Davis declining to run for the seat, please put his name back. Thanks. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 19:44, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

primaries should be below section on general election

[edit]

This reflect putting the more important and more current information at the top of the page. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 23:03, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Why is chronological order preferable?99.48.254.240 (talk) 21:39, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • It's always been chronological order. Why are you making this an issue in this one article? There are 33 other U.S. Senate elections and historical elections. In all of them, primaries go first, and this election in Illinois is no different.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 23:42, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because this is the article I read.

The primary section of the article is fine. The general election section is weak.

Here is the standard that makes sense to me. The ongoing election should be on top. For states that have not completed their primaries, the primary election should be on top. For states that have chosen their party nominees the general election section should be on top.LastNavigator (talk) 13:52, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Putting the most current information and current election at the top is the "dumbest thing you've heard in your life"? If you made an argument, I'd respond. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 19:38, 1 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

inclusion of candidates who didn't file

[edit]

If a candidate didn't bother to file nominating petitions, what is the threshold for qualifying him or her as a serious candidate?

I can see inclusion of Lisa Madigan and Andy McKenna in discussions because their decisions affected the constellation of candidates. But some of these other people?

If someone gets drunk at a party and says s/he wants to run for Senate should it be included? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 23:08, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think the notability of the candidate within the state or even region is important. Someone like the Co-Chairman of the Cook County Republican Party may not seem all that important, but if he had been in the race, it could have changed the dynamics of the race because he would have siphoned off votes and contributions in Cook. That a person like a former HUD secretary considered a run but declined is notable in itself, even if we have no idea how his candidacy would have affected the race. In the end, I think a fairly liberal standard is okay for something like this. I'm sorry I can't be more helpful in articulating exactly what that threshold is, but that's the best I can do. -Rrius (talk) 23:17, 21 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For the ones that have actually filed and are listed at Candidate List, I'm not sure we need to even need to further consider whether any given filer is "serious" or not; anyone who bothers filing for office statewide is probably not drunk (at least any more than usual?) at the time. As of tonight (2010-06-21, Monday after hours) there are only 13 of them. The threshold for including a candidate in an article about the election is much lower than, for example, the notability guidelines for having a separate article about one. I don't know if filing means they've qualified for the ballot already; if they have, their mere presence makes them significant to the election. Even if not, it's still a fairly small set; I'd say taking the time to file makes the likelihood of having an effect substantially more than that of the average person off the street. --Closeapple (talk) 03:14, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see value in including all the Democrats and the Republicans who were speculated about at some point.

Wikipedia is supposed to be about gathering and organizing objectively verifiable facts. Listing people who were the subject of speculation seems like cataloging gossip. Whose speculation is important enough? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 03:23, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is people whose declining to run made the papers. It is, as in so many matters, the press who determines importance. Whether it is a good thing or not is unimportant for our purpoese; we reflect what we find in the primary sources. -Rrius (talk) 03:43, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The speculation of reliable sources is important enough. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 14:45, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe I misunderstood what group of people was being discussed when I replied last night. As far as people who were speculated as candidates and then ended up not running, I tend to agree with most of the above: people should be included if their status (that is, whether they decided to run or not) was given weight in the race coverage according to multiple reliable sources at the time; by that, I mean the content should reflect the combination their influence and their likelihood of running at the time, not that someone who is influential but had almost no chance of running should get a full paragraph or anything like that. --Closeapple (talk) 16:06, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I don't like the "reliable source" criteria because the media is inherently arbitrary.

If a candidate triggers the FEC reporting requirements this is a sign s/he's serious.

If a candidate files nominating petitions with the Illinois State Board of Election this is a sign s/he's serious.

If a candidate creates a serious website this is a sign s/he's serious.

Other than candidates doing these things they are not serious.

Maybe their should be a section at the bottom of the article for discussing the not serious candidates, but it detracts from the readability of the article to have them in the main body. Also, much more important information gets hidden by information that is useless to most people concerned about the race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 14:24, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you disagree with a Wikipedia policy, you need to try and get consensus to change it, rather than just ignore it in favour of personal preferences. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 15:53, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

campaign section

[edit]

This seems to be written from a partisan Republican perspective.

What is the point of mentioning Scott Brown in connection with this race? This reference adds nothing factual to the understanding of the race.

BTW, doesn't it seem like there should be mention of Kirk's problems with providing an accurate personal history? —Preceding unsigned comment added by LastNavigator (talk • contribs) 14:16, 25 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, in future you should be bold and feel free to make any changes you feel appropriate (as long as you're willing to explain your edits). The article mentions Scott Brown because Mark Kirk mentioned Scott Brown, though I've removed the unreferenced contention that Kirk and Brown's statements were similar. There should indeed be mention of Kirk's issues, which I'll try to add later. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 16:24, 26 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Double election

[edit]

How do we want to reflect the recent 7th Circuit case stating that there needs to be a special election for last bit of the current Congress? Possibilities include noting the double election in the lead, discussing the court case in a few sentences in the background section, and moving the page back to "United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010". Obviously, we could go with any or all of these. Thoughts? Rrius (talk) 04:00, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

By the way, the opinion is here, and there are numerous sources a Google News search away. -Rrius (talk) 04:03, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I regrettably don't have time to read the whole opinion, and can't find much of consequence in the news. What I did find was this, which says that the court won't issue a direction to the state until July 21. So have I misunderstood or is the double election not a certainty until that date? – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 14:42, 13 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am not a laywer, but from what I can tell, the short answer is: the Governor hasn't been ordered to put a Burris replacement vote on the ballot yet, but he almost certainly will be, probably before the end of July. My interpretation of the 7th Circuit Appeals ruling is that:

  1. the 17th Amendment requires the Governor to issue a writ of election for U.S. Senate seats;
  2. there is nothing to stop the Illinois Legislature from deciding which days the Governor may issue the writ for, as long as there is indeed an election;
  3. it is already established that any person, whose right to vote for something might be impared, has standing to sue; and
  4. the plaintiffs (voters who want a replacement Senator vote) are likely to succeed; but
  5. despite all this, there is no need for a preliminary injunction against the Governor to force a writ yet, because there is still time for the lower United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois to complete its work and order (or not order) the Governor to issue the writ in due time, and the Governor could do it on his own even before that.

So now the case is only before the district court, with all those points in mind, and the district court's next hearing is July 21. After that the district court will issue a ruling with specifics. --Closeapple (talk) 02:31, 14 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Even with this up-in-the-air and a decision pending, can someone (with more knowledge of the subject than I) please put something on the article page to discuss this situation?—Markles 00:20, 25 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling

[edit]

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Polling. —Markles 13:13, 26 July 2010 (UTC) (Using {{Please see}})[reply]

Mediation request

[edit]

Mediation was requested for a disagreement on this article (whether or not the Green party candidate should be listed in the infobox).
Is this still an issue? Do involved people think mediation would be a good way forward?
Please have a look at Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-06/United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010
Thanks for your time,
bobrayner (talk) 00:44, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Ejmarten, 20 August 2010

[edit]

{{editsemiprotected}} undo this edit: 01:05, 20 August 2010 Jerzeykydd (talk | contribs) (33,210 bytes) (Reverted 1 edit by 67.184.83.208; Again gave no reason. (TW))

Jerseykid failed to read and respond do the discussion page.

Ejmarten (talk) 03:02, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done An edit was made, Jerseykid reverted it, the next step is to discuss it until consensus has been reached. See the BRD cycle. --Stickee (talk) 04:16, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5% rule?

[edit]

I still hold my position along with the Illinois board of elections. I am not asking for you to allow every body who wants to be on the ballot. I am only stating that it is inaccurate to exclude official candidates. There are only four official candidates as of today. I was unaware of the 5% rule. I did ask to be informed about it, but did not see any further discussion on the discussion page about it. The 5% rule is ridiculous. There is already an official process to choose who is officially on the ballot in Illinois. If you can make it through that process, god bless you. Adding the photo of an official candidate to a page about the election that he is competing in is not vandalism, it is accurate information. Ejmarten (talk) 03:44, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Based on Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2010-08-06/United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010, and based on the comment above, it appears that the Green candidate should be included in the infobox. Is there an argument against including him, or should we go ahead and re-add him to the box? —C.Fred (talk) 03:56, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If you want to see evidence of the 5% rule, you'll have to go trolling through talk archives for election articles, but one that I am fairly certain has such a discussion (or perhaps several) is United States presidential election, 2008. In the end, I don't really see this argument for exclusion. Pretending that a candidate pulling, variously, 5, 9, and 14% isn't there is far more misleading than acknowledging that he is. -Rrius (talk) 04:17, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Number of candidates

[edit]

I believe there are 11 candidates in this election.

The infobox only allows up to 6 candidates.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 05:13, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How many of those candidates are polling at 5% or better? I'll accept the Democratic and Republican candidates as meeting the threshold without further evidence. Green is polling 5% based on prior discussion. What about Labno or the independents? Are any of them polling at 5% or better? —C.Fred (talk) 14:58, 20 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You can believe what you want, but it is inaccurate. There are four candidates on the ballot. [2]
[3] Ejmarten (talk) 03:43, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Then fix the candidates section first.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 04:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of Labno

[edit]

There seems to be a dispute as to whether Labno, the Libertarian candidate, should be included in the Infobox. Let met start off by saying I believe that all candidates should be accomodated in the infobox if possible. With that being said, there is no true consensus on the issue. Jerzykid, no "%5 rule" exists. It is really an issue of opinion. I'd like to see a broad consensus form on this issue so that we don't have to have this discussion for every election.--TM 21:26, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • In numerous election articles, we have come to consensus over and over again agreeing with the 5% rule and therefore it does exist unofficially as precedent and due process. The way it is in every single election article is that a candidate must have at least 5% or more in one pre-election poll. After the election, a candidate needs to have obtained at least 5% of the electorate. The reason why this rule is in place is because if we didn't, the infobox could include more than 10 candidates and would look horrible. The point of the infobox is summerize the results of the article. This is due process and the way it always has been. I have edited hundreds of election articles (presidential, senate, gubernatorial, etc.). I'm a veteran editor.

As far as where this rule has been discussed. Refer to:

Please think about it. I support fairness too, but let's use some common sense.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:39, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Firstly, Jerzeykydd, your opinion of yourself as a "veteran editor" is not relevant to this discussion. I've seen you try to pull some sort of an invisible rank over other editors and it is not appreciated. Secondly, you should not change the name of sections created by other editors, as you did to this section. You make several unverifiable grandiose claims in your above statement, such as "The way it is in every single election article is that a candidate must have at least 5% or more in one pre-election poll. After the election, a candidate needs to have obtained at least 5% of the electorate." I brought up this topic so that other editors can weigh in, including the IP, Ejmarten and other interested editors.--TM 21:50, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Common sense is that fair is fair, and neutral is neutral. Information that comes from authoritative sources Such as the Illinois Election Commision belong in encyclopedic works such as wikipedia as fact. Inclusion of polling data is relevant to the article, but is not authoritative, is not unbiased, and by the very name "opinion poll" is merely opinion rather than fact. You can say that you have edited hundreds of articles, which may be true, but have you done so while keeping the values of Wikipedia in mind. From what I have seen so far, I don't think so. I've admitted my bias. I recognize that I have one, and made a concious effort not to add that bias to the article. Please do the same. Ejmarten (talk) 04:20, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Oppose In addition to the 5%-rule, which has been more than adequately discussed, there are reasons to include Jones at least until the election that simply do not apply to the Libertarian fellow. The Greens have official party status, while the Libertarians don't. That is not the be all, end all, but the fact that one of those parties has reached a level of support in the state where the government will fund primaries for it is a fact that supports including the Green candidate. This race could, as I understand it, grant official status for the Greens for the next four years, and Jones has been polling well enough that that is sufficient reason on its own to include his candidacy in the infobox. There is absolutely no suggestion that the Libertarians will reach the same threshold (or indeed are in any danger of finding themselves anywhere near it). Finally, there have been sufficient media mentions of Green's possible spoiler effect, as well as his polling well when pollsters bother to include him; well enough, again, to change the dynamics of the race. My bias is including only candidates who matter in the infobox. I have voted for Republicans and for Democrats, but never for a third-party or independent candidate. In our system, it is almost always a waste of a vote to support them. But, they are sometimes objectively important to telling the story of the race even if they haven't a prayer of winning. Jones is one of those "sometimes"; the Libertarian chappy isn't. -Rrius (talk) 22:23, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • I like your honesty, but that wasn't even an attempt at a valid argument. A valid argument would be one that includes authoritative sources and neutrality. If you want biased political journalism go check out a politics blog. This is an online encyclopedia. If you don't like facts, go watch the news. 67.184.83.208 (talk) 00:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • You should use fewer pronouns. If your comment was addressed at me, I won't grace it with a response; if you are too stupid to see that I made a valid argument, let alone attempted one, I won't be the one to hold your hand. -Rrius (talk) 05:51, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strongly oppose All the candidates, along with their parties, are listed in the body of the article. imo, that's sufficient. Flatterworld (talk) 05:04, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • The fact that you have to stongly oppose only points out that you have no basis for your argument. It's not really that hard to understand where your bias comes from. I'm guessing that you're a supporter of a major party candidate, and that you want all media sources to exclude threats during a close election cycle. Here's the beauty of Wikipedia to me: You can't exclude facts based on bias. I'm sorry that the truth is seemingly inconvenient to you right now, but if your candidate of choice was a better candidate, they wouldn't be threatened by a third party candidate would they? That's how Labno and Jones got on the ballot in the first place. Ejmarten (talk) 05:26, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • No, it's because I work on all the election articles, and in some states everyone and their dog seems to be running. I don't want any of the candidates left out of the article, as you so oddly implied, but I don't see the need to include them in the infobox with a photo etc. The infobox is a summary. What that has to do with 'all media sources' is beyond me. Flatterworld (talk) 19:20, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes--TM 19:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Note: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means we provide information. I checked out the candidates, and added campaign site and Project Vote Smart links to two of them, as they aren't notable enough to have their own articles. I added the campaign contributions link (Open Secrets) to the Jones article, as it wasn't already there, although it did have the PVS link and campaign link. (The Open Secrets link is also found in this election article, so it's not needed here for each candidate.) That was the consensus from the last election, in order to avoid 'non-notable' articles, yet still provide the information where readers would expect to see it. I would strongly suggest that those who support various third party candidates consider providing actual information to the readers of these articles, rather than getting hung up on whether or not they're in the summary infobox. Although I try my best (check my contribs), I suspect I won't have enough time to do this for Every Single Candidate Running before November 2nd. Obviously tempers are running hot and high, but surely we can focus on the information? Flatterworld (talk) 19:44, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I agree there have been at least 2 articles where candidates removed from the ballot weren't removed from the talk page.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 22:31, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • I'm not saying that everyone who has publicly said "Hey, I'd like to be a Senator" should be included in the infobox, or maybe even in the article. What I am saying is that if an editor of a printed encyclopedia were to exclude a candidate that was legally mandated to be on the ballot for an election chose to exclude information on the basis of pre-election polling results, they would be discredited and fired. If third party candidates are unable to gain enough support to get on the ballot, then there is probably a valid argument for exclusion (if the Constitution party wins their lawsuit, their inclusion on the ballot will undoubtedly have an effect on the outcome of the election and also deserves their place on the page.) Cleaning up irrelevant material is one thing, deleting relevant data for irrelevant reasons is not. Flatterworld, as you suggested, I'll work on getting up the candidate page for Labno. Ejmarten (talk) 23:50, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yes, but Labno is mentioned in the article. By not being in the infobox, it doesn't mean that he's on going to be on the ballot, it just means he is not a major candidate. Most newspapers don't mention him. The debates may not invite him. The pollsters may not mention him.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 00:18, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Undoubtedly the debates will not invite him. However with the media bias in Chicago being mainly democratic, the local pollsters will probably give him at least minimal effort to try to lure republicans away from Mark Kirk. For only being on the ballot for a couple of weeks, he's getting a fair amount of news coverage: The Chicago Tribune [4][5][6][7], ABC News [8], The North West Herald [9], Fox News Chicago [10], Chicagoist [11], and of course one of the "major party candidates" thinks that a libertarian on the ballot is only a threat to his opponent [12]. Not to mention that the latest poll [13] (still exclusionary and taken before Labno won ballot access) not only has the Green party candidate polling at 14%, but only gives 30% to Kirk and 31% to Giannoulias, leaving 24% undecided. All things considered, I don't think that there are any non-major candidates in this election. Having said that: the 5% rule is bogus unless you can find a picture of "Undecided." While all of this is a defense against the political arguments against Labno on this page, it's completely irrelevant to the discussion about neutral and encyclopedic content on Wikipedia. I'd like to point out that out of all the citations in this comment, only one is authoritative: Illinois State Board of Elections. Facts are facts. Ejmarten (talk) 03:52, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ejmarten, I have no idea what you're going on about. All five candidates (including the - presumably - certified write-in) are listed at United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010#Candidates 3 - Labno's there with the rest. From what I've read, I don't believe Labno has sufficient notability, outside of this event (aka election), to warrant his own article. That's the rule at Wikipedia. Why you now claim I suggested you create a candidate page for him is absurd. If you're determined to be snarky about this, please go elsewhere. Flatterworld (talk) 19:14, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Flatterworld, yes they're all listed, but only four are active. I apologize for the snark in my comment, it wasn't fully intended to come across as such, and certainly not directly at you. The point that I was, am, and will continue to make is valid. I'm aware that the voice of reason often gets overruled in a democracy, and that's why I'm glad that I don't live in one. I am starting to realize that I'm not welcome here though. That however will not stop me from making a case for the full unbiased truth. Ejmarten (talk) 02:12, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FEC listing of all Illinois Senate candidates - note there are twenty-six (26) candidates. Flatterworld (talk) 19:24, 2 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
FEC is not the authority on Illinois elections, the Illinois Board of Elections is. It's in Article 3, Section 5 of the Illinois Constitution. But the above mentioned fact and source seems worthy of mention. Ejmarten (talk) 01:56, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ejmarten, I imagine we're all well aware that Illinois law determines who appears on the ballot. This discussion, however, is about who appears in an infobox within a Wikipedia article about an election. Flatterworld (talk) 20:23, 3 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It seems like the state of Illinois has done us a favor by narrowing it down to four people who are relevant to both this election and history. I might have been mistaken in thinking that posting the link that shows 26 candidates on the FEC website was a purposefully exaggerated suggestion, but if it wasn't I don't see your point. If you're returning the snark from my previous post, be more blatant. The sarcasm isn't wasted on me. Ejmarten (talk) 02:43, 4 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On a related note: There is an Associated Press article from Friday, September 3 that mentions the Green Party "establishment" status. It's about the Rich Whitney's position in the Illinois gubernatorial election but has the following statement about the Greens' status in relation to other parties: "Even so, the Green Party has an unusual opportunity this year. Whitney's 10 percent showing in the 2006 race for governor earned the Greens a new status as an "established" political party in Illinois and meant its candidates could qualify for the 2010 ballot without going through the laborious petition process that often blocks third parties. In theory, that meant Green candidates could focus on campaigning, not collecting signatures. [...] Another obstacle is that Whitney isn't the only choice for dissatisfied voters. Also on the ballot for governor this year: Scott Lee Cohen, who was the Democratic nominee for lieutenant governor, withdrew amid scandal and then launched an independent campaign for the top job; and Lex Green, the Libertarian candidate." This article is by Christopher Wills of the AP, and appeared on page B3 of the Sunday 5 September 2010 Peoria Journal Star as well as online: PJStar.com (Sep 04, 2010 @ 07:39 PM); for WBBM (AM) (Sep 4, 12:40 PM EDT); on the Telegraph Herald website (Sunday, September 5, 2010). It doesn't mention if any other parties, or any other Green candidates, got more than 5% in the last election in Illinois. --Closeapple (talk) 19:38, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Photos in the Info Box

[edit]

While not taking a position on the question of whether or not the Libertarian should be included, I would like to suggest that the current layout of the info box is very bad. The photos of the Democratic and of the Republican candidate are not in the same format/dimensions, and then including the Green candidate as the third in that lineup while the Libertarian is featured in a line all his own also seems like very bad layout -- either we make a 2x2 box, we get all four in a row, or we just display three, but the 3 + 1 layout that singles out the Libertarian (for better or worse) is not a good idea.--Bhuck (talk) 12:06, 6 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

We now have the desired 2 x 2 display, but the photo of the Democratic candidate is a negative image (i.e. colors reversed, black where white should be and vice versa).--Bhuck (talk) 11:34, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sir, the pictures can't always be perfect.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:04, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

[edit]

Election law of Illinois does not determine Wikipedia policy. Both Labno and Jones are minor candidates with no chance of winning. Either list them both, or neither. Listing one and not the other is ridiculous.—Chowbok ☠ 01:25, 9 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Please cite the Wikipedia policy that you are referring to. See also the discussion [here] and the comments from the moderator. My comment about Wikipedia policy regarding this can also be found there. Ejmarten (talk) 03:04, 10 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The best place to discuss this issue is here at the WikiProject so that some consensus can be reached.--TM 22:25, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That thread opened weeks after the request for mediation. It also seems somewhat USA-centric from the very first post (in that "third party" candidates don't seem to be accepted as real candidates; they're seen as quirky outsiders rather than a normal part of the democratic process) but, hey, this article here is on American politics so it's not entirely irrelevant.
Personally, I don't mind where people discuss it, as long as people are willing to discuss - and compromise - somewhere. If two groups of editors disagree, we won't reach a solution simply by repeating existing positions on a new page. bobrayner (talk) 22:49, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Ofcourse it is USA-centric...we are discussing US elections on all of these talk pages. My point in posting it is so we can discuss it all in one place, not on the talk page of every election article with a third party.--TM 23:03, 11 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

5% "rule"

[edit]

Funny how this "rule" always gets construed to include the Green candidate and exclude the Libertarian. So now the "rule" is that a candidate should be in the infobox if he ever received 5% in a poll. Of course, that interpretation only applies to this article; you'll note that, for instance, Trevor Down isn't included in the Arkansas infobox and Scott Ashjian isn't in the Nevada infobox despite their having received ≥ 5% in earlier polls.—Chowbok ☠ 03:11, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

They should all be included. It is just anti-third party bias which excludes all of them. Be bold if it bothers you.--TM 03:13, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
So I can count on your support if I do so? How about Jerzeykydd's?—Chowbok ☠ 03:17, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I never removed Michael Labno. I don't think he is notable and have nominated his article for deletion, but I think he should be included in the infobox. Just FYI, I didn't see the polls in the Arkansas and Nevada articles with the polling data. Either way I am fine with including them.--TM 03:18, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Labno isn't notable, but he belongs in the infobox. hmmm that's interesting. The fact is that the infobox is suppose to have only major candidates. Labno isn't one of them. On election day, if Labno gets at least 5% of the final vote, I will have no problem having him in the infobox.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:41, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, so now it depends on his receiving 5% in the election? Maybe you could define this "rule" once and for all and save us all some revert wars.—Chowbok ☠ 03:58, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The rule never changed.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 04:00, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please define it. I don't think that's too much to ask.—Chowbok ☠ 04:30, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The facts are that until a rule is agreed to in the relevant wikiproject, there is no rule. So you can shout and holler all you want, Jerzeykydd and others, but there is no rule. Every discussion is based on its own merits.--TM 04:45, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The rule

[edit]

A relevent wikiproject? Refer to:

And the rule: The way it is in every single election article is that a candidate must have at least 5% or more in one pre-election poll. After the election, a candidate needs to have obtained at least 5% of the electorate. The reason why this rule is in place is because if we didn't, the infobox could include more than 10 candidates and would look horrible. Any candidate on the ballot is still included in the election article, just not in the infobox. The infobox was made to have only the major candidates. This is due process and the way it always has been. I have edited hundreds of election articles (presidential, senate, gubernatorial, etc.).--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:02, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Once again, those are discussions on various talk pages. They are not determinants of rules and guidelines for any article other than their own.--TM 15:04, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Not true.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:06, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Wikiprojects make relevant rules like this, not talk pages. Until a consensus is formed there, none of that matters.--TM 15:08, 23 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I find this rule completely ridiculous. If you are officially on the ballot, then you should be listed in the infobox. Maybe a redesign of the info box in in order? Kind of makes the infobox not very comprehensive when information is left out. This goes along with the fact that elections are almost always won by the two parties because the others are made less relevant and are not included in anything. Seriously the infobox needs to be designed to include all official candidates on the ballot regardless of percentages polled. People are going to come to this page and think there are only the two candidates, and then may not read any further to find out there are officially four.Ploxhoi (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Agree with Namiba and Ploxhoi, et all. I didn't realize the 5% thing was just a discussion and not consensus earlier. Polls are consistently inconsistent. :) Polls are inherently not NPOV because they routinely fluctuate (causing the need for constant edits) and are easily manipulated (ie, there are liberal polling firms and conservative polling firms, etc) it makes sense to use a NPOV system of determining which candidates appear in the infobox. The only truly NPOV barometer would be to list all those candidates who are qualified for the ballot. If that means that the infobox template needs to be reworked to accommodate more than 6 candidates then so be it. In the case of Illinois' Senate election it's only 4 candidates that are qualified. Cardinal91 (talk) 05:22, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is clear to me that current consensus for this article is to include all four candidates in the infobox. Therefore I have done that. Jerzeykidd, please do not revert. If you can change consensus, then do so, but please respect it as it currently stands.—Chowbok ☠ 05:52, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What consensus?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 06:05, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well I think for factual informational purposes all official candidates on the ballot should be listed in the infobox. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ploxhoi (talk • contribs) 06:16, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Poll-based supporters, please explain how polls meet NPOV. In my view they are inherently incapable of meeting NPOV since any given poll could have a bias, be sponsored by a candidate, or simply be inaccurate and therefore unverifiable (which is why polls always list "margins of error"). Polls do not meet NPOV and should not be used as a rule for determining what NPOV info gets included in the infobox. Jerzeykydd, above you state, "the rule: The way it is in every single election article is that a candidate must have at least 5% or more in one pre-election poll." If that's the case why have you removed LeAlan Jones? He did receive at least 5% or more in one pre-election poll. (He's received >5% in at least two polls in fact.) That gets to my point that basing a rule or consensus on a marker that is inherently unstable, unverifiable and potentially biased is not rational.
Using verifiable, independent information -- such as which candidates are certified by law to be ballot-eligible -- should be the consensus and the rule for infobox inclusion. Cardinal91 (talk) 06:24, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
PS: Above Jerzeykydd also stated that the infobox was originally intended for only "major candidates". There's no such thing as a "major" candidate in Illinois. There are only "established" political parties (and their candidates) and "new" political parties. Democrat, Green and Republican are "established" parties in Illinois. Libertarian party is a "new" party and gained ballot access by means of citizen petition. Please define "major". If by "major" you mean "established" then the Green candidate should remain included irregardless of any polling data. (Would you eliminate the Democratic or Republican candidate if a poll showed them at 4%? Even if it was a clearly and demonstrably biased poll?) Basing a rule or even consensus on polls is simply not NPOV Cardinal91 (talk) 06:31, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My best advice is to take the issues here, the appropriate Wikiproject. It is best to try to come to a far reaching consensus than argue article by article.--TM 06:37, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Jerzeykidd: Currently, TM, Ploxhoi, Cardinal91, and I all agree that all four candidates should be in the infobox, and only you are arguing that Labno should be left out. So please stop reverting against the clear consensus.—Chowbok ☠ 06:56, 24 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • How about consensus in previous articles? And how about the 2008 presidential election? Should we include all 12 or so candidates in the infobox (which isn't even possible)? This isn't over.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 03:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • TM pointed out that unless its a WP guideline then each article needs to find its own consensus. This article's consensus to date is to include all those on the ballot since using something like polling is inherently NPOV. Cardinal91 (talk) 03:23, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • You can include me in this. I think including all four candidates on the ballot is a fair and reasonable compromise to this issue.Linuxrocks123 (talk) 07:00, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Compromise? How in the world is this a compromise if they get 100% of what they want and I get 0% of what I want?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 18:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • "if they get 100% of what they want and I get 0% of what I want?" Because it is an either/or question. There are only two options in discussion (although even the 5% polling rule as described was not being applied consistently). The consensus of the group discussing was to include all candidates certified for the ballot. As an earlier editor remarked if you would like to try and change consensus please do. Cheers mate. Cardinal91 (talk) 18:47, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • I'm sorry, but that has got to be the stupidest answer I've ever read. One person says that giving one side everything is a good compromise, which is rationally responded to with the equivalent of "WTF?", then you say it is a compromise because it is an "either/or" question. If it is a binary choice, there is no compromise, so you should have just kept your mouth shut. -Rrius (talk) 19:22, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • Way to attack me after misunderstanding the thread. I never said the consensus was a "good compromise". It's the consensus. (I never even used the word compromise. Linuxrocks123 did.) Jerzerykydd then complained about the consensus not going his/her way. And, yes, it is an either/or. Either the consensus on this article is to use >5% polling or it is not. In this case, it is not. And no I will not shut up. I graduated kindergarten and can think for myself. Cheers. Cardinal91 (talk) 21:04, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • It seems people are challenging what has been universally applied around election articles because it hasn't been officially sanctioned by a wikiproject. In one sense the argument is utterly ridiculous because it suggests that conventions always arise through discussion at a wikiproject rather than through experience, when in most cases guidelines are developed the other way around. For instance, this article is called what it is because the X, YEAR format developed organically. Even if we pretend that the position isn't completely ludicrous, none of those taking the position seems to have tried to involve the relevant wikiproject, which is intellectually dishonest, if not the broader kind. Also, have you people even thought about what you intend to do after the election? Normally, the people in the infobox are people who got 5% or more, exactly what the standard 5% polling rule attempts to emulate. If only the Democrat and Republican get more than 5%, are you still going to include bot the Green and the Libertarian? What if the Green does and the Libertarian doesn't? Is your "compromise" going to be to include the Libertarian anyway? -Rrius (talk)
    • What's ludicrous is that there's four candidates in this election, and you and Jerzeykydd keep insisting that only three of them should be in the infobox, based on an extremely arbitrary threshold. There's no reason to include one third-party candidate and not the other. What makes 5% so magical?—Chowbok ☠ 20:49, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What if there were seven candidates (i.e., more than we can list)? Answering that question is why the 5% threshold came into being. Beyond that, it helps prevent giving undue weight to candidates who have no effect on the race whatever. I've already explained why, even ignoring the 5% rule, the Green should be included: he has a realistic chance of achieving official party status for his party again. In any event, the 5% threshold may or may not be arbitrary, but it is not unique to Wikipedia. It is, for instance, the level of electoral support a party needs in Illinois for official party status, the level of polling support a candidate needs to participate in a US presidential debate (and to receive funding in certain instances), the threshold of vote share that some countries with proportional representation use to keep out microparties, and a threshold used in various scientific studies to weed out insignificant candidates. -Rrius (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Yeah, but there aren't seven candidates, there are four. You're arguing that since we can't fit seven, we can only include three instead of four. That makes no sense. If we want to leave out candidates that "have no effect on the race whatever", we'd leave out the Green Party candidate as well. He has no chance of winning any more than the Libertarian does. "Official Party Status" just means they get some public funds, right? Why does Illinois campaign finance law have any relevance to editing decisions?—Chowbok ☠ 23:56, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Polling vs vote totals are apples and oranges. Using >5% on "polling" is ludicrous and should be revisited if it's an actual rule. But from what I've read it is not yet a rule. As I said above polling is inherently not neutral. What if the only polls that come out in a race are sponsored by the Libertarians or the Greens and just so happens to show their candidate in the lead? Will you still support this arbitrary non-rule? OTOH, the final vote tally is an indisputable fact. If the rule post-election is to only include those candidates who achieve >5% of total votes then that makes more sense because an editor can refer back to independent, reputable source -- the election board. Cardinal91 (talk) 21:09, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • What does "polling is inherently not neutral" mean or have to do with anything. If you are suggesting something to do with party-affiliated pollsters, we generally only look at reputable pollsters. And, in any event, neutrality doesn't matter. In a presidential race, we might be sensitive to what the polls say now, but with smaller races, it tends to be enough that some poll put the candidate above 5%. If the particular poll that put, say, a Libertarian at or above 5% was conducted by her campaign or by a Libertarian Party affiliate, we would have to ask ourselves whether it really made sense to use it. Clearly, how out of line it was would matter. In the end, though you seem to be taking what is a fairly loose standard and making it out to be a horrible stricture precluding the little guy, the 5% rule serves very well here. There are two candidates in this race with a prayer of winning it. There is one other candidate who contributes to the story of the race in a meaningful way. The 5% rule, imperfect though it may be, does a remarkable job of making sure that these three candidates are part of the summary of the race, but not the candidate who really has not mattered much to the story to this point. -Rrius (talk) 22:36, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • No one on can definitively say that LeAlan Jones or Michael Labno have not had an effect on the race and will not in the future. Actually, sources indicate otherwise for both of their candidacies.--TM 02:05, 26 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • The most charitable thing I can say about your comment is that you seem to think I am talking about how the two candidates will end up affecting the result, i.e., who wins. I am not. Your allegation that I was saying anything about what impact either candidate will have or might have is completely off base. Perhaps you should take a care to read what was actually written rather than stuffing straw men for yourself. As I have said, I am talking about the story of the race. The sources do suggest that Labno has had no meaningful impact on the election campaign to date and is not a terribly important part of the story. The same is not true of Jones. At this point in time, Jones's candidacy is a meaningful part of the race because he could help his party retain its ballot advantages for another four years and because he has polled anywhere as high as the mid-teens. No one even thought to poll Labno until September, and he's polled 3% once and 4% once. Were Labno's place in the election campaign to change, of course the article should reflect that, but it is beyond absurd to suggest we should pretend his candidacy is important to telling the story now just because it might become important later.

New Rule: alphabetical order in infobox?

[edit]

Can we pleez agree to put the candidates in alpha order? Right now listing the Democrat first is UNDUE since the Republican looks to have been leading in polls during the summer. Alpha order is a NPOV way of handling what candidate goes where. Do you guys agree or disagree (if dis explain why so we can discuss). Or let me know if theres an existing rule out there that determines order Cardinal91 (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Disagree. It is universal in election articles, not just in the US, to put the incumbent party first until the results are known. In this case, that means putting the Democrat first because Roland Burris is a Democrat. -Rrius (talk) 19:24, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Also, what relationship do you see to WP:UNDUE? That makes no sense whatever.
Re WP:UNDUE: the listing seems arbitrary, giving undue weight/slight to those listed first, second, third, etc. If the incumbent party is first then why is the Republican second? It's not from alphabetical order (he'd be third). It's not from polling order (he'd be first -- til perhaps a new poll shows a different position). It's not from anything. Random order doesn't make much sense. Cardinal91 (talk) 21:08, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The order reflects the incumbent party first, then the other parties in the order of who got the most votes last time around. It is not bloody random. In any event, it still has nothing to do with WP:UNDUE; no one is giving undue weight to anything. Even if the order were determined by one editor's preference of who should win, it would still not give undue weight to anything. Which person is on the left is not going to affect anything other than which person's name is read first as a reader's eye's move across the page. Since people get petty and ridiculous about this issue, some rule had to be invented. By longstanding and universal convention, the parties are arranged in infoboxes by the order of their share of the vote (with an exception that doesn't matter here) for completed elections, and by the share of the vote the previous one for elections that are not yet complete. -Rrius (talk) 22:20, 25 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian primary?

[edit]

How did Labno become the Libertarian candidate? Was there a primary? I want to move the Michael Labno section up in the article to just below the Green primary section—as a major heading above General election—but it would flow better with a first sentence saying that Labno won nomination without opposition in the primary election or whatever their process was. —C.Fred (talk) 14:34, 21 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

C. Fred - Labno gained ballot access by way of citizen petition. The Republican Party challenged the Libertarian Party's right to ballot access but the election commission ruled in favor of the Libertarians. This was all in the original Labno article before it was severely cut and merged into this article. Cardinal91 (talk) 03:34, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point was, why did Labno go after ballot access and not some other Libertarian? How was Labno chosen to be the one? —C.Fred (talk) 04:08, 22 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Probably the same way all of the other candidates (sans independents) did: He chose to run for the office, and gained the support and endorsement of his party. I was tempted to ask how the two "major party" candidates were chosen to see if you could answer that. You would have answered your own question. Candidates aren't chosen in primary elections. Primaries determine which candidate is urged by their party to drop out of the election if there is more than one candidate running per party. Primary elections are in no way an essential part of an actual election since they serve no other purpose than to create the illusion that voters have fewer choices. They are just a dog and pony show. There's always going to be competition for a spot on the ballot as long as the political parties have access to the primary elections because it makes the candidates appear more legitimate whether they are or not. If the candidate that you support loses the primary, you can still vote for them. I never throw my votes away: I write myself into the spots on the ballot where there is nobody running that I agree with. Ejmarten (talk) 02:07, 27 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I have de-wikified the Michael Labno references in the article because his previous article was deleted, and then redirected to a non-existent section within this article. (Yes, I know, the 'incompetence' is jaw-dropping.) I also changed the redirect to point to the 'Candidates' subsection of the 'General election' section. Seemed rather obvious to me, but apparently not to anyone else. I now return you to your regularly scheduled fun and games. Flatterworld (talk) 19:23, 30 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox inclusion revisited

[edit]

Based on the current full-term vote counts, the margin of victory for Kirk was 88,013 votes. Since Jones received more than this number of votes, he should appear in the infobox, because his votes were significant in the election. From a mathematical standpoint, that's enough votes to have required a runoff, if it were not a first past the post election. (There's a secondary issue with the possibility of vote splitting.) To relegate the candidate to the infobox only implies that he did not have any bearing on the election, when arguably he did. Margin of victory is a far more meaningful threshold than an arbitrary 5%.

Labno's vote tally was not mathematically significant—adding his vote take to Giannoulias' would not have been enough to push Giannoulias past Kirk. It may create a more pleasant visual effect to leave him in the infobox, but arguably he can be removed.

Accordingly, I'd unbundle the two, and I recommend that we include Jones in the infobox because of mathematical significance but exclude Labno for the same reason. —C.Fred (talk) 19:59, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The difference between Labno's vote total and the difference between the margin of victory is something like 4,000 votes, a statistically insignificant difference. Moreover, I think Labno is part of the story of the election and including him in the infobox helps tell the story better.--TM 20:21, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Labno is also significant in the special election, which is not summarized in the infobox. He pulled 94,122 votes there, with a margin of victory of 57,348. —C.Fred (talk) 20:24, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Labno was not a major candidate at all. Namiba unconditionally believes he should be in the infobox. The fact is that only two candidates reached at least 5%.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 02:29, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Welcome back Jerzeykydd. Both C.Fred and I have posited legitimate arguments for including both Labno and Jones. Without referring to the imaginary %5 rule, can you counter both of our reasons?--TM 03:00, 5 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Nonsense. Labno cancels Jones out. Neither one affected the race in a meaningful way. They are only mentioned in the article in passing (well, Jones scrapes a section debated to his uncontested primary for some reason), and it cannot be seriously stated that either man was a significant part of the story of the election. If it had just been Giannoulias, Jones, and Kirk, I could see a reason from deviating from the project-wide practice of generally only including people who get 5%+. That is not the case here. In any event, if it is a choice between just just Jones or Labno and Jones, I would support the latter, because presenting Jones as though he made the difference in the election without showing that his vote was largely offset would be misleading. -Rrius (talk) 01:57, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You simply cannot say Labno and Jones "canceled each other out". Prominent commentators don't think so and, having been in Illinois during the election, many others don't think so. The sources indicate Jones and to a lesser extent Labno received significant coverage during the election, which itself should be the method of determining infobox inclusion.--TM 02:06, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What precentage of the vote did Labno & Jones each get? GoodDay (talk) 02:22, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Jones received 3.2% and Labno 2.4% in the regular election and slightly higher percentages in the special election. Both Jones and Labno were within the vote differentials of the top 2 candidates.--TM 03:23, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That's not much compared to the Republican & Democratic candidates. I'd recommend exclusion from the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 03:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why is the number of votes the only relevant issue when considering the infobox?--TM 06:53, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It simply is, IMHO. Now, if one of those candidates had a percentage like Dean Barkly did in the 2008 US Senate election in Minnesota (over 15%)? then that candidate would be included. Remember the long drawn out court battle between Franken & Coleman? GoodDay (talk) 15:35, 26 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on United States Senate election in Illinois, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 16:36, 25 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 11:05, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on United States Senate elections in Illinois, 2010. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

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

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

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

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:34, 3 November 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_United_States_Senate_elections_in_Illinois&oldid=1196576495"