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 California, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the U.S. state of California 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.CaliforniaWikipedia:WikiProject CaliforniaTemplate:WikiProject CaliforniaCalifornia 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.
Table not in line with other articles in the series[edit]
Could someone working on this article match the overall design used for other states, such as Alabama. Jmj713 (talk) 19:01, 28 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have made revisions to this article's table, but it is dissimilar to tables in sister articles. The reason why this is so is because I think the format I rewrote the table into looks cleaner than the other tables. For instance, on my screen, the table in this article doesn't have any line breaks or take up the whole width of the page. Jay Coop·Talk·Contributions 07:06, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't prefer it, for several reasons. First, it almost entirely omits the performance of third-party candidates, even where these candidates did well in this state or had a significant national impact. Second, it is overly focused on the winner of the state, when a presidential election is a national affair, with each state is only making a fractional contribution to the whole. Third, page views are substantially higher for more recent elections, so it stands to reason that readers are most interested in more recent elections, which should be at the top. The layout of virtually all other pages in the series presents the most recent elections first, and makes it more apparent whether the state in question was on the winning or losing side of the national election. Lastly, the other states note that the 1860 election was an historically unique four-way contest, representing a breaking point between old and new paradigms of national elections in the United States. BD2412T 16:13, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
