Jump to content

Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 15

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17→Archive 20

NOTE: This archive was pre-maturely created by Miszabot when someone changed the settings on the main talk page. Sparkie82 (t•c) 06:10, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Where are 20 electoral votes?

This might be a bit of a naive question, but the electoral votes for both of candidates (290 and 228) only add up 518 votes, and not to the 538 total available. Which state(s) have yet to declare who the remaining 20 votes go to? (It might be helpful to add this little piece of information to the front matter of the article.) Thanks. Arjun G. Menon (talk · mail) 18:48, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

@Arjun G. Menon: Michigan and New Hampshire. Michigan is expected to go to Trump and New Hampshire to Clinton. MB298 (talk) 18:53, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Are they not counted by now? http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/michigan says 100% — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.98.130.215 (talk) 22:05, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
They are going through provisional ballots I think, probably a few days for Michigan and New Hampshire. It is unlikely to change much with the margins they currently have, but we have to wait and see what the final numbers are. PackMecEng (talk) 02:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The grey states on the map should make this clear. It is a temporary issue in any case. Bcharles (talk) 04:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Probably not – it's absolutely possible, but I just don't think it will come out laterally.

Results

The result summary in the lead/infobox don't match the detailed results in the article's main body (the lead however seems more recent and better sourced)--Kmhkmh (talk) 18:14, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The popular vote keeps changing (for whatever reason) and the detailed results in the article's main body continue to differ from the lead/infobox.--Kmhkmh (talk) 04:04, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Vote counting and confirming will continue for several weeks. Thus the results will continue to be updated periodically. The note at the top of the article alerts readers to this issue. Bcharles (talk) 05:02, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I understand that, but in such cases the whole article should be updated, so that article internally is consistent/insync.--Kmhkmh (talk) 05:35, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

New York vs New York (state)

Why are we linking New York twice, in the home state section & why are we pipe-linking to a redirect? -- GoodDay (talk) 04:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

I think it is because of Talk:New York#Proposed action to resolve incorrect incoming links. Thincat (talk) 12:49, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Thanks for the explanation. I had "fixed" the links and will need to re-redirect them next time i edit the infobox (if someone else doesn't beat me to it). Bcharles (talk) 04:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm glad you understood the explanation because, although I linked to it, I had no idea what was going on over there! Thincat (talk) 10:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Less vote for winning candidate

It seems Donald Trump is one of the few Presidents who won despite getting less vote than the losing candidate. This fact should be mentioned. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 103.220.16.62 (talk) 17:15, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

List of United States presidential elections where winner lost popular vote. -- ToE 18:19, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
It is. American In Brazil (talk) 12:50, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Turnout inconsistancy

The turnout figure shows an increase of 0.7 percentage points from 2012. However, that is because the 2012 article uses a source that calculates turnout as the percent of the voting-age population, and the 2016 article uses a source that calculates turnout based on the voting-eligible population. Wikipedia should choose one basis and stick to it. 24.136.6.128 (talk) 09:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Of the top of my head, VEP sounds more interesting than VAP. Gråbergs Gråa Sång (talk) 13:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

When Voter turnout is mention the figure used is percentage of registered voters.Bbigjohnson (talk) 19:18, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Using registered voters values, would swing up the turnout percentage. Are you sure ? Robertiki (talk) 11:28, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

You can't vote if you're not registered. It should be percentage of registered voters. American In Brazil (talk) 17:12, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Whatever the better measure is, you cannot compare percentages with different bases. Turnout actually declined from 2012. I think that is the important point. Engine61 (talk) 05:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. Use the same method for all elections. Showing the turnout number 3 points higher in 2016 than 2012 when the vote count is down by over a million votes seems wrong. Derekt75 (talk) 16:19, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not give both figures - percentage of eligible voters and percentage of registered voters? American In Brazil (talk) 14:56, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2016

Please change the popular vote figures for both candidates, Hillary Clinton's popular vote should be changed from 60,467,601 to 60,839,922 as of current, while Donald Trump's popular vote should be changed from 60,072,551 to 60,265,858. The source is the Google summary page for the US election, https://www.google.com/#q=us+election&eob=enn/p//0/0/////////// James L. B. (talk) 16:42, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Election result numbers will continue to change for several weeks. The numbers will be updated periodically, based on sources cited. As indicted in the not at the top of the article, information will not always be the most current. Bcharles (talk) 16:59, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Inconsistent Turnout Figures?

The figure of 57.6% for 2016 is a percentage of the voting eligible population (VEP). This is compared to the figure of 54.9% for 2012, but that's a percentage of the voting age population (VAP), same as the turnout figures Wikipedia gives for all elections prior to 2012. The first reference doesn't give an explicit VAP estimate for 2016, but we can calculate it from the same page, as 133,331,500/251,107,404, which is only 53.1%. Assuming the numbers don't change too much, this is a decrease from 2012. Do we need to wait until a source publishes an explicit VAP figure for 2016, or can we update the page right now with the more consistent figure of 53.1%? 73.70.240.208 (talk) 06:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not give both figures - percentage of eligible voters and percentage of registered voters? American In Brazil (talk) 14:51, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Voting Eligible Population gives a more accurate reflection of turnout. I would look to adjust the 2012 article to the % of VEP figure. You are correct that % of VAP should not be compared with % of VEP in a different year. Bcharles (talk) 17:11, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I removed the turnout percentage point difference, then thought why not just remove the turnout figure entirely. It's clearly going to shift around, and we can't get an accurate number yet. —Torchiest talkedits 17:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Muslim Votes??

Is it possible to find the percentage of Muslim voters in the 2016 U.S. Election; and add them to the religion demographic? I am just wondering because of what many of them would have thought and/or voted due to President-Elect Trump's stance on Muslims immigrating to the U.S. Thanks! Samuel.farrell31 (talk) 19:02, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

There is a section for other religions, I'm guessing Muslim votes are included in that. But can't seem to find source on internet for specifically Muslim votes, I'll try to find it if I can. 117.199.88.111 (talk) 00:13, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The percentage of Muslim voters is about 1%, too small for general population polls to separate out significant results. A poll specifically targeting Muslims or communities where their represent a higher percentage would help. Anecdotal reports from Muslims show that they span the political spectrum supporting a variety of political options. Bcharles (talk) 17:34, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Okay thanks for the help, I just thought it would be interesting because of Trump's stance on Muslim immigration. Samuel.farrell31 (talk) 22:14, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I think we should remove the 'results by congressional district' map and new sections until more information comes in

Upon first glance, it doesn't seem as though the map is very clear (a lot of gray), and less then a third of the congressional districts in the country have reported their official and total results. I think we should keep the image, and update it accordingly (its format is great), but keep it off the page until at least a good majority have been colored in. Thanks. Ramires451 (talk) 00:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The current popular vote totals in the infobox should be updated. Per CBS News, CNN, FOX News, and NBC News, the current numbers are Clinton 60,828,358 and Trump 60,261,924. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 07:31, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I just updated the numbers using Fox News as source. Otto (talk) 08:16, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Vasyan174 reversed two numbers in the infobox (and not elsewhere in the article) without explanation. I reverse this edit because the numbers are outdated. Otto (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
The article quotes in the infobox Associated Press. This site just updated and shows now the same numbers as CBS, CNN, Fox and NBC. I change the source in Fox News because it updates faster than AP and it is the only one which shows the aggregrate numbers of the main three other candidates (Johnson, Stein, McMullin). Otto (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Shouldn't there be some kind of hint that those numbers aren't final? They are the source of misinformation like this: https://www.reddit.com/r/dataisbeautiful/comments/5c5k4e/i_made_a_chart_showing_the_popular_vote_turnout/ --NoCultureIcons (talk) 12:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Election results Source.

It appears that the popular vote in the election results infobox is sourcing a "projecting" number from a nice but minority opinion site called http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/national.php?year=2016&off=0&elect=0&f=0

I think we should be reporting the counted number from the associated press. This number is consistent across all media sources I have seen from CNN, FOX, PBS, Google, etc. This is the consensus among almost every source I have seen. They update the results often, their last update was a few hours ago. I recommend we use that instead of a projected results from a minority source.

AP source API people are using: http://interactives.ap.org/2016/general-election/?SITE=APQA

PBS: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/features/2016-election-results/

FOX: http://www.foxnews.com/politics/elections/2016/presidential-election-headquarters

CNN: http://www.cnn.com/election

Gsonnenf (talk) 18:15, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

PBS is just as AP slow in updating the numbers. Both have Clinton at 60,839,922 while Fox, CNN, CBS and NBC all quote 60,981,118 for Clinton since several hours. Apart from that provides Fox News (as only source from those mentioned here) the numbers of three minor candidates. Otto (talk) 12:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The popular vote percentages in the infobox are incorrectly being displayed to the hundredth, instead of the tenth. Currently, it says Trump 47.30%, Clinton. 47.79%, but hose numbers should be changed to 47.3 and 47.8. Literally every prior presidential election article shows those numbers to the tenth, so it should be corrected to maintain consistency. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 17:07, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

When the the totals are finally gotten, it'll be taken care of. GoodDay (talk) 17:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz

Has this line been discussed?

"Businessman and reality television personality Donald Trump became the Republican Party's presidential nominee on July 19, 2016, after defeating U.S. Senator Ted Cruz of Texas, and 15 other major candidates in the Republican primary elections."

I know Ted Cruz was the biggest player besides Trump late in the game, but is he worth mentioning exclusively like that? Kasich was still in the race until the end, even if he wasn't getting as many votes. And I don't think about the primary being a primarily two man battle at any point. Would it make more sense to just say "16 major candidates"? I don't feel like the standard in articles about the primary was to say "he beat Cruz."

-KaJunl (talk) 16:35, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

By the latter stages of the Republican primaries, Cruz was the only candidate left with the possibility of at least preventing Trump from winning the party's presidential nomination on the first ballot. GoodDay (talk) 16:38, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm leaning toward keeping Cruz in there, since he did finish second in delegates. Calidum ¤ 16:40, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
But that's just, "by the latter stages". There were lots of other candidates early on, some led in the beginning, others surpassed Cruz in the delegate count, etc. but although I agree that Cruz was the second-most important candidate in the Republican primaries this year, at least some others of Rubio, Carson, Bush, Christie, Kasich, Paul, Huckabee, Fiorina, Walker, Perry, etc. would deserve a mention. Since this is their only example, though, I'd think just "Trump beat 16 other major candidates" or something similar would best suit the article. Ramires451 (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Cruz the runner-up, finished way ahead of the others in terms of pledge delegates. Rubio & Kasich (the only others to win primaries) were way behind. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Undue emphasis

The huge section on all these random candidates who happened to get enough ballot access should be condensed into a list format, with the ballot access maps removed. It was fine during the election, but now that the results are known, and their influence on the election is known it should be reassessed. I couldn't readily find a detailed list of total votes for each candidate, perhaps someone could locate a website that provides the results for all candidates nationally, but the total, including Darrell Castle (not necessarily suggesting his section condensed), of all candidates besides Trump, Clinton, Johnson and Stein equals only 0.7%. My guess is that the total vote for some of the candidates featured prominently in this article received a tenth of a percentage or less, which shouldn't merit such prominence. Calibrador (talk) 05:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Here are the vote totals of the candidates, according to here:
  • Donald Trump: 59,730,214, 47.49%
  • Hillary Clinton: 59,939,033, 47.65%
  • Gary Johnson: 4,066,846, 3.23%
  • Jill Stein: 1,215,650, 0.97%
  • Evan McMullin, 444,065, 0.35%
  • Darrell Castle: 176,550, 0.14%
  • Rocky De La Fuente, 31,775, 0.03%
  • Laurence Kotlikoff, 1,861, 0.00%
  • Tom Hoefling, 2,662, 0.00%
  • Mike Maturen, 1,440, 0.00%
As far as I know, this doesn't include write in votes, but if the total votes for when they are actually on the ballot is so minute, I highly doubt the vote total gets some of the ones towards the bottom to even 0.01%. As of now, all of these candidates have exactly the same prominence in the article. If anything, it creates confusion among article observers, when they see these fringe (in some instances perennial) candidates listed with the exact same level of emphasis on the election as candidates who received millions to several hundred thousand votes. Out of 125 million votes cast, getting 1,440 votes doesn't merit significant mention. Calibrador (talk) 05:38, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the above. I added numbers for McMullin from Fox News and from the Constitution Party from US election atlas. Otto (talk) 07:01, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I would return Kotlikoff, Hoefling and Maturen to the "other third parties and independents" table. Leaving McMullin, Castle, and De La Fuente as "other candidates of note". Bcharles (talk) 17:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
McMullin and Castle would be fine, but De La Fuente had just as little impact as the others that received 0.00%. Calibrador (talk) 22:47, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Let's have consistent standards; the 2012 article includes the votes for a ticket that only won 0.006% of the popular vote. De La Fuente's 0.03% is much greater than 0.006%. For that reason, De La Fuente's votes should be included. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 18:54, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

The statements on this page are premature. CNN has updated their projection and are now saying Trump is likely to win the popular vote. see http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president

--CyberXRef☎ 14:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

Yep! Let's see.
At the very least this page needs some sort of disclaimer on the current numbers "59,692,974" and "59,923,027" --- these will not be the final vote counts! --Nanite (talk) 14:57, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Thus far only ~130M votes have been counted, there are still ~10M left --Nanite (talk) 15:03, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Very interesting. The percentage of the population voting, will go up as well. GoodDay (talk) 17:55, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I just looked and it has Clinton ahead. It could be we have to wait to know for sure. TFD (talk) 18:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

It might be best, to hide the popular vote totals in the infobox, until a final tally is reached. GoodDay (talk) 18:48, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

No. The "final" tally will only be released once the Federal Election Commission releases its Election Results Report, and that's probably going to be in the next year. In the past years we've updated the results live, and I don't think this year should be the exception. --yeah_93 (talk) 19:16, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
in 2012 it took over a month just to get close to the final result, I just think it should be bold until at point, because alot of people are jumping the gun. --Crazyseiko (talk) 19:46, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
While I agree in principle that we should hold off on definitely saying Hilary won popular vote, the CNN page has been misinterpreted. The chart on the popular vote says trump is projected to win the election, not the popular vote. The way the graph is designed is apparently flawed. This is according to CNN's Tom Kludt on his twitter account where he say's CNN is not projecting trump to win the popular vote. annoynmous 22:19, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

CyberXRef, you said, "CNN has updated their projection and are now saying Trump is likely to win the popular vote." CNN is saying no such thing, nor does your source. Please provide a quote from your source where it says that. Actually, the CNN video at http://www.cnn.com/2016/11/09/politics/donald-trump-hillary-clinton-popular-vote/ says, "Secretary Clinton will likely win the popular vote for president." Clinton took over the popular lead vote on the morning of November 9, and it has continued growing since then. Currently, her lead is over 389,000 votes. See http://www.cbsnews.com/elections/2016/election-center/ or your own source http://www.cnn.com/election/results/president for the current tally. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 03:42, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

No, she definitively won the popular vote, her margin currently at around 631 thousand and getting wider. Arglebargle79 (talk) 19:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump the first Republican to win/not win these states...

In the Outcome section, should include a statement about noteworthy/unusual wins and losses for Trump. e.g. "Trump is the first Republican candidate to win the states of Pennsylvania and Michigan since 1988, and the first to win Wisconsin since 1984. He the first Republican since World War 2 to win a presidential election without winning Virginia, Colorado, or Nevada". — Preceding unsigned comment added by MDMConnell (talk • contribs) 23:17, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

There wasn't a Republican President during WWII. Do you mean since Eisenhower? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.27.184.147 (talk) 21:44, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

13-Nov-2016 Update

According to a 70 News article posted on 12-Nov-2016 and updated on 13-Nov-2016, Trump has won both the electoral and popular votes. Are there any other articles confirming this, and has any official government source confirmed this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.214.97.2 (talk) 02:08, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see how 70 News is a reliable news source especially since they themselves cite a random twitter post. Here is a Fox News page which currently shows Clinton ahead by over 600,000 votes. Since the majority of outstanding ballots are in California which Clinton won with over 60% of the vote I suspect the margin will only continue to rise in her favour.69.196.151.183 (talk) 04:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to also point out that 70 News is a Wordpress site, essentially a blog. Also, they seem to have a POV for Trump. Most news articles are neutral and don't call out those who initiated the petition. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 05:14, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Popular vote - FIFTH TIME IN USA HISTORY

Hillary won the popular vote - [1] !! So, FIFTH time in the USA history the winner of the elections lost the popular vote. LOL. M.Karelin (talk) 11:38, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

What is the source of the figures "59,131,310; 59,293,071" given for the popular vote in the article? How can there even be accurate figures before all states have reported final results? --dab (𒁳) 15:33, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Votes aren't done yet. Some states are still counting, and absentee and overseas ballots have yet to be included. As is, it's too close to know for sure. Martin Van Ballin' (talk) 19:14, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed we shouldn't declare Hillary the winner of the popular vote until all of the counting is finished. In 2012, both Obama and Romney had 49% of the vote each at this point but more votes came in and Obama eventually pulled away and the final count ended up being over 3 points.2602:306:CC42:8340:18C7:10B9:606F:26DF (talk) 06:33, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

At this point the popular vote is final. The statement that this is the 5th time in U.S. history that the electoral vote winner lost the popular vote is correct. See WP: Presidential elections of 1824, 1876, 1888 and 2000. American In Brazil (talk) 15:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That is not correct. In 1824, Andrew Jackson won both the electoral and popular votes, but lost the contingent election in the House. Thus this is the fourth time that the popular vote winner lost the electoral college, but it is the fifth time that the popular vote winner lost the election. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 16:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It is correct. Andrew Jackson won the popular vote in the United States presidential election, 1824 (151,271 to John Quincy Adams' 113,122) and, although Jackson received a plurality of electoral votes (99 to Adams' 84), he did not win a majority of the electoral votes needed (131) to win the White House. Therefore, in accordance with the 12th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution the election went to the House of Representative to decide, the only time the House voted for the President. They chose Adams. Jackson ran again in 1828 and this time he was elected with a majority of the electoral college. as well as a majority of the popular vote. He's that guy on your $20 bill. American In Brazil (talk) 18:15, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Actually, there was one other time that the House of Representatives chose a President. It chose the top popular vote getter in the 1800 election, Thomas Jefferson over Aaron Burr. The mess up there, brought about the 12th Amendment :) GoodDay (talk) 19:18, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
When you're right, you're right. The 12th Amendment was a response to the confused election of 1800 in which the House chose Thomas Jefferson. I should have said that the election of 1824 was the only time the House chose the president under the 12th Amendment, which has governed presidential elections since the election of 1804. American In Brazil (talk) 19:27, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
BTW, has any noticed, all 5 defeated presidential candidates who had the most popular votes (1824-Jackson, 1876-Tilden, 1888-Cleveland, 2000-Gore & 2016-H.Clinton) were Democrats? PS - Ok, Jackson was a Democratic-Republican in 1824, defeated by a fellow Democratic-Republican. But anyways, that part was an immediate forerunner to the Democrats ;) GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Again, you're right. And Jackson was the first candidate of the modern Democratic Party. I wonder if the Cubs had lost the World Series, would Hillary have won? American In Brazil (talk) 19:35, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
Haha ;) GoodDay (talk) 19:37, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It also holds that every time the electoral college flipped the popular vote, the party that lost held the White House. So it is has flipped results in favor of upsetting the status quo every time to date. 2600:1014:B126:DB73:B97B:CD42:AAE0:3FD0 (talk) 19:15, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

Okay, more specifically: this is the fourth time that the popular vote winner lost a plurality of the electoral college, but it is the fifth time that the popular vote winner lost the election. If you replace "plurality" with "absolute majority", it is still the fifth time. We should be sure to be precise with the wording in the article. Antony–22 (talk⁄contribs) 21:20, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Are you for sure the vote is final? Is that the final count on the page? If it is then fine, but if it isn't you need to change your wording again.2602:306:CC42:8340:7502:235E:E498:DC2E (talk) 01:37, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The only election under the 12th Amendment (that is, since 1804) in which the popular vote winner had a plurality (that is, the most but not the majority) of electoral votes was the election of 1824. That election was then decided by the House of Representatives. In all the other cases (1876, 1888, 2000 and 2016) there was a definite winner of the electoral vote. (Alright, I'll grant you there was a big argument in 2000 over who won Florida.) The 12th Amendment clearly states that the winner must have a majority of the total number of electoral votes in order to occupy the White House. In the elections of 1948 and 1968, where a third party candidate won the electoral votes of some states (Strom Thurmond and George Wallace, respectively), a small change in the popular vote of a few states would have denied the electoral vote winner (Harry Truman in 1948, Richard Nixon in 1968 - both also won the popular vote) a majority of the electoral votes and sent the election to the House. But it didn't happen. American In Brazil (talk) 12:26, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Projected total electoral votes will be 306, not 289

Currently Trump has 279. Arizona and Michigan were not called yet. They have 11 and 16 ev respectively. Trump is leading there by 80,000 and 15, 000 respectively. Trump's projected win will be with 306 (57%) electoral votes, not 289. http://www.nytimes.com/elections/results/president — Preceding unsigned comment added by Orly taitz (talk • contribs) 15:43, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

The sources haven't called it in his yet, we have to wait for them. 61.0.200.255 (talk) 15:55, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
All Nebraska Districts have been called for Trump, at least by some sources, so he should have 290 now. Also, according to the map, Minnesota has been called for Hillary so she should have 228. Still waiting on Michigan and New Hampshire. Smartyllama (talk) 16:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
@GoingBatty, AllSportsfan16, Smartyllama, Der Eberswalder, Lukepryke, Newfraferz87, Brythones, Crazyseiko, Kiril Simeonovski, Kidsankyran, Spartan7W, Keivan.f, CyberXRef, GoodDay, Dr Aus, Orly taitz, and 61.0.200.255: AZ, MI and NH have not been called by NBC, NYT, nor POlITICO. There will likely be recounts that will take a few weeks to complete. Per WP:CRYSTAL, we should not include these states in the electoral vote for either candidate till resolved. Bcharles (talk) 18:37, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I think that might get from a recount.
Confirmed, Trump has 306 (57%) electoral votes. Please update. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.105.80.207 (talk) 15:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Automatic recounts are triggered by state law, usually when there is a difference between candidates of 0.5% or less. Otherwise, a recount has to be initiated (and paid for) by the losing candidate. Neither is happening in this election because the margin of victory of each candidate is more than 1% in each state.
The official count is not yet complete, so numbers will change, even before considering a possible recount. The difference in MI is about 0.24%, less than a quarter percent. That can easily flip recount or not. Bcharles (talk) 15:50, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox: Elected President or President-elect?

dup thread - Trump is president-elect, not the projected elected president

Trump is president-elect, not the projected elected president

Donald Trump is the president-elect of the United States. This is his official title, between now and January 20, 2017, when he becomes president. "President-elect" is a defined term, see president-elect of the United States. This article should indicate that Trump is currently the president-elect, rather than describing him as the "Projected elected president", as that makes it seem like things could change.

A projection is speculative. Trump is not merely projected to be elected. However, he is not yet the elected president of the US. He is president-elect. I have been discussing this on my talk page with GoodDay see here. Since we aren't able to come to an agreement at this time, could other editors please share their thoughts about this?----FeralOink (talk) 22:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

See discussion above. I put Projected Elected President as a compromse, because folks were against putting in Elected President (per the Electoral College) even though vast sources say he is elected president. As for the title President-elect? that will continue to be used right until he's sworn in on January 20, 2017. I'm just trying (as much as possible) to bring the infobox into consistency with the 57 other articles. HONESTLY, I don't understand why there's so much resistance to putting Elected President into the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 22:28, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay:The other 57 presidents ARE elected presidents. That is in the past. Those infoboxes are correct, and should not be changed. The 2016 election is still in process. That is why there are links to the schedule of the election in the article, sourced to the U.S. government's National Archive, that give the dates when certain steps are taken, when the winner of the election becomes president-elect (from election day until inauguration day) and when he becomes president (on inauguration day). The infobox on the 2016 presidential election should NOT be consistent with the 57 other past articles at this time, not in that regard. As of January 20, 2017, the infobox for this article should be made consistent with those articles. Please see the discussion on the Donald Trump article talk page here for an additional explanation of why Donald Trump IS the current president-elect. President-elect is a defined term. "Projected Elected President" is not a defined term, but rather a description. It IS important, because president-elect has an official meaning in the U.S. government. Let's get some other editors to share their thoughts about this.--FeralOink (talk) 22:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
How can Elected President & Projected Elected President, both be wrong? GoodDay (talk) 22:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Elected President is correct for the other 57 presidents. It is not correct for Donald Trump, not yet. Projected Elected President is incorrect. Donald Trump is the current president-elect of the United States. Visit the president-elect article please. It even has a picture of Trump there and says he is the incumbent president-elect. Let's get some other people to comment. If we don't get anyone else, I will make a Request for Comment RfC in a few days.--FeralOink (talk) 01:34, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
From my understanding, Elected President is self-explanatory. Based on the president-elect article, president-elect means a person who is projected to be the next president until Inauguration Day. Projected Elected President is redundant if president-elect is the correct term used. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:40, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
He's President-elect until he's inaugurated. He doesn't loose that title on December 19, when the Electoral College votes. GoodDay (talk) 01:45, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree, that he does not lose the title of president-elect on December 19, 2016. He loses the title on January 17, 2017, which is Inauguration Day, when he becomes president. I do not understand why that is relevant though. We should either change it to president-elect OR just say "Elected President". To confirm consistency with precedent on Wikipedia (which you used as a rationale, see above), I checked the edit log for the US Presidential Election in 2008. That was the most recent time that we had a new person be president-elect. Election day was November 4, 2008. As you can see, immediately following the election, from November 6, 2008 onward, Obama was described as Elected President in the infobox. We should NOT say "Projected Elected President" in this article. It is redundant and inconsistent with Wikipedia usage for past U.S. presidential elections. I am going to change it to Elected President. Thank you, @Callmemirela: and GoodDay.--FeralOink (talk) 02:03, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Again, it should be Elected President in the infobox. However, a few editors opposed that & so I added Projected as a compromise. BTW, Inauguration Day is January 20, 2017. GoodDay (talk) 02:06, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I say it should be President-Elect (or the opposite, I forgot) as it is the proper and correct term used per the article. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:20, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Agreed, it should be president-elect.--FeralOink (talk) 02:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
It should be Elected President, unless somebody has a source that says Trump has not been elected president. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
It should be President-elect because that is his official title right now and has yet to take office. There is a subtle semantic difference between President-elect and Elected President.--Beneficii (talk) 03:26, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree, the title is President-elect. The other works for past elections because they were elected and took office. Trump has yet to take office. "Elected President," to me, means "president who was elected". Trump isn't president yet. Just use the official title that he currently bears. 2602:30A:2C26:2C90:4C4A:7C67:90B4:F066 (talk) 07:29, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
As I stated above in another comment block, the correct title is President-elect. As already mentioned, every other article about the current president or former presidents state that they were 'elected president' because they were inaugurated as president in the past. Trump will be inaugurated as president in the future. Besides, if an official term exists to describe something, why would we use something else? jmcgowan2 (talk) 14:28, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Dear confused users, just to clarify, Donald Trump is the president-elect, and is no longer considered projected elected president for two reasons. 1: He is definitely going to win. Even if those three 'too-close-to-call states' all go to Clinton, she could not possibly win. The elector total for Trump is just way too high. 2: Trump could never be 'elected president' until January 20, 2017. Before that date, he is still president-elect, as Obama remains president. There cannot possibly be two presidents at once. God forbid something were to happen to President Obama between now and January 20, Vice President Biden would assume the office of president. When Trump assumes the office on January 20, 2017, the title can change to 'president'. Just trying to resolve some issues, had they not already been resolved. UNSC Luke 1021 (talk) 16:31, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Calling Trump the "president-elect" at this stage would be misleading since the electoral vote hasn't even voted yet. At this point he is only projected to become president; he hasn't technically been elected yet. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 17:00, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Howdy UNSC Luke. I'm not confused at all, about Trump being President-elect. I just fail to understand why there are editors here refusing to use Elected President in the infobox, when Trump has been elected President. He doesn't have to be in office, for us to use it. GoodDay (talk) 23:21, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
I Prefer "projected president-elect" until the electoral college actually votes. Faithless electors are still possible. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 06:44, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Prcc27: Trump has 306 electoral votes. It would take 37 faithless electors switching to Hillary to change the result. Ain't gonna happen. American In Brazil (talk) 12:49, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
That message was seriously unnecessary. Please stop being so hostile with everybody. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:15, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Callmemirela: Wasn't intended to be hostile but merely to point out an important fact - namely, that with Trump having 306 electoral votes it would take 37 faithless electors to switch from Trump to Hillary to change the outcome. However, in response to your comment I have taken out the phrase 'stop dreaming' just to soften my comment. (And no, I did not vote for Trump.) American In Brazil (talk) 13:41, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@GoodDay: Trump has been elected (verb) President, which makes him the President-elect (noun). Let's all move on. American In Brazil (talk) 13:04, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Why not Elected President?

Trump doesn't have to be in office, for us to use Elected President in this article's infobox. Why are so many resisting to do this? GoodDay (talk) 23:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

GoodDay, you have to drop it already. President-elect is the proper and correct term used for the next president. Drop the stick already. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:41, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
GoodDay, stop your nonsense. President-elect is obviously the correct and universally accepted term. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 04:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: There is resistance to Elected President because it is incorrect. Trump is not the President until he is inaugurated and assumes the office. Until then he is the President Elect. The term Elected President is even incorrect for past Presidents because obviously they could not have been President unless they were elected. Trump has been elected (verb) President - that makes him the President-elect (noun). American In Brazil (talk) 12:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Just FYI: Not every president was elected. Several Presidents were never "Elected President", those that succeeded on the death of the previous President. One was never even elected Vice President. See Gerald Ford, who was appointed VP without any election, then became President when the predecessor resigned. Otherwise, I agree that "President-elect" is the correct terminology. --Jayron32 13:22, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
@Jayron32: You are correct in both respects. American In Brazil (talk) 13:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

So, here I am, four days later, and I just checked the article. It still says Elected President. Trump is the president-elect. I am 100% a Donald Trump supporter. I am one of the handful of Wikipedians who put their name on the Donald Trump Wikiproject page back when no one else would. Trump is not yet the elected president though. He is the president-elect. It is an official title. @GoodDay please do not change this. We have overwhelming consensus here. On Inauguration Day, we will change this page to indicate Donald Trump as Elected President. It is not time to do that yet. He is president-elect--FeralOink (talk) 02:31, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd go through the long list of contributions if it wasn't already late, but could you please provide a diff that GoodDay restored Elected President? Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 03:14, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Hello, Calmemirela. I apologize to GoodDay, as I can't find evidence that he was the one who changed the page to Elected President. All I know is that when I saw the article a little while ago, it said Elected President instead of President-elect. I will strike out that part of my previous comment.--FeralOink (talk) 03:37, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
This is aduplicate thread. Please comment in the original thread "Infobox: Elected President or President-elect?" Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
NOTE: The collapsed duplicate thread above "Trump is president-elect, not the projected elected president" -- which was started after and ran concurrent to this original thread "Infobox: Elected President or President-elect?" -- was collapsed and moved into this thread. Please add comments at the end of this thread. Sparkie82 (t•c) 05:24, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Howdy. I'm trying to match the bottom of the infobox using Elected President, in order to match with the infoboxes of the other United States presidential election, year articles. Yet somebody has reverted my edit back to President-elect. Why the resistance to consistency? GoodDay (talk) 22:00, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Answer here. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:08, 9 November 2016 (UTC)
Trump will continue to be President-elect after EV votes. President-elect means Elected President. GoodDay (talk) 22:13, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

Seeking views from others:

The reason why I think it should be Elected President, is that it's being used in all the other United States presidential election articles. GoodDay (talk) 00:32, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
See President-elect of the United States. I can't account for those other articles, but the correct title for someone elected to be POTUS who has not yet taken office is President-elect. They cease being President-elect and become President when they are inaugurated. "Elected President" is what every President becomes, at any time after their election, both before and after they take office. It does not express the temporary nature of the office and their very limited powers prior to inauguration. Also see Twentieth Amendment to the United States Constitution, which uses the term (which has since come to be written with a hyphen), and 18 U.S. Code § 3056 - Powers, authorities, and duties of United States Secret Service for an example of how the President-elect is referred to in Federal regulations. The idea of the posttitle field (which is the field at issue) of Infobox election is "Title of the victor of the election (President-elect, Prime Minister-designate...), only if different than before." per Template:Infobox election. Please note the examples given. General Ization Talk 04:05, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I know all about that stuff, I'm speaking of consistency. See the articles United States presidential election, 2012, United States presidential election, 2008, etc etc. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Yes, and it is possible to be consistently wrong; that doesn't make it right. The other articles should be changed, not this one. General Ization Talk 04:09, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
That would include all the infoboxes of the Senate & Governors elections (which are using Elected Senator & Elected Governor, instead of Senator-elect & Governor-elect), too. Would be a lot easier to just change this infobox here, to match the rest. GoodDay (talk) 04:12, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
It might be easier, but you did not ask what would be easier. You asked what would be correct. General Ization Talk 04:15, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Well then, let's change to Elected President for this article, in order to match it with the others. GoodDay (talk) 04:20, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
@GoodDay: Please don't ask for consensus and then resolve to ignore it if it isn't what you thought it was going to be. The consensus is clear above, though you can wait for additional comments if you want more input. You should not reassert your preferred version after asking for consensus because you think it is "easier" than the version advocated by consensus. General Ization Talk 04:23, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
There's no hurry. Just don't understand why this one article should be singled out. Anyways, we'll shall let others weigh in. GoodDay (talk) 04:24, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
This is the "one" article currently receiving the most page views of the ones you mention; hence we should take extra care to make sure it is correct. General Ization Talk 04:27, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Adding two more cents here - The other presidential elections articles probably say 'Elected President' because the person who won that election has already been sworn in as President. Since Donald Trump has not been sworn in yet, he is still President-Elect. Once he has been sworn in, the article should be updated to Elected President. Temporary inconsistency is fine as long as it is for a reason, such as maintaining accuracy. Besides, if the other articles followed this pattern of using President-Elect until after the person was sworn in, then we are being consistent. jmcgowan2 (talk) 12:49, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Just to point out 'again', we've got Elected Governor & Elected Senator for those 2016 election articles. GoodDay (talk) 15:41, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

"President-elect" is the correct term between being elected and taking the oath of office on January 20. This is the term used by all the media. Thereafter, it is simply "President". The President-elect has no powers of office until he is sworn in, of course. American In Brazil (talk) 15:50, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

Technically, the correct term is projected president-elect because he hasn't been elected, only electors have been elected. Given the current state of affairs it is entirely possible that, come December 19th, a couple of dozens electors could possibly switch and Clinton would be president-elect. It has happened before. Until December 19th (at the earliest), there is no president-elect. That being said, almost every news organization uses the (inaccurate) term president-elect as soon as the outcome of the general election is known. (But we don't have to do it the "wrong" way just because everyone else does.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 10:20, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Although there have been a few faithless electors in U.S. history, no election has been changed by them. Since Trump received 306 electoral votes, it would require 37 electors to change their votes to Hillary. On the contrary, two electors from Washington state (which Hillary won) have said they will not vote for Hillary. Then she would need 39 of Trump's electors. It just ain't gonna happen. American In Brazil (talk) 12:57, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree. The correct terms are "President-elect" between election day and inauguration, then "President" after inauguration. Thereafter, even after leaving office, an ex-President is called "President" (President [Bill] Clinton, Presidents Bush, President Carter, etc.). American In Brazil (talk) 14:33, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I put in (Projected) Elected President, as a compromise. To better bring this article's infobox in line with the other 57 articles. Trump will (which I'm not disputing) continue to use the title President-elect up 'til he takes office January 20, 2017. GoodDay (talk) 22:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

@American In Brazil: Re faithless electors changing results: In 1836 about 8% of the electors changed their intended votes for Johnson (they abstained), which changed the outcome of the electoral vote, preventing him from having a majority (although he was later elected in the Senate). It would take less than 8% faithless electors to change the outcome of this electoral vote. Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:33, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
@Abjiklam: The main source at President-elect of the United States is a US statute. I just checked it and although it uses the term "president-elect" in the statute, it doesn't actually define it as beginning right after the general election. (I tagged the reference at that article.) Sparkie82 (t•c) 18:38, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
Good that you checked the source, I hadn't done that myself. Still, he seems to be called president-elect all over the media. Shouldn't we use the term that is most commonly used for him? I haven't seen anywhere that he is projected to become president-elect. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 21:24, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

@Sparkie82 (t*c). The election of 1836 that you reference did not involve faithless electors for President. It was about faithless electors for Vice-President. The 23 Virginia electors refused to vote for Richard Mentor Johnson because he had a well-publicized interracial relationship, scandalous in the time of slavery (even though Thomas Jefferson two generations earlier also had a well-known, long-standing interracial relationship). Johnson came up one vote short of a majority in the electoral college. As you correctly state, the vote then went to the Senate in accordance with the provisions of the 12th Amendment, the only time it ever did so. The Senate elected Johnson Vice-President anyway and, thus, the result was the same as if even one of the 23 faithless Virginia electors had voted for him. Therefore, my statement that no election was ever changed by faithless electors is accurate. In addition, since Trump got 306 electoral votes, it would require 37 electors to change their votes to Clinton in order to change the winner of the election. And two electors from Washington State, which Clinton won, have said they will not vote for her. In that case, Clinton would need 39 of Trump's electors. As I said above, it just ain't gonna happen. Donald Trump is the President-elect of the United States. American In Brazil (talk) 21:46, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

To say I'm mildly frustrated by the resistance to use Elected President in the infobox, might be an understatement. Trump has been elected president by all sources given. Yes, I know it's only his pledged electors that were chosen on November 8. But, we don't need to wait for either the Electoral College to vote or for Trump to be inaugurated, to use it. GoodDay (talk) 23:35, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

This discussion will be resolved on December 19 when the electors cast their votes. American In Brazil (talk) 03:14, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

He will likely be president-elect (or projected president-elect) until January 20th, although there are a number of unlikely scenarios that could change that status before that date. I'm fine leaving it as it is (president-elect) until there is a change in that status. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:17, 18 November 2016 (UTC)
Let's clarify some grammatical usage here in order to put this issue to rest. Trump was elected (verb) President which made him the President-elect (noun). American In Brazil (talk) 23:58, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Major Third Parties section needs to be trimmed or removed entirely

It's possible that "Major Third Parties" might include the Libertarian Party and the Green Party, only because these are the only two that received any significant press coverage. They also received roughly 2% of the popular vote on a national scale. Any other third parties are nowhere close to "major". They received few votes, and extremely small percentages. By listing them here (and including their logos with the same size and such), we are actually unbalancing the article by providing undue weight. Hires an editor (talk) 23:17, 9 November 2016 (UTC)

I'm totally agree. Ali 22:22, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
Evan McMullin is an exception. He received 20% of the vote in Utah. Jay Coop · Talk · Contributions 22:34, 10 November 2016 (UTC)
I'd say include Johnson, Stein, and McMullin. All other minor candidates combined account for less than Johnson's popular vote total. McMullin's good showings in Utah and Idaho (plus the fact that he actually got press coverage before that) are reason enough to include him, but everyone below him is statistical noise. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:22, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I disagree with the idea of removing it. Johnson and Stein must remain, but I also believe that McMullin is worthy of remaining due to his significance in Utah. The statement that "They also received roughly 2% of the popular vote on a national scale" is simply incorrect. The third party candidates received 6% in 2016 while in 2012 they only received 1% and both Johnson and Stein have been in the national polls. Both candidates were capable of winning through ballot access and Johnson had access in all 50 states plus DC. When compared to previous elections, this is significant. Third party candidates received over 6,000,000 votes this election, there is not an argument to completely remove all third party candidates. Perhaps some of them are less significant such as La Riva, but removing Johnson and Stein would only remove relevant information. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 20:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with a removal as well. Many people aren't even aware of all the parties running in the election and logical choice to inform yourself would be this article. Now their overall description might be trimmed and/or outsourced to a subpage or separate main article, but to the very least their names and voting share should be listed in this article as well.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:25, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree that at least the major third parties should be included. If they are not, the total votes of Clinton and Trump do not add up to 100% and the article would be incomplete. American In Brazil (talk) 00:03, 19 November 2016 (UTC)

Technically, isn't this point not relevant until January? Neither candidate has already become president. Shouldn't it say 2016 was the fifth election in which the popular vote winner did win the election or 2016 was the fifth election in which the popular vote winner did not win the electoral vote? Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 12:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

That's not even technically true. There was no popular vote prior to 1820: (a) state legislatures in a majority of states elected Electors, there was no public ballot for Electors, (b) in states in which there was a public ballot voters chose from undifferentiated candidate lists, not a single candidate. It's, therefore, not possible to say - for instance - "Thomas Jefferson won the popular vote" as there was no popular vote to win. I've added exhaustive sources explaining this. While the sources have been maintained in the article, this important historical content has been repeatedly stripped-out. We need to be sure we clarify that the popular vote leader has lost the Electoral vote five times since there have been popular votes to calculate, not five times overall. LavaBaron (talk) 17:32, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm not sure the fact that Thomas Jefferson didn't win the popular vote because no popular vote took place needs to be clarified in the lead of this article (maybe just add "since the United States presidency started to be decided by a public ballot"?), but until January we definitely shouldn't be saying that "Trump became the president" (or implying the same by saying that Hillary, as opposed to Trump, didn't become the president). Hijiri 88 (聖やや) 22:23, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
"since the United States presidency started to be decided by a public ballot"? The US presidency isn't decided by a public ballot, it never has been, and without a constitutional change it will not be. The US presidency is decided by the EC. I'm not saying if it should or shouldn't be, just what is. The EC is now appointed by public ballot in each state, but the presidency is not decided by public ballot. In fact the entire conversation about the "popular vote" is very deceptive and misleading, because we could expect voting patterns to be different if there was a popular vote, but there isn't. This is like talking about a baseball team (because we love baseball analogies) that lost even though they had the most bunts. While this might be an interesting fact, it's deceptive to present it like it actually matters to the outcome of the game. And if bunts became a metric for winning a baseball game, I'm sure we'd see different stats regarding bunts. (Just to save the trouble of someone looking up my IP and calling me a Puttin troll, no I'm an expat.) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.91.175 (talk) 19:52, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
In truth the US presidential election, is really 50 elections. Winning the popular vote on a state-by-state basis (thus the states electoral votes), gets the White House :) GoodDay (talk) 19:55, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
"51 elections"* That is my point exactly, it is 51 unequally weighted elections so it's just wrong to talk about an unweighed popular vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.252.91.175 (talk) 20:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
None actually became the president here, though, either.Ramires451 (talk) 22:08, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

The lede states that this was the 4th presidential election in which the popular vote winner did not become president because s/he did not receive a majority of the electoral votes. It cites the elections of 1876, 1888 and 2000. There was also the election of 1824 in which Andrew Jackson was the popular vote winner and had a plurality of electoral votes but not the majority. Therefore, in accordance with the 12th Amendment the matter went to the House, which elected John Quincy Adams. I think this should be mentioned in the lede for completeness. I invite discussion and if there is no objection, I will add. American In Brazil (talk) 22:33, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, the election of 1824 has been added back to the lede. I think it's important to state that, historically, even though this election went to the House, the point is that the popular vote winner Andrew Jackson did not become President - John Quincy Adams did. So there were four times before 2016 this has happened and 2016 is the fifth time. The reason, of course, is that there is no national election - there are 56 (counting the District of Columbia, Maine and Nebraska) separate elections. Unless the electoral college is abolished by a Constitutional Amendment, this could happen again. As an encyclopedia, WP must report what happened, not what might have been. By comparing vote totals statewide, the reader can figure it out. American In Brazil (talk) 23:27, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Contested statement

At the end of the lead section of the article: "It is the first election since 1928 where the Republican Party has won the Presidency and/or Vice Presidency without Richard Nixon or a member of the Bush family on the ticket." ??? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2607:FEA8:A25F:FB9A:4CB9:2FC6:C152:FDE5 (talk) 23:07, 11 November 2016 (UTC)

The only Republican presidents since 1928 who were not themselves either Nixon or a Bush, Eisenhower and Reagan, each had Nixon or a Bush as their VP (Eisenhower the former and Reagan the latter). It would be nice if this statement was sourced, however.General Ization Talk 23:10, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
It is trivia. Trivia of course is interesting, but unless it is widely spoken about, it does not belong in the lead. TFD (talk) 01:05, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah I was just about to say this is way too trivial a way of slicing and dicing historical information. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:06, 12 November 2016 (UTC)
I mean, that's just way too unimportant, this rest of the stuff. It can't be added just yet, but any historical sections don't make sense like that. with these methods, the White House could technically, belong to anyone – I know some people may like it that way, but it's just like saying that no Republicans have won since 1976 without Reagan, H.W. Bush, W. Bush, Trump, etc. at top of the ticket. Ramires451 (talk) 01:04, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to add that, while I did edit the statement, I thought it was a little too trivial. I just wanted to clean up the language a bit. Maybe it can be placed elsewhere in the article, but it is definitely not important enough for inclusion in the opening. Nulla Lex Ink. (talk) 19:07, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

Request "Margin" column(s) in state results table as in previous years

The margin column helps because sorting by this column allows for "tipping point" analyses. Thanks! DavidRF (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

this will be added, but likely not until official results are out as numbers are still incomplete and will change Bcharles (talk) 18:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

I noticed that since this morning somebody decided to put this little fact on the page, in the second paragraph no less. I don't see what's the point of stating this, except to make some liberals feel better about themselves after this humiliating defeat. If no other woman became candidate of a major US party, they had no chance of winning the popular vote either.

Why not put instead that she's the first woman in the history of the United States to lose a presidential election? That's more befitting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.152.221.169 (talk) 03:39, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Winning a popular vote by itself is historical, and by the margin it is being done is also historical, and that it is being done by a female candidate is one for the books. It is not a small trivial matter, because each vote has a person behind it who is voicing their opinion, people like me and my parents, and the majority, the popular vote, chose Hillary as president.
47.75% is not "the majority". 91.152.20.224 (talk) 12:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
There is no need to say first 'woman' to lose an election, because that is a childish attempt to degrade her gender-wise. A better phrasing would be: 'Hillary is the first female candidate to lose an U.S. presidential election but win the popular vote.' With more emphasis on the term 'candidate', not gender. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchfan07 (talk • contribs) 04:59, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Agree to some extent with Watchfan07, but I don't think mentioning her loss is needed. The first paragraph says who won the election, and the focus of the second paragraph is the discrepency between the electoral college vote and the plurality. In this case, it should be obvious to a reader that Clinton lost the election but won the popular vote, and vice versa for Trump. Appable (talk) 05:08, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
She is not the first woman to lose the election. There has been atleast 2 women presidental candidate before her including Jill Stein, besides I've never seen "first person to lose from XXX group" in an election article. 117.199.88.131 (talk) 14:27, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree. While it's worth mentioning she won the popular vote, I don't think "first woman to win the popular vote" is necessary. -KaJunl (talk) 16:36, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I just really don't think all of this about Clinton being a woman is actually necessary. What does it matter whether she's a woman, or a man? She should be treated equally, regardless of her gender, and Wikipedia shouldn't be encouraging any form of bias on the part of either Clinton or Trump's genders. At the same time, I do realize that many of you view this as a historic moment for women in politics, so maybe we could just shift this argument and say simply that "Hillary Clinton was the first woman to ever win a major-party nomination", and that she lost the popular vote, but that she lost the entire election, though the last two points right there really don't have anything to do with her gender, so we should perhaps omit it. There doesn't really seem to be any reason why we should mention that she was the first major female nominee to lose the Electoral College, or that she was the first to win the popular vote, or that she was the first to do both at the same time. If they were firsts regardless of her gender, of course we'd mention that. But her gender in these cases do not merit being put on the first few ines, especially considering she would be the first major woman nominee to do anything that she's done. Ramires451 (talk) 17:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Not significant. TFD (talk) 16:41, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
  • Even if she won both the popular vote and presidency (this is a scenario; I acknowledge that she did not win the presidency), it would only be by plurality. A plurality is NOT a majority. Simply the fact that she is female is irrelevant. Prior to 2016, Jill Stein received more votes than any other female in United States history, but the fact that she is female does NOT make this information significant. To say that Hillary Clinton's nomination is significant because she was the first of a so-called "major party" to receive a nomination is exclusive of other parties that have already nominated female solely to make Hillary more "special." Wikipedia serves the purpose of an encyclopedia and is inclusive to information that can be deemed important. Hillary Clinton being a female is not significant and does not need to be included. We can allow the readers to draw their own conclusions by simply displaying her amount of votes. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 18:15, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

FWIW, Samuel Tilden is the only defeated presidential candidate, who got a majority of the popular vote. GoodDay (talk) 18:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the statement about majority. Even the definition of majority says it is more than half. But Clinton is doubtlessly the first female candidate in the major parties of Republicans and Democrats and the first wonen to recieve more votes than any other candidate. I think that it is necessary to mention and is notable as this is the first time it has ever happened. 59.89.47.63 (talk) 18:52, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Apropos the various discussions on the topic of specific comparisons, why is there no recognition of the fact that Trump received fewer votes than any African-American candidate of any presidential election in the 21st century?

We can say she is the first major female nominee of a major party and also won more votes than here opponent because both have been covered extensively in the media. But other issues have not. She is the oldest woman to be a major party candidate, also the youngest. She is the oldest person to have won the most votes, also the youngest woman to have won the most votes. We can come up with lots of things where she was first. TFD (talk) 21:25, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
We refer to the Green Party as either a "Major Third Party" when referring to the political parties of the United States but dismiss its existence when trying to fit the narrative that Hillary Clinton made a "historic achievement" and say Hillary was the first to be nominated by any "major" party rather than simply saying she was the first to be nominated by the Democratic Party. There are no implications of her being female. Although there were no female nominees three decades ago, it's not to say that they were not allowed. We could also say that Hillary Clinton lost the presidency to the most disliked candidate in the history of the United States, but that wouldn't fit the narrative that she's "historic." BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:01, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
For a long time in the US Elections, there have only been two significant parties (of course, their policy ideas shifted, and so on). Each of those parties, typically, has gotten a sizable fraction of the vote - even true in 1984, where the losing Democratic candidate still got 40% of the vote. If you examine the two main parties in each election cycle, each candidate has been male until this election. That seems fairly significant - informally, she's the first female presidential candidate 'with a chance'. One could also argue that it's irrelevant that Obama was the first African-American presidential candidate, because of course race has no bearing on how well a candidate will perform in office. However, for both Obama and Clinton, their potential roles as the first non-white and first non-male presidents, respectively, were extensively covered by media. This is why it's notable - because secondary sources cover her role as the first female presidential candidate in depth. Appable (talk) 10:27, 14 November 2016 (UTC)
We can say on the article about the Democratic National Convention that this was the first time that the Democratic Party specifically nominated a female, but saying that she was the first female 'with a chance' does not belong on this article. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 13:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Undefined abbreviation: LN

In this section, I surmise that "W: (date)" indicates the date the candidate withdrew, but what does "LN: (date)" represent? Should these be defined in a footnote? — soupvector (talk) 18:53, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

I can't say for certain, since I wasn't the one who made it, but I think LN stands for "Lost Nomination." A footnote probably would be helpful. Nulla Lex Ink. (talk) 22:48, 12 November 2016 (UTC)

Or the {{Abbr}} template. clpo13(talk) 18:55, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
 Done Thanks for the suggestion, Clpo13. Bcharles (talk) 05:53, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Infobox: Projected Electoral Votes

Can we come to agreement on what numbers to show, please? GoodDay (talk) 16:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Just show the outcome with links to support, see WP:RS , thanks Govindaharihari (talk) 16:58, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Why did you remove Michigan's 16 EV & New Hampshire's 4 EV, yet leave Michigan & New Hampshire in the number of states won totals? GoodDay (talk) 17:00, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Govindaharihari, electoral college vote count for Trump is 306. You have reverted that to to a number in the 200's at least three times today. Why do you keep lowering it? We have adequately sourced the count to 306 for Trump.--FeralOink (talk) 21:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
All electoral votes are "projected" until the electoral college votes, but no major sources have "projected" a winner if Michigan, which is still too close to call. Until official results accounting for provisional, absentee, overseas ballots, and incomplete or erroneous precinct reports; we will need to sit in limbo. Bcharles (talk) 18:52, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

The lead currently says, "Hillary Clinton won a plurality of the popular vote with 47.8% of ballots cast while Trump received 47.3%" as if it's a final result. That wording must be changed to reflect that it's only the current count, which will continue to change for awhile. The New York Times is now projecting that Clinton is likely to win the popular vote by over a million votes and a margin of 1.2%. By comparison, Gore beat Bush in the popular vote by 544,000 and 0.5%. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 19:23, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's relax & wait until the final tally. GoodDay (talk) 19:31, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Please do not be condescending and tell an editor to "relax." My concern is valid and the text needs to be changed now because it indicates to readers that it is a final result. I'm not saying to change the numbers, just the wording. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 19:33, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
The numbers are listed in the info box on the side and the Results section. The lead is generally a short summery with more information to the side and in the article. They are also being updated fairly regularly with current numbers as all the counts are not in. Also please review Assume good faith. PackMecEng (talk) 20:24, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I know what a lead is. And it is a summary* of the most important points in the article, but those points must be accurate. Saying that Clinton "won" the plurality of the votes 47.7% to 47.3% is false and misleading. She is "winning" the plurality of the votes. There's a big difference, so it needs to be corrected. Finally, I don't need someone who started editing a couple weeks ago lecturing me about assuming good faith. Interesting how you would about that and how to link to it after only days of editing. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 21:17, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I suggest that you read WP:Civility. Your tone in your messages is unnecessary and unwarranted. They are only trying to help you. If that's not what you came for, then I suggest you go elsewhere. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:49, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
IP User, see above for Editor GoodDay (who has over 200,000 edits!) and already told you to wait for the final tally. The New York Times said that Trump won.--FeralOink (talk) 22:03, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, 200,000 edits from a guy who won't stop arguing with everyone about his insistence that we should use the term "Elected President" instead of President-elect haha. A perfect example of why someone's edit count has absolutely nothing to do with the quality of those edits. ;) 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 04:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
OP, please don't worry. I changed it to "Hillary Clinton won a plurality of the popular vote with (whatever the numbers were at the time)" because the sentence was previously had a heavy emphasis on the significance of Hillary being female and used the numbers as part of a narrative that she has made a historic accomplishment; I cut out the soapboxing and left the fact that she did win over the plurality. It is true that she won over the plurality, but if I'm not mistaken the very next sentence brings up the planned inauguration of Trump as the 45th president, so I disagree that the reader would be mislead to believe that Hillary won the election. The numbers are subject to change. As more votes are counted, the article will be updated to reflect these changes. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
You are completely misunderstanding my request. My request was solely about the popular vote; not about who won the election. Thus, the title of this thread. Obviously, Trump won. I simply was asking for that sentence to be temporarily changed from she "won" the popular vote to she's "winning" the popular vote (with x% to Trump's x%) because the votes are still being tallied. I said nothing about readers believing she won the election. I said the wording makes it sound like the current percentages are the final percentages. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:29F7:758D:E55E:5672 (talk) 15:59, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

There seems to be a rumor of the following numbers: #Trump: 62,972,226 #Clinton: 62,277,750 [2]. I couldn't find a reliable source to cite this number. Is there an official place where these numbers are presented to the public? Tal Galili (talk) 19:57, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

It's impossible to know, until all the votes are tallied. It could be weeks. GoodDay (talk) 20:05, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I wouldn't treat that piece as having any merit. The "liberal loonies" bit should be enough to make my position clear; it doesn't even try to appear neutral. Anyway, a search doesn't appear to show any reliable sources with those numbers. Dustin (talk) 20:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Based on the news, Hillary Clinton won the popular vote, though I'm trying to find a reliable source :). -Primetime (talk) 20:12, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
That's not a reliable source. In another article they say Obama is about to make a major announcement about UFOs. TFD (talk) 20:20, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
It's a conservative internet hoax, just like most of the Trump campaign. A good article on the subject can be found here. Arglebargle79 (talk) 21:18, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Technically, Trump can still win the popular vote, since they're not all counted yet. In my opinion, it was a statistical tie, right now, she's leading by about 700,000 votes, that's roughly the population of the county that I live in, Obama won by 5 million in 2012, around the population of Colorado. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eric0928 (talk • contribs) 13:32, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Voter turnout is "TBD"? Seriously?

All these reliable sources say differently. --Proud User (talk) 20:53, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I presume the TBD is because not all votes have been counted yet. California is still missing over 4 million votes if I am not mistaken. Adding a turnout now would just constantly change as there is no final number. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 21:46, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
Every article that's being displayed from the Google search that you linked displays different information. Some say this is an all-time low, others that it's at its lowest in the last 20 years, others that it's up 5%, others that it's record-high. I'm assuming that these were all written at different times. We might want to wait until it's finalized. BrendonTheWizard (talk) 22:10, 13 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree completely--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:58, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

A reliable source says that there are 227,019,486 people eligible to vote. Another reliable source tells us that these is expected to be 127,545,927 votes.[3] Therefore, the voter turnout is 56.18%. See WP:CALC. --Proud User (talk) 23:02, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Again, expected. There are no final results; there are many votes still left to count. There is no need to jump on the gun. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:14, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

Should we have an "at least" value until all the votes are counted? We do know that the voter turnout has increased by at least 1.5% since the last election. --Proud User (talk) 23:22, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

At least is just another definition for TBD. At least means that it's not official, it's not the final result. TBD meant exactly the same. I personally am for the TBD. Less confusion and everybody can wait until it's all final. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:26, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

I removed the current turnout figure because it is using a different methodology than older presidential election articles, which is rather misleading, moreover it is contradicting the results reported in the press so far (see for instance [4])--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:53, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S.: Note that the turnout in 2012 was 129,085,410 compared to the 127+ million we have now and we should use the same terminology for all presidential articles otherwise the figures become misleading and somewhat meaningless.--Kmhkmh (talk) 09:56, 14 November 2016 (UTC)

I do not understand how if turnout went UP as the info box claims, the total number of votes is so much lower than the last election? Unless Wikipedia is tacitly acknowledging that millions fewer Americans are ELIGIBLE to vote because the states or some other actor suppressed their votes by removing them from the rolls?Amyzex (talk) 18:24, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

@Amyzex: If I understand it correctly there are two common terms to measure turnout VAP and VEP and for some reason at the least the recent presidential election articles use VAP rather than VEP. I probably would better if those articles list both figures and an explaining footnote. According to this, the VEP figures for 2012 and 2016 are both roughly 58%, so there almost no change in turnout. Also note that earlier misleading 2% up vote in the infobox has been corrected.--Kmhkmh (talk) 08:51, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_United_States_presidential_election/Archive_15&oldid=1136313736"