Talk:2016 United States presidential election in Vermont

Results by County

I am surprised that there isn't a results by county section on this article. Because of that, I have decided to make one myself using the information on the Vermont county articles. I'm first creating it here so I don't accidentally mess it up the article. Once this is complete, I'll transfer the table over to the main article.

County	Clinton	Votes	Trump	Votes	Others	Votes	Total
Addison County	59.0%	11,219	27.8%	5,297	13.2%	2,515	19,031
Bennington County	54.9%	9,539	34.1%	5,925	11.0%	1,917	17,381
Caledonia County	45.8%	6,445	39.3%	5,534	14.9%	2,095	14,074
Chittenden County	65.7%	54,814	22.3%	18,601	12.0%	10,001	83,416
Essex County	34.8%	1,019	51.5%	1,506	13.7%	400	2,925
Franklin County	43.7%	9,351	40.9%	8,752	15.5%	3,308	21,411
Grand Isle County	51.0%	2,094	36.2%	1,487	12.9%	528	4,109
Lamoille County	56.7%	7,241	28.0%	3,570	15.3%	1,951	12,762
Orange County	51.5%	7,541	34.2%	5,007	14.3%	2,101	14,649
Orleans County	43.0%	5,185	42.8%	5,159	14.1%	1,702	12,046
Rutland County	46.0%	13,635	42.1%	12,479	11.8%	3,501	29,615
Washington County	59.8%	18,594	25.7%	7,993	14.5%	4,499	31,086
Windham County	63.4%	14,340	24.1%	5,454	12.6%	2,840	22,634
Windsor County	58.7%	17,556	28.8%	6,805	12.6%	3,767	28,128

--JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 20:00, 2 May 2018 (UTC)

 Done Well, this wikitable has long since been completed and has been transferred over to the main article. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 14:45, 15 May 2018 (UTC)

Please dont use left-wing euphemisms

"regarded as one of the most progressive states in the country, with 56.7% of the vote"

"Progressive"? Try liberal, socialist or left-leaning. That`s way more neutral. Actually, Vermont has one of the lowest fertility rates in the US, I would call this pretty regressive.46.93.251.11 (talk) 06:00, 12 December 2018 (UTC)

Cool story, bro. DrOwl19 (talk) 12:58, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Done Actually, the statement between commas in the lead was WP:POV and not substantiated by anything in the article, nor did it have anything to do with election results, so I removed said statement. HopsonRoad (talk) 13:55, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

Accuracy of results

Hi Alejxon, Thank you for your interest in this article, for supplying the source of your numbers, and also providing an edit summary. Nonetheless, I should note that Vermont Secretary of State Official Results for the 2016 Federal election show...

• Candidate Party Votes Percent
• HILLARY CLINTON and TIM KAINE DEMOCRATIC 178,573 55.72%
• DONALD J. TRUMP and MICHAEL R. PENCE REPUBLICAN 95,369 29.76% (29.72%)
• BERNIE SANDERS 18,183 5.67% (5.68%)

...which are different from the numbers that you provided (where noted in parentheses). I can't correct these numbers within 24 hours without violating WP:3RR. Perhaps you would like to. Sincerely, HopsonRoad (talk) 04:04, 18 January 2020 (UTC)

I was just noticing some of that result percentage variation. I agree that the Sec of State Official results should be used. It looks like some of the existing percentages discount the 5,400 that were either over votes or blanks, but that is not accurate as those people actually voted and should be part of the denominator. I will update all votes after this to reflect the Official SoS numbers/percentages. --Davemoth (talk) 15:28, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Should Sanders be in infobox?

Sanders finished with over 5% of the vote, but there's been an unofficial precedent with the 2020 Democratic primary articles that a candidate is only included in the infobox if they were actually running. Since Sanders wasn't running and all of his votes were unsolicited he should probably be removed as well.-Shivertimbers433 (talk) 23:52, 17 April 2020 (UTC)

• Concur: Sanders was not a candidate in the November contest, nor is 5% a notable apportionment of votes to merit portrayal in the infobox for a candidate that was a candidate, except where a majority was not achieved or an otherwise close contest. HopsonRoad (talk) 00:36, 18 April 2020 (UTC)

 Done Seeing no dissent, I have removed non-candidate, write-in vote recipient Sanders from the infobox. I left the discussion of the fringe votes in the lead, however. Conceivably that discussion belongs as secondary information, lower in the article. HopsonRoad (talk) 14:05, 11 May 2021 (UTC)

 Undone Seeing the 5% threshold at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums/Archive 12#RfC on 5% threshold, I see that a consensus has been reached that would indicate including Sanders in the infobox. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 14:25, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Exclude I believe the discussion in the prior consensus was applicable to people who actually ran, and people who did not run in the election should not be listed. Reywas92^Talk 18:31, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

That would be my personal choice, as well, Reywas92, but perhaps this is a question for other members of Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums to help resolve, either there or here. That discussion was about candidates. Sanders was not a candidate in this election. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 20:49, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Editing against consensus?

Matthew McMullin has made these edits against the above (albeit small) consensus. I have tried to invite him to build consensus at User talk:Matthew McMullin#Infobox for 2016 United States presidential election in Vermont, but it just seems that if I revert his most recent edit, he'll just revert my edit without explanation or discussion. What can be done to resolve this question? HopsonRoad (talk) 20:02, 2 June 2021 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: Hey! I've placed a message on their talk page regarding this with a bit more detail on edit warring. If they continue, you may want to head over to the noticeboard for edit warring. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 01:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Matthew McMullin: Hi! Please discuss your changes on this talk page rather than battling to keep a specific set of changes. Thanks! Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 01:25, 3 June 2021 (UTC)

@Matthew McMullin: Reverting again, especially without any explanation, will very likely lead to a report at WP:AN/EW. Please discuss here rather than edit warring, or it's likely you'll be blocked from editing. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 00:33, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

​Note: Matthew McMullin has been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 01:36, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: and @Bsoyka: Bernie Sanders has been on this infobox for ages now and we cant change it without proper converstation. Usually in all cases if the politican gets 5 precent or more, they are included on the infobox. It has to stay that way. That warning was also totally uncalled for. — Preceding comment added by Phillypaboy123 (talk · contribs) 02:45, 4 June 2021 (UTC)‎; original signature removed while fixing wiki markup errors

Hi, Phillypaboy123, please remember to sign your posts with ~~~~. It would be great to point to precedent to illustrate your point. In this case, Sanders was not a candidate, but a write-in. Just because it's been the status for a period of time, is not a sufficient reason to keep the entry. We're looking for a consensus outcome here. It may change from the earlier one as other editors weigh in. The above editor was advised to discuss here, but opted to revert without edit comment repeatedly. Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 03:05, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I agree with HopsonRoad's comment – just because something has been a certain way for some time doesn't mean it isn't allowed to change. There was a discussion above with no opposition after almost a month, so the change was made. The warnings above were absolutely called for because edit warring is never a proper way to handle disputes – rather, a discussion should be had, which that editor opted not to participate in. Thanks for understanding! Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 03:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

• Comment Coming here after seeing the request at WT:E&R, HopsonRoad is perhaps not aware of the 5% rule, which has been around for a long time (and confirmed in RfCs like this), the rule being any candidate with over 5% of the vote in an election should be included in the infobox (or the second placed candidate in cases where only one candidate has over 5%). Number 57 13:28, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Thank you for commenting here, Number 57. And if the vote recipient was not a candidate, as is the case here, would the rule still apply? Cheers, HopsonRoad (talk) 13:37, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

I don't see why not. If Sanders received 5% of the vote, that's over the threshold IMO. Number 57 13:38, 4 June 2021 (UTC)

Glad this issue was resolved, thanks to both of you for resolving this the right way. Bsoyka (talk · contribs) 15:22, 4 June 2021 (UTC)