Talk:2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Timeline

Is it really necessary to devote two sections talking about the same two politicians that have declined running in 2020? Combine or delete. Bunco man (talk) 00:54, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

The timeline section isn't necessary right now, but it's a start to what it will be. Of course the section will change substantially in 2019 and 2020. Ghoul flesh • talk 23:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Then perhaps remove it? At the very least the repeated information can be deleted. Bunco man (talk) 23:40, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Delete the Online Polls

As of this date the polls consisting of information on who should run as a Libertarian Party candidate are unofficial polls from non-Libertarian Party organizations. The two polls shown have a long history of supporting Republican politicians, hence many of the GOP politicians named. We might as well include direct polls from the Republican Party or Democratic Party on who should be the Libertarian candidate. This is an official Libertarian Party article, so isn't it best to wait for the Libertarian Party itself to create a poll? I encourage the deletion of the current polls. Bunco man (talk) 17:42, 15 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bunco man: Online polls don't need to be conducted by the Libertarian Party itself. Last year, the LP website conducted only one poll during the primary season, showing us no change in preference whatsoever. This entire article is about the Libertarians' preference for the 2020 LP nominee. The polls currently shown tell us exactly who the frontrunners are and when they were favored over other candidates. I find the section very informative. Plus, the 2016 LP primaries article used non-LP polls as well. Also, not sure what you mean by the poll sources supporting Republicans. TheJackNews reports about the Libertarian Party and Our America Initiative. That's about it. Ghoul flesh • talk 23:07, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Online polls should indeed be conducted by the Libertarian Party. The primary reason is to reduce confusion. The current polls are taken in groups where the membership is mostly non-Libertarian, hence the larger votes for Republicans. These are not the "frontrunners" as you stated. In fact, most are not even Libertarians, nor do they have plans to become Libertarians. It's not informative in the least as it does not relate to the Libertarian Party campaign of 2020. Bunco man (talk) 23:39, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bunco man: Again. TheJackNews does not have a Republican base. Skim through these articles and tell me they aren't dominantly libertarian-related articles. It's essentially another Ballot-Access News website. Larry Sharpe has been Libertarian his entire career, Ruwart as well as Kerbel. Weld, Campbell, Kokesh are former Republicans, (like it or not the LP is popular with former-Republicans). And Amash is honestly more libertarian than republican. Ghoul flesh • talk 23:50, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

The polls, including TheJackNews DO INDEED have a Republican base. It only requires a look at the polls! In both polls shown, Republicans are the top candidates. Please don't attempt to justify this by implying that Libertarians prefer Republicans as candidates. Libertarian Party polls are needed. If none exist then delete the ones shown. Otherwise, why not include Republican Party polls, simply because they ask their members who should run for the LP. Bunco man (talk) 00:04, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bunco man: You're being extreme. In the July poll conducted by TheJackNews, the only candidate that's ever even had real ties to the GOP is Campbell. Miron is a libertarian economist of the Cato Institute. If I thought I had posted a poll that was taken by Republicans, I would remove it. I don't see this at all. Ghoul flesh • talk 00:23, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: Do you understand that politicians that are members of the Republican Party (GOP) are Republicans, not Libertarian Party members? Amash, Cambell, Miron, Rand Paul, Petersen, Shiff, and Jesse Ventura are NOT members of the Libertarian Party. I did not recognize who Byrne, McCormick, or Sanford are. As of now only nine of the nineteen people are actually Libertarian Party members and able to run. In that nine, Johnson already stated he will not run again, so there are eight of the nineteen. Of the seven names I listed that are not Libertarian Party members, five are definitely Republicans. How you figure that they don't "have real ties to the GOP" is beyond me. By-the-way, lots of Republicans like Miron call themselves (lower-case) libertarians, but that does not mean they are Libertarian Party members. As I stated, the polls are just confusing the article about the Libertarian Party election of 2020. Bunco man (talk) 00:59, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bunco man: Okay— as I already said, Jeffrey Miron has nothing to do with the Republican Party, and never has. He is a member of the Cato Institute. He is a small "L" libertarian. Ventura was not included in either JackNews poll, nor is he or has he ever been a Republican. Petersen wasn't included in the JackNews polls either because he has switched parties. Justin Amash actually acknowledges the Libertarian Party, unlike Rand Paul. Amash and Massie both follow the LP on Twitter, to my knowledge. McCormick was a candidate in the 2016 primaries and was featured in the Libertarian debate on RT. Ghoul flesh • talk 01:13, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

• @Ghoul flesh: Again, this is a Libertarian Party page. The polls need to represent Libertarians, not Republicans and those you wish were Libertarians. Jeffrey Miron has had nothing to do with the Libertarian Party. Ventura is a member of the Reform Party. Amash, Paul, and Massie are confirmed Republicans who have all stated they are not interested in joining the Libertarian Party. Of the 19 people listed in the polls, only nine are Libertarians that should be shown. That is less than half of the people, yet you don't see that as being confusing? Bunco man (talk) 01:27, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bunco man: It's just early polling, so they're throwing some randoms in there. Ventura is actually an Independent. The Reform Party greatly dissolved years ago. I agree they aren't your typical polls but this is what you can expect from any Party's polls at this stage. Some polls have even included Oprah Winfrey. The LP only has one real declared candidate so far. Ghoul flesh • talk 01:37, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: It's incorrect and inaccurate polling at best. "Republicans" are not "randoms." You write that "this is what you can expect from any Party's polls at this stage." These are not party's polls, let alone Libertarian ones. If the Libertarian Party "has only one real declared candidate so far," then why have the non-Libertarian polls with Republicans? It is unofficial, unnecessary, unprofessional, unneeded. Polls in themselves are not needed for this sort of article, but these polls in this article are absolutely improper and very flawed. Removing them is the best option. Bunco man (talk) 01:50, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bunco man: So, according to you, the best thing to do is delete two out of the three sections on this entire page? I'll remind you again— the LP, like it or not, has historically attracted libertarian-leaning Republicans. You could argue William Weld is a Republican, but I'm not going to go there. Our past two (three if you count Johnson twice) nominees have been former Republicans. Bob Barr switched back to the GOP, too. The thing is, Amash, Massie and or Paul could be drafted to run under the LP. That's why they were included in the polls. Ghoul flesh • talk 02:00, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: I'll remind you again— This is NOT a Republican Party article. You are allowing your personal political opinions to be the guide for this article and that is very unprofessional. Bunco man (talk) 02:08, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Bunco man: Well believe it or not, I hate when the LP is cozy with Republicans. I think we need to be way more opening to Democrats. But that's besides the point. This article doesn't have bias— it has polls. Until someone higher or more users can justify that the poll is out of place, it is staying in the article. Ghoul flesh • talk 02:28, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: The Republican bias of the polls is what we are discussing here. Bunco man (talk) 03:21, 21 October 2017 (UTC)

"Currently not a member of the Libertarian Party".

@Bunco man: This is irrelevant. In 2008 Bob Barr dropped out of the GOP, as did Wayne Allyn Root, to become the Libertarian Party presidential and vice presidential nominees, respectively. On Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2020 as well as United States presidential election, 2020 under "Democratic Party", Dwayne Johnson is listed as an individual who has expressed interest in running despite him announcing publicly that he is a Republican.

Kmele Foster is known in the libertarian crowd and talks about libertarian ideals. He even went on Reason's podcast with then-LP nominee Gary Johnson. Ghoul flesh • talk 00:01, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Also, Kmele Foster's Wikipedia page has "Libertarian" as his political party in his infobox. Ghoul flesh • talk 00:02, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• @Ghoul flesh: Actually, it is very relevant. All Libertarian Party candidates must be members of the Libertarian Party. Until that time, it is relevant that Kmele Foster be listed as "currently not a member of the LP." In 2016 there were several people, such as Vermin Supreme who stated he wanted to run for the Libertarian Party but would not join the Party, thus was ineligible. If Kmele decides to join the LP then he would be taken as a serious contender. Doing this any other way could potentially fill the article up with names, such as seen in the fantasy "who do you want to see run" polls. Bunco man (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

• • @Ghoul flesh: I note that it was YOU who added "Libertarian" to Kmele Foster's infobox. Do you have any source, or were you just assuming? MANY people , especially on the political right, call themselves lower-case "libertarians," but use it as a buzz word. Hell, Trump, Ted Cruz, Bush and Rand Paul all refereed to themselves as "libertarian" during the 2016 election. Calling oneself a lower-case "libertarian" and being an upper-case Libertarian are two entirely different things. If you can produce a source that shows Kmele is a member of the LP, then we can changed his listing. Bunco man (talk) 00:46, 11 November 2017 (UTC)

Online polls introduction

As the polls are basically fantasy polls (not official Libertarian Party polls) containing politicians that are not Libertarian Party members, I feel an introduction needs to be added for explanation. I added the following.

The following are fantasy "who would you like to see run" polls showing candidates from various political parties and doctrines, including some that are not able to run for nomination of the Libertarian Party election in 2020.

Bunco man (talk) 03:55, 6 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bunco man: Why not just another footnote? We're all well aware you feel the section requires multiple introductions. However the "poll source" tab in the wikitable is good enough for showing they are not "official" polls conducted by the LP itself. This worked for Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. And for the love of god, don't touch that article either. The Democratic and Republican primaries articles do not feature a string of polls conducted by the party committees themselves. Ghoul flesh • talk 23:17, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: No, this section needs an introduction as it confuses people coming here. They need to know. Or, we can just delete the polls as they are not helpful anyway. Bunco man (talk) 01:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: Addendum: As we have already discussed the fantasy polls currently on this article are mostly filled with people who are not Libertarian Party members or are Republican Party members. This is confusing to people coming to this article. If the pols remain then an introduction is needed so that people will not confuse the names as actual Libertarian candidates. For instance, if you see the polls in the article Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 you will note that they are ALL Libertarian candidates and members of the Libertarian Party. Bunco man (talk) 02:21, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bunco man: They are already noted as "Early polling". I already mentioned this, there are Democratic polls that have used Oprah Winfrey as a candidate. Only five of the candidates are Republican Party members. That's five out of nineteen. You have to remember, this is a third-party. It has a history of politicians leaving the Republican Party and becoming the LP's presidential nominee. See Roger MacBride, Ron Paul, Bob Barr and Gary Johnson. That's five (including Gary Johnson twice) out of a total of twelve LP presidential nominees (including Johnson twice and Browne twice). Ghoul flesh • talk 03:52, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Don't you ever delete my speech again. Ghoul flesh • talk 03:54, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: Never deleted anything of yours, and don't you ever accuse me of doing so!

@Ghoul flesh: As far as the fantasy polling goes, we have already discussed the fantasy polls currently on this article are mostly filled with people who are not Libertarian Party members or are solid Republican Party members that have no hint of leaving the GOP to become Libertarian. THIS is why it is called a "fantasy poll." This is confusing to people coming to this article. If you see the polls in the article Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 you will note that they are ALL Libertarian candidates and members of the Libertarian Party. There are no Republicans, etc. That is what this article needs to see. Until then, if you insist on publishing "fantasy polls" then the reader needs and deserves to know. Bunco man (talk) 04:17, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bunco man: Never deleted my speech? Then what's this? How do you know it's confusing to people in the article? Did you take a survey? I argue that they understand it's just Early polling, so some of the candidates will be far fetched. Ghoul flesh • talk 13:27, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Bill Weld as candidate

As of November 2017 Bill Weld has not said he is thinking about running as a Libertarian (God forbid). He has only stated

"The most I've said is I'm still a ­Libertarian, and as the years roll by I'll probably want to be involved in the discussion leading up to 2020, and supportive of the Libertarian Party,"

Source: Welch, Matt (November 6, 2017). "Bill Weld: 'I'm Going To Stay L.P.'". Reason Magazine. Retrieved November 13, 2017. (http://reason.com/blog/2017/11/06/bill-weld-im-going-to-stay-lp/amp) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Bunco man (talk • contribs)

As IOnlyKnowFiveWords pointed out, Weld has been subject to questioning for the 2020 nomination, making him a speculative candidate. If you think that Reason article is enough to say he isn't interested, then he can be moved to the "Declined to be" section. Ghoul flesh • talk 03:55, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: Ok, let me see if I have this right? Just because Weld "has been subject to questioning for the 2020 nomination," he automatically becomes a "speculative candidate?" I do believe it has something to do with the candidate themselves, and whether they express interest. If you read the comments between IOnlyKnowFiveWords and myself, you will see that there are actually three times Weld has not "expressed any interest," nor has he "declined to run." To say that this is enough to conclude that he has expressed interest, means that it is also enough to conclude that he has declined to run. You two want to assume his decision. He is currently fund-raising for the Republican Party so it's hard to assume what he is going to do at this time. Let's let HIM make the decision. Bunco man (talk) 07:13, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bunco man: Do you know what speculative means? In this case, it is when the public suspects someone may run for the Libertarian nomination. That's why Weld has been offered the question multiple times. Ghoul flesh • talk 17:06, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

Also an update. Adam Kokesh says Weld is working "behind the scenes", presumably for a 2020 run. Ghoul flesh • talk 20:54, 25 November 2017 (UTC)

Rand Paul

I removed the reference to Rand Paul in the decline to run section, as Rand has always been with the Republican Party. In reference to being libertarian, in 2011 Rand Paul stated, "They thought all along that they could call me a libertarian and hang that label around my neck like an albatross, but I'm not a libertarian." He has not reversed that stand since. (http://content.time.com/time/politics/article/0,8599,1972721,00.html) Bunco man (talk) 21:17, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

A Suggestion

Hey all, I usually edit on the main 2020 article. I come over here occasionally to see if I missed any sort of developments for the Libertarians over here. What I've found is that y'all tend to add basically anything that shows up when you Google "Libertarian 2020." I'd just like to suggest you guys start having some standards, for the lack of a better word.

For example, a lot of your "potential candidates" only have one source. And it can be a shoddy one at times, too. Glenn Jacobs' is a clip from May 2016 (before the last presidential election) and has a terribly misleading title. The hostess asks him if he'd ever run for office. Period. No mention of running for President in particular. This was also before he ended up running for Mayor of Knox County, TN.

Darryl Perry being included in the "declined" section doesn't make sense, as the only grounds for that to be included is that Larry Sharpe and Vermin Supreme were pretty sure he wouldn't run again. Same goes for Sharpe's statement about being a delegate. He didn't give a concrete "I will definitely be a delegate and not run." It was a "eh, maybe idk."

Kmele Foster's refs are also atrocious. The first is based on three comments from Reason donors. The second is a callback to the previous comments. Not only is this not at all "speculation" but it's also clearly a joke. It's actually kind of embarrassing that his inclusion here probably led to The Libertarian Vindicator putting him on their poll.

Those polls are also super sketchy, since none of them post any of their methodology, sample size, margin of error or anything. Not to mention that these are presumably anonymous online opinion polls? None of those listed seem to have a shred of legitimacy (maybe the ones from The Jack News are good, but their site has been under maintenance for me for the last few days so I can't see for myself).

I also agree with what was said above about reducing the number of actual "declared" candidates significantly. Not every single schmuck that registers with the FEC as a Libertarian is worth seeing. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 14:07, 4 June 2018 (UTC)

I like your suggestions, and I strongly encourage you to make the edits that you believe are appropriate. This page is not actively edited by anyone in particular. I've been meaning to go through it all one day, but I just haven't had the time. It is in dire need of cleanup. --Vrivasfl (talk) 12:24, 6 June 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• ArvinVohra.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 23:22, 6 July 2018 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Peyton Faucett Official campaign portrait (cropped).png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. Community Tech bot (talk) 11:51, 8 July 2018 (UTC)

Article name change

The name of this group Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2020 needs to be change as the Libertarian Party does not hold a primary. Bunco man (talk) 22:37, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

For Christ's sake, @Bunco man:, why can't you leave things the way they are?!?!? The LP has held candidate preferential primaries since atleast Harry Browne. They intend to hold more primaries in 2020, just as they did in 2016 in Minnesota, Nebraska, Missouri, North Carolina and California. Just stop. Ghoul flesh • talk 23:13, 18 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh:, no, the Libertarian Party does not have primaries. They nominate their candidate during an annual convention. It is not a primary. This is common knowledge. Bunco man (talk) 01:27, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bunco man: What the hell are these then?!? [1] [2] Kid. You need to stop. Ghoul flesh • talk 01:49, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: You need to learn what the Libertarian Party does. The Libertarian Party nominates their candidates for president and vice-president at the national convention, not in a primary election. THIS is exactly how states are able to pass laws keeping third parties off their ballots. Yes, the Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 is also incorrect. You should WANT to get it correct, right? Here is some additional info from the LP: https://www.lp.org/news-press-releases-how-the-libertarian-party-selects-its-presidential-vp-nominees/ Bunco man (talk) 02:10, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bunco man: I am well aware nominees are chosen at Convention. Tell me where in this entire article it says candidates are elected by primary. Ghoul flesh • talk 03:36, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: You wrote, "I am well aware nominees are chosen at Convention." What do you think the Republican and Democratic Primaries are for? That's where they allow the public to vote for the candidate to nominate. The Libertarian Party does not do this. They choose via the National Convention. You wrote, "Tell me where in this entire article it says candidates are elected by primary." That's because the Libertarian Party doesn't HAVE a primary election. Bunco man (talk) 06:55, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Bunco man: Yes the party holds primaries. They are non-binding preferential primaries. That's what this article is about. Ghoul flesh • talk 17:04, 19 November 2017 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: No, the Libertarian Party does not hold a primary. They decide the presidential and vice presidential candidates at the national convention without a primary. A primary “nomination” narrows the field of candidates before a general election for office. Show us where this has actually occurred. I was with the LP for 39 years and they never held a primary. Bunco man (talk) 04:07, 20 November 2017 (UTC)

Yes, there are a handful of states where the party is entitled to a presidential primary. No, those primaries aren't used to select delegates (like the Dems and GOP do), and thus don't directly affect the nomination... they're just non-binding "beauty contests." Because of that, I think something like "Libertarian Party presidential nomination, 2020" would be better. There are technically some primaries, but this article isn't really about them, it's about the nomination contest itself. Contrast with e.g. the series of articles titled "Democratic Party vice presidential candidate selection, 2012" 104.231.213.154 (talk) 23:23, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

Sam Seder

Sam Seder was recently added as a potential candidate, but the citation provided is to a three-hour YouTube video. Per Wikipedia: Videos as references, it is strongly encouraged to cite to the point in the video that is being cited, just as a page number is required when quoting from a book. I have not been able to verify where in the video the cited remarks are made, and I just don't have the time to sit and review a three-hour video to find it. If the citation is not updated with the minute marker or an appropriate alternative source is not provided within 72 hours, I will remove this individual from the list. --Vrivasfl (talk) 19:09, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

The specific discussion of his possible candidacy starts in that youtube video link around the 2 hour 42 minute mark and continues till around 2 hour 44 minute 20ish second mark.Draagonslayer19 (talk) 03:00, 9 January 2019 (UTC)Draagonslayer19 02:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Draagonslayer19 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, Draagonslayer19. I will review that part and update the citation. --Vrivasfl (talk) 14:40, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Peter Schiff

I have concerns regarding the source for Peter Schiff. In the video, Schiff describes a possible scenario in which he might run for president. However, he is not expressing a desire or an interest in running for president in 2020, and most notably, does not mention the Libertarian Party at all. The video is also from 2014. In addition, there has been no speculation from others. I believe Schiff should be complete removed from the page. --Vrivasfl (talk) 17:34, 9 January 2019 (UTC)

Criteria for including candidates

There's way too many candidates taking up the table as of now. The page would look much nicer if we differentiated between significant candidates and the randoms who've filed with the FEC and have done nothing else. I'm proposing that candidates should go in the main table if:

• they have a Wikipedia article, and/or
• they've been mentioned in one of the featured polls

The other candidates would either be mentioned in another section below or not mentioned at all. Any thoughts or critiques? EditDude (talk) 20:46, 31 May 2018 (UTC)

I agree that the standard should be higher than simply filing with the FEC, which anyone can do. I expect many more will do so between now and 2020, and that will not be sustainable. I suggest inclusion only if (1) they have been included in a featured poll; or (2) their campaign has been reported on at least once by an independent source. Would not even mention anyone else. --Vrivasfl (talk) 15:05, 2 June 2018 (UTC)

Joe Exotic is a significant candidate because of his zoo's Wikipedia page, his controversy for intentionally torturing animals, and the John Oliver spot. DaCashman (talk) 21:28, 7 July 2018 (UTC)

Joe Exotic has received some local media attention, but that is all directed toward his candidacy for Governor of Oklahoma. Should he now transition into running for president, and he continues to receive media attention in this new campaign, he will be re-added to this page with a new source that talks about his campaign for president, not his campaign for Governor of Oklahoma. --Vrivasfl (talk) 14:07, 9 July 2018 (UTC)

The candidate william Hurst now has an article https://www.sparxtribune.org/william-hurst.html

There are also multiple serious candidates outlined in this article along with three others not included on the candidates listing from the first LP debate. https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2018/12/amarillo-pioneer-meet-the-libertarians-running-for-president-in-2020/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.199.159 (talk) 14:31, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Polling table

If I am not mistaken, the polling table should probably be changed. The most recent polls should be listed first. Seems to me that polls for an ongoing election should be displayed in a chronologically descending order. SecretName101 (talk) 18:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Minor Candidates

I'm wondering if it's worth having a section underneath the main table for 'minor candidates'? There are, after all, more than just the four men in the main table who are confirmed as running. I've looked at the criteria above and I agree with keeping it clean by selecting candidates either with polling history or a Wikipedia page, but there are more than just four people running, and for completeness it makes sense to at least mention them all. Any thoughts? MrMarkBGregory (talk) 13:49, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Late 2018 there was a debate between 4 libertarian candidates. 3 of which aren't even on the declared candidates list. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.199.159 (talk) 14:09, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

What should be the criteria for minor candidates? There are, per FEC filings, dozens of people already running for President under the Libertarian Party. And there will be many more between now and November 2020. I would prefer making a note above the table that explains the existence of other candidates, but that the following table includes only notable candidates as defined by Wikipedia's notability standard. --15:03, 17 January 2019 (UTC)

Claiming a candidate as major or minor, can boost support or delimit the credibility of a candidate in their party nomination. Wikipedia, as a platform, should take care not to allow some users the ability to bias their favorite candidate over another. This section is doing this for the entire libertarian party, along with the main 2020 article that, in a subtle way, hides third parties behind the two main parties. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.255.196.86 (talk) 22:52, 21 January 2019 (UTC)

I generally agree with the above. As far as the Libertarian Party is concerned, there is no distinction between major and minor candidates. All candidates who meet the qualifications for the nomination have a possibility to become the nominee. For now, I think the best way to keep the table manageable is to limit it to notable individuals, at least for now. --Vrivasfl (talk) 13:48, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

The 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries has Declared major candidates (with the criteria being that they have "held public office or have been included in a minimum of five independent national polls"), and underneath, Other declared candidates, all of which meet notability guidelines. There's a short description mentioning that 146 people have declared as running; perhaps it would be prudent to copy that, or at least base the table on this page on it. MrMarkBGregory (talk) 13:56, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

There needs to be some reference on the page to all the declared candidates. Politics1 has a full reference to all candidates. The current major candidates are not even close. Vermin would almost certainly be a minor candidate by most standards. A good way to solve the issue of a lack of fully accurate information would be to make a secondary table directly underneath the main table for all candidates or just include all candidates in a single table without making predictive claims of major or minor on a platform that is about factual research NOT speculation. I can see where many would he confused by libertarian standards, but there is no major or minor candidates, as it would be against LP's own guidelines.

Declined and speculative candidates also seems to be more prominent on the page and realistically should have no place as the information is not pertinent to the article in a whole. A simple written paragraph with a list and links for declined candidates would suffice. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tekbredus (talk • contribs) 21:52, 23 January 2019 (UTC)

Should have "expressed interest" section

The usual breakdown here would be between "announced" / "expressed interest" / and "declined."

"Speculative" has no place here, and right now it lumps together some people who are pretty clearly preparing to run and have signaled that intention w/ reputable sources (like Bill Weld), vs. a bunch of poorly-sourced speculation and even some obvious jokes (like Kmele Foster). At the *very* least we should be able to cite to a source where the potential candidate themselves says something about it and confirms they have some interest in the possibility.

The "speculative" list as it stands right now is a useless random collection of famous libertarians. Also we shouldn't be putting candidates like John McAfee in "announced" when he hasn't actually announced and the source cited doesn't say that.

104.231.213.154 (talk) 23:18, 18 July 2018 (UTC)

https://twitter.com/officialmcafee/status/1003387827395186688?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1003387827395186688&ref_url=http%3A%2F%2Ffortune.com%2F2018%2F06%2F04%2Fjohn-mcafee-president-2020%2F DaCashman (talk) 18:58, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

I second this suggestion. There is a difference between those who have expressed interest in running and those who are merely the subject of idle speculation, and that difference should be noted. It is unhelpful to the casual reader to see Bill Weld and Kmele Foster on the same list speculative candidates" when the former has all but announced his campaign and the latter is no more than off-hand comments from random supporters. The distinction is made for the Democratic Part and Republican Party primary pages and it should be made here as well. We need to remember that Wikipedia pages should be written in a way that is informative to people who don't already know about this topic. As it currently is, the page does not accomplish that. --Vrivasfl (talk) 19:54, 7 August 2018 (UTC)

I agree with Vrivasfl. I have been following the libertarian primaries, so far, this page shows little in the way of an accurate understanding of this. I will add to "offhand comments by supporters" that these pages, due to the heavy impact they have as wikipedia's being regarded as a factual medium can become a vector of political interference by supporters or those wishing to harm a campaign. These pages should all have a standard template, non partisaned editors, and at least one editor that understands the topic from the view of the party in question, possibly even a party rep. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tekbredus (talk • contribs) 23:09, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Satirical candidacies

In order to avoid an edit war, I suggest a consensus be reached regarding candidacies that are obviously in jest, such as that of Sam Seder. My position is that to the the extent that someone is actually going though the proper motions of a campaign, even if he or she is not taking the campaign seriously, he or she should be included. Wikipedia does not (or at least should not) make judgement regarding the nature of a campaign. We have already reached a consensus that seriousness is not the standard for inclusion, notability is. That was in the context of excluding serious, but non-notable candidates. For the sake of consistency, the same logic should apply to notable, but non-serious candidates. Notability is the key factor. As far as Sam Seder is concerned, I would note that although he has "announced the formation of an exploratory committee", it doesn't appear that he has actually done that, not registered with the FEC at least. I would be fine moving him back to "publicly declared interest" until his campaign has some degree of formality. --Vrivasfl (talk) 14:08, 2 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Sam Seder 2020 campaign logo.png

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:51, 20 February 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Kimberly Ruff, candidate.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 04:06, 19 June 2019 (UTC)

Candidates

I'm not sure why y'all think it was a good idea to just not have a list of candidates like every single other article about elections. People like Kim Ruff aren't here because she's not notable. Period. Istvan, Kokesh, McAfee, Seder, Supreme, and Vohra were included because they were the only ones vying for the Libertarian nomination who meet the standards for notability. Wikipedia is meant to be neutral, we shouldn't give undue weight to Ruff or Dan Behrman, or Jacob Hornberger or Joe Exotic just because you may like them better than any of the actual notable candidates. I implore you to write up biographical articles for them if you'd wanna see them on this page. For now, I'm making a bold edit to restore the candidates section. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 23:42, 7 May 2019 (UTC)

I am sympathetic to this, but the Libertarian Party nomination process is substantially different than the process of other parties. For what it's worth, I don't support Ruff, but to exclude her from the list of candidates would be inaccurate. That being said, she can't be included on a list on Wikipedia due to lack of notability. No other objective criteria exists. We agree there. But that doesn't give the casual reader an honest picture of the Libertarian primary. Seder is not seriously vying for the nomination and McAfee's candidacy is not being taken very seriously by most Libertarians. There is anecdotal and first-hand observational evidence of this, but nothing that satisfies Wikipedia's reliable source requirement. Therefore, to avoid providing an inaccurate list, the chart and list of candidates should be removed. That is my position. --Vrivasfl (talk) 01:10, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

I mean I'm of the opinion that the LP is just full of clowns anyway so it doesn't seem that inaccurate to me. But seriously, for all the talk of Kim Ruff and how it'd be intellectually dishonest to exclude her; I don't really see what the big deal is. She's raised less money than Kokesh (the only notable person to have FEC data), a Google search brings up a more notable Kim Ruff, the announcement video that's linked on the home page of her campaign website is currently sitting at 297 views (7 likes, 1 dislike). Another search on YouTube brought me to the most viewed video featuring Ruff to be one from "We Are Libertarians" with 351 views (this one had 19 likes). Her Twitter account has 278 followers. For comparison: Democratic candidate Michael E. Arth, who is only included as a minor candidate because he happens to also meet the criteria for notability currently has more than twice the amount of followers. Her Facebook is doing the best with just a bit less than 1,900 likes, but another minor Democrat, Robby Wells, has nearly 10 times as many likes on his campaign page.

To me, it doesn't seem like she's got any major support from the party or is even all that popular. Anecdotally, I've never heard her mentioned outside of this talk page and the assorted pages I found when going out of my way for this response. And I'm a wonk for presidential politics. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 08:48, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

But this is precisely what I mean by the Libertarians having a very different nominating process. The nominee will be chosen directly by unbound delegates at the national convention next year. Libertarians aren't really paying attention right now. The eventual Libertarian nominee doesn't have to compete in, much less win, any primaries. He or she only needs to convince a few hundred delegates. It is unsurprising that Libertarian campaign social media pages are not very active or connected. Libertarians don't campaign like other party candidates do. They don't generally hold events to meet with voters. They go to state conventions and meet with local party leadership. Honestly though, I am less concerned about excluding Ruff (I honestly doubt she will come close to winning the nomination), but rather more concerned about including people like Seder and McAfee, who are notable, but whose candidacies are not being taken seriously. That's the bigger issue for me. Ultimately, to the extent there is any list of candidates, it should go on the page for the 2020 Libertarian National Convention. At some point, the Libertarian Party will recognize candidates that meet their criteria and are therefore eligible for the nomination. That is an objective measure of who should be included in the chart. For now, this page should just describe the pre-nomination campaign news and the results of the non-binding primaries. --Vrivasfl (talk) 13:11, 8 May 2019 (UTC)

Technically speaking, the electors of the Electoral College (which is what determines who wins the general election) are also unbound by the elections in their respective states. It just so happens that they vote with their state an overwhelming majority of the time (although 2016 had 7 faithless electors). Should the candidates be removed from the general election articles as well? What about the Democratic primary's superdelegates? They're not bound to elections either. And, y'know, it's not like we're adhering to this arbitrary rule in other, similar articles or anything.

Also, wasn't McAfee literally one of the top three candidates in 2016? He got the second most amount of votes in the primaries behind Johnson. At the convention, he came in third behind Johnson and Petersen with 15% of the delegates. IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 09:54, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

Yes, and now he's "campaigning" via FaceTime while living on his boat in the Bahamas, while claiming he's on the run from the IRS. It's not at all clear the Libertarian Party will even recognize him as a candidate, and it's unlikely he will be on any primary ballots as long as his campaign is "in exile," but we'll see. All rules are arbitrary. It's arbitrary to have a list and its arbitrary to not have a list. They question is what is most informative to the casual reader. I just don't see how a chart which has only the notable candidates gives the causal reader an honest impression of the state of the Libertarian nomination campaign. As far as 2016 Libertarian Party presidential primaries, it is worth noting that the chart there includes all candidates, including the non-notables. That is very different that your proposal, and I would support a chart with all the candidates. I think, however, it is an extreme which is untenable in the long run. so it is not my preferred choice. Now that the LP is recognized as a major party is many more states than 2016, the list would be too large to be useful. As far as the list of candidates is concerned, I believe it has to be all or nothing, and I prefer nothing. The body of the article provides enough information about actively campaigning candidates that the loss of the chart is not a loss of information. --Vrivasfl (talk) 13:00, 9 May 2019 (UTC)

As anticipated, someone re-added the chart, and now it included Dan Behrman, a perfectly nice guy who is taking his campaign seriously, but very much non-notable. So what's the standard now? Why is he on the list and not the dozen others in this race? Why not include non-notable individuals who have publicly expressed interest like Jacob Hornberger? --Vrivasfl (talk) 18:28, 28 May 2019 (UTC)

Hey, every other article on this subject has a solution for this: list candidates who do not meet Wikipedia's standard of noteworthiness but are important to note for informational purposes via bullet points rather than the full graph, so they take up minimal space but are still listed. Ruff, Behrman, Leder and Hurst should all be listed like that. If you need a standard, make it that they've been covered in a Libertarian outlet. DaCashman (talk) 17:46, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Thank you, DaCashman. I support that idea 100%. If there could be uniformity on this among the corresponding pages (e.g. 2020 Green Party presidential primaries), we could prevent non-notable candidates from being trancluded onto the main election article (which has been a problem as of late) while still acknowledging confirmed candidates within the boundaries of WP:WEIGHT.--A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 18:28, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

The bullet points are a good idea to include non noteworthy candidates here while still providing for information as it pertains to the libertarian party. Noteworthy standards for wikipedia doesn't directly reflect the information on this topic all of the time.

Note: kim has recently met the requirements for notability after her appearance on fox. Tekbredus (talk) 08:04, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

Declared candidates

There is a debate series on the "we are libertarians" podcast taking place that features a few of the lp candidates that are not included here.

If anyone is capable of updating this page, I am including names and links here.

Kim Ruff ruffphillips2020.com https://thelaunchpadmedia.com/blast-off-with-johnny-rocket-episode-8-bottoms-up-w-kimberly-ruff/

Ben Leder Benleder.com https://www.amarillopioneer.com/blog/2018/12/21/meet-the-libertarians-running-for-president-in-2020

Daniel berman Behrman2020.com https://luketatum.com/culture-of-peace-0027-dan-behrman-2020-liberty-from-the-white-house/

Chris Marks Previous amarillo link

William Hurst Williamhurstcampaign.org https://www.sparxtribune.org/william-hurst.html

--Tekbredus (talk) 18:38, 13 March 2019 (UTC)

There are a few dozen libertarian presidential hopefuls right now not included on this page, and this is by design. Months ago, we agreed on a threshold of notability for inclusion on the page. These individuals, however serious they may be, are non-notable. Perhaps, by the sheer force of their efforts, they will become notable. Such was the case of Michael Badnarik. Until then, they remain off this page. With the possible exception of Badnarik, the Libertarian Party has not nominated an individual for president who was not already notable. Wikipedia should be a neutral as possible, which means avoiding giving undue weight to individuals who, at this stage in the campaign, are unlikely to be the LP nominee. And we cannot include them on the presumption that they will become notable because of the seriousness of their campaign. Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. We wait and see. --Vrivasfl (talk) 15:11, 14 March 2019 (UTC)

Not logged in because I didn't want to jump through the hoops of figuring out my password again. I'm watching the field take shape in the LP, and will likely be running the debate at the National Convention. Neither Kim Ruff nor Justin Amash are listed, and each definitely has more support within the party. Ruff has declared. Amash is rumored. Meanwhile, McAfee said he's running on his own thing again. The threshold to include people in the list of candidates needs to be different if you want Wikipedia to accurately reflect where there's support. While certainly unscientific, the momentum of the party regarding support seems to be behind Amash and Ruff at this time. 216.196.254.34 (talk) 13:54, 6 April 2019 (UTC)

What he said there's also a big push in communities and at a few events I've been to to make sure they think about including a Libertarian who's not just a conversation who will leave the party there's a lot of weight behind Kim because she supports grassroot party growth. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1009:B163:C4C4:F219:293C:A4B9:D73B (talk) 02:22, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

To say she should be included because she has a lot of support and might be on the debate stage 14 months from now, which you will have a hand is running, is both crystal ball and original research. Neither is allowed on this website. Ruff is an active candidate, but so are twenty others. What threshold do you suggest that would include Ruff, but not the rest? --Vrivasfl (talk) 02:48, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

I'm not sure. All I know is, using the criteria currently being used is in no way reflecting what the real situation is. In reality, there are a handful of people who have real support. Amash and Ruff supporters are active and attending conventions, for sure, and Vermin Supreme is running a real campaign too. State convention bodies send delegates to the National convention, unbound, and that's where the decision is actually made. As noted in the first section of the article, the LP is different from the D/R process; therefore using anything resembling D/R criteria is not necessarily going to be reflective of the race. And I would strongly suggest that in this case, it is not. 216.196.254.34 (talk) 15:52, 7 April 2019 (UTC)

This, unfortunately, is the perennial problem Libertarians have. Facts on Wikipedia must be supported by reliable sources. "Kim Ruff is a serous candidate who has a lot of support" is a likely true, but unverifiable statement. So many things go unnoticed because they go unreported. A lot of big names were just at the California state convention (I think there was a debate, too? Kokesh, Behrman and Supreme at least were there). Was there *any* media there? Will there be even a single article about the California state convention? If we're going to have a chart, notability has to be the threshold. Nothing else will work. I can think of no other objective criteria that would include serious but non-notable people like Kim Ruff and Dan Behrman, but leave out the 20-odd people who have so-far filed with FEC (and there will be more), but are not "serious" candidates. "Seriousness" is too subjective. The only other option--which I am actually very much inclined toward--is to eliminate the chart altogether. The chart is necessarily skewed. Sam Seder, for example, is not *really* running for President, and the poll that shows him leading literally just took the chart from Wikipedia and gave people no other options, not even NOTA. It's a garbage poll, but what it shows is that someone come to this page, saw the chart and assumed the race was essentially between these people and ran with it. So the chart is a problem. --Vrivasfl (talk) 13:54, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Agreed. It is a problem. And yeah, the polling of our candidates is atrocious. I do professional polling as well, and I've thought about finding the list of past delegates for the past few conventions, and trying to poll "likely national convention delegates" -- but even that is hard because there's a core of about 30% consistent and then a lot of turnover year after year on the remaining 70%. So how do we fix it? A threshold of how many convention appearance a campaign has made? That's unreliable data, because as you noted there was probably no press there. So maybe deleting the table altogether is the best option. That's equitable and fair, IMO. Maybe replace it with a link to the FEC filings for Libertarian candidates? I'm open to ideas and I'd like to see if we could come up with other criteria for the chart, but I do agree that the current criteria just aren't cutting it and removal is fair if that doesn't work out. 216.196.254.34 (talk) 16:21, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Let's leave the page like it is for a day or two. If no one else joins in on this conversation with a different opinion, I will be bold and reorganize the page. --Vrivasfl (talk) 20:17, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

I agree with doing away with the chart altogether, for the reasons discussed above. Namely, the data is obviously skewed and the polls are clearly unscientific.---A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2019 (UTC)

Reading all this what you are saying is that you are the same as the national media excluding Libertarian candidates because they do not meet some arbitrary definition that you have come up with. Interesting thought process to say the least in taking the same tack and policies as those we have been fighting against for decades. What you are saying is that ballot access and informational censorship is not just the old parties. Also interesting to not count as notable someone who has come in 1st or 2nd in every poll of libertarians she has been included in, beating others you have included multiple times. Who also according to the FEC website has out fund-raised the other candidates that you have included here. Seems to me you are not looking to provide information here, but sway the choices. Rhuarc1 (talk) 14:07, 19 April 2019 (UTC) Rhuarc1

The above comment is exactly why the chart needs to go. I will do it now. --Vrivasfl (talk) 15:20, 19 April 2019 (UTC)

Notability is a serious issue for libertarian candidates. "Reputable" news sources intentionally avoid coverage of sane libertarian candidates unless it fits a certain view. As a direct nod to this fact, look at the notable candidates listed here vs the non notable candidates and you will see a clear difference. It is hard, if not nearly impossible to get media attention as a libertarian candidate unless you are doing something contraversial or running as a joke. Tekbredus (talk) 08:22, 25 June 2019 (UTC)

The chart and debates

A proposal for the chart: Rather than using general Wikipedia-defined notability standard, we now have enough data from LP-sponsored debates regarding who is being treated a serious candidate. I propose that anyone who is receiving invites from state Libertarian parties to participate in a debate has meet the threshold for inclusion. Right now, that's nine people. I believe this standard is best for keeping the chart manageable while also appraising the casual reader of the actual state of the LP primaries --Vrivasfl (talk) 16:33, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I have no objection to this proposal. Sounds reasonable.--A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:00, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I am the Executive Director of the Libertarian party. I agree that invite to a Libertarian state convention debate is a very good way to judge.Fishdan (talk) 20:06, 5 August 2019 (UTC)

Behrman

Look I love the yellow hat just as much as every other ancap on here, but can we get a picture of Behrman without it. It doesn't exactly scream "professionalism" to someone who is just glancing at this page.Curbon7 (talk) 02:52, 8 August 2019 (UTC)

Pictures & Candidates

So, two things:

I'm of the opinion that we should try to get pictures in for these candidates that are currently missing them. Just want to bring attention to that. And secondly, should we even count people that have not filed with the FEC in the chart, since they're *technically* not actual candidates until they do? Especially if it's been ages and they still haven't bothered to file. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.173.177.104 (talk) 06:08, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

Many of these candidates do not have photos that are fair use or in public domain. And trust me when I say Commons staff may still delete it even if it is in public domain. Curbon7 (talk) 07:02, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

We certainly should try to get photos for the other candidates, but finding one that satisfies Wikipedia's copyright rules is a tough battle. As for the FEC, all candidates in the chart have filed with the FEC except for McAfee, who's refusal to file with the FEC is part of his campaign. --Vrivasfl (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• Kim Ruff site.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 14:51, 4 September 2019 (UTC)

Style

The format chart used to depict the candidates are not the same as those used for the Republican, Democratic and Green primaries. Could we fix that so that they match? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 20:55, 6 September 2019 (UTC)

They look the same to me. --Vrivasfl (talk) 13:34, 9 September 2019 (UTC)

Remove Sam Seder.

Can we agree to remove Sam Seder from the page? His "announcement" was an obvious joke as perceived by his fans, and while he claimed to have formed an exploratory committee, there is actually no record that he did so on the FEC website or anywhere else. He is obviously not a libertarian, by party or ideology, as he attempts to humiliate and ridicule them on his show The Majority Report. He shouldn't be on this article. Ghoul flesh • talk 00:32, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I agree. Until it can be credibly verified by secondary sources that he has actually formed an exploratory committee, Seder should be removed. --A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 02:15, 15 June 2019 (UTC)

I mean, to be fair, what about Vermin Supreme? IOnlyKnowFiveWords (talk) 06:55, 16 June 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, avoiding these issues was one of the purposes of eliminating the chart in the first place, and I again advocate removing it. It's very uninformative to the casual reader. I agree that Seder's candidacy is a joke in a literal sense, but just because someone is not serious about being the libertarian nominee doesn't mean they aren't seriously a candidate. An exploratory committee is not required. Campaigning is not required. Winning primaries is not required. Seder may not be taking this seriously, but it's hard to see an objective reason not to at least consider him a potential candidate. --Vrivasfl (talk) 00:59, 17 June 2019 (UTC)

Can we try and reach a consensus here? @Vrivasfl: it's not that Seder isn't taking the necessary steps to obtain the Libertarian nomination, it's that he hasn't even taken the first step — there is zero evidence he has actually launched an exploratory committee like he said he has. No filings exist online. So he's not a genuine candidate, period. Ghoul flesh • talk 02:35, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

I don't have any strong feeling about this. I won't oppose whatever the consensus is. For what it's worth, my order of preference is this: (1) eliminate the chart; (2) move Seder to publicly expressed interest; and (3) remove Seder. --Vrivasfl (talk) 03:15, 18 July 2019 (UTC)

The difference between Seder and Supreme on this is that Supreme has ran every chance he could since 2004. Seder only announced this year he would run for 2020 and according to the wiki page on him he has notability by beating Kokesh in a poll made by Third Party Watch . I am new here so please help me if I made a mistake in the editing. Mdchavez02 (talk) 03:35, 21 September 2019 (UTC)mdchavez

Sam Seder has recently discussed running as a Libertarian with the head of the Libertarian National Committee Nicholas Sarwark Whall15 (talk) 08:09, 6 October 2019 (UTC)

References

Armstrong

Kenneth Armstrong does not have a Wikipedia page, and has not participated in a debate. He is, however, listed, seemingly on the basis of attending a forum. Should he be removed, or should the criteria for being listed be expanded to include forums? I personally vote for keeping him. Devonian Wombat —Preceding undated comment added 00:10, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

We should leave it at debates, however, we should clarify the requirement as "participated or has been invited to participate in an LP-sponsored debate." Armstrong has been invited to the South Carolina debate, and that information is available on the SCLP website --Vrivasfl (talk) 16:38, 21 October 2019 (UTC)

Multiple inclusion standards

There are two standards for inclusion on the page: There's this one:

The following is a list of declared candidates who either meet Wikipedia's notability guidelines or have participated (or have been invited to participate) in at least one Libertarian Party-sponsored debate.

And this one:

Please only include a candidate in this section if the candidate has a Wikipedia page, has stated that they will run for president on a source other than social media, and has a campaign website

Which one is the one we're going by in the article? David O. Johnson (talk) 19:32, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

Edit: removed commented out info; removed multiple asterisks; added colons. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:45, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

The first is what is de facto being used, so it should probably be the one used, though it should probably be expanded to two or three debates to cut the list down a bit. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:15, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree that the first should continue to be used, as it is a fair and objective standard for identifying the prime candidates for the nomination. I also agree with Devonian Wombat that extending the benchmark to participatation/invitation in multiple debates (two seems reasonable) might prevent the list from becoming unwieldy and keep it within the parameters of WP:WEIGHT. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:36, 8 November 2019 (UTC)

Moving the Goalposts

The original criteria requiring a candidate to have participated in a Libertarian sponsored debate for table inclusion seemed reasonable. It was even supported by the Libertarian Party; Dan Fishman (here on Wikipedia Talk, archived) wrote: "I am the Executive Director of the Libertarian party. I agree that invite to a Libertarian state convention debate is a very good way to judge."

And yet, the criteria for table inclusion has just recently changed from participating in an LP sponsored debate to now having to participate in two debates.

I understand that there is an argument to be made about the list of candidates being too large; however, this should not warrant the original criteria being changed. It gives a perception of "moving the goalposts" and is not fair to those that have achieved meeting the criteria for inclusion..only to see the criteria change because a few people say it should. The only other 3rd party with their own Wikipedia primary page is the Green Party and their inclusion criteria has not changed since the campaign season started. And yet the LP's criteria changed mid election season.

When the candidates that were recently dropped from the table wind up meeting this new criteria when they debate again, will the criteria change again to prevent them from being in the table?

I think we should revert back to the original criteria for table inclusion. But if not, okay. But we should not change the criteria again.— Preceding unsigned comment added by East Texan12 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

This is a good point, but if the criteria is viewed as deficient then it should be changed. Hamstringing the page by sticking to a criteria established previously when problems start cropping up is worse than changing the criteria and removing some candidates through consensus in order to fix a problem. Devonian Wombat talk 07:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, the OP does make a good point, but I agree with Devonian Wombat that the changes made (and being considered) are/were in response to deficiencies that became apparent. I also agree that not making the changes would would have hamstrung the page. As for the Green Party primary page, I think it suffers from the same problems this one did, and would do well to follow suit in revising the criteria to match this page. There should be uniformity in inclusion standards among the primary pages to maintain fairness and minimize conflict. That's my humble opinion, anyway.Sal2100 (talk) 17:39, 30 November 2019 (UTC)

Sam Robb

Why was Sam Robb added? I know there is an ongoing discussion about how there are double standards with the current inclusion criteria, but as far as I am aware, he does not meet even the most inclusive standard used on this page. WittyRecluse (talk) 06:20, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Robb was scheduled to be in today's debate in Olean [3]. David O. Johnson (talk) 06:40, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Alright, then he DOES meet the criteria. Thank you very much! WittyRecluse (talk) 08:16, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Did he qualify for a 2nd debate? Because as I understand it, qualification for at least 2 debates is the standard.2600:1017:B11F:979B:E8B3:3428:40A0:9D56 (talk) 19:44, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

This was under a previous inclusion criteria. WittyRecluse (talk) 22:36, 12 December 2019 (UTC)

For what it's worth, Mr. Robb has participated in the Olean, NY debate and has been invited to the Georgia debate, and that information is on the Georgia LP website. The debate chart should be updated to reflect that. --Vrivasfl (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

Add Keenan Wallace Dunham as a candidate

This is Keenan Dunham. I am asking that I be added as an official notable candidate for President 2020, Libertarian Party. My website is Dunham2020.com. I filed with the FEC as of August 26th 2019. https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P00013284/?cycle=2020&election_full=true&tab=about-candidate

I have been invited to more than two state convention debates in the Libertarian Party. Arizona, Missouri and Georgia are some examples. https://lpgeorgia.com/2020-libertarian-state-convention/

I am also on the Libertarian primary ballot in New Hampshire and am waiting on approval to be on the California Primary ballot. https://www.lpnh.org/2020primary/ http://ballot-access.org/2019/11/20/filing-closes-for-new-hampshire-libertarian-party-presidential-primary/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.234.103 (talk) 15:00, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Looks good to me, although I cannot find any proof you have been invited to the Missouri or Arizona debates. Devonian Wombat talk 21:20, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Keenan here. These are confirmation emails of my being invited to Missouri and Arizona debates.

Email from Missouri Libertarian Party to Keenan Dunham

Email from Arizona Libertarian Party to Keenan Dunham

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Keenandunham (talk • contribs) 13:43, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

Wait a minute. Mr. Dunham, I appreciate you providing these, but this original research, and we cannot use these as a source. Your invitation to these debates must independently verifiable but some other, publicly available source. Georgia is one, so why don't we just wait until either Missouri or Arizona posts the post the participants on their webpage? --Vrivasfl (talk) 20:58, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I would complain that this wikipedia has been biased for a while since my website and press release have been up since November 6th, 2018. https://think-liberty.com/candidates/keenan-wallace-dunham/ There's no rule that you can't take my copies of emails as verifiable proof of those invites. They are obviously legitimate, and you can take me as a reliable source. To say that I'm not a source or that these emails aren't true is ridiculous. This page has me listed in foot notes as being on two ballots but you refuse to actually make my name or website visible. When you are ready I can even provide a picture of myself, although perhaps that's not verifiable and I don't exist. I'll keep dropping links here regardless. https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2020-primary/generally-recognized-candidates.pdf Please don't contrive that other campaigns don't provide things like logos, headshots or website addresses. https://yt3.ggpht.com/a/AGF-l7_ndkQEAzfdS9pMbWu2C1sFlWSplN5u3lS-3w=s900-c-k-c0xffffffff-no-rj-mo https://d3n8a8pro7vhmx.cloudfront.net/dunham2020/pages/1/meta_images/original/sdrrgrsg.png?1573104533 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keenandunham (talk • contribs) 12:53, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

https://www.reddit.com/r/Libertarian/comments/du4ywy/keenan_wallace_dunham_for_president_2020/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keenandunham (talk • contribs) 13:07, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

There is a rule that we can't take copies of your emails as verifiable proof, Mr. Dunham. It's Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:No original research. Using screenshots of your emails that you personally provide would run afoul of both of these rules. For what it's worth, I believe everything you are saying. I believe you exist. I believe you are a candidate. I believe you have been invited to two LP debates. All of these facts, however, must be verifiable by anyone by means of neutral, reliable, third-party sources. We do not have that. Once we do have that, you can be added to the chart. Once you are added to the chart, you can add your own photo and link to your website. That's fine. --Vrivasfl (talk) 13:36, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

I'm reading the posts on Moving the Goalposts, and it seems ridiculous and probably will continue, so respectfully I will continue to post links here, so any editor can use them how they please. https://yubanet.com/california/secretary-of-state-alex-padilla-releases-list-of-presidential-candidates-for-march-3-2020-presidential-primary-election/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keenandunham (talk • contribs) 23:05, 11 December 2019 (UTC)

https://informdetroit.org/libertarian-presidential-primary-1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keenandunham (talk • contribs) 13:32, 15 December 2019 (UTC)

https://www.eventbrite.com/e/2020-utah-libertarian-party-nominating-convention-registration-74906875481 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.36.243 (talk) 02:06, 19 December 2019 (UTC)

https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article238727478.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.212.36.243 (talk) 10:58, 29 December 2019 (UTC)

Ok, I was invited to another debate by the Libertarian Party of Minnesota. I would like to be added on this page with the same coverage as other candidates please. You can find the online announcement of that debate here: http://lpmn.org/

"6:30-9:00 – CANDIDATE PANELS/DEBATES

Presidential Candidates to include Vermin Supreme, and Keenan Wallace Dunham Vice Presidential Candidates to include John Phillips Jr. and Jeff Wood LNC Chair Candidates to include Josh Smith and Mike Shipley"

I have included other links above regarding my campaign but just to coalesce everything here is some information on my campaign. Keenan Wallace Dunham is my full name on ballots. My website is Dunham2020.com. I am a former Presidential Candidate in the Libertarian Party in 2016 and current Chairperson of Horry County Libertarian Party in South Carolina. My campaign officially started November 6th, 2018 when I released a press release announcing I was running ( https://think-liberty.com/candidates/keenan-wallace-dunham/ ).

My birthday is July 16, 1981. I am from Myrtle Beach, South Carolina. I filed with the FEC 8/26/2019 (https://www.fec.gov/data/candidate/P00013284/?tab=about-candidate). Here is a campaign photo from reddit (https://external-preview.redd.it/59r_CYcACGlUkEMuA_AppHUq1gmx2O4w98mjxlg_IWs.jpg?auto=webp&s=774248b69133174c0c9e385930b34a2f90000742). Here is our campaign logo from twitter ( https://pbs.twimg.com/media/ENpkl4KWkAAmYLc?format=jpg&name=large ) If there is any other information needed I can be contacted at dunhamkeenan@gmail.com. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Keenandunham (talk • contribs) 03:52, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

 Done Sal2100 (talk) 19:09, 8 January 2020 (UTC)

Behrman picture

there used to be a picture for Behrman, why was it removed? should it be re added, or another one instead? TheFIST (talk) 22:51, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

I’m fairly sure it was deleted as a copyright violation because they was no proof of permission being granted to use it on Wikipedia. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:57, 12 January 2020 (UTC)

Please add Mark Whitney

Please add Mark Whitney to the list of declared candidates. He is officially running for the Libertarian nomination, and will be participating in the next 3 libertarian debates (NH, GA, and AZ). His site is www.MarkWhitney.com. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1003:B86A:B539:5D48:734D:781E:C09F (talk) 04:18, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

Done. --Vrivasfl (talk) 11:49, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

Dan Behrman’s middle name

There has been some dispute about whether Dan Behrman’s middle name of “Taxation is Theft” should be used within the article or not. Personally, I do not think it should be listed, both because it seems like a gimmick and because I believe using candidates middle names in general should not be done unless it it is needed to distinguish them from another person. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I think it should be included. A number of states will be posting his full name on the ballots. The FEC filing reflects the same. That's what people know him as. Ghoul flesh • talk 00:16, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I think that what a candidate's name appears as on a majority of ballots should be what they are listed as here. If it is not known what will be put on the ballot at this point in time, then First and Last only should be the default. WittyRecluse (talk) 10:05, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I agree with Witty Recluse. First and last name as default, until it is verified that that the name appears otherwise on official ballots.Sal2100 (talk) 19:49, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

• JoJorgensen.jpg

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:06, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

"Primaries" vs. "Straw polls" vs. "Caucuses" & what goes in infobox

Should watch the distinction. A primary election is open to voters (either all voters or all voters registered with the party) and usually held by the state, or held privately in a manner closely approximating a state primary election-- multiple polling places where one can show up and cast a ballot, no poll fees or requirement to be a dues-paying donor, etc.

A state party vote held solely among dues-paying donors or some other subset of party members is better described as a "straw poll" or "preference vote." That is what the New Hampshire party held, and which many state Libertarian Parties have at their conventions. Some states will have both public primaries for voters and a straw poll (usually at the state convention) for dues-paying members.

An arrangement, either public or private, where voters can go to multiple locations across the state to express a preference during a single meeting with all voters gathered, rather than by casting a ballot could be called a caucus, such as was held by the Minnesota Libertarian Party in 2016.

The infobox for "2016 Libertarian Party primaries" counted only primaries and caucuses, *not* straw polls. Straw polls should probably not go in the 2020 infobox nor have a cumulative running total, just like you wouldn't do that for the Ames Straw Poll or the CPAC Straw Poll in the GOP presidential primaries.

https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/2016_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries

Doppelganger76 (talk) 20:33, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

I see what you're saying, but I lean toward including it for the following reasons: (1) primaries are not binding on delegates, so there is no practical difference between this vote and a primary operated by the state. Both are essentially preferential polls; (2) New Hampshire opted for this format as a cost-saving measure, as they have lost official status and are not allowed to participate in the official statewide primary in February; (3) this "preferential poll" was done in lieu of participation in the official statewide primary; and (4) Libertarians are treating this as the results of the New Hampshire Libertarian primary. Wikipedia should follow that lead. --Vrivasfl (talk) 22:10, 13 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doppelganger76: You are incorrect. Because the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire lost ballot access in 2018, the party decided to conduct an internal primary, with the results to be announced at the state convention (last Saturday). This has been in the making for months. Candidates even needed to submit their names by a deadline. The primary was conducted by physically mailing ballots to party members in the state. The page for the 2016 primaries also includes results for a primary conducted in the exact same fashion: the 2016 Oregon primary. Understand that for the articles for the Green Party presidential primaries, a majority of those "primaries" are held at their conventions. The Green Party has primary ballot access in fewer states than the LP. Ghoul flesh • talk 00:11, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

So what happens when a state has both an internal party straw poll at some party meeting and a real presidential primary? Just gonna count them both? And then what about the map showing upcoming "primaries" --- there is no way to know which states will or won't have a straw poll, because such information is scarcely available and trying to hunt it all down becomes an original research project. What if some local party has one, say a county meetup? Are we going to start adding in every county meeting of four people that decides there's going to have a "primary" among themselves?

Real primary elections might be unsatisfying since they're sparse and have no direct effect on the convention's nomination decision here, but at least it's a manageable standard that isn't running around haphazardly adding together apples and oranges. If this NH "primary" counts there is no coherent standard at all and the infobox is just pure gibberish. Doppelganger76 (talk) 23:06, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I understand your concerns, but I stand firm. This main reason this should be included is because Libertarians and observers are in agreement that this was the New Hampshire primary. When you google "New Hampshire primary," this comes up. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, which means we just record the events as they happen. If I were in charge of the Libertarian Party of New Hampshire, I probably wouldn't have put this vote out and announced it as the NH Libertarian primary. However, I am not the chair of the NH Libertarian Party. They put this out as the New Hampshire Libertarian primary. The media reported on it as the New Hampshire Libertarian primary, and Vermin Supreme as its winner. It may be awkward, but we need to record the events in a way that accurately portrays how the events are being represented by the people involved as much as possible. --Vrivasfl (talk) 23:27, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

@Doppelganger76: The South Carolina Libertarian Party conducted a post-debate straw poll on November 2. That is not included in this article because it was obviously not a primary. They didn't send out literal ballots to party members, it was recorded to determine each candidates' debate performance. If a state is having a state-sanctioned Libertarian primary, we will include the official results as determined by the state, just as we did for the 2016 article. I think the confusion here is that you keep referring to the New Hampshire primary as a "straw poll". The party announced a filing period for a candidate to partake in the primary, they announced a deadline for party members to submit their ballots, and then they tabulated the results. I repeat, this is exactly what the Libertarian Party of Oregon did in 2016, and the election map for the 2016 primaries reflects that as well. We aren't including Twitter polls, polls taken at small Libertarian gatherings, we are recording what are deemed to be official Libertarian primaries being held for the 2020 presidential election season. Ghoul flesh • talk 20:02, 17 January 2020 (UTC)

Graph

Is it possible to create a polling graph for this primary like the one for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries? --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 21:19, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

There's not enough reliable polling to make one. --Vrivasfl (talk) 21:22, 28 January 2020 (UTC)

Ditto what Vrivasfl said. Only one of the polls included in this article is purportedly scientific, and there aren't enough polls to showcase consistent polling numbers in a graph. Ghoul flesh • talk 14:52, 2 February 2020 (UTC)

Georgia

All right, we need to have a discussion about whether to include the results of the preference vote at the Georgia Libertarian Convention as a primary for the purposes of this article. Although this preference vote and the vote that took place in New Hampshire were both party-run and non-binding, I lean no because there are significant differences between this vote and the vote in New Hampshire: (1) Georgia did not require candidates to file with the state party by a particular deadline to be included; (2) Georgia did not mail out ballots or otherwise provide a means for people to vote other than presence at the convention; (3) voting was done post-debate only for those who participated in the debate and based on debate performance only; (4) only the vote totals of the top five were announced; and (5) most importantly, no one--from the media to the party to the candidates--has referred to this as the Georgia Libertarian primary, neither before, during or after the vote. --Vrivasfl (talk) 17:30, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I agree that it's not a primary but also believe that it is something of significance that ought to be noted somewhere on the page. --Okcgunner (talk) 18:22, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

I don’t see how 1 or 2 are relevant; it’s just a difference in how the state party chose to organize it. Your description of 3 is incorrect— this was described as a preference vote by the state party, not a “who won the debate” poll. Also, including only candidates who chose to participate at the convention is no different from NH including only those who chose to participate in their vote. 4 is again a difference in how the state party chose to conduct it, but NH also chose a weird and novel voting system that doesn’t cleanly accumulate with other state results. As for 5– it seems obviously wrong to discount substantively identical privately run state party preference votes just because one was *called* a “preference primary” for promotional purposes (in NH’s case in particular, to tie it to the famous actual NH primary) and the other was merely called a “preference vote.”

I see two feasible options: either no private party-run votes count or they all do. Splitting hairs to pick some state party votes and not others is going to be hopelessly arbitrary and substantively misleading. Doppelganger76 (talk) 18:48, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

One clear distinction is that starting months ahead of time New Hampshire called what they were doing a primary and there certainly didn't seem to be anyone disputing that. Georgia doesn't seem to have at any point called their preference poll a primary and made little or no effort to publicize that they would be doing a poll. If the organizers themselves don't call it a primary it probably isn't a primary. --Okcgunner (talk) 20:57, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

@Doppelganger76: You need to stop this. This is not that confusing. There have been numerous post-debate straw polls held in the past several months. There was one at the South Carolina debate, and one at the Olean debate in New York. Has absolutely nothing to do with the primaries. There's a reason those results aren't included in this article. I don't think any of them are even significant enough to include in the article, unless and until there becomes a 2020 Libertarian presidential debates and forums page. A straw poll is an unofficial vote. That is literally the definition. The next contest will be in Iowa in 5 days. Ghoul flesh • talk 21:23, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

Jacob Hornberger

How does Jacob Hornberger get added to the candidates?

https://jacobforliberty.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.237.249.247 (talk) 00:07, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

Which debate was he invited to participate in? —C.Fred (talk) 00:10, 12 November 2019 (UTC)

I would like to propose that Jacob Hornberger's Wikipedia page be separated from a simple redirect to this page. I request this as most other candidates in this primary have their own separate Wikipedia pages and with his performance in Iowa and there being a Simple Wikipedia page for him that that would be best. Bandersenbrian (talk) 23:08, 9 February 2020 (UTC)

See Draft:Jacob Hornberger. It has been declined twice within the past 2 months for submission into main article space. It appears it needs more citations that meet WP:RS standards in order to satisfy WP:GNG criteria.–Sal2100 (talk) 21:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• AdamKokesh2020CampaignLogo.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 03:52, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Table Inclusion Rule Revision

It seems pretty clear that the list of candidates has gotten pretty bloated, so I propose that the inclusion criteria be raised to two debates or a Wikipedia page, which would cut Faas, Hill, Robb and Christmann from the page. I think this is a good solution to the problem of a growing amount of random amateurs being listed among the serious candidates. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:21, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I would agree with the proposal, although I might add to the inclusion criteria: coverage of campaign in reliable independent source(s), which seems to be a fair indication of a legit candidacy. Sal2100 (talk) 18:49, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

I vote to keep the criteria the way that it is, but if the consensus is to raise it to two debates, I have no problem with that. I would avoid campaign coverage as a criterium, however, because then we get in the weeds about what is reliable and independent, and how much coverage is enough. I get the appeal. It would allow for the inclusion of somebody like Jacob Hornberger, who is running a serious campaign with notable backing, but is not independently notable and has not been invited to a debate yet. But it also opens the door to a lot more "randos" who get the occasional "hey look at this crazy guy over here running for president" type story, but are not taken seriously by libertarian voters or the LNC. FWIW, I think Hornberger is notable, and I disagreed with his paged being deleted, but that's a separate issue. --Vrivasfl (talk) 20:07, 19 November 2019 (UTC)

UPDATE: All right, I've changed my mind about the debates. I've looked into it a bit further, and I agree about the two-debate threshold. --Vrivasfl (talk) 14:07, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

Yes, I think two-debate threshold would be a fair way to pare down the list, but the Hornberger issue that you touched on highlights a flaw in the current inclusion criteria. Hornberger is well-known within the party, his candidacy is verifiable, and his campaign has created a fair amount of buzz within the party. Yet he is presently not even mentioned on the page. It seems a little unfair that he and others of similar stature (libertarian-notable but not independently notable) who may potentially join the race have to wait until they are invited to two debates before they can be included on the page. I still think that non-trivial campaign coverage in non-trivial sources should used as an additional standard, although you make an excellent point about "getting in the weeds" when it comes to dealing with the specifics of that. Maybe at least a paragraph in an RS that is a national publication or news source (e.g. Associated Press, UPI), or major city newspaper? I know that's not a perfect solution, but the current inclusion standards (although an improvement from the previous) still seem a bit lacking, and I'm certainly open to ideas as to how to improve them.Sal2100 (talk) 21:48, 22 November 2019 (UTC)

That seems like a good solution, though I’m not sure Hornberger actually meets it. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:04, November 23 2019 (UTC)

I also agree with the two debate rule for major candidate inclusion. David O. Johnson (talk) 02:01, 24 November 2019 (UTC)

Here's a suggestion for determining if someone is "libertarian-notable" enough to include on the candidate list. In the addition to the first 2 qualifiers currently being used, how about:

- Has served in an elected position on the Libertarian National Committee

- Has been a candidate on the ballot in a general election for a federal or state office (whether as Libertarian or otherwise)

- Has previously run for the Libertarian nomination for president or vice president and received 5% or more of the vote (since <5% is the party's standard cutoff for elimination after the ballot)

As for the media coverage thing, that would be okay I guess but I agree with person who commented about out how nebulous and potentially problematic that would be. IMHO, I believe what I suggested would be a more objective and straightforward way to go about it. And as for Hornberger, he would meet the last 2 planks I've suggested. Hope this was helpful.2600:1003:B860:9311:6CF4:5468:59B5:BA5 (talk) 02:19, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

The first and third seem like excellent criteria and they have my support, though I would restrict the second one to only federal offices. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:05, 25 November 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Devonian Wombat that the first and third are excellent criteria. I also partially agree with the idea that the second should be restricted to federal offices, as I would make an exception for gubernatorial candidates who made the ballot in general elections (as Governor is a highly notable and prominent executive position). That being said, I could support the proposal either way (or as originally suggested). Great idea!Sal2100 (talk) 18:52, 26 November 2019 (UTC)

It occurred to me that we never really reached a consensus on this. Rather, the conversation just sort of fizzled out and apparently we defaulted to "significant media coverage" as the third benchmark. Which is fine, I suppose, as that was my original recommendation. But I like the ideas proposed by the anonymous IP user, and apparently so did Devonian Wombat. I think this would make for a fair and objective criteria for candidate inclusion (and it wouldn't eliminate any of the candidates currently listed) not only for the 2020 cycle, but future election cycles as well.

The one proposal made that seemed a little problematic was the second: "Has been a candidate on the ballot in a general election for a federal or state office (whether as Libertarian or otherwise)". There was some disagreement as to whether that should be restricted to only federal offices, which is a reasonable concern. My suggestion is: Include state - and mayoral elections - but only in cases where the candidate received 5% or more (for the reason the anon. IP stated) of the vote. So, could we please re-open this discussion in order to reach an actual consensus? Sal2100 (talk) 17:13, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Pinging the editors who participated in this discussion, as well as a few frequent contributers of this article: @Devonian Wombat:, @Vrivasfl:, @WittyRecluse:, @David O. Johnson:, @Ghoul flesh:. I am messaging the anon. IP as well. Sal2100 (talk) 17:26, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

What's the deal with Oklahoma?

No candidates? The references used aren't very helpful, but I couldn't find anything better. Pelirojopajaro (talk) 06:20, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Because of the significant filing fee, all candidates decided to skip the OK primary. Not sure if there is a better citation out there, though. --Vrivasfl (talk) 13:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Counting totals for the infobox

Is there a protocol for how ranked-choice votes are counted in the infobox? Should candidates be credited with first-round votes only, final round votes only, or get a vote added to their total for every ballot ever showed them as the preference? --Okcgunner (talk) 18:57, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

It's hard to say, Looking at 2019 Australian federal election the First round votes are used, but looking at 2018 United States House of Representatives elections in Maine they use the final vote count. I personally support using first round votes, because we are transcluding candidates to the main 2020 Election page based on them having received 5% of the vote, and using raw vote total is the best way of determining whether a candidate has reached that mark, in my opinion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:50, 28 February 2020 (UTC)

Candidates who were eliminated received no votes. I spoke to the LPMN about it. As it is, we were only given the first and final rounds of voting. So it makes no sense to include the first but not the second, third, fourth, fifth and sixth rounds of voting as well. Leave it as it is. Ghoul flesh • talk 05:42, 3 March 2020 (UTC)

John McAfee Re-entry

John McAfee announced today on his twitter that he is re entering the race for president. Should we re-add him to the declared candidates? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:6081:200:4514:AF4C:7F0E:85D1 (talk) 23:21, 5 March 2020 (UTC)

Yes. He has been re-added to the declared list.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 03:59, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Why isn't Lincoln Chafee listed in the Info Box?

Does anyone know why Lincoln Chafee isn't listed in the Info Box? Can we add him? A Quest For Knowledge (talk) 11:30, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: He has nowhere near 5 percent of the overall vote, a requirement for inclusion in the infobox. Ghoul flesh • talk 16:48, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@A Quest For Knowledge: I've proposed criteria that would add him above. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:28, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

The facts are, the primaries really don't matter as much to the Libertarian Party nomination as they do for the Democrats and Republicans. Yeah, Vermin Supreme "won" New Hampshire, but the delegates are completely free to ignore that result (and some have said they already will). It's highly misleading to play by the "got 5% in a primary" rule for this party because it is somehow such a low barrier to entry and completely unobtainable for some very viable candidates (see New York's primary this year).
I have updated the infobox based on two inclusion standards I think better reflect WP:DUE in this primary, and here is what they are:
(1) Did the candidate outright win a (non-)binding primary or caucus?
(2) Has there been sufficient media coverage of the candidate's campaign enough to warrant its own article?
Hornberger, Supreme, and NOTA meet criteria one; while Supreme and Chafee meet criteria two. If someone disagrees, they are free to dispute this. However, this is probably the only way we can sort out less viable candidates and keep the infobox less cluttered.
My own concern with this method is that it leaves out Kokesh who I know has substantial coverage but no campaign article thus far. It might be a good idea to rectify that soon.
–MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 17:32, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm not certain that a crowded infobox is terrible. New York won't have a Libertarian primary because only Hornberger filed a slate of delegates. After the Massachusetts results are in it's very likely that at least one of the candidates currently having more than 5% of the popular vote will no longer, and considering that Hornberger is the only candidate in Missouri everybody else will take a hit next week as well. All in all, I'm in favor of keeping the 5% rule and expect things will work themselves out.

However, it might be useful to consider the 5% rule in a different fashion by looking at percentage of the vote in each contest instead of popular vote totals. Armstrong's two thousands votes in California gets him to 5% in the total recorded popular vote but the only other place where he received a percentage of 5% was in NC, everywhere else he was lower. This would remove several other candidates as well but would eliminate the disparity between caucus states and primary states as well as small states versus large states. --Okcgunner (talk) 18:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Okcgunner. The infobox was crowded because the primary is crowded. Hornberger is definitely the frontrunner but a ton of candidates have legitimate momentum. DaCashman (talk) 18:38, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

Agreed with Okcgunner and DaCashman. The infobox wasn't broke, and didn't need to be fixed.Sal2100 (talk) 19:53, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

@DaCashman, Okcgunner, Saxones288, and Sal2100: The reasoning behind the 5% rule was, I believe, because it correlated to the number delegates the candidate was receiving. I'm trying to put my personal biases aside, but it is really hard for me to say that the votes of a handful of states gets to count at all compared to states like Connecticut which doesn't have a primary.
Dan Behrman is a great guy, but he's also a perennial candidate, and Max Abrahamson dropped out.
All the while the candidate with the most coverage in reliable sources is excluded? That doesn't make particular sense to me.(edit conflict) –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:14, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

The 5% rule goes beyond delegates. In general elections that get their own pages, such as for Governor or Senator or President, getting 5% is the threshold for being placed in the infobox. And Dan Behrman is not a perennial candidate, he ran for TX state house in 2014 and is running for president now. I'd also argue that Chafee, while he may have received the most media attention, is not in the top six candidates in terms of viability with the delegates who will vote and his count of primary ballot access at this time is that he is or has been off of fewer ballots than he has been on. --Okcgunner (talk) 20:46, 6 March 2020 (UTC)

I could've swore that he ran in 2016, but maybe I just got confused since he's been running for president for so long now. Huh.
Since the primaries don't even represent enough states to be a majority of the delegates or even anything close to that. Out of all the states that will be holding contests before the convention, they represent 312 delegates... out of the total 1045. Even if they did matter as electoral contests, the delegates on the state are not even pledged to the candidate. They can vote for whomever they want on the very first ballot. The Libertarian convention is contested by design, so applying the 5% rule as if it represents who has the most viable chance is patently absurd. It simply wasn't designed for this kind of election where there really is no popular vote, and it's just party activists who decide the nominee. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 01:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

Also, applying this type of logic in 2016 means that you believe that McAfee was not a viable candidate during the period since March 15, 2016 until after the Libertarian Convention (when he'd already lost).. according to the math. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 03:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

If you really believe the primaries don't matter then perhaps you should be advocating for deletion of the page. --Okcgunner (talk) 19:32, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

The individual caucuses and such objectively don't matter (except for maybe who wins them), but the process as a whole does. I'm trying to explain that this shouldn't be structured like we would any other one. It's a unique process and the page should reflect that fact. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 21:01, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I'm in agreement with MJL on this one. Libertarian primaries are a different animal than are Democratic and Republican primaries, for the reasons he's explained. I believe his proposals are more reflective of that than the current 5% rule. One possible tweak might be to add any candidate that is independent notable (by WP:BIO or WP:NPOL) who has received 5% or more of the cumulative primary vote. Just a thought. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:54, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@A. Randomdude0000: I use they/them pronouns btw. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:16, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

So noted, for future reference.A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:19, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

If we were to consider a 5% criteria but it being averaging 5% or more in the various primaries and caucuses then the infobox would contain Hornberger - 28.02%, Jorgensen - 14.98%, NOTA - 8.3%, Supreme - 7.64%. I'm not suggesting those average percentage should necessarily be listed, it's simply that this would be an objective means by which to reduce the number of people in the infobox. And one that probably much more accurately reflects who is really viewed as a contender, which is presumably what the infobox ought to be about. Even though they are non-binding, these contests have Libertarians showing a preference and those preferences appear to be not closely related to who is the most well known to the general public. --Okcgunner (talk) 03:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

I disagree with changing the criteria, the infobox is fine as it is. Just putting Chafee in the infobox off the assumption that he would perform well at the convention is a violation of WP:CRYSTAL. Devonian Wombat (talk) 22:53, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: The same thing can be said for putting candidates who receive 5% in the non-binding primaries in the infobox as well. Performing well in the primaries does not give a complete understanding of how well a candidate will do at the convention. They're basically like the Iowa Straw Poll. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:20, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

How about just adding the two inclusion standards proposed by MJL to the currently existing standard. It would give some of the late-entry candidates (who are not on many of the primary ballots) a chance, and wouldn't crowd the infobox much more than it currently is. There appears to be a half-dozen or more candidates in the race who have some sort of viable shot at getting the nomination. Nothing wrong with the infobox reflecting that. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 17:45, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

Massachusetts colored wrong

It’s colored for Vermin yet was won by None of the Above FollowerOfHank (talk) 13:23, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@FollowerOfHank: If you look above, we are having an active discussion debating who the winner is of Massachusetts. The MA Secretary of State seems to discount the no preference and all others votes and has a check next to Vermin Supreme. When you switch the chart to percentages, no preference and all others don't translate to percentages, either. Massachusetts seems to think Vermin won, but NOTA and all others of course received the most votes. Ghoul flesh • talk 13:40, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Thanks! FollowerOfHank (talk) 13:42, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Max Abramson

With Max Abramson leaving the Libertarian Party where does that leave his campaign with the LP? Should we do anything with his info here? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Grahaml35 (talk • contribs) 05:20, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Grahaml35: As I said above, I believe Max Abramson dropped out. However, it isn't entirely clear because his campaign also made this post 30 minutes later. Even more strangely, he is apparently a Democrat now... making him ineligible to run as a Libertarian nominee without a rules change. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:57, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

I mean, just because he is ineligible to be the Nominee doesn’t mean he cannot run, just that he cannot be the nominee. He could still theoretically continue to run, picking up voters and delegates and using them as a bargaining tool at the convention or something like that. But we should definitely add a note to explain the situation. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:14, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: Well, he can be the nominee if he gets enough delegates to support a rules change. That isn't likely though with only 2 hours of debate there. He'd need an absolute majority of delegates to agree with a very small amount of time to convince them. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 22:19, 7 March 2020 (UTC)

@Devonian Wombat: @Grahaml35: @MJL: I'm glad this issue has been raised. Abramson has not been very good about this in that he hasn't been very vocal or good about announcing the status of his campaign. When I asked him on Twitter, he informed me that while he is still a candidate for the presidency, he is no longer pursuing the Libertarian nomination. proof It's tricky because there is no source that says he is no longer a Libertarian candidate for president, so, if we want to remove him from the active candidates section, that would prove difficult. Ghoul flesh • talk 05:56, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: My proposal is to remove him from the infobox and present his candidacy as Sam Sloan's is for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 20:34, 8 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ghoul flesh: If he's not seeking the LP nomination then he shouldn't be on the LP primaries page as an active candidate even if he is still a presidential candidate in whatever capacity he thinks he is. --Okcgunner (talk) 03:20, 9 March 2020 (UTC)

A reliable source has not stated that he isn't seeking the LP nomination, so that's currently the impasse we're at now. There's a limit to WP:ABOUTSELF, and we pretty much reached it here. –MJL ‐Talk‐^☖ 14:22, 10 March 2020 (UTC)

@Wekahash: Where did this come from that he suspended his campaign on February 3? Wouldn't March 3 be more accurate? I'm still not sure he's outright suspended his campaign, so much as he's no longer pursuing the LP nomination. Ghoul flesh • talk 18:56, 22 March 2020 (UTC)

Massachusetts

Who do we say won Massachusetts? "All others" clearly dominated the field, but the MA Secretary of State's website has a check next to Vermin Supreme and recognizes him as the winner of the primary. See here Ghoul flesh • talk 04:38, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Without a breakdown of "All Others" there's no way to know if any one of those Others had enough to win, "No Preference" was the most popular choice that we know for sure. If we don't count Mass. for Uncommitted then clearly the way NC is recorded is wrong as well. --Okcgunner (talk) 12:37, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Okcgunner: I know that would be consistent, but states are not always consistent. I just got off the phone with the elections division of the MA Secretary of State's office, and they said that "no preference" and "all others" are not candidates, and therefore cannot win an election. Vermin Supreme, the candidate with the most votes, is the recognized winner of the Libertarian presidential primary by the state of Massachusetts. The language on the results page reflects that exactly [4]. Ghoul flesh • talk 19:56, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

We should defer to the MA Sec. of state office. Under their rules, Vermin Supreme won the primary. This page should reflect that, which perhaps a note to explain the "no preference" and "all others" results. --Vrivasfl (talk) 20:03, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ghoul Flesh: That's not a very Libertarian way of looking at it.... --Okcgunner (talk) 22:04, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Ghoul Flesh: Is this also the case for North Carolina? Because that primary has NOTA as the winner. Saxones288 (talk) 23:12, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

@Saxones288: I'm not aware of any decorum surrounding this for North Carolina. No preference has won that primary in the past, I believe. Ghoul flesh • talk 23:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

I didn't know about this discussion when I made my edits, but it makes no sense to have North Carolina as uncommitted while Massachusetts as Vermine Supreme when No preference/Uncommitted won the popular vote in both states. Jon698 (talk) 00:44, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

While it is pretty strange to have Vermin Supreme as the winner of Massachusetts, without a source saying that no preference won, not Vermin Supreme, we will have to defer to the Massachusetts Secretary of State website. Devonian Wombat (talk) 02:11, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

There is no "rule" or any official declaration from the Massachusetts government that Vermin "won" the primary. It's just an irrelevant artifact of how the SoS website is coded to display the results and how little thought they gave it when NP is never a real factor in the D/R primaries. 'No Preference' won Massachusetts as much as it won North Carolina, and unlike the write-ins total there's no issue of breaking it down by sub-options. No Preference was an option on the ballot and it got more than twice as many votes as Vermin, simple as that. 108.18.105.63 (talk) 01:13, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Massachusetts law clearly provides that a vote for no preference is to be treated and tallied as if no preference is a candidate. That trumps the secretary of state's irrelevant website design coding, which is no kind of official statement or ruling about who "won."

"The state secretary shall cause to be placed on the official ballot for use at presidential primaries [candidate names etc.] and a blank space in which a voter may vote no preference. A vote ... for no preference ... shall be counted as a vote for that candidate." Mass General Laws, Chapter 53, Section 70E https://malegislature.gov/Laws/GeneralLaws/PartI/TitleVIII/Chapter53/Section70E 108.18.105.63 (talk) 01:23, 25 March 2020 (UTC)

Limit candidates on infobox

I believe that the only candidates depicted on the infobox should be Hornberger, Supreme and Uncommitted (not a candidate) as they are the only ones that have won a contest (North Carolina went Uncommitted). While the candidates listed are above the 5% threshold of the popular vote, I think its pointless that they're listed with a color due to the fact they have won zero states and therefore are not reflected on the map. --TDKR Chicago 101 (talk) 12:35, 29 March 2020 (UTC)

See https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2020_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_1#Infobox We've not only already been through all this, it's been settled enough to be archived. --Okcgunner (talk) 14:07, 6 april 2020 (UTC)

Oklahoma and Ohio Primary results.

Hello,

I apologize if I posted this in the wrong place, I am new to wikipedia.

I noticed that the results of the Oklahoma and Ohio primaries have not been posted. I have not been able to find the results of these primaries online. If someone is able to find the results please post them on the page.

The results of the Ohio Primary have been posted. Now only the results of the Oklahoma primary have to be posted.

Thanks — Preceding unsigned comment added by BrendonJH (talk • contribs) 21:39, 7 April 2020 (UTC)

There was no Oklahoma primary, no Libertarian candidates filed. --Okcgunner (talk) 19:42, 16 april 2020 (UTC)

That should be stated in the article. -- BrendonJH

Supreme did not win Massachusetts

Under Massachusetts law, "No Preference" is treated and tallied as if it were a candidate. It is false to say the Massachusetts Secretary of State declared Vermin Supreme the winner just because of some incidental design feature of how the website displayed the result, which has no official standing.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.18.105.63 (talk) 14:25, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

Can you provide a reliable citation that to verify this?Sal2100 (talk) 16:27, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Maine straw poll inclusion in the primary results section

Why is a straw poll from Maine being included? We aren't including straw polls from other other states and there was much discussion on the talk page months ago about what should and shouldn't meet the criteria. --Okcgunner (talk) 12:31, 24 april 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okcgunner (talk • contribs)

I agree. Plus, voting is not even closed. The nine people who voted during the online convention was clearly a straw poll that should not be included. The voting is still open for all sustaining members to vote online through May 1. Once we have the results for that, we can reconsider. --Vrivasfl (talk) 15:37, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

In the meantime, wouldn't it be better to label Maine on the map as Winner not yet Declared ? Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:45, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

No. That would be appropriate where voting is closed, but those responsible with tabulating the votes cannot declare a winner owing to the closeness of the votes or some error or irregularity in the voting. Here, voting is simply still open, similar to 2020 Democrats Abroad primary. --Vrivasfl (talk) 11:00, 28 April 2020 (UTC)

Please review the previous discussion about straw polls not being the same as primaries or caucuses: https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Talk:2020_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_1#%22Primaries%22_vs._%22Straw_polls%22_vs._%22Caucuses%22_%26_what_goes_in_infobox -- Okcgunner (talk) 13:51, 28 april 2020 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okcgunner (talk • contribs)

Hornberger Total

I suggest making the note re: Hornberger's total contests "won" clearer. As it stands, it's not clear whether the total does or does not include North Carolina. Szarka (talk) 02:59, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I went ahead and implemented your suggestion. Devonian Wombat (talk) 03:08, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

I like the wording, but am unsure about the total. I count six: Iowa, Minnesota, California, Missouri, Ohio, and Connecticut. Szarka (talk) 03:13, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Popular & % vote

The popular vote and percentage vote for each candidate needs to be updated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.133.58.29 (talk) 13:21, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

Joe Exotic?

Another editor added Joseph Maldonado-Passage, better known as the zookeeper Joe Exotic from the Netflix series Tiger King, to the list of declared candidates. He did file a declaration of candidacy for 2020 as a Libertarian with the FEC (see here). However, his 2020 candidacy seems to have gone totally unnoticed even by media which were specifically discussing his political career (see this article, published in March 2020, which mentions his 2016 presidential candidacy and 2018 candidacy for governor, but not his 2020 candidacy). Also, he stopped filing regular reports with the FEC more than two years ago; he reportedly had his membership in the Oklahoma Libertarian Party revoked; and he's now serving time in prison.

So the question is, where, if anywhere, does he belong in this article? --Metropolitan90 (talk) 01:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I would say he doesn't belong at all. Merely filling out paperwork isn't enough to establish a notable candidacy. There was no public announcement of his candidacy, no formal recognition of such from the party, and no reliable media coverage to be found anywhere. He obviously isn't running an active campaign at the present time, and there's no evidence that he ever did in this election cycle. So including him as a candidate is a violation of WP:NOR. There is no good reason for him to be even mentioned in this article.Sal2100 (talk) 02:11, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I also agree, though I think he should still probably retain the sentence long-mention in the timeline, his section in declared candidates should be removed. Devonian Wombat (talk) 04:19, 30 April 2020 (UTC)

I don't think he even needs to be in the timeline based solely on a form that he (or someone on his behalf) filled out 3 yrs. ago, especially considering he took no further action (at least none that's been reported, evidently) towards an actual campaign (no campaign site, no official announcement, no formal campaigning activity). Unless a reputable source that reported on his filing can be found, it doesn't need to mentioned at all, IMO. To do so, I believe, would be in violation of WP:NOR and/or WP:DUE.Sal2100 (talk) 16:04, 30 April 2020 (UTC)