Jump to content

Talk:2020 United States House of Representatives elections/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Cook PVI column

Can we eliminate the "2017 PVI" column? It doesn't seem helpful or relevant to the 2020 election, and presenting it without the "Cook" label obfuscates its status as subjective analysis rather than a fact. The tables in this past election summary article are too complicated and wonky (duplicating the Cook PVI info all over the place), and it seems most readers won't know how to interpret what the Cook PVI is. Moreover, we shouldn't be biased toward promoting The Cook Political Report over other analysis. Replicating this outdated information preemptively into this article about 2020 seems like a poor precedent to continue. -- RobLa (talk) 22:17, 17 November 2018 (UTC)

I disagree. It's a useful statistic that helps the reader better understand congressional districts. It's standard practice for elections forecasters to look at Cook PVI or something similar, so it make sense for Wikipedia to include that information as well. And the 2017 PVI is in no way outdated or subjective; it's a statistic based off of the results of the two most recent presidential elections. Orser67 (talk) 20:18, 19 November 2018 (UTC)
I concur with the above, though I'd note that there are competing metrics (e.g. FiveThirtyEight's "partisan lean", though it isn't published in full anywhere except on individual district pages). Mélencron (talk) 21:49, 19 November 2018 (UTC)

Picture

Walter Jones's seat should be removed from the map of retirees, as the seat will be filled before 2020.

Dbwarrak (talk) 01:01, 25 February 2019 (UTC)

Serrano retiring, please update. Also Jones's seat should be gray, as User:Dbwarrak brought up. PerhapsXarb (talk) 16:39, 28 March 2019 (UTC)

FEC Filing

Just to make sure: Is FEC filing enough reference that the incumbent is running for reelection? Dbwarrak (talk) 13:12, 11 August 2019 (UTC)

Page size

It's not even election year, yet, and this article has 424,934 bytes of wiki-markup. That is too big by far. What's the best way to sub-divide it? Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 10:40, 16 September 2019 (UTC)

Counterpoint: It would be too big if it were a traditional encyclopedia page. Almost all of the page is tabular data, someone landing here is likely to search for the data/references/links they want. The House/Senate/Governors pages are great election resources and lots of people check them for the regularly updated polling information. I would suggest keeping the template for the House page as close as possible to the Senate/Governor pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.245.26.151 (talk) 17:06, 19 March 2020 (UTC)

Templates

Please be careful when editing {{Plainlist}} or other templates. —GoldRingChip 11:44, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

  • I was cleaning it up someone messed it up and the brackets were showing outside the code and on the page. I removed the ones that were showing. That was it. Wollers14 (talk) 16:46, 1 October 2019 (UTC)
    • Actually the brackets were correctly outside the code. That's where they belonged. See on this edit, the correct {{Plainlist}} code should have been:
|-
! {{ushr|United States Virgin Islands|AL|X}}
| [[Stacey Plaskett]]
| {{Party shading/Democratic}} |Democratic
| [[2014 United States House of Representatives election in the United States Virgin Islands|2014]]
| Incumbent's intent unknown.
| nowrap | {{Plainlist|
* TBA
}}

|}
with the result:
District Incumbent Results Candidates
Delegate Party First elected
United States Virgin Islands at-large Stacey Plaskett Democratic 2014 Incumbent's intent unknown.
  • TBA
If one counts the number of "{{" and "}}" then one will see they match. {{Plainlist}} is a tricky template! Thanks for all your housekeeping; keep it up!! —GoldRingChip 16:57, 1 October 2019 (UTC)

Yeah if you look at the history you'll see that I reverted for the reason that I made a mistake because I did remove the correctly used ones that did not appear in the lists. I only removed the ones that did. No harm intended. Wollers14 (talk) 03:47, 2 October 2019 (UTC)

Moving results tables to the state articles

As with the 2016 article, this article is far too large and there is no reason for these tables to be included here. 108.54.208.210 (talk · contribs · WHOIS), why did you claim that I had deleted the table in the California section? You're obviously aware this was a lie since you then removed it from the California article, so you definitely knew that I moved it there. Onetwothreeip (talk) 03:23, 3 November 2019 (UTC)

 
 
Of course the tables should be moved from the other articles as well, at least those very large articles. We don't need to have all the election results in the main article for the election. A summary of the results by state should still be available on this article, but not the detailed tables which would be much better in the state articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:56, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
Seems like a lot of work would be needed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:9902:3719:D656:9490 (talk) 04:42, 5 November 2019 (UTC)
I don't think it would be much work, but I am willing to start, especially with this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:43, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
Has this been decided by others as well? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:515C:E557:DA4:F90C (talk) 20:53, 7 November 2019 (UTC)
I really like having one article that has all the election results and therefore strongly oppose this proposal. If a change is made, I don't think that the 2016 United States House of Representatives elections article should be the model; it takes just as long as this article does to navigate, yet contains less pertinent information. The main House election article should either list all the races and the results as it currently does, or only list the races that were particularly close and/or saw a non-incumbent win election. Orser67 (talk) 01:46, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
Should the tables be moved back at the 2016 article? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:D0EA:FA66:EFED:5E40 (talk) 22:30, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Also, I strongly oppose splitting the race ratings into its own article. Orser67 (talk) 01:49, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm also in the strongly oppose camp. The size of the article alone isn't enough of a reason to diminish the utility of having all the results in one article. Carter (talk) 13:27, 8 November 2019 (UTC)
This change is absolutely ridiculous and should be reversed immediately. Devonian Wombat (talk) 21:38, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
Should the change be reverted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:8143:B06B:42CA:DD9A (talk) 19:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)
All of the individual results should absolutely not be in this article. The results should be in results articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:34, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
All the previous election results have their results on the main page. Regardless of the outcome of this discussion, there should probably be consistency among the articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:D0EA:FA66:EFED:5E40 (talk) 22:47, 9 November 2019 (UTC)
This is a terrible change and should be reverted. Having all the results in one location is much more user friendly, even if it does create a long article. AWiseishGuy (talk) 00:18, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
Since the above discussion is at it's most generous 3-3, I have decided to restore the pre-move status quo until a consensus can be established. I personally think a good solution would be collapsing the state tables, which would keep the info on one page while also cutting back on it's length. Devonian Wombat (talk) 06:56, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I'm up for any solution, so long as all of the race results are viewable in one article (whether that's here or in a separate list article). Orser67 (talk) 15:22, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
I'd be okay with collapsing state tables. Carter (talk) 17:30, 11 November 2019 (UTC)
That would still be inconvenient as it would prevent users from being able to Control+F search for specific candidates or races. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.185.156.170 (talk) 21:26, 12 November 2019 (UTC)
Orser67 The results of the elections would certainly still be on this article, it's just the extended details that are being moved to the state articles, like how we treat other elections. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:36, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
I apologize if I wasn't clear before, but my concern is having the election winner, other major candidate(s), and their respective share of the vote for all 435 races all on one page. I'm not sure what you mean about "how we treat other elections"; the Senate elections articles list all races with the percentage of the vote won by major candidates, the presidential election page lists the percentage of the vote won by each major presidential candidate in each state. I think what you and other editors have done with 2016 United States House of Representatives elections is the worst of both worlds, since it's a long article (from the reader's perspective) that lacks pertinent information. Orser67 (talk) 22:48, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, may I ask why you took it upon yourself to enforce your viewpoint on the article before the discussion had even ended. Of course they should be moved eventually, but not before the primaries have been held. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:34, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
Certainly. The discussion did end, as no further discussion was taking place. The article is far too large so I moved these details to their appropriate place, in the state articles. This is how we deal with large elections, and what we have done with the 2016 elections which were similarly large. There is no precedent for waiting to split the article once a certain stage of the election has happened, or for any particular event. The article is very clearly the longest article on Wikipedia, and none of the elections have started. Onetwothreeip (talk) 23:55, 16 November 2019 (UTC)
WP:HASTE. The length of the article in and of itself is not a reason to break the utility for readers. Carter (talk) 01:45, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
The article is currently 506,233 bytes - Wikipedia's longest - and so has no utility for many of our readers. Andy Mabbett (Pigsonthewing); Talk to Andy; Andy's edits 20:54, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
"This is how we deal large with elections". Can you point to any other article that received a similar treatment? Other than the 2016 House elections, which as far as I can tell, you and two other editors agreed to break up a few months ago. Orser67 (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Tcr25, length of the article actually is a cause to break it up. The reasons are because of its accessibility to readers. Orser67 I can point to the results articles of British, Australian, Spanish and European Union elections to name a few. Onetwothreeip (talk) 10:14, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, Article length is a reason to consider breaking up an article, but not the sole reason to do it. I don't see how dividing it improves accessibility for readers when that would require readers to jump among 56 different articles. Carter (talk) 13:13, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
You're talking about dividing it up by subdivision. British has a results page that has the result by constituency, as well as a list of all MPs elected; these pages are not broken down by subdivision and don't seem to support your argument that the US House election results should be listed only by state. I also have to say that it's rather annoying to have an editor who has never previously contributed to this article come in and decide to blow it up because of some abstract concern about article size that isn't mandated by any policy. It would be one thing if you were interested in working with engaged editors to come up with a consensus-based solution, but you seem intent on ramming through your proposal without regard for what anyone else thinks. Orser67 (talk) 15:49, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
No we'll still have results on this article, we just won't have every district in such detail on this article. This isn't the results article, this is the main article for the House elections, which requires prose. There will still be results for every district on this article, it's only that these very large tables are being moved. Our other articles that list results all in one page are far more abbreviated while those in more detail are split geographically, so let's not pretend this article is normal among Wikipedia election articles. Wikipedia:Article size is well established. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:29, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Only listing candidates and the percentage of the vote won in each race on the state pages would do a disservice to readers, who should be able to view all of that information for all 435 races on one page. As I've stated three times now, the system you're proposing where only the district and the winner is listed in this article is the worst of both worlds because it makes the page long from the reader's point of view, yet lacks pertinent information. And nothing in Wikipedia:Article size requires this article to be split. Orser67 (talk) 20:18, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
Orser67 We can still have the results for all districts on this article, just not with all the detail that we currently have them. For further detail, readers can find this in the state results articles. This would still be more generous than our approach for all other elections that Wikipedia covers. For example, the first article you have used as an example only has the votes for each party in the general election per constituency and with no information on the candidates. The second example is not a summary of election results, it is simply a list of the elected members of the House of Commons. The results for that general election actually do have results articles that are split by region, and you will not find the results of every single constituency on the main election article. None of those articles cover the primary elections either, which are covered by American election articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:15, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
The important part for me is that they have 600+ constituencies and still list the percentage that each party won in each constituency on one page, rather than going with your proposal of breaking up the results by subdivision. Orser67 (talk) 21:25, 23 November 2019 (UTC)
@Orser67: I have nothing against a single list of all general election results for this election, if it's done in the ways that those election articles do them as well. Just because there are articles of other countries that briefly detail the results of the election in every constituency, obviously does not justify an article where we have detailed results for both the primary and general election for every constituency. What is critical here is that the election articles for those countries split the detailed election results by region, even if they have a brief summary list for all the results. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:01, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I could live with using the British elections as a compromise model. My preferred solution, though, would be to move the current list of candidates/elections to a separate list article, keeping the list exactly as it is currently. Then, this main page could be used to give an overall summary of the elections. Orser67 (talk) 21:31, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
I oppose that solution, a separate list page would be poorly maintained as most traffic is towards this article, just look at the state pages for proof of this. We should keep the page in one place, removing results, the most important information to a separate page keeping this as a glorified stub is a terrible idea. If the consensus is maintained that the results table be removed, I maintain that this move should be only temporary, once primaries are completed they should be moved back, having readers click 50 links to get the complete results is simply not a good idea Devonian Wombat talk 08:34, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
With that in mind, I'm wondering abut what was done over at 2016 United States House of Representatives elections, as there are no percentages there. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:6496:979A:C4A2:CDF6 (talk) 21:00, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
It would be good to get some consistency across articles. With that in mind, perhaps an RFC would make sense. Orser67 (talk) 17:48, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I'm in the support camp. I'm grateful that Onetwothreeip is embarking on this work. As it stands, there is no room for prose in this article to describe the story of this election as it evolves. Per WP:NOTSTATS, this article shouldn't just be a collection of 50+ tables with little supporting prose. Having the tables down in the state-level articles will make the information much easier for local editors (within each state) to participate in maintaining and updating the information. -- RobLa (talk) 08:31, 17 November 2019 (UTC)
I don’t understand why in the senate article can remain the table result. What is the exact reason that this article have to change, but the senate article don’t. The original reason is size of this article, right? As a foreigner who has used wikipedia to learn about US election, I do want to know the results. How did the parties gain or lose? How close each district compare to recent election. If the article remain the same, I can quickly compare the results with previous election. At the first place, I don’t want to know generic ballot polls as well as rating. If there are sections need to move, both should be moved first. The cook’s PVI and showing that incumbents retire or not help me a lot better to understand how about each district is. I also want to know all the results in the same page. I visit US House of Representatives election articles, because I want to know the results of all US House of Representatives election. Moreover, the 2016 election article is absolutely unattractive. The US election pages make me more interested to learn, unlike other countries ones. So, I oppose. Noncommittalp (talk) 00:16, 24 November 2019 (UTC)
Do you think the changes to the 2016 article should be undone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:3DE2:F231:E347:238A (talk) 22:37, 29 November 2019 (UTC)
Orser67 The issue is that any article that would contain all the current state tables would be too long, and they don't even contain any results yet. I think the best way to display all the results in one article is to simply have a table of the results by party, without the candidates or the primary elections, for every district. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:38, 30 November 2019 (UTC)
If the consensus is maintained that the results table be removed, I maintain that this move should be only temporary, once primaries are completed they should be moved back, having readers click 50 links to get the complete results is simply not a good idea Devonian Wombat talk 08:58, 1 December 2019
Devonian Wombat What results tables? The tables being moved don't have any results in them. When there are actually any results, we can certainly have them in this article. I don't see anybody disagreeing with moving the details over to state articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 09:06, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Hold on a second there, Onetwothreeip. Maybe I'm misunderstanding your comment, but it seems pretty clear to me that, aside from myself, at least three users on this page have objected to "moving the details over to state articles." And I personally only said that I could "live with" using the British elections as a compromise model. Orser67 (talk) 17:46, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
And to clarify, I think I made it pretty clear that my preferred solution is definitely not to move the details over to state articles, but rather to have a separate list that contains the results for all House races. You are certainly entitled to your opinion, but I feel like you just misrepresented mine, hopefully just through a misunderstanding. Orser67 (talk) 17:54, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
There is no indication of consensus over the need to move any of this article away from this page. Nor has a compelling case been made for the move beyond a flat WP:LENGTH guideline argument that ignores that article's notes that some times it maybe best to keep a page intact rather than split (WP:SPLITLIST) and that there is no need to rush to split a long article (WP:HASTE). Carter (talk) 19:12, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
I would like to point out that with this conversation, the discussion could be interpreted as anything from 4-3 to 3-5 against-for making the changes. I’m not actually sure whether this constitutes consensus to make them, and the different ways you could interpret statements means we should probably hold a A/B/C vote on the issue so we can wrap up this discussion. Devonian Wombat 20:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Yeah, I support holding an A/B/C vote as well. Orser67 (talk) 21:03, 1 December 2019 (UTC)
Orser67, what's the issue then? I support having an article that outlines results for all districts. Nothing I've done prevents that.
Tcr25, the length of the article was clearly a major issue. Not only was it too large as it was, this was before any primary election or general election results were added to it. I think we would all agree that there needs to be room for actual results to be in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 19:47, 1 December 2019 (UTC)

Ratings

Should the separate ratings page be deleted, since the table is on this page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:C3E:3096:A538:BD59 (talk) 22:08, 10 November 2019 (UTC)

Well, it could be used to hold old race ratings, or include a larger number of race ratings (from other sources). It also holds old generic polls, which is useful. The name should probably be changed to "2020 United States House of Representatives election ratings and generic ballot polls". Orser67 (talk) 20:22, 17 November 2019 (UTC)

Long article

The reason this article is long is singularly because there are references for every single candidate in every single race. So that's a citation template for each ref, and that pushes the servers past their extremes. However, once individual state deadlines pass, then each state's elections division can be a SINGLE reference for each state. —GoldRingChip 01:08, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

It's good that over time the size will decrease somewhat due to references being consolidated, but I have to object to adding 10,000+ bytes by needlessly expanding (D) to (Democratic) and (R) to (Republican) in every single instance. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:38, 4 January 2020 (UTC)

Proposal for a vote

We've now had a long-running debate on the future of this article, and it hasn't yet led to a consensus. In order to try to come to a consensus, I propose we hold a vote on what to do with the individual races and invite comments from all editors who have participated at this article and other House election articles. So far, I have seen three major proposals:

Is this a reasonable description of the options being advocated here, and are there other options that should be considered? Orser67 (talk) 17:59, 2 December 2019 (UTC)

I think this is fine, and I vote Option A, I feel everything should be on one page, and I also think a separate list page, while it would help cut back on the length (Which I will admit is a problem, though not a massive one) would end up poorly maintained, as the traffic going to it would be minimal. Devonian Wombat talk 20:35, 2 December 2019 (UTC)
Since B and C are not mutually exclusive, we can certainly have both. I have no issue with an article that lists the results of all the House races. That's a completely separate issue to whether these tables should remain on this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:07, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I don't see them as mutually exclusive; in fact, I'm genuinely apathetic as to whether these tables are included at state articles. However, to be 100% clear, my proposal is that the races stay in exactly the form that they are now, and are just moved to a separate list article that lists all 435 races (plus the delegate races). So under my proposal, the list article would list the PVI, the incumbent (with party and year of first election), the incumbent's status, all the notable candidates in the race, and the percentage won by each candidate (once the race has occurred) for all 435 races. So it would have significantly more information than 2016 United States House of Representatives elections currently does. Orser67 (talk) 18:12, 3 December 2019 (UTC)
I vote Option A, though I also believe in consistency among articles. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:9005:120C:473B:F4B6 (talk) 15:31, 4 December 2019 (UTC)
I also vote Option A and agree with User:Devonian Wombat's rationale. Carter (talk) 02:32, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
I vote Option C. I think that there is a reasonable concern about having the main article on House elections be such a huge size, whereas I think that anyone going to a list article should reasonably expect it to be fairly long. But my main concern is that all the races be listed in one place, so Option A would be my second choice. Orser67 (talk) 16:38, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
Would anyone object if I invited other editors who recently have edited the 2016, 2018, and 2020 House articles on their talk pages? I think it would be good to get as much input as possible, but I don't want to be accused of Wikipedia:Canvassing. Orser67 (talk) 16:41, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
@Orser67: How about we move these tables away from this article, replace them with whatever editors want to replace them with, and have an article similar to Results of the 2017 United Kingdom general election for all the results? I feel that people are thinking that removing tables from this article is intended to be the end of restructuring, when that's simply not the case at all. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:07, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
You can propose something else if you want, but that's not what I'm proposing. Orser67 (talk) 04:42, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
They should be pinged, an issue as large as this needs as much input as possible. Devonian Wombat talk 20:52, 6 December 2019 (UTC)
It shouldn't be phrased as a choice between these three options. Especially when one of the options has been attributed to me without my consent. Onetwothreeip (talk) 08:43, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I am fine with counting B and C votes together for the purposes of deciding whether the tables should stay on this page. If there is a consensus to overturn the status quo, I'm sure we can have the discussion about what specific format to use then. Devonian Wombat (talk) 11:54, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Then tell me how you want it phrased, Onetwothreeip. We've been discussing this for over a month now and I'd like to finally end this discussion sooner rather than later. Orser67 (talk) 17:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I vote Option A. All articles should remain consistent, to have one article deviate from the others does not make sense, also it causes a repetition of the information on the individual state election articles, serving no purpose. VietPride10 (talk) 18:52, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
We should remove these tables from this article, or drastically cut them down. Whatever should replace them is another matter. The article is simply far too long, reducing the utility of this article and the information in this article for readers. We could move the largest of these tables to articles of their own, rather than any already existing article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:48, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Onetwothreeip, I'm not sure how to ask this any more clearly: what do you want Option B to say? Orser67 (talk) 20:55, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
Actually forget it, I'm just going to start the RFC. Orser67 (talk) 21:00, 7 December 2019 (UTC)
I think the whole idea doesn't make sense. All I'm saying is the tables should be removed from this article or significantly reduced. I'm not against listing individual races on this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

RFC on inclusion of House elections

There is a clear consensus for Option A: status quo, essentially. Keep all races and information currently in place in the article.

Cunard (talk) 10:29, 26 January 2020 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

There has been an ongoing discussion about the inclusion of each House race and associated details at 2020 United States House of Representatives elections, as well as other articles. Some editors have raised concerns regarding the size of the article, but others have argued that cutting down the information in the article is not justified. Here are some of the options that have been discussed:

  • Option A: status quo, essentially. Keep all races and information currently in place in the article.
  • Option B: do not list each individual race on this page, instead only having the races listed on state pages (e.g. 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Massachusetts).
  • Option C: Do not list each individual race on this page, but instead have them listed (in essentially their current form) at a separate list article.
  • Option D: List all the races, but cut down on the details listed, shifting the more detailed information to other articles (2016 United States House of Representatives elections being one potential example)
  • Option E: Something else

-Orser67 (talk) 21:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Just a note: from a previous discussion on the page, four editors (User:Devonian Wombat, Carter, VietPride10, and IP editor 2601:241:301:4360:9005:120C:473B:F4B6 have expressed support for Option A. One editor (myself, Orser67) has expressed support for Option C. Feel free to restate your opinions, I just didn't want them to be overlooked in the course of this RFC. Orser67 (talk) 21:12, 7 December 2019 (UTC)

Support Option A: Once California races can be cited from one reference via the California SOS office, that will GREATLY reduce the size of the article. And more reductions will be made when other states' filing dates pass. This is what happened in 2018. —GoldRingChip 02:59, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I have to go with Option A. It's the most informative option there is.Wollers14 (talk) 03:38, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Option A does indeed seem best. Dbwarrak (talk) 03:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Option A makes sense to me. As others have mentioned, the page will get quite a bit smaller as we reach various key dates. In the meantime, I think it's useful to have all of that info on one page. --ACbreezy (talk) 03:53, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I favor Option A, since lately I'm mainly using the page to scrape a list of candidates. Option C would be a close second though. And I would adapt to other options. KCinDC (talk) 13:50, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

As stated earlier, I'm in favor of Option A. It's the most informative option, and the tables are quick to scan and see what's happening in each district, which is a benefit for an article covering races for the full House. Carter (talk) 15:46, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

I vote Option A.Noncommittalp (talk) 16:08, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

Option A - With lists like this, it's more important that the list be "navigable" (i.e. users can find the information they're looking for in the list) than that the entire list be readable. Per WP:SPLITLIST, there doesn't seem to be a good, natural way to split this list. NickCT (talk) 19:43, 8 December 2019 (UTC)

The list is already split by state in this article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 22:24, 13 December 2019 (UTC)

I just want to note that while Option C is my own proposal, Option A would be my second choice. Orser67 (talk) 20:51, 9 December 2019 (UTC)

Option A easy access to all info. Bacondrum (talk) 21:50, 10 December 2019 (UTC)

Can we use template to reduce size of this page. Noncommittalp (talk) 04:49, 17 December 2019 (UTC)

Noncommittalp Which templates do you think we should use? Onetwothreeip (talk) 02:51, 23 December 2019 (UTC)
@Onetwothreeip: Firstly, move the result tables to states’ election articles. Secondly, put cover the tables. Finally, use Article name in this page. I made an example for Alabama. Noncommittalp (talk) 05:15, 25 December 2019 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A single source for retiring incumbents

Hello. I see that the politically moderate Atlantic magazine is keeping a list of retiring House & Senate incumbents. I've checked the list to find that it includes all the Democratic and Republican House retiring incumbents mentioned in the article, and claims several other Representatives as retiring. Can it be used as a temporary overview source for the Retiring Incumbents section (in addition to the sources already present there), like it was in the last elections' article? --Синкретик (talk) 15:41, 7 January 2020 (UTC)

I have used it to replace the references that were previously used to cite these retirements. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:36, 10 January 2020 (UTC)
We are also coming to the issue where we have far too many references on this article, and the scripts at times are not able to handle them, instead displaying errors for many of them. While Joshzeng has certainly done good work in contributing to this article, they should be considerably more careful regarding how many references they add to this article. We definitely need to be using references to source multiple candidates each, rather than one each. I intend to remove references using Facebook and Reddit shortly. Onetwothreeip (talk) 01:04, 11 January 2020 (UTC)

New page for retiring incumbents

We use separate pages for listing retiring incumbents for the British elections. I dont like having them in a list, so we could just create a new page. The article needs to be broken up anyway. — Preceding unsigned comment added by KingWither (talk • contribs) 15:39, 7 February 2020 (UTC)

That seems like a reasonable idea. The list could be replaced with something like "As of [date], XX Democrats and XX Republican members of Congress have announced their intention to resign at the end of their term rather than seek re-election." and then link to the new article. Carter (talk) 23:55, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
I don't have any objection to that idea. Orser67 (talk) 06:21, 11 February 2020 (UTC)
No, the number of retiring incumbents is small enough it fits fine in this article, as it does in all other US election articles, and it is not long enough to warrant its own article. The UK election retirees list has twice as many as we do, and they have excessive detail like date announced, year first elected, and individual citations for each one, all in a table duplicating the names of the parties. Reywas92Talk 05:37, 18 March 2020 (UTC)
Agreed, the 2018 article has considerably more retirements and they don't have a separate page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:A5E8:24C:85EA:CEC0 (talk) 02:25, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Shouldn't former congresspeople like Katie Hill or Duncan Hunter be listed as "VACANT" in their races? They are not the incumbents for the 2020 races and will either be filled by someone else or still be VACANT at the time of election. Seems misleading to have them still listed 72.23.129.116 (talk) 16:37, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Took care of those. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:443D:583F:A55F:B8BA (talk) 18:27, 5 April 2020 (UTC)

Should Justin Amash have a spot in the infobox?

Independent is not a "party", Amash is not a "leader" of any caucus, it just seems weird to include him. Nevermore27 (talk) 06:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

I was thinking the same thing. It makes sense to have a line in there showing that one seat is held by an independent, but the rest of it doesn't really apply. It makes more sense to do like 2020 United States Senate elections does and use just the Party, Current seats, and Seats up fields. Carter (talk) 12:01, 2 April 2020 (UTC)
Agreed. Nevermore27 (talk) 21:58, 2 April 2020 (UTC)

Resignations, deaths, and special elections

Let's try to keep this already long article as succinct as we possibly can. Here are my thoughts:

  • If a special election occurs (or will occur) in 2020 and is already mentioned in the Special elections section, don't repeat it in the Resignations section
  • This article is for 2020 House elections only. If a special election occurred in 2019, it doesn't belong here. That said, I have added a hatnote that goes to the 116th Congress article that lists all 2019-20 special elections.

If anyone strongly disagrees with this, let's please hash out our differences here rather than edit warring. --Woko Sapien (talk) 14:04, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

The link to the 116th congress doesn't seem necessary to the article at hand, but the rest looks fine.

I agree that the page is long, but having a complete list of the 9 congressman elected in 2018 who resigned or died is not too much. It shows a transition from the 2018 House elections. I have added all of the accurate information including what happened to each member and whether or not they were replaced. The information added is both relevant and accurate.

The other articles don't have such a feature and there is no reason to break with the standard.
First, please try to remember to sign your posts (it makes it easier know who's talking to whom). Second, a good point was made that there's no precedent for this in previous articles on House elections. The point of the House election articles is generally to list all House election occurring in year X (in this case 2020). Articles about the specific congressional term (in this case the 116th United States Congress) are better suited for showing the transitions in membership via death or resignation. --Woko Sapien (talk) 20:39, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

You asked to discuss this idea so that’s what I’ve tried to do. I believe that the article should be a different way, and I hope you’re willing to discuss instead of making your own decision and continually deleting what I have added. This article is about the 2020 election and having the special elections from between the 2018 and 2020 elections I believe would be beneficial. It would show the difference between who was elected and would explain who the incumbents for 2020 are. I understand this is not “precedent” but it adds 7 extra people as well as their entire information and how they left their positions after their previous election. I don’t see any good reason why they should be left out. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 23:29, 14 April 2020 (UTC)

A few things...
  1. I am discussing this with you; no final decisions have been made. Even if I had personally made up my mind, I don't rule Wikipedia let alone this article. Wikipedia is governed by the consensus of its editors, which is precisely what I'm trying to facilitate: giving you a chance to make your case and build a consensus.
  2. Any edits of yours that I've reverted were to avoid an edit war. Starting a discussion on the Talk page was meant as a good faith effort to resolve the dispute.
  3. The information you added is most certainly accurate. But a page for the 2019 special elections already exists and the 2020 special elections are already included in this article.
  4. My point about precedent was not to discourage you, it was to explain why you're facing resistance on your proposed changes. But things can change if editors make a cogent and thoughtful case for why things should change. You said the changes would be beneficial, so by all means, please expound on that.
Cheers! --Woko Sapien (talk) 13:42, 15 April 2020 (UTC)

The point that I have been trying to make is that all of the special elections in 2019 and 2020 should be on this page. While there is a page for the 2019 House elections, this is not a specific Congress. The current page is the one that shows House elections into the 117th Congress. This is similar to how the 2018 House elections are elections into the 116th Congress. This would be a helpful improvement so that in the future, there is clear progression between the elections into each Congress. I understand this is not precedent, but I’m trying to make an improvement to the page and the format instead of simply following the “precedent”. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 04:58, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

These articles have long been about documenting the House elections within the specified year, not cataloging all the elections taking place between one Congress and the next. What you're proposing would be a herculean (and some might say unnecessary) overhaul because it would then have to be applied to all previous House election articles. But if you can build a strong consensus among other editors, I'll be the first to admit I was wrong. --Woko Sapien (talk) 20:45, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand how the previous pages have worked as I have read all of them as well. There are a total of 9 congress seats which were opened/required a special election before the 2020 normal house race. If there were a section which stated elections to the 117th Congress, I would agree that these elections would best be suited there. However, there is no such page. Having the elections on this page shows the transition between the last “regular” elections (midterms) to these elections (presidential year). I don’t believe that the changes are unnecessary as they would show clear transition between Congresses and with the accurate and complete information which I am proposing to add, will explain why the members of the previous congress were not running again. It would set up a new precedent which would be more helpful (and not that long) instead of just only following the old precedent. I hope this helps Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 22:56, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

Stop adding the 2019 elections and the special elections that will be held before November's general election they are redundant to add and makes the page longer. The special elections for 2020 are already listed as is their reasons for the incumbents leaving before the end of their terms. Wollers14 (talk) 04:41, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

I understand that it makes the page longer but I believe there should at least be the members who were elected in the 2019 special elections. It shows progression and there are only three of them. As the 2020 special elections are over, the results can be moved to this section as well Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 17:47, 23 April 2020 (UTC)

They are shown on other pages like the current Congress page so there isn't really a need to show it on this one. The page will change after the 28th with Ohio's primary and the next Special election being held. Also the previous election pages do not show the previous year's elections. Wollers14 (talk) 07:10, 26 April 2020 (UTC)

Members of the house

The non voting members of the house are still considered members and therefore should be in the info box, right? Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 06:01, 19 April 2020 (UTC)

No, the infobox is for showing membership as it pertains to the majority and minority. Since non-voting delegates don't factor into the majority or minority, they're not included. Some friendly advice, don't try to change that. It will be reversed almost immediately. --Woko Sapien (talk) 21:01, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

Thank you! Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 23:03, 22 April 2020 (UTC)

The map needs updating

The map still shows Amash as an independent incumbent. This should be changed to represent he is now a libertarian. — Preceding unsigned comment added by FalteringArc2 (talk • contribs) 16:28, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

Has Amash officially affiliated his congressional seat with the Libertarian Party. I see one article (in Reason) that is using Amash (L-Mich.), but nothing else. If there's a reliable source that indicates a party change (not just seeking the Libertarian nomination the same way independent Bernie Sanders sought the Democratic nomination), then it should all be updated. Otherwise, it should stay independent. Carter (talk) 16:48, 29 April 2020 (UTC)

What if winner is not in doubt?

In a race, such as those in California, there might be only candidates from the same party. Should editors assume that party is the winner before the election is held? Should such an assumption be made if a candidate is running unopposed?

Yes: There's no doubt, for example that there will be Democratic hold in California's 53rd district because only Democrats got through the best-of-two primary. Also, we shouldn't pretend like the obvious isn't going to happen… that would make editors seems either stupid at worst or pedantic at best.

No: Being pedantic is what encyclopedias are about, this isn't a newspaper. There's no real harm in waiting until the actual results are in.

What do you think? —GoldRingChip 20:38, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

Is there a law or a regulation define if candidates who won primary die or suspend campaign before general election can replace by another candidate? However, I think No. Noncommittalp (talk) 22:50, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Maybe, probably, there is? But I think that stretches over to WP:OR. —GoldRingChip (he/she/it/they) 14:01, 8 May 2020 (UTC)
Yes. It is not a stretch of the imagination that a candidate running unopposed or a party with both candidates in the top-two general will win. It can be counted as a hold for the party. Reywas92Talk 18:59, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Changes since previous election

Is there any reason to have this, since none of the other election pages have them? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:901:D32:3A5C:3C32 (talk) 05:49, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

Hi! Personally, I believe that there is need for this. I have been trying to find a way to make elections such as “2020 House elections” transition better from the last election (2018). I feel this way adds it in neatly. This would set a new precedent, but I think it would be helpful to viewers to see it like this. For me at least it is better visually. Please leave it up until there is consensus to remove it, I really appreciate it. I’m interested to hear your opinion as well. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 06:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

  • The section is largely redundant and/or not related to the House elections as they occur in the year 2020. Wjrz feels very strongly they are necessary, as is his right, but his claim that his section is popular with other editors is patently false, as he has garnered no support from other editors. I believe the section was added in good faith, but I'd personally be in favor of removing it because it seems to add more clutter than useful new information. I'll ask GoldRingChip for his thoughts on this since I know he's done a lot on Wikipedia's House of Representatives articles --Woko Sapien (talk) 13:18, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I feel like it shows a transition since the previous election which relates to the 2020 elections. For example, Van Drew from NJ ran as a Democrat in 2018 but now as a Republican in 2020. The deaths and resignations show why previous incumbents are not running again or are under the “retiring” section. Would anyone think there’s a way to make the section more relevant? Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 15:47, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

The problem is you're (A) repeating 2020 special elections which are already contained in the "Special elections" section, (B) rehashing the 2019 special elections that don't really belong here and are already linked in the "First elected" column of the individual candidates, and (C) listing the party switchers, but I've already added footnotes for Amash and Van Drew explaining their situations. I'm sure your intentions are noble, but you're simply adding information that's already stated elsewhere in this article in some way, shape, or form. The truth is we've been through this multiple times already on this talk page, and so far no other editors have endorsed your changes. --Woko Sapien (talk) 17:23, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
Should it be deleted? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:DDF4:963B:F5CC:FE7A (talk) 21:38, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
I would say yes, eventually. But deleting it right now seems like it'll just continue the edit war. --Woko Sapien (talk) 02:33, 7 May 2020 (UTC)

I think this section is better than the special election section. It adds more information about the candidates and can be more easily updated as the time goes on. I can add the links to each individual special election if we decide to delete the section on this page. The 2019 special elections are a transition from between 2018 and 2020, two election years. This shows a clearer transition between the two elections. I like that Van Drew and Amash are in this new section because it’s a more prominent occurrence. It also shows the differences in the info box on the top. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 22:02, 6 May 2020 (UTC)

I think the Wjrz’s transition should be in 116th United States Congress. What happen in the 116th Congress should be there. Obviously, it has been there. Noncommittalp (talk) 23:10, 6 May 2020 (UTC)
If nothing else, the article should be consistent with the format of other election pages. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:85F1:8E13:84E7:E5D9 (talk) 02:11, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
If you look through the talk page, you'll see that I've tried to make these points abundantly clear to Wjrz on numerous occasions. His philosophy seems to be precedent and consensus don't matter, he'll do whatever he wants. I don't think he's being malicious, just stubborn. But if no other editor comes here and argues his section should remain, I think it should be deleted by the end of the week. --Woko Sapien (talk) 13:09, 7 May 2020 (UTC)
By my tally, of the editors who participated in this thread, there are four in favor of deleting to one in favor of keeping. Since no other editors endorsed Wjrz's section, I think it's safe to say the consensus is to delete. I will do that at some point today. --Woko Sapien (talk) 13:43, 8 May 2020 (UTC)

Sorry everyone for being absent the past few weeks. I have been doing other edits. Yes, it’s clear consensus shows that this does not belong. I will not revert it for this reason. I was attempting to make a bold edit but it’s clear consensus was against this. I am trying to find a way to incorporate this information which I believe is useful, but of course everyone’s opinion matters. I am not sure why User:Woko Sapien previously made assumptions on what type of editor I am, especially since I have listened to them before and I took their advice (using their as a non-gender specific pronoun) but I do respect Wikipedia policy and I want to make it better and try bold edits, even if they are reverted. Wjrz nj forecast (talk) 05:25, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Libertarian Party "Seats Needed" and Infobox

Hi all - so my edits keep getting undone - so perhaps we need another discussion here - as per the above I don't think it's needed so was going to remove - please can you illustrate whether you support or oppose this course of action Guyb123321 (talk) 09:29, 14 May 2020 (UTC)

There is a case at the DRN regarding this page.

This message is to inform interested editors of a discussion at the Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding Libertarian Party information. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult for editors. Any editors are welcome to add themselves as a party, and you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution. The thread is "2020 United States House of Representatives elections". Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you! Galendalia CVU Member \ Chat Me Up 18:36, 15 May 2020 (UTC) (DRN Volunteer)

link to archive of discussion Carter (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

John Mason is Running in Minnesota's District 5 But Isn't Listed

Democrat John Mason is a primary challenger in Minnesota's District 5 according to his website at https://johnmasonmn.com/ but he is not listed among the candidates. I don't know if he filed to run, but a candidate's own site should be a valid source about something basic and factual like the office he or she is running for. I am not saying to get anything else from his site. EvanJ35 (talk) 23:59, 25 May 2020 (UTC)

Where are the independent candidates?

Title says it. I find it hard to believe there aren't any independents in the House or running for any House seats

Libertarian party in infobox

Hi - I removed this but my edit was reverted so perhaps best to have a discussion on here.

I don't think it's logical to show that the Libertarian Party "needs" 217 seats for a majority because:

- The Libertarian Party is not standing candidates in enough congressional districts to win a majority based on results of top-two elections in California and filing deadlines met in other states - The one Libertarian member of congress is standing down, and no one is expecting the Libertarian party to win any congressional districts in 2020, let alone a majority

Guyb123321 (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)

Also concur. I don't think it should be in the infobox at all since he's not running for election. This is a single person, not a caucus. He was not listed there as a independent, and his joining a third party does not change the status of the overall election. Reywas92Talk 19:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)
I have removed the reference to seats needed for a Libertarian majority as per the above - I also agree that the Libertarian Party shouldn't be in the infobox entirely but have left this for now - if someone else wants to make this change I'd be supportive thoughGuyb123321 (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
The removal has been reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:B941:2C15:75A7:29EA (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
Updated this - please correct me if I'm wrong but no one seems to be defending inclusion so I think I'm within my right to remove the reference? Guyb123321 (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
It's been undone again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:4DBA:33D5:A8A3:614A (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)
  • Removing Amash from the infobox again. I can't find any WP:RS where he is identified as the Libertarian Party leader in the House (de facto or otherwise) and he makes no such claim on his website, Twitter, or Facebook page. Carter (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)

Is mr. Amash really a libertarian?

Here, the most recent roll call vote http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2020/roll115.xml, show mr. Amash is an independent. It’s been long time after he said he might run for president as a libertarian. Why didn’t he change party affiliation. Noncommittalp (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)

Press releases on his official web page (e.g., [1], [2]) show him using "Rep. Justin Amash (L-Mich.)", so I think it's clear he's identifying as a Libertarian congressman. Carter (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)
Thank you. Noncommittalp (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Early voting photo

Should that early voting photo be there? It doesn’t seem to fit in the area where it is now. Also it doesn’t seem too relevant and I believe it should be in a different section. I’m not saying we should get rid of it, just move it. What do you think? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi, Lima Bean Farmer. I undid your removal, because I don't think your "I don't like it there" should somehow as a silent matter of course prevail over my choice to place the picture there. If more people want to remove it too, then I won't complain, but your single opinion is not more weighty than mine, and I hope you are able to see that. There's a giant white space under the infobox, so why not fill that with a relevant, topical picture that speaks on the role of the voters, who are not even further represented in the article? Concerning you question on my Talk page, "Please use the talk page on the 2020 house elections to debate the photo instead of adding it back": you might have used this talk page before you removed the picture, so I ask you friendly to stop lecturing me like that. Greeting, Eissink (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC).
The image seems misplaced in my opinion. It doesn't really give any insight into the events surrounding the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:85D1:2F79:2B87:9E94 (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)
Well, User Talk:Eissink, I do not believe that my opinion is more weighty than yours. However, I did not delete this because “I don’t like it there.” I’m actually not sure where I got that quote from. The reason I deleted it was because it didn’t seem relevant. You said it yourself from above in this talk page: “so why not fill that with a relevant, topical picture that speaks on the role of the voters, who are not even further represented in the article?” I think this answers it’s own question. The voters are not represented in this article. This article is not about voters. If you think it should be, that’s a whole different topic altogether. It is more appropriate to debate on a talk page rather than add back information, if someone else deletes it. You should follow this too in order to avoid an edit war. An important part of Wikipedia is learning. I have not been on Wikipedia that long, but for the time I have been on I feel that I get further by learning, not just arguing. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

"Libertarians" Should Be "Libertarian"

There is only one Libertarian in the House, so the section title should be singular. Each state has a governor, but there being 50 governors doesn't make Andrew Cuomo the "governors of New York." The other Libertarian candidates and voters around the country shouldn't make the current one plural when it only refers to Amash. EvanJ35 (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)

Infobox

We should be pointing out, how many seats are undecided. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

California’s 21st congressional district result

Why is CA21 marked as having been one? I thought the associated press hasn’t called this yet. SRD625 (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

@SRD625: You're absolutely right: the AP has not called California's 21st. However, there has been a barrage of edits by mostly IP users to try to put David Valadao as the district's victor. Wollers14 has made edits to rectify that here.
Sdrqaz (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

Well, now it’s official SRD625 (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Georgia House 5 (two elections)

We need repairs done to the infoboxes of the 2020 House of Reps election infobox for Georgia's special election & regular election. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)

@GoodDay: What fix needs to be made? They seem okay to me.
Sdrqaz (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Oops. Meant this for the 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia article. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Anyways, I did correct the additional error on this article. Because the special election (runoff) is occurring 'after' the regular election. Thus John Lewis will not be the predecessor to the person sworn in on January 3, 2021, but rather the 'special election' winner, will be the predecessor. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree with that. The incumbent listed should be the holder of the seat at the time of the election on November 3. As Lewis's successor won't be elected until December, I don't think they should be listed as the incumbent at the time of the regular election. Instead, Lewis should be kept.
Sdrqaz (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
Then we'd have to list the seat as vacant. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)
GoodDay, that sounds fine. I've edited it in line with the 2018 House elections page. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)

RfC regarding Iowa's 2nd district

An RfC is occurring here regarding whether Miller-Meeks should be listed as the winner of Iowa's 2nd district. Please contribute views there accordingly.

Sdrqaz (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-Protection required

These last few days, I've TRIED to keep this article consistent with 117th United States Congress article, concerning what seats have been won. But, for the most part, nobody wants to help me here, concerning the onslaught of IPS & an obviously persistent Mobile editor. Not bothering with it anymore. This article should be semi-protected until Jan 3, 2021. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Map

I'm sorry, but I find it ridiculous to have a map which is incoherent with the text. If the map must have a AP confirmation, the text needs one too. If other sources are enough for the text, they must be enough for the map too - and the map is even sourced from the NYT, but than doesn't agree with such source!--Ngfsmg (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)

@Ngfsmg: Would you be able to correct it, then? Sdrqaz (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't know how to edit svg. I made a png which was correct, but wiki doesn't accept it because the format is different --Ngfsmg (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I understand the arguments you guys are making about the map but updating the map without AP calls would be difficult because the results could at any point change and updating the map before a call is made could result in wiki stating false results and the map is already difficult as is to update but once a call comes in we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the election result is final and thus we can update the map to reflect that. Now that being said we did just get AP calls for CA-25, NY-11 and NY-24. I have already asked the map author to update the map based off those calls and now we must simply wait for the map author to do so. I understand that NY-1 and 2 have not been called yet and may remain uncalled for a few days or so. Now with all that being said the results of IA-02 and NY-22 will remain undetermined for an unknown amount of time due to court challenges over how close the races are so they will stay in the undecided column until they are resolved. Thank you and have a good day. Wollers14 (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
Then you must apply the same logic on the text... And either way, as I said it, the source of the map is NYT, not the AP, so it must me followed --Ngfsmg (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
The NYT's source is the AP also the text is much easier to change than the map is should a result change which is why the concession requirement was added. Wollers14 (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Wollers14: If that's your position and have the AP source to prove it, than change the text too, we must be coherent--Ngfsmg (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)

NY-1 and NY-2 have both been called. The map will now be updated. I have already contacted people to update them. This dispute is now moot. Wollers14 (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2020

Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the house on January 4, 2007, not January 3, 2003, as is stated beneath her photo. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

I assume it refers to when she became Democratic Leader, not when she became speaker. Jdavi333 (talk)
That is correct, it is my mistake.Jellysandwich0 (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2020

Update needed for a few things

1. map needs fixing Red needed for the grey Iowa district as it was called for the Republican


2.With two races still undecided weeks after the election, the incoming House majority is projected to be the smallest for any party since 2000 should be changed to With one race still undecided weeks after the election, the incoming House majority is projected to be the smallest for any party since 2000 as again the same Iowa race was decided 71.169.164.31 (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source that the district (Iowa 2) has been called. Most sources I've look at haven't called it for the GOP. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Third Party & Independent Candidates

User:Californianinexile: Can you clarify why you're deleting third-party and independent candidates from the lists? In the race for D.C. delegate, the reference (DC Board of Elections filings) clearly shows that the DC Statehood Green and Libertarian candidates are on the ballot. I don't see a reason to remove them. It looks like other edits are weeding out similar third-party or independent candidates. Am I missing a notability standard for inclusion or something? Carter (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)

In regards to editing out Independents, I had removed two independents off of the Hawaii box because they were not on the ballot. BigCheese76 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)

Close races between 5% and 10%

Should close races between five and ten percent be added? Thomascampbell123 (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)

I just have data from the reliable cook political report showing popular vote totals for both parties. See here: https://cookpolitical.com/2020-house-vote-tracker. Democrats have won 77,545,341 votes (50.8%), while Republicans won 72,877,981 votes (47.7%). Should we include it? Ppt2003 (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree, we should. This is what we've done in previous elections and there's only one race still outstanding (and that one only by a few dozen votes so the percentages won't change to a level that would be reflected at that degree). Chetsford (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)

Death of Rep.-elect Luke Letlow

Luke Letlow, the Republican who won the race for Louisiana's 5th district, died of COVID before actually taking office. How do we want to represent this on the page? (He won, but now his seat will be vacant until a special election is held, so that would change some of the 'how many seats will be held by each party in the new Congress' sections). https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/29/luke-letlow-covid-congress-452218 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronCanton (talk • contribs) 03:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't think it changes the figures on how many seats were won, because Letlow won his election.74.67.45.185 (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)
Maybe there should be a footnote explaining that there will be a special election to fill the vacancy (see https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/29/politics/luke-letlow-died-covid/index.html).74.67.45.185 (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Correction needed in lead

The last sentence of the lead reads as follows: "Following their expected resignations after Biden's inauguration on January 20, 2021, the Democratic caucus would consist of 219 members."

The first problem with this sentence is that it is speculative and premature, and therefore shouldn't be in the article. The second problem is that it's incorrect. Until the NY-22 race gets resolved, we won't know how many people the Democratic caucus will consist of. 74.67.45.185 (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)

Iowa 2nd district

So, some guy asks in this talk page for Iowa 2nd district to be collored red on the map, and it is refused, because a lot of sources say we can't call it right now. I act based on that information, correct the text to put that district as undetermined, and someone reverts it and says I am the one who must read the talk page?! How can we have two contradictory informations on the same page? If a lot a of sources say it is undetermined, BOTH the text and the map must show it, we must be consistent --Ngfsmg (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

I agree with the need for consistency. There is an RfC here on that matter. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

Due to Pelosi seating her once the Congress begins I have contacted the map makers and asked them to change IA-02 to a GOP gain. Wollers14 (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)

What does it take to list a race as won by a candidate?

Note: a parallel debate is occurring at Talk:117th United States Congress#Consistency in House races. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

So I wanted to write this just to inform people who are putting on edits prematurely before any official call comes in about who has won a race. So there is a criteria that must be checked off before we can list candidates which are really just two things.

1. Official calls: Calls by the AP which is the premier source for calling races.

2. Concession of an opponent which the opponent concedes defeat and leaves the race allowing the winner to take office.

If there is no call or concession then the race remains too close or to early to call. So just wait until either one of the two occurs.

The map in the meantime should not be updated until a call from the AP comes in in order to allow a change to come in should a result change or an opponent retract their concession. Wollers14 (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

AP News (https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-iowa-mariannette-miller-meeks-elections-e3f235f217707a78fcec059f8e0b4ffa) already has Iowa 2 as being won by Miller-Meeks - the board's certified her, but it seems that win isn't being accepted here. Why? Yes there are ongoing legal challenges by her Democrat rival, but Biden is being called president-elect despite ongoing legal challenges by Trump and others. Which standard applies? Please don't say both. 人族 (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
@人族: The first standard applies. The source that you cited, although from the AP, does not constitute an actual race call by the AP: it is a news story, reporting that the Iowa Board of Canvass has certified Miller-Meeks' victory in the election. In the case of the presidential election, the AP has called the election in Pennsylvania here and the overall result here. I understand that this is frustrating and it is completely understandable why you thought that the AP had called Iowa's 2nd, but the AP has not.
Sdrqaz (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
GoodDay, please see the above distinction between the AP actually calling the election opposed to the AP reporting that the results were certified. The AP has not called the election in Iowa's 2nd to my knowledge. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Sdrqaz, I'm trying to bring this article & 117th United States Congress article, in line with each other. Over at the other article, they have the Iowa race decided. Would be grateful, if you or anyone else would help in maintaining a consistency between these articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
GoodDay, I agree with the need for consistency, but I think the wrong consistency is being imposed here. Iowa's 2nd should be left unresolved and two elections being uncalled. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Reverted to avoid a headache. PS: An editor at the other article says the AP has called the Iowa-2 race. Yas can't both be correct. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
GoodDay, Jdavi333 says that the AP reported that the results were certified (and not that the AP has called the election). So in a way, we're both right. We just have differing opinions on how that should be interpreted. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Now that Miller-Meeks has been seated and is an official Rep., the consensus should be that she won her race, even if the AP has still not called the race, right? Can that be edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktvptf (talk • contribs) 01:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)
All I ask (indeed beg) is that who ever updates this article, please update it entirely. Not just partially. GoodDay (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)
I don't know how the results being certified cannot be considered an official result. The AP calling the race/a candidate conceding is much less than a race certification by state officials. Obviously the losing candidate has the right to contest the results (as the President is in several states), but that does not make the certification of the results any less valid. So for now, Iowa-2 is decided. It should be listed as such here as well as in the 117th Congress article. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
@Wollers14: appears to disagree with you. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
That's fine and dandy, but does not change the facts. If the house or a court overturns the results, then fine we'll change it. There is also a "chance" that state legislatures in PA, MI, and GA will not give Biden the electoral votes, yet Biden still won, at least for now. Jdavi333 (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia does not call races. It is NOT our decision when a race is to be called. It is the AP's decision and Iowa 2 is uncalled. If they felt that certification wasn't enough then we must follow. We need to put it back to uncalled, and we can put a note saying the results were certified but the race is uncalled because of legal challenges. 108.14.43.250 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)
2 points. Firstly, see the discussion about this topic here. Secondly, I am not sure you understand what it means to "call" a race. AP, NBC, CNN, etc.. have teams of non-partisan statisticians and political scientists who look at results as the come in on election night and beyond and "call" a race before the results are official. That is how they call a state for Trump/Biden at 7PM election night. It's not simply because they "know" NY will go Dem. This is also why AZ was called by Fox early on election night while other outlets did not call it. They had different methodologies. However, that is irrelevant and separate from the actual election results, which are counted and certified by state officials. Once that happens, we don't need the AP or the NY Times to "call" the election for us. The election is over. Subsequent challenges and litigation may occur, but at least for now the results are in. Say what you want about Rudy Giuliani, he was right about one thing. The media does not decide elections. Voters decide elections, when counted and certified by the election officials. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)

I don't know why IA-02 not being called is an issue but at this point I'm too sick and tired of arguing with other editors about it to make any more reverts. But I will put this foreword: If the US House seats Rita Hart then from now on we wait until an AP call or a concession. If Miller-Meeks takes the seat then I can add certification of races that are over a 100 vote margin as a means to state a winner. I'm tired of having to make the same argument over and over and over again. But I am willing to make that compromise. However listing a winner in IA-02 before all legal options are exhausted is a risk of wiki stating potentially false information. I'm sorry if I sound frustrated right now but we need to have discussions before we make edits. I don't know why I have to say this but I'll say it now: Talk before you edit. That is all. Wollers14 (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

There's an RFC on this matter, taking place at 117th United States Congress. Since we're trying to keep that article & this article consistent? Perhaps you should participate at RFC-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Wollers14 I agree there is an infinitesimal chance the House won't seat M-M. But I have a simple question. What happens if the house refuses to seat someone who won by a large margin and AP called the race, but Pelosi decided not to seat the winner? Then what? At this point, the votes are counted and the results certified. That means M-M won the race. Whatever may happen after now may happen, and if the House seats Hart and M-M won by even one vote, I think Wikipedia will have a larger issue of the candidate getting the most votes not being the winner. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)
Jdavi333, it does not matter if Pelosi decided not to seat the winner, because the Speaker does not have the unilateral power to decide not to seat a candidate; the House has that power. The idea that the House will choose to seat a candidate without basing that on some sort of recount data is laughable. If we look back at 1984, the last time this occurred (to my knowledge), the one who was seated was the winner of the election by four votes. It did not matter who was declared the winner by the state. The same applies here in 2020's Iowa. If Hart is seated instead of Miller-Meeks, the House will have voted to accept the results of another recount. Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 clearly states that Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, so it's irrelevant what the certified results were once the House has made its decision. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Iowa’s 2nd

So, the article shows a check Mark by Miller-Meeks but the map shows that there is still no winner. Someone please fix the map to reflect Miller-Meeks’ victory. It was certified and she is serving in the House right now. If we were to not color it in on the map as a Republican gain, we would be hypocritical because this result is certified, just like Biden’s victories in Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.243.76 (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2021

In the "Open seats that changed parties" section, under the "Democratic seats won by Republicans", please remove the "(Election is still contested)" note, as the election has been certified. 73.110.217.186 (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Not done. Per the Des Moines Register here, Miller-Meeks has been seated provisionally pending a challenge in the House. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2021 (2)

In the South Carolina section, under the first elected column for Joe Wilson (American politician), please change the 2001 value to 2001 (Special). 73.110.217.186 (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

 Done Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 17:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)

"Libertarian seats" should be "Libertarian seat"

In the Table of Contents, "Libertarian seats" should be singular. EvanJ35 (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)

seat_change parameters in infobox

A couple of days ago, I made an edit to the infobox to change the seat_change parameters in the infobox to the difference in the number of seats won at this election and the number of seats won at the last election (2018). Previously, it was the difference between the number of seats won at this election and the number of seats each party had just before the election (after defections, deaths, resignations etc. since the 2018 election). This edit was reverted by Fluffy89502 with the summary “before” refers to the seats before the election in question. This method ignores real party standings before this election. I don't agree with this because in the documentation for the infobox it says under seat_change1 The change in the number of seats won at the election compared to the previous election. The number can be changed up to nine to display different Parties at the same time. I agree with the documentation because I think the infobox should be designed to compare how the American people voted in 2018 and 2020. Being honest, I'm not entirely sure what This method ignores real party standings before this election means, but if it "real party standings" just means how powerful each party in the House was on November 3, 2020, I don't agree with the sentence, because again I believe for comparing elections, where it's the people who decide who represents them in the House, it should compare with their last decision i.e. the last election. --TedEdwards 22:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)

Reluctant endorsement of changes, if only due to the template documentation. I understand your argument, but the two years between regular House elections allow for special elections to occur on the death or resignation of members. The most up-to-date information regarding party composition should be used. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
@TedEdwards, RaySwifty18, and Aréat: Could the three of you please hash out some sort of consensus instead of revert-warring? Failing that, please go through dispute resolution or some analogous process. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

This has never been an issue. It's been standard practice that a party or independent section be included in the info box as long as they have 1 seat, regardless of the result of the previous election since, at the time of the 2020 elections, the standings were that the 3 parties had seats. This is similar to the 2002 senate election page and I also ask that you not change that and any other page since you will only cause more problems. This is how it's been.-RaySwifty18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaySwifty18 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)

That is not true, and in any case, we don't follow "standard practice" blindly as you're suggesting we should do, as "standard practice" can either be a) wrong and needs to be changed on that article (as I believe the Senate article you've pointed out is, as again it doesn't compare election with election as the template says it should (Areat explained why this is the case in one of their edit summaries)) or b) something that works well on that page but would not work well on this page. See other stuff exists. Obviously, if there is a consensus that covers more than one page, we should follow that consensus or change the consensus prior to changing the article e.g. the instructions for the template's parameters will be a consensus across all election articles around the world. But I doubt there is any consensus over all U.S. Congress elections's articles for what you call the "standard practice". So unless you have a reason why this article should have the Libertarians should be in infobox that is not "standard practice", you haven't got a convincing argument.
Also, since when did 0-0=1? (I'm refering to the change in Libertarains seats, despite it being pointed out to you that the template's instructions say it should compare election with election) --TedEdwards 00:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
Then even by the standard you are describing, your seat change numbers are wrong because you aren't comparing it to the numbers from the last election, you are using it in relation to the current number of seats including vacancies. To suggest the GOP picked up 13 seats is factually wrong. and to also suggest that they picked up 12 seats using the 200 number from 2018, after the NC09 special, would also be factually wrong as the official results have them only picking up 11 seats, factoring in the 3 they lost to the democrats and not counting the result of NY22 until that election is settled. This also would reflect that Democrats lost 10 seats and even the map of the results show the GOP picking up an 11th seat, which is from the Libs This is why election pages for congress reflect the actual current number of seats all parties have at the time of election day, and if a third party has a seat despite not winning one the previous year it gets included. The seat change number also does not count vacancies that were a hold for the party. What you are basically wanting is to not include relevant information.--RaySwifty18 (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)
@RaySwifty18: I have no idea what you say means, please elaborate. I most certainly am comparing election with election, as 235-222=13 (Dem) and 212-199=13 (Rep), and 0-0=0 (Lib), hence the numbers should be 13, 13 and 0 (and so the Libs need to be removed, they are not important in this election). Also what Aréat said was contradictory was that the number of votes in the infobox compare the votes in 2018 and 2020, but the way you want it the number of seats would not compare between 2018 and 2020, so the comparisons are for different things and hence contradictory. So the numbers MUST both compare between the 2018 election and the 2020 election.
Also you must not modify you timestamp in your signature per WP:SIGPROB i.e. it must be in UTC. I have corrected your signatures therefore. --TedEdwards 21:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

I've been working on a lot of election pages in different countries, and we always compare seats of a full election with the result of the previous full election. Check it up. It isn't rare that a party lose many seats in between, because of deputies leaving a party for another, dying or resigning. Compare the current italian senate composition with the one elected in 2018, for example. We make the comparison from one election to another for both votes and seats, because otherwise the results appear contradictory, if not nonsensical. With a given party for example suffering a huge loss in votes yet keeping a steady number of seats, because its deputies would have already fled the party inbetween election. Or a party having a big boost in votes, yet a decrease in seats, because the electoral system didn't assign them as many as they got in between from defectors. Etc.--Aréat (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Well here is another comparison, 2 to be exact. In the 2008 Canadian elections, the Green party was included in the info box despite winning no seats in the last election. An MP switched parties to the Greens and ran for reelection but was defeated, leaving the party with 0 seats. In 2019, Maxime Bernier left the conservative party and formed his own party and ran for reelection. He lost but him and his party are included in the info box. Your claim that the results would some how be contradictory does not hold water. If we said in 2020 the Democrats held 260 seats or that they won 260 seats in 2018 then yes not only would that be contradictory, it would be downright false. By it's own nature, the fact that the pages reflect the partisan balance at the time of the current elections, it can't contradict the previous election because we also provide the context on why the makeup is different compared to the last results, which mean explaining that people switched parties and won special elections that flipped seats in between the time of the 2 elections, which we made that information easily known.--RaySwifty18 (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

How is it done in the other Year US House of Representatives elections articles? As I understood it, we went by the # of seats at the close of the previous Congress, rather then the previous election # of seats. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)

Yes. But that doesn't mean that is how it should be done, and if we're following the instructions of the infobox documentation it is not how it should be done. Those instructions on the documentation imply to me that there is a consensus to compare election with election across all election articles, and this is hardly the talk page to change that. And as Aréat has explained, it should not be be the case that the difference in vote share is compared election to election, but the number seats is not compared election to election. --TedEdwards 01:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
I would argue the latter, for the Republicans needed 21 seats for a majority, rather then 19. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Well, could you argue for the latter then, and actually contribute to the discussion? Just saying what you would argue for, without arguing for it, will in no way whatsoever influence the consensus. --TedEdwards 03:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)
Resignations, special elections occur between full-House elections. That's what we should go by. GoodDay (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)

Article Length

This discussion is of interest to this article.67.173.23.66 (talk) 19:22, 7 February 2021 (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:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 06:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

Turnout

Where is the turnout percentage? (Sorry, I don't know how to properly sign this) -- Theophilus Andronicus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theophilus Andronicus (talk • contribs) 12:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://wiki.riteme.site/w/index.php?title=Talk:2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections/Archive_1&oldid=1260626244"