Talk:2020 United States elections/Archive 1

Archive 1

Repeated IP vandalism

• I'm not sure why, but there seems to be a concerted effort by one or more IP editors to change the stated date for Election Day 2020 from Nov. 3 to Nov. 4. This has been reverted now several times on this page, but it's also been seen on the Election Day (United States) article and possibly elsewhere. Carter (talk) 17:25, 2 July 2020 (UTC)

It wouldn't surprise me one bit that someone would try to skew voter turnout in this election. Not one bit, not after last time. Legowerewolf (talk) 07:19, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

See also, or ?

Previously added "see also" of:

• Timeline of Russian interference in the 2016 United States elections
• Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections

as recognition of 2020 United States presidential election situation. Other of additions references can be found, but the continuing interference through 2016, 2018, and the build-up to the 2020 vote has a wealth of RSs.

See related Talk:2020 United States presidential election. X1\ (talk) 00:54, 5 March 2019 (UTC)

Somehow your footnotes got separated from your post here... dropped down to the bottom of the page (when I’m reading mobile view on iPad). any way to fix so they stay with your comment? DrMel (talk) 01:11, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

Fixed with {{reflist talk}}. Graham87 04:03, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

References

Urgent! What level of protection on this page?

What level of locking is on this article To protect it from inappropriate edits, and can we elevate it? I was very surprised my tiny edit was approved without review. Scares me! There’s a LOT of bias and NPOV is at risk - especially if any registered user can edit. Do I have special permissions or can any registered user edit this page? DrMel (talk) 01:01, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

ps - THANK YOU!!! To everyone here making sure this article is as current complete and high quality as possible. Your time and energy is truly an here, and more important than I can describe. Check the numbers of views per day. That’s how many people are benefiting from your work on just this one article. And you’ve done so so much more they don’t even know about... DrMel (talk) 01:07, 20 September 2020 (UTC)

I requested semi-protection until election day yesterday and it got denied, so... :P Legowerewolf (talk) 19:04, 22 September 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 September 2020

Amend Section 2.4 (Referendums & Ballot measures) to include the vote on New Jersey's Public Question 1, regarding amending the state's constitution to allow recreational use of marijuana. (Source: https://ballotpedia.org/New_Jersey_Public_Question_1,_Marijuana_Legalization_Amendment_(2020)) Trueman1995 (talk) 04:17, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Andrew nyr (talk, contribs) 21:18, 26 September 2020 (UTC)

Confusion

For people who have the logic of:

"Person A Person B Person C have good chances of beating Donald Trump, and we should create the presidential campaign articles for them now".

I believe the right logic should be:

The article can be created anytime, why jump the gun? Just wait for him/her to do the formal announcement first. Tony85poon (talk) 08:59, 8 February 2019 (UTC)

The "Public perceptions" section needs more improvement. I believe this section should compare trends in polling pre/post pandemic times, and list some of the sources for the dwindling/increasing support for each candidate according to published data. I'm also removing the quote by Timothy Snyder because this is an opinion with no facts to back it up. The citation is also an opinion piece. Blathersknows (talk) 17:22, 29 September 2020 (UTC)

Relevant split discussion

Talk:Postal voting in the United States#Split 2020 election section to new article. --David Tornheim (talk) 22:19, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Do away with this section

"Public perceptions and analysis" is almost entirely pro-Democrat posturing. Snyder's remark on the authoritarian boogeyman is neither neutral nor true, and if it were to remain, it ought to be neutralized with an equally untrue attack by a conservative academic that Biden is a commie. With this imbalance, the tone of it could compel the sensible voter to feel the need to "right great wrongs". Whether it is true or not, Wikipedia is not the place for speculation. We don't even have an article for the 2024 election, so why theorize about a self-coup/civil war?

The poll of college students is inconsequential because they are a biased demographic, and the statements are vague and subjective. That leaves the Gallup poll, which could be moved elsewhere. User:François_Robere User:Blathersknows User:Ad_Orientem 144.96.41.37 (talk) 10:11, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

Timothy Snyder is one of the world's leading experts on authoritarianism, with over 5,000 citations to his name. He has written extensively not only on Europe and WWII, but also on contemporary American politics (The Road to Unfreedom: Russia, Europe, America (2017)). If you have someone of his caliber who has a distinctly different opinion to offer, you're welcome to add it to the article. François Robere (talk) 16:31, 24 October 2020 (UTC)

If anyone's an authoritarian, it is Mr. Snyder, since he believes that Zuck's oversight board doesn't go far enough in policing speech. Here is a man who would abuse his influence to silence his political enemies—something that the president has been on the receiving end of. I am not "welcome" to add anything to the article because it's locked, and I can't be bothered to make an account, so here I am on the talk page. I'm not here to add, I'm here to subtract the hyperbole. My point about the poll of college students stands. 144.96.41.37 (talk) 01:26, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

You are more than welcome to make an account and go through the process to become confirmed or autoconfirmed. As the person who requested semi-protection due to IP users injecting pro-Trump advertising, I'm not terribly sympathetic to another IP user complaining that someone called Trump authoritarian. And at the risk of sounding cliche, college students may be biased, but only because reality has a liberal bias. Legowerewolf (talk) 16:54, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

I appreciate the invitation, but I will not act on it today. I do agree, there are several actions President Trump has taken that reveal his authoritarian nature. He punished netizens for sharing an unflattering news article about his second son, he supported governors who assume emergency powers to stop the spread of corona, and he signed a tough-on-crime law that has already incarcerated thousands of non-violent drug offenders. Give me a break. Even if there is proof that he is an authoritarian, this article is not the place for a stump speech about how "the stakes have never been higher!", and there is no precedent for anything much more than the plain results in articles for United States elections in presidential election years since 2000, except for 2012. Who's your reliable source for the nature of reality, the comedian Stephen Colbert? All you've proven is that you want to throw neutrality out the window, except maybe when it comes to issues of disagreement among post-classical liberals. 144.96.41.37 (talk) 20:49, 25 October 2020 (UTC)

After reading the section of the article in question, I don't see the value of having it included in the article as it is very one-sided and does little to provide a counter-argument. The statistics is vaguely relevant and I see no loss in deleting this information. I would be in support of keeping this section if the issue of public perception and analysis actually had arguments for both sides as the public I know of is not united one way or another. It is important to show the counter-argument and with citations supporting what is being argued. This would add more value to this section in the article and provide a better perspective that provides the reader with good information and allows them to form their own opinion after becoming better informed. Jurisdicta (talk) 01:46, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

We're not obliged to represent anyone's position, only to follow sources. If you have RS comparable to Snyder that say something else, then add them; otherwise we're in WP:SOAPBOX and WP:UNDUE territory. As for polls - add however many you'd like. François Robere (talk) 14:48, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for adding more reliably-sourced polls to the article. However, I think it is the Snyder quote in the first place that falls under planks 1 and 2 of soapbox, since it is from a non-neutral opinion piece. As I have already pointed out, there is no precedent for partisan opinion in "United States elections" articles, therefore it is also undue. There is already a paragraph as to his alleged authoritarianism at Political positions of Donald Trump. 144.96.41.37 (talk) 21:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)

Personally, I don't think the section adds much to the article, and I'd very much like to avoid having this article loaded down with the kind of opinionated cruft that Wikipedia articles on contemporary elections tend to attract. It's not so much that the material in the section doesn't belong on Wikipedia, but that this is a very high-level overview article that shouldn't attempt to cover every single facet of the election. While I think a covid-19 section is warranted given it's massive affect on the elections, I think discussion of Trump's authoritarianism and public perceptions of the election is a better fit at, for example, 2020 United States presidential election#Issues unique to the 2020 election. Orser67 (talk) 02:35, 27 October 2020 (UTC)

Agreed, this section uses only Liberally-biased Left-leaning outlets that have become extremely politicized such as The New York Times or The Washington Post; I opened a new section in this discussion page regarding this very issue about this very section of the article

--177.227.42.168 (talk) 22:56, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Okay, do we have a consensus to remove the Snyder quote then? 144.96.41.37 (talk) 08:52, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Trump's Press Conference

I think we should seriously add a section addressing Trump's conference in which he threatened to undermine the election by baselessly calling postal votes fraudulent and claiming that he will pressure the supreme court to stop them from counting postal votes. https://twitter.com/TeamTrump/status/1323888133390348288?fbclid=IwAR3exARTd8d3aFGx2s8MOXLF1kHjzar9S_hI8dDovBikb6OZ-ka7u-0xew4 --130.195.253.70 (talk) 08:21, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

I'd think there should be something about both leader's election night speeches. Was there a press conference this morning? Can't comment as I didn't hear of it. Nfitz (talk) 19:18, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Table of state, territorial, and federal results

Would there be objections to adding the Guamanian presidential advisory vote to the President column in the table with a footnote noting that there are no Electoral College votes associated with it? It's the only territory (besides the District of Columbia) that does include the presidential contest on general election ballots, even though it has no bearing on the national election. Carter (talk) 15:03, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't think it's a crazy idea and certainly wouldn't revert it, but I wonder if it might be confusing to readers? An alternative might be to put the Guamanian results in a footnote. Orser67 (talk) 17:21, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

I'll go ahead and be WP:BOLD and add it. If there aren't objections/reverts, I'll go back and add to tables for past elections too. Carter (talk) 20:16, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

A note regarding the neutrality or bias of this article

Hi everyone, This article is coming out nicely so congratulations and thanks to all editors who have contributed. It's not perfect though and there are a few issues which I'm sure are and will be worked out; one of said issues that has bothered me most is the fact that the article uses overwhelmingly Left-leaning Liberally-biased sources, such as The New York Times or The Guardian, which are, by all accounts and consensus, biased and polticized to no end. A particular issue is the section titled "perceptions" and in it the article says that President Trump and his supporters have "spread falsehoods" about mail-in voting which is debatable at best as President Trump had only mentioned the disadvantages of said system such as the delays in the counting of the ballots or its susceptibility to suppression such as in the countless instances in which ballots have been found discarded and people have been convicted for said committing crimes; furthermore, the sources for this affirmation that President Trump has "spread falsehoods" are all Liberally-biased Left-leaning outlets (I've read that Democratic politicians sought to extend the COVID-19 lockdowns so they could secure mail-in voting which would be supposedly more susceptible and vulnerable to be altered by them in their benefit; however this is kind of a conspiracy theory and that is neither her nor there as this claim isn't very relevant here); as such, I think we should either look for and add more sources from less biased sources if possible to make the article more neutral and balanced, or, if no such sources can be found which are legitimate, then the article should mention at least that such affirmation about President Trump is an accusation that has been levelled by Left-leaning Liberal commentators, or something like that.

Thanks in advance, --177.227.42.168 (talk) 22:54, 3 November 2020 (UTC)

Shucks, 177-227-42-168, don't you know that any member of the MSM is perfectly reliable? You can tell how reliable they are by their last election polls: CNBC-Biden by 10, YouGov(CBS)-Biden by 10, NBC-Biden by 10, CNN-Biden by 12, New York Times-Biden by 9, NPR/PBS-Biden by 11, ABC/WaPo-Biden by 12. Average of the Reliables- Biden by 11.Topcat777 (talk) 00:55, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Two comments: First, you did not cite any specific sources that are incorrect, nor do you provide any sources to contradict what is said in this article, so there is no reason to make changes. If you think there is something specific that should be changed, please provide that as an edit request and provide reliable sources. Second, the major sources used in this articles (including the two specific ones you mentioned, The New York Times and The Guardian) have been approved by consensus at WP:RSP, thereby justifying their inclusion. RunningTiger123 (talk) 00:04, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

No need to be rude please; and I included no sources because I never said I was going to edit the article I was just asking if we should start considering such editions and if we do then I'd start collecting sources; and second, the fact that the New York Times and The Guardian has been approved has nothing to do with what I said, I didn't say these sources weren't legitimate or that they should be erased, I just said these outlets have a somewhat strong bias and so that these sources should be left there but other different sources from other different outlets should be added to balance the neutrality of the article. Thanks for your response but please stop twisting my words and being so rude and adversarial.

--177.227.42.168 (talk) 00:41, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Not sure where you see rudeness there. Looks pretty neutral. Also not sure why one would consider either source biased User:177.227.42.168, they aren't opinion pieces that are being used, and I don't see particularly a difference from those that bias to the right like The Economist or The Globe and Mail. Even those blatantly right-wing like The Times seem to be using similar language, as I see here noting that Trump baselessly alleged “major fraud on our nation”. I would encourage people though to use a variety of sources. Nfitz (talk) 19:16, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

Are you serious? I could accept your argument that the article is balanced and neutral enough, fine, but don't tell me that The Guardian and The New York Times aren't biased, especially the latter: 2 different editors have resigned citing specifically the extreme Liberal bias and Left-leaning posture, the first one resigned after he published an article by a Republican (Tom Cotton) which the staff members hated and each and every non-White staff member complained in public claiming the piece had "put their lives in danger"; two weeks ago the paper's labor union demanded more censorship of Right-leaning Conservative authors (literally; the only group of journalists who want more censorship and less editorial freedom instead of wanting more), a book by Carlos I. Romero published earlier this year about mainstream media bias also locates it as "the worst offender" of all printed news outlets in terms of bias and politicization and Politifact (and even the corresponding Wikipedia article for this outlet) locates The New York Times as a Left-leaning source. If you keep defending these outlets so much and pretending they're neutral then I'm sorry but either you're biased too or somewhat uninformed; either way, I can assure you they are not neutral or objective, not even close. --177.227.42.168 (talk) 20:07, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

There's a slight towards the centre-left political bias on opinion pieces - that's for sure. On the other hand, I've seen pro-Trump opinion pieces as well in the New York Times - the last issue I saw (last Sunday), had a front page piece about Biden's laptop or something ... frankly, I didn't understand much of it ... it's far too granular an issue for me to understand about foreign politics - but it didn't appear to be pro-Biden. There's no indication that news stories have any bias in either publication - if it was an issue, it would be flagged on WP:RSP, and both are green with no caveats (though some concerns about the Guardian). Though how is extreme Liberal an issue? What does that even mean - an extreme centrist?!? Biden is right-of-centre by any international standard and right-wing on some issues. More to the point - if outlets whose opinion-pieces bias further rights are saying similar things, why are you challenging this? If there's a valid source that contradicts this, then add it. But as I pointed out, they are saying similar. If you've got an issue, with either the place to discuss it User:177.227.42.168, is WT:RSP. But as I pointed out, we shouldn't rely too much on one paper, particularly a local one, for too many sources. Also - you accused the first editor who replied of rudeness. What did you think was rude? At the same time ... you called me biased and somewhat uninformed; isn't that rather rude in itself? Nfitz (talk) 22:29, 4 November 2020 (UTC)

1000+ people as candidate for president?? No they must report at least $5000 in fundraising first

well no. Over 1200 people have filed the no-cost application but that alone does NOT make them candidates. They ALSO have to raise at least $5000 and report it. That has happened onlyh to a few people/ Federal law states: https://www.fec.gov/regulations/100-3/2020-annual-100#100-3-a-4 § 100.3 Candidate (52 U.S.C. 30101(2)). a.Definition. Candidate means an individual who seeks nomination for election, or election, to federal office. An individual becomes a candidate for Federal office whenever any of the following events occur:

1.The individual has received contributions aggregating in excess of $5,000 or made expenditures aggregating in excess of $5,000.

2.The individual has given his or her consent to another person to receive contributions or make expenditures on behalf of that individual and such person has received contributions aggregating in excess of $5,000 or made expenditures aggregating in excess of $5,000.

3.After written notification by the Commission that any other person has received contributions aggregating in excess of $5,000 or made expenditures aggregating in excess of $5,000 on the individual's behalf, the individual fails to disavow such activity by letter to the Commission within 30 days of receipt of the notification.

4.The aggregate of contributions received under 11 CFR 100.3(a) (1), (2), and (3), in any combination thereof, exceeds $5,000, or the aggregate of expenditures made under 11 CFR 100.3(a) (1), (2), and (3), in any combination thereof, exceeds $5,000. Rjensen (talk) 14:34, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 8 November 2020

DECRIPTION OF CHANGES: Correct one format error which is preventing the election map legend caption from displaying correctly, and add caption information to identify what the currently unidentified color (grey) represents.

CHANGE FROM 174.99.50.168 (talk) 22:56, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Y Done. Carter (talk) 23:46, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 6 November 2020

The last paragraph in the "Public perceptions and analysis" section about Timothy Snyder should be removed. Given that this is a highly publicized event with many people commenting, it seems weird to just include the opinions of one person, especially seeing as the statement is completely subjective and is just Snyder believing he knows what is going on inside Trump's head. This seems like an oddly very biased and subjective piece to include in what is otherwise a mostly objective article. 2600:1700:8C2A:320:8112:CF4:1B27:541 (talk) 00:24, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit extended-protected}} template. He's not just "one person", he's "an expert on authoritarianism". – Muboshgu (talk) 00:48, 6 November 2020 (UTC)

Luckily for OP, I already started a discussion over this quote in Talk:2020 United States elections#Do away with this section, because I, too, thought it to be extraneous and partisan. This violation of WP:NPOV is apparent to even occasional editors like OP and I, and three other users in the prior discussion agreed. 144.96.41.37 (talk) 09:20, 7 November 2020 (UTC)

@IP editor, reading that section, I can't see a clear consensus to remove the section from the article, so as per Muboshgu's reply above, please establish consensus before using the edit request template. Seagull123 Φ 17:50, 8 November 2020 (UTC)

The majority of users seem to be in favor of removing the quote. Consensus on Wikipedia is also based on the subjective quality of arguments, so even if there is no consensus as you suggest, then WP:NOCON states that "for contentious matters related to living people, a lack of consensus often results in the removal of the contentious matter, regardless of whether the proposal was to add, modify or remove it." 144.96.41.37 (talk) 05:12, 9 November 2020 (UTC)

Extended-confirmed-protected edit request on 10 November 2020

Change House of Representatives map from retirements to results map: 2020 US House Election Results.svg, and update caption accordingly. Infinitesimall (talk) 12:48, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Y Done. Carter (talk) 13:25, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Democratic hold on Governors map???

I assume all the states being light blue signifying a "Democratic hold" is simply a mistake, but I'm not sure where the correct info is to put on the map.

Most of the states are grey, not light blue (only Puerto Rico is light blue, I think). Might be helpful to add a legend for grey=no election this year though. --Infinitesimall (talk) 17:29, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Good suggestion, added. Orser67 (talk) 21:55, 10 November 2020 (UTC)

Contradictions within article

The tone of the article seems to change throughout which is i believe would cause confusion (its causing me confusion at least). here are some examples:

Biden is projected to win at least 279 electoral votes based on the states he has been projected to win; in order to win the election, he needed to win at least 270 electoral votes, which represents a simple majority of the total of 538 electoral votes

Biden's victory made him the oldest individual to win a presidential election, while Kamala Harris will become the first female vice president upon taking office.

rhetorical's: How can someone be projected to win, but also be the oldest person to win due to a victory? Has FVP Biden had 279 electors based on certified results from states voting or is counting still ongoing?

real q: is this conflict just a fragment from an earlier revision? if so does everyone agree to remove the offending wording? StayFree76 ^talk —Preceding undated comment added 08:08, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 November 2020

There are no official results as of now. Joe Biden is leading Donald Trump, however due to numerous allegations of voter fraud Donald Trump's campaign is currently filing lawsuits in multiple states that could have a direct affect on the results. 68.49.24.62 (talk) 16:06, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ‑‑ElHef (Meep?) 20:52, 12 November 2020 (UTC)

Clarification needed

"Presidential election results map. Blue denotes states won by Biden/Harris, red denotes states won by Trump/Pence, and grey states do not yet have a projected winner. Numbers indicate electoral votes allotted to the winner of each state or district."

The combination of "won by" and "projected winner" is ambiguous/confusing. Are the "won by" states actual OFFICIAL result declarations, or are (some of them) still media predictions? 2A00:23C8:7B08:6A00:44AA:4B68:7FAA:C48 (talk) 23:38, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Uncalled states for presidential election

According to the article, "The winner in Alaska, Georgia, and North Carolina remains uncalled." According to the infobox map, only Georgia remains uncalled, and the other two went Republican. What's up? Nyttend backup (talk) 14:10, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Disinformation campaigns

I think this needs more prominence - at least a section paragraph before redirection to the full articles at Stop the Steal, Lawsuits related to the 2020 United States presidential election and Republican_reactions_to_Donald_Trump's_claims_of_2020_election_fraud, rather than just the "Issues" section. https://www.cnn.com/2020/11/13/business/stop-the-steal-disinformation-campaign-invs/index.html IHateAccounts (talk) 18:48, 14 November 2020 (UTC)

Reply: I agree with above. I also recommend linking to Republican reactions to Donald Trump's claims of 2020 election fraud, a place for anyone to demonstrate their Republican officials' positions about the fidelity of the 2020 national elections. This enables simple collation of facts, i.e. who made which statements, for future consideration by US citizens. 2120Beyond2020 (talk) 15:35, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

The word "fraud"

The word "fraud" has legal implications ie. if they can't prove fraud and it is frivolous they can be counter-sued for defamation. As such Republicans are pivoting to use the word "rigged" which doesn't have legal problems. According to the New York Times:

Advisers have nudged the president to stop talking about “fraud” because that has legal implications that his team has not been able to back up. So Mr. Trump has taken to pronouncing the election “rigged,” one of his favorite words

Our article uses the word fraud without context and in wiki-voice. Since this can have legal implications I think we need to at least have "fraud" in quotes, and include the word rigged next to it such as "fraud" and/or "rigged". Or some other idea. -- GreenC 14:42, 13 November 2020 (UTC)

Our article uses the words that are reported by reliable sources. The fact that his advisors have told him to stop using the term fraud doesn't change the fact that he, and others, were indeed using it. It is not our job to censor our reporting to help them cover themselves from a legal standpoint. We are certainly not saying in Wikipedia's voice that fraud occurred, and thus there is no reason to think that our wording could have legal ramifications for Wikipedia. Reliable sources that that they baselessly alleged fraud and we report what reliable sources say. NonReproBlue (talk) 06:12, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Third Parties

Why they are not included? --Comrade-yutyo (talk) 13:15, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

What do you mean? SRD625 (talk) 19:35, 26 November 2020 (UTC)

Senate control: Republican hold or TBD

I'm looking for opinions on whether it would be most accurate to currently describe Senate control as "Republican hold" or "TBD" in this article's infobox. User:RaySwifty18 has argued that the Senate should be described as a "Republican hold" because Republicans are guaranteed to control the Senate until Harris is seated as VP on January 20. I argue that it should be classified as TBD because, assuming Democrats win both GA run-offs, Democrats would control the Senate after that date for the remainder of 117th Congress (so, roughly two years as compared to two weeks). In addition, basically every source out there that I've found has covered the 2020 elections as if Democrats still have a chance to gain control of the Senate as part of these elections. I would also note that a casual reader looking at the infobox would probably assume from "Republican hold" that Democrats no longer have a shot taking control of the Senate, when that is not in fact the case. Orser67 (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

Control of the senate comes from the results of the senate elections and the balance of power is reflected at the beginning of the congress, not after it. While the VP can be a tiebreaker, he is not elected as part of the senate election and any change of the VP is independent from the senate elections. Democrats won control of the senate in 2000 because they got to 50 seats and with VP Al Gore at the start of the next congress, he gave them the majority. The change in the balance of power (Dick Cheney) was not a result of the senate elections and occurred after the new congress began. The GOP will enter the new congress in 2021 with 51 seats, because Loeffler stays in office because her term ends in 2022 or after the runoff if she loses. There is a reason we don't use Jim Jeffords party switch as a reason to say dems won control in 2000, because it happened after the congress began and was separate from the 2000 elections. That's also why we don't include Richard Shelby and Ben Nighthorse Campbell's party switches in the 1994 totals because they were not apart of the senate elections, just how the change in party of the VP in 2021 is separate from the senate elections.-User:RaySwifty18

The key word in the infobox is "overall" control. While Republicans will definitely be in control at least until we get Kamala, the overall control is TBD. If Republicans win one of more of the Senate seats, we would change it to Republican. If Democrats win both seats, I feel like we should change it to "incoming Democratic" and leave the footnote to indicate that Republicans would still be in control for the time being. Prcc27 (talk) 21:37, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

TBD would be best, as we don't know 'yet' what the result of the 2020 United States Senate elections are. GoodDay (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2020 (UTC)

I vote for TBD as well. Republican Hold feels disingenuous; control clearly implies for the vast majority of the next congress, not the opening two weeks. Infinitesimall (talk) 09:58, 16 November 2020 (UTC)

Agreed. "Republican Hold" means that the Republicans won enough seats to maintain control until the next scheduled election, assuming no bye-elections, aisle-crossings, deaths, etc. It's not appropriate when the election is incomplete, unless of course the remaining portions of the election won't affect overall control, e.g. if Republicans had won a couple of other races that they didn't. Maybe link "TBD" to something covering the Georgia elections? Nyttend backup (talk) 14:46, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

If Senate control flips to Democrats, shouldn't we keep the footnote up there saying that Republicans held control of the Senate until January 20th..? Prcc27 (talk) 21:49, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

"I vote for TBD as well. Republican Hold feels disingenuous; control clearly implies for the vast majority of the next congress, not the opening two weeks." Nowhere does it say it means vast majority of congress. The only thing that dictates it is what is the direct outcome of the elections and at the start of the new congress. Republicans will control the congress when it begins and it is because they won 50 seats and mike pence is still VP. And in 2000 Dems won back control because they won 50 seats. Daschle is documented as becoming the majority leader once the congress was sworn in which means that as a result of the 2000 elections, dems won control. And i will be changing that back because it is what's factual.-User:RaySwifty18 — Preceding undated comment added 18:25, 27 November 2020 (UTC)

Your actions/interpretations are pedantic, obscure the key facts that are most important to the average reader, and, most importantly, go against what appears to be a consensus established by every other editor who has commented over the last several days. Orser67 (talk) 06:09, 28 November 2020 (UTC)

See 2000 United States elections, though not the exact same situation. GoodDay (talk) 21:50, 18 November 2020 (UTC)

To be fair, I edited that recently; at least as of a couple weeks ago it said "Democratic Gain". Either way, I hope that we can be consistent about categorizing Senate control across these articles. Orser67 (talk) 01:17, 19 November 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 5 December 2020

Change this: "Trump and other Republicans refused to concede, making baseless accusations of fraud.[4][5][6]"

To this: Trump and other Republicans made allegations of electoral and voter fraud and refused to concede. These allegations are desputed.

Why: factual basis and viewpoint neutrality. The original statement proposes a point of view, rather than merely describes the facts as they exist. TidyPrepster (talk) 17:50, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

 Not done: the allegations are baseless, as demonstrated through reliable sources. There is no evidence to support the claims. We do not do WP:FALSEBALANCE because implying that there is any evidence of fraud would impart a POV to this article. The current presentation is NPOV. Also, you meant "disputed". – Muboshgu (talk) 18:10, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my typo. The allegations are not baseless. They have a evidentiary (affidavit, video video, math) basis. In fact there are two main allegations:

1. That there is fraud of both types in this election as in all elections. This one is almost self evidently true.

2. Such fraud is sufficient to change the outcome. This one require a very high standard of proof. It is being reviewed though the likelihood of it prevailing is low.

While having a basis, allegations may nor may not be true. That remains to be adjudicated.

Calling them baseless is editorializing. This adjective “baseless” is not appropriate in this context and should be removed. TidyPrepster (talk) 20:26, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

If reliable sources overwhelmingly state that the allegations are baseless, and no reliable sources state that the allegations are based, then Wikipedia will report that the allegations are baseless. That's the way WP works. Newimpartial (talk) 21:03, 5 December 2020 (UTC)

WP is not a news site. Nor is it a news site aggregator. There is a lovely disagreement about which sources are reliable, a disagreement in which WP editors hardly have the final word.

My objection is one of logic, not content. If you think that the allegations have no truth-value, that’s fine. Say that. Further, there’s nothing wrong with thinking and writing that the allegations are unpersuasive. To say that they are not based on anything is illogical. The content of the allegations provides the basis for making them, a basis further supported by whiteness and expert testimony. Both of those provide a basis.

If you’re not convinced that’s fine. Say that they are unconvincing. To call them baseless is both illogical and factually inaccurate. TidyPrepster (talk) 00:50, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Gah. Autocorrect is evil: that was “lively” not “lovely” and “witness” not “whiteness”. TidyPrepster (talk) 00:52, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

From wiktionary: baseless - based on something that is not true, or not based on solid reasons or facts.

The allegations, according to reliable sources, are baseless. Newimpartial (talk) 00:55, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

The allegations as presented are not baseless according to either one of those definitions.

1. It is a verifiable fact that both vote and election fraud has occurred.

2. The allegation that fraud, such as it was, was sufficient to change the outcome is before the courts. It has not yet been fully adjudicated.

3. You keep going on about reliable sources. On what basis do you judge reliability? TidyPrepster (talk) 01:03, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Points 1 and 2 are factually inaccurate. (1) There has been no evidence put forth that voter fraud has occurred. None whatsoever. There are complaints about how close the watchers were allowed to be, but no fraud has been proven. What is your comment based on? (2) If you read through the lawsuits, you'll see that many of them are about really small issues. The only case they won changed the number of days that you could correct an improperly filled out ballot from nine to six, which impacted only a handful of ballots. They Trump campaign lawyers are only alleging fraud in front of tv cameras, not in court, because lying in court would get them disbarred. These lawsuits are not contesting enough votes to change the results. (3) Read WP:RS for more information on reliable sources. WP:RSP lists out sources that are reliable and not, which is determined by community consensus. – Muboshgu (talk) 01:59, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

"The only case they won changed the number of days that you could correct an improperly filled out ballot from nine to six, which impacted only a handful of ballots."

My objection is not about describing the court cases as unsuccessful or minor. That may be. My objection is to the description of the allegations as "baseless." They are based on affidavit and witness evidence. Further, as the truism goes, there is fraud in every election. In this particular election, there is evidence of dead people voting, and pet receiving mail-in ballots. I am not taking a point of view on whether or not the election was fraudulent - that is for the courts to determine. However small the issues may be in the individual lawsuits is not for you, nor I to decide. My objection is to the partisan illogic of the use of the word "baseless." It begs the question, and as such it does not belong in an article that is supposed to present a neutral point of view.

This is precisely why I requiested above that the language in the article be made factual but neutral as follows:

Change this: "Trump and other Republicans refused to concede, making baseless accusations of fraud.[4][5][6]"

To this: Trump and other Republicans made allegations of electoral and voter fraud and refused to concede. These allegations are disputed.

TidyPrepster (talk) 03:47, 6 December 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2020

House elections map needs fixing Red needed for the grey Iowa district as it was called for the Republican 71.169.164.31 (talk) 11:33, 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!) 14:15, 12 December 2020 (UTC)

Comment- The seat was certified by state officials for the GOP candidate, but media outlets haven't called them because the Democratic candidate plans to appeal the results to the House of Representatives. Herbfur (talk) 18:50, 17 December 2020 (UTC)

Net Seat Change for House Elections

Shouldn't the table at the top include the net seat change for House elections? This would improve consistency, as the table already shows the Electoral College vote numbers and the net seat change for Senate elections. — Preceding unsigned comment added by LordofChaos55 (talk • contribs) 19:41, 11 January 2021 (UTC)

Added. We had been holding off because there were some uncalled races, but at this point there's just one outstanding race left and we can always change the number once it's decided. Orser67 (talk) 23:08, 11 January 2021 (UTC)