Talk:2020 United States presidential election

Redundant popular vote information.

In regarding Joe Biden having the highest vote tally, isn't it a bit redundant to bring up the 2008 election? The line "...surpassing Barack Obama's record of 69.5 million votes from 2008" doesn't really add anything and seems WP:UNDUE. As if Obama was the only candidate in history to receive the highest popular vote tally in a presidential election. Especially considering Obama broke Bush's record of 62 million votes, While Bush broke Reagan's record of 54 million votes in 2004, Regan broke Nixon's record of 47 million votes in 1984 and so forth. Yet oddly enough in none of those articles is any popular vote "record-breaking" mentioned. Not only that but contextually it also seems to conflate popular vote tallies with general popularity, which is obviously untrue.

There's obviously a natural trend for more recent candidates to receive bigger vote tallies regardless of party as the population grows.

Simply stating that Biden received the most popular votes ever in a presidential election during a high-turnout years seems to be more impartial and fair to both Obama and Biden. I would recommend something like this, "To date, Biden has received the most votes in a presidential election". The preposition to "... to date" makes it seem like a statement with a time constraint, as if to imply it's likely another individual will get more votes. It also comes across as more WP:IMPARTIAL.

Say hypothetically Biden wins the popular vote again in 2024 (likely but beside the point), gets 86 million votes for example. Are we going to have these constant references through articles about vote tallies and recording breaking dating only to 2008? So is this (hypothetical) 2024 article going say, Biden received the most votes ever cast for a candidate, 86 million, which broke the 2020 record of 82 million, which also broke the the former record held in 2008?

The 2008 article references the 2020 article as far as the popular vote which, doesn't seem to add impartial information but fluff, the note about Obama receiving the highest percentage of the popular vote sense 1964 is good information. Constantly making tallies about record breaking the popular vote in elections where the population is constantly growing doesn't make much sense, mentioning Trump getting more votes than Obama also doesn't make much sense either and seems redundant.

I think the standard should be, "As of,... "To date,..." "...Biden has received the most popular votes in a general election" period, with no direct comparisons.

68.189.4.21 (talk) 13:25, 24 October 2021 (UTC)

I agree that this change is better for the reasons stated above. Przemysl15 (talk) 05:23, 27 October 2021 (UTC)

Keep as is -- Just follow sources. When a record of any kind is broken, RS frequently mention the previous record. Where they do, as multiple did here, so do we. Same goes for box office receipts, sports, natural phenomena etc. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 09:15, 22 November 2021 (UTC)

“Say hypothetically Biden wins the popular vote again in 2024 (likely but beside the point), gets 86 million votes for example.”

What makes you think Biden is likely to win the popular vote in 2024 or even run again for that matter?”Bjohns81 (talk) 05:27, 5 December 2021 (UTC)

The question was posed as a hypothetical, bearing on how to improve the article. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 02:56, 7 December 2021 (UTC)

Change is better-- My main issue is record breaking is never mentioned for the popular vote outside of 2008, which is why I think the phrase "... to date" is more fitting. There's been 59 elections and only 1 mention of the popular vote record being broken. The 2004 Article doesn't state "Bush received the most popular votes in history until his record was broken in 2008". It becomes totally redundant to constantly mention previous elections when the population is constantly growing. I also took issue with the 2020 Democratic Primary page where they neglected to mention Biden receiving the most votes in a Democratic primary. It's not true that when a record of any kind is broken it gets mentioned. Again I tried to get the Democratic Primary page to state that Biden received the most votes in a Democratic primary, and other wikipedians where trying to say "that's irrelevant" and "you have realize the context", check out that page. I get the suspicion the only reason it's been on this page is because it was on chyrons in mainstream media. It doesn't really seem fair to Biden or Obama to conflate "a record broken" with an election that's generally based on EV's and % of popular votes. The subtle implication is that the most recent president-elect is always the most popular one. Putting a spotlight on breaking popular vote records doesn't really seem fair to past candidates. Again it's not about not mentioning it it's about mentioning it in a way where it doesn't over-emphasis it's importance. As such I think the article should state, "To date, (or "As of Nov 3rd 2020"), Biden has received the most popular votes in a presidential election".

As far as your analogy of Sport, Box Office receipts, or Natural Disasters, that doesn't really translate, you don't become President by winning more popular votes, you become President by winning more Electoral Votes. It would be like if a Football team got 700 overall yards in a game but still lost by 20 points. Or if a Hockey team had 130 shots on goal but only scored 2 goals. Even if say, 700 yards was a record or 130 shots on goal, it still wouldn't mention previous records in the article, because that's not relevant. Perhaps you have a page with a running tally of the most popular votes by candidate. Otherwise your going to need to correct 20+ pages on popular vote record breaking so it doesn't come across as WP:UNDUE, because curiously "popular vote record breaking" is no where to be found on those pages, and I think we all know why.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2004_United_States_presidential_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1984_United_States_presidential_election

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1972_United_States_presidential_election.

68.189.4.21 (talk) 03:36, 18 December 2021 (UTC)

I don't perceive bias in simply following what multiple RS say about Biden's PV record. I think your objection would better be handled by improving sourcing in other articles, and as a matter of fact, I googled for Bush's '04 PV record, and found it's already right there in the lede of our '04 article. BTW, due weight is a function of how any given article reflects the range of mainstream RS, not of how it compares to other articles (or of editorial preferences, e.g. your view that PV totals aren't that important: it's up to RS, not us, to make that call). As for "to date": maybe, but OTOH, in these excessively interesting times, who really knows what the future holds? Anyway, Happy New Year/editing! --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 11:20, 29 December 2021 (UTC); added a bit, 02:44, 3 January 2022 (UTC)

That tidbit in the 2004 article was added recently. I still think the following phrase -As of "date" Biden received the most popular votes in a presidential election, is better than - Biden received more than 81 million votes,[8] the most votes ever cast for a candidate in a U.S. presidential election. And strike the whole "Biden surpassed Obama's record...", to me that doesn't seem fair to Obama or Biden. Who knows what the future holds, but it's very likely Biden's record will be broken in 2024, and if not in '24 then definitely in '32, You'd be hard-pressed to find a popular vote record lasting more than 12 years,but that's the whole point. Until the popular vote becomes the way in which a person gets elected in America, emphasizing it seems more like WP:PUFFERY. There's been many many elections where someone held the popular vote record and young readers may think or assume that means that that candidate was more popular or worthy of more adulation. Bringing it to light in a lede or a header doesn't really serve much of a purpose. This trend didn't occur until about 7 years ago on Wikipedia. Again if Elections where based on popular votes, sure, or a more objective way to state it would be overall % of the total vote, which is already done, that would be sufficient.

Curiously, if you look at any other political race (Gubernatorial, Congressional, Senatorial) in America, no where is the most popular votes or popular vote record mentioned. Again I think popular vote totals and records are for another page. Saying it was a landslide, saying it was a referendum on Trump, all good relevant information, but saying "Biden has the most popular votes in history" seems like WP:PUFFERY. Not only that but it comes with so much unnecessary redundancy for future and past elections. 68.189.4.21 (talk) 17:40, 11 January 2022 (UTC)

The answer to "what about the children?" is that Wikipedia is not censored -- and once again your objections seem to be about what properly-weighted RS say, and to Wikipedia's policies on citing them accordingly. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 01:14, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

This has nothing to do with censorship. [[WP:NOTCENSORED|Wikipedia is not censored], has nothing to do with this. When i'm talking about young readers, I'm also talking about foreigner readers or those not familiar with American Democracy as well. No where did I mention children, you did that, because it's an automatic pattern for you. Finding out Biden has received the most votes ever has nothing to do with explicitly graphic material or carnal knowledge. I don't know if you're trying to misunderstand me on purpose. That's literally a Straw man of what i'm trying to contend. If you saw an add on the radio or tv that said, "Our restaurant, Restaurant-A has served 50 million people!!! Compare that to Restaurant C which has only served 20 million people!" When Restaurant C went out of businesses 30 years ago, the most charitable thing you could say is that is WP:Puffery, or exaggerated praise. At worst you could probably say that it is misleading or manipulative. Well isn't there more people now than there was 30 years ago? Wouldn't there be more opportunities to serve people if they have been in businesses a longer time? To say Biden received the most votes ever, while factually true, gives a connotation -to many-,especially with those unfamiliar with America, of being the most popular candidate ever, especially when it's in the lede. Like I have noted previously, it's not mentioned in ANY Gubernatorial, Senatorial, or Congressional race in the lede. As far as it being RS, yes it is, but this information regarding the popular vote didn't come out till days after the election, and has no bearing on the actual results. I don't think it should be mentioned in the lede in any America article concerning elections. As Dr.Ostermeier, notes, setting popular vote records are incredibly common and mundane in American politics, https://smartpolitics.lib.umn.edu/2020/11/15/joe-biden-is-the-35th-candidate-to-set-a-presidential-popular-vote-record/. Thusly it is WP:UNDUE 68.189.4.21 (talk) 00:40, 15 January 2022 (UTC)

Is the lead section too long?

Add your !vote and/or commentary below. Relevant guideline: MOS:LEDE.

• No -- per MOS:LEDE, 4 paras is "rule of thumb" for long articles. This long & detailed article (about a uniquely complicated election) has 5, the last one being brief -- seems fine to me. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 11:31, 6 December 2021 (UTC); added text 12:06, 9 December 2021 (UTC)

2020 Election

Im new to this, but i have found pieces of this description.of the 2020 election to be somewhat biased and in places inaccurate. I understand it is a heated controversial topic with feelings firing instantly at the mention, but i do feel omiting info, partially giving details or speaking opinion rather than fact benefits no one. People , I assume , when searching on topics want to know the whole answer not part. For example, he didnt lose 64 cases. For technicalities, many courts refused to hear the case. There is no mention of the , numerous states, senators filing lawsuits and going before.supreme court who refused to hear case. thousands of affidavits signed under risk of jail, perjury stating fraud, non partisan eye witnesses , no mention of the states changing their election laws unconstitutionally or allowing ballots violating election laws. No mention of 2 sets of electors sent to vote. No mention of the audits and canvasing results verifying inaccuracies. No mention of illegal campaign donations targeting voters and creating voter suppression in certain states, 500,000 donations and directions placed on officials. zuckerburg.. conflict of interests, poll witnesses not allowed in to view or suffering harassment. Numerous Chain of custody breaks in numerous ways, software compromised on election equipment, connections to the internet verified in front of senate. Also the most secure election comment was referenced then the person stating this said he did not verify all aspects of the election. He focused primarily on foreign influence. Just a thought, maybe we can paint a more accurate portrayal of 2020. Andstillirise (talk) 04:38, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Andstillirise Wikipedia summarizes what independent reliable sources state, and not Trump talking points designed to grift from supporters, made without actual evidence and rejected in every court in the land(including his own judicial appointees) that he and supporters want to be true as a way to explain his losing. Please read WP:FRINGE. However, if you are interested in collaboration with others, please offer independent reliable sources to support your claims and detail the specific errors. Thank you. 331dot (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2021 (UTC)

Please list some sources which provide the details of specific changes you think would improve the article. "Many people are saying this" does not merit consideration for Wikipedia. A list of claims with no sources is not equivalent to a single claim with a list of sources; in fact, a single source is more valuable than any number of unsourced complaints. 2001:480:91:FF00:0:0:0:15 (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

Andstillirise-- I agree entirely. I was rather surprised when I read the entry, since I do not usually find Wikipedia to be so editorial. Talk Page responses like: “…not Trump talking points designed to grift from supporters,” from 331dot, or whoever it is, very much highlight the issue. No one has suggested citing Trump talking points as objectively factual, either. But the fact that a case was not heard on the merits, for example the SC petitions, does not mean that there were none to be heard. To imply so is not encyclopedic, but misleading. “None of the protests were legally successful” sufficiently and impartially conveys the facts.

The entire third paragraph is problematic. E.g.:

“Trump and numerous Republicans attempted to subvert the election and overturn the results, falsely alleging widespread voter fraud and trying to influence the vote counting process in swing states.”

This, intentionally, I am sure, gives the subjective impression that Trump and “numerous Republicans” were attempting to illegitimately, even illegally, (subvert. falsely alleging) influence a process that they knew was not corrupt, as they alleged. That is not factual. There is no evidence at all that warrants dismissing the idea that they honestly believed they were challenging an illegal or rigged outcome and were right in doing so. There are no facts, including court actions, that support subversive intent. Venqax (talk) 18:29, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Venqax, how is that not factual? It's exactly what happened. That's why the whole event was planned for January 6, the day the House of Representatives counted the electoral vote, i.e. the day they could execute a coup. Peter Navarro just described it in detail on cable TV last night.[1] – Muboshgu (talk) 18:33, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

If I can jump in here as well, Wikipedia is not concerned with detailing what others may have believed, just the facts of the matters at hand. The pertinent fact, verified by sources, is that all efforts to prove those beliefs were meritorious failed because there was no concrete evidence. All court cases were dismissed for lack of evidence and standing, and despite this, Trump and his devotees are still casting doubt on the results of the latest election, all while insisting that the reults will be reversed at some point, with Trump being reinstated before the 2024 election, or that continuing to cast doubt on those results will somehow aid Trump in a 2024 reelection bid. Those are the facts of the matter. Anyone can believe and assert anything, like the sky is green. But facts, logic, and reliable incontrovertible evidence proves otherwise. If Wikipedia had to devote focus on the feelings, apinions, or assertions of any individual, any article about any public figure, event, or occurrence would be unwieldly in length, tone, and presentation. What is in the article as it is has been crafted by adherence to the policies involved in such articles. 'Nuff said. --Jgstokes (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

I should note that last year there was a commenter here predicting that everything was going to blow up after the completion of the Arizona audit. marbeh raglaim (talk) 02:33, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

OSCE Report Update

At the time of writing in December 2021, this article contains the following text "The OSCE's election monitoring branch is due to publish a more comprehensive report in early 2021."

This should be updated. Has the "comprehensive" OSCE report been released, and if so, is there anything notable which should be added to this article? 2001:480:91:FF00:0:0:0:15 (talk) 19:18, 17 December 2021 (UTC)

See here (summary that links to pdf); tbd on whether/how to revise article accordingly. --Middle 8 (s)talk • privacy 09:25, 29 December 2021 (UTC)

Missing space

There is a missing space right before the last sentence of the first section. 173.71.170.75 (talk) 01:04, 10 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Thank you for pointing that out! EvergreenFir (talk) 01:15, 10 January 2022 (UTC)