Talk:2012 United States presidential election

Template:U.S. presidential election, yyyy project page link

Info box and the candidates, II

Presumptive presidential nominees, shouldn't be included in the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 14:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Still waiting for a logical argument why not, all you've said so far is just rude and silly. Ratemonth (talk) 17:26, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Why are you and others, in such a 'bleeping' hurry to place Obama/Biden & Romney in the 'bleeping' infobox, when they're not yet NOMINATED by their parties. PS: PLEASE don't tell me about the presumptive stuff, as I already understand it. GoodDay (talk) 17:30, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

If you already understand it, then neither of us likely have anything else to say to each other about it. Ratemonth (talk) 18:23, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

So you only think the third party candidates should be in the infobox? (the green party have its convention this week). Wouldnt it look confusing if the two main candidates for President wouldnt be in the infobox? Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The Republican & Democratic parties prez nominees can be added, when those parties have prez nominees. GoodDay (talk) 16:39, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Since there is no interest in discussing the logic behind the two different wievpoint it really comes down to who support or opposse that the Dem and Rep presumptive candidates should stay in the infobox. Both candidates have by now secured a majority of delegates and I guess we have been discussing this in depht before. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

The logic is before us, neither party has nominated anyone for President or Vice President. My goodness, anyone the 3 forementioned individuals could die or drop out of the race before the delegates cast their votes. Therefore, why the rush to place Obama/Biden & Romney (for example) into the infobox? GoodDay (talk) 21:28, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

A candidate that have been nominated can die too Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:53, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

We'd deal with that after the nominees are chosen. GoodDay (talk) 02:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)

Why can't it be dealt with just as easily before the nominees are chosen if someone were to die or drop out? -- 70.57.74.73 (talk) 22:36, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

• Support for keeping the Republican and Democratic parties presumptive nominees in the infobox. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:10, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of candidates, until they're actually nominated by their respective parties. GoodDay (talk) 21:29, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support keeping it as it is. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:47, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support keeping the presumptive nominees in the infobox. Ratemonth (talk) 22:15, 14 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support keeping presumptive nominees in this infobox, and elsewhere that GoodDay seems to want to be disruptive about this issue and ignoring consensus. --Robert Horning (talk) 05:04, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support keeping the major party presumptive nominees in the infobox, in keeping with WP's policy of reflecting the consensus of reliable sources. Besides, it is abundantly clear that neither of the upcoming major party conventions is a brokered convention, and it would misleading to imply such.--JayJasper (talk) 05:39, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support Of course they should be included. Wikipedia is the source millions of Americans will use to find out about candidates. Pedantically pretending that Romney and Obama aren't candidates helps nobody. HiLo48 (talk) 05:50, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support It's fine as is, as long as the "presumptive" labels remain where appropriate. Now, there is some room for debate on the definition of "presumptive nominee" (an objective vs. subjective one), but the time for that discussion has, for now, passed- it is clear that Obama/Romney have committments from the majority of their party's delegates. Barring something dramatic & unforeseen, that won't change. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 10:43, 15 July 2012 (UTC)
• Support keeping the Democratic and Republican presumptive candidates in the infobox; also support removing any irrelevant third-party candidates from the infobox. Seriously man, wake up. You would certainly be living in Imaginationland if neither Obama or Romney wins the election. —stay (sic)! 03:06, 18 July 2012 (UTC)
• support no reason for removing them has been given. Its been well established at this point that they'll be the nominees. Also, I'd support removing the also-rans. Hot Stop 17:42, 19 July 2012 (UTC)
• Snowball support It is common sense to include the presumptive nominees in the infobox. So you think that because of the miniscule chance that someone will die, they still are not the presumptive nominee? Should we just delete most of United States at the 2012 Summer Olympics because these athletes could die before actually competing? Nonsense. Reywas92^Talk 18:02, 23 July 2012 (UTC)
• Strongly Support keeping the presumptive nominees in the infobox, as long as they are clearly tagged "presumptive" and the link to Presumptive nominee page is provided for clarification to anyone unclear of the meaning of the term. Kind of a no-brainer, really. We'd look silly if we didn't include them. As for the possibility that one of the candidates could "die or drop out" before the convention, I think the PN article covers it: "the presumptive nominee is the candidate who has not yet received the formal nomination of his or her political party at the party's nominating convention, but who has acquired enough delegate commitments through the primary elections and caucuses to be assured – barring unforeseen events – of the eventual nomination at the convention". I also support keeing all candidates who have a mathematical possibility of winning the election based on ballot access per the current consensus (see top of this page).--Rollins83 (talk) 21:09, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 14 July 2012

lp.org/2012-ballot-access shows that Gary Johnson does not have ballot access in either Maryland or Michigan. The electoral vote total for Gary Johnson is 325. For the Peace and Freedom party, there are 55 electoral votes in California. For Americans Elect, they have 265 electoral votes. Peta Lindsay has 32 electoral votes.

Bradyolson18 (talk) 16:34, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

I'll make the necessary changes. Americans Elect I'm not so sure of though, so I'll have to do some digging to confirm beforehand. --Ariostos (talk) 18:59, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Just a brief explanation and apology for my miscalculating the present Electoral College ballot access for the Libertarian Party. I transcribed the electoral college votes for Alabama instead of Alaska while creating my list, thus the overrepresentation by 6. I agree that the current correct number is 325. Thanks for catching my error.Ctconnolly (talk) 19:38, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 27 July 2012

Chuck Baldwin gains ballot access in Kansas since he received the nomination of the Reform Party of Kansas which already has ballot access in Kansas.

207.177.29.217 (talk) 16:11, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

It is not yet clear whether or not Baldwin has accepted the nomination as he was not a declared candidate for the party's nomination.--JayJasper (talk) 16:23, 27 July 2012 (UTC)

Write-In Candidate Status

A query I have. Was checking up on Stein's website, and she has apparently gained Write-In status in Nevada, Oklahoma, North Carolina, and Indiana, something I wasn't looking for beforehand. Now, I realize that we are mainly concentrating on straight ballot access, but should we make a list of Write-In states as well, considering votes for the candidate are valid there? --Ariostos (talk) 00:23, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but with the understanding that write-in status does not confer notability. IMO, we should only list it for the candidates that have achieved actual ballot access elsewhere. Moreover, it should not be used when calculating eligibility for the infobox.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:30, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright. I'll start inputting them then. --Ariostos (talk) 06:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with William that if a candidate is exclusively a write-in candidate, then that does not confer a sufficient degree of notability to be included in the article. The second question- whether to count those states towards the candidates 'infobox total'- I think goes back to the question I posed earlier of whether we are considering ballot access for the parties or for the candidates. There was not much debate then, but Jack offered his view that we were counting access for the parties.

If that is the case, I would advocate a tweak in that approach in order to count ballot access for parties exclusively in lieu of that party having an official nominee. Once a nominee has been chosen, any state where that candidate is on the ballot should count toward their total. This would be justified if the obtainment of official write-in status conveys the acceptance of a slate of electors pledged to that candidate by the state's Secretary of State. It's worth looking into, but I believe any state that has a filing process for write-in candidates would make considerations for also having a corresponding slate of electors on file.

While I'd have to read the actual state statutes to be certain, according to this article, those states that bind their electors do so for the "candidates who won a majority {not plurality?} of the popular vote in the state, or for the candidate of the party that nominated the elector." If that is the case, the states are placing the emphasis on the candidate rather than the party (putting aside the likelihood that such state laws are unconstitutional anyway).

Ariostos, I like how you have listed Stein & Goode's ballot access in such a way as to distinguish between the two types. I was going to advocate the use of asterisks, but your method may be neater. However, as I mentioned, I would support adding the two totals together for consideration of the infobox, as long as it has been confirmed that electors have been filed with those states. Before moving Stein ahead of Johnson, I would check to see if GJ has filed as a write-in candidate anywhere. I don't think he has, since he still has a chance, last time I checked, to be listed on all 51 ballots (the MI & OK lawsuits notwithstanding).

Speaking of the infobox, I'm not sure it is necessary to have the note on top of the article explaining why certain candidates are there. If editors wish to question the inclusion of the third party candidates, they will do so on this talk page, where they will be immediately greeted with the similar explanatory note that I wrote on the top. If it must be there, I would ask if there is a way to place it into the infobox itself. The second part's inclusion (concerning our post-election standard) is something I more firmly object to, as it is the sort of note directed more towards editors than readers, as it has to do with the format of the article, rather than its content. It would be like placing a note saying "after the election, we will include here a map of the state-by-state results, with the winner's name & numbers made bold."

On a different note, I thought I'd try asking once more about the eligibility of Tom Hoefling & the "America's Party" to be listed. If it is true that his party is not on another state's ballot, he wouldn't be on the FL ballot either, which would mean he'd revert to having no ballot access, justifying his name being hidden again. The original info on this is here. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 07:12, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Regarding Tom Hoefling, from what I gather is that he is concentrating on running a Write-In Campaign/Front Porch Campaign. He is also aiming for the AIP endorsement. For the time being I suggest we leave him up, and if he fails in California, look towards removing him.

OK, I agree that he can stay for now. The AIP convention is planned for August 11. If he does not win that, and there is no evidence at that point that he is listed on any other ballot, then he should be removed. I'm pretty sure that the Florida statute requires the candidate to be listed on the another state's ballot, so that write-in status wouldn't count. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

On a similar note, I am having difficulty finding the current Write-In States for candidates; I know for a fact that Tom Hoefling sought that status in North Carolina and other states, but I don't know if he was successful. The State Secretarys' websites don't help much either. Any ideas how to go about it? --Ariostos (talk) 16:34, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Hmm. Short of sending an email to the SoS's office, or making a quick phone call, I'm afraid I don't know. A SoS should publish a certified list of all write-in candidates at some point before the election, but when that will happen will vary from state to state, as the deadline for filing varies. If there is nothing on their website, we'd have to see if the candidate has said anything (as Stein has). 68.58.63.22 (talk) 21:47, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Can someone provide a link to the Florida law itself that explicitly states that a party must have secured ballot access elsewhere in order to secure a spot on the Florida ballot? There's many particulars to that statement, such as whether Florida considers write-ins as qualified in other states.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:50, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Here- see Section (4)(a). Since they are saying the party needs to be established & admitted to the ballot in another state, it would seem write-in candidacies do not count. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 22:06, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for that.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:17, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Upon further inspection of the link provided by 68.58.63.22, it seems to be not so cut-and-dry. Section (4)(b) says candidates affiliated with a minor political party not having ballot access to any state other than Florida can be listed on the ballot if they have a petition signed by 1% of Florida's electors. So the question is, does Hoefling have the necessary number of signatures needed to put him on the ballot regardless of whether or not he has ballot access anywhere else?--JayJasper (talk) 19:54, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Oh, I see now that Hoefling is now ballot-qualified in Colorado as well, so it's now a moot point where he's concerned. Still, we should keep Section (4)(b) in mind for any other candidates that may yet emerge that this may apply to.--JayJasper (talk) 20:02, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The 1% petition called for in (4)(b) wouldn't have applied to Hoefling because the AMP is a national party w/ a national convention. If he wanted to get on the ballot using that method, he would have had to reorganize the AMP to be a Florida-only party, or created a new party just for that state. It's also worth noting that in 103.022, write-in candidates are required to submit a slate of electors, which is important to know with regards to the question of whether or not to count the write-in states for Goode or Stein (see 3rd bullet point of the list below). 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

After re-reading (4)(b), it appears you are correct. Thanks for the clarification.--JayJasper (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

68.58.63.22, are you proposing we change the current criteria to look at whether an electoral college slate has been selected in enough states rather than whether ballot access has been attained? I am not sure if every state requires a slate to be selected in order to actually appear on the ballot.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:02, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

For parties that have an official nominee, yes. There are 4 possibilities:

• Write-in only/independents: I think we've agreed that candidate that are exclusively write-in candidates or independents need not be included, as that would give them undue weight. Exceptions would be someone who is already well known for a different reason (e.g. celebrities)

An independent candidate with ballot status should be included, and such candidates have been included in past election articles. Agree that "write-in only" candidates should not be included.--JayJasper (talk) 20:12, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

You're right. Independent/nonpartisan candidates need not be write-ins, although some states require them to have some sort of party label. See: Connecticut for Lieberman. Otherwise, I think they'd have to go the write-in route in those states. Still, most people who could pull that sort of thing off in enough states would be well-known enough to be listed here. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:58, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. Just wanted to clarify that not all exclusively indedendent/nonpartisans are to be excluded from the page.--JayJasper (talk) 21:25, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

• Candidates that are on the ballot solely by virtue of their party having a place on the ballot: These candidates are being tallied correctly under the current setup.
• Candidates with a mix of write-in & party ballot access: This is so far not being considered for the EV access total. Candidates of national parties (like the Greens) who realize they won't have access to the ballot as a party have apparently decided to go the write-in route as a Plan B (barring a lawsuit). That can only happen once they know who their nominee is, since a write-in is for the candidate, not the party. Therefore counting the states where they have successsfully filed as write-ins would be valid only once they are the nominee of a party with access elsewhere. You are correct, William, that we would need to confirm whether write-in status means a slate of electors has been filed. But since that's what people are actually voting for when they vote for any of the listed candidates, it would seem that accepting a candidate without accepting their electors would be pointless, as they would have no one to vote for them in the Electoral College in the extraordinary event that they win the popular vote.
• Candidates that are using the ballot lines of different parties in different states: Possible if Goode or Hoefling win the AIP nomination, or if Anderson, Alexander, or Lindsay win the P&F nod. If we are following the candidates rather than the parties, the access for each of their parties should be tallied together. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Tom Hoefling is also ballot qualified in Colorado, see page 2 here [[1]].XavierGreen (talk) 23:10, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

Suprised to say the least that Randall Terry is still maintaining his Independent Presidential Campaign, combined with his House Campaign. Guess we should place him back on in the back section (Full Third Party List, not Election Page). I'll update the charts, so to speak. --Ariostos (talk) 00:27, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Alright, either I am really bad at navigating their websites, or most states, even unofficially, don't release any Presidential lists till after registrations are done. :/ --Ariostos (talk) 01:06, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

Who knew that CO was that generous with its ballot access laws? 11 candidates not including Obama & the GOP. While that list is technically unofficial, I suppose we won't have anything more official than that until at least September (after the Dem convention), so I think we can use it. Since that list appears to be recognizing Hoefling as the AMP candidate rather than as a write-in, I think he's good to go. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 01:43, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

The people on the colorado list will definately be listed regardless of whether it says official or not. All Colorado requires to be listed on the ballot is the payment of $500 and the signature of some paperwork. The people on that list are ones who have paid $500, so unless they personally withdraw they are 99% likely to be listed on the ballot. I expect even more candidates to be listed eventually (Prohibition Party, ect) since the deadline is in mid August. I believe Randall Terry only has write in status on the colorado ballot rather than full ballot access. Louisiana also requires merely a check for $500 and some paperwork, though they haven't published any list of candidates on their ballot yet.XavierGreen (talk) 04:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Ariostos that if we are counting CO's unofficial list for all the recognized candidates there, we should be able to use similar documents from other states, including NJ.

I just checked two different online electoral college calculators and Johnson's 30 states (so not including MI) add up to 325 EVs, not 331. Therefore, Stein should be put ahead of GJ. Even if he did have access to 331, I still think Stein should be listed as having more due to her write-in states. Speaking of which, those 4 states (IN, NC, NV, OK) total 39 EV, not 46. The Green's 327 total appears correct.

Americans Elect ought to be moved to a different section as was recently discussed here. If we can't agree on where to move them within the article, then I would support deleting the section altogether, since they aren't participating in this election, ballot access notwithstanding. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 19:18, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

There should be at least some mention of Americans Elect since they did attain ballot access and had a formal selection process in place.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:42, 29 July 2012 (UTC)

It seems important at this point that the editors of this article reach consensus regarding whether or not the electoral votes from the write-in states of candidates who have a mix of party ballot access and candidate write-in access will be included in these candidates' individual electoral vote totals. Our decision may, in the future, effect inclusion in the infobox and the order of listing in the section presently titled "Third parties". If the editors decide to change the title of this section back to "Third party candidates", then Americans Elect should be removed from this section, and, if desired, placed elsewhere in a new section. Americans Elect is in the unique situation of being a party with ballot access in many states that will not have a candidate in any state. I'm generally all for inclusiveness in political and electoral processes, yet, at present, I am in favor of the exclusion of write-in states for any candidate for the purposes of calculating ballot access to Electoral College votes. If we want to consider including all the potential write-in states of candidates with party ballot access in other states, we would need to research every state's write-in laws. In some states, it may be the case that anyone's name, real or fictitious, can be written on a ballot and counted by election officials. In such states it could then be granted that anyone could win a majority or plurality of the popular vote of that state and be awarded that state's electoral votes. This scenario would include candidates with party ballot access in other states, even if they took no formal steps to gain write-in candidate access in states where anyone's name, if written in, is counted.Ctconnolly (talk) 01:36, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

This unoffical lists published by the various state election divisions consist of candidates that the respective state believes meet the criteria and will be placed on the ballot. The only reason they are labeled as unofficial is because they may be incomplete since the deadlines havent passed yet and further candidates may be added until the deadline, ect. States will regularly amend their official lists after the deadlines when candidates are removed from the ballot due to successful challenges ect.XavierGreen (talk) 03:50, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I can't imagine a state having a formal process by which to file as a write-in candidate, but yet not require that those votes be counted, or leave the door open for write-in candidates who didn't file to win their state's electoral votes. Otherwise, what would be the point of having such a filing process for write-ins? Sure, as long as there is write-in space on the ballot, any name could hypothetically win the popular vote, and the state could tally the non-registered names as a courtesy, but even if they did do that, where would that leave them if they got the most votes? With no electors. At least in Florida, electors are only appointed by the Governor if an elected elector dies before the Electoral College meets in December. Otherwise, write-in electoral slates have to have been filed with the state as part of the process of becoming an registered candidate.

All this is to say that if there is evidence that someone has filed as a write-in candidate, and their paperwork has been accepted by the state, I believe it to be a safe assumption that they have also filed a slate of electors, thus making it possible for electors of that candidate's choice to represent that state in the Electoral College if that candidate wins. I realize that reading through 51 sets of election law to confirm that my argument is correct is a chore that most people would not like to undertake. Therefore, I suggest we could just start with IN, NV, NC, and OK, and go from there. As more states release their lists of candidates, we will find out if anybody other than Goode & Stein are going this route, just as we would use those lists to add any new parties to the article. I'll get this party started...

• Indiana law: Apparently, Indiana requires only 1 candidate for elector to be on file. We'd have to find out how many Stein filed with them, but we can count at least 1 toward her total. There is a procedure listed here for vacancies due to absence, but I'm not sure about vacancies due to a failure to submit less than 11 names in the first place.
• Nevada official campaign guide: According to this, Nevada doesn't count write-in votes at all. So either Stein's site is wrong, or they meant to say she has filed as an independent.
• North Carolina write-in law and all election law: That law doesn't mention electors. However, this provision would allow for the General Assembly & Governor to "designate" electors if Goode neglected to do so when he submitted his petition.
• Oklahoma: This document makes no mention of write-in presidential candidates. A quick Google search points to OK not counting write-ins at all, just like NV. So I'm not sure what's going on there.

Also, this blog is for the 2008 election, but it still seems like a good starting point. So to sum up, unless they changed their law very recently (or were forced to by a court order), NV & OK don't allow write-ins. Since Stein was suing OK to let her on the ballot last I checked, the outcome of that lawsuit may have been to force the state to get her on as a write-in- but that is just speculation. IN requires at least some electors to be on file, while NC seems not to require that up front, but has a provision for the Governor to name them later if need be. Perhaps one the reasons these candidates never get anywhere is because they spend more time navigating these laws then actually campaigning :p 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:35, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for this info on state write-in laws. If the info on the blog is valid, the variance amongst state policies could not be more extreme. Compare Oklahoma ("Write-in candidacy for president is not allowed") with New Hampshire ("There are no procedures for a write-in candidate for President. They all get counted!"). I remain of the opinion to not include write-in states when calculating electoral college ballot access for candidates. If the majority of the editors of this article decide otherwise then I would encourage them to add these write-in totals to the calculations of every candidate, regardless of the number of states in which a candidate has secured party ballot access. I see no good reason to award write-in calculations for some candidates and not others.Ctconnolly (talk) 16:32, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

The purpose of counting up ballot access is to determine what would be the most electoral votes that candidate could possibly win on Election Day. To send electors pledged to them, the candidate needs to let states know who their elector candidates are. So you can't just count a state that accepts write-ins for all the candidates, because it needs to be shown that those candidates filed electors with the state, thus becoming "official" write-ins.

In an ideal world, every state would have nearly idential ballot access & write-in laws. It's become clear that the reality of the situation could not be further from that ideal. So while it would be most accurate and appropriate to count states where candidates are officially recognized write-ins, it's a bit of an accounting nightmare. So I would suggest the following approach: We will continue to take down and make note of where candidates claim to be officially registered, either as a party's nominee or as a write-in. By default, we will not count write-in states for the purposes of the infobox (inclusion and/or listing order), unless an editor can provide a source(s) that shows a.) The candidate has officially filed with the state and b.) that state's laws require a full slate of electors to have been filed before such a petition is deemed complete. If b. is not met, then another source would be needed to show that the candidate has voluntarily provided an electoral slate, and that slate has been accepted by the state. If all such sources are in order, we'll mark the applicable states within the list of all write-in states claimed by that candidate in such a way as to indicate that it has been confirmed elector candidates exist to be voted for there. This could be done with an asterisk or on a separate line. If an editor goes through all the trouble to find these sources, and they are in order, then I think it is fair to include them. But again, by default, candidates' claimed write-in states will not count. Also, just to reiterate- this would only apply to candidates who are on the ballot as a party's nominee in another state. Candidates who are not listed on any ballot and are therefore "write-in only" are not typically notable enough to be included, per WP:BIO. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 14:09, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

That sounds like a very sensible approach. It has my support.--JayJasper (talk) 17:46, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

The ballot page on Stein's website has been changed to remove OK from the list of claimed write-in states, replaced by Missouri. The total for those four states would now be 42 EVs. However, if we are adopting the criteria above, then only MO's 10 would count for the infobox. That's because NV doesn't appear to support write-ins, NC doesn't require names of electors up front, and IN only requires one name (rather than a full slate of 11). With the addition of PA to her party's ballots, that gives Stein 357 to Johnson's 339. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 20:11, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Unofficial lists of candidates issued by state election offices

Am I correct in my understanding that their is consensus amongst editors to include in the calculation of a candidate's "Party Ballot Access" to electoral votes, the electoral votes that are represented by unofficial lists of candidates issued by state election offices?Ctconnolly (talk) 02:08, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Well, Ariostos, XavierGreen, and myself agree that the candidates on such documents should be included, albeit for different reasons. Forgive me if I am wrong, but I believe everyone's reasons are as follows: Ariostos believes they should count because they are, for now, the best information available for determining who will be on a state's ballot; Xavier thinks they should be counted b/c they would be more accurately titled "incomplete" rather than "unofficial" lists; and I think they should be, because the state appears to be presuming those people meet their state's ballot access laws and will therefore be on the ballot, just as the RNC is presuming their party's nominee will be Mitt Romney (and he, regardless of underlying facts, was placed on this page as soon as they issued that statement). However, the opinions of 3 editors do not necessarily constitute consensus. What are your thoughts? 68.58.63.22 (talk) 04:09, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above rationales.-JayJasper (talk) 05:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I agree with all of the above as well. Since the deadline for new jersey is today, there should be an "official" list coming out with in the next few days for that state.XavierGreen (talk) 15:30, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Knowing more than I did yesterday about the nature of unofficial lists, I am now also supportive of the ability to include unofficial lists of candidates issued by state election offices. I say this primarily because the alternative of waiting for official lists, which may not be issued until after the Democratic National Convention in September, seems to me a less acceptable alternative. Worth noting as well is the likelihood that these unofficial lists will evolve with time prior to final official lists being issued by state election offices. Citations may need to be updated in the future as the unofficial lists change.Ctconnolly (talk) 16:29, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

What's an infobox?

Obviously I know, but why on earth are we expecting ordinary readers to have a clue? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 16:01, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not sure what the problem is. If they can't be bothered to find out, does it really matter to them? Hot Stop 16:12, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If it doesn't really matter then why is it in the article? – Arms & Hearts (talk) 18:15, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Are you asking about the note on top? If so, I agree it it unnecessary. It's definitely needed in the talk page, but not in the article. I would be ok with a short note in the infobox that says something like "The candidates pictured here are those who can win at least 270 electoral votes." The rest of the information seems geared towards editors, not casual readers. Infoboxes are there mostly for the benefit of casual readers. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 19:28, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Gotcha, thanks for explaining. Hot Stop 19:30, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

Just in case anyone missed it, the note was removed due to WP:HATNOTE, which largely limits such notes to redirects to related articles or a disambiguation. If anyone feels the note is still required, I think the infobox is the only place it should be. Rather than the lengthy original, I would suggest the shorter version I posted above. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:58, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Ballot Watch

Forgive me if this is undesirable to have present on the talk page, but I felt it might be of interest, if not least as a heads up. I sent out Emails to a number of the Campaigns in order to hear directly from them where they are and might be on the ballot, in whatever capacity. I included Randall Terry, though only to make sure he was even still running given his website has been inactive. The one response I have gotten so far was from the Miller Campaign, though they were not as open as I had hoped. Apparently they have write-in access in a number of states but failed to specify (or could be pulling my leg). They did mention New Jersey though, and that they are pending in Arkansas (pushing him to 29 Electoral). Officially this is all to be released in detail within the coming week. --Ariostos (talk) 12:16, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Thank you very much for doing this. However, the content of such correspondence may be construed as original research. To guarantee that we can use the information they tell you, kindly ask them if they'd be willing to make such information public. For example, they could do so by allowing you to post their replies to your emails somewhere, or by adding the information to their website. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 21:51, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I'm not liable to actually input any of this into the article itself; the idea was to ask for information, and then work to confirm said information through standard means if possible. For example, if Miller were on the ballot in Arkansas, but there were no standing sources claiming such outside our correspondence, then I would merely list it here until such a time a source came about. Not the best solution, but it is in keeping with the guidelines. --Ariostos (talk) 22:22, 2 August 2012 (UTC)

I see that the NJ petitions have been certified, but should we be counting states where candidates have filed their petitions, but the state hasn't checked the signatures yet? Supporters of the major parties will typically challenge and scrutinize the signatures whenever they can, which is why candidates file more than they need, to provide a margin of error. Signatures can and are thrown out all the time for various reasons.

All three major-minors appear to have turned in enough signatures in PA, but we shouldn't count our chickens before they hatch. This is especially true for Goode in VA, as I'm sure Republicans will be itching to keep him off the ballot if more polls emerge like the recent PPP one spotlighted here. There's a reason he's not stopping at 20,000 signatures- more than twice the required number. WV has also not been confirmed for the Libertarians, and 3,000 signatures is not the largest of margins. The Greens were already on in WV though.

It might not be a bad idea to post the PA, VA, and WV numbers here so everyone can keep track of who has filed where, but I wouldn't add them to the article until they've been certified. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:39, 3 August 2012 (UTC)

Case in point: [2]. About 4,500 of his signatures (44%) were ruled invalid. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:13, 4 August 2012 (UTC)

I'll leave those ones up for now, though anyone else can take them down if they wish. --Ariostos (talk) 03:29, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

So Roseanne Barr has won the Peace and Freedom Party nomination. Her website has already been updated, somewhat. Apparently they are aiming for ballot access in South Dakota (3,171), Wisconsin (2,000), Iowa (1,500), and Minnesota (2,000). She certainly has her work cut out for her considering the deadlines, and even then at best that is only another 29 Electoral Votes, for a total of 84 Electoral Votes. They nominated far too late. --Ariostos (talk) 03:35, 5 August 2012 (UTC)

Additional candidates may be on the ballot in Arkansas; American Third Position, Grassroots (I assume), Constitution, Justice. Latter two on as Independents. --Ariostos (talk) 20:38, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Stein also filed as an Independent in Kansas, rather than by Party. --Ariostos (talk) 20:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Green Party submitted petition in Alaska; waiting for validation. --Ariostos (talk) 15:49, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Regarding PA, the Greens are officially on the ballot because today was the last day to file a challenge. The GOP has filed petitions agains the CP & LP, so I think PA should be removed for now from each of their EV access totals.

In addition to serving as an aid to editors to determine who belongs in the infobox, I believe the list of states where candidates have qualified to the ballot is useful for readers to know who to expect to see on their ballots come November. To aid that goal, I think it would be useful to mark exactly how those candidates have qualified. It may be confusing to some if they see a name listed under a different party than they expected when they're in the voting booth. For example, by default any of Rocky Anderson's states under "party ballot access" can be assumed to be for the Justice Party. In reality, however, he is on the ballot in MI due to being nominated by the Natural Law Party, and may get on in CT if the Independent Party of CT nominates him (as they're apparently leaning toward doing). Is there a way to neatly mark such states? I was thinking something like the popups for source numbers, but without also listing it on the bottom of the page. The LP party still has a lawsuit pending in OK, but the article implies they have won their case & are on the ballot. The reality is that some local Americans Elect officers got together and held a convention to nominate him for their ballot line. However, this is not a done deal- the national AE party may challenge. See an email from a member of Johnson's campaign here. This is sort of opposite from the problem we're having with Baldwin & the local Reform Party in Kansas. Jill Stein's access in WV through the Mountain party I don't think needs to be marked since it's the recognized affiliate to the national Green Party.

Stein has filed in KS as an independent- if that's validated, should that be listed and marked in this way under party ballot access, or on a separate line? I'd be ok with marking it like my suggestion for the nominations by unaffiliated state parties (if that idea is possible). Virgil Goode & Rocky Anderson also may appear as independents in Arkansas if their petitions are validated.

So Johnson's list should have NJ (waiting for validation), PA (under challenge), OK (the AE nomination being "investigated" by the state) and WV (waiting for validation) removed for now. With WI, his access total is 354 EV (including DC). Connecticut, Maryland & Massachusetts have also received LP petitions but have not been validated. Does someone have a source for him getting on in DC?

For Jill Stein, her petitions in AK, KS (as an indy), and I believe MD have been filed but await validation. Excluding those, the GP's EV access total comes to 369, and her total (for the purposes of the infobox) is 379 after adding MO's 10 write-in elector candidates (which are being included due to MO requiring a full slate to be on file). CT doesn't explicitly ask for electors, so a source would be needed to show they've been filed in order to count for the infobox. SD and NV don't appear to allow write-ins at all.

Virgil Goode's list should have PA (under challenge) and VA (waiting for validation- the fight has already begun) removed. His own campaign site doesn't even yet claim to have access in those states. This brings his party's access back to 169 EV. As for his write-ins, IN we know (from looking into it when Stein got on there) only requires 1 elector candidate, so can't be counted. GA, IL, NC, and WV don't appear to mention electors in their write-in laws (GA, IL, and WV laws), so can't be counted unless someone finds another source to indicate electors were filed along with his write-in petition. Texas does explicitly require official write-ins to file electors, so TX's 38 EV can count. 169 + TX bring Goode's access total to 207 EV. I'll leave it to the rest of you guys to check the lists for the other candidates. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 03:33, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Ballot Maps with Third Party Candidates

Just I random idea I want to bounce off you guys. Should we place small thumbnails, maps, of the states that the various parties are on the ballot, petitioning, in the courts, etc., just as a kind of visual aid? It could also serve to point out what states they are seeking to get onto the ballot without having to add yet another section. --Ariostos (talk) 01:09, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Maybe on the third party candidates article, but I think it would clutter up this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:01, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Agree. The third party candidates article would be a more appropriate place for it.--JayJasper (talk) 03:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Thumbnails might clutter the page, but what about links? I'm not sure if we're allowed to include links from (publically viewable) social media in this article or another, but a member of the Libertarian Party from Ohio has put together a ballot access map for Johnson that is regularly updated. OK is still shaded red there b/c the LP is still in court, but GJ may be on the ballot due to Americans Elect. I'm sure there are other maps out there too. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 03:24, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Infobox with third party candidates

So in past years I've seen that only the major parties (i.e.: Republicans and Democrats) have had their candidate listed in the infobox is that changing this year? CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 23:10, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

It was decided that, up until the election itself, any candidate that could theoretically win the Presidency, as in having ballot access of 270 Electoral Votes or more, can and should be displayed there. However, the normal rules apply after the election itself, in which they will have needed to either win electoral votes, or have attained at least 5% of the vote. --Ariostos (talk) 23:29, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course consensus can change before the election. Hot Stop 23:30, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Of course. --Ariostos (talk) 23:46, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah theoretically, but let's be realistic here. Most polls only give you the options of the major party candidates and I would wager to guess ~95% of Americans only know of the major party candidates. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 23:54, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

What Americans know has no relevance to this.--William S. Saturn (talk) 23:59, 6 August 2012 (UTC)

How can it not considering they control they outcome of the election? CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 00:08, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Because the basis of reality is not on what the average Joe knows. It's based on what is.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Yeah and the reality is that the third party candidate will most likely struggle to gain 5,000 votes country wide. Judging from the polls I mentioned before and precedent in previous elections. They don't get enough coverage to have a serious chance at the win. CRRaysHead90 | ^{Get Some!} 01:04, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Keep them off: I'd say keep them off because unless there is a similar Ross Perot / Bull Moose Party challenge. If a certain candidate was earning more than 5% of the polls based on Rasmussen, Ipsos, Gallup, etc consistently, then I would endorse putting those candidates on the list. 3rd Party candidates today have nil-to-none chances unless it's someone significant. Gary Johnson barely counts outside of Colorado and I have not seen a poll where he registers consistently more than 3%. Rasmussen for example already did research today on the 3rd party question [3]. ViriiK (talk) 01:35, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Apparently you are not a political scientist and do not read large amounts of polling data. Gary Johnson has regularly exceeded 10% in polling in his homestate of New Mexico and has exceeded 5% in many national polls (5% is the level at which candidates are included in infoboxes of past elections). See [[4]] and [[5]] for lists of polls that have included him. He reglarly polls near 10% in several western states. The effect that Gary Johnson has on the election could very well be a similar vote splitting effect that the Progressive Party had in the 1912 presidential election.XavierGreen (talk) 02:31, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Though it's rather lengthy, it might be helpful for those who missed this discussion to look through it in order to see the arguments and rationales that lead to the current consensus.--JayJasper (talk) 03:28, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Anyone that believes third party candidates will only get a total of "5,000 votes country wide" seriously should think about commenting on a topic that they are more familiar with. Since polls are not concrete as ballot access, they should not be used as a crystal ball to jump to conclusions. As John Zogby told me, "the value of a poll is not to predict but to create accurate results that can be interpreted." --William S. Saturn (talk) 05:39, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

It looks like the Third-Party Mafia has invaded and infiltrated Wikipedia. The United States is a de facto two party system. Even if the polls show that third party candidates have a 10% polling rate, the candidates have a snowball's chance in hell of even spoiling the presidential election. In other words, Gary Johnson and Jill Stein are like the chosen sacrifices from their respective political parties to compete in this election. Nobody expects them to win, and they're nothing more than mere rubber stamp candidates. I'm starting to wonder if some of the editors here are being paid by the Johnson or Stein election committee. —stay (sic)! 18:44, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

If one of these candidates pulls 10% of the vote, I'm not sure how it can be argued they didn't have an effect on the election. Most "sacrifices" become so involuntarily, unlike these candidates. I'm not sure what you mean by a "rubber stamp" candidate. If anything (and I'm taking your term very loosely here), voting for a major party nominee is "rubber stamping" the de facto two party system you speak of. The only argument that can be made is that their inclusion in the infobox gives them undue weight, but you are hardly the first to have made that argument, and frankly, it's not going to win out. The policy of excluding undue things is to avoid cluttering up pages with fringe ideas, items or people. With most states having very tough ballot access laws, a candidate must have very good organization, resources, and popular support to get on to a majority of ballots. The existence of those things is enough evidence that they are not fringe candidates, regardless of whether they have a realistic chance of winning the election. This is also an objective criterion that is easier to source and harder to fiddle with. Besides, 4 pictures doesn't appear 'cluttered' to me. You can view the most recent lengthy debate that was had over this at the link on the top of the page. Archives for earlier election talk pages will contain similar discussions- you'll see this really has been debated ad nauseum. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:52, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Why is every discussion about this topic starting with: If anyone thinks that a third party candidate will win.... NO ONE DOES!
Ok, maybe the candidates themselve in a weak moment, but that they are not winning is not an argument to keeping them out before the election. They have got the ballot access in what is proberly the hardest country in the world to get ballot access enough to theoretical win. In other words they are not going to we all know, but they are officially in the race, they will play a role in the election maybe even pivotal in some states for the winner and we are staying neutral. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:18, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Include Major Candidates

I think we shouldn't include John Wolfe, Jr. or Randall Terry or the rest because Obama was really the only major candidate. And I also think that Herman Cain shouldn't be included because I don't think he was really a major candidate. He never held an office. I think we should include Stewart Greenleaf.--Creativemind15 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Creativemind15 (talk • contribs) 21:57, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Do you have any arguments to back up your opinions? Ratemonth (talk) 22:15, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested in knowing what kind of criteria would exclude Cain, who was included in every primary debate up until the time he dropped out and was at one time considered a front-runner, but would include Greenleaf, who was included in zero debates and only appeared on one primary ballot.-Rollins83 (talk) 22:20, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please ignore Creativemind. I think it's obvious he's just here to play. Take this for example, which is actually in the main space right now. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:23, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

I'm not here to play. I'm sorry if you thought so and I am done making fake articles. Herman Cain didn't hold an office and Stewart Greenleaf did. --User:Creativemind15 (talk) 8:59, 7 August 2012 (UTC)

Please, let's assume good faith. I never considered Herman Cain to be a serious contender either, but many people did, hence his inclusion in some of the debates. Stewart Greenleaf certainly was not. It is not always easy to determine what makes a candidate "major", particularly before the primaries begin. Having held a prior political office should not be the sole determinating factor. What if Donald Trump had run? In addition to political history, celebrity, polling and anything else that may contribute to media attention ought to be weighed.

However, this whole debate covers subjective criteria. Similar to the infobox, I prefer a bit more of an objective approach- anybody who is or was on enough state ballots to theoretically win a majority of their party's national convention (bound) delegates or appeared in at least one televised, party-sponsored debate should be listed. Those who were not on enough ballots or withdrew before the primaries even began should be removed. That would mean McCotter & Pawlenty would be removed, and Fred Karger would be added. The 4 fringe opponents to Obama would be removed, as none made the ballot in more than 5 states, and no debate was held. These are not meant to be all-inclusive lists anyway. All the names can be found by curious readers in the candidate pages. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 05:18, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Kansas Reform Party

Considering that if nothing changes on Baldwin's end, how should we deal with the Kansas Reform Party's nomination of Chuck Baldwin? Should the Kansas Reform Party be listed under the "Ballot access to fewer than 270 electoral votes" section as a separate party? I think we need to determine how to deal with state parties nominating candidates not otherwise listed here because the Kansas Reform Party might not be the only one. The Independent Greens of Virginia, a conservative Green party that nominated Baldwin in '08, have ballot access in Virginia and could potentially nominate someone not already listed here. --William S. Saturn (talk) 18:40, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

There is still no confirmation on Baldwin's end that he has accepted the nomination, or is even willing to run. I would classify this under what happened in 2008, when the Constitution Party in Louisiana and Montana nominated Ron Paul; I'm honestly not sure how to proceed. As for other parties, we should leave them alone unless they actually endorse a candidate, otherwise it is going to get really cluttered; we don't have any definitive candidates for them anyway. --Ariostos (talk) 19:45, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

Unless he tells the state to remove his name from the ballot or the Kansas Reform Party changes its mind he will be listed. I would list him with the other third party candidates that have less than 270 electoral vote access. We already have a couple single state access people listed already, and to be npov we need to include him if we include other people who have less than 270.XavierGreen (talk) 22:08, 8 August 2012 (UTC)

I agree that he'll have to be included somewhere. However, I don't think just putting him in under the "...fewer than 270 electoral votes" section works well with the current format. It would end up looking like: Reform Party of Kansas/Chuck Baldwin; vice-presidential nominee ???/Party Ballot Access: Kansas- (6 Electoral), which is redundant and I think looks silly.

Instead, I think he should be listed in a footnote at the bottom of the Reform Party USA line, with the comment saying something like "The Reform Party of Kansas chose to nominate Chuck Baldwin rather than {insert national nominee's name here}". Given that there is no evidence that he wanted this and will be campaigning (and will not appear on any other ballots, since this is a state rather than a national party), I think it would be undue to give this party it's own line in the list. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 04:37, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Table or list?

I had converted the long list of third-party candidates into a table, because I felt that the list format was unwieldy and hard to read, but it was reverted by someone who thought that the table was more unwieldy. I'm happy to go along with whatever the consensus turns out to be, but I want to give others a chance to comment first. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 03:25, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

Simply put, it seemed too clunky, trying to squeeze everything into a small space. --Ariostos (talk) 03:29, 9 August 2012 (UTC)

This might be a matter of taste, but I feel that the list is more confusing because you can't just eyeball down the columns to quickly compare the parties. Anyhow, I don't want to spend too many bytes on this, I'd rather just get some extra opinions. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs)

• Comment I could support either layout. Once we start adding more information to the "Campaign" and future "Results" sections, a more concise format may be desired. For now, the existing list works too. On a related note, the table has reminded me that we really ought to figure out how to deal with Americans Elect. I don't like where they are now in the list, and their appearance in the table looks even more awkward. My opinion on the question is here. They're not participating in this election, and I'm pretty sure states won't put a blank AE line on the ballot if they haven't nominated anybody. 68.58.63.22 (talk) 03:50, 9 August 2012 (UTC)