Talk:2016 United States presidential election/Archive 18

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

→

Archive 24

Map changes

Is it possible for us to reach an agreement on whether or not to color Michigan red or leave it grey? Looking for stability here. PS: If we're going to show Trump's projected EV as 306? then we should have Michigan colored in red. GoodDay (talk) 16:19, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

LOL yeah right I was thinking the same thing, it seems to change every few days since November 8th! We should have official results on Monday now. But then we are going to have recounts, and then three states will return to gray again? AntonHogervorst (talk) 17:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

Whatever is done, the projected electoral vote numbers need to match the map. The official Michigan results are supposed to be announced Monday as you say, so that should settle it (unless it doesn't). 64.105.98.115 (talk) 17:44, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd also underscore the need to add a population cartogram given that many people are using regular maps to claim there's a majority of Republican voters. These ones by Mark Newman of University of Michigan are a good resource and have been cited by many [1]. The website by Mark Newman contains explanations, as well as the source of the data and the software used to make the maps. Hope this is useful. 37.223.131.5 (talk) 15:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect Statements in the Fourth Paragraph

The fourth paragraph of the article has the following incorrect statements:

The victory, considered unlikely by most pre-election forecasts,[10][11] was characterized by various news organizations as an "upset" and the most "shocking" U.S. presidential election result since Harry S. Truman's upset victory in 1948.[12][13] With 62.4 million votes, Trump has received more votes than any Republican candidate in history. Clinton's 64.6 million votes is the second-highest total for a Democratic candidate, after Barack Obama in 2008.[1]

To be accurate, I think it should read as follows and should be changed by a fellow editor as I am unable to edit these changes. Thank you kindly.

The victory, considered unlikely by most pre-election forecasts,[10][11] was characterized by various news organizations as an "upset" and the most "shocking" U.S. presidential election result since Harry S. Truman's upset victory in 1948.[12][13] With over 62.4 million votes, Trump has received more votes than any other Republican candidate and the third most votes for President in the history of the United States after Barack Obama's wins in 2008 and 2012. Clinton's more than 64.6 million votes is the third-highest total for a Democratic candidate, after Barack Obama's elections in 2008 and 2012. Clinton is also the second most voted for Presidential candidate in the history of the United States after Barack Obama's wins in 2008 and 2012.[1] — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.12.3.159 (talk) 20:07, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I think this can wait until all votes are tallied. WatchFan⁰⁷ 22:37, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

I believe it should also be noted, with some actual figures, that there are more voters than ever before. American In Brazil (talk) 14:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Opinion about the recount petitions

Could a competent editor mention in the "recount petitions" section this opinion about them: http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2016/11/the_democrats_real_strategy_in_launching_recounts.html ? Also asked here: https://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_United_States_presidential_election_recount_and_audit&oldid=751817197 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 191.222.211.235 (talk) 00:30, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

allegations of illegal votes

Donald Trump claims millions of illegals voted in the general election, implying in California where there are millions of illegal Mexicans.

http://time.com/4582868/donald-trump-people-illegally-voted-election/

69.166.118.152 (talk) 23:13, 27 November 2016 (UTC)

A bullshit meme being spread around by fake news websites has no place in an encyclopedia.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Time magazine isn't a "fake news" website. If the president-elect is making a counter allegation of vote fraud by illegal immigrants, wouldn't that be relevant in some way?173.66.18.9 (talk) 00:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, considering he is making a claim against a racial/cultural group with no evidence, it would be relevant as an extreme negative of Trump. Is that what you want? Objective3000 (talk) 01:03, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, to the extent the president elect is making "false claims", making "bogus claims", making claims "without proof" that is possibly notable. Are you proposing to add to the article that the president elect is lying? Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

And from the Time magazine article itself, which you're linking to, "Falsely Says".Volunteer Marek (talk) 01:09, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

This proposal is a good example of why unregistered users can't edit the article. The only true thing is that Trump did say it. Once. Without offering any evidence and clearly not even believing it himself. Maybe he just couldn't stand the thought that he might not have won the popular vote. --MelanieN (talk) 01:06, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Lol, again with Trump's allegations about illegal votes. First the illegal immigrants then the dead. Now this, what's next? Will he accuse other countries of illegally voting? Will Canada, my native land, have illegally voted as well? You see my point? There is no evidence and has no merit or notability on the article. It's just a bunch of false allegations without any solid evidence. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 01:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Trump tweets without regard for facts or evidence. We do not edit Wikipedia the way he tweets. Sad! – Muboshgu (talk) 01:10, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

P.S. Re the Time Magazine reference: the headline is Donald Trump Falsely Says Millions of People Voted Illegally in the Election He Won, and is followed by a subheadline But they didn't. --MelanieN (talk) 01:11, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

To what degree is Trump alleging that there were illegal votes different from Jill Stein and a computer science professor doing the same thing? I'm sensing a lot of feelings behind your comments as well.173.66.18.9 (talk) 01:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The computer scientists pointed to evidence that they believe supports their claims, specifically "a questionable trend of Clinton performing worse in counties that relied on electronic voting machines compared to paper ballots and optical scanners". Trump pulled his claim out of his ass. – Muboshgu (talk) 02:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Could you please remember this is an encyclopedia, not a discussion site where you can emit your dislike about a certain candidate! It seems to me a lot of people are only here to run down Trump AntonHogervorst (talk) 20:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

In this case, I think it is important to keep in mind the fact that Trump pulled that tweet out of his ass, so we know not to give it the credence of a claim that has any level of evidence behind it. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

However Trump is the president-elect, making his "asspulls" arguably important as he will shortly have the authority to authorize investigations into things he wants to investigate.173.66.18.9 (talk) 02:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

How important his "asspulls" really are is debatable, and not yet truly understood. – Muboshgu (talk) 22:43, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The President elect has made a false claim that millions voted illegally in an election. This is of historical importance and should be included in the article. I disagree with the section being removed. Casprings (talk) 01:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Giving it attention is exactly what he wants, even if it is falsely claimed. He has been doing this the entire election. WatchFan⁰⁷ 02:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Donald Trump will shortly be the president, I am skeptical of him doing things for publicity this late in the game.173.66.18.9 (talk) 03:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and we should continue to document clearly untrue statements. Casprings (talk) 03:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Whether it is true or not is irrelevant, the fact that the winner of the presidential election and president-elect said it is the relevant part.173.66.18.9 (talk) 03:35, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

There is evidence. Dozens of illegal Mexicans were caught in California trying to vote. Lord knows how many voted and were not caught. http://truthfeed.com/breaking-over-40-illegals-arrested-for-trying-to-vote-in-california/34639/ 69.166.118.152 (talk) 02:41, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

That source seems to be unreliable. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 02:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I couldn't find the original source of the story, but dozens of sites with copy/pastes. WatchFan⁰⁷ 03:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

It's garbage.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:29, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to remind editors commenting here that BLP guidelines don't stop at the talk page of a BLP, they apply here just as much as in the article itself. You may not like the president-elect, you may take issue with what he says and does, however, this is not social media. Don't take potshots at him here. This is not a safe zone. BLP guidelines and policy apply here as does the possibility of sanctions being handed out if BLP policy on POV is violated. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:00, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

On the other hand, if an event surrounding one candidate that pertains to the presidential election, a carefully-worded explanation of what occurred could be of enough significance to merit inclusion. The rhetoric of the candidate in question, though, has clearly been quite harsh throughout both the primaries and final election: I think it remains to be seen whether reliable sources give this statement more than routine coverage. In the same way, we do have a Wikipedia page on Donald Trump sexual misconduct allegations, which (roughly) neutrally explains an issue that has been covered in depth by many reliable sources. I doubt the illegal voting allegations will have as much notability in the overall election, but it may merit a short, neutral statement. Appable (talk) 14:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes BLP applies to talk pages, but there isn't any BLP violations here.Volunteer Marek (talk) 14:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You said "bullshit meme". That's a slur against the President-elect and Kek. Shadilay (talk) 14:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Personal, negative commentary is, indeed, a BLP violation. Nice try. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 14:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, Winkelvi. Also, the anon editor 69.166.118.152 puts words in Trump's mouth. The anon editor claims falsely that Trump referred to California and to Mexican-Americans. That is simply not true and Winkelvi's warning clearly applies to that falsehood. Also, the editor Callmemirela is attempting to put words in Trump's mouth. He never mentioned Canada. He talked about illegal votes. That's all. Clearly editors are just pulling things from the thin blue air. So far this whole discussion has mostly been a long personal attack on Trump. It is not an attempt to make the article better, just some false statements and hyperbole from various editors.--ML (talk) 14:49, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any "personal" commentary above and no, negative commentary is NOT a BLP violation if it's based on sources. Nice try.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Whatever this "BLP" thing is, it seems to be important, so I think people here probably should follow it. By the way, is it ok to remove other editor's comments from a talk page, as "Volunteer Marek" just did to one of mine? Shadilay (talk) 14:59, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I restored your comment. Volunteer Marek should have never removed it.--ML (talk) 15:17, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Seriously. Wikishovel (talk) 16:04, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

You mean this part: "Cautiously editing or removing another editor's comments is sometimes allowed"? Or this part "Removing harmful posts, including personal attacks, trolling, and vandalism". What exactly is constructive about the comment, quote "That's a slur against the President-elect and Kek."? You want to enable and encourage trolling by brand new accounts on talk pages? Fine. Invite them to your own talk page. Don't make the rest of us put up with it.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

@Winkelvi: I don't think I agree that negative commentary is always a BLP violation. We need to maintain neutral point of view and balance on the article. The biggest danger of including this type of information on the page is giving undue coverage to non-notable events, or using the article as an opportunity to portray Trump in a negative light. Both of these are violations of the BLP policy.

Looking through BLP now, there is definitely a case that non-gossip reliable sources are covering an event (Trump's allegations of illegal votes) directly pertaining to the election. Since Trump has stated this, sources are clearly directly providing non-speculative, verifiable information about these allegations. This passes the test of verifiability and sourcing policy for BLP articles, so it definitely merits inclusion. The question is: how can we include this information in a neutral way without giving undue weight to either side? Appable (talk) 15:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Here's a source: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/trump-pushes-conspiracy-theory-that-millions-voted-illegally-for-clinton/2016/11/27/d3a78170-b4cd-11e6-b8df-600bd9d38a02_story.html?hpid=hp_rhp-top-table-main_transition-658pm%3Ahomepage%2Fstory. How about saying something like, "President-elect Trump, in several Tweets, claimed that the reason Clinton had more popular votes was due to fraudulent voting by non-US citizens." Shadilay (talk) 15:31, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Don't think sources or the original tweet indicate that non-US citizens voted: other forms of voting fraud may have been implied by the tweet, as it only stated "illegal voters". (additionally, not all citizens are eligible voters). I think that's a good start, though. Appable (talk) 15:34, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

No, the only thing we could add, per sources, is that Trump made a false claim about voting. I actually don't think we should do that, unless he persists in making this claim, but that is the only thing that we could *possibly* add, since we follow reliable sources.Volunteer Marek (talk) 16:01, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Examples of BLP bios on this talk page: "Maybe he just couldn't stand the thought that he might not have won the popular vote"; "Giving it attention is exactly what he wants...He has been doing this the entire election."; "Trump pulled his claim out of his ass".; "Trump tweets without regard for facts or evidence"; "First the illegal immigrants then the dead. Now this, what's next? Will he accuse other countries of illegally voting? Will Canada, my native land, have illegally voted as well? You see my point?". This is just a sampling, shall I find more? If it's gossipy speculation and personal, POV commentary about an article subject, it's a BLP and talk page vio. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 16:42, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, 3/4th of what he has said has been said to be false according to Polifact. And large amount of these come from his Twitter account. Maybe I went a bit too far with 'Giving it attention is exactly what he wants', but doesn't negate the fact that it gains coverage, and thereby gaining attention. When he does it repeatedly, conclusion can be drawn that his intent is coverage, no matter of its falsehood. I will try to be more careful next time. WatchFan⁰⁷ 18:40, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd like to point out that this is not a BLP article. If this were Donald Trump, yes I totally agree. However, I do agree to some extent that BLP-related policies go beyond BLP articles and apply to "normal" articles. I perhaps went too far with my comments, but he did state that the dead and illegal immigrants were the reason for voter fraud without providing any solid evidence and was debunked by reliable sources. My frustrations are obvious lol. My point was that Trump has made plenty of false allegations during the campaign and now after he's won the election without any proof to back up his claims. To me, it shouldn't belong in the article as I fail to see how it's notable or worthy mentioning in a simple sentence at all. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 18:45, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Nice try at attempting to circumvent on a minor technicality. The article is about specific presidential candidates. No, not a BLP like other BLPs, but certainly you can see how BLP policy would still apply with the article and article talk page, yes? -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 19:32, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I am not trying to attempt anything. I said I agreed in my comment: "However, I do agree to some extent that BLP-related policies go beyond BLP articles and apply to "normal" articles.". Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 19:53, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment The logic for not including it in the article is that, it isn't true, so it isn't notable. The fact is, it is notable because it is false. The President elect of the United States is questioning the legitimacy of the election that gained him the office and doing so with no facts. That seems likely to become historically important and cuts to undermining the legitimacy of American democracy. This to me should be included as a false accusation with some statements about the importance of his false statements.Casprings (talk) 20:08, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

The notability of an event is not based on whether it is true or false, but rather its coverage in reliable sources. At the same time, we must remember that Trump has used harsh rhetoric during the entire campaign, and therefore has gotten significant routine coverage of many short statements he's made. Routine coverage doesn't mean that something is notable - but if these accusations continue to be covered by reliable sources beyond what we would expect from one of Trump's controversial tweets, then I think it merits inclusion. Appable (talk) 21:27, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Comment about WP:BLP: There has been discussion here about whether this talk page is subject to BLP guidelines, and to what extent. The answer is: yes, it is, but the examples which have been given here are not BLP violations. It is not a BLP violation, on a politician's talk page, to opine that the article's subject is a liar or a demagogue or a weasel or a war-monger. It is not a BLP violation to make snide comments about the subject's motivations or future plans. Those are pretty much within the range of normal political discourse. So what IS a BLP violation on a talk page? Examples would include calling the subject filthy names, or making outrageous false statements about them (for example calling them a child molester or a convicted felon). I have deleted and RevDel'ed this type of comment on talk pages. --MelanieN (talk) 21:44, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Completely disagree. Strongly, completely disagree. If something is POV and is not related to content, if something POV is said that wouldn't, couldn't be said in the article related to BLP subject's character and is without proper sourcing to back it up, if it is someone's negative personal opinion, then it is a BLP vio. If it's gossip, then it's a talkpage vio - this isn't social media and it's not a place to discuss individuals included in the article and the opinions of editors about individuals included in the article - it's not a forum. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 22:38, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

the highest turnout ever?

The 2008 election had a turnout of 58.2% when Obama run. This election has a turnout of at least 58.5%--69.166.118.152 (talk) 05:05, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Dear Anon editor: You are comparing apples to oranges (V.A.P. versus V.E.P.).--ML (talk) 12:23, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I'll bite. Let's say you mean VAP 'Voting Age Population'. According to Voter turnout in the United States presidential elections, the election of 1876 had a VAP turnout of 81.8%. The turnout this year wasn't nearly as high as 82%, so no. The turnout this year was not the highest in US history. In fact, the voter turnout was not 58.5%. It went DOWN from 2012, which means it has to be 58.1% or less. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 16:01, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Since previous elections have had turnout calculated on the basis of VAP, it seems a calculation on the basis of VEP would indeed be misleading, at least in terms of comparison. Would someone please edit appropriately?Amyzex (talk) 20:22, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, we had several discussions about VAP including here [2] and came to the conclusion that we should use VAP and not the current VEP. Feel free to change it back. I can't change it back for several more hours because of 1RR. Gsonnenf (talk) 21:24, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Predictions are not facts

This article contains many places where predictions and partial information are presented as final facts. I suggest anything based on the Dave Leip's Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections reference, http://uselectionatlas.org/RESULTS/index.html is not yet official and should be labelled accordingly. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 16:13, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

(1) Leip is not making "predictions". That statement is simply not true. He is reporting numbers that come from the websites of official sources. (2) No one in the article has presented Leip's numbers as official. There will be no official numbers until the Presidential Election Commission publishes the final numbers. (3) Once the Prez Ele Comm publishes the official numbers Leip's numbers will be replaced. (4) There are disclaimers applied to Leip's numbers already in the article--pointing out that the numbers are not official and that the vote counting is still on going.--ML (talk) 17:21, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Hey, I did NOT say Leip is making predictions. I said the article does. For example the lead "Despite winning the popular vote by more than two million votes", at this point such a claim is only a prediction based on incomplete information. Regards, Sun Creator^(talk) 22:18, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

By that logic, every state colored on the map that does not have certified results is also a "prediction". At a certain point, we should not be willfully obtuse. 1) Trump has won certain states, enough to win the Electoral College if electors are faithful. 2) Clinton has won the popular vote by over two million. It's no more unlikely that the certified results will flip some states currently colored for Trump, like Wisconsin, than it is for Clinton's current 2.3million+ popular vote to slip below 2 million when the final 900,000 votes are counted in California where she is winning roughly 2-1 over Trump currently. C'mon, this stuff is anal extremism. We can say Trump will be the President-elect and Clinton will win by more than two million popular votes, and we can say the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. If it somehow rises in the north, we can edit the article. 2005 (talk) 07:37, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Sun, the above user (MaverickLittle) has been disciplined by wikipedia admins for his inability to have a coherent constructive conversation. We should all come to a conclusion on how to move forward with this. At this point I am alright with using any mainstream source, including AP. If major news organizations are referencing Leip or Cook for the 2016 election count (not just past years), I would be ok with keeping that. Does anyone have any evidence of Leip or Cook is being used by major news organizations specifically for the 2016 election count?Gsonnenf (talk) 21:28, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

Leip's site should only be used for the votes reported to date. However we can say that Clinton won at least 2 million votes more than Trump because that is what reliable sources say. They know that Clinton has received at least 2 million votes that have been counted so far and that more of the uncounted votes will go to her than to Trump. Sure that's a prediction, but so is that most members of the electoral college will vote for Trump or that the Congress will count their votes or that Trump will agree to take the oath of office. If reliable sources say something will happen, then it should be presented as a fact. TFD (talk) 03:39, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Michigan officially certified

Michigan's Board of Canvassers have officially certified the results indicating Trump has officially won the state. According to Politico here. Calibrador (talk) 19:47, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

VAP vs VEP Turnout

I've updated a few sections where turnout is mentioned in line with the VAP used in previous elections using the McDonald source as of 11/28. However, why are we using VAP over VEP in general? Is it difficult to find the VEP in older elections to make strong comparisons? The implication of using VAP would be that turnout could never be 100% because of the ineligible population and that's strange. --Travis McGeehan (talk) 03:56, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

This needs to be uniform with prior Presidential elections regardless, so if they use VAP then either this article needs to use VAP, or all the previous ones need to be changed. I think in general VEP is a better statistic, but then I wouldn't be the one changing all the previous figures. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 04:36, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

The primary reason we are using VAP over VEP is previous article infoboxes. I do appreciate VAP because it is indicative of what percentage of the adult population participated in choosing their own governance and gives some sort of statistical representation to people that were denied the right to participate. In a more oppressive regime you could have a VEP close to 100% and a VAP well below 50%.Gsonnenf (talk) 18:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

American citizens resident in U.S. overseas territories, i.e., in Puerto Rico, are also ineligible to vote in presidential elections. TFD (talk) 01:33, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

I could understand your point about giving proper statistical representation if the bulk of the difference between VAP and VEP was in convicted felons, but the actual bulk of the difference is in non-citizens living in the US who would be properly represented under a VEP statistic in their respective countries. According to the McDonald source, there are 21 million non-citizens in the US who do not have a right to participate in US elections, 3 million being actually denied a right to vote due to felony convictions, and 5 million overseas citizens who do have a right to vote but are not represented in the VAP statistic because they don't live in the US. Given that the bulk of the discrepancy between VEP and VAP is due to people living in one country while retaining a right to participate in another's elections, I would suggest that the VEP statistic is a more accurate representation about peoples' choices about their governance. Disclaimer that this is opinion and VAP should be used for consistency at this point. --Travis McGeehan (talk) 20:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Hmmm, are you sure that the 5 million people overseas are not represented in the VAP? I would imagine they would include everyone with US citizenship and permanent residency in the count. I could be wrong though, do we have a source on this?Gsonnenf (talk) 22:18, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Yeah VAP not including overseas citizens is viewable in the spreadsheet in the McDonald source. The VAP number is 251.1 mil and he determines VEP by subtracting non-citizen residents (8.4% of VAP) and felons (3.2 mil) and then adding back in overseas citizens (4.7 mil) for a rough VEP of 231.6 mil. If overseas citizens were part of VAP he'd be calcing VEP at 226.8 mil. McDonald describes how the VAP which he sources from the Census Bureau does not include overseas citizens in his FAQ --Travis McGeehan (talk) 06:04, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

References

Here's a policy proposal: Let's report facts on the Stein/Clinton Recount Initiative, rather than reporting Jill Stein/Hill Clinton's agenda as legitimate or factual

Yeah, this is useless
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I've noticed, as Wikipedia grows in size and becomes less and less manageable, that the editorship of Wikipedia is failing and falling behind. This whole article is slanted in favor of Hillary Clinton and the Clinton camp. Before you lose your collective minds and begin charging me as a "Russian counter-ops Alt. Right autistic Trump fanatic", I'm happy to remind each and every one of you that, personally, I did not vote for Trump and I cannot stand him. Of his policy proposals and appointment nominations, of the GOP Convention Platform, the only values I share with either he (Donald Trump) or them (the GOP) is non-interventionism and diminishing or abolishing NATO (not something he actually ever said anyway). Nowhere in this entire articles is it brought up that the Green Party is hellbent on putting Hillary Clinton in power, no one finds it strange or crazy (as if we live in an upside down world) that Stein and the Green Party are acting on behalf of Hillary Clinton. I considered voting for Stein and I am so fucking thankful that, at the last moment, I did not do so. I didn't realize, and I'm sure the million and a half people who voted for her also didn't realize that she's a total shill for the Corporatocracy. She raised more money for Hillary Clinton, over USD 6 million (by her own testimony), than she did for her own presidential campaign (which amounted to only a couple hundred thousand at peak expenditure). Her whole campaign was (I'm paraphrasing here, though I agree with all of the following): Don't buy into the false dualism of choosing the lesser of two evils. Donald is some kind of clown, who knows what Donald is. That doesn't mean Hillary Clinton is any less objectionable, that doesn't mean she's any less freaking corrupt, that she's any less Right-Wing, Warhawk, in bed with Wall Street. And what's she doing now? Raising more money, in many multiples, than she did for her own campaign, and fighting hard and swearing to do everything in the Green Party's power and influence to get Hillary Clinton elected. Here's a fact, a loose, but factual comment about the recount initiative "Precincts with more votes than voters have been known in chicago and several other democratic bastions over the years. AND more importantly-Stein CANNOT get a recount in Pennsylvania unless she GOES TO COURT-proves alleged fraud-and gets a judge to order it. Just being willing to pay for it does not get you a recount in Pennsylvania. LOOK it up I think Stein knows this. This ploy is a money scam by the greens." And without Pennsylvania, there's no way to affect the outcome of the election - which renders this all an interesting exercise in futility. Yet this fact, which anyone can verify with the fucking laws of the CommonWealth of Pennsylvania, is conveniently nowhere to be found in this article. No one pointed it out. DarkApollo (talk) 11:21, 29 November 2016 (UTC) We'd need reliable sources to prove that the Democrats have put Jill Stein up to these recount demands, before adding to this article. GoodDay (talk) 11:25, 29 November 2016 (UTC) @DarkApollo: futile, yes, but still notable. I don't quite follow what changes you're proposing to make to the article, can you please clarify? Wikishovel (talk) 12:06, 29 November 2016 (UTC) We do not propose policies on talk pages. That discussion belongs elsewhere. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 13:12, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Yes, let's focus on facts. However, one should also explain the reason for the recount, and this an alleged/possible planting of viruses in voting machines, which is very easy to do (here is Russian source, for example), see also references mentioned here [3][4]. This is not a matter of "agenda", but a matter of reason. This must be included. My very best wishes (talk) 16:32, 29 November 2016 (UTC) Your interpretation of Stein's motives is baseless speculation. In 2004, the Green and Libertarian Parties together challenged the vote in Ohio. Obviously most of the money raised has come from Clinton supporters and the Clinton campaign has joined the challenge. But they gave no support to Stein's campaign. TFD (talk) 02:10, 30 November 2016 (UTC) Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Your personal views and other comments are not relevant to the article. -- 184.189.217.210 (talk) 00:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC) I see a hat in the near future. Objective3000 (talk) 01:40, 1 December 2016 (UTC) @Random user 184.189.217.210 @Objective3000 @The Four Deuces @My very best wishes The four of you contributed nothing to this at all but snide remarks about hats and alleging what I said was "baseless speculation". You can eat your own hats and nothing I said about was "baseless speculation". This recount isn't about a noble "search for the truth" or some X-Files conspiracy about the Russians planting malware and "fight the future", this recount is about putting Clinton in power, which is absolutely the agenda. It's also an agenda I see that a majority of Wikipedia users seem to get a jolt of excitement up their leg over the idea of throwing the election to Clinton. Nevermind that the Electoral College is not an Amendment of the US Constitution, but is written into the Articles that makeup the Constitution itself. Nevermind that Jill Stein, who cannot win the election, is only proposing recounts in three states that Donald Trump one, which would mean that she (and you) believe that malware was only a problem in those three states and not in any of the 47 other States of the Union. Nevermind that Jill Stein and the Green Party are accessories of the Democratic Party. Nevermind that none of you will learn ANYTHING about from the loss of this election. Several years from now, you'll be eating hats of your own making. And seriously, what's with your obsession with hats? God help you. @Wikishovel To clarify, my proposal was adding the FACT that Jill Stein cannot petition Pennsylvania to preform a costly recount or an even costlier recount by hand. She cannot simply throw money at the problem. She has to prove to a Pennsylvania judge, or to the Supreme Court of Pennsylvania, that fraud occurred. Only by court order will a recount occur in accordance with Pennsylvania law. She has to have PROOF that fraud occurred, which she has no proof. I find it ridiculous that @TheFourDeuces (and other users) accuse me of "baseless speculation", when Jill Stein's recount initiative is itself baseless speculation. She has no evidence, no proof, nothing at all. This FACT, not baseless speculation, is what I want added to the article. But because the users here are doing their utmost to cover for Stein, at the benefit of Hillary Clinton, the worst presidential nominee in history, it won't get added. A user by the name of @General_Ization removed this response, I've edited to try to prevent my response from being removed again. What he/she/they said was interesting, they told me not to attack other users and to stick to content and not the individual contributors. I find this interesting because @Objective3000's comment is allowed to stand, even though it has nothing to do with the content or conversation, but is veiled ad hominem about me eating a hat. DarkApollo (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC) @DarkApollo: Thank you for rephrasing your post to remove the personal attacks against other editors, which are not permitted. As for the "obsession with hats", it has nothing to do with headgear. Please see {{hat}} (Hidden Archive Top), which is a Wikipedia template used to bring a discussion which has ceased to be productive to a close. When an editor says "I see a hat in the near future," they are suggesting that the conversation has reached or will soon reach that point. It is not an ad hominem attack. General Ization Talk 05:52, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 November 2016

Trump won Nebraska's 2nd CD by 3.4 Margin and Maine's 2nd CD by 10.5 margin. It's no longer TBA. 188.2.98.226 (talk) 22:27, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Callmemirela 🍁 {Talk} ♑ 23:41, 29 November 2016 (UTC)

number different than where copy and also unrepresentative so not good

if first time is not small how can not_first_time be red = blue equal when margin with first time big margin this means discrepancy unless first time very small where these numbers come anyway, not clear where theycopied from can place they copied from be given to go look? File:How does that math work..JPG — Preceding unsigned comment added by ֗ (talk • contribs) 06:04, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Simply:

56% of "first time" voters surveyed voted for Clinton, 40% voted for Trump and 4% voted for another candidate (accounting for 100% of "first time" voters, which made up 10% of voters surveyed overall).

47% of voters surveyed who were not voting for the first time voted for Clinton, 47% voted for Trump, and 6% voted for another candidate (accounting for 100% of non-"first time" voters, which made up 90% of voters surveyed overall).

The source of the data is explained at the top of the table. General Ization ^Talk 06:17, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Explanation at top suggest a pool of all sources working to putall data together so suggest data should checksum as table but can be seen are not the same is not explained

anyway data have to be unrepresentative of what happened so why bad maybe misquoted sample data so much space makes little sense not worth bothering with — Preceding unsigned comment added by ֗ (talk • contribs) 06:49, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 1 December 2016

Technically Clinton lost the electoral college by 38 electoral votes, not 74, that was compared to Donald Trump. 75.83.133.40 (talk) 21:43, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

 Not done "Lost" in this instance refers to the negation of Trump's EC majority, not "Fell short 38 EC votes". CaradhrasAiguo (talk) 21:48, 1 December 2016 (UTC)

This is a grammar edit

In the first paragraph: "This election was both the third time the Democratic and Republican nominees were both from the New York..." The first "both" is unnecessary and likely a typo. Suggesting removing it so it reads: "This election was the third time the Democratic and Republican nominees were both from the New York..."

I believe 'both' in the the sentence is referring to the president-elect losing his home state AND both nominees being from New York. If that is the intend, we can change the end of the sentence to "the president-elect losing his home state but winning the election."

Upon research, looks like the statement is wrong. Three times where both candidates were from NY are 1904, 1944, 2016. But, 'four' times where president-elect lost his home state are: 1844, 1916, 1968, 2016. WatchFan 07 23:07, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia may shape this article like the one about the 2000 election

It's a little messy to read this article, at least for me. It's easy to get lost about a topic when reading: for example, the background should refer quickly to the methodology of the election and just who is the incumbent president and here the section is somewhat detailing "Obama's legacy". There's also a section about general campaigning which is missed in the 2016 election article which could be included, more than just the statistics existing in this article. The section Forecasting might be merged with the section Reactions and Recounting in a section called Aftermath, see the 2000 review which also has other analysis which may be done in the 2016 article with the appropriated WP:RS. The swing states part is now useless and should be let on the main article about swing states. And while WP:CRYSTAL, I think it's needed to refer here to a possible spoiler effect by Gary Johnson, and maybe Jill Stein too. My only goal is to improve the presentation of this article. Leo Bonilla (talk) 23:29, 2 December 2016 (UTC)

You make a lot of great points but I would be very hesitant to assert a spoiler effect in this election. There's a lot of evidence from exit polls and results compared to previous elections that Independent voters broke for Trump. Trump won self describing independent voters 48-42 according to NYT. Trump lost way more voters to McMullin in Utah than Hillary, though you could assign that to ideology. A better example of a near-spoiler is New Hampshire where it looks very much like Hillary lost a ton of support to the Johnson camp (Trump support nearly identical to 2012, Hillary down a lot compared to Obama). However, this is all extremely speculative anyway because the results were so close in the swing states that you could call a gentle wind an election spoiler. In my opinion, at most you could call Stein a spoiler because her voters clearly are more ideologically aligned with Clinton, whereas the Johnson camp seems to be more conservative in states which Trump won anyway and more liberal in states where Clinton won anyway.Travis McGeehan (talk) 08:46, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Results by state

Trump's vote count in Pennsylvania is incorrect. The current article has his vote count there a factor of ten larger then what it currently is. Please fix this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:44:8901:5E28:6DA5:CE1B:C10E:342D (talk) 00:43, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. 2005 (talk) 01:40, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on December 3, 2016

I propose that we change the article's intro somewhat dramatically, but mostly as a result of shifting more of the fact-based trivia points down into the body of the article. At the same time, adding in more prose that describes the election's overall narrative - prominent issues, each of the party's primaries, etc. - like previous elections.

Here's my proposed version of the new intro:

"The United States presidential election of 2016 was the 58th and most recent quadrennial American presidential election, held on Tuesday, November 8, 2016. Businessman Donald Trump and Governor Mike Pence, running on the Republican ticket, defeated the Democratic Party's nominees former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton and Senator Tim Kaine. President Barack Obama could not run again due to the two-term constitutional limit.

Both major parties' primaries were rather competitive. On the Republican side, Trump defeated the largest presidential primary field in American history - 16 other candidates. Even as other candidates often tried to collaborate on ways to block his path to the nomination, Trump was able to take advantage of the large and fractured field and win the nomination by a plurality rather than a majority. On the Democratic side, Clinton faced a surprise challenge from independent Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders, whose grassroots campaign and populist appeals through socialist policies saw him mount a stronger-than-expected challenge to Clinton's frontrunner status. However, Clinton was ultimately able to win the nomination by winning more heavily-populated coastal states and sweeping the South, while Sanders primarily performed best in the Midwest - both candidates also won a number of Northeastern states and Great Lakes states.

In the general election, both Trump and Clinton were viewed rather unfavorably by most voters, due to a number of scandals and personal likability issues - Clinton was bogged down by the controversial use of a private email server while Secretary of State, and Trump was heavily criticized for a number of radical policy positions and offensive remarks. The economy was a prominent issue, with particular focuses on such aspects as the slow rates of economic growth, and the impact of various free trade deals on American manufacturing jobs. Other heavily-discussed domestic issues included illegal immigration, the rise of Black Lives Matter and subsequent race riots and police shootings, and rising health care costs as a result of the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act (commonly known as "Obamacare"). Foreign policy issues included the rise of Russia under Vladimir Putin, and a variety of Middle Eastern issues such as the Syrian Civil War, the European migrant crisis, and the insurgence of the Islamic State of Iraq and the Levant, all of which contributed to a continuous trend of Islamic terrorist attacks across Europe and the United States.

Aside from Florida, the states which secured Trump's victory are situated in the Great Lakes/Rust Belt region. Trump's victory was widely perceived as being a result of his protectionist and nationalist policies and rhetoric, which appealed strongly to working-class white voters and voters without college educations (among other demographics), while also slightly increasing the Republican share of minority voters from 2012. Wisconsin went Republican for the first time since 1984, while Pennsylvania and Michigan went Republican for the first time since 1988. The victory, considered unlikely by most pre-election forecasts, was characterized by various news organizations as an "upset" and the most "shocking" American presidential election result since Harry Truman's upset victory in 1948. Despite leading the popular vote by more than 2.5 million votes, 1.9% of all votes cast, Clinton lost the Electoral College by 74 votes, with 30 states and Maine's 2nd congressional district going to Trump, and 20 states and the District of Columbia going to Clinton. Trump became the fifth person, after the winning candidates of the 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000 elections, to become president despite losing the nationwide popular vote.

The 2016 election marked the first time in American presidential history that a candidate was elected without any prior experience in public service, and the first time a woman was nominated by a major party. The election was also the third time both major party nominees' home state was New York, and the fourth time the president-elect lost his home state but won the election. The estimated 136.2 million votes cast for president surpassed the 2008 election in being the largest number of votes cast in a presidential election in American history. With 62.7 million votes, Trump received more votes than any other Republican candidate in history. With 65.2 million votes, Clinton received more votes than any candidate other than the incumbent Obama in 2008 and 2012."

References
References

Basically, remove the more arbitrary stuff (such as the date upon which the EC is expected to officially vote for Trump, and Trump being the 45th POTUS while Pence is the 48th VPOTUS). The entire paragraph about third party candidates should be moved down into either the broader "Results" or "Third Parties" sections. Also, remove the stuff concerning the recount, since recent developments have proven that the recount is likely not going anywhere and will ultimately prove an insignificant detail in the election.

Any tweaks or changes to my proposed version are understandable, since I know it's still pretty long. 169.231.47.212 (talk) 22:57, 3 December 2016 (UTC)

I have concerns that the paragraphs related to the primaries have subtle biases towards Trump and Sanders, though mostly the former. I get the impressions that Trump was a hero who burned his way through 16 candidates who spent the entire primary season collaborating against him (when in reality outright collaboration between campaigns only happened in the final week or two before Indiana) and that Sanders was a true-blue Democrat who fell just short of winning his so-deserved victory. It also seems like there are too many specific references to incidents in the primaries - specifically the details about where the candidates won in the Democratic primary. I think it would be better to leave anything but the outright final results out of the lede. The paragraphs on the relevant issues and on the historical implications of the election seem well written, though. Rhydic (talk) 00:17, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

Nice prose, thanks! At first reading, one inaccuracy jumped out at me: Trump did win a comfortable majority in the Republican primaries, I'm not sure where you got the impression that he didn't. Actually the rhetoric from his opponents until the last minute was that he would be unable to reach the necessary 1,237 electoral votes, which would usher in a contested convention where delegates would "vote their conscience" to stop him. In the end he won the nomination fair and square with 1,441 delegate votes. Funny how the same narrative played out in the general election with all the stories of "no path to 270" for Trump… — JFG ^talk 01:27, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I'm not interested in "perceived" and "viewed" text like "Trump's victory was widely perceived as being a result of his protectionist and nationalist policies and rhetoric". It's pure opinion, and basically nonsense. It's not our business to speculate on why the masses or the some in the media think he won. We should let the facts speak, and leave the perceptions and flavoring of pro- or con- different candidates to the opinion outlets. What happened, how much happened, where did it happen. "Why" is an endless swamp of contentious drivel. 2005 (talk) 01:48, 4 December 2016 (UTC)

I agree a lot with the previous comments about this new proposed lede. Whatever we do come up with needs to have a much more succinct recounting of the what/where/when of the results of the election and we can define a space further into the body of the article for interesting factoids.Travis McGeehan (talk) 07:38, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Breitbart is not alt-right

Can someone change that. Breitbart is not alt-right. Bannon said they are not alt-right, and even on their Wikipedia page they are listed as far-right, which is also not true. In fact, the "alt-right" has no formal ideology because it is not one single movement.

Change please, thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.139.20 (talk) 05:48, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Reliable, independent sources use the terminology. So Wikipedia will too. --Jayron32 14:05, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

NYT implied Iraq had WMD. CNN and WaPo are also neither reliable nor independent. Perhaps we should think for ourselves instead of quoting nonsense.

Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.51.139.20 (talk) 01:53, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Looks like the source doesn't call it alt-right but says its popular with the alt-right. Perhaps change the wording so it reflects the source or find a different source? (e.g. News site popular among the alt-right)Gsonnenf (talk) 08:07, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Here we go, 'Breitbart News is "the platform for the alt-right," boasts Stephen Bannon.' -> http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-alt-right-breitbart-news .Gsonnenf (talk) 08:10, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Just because NYT, CNN< and WaPo have made mistakes in the past does not place them on the same level as a website that consistently, as a matter of policy, spews inaccurate, partisan-driven non-fact-based rhetoric masquerading as news. If all reliable independent news sources call something alt-right, it's acceptable for it to be labeled as such on Wikipedia.Mt xing (talk) 13:34, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If you believe the NYT, CNN, and WaPo are not reliable, take it to WP:RSN. Objective3000 (talk) 13:41, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Is motherjones.com RS? I don't think it is. There is no evidence Breitbart is associated with the alt right. Breitbart is extremely pro Israel, having been founded by a Jewish activist.

207.245.44.6 (talk) 20:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If Stephen Bannon, one of the founding members and executive chair of Breitbart News, did not say that Breitbart News is "the platform for the alt-right," then he can take MotherJones.com to court for libel. Until then, it stands as true. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Watchfan07 (talk • contribs) 19:31, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Being a platform for something doesn't make it that. NYT has published OP pieces from all sorts of people. That does not mean they associate with them. Alt-right is not a movement, it is many movements. Read the alt-right wiki page. You think WaPo and NYT are not partisan, so I guess I've made my point. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.157.250.37 (talk) 20:27, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

A connection between Breitbart and the alt-right seems to have been picked up by many RSs. Some of these lead back to the MoJo story. [WaPo] [Forbes] [CNN] [Time] [TheGuardian] [NYTimes] Objective3000 (talk) 20:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

For the record, actual Alt-Rightists don't even consider Breitbart particularly Right-wing, let alone a part of their movement.TheTimesAreAChanging (talk) 22:18, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton's home state

She was born and raised in Illinois. She went to high school in Illinois. Shouldn't Illinois be her home state? On election night coverage a news anchor mentioned Illinois as her home state.

207.245.44.6 (talk) 19:58, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

No. GoodDay (talk) 20:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Home state is referred to the state of their primary residence. WatchFan 07 20:37, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. If someone moved from China to the US a week ago, that person's primary residence is the US, doesn't mean that person is from the US.

207.245.44.6 (talk) 21:04, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Primary residence state in which they can vote in. How about that? Or is this supposed to be you nitpicking that Donald is a 'true' New Yorker and Hillary isn't? WatchFan 07 19:17, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

The United States presidential election, 2000 lists the home states for Bush and Gore as Texas and Tennessee, although they were born in Connecticut and D.C. (which isn't a state.) The United States presidential election, 2012 lists Illinois and Massachusetts for Obama and Romney, although they were born in Hawaii and Michigan. The United States presidential election, 1968 lists New York and Minnesota for Nixon and Humphrey, although they were born in California and South Dakota. I wonder what we would have done had Ted Cruz won the Republican nomination - he was born in Canada. I think the relevance is the Twelfth Amendment to the United States Constitution which says, "The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves." For consistency, we should say Clinton's home state was New York. Some states list the candidates' states,[5] although I do not know how they determine this. TFD (talk) 22:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

If you check closer IP, you'll see that many presidential & vice presidential candidates home states aren't always their birth states. GoodDay (talk) 22:21, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed. Clinton was born in Illinois and grew up there. After she graduated from Yale in the early 1970s, she moved to Washington, D.C. and then to Arkansas with Bill Clinton. After the Clinton presidency was over, they moved to New York from where she served as a Senator from 2001–2009. As such, New York should be listed as her home state. MB298 (talk) 00:38, 7 December 2016 (UTC)

Vote Total Consensus

I believe there was consensus reached here earlier about using the David Leip source for preliminary vote totals, but two users in the last day have updated the infobox vote totals with the Cook numbers from a google doc and marked them as minor edits (which also seems inappropriate). I would just revert but I've used my 1RR. Travis McGeehan (talk) 07:46, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

References

Result of Vermont

Some Candidates appear more than once in the result sheets

correct spelling EVAN MCMULLIN 629 0.20 EVAN MCMULLIN 6 0.00

possible misspelling : E MCMULLAN 1 0.00% DAVID EVAN MCMILLAN 4 0.00

"wrong ticket" MCMILLAN/JOHNSON 1 0.00%
'""wrong name "" EBEN MCMULLIN 2 0.00% ERIC MCMULLEN 2 0.00% EDWARD MCMULLEN 2 0.00% GUAN MCMULLEN 1 0.00% JOHN MCMULLEN 1 0.00% ERIC MCMULLEN 1 0.00%

GARY JOHNSON and WILLIAM F. WELD LIBERTARIAN 10,078
write in :
GARY JOHNSON 3 0.00%
GARY JOHNSON 1 0.00%
GARY JOHNSON 1 0.00% --2001:62A:4:412:91B7:8645:C0E:9CB0 (talk) 17:42, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Russia hacking improbable

Russia has never been able to hack a European election. Not in Britain's Brexit, not in France, not in Germany, not in Italy, not in Spain. The US has far greater capabilities than these countries. I doubt Russia can hack the US elections, considering the FSB is pretty crappy these days. And who other than DNC insiders possibly know Podesta's email address? You can't hack an email if you don't know its address. Who's to say Podesta didn't release his emails to Wikileaks himself to frame Russia? Anything is possible at this point, but I doubt Russia can hack any election. It would go against history.

204.197.184.245 (talk) 00:13, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

WP:OR. We need reliable sources. And, it's highly unlikely that you will find any for such a conclusion. Objective3000 (talk) 00:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Request for Comment on WP:WEIGHT of Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in multiple articles and templates

I have started a request for comment on what the WP:WEIGHT of the information contained in Russian influence on the 2016 United States presidential election in articles and templates that relate to United States presidential election, 2016. The WP:RFC is located here.Casprings (talk) 01:59, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

" President-elect Trump mocked the report as fabricated"

Ummm... that doesn't even make sense. How can the report be "fabricated". Like what, the CIA "fabricated" the info that it issued a report? Come on.Volunteer Marek (talk) 20:58, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Maybe there is no such report. Picture or it's fake. So the saying goes. There's nothing about such a report on CIA's twitter. https://twitter.com/CIA?ref_src=twsrc%5Egoogle%7Ctwcamp%5Eserp%7Ctwgr%5Eauthor 204.197.184.245 (talk) 21:07, 11 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh ffs.Volunteer Marek (talk) 15:17, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2016

208.95.51.72 (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

One of the citations, #265 right now, is a page called "Hillary Clinton for President," but the link text misspells it "Hilary Clinton." You can find this easily with a Ctrl+F search. Please fix the spelling. 208.95.51.72 (talk) 13:16, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Done Thanks for alerting us. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:29, 12 December 2016 (UTC)

Updated PA vote totals

I have updated PA vote totals on the 2016 PA Presidential Election page. The vote has now been certified, per PA Department of State and I updated the link. Can someone update the PA totals and switch to offical on the main page? I cannot since it's semi-locked. Thanks. Agentblue911 (talk) 02:45, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton did not get majority to win in a nationwide popular vote system

Currently the only nationwide popular vote system, as used in Russia and Ukraine for example, requires a candidate to win a majority or > 50% of nationwide popular vote to win the election. The US does not use a nationwide popular vote system and, even if it did, Hillary Clinton would not have won because she didn't win a majority or > 50% of nationwide popular votes.

It is just as irrelevant to mention Hillary Clinton winning the popular vote as it is irrelevant to mention Donald Trump won more than 98% of the US's counties or 3,084 out of 3,141. Both are statistics that could be considered interesting, but that's about it.

45.58.89.143 (talk) 01:56, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

Your section title is a false premise. The article has never said she won a majority of the (national) popular vote. And if any editors made that false claim on this talk page, who cares? All polarizing articles have talk pages that are full of false claims and misunderstandings. The issue at hand is that Clinton will win the popular vote by a significant margin; currently, she leads by more than two million votes. Any U.S. presidential election where the winning candidate loses the popular vote is obviously very noteworthy; it's only happened five times and of course always sparks debate about the Electoral College system. Therefore, your contention that Clinton winning the popular vote is "irrelevant" is clearly off base. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:98B6:D371:89CE:5E5A (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

1 to 2 % of the total vote is not significant. It is basically a statistical tie in a poll for example. And who's to say every person should have the same voting power? Black people used to have three fifth of a vote. Should someone who immigrated to the US a few days ago have the same voting power as someone whose family has lived in the US for centuries? This is not the place to discuss morale issues. The US election has its rules, and that is electoral college. That's how the game is played. National popular vote has no relevance. 45.58.89.143 (talk) 02:21, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

RE:45.58.89.143, 1-2% is actually quite significant and historic. Secondly, you claiming that someone who immigrated here has less rights than someone whose family has been here for centuries defeats the purpose that all citizens are equal, because everyone pays taxes equally. And asking for certain individuals to receive more rights is a slippery slope, one headed along the same lines of slavery. And if you remember, this country was founded on 'No TAXATION without REPRESENTATION'. I suggest you learn the history behind this country first before making insane/wild assumptions unless you want history to repeat itself. Thirdly, US does have rules, it says right so in the U.S. Constitution that House members, and thereby electoral college votes of each state receives, are supposed to be allocated with population increase/expansion, rules which have not been followed since 1911. You can't pick and choose which parts or 'rules' you want to follow, and which parts or 'rules' of the Constitution to ignore, then go on to state that 'US election has its rules'. The 'game' was changed to benefit certain groups, primarily the Republican party, because they are the only party that has been winning the presidential office past five times when electoral college votes went against the popular vote. National popular vote is an indication of how electoral vote would have aligned IF the electoral college votes were given proper representation in accordance to the population, according to the U.S. Constitution. But according to you, certain voters don't count because they haven't been a resident for 400 years... who has? Can you trace your family back to the American Revolution? Even both of Donald Trump's grandparents were immigrants who came to America in 1902, not to mention so was his mother who arrived in NY in 1930. Or are we speaking of a racial division? Don't be a hypocrite. Finally, please refrain from bringing 'alt-right' views and agendas into Wikipedia. WatchFan⁰⁷ 17:55, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

1) Black people never had three-fifths of a vote. Before the 13th Amendment, slaves were counted as three-fifths of a person for the purpose of the decennial census and allocation of Representatives in the House. But slaves never had the right to vote. Black people in the North had the right to vote, though it was often not exercised. After Reconstruction in the South, Black people legally had the right to vote by the 15th Amendment but it was restricted by state Jim Crow laws. 2) The right to vote does not extend to immigrants until they become American citizens. 3) It does not matter how long your family has been in the U.S. There are only two requirements - age 18 and a citizen. Of course you must register to vote in the county where you live. 4) You are correct that the Electoral College chooses the President. But the College is chosen by the popular votes in 56 separate elections (counting 48 states, D.C., Maine and Nebraska). American In Brazil (talk) 02:44, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

45.58.89.143, you're clearly missing the point if you honestly don't understand why a losing U.S. presidental candidate winning the popular vote by (currently) over two million votes, or 1.5 to 2%, is historically significant. I would normally encourage you to educate yourself on the topic, but after reading your most recent posting I now wonder if you're actually here solely on a trolling mission. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:98B6:D371:89CE:5E5A (talk) 16:27, 24 November 2016 (UTC)

This is an unusual election in the sense that Trump wasn't as satisfying a candidate to his party as previous Republican candidates have been, leading to a pronounced "hold your nose" effect when it came to voting for him over Hillary. In blue states, California in particular, Republican voters never had to deal with this since, under the Electoral College system, their votes would never matter. So they didn't cast a presidential vote, or voted write-in, whereas they would have voted for Trump in a national system that would have mattered. But with the Electoral College in place, Trump had no incentive to campaign in California and energize these votes. That's probably why Clinton managed to score more votes in Orange County, which is an eye-opening anomaly. California is now so heavily Blue that the Republicans are essentially a disenfranchised party — evidenced by the 2016 Senate race, in which the runoff format led to two Democrats as the only candidates in the general election, leading many Republicans not to vote. Further, state turnout totals are so out of whack with the national average, and given rumors of widespread voter irregularities, California's large popular vote contribution has to be seen as suspect. But because of the Electoral College system, there's no incentive to take a deeper look (and suspicions of illegal immigrants voting would likely be less of an issue in a national system with national guidelines, not the state-by-state system currently in place). The bottom line to all this is that trying to cite the popular vote, particularly in this election, as significant in any way is an exercise in illusion, as there are a number of factors to indicate that Trump may still have won had the election been contested as a true national popular vote, with campaign strategies tailored accordingly.Vader47000 (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Would it also be notable to mention that only two counties (Cook County, Chicago IL and Los Angeles, CA) constitute most of the difference? That is, these two high population centers of the country account for more than the popular count difference. Without them, the popular vote would go to Trump. Not sure how to phrase it or where it would be appropriate to mention, but it seems and interesting statistic to highlight the difference in the urban / non-urban votes. Squ1rr3l - Talk to me! 17:46, 28 November 2016 (UTC)

I never understand why people keep mentioning this...you can't just ignore some parts of the country. "Oh, well, if you ignore California then Trump wins" In that case, let's just take out Texas, Florida, Georgia and Pennsylvania and Clinton wins the Electoral College by a landslide, it literally makes no sense. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.1.15 (talk) 10:32, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

The significance of California is that it has huge population and Clinton won it by over 4 million votes. That explains how she could get more votes than Trump and still lose: because her majority was concentrated in one state. TFD (talk) 23:40, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, but this sounds like WP:OR. Many, many things can explain this. I have seen no study that claims this is the reason. (Although I must admit that Orange County includes a magical kingdom.:))Objective3000 (talk) 23:44, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

It's more the fact that they disregard these two counties because, in some way or another, they're not representative of the rest of the country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.106.1.15 (talk) 16:22, 6 December 2016 (UTC)

Clinton won a county no Democrat has ever won before, Orange County, California, by over 100,000 votes. Trump won Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania combined by 80,000 votes. There are plenty of minor factoids that could be mentioned, but it all amounts to the same thing; Clinton got more votes, Trump got less votes but narrowly got more in places that offered more benefit in the Electoral College. 2005 (talk) 19:22, 5 December 2016 (UTC)

How much more votes do they have left to count? What are the predicted percentages in the end? This sure is taking a long time. Bjoh249 (talk) 08:24, 10 December 2016 (UTC)

Article's getting too long

Blame it on WP:RECENTISM, this article is getting too long & is creating navigational problems. GoodDay (talk) 01:00, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

I think the Background section could be trimmed and condensed, it contains excessive common knowledge only tangentially relevant to the 2016 election. Brandmeister^talk 12:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

Alright, I'll take care of it. It was also one of my ideas. Leo Bonilla (talk) 20:51, 8 December 2016 (UTC)

The addition of the Russian stuff, is going against attempts to shorten this article. GoodDay (talk) 05:14, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Infobox

The image caption says "Red denotes states projected for Trump/Pence; Blue denotes those projected for Clinton/Kaine" "Projected for" sounds like we're a news network projecting Trump to win this state and Clinton to win that one, but of course the results for each state are now final. What if "projected for" were changed to "won by"? "Won by" doesn't mean that the candidate wins all of the electoral votes from that state, does it? I didn't use edit-semiprotected because I don't know if this would be noncontroversial enough to be done without a discussion. 208.95.51.72 (talk) 19:09, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

It's mostly because the electors haven't actually voted yet, I imagine. There has been at least 1 elector on both sides that claims he will not vote for his designated candidate, so we will have to wait until December 19th to actually get the full results. Rhydic (talk) 20:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

That's assuming the results will be announced on that date & not withheld until the Congress meets to count the votes in January 2017. :) GoodDay (talk) 20:10, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

But the candidates still won the states in question: they got to pick the electors, even if the electors end up being faithless. 208.95.51.72 (talk) 20:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

No, they have not won the states yet. It's an Electoral College map, not a popular vote map. 2005 (talk) 21:01, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I thought it was supposed to show popular vote winner with mentions of the electorate. 208.95.51.72 (talk) 21:53, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Rounding errors in "Close states" section

The difference in percent in the close states is currently calculated as the difference between Trump's and Clinton's rounded numbers, not between the actual numbers. For example, in Michigan, Trump has 47.49756%, while Clinton has 47.27453%. This is a difference of 0.22303%, which should be rounded to 0.22%, not 0.23%, which is currently in the article (because it's the difference between 47.50% and 47.27%). I haven't checked all states, but it's currently the case with Michigan and Wisconsin (which should be 0.76% instead of 0.77%) right now. 81.230.184.49 (talk) 01:21, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Weasel words

I may have the wrong term. But, it appears that editor SlackerDelphi has made seven quick edits all seemingly designed to suggest RSs are incorrect in their assessments by changing/mollifying the words used in the original sources. I'd revert them all in a normal article. But, as the article is political, I thought I'd mention it here. Objective3000 (talk) 01:45, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Seems to me that SlackerDelphi inserted his unverifiable and unsubstantiated POV which is not substantiated by the original RS. He hasn't added any. I also think that all of his edits need to be reverted. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:29, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and removed POV. The differing opinions of other agencies were already amply represented before SlackerDelphi's changes. Space4Time3Continuum2x (talk) 07:51, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Even Wilder Hypothetical

I saw this article. http://www.politico.com/story/2016/12/donald-trump-electors-lessig-232598

So lets say the really really unlikely happens and Trump is blocked from 270.. How is this handled in the article? Is Trump still President-elect? Honestly just curious on thoughts.Casprings (talk) 04:19, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

@Casprings: A very strange situation indeed... I would say that we refrain from declaring anyone President-elect until the House votes. MB298 (talk) 05:03, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

The standard is verifiability not truth. That means that lots of information in Wikipedia is false, because reliable sources are wrong. It happens frequently with breaking news stories. If it turns out Trump is not elected president, then we can change the article. TFD (talk) 08:24, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

If Trump is blocked from 270, and the 'faithless electors' do not choose Clinton, then the House elects the new president. WatchFan 07 09:20, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Would he have "won" the EC and faithless electors send it to the house or does he now lose the EC in the article with HC also losing the EC and having more votes?Casprings (talk) 15:47, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I misread again. 270 is needed to win, and if no one reaches it, House gets to decide who gets to be president, with each state receiving one vote. So, in case Trump doesn't reach 270, he would need the support of 26 states in the House to be elected president. WatchFan 07 01:07, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

We continue to go with what reliable sources use. If they're still using president-elect for Trump, even after he fails to gain a majority in the Electoral College? then we still use president-elect. Otherwise, we don't use it. GoodDay (talk) 18:13, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

I would think it is likely that WP:RS's would conflict with one another. That is certainly a guess, but I think everyone would be at a unknown place.Casprings (talk) 18:40, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

Factual fix in the final paragraph of the lead section

The sentence that says "President Barack Obama ordered a "full enquiry" into such possible intervention." should instead be "President Barack Obama ordered a "full review" into such possible intervention." The sourced article from The Guardian does not say the word "enquiry," but instead the article says "full review". — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gonzno (talk • contribs) 18:59, 14 December 2016 (UTC)

right - because inquiry will be mean how many electronic vote flips were disabled by this hacking and review mean to light only why IFD were not able to carry this vote flipping out. see inquire from latin quaerare as in this old maxim: in qua erare count in qua-rare quam es — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.9.147.144 (talk) 06:23, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Should fix a link

One link to the Wayne Williams takes you to the page about the serial killer, Wayne Williams. The actual page on the politician and the Secretary of State of Colorado is called Wayne W. Williams. 64.134.102.139 (talk) 01:22, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

@64.134.102.139: Please point out the link mistake for me so I can fix it. UN$¢_Łuke_1Ø21^Repørts 13:47, 15 December 2016 (UTC)

Fixed. WatchFan 07 18:17, 15 December 2016 (UTC)