Talk:2012 United States presidential election

Conformity with other election pages

By removing all mention of third party candidates with less than 270 elector ballot access large amounts of information has now been lost that is not listed anywhere else. If this page is not going to list ballot access information for all of the candidates, than at the very least a subsidiary page consisting off all ballot access information for all candidates in this presidential election should be made.XavierGreen (talk) 15:38, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

This page have been made some time ago but it badly needs help. Go to: United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012 see also the talkpage. 85.83.95.235 (talk) 10:38, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I agree the information is valuable. I figured that someone was going to add a table like the one posted above in "Ballot Access Infobox" to the article. Something like that should be in this article, the third party candidates article, or both once we've made sure it's up to date. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 18:58, 1 October 2012 (UTC)

The information should be added to the main article on third party candidates and it can be retrived through the history. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Why even bother at all? All those extra candidates seem like nothing much than filler to an article space. —stay (sic)! 10:07, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Because this is an encyclopedia, that means it tells more than just what the newspaper print or what the wordbook or a basic lexicon writes. It simply have to be put in the write article. And this article is not it. I believe that many of these information is missing in the United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012, especially the many references witch I from experience know takes hours to collect. So for those that have the time to incorperate these information in the main article I have recovered them and are putting them here and on the main articles talkpage. Happy work Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:18, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

And just how would that improve the overall quality of the article? This should be about the 2012 presidential general election and what matters most about that election. Not about a list of people that decided to run for office as a fringe candidate who nobody has even heard of. Talk about irrelevancy!! Johnson and maybe Stein, I could understand, but including X, Y and Z would simply make the article more confusing and distract readers from the main point of the article. To reiterate what I've said bluntly, it's mostly filler that nobody will care about and stuff that likely won't make a difference. —stay (sic)! 10:50, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Jack's work was interesting to me. Having grown up in Utah, the formation of the Justice Party (now sixth) is very interesting! And who can say what will be important in the future? Jack's work is encyclopedic. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:21, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

Do you understand that we are not talking about putting a list of people that have by the way not only decided but have actually got ballot access in this article? This list was rightly so capped after a fair discussion (see the discussion above) to only included 4 major third parties and I think you are right there should be more than simply a list of those 4. I have already written a few lines on the Justice Party and maybe others will write about the nominationprocess and politics of the other 3 before I get around to it. Discussing if the Justice Party should be a part of this article is for the discussion above and to me it seems that a consensus have been made days ago on option 3 (that is to add the write inn states to the "real" one and include all the candidates that have more than 270 then in the article, even though not in the infobox)

But as XavierGreen correctly say: There should be a place for the other informations. And there is, just like in the elections of the past this election also have an article that includes all the many canidates that have not simply been thinking about running, anyone can do that, but have been able to get their name on at least one ballot. That article is called: United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2012. Right now this article is not up to standard to its predecessors as it does not include all the candidates that have now been stroken from this article. It seems that no work have been done on that article for a long time and it does mention candidates that are not running but simply have been thinking about it months ago. For the benefit of the whole Wiki and especially for this series of articles the valuable information and references that have been gathered and misplaced in United States presidential election, 2012 should not be vasted but incorperated where it is suppose to be according to old established consensus. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:39, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

I may be wrong, but it's not clear to me that we decided to have a different criterion for the body of the article than the infobox. If Anderson isn't in the infobox pending verification of his write-in elector nominees, shouldn't he be excluded for now from the article body, too? (P.S. I sent an email to Anderson's campaign asking them how many electors they nominated in each write-in state; if I get a response that should help in clearing this all up.) Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 19:09, 2 October 2012 (UTC)

We havent decided if there should be different criterions at all because deciding to migrated the complete list of candidates to its main article we have simply not discussed the infobox at all. Who will be in the infobox is another discussion, and one where the feelings runs a little hot. We seems to be using more time discussing the infobox in all its many variations than we use on actually writting this article . Whatever we decided for the infobo now and in the near future a consensus after the election has been established in older articles. That is: The infobox includedes all candidates with at least one elector (not faithless) or with more than 5 procent of the popular vote. So in all cases that is what will happen already a month from now. We have also decided to change the photos then to the more official looking photos as they are used in other articles to also show artistly that the election is over. I hope I have remembered the results of many long discussions right. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:47, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Actually Antony-22 is correct. The consensus from the above section over who should be in the body of the article after all state ballot petition deadlines have passed is: "only candidates with ballot access to more than 270 delegates (sic) will be listed including states where they have officially certified write-in status." That is the exact same criterion used for inclusion in the infobox, as covered by the note on top. Thus, the body & infobox are now "aligned" or in-sync as I put it in that discussion. There have been a bunch of people here asking to see Anderson put in the infobox, but few of them (except Antony-22 and maybe one or two others) have attempted to find evidence that he actually has access to 270 or more electors (and therefore could theoretically win, or more precisely, to use the informal phrase, become president-designate). Just as with the infobox, all information on Anderson should be hidden in the article until such sources are found. Ballot information for all the other candidates was deleted (and restored in the below section) because they had no prospect of getting to 270 this year, but we are uncertain if Anderson has. Please see my comments in the "Ballot Access Infobox" and "Rocky Anderson's situation" sections for information on which states we still need citations for. You are correct, Jack, on the post-election criteria and the photos. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 15:16, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Yesterday, Jack, you wrote while reverting the removal of the Justice Party from the article "Consensus according to now archived discussion was to include in this section [those] that had 270+ access including all write-in without concern about slates (In the discussion called option 3) This has nothing to do with the infobox!". I'm afraid this is incorrect. I quoted option 3 above (original discussion here), and it said nothing about write-in slates. Absent a direct mention, because access to 270 can only be achieved if 270 or more candidates for elector have been nominated and certified, it follows that just as with the infobox, sources need to be found within state election law, from the Anderson campaign, the websites of Secretaries of State, etc. that this has happened. Don't get me wrong, I'd like to see Anderson in the article & infobox too, because I imagine he did manage to cobble together enough elector candidates in the end. However, we need to go about it the right way and find the appropriate documentation for that. At this point, it doesn't make sense to have that one party in the article but not in the infobox. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 00:44, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I took a look back in the archive and found option 3: Only candidates with ballot access to more than 270 delegates will be listed INCL. states where they have officially certified write-in status. Some states requries slates to be filled and some dont, this has been discussed about the infobox, but this is not about what will be in the article for a few weeks and then removed after the election but what will be in the article for the future. Which third party candidates will be mentioned shortly in this article and which will only be mentioned in the main article on third party candidates. The Justice Party candidate have been certified as write in and have ballot access together in enough states. Please dont mix up a very high profiled discussion about a infobox that consesensus says will be changed in less than a month anyway and what should be in the article for good. Jack Bornholm (talk) 02:56, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

What you emphasized in bold is what I quoted above- I agree that is the consensus. The operative clause there is "access to more than 270 delegates"... a candidate can't have 'access' to 270 delegates/electors if they haven't nominated that many either individually or as part of a slate across the country. As has been discussed before, 'official certified write-in status' does not, despite the sound of it, automatically confer access to that state's electoral votes in the event of a popular vote victory. If you wanted the consensus to be what you're suggesting it is, a way to phrase that may have been:

"Only candidates recognized in enough states that together may cast 270 or more electoral votes, regardless of whether electoral slates have been submitted by the candidates or parties to those states before the election, whereby that recognition involves a candidate having their name or party printed on the state's ballot or certified as an official write-in thereof with their popular vote tabulated, are included in the body of the article."

The bottom line is that the consensus, as I understand it, is that for the infobox for the entire period leading up to Election Day (beginning with the emergence of a presumptive nominee from each major party), and this article for perpetuity (beginning on the date of the very last ballot petitioning deadline of a state within the country) will list all candidates who could have theoretically won the presidency through a majority of an Electoral College first pledged to them in November (ignoring the possibility of faithless electors or an election thrown to the House). We simply haven't been able to prove yet that Anderson and the Justice Party can theoretically do that. Prove that, and he will have earned a spot in the article. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 04:39, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Now, if you feel that, regardless of the electoral vote access issue, the Justice Party should be in the article, then that's fine, but we ought to be clear that the 270 benchmark is the minimum threshold for inclusion rather than a maximal cutoff (as it is for the infobox), and then proceed to discuss the merits of why they should be in the article, independent of ballot access. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 05:02, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Good Job Editors

I would like to commend you all for including the third party candidates in the main box. Doing so exemplifies Wikipedia's commitment to fairness and neutrality. Anyone with a statistical chance of election deserves to be presented to the readers, and I thank you all for standing up to those who believe our readers don't deserve that chance. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.134.97 (talk) 21:05, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you for the feedback.--NextUSprez (talk) 21:22, 9 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, greatly improved to have them in there. What about Rocky Anderson? I note that Virgil Goode is there, so am wondering why Rocky Anderson is not yet. GreenIn2010 (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

I started to try to add him, but it doesn't work so far . . . no colored line, etc.

| image8 = | nominee8 = Rocky Anderson | home_state8 = Utah | party8 = Justice Party (United States) | running_mate8 = Luis J. Rodriguez | electoral_vote8 = | states_carried8 = | popular_vote8 = | percentage8 = GreenIn2010 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:50, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Anderson is not in the infobox because no one has provided any evidence that he has filed enough electors and could therefore win. Goode is in there because at least two of his write-ins (CA & TX) require a full slate of electors to be on file, and they put him over the mark. This has been brought up a few times, and you can read through most of those discussions starting here and continuing with most of the topics stored in Archive 11. Even if he was put in the infobox, a color for his party has not yet been chosen, as there was unfortunately little feedback when this was first brought up, so we would need to settle that first. You may be confused because the Justice Party has erroneously been placed within the article- that is currently being discussed above in the "Conformity with other election pages" section. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 21:20, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Proposal: Add map to template

I move to add this map to the template. It's a fair map showing the electoral college and recent polling trends for each state. I feel it would be a good placeholder before the actual electoral map can be added.--William S. Saturn (talk) 01:07, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

There are a few problems with that map. Mitt Romney has not had the lead in a single PA poll going back several months. The last one I could find was a Susquehanna poll from February 6, where Romney held a bare 2 point lead, and I wouldn't consider that "recent." Obama has also never led by less than 6 in CT. TN has been sparsely polled, but I've never seen Obama leading there. Only 2 of the last 25 polls going back to last November have Obama leading in MO, and those were each by a point, the most recent being from August- it's not really considered in play by either side. NC has seen Obama & Romney trading leads. There are really only 9 swing states at this point (from east to west)- NH, VA, NC, FL, OH, WI, IA, CO, and NV. Obama could also conceivably pick up AZ, IN, MO, MT and NE's CD 2 if it's a landslide election or if Johnson pulls enough of the vote, and Romney could add Maine's CD 2, MI, NM, and PA to his column if he won by a landslide, but no one expects that to happen, and neither do the polls. If the map was fixed and the swing states were better emphasized I might support its inclusion, but with less than a month to go maybe we're better off just waiting for the final results. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 03:15, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

This is a map that gets updated very frequently and I dont think we simply could just assign states as swingstates or not. Polls have a margin of error and as long as the spread is not over that margin a state is not save for a candidate. That includedes PA, MO and so on. Some might simply look at a poll without thinking how it was made but I dont think we should. This map is extremely conservative in assigning states to a candidate, just one poll with the spread under ther margin of error will move the state back into the contested colum. It is also neutral because it doesnt speculated on what the polls means. Is the small led in PA worth more than the small led in MO? Not up to Wikipedia to say. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:17, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I think any state where two candidates are statistically tied should have it's own color like purple, yellow, or white, otherwise readers may be misled and have the impression that there exists a poll in CT, for example, where Romney is leading. The color key on the map template says as much- where red is "Mitt Romney leading recent polls." Obama has held a lead outside the MoE in every CT poll except the most recent Rasmussen poll, which technically indicates a statistical tie (due to the low sample size) but begins by saying "President Obama continues to lead Mitt Romney in Connecticut."

Also, how does this map define "recent"? Just the very latest poll? Any poll in the last month? What if multiple polls come out in one day? Does just one of them have to indicate a statistical tie to throw a state into the tossup column, even if it's a complete outlier? Do we consider polls of likely voters or registered voters (if published concurrently)? Do we give preference to 2-way polls, or polls that include Johnson, Stein, et al? If you include Johnson, Obama pulls into a statistical tie in MT.

If NC has been colored solid Romney just because of the Oct. 8 Gravis Marketing poll, then that's giving that firm way to much consideration. If there's one polling firm to ignore, it's them. They have had a consistent Republican bias (due to demographic weighting they have not seen fit to make public, and performed by their 3-4 listed employees, all Republicans, who only call landlines) that makes Rasmussen look like PPP. Speaking of Rasmussen, they released a poll today once again showing a statistical tie, so I guess that would change NC back. It does appear that looking at the latest poll that MO & TN are within the full MoE, although the latest TN poll is about a month old and just barely within it, with an 8-pt. Romney lead and 4% MoE- we may want to change that state to how SC or KS look. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 00:13, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

For the sake of neutrality, I suggest we do the same thing RealClearPolitics does with their map, and follow their polls. That would be much simpler that the one we currently have up, easier to understand, and easier to edit (given I have never succeeded in creating those two color slashes outside of Paint, and even then............). Unfortunately that would mean the other candidates get the short end of the stick, but we have to work with what we have; there simply aren't enough polls with them alone for us to try and work exclusively with those. --Ariostos (talk) 00:35, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

This is one I quickly threw together based on the RealClearPolitics Map. And only now do I notice Romney and Obama got cut off at the end there. --Ariostos (talk) 01:06, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is a good map. Nate Silver's map over at 538 is in my view even better, since he takes into account pollster house effects, historical trends, economic factors, local fundraising, etc. After taking out every state that has a >90% chance of going to Obama or Romney, we'd be left with the 9 states that I mentioned earlier. But either map works better than the current one. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 03:42, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I tried uploading a new version of that image, but for whatever reason it refused to accept the file I was uploading; as in, it would tell me the upload was a success, but the new image would be the old image. Simply uploaded the new image separately. If anyone could tell me what I was doing wrong, I would be very thankful.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ariostos (talk • contribs) 22:15, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Ariostos for creating the map. I agree that the RealClearPolitics classifications appear to be the most neutral since it is largely objective and takes into account all reliable polling.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:49, 12 October 2012 (UTC)

I still can't update my images for whatever reason. Someone else will need to keep watch of RCP and update the map accordingly. --Ariostos (talk) 17:29, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

Finally figured out what was wrong. Apparently you can't upload a file that has the same name of the file you are trying to replace. Strange, but at least I am able to continue making changes when need be. --Ariostos (talk) 19:43, 14 October 2012 (UTC)

If you click through to the Commons version of the page, there should be a link near the bottoms that says "Upload a new version of this file". I guess it doesn't work if you use the regular upload form with the existing filename... Also, when you upload a new version it usually takes a while for the thumbnails to get updated. If the upload was successful you should see the new version immediately when you click "Full resolution", but the thumbnails will still reflect the old version until they get updated. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 01:45, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Ron Paul did not technically withdraw on May 14th. This needs to be changed, as his campaign continued until the day Romney was elected as the nominee at the RNC. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.240.120.129 (talk) 03:39, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

I have amended that statement to make it clearer.--Rollins83 (talk) 14:53, 11 October 2012 (UTC)

Early voting chart

Reader feedback suggests that many viewing this page want to learn when early voting or absentee voting begins for their particular state. Perhaps we can add a chart.--William S. Saturn (talk) 21:14, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. These maps are a good place to start. If primary references are needed, here is a post for all the states that offer early voting. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 21:25, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Polling map

Is it really wise to use a known conservative leaning outlet, RCP, as the polling map? It's totally subjective when they add and when they drop polls from their average. Nate Silver of Fivethirtyeight says Pennsylvania and Michigan are 90%+ favorites to go to Obama, yet they're "toss ups"? Texas and South Carolina are given a 100% probability of a Romney win, yet they're only "Likely Romney"?

Quite frankly, I don't think a Wikipedia page about the election should be getting into the polling/forecasting business at all. But if we're going to, let's at least be a little neater about it rather than copy and pasting a map from a conservative leaning news outlet.-- 76.99.240.50 (talk • contribs) 18:40, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

I would hardly consider RCP as a conservative outlet. Also, those colors aren't so much the chance to win the state, if not the margin in which they should win the state; Tossup (anyone's game), Leaning (5% Lead), Strong (10% Lead), Solid (15% or more). So yes, Romney is going to win Texas for example, but there is a good chance it won't be by a overwhelming margin (above 60%) as one would expect. Same for the Dakotas and Montana. --Ariostos (talk) 18:55, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

From Wikipedia's own page on RCP: "They have described themselves as frustrated with what they perceive as anti-conservative, anti-Christian media bias,[4] and while Patrick Stack of Time magazine has described the commentary as conservative-leaning,[5] the site includes columns and commentary from both sides of the political spectrum." Anti-christian Anti-conservative media bias? Come on, that's generic Republican boilerplate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.240.50 (talk) 19:00, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Personally, I've found their polls to be scientific and without significant bias. However, we could just use the polls from a source that is more commonely accepted as reliable if this becomes a significant issue. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:17, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

The problem is that their complete subjectivity, which is especially dangerous when they have a distinct political lean. Their percentages are completely arbitrary (Why is a Romney +4.9 state any less likely to go for Romney than a Romney +5.1 state)? And they also don't even follow their rules at all times, as the last South Carolina poll showed Obama ahead by 3, yet they have it as "Strong Romney". Another problem with their subjectivity is when they drop polls from the average. They have absolutely no set time frame for this. Why is an Iowa poll showing Romney ahead by 1 point (field dates 9/25 - 9/27) still in the average, but a poll showing Obama ahead by 4 in Colorado (field dates 10/4 - 10/5) not included? There are countless more examples of this, and they almost always correlate with their partisan lean. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.240.50 (talk) 20:44, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

A South Carolina poll from Dec. 2011, in the very midst of the inter-party fighting on the Republican side, shows Obama with an advantage. There has been little to no polling in South Carolina, and so the best one can do is judge. Right now, RCP is judging a Romney win in South Carolina by a good margin. Percentages are not that arbitrary, in that the way they display it best shows the battleground states at that time, and those in which a specific candidate is winning that fight by a considerable amount; the line has to be drawn somewhere, and (5%) seems relatively fine for that. Every poll for Colorado is more recent than the one you are mentioning, and if they wanted a partisan lean they could have included the (3%) Romney lead poll that is only a day older than that one. And with Iowa, there haven't been that many polls either, and they are including another poll that gives Obama a (7%) lead, so I don't see how that constitutes some sort of agenda. I believe they are neutral polls-wise, and I'm sticking by that. --Ariostos (talk) 21:10, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

It's not about what you believe, it's about facts. The poll you mentioned showing Romney up 3 has already been replaced by another poll from that same organization (and they do not include the same organization twice in their average), so no, they couldn't have included it if they wanted a partisan lean. Why is a poll that is taken 10/4 - 10/5 not included in the average but a poll taken 9/25 - 9/27 is? The answer is simple, because the poll conducted from 9/25 - 9/27 told them what they wanted to hear. Here's another example: The only poll taken in Kentucky shows Romney up by 14 points, so it is "solid Romney". The aggregate of polls in Washington state shows Obama ahead by 16.3 points, yet it is only "likely Obama". They're inconsistent, and they're always inconsistent in the same direction, the direction of their partisan lean. I can find dozens of more examples if you so wish, their partisan agenda is easy to see for anyone that doesn't have their eyes taped shut. They're editorials are 3:1 in favor of the Republicans, and you think they should be considered a NPOV source? Utterly ridiculous. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.99.240.50 (talk) 21:20, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

How about the map over at the Huffington Post? Yes, the articles on the site have a liberal bent, but they seem pretty thorough with this data. For example, their FL poll page has what appears to be a full history of all the polls taken there, without the selective removal that IP 76 is concerned about RCP doing. It also seems to be updated frequently. While Nate Silver's map has the projected popular vote margin (and regular polling average) for each state, you have to dig down through the page to find it, with his map colored just based on the likelihood of a given candidate winning. The HP map has both the polling margin and their "confidence" in that by just hovering over it, with the coloring based on the polling margin, like the current RCP-based map. There is also a map over at 270towin, but they don't indicate all the polls they're using, as they only post what they're adding to it on their Twitter feed, so it's a bit harder to follow to know if they're missing anything. They also still curiously still list PA as a tossup.

Personally, I'm not sure why Wikipedia has a polling map on the page to begin with. We are an encyclopedia, not an election predictor. I could understand something like it on the poll page, but not the page proper. HOWEVER, if there is a map on here, it should be a map with an algorithm that Wikipedia users agree to (for example, if you say a 10 point lead is solid, then never deviate from that, unlike RCP which is inconsistent with its ratings).

Personally, I don't think that the known editorial biases of a certain site or organization should mean we automatically disregard what they're putting out (with the possible exception of the mysterious Gravis Marketing). Scott Rasmussen is a known Republican, and PPP was founded by a Democrat. The NY Times leans to the left, and Fox to the right. But data from all these firms is accepted as reputable and incorporated in polling models across the internet. What we ought to focus on when deciding what to use here (if anything) is what we want it to show (polling margin or statistical likelihood of winning), how thorough it is with staying up to date and incorporating all the polls, site navigability, and what sort of adjustments, if any, they apply to the numbers beyond a simple average (i.e. giving more weight to polls with larger sample sizes, choosing likely voter polls over registered voters, etc.) RCP is widely-cited by the web, which is why I am willing to give them the benefit of the doubt. However, if all they're doing is a straight-up average of select polls (rather than all those available to them), than that does concern me, as we ought to apply some more scrutiny to such an organization (as we should for HP too). 173.29.133.167 (talk) 23:14, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

Just to be clear, CNN, ABC, NBC, CBS, the Washington Post, the Huffington Post and the New York Times all have PA and MI in the Obama column. RCP, the Wall Street Journal and Fox News have them down as tossups. If we ignore, as we should, accusations of political bias supposedly influencing their number-crunching, that's still seven to three. What's more, the last poll to have Romney with a lead in Michigan came out on August 16th, two months ago. To find a poll giving Romney a lead in Pennsylvania we have to go back to February 2nd. By no objective measure can these states be regarded as tossups. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.1.176.105 (talk) 21:04, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Better image for Johnson

Johnson's picture is a little dreary and less appealing than those of Stein, Romney, and Obama. I suggest we use this one instead:

File:Gary Johnson thumbail.jpg

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Nbarile18 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 15 October 2012 (UTC)

That image has been deleted. Do you have another working image we might be able to use?--NextUSprez (talk) 19:27, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

I saw the image before it was deleted. If you can find an additional copy of it, then it should replace the current image. The proposed image looked more official than the current image (which is kind of an akward image of Johnson).Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:35, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The suggested image was actually the one that was used the first time Johnson was added to the infobox, but it was deleted back then too, since it is copyright to some newsorganisation. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:39, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Can somebody higher up on the chain please stop the irrational deletion of all Johnson images? This image is a personal picture of Johnson from his own campaign; I repeat, the image is directly from Johnson as his own thumbnail. Somebody in a position of editing prowess is incorrectly deleting it each time we try to modify the picture, and I don't believe that is fair or neutral when there are a plethora of uploaded Romney and Obama pictures to select for this article. g — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.228.134.97 (talk) 17:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Virgil Goode's Image

Would anyone object to switching out the current picture of Virgil Goode with the one on his official profile page? The current one puts him in kind of an awkward light while the other one looks more neutral.Spirit of Eagle (talk) 20:38, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

That photo is not current (3 years or older). But if it should be used it should be cropped to be the same shape as the others. On the other hand it will soon be removed from the infobox anyway. Since the election is coming soon Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:41, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

The consensus decided a while back (see here) is to continue using for the infobox pictures of the candidates speaking and/or campaigning during the campaign season, until November 6. Afterward, we would replace all the images with something more formal. Both the proposed image for Goode & the one once shown in the above section for Johnson were more formal and therefore do not meet the criteria. Technically, the current picture being used for Stein doesn't either, but since no one has been able to find a good, high-resolution image of her speaking, that one was used instead (initially discussed here). I do think a better speaking image for Johnson could be found. Do we have a formal image picked out for him if he gets to 5%? P.S. That's rather presumptuous of you, Jack (but I agree ). 173.29.133.167 (talk) 23:13, 16 October 2012 (UTC)

Ok, thanks. I'm new here and wasn't around when the consensus took place. I guess I'll try to improve the article by finding a campaign picture of Jill Stein (there has to be one of her somewhere on the internet). Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC) Edit: I just found two pictures of her campaigning on her official website and a conservative radio show website. I have no clue how to post images to wikipedia yet, so I'll just provide the links for now and see if anyone likes either picture. Spirit of Eagle (talk) 00:33, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

1. http://www.jillstein.org/napa_house_party
2. http://www.wbobradio.com/tag/jill-stein/

See here for a link to a page full of photos of Virgil Goode speaking. If you find one you like better than the current one, then by all means we can switch it out. Antony–22 (^talk⁄_contribs) 04:46, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Be carefull to read the wikicommons copyright rules, from experience I know that if they are not strictly adhert to the photo will be deleted. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:14, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Additional debates

I think it would be useful to add information on the upcoming non-CPD debates featuring the presidential candidates. The Independent Voter Network will hold the first such debate tomorrow night between Johnson & Stein. Free & Equal will be hosting two debates with all 6 eligible candidates invited, although Obama & Romney are expected not to show. The first is on October 23, to be moderated by Larry King and shown on Al-Jazeera as well as streamed online. Their second debate (and the third for the candidates overall) is scheduled for October 30th. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 10:11, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

I added the October 23rd Debate, but I couldn't find any solid information on the October 30th Debate. Also wasn't sure about the October 18th Debate you mentioned. --Ariostos (talk) 00:43, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I have changed it slightly to make clearer that it is not an "official" presidential debate and that it only has third-party candidates in it. --Hansbaer (talk) 08:56, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

I'll concede that the IVN debate doesn't really count since it took place online. Regarding the F&E debates, this article has an update on who will carry the October 23rd debate. It will be carried live on RT America & Al-Jazeera English (and streamed on their websites) and also streamed on Ora TV & the Free & Equal site. CSPAN may also broadcast it. It also identifies the location of the October 30th debate, Washington D.C.

Hansbaer, there are no official debates in America, just those run by the CPD & those that are not, but thanks for making clear in the article who the attendees are. It might also be worth explaining why Obama & Romney won't attend (beyond the obvious), which is that the CPD contract stipulates that those invited to their debates may not participate in any others (although of course if they really wanted to debate elsewhere, they could lean on the CPD to do so). 173.29.133.167 (talk) 00:34, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Virgil Goode

Does Mr. Goode need to be in the infobox as he is not stated as having the necessary ballot access to get 270 electors? - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 10:45, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Never mind: here is a source. I am also adding Rocky Anderson on that basis. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 10:47, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Please read the note on top: "Candidates are sorted by the amount of ballot access they have obtained...including write-in access in states that have had full electoral slates nominated and certified." It has been shown that at least in CA & TX, Goode has filed full slates of candidates for elector, because it is a prerequisite for becoming a certified write-in candidate there, and those states alone plus those where he appears on the ballot put him over 270. We have not found such evidence for Anderson. The article you linked cites a Ballot Access News post that only says the debate features those polling at least 1%, without a mention of electors. You can browse the archives for discussion of this, as well as the section above for a current discussion on whether the Justice Party should be in the article (independent of the infobox). Given the number of people that have been asking about Anderson lately, I'm considering adding another note on top about this. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 11:06, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

The article states, "Goode and Anderson both have ballot access or write-in status in enough states to win an Electoral College majority."- Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

That website is not a news outlet, it is more akin to a blog. It is also not a primary source. The author was kind enough to cite Ballot Access News for that statement (citation #6), but that cited article does not mention how many electors the candidates have filed, only that candidates who meet a 1% polling threshold are invited. Therefore, it does not provide the evidence required. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 01:18, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

The cited article clearly states that Anderson could win 270 electoral votes. Again, it states "Goode and Anderson both have ballot access or write-in status in enough states to win an Electoral College majority." I do not see how I can make it clearer to you.- Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 10:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Also, as I mentioned recently, the Justice Party is so new that Wikipedia has not decided on a color for their formatting. Even if evidence is presented or consensus shifts to include him, that needs to be resolved first. 173.29.133.167 (talk) 11:16, 17 October 2012 (UTC)

Dark Blue. In the few tests I have done that is the color I used, and it is one of the official colors of the Party. --Ariostos (talk) 00:23, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

How would it compare to the Constitution and Democratic colors? - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 00:45, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

This is something I did a while ago.

Candidate (Party)	Amount raised	Amount spent	Votes	Average spent per vote
Barack Obama (D)	$356,538,083	$268,790,405
Mitt Romney (R)	$196,958,553	$166,777,180
Gary Johnson (L)	$1,482,993	$1,468,728
Jill Stein (G)	$306,671	$281,206
Virgil Goode (C)	$104,852	$93,794
Rocky Anderson (J)	$51,037	$28,511
Excludes spending by independent expenditure concerns. Source: Federal Election Commission

It might be best to use a lighter shade than what I used, but as you can see, it is far from similar to either the Constitution or the Democratic colors.

Considering no text would actually be placed in the background, I would be okay with this color. - Presidentman talk · contribs Random Picture of the Day (Talkback) 10:11, 18 October 2012 (UTC)

Edit request, indoor picture of Obama

Can we either make both pics at the top of the page with both guys outside, or change obama's picture to an indoors picture? I know how to upload a file to wikimedia & check copyright stuff but my changes always get reverted by rude admins, so I wanted to ask permission first. Or we could use a 2007-2008 photo where there's no gray hair. I don't like obama looking older than Paul Ryan. 71.52.199.48 (talk) 07:34, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

But Obama is older than Paul Ryan. I'm afraid this edit request smacks of PoV, and I think the pictures are just fine as they are. We don't need consistency with them both being indoors/outdoors, either (why only Obama and Romney? Gary Johnson is clearly indoors, also). Finally, I'd say that if your edits were reverted, it's not because the admins are rude; more likely, it's probably because they had good reasons explained in their edit summaries. – Richard BB 07:52, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

Is this an american thing? Is gray hair on a president not a good thing, grafically it shows that he has experience and are seasoned. I must say that Obama looks very presidentiel on the current photo and I dont understand that any of his supporters would want a photo showing him younger. If elected he will be the 4th youngest second term president and the 3 others are two former governors (Roosevelt and Clinton) and a former military commander (Grant). I would think Obama is happy for all the gray hair he has. Using the 2008 photo would show him as the one term junior senator he was back then and not the experienced commander in chief he is today. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:45, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

I still think this is all beside the point. We're not choosing pictures based on what makes the candidates look better, wiser, or anything else. We're not Obama's campaign team. – Richard BB 11:32, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

No, you are correct. I am just trying to understand the request Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:11, 19 October 2012 (UTC)

update

Can we just get another outdoor pic of him with less gray hair and less facial wrinkles? A 50 year old man should not have more visible wrinkles than a 66 year old Mitt "Willard" Romney. President Obama had that picture taken while he was pronouncing a word, which made his facial muscles tighten. This makes Obama look older than Ryan, which is the point I'm trying to make. I don't care if it is outdoors or indoors. I'm just saying Obama looks better indoors or from the photos you can get from the whitehouse website. I'm thinking why Wikipedia editors would overlook this subtle fact, because I pay attention to everything and change stuff accordingly. Why can't I change a picture without getting reverted almost instantly by people who watch the page? 71.52.199.48 (talk) 15:02, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

I must say that I personal think that Obama looks very presidentiel, in command and very experinced in the current pictures. It is by far the best photo of Obama used in the infobox. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:29, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

How do I know if you are being serious? I kind of get the feeling I am being treated like a newbie and subtly mocked about it. Obama looks old, gray hair, face wrinkles, squinting his eyes like a chinese person, etc.. Either way, it feels very disrespectful to read what you're saying and to compare it to the picture I'm seeing. Maybe your monitor size is smaller or you are on a laptop. Either that or you're mocking me and defending the picture and saying he looks "experienced" which is a poor way to treat fellow editors. The pic is awful for the 3 reasons I listed, and you say he looks experienced which is kinda helluva hard to argue against, because that is entirely subjective. :-/ 71.52.199.48 (talk) 17:31, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

Map dots

The dots on the map of party conventions are of different sizes. That could be interpreted as a bias toward the parties with the larger dots. Is there a reason why they are not all the same size?    → Michael J Ⓣ Ⓒ Ⓜ 04:55, 20 October 2012 (UTC)

You got to be kitting. The two large ones is for the two major parties and the others are for third parties. Everyone is talking about photos and dots instead of writting this article. I am not american and dont get tv from any of the events but some of you must know what substance there is in this election, it can not all be style and nitpicking. This article really could use some good section of NPOV substance. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:25, 20 October 2012 (UTC)