Talk:2020–21 United States Senate election in Georgia

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Doug Collins

Shouldn't be Doug Collins mentioned in the section about the Repubican Primary? He recently declared to run (see https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/27/politics/doug-collins-kelly-loeffler-george-us-senate-primary/index.html).--Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 13:37, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I just noticed that he applied for the Special Election.--Einar Moses Wohltun (talk) 13:40, 1 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Inclusion of third-parties in infobox.

@Muboshgu: Hi, I was under the impression the precedent to include a third party candidate in infobox, is to reach at least 5% in three separate polls (which Hazel has done)? Is this not the precedent? VietPride10 (talk) 19:12, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

VietPride10, I am of the impression the last RfC said averaging 5% – Muboshgu (talk) 19:19, 27 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

He's certainly there now. If you average the three most recent polls, you get 4.67%, and he's appeared above 5% pretty consistently over the course of the campaign. ― Tartan357 (Talk) 21:52, 26 October 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 United States Senate special election in Georgia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 23:50, 5 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Gap in Perdue's tenure?

The new congress convenes on January 3rd, whereas the runoff is on January 5th. So would Perdue's current term expire by the time of the election, and cause a gap in his status as a senator even if he wins? Are there sources that discuss or resolve this question? 2606:6000:60CC:C900:FDC7:F19C:99F1:C9C3 (talk) 05:11, 20 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, because his current term expires at Noon EST, on 3 January 2021. GoodDay (talk) 21:56, 24 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Apparently a similar situation was possible in Minnesota in 2009 if Norm Coleman had prevailed in his fight for re-election after the close race with Al Franken in Nov. 2008 election. That didn't happen; Coleman, who had to cease as US Senator on 3 Jan. 2009, leaving the seat vacant because no one could occupy it on interim basis, eventually dropped the case and conceded loss, and Franken started Senate service 6 months late.

Coming into next Jan. 5, Perdue's seat should be vacant; the runoff winner, even if it's Perdue himself, has to wait for certification and is then good to assume office immediately. If it's Perdue himself, there'd be a note in wikipedia seniority list about this, right? Carlm0404 (talk) 04:04, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Alex Hirsch Endorsement

I noticed that animator Alex Hirsch is listed as an endorsement of Jon Ossoff. However, the only citation is an FEC donation filing. Although the donation does appear to be from Hirsch, I don’t think a donation constitutes an endorsement. From what I could find, Hirsch has not publicly supported Ossoff. I think this should be removed unless someone can link a source of him actually endorsing the candidate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.218.178.59 (talk) 13:12, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Trafalgar poll ROUND 3

Republicans are gaining ground, Perdue up 2.7 percentage points, Loeffler 6.7 points

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1Xy5hYIvtV1EWQMvShKQ34efKibQqUkVl/view

Perdue 50.2 Ossoff 47.5

Loeffler 52.2 Warnock 45.5

46.93.240.250 (talk) 04:02, 19 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What about it? 2600:1012:B05B:A738:0:56:A38D:6501 (talk) 15:20, 24 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Data

I see we've got complete results bu candidates as well as total of valid votes, but do we know how many people voted, what was the turnout and how many registered voters there were? --Aréat (talk) 07:51, 26 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Georgia senate election" listed at Redirects for discussion

A discussion is taking place to address the redirect Georgia senate election. The discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2021 January 5#Georgia senate election until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Hog Farm Bacon 03:20, 5 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Community Consensus on Infobox

Is everyone else cool with User:Tartan357 WP:OWNing this article? His repeated reversions seem to violate various rules. Does the community support the comments in there as well? -Kai445 (talk) 08:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Kai445, excuse me, but what are you talking about? Be specific. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:36, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Point to this consensus you allege exists. You repeatedly reverting multiple editors does not constitute a consensus. -Kai445 (talk) 08:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@Kai445: It should be pretty obvious that how we call races would have been discussed previously, and yes, I will revert you or anyone else who calls this race prematurely, no matter how many times that is done. There is a strong consensus generated by an RfC. See Talk:2020 United States Senate elections#Declaration of winners based on AP projections. This was established a while ago, and is an extension of a very lengthy RfC at Talk:2020 United States presidential election. Bold Ossof's results again and I WILL take you to WP:AE. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:48, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If you have specific grievances then mention them instead of canvassing people and being passive aggressive.  Nixinova   T   C   08:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The issue is this edit which made the larger number in the runoff election bold. Would someone please clarify where consensus has been set for that as I am an uninvolved administrator who noticed a request at WP:RFPP. Protection is not needed for this issue because I am happy to sanction anyone who edits against consensus, if that is clearly explained first. Johnuniq (talk) 08:49, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
If I screwed up, I'll take being sanctioned, but emphasizing a larger number seems reasonable to me. I've read through the AP projection discussion and saw nothing that addresses this. If "a winner" is required to have a bolded entry, then Purdue shouldn't have anything bolded because he's won exactly nothing at this point. -Kai445 (talk) 08:53, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq, that was not the particular edit that prompted that request. There have been others declaring Ossoff the winner. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:57, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Johnuniq, Kai445 has now canvassed three editors to come after me. They repeated their disruptive edit twice after I reverted. They just made another edit removing the bold from Perdue's November first round result, which is WP:POINTy behavior. I have provided a link above to the RfC establishing the consensus to wait for all major news orgs before calling a race. ― Tartan357 Talk 09:08, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I linked random editors to this section to participate in discussion, I did not request them to go after you or take any sides. You can clearly see that since one of them called me out. You're being WP:GAMEy here. You created a "consensus" between yourself and one other person and are using it to beat other editors over the head with. -Kai445 (talk) 09:12, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Kai445, you're basically describing WP:CANVASSING. You reached out to a few specific editors, which is not advertising the discussion in an open forum. And your false comment about me creating the consensus in the RfC is concerning. Pinging Johnuniq. ― Tartan357 Talk 09:15, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
The first sentence of WP:CANVASSING literally says "it is perfectly acceptable to notify other editors of ongoing discussions". This includes "On the user talk pages of concerned editors" and "On the talk pages of a user mentioned in the discussion". -Kai445 (talk) 09:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, in my opinion the discussion linked by Tartan357 does show a consensus that the RfC on the presidential election also applies to senate elections, though it was poorly attended and not really structured. I will say however, it would have been better if that discussion had been linked to earlier than during this discussion, as it was fairly obscure. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:56, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Devonian Wombat, I had to search for it, but it was important to undo the premature deceleration of Ossoff's win immediately. I'm doing the best that I can, and it should be fairly obvious that there have been previous discussions on how we call races. ― Tartan357 Talk 08:59, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Everyone is a bit tense at the moment and some pointy back-and-forth is understandable. However, it's time to move on. No more discussion about who-should-have-done-what please. Any more would like a failure to grasp the point of WP:AP2, namely that in this topic area people must collaborate and not argue about what is essentially trivia. Johnuniq (talk) 09:39, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Map: Runoff county results?

Hello,
Will there be a Runoff county results map?
WikiFreibeuter (talk) 11:11, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Bolding of Perdue

Why is perdue bolded in the first round results? He didn’t win, bolding suggests that he did. маsтегрнатаLк 14:25, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Masterpha, you are correct, both names first round totals should be bolded since both Ossoff and Perdue advanced to the runoff. I've made the change. ― Tartan357 Talk 14:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This was changed again by a user. Please fix to both names bold.Election Tron (talk) 00:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done ― Tartan357 Talk 05:21, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

question mark Suggestion I've seen many arguments for both sides, with supporting evidence mostly in the form of WP:OTHERCONTENT, i.e. pointing to other pages. I haven't been able to find a relevant discussion to cite, either. It seems we need some clarity on what bolding actually indicates before we can settle this. I suggest we take this to Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums and have a broader discussion about how bolding should be used. ― Tartan357 Talk 06:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed Election Tron (talk) 13:11, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Senator 'before' election, in infobox

We've a tricky situation here. David Perdue was indeed the Senator before the November 3, 2020 election. However, there is no Senator before the January 5, 2021 runoff of that election, as Perdue's recent term expired on January 3, 2021. So, how should we handle this? Include Perdue at the bottom of the infobox or exclude & use Vacant? GoodDay (talk) 14:32, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

GoodDay, as in most cases, we should defer to the reliable sources, which are all labeling Perdue as the incumbent in their coverage of the eleciton. Personally, though, I think his name should stay since the field is labeled "U.S. Senator before election", and Perdue was indeed in office before the election began on Nov. 3. The seat became vacant during the election. We are treating the election as happening over that whole period, which is apparent from the "2020–21" in the title. But, again, it's really the reliable sources that should guide this decision. ― Tartan357 Talk 14:35, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I've no personal preference. This seems to to be first incident where a Senate seat became 'vacant' between the first & second rounds of an election. This article would be setting a precedent for how we handle such future incidences as these. PS - On a light note: I can't stand the article title, as this isn't a pre-17th amendment US Senate election :) GoodDay (talk) 14:38, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, as far as I know, that is correct. And I wouldn't have reverted first if I'd realized you'd opened a talk page section; sorry about that. ― Tartan357 Talk 14:41, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Don't mind be reverted. You have the WP:BRD advantage ;) PS - A note next to Perdue's name, explaining why he's listed, would steer away future removals of his name, though. GoodDay (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading map is misleading. Being easy to read means it is easy to be misled.

Choropleth map

County results (first round)
Perdue:      40–50%      50–60%      60–70%      70–80%      80–90%
Ossoff:      50–60%      60–70%      80–90%

Pies on map (legend enlarged from earlier version)

We need to choose images that accurately reflect the nature of the subject, in this case, a map graphic that accurately communicates that this is an extremely close result. The result is not obvious at a glance. If you see a graphic that gives you an easy, obvious answer, that graphic is misleading you.

Maybe you noticed today that a lot of Americans have a very hard time accepting election results. One of the reasons is that our media is awash in misleading election maps. They incorrectly emphasize land area "won" as if that counted, and it creates a profound visual impression. We put images at the top of articles in the first place because they communicate ideas nonverbally in a powerful way. If they didn't we'd all be happy to save ourselves the effort and just stare at walls of text and crosstabs. Bad graphics affect how people think and we know this.[1][2][3][4][5] Wikipedia has no obligation to conform to this bad practice, as if there's no alternative. We have plenty of good alternatives, and even if we didn't, no map at all would be better than a misleading map.

This revert by Devonian Wombat says "Good idea, but the legend is literally impossible to read in that map so the first one is still better". This is an example of why these misleading maps are everywhere. You look at the filled counties and indeed you find it "readable". But what are you reading? You're looking at an image dominated by red. It looks like a landslide. Maybe you notice that some counties have a stronger color tone than others. This, according to the legend, tells us the percentage of votes in that county. But percent of what? If you don't know how many votes were cast in each county, seeing how much they won by is meaningless. Think about all the extra infobox space, and editor effort it takes to have the map legend that gives you so much detail about percentages that mean nothing. We're applying this strong red color to the large area of Echols County as if getting almost 90% of the votes there matters, when in fact "winning" Echols county amounts to a rounding error, and by the way "winning" a county is not a thing. It's a statewide race. Some readers will stare at these percentages "     40–50%      50–60%      60–70%" understandably thinking they could glean knowlege if they make the effort, and we all know they are wasting their time, because there is no information there. "60% of... of... ¯\_(ツ)_/¯" It's our fault for wasting their time. Don't do that.

This is the kind of infograpic that looks like it's giving you information, but when you stop and think you realize it's telling you next to nothing. But winning the most counties counts for nothing so why do we care?

So yes, with an accurate map, it is not so easy to read at a glance. In this case we have an election with barely 0.5% difference between the two candidates. A graphic that accurately represents that fact should clearly show that it's hard to see which one is ahead. Because it is hard to see. You have to look very closely at the numbers to see that one is ever so slightly larger than the other.

In short, it's not "better" to favor a graphic that is easier to read if the reason it's easier is that it's grossly misleading. A map where the result does not jump out at you is an accurate map, since this is in fact a close election. That's the point. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 23:20, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The current map is fine, it just presents different information. Your alternative looks terrible and is not consistent with literally every other map, you have to get consensus first. Devonian Wombat (talk) 23:40, 6 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Consistency is not a justification if it's misleading. Whether it "looks terrible" or not is far less important than whether it's accurate or misleading. If the colors or fonts are ugly we can fix that. "First get consensus" is also a non-argument. It's especially off base because you reverted my edit with no discussion. I didn't not revert in kind. I am here now on the talk page. I started this discussion. So no lectures, please.

Can you say specifically what information you think it presents? When a reader looks at that map, what are they getting from it? That's the issue here. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:17, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Can you fix your small tags? And yes, I agree, you need consensus to so radically change our normal approach to displaying election information. The regular county-based map is fine and I don't see any strong reason to change; especially to the proposed version, which looks really bad. Urve (talk) 00:22, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I'd really appreciate comments on the accuracy of the choropleth (or filled area) map. It's not about which one is county-based; both version are county-based; that's the normal level of detail in state election data. Both maps get their data from exactly the same source. The difference is that one contains information about the total votes cast in a county, and displays the proportions in a very clear pie format. It even tells you who won, in theory, if you could somehow count up the exact number of blue and red pixels, you'd see one is about 0.5% more than the other. The filled area map includes only two useful pieces of data, who is ahead in each county, and how far ahead they are. It emphasizes the land area of the county while telling us nothing about how many votes were cast. You could never, even in theory, know who won an election with this type of map.

If this were a a landslide, you still couldn't tell who won. That map fails spectacularly in the most basic point of an election. Compare the two maps at the top of 2016 United States presidential election in Wyoming and you'll see what I mean. File:Wyoming Presidential Election Results 2016.svg is awash in red, but who won? That information is simply missing. The two thirds landslide result is obvious at a glance from File:Wyoming 2016 presidential results by county.png.

Wikipedia:I just don't like it isn't much of an argument. Can you speak to the encyclopedic issues? Accuracy? My complaint is WP:UNDUE weight given to the irrelevant land area of the county, and the WP:NPOV problem of selectively removing the information the source gives, the total vote cast while keeping only the ratio. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 00:46, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Okay. Here's generally why I think it's a poor fit for the infobox, which is the basis of this talk section (since your edit for infobox inclusion was reverted). (1) I do not particularly care or find it particularly pertinent if a map can tell who won, and there's no reason why a map should tell who won. A map represents geographic information. That is why they are maps. A map of the US also does not represent population. That is not a compelling reason to use this map instead. I fail to see why it matters. (2) Our readers likely expect the normal full-color county map, instead of your proposal. Encyclopedias are meant to be read and follow reliable sources, not lead. While this isn't a sourcing dispute, I think the same principle applies -- we should follow what reliable sources are doing in their reporting about the results, rather than taking the lead with a new map. (3) The area of circles is notoriously difficult to ascertain so the information is, if anything, as useless as the leading image. (18 inch pizzas have twice the area of 12 inch pizzas, which few people know.) This speaks to "accuracy," which you asked me to consider. This section header is about misleading maps -- this does not solve misleading issues. As you admit, you have to count up pixels to find who won... which is not a thing people do, and since they don't do it, they will be troubled by the map since they don't understand circular area. (4) As a consequence, I think this ambiguity and difficulty of ascertainment violates WP:Manual_of_Style/Images#Image_quality, which is not "I just don't like it". And even if my objection were just that I don't like it, that's an essay. (5) The map you propose is okay. I don't think it is ugly or unworthy of inclusion in any encyclopedia. It has its uses. But I think the fairest thing to do would be to follow the lead of 2020 United States presidential election#Maps and have a separate section for alternative maps. Urve (talk) 01:09, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I mistakenly brought up the 2020 United States presidential election#Maps article (which is not yet filled but will be in the future). A better example is to take the lead of 2016 United States presidential election#Maps. Urve (talk) 01:16, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't matter who wins. This is your argument? Pretty sure I can cite reliable sources who tell us it does matter who wins this election, if we really need to dispute that question. But, really?

You're denying the problem of creating a false appearance of winning because one side's colors cover most of the map. The reality is it's a close race. The pie map looks hard to discern the result, and that matches reality. A photo finish is what we all a race where you can't discern the winner with the naked eye. And yet these filled maps can't even tell you when there's a clear winner by a mile. I cited several reliable sources hat affirm people are indeed mislead by maps where the whole thing is colored in red. These maps we see on all these articles all look the same. The landslides look the same as the nail biters, which is a failure convey basic facts.

This stuff about the difficulty of telling which circle is larger might be relevant if we were comparing two maps that contained this information. You're defending a map which doesn't even attempt to convey the basic fact that Fulton county has more than 5000 times more votes than the smallest counties. It's a 12" pizza vs a 600 foot pizza.

Saying "readers expect to see it" is just another way of repeating "we've always done it that way". I agree. It's always been this way but that's a non-argument. Argumentum ad antiquitatem is what you call that fallacy in Latin. I have good sources saying it's bad and we should stop. WP:IAR had to be created to deal with just this kind of bureaucratic inertia.

I'd like to see citations of sources that counter the ones I gave showing this is indeed a real problem and it does in fact mislead the public. If there are experts arguing "these terrible maps are fine", I haven't heard of them. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 01:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I did not say it doesn't matter who wins an election. You've misrepresented several of my comments.

No, a pie map looks hard to discern because pie maps use circular area, which people do not know how to navigate. That this map is hard to discern and that this election was close are not necessarily related. It is bad practice to use maps which people will generally not understand or be able to make sense of. People believe that larger circles have larger--but not substantially larger--areas. It looks to me like Republicans won, because circular area is not intuitive.

Saying "readers expect to see it" is just another way of repeating "we've always done it that way". No, it's not. Readers expect to see it because this is the form that reliable sources traditionally report results. This is what I suggested about re: following and not leading, which you did not respond to. It's not just about Wikipedian practice (although it includes that, sure, because this is where a substantial number of people get their information from).

I have good sources saying it's bad and we should stop. We follow, not lead, and we shouldn't use novel presentation methods that readers are likely to misinterpret and are overly busy with text.

I'd like to see citations of sources that counter the ones I gave showing this is indeed a real problem and it does in fact mislead the public. Okay. Urve (talk) 02:02, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you actually read that entire paper? You provided a link to the abstract and you speak of it as if it criticizes the type of map I'm proposing. I think you should probably read the entire thing. The study shows that continuously varying circle sizes are difficult to interpret, and instead, the study says we should do exactly what we have in the map I'm proposing: group the data in four to six large chunks that are easily distinguishable. And still you're ignoring the real issue: this isn't about interpreting small variations, it's about being aware of huge variations in magnitude: roughly 600 to 1. You complaining that a schematic map of the solar system makes it hard to tell is Uranus is larger than Neptune, so instead you want a map that displays them all the same size, or worse, presents Mercury as if it was larger than Jupiter! Begging the question is the fallacy at work here.

At least offer an alternative that is actually better at showing how many votes were cast, if you're going to cite criticism of circles. If you want to argue in favor of altneratives like treemaps, sure, I'm with you. I created some at articles like 1992 United States presidential election in Montana, Sinking of the Titanic#Casualties and survivors, or Executive Order 13769#Trump campaign and administration statements before the order's signing. It's debatable whether they're ideal for elections, but I like them and if that's the route you want to go I can do that. To me the pies on a map is a good compromise because it preserves the basic geography while making clear where the most votes are.

"Following not leading". One fallacy after another, Argument from authority here. I feel like you're emphasizing that these filled maps are indefensible on their own merits. They fail to show who won the election, and fail to show if it was a close race or a landslide, and instead of addressing that you say "who cares?" We care about the election results. I refer you to this huge article about it. Obviously the results are the point and I'd like it if we can at least honestly admit we've been using maps that are missing that critical data. Missing how many votes were cast, and therefore missing any hint of which way the result went. Worse, on its own the graphic conveys the opposite result. We actually have to work to counteract the misleading information we supplied at the top of the article. How is that not a problem? --Dennis Bratland (talk) 02:53, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Are you sure you actually read that entire paper? Yes. You provided a link to the abstract No, I linked to the paper. JSTOR hosts papers. I think you should probably read the entire thing. Yes, I think so too, which is what I did. The study shows that continuously varying circle sizes are difficult to interpret You asked for citations, and the first page has relevant citations for circles being hard to interpret if you would like to look further. I disagree with your analysis of the paper anyway but it's also not my problem since there are other grounds to oppose the proposed map. At least offer an alternative that is actually better at showing how many votes were cast, if you're going to cite criticism of circles. No. If you are going to insist on throwing out a map because it is misleading, you shouldn't propose a misleading map. I am taking issue with your reasoning. I am not obligated to propose anything since I think the default is fine. "Following not leading". One fallacy after another, Argument from authority here. First, being a fallacy doesn't mean it's false. Engage with the merits. Argument from fallacy. Second, this is just recognizing that Wikipedia relies on externally-generated data, which we report on without pushing a point of view. I think that this close adherence to reliable sources requires us to be faithful to the ways that they present data, and the ways that readers would expect data to be represented. That does not mean that we can't have your proposed visualization in the article, I just think that it forecloses the prominence you desire. Replacing what readers expect, and what reliable sources report with, because you unilaterally decide it is less misleading, seems to me problematic. They fail to show who won the election, and fail to show if it was a close race or a landslide, and instead of addressing that you say "who cares?" Yes, because I don't think a map should necessarily be used, alone, to show who won. I am taking issue with your reasoning. We actually have to work to counteract the misleading information we supplied at the top of the article. How is that not a problem? Because the map is, what?, 10 pixels away from the relevant information? Not a big issue. Urve (talk) 03:11, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Let's look at what I said. You keep quoting it, but pretending it's about something else: "I'd like to see citations of sources that counter the ones I gave showing this is indeed a real problem and it does in fact mislead the public." I offered this sampling of sources [6][7][8][9][10] which point out that filled area maps are misleading. I asked you if you can cite anything that argues against this point, that filled area maps are not misleading, with their large expanses of empty geography are given equal or greater weight to areas with hundreds of times greater population density. All you did was cite one study which says continuously graded circles are hard to read. These circles are not continuously graded, they're grouped in 6 discrete chunks. Even then, your entire criticism is that it's maybe hart to tell if the circle of Cobb county is larger or smaller than Fulton. As if that makes any difference. Does it? If you meant it you'd be happy if I changed the circles to squares, but I don't think you would.

A map flooded with a sea of red makes it look like Republicans did far better than they really did. It distorts the reality of how many votes were actually cast. I cited numerous sources for that.

Your real problem is you find it satisfying to think of all the election article looking the same, which is irrelevant to the NPOV and UNDUE issues here, and you think this one is ugly, which is also irrelevant. Our first priority should be accuracy. Once we have accuracy, we can pick slightly different shades of color and other fonts and make the Atlantic ocean blue. This is not a Good Article or FA nomination discussion. It's not about which of two adequate options are the most polished and perfect.

This is about grossly misleading and uninformative vs basically correct. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 03:31, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I am disengaging because of your insistence on personal attacks ("pretending" assumes bad faith). Go for an RFC. Urve (talk) 03:42, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
You are making flawed arguments that fail to address the real issues. You've doubled down on this weak rhetoric that it doesn't matter who wins this election -- or any election. The graphic at the lead of all the election articles has no need to indicate even roughly whether the outcome was close or not, and our interest in election results doesn't include wanting to know who won. That's your position.

Those are terrible arguments, with no regard for facts. I can imagine having that pointed out might make one feel bad. But that's not what a personal attack is. That's just losing. You do enjoy the huge advantage that Wikipedians loathe change and will do almost anything to maintain the entrenched status quo, so don't feel too bad. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 04:27, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Jumping in here to say that this[11] style of map is the best of both worlds IMHO. I don't know if this was already mentioned because I didn't read the whole discussion. AveryTheComrade (talk) 04:59, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This type of treemap addresses the problem of emphasizing land area over number of votes cast, but it's not the best of both because it continues to fail to communicate who won, or to show if the election was close or a landslide. Look at these three examples: the winner had about 60% in each case, yet they look nothing alike. Three similar outcomes and three very different visual impressions. Not only do you not realize that you're seeing three very similar 60/40 outcomes, none of them suggests anything like the correct outcome. Does it look like Clinton came close to 30% of the vote in Idaho or Tennessee? Would you guess Trump had 32% in Massachusetts? It looks like he had none!

Using color grading this way doesn't work. I can show you a tree map that does, because it puts all the votes on in the image; a constant ratio of pixels to votes. Like the pies on a map, you can, in theory, tell exactly what the outcome is. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:19, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Treemap of the 2020–21 United States Senate election in Georgia results with size showing votes cast and candidates by color, Ossoff blue and Perdue red.

Here is what that would look like. It's far better than the filled area, and like the pies, it gives an exact proportion of votes, meaning the outcome is accurately depicted. Meaningful comparison of different elections with this kind of graph is possible. For me it's too abstract and is only a step away from looking at a crosstab, so I prefer to keep geographical quirks. The pies placed on the map allows us to realize we're looking at an urban center surrounded by lower density suburbs in a largely rural state. We get both a sense of place and precise data. But if we can't have that then the next best thing is a treemap that doesn't play around with (indecipherable) the color-graded percentages.--Dennis Bratland (talk) 20:43, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Just adding my two cents: another possibility could be a cartogram with county areas made proportional to the county's number of votes. Instead of solid colors that falsely imply unanimous voting in each county, and instead of color grading, each county could be split into red and blue areas (like the treemap blocks) that maintain, as Dennis Bratland suggests, a constant ratio of pixels to votes.
If not a cartogram, I'm fine with pies on a map. Since Wikipedia aims to be a source of reliable information, we shouldn't continue using the misleading choropleth (filled geographic area) maps, that falsely imply "one acre, one vote", just because they're customary and expected. --AnotherOnymous (talk) 17:55, 9 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, this is exactly my intention. The map I've suggested is a Dorling cartogram, by the way. It would definitely be nice to have one of the more sophisticated shape warping cartograms, but I haven't found easily accessible tools that would let us create and maintain maps that use one of those algorithms to generate the shapes. Using circles located in the geometric center of the county is a valid type of cartogram that solves the problem, while being simple enough that it's something we can create and keep updated on multiple articles. But if anyone knows how we can create shape warping cartograms, more power to them. That would be great. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 19:09, 10 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Dennis Bratland what tool did you use to create this? curious. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:42, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tableau. It's mentioned if you click through to the Commons file. --Dennis Bratland (talk) 18:13, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Sentence that doesn't make any sense

"This runoff election, in conjunction with the runoff between Perdue and Democratic challenger Jon Ossoff, would have decided the balance of the United States Senate under the incoming Biden administration, because of the tiebreaking vote of Democratic vice president-elect Kamala Harris."

This runoff election article *is* the runoff between Perdue and Ossoff. This sentence should be edited to say "the runoff between Loeffler and Democratic challenger Raphael Warnock" in order to not have a confusing/ambiguous subject. 162.129.251.104 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 21:45, 7 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has been addressed. Urve (talk) 20:47, 8 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Should Ossoff and Perdue both be bolded for the first round?

It seems like this is somewhat contentious. Personally I think they shouldn't — it's not necessary to indicate they both continued to the second round, because that is already indicated by them having results from a second round. Bolding only the first-place winner is also what is done at 2008 United States Senate election in Georgia.

(ping Tartan357) Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 05:56, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Elliot321, please add to the existing discussion at #Bolding of Perdue. ― Tartan357 Talk 06:19, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I wasn't sure that was still active. We should probably do a RfC at the WikiProject to have a clear answer on this, imo. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:27, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elliot321, I reverted your edit in response to the most recent comment there. But I agree with you that an RfC at the WikiProject is the best course of action; I just suggested that above. I have a feeling we'll be told pretty quickly that there already was one, and pointed to it by someone over there. ― Tartan357 Talk 06:30, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357 I wouldn't be so sure. Regardless, if you wanna open it please link me. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elliot321, I'm signing off for the night, so feel free to get started if you want to. ― Tartan357 Talk 06:34, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Tartan357, I'm kinda tired too, and I don't really care too strongly about this (nor feel like starting an RfC) - it seems like the general consensus is bolding both, so doing so at the 2008 race should be fine. Elliot321 (talk | contribs) 06:35, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elliot321, okay, it is a perennial issue, so I plan to get around to an RfC eventually. I'll remember to ping you if I do. I first saw this type of bolding in use at 2018–19 Phoenix mayoral special election, but it really isn't all that consistent across Wikipedia. ― Tartan357 Talk 06:37, 18 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Elliot321, Election Tron has started a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Bolding of candidates pre-runoff. ― Tartan357 Talk 07:01, 19 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Typo error

Hello, I have a request to tell you, you made an error in 2020 GA runoff system, you see the map you showed had two parts one was the gerneral election and one was ther runoff i want to tell you that in the runoff part it says results based on Jan 6th the results have been cetifed so I was wondering if you can fix it or remove it I would rather have you do it because im not an expert on wiki.

Typo error

Hi, I would like to have a requestion for the GA election results while I was previewing the results on wiki the map county results say as of jan 6th in the box. the people certified the states so its final, I was wondering if you can fix it, I would perfer you edit it because im not an expert on these things. Thanks Jack48934913333 (talk) 18:55, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. – Jonesey95 (talk) 19:38, 3 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Photos of the candidates

I have reverted twice now (here is the second revert[12]) in a couple of days the attemps to change the photos of the candidates in the infobox from the photos that the article had for about a month. The version from which I reverted[13] used a different photo of Perdue, where his face is much smaller than that of Ossoff. IMO, the photos currently in the article are far preferable. Nsk92 (talk) 20:10, 11 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 07:18, 28 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 7 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: No consensus to move. Some editors argue that the current title is preferable as voting also took place in 2021 (non-admin closure) (t · c) buidhe 00:45, 15 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]


– The title "2020–21" gives the impression to the reader that the election was continuous and took place over multiple years, this is not a pre-20th amendment election, they were both held on specific dates. The runoffs were a continuation of the November general that happened to take place in January, it is already specified in the infobox the date of the runoffs. Alternatively, them being renamed to "2020 and 2021..." also makes it clear that it wasn't a continuous, multi-year election. AveryTheComrade (talk) 21:48, 7 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 23:28, 9 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020–21 United States Senate special election in Georgia which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 13:35, 16 April 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Page move

Due to the special election having taken place in parallel, the article "2020-21 United States Senate election in Georgia" should be renamed to "2020-21 United States Senate general election in Georgia". Bernardgeorgeh (talk) 18:10, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Hello, Bernardgeorgeh,
This is not a discussion, this is just your opinion. So, moving an article based on a talk page discussion is misleading. Please don't claim this unless a full discussion over days or weeks has happened. Liz Read! Talk! 00:27, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Liz,
My mistake. I see my reasoning for the article move was misguided and that being that there had been no sufficient discussion that "talk page discussion" was not the appropriate reason reguardless. Thank you for correcting my shortsighted mistake. Bernardgeorgeh (talk) 14:52, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Disagree with this move. It's not the general practice for such situations (e.g. we have 2022 United States Senate election in Oklahoma even though there was also a simultaneous special). Having a hatnote to disambiguate is sufficient. Elli (talk | contribs) 02:02, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Hello Elli,
I understand my mistake. I think I was overly concerned with disambiguation that I did not consider nomenclature enough. Thank you for your correction. Bernardgeorgeh (talk) 14:59, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
No worries. I appreciate your enthusiasm! Elli (talk | contribs) 15:37, 23 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:2020–21_United_States_Senate_election_in_Georgia"