Talk:2020 United States House of Representatives elections

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Third Party & Independent Candidates

User:Californianinexile: Can you clarify why you're deleting third-party and independent candidates from the lists? In the race for D.C. delegate, the reference (DC Board of Elections filings) clearly shows that the DC Statehood Green and Libertarian candidates are on the ballot. I don't see a reason to remove them. It looks like other edits are weeding out similar third-party or independent candidates. Am I missing a notability standard for inclusion or something? Carter (talk) 11:19, 20 April 2020 (UTC)[reply]

In regards to editing out Independents, I had removed two independents off of the Hawaii box because they were not on the ballot. BigCheese76 (talk) 16:01, 15 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian party in infobox

Hi - I removed this but my edit was reverted so perhaps best to have a discussion on here.

I don't think it's logical to show that the Libertarian Party "needs" 217 seats for a majority because:

- The Libertarian Party is not standing candidates in enough congressional districts to win a majority based on results of top-two elections in California and filing deadlines met in other states - The one Libertarian member of congress is standing down, and no one is expecting the Libertarian party to win any congressional districts in 2020, let alone a majority

Guyb123321 (talk) 12:00, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

  • I agree that Libertarian does not need "seets needed". It's pedantic and excessive. —GoldRingChip (he/she/it/they)) 12:17, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Also concur. I don't think it should be in the infobox at all since he's not running for election. This is a single person, not a caucus. He was not listed there as a independent, and his joining a third party does not change the status of the overall election. Reywas92Talk 19:02, 12 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I have removed the reference to seats needed for a Libertarian majority as per the above - I also agree that the Libertarian Party shouldn't be in the infobox entirely but have left this for now - if someone else wants to make this change I'd be supportive thoughGuyb123321 (talk) 02:14, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The removal has been reverted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:B941:2C15:75A7:29EA (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Updated this - please correct me if I'm wrong but no one seems to be defending inclusion so I think I'm within my right to remove the reference? Guyb123321 (talk) 19:38, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It's been undone again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:4DBA:33D5:A8A3:614A (talk) 22:33, 13 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I agree that Libertarian should not be included for reasons stated.   // Timothy :: talk  12:13, 17 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • Removing Amash from the infobox again. I can't find any WP:RS where he is identified as the Libertarian Party leader in the House (de facto or otherwise) and he makes no such claim on his website, Twitter, or Facebook page. Carter (talk) 14:26, 8 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Is mr. Amash really a libertarian?

Here, the most recent roll call vote http://clerk.house.gov/evs/2020/roll115.xml, show mr. Amash is an independent. It’s been long time after he said he might run for president as a libertarian. Why didn’t he change party affiliation. Noncommittalp (talk) 03:19, 12 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Press releases on his official web page (e.g., [1], [2]) show him using "Rep. Justin Amash (L-Mich.)", so I think it's clear he's identifying as a Libertarian congressman. Carter (talk) 12:58, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you. Noncommittalp (talk) 22:16, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Early voting photo

Should that early voting photo be there? It doesn’t seem to fit in the area where it is now. Also it doesn’t seem too relevant and I believe it should be in a different section. I’m not saying we should get rid of it, just move it. What do you think? Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 01:24, 10 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, Lima Bean Farmer. I undid your removal, because I don't think your "I don't like it there" should somehow as a silent matter of course prevail over my choice to place the picture there. If more people want to remove it too, then I won't complain, but your single opinion is not more weighty than mine, and I hope you are able to see that. There's a giant white space under the infobox, so why not fill that with a relevant, topical picture that speaks on the role of the voters, who are not even further represented in the article? Concerning you question on my Talk page, "Please use the talk page on the 2020 house elections to debate the photo instead of adding it back": you might have used this talk page before you removed the picture, so I ask you friendly to stop lecturing me like that. Greeting, Eissink (talk) 10:42, 10 July 2020 (UTC).[reply]
The image seems misplaced in my opinion. It doesn't really give any insight into the events surrounding the election. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:301:4360:85D1:2F79:2B87:9E94 (talk) 03:23, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Well, User Talk:Eissink, I do not believe that my opinion is more weighty than yours. However, I did not delete this because “I don’t like it there.” I’m actually not sure where I got that quote from. The reason I deleted it was because it didn’t seem relevant. You said it yourself from above in this talk page: “so why not fill that with a relevant, topical picture that speaks on the role of the voters, who are not even further represented in the article?” I think this answers it’s own question. The voters are not represented in this article. This article is not about voters. If you think it should be, that’s a whole different topic altogether. It is more appropriate to debate on a talk page rather than add back information, if someone else deletes it. You should follow this too in order to avoid an edit war. An important part of Wikipedia is learning. I have not been on Wikipedia that long, but for the time I have been on I feel that I get further by learning, not just arguing. Lima Bean Farmer (talk) 17:00, 11 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"Libertarians" Should Be "Libertarian"

There is only one Libertarian in the House, so the section title should be singular. Each state has a governor, but there being 50 governors doesn't make Andrew Cuomo the "governors of New York." The other Libertarian candidates and voters around the country shouldn't make the current one plural when it only refers to Amash. EvanJ35 (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Infobox

We should be pointing out, how many seats are undecided. GoodDay (talk) 01:52, 14 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

What does it take to list a race as won by a candidate?

Note: a parallel debate is occurring at Talk:117th United States Congress#Consistency in House races. Sdrqaz (talk) 02:13, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

So I wanted to write this just to inform people who are putting on edits prematurely before any official call comes in about who has won a race. So there is a criteria that must be checked off before we can list candidates which are really just two things.

1. Official calls: Calls by the AP which is the premier source for calling races.

2. Concession of an opponent which the opponent concedes defeat and leaves the race allowing the winner to take office.

If there is no call or concession then the race remains too close or to early to call. So just wait until either one of the two occurs.

The map in the meantime should not be updated until a call from the AP comes in in order to allow a change to come in should a result change or an opponent retract their concession. Wollers14 (talk) 05:49, 15 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AP News (https://apnews.com/article/election-2020-donald-trump-iowa-mariannette-miller-meeks-elections-e3f235f217707a78fcec059f8e0b4ffa) already has Iowa 2 as being won by Miller-Meeks - the board's certified her, but it seems that win isn't being accepted here. Why? Yes there are ongoing legal challenges by her Democrat rival, but Biden is being called president-elect despite ongoing legal challenges by Trump and others. Which standard applies? Please don't say both. 人族 (talk) 10:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@人族: The first standard applies. The source that you cited, although from the AP, does not constitute an actual race call by the AP: it is a news story, reporting that the Iowa Board of Canvass has certified Miller-Meeks' victory in the election. In the case of the presidential election, the AP has called the election in Pennsylvania here and the overall result here. I understand that this is frustrating and it is completely understandable why you thought that the AP had called Iowa's 2nd, but the AP has not.
Sdrqaz (talk) 13:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, please see the above distinction between the AP actually calling the election opposed to the AP reporting that the results were certified. The AP has not called the election in Iowa's 2nd to my knowledge. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sdrqaz, I'm trying to bring this article & 117th United States Congress article, in line with each other. Over at the other article, they have the Iowa race decided. Would be grateful, if you or anyone else would help in maintaining a consistency between these articles. GoodDay (talk) 16:41, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, I agree with the need for consistency, but I think the wrong consistency is being imposed here. Iowa's 2nd should be left unresolved and two elections being uncalled. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:51, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Reverted to avoid a headache. PS: An editor at the other article says the AP has called the Iowa-2 race. Yas can't both be correct. GoodDay (talk) 16:55, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, Jdavi333 says that the AP reported that the results were certified (and not that the AP has called the election). So in a way, we're both right. We just have differing opinions on how that should be interpreted. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:09, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Now that Miller-Meeks has been seated and is an official Rep., the consensus should be that she won her race, even if the AP has still not called the race, right? Can that be edited? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ktvptf (talk • contribs) 01:56, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
All I ask (indeed beg) is that who ever updates this article, please update it entirely. Not just partially. GoodDay (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know how the results being certified cannot be considered an official result. The AP calling the race/a candidate conceding is much less than a race certification by state officials. Obviously the losing candidate has the right to contest the results (as the President is in several states), but that does not make the certification of the results any less valid. So for now, Iowa-2 is decided. It should be listed as such here as well as in the 117th Congress article. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:42, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wollers14: appears to disagree with you. GoodDay (talk) 20:35, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
That's fine and dandy, but does not change the facts. If the house or a court overturns the results, then fine we'll change it. There is also a "chance" that state legislatures in PA, MI, and GA will not give Biden the electoral votes, yet Biden still won, at least for now. Jdavi333 (talk) 21:30, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia does not call races. It is NOT our decision when a race is to be called. It is the AP's decision and Iowa 2 is uncalled. If they felt that certification wasn't enough then we must follow. We need to put it back to uncalled, and we can put a note saying the results were certified but the race is uncalled because of legal challenges. 108.14.43.250 (talk) 16:58, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
2 points. Firstly, see the discussion about this topic here. Secondly, I am not sure you understand what it means to "call" a race. AP, NBC, CNN, etc.. have teams of non-partisan statisticians and political scientists who look at results as the come in on election night and beyond and "call" a race before the results are official. That is how they call a state for Trump/Biden at 7PM election night. It's not simply because they "know" NY will go Dem. This is also why AZ was called by Fox early on election night while other outlets did not call it. They had different methodologies. However, that is irrelevant and separate from the actual election results, which are counted and certified by state officials. Once that happens, we don't need the AP or the NY Times to "call" the election for us. The election is over. Subsequent challenges and litigation may occur, but at least for now the results are in. Say what you want about Rudy Giuliani, he was right about one thing. The media does not decide elections. Voters decide elections, when counted and certified by the election officials. Jdavi333 (talk) 17:16, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know why IA-02 not being called is an issue but at this point I'm too sick and tired of arguing with other editors about it to make any more reverts. But I will put this foreword: If the US House seats Rita Hart then from now on we wait until an AP call or a concession. If Miller-Meeks takes the seat then I can add certification of races that are over a 100 vote margin as a means to state a winner. I'm tired of having to make the same argument over and over and over again. But I am willing to make that compromise. However listing a winner in IA-02 before all legal options are exhausted is a risk of wiki stating potentially false information. I'm sorry if I sound frustrated right now but we need to have discussions before we make edits. I don't know why I have to say this but I'll say it now: Talk before you edit. That is all. Wollers14 (talk) 08:16, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

There's an RFC on this matter, taking place at 117th United States Congress. Since we're trying to keep that article & this article consistent? Perhaps you should participate at RFC-in-question. GoodDay (talk) 15:10, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wollers14 I agree there is an infinitesimal chance the House won't seat M-M. But I have a simple question. What happens if the house refuses to seat someone who won by a large margin and AP called the race, but Pelosi decided not to seat the winner? Then what? At this point, the votes are counted and the results certified. That means M-M won the race. Whatever may happen after now may happen, and if the House seats Hart and M-M won by even one vote, I think Wikipedia will have a larger issue of the candidate getting the most votes not being the winner. Jdavi333 (talk) 15:48, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jdavi333, it does not matter if Pelosi decided not to seat the winner, because the Speaker does not have the unilateral power to decide not to seat a candidate; the House has that power. The idea that the House will choose to seat a candidate without basing that on some sort of recount data is laughable. If we look back at 1984, the last time this occurred (to my knowledge), the one who was seated was the winner of the election by four votes. It did not matter who was declared the winner by the state. The same applies here in 2020's Iowa. If Hart is seated instead of Miller-Meeks, the House will have voted to accept the results of another recount. Article I, Section 5, Clause 1 clearly states that Each House shall be the Judge of the Elections, Returns and Qualifications of its own Members, so it's irrelevant what the certified results were once the House has made its decision. Sdrqaz (talk) 17:23, 6 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

California’s 21st congressional district result

Why is CA21 marked as having been one? I thought the associated press hasn’t called this yet. SRD625 (talk) 21:47, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@SRD625: You're absolutely right: the AP has not called California's 21st. However, there has been a barrage of edits by mostly IP users to try to put David Valadao as the district's victor. Wollers14 has made edits to rectify that here.
Sdrqaz (talk) 22:20, 25 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Well, now it’s official SRD625 (talk) 18:54, 27 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Georgia House 5 (two elections)

We need repairs done to the infoboxes of the 2020 House of Reps election infobox for Georgia's special election & regular election. GoodDay (talk) 17:09, 29 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@GoodDay: What fix needs to be made? They seem okay to me.
Sdrqaz (talk) 16:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Oops. Meant this for the 2020 United States House of Representatives elections in Georgia article. GoodDay (talk) 16:21, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Anyways, I did correct the additional error on this article. Because the special election (runoff) is occurring 'after' the regular election. Thus John Lewis will not be the predecessor to the person sworn in on January 3, 2021, but rather the 'special election' winner, will be the predecessor. GoodDay (talk) 16:40, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I agree with that. The incumbent listed should be the holder of the seat at the time of the election on November 3. As Lewis's successor won't be elected until December, I don't think they should be listed as the incumbent at the time of the regular election. Instead, Lewis should be kept.
Sdrqaz (talk) 16:54, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then we'd have to list the seat as vacant. GoodDay (talk) 17:34, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]
GoodDay, that sounds fine. I've edited it in line with the 2018 House elections page. Sdrqaz (talk) 18:09, 30 November 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Map

I'm sorry, but I find it ridiculous to have a map which is incoherent with the text. If the map must have a AP confirmation, the text needs one too. If other sources are enough for the text, they must be enough for the map too - and the map is even sourced from the NYT, but than doesn't agree with such source!--Ngfsmg (talk) 18:22, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Ngfsmg: Would you be able to correct it, then? Sdrqaz (talk) 18:34, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I don't know how to edit svg. I made a png which was correct, but wiki doesn't accept it because the format is different --Ngfsmg (talk) 19:38, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I understand the arguments you guys are making about the map but updating the map without AP calls would be difficult because the results could at any point change and updating the map before a call is made could result in wiki stating false results and the map is already difficult as is to update but once a call comes in we can say beyond a reasonable doubt that the election result is final and thus we can update the map to reflect that. Now that being said we did just get AP calls for CA-25, NY-11 and NY-24. I have already asked the map author to update the map based off those calls and now we must simply wait for the map author to do so. I understand that NY-1 and 2 have not been called yet and may remain uncalled for a few days or so. Now with all that being said the results of IA-02 and NY-22 will remain undetermined for an unknown amount of time due to court challenges over how close the races are so they will stay in the undecided column until they are resolved. Thank you and have a good day. Wollers14 (talk) 22:47, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Then you must apply the same logic on the text... And either way, as I said it, the source of the map is NYT, not the AP, so it must me followed --Ngfsmg (talk) 23:06, 1 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
The NYT's source is the AP also the text is much easier to change than the map is should a result change which is why the concession requirement was added. Wollers14 (talk) 00:05, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Wollers14: If that's your position and have the AP source to prove it, than change the text too, we must be coherent--Ngfsmg (talk) 17:47, 2 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

NY-1 and NY-2 have both been called. The map will now be updated. I have already contacted people to update them. This dispute is now moot. Wollers14 (talk) 22:50, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

RfC regarding Iowa's 2nd district

An RfC is occurring here regarding whether Miller-Meeks should be listed as the winner of Iowa's 2nd district. Please contribute views there accordingly.

Sdrqaz (talk) 20:34, 3 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-Protection required

These last few days, I've TRIED to keep this article consistent with 117th United States Congress article, concerning what seats have been won. But, for the most part, nobody wants to help me here, concerning the onslaught of IPS & an obviously persistent Mobile editor. Not bothering with it anymore. This article should be semi-protected until Jan 3, 2021. GoodDay (talk) 18:25, 4 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 7 December 2020

Nancy Pelosi became speaker of the house on January 4, 2007, not January 3, 2003, as is stated beneath her photo. Jellysandwich0 (talk) 04:00, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I assume it refers to when she became Democratic Leader, not when she became speaker. Jdavi333 (talk)
That is correct, it is my mistake.Jellysandwich0 (talk) 04:06, 7 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 12 December 2020

Update needed for a few things

1. map needs fixing Red needed for the grey Iowa district as it was called for the Republican


2.With two races still undecided weeks after the election, the incoming House majority is projected to be the smallest for any party since 2000 should be changed to With one race still undecided weeks after the election, the incoming House majority is projected to be the smallest for any party since 2000 as again the same Iowa race was decided 71.169.164.31 (talk) 11:39, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Please provide a reliable source that the district (Iowa 2) has been called. Most sources I've look at haven't called it for the GOP. ◢  Ganbaruby!  (Say hi!) 14:14, 12 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Should we include popular votes?

I just have data from the reliable cook political report showing popular vote totals for both parties. See here: https://cookpolitical.com/2020-house-vote-tracker. Democrats have won 77,545,341 votes (50.8%), while Republicans won 72,877,981 votes (47.7%). Should we include it? Ppt2003 (talk) 04:36, 13 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, we should. This is what we've done in previous elections and there's only one race still outstanding (and that one only by a few dozen votes so the percentages won't change to a level that would be reflected at that degree). Chetsford (talk) 14:59, 22 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa 2nd district

So, some guy asks in this talk page for Iowa 2nd district to be collored red on the map, and it is refused, because a lot of sources say we can't call it right now. I act based on that information, correct the text to put that district as undetermined, and someone reverts it and says I am the one who must read the talk page?! How can we have two contradictory informations on the same page? If a lot a of sources say it is undetermined, BOTH the text and the map must show it, we must be consistent --Ngfsmg (talk) 16:13, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with the need for consistency. There is an RfC here on that matter. Sdrqaz (talk) 16:59, 14 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Pelosi seating her once the Congress begins I have contacted the map makers and asked them to change IA-02 to a GOP gain. Wollers14 (talk) 04:33, 31 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Close races between 5% and 10%

Should close races between five and ten percent be added? Thomascampbell123 (talk) 00:57, 21 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Death of Rep.-elect Luke Letlow

Luke Letlow, the Republican who won the race for Louisiana's 5th district, died of COVID before actually taking office. How do we want to represent this on the page? (He won, but now his seat will be vacant until a special election is held, so that would change some of the 'how many seats will be held by each party in the new Congress' sections). https://www.politico.com/news/2020/12/29/luke-letlow-covid-congress-452218 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AaronCanton (talk • contribs) 03:07, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think it changes the figures on how many seats were won, because Letlow won his election.74.67.45.185 (talk) 06:33, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe there should be a footnote explaining that there will be a special election to fill the vacancy (see https://www.cnn.com/2020/12/29/politics/luke-letlow-died-covid/index.html).74.67.45.185 (talk) 06:34, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Correction needed in lead

The last sentence of the lead reads as follows: "Following their expected resignations after Biden's inauguration on January 20, 2021, the Democratic caucus would consist of 219 members."

The first problem with this sentence is that it is speculative and premature, and therefore shouldn't be in the article. The second problem is that it's incorrect. Until the NY-22 race gets resolved, we won't know how many people the Democratic caucus will consist of. 74.67.45.185 (talk) 06:36, 30 December 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Iowa’s 2nd

So, the article shows a check Mark by Miller-Meeks but the map shows that there is still no winner. Someone please fix the map to reflect Miller-Meeks’ victory. It was certified and she is serving in the House right now. If we were to not color it in on the map as a Republican gain, we would be hypocritical because this result is certified, just like Biden’s victories in Michigan, Wisconsin, Georgia, etc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.121.243.76 (talk) 21:12, 4 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

seat_change parameters in infobox

A couple of days ago, I made an edit to the infobox to change the seat_change parameters in the infobox to the difference in the number of seats won at this election and the number of seats won at the last election (2018). Previously, it was the difference between the number of seats won at this election and the number of seats each party had just before the election (after defections, deaths, resignations etc. since the 2018 election). This edit was reverted by Fluffy89502 with the summary “before” refers to the seats before the election in question. This method ignores real party standings before this election. I don't agree with this because in the documentation for the infobox it says under seat_change1 The change in the number of seats won at the election compared to the previous election. The number can be changed up to nine to display different Parties at the same time. I agree with the documentation because I think the infobox should be designed to compare how the American people voted in 2018 and 2020. Being honest, I'm not entirely sure what This method ignores real party standings before this election means, but if it "real party standings" just means how powerful each party in the House was on November 3, 2020, I don't agree with the sentence, because again I believe for comparing elections, where it's the people who decide who represents them in the House, it should compare with their last decision i.e. the last election. --TedEdwards 22:38, 15 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Reluctant endorsement of changes, if only due to the template documentation. I understand your argument, but the two years between regular House elections allow for special elections to occur on the death or resignation of members. The most up-to-date information regarding party composition should be used. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:36, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@TedEdwards, RaySwifty18, and Aréat: Could the three of you please hash out some sort of consensus instead of revert-warring? Failing that, please go through dispute resolution or some analogous process. Sdrqaz (talk) 21:35, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

This has never been an issue. It's been standard practice that a party or independent section be included in the info box as long as they have 1 seat, regardless of the result of the previous election since, at the time of the 2020 elections, the standings were that the 3 parties had seats. This is similar to the 2002 senate election page and I also ask that you not change that and any other page since you will only cause more problems. This is how it's been.-RaySwifty18 — Preceding unsigned comment added by RaySwifty18 (talk • contribs) 22:41, 23 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

That is not true, and in any case, we don't follow "standard practice" blindly as you're suggesting we should do, as "standard practice" can either be a) wrong and needs to be changed on that article (as I believe the Senate article you've pointed out is, as again it doesn't compare election with election as the template says it should (Areat explained why this is the case in one of their edit summaries)) or b) something that works well on that page but would not work well on this page. See other stuff exists. Obviously, if there is a consensus that covers more than one page, we should follow that consensus or change the consensus prior to changing the article e.g. the instructions for the template's parameters will be a consensus across all election articles around the world. But I doubt there is any consensus over all U.S. Congress elections's articles for what you call the "standard practice". So unless you have a reason why this article should have the Libertarians should be in infobox that is not "standard practice", you haven't got a convincing argument.
Also, since when did 0-0=1? (I'm refering to the change in Libertarains seats, despite it being pointed out to you that the template's instructions say it should compare election with election) --TedEdwards 00:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Then even by the standard you are describing, your seat change numbers are wrong because you aren't comparing it to the numbers from the last election, you are using it in relation to the current number of seats including vacancies. To suggest the GOP picked up 13 seats is factually wrong. and to also suggest that they picked up 12 seats using the 200 number from 2018, after the NC09 special, would also be factually wrong as the official results have them only picking up 11 seats, factoring in the 3 they lost to the democrats and not counting the result of NY22 until that election is settled. This also would reflect that Democrats lost 10 seats and even the map of the results show the GOP picking up an 11th seat, which is from the Libs This is why election pages for congress reflect the actual current number of seats all parties have at the time of election day, and if a third party has a seat despite not winning one the previous year it gets included. The seat change number also does not count vacancies that were a hold for the party. What you are basically wanting is to not include relevant information.--RaySwifty18 (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
@RaySwifty18: I have no idea what you say means, please elaborate. I most certainly am comparing election with election, as 235-222=13 (Dem) and 212-199=13 (Rep), and 0-0=0 (Lib), hence the numbers should be 13, 13 and 0 (and so the Libs need to be removed, they are not important in this election). Also what Aréat said was contradictory was that the number of votes in the infobox compare the votes in 2018 and 2020, but the way you want it the number of seats would not compare between 2018 and 2020, so the comparisons are for different things and hence contradictory. So the numbers MUST both compare between the 2018 election and the 2020 election.
Also you must not modify you timestamp in your signature per WP:SIGPROB i.e. it must be in UTC. I have corrected your signatures therefore. --TedEdwards 21:25, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

I've been working on a lot of election pages in different countries, and we always compare seats of a full election with the result of the previous full election. Check it up. It isn't rare that a party lose many seats in between, because of deputies leaving a party for another, dying or resigning. Compare the current italian senate composition with the one elected in 2018, for example. We make the comparison from one election to another for both votes and seats, because otherwise the results appear contradictory, if not nonsensical. With a given party for example suffering a huge loss in votes yet keeping a steady number of seats, because its deputies would have already fled the party inbetween election. Or a party having a big boost in votes, yet a decrease in seats, because the electoral system didn't assign them as many as they got in between from defectors. Etc.--Aréat (talk) 01:00, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Well here is another comparison, 2 to be exact. In the 2008 Canadian elections, the Green party was included in the info box despite winning no seats in the last election. An MP switched parties to the Greens and ran for reelection but was defeated, leaving the party with 0 seats. In 2019, Maxime Bernier left the conservative party and formed his own party and ran for reelection. He lost but him and his party are included in the info box. Your claim that the results would some how be contradictory does not hold water. If we said in 2020 the Democrats held 260 seats or that they won 260 seats in 2018 then yes not only would that be contradictory, it would be downright false. By it's own nature, the fact that the pages reflect the partisan balance at the time of the current elections, it can't contradict the previous election because we also provide the context on why the makeup is different compared to the last results, which mean explaining that people switched parties and won special elections that flipped seats in between the time of the 2 elections, which we made that information easily known.--RaySwifty18 (talk) 20:16, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

How is it done in the other Year US House of Representatives elections articles? As I understood it, we went by the # of seats at the close of the previous Congress, rather then the previous election # of seats. GoodDay (talk) 22:30, 24 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Yes. But that doesn't mean that is how it should be done, and if we're following the instructions of the infobox documentation it is not how it should be done. Those instructions on the documentation imply to me that there is a consensus to compare election with election across all election articles, and this is hardly the talk page to change that. And as Aréat has explained, it should not be be the case that the difference in vote share is compared election to election, but the number seats is not compared election to election. --TedEdwards 01:15, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
I would argue the latter, for the Republicans needed 21 seats for a majority, rather then 19. GoodDay (talk) 01:19, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Well, could you argue for the latter then, and actually contribute to the discussion? Just saying what you would argue for, without arguing for it, will in no way whatsoever influence the consensus. --TedEdwards 03:05, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]
Resignations, special elections occur between full-House elections. That's what we should go by. GoodDay (talk) 03:24, 25 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2021

In the "Open seats that changed parties" section, under the "Democratic seats won by Republicans", please remove the "(Election is still contested)" note, as the election has been certified. 73.110.217.186 (talk) 03:48, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Not done. Per the Des Moines Register here, Miller-Meeks has been seated provisionally pending a challenge in the House. Sdrqaz (talk) 10:26, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 17 January 2021 (2)

In the South Carolina section, under the first elected column for Joe Wilson (American politician), please change the 2001 value to 2001 (Special). 73.110.217.186 (talk) 15:38, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Pupsterlove02 talk • contribs 17:53, 17 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

"Libertarian seats" should be "Libertarian seat"

In the Table of Contents, "Libertarian seats" should be singular. EvanJ35 (talk) 16:07, 22 January 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Article Length

This discussion is of interest to this article.67.173.23.66 (talk) 19:22, 7 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) 06:02, 30 June 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Turnout

Where is the turnout percentage? (Sorry, I don't know how to properly sign this) -- Theophilus Andronicus — Preceding unsigned comment added by Theophilus Andronicus (talk • contribs) 12:40, 1 March 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Libertarian seat change

@RaySwifty18: I don't know what the consensus is (or if there is a consensus) on whether US House election infoboxes should show seat changes as changes from the previous election (i.e. 2018) or from the seat totals before the election, but either every party should show the former or every party should show the latter. So either the Democrats lost 13, the Republicans gained 14 and the Libertarians had no change, or the Democrats lost 10, the Republicans gained 16 and the Liberarians lost 1. But it is misleading to use different calculations for different parties.  dummelaksen  (talk • contribs) 00:20, 15 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:2020_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections"