Talk:2020 United States presidential election in Maine

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Dispute re Jorgensen

I have protected the article temporarily. I invite Tartan357 and Namiba to discuss the dispute here. 331dot (talk) 18:22, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@331dot: Thank you. — Tartan357  (Talk) 18:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba: Here's a link to a discussion showing consensus for >5% in the last election as an inclusion criterion: [1] That's stood for quite a while. There's also a large, ongoing discussion about changing the inclusion criteria at Talk:2020 United States presidential election#Rfc on inclusion for the infobox. — Tartan357  (Talk) 18:26, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of that conversation, the candidate is not on the ballot in Maine. Including featuring a candidate that is not even on the ballot in a state in the infobox is nonsensical and defies the purpose of the infobox itself. If the candidate makes the ballot, I would support their inclusion.--User:Namiba 18:27, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
She still has time to be included on the ballot in Maine. Regardless, that has never been a consensus inclusion criterion. — Tartan357  (Talk) 18:29, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. If she is on the ballot, she should be included. If she isn't, she shouldn't.--User:Namiba 18:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You've made your opinion clear. There are large discussions about this. You need consensus for this change and can't make it unilaterally. You should take your opinion to the RfC and contribute constructively to the discussion there. You can't bypass the current consensus because you disagree. — Tartan357  (Talk) 18:32, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I see that you're a relatively new editor so I suggest you read WP:BALL and WP:SOAP. Wikipedia is not the place to promote a candidate and it is not a place to predict the future.--User:Namiba 18:35, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I'm well aware of those policies. People obviously disagree, though, on what constitutes a WP:CRYSTALBALL issue. That's why we have lengthy discussions on the subject. You have come up with a new criterion for inclusion (ballot access) and not addressed the need for a consensus. That is the issue here. Decisions on Wikipedia are made through discussion and consensus. I've linked to discussions, which you're ignoring because you disagree with them. You can make your argument at the RfC, and it will be heard. — Tartan357  (Talk) 18:38, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba: I was actually on the other side of this issue previously. XavierGreen explained the present consensus to me on my talk page and I accepted that explanation. That discussion is still on my talk page, and it might be helpful for you to see another editor's perspective there: User talk:Tartan357#Jo Jorgensen in 2020 United States presidential election state infoboxes. — Tartan357  (Talk) 18:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I would point out that the consensus seems to apply to candidates, and as far as the State of Maine is concerned, Jorgensen is not a candidate unless she either qualifies for the ballot or registers as a write in candidate. 331dot (talk) 18:54, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: She is a candidate in Maine. Her campaign is actively collecting signatures there to get on the ballot: [2]. — Tartan357  (Talk) 19:03, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
So she is attempting to become a candidate, she isn't one yet. 331dot (talk) 19:08, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: No, she is a candidate now even though she is not on the ballot. If she collects 4,000 signatures, she will get on the ballot. If not, she will submit her list of electors to register as a write-in candidate. Again, ballot access is not a consensus criterion for infobox inclusion, and it certainly isn't one for stating who is and isn't a candidate. — Tartan357  (Talk) 19:11, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Here's a document from the Maine Secretary of State which details who is considered a candidate on page 8: [3]. She currently meets the fourth criterion on that list: "A person who has received contributions or made expenditures with the intent of qualifying as a candidate" — Tartan357  (Talk) 19:15, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. 331dot (talk) 19:18, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Thanks. Since you've acknowledged the >5% consensus: "I would point out that the consensus seems to apply to candidates", and you acknowledge that Jorgensen is a candidate in Maine, would you agree that that consensus applies here? My intent is to preserve the consensus while the discussion is ongoing. I don't have anything wrong with Namiba making these arguments, but the issue is currently being discussed at an RfC I linked to; that is the place to make these arguments. Making them repeatedly in edit summaries is not conducive to consensus-building. While the RfC is ongoing, the present consensus should be respected. — Tartan357  (Talk) 19:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I only wished to question the candidate aspect, and before that, end the edit warring. I, at this time, don't wish to be further involved other than stopping the edit war. I'd be happy to remove the protection if the edit warring will not resume(even if you are correct); you may go to ANEW if desired. 331dot (talk) 19:37, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: By protecting the page, you were able to get Namiba to engage in discussion with me on the talk page, and for that I'm thankful. Once someone engages with me on a talk page, I don't make changes until the discussion is over; that would be edit warring regardless of who's right. I tried to start a conversation on Namiba's talk page, but they removed it without comment and continued reverting. I didn't want to revert again, so was working on starting an AN3 case when you protected the page. It looks like that will be necessary if they continue to bypass discussion and consensus. — Tartan357  (Talk) 19:43, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
  • I've removed the protection. 331dot (talk) 19:47, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Can you please restore it to the version from before the edit warring took place: [4]? — Tartan357  (Talk) 19:50, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Jorgensen is a potential candidate. Moreover, Tartan, you broke WP:3R and could be sanctioned for it. I would strongly suggest that you do not make further edits or you will be reported for it.--User:Namiba 19:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
There are exceptions to the 3RR. Note that I did not argue the content of the issue in reverts; I stated that there was no consensus for these changes, and tried to get you to engage in discussion to resolve the dispute. If you simply refuse to engage in discussion, you are engaging in vandalism which can be reverted as many times as is necessary. I have asked 331dot to restore the page to the version from before you removed Jorgensen, though, since you have now engaged me in discussion. — Tartan357  (Talk) 19:55, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: Can you please restore the page to the version from before Namiba removed Jorgensen? I don't want to do any more reverting. I've very thoroughly explained the consensus and provided links to relevant discussions. At this point, Namiba is just refusing to get the point. I'd rather not have to take them to AN right now just to get the consensus respected; I just want the page restored to what it was before this started. — Tartan357  (Talk) 20:16, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I treated this as a local dispute endemic to this article; Namiba's edit stood for five days and is based on a logical argument(whether it is correct or not). If you have a broader consensus covering this article, I would suggest bringing that up in any grievance you choose to bring. You also said that that consensus is under discussion here, so it is difficult to enforce a consensus that is in dispute. 331dot (talk) 20:20, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: My understanding was that the old consensus is maintained until a new discussion reaches a conclusion. That seems to be the interpretation of the RfC process that XavierGreen and others discussing this issue have. Please correct me if that's wrong. — Tartan357  (Talk) 20:23, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
You are correct, until the consensus changes anyone with 5% in a state should be listed in accordance with the established consensus.XavierGreen (talk) 23:58, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Namiba: Are we in agreement now about the present consensus? Or do you still believe that there's a consensus for a ballot access criterion? — Tartan357  (Talk) 20:30, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing has changed in my reading of this issue.--User:Namiba 20:33, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I've made a comment at the RfC to see if we can get some other editors discussing the issue to weigh in on this. I'm still not sure where you're getting the ballot access criterion from. I've linked to discussions for the >5% criterion, but you're not doing that for the ballot access one. — Tartan357  (Talk) 20:41, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Namiba: I really want to resolve this so we can move on. Can you please just explain why you think you have a consensus for this? Not your argument for why you think she should be removed, but your argument for why you have consensus. I'm repeatedly bringing the consensus issue up and you're refusing to address it. — Tartan357  (Talk) 20:51, 21 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

If someone is not on the ballot in a state, they should not be on that state's article. Performance in the prior election is only relevant if that party/candidate is actually on the ballot in the upcoming election. It seems preposterous to put someone in the infobox if we don't even know if voters are even going to see their name in the first place. Reywas92Talk 22:25, 27 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Reywas92: You're stating this repeatedly, but aren't explaining it. It may seem "preposterous" to you, but it obviously isn't to others, and you need to explain your position if you're going to keep removing her. Most people probably don't decide their presidential vote when they get to the voting booth; many people will write Jorgensen and Hawkins in even if they aren't printed on the ballot. Repeating your assertion does not validate it. — Tartan357  (Talk) 07:01, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

FWIIW, I agree Jorgensen should be included if the Libertarians received over 5% of the vote last time, or if she is polling over 5% now. My understanding is that the filing deadline passed on July 25, and we don't yet know if they are on the ballot.[5][6] That said they have been on the ballot in the state in every election since 1988, aside from 2008 when the party only had write in access.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:44, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

LP ballot access

As far as the State of Maine is concerned, there is no Libertarian Party. If Jorgensen gets on the ballot, it will be as an independent and we should not pretend the LP has ballot access when they don't. I agree that the Infobox should list her affiliation, but the article shouldn't give inaccurate information in the article text itself. 331dot (talk) 00:57, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's not inaccurate. The article is a summary of the election, not of the ballot. She's been nominated by the Libertarian Party, and is campaigning as the Libertarian nominee. We follow what the reliable sources tell us, and they're all calling her the Libertarian candidate, in Maine and everywhere else. "We should not pretend the LP has ballot access when they don't: Nobody is saying this; nowhere in the article is it stated who is and isn't on the ballot. I don't understand this recurring fixation on the ballot as a standard for the content of the article. It is merely a tool used to count votes. — Tartan357  (Talk) 01:05, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And I don't understand why the primary instrument of the election is being dismissed so easily. The ballot is just as important as the election itself, and it is discussed in reliable sources. At a minimum the difficulty of her getting on the ballot should be mentioned. 331dot (talk) 01:10, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And they did lose access if they campaigned for it and failed. As the source I used states, "The party was recognized in Maine between June 2016 and December 2018, but they failed to reach a voter threshold needed to continue as a party. That’s why Jorgensen now has to collect 4,000 signatures to get a spot on the presidential ballot reserved for non-party candidates." This should not be ignored, for historical reasons. 331dot (talk) 01:13, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
It is incorrect and misleading to refer to her as an "independent". She is a Libertarian, and sources call her that. Unless you can find reliable sources stating she is running as an independent, please don't change the section heading again. The only articles I've seen note that she will likely appear in a spot reserved for nonpartisan candidates, but those articles refer to her as the Libertarian nominee, and are only describing the ballot discrepancy. My understanding is that this has happened before with the LP in other states; we still refer to the candidates as being Libertarians in those states because we cover campaigns according to how reliable secondary sources describe them, not according to how state elections officials describe them. Also, the statement that the LP "lost" ballot access after 2018 is misleading, since that only refers to automatic party recognition; Libertarians can still petition for ballot access, and the party does not cease to exist because it's not given official status by the state. I'd be fine with stating that it's been difficult for her to get on the ballot, but that should not have any bearing on how the campaign is covered; the lack of official party status in Maine does not make her an independent. Most people don't decide their vote based on who's on the ballot once they get to the voting booth; the design of the ballot really isn't that important. If she ends up on the ballot as a nonpartisan candidate, then I'd agree with adding an efn on that to the infobox. That is premature, now, though, since her ballot presentation is not settled, and she might not be on the ballot at all. Also, the "Libertarian" section in this article is under "Primary elections"; discussion of the general election and ballot access doesn't belong there. — Tartan357  (Talk) 01:16, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Al Gore might disagree that the ballot design is not important. And at a minimum we need to mention her difficulty in getting on the ballot and that she will not be listed as a Libertarian even if she is one and even if we pretend the LP is a legal party in Maine. The deadline has passed for parties to get on the ballot, the only way she will make the ballot is as an independent. 331dot (talk) 01:32, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
And Pat Buchanan would probably disagree with Al Gore. I'd be fine with creating a subsection under "General election" called "Ballot" or "Ballot access" with a paragraph saying the Libertarian nominee is currently collecting signatures for the nonpartisan spot, and that the LP lost official party status in 2018. There are no "legal" and "illegal" parties. There are recognized major/minor parties. A party is not illegal if it isn't one of those. Once her appearance on the ballot is settled, I'd support adding an efn next to "Libertarian" in the infobox to explain her appearance as an independent/nonpartisan on the ballot. Would you be amenable to that? — Tartan357  (Talk) 01:34, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I don't oppose waiting to add the efn but I think it's unnecessary as she has no other path to the ballot right now. I find your suggestion overall satisfactory. Please pardon my word choice; I used legal/illegal interchangeably with recognized. 331dot (talk) 01:40, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, let's do that, then. I think we should wait on the efn because it's likely she'll be a write-in, in which case the independent/nonpartisan thing doesn't even come up. I'm fine with using the source you provided for the "Ballot access" section. And I apologize for overreacting to the "legal" thing. I see that it wasn't meant that way. — Tartan357  (Talk) 01:44, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you but no apology is necessary. I can see how you might have thought what you did. 331dot (talk) 01:52, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@331dot: I wrote the section. Feel free to tweak it as you see fit. — Tartan357  (Talk) 02:12, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I just adjusted some wording and added an internal link. 331dot (talk) 09:15, 2 August 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Maine"