Talk:2020 United States presidential election in Washington (state)

From WikiProjectMed
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Clarification of infobox inclusion criteria

@Reywas92: In your revert, you stated: "If I as a voter cannot vote for this person, why should I see them in the infobox? This is not new." Can you please explain what you mean by that? Someone does not need to be on the ballot to be elegible to receive votes. The note at the top of Talk:2020 United States presidential election states:

Consensuses reached for the 2012 and 2016 elections apply for the 2020 election as well, unless these consensuses are reversed. Regarding the infobox: A consensus has been reached to make it so that the political parties that earned at least one electoral vote in the previous election are to, by default, be included in the infobox of the article about the next election. This means that, as of right now, only the Republican and Democratic parties are to be included in the infobox. Currently, third parties are not be included in the infobox per this consensus: Libertarian and Green parties in the infobox, with the usual caveats in the event of them receiving more than 5% of the vote or receiving any electoral votes. Further discussion is needed to determine if third party candidates should be included based on polling numbers, and if so what level of polling they should reach.

That note makes no mention of ballot access. Could you please link to the discussion you're basing that on? I'm genuinely confused by this. It seems that the 5% caveat means that infobox inclusion of Johnson on the WA page in 2016 means the Libertarian candidate in 2020, Jorgensen, should be included on this page before the election. It seems arbitrary to say she shouldn't be included because she's not on the ballot when that hasn't been discussed, especially since the ballot petitioning process is ongoing, and it's very possible that she will get on the ballot. Regardless, she will have a slate of electors registered for write-in votes. It seems like a WP:CRYSTAL violation to not carry the Libertarian inclusion forward from 2016. That's something we've been doing for a long time, and you have not cited a discussion overturning that consensus. Nojus R, XavierGreen, Namiba, Impru20, you're all the people (I think) who've been involved in changing this on individual state pages. I'd also like to hear what you have to say about this. I'd legitimately like to get this consensus cleared up, because the arguments on both sides seem quite muddled. — Tartan357  (Talk) 19:50, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I just didn't think it made sense to include her in the infobox when she's not on the ballot, but I think if the consensus makes no mention of it then we should keep Jorgenson. Nojus R (talk) 20:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
We probably need to have an RfC at some point about how better to handle the individual state pages, since those rarely come up in discussions on the main page. I'm going to let this post sit for a little bit without changing anything to see if anyone is aware of a discussion that I'm overlooking. — Tartan357  (Talk) 20:45, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I am absolutely baffled why it would even need to make mention of ballot access in the first place, since that seems like common effing sense that if someone is not on the ballot, they would not be highlighted at the top of the respective article! Washington's filing deadline is August 7, but until then, it would be a violation of crystal to assume that Jorgensen is qualified for the ballot. Reywas92Talk 21:34, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: No one is suggesting that we "assume Jorgensen is qualified for the ballot". I don't assume that at all, and don't know where you're getting it from. This is not about the ballot. We've discussed infobox inclusion criteria in great length, and settled on them. Biden and Trump aren't required to petition in WA to get on the ballot, so this is an automatic non-issue for them. By keeping Jorgensen out during the whole petitioning period, we're just arbitrarily removing a candidate who 1) has met our criteria for inclusion, and 2) who we will likely be adding back in after petitioning ends. It just creates an undue gap in the article's coverage of candidates. We have never agreed in discussion to lack of ballot access precluding the possibility of infobox inclusion. I think we probably should have another large discussion to settle this, but for now, the consensus should be respected. You can't reasonably argue for "common sense" when four editors are disagreeing with that conclusion. You're not even claiming to have consensus for removing Jorgensen. So, can we please put her back? Please, just let this go so we can move on. You do not have consensus for this. I'll probably start an RfC on this myself soon (and I will happily accept any outcome) so we can all avoid having to repeatedly circle back to this issue. — Tartan357  (Talk) 21:54, 28 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
Please do start an RFC then. It is not arbitrary to remove someone not on the ballot. I am aware of no consensus that calls for putting people in infoboxes who have not gotten themselves on the ballot. Reywas92Talk 05:30, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: And I will. But these things take time, and you can't obstruct present consensus until then. The current consensus should be respected for now. The present consensus does not mention ballot access, so it is absolutely arbitrary to base inclusion on that. We have our criterion (5%), and Jorgensen has met it, so she should be included. We don't need a consensus specifically stating a stance on all other possible criteria; the consensus process would never work that way. You've decided that ballot access is important for some reason, and you're not even explaining why. You haven't addressed my question about your "I as a voter cannot vote for this person" comment. That is obviously ridiculous, as you would be able to write Jorgensen in even if she doesn't achieve ballot access. You've drawn a line here that we've never drawn before on Wikipedia. If you're not going to show a consensus for this, you should allow it to be changed back.You not liking it is not a valid argument. — Tartan357  (Talk) 06:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
I hardly needed respond to your obviously ridiculous comment about listing people you can write in. We're not listing Even McMullin in Utah and Idaho's articles even though he got 5% there in 2016 and you can still write him in this year! The note at the top of the main 2020 talk page is what goes in that article's infobox and does not automatically apply to states individually; it replaced the previous method of using access to 270 EVs nationally for who to list. Reywas92Talk 06:40, 29 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]
@Reywas92: Why did you say that you "cannot" vote for her? That is what I am calling ridiculous. My understanding is that Evan McMullin is not running this year, so I don't see how that is relevant. I can't find anything on him running, and if he's not running, you actually can't write him in because he won't have registered electoral slates in any states. You say that the main page consensus does not apply here, but you aren't showing consensus for your preferred version. You're just stating it should be that way. You have come up with an inclusion criterion that we have never used before, and are using it to justify removing Jorgensen, who stood in these pages for weeks. Nojus R was the one who removed Jorgensen at first based on ballot access, and still thinks that should matter, but above acknowledged that the present consensus is to include Jorgensen. Myself, Nojus R, Impru20, and XavierGreen have all accepted this as present consensus. Of the people who have been involved in adding/removing her, I think only Namiba thinks she should be removed, and that editor also refused to cite a relevant discussion at Talk:2020 United States presidential election in Maine, before eventually dropping the stick and moving on. If you feel that ballot access should be an inclusion criterion so strongly, then you should start an RfC with that as an option, instead of WP:BLUDGEONING the process. — Tartan357  (Talk) 06:52, 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 there is still time to get on the ballot in Washington (as the deadline has not passed yet) and that the party was on the ballot in the state in every election since 1972.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 21:31, 31 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Sortable table of county results

Would someone please add this feature?

For example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Idaho#By_county — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.35.190.27 (talk) 01:01, 16 February 2021 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://mdwiki.org/wiki/Talk:2020_United_States_presidential_election_in_Washington_(state)"