Talk:2004 United States presidential election

Old talk archived at Talk:U.S. presidential election, 2004/Archive 1 by Goobergunch 17:58, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Great idea

The 2004 election timeline is a terrific idea. I am glad to see people working on it already. As a high school history teacher, I intend to use this as a resource. The more well-informed I can stay on the election, the better I can teach my students. keep up the good work! and i'll probably be helping here too! Kingturtle 02:30 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)

Glad you like it. However, it's six months later, and there are still gaping holes, like no biography of Michael Badnarik, former State House candidate from Texas, a stub for Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, none for Carol Miller, New Mexico Green, David Cobb, Green legal advisor to the party and former candidate for Texas attorney, nor even Cynthia McKinney, former Congresswoman from Georgia or Paul Glover, creator of Ithaca Hours. It took some time before even all Democrats were covered, which is kind of surprising.

Perhaps your students can chip in and help by digging up biographies of the above, and filling them in?

I really like it. My only gripe is the picture of the country with the words: "Quick! Hurry up before the polling stations close! Vote peace! Vote prosperity! Vote Kerry!" superimposed. I have a screenshot in case they change it. I think it's in very bad taste.

making the table live?

I have taken the 2000 table and updated it for 2004. It's below:

Presidential Candidate	Electoral Vote	Popular Vote	Pct	Party	Running Mate (Electoral Votes)
George Walker Bush of Texas	--	--	--	Republican	Richard Bruce Cheney of Wyoming
John Forbes Kerry of Massachusetts	--	--	--	Democrat	John Reid Edwards of North Carolina
Ralph Nader of Connecticut	--	--	--	Reform, (Independent)	Peter Miguel Camejo of California
David Keith Cobb of California	--	--	--	Green	Patricia Helen LaMarche of Maine
Michael Badnarik of Texas	--	--	--	Libertarian	Richard Campagna of Iowa
Michael Anthony Peroutka of Maryland	--	--	--	Constitution	Chuck Baldwin of Florida
Other	--	--	--
Total	538	--	100.00
Detailed results by state: see U.S. presidential election, 2004 (detail)
Other elections: 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008, 2012
Sources: [http://www.archives.gov/federal_register/electoral_college/scores2.html#2000 U.S. Office of the Federal Register (electoral vote)], Federal Election Commission (popular vote)

Should we put it in the article space? And for those who are wondering, Nader is running as the candidate of the RPUSA, but he has only pledged to use the RPUSA if he can't get on the ballot as an Independent himself.

Comments? - iHoshie 07:27, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd say put it in the article space as soon as Bush is formally nominated on September 1. --Goobergunch 17:41, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

I'd say be consistent on the middle names. Either provide all of them or none of them; e.g. Michael Anthony Peroutka, etc. --Locarno 20:42, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Thanks 4 the Cn. on Peroutka. The reason I didn't put it the first time was do the fact I could not find it. Looks like i'll be digging into some FEC filings... :) - iHoshie 06:19, 7 Aug 2004 (UTC)

You may want to check out the discussion on Talk:U.S. presidential election. There's a movement afoot to change the table format. -- RobLa 06:14, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm going to take the sources out, as these refer to the 2000 election. There should be a single source for the vote count as this is still changing. -- Bernfarr 04:16, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

more on electronic voting?

I've heard claims that (buggy and tamper-prone) electronic voting in this election will lead to problems which will dwarf those of the Florida ballot fiasco of last election. Should those claims be addressed on this page? --NeuronExMachina 19:50, 4 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Done. --Locarno 21:05, 6 Aug 2004 (UTC)

Seeing as how we have about 2 months before the election, how does everyone predict the electoral college will go?

http://img56.exs.cx/img56/1615/usa-map-on-blue.jpg

Bush- 274 electoral votes, Kerry- 264 electoral votes

Analysis-

Kerry will win handily in New Hampshire this time around. He's also going to win Nevada because of Yukka. And Kerry's biggest pickup this time around will be Florida. I think he's going to win Florida because of all the northerners moving there after 2000, and because of its ever growing hispanic population. But it will be close as will Missouri.

I think Bush is going to win Ohio and make a run at Pennsylvania. I predict that Bush is going to pickup the states of Wisconsin, Iowa and Minnesota. Gore won all 3 in 2000, but I think Bush narrowly wins them this time around. And I predict a Bush upset in New Mexico.

Sorry, talk pages are meant for this sort of discussion. They are only meant for discussion of the article at hand. There are plenty of other places to have this discussion. — マイケル ₪ 18:06, Aug 14, 2004 (UTC)

POV Elements

This article contains POV elements. The second paragraph in the first section provides exclusive links to the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates. This suggests that the other candidates are unimportant. Also, to avoid bias, the parties and candidates should be listed either alphabetically, or current size of membership. As of Janurary 2004, Ballot Access News reports that, in terms of registered voters, Democrats have 42.19%, Republicans 32.78%, Constitution .36%; Green .34%, Libertarian .27%, Reform .07%, Natural Law .04%, American .01%. The full breakdown, by state, is available here.

If there's no objection, I'm going to remove the second paragraph in the first section. It suggests that the two major party candidates are somehow more important than all the other candidates, and this can become a self fulfilling prophesy. I would also like to hear some feedback regarding the listing being alphabetic or by number of registered voters. Initially, alphabetic seems easier to maintain because it will not change throughout time as much as number of registered voters.

These changes have been completed, without objection, for the reasons mentioned above.

Alphabetical is definitely less problematic than trying to count members or registered voters. For example, in California, the Libertarian Party has more than twice as many members as the Republican Party, but the American Independent Party has twice as many registered voters as the Libertarian Party (the latter because voters think they are registering as independents i.e. not affiliated with any party).

Someone attempted to rearrange the external links to official candidate websites and political parties without providing a justification. Their current order is alphebetical, to avoid bias. If someone else has other ideas, please state them here.

Listing Order

I was the one that rearranged the names. My bad, I didn't see that you guys wanted to do this alphabetically.

But I honestly believe that Bush and Kerry should be listed above all the others. It's not really because of a bias, it's just that those are the only 2 candidates that have a real chance of being elected.

In my opinion- we should list them based on who is more well known. Obviously people know Bush more than any other candidate cause he's been President for 4 years, Kerry would be second due to the fact that he is the main challenger.

While I believe that most people wouldn't know Michael Badnarik, even if he was sitting next to them drinking coffee.....no offense

The problem with doing it by popularity is that popularity is a subjective measure. It's going to very from person to person and is subject to opinion. The same is true of electability--Libertarians may very well believe Badnarik can be elected. Alphabetical arrangement is objective and not subject to opinion. In any case, it's not the purpose of this article to reinforce preconcieved notions about who's electable or who's more popular. The purpose of this article is to provide information. It needs to be done in an objective and unbiased fashion or everyone will simply perpetually argue about the listing order.

Well you have a point, and I can see where you guys are coming from with wanting to keep it unbias and fair. However the fact is that Bush and Kerry are the most important in this election, because there's a 99.99% chance that one of them is going to be inaugurated next year.

3rd partys are good for America to have, but they are kept out of the debates for a reason- they are unelectable. A 3rd party candidates only real purpose is to scipher votes away from the 2 main partys.

3rd parties are kept out of the debates in an attempt to ensure that they are unelectable. Inclusion in the debates would make them electable (though it might take a few election cycles). I favor alphabetical. The idea that the Rs and Ds are somehow more important is POV.

Regardless, you both seem to agree that, for whatever reason, third parties are unelectable. Presenting Rs and Ds as more important reflects expert opinion, thus is not POV. Bush and Kerry to the top. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:28, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

No, I don't even begin to agree with that. Elections are dynamic and unpredictable. If you were correct, Abraham Lincoln could not have been elected president and Jesse Ventura could not have been elected governor. The only NPOV possibility is, IMO, alphabetical, for which there seems to be something close to consensus here. Back to alphabetical. User:Mcarling 5:36, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Assuming this is your comment, you said "3rd parties are kept out of the debates to ensure that they are unelectable", which to me implies that they are in fact unelectable. Anyway, my point about expert consensus still stands. Giving Nader, Badnarik et al a chance in this election is the political equivalent of the flat earth theory. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 05:40, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

You appear to be reading my comment through the tint of your own POV. I've edited it for clarification. Nader probably doesn't have a chance because he didn't have enough support or organization to raise the funds and do the ballot access work to overcome ballot access hurdles. He still might get on the ballot in just enough states to have a theoretical chance of winning, but it will be close. Badnarik, on the other hand, will be on the ballot in 49 or 50 states. Cobb and Peroutka will each be on in about 40 states. Comparing expectations of future human preferences to flat earth theory is absurd. And I'm really surprised that anyone would argue, if that's what you're doing, that alphabetical fails the NPOV test. User:Mcarling 5:47, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

I'm not arguing that it fails the NPOV test, I'm arguing that there's an expert consensus that either Bush or Kerry will win, and that ignoring that fact does a disservice to our readers. Comparing that to flat earth is completely valid; the percentages of experts who believe in each theory are roughly equal. [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 07:22, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

With all due respect and acknowledgement of your valuable contributions to Wikipedia, you appear to be confused about fundamental concepts of theory, evidence, probability, and reality. The idea that the earth is flat is no longer a theory because it has been falsified. Anyone who believes the earth is flat is either ignorant, stupid, or dishonest because the earth has been circumnavigated. The idea that a third party candidate cannot win has also been falsified. Anyone who believes that a third party candidate cannot win is either ignorant, stupid, or dishonest because third party candidates have won. I don't see much point in arguing with someone who doesn't believe that the earth has been circumnavigated or that Lincoln was elected president of the United States. User:Mcarling 7:42, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

I apologize for my loose terminology. Allow me to phrase it this way: the percentage of professional politicians, pundits, experts, political scientists, etc. who believe that a third-party candidate will be elected this year is approximately equal to the percentage of geologists who believe the earth is flat. Does that satisfy you? [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 17:20, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Apology accepted. Argument rejected. Most professional politicians, pundits, experts, political scientists, etc. who don't have a dog in the fight would say that the probability of a 3rd party candidate being elected president this year is small, maybe very small, but not zero. Most geologists would say that the probability that the earth is flat is zero -- exactly zero -- not small, very small, or even extremely small. We can objectively draw a line between those who can win and those who cannot. Those who cannot have been excluded from this article (except by reference). Among those who can win, it would be POV to try to order them based upon perceptions (however well founded) of the relative probabilities of victory. User:Mcarling 17:50, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Well, I think we're going to agree to disagree, but I'm not willing to make a bigger issue of this (and I doubt there would be a consensus on one version anyway). Peace, and best wishes, [[User:Meelar|Meelar (talk)]] 22:12, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

Peace and best wishes. User:Mcarling 22:16, 2004 Sep 1 (UTC)

The fact that no 3rd party has ever been elected President of the U.S. (including Lincoln, who was a Republican) shows that they are unelectable.

Sure maybe if the right candidate came along, he may have a small shot at winning. However in a time where America is so evenly split between Republican and Democrat, and in a time where both sides are fiercly competing for the White House- it is extremely hard to believe that enough voters from either party will cross over and elect a 3rd party.

Not just that- but the masses of Conservative and Liberal states would make it almost impossible for a 3rd party to win 270 electoral votes in the electoral college.

99% of all political experts and analyists agree that either Bush or Kerry will win this election. The other 1% represents the campaign advisers of Ralph Nader, David Cobb, and Michael Badnarik. Thus the reason why Bush and Kerry are all over the news with every word they say, and thus the reason that I have yet to see Michael Badnarik's face.

In 1860, the Republican Party was a third party. The dominant parties then were the Democratics and the Whigs. What can happen once can happen again. User:Mcarling 18:35, 2004 Sep 2 (UTC)

Just because something has never happened before, doesn't mean that it can't happen. Regardless, Mcarling is correct that the Republican Party was a third-party when Lincoln was elected. The major parties at that time were the Democrats and the Whigs. Lincoln won with 39.82% of the popular vote--quite a low plurality. Vote splitting played a definate role in that election, and it can play a role in this election too. It's possible to win with as little as 34% in a three way race. Anything could happen. Bush and Kerry could both die in coincidential freak accidents. A major historial event could occur, like a large asterioid hitting the earth, which would unpredictabily change public opinion. I'm sure that you can't produce any unbiased, scientific analyses which prooves that "99% of all political experts and analyists agree that either Bush or Kerry will win this election." Even if you could, that would be no basis for determing the listing order in this article. Electability is a subjective measure, not an objective measure; and it has no place in an article designed to be unbiased.

It can be argued that the Republican party became the 2nd major party in 1854-1856, as disenchanted Whigs and abolitionist Democrats sought a better alternative. John C. Fremont came in a strong second in U.S. presidential election, 1856. Nevertheless, any student of history can see that third parties have had a great influence on past elections and should be covered.

I think we need to take the long view on this article. In the short term, alphabetical order is fine, and isn't worth spending a lot of time arguing about, because it'll only remain that way for 60 days. After the election, the primary sort key should be electoral college vote, and the secondary sort key should be popular vote. -- RobLa 17:44, 3 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Let me put it this way- I have 150,000 dollars here that says that either Bush or Kerry will win this election. Is anyone willing to take the bet?

Whatever measure is chosen, it needs to be objective. Even though virtually all of us will concede that Bush or Kerry will win, that's a moot point. Personally, I'd be willing to go along with an objective measure that puts Bush and Kerry at the top, but it's needs to be something better than "the two major parties always win so they should be on the top". Perhaps the order should be based on the number of states in which the candidate is listed on the ballot, followed by an alphabetical tiebreaker. -- RobLa 21:05, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Followup on the listing by ballot access - here's the current tally. This seems reasonable, NPOV, and will hopefully satisfy everyone here. -- RobLa 21:27, 5 Sep 2004 (UTC)

RobLa's proposal to sort by ballot access (number of states or number of electoral votes? States would be easier.) first and then alphabetically in case of a tie seems fair to me. It's certainly NPOV. User:Mcarling 21:41, 2004 Sep 5 (UTC)

Works for me. As long as Bush and Kerry are at the top. And that would be in a objective manner too. Daddydog 04:12, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

It's not objective or NPOV to start with the goal of putting Bush and Kerry at the top, then trying to find a measure that will accomplish that goal. That's motivated by a very obvious POV bias toward the establishment parties. There is no argument that can be made against using alphabetical order as an NPOV implementation; therefore, it is the best option. Reverting.

New sectons in the article? What do you think?

I was thinking maybe we could add 2 more sections to this wikipedia article and I was looking for feedback-

1. Campaign Controversys- this would basically be about the controversys that have taken place over the course of the campaign. I.E. 9/11 Commission, Unfit for Command and the Swift Boat ads, Bush's guard allegations, Bob Woodward's book, etc.

2. Issues- this section would basically detail what are considered to be the most important issues of the election. I.E. War on Terror, War in Iraq, Economy, National Security, Healthcare, Gay Marriage, etc. Perhaps it could be divided into Domestic Issues (economy, healthcare, etc.), Social Issues (abortion, gay marriage, gun control), and National Security issues (war on terror, war in Iraq, Iran with nukes, North Korea with nukes, etc.)

What do you think? Daddydog 16:29, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Either could be good, but especially issues.

Maurreen 13:03, 19 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Swing states still?

There's a list, "These states are considered possible swing states, by either the political campaigns or by pollsters." While the possibility was open a while back, I don't think anyone thinks California would seriously come into play at this point. South Carolina strikes me as extremely questionable (and I'm an Edwards fan) and New Jersey, Connecticut and probably Georgia fairly questionable. These may have seemed swingier a months or years ago, but at this point? There's a much better list and discussion in Wikipedia here. Maybe we should link to this information, or import? 64.229.33.211 09:35, 12 Sep 2004 (UTC)

You dont follow the polls much do you?

Survey USA- Bush up 4 in New Jersey

Rasmussen- Bush only up 9 in South Carolina: http://www.rasmussenreports.com/South%20Carolina%20August%2029.htm

Rasmussen- Kerry only up 9 in California

Survey USA- tied in Maryland

Rasmussen- Bush within 5 in New York

Daddydog 00:04, 21 Sep 2004 (UTC)

Should we include the Fusion parties?

New York State has a law that allows parties to cross-nominate candidates for office. Historically, the NYS Conservatives have nominated the GOP candidate and the Liberal Party of NYS have done the same for the Dems. Four years ago, the then-new Working Families Party endorsed the Dems as well. Since the NYS Conservatives and Working Familes should do this again this year, I think it's a good idea to add this. - iHoshie 04:04, 13 Sep 2004 (UTC)

election monitors mention?

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/americas/3666898.stm

For the first time, representatives from the OSCE - the European body which has traditionally monitored elections in fledgling democracies - will observe as Americans elect their president.

Newspaper Endorsements

Has anyone given thought to creating a list of newspaper endorsements for the various candidates? Credit for this idea is due to my wife, who asked me if there was a comprehensive list of newspaper endorsements across the US. (I only know of three endorsements, & only because all 2 are traditional Republican newspapers -- the Crawford Iconoclast, the Phoenix Arizona Republic, & the Portland Oregonian -- all of whom have endorsed Kerry.) I feel that this would be unique, yet useful, for future reference. -- llywrch 18:53, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this would be useful, though I think there would need to be some objective measure put on it. E.g. population over 200,000 or circulation over xxx. Otherwise, you'd just have a very large list of random newspapers. Also, I would recommend that this starts as a section in the main article, and then breaks out into its own article when the list grows beyond 20 or so. For what it's worth, the Seattle Times, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, and the Atlanta Constitution-Journal are also for Kerry [1] -- RobLa 19:51, 10 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I saw that item in P&E after I wrote the above, RobLa, & it was useful. Based on your suggestion, I started a list as a section in the article, with the hope it will grow large enough to be split off as its own article. -- llywrch 02:43, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think this is an excellent idea, although a list might need to be moved to its own article when it starts to expand - most major U.S. newspapers are expected to announce their endorsements soon. I don't want to jump right in and start editing this article right away since I'm new to this page and it is unclear to me what circulation limit you would prefer (my suggestion would be 100,000), but if you're intrested in having the complete list, here's the latest tally according to Editor & Publisher. It also indicates which candidate the newspaper endorsed in 2000, a piece of information I think is very useful. Note, however, that according to this page listing all (?) 2000 endorsements The Philadelphia Daily News actually endorsed Gore in 2000. Alarm 18:05, 11 Oct 2004 (UTC)

JOHN KERRY The Atlanta Journal Constitution (G): 418,323 The Philadelphia Inquirer (G): 387.692 Detroit Free Press (G): 354,581 The Oregonian (Portland) (B): 342,040 St. Louis Post-Dispatch (G): 281,198 The Seattle Times (B): 237,303 Seattle Post-Intelligencer (G): 150,901 The Philadelphia Daily News: 139,983 Arizona Daily Star (Tucson) (G): 109,592 Portland Press Herald (Maine) (G): 73,211 The Day (New London, Conn.) (B): 39,553

Total Pro-Kerry Daily Circ: 2,534,377

GEORGE W. BUSH Las Vegas Review-Journal (B): 170,061 Tulsa World (OK) (B): 139,383 Mobile (Ala.) Register (B): 100,244 The Columbian (Vancouver, WA) (B): 51,498 The Pueblo (Colo.) Chieftain: 52,208 Amarillo (Texas) Globe-News (B): 51,105 The Sun (Lowell, Mass.) (B): 50,369 The Courier (Findlay, Ohio) (B): 22,319

Total Pro-Bush Daily Circ: 637,187

It seems to me that Llywrch added only newspapers with a circulation over 50,000 to the article. I'll comply with this limit for now, updating the list with today's info from E&P. However, it seems a bit arbitrary to me, and will also soon result in quite a long list. I'd propose a higher limit here, and a list of all endorsements on a separate page. Does anyone else have an opinion on this?

For the record: The newspapers with less than 50,000 circulation that have made their mind up since my last post are:

For Kerry: The Albuquerque Tribune (B): 13,536.

For Bush: The Leaf-Chronicle (Clarksville, Tenn.): 22,057.

Also, I do think that some means for identifying newspapers that have "switched sides" since last election would be a very helpful addition. Alarm 19:22, 12 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I'm trying to add only newspapers that have large circulations, unless there are good reasons for inclusion, based on geography, as follows:

Some states do not have a population center that can support a newspaper with a circulation of 100,000+. Therefore, I added the New London, CT & Grand Forks, ND papers, to give this list some geographical distribution.
I added the Vancouver Columbian because it is the closest example of a daily competitor to the Oregonian in the Portland, Oregon metropolitan region. I'm trying to acknowledge the existence of some dissenting voices in my home town.
I added the Lowell Sun because it was an interesting exception to the overwhelming support Kerry has in Massachusets. (For balance reasons, I should have probably added the Crawford Iconoclast -- I am guilty of bending over backwards to be impartial here.)
A few newspapers I included because I honestly thought the towns were larger -- e.g. Albuquerque Tribune, Pueblo Chieftain, etc. (No, I didn't intend to add the Findlay, Ohio Courier -- I know how large of a town Findlay is.)

I don't intend my submissions to be definitive, but if someone removes an items from these lists I suggest, in order to avoid partisan arguments, that the reason for the deletion be given -- e.g., "town too small". -- llywrch 04:48, 19 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Since we don't want to list every single newspaper in the country, isn't adding a count of the newspapers based only on the count in the article a bit misleading? --Goobergunch 18:15, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think we should either make this a separate article, or limit each candidate to maybe 3 newspapers. That's because there really isn't any other way to preserve the precious NPOV. Without a limit we'll get a massive ugly list that looks like crap on a page about the campaign, and the circulation limit could be arbitrarily chosen and applied in order to benefit one candidate. It seems to me that a neutral point of view would either put this list into a separate article or just limit each candidate to a certain number of endorsements. MarkPNeyer

I don't understand the table at the top of the Newspaper Endorsements section. What are the "Bush" and "Gore" columns? Are they the number of newspapers that endorsed Bush in 2000 and Bush in 2004, and Gore in 2000 and Kerry in 2004, respectively? If so, perhaps there's a better way of display that. The empty boxes are confusing. Maybe it could be split into two tables? Or at least provide a more detailed explanation. --GJL 08:23, Oct 26, 2004 (UTC)

Election 2004 logo

That thing is truly hideous. It's uninformative, it wastes bandwidth, it's without precedent, and it looks like one of those repulsive animated headlines on U.S. news programs. Re-add it if you must, but I cannot overstate just how ugly and worthless it is. Jxg 07:29, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I have to agree: too big, too ugly, and it doesn't tell us anything which the page title doesn't already. Markalexander100 07:50, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

For starters, thanks for actually giving a reason for removing it. I thought it would be nice at least as long as the election is a current event. Maybe because I am not a U.S. citizen I don't feel any negative emotions with this logo, not being permanently brainwashed by U.S. news channels. I do though protest the statement that the logo is in any way hideous or too large, it is 12KB in size, and if you are referring to the image size, it can be scaled down and isn't even larger than the image underneath. -- [[User:Solitude|Solitude\^talk]] 08:29, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I can't speak for Jxg, but by big I meant in terms of pixels and primary colours (the latter in contrast to the one below it). Markalexander100 08:35, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Mackerras pendulum picture

An anonymous user has been removing the Mackerras pendulum illustration, claiming that it's "highly partisan." I really don't see how this picture violates the NPOV policy, so please stop removing it unless you can explain yourself. I hope you have a better justification than "it predicts a Kerry win, therefore it's biased." Rhobite 17:05, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Yes thats me. You are adding a personal opinion of who will win with that picture. Oh by the way that would basically be the definition of biased. It doesn't present an even picture. an even picture would only show leanings of each state not predicted winner.

Correct, it's Mackerras' personal opinion of who will win. It is properly attributed to Mackerras. The encyclopedia itself is taking no stance, nor is it making a prediction. Please familiarize yourself with the NPOV policy, this is not an NPOV violation. Rhobite 17:19, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

You wish to make this a non issue by ascribing it to another person. It doesn't remove the fact that it is a POV and should not be given greater credence simply because of the his position. Neither of us can state what we predict for this election without it being a POV violation.

I'm sorry, you're wrong. Wikipedia allows opinions to be represented in articles. Please re-read the NPOV policy. Rhobite 17:32, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

Because the election is so close, I've asked the community to help with this dispute in Wikipedia:Requests for comment. Rhobite 17:41, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I'm opposed to the pendulum for an entirely different reason: it is out of date. Too much has happened since Februrary, and Mackerras hasn't updated his pendulum. --Locarno 17:59, 29 Oct 2004 (UTC)

poisoning the well. The nvop allows for opinions by groups. "most americans", "Democrats", "Republicans" ect not specific people.

Again you are completely wrong. NPOV allows for attributed opinions, period. This includes individuals and groups. Actually, weasel terms such as "most Americans" are discouraged. Please add Wikipedia:Avoid weasel terms to your Wikipedia reading list. Rhobite 19:23, Oct 29, 2004 (UTC)

I don't see publishing it as a POV violation as such, but I wouldn't keep it in the last form I saw it in because it is more than a little obtuse. As far as I can understand it is trying to place individual states on a continuum from most stronngly Democratic to most strongly Republican, and his assumption that Kerry will take Florida therefore means a Kerry win, but it doesn't deal with shifting attitudes and unknowns: NJ might actually be in play, because of emotional attachment to losses at WTC, PA might be in play, OH is a toss-up. So I can't see the point of publishing this unless there is a lucid explanation of his methodology and why this particular (albeit graphic) guess on the election outcome is especially useful. -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 01:43, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

actually the most americans was taken directly from the NPOV article to quote. "So, rather than asserting, "The Beatles was the greatest band", we can say, "Most Americans believe that the Beatles was the greatest band,"

Yes that's allowed, but according to the weasel words guideline it is not preferable. Far more preferable is to cite specific people, which I assure you is allowed and encouraged under the NPOV policy. Anyway forget it, due to the other reasons here I agree that the picture should stay out. Rhobite 20:10, Nov 1, 2004 (UTC)

Its perfectly valid to say "this picture shows the opinion of John Smith". But that alone isn't enough to mean it has an automatic value or right to be put in. An encyclopedia doesn't just collect knowledge, it collates and distills it to a reasonable size. If this picture represented just one person's opinion, it probably has very limited value or use regardless of whether it is attributed ina NPOV manner. If it's more than just one person's opinion and it does have greater value or use, then the NPOV reason why it has this extra credibility should be stated, so it can be assessed on that basis for usefulness. FT2 02:21, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

We're nearly there now

By now it should be known who will win because the it is less than 5 hours till midnight of the day of the election. Any Google news?? 66.245.106.126 00:13, 2 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The election is tomorrow, not today. Opinion polls have the race tied. Rhobite 00:23, Nov 2, 2004 (UTC)

Malcolm Mackerras Prediction

I just heard Malcolm Mackerras interviewed on Australian radio again, just the hour before the polls closed in the USA. He reiterated his prediction (his word) of a Kerry victory. His earlier (February) prediction was Kerry:287, but he said that the numbers he gave today (Kerry:316 v Bush:222) were what he has been saying "for months" and so he said them again, but conceded that the margin was likely to be narrower. Peter Ellis 00:42, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

so much for that Daddydog 06:45, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"georgewbush.com " is available in Canada, and therefore outside of US.

Under the "External Links and References" section, the link to the George W. Bush website is accompanied by a note stating that access to georgewbush.com is not available outside of the United States. This is not accurate as that website is available in Canada. I did not edit this on the main page because I am not sure from what locations georgewbush.com can and cannot be accessed.

Can someone explain concession?

I see that the maps are giving Ohio, and indeed Florida, to Bush, even though to the best of my knowledge, a significant number of absentee ballots remain to be counted in those states? Those elections supervisors and secretaries of state don't *work* for the candidate, they work for us voters, and I can't see that a) they have any call to stop counting just because Kerry says "enough", or b) this is a topic someone shouldn't already have brought up. Anyone got an authoritative reference on this, keeping in mind that it has to be, by nature, *Ohio* law that is being quoted? Baylink 23:38, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

UPDATE: Courtesy of AskMetafilter: http://slate.msn.com/id/1006461/ Yes, they *will* keep counting. Baylink 23:57, 3 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I looked at that article, and for those unfamiliar with US law and tradition I'd like to make a point. It's true that concessions have no legal force in terms of election law. Suppose a candidate said "I will get 55% of the vote or I will not serve because I want a clear victory." OK, election night it is obvious he will get 52% and being a man of principle (remember, this IS a hypothetical ;-)) he concedes to his opponent. Well, that wouldn't change the process at all. It's like a candidate who dies but gets elected anyway (think Missouri, 2000), the challenger does not automatically get the job as second in line.

However, concessions do have a couple of important purposes, the most important probably being that tells the failing candidates' followers to "hang it up, we fought the good fight, let's move along." No more fulminating, no more grasping at straws, like at Wikipedia, where a lot of us can't accept that their our candidate lost, so it must be rigged. But the concession also avoids "poisoning the well." Most candidates will want to run for something again in the future, or otherwise be in public life. The only candidate I know of who ever came back succesfully from a bad concession speech was Nixon. A bad concession speech will haunt the candidate, his party, and maybe the country.

Consider this scenario. In 2000 the election kept going on stuff like hanging chads, pregnant chads, dimpled chads, and many many lawyers. This was not good for the country (imagine if the 9/11 attacks had occurred then, when leadership was uncertain) on many levels, but it was tolerated essentially because Gore got a 1/2 million lead on the popular vote so there was sentiment to check every possibility, but, nevertheless, he was never ahead in the Florida recount. Still the vote went on because of the appearance of illegitimacy. OK, fast forward to 2004. A lot of the country was dreading a drag-out like 2000. The Washington Post editorially admonished the candidates that they should avoid that, at least twice. So now look at Ohio. Suppose Kerry makes the calculation that if almost all the provisional ballots are legitimate, and almost all are for Kerry, and this then puts you in reach of a recount, and you claim enough fraud, etc., etc., and Kerry wins Ohio by 10 votes. Then what? The country has been dragged through another horrendous lawyer-fest, to find a candidate who "lost" by 3.5 million votes getting the Presidency when his party spent that last four pillorying Bush for "losing" by 1/7 that number. And he would face an extremely hostile Congress. Doesn't make for a happy Presidency, does it? -- Cecropia | explains it all ® 19:54, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

On the other hand, plenty of people wouldn't be at all happy with letting the opposing candidate become President if it could possibly be averted. Some Democrats have criticized both Gore and Kerry for being too "nice" and not fighting all-out on issues that could legitimately be contested. When a mob of Cubans stormed a Florida election office and forcibly stopped a recount that would probably have helped Gore, it was certainly one among many factors that impaired Bush's chance for a happy Presidency -- but I'm sure many Republicans would rather put up with four years of hearing "We wuz robbed!" than with four years of Gore in office. JamesMLane 00:39, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Can someone please explain the curious total?

I see that Bush got 274 Electoral votes, and Kerry got 252. This adds up to 526. Yet the total in that column reads 538. Can someone please explain the missing 12 votes? Is this some new kind of math? Pacific1982 13:14, Nov 4, 2004 (UTC)

Iowa and New Mexico, which will almost certainly be Bush states when all is said and done. I'll update it.

You might want to wait until the provisional ballots are counted. There may still be enough out there to swing Iowa and New Mexico. Maybe even Wisconsin and New Hampshire. But these are merely moral victorys and wont bring Bush below 270 regardless. Daddydog 06:43, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I know that Wisconsin does not have provisional ballots because they have same-day registration in that state. New Hampshire has same-day registration too, so I imagine they don't have provisional ballots either. Ohio, on the other hand, requires citizens to register 30 days before an election, according to the Ohio Secretary of State website, so they can validate that your information is correct. A provisional ballot is provided to those who are not registered and is counted once their identity and residence can be verified. --Mr. Brown 07:16, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

The major networks have now called New Mexico and Iowa for Bush. That brings him up to 286 and gives him 2 states that Gore won in 2000. 68.220.231.134 17:32, 5 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Table of overall picture

USA 2004	Number	% those who voted	% all adults
Adults	220,000,000		100.0
Didn't vote	103,617,346		47.1
Bush	59,424,706	51.1	27.0
Kerry	55,905,023	48.0	25.4
Other	1,052,925	0.9	0.5
Voted	116,382,654	100.0	52.9

"Claims" about margin

The following statement in the text was true but it just feels wrong to put it his way: "Several other claims have been made in attempts to either magnify or minimize the magnitude of Bush's victory; all of the following are accurate (based on the currently available, uncertified vote totals as of 5-Nov-2004)...." It seems to be a little self-consciously "on the one hand, on the other hand". I left the facts in but removed that introductory phrase. In addition, some of the interesting features about the election, like the small number of states that changed hands as compared with 2000, don't fit readily into the category of claims about the margin, but this listing of factoids seems to be the best place to include them. JamesMLane 01:37, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

"Corrupt voting machines"

I noticed this towards the beginning of the article, before the results of the election are shown on the page. Am I crazy for calling this a NPOV violation? I believe a better wording, such as "erronous voting machines" would be better than outright calling them corrupt. --Mr. Brown 07:39, Nov 6, 2004 (UTC)

It's not a violation of NPOV to report a charge that's made, as long as we don't adopt it. An earlier version was indeed improper. It read, "Note: These figures are based on returns which came in large part from corrupt voting machines." The current text makes clear that this is charged, not necessarily established. As for whether we're reporting the charges accurately, yes, some people go beyond suspecting innocent malfunction and say that there was deliberate chicanery. JamesMLane 08:15, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Get well soon Elizabeth

This coming from a Republican who was against the Kerry/Edwards ticket from the very beginning. But I know the toll that cancer can take on a person and their family. And I wish them nothing but the best as they fight this horrible disease. Hopefully she'll have a speedy recovery. Daddydog 07:58, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Wrong colors

The colors are all wrong on the electoral vote map. Cause all the other maps on wikipedia have the Republicans as blue and the Dems as red. Even though hardly anyone has it that way anymore, but for the sake of conformity- you guys need to make Bush's states blue and Kerry's red. Either that or go redo all the other maps from the previous elections (I tend to be a perfectionist). Daddydog 08:02, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

The first alternative is unacceptable, given the widespread currency of the "red state - blue state" division in this form. I agree with you that changing all the old maps would be an improvement, but it would also be a lot of work. They'll be changed when and if someone cares enough about the point to change them. JamesMLane 08:13, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Concur. All new maps should be Red-Rep; someone should create a link page to which all the old borken maps can be linked so that some motivated soul can fix them. Baylink 23:14, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it would be too hard to repaint it, using the 'fill color' option in mspaint, lol Daddydog 08:27, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I think we should use purple and green as the party's colors just to be different Zen Master 01:56, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Purple America

http://www.boingboing.net/images/Purple-USA.jpg

I think this image should be shoe horned in somewhere... but I'm unsure where it would go. RoyBoy 22:56, 6 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Good idea. I stuck it underneath the map of electoral votes near the top of the page. J3ff 20:00, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Missing Election Controversy Information?

This page seems somewhat redundant to the info on the "2004 U.S. election in progress" page, should an effort be undertaken to combine the two pages? There is little mention of any electronic voting or other controversies on this page (which happens the page linked to from the front door...). Zen Master 01:43, 7 Nov 2004 (UTC)