Talk:1892 United States House of Representatives elections

message: I  don't know what the happened here. The changes made to Ohio make no sense at all. Maybe You'd like to change United_States_congressional_delegations_from_Ohio to fit the illogical changes made here. Please explain Roseohioresident (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ohio changes 

message: If starting from scratch, assuming winners and losers just to make it more interesting, I would probably go with something like:
District	Incumbent       	Party     	Firstelected	Result                                            	Candidates
        	Steve Chabot    	Republican	2010        	Re-elected                                        	
        	Jean Schmidt    	Republican	2005 (s)    	Lost Re-nominationRepublican Hold                 	
        	Mike Turner     	Republican	2002        	Re-districted to Democratic gain                  	
        	Jim Jordan      	Republican	2006        	Re-elected                                        	
        	Bob Latta       	Republican	2007 (s)    	Re-elected                                        	
        	Bill Johnson    	Republican	2010        	Lost Re-electionDemocratic gain                   	
        	Steve Austria   	Republican	2008        	RetiredRepublican hold                            	
        	John Boehner    	Republican	1990        	Re-elected unopposed                              	John Boehner (R) 100.0%
        	Marcy Kaptur    	Democratic	1982        	Re-elected                                        	
        	Dennis Kucinich 	Democratic	1996        	Re-districted to Lost re-nominationRepublican gain	
        	Marcia Fudge    	Democratic	2008 (s)    	Re-elected unopposed                              	Marcia Fudge (D) 100.0%
        	Pat Tiberi      	Republican	2000        	Re-elected                                        	
        	Betty Sutton    	Democratic	2006        	Redistricted to Democratic hold                   	
        	Steve LaTourette	Republican	1994        	RetiredRepublican hold                            	
        	Steve Stivers   	Republican	2010        	Re-elected                                        	
        	Jim Renacci     	Republican	2010        	Re-elected                                        	
        	Tim Ryan        	Democratic	2002        	Re-districted to Democratic loss                  	District in-active
        	Bob Gibbs       	Republican	2010        	Re-districted to Republican loss                  	District in-active
I think the most important part of this table to me is the shading in column Party and column Candidates. Just compare the two and change in compositon of delegation and change in each district is obvious, kind of like United States congressional delegations from Ohio turned on its side. With the current system, like shown at United States House of Representatives elections, 2012#Ohio and United States House of Representatives elections, 1892#Ohio, the change in composition and change of party in individual district, not so much. Shading in column “Result” would call attention to holds and changes in party. Even for years without any re-districting, I think shading the columns for party in previous congress, and elected party for next congress is the most important change that I think would clear things up. The only times there would be no incumbent would be (1) in cases of death, expulsion, or resignation with no replacement chosen in special election before the new term, or (2) for actual “new districts” created due to population growth.
Also, one small thing, in United States House of Representatives elections, 2012#Ohio, I don't know why  has two first elected dates for Steve Chabot. He won in 1994, 1996... 2006, lost in 2008 and won again in 2010. I think we should probably choose either the first election, or the first election contiguous to the this one. This could really get out of hand. Imagine the table for New York Elections in 1888... column 1 :  ; column 2 : Samuel S. Cox ; column 3 : Democratic ; column 4 : Ohio 1856, New York 1868, New York 1884, and New York 1886 (s). This could get silly looking.Roseohioresident (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I like this idea! It would take a lot of work to change all the existing pages, though. As for the multiple dates, I think it makes sense for individuals with discontinuous terms to list the first time they were elected and then the start of their current term in office. Although I'd probably go with something like "district eliminated" rather than "inactive" XinaNicole (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

text: Though, one small comment, it would be good to be able to show when there are two incumbents running in a single district.  Perhaps something like italicizing candidates who were serving in Congress at the time of the election (and both bold and italic for someone who was re-elected) XinaNicole (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree.  Shading the candidates column leads to too much shading.—GoldRingChip  14:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

text:  Also, we should not list by representative, but by district.—GoldRingChip  14:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Why not shade Candidates column

message: Unfortunately, it looks like the information for the Iowa 1st is an accidental duplication of the information for the Indiana 1st?
Likewise, the New Jersey 8th appears to be the results for the Iowa 8th? Bkmoore (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Incorrect Results from Duplicate Entries