Talk:2004 United States presidential election/Archive 3

message: Given that the electoral college has not met, should this be marked as an ongoing event? PhilHibbs 11:38, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ongoing event? 

message: It drove me crazy for a bit, so I wanted to warn page editors that the two map images *do* stack correctly in page view mode, even though they *don't* in diff mode (which is what I commonly look at).  
UPDATE: I'm wrong; looking at it now on Mozilla 1.6/Linux, they're stacked horizontally; the resulting Dutch wrap of the text lead is disconcerting.
I suggest that they be *forced* to stack vertically; does anyone know how to get that done?  Baylink 03:41, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  NOTE on formatting 

message: 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.
:It was in very bad taste; I think it lasted about 10 minutes.  I was (one of) the one(s) who yanked it until the corrected image could be put back up.  Baylink 18:56, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great idea 

message: 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:
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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  making the table live? 

message: 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)
thread_title: Malcolm Mackerras Prediction

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Can someone please explain the curious total? 

message: 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)
thread_title: "Claims" about margin

message: 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)
thread_title:  "Corrupt voting machines" 

message: 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)
thread_title:  Get well soon Elizabeth 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  Wrong colors 

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

message: 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)
thread_title:  Missing Election Controversy Information? 

message: I made a map!
http://img125.exs.cx/my.php?loc=img125&image=ElectoralCollege2004-Large.png
----
ok, uploaded and done. did I do it right? Pellaken 01:31, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  map 

message: This addition caught my eye: "The election marked the first time that an incumbent president was re-elected with increased margins in both houses of Congress since Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1936 election. It was the first time for a Republican since William McKinley in the 1900 election."  I can't quickly find results for 1964, but I thought LBJ brought in larger Democratic majorities in both houses.  Some people would say he was being re-elected (incumbent returned to office) and some wouldn't (he was elected in 1960 but only to the Vice Presidency).  If his party's majorities did increase, and the quoted addition to this article depends on the second interpretation of "re-elected", then I think it would be better to reword to avoid the ambiguity.  Something like: "The election marked the first time that an incumbent President won his second bid for the White House with increased margins in both houses of Congress since Franklin Delano Roosevelt in the 1936 election. It was the first time for a Republican since William McKinley in the 1900 election." JamesMLane 08:45, 8 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Comparison with other Congressional results

message: I hear that a lot of absentee military ballots still have yet to be counted in Wisconsin. Since the military is big time Republican, and Wisconsin was so close- is there a chance it could still go to Bush?
There aren't enough absentees left to sway the outcome in Ohio or New Mexico from what I hear, but Iowa is another state that could change once the ballots are all counted. But I kind of doubt it, since most absentees are military vote.
Bush may still have a shot at winning Wisconsin, which would bring him to 296 electoral votes.
Wisconsin Law says that absentee ballots need to be received by election day, and are counted along with the rest of the ballots at their local precincts.  As such, it would be very unlikely that any adjustments in the unofficial returns would change the margin by over 12,000 votes.  pm06420 05:27, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Could Wisconsin still go to Bush? 

message: I added the cartogram displaying the Presidential popular votes, in which the sizes of counties have been rescaled according to their population. I'm not sure if it is usually a good idea to propose such a change first in an article such as this, I can imagine it probably is. However I figured I'd make the change and if people don't like it it'll just be removed.  Jacoplane 12:49, 9 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I think that cartogram is a good addition to this article.  It's interesting to look at. -- J3ff 01:09, 10 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added the cartogram 

message: According to Yahoo, Bush's popular vote count has climbed to 60,366,889.  Can anyone correlate with any other source?  I understand that states have not turned in their official tallies, yet, and presume that those official reported tallies will ultimately be reported here, but if, say, two or more sources report higher totals than what are here, I'd say we should update. 170.35.224.64 19:58, 12 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  60 million votes