Ok, I haven't found the revision that introduced the 48+VP language yet, but it was sometime in the last year. Points in favor of not including the VP at all in the majority number at all are that: We already have the majorities bolded and a note about tiebreakers at the top of the infobox, and that it could be confusing to a reader to see that the VP is present before the election but not after. Points in favor of having the VP in the pre-election majority number: it's accurate, and there's a note right there explaining it if anyone's confused.
I could be convinced either way. What I can't be convinced of is including the VP in majorities where that does not impact whether there is a majority. TheSavageNorwegian 18:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I am of the opinion that the VP indicator should only be there when the VP's presence breaks the tie to determine the majority. I generally think it should be visible as it has been instead of just as a footnote, but other state legislative pages have simply used footnotes to explain lieutenant governors breaking ties or other things like that. We have precedent for the "+VP" indicator going back to at least the 2020 election when Democrats narrowly won control, so I lean on that instinctually, but I could be convinced that it only needs to be in a footnote. OutlawRun (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
.svg)
