Talk:2024 Wisconsin State Assembly election

Maps & Charts

Hello again @Asdasdasdff, I was wondering if there would be any place for File:Wisconsin State Assembly 2024 R Candidates.svg & File:WI State Assembly 2024 Dem Candidates.svg in the article, the two images show where and how many candidates filed from each party (excluding Independents because there are like 5 of them total).

I kinda want to go in depth with this election, but I don't know if we should have extra maps, data, tables, or charts, in the article at all, because too much things could clutter it up. What are your thoughts on that? Talthiel (talk) 00:41, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

This would definitely be a unique approach to expanding on the page. If you could find enough sources talking about how filings this cycle are different from other cycles, I think the maps would fit. On going super in-depth in general, I know this is kind of self-plugging, but you could base the page structure on what I've written so far for the 2024 Texas House of Representatives election. This cycle has been very notable for the Texas House because of the very high number of incumbent primary challenges. On that page, I'm planning on adding a map showing which incumbents had opponents endorsed by AG Ken Paxton and which had opponents endorsed by governor Greg Abbott. You should definitely go in-depth with this election because of how chaotic it will be compared to the past 6 cycles. Not sure if those maps best fit the type of information we should go in-depth on, but I like your thinking. OutlawRun (talk) 00:52, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

Oh definitely, as an aside, background on this election, any at all, is something I've been wanting to add to the page for a while. I have added some information there for tonight, though I will work more tomorrow to make the redistricting and clarke sections be more originally written, as opposed being mostly to pulled from other Wikipedia articles.

Overall I think the background/issues of the election could cover things like the PFAS funding "standoff" redistricting, the Supreme Court, securing the majority, the high number of retirements and candidates running, funding advantages, etc. Any help or advice would be much appreciated. Talthiel (talk) 02:21, 5 June 2024 (UTC)

On the topic of maps, @OutlawRun, I have been mulling on whether to make primary maps and (eventually) general election maps for various assembly and senate races, but a key roadblock is simply creating said maps, at least in my experience, do you have any tips or advice for making maps for state legislative races? Talthiel (talk) 22:24, 16 September 2024 (UTC)

The most efficient way of creating maps is to use GIS software, like the open source QGIS or the rather expensive ArcGIS. These programs have a high learning curve, but they are incredibly effective at taking in precinct- or county-level data and applying them to maps. Alternatively, you can manually color in counties or precincts using a program like Inkscape, though this is significantly more time-consuming. If you want to start making maps for races, I would prioritize the closest ones. Primaries decided by less than 20 points and general elections decided by less than 10 points I'd say. OutlawRun (talk) 03:52, 17 September 2024 (UTC)

Redistricting & Gains/Holds

hello @Asdasdasdff @OutlawRun A question I have been thinking on as of late is how we are to depict gains and holds for districts on the map and within the infobox, especially in light of redistricting and moves. I think theres a few options we could go with but I am also open to hearing your thoughts on the topic. Talthiel (talk) 21:22, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I've written some out before, so I'll copy-paste them here. This is what I've used for post-census redistricting for my Texas House maps:

1: Assuming districts are not re-numbered following redistricting, all districts that stay in roughly the same space should be treated normally.

2: If a district is substantially moved across a state, seat control should follow the district number. For example, if the number of a Republican-controlled district in a rural area gets moved to a city and a Democrat wins it, that is counted as a "gain" even though there was no Republican-controlled district in that city before.

3: If two districts appear to swap places, control follows the incumbents. For example, if a Democrat wins "district 12" before redistricting and a Republican wins "district 14," if, after redistricting, the same Democrat wins the new "district 14" and the same Republican wins "district 12," both should be counted as holds and not gains.

4: If a new district is created from nothing, such as by expanding the legislature, it is a gain for whichever party wins it.

5: District control includes party switches and special election flips since the most recent election (i.e. it's a hold if the person who switched it wins re-election, a gain if it flips back).

6: If a seat is vacant during the general election, it should be considered to be under the control of the party of the one who vacated the seat, and it should not be counted as a gain if the same party wins the open seat.

7: If two incumbents are drawn into the same district, seat control should still follow district numbers, so the incumbent who originally represented that number is given credence.

The end goal of these maps should be such that the number of gains and holds visible on the map should match the net change in partisanship in the infobox and the rest of the page, and we shouldn't show "gains" unnecessarily if a district simply moved places. OutlawRun (talk) 21:29, 13 August 2024 (UTC)

I think these are generally good rules. I personally tend to just favor letting seat control follow district numbers (It tends to be simplest and cleanest as long as the number of seats is consistent) but if you have one of these other circumstances and it makes the map make more sense, then that could be preferable. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 03:18, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

The other rules are to prevent situations like in the 2022 Utah Senate election where, because all of the district numbers got completely scrambled, the original version of the map marked six Democratic "gains" and six Republican "gains," despite every incumbent winning re-election and no seats changing hands. OutlawRun (talk) 15:46, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think we could also just simply go with what party held the seat after the 2022 elections, which seems to be how CNalysis marks flips. Talthiel (talk) 23:31, 14 August 2024 (UTC)

I think that works for the most part, but I do take issue with one set of flips that they mark. Districts 52 and 57 are both marked as highly likely "gains" for each party, but there are incumbents from those parties running in each seat. District 57 was won by Democrats in 2022 but has an incumbent Republican running in it now, District 52 was won by Republicans in 2022 but has an incumbent Democrat running in it. These seats, if (when) each incumbent wins, should be marked as holds and not gains. They cancel each other out, at least, so that should keep the numbers nice and easy. OutlawRun (talk) 02:19, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

In a similar vein to this thread, how should we denote the various representatives who were moved to different districts due to redistricting, as opposed to moving to a new district of their own volition. Should we list them as "incumbents" or should that adjective be removed from the various election boxes? @Asdasdasdff what're your thoughts on this? Talthiel (talk) 18:14, 21 October 2024 (UTC)

My practice has been to never use "incumbent" in an election box unless the person is already the legal representative of the same district that they're running for in that election. But I'm open to some other ideas. I supposed it depends on what information you're trying to convey with the label. -- Asdasdasdff (talk) 07:57, 22 October 2024 (UTC)

Forecasts

@OutlawRun So we have a bit of a conundrum on our hands with the ratings, so CNalysis' classic forecast has the state legislature at 50/49 seats for the Democrats, but the forecast is at tilt R and apparently it's due to the amount of solid R seats, "Democrats are now favored in a majority of seats, but Republicans are technically odds-on favorites since they have a higher amount of "Solid" seats." I assume we should still list it as Tilt R, but should we add a footnote or anything like that explaining? Talthiel (talk) 19:51, 3 November 2024 (UTC)

These ratings are independent of each other. Are you even having a table that shows individual seat predictions? Either way, the prediction shown for the chamber is the prediction for the chamber, regardless of the individual seats. No footnotes needed. OutlawRun (talk) 02:46, 4 November 2024 (UTC)