Talk:-elect

Needs more info on the "transition team"

I'm curious as to how that whole "transistion team" and the process in general works exactly. I think it'd be quite interesting!76.182.144.118 (talk) 08:07, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Global view?

Some of this looks as if it applies to only one country. If so, that should be noted here. Michael Hardy 21:18, 3 Nov 2003 (UTC)

I think this page could be re-worded and moved to expand beyond presidents. Any title like governor-elect, mayor-elect, Prime-minister-elect, and premier-elect could all be under one article. --Arctic Gnome (talk • contribs) 23:19, 17 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with both of the above points, and i think that the article would in fact be better if it were constricted to speak of just the President-Elect of the United States of America. There's tons of interesting things that could be brought up aboout the hisotry, prodecures, and powers of the US President-Elect, very much to the exclusion of other countries.

Perhaps that just means that this general article needs to be split into another article, "President-Elect of the United States of America", but I think the struggle to make this article beholden to a world-wide view diminishes the scope of additional information that could amplify users' understanding of the US President-Elect. CzechOut 21:51, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Agree, and agree that it should probably be changed to President-elect (U.S.) Aroundthewayboy (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

• Note the work done recently on Prime Minister-elect shows quite a range of approaches and also shows that the current comments in this article about that role are wrong. It should be possible to expand this to have a section on the US and on other countries without confusing the reader but highlighting that there are a reange of approaches.--Matilda formerly known as User:Golden Wattle ^talk 23:50, 27 November 2007 (UTC)

Disagree. That article, after looking at it, is irrelevant. Aroundthewayboy (talk) 18:31, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

This article definitely belongs at President-Elect (United States). As to an article about President-Elects in general, the only thing that I can think of to put in it would be a dictionary definition, so the only use for this article would be as a redirect or a disambig. eigenlambda (talk) 00:16, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

in memorium

If something were to happen to a President-Elect during the December before he formally took office, what would his title be in the history books? "President" isn't quite accurate, but "President-Elect" has a sad note of unrealized potential. An emotional note that might interfere with a historians objectivity. Is there a social protocol already in place for that horrible eventuality? -209.76.184.4 23:04, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Lame duck

Any politician can be a lame duck. Also, the president can be referred to as a lame duck for the entire length of his second term, since he can no longer be re-elected, and not just between the election and inauguration dates.72.221.122.42 (talk) 03:59, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

article appears to be wrong

This 1963 law (available at http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=106_cong_public_laws&docid=f:publ293.106.pdf ) has the following to say about the term: ‘President-elect’ and ‘Vice-President-elect’ as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of President and Vice President. Unless someone has something that trumps this, this article needs drastic revision.LedRush (talk) 22:57, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Citing that law, I made this revision. --Modocc (talk) 16:32, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

I am not so sure that the article is wrong. The law speaks to the President-elect as a defined term for the purposes of the law. This is good enough for me (obviously, as I posted the law above, in the Biden article, and in the Obama article) in describing the winner for Nov-Dec as President-Elect, but it cannot trump constituional interpretation (by law), if any exists. Also, other laws and rules may define the terms differently. Quite honestly, it could be a cluster%$#$...but who knows.LedRush (talk) 18:36, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

The definition of President-elect and Vice President-elect in this law is solely for the purpose of designating those persons authorized to receive the government-funded facilities and services authorized by the law. There is no conflict with the Constitutional definition. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.169.76 (talk) 01:32, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

"Office of the President-Elect"

Today, Barack Obama gave a press conference behind a podium that bore the words "Office of the President-Elect". I wasn't aware there existed such an office, officially or historically, but apparently the office does have a web site with a governmental top-level domain, change.gov. Is this office new with the election of Barack Obama, or was it something established with prior U.S. presidents as well? Is it a formally-established office of the U.S. government, and if not, how is there allotted to it a .gov-TLD web site? Robert K S (talk) 21:34, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

There is no "Office of the President Elect", why do you think the link on the article goes to Obama's campaign-copy website? As far how they got a top-level .gov assignment, that's a good question... sort of like why he disabled his Adress Verification System for donations. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.5.188.108 (talk • contribs) 2008-11-07T17:47:28

The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 authorizes government-funded office space and salaried staff for the President-elect and Vice President-elect. The Act also defines the President-elect and Vice President-elect, for purposes of receiving these services, as the apparent winners of the general election prior to the formal Electoral College vote. Barack Obama's innovation seems to be creating a brand identity for the entity established by this law. The .gov website is apparently a 21st Century interpretation of the law's mandate that the government must provide "communications services found necessary by the President-elect or Vice-President-elect". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.169.76 (talk) 01:19, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Fascinating, thanks for the answer. I wasn't aware there was such an act, but I see now that it was amended in 2000 with an act sponsored by Senators Thompson and Lieberman. There's additional information on the web sites of the U.S. Office of Personnel Management [1] and the U.S. General Services Administration [2]. It's fascinating to me that one man, Acting Administrator Jim Williams--a bureaucrat so obscure he doesn't even have his own Wikipedia article--has sole discretion of determining who is the President-elect. (I imagine this was a fairly stressful position in the week following the election in 2000.) This topic is probably of sufficient notability to warrant a more extensive section in this article, or in an article of its own. If there wasn't such an entity of "The Office of the President-Elect", so-named, prior to 2008, there is now, and it has announced its existence and official designation in the most public way. Robert K S (talk) 03:25, 8 November 2008 (UTC)

Who Dubs a Candidate "President-Elect" Prior to the Electoral College?

Let's say, as in 2000, it's not clear who won the election right away.

Who would have to authority to let one candidate get a .gov Web site (to be so modern) and in general be assigned the status of "President-Elect (in waiting)" prior to the Electoral College vote -- or even (if a hung Electoral College, vote in Congress)... ?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.36.153.81 (talk • contribs) 2008-11-08T12:41:35

This is what's making everyone say "Office of the President-Elect???". It's an awfully formal title for a constitutionally informal status. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wildonrio (talk • contribs) 2008-11-10T13:26:31

The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 authorizes the head of the General Services Administration to determine who is the apparent winner entitled to transition funds and services controlled by GSA. In the disputed election of 2000, the GSA refused to recognize a winner and both candidates were denied access to transition funds and services as long as the legal dispute over the recount continued. GSA Denies Bush Transition Aid, Citing Legal Battle —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.169.76 (talk) 01:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for finding this article. Very informative, and answers some important questions. Good reporting, historically valuable. Robert K S (talk) 16:32, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Unifying theory, but still need a term for winner before Jan. 6

The constitution doesn't set dates for elections--that's mandated by Congress. (The law that specifies Jan. 6 for the joint session for counting electoral votes was passed in 2007.) The problem is that the term "President-elect" only appears in the 20th Amendment, and isn't even defined there. The historical definition, which IMO should not have been removed from this article, is that the president-elect only gains that title by virtue of being *elected* by the Electoral College. While the Electoral College votes (again, mandated by law) in December, its votes are not counted until the joint session of Congress Jan. 6, which seems to me to be a pretty clear case that Barack Obama won't *technically* be elected until that date.

Keep in mind that since electors are constitutionally permitted to vote for whoever they desire ("faithless electors"), we can never accurately state that the apparent winner of the electoral vote count in Nov. is, or will be, the next president, much less the president-elect. In a sense, the true election doesn't happen until Jan. 6, when the electoral votes are counted and announced. But the possibility exists that even in the joint session, objections to the electoral balloting may occur, as happened in 2005 (see www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/01/06/electoral.vote/index.html). My point: we can't truly be sure who the president will be until Congress certifies the electoral ballots Jan. 6.

So the question becomes: what to call the person who appears to have won the electoral count in Nov.? Simply because the GSA Administrator certifies someone as president-elect for the purposes of receiving federal funds does not officially make that person the president-elect, especially since no one, in my view, *can* be an actual president-elect until chosen by the Electoral College. I've tried finding official sources for "President-delegate," as a previous version of this article mentioned, without success. It may be a Robert's Rules of Order sort of term, but it's certainly used in other countries and in U.S. collegiate appointments. Barack Obama's Web site no doubt refers to him as president-elect because the term has historically been misapplied to the Nov. winner and he wishes, understandably, to cloak himself in the mantle of legitimacy as quickly as possible. If we agree that Obama won't become president-elect until after the electors' votes are counted (Jan. 6), then we need to call him something until then and "president-designate" may be the best descriptor--but we'll probably need some sort of footnote to the effect that no historical citations exist to document the term. Steven Spenser (talk) 00:26, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Steven Spenser 10 NOV 2008

Why would Wikipedia consensus vary from real-world consensus? There should be no Wikipedia consensus for a made-up title, such as president-elect-apparent, that nobody uses. Traditionally, the apparent winner of the general election is referred to as the president-elect. To date, none of the fateful scenarios that might challenge this tradition have occurred. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.169.76 (talk) 02:15, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

Actually, those "fateful scenarios" already *have* occurred. We've had at least three elections in which the so-called president-elect did not become president. The election of 1800 produced no president-designate or president-elect because both Jefferson and Burr received the same number of electoral votes, so the election was thrown to the House of Representatives. In 1824, we again had no president-designate or president-elect because no candidate received a majority of electoral college votes, so the House decided the election a second time, in favor of J. Q. Adams. In 1876, we had no president-designate or president-elect because neither Tilden nor Hayes received an electoral majority. When competing sets of ballots were returned from four states, both parties challenged them in the House; unable to vote a clear winner, Congress created a special Electoral Commission to decide the matter, which chose Hayes along party lines. Thus, 1877 was the first time the president was chosen through a process not outlined in the Constitution. (The Supreme Court's intervention in 2000 probably could be considered the second.) Since history has shown that being declared "president-elect" is not an automatic guarantee of becoming president, and keeping in mind the absence of any constitutional constraints upon electors abandoning party preference in their balloting, I submit that "president-designate" is a quite useful term that should be reinstated in this article. Steven Spenser (talk) 11:20, 11 November 2008 (UTC)Steven Spenser

Though your argument isn't faulty, your premise is. The purpose of an encyclopedia article is to outline the facts relating to a term; the term holds primacy, because it is the term that is searched on. The term "president-elect" is the one that is widely used in the literature (can even one instance be found of the term "president-designate" in one of the major news sources?) and so that is the subject of this article. From this point, the best we can do is define the term, give examples of its meaning and use, and elaborate the intricacies behind the determination of the "president-elect" at the several levels. (Those levels might include, in addition to the ultimate electoral vote count and the ascertainment of the Administrator of the GSA, the news bureau projections and the local vote tally returns on which they are based. [What does the GSA Administrator base his ascertainment on? Does he look at returns data, or does he make up his mind based on what he sees on, e.g., Fox News? My guess is, he probably waits for a concession by one party.]) Another point to make is that this article only deals with the present-day, and doesn't attempt to cover the meaning of the term throughout the history of the presidency, whereas all of your examples of anomalies come from a century ago or more--in any case, before the Presidential Transition Act of 1963, before which the role of the president-elect may not have had as substantial a meaning. Did Kennedy, for example, receive the same national intelligence briefings as Eisenhower before he took office? Did he use the same transition resources that a modern presidential transition team use? Robert K S (talk) 16:41, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think delayed election outcomes are relevant to the issue of presumptively assuming the title, because in those cases no one would be widely considered president-elect until the outcome was resolved with certainty. To my knowledge, there's never been a "false" president-elect, a case when someone was widely presumed to be the president-elect (officially or not) but ultimately failed to become president. If such a scenario were to occur, that might weaken consensus that the apparent general-election winner should be considered president-elect. That, so far, is a hypothetical situation that tradition doesn't seem to consider. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.230.73.174 (talk) 22:27, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

That is exactly my point: No one *can* be considered president-elect yet, because the actual election hasn't even been held. I'm sure most Americans thought they were voting for the actual president on Nov. 4, but they simply chose their Electors. I haven't been writing about "delayed election outcomes," I've been writing about *actual* election outcomes, and we won't know the result of our presidential election until the only 538 people in this country who actually vote for president cast their ballots in that election Dec. 15, and have them counted Jan. 6. The pressure to label a winner as a result of each November presidential-elector contest comes from the news media, which doesn't want to wait until January to report the actual winner. But just because the press misapplies the term "president-elect" does not make it accurate or legitimately applied before the true election in December. As for whether "false" president-elects have or have not been declared ("officially or not"), one has only to think of the famous "Dewey Wins" newspaper headline. In fact, the popular-vote winner has failed to become president three times: in 1876 (Hayes over Tilden), 1888 (B. Harrison over Cleveland) and 2000 (Bush over Gore). Given that Gore won more popular votes than Bush, I think we safely can say that Gore was "widely presumed" to be the winner by more voters than Bush was, and that those voters (many of them, I'm sure, previously ignorant of the Electoral College's existence) expected he would become the president-elect. Consensus is all very well and fine, but just because many people misuse a term does not, by itself, make that misuse legitimate. Accuracy is a standard and an obligation that needs to be upheld at all times, and we can't duck our responsibility here. Simply put, the fact is that until the Electoral College actually *elects* Obama, he can't be considered elected--which means he can't be called the "president-elect." I submit, once again, that we educate misinformed voters, politicians and the press by reinstating the term "president-designate." Steven Spenser (talk) 23:50, 13 November 2008 (UTC)Steven Spenser

I don't think it's helpful that this page, Talk:Barack Obama and Talk:List of Presidents of the United States have been having this identical debate and are coming to different conclusions. I'm starting a discussion at Wikipedia talk:Post-election edit war syndrome as this has wider implications. Timrollpickering (talk) 00:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

76.88.42.116 (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)==Obama is NOT President-elect / Yes he is == Note: Related discussion at Talk:Barack Obama#Validity of the term 'President Elect'. (Permalink ) MickMacNee (talk) 15:46, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We do not have a President-elect until the Electoral College convenes to elect him. This has not yet happened. I understand how people use the term out of convenience, but this article should strive for accuracy, and Obama is NOT the President-elect. Like it or not, that's a verifiable fact, since there is no sense in which the President is elected until the Electoral College does so. Pudge (talk) 04:52, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What's a "verifiable fact" is that Obama is referred to as the President-elect throughout the media, and term is defined by use. To insist upon a narrow, technical definition of the term would be to neglect the reality of the term's use. In any case, Obama is the president-elect as defined in the Presidential Transition Act, a fact noted in the article. Robert K S (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It's more than that. The law regards him as President-elect. See the discussion on the Obama page. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:37, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you're referring to. The conversation over there seems to be about the Presidential Transition Act. Maybe you skimmed and didn't see that I mentioned that? Or is there some other law as well? Robert K S (talk) 05:45, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

That's what I'm referring to. The point being that it's not just that the media calls him President-elect, the law defines President-elect in such a way that Obama qualifies. There is no issue. He is unequivocally the President-elect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 05:53, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

No, the law does NOT refer to him as President-elect. For that to be true would be to amend the Constitution. You are, in fact, wrong. Pudge (talk) 23:14, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

First, media is not the point, law is. Second, then this article contradicts itself, because it states that "A president-elect is a political candidate who has been elected president but who has not yet taken office," and that has not happened yet. So you should say instead that "A president-elect is a political candidate who has been elected president but who has not yet taken office, or has been named so by law despite not being elected." Besides, the law in question only calls them that for the sake of that law: it does not define general use.

Again, the facts are: Obama is NOT President-elect; one law calls him that just for the sake of convenience, but that does not make him so generally; that people sloppily and lazily refer to him as such changes nothing; this article contradicts itself by saying a President-elect is something Obama is not yet (someone who has been elected), but then says that Obama is the President-elect. Pudge (talk) 23:23, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The constitution does not define the term "President-elect", so there is no constitutional issue. The 1963 law does define the term. It includes the understanding that he's the "apparent" winner as of the popular vote date (November 4, 2008) and will become the "official" winner when the electoral votes are tabulated in the joint session (January 6, 2009). There is no issue. He's the President-elect. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:40, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

What IS completely clear is that prior to the election that elects a President there can be no President-elect. That election happens in December, not in November. The overwhelming majority of Americans do not know this. A majority of college-educated Americans may know that there is an "Electoral College" and that it technically elects the President somehow at some time, but the majority even of these people (including most journalists) do not know WHEN the Electoral College votes, so they have no idea when to call someone "President-elect." In other words, they literally do not know when the Presidential election occurs. That is the problem that causes the very common misuse of the term in question. Thus, out of laziness and ignorance, many people simply call the so-called "presumptive President-elect" the "President-elect." Nevertheless, saying that there is a President-elect before the presidental election is a patent lie. This page embraces the lie and does a sickening disservice in holding itself out as an information resource while knowingly spreading this kind of disinformation. Criticality (talk) 02:34, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

You have obviously not bothered to read any of the discussion. The government defines the term "President-elect" to include the "apparent winner" of the election. Therefore Obama is, in fact, the President-elect. You may now go back to your cell. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 02:41, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

To beat a dead horse, Obama is the President-elect according to the Presidential Transition Act of 1963 which says "(c) The terms “President-elect” and “Vice-President-elect” as used in this Act shall mean such persons as are the apparent successful candidates for the office of the President and Vice President, respectively, as ascertained by the Administrator following the general elections held to determine the electors of the President and Vice-President in accordance with title 3, United States code, sections 1 and 2." 76.88.42.116 (talk) 07:39, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Overloading information about Electoral College into this article

I agree that the topics of the Electoral College and the President elect are related, but not, as one editor remarked in an edit summary, "inextricably linked", as evidenced by the fact that two separate articles about the topics do exist. This article is about the President-elect and it is neither necessary nor desirable to load it up with minutia about the workings of the Electoral College. Those can properly go in the Electoral College article. Robert K S (talk) 04:59, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Unfortunately, there is a lot if misinformation and misunderstanding about this very complicated subject. I reverted your edit because it focuses too much on a 1963 law that defines the term only for the purpose of the law. The functioning of the elector college is essential to know when a candidate becomes the president elect. The sad fact is that there are at least three definitions of what a president elect is in the US, and one of them requires an in depth discussion of the elecoral college. (1 is just the winner on teh first tuesday of november, and the other is who the administrator under the 1963 law names. There are probably more).LedRush (talk) 05:06, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

I'm curious how you think either of the parts I removed relate to the President-elect, directly and substantially:

• Competing electoral ballots from four states were disputed in Congress following the Election of 1876, which produced an electoral tie.
  • This is trivia about the electoral college process. How does it speak to the definition of the president elect? Why is it more properly included here than in the Electoral College article?
• Although many states have laws requiring electors to uphold the results of the general election in their respective states, electors have always been constitutionally free to vote for whomever they choose. However, since they are nominated to their position by the state organizations of national parties, electors almost always follow their parties’ instructions and vote for the candidates who won their state’s popular vote. This historic practice of rubber-stamping general-election results has contributed to the popular misconception that any uncontested winner in the November election automatically becomes the nation’s president-elect, even before the December vote of the Electoral College.
  • Again, this information is pertinent to the workings of the Electoral College. If this information should be included in this article, what's to stop the inclusion of all Electoral College trivia from being included here?

Robert K S (talk) 05:33, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Those are very good points(I can't sleep on this;) and the tone is not what I'd call neutral either. There is no rush, Rush, either way to put in or take out. I'm inclined towards removing? I'll wait some to keep from getting to hard-feelings here. I did template the article. Modocc (talk) 05:49, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

The first sentence is trivia and can be deleted. The second seems essential to me to understand at what time someone would be considered a PE. Perhaps the article would benefit from different sections explaining what the PE means in relation to: 1. popular perception; 2. theh 1963 Act; 3. Transition of power.LedRush (talk) 17:34, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

"The second seems essential to me to understand at what time someone would be considered a PE."--Can you point to how you think it does this? It don't think it gives any information on timing, and we already have information on timing in the article, in the first paragraph of the section: "The members of the U.S. Electoral College are elected by the people in November once every four years in a general election; on the Monday after the second Wednesday in December, electors convene in their respective state capitals (and the District of Columbia) and in turn elect the President of the United States. The electoral ballots are counted in a joint session of Congress on January 6 (as required by 3 U.S. Code, Chapter 1), and if the ballots are accepted without objections, the candidate winning at least 270 electoral votes is announced the President-elect by the incumbent Vice President, in his or her capacity as President of the Senate." I think this language is very clear and uncontroversial. By contrast, the final sentence of the disputed paragraph is unsourced weasel: we have not established that this "popular misconception" actually exists. Robert K S (talk) 19:51, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

It looks like the deleted content is now in the article, albeit in a different and abbreviated form. Also, the article structure is now as I suggested above. Needless to say, I'm very happy with this. If I get a chance before my vacation, I'll try to help beefing up the references in this article. Good work, guys.LedRush (talk) 20:12, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

us govt employee?

Is the president-elect a US government employee, since there's an office of the president-elect and all that? I'm asking because Obama apparently is resigning from the Senate this weekend in order to concentrate on the transition, and I wonder if that technically makes him unemployed. Will he get COBRA in a situation like that, since he wasn't laid off, or is it known if he took out some kind of individual insurance plan (sounds bureaucratically nuts given the short duration)? What happens if one of his kids gets sick before the inauguration? Thanks. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 21:17, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Being a Harvard graduate, there's a good chance he has those issues all worked out. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 23:41, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, of course he has those issues worked out for himself, but it would be nice to know if he is legally a government employee or not. I think he's a private citizen since he resigned his Senate seat, but I haven't read the transition act. Anyone know? eigenlambda (talk) 00:13, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

The Presidential Transition Act of 1963 authorizes transition staff to be paid and reimbursed and to accrue government retirement benefits, but also states categorically they are not government employees. It's not clear to me if the the president-elect and vice president-elect themselves are included in the transition staff category. A former senator would collect retirement benefits but Obama was not in the senate for the five years necessary for his retirement benefits to be fully vested. I speculate that the fact Joe Biden has not yet resigned from the Senate, although Obama has, may be due to Biden's much lower personal wealth compared to Obama and indeed other senators. Biden may need his Senate salary until his vice presidential salary kicks in January 20. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.220.169.76 (talk) 17:12, 16 November 2008 (UTC)

I wouldn't think so. Resigning now or later is almost certainly driven by political as well as practical reasons. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:49, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

One reason I heard for Obama resigning when he did, was so that IL Gov. Blagojevich could appoint Obama's replacement before the new congressional term starts. That would give Obama's replacement seniority over the new Senators who will arrive in January, which translates to juicier committee assigments further down the line. 207.241.239.70 (talk) 00:17, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

New definitions

I was wrong to state in previous edits that a winning candidate becomes the president-elect in January. The U.S. House reports I've added seem to indicate that the House considers the P-E to be whoever wins the majority of the electoral ballots cast in December, and that the title devolves onto the winner from the point those ballots are cast. To better reflect the vigorous debate on this page, I added a framework describing "two competing definitions" preceded by something previously never noted, that the Constitution doesn't define when someone becomes P-E. Altho' the discussion here isn't as passionate as on other Talk pages, this article boils down to whether the GSA certification is sufficient to legitimately confer the status, or whether it must wait until the EC votes in December. Since Wikipedia doesn't have an article on the Transition Act, I've added a link to it at the GSA. I've also added a link to a news report detailing how GSA certification isn't automatic, which seems to me to undercut that particular argument/position. Since the V-P is off-topic, I removed reference to the veep in the Transition Act graf as a means to keep the article crisper. Given that consensus doesn't seem absolute on Obama's status, I moved the statement that he is the P-E into the GSA graf. While "Obama is the P-E" may still be open to debate, the statement I've constructed, "For these purposes, [Obama] can be said to already be the P-E" is valid (assuming the GSA Administrator already has made the certification). This article had been lacking any mention of the widespread practice of the press to annoint the Nov. winner as the P-E, so I've added a reference to it. Previous comments on other Talk pages seemed to suggest that the mere fact that Obama is referred to as the P-E automatically makes him the P-E, but this seems a dangerous fallacy to embrace. As a former reporter, editor and free-lance writer for the Associated Press who's participated in election-result reporting, I can assure you all that many reporters (number unspecified) do assume the E.C. will rubber-stamp the general-election results. Finally, given that the Congressional Research Service took pains to mention competing definitions, I submit that this article likewise should make room for them. Steven Spenser (talk) 00:30, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

Every 4 years, the losing party hold out this absurd hope that somehow the electoral college will thwart the will of the people. It doesn't happen. And if it did, it would be a major, major constitutional crisis. No. It will not happen. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:37, 15 November 2008 (UTC)

I do not agree with the "two competing definitions" language added. This is an interpretation rather than a statement of fact. If you're going to add such language, you will need to add a citation to a court decision or academic paper or something of similar weight in support. Robert K S (talk) 00:22, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Clarification is a good thing. Various editors have raised the question of what "President-elect" really means, and it deserves a clear and succinct answer. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 00:51, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

capital vs. capitol

The capital is the city containing the state's seat of government. The capitol is the building set aside for that purpose. There is no constitutional requirement or even suggestion that the electors should meet in their respective states' capitol buildings. In fact, not even in their respective states' capital cities. Only "in their respective states". They could meet in some rural bar-and-grill someplace if they wanted to. However, in this context, capital city would seem to be the more likely practice. However, maybe someone can cite some evidence. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

The statute dealing with this, 3 USC § 7 says, "The electors of President and Vice President of each State shall meet and give their votes on the first Monday after the second Wednesday in December next following their appointment at such place in each State as the legislature of such State shall direct." Thus, it is the states who say where their electors will gather. As to whether any states have their electors gather anywhere other than the state capital, or the state capitol for that matter, I have no idea. -Rrius (talk) 14:14, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

List of US Presidents-elect

what for? there is a list of presidents. IF there are discrepancies one can list them explicitly (if.. any.. ever). no need for a "List of US Presidents-elect". 91.15.167.133 (talk) 16:36, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I had the same initial reaction, but the list is considerably different from the list of presidents. Barack Obama, for example, will be the 44th president but only the 35th president-elect. I can see how some of the start dates may be controversial without (or even with) firm sourcing. Robert K S (talk) 19:29, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

It's liable to run into Original Research complaints. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 21:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

In what way? Compiling previously-unconsidered lists is a perfectly fine encyclopedic task and it is done throughout Wikipedia. It is not required that a list be published elsewhere; ordering and processing commonplace facts is not original research. Robert K S (talk) 05:02, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

We'll see. Baseball Bugs ^{What's up, Doc?} 06:09, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Someone needs to globalize this article

This article gives the impression that president-elect is an official title used worldwide. It needs to be clarified as to where this is official and where it is not. ^Talk/♥фĩłдωəß♥\^Work 19:23, 3 June 2011 (UTC)

Perhaps "Candidate-elect" would be a better name for the article due to the fact that mayor-elect and several other "elects" redirect here. Then there's the fact that many countries don't elect a president... El Alternativo (talk) 03:37, 26 November 2012 (UTC)

Question on Papal Conclave

Should it be included that a Cardinal that has been elected Pope is referred to as the Pope-Elect for the short time (usually 30 minutes or so) in-between accepting he election and taking their oath on the St. Peters balcony when they are introduced to the populace? 203.46.132.214 (talk) 06:10, 19 May 2023 (UTC)