Template talk:2008 United States presidential election/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Ron Paul

I think that Ron Paul has officially announced his withdrawal. DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 00:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Not quite. See this. He is, however, eliminated from the Repub. Party nomination race in terms of delegate count, and this is reflected on the template.--JayJasper (talk) 23:14, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, actually he won the primary for his congressional seat in Texas, so that means that since he cannot run for both offices at once, his campaign has been suspended, despite the fact he never made a succession speech. DiligentTerrier ^{and friends} 19:34, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Actually, he can for both offices in the state of Texas, one of the few states that allows such. So technically, his presidential campaign is still active.--JayJasper (talk) 22:12, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

BTW, here is a source for the above assertion. You have to scroll down to "Texas" to find it.--JayJasper (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Mathematically eliminated candidates

Hope noboby minds that I moved Gravel behind Clintion and Obama on the list because he is a techinally-still-active-but-mathematically-eliminated candidate. I would have done the same for the Repub. candidate listings, but Keyes and Paul (the other active-but-eliminated candidates) were already listed behind McCain. This is for consistency with the de facto policy of the template of listing "viable" candidates ahead of the others (i.e. listing active candidates ahead of ones who have withdrawn).--JayJasper (talk) 17:49, 15 March 2008 (UTC)

Isn't Hillary now mathematically unable to secure enough delegates? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.23.114.159 (talk) 04:48, 13 May 2008 (UTC)

• An incorrect speculation as of this date. See Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries as of this date for details. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:40, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

No candidate is mathematically eliminated from the race until the convention selects their candidates. This should be rephrased or removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.41.252.121 (talk) 15:16, 19 May 2008 (UTC)

A proposed text for discussion is invited. It's true that the delegates can do whatever they want, and that it is just about impossible (whether a via a state party rule or a state law, or perhaps even national party rule) to compel particular delegate actions, excepting the rather significant social influences of the delegate's standing (and future aspirations) and present relationships with their community, party, and candidates' state committees--and their electorate. The Democratic Party rules allow for the judgement of the individual delegate, which would be required perhaps on the first ballot, and most definitely starting with the second ballot (citation needed). -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:49, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it can be accurately said that Clinton is mathematically eliminated because of how much the nominee requires superdelegates, who can change their mind at any given time. Mathematically eliminated should be eliminated as in even if they somehow got all the unpledged delegates they still could not win, since unpledged delegates can change their decision at any time. SkepticBanner (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• I agree. It is possible for her to campaign through the start of the convention, and so far, she has declined to state that her campaiagn is over. Given the potentially malleable and changeable nature of the pool of superdelegates, the asterisk should be removed from Clinton...when the template is released from wikipedia:cascading protection provided at User:Nakon/p and at User:East718/PTT; these editing-protection connections can be observed at the time and date of this posting, by trying to edit the template. Clinton is not mathematically eliminated until the convention.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:47, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Even if she recieved 100% of all of the remaining delegates that are uncommited, she still would not have enough delegates to clinch the nomination, and seeing as there is now no incentive to endorse a candidate who has announced that are going to suspend there campaign by the weekend, then she should have the asterisk next to her name until she finally decides to suspend her campaign reportedly on Saturday and endorses Obama. CoolKid1993 (talk) 12:51, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

This topic is the cuase of needless edits. Although the superdelegates may have pledged to one candidate or another, they can change their decision. Should some Obama scandal be discovered during the summer, we would all see that the mathematical elimination was no elimination at all. I have taken the asterisked notation off of the template. This disputabale content belongs on an article about the nomination process, not a navigation template. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:35, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

The asterisk should correspond with the current situation of whether or not there is the possibility of Clinton being able to surpass the number of delgates needed to correspond with recieving the nomination. If the number of superdelegates that are currently uncommited are not enough for Clinton to recieve the nomination, then she should recieve an asterisk because she is mathematically eliminated from the possibility of having enough delegates to recieve a nomination during the Democratic National Convention. We don't need to try to predict the future possibility of an occurance that would dramatically shift the superdelegates from Obama to Clinton, since it is unlikely to happen. The term "mathematically eliminated" should stay, as it is largely used in the mainstream media in referring to the absence of delegates needed to clinch the nomination. CoolKid1993 (talk) 13:41, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

As demonstrted by the changing commitments of more than a few superdelegates, they are not mathematical entities. As such, there's no such thing as "eliminated" in Clinton's case, untill the party convention completes its process. Witness the words "suspend" as opposed to "ending" the Clinton campaign. "Presumptive Nominee" sufficiently covers the situation, and "mathematically eliminated" is unsupported and inaccurate speculation.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:04, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

If one chooses to believe so, there is no such thing as a presumptive nominee or mathematically elimated candidate since even pledged delegates can choose to switch just as easily as supers. Just saying. WTStoffs (talk) 05:31, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference between presumptive and mathematical is that presumptive includes all oportunity for the presumption to be shown wrong. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:25, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

I am again taking the asterisk entitled "mathematically eliminated" from the template: There is at this moment only one person with the mark; that person is is not the presumptive nominee. Presumtive Nominee covers the case sufficiently, for Ron Paul, and the reader may look futher into the relevant articles if they wish for more. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:22, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Alan Keyes is now Constitution Party candidate

It is rather evident that Keyes is now running third party Constitution. He has been at Constitution Party conventions in states, and is drawing support. His site seems to show his new stance for the Constitution party and not the Republican party. Casey14 (talk) 04:28, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

At this point, Keyes has indeed dropped some not-so-subtle hints that he is bolting the GOP for the CP, but there has yet to be an official announcement of such a move (none that I could find, anyway). Until it's confirmed by a credible media source, I think we should leave Keyes listed as a Rep.--JayJasper (talk) 20:33, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

His website states that he is running for the Constitution Party. So, I am re adding this. The media nver really took up on Keyes' campaign. Editorofthewiki 10:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

There's also this: Alan Keyes to announce break with GOP in Hazleton, PA, which makes it look official that Keyes is leaving the GOP. creativename (talk) 06:49, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Bob Barr, potential candidate

As of this date, Robert Barr does not appear in the FEC database of candidates that have filed a statement of candidacy, or designated a principal campaign committee. His press release is careful to announce only the formation of the exploratory committee, and also says "MAY seek Libertarian Party Nomination"

The The Atlanta Journal-Constitution quotes him in the following manner:

"[H]e has formed an exploratory committee to gauge voter interest in his candidacy as Libertarian. If there are "sufficient numbers" of people behind a Bob Barr presidential race, he's running, the former Republican said."

Cook, Rhonda (April 5, 2008). "Barr forms presidential exploratory committee". The Atlanta Journal-Constitution. Retrieved 2008-04-08. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

This has all of the characteristics of a "testing the waters" committee for a person who has not yet taken action to become a candidate under the FEC's terms, which we generally follow on this template. See, for details: Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008/Archive 6#FEC filing standards, again. A "testing the waters" non-candidate fails to undertake a number of FEC-registerable actions: these individuals do not yet state that they are a candidate, or do not yet undertake efforts to become a candidate (such as taking actions to qualify for the ballot), or do not advertise. Such a person does not have to disclose his committee's receipts and expenditures (yet) because he is not yet a candidate.

For those reasons, I have taken Bob Barr off of the template, pending definitive action on his part demonstrating he is a candidate, either via the FEC and or via reliable sources.

-- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:50, 8 April 2008 (UTC)

Just to toss this out there, Bob Barr finished second in the Libertarian Party's Kansas City debate. Results. Not sure if he actually participated as a candidate, but he does have support. I know that doesn't qualify him as an actual candidate, since there are no FEC records, just wanted to make sure it was noted. CoolKid1993 (talk) 03:55, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

It seems he still isn't an "official" candidate. A post on his blog just yesterday ([1]) says "...Barr 2008 is still in exploratory committee mode." Even so, at least one major pollster is acting as if he's the most likely nominee and is including him in their general election polls, so perhaps he should be included in the template despite the fact that he hasn't decided to deal with the FEC bureaucracy yet. Etphonehome (talk) 05:07, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

• That does not change the fact that Barr has himself failed to register with the FEC, and declare a principal campaign committee, or indicate he will actually run (see my initial comment above). His status remains potential candidate, until he acts to change his status. This has been the standard for this template for some time now. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:10, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

It appears he has finally indicated he is an actual candidate, as of May 12, announcing his candidacy for the Libertarian Party nomination. Here is a cite. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:46, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

• Rhee, Foon (Deputy National Political Editor) (May 12, 2008). "Former Congressman Announces for President". Boston Globe. Retrieved 2008-05-12. {{cite news}}: |first= has generic name (help); Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

Stephen Colbert

I think he should be listed. I realize that his campaign was by no means extensive, but I believe it was of note considering the vast outpouring of support he received initially. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Myspace69 (talk • contribs) 22:46, April 22, 2008

He never actually filed with the FEC so he does not meet the criteria for inclusion here. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:48, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

Evan Bayh

Why is Evan Bayh listed? --Aranae (talk) 20:05, 8 May 2008 (UTC)

From the talk archives:

• Bayh declined to oppose this letter from the FEC, and disavow the committee. See this listing for Friends of Evan Bayh, at the FEC. More importantly, it was reported in the Press that Evan Bayh had committed to running, and then withdrew. See this article Bayh bows out of '08 presidential race (CNN, December 16, 2006).
  Yellowdesk (talk) 05:58, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

VP section

I'd like to propose a section which would list the Vice presidential candidates/nominees. This list would currently include, Stewart Alexander (Liberty Union Party and Socialist Party USA), Darrell Castle (Constitution Party) and Matt Gonzalez (Independent). --Philip Stevens (talk) 09:49, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Robert Barr presidential campaign, 2008

Robert Barr presidential campaign, 2008 has been created but I cannot add it to this page because it is protected.--William Saturn (talk) 21:24, 24 May 2008 (UTC)

 Done The Evil Spartan (talk) 03:41, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--William Saturn (talk) 04:30, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Prohibition Party

Where are the candidates for the Prohibition Party, particularly Gene Amondson? --William Saturn (talk) 22:39, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard of it, but do any of them meet the standard for inclusion, as defined in the archived discussion? If so and there are reliable sources to demonstrate such, then feel free to add them to the template. --Loonymonkey (talk) 23:42, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I would say Amondson meets the criteria for listing here. He was kept off previously because he had not filed his candidacy with the FEC (he still hasn't). However, he has a WP bio and is the confirmed nominee of a notable party, which I feel justifies his listing.--JayJasper (talk) 16:47, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I won't interfere for the moment, but this is a case of a pipsqueak candidate that cannot get a filing to the FEC or $5,000 into campaign committee coffers (which would require an FEC filing), even if backed by a so-called national party. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:53, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Gravel should show up twice

IMO, Mike Gravel should be listed in both the Democratic and Libertarian sections of the template, as he did contest both nominations. — crism (talk) 06:20, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I agree, I will add him to the Democratic candidates column.--William Saturn (talk) 21:13, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I also added Wayne Allyn Root to the candidates section of the Libertarian Party since he ran but is only listed as the running mate of Bob Barr.--William Saturn (talk) 21:21, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I removed Root from the "also ran" section because he is still an active candidate on the LP ticket as the VP candidate. However, I am open to discussion as to how the candidates should be listed. --JayJasper (talk) 18:13, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

He was a presidential candidate as well before being eliminated and named as the VP Candidate. Right now it appears as though he was only ever a VP candidate. I believe this should reflect that he was also a presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party nomination.--William Saturn (talk) 18:23, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point. It just seems to me it might be confusing to readers to have him listed twice under the same section header. Until someone comes up with a better idea, however, I guess we'll do it that way.--JayJasper (talk) 18:32, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Maybe we should have separate sections for the VP candidates.--William Saturn (talk) 18:34, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

There's a thought. If it can be done without cluttering up the box or confusing the readers, I'm all for it.--JayJasper (talk) 18:36, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I tried two different things now on the template: I added two separate sections for VP and presidential candidates; I also added Ralph Nader (campaign, running mate) to Independent candidates and perhaps if this style is favored it could be done for the rest of the candidates.--William Saturn (talk) 19:04, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

I prefer the former of the changes you made. Although I can see the problem in using that approach in the Ind. section. Well done (see my comments below).--JayJasper (talk) 19:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

New VP candidate section

Bravo to William Saturn on a fine job of adding a VP candidate section to the navbox. IMO, this is a great improvement!--JayJasper (talk) 19:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks.--William Saturn (talk) 19:12, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Keyes

Could someone put Keyes in the Republican section as well like Gravel? Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:00, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Clinton or Rodham Clinton?

I'd prefer Rodham Clinton because it's what the article thinks to. Anyone else? Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:20, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Does it really matter that much? It should stay Hillary Clinton because that is how she is referred to almost 100% of the time in almost all mainstream media. CoolKid1993 (talk) 15:18, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

No, but it is a accuracy point. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:49, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

All other candidates have been referred to by short names, even when piping is needed, like Chris Dodd; a third name breaks a pattern for no discernible benefit. There is no inaccuracy in these cases. JJB 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Trimming

I really think we sure start some trimming based on notability. I know that they're official national candidates, but do we really need them? This is a pretty big template as is and the only notable third parties right now are the Constitution, Green and Libertarian parties. And among the independents, Ralph Nader is the only notable person there. Even among the Republicans--Hugh Cort, John Cox, Dan Gilbert and Ray McKinney with nothing more than people who paid $5,000 to get on some ballots. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:17, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

The standard to date: Candidate filed with the FEC, has a wikipedia article. Exception: Draft campaigns.
The method for success on your effort is to propose that the standard be changed, so that a proper conversation that includes a comprehensive perspective is undertaken. My views are narrower than the current standard, which a review of the talk archives reveal. See the talk archive for the most recently agreed general standard:
Archive 6, Proposal: A return to the old standards.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:29, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Well how to initiate a proper conversation? Therequiembellishere (talk) 05:21, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

The link to the archive shows one successful method. In a new section, propose an explicit new standard, anticipate criticism in the explanation which persuasively indicates why the recent status quo and standard for the template is inadequate and request comment (and agreement). -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:01, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The template has gotten rather big. Perhaps we need to enforce the "filed with the FEC" standard. That would eliminate Amondson and La Riva. The inclusion of Calero is very questionable as well, even though he appears in the FEC database. Per discussion below, he is apparently ineligible to serve as President.--JayJasper (talk) 21:00, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

• No objection from me on the FEC-filing enforcement point. http://fec.gov/finance/disclosure/srssea.shtml -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I like the updated template as of this edit. Maybe we should still discuss whether or not to include the candidates in the "minor party tickets" section, but the template in its current form works for me. Great editing job, guys!--JayJasper (talk) 19:07, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Róger Calero

According to his Wikipedia, he was apparently born in Nicaragua, which according to the requirements to run for the office of president of the United States, you must be a natural born citizen. What I was wondering though is why he is being allowed to have a campaign, when he was obviously not born in the United States according to the info currently on his article, or is the info just incorrect? CoolKid1993 (talk) 02:49, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Why is he being allowed to have a campaign? Free speech, unless I'm misunderstanding your question... Some states will allow him to be on the ballot, others will not -- in those, the SWP will most likely use a stand-in candidate, as they did in 2004. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:41, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

That's not what I'm saying. I'm saying this:

“ Article Two of the Constitution sets the principal qualifications to be eligible for election as President. A Presidential candidate must:

• be a natural-born citizen of the United States;
• be at least thirty-five years old;
• have been a permanent resident in the United States for at least fourteen years.

”

He's not a natural born citizen. CoolKid1993 (talk) 20:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

It appears the standards for candidacy are more generous than achieving the office. This is a template for candidates. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:48, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

"More generous" is a bit of an understatement, since anybody can declare themselves a candidate for any office, just as anybody can declare themselves the second coming of Christ. It doesn't necessarily mean they are eligible for the office, can get onto the ballot, or make it into Wikipedia, but nobody can stop them from declaring and promoting their candidacy. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 05:47, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This template should be for legitimate candidates. I argue that since Calero is constitutionally ineligible to serve as President, he is not a legitimate candidate for the office and should be removed.--JayJasper (talk) 12:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

• I think a little historical reseaerch would reveal a few inelegible candidates who have been influential. In any case, a proposal to revise the standards for discussion is invited; see the next above section.Note that the standards agreed previously are silent on eligibility for office.
  In the case of Calero, no FEC filing shows in the FEC public database, so based on the current standards alone, that candidate may be removed
  In addition the Prohibition Party candidate who has equally failed to file with the FEC could be removed.
  Here's how to look up a candidate at the FEC
  These pipsqueek parties typically fail to get even 5,000 votes in the election. Not even a hundredth of a percent of the vote, so could be characterized as "not even unknown"
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:45, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Actually, I found Calero listed here on the FEC website.--JayJasper (talk) 19:00, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, I stand corrected. And here's the Calero principal presidential campaign committee declaration -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:21, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

You make a good point about ineligible candidates being influential in elections. Though it's highly unlikely that Calero will play a key role in this year's election, the potential is there (at least theoretically). He meets the current criteria for inclusion on the template, so unless the standards are changed, I suppose he should remain listed.--JayJasper (talk) 19:20, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Paul is out

Pardon my absence, I have been watching but have declined to enter the various debates lately. I will be back sometime. Just wanted to clarify something. Simultaneous with Paul's transition speech of 6/12 about 9:45-10:45pm CST, his homepage at ronpaul2008.com was scaled back to a few pages plus the declaration "I have decided to end my campaign for the Presidency of the United States"-- not just suspend. The details of end vs. suspend were not spelled out specifically in the speech, but were only alluded to. I believe the distinction is essential to understand because I don't think his plans to move $5 million to the Campaign for Liberty are possible with a mere suspension. This is of course fully consonant with Paul's strategy for his movement, but detailed speculation as to whys and whatnows is unnecessary. JJB 16:49, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

john taylor bowles is not an independent candidate

As his article states, he is the proud nominee of the National Socialist Order of America. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.182.186.251 (talk) 08:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

That is a non-notable party with no WP article. So, if he is not listed as as independent, he should probably be removed.--JayJasper (talk) 19:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Restored removal of John Taylor Bowles. the individual qualifies for listing on the template, as there is an existing WP article, and he has declared a principal campaign committee. Our last agreed standards are silent on party articles. FEC filings
- Statement of Candidacy http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_26039312331+0
- Statement of Committee Oganization declaring principal campaign committee: http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_26039322011+0
The FEC databases do state the party is "unknown", and it may well be that his party is simply his own creation.
-- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Bowles has been re-listed as an Independent, since he personally meets the criteria for inclusion, but his declared party does not.--JayJasper (talk) 15:35, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

• To clarify, there has been no particular standard for parties agreed for this template. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:40, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

True, but since his party (apparently) cannot be verified as a legitimate party recognized by the FEC, it would seem reasonable to list him as an independent as a default position until credible sources (if such exist) can confirm the party's legitimacy. Would it not?--JayJasper (talk) 16:12, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

Is Keyes Still Running?

Because I can't find it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Yes, he is soliciting signatures via his website for an independent run. There's been little media coverage about it, but he's officially still in the running.--JayJasper (talk) 19:47, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Delete Links

Should we delete candidate websites that have ceased to exist (like TeamTancredo) or have been taken over by a third party or PAC (like Fred08)? PennsylvaniaPatriot (talk) 02:14, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Links to websites that no longer exist should be deleted, and those in the latter scenario you describe should probably be renamed. In any case, all reliably sourced candidates (including former ones) who meet criteria for inclusion on the template should remain listed.--JayJasper (talk) 23:15, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

• And the question is moot, there should be no links to any websites from this template. This is a question for talk pages of candidate articles, not this template.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:43, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

McKinney and Bowles

A question for McKinney. Are we able to name her as the presumptive nominee even though she doesn't have the 419 yet? No one else is anywhere close.[2] As for Bowles, he should be removed. His party is made up, no one knows who he is and his running mate has no link either. Out of the other minor tickets, he is the only one with no link for his party or running mate, two out of three. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:19, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

As for McKinney, I don't think we should declare her the presumptive nominee until she has secured the number of delegates needed to clinch the nomination, no matter how large of a lead she has until then. To do so would be crystal-balling, which in not the purpose of this template. As for Bowles, he technically meets the criteria for inclusion (WP article, FEC-filed, and all that jazz). So unless or until the criteria is changed, it would seem that he merits listing (albeit barely, by the absolute minimum standard). Since his party and running mate clearly don't meet the criteria, perhaps he should be listed alone under the Independent banner. --JayJasper (talk) 21:06, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

• Re: Bowles, see my above citations and comments on being a Federal Elections Commission filed presidential candidate, three sections above. Until the standards for listing are changed, his person qualifies for listing, whether or not associated with any party. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:38, 22 June 2008 (UTC)

Since as you mentioned above Bowles's claimed party is not recognized by the FEC, I would be inclined to move him to the Independents section. I agree with JayJasper on McKinney. The Green convention is only a few weeks away, so we'll have definite information before too long. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 08:05, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Bowles has been removed again by Therequiembellishere as of July 3. Whether or not his party exists, or his running mate has a WP article, he qualifies for listing on this navigational template until a new standard for listing is agreed. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 12:13, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

Part of the template is their party and running mate. Neither one is notable, why should he be? Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:09, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

This seems to add a couple more criteria that I don't think have ever been discussed -- that in order to be listed, not only the candidate, but their running mate and party must all have Wikipedia articles and FEC filings. Is there consensus for these requirements? I personally don't think they help. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 04:27, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

I find both to be as important as the candidate. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:37, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

• A comprehensive proposal and standard applicable to all candidates has been invited for nearly a month, that all interested editors may comment on. Lacking that, the past agreed standard applies. Bowles has been re-instated. A proposal for discussion is awaited. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 23:33, 4 July 2008 (UTC)

Views on inclusion of minor party/independent candidates

There are a lot of candidates running for president this year. For example, in Colorado there will be 18 candidates listed for president on the ballot.[3] Many of these, of course, are not yet listed on this template. However, they are already on at least one ballot and will inevitably get some votes, making them at least somewhat notable.

Should we list all of these presidential candidates here? Or should we place some sort of limitation on inclusion regarding ballot access? Such as, for a candidate to be included on this template they should be on the ballot in a certain number of states (presumably at least one, or more). We already have a Wikipage that lists ballot access for 2008 presidential candidates. It should be noted that there is a lot of time left for collecting signatures, so the ballot access list is not yet complete.

Personally, I think the candidate ought to be on the ballot in more than just one state. Being on the ballot in more than one state indicates that the presidential ticket has at least some support outside of their family, friends and neighbors. Some editors might argue that we should only include candidates who are on the ballot in enough states to theoretically win (i.e. at least 270 electoral votes). However, there will probably only be six presidential tickets who will qualify as that (Dem, GOP, Lib., Const., Green and Nader). I think we should include more than just the "top six" presidential tickets. Cmrdm (talk) 03:48, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I think ballot access in multiple states will be a reasonable requirement once ballot access is determined, but as you say there's still a lot of time left to get on ballots. I would go along with keeping candidates off the template until they were on the ballot in multiple states, but I would prefer leaving them on until it becomes impossible for them to get on the ballot in multiple states. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 08:00, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• The standard that the candidate must have a wikipedia page (that survived deletion review), and have registered with the FEC, and declared a principal campaign committee is in all probability sufficient for handling pipsqueak candidates, until a proposal to change the template standard is agreed to. If the candidate cannot get a filing to the FEC, they are defacto non notable, and defacto have had less than $5,000 of activity in a race that more than $500 million will have been spent informing voters of their choices. If we start to have dozens of candidates, that are on the ballot for 10 or fewer states, that qualify for listing on the template, we can deal with handling that proliferation then. Let's see: $5,000 of $500 million, that's one thousandth of a percent. Rather un-influential, and obviously unable to persuade many people to support their campaign. I wouldn't complain about having a 50 or $100 thousand dollar activity threshold here, but that has yet to be agreed to. See the talk archives.-- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:33, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• • And I think that for the major two parties, the candidate should have at least held an elective office. Therequiembellishere (talk) 04:38, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• Here's the last agreed standard, in case anyone is thinking of proposing an amendment to it:
  Archive 6#Proposal: A return to the old standards -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:44, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

kat swift

I did the math, and it seems that she is mathematically eliminated in terms of delegate count. ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 16:31, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

So are Johnson and Mesplay. Only Nader and McKinney are not. ✏✎✍✌✉✈✇✆✃✄Ⓠ‽ (talk) 16:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

• Here is an example of what a dark horse candidate is: Bainbridge Wadleigh (in this case nominated for U.S. Senate by New Hamshire Repubclican party, 130+ years ago.) "Mathematically eliminated" needs some solid backing and citations on party convetion rules and such.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:12, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

Colors?

This seems probably the last thing on your minds but how come this template doesn't have much of a color theme. There are dozens of box templates for some biographies and using the default color scheme is not exactly helpful. Could I propose a few color combinations. .:davumaya:. 15:47, 14 July 2008 (UTC)

• You may save some effort by describing the present lacks and disabilities of the present version, describing opportunities for improving, perhaps with links to exemplary models. And eventually link to a working draft out of your own workspace to get things going. Commentary here can be a bit of a surprise. If you check out the archives, you can find at least one effort that didn't get much enthusiasm. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 12:44, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Changing the defaults for the sake of it is discouraged by the {{navbox}} documentation. There's no point expending lots of time and effort converting all of Wikipedia's navigation boxes to use a consistent generic layout and then overriding it everywhere for the sake of mere aesthetics. Chris Cunningham (not at work) - talk 13:11, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• The ones that come to mind are Mike Huckabee, Rudy Giuliani, and Mitt Romney lol no I am not targeting Reps specifically. I do recognize that quite a few navbox remain default and are discouraged. Perhaps instead of colors we could add an American flag symbol like.

Btw the link for John Sharkey is [4] (I don't approve this message). .:davumaya:. 22:42, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

• Against the template change. This example template change with a flag would be the beginning of American flag kitsch, and eventually international flag template kitsch. The words stating the same information in the title of the template "United States" are sufficient. A consequence of starting this flag graphic in the template box would be that all governmental templates would have a non-informative flag on them, to zero informational consequence.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:18, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Against the change, per Yellowdesk.--JayJasper (talk) 13:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

• Support the templete change. I like it with an American flag. It is a U.S. election. --Hobie (talk) 16:25, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

• Against per Yellowdesk. It already says "United States", I don't see the flag adding anything at all. David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 02:31, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Conventions

Why do they need the bullets in front of them? The party is underlined to distinguish the two already. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:32, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I added the bullets because it seemed (to me at least), at first glance, to be one link instead of two (i.e. "Democratic Party Convention", instead of "Democratic Party" and "Convention"). I have removed the bullets and italicized the convention links. Is this better?--JayJasper (talk) 16:38, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, I hadn't seen this on my watchlist. Yeah, it looks a lot better. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:44, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

Campaigns

Could we moved the campaign article to after the VP candidate for clarity? They run on the same ticket, after all. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:36, 30 July 2008 (UTC)

I thought it was less confusing to a casual observer to have the campaign link follow the individual whose name appeared in the article's title. However, either way is OK with me.--JayJasper (talk) 16:49, 2 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I guess I'll leave it until the ninth for any other users to contribute the discussion. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

I would support moving the campaign link to after the "prez/VP" listing, to make it more clear that the two names really are a ticket. -David Schaich ^Talk/_Cont 00:22, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• And note the possibility that a VP nominee may have their own campaign page because of activity earlier this year.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:53, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Their own campaign can be next to them in the former candidacies section. The nominee should be a single, unified ticket. Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:01, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Formatting

Another minor question: Why are some primaries and polling and some of the links on the Democrat and Republican's first respective lines in bold? Are they considered more important? Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2008 (UTC)

• If it were up to me, I'd take out the bolding you ask about. If one item in five is bold that's way overdoing it...and to what end? It's merely a navigation template. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:08, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

Okay, I'll cahange these and the above on the ninth. Therequiembellishere (talk) 02:11, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I went ahead and did it. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:49, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

running mates

we really should have a better way to differentiate between the presidential nominee and the vice presidential nominee of a party. I think the "/" is too confusing and is causing problems with the "(campaign)" link. I think we should put it on a separate line. And to save room I think we should place the line of information about "polling and primaries" on the left side along with the "convention". I prefer something like this because I think the template is becoming too vertically long.--William Saturn (talk) 19:05, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

I'm not sure I like them being separated. Would an ampersand be corny? Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:26, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

What problems? My computer doesn't see anything. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:58, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• It's quite possible there will be a VP nominee with their own campaign page. Need to accomodate this, and not assume the non-existence of a VP campaign page.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Until there is, there's no reason to prevent it. I'm probably wrong, but I think that falls under CRYSTAL. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:30, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Doug Stanhope

It says on his page that "he would not run due to restrictions of the Federal Election Commission". It doesn't sound like he met our standards. Remove? Therequiembellishere (talk) 23:16, 7 August 2008 (UTC)

• He meets the standards as having filed with the FEC declaring a principal campaign committee and a statement of candidacy (see FEC filings), and having a non-deleted wikipedia article. An invitation to propose revisions to the standards that would apply to all candidates was put to you in June. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 13:23, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I know, I haven't got around to it, yet. I hadn't realised he'd filed, I was under the impression they rejection his application. Therequiembellishere (talk) 14:03, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Alan Keyes

It says he's running as a candidate for America's Independent Party which is part of the American Independent Party. Do we list him as the American Independent Party candidate under the minor third party candidates? Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:10, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Looking for a reliable source that the national party has made a nomination. According to the state party web page, the California affiliate made the nomination, not the national entity. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:24, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Does that count as a third party? After all, the California was first and was larger before the merge. Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:34, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• Sounds like you could name the California affiliate as the endorsing entity, pending sources on the national. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

It looks like Keyes made the party himself. To clarify, do you mean we add "American Independent Party: Alan Keyes (campaign)"? Therequiembellishere (talk) 16:56, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Is a brand new political party notable enough? « Diligent Terrier (talk) 18:11, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I dunno. I thought the focus is supposed to be on Keyes. Therequiembellishere (talk) 18:13, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

If we can get significant sources to back it up, then it probably should be included. « Diligent Terrier [talk] 19:43, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree, if we can get the sources. If not, I think it would be best to leave him listed as an independent.--JayJasper (talk) 19:47, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

• And by the way, it's not a merger, but an affiliation of a state party with a national entity. That's why it cannot be said the national entity endorsed. They remain separate organizations. Here's the affiliation press release
  Yellowdesk (talk) 19:58, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

But wasn't the state affiliation made first? Therequiembellishere (talk) 01:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• The question is unclear. Do you mean endorsement? And endorsement is not a nomination. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

New (Old) Format

I thought we decided to put the extra sections back in a line in lieu of putting them under the party because it was confusing. Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:40, 8 August 2008 (UTC)

Peace and Freedom has endorsed Nader, he is not their candidate. He's still an Independent. Therequiembellishere (talk) 00:39, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

In my opinion the version I implemented was much cleaner and better organized. Third party candidates are not as important as the major party candidates and therefore should not make up a larger percentage of the template.--William Saturn (talk) 04:14, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• I've taken the template back to an earlier edit, the one at: 19:14, August 8, 2008 by User: William Saturn.
  The next following edit by the same editor puts forward a double show/hide box that requires extra effort for the reader to see 3rd party candidates. Not needed to to make the user work again, especially when already setup as a collapsed template. And probably POV as well.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:28, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

The current state is POV because it gives undue weight to minor candidates.--William Saturn (talk) 04:31, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• The argument is comparable to saying that a table of contents shouldn't list the contents of the book fully, for concerns about emphasizing one topic over another. That the two major parties are at the top is sufficient for the typical user.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

By putting them with the rest, we show the neutrality that the media fails to understand. Everyone has a right to be shown and it is POV to say that they don't have that right. IMO your edits confused the template more by streaching the party column and actually give the impression of a larger template. You put the VP back in another line and moved the subarticles of the parties back in thier column which were both previously considered wrong and were put back to where they were. Why have you brought both up again? Therequiembellishere (talk) 15:30, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with Therequiembellishere and Yellowdesk, we should not discriminate against third party candidates. In addition, as already mentioned, the Democratic/Republican parties are already listed at the top of the template and all of their primary candidates have wikilinks. I see no bias at all against the Democratic/Republican parties' candidates. Cmrdm (talk) 20:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I set it up like that to better organize this template. Its too long vertically so I fixed that. Its messy and hard to understand with the footnotes so I tried to do away with that. If somebody wants to see the third party candidates, all they have to do is click, that is much easier than the way it is now because they wouldn't have to decipher it to understand and to see the parties and candidates. If you prefer this current big jumbled mess then fine but there's a better way.--William Saturn (talk) 17:35, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not a jumbled mess by any means on my browser. What are you using? And footnotes are used on several templates without anyproblems, this one isn't any different. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:41, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Look at the "minor parties" column and try to decipher. The "/" is barely visible and readers shouldn't have to look all around the template to try to figure out what they are looking at. Its very sloppy, it should be neater and it could be.--William Saturn (talk) 18:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Really, I don't find it sloppy. Even if I hadn't been editing it, I could follow it. I'll say again, what browser are you using? Therequiembellishere (talk) 19:58, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

That's irrelevant. The "/" creates the jumbled mess. A casual reader would look at the "minor candidates" and just see a party name, a colon, and some names that are only separated by a "/" and therefore jumbled together, followed by an unnecessary dot. Then after they figure out that its a slash they have to look at the bottom of the template to figure out what it means. What are your concerns with the version I created? --William Saturn (talk) 20:08, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

My browser has no problems seeing a slash! Anytime! It isn't that difficult to see. And even if it was so difficult to see, you request we find a way to change it, which you did, but took no part in the discussion. You already had your own solution in mind and enacted it while ignoring your own query. There are other ways to find the answer, you didn't give them enough time to develop. In addition to that, most of your edits to solve this minuscule problem have absolutely nothing to do with it and you cannot possibly think you can use it as an excuse to change the entire template. What you are saying is irrelevant. You're dismissing my perception of the template but yours is obviously the correct one? You are very quick to point POV at us, but you are the most rampant offender of it. Therequiembellishere (talk) 20:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I am a bold editor. I developed the candidate standard for this template by making a bold move that was later discussed for months and finally ended months of disagreement when it was adopted. From what you just wrote other than for personal reasons I see no legitimate problems that you have with my version.--William Saturn (talk) 21:00, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• I take issue with the claim that you developed the candidate standard.
  See: Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008/Archive 6#Non-comprehensive standards, a history
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:59, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

And aside from your perception of clutter with the old template, what else was sufficiently wrong with it? Because right now, yes, I find this template cluttered and hard to read. Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:25, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Its not very professional or well organized. Its not up to encyclopedic standards. I think the template should be easy to use, easy to understand and link people where they want to go. --William Saturn (talk) 21:33, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Again, your perception. What makes mine invalid? Therequiembellishere (talk) 21:44, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know what your opinion is. I'd just think everybody would like a neater template that is easier to understand. Are you denying that my version accomplishes these goals?--William Saturn (talk) 21:52, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes! It was fine the way it was. Stretching the party box makes it very difficult to read and isn't neat at all and your reason for that was to stop the vertical lengthening of the box but you (again) separated the presidential and vice presidential nominees, which had already been decided as and lesser quality and does nothing more than add another line. The minor parties continue to use slashes, so it's obviously not that large of a problem and there's no reason to do so for the two major parties but to draw unneeded emphasis to the vice president hopefuls.\ when they should remain seen as a single ticket. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:02, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And between the current revision and the one before you changed it show (while using the latest Firefox) an increase in vertical size. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:07, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Latest IE shows the an increase as well. Therequiembellishere (talk) 22:15, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

Show me where all these things were "decided." I disagree that lengthening the box doesn't make it neater or easier to understand, could you explain how it does? As the election went on this template has changed so much. Look at how different it was 11 months ago: [5] This template has had to change because the number of candidates and articles has grown over the months. It needs a change now and I think I found a good way.--William Saturn (talk) 22:16, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

And my version is considerably shorter with the navbox for third party candidates.--William Saturn (talk) 22:17, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

• For the record, I care not about length. But sub-collapsing navbox on part of the this navigation template is not acceptable. I favor entertaining a proposal that drops ineffectual candidates that fail to expend say $5,000, or $50,0000, or say $100,000, bearing in mind that well over a billion $US will be spent in total by the candidates alone, for this election cycle.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:06, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree with that. The only reason lenght is an issue is because William has brought it up. Perhaps with the extra navbox it's shorter but we don't think it's worth making the reader have to do another, needless click when we can just put them all in one place. The template is already collapsed. Failing its inclusion, the box is longer. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:46, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiki links

Instances of "Nominee" should be linked to candidate (which nominee redirects to), and "Presumptive Nominee" to presumptive nominee (that'll also need to be a proper piped link due to the capital N). I don't feel like registering to bypass the protection so I'm asking that it be done. Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 10:43, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Also, TBA should be wrapped in double brackets.

Do we really need everything in the template linked? I'll link TBA because it's not very clear, but the others should be. Therequiembellishere (talk) 17:48, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

No, no need for these links, and no need for the VP-TBA line either. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:13, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for taking time out of your busy schedule of controlling WP to shoot me down personally. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 21:03, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

I don't know if this was aimed at Yellowdesk or me, but all we're doing is stating the truth. I guess if it doesn't go someone's way, we're controlling the site. Oh well. Therequiembellishere (talk) 03:47, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

What "truth"? You stated your opinions that the links were not necessary. I think they would benefit the encyclopedia. You disagree. The difference between us is that I'm not registered, so your opinion carries the day. Congratulations. Maybe another (registered) editor will agree with me and link them, and then you can start an edit war over it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 04:42, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree that the proposed wikilinks are not not necessary, and would be an instance of overlinking. To the anononymous editor who made the suggestion: Your participation is nevertheless appreciated and always welcome, and I truly don't think that any of the editors' comments were intended as a personal affront to you.--JayJasper (talk) 22:43, 16 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not overlinking to link relevant topics that the reader might be interested in. If it happens that every freaking word of an article is suited to linking, then so be it. Blue text is as readable as black. I figured the uninformed reader would benefit from links. But hey, it's your template. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.241.214.138 (talk) 12:43, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

Wiley Drake

Could I get somebody's approval to add him as Keyes' running mate? Obama/Biden for the change we need. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Supernerd 10 (talk • contribs) 16:18, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

• No article, nothing to link to. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:03, 29 August 2008 (UTC)

positions

Can we add Political Positions after each of the major candidate names? i.e. Political positions of Sarah Palin after her name in the template? Chadlupkes (talk) 17:30, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would support it only for the nominees and presumptive nominees.--William Saturn (talk) 17:42, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I agree - nominees only. To do more would be overkill.--JayJasper (talk) 22:51, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Results template

The results template should point to Template:United States elections, 2008 Blah42 (talk) 21:47, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

 Done. It does appear though, that there is lacking a link to a (future?) presidential results article of some flavor.
Yellowdesk (talk) 18:25, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Presumptivity

Senator McCain is (as of an hour or so ago) no longer a "Presumptive nominee." As of right now, Governor Palin still is presumptive. Someone with privileges may want to change the one, or wait until tomorrow for both.--Tim Thomason 05:03, 4 September 2008 (UTC)

Information on Bayh is inconsistent with Democratic Party (United States) presidential candidates, 2008

One says he was a candidate for President, one says he wasn't. This needs to be addressed.Hoponpop69 (talk) 16:05, 6 September 2008 (UTC)

See this discussion for the rationale for Bayh's inclusion on the template. He never truly ran, but a commitee was filed in his name, which he never disavowed. So it's a technicality thing.--JayJasper (talk) 13:59, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

What is basis for the order of the table?

The table seems to have no logical order. Who is to say the Democratic party should be listed first, then the Republican and so on. Please order the table in manner that does not show a preference.

68.221.107.183 (talk) 12:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)PrestoP

Actually, it does have a logical order. First of all, it is broken up into "major parties" (Democrats and Republicans), "third parties" (Constitution, Green and Libertarian) and finally "minor parties" (a long list). Each section is organized alphabetically. I think the template is organized both logically and fairly. Cmrdm (talk) 16:47, 23 October 2008 (UTC)

Stephen Colbert (again)

Mainly because the last conversation was back in April. I've re-added Stephen's name and "campaign" in the infobox since the campaign does have its own well-sourced Wikipedia article, and 2) this template is used in it. However, because he never filed with the FEC, as was stated months ago, I've listed it as a "draft movement," which is the closest I think it fits. If I'm in error, feel free to revert. J. Myrle Fuller (talk) 01:30, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

We've been through this. Not a draft movement. Strictly a selfpromotional effort. - Yellowdesk (talk) 16:41, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Int proposal

As instructed by the comments on the template, I propose adding International polls and International reaction to the top section following Statewide general polls. Joshdboz (talk) 03:03, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

If there is no disagreement I will add this tomorrow or the next day. Joshdboz (talk) 16:29, 7 November 2008 (UTC)

Holy template creep Batman!

This template is immense! And not in a good way. First off it really should conform to standard width which I believe is 80%, but unsure of that. Then ways to mitigate its length should be implemented. There really shouldn't be 16+ items in the header - create workable sections if those need to be on the template. Then start collapsing each section separately so if a reader wants to drill down to articles concerning just the Democratic party, for instance, then they expand that section. -- Banjeboi 00:46, 9 November 2008 (UTC)

• We've had this discussion before, and concluded that there should be no sub-template collapsing. On most articles the template appears as a collapsed template, and that should satisfy your basic complaint. If the reader elects to view the template, they can view it in the entirety.
  -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:57, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

• Well I'm not going to spend time here to help our readers but I do hope the readability and accessibility issues are revisited. If anyone knows where I can turn this template in for mandatory redecorating please message me (on my talk) and I'll follow-up. We're here to serve our readers and this one is going in the wrong direction. -- Banjeboi 13:43, 13 November 2008 (UTC)