Wikipedia talk:Style for U.S. presidential election, yyyy

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hmm...I don't know that I have any specific problems with this suggested format, but you seem to have formulated it without any discussion (correct me if I'm wrong on this.) Several months ago, we had some discussion of how to format these articles at Talk:U.S. presidential election. Were you aware of this? john k 23:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To answer your last question first, I was unaware of the discussion at Talk:U.S. presidential election. I still have not read it; I will do so as soon as I finish writing this posting.

I also formulated it without discussion because I didn't have any to draw on. Part of the reason I created this project page was precisely to gin up some discussion about the format. The other part was that I wanted to have a document of what exactly the format was for this set of articles. — DLJessup 02:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Incorrect colour scheme

Why is it the colour scheme for the Democrats is red and the Republicans is blue when everyone knows it is the other way around? If that is how Americans identify those parties that way then non-Americans should do the same.

One reason is that the images come from the National Atlas of the United States, which is public domain, and that's how the National Atlas does it.

As for your comment that "[i]f that is how Americans identify those parties that way then non-Americans should do the same," your predicate is fundamentally wrong. Americans don't identify the parties that way; the American media does. More precisely, the red-state/blue-state thingie is a convenient shorthand for discussing certain cultural and political differences within the U.S. This is the current fad, and it may very well vanish in another decade. Note that, prior to 1989, "red" was shorthand for "Communist". In fact, certain people are annoyed by Republicans being "red" because of that association: red, in their minds, should be for the more socialist and less anti-communist of the two parties, the Democrats. — DLJessup 14:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, in many countries the leftist parties unabashedly use red because of its traditional associations with left politics. But in the US, at least since the late 1940s, associations with Communism are so taboo that no major party would voluntarily embrace this, and the association with redness has to come from somewhere else. --Matt McIrvin 17:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

It is not even the way the American media does it. Basically, every four years they switch the colors between incumbent and challenger party. So in 2004 the incumbent party (GOP) was red and the challenger party (Democrats) was blue. In 2000 the incumbent party (Democrats) was blue and the challenger party (Republicans) was red. In 1996 the incumbent party (Democrats) was red and the challenger party (Republicans) was blue. In 1992 the incumbent party (Republicans) was blue and the Challenger party (Democrats) was red. In 1988 the incumbent party (Republicans) was red and the challenger party (Democrats) was blue. In 1984 the incumbent party (Republicans) was blue and the challenger party (Democrats) was red. In 1980 the incumbent party (Democrats) was red and the challenger party (Republicans) was blue. It's only in the last two times that we've had Democrats/blue Republicans/red, and that's a coincidence. Given the prominence of stupid "Red America"/"Blue America" nonsense, that may change, but there's certainly no long-standing convention of coloring the Dems blue and the Republicans red. john k 14:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the four-year switching hypothesis is correct; historically I don't think there has ever been any real pattern. Most years you could see different color schemes depending on which TV network you watched (including blue/green in some cases). The modern "Red America/Blue America" terminology dates from the aftermath of the disputed 2000 presidential election, when attention became sharply focused on geographic divisions and a popular, widely distributed map of county-by-county election results happened to use red for Republicans and blue for Democrats. The rise of these terms may well produce a consistent color iconography for US political parties, but it hasn't completely solidified yet. The parties themselves both use red, white and blue, of course. --Matt McIrvin 17:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Matt McIrvin is correct that historically there was no pattern to the colors used to identify the two major parties on electoral maps. If anything, some right-leaning media sources would go out of their way to depict the Democrats in red, for precisely the reason DLJessup points out: to imply, subtly but deliberately, that the Democrats held Communist sympathies. And if Republicans are now "annoyed" by that association, so were Democrats in the past.

In any event, while the choice of colors may once have been more or less arbitrary, it is no longer. the "Red America/Blue America" shorthand may be a recent development, but it has now become embedded in American political discourse and is unlikely to go away anytime soon. The maps from the National Atlas probably predate this development and were not intended to mislead, but in today's widely accepted terms, mislead they do. I do strongly suggest that Wikipedia find a way to reverse the color scheme and uniformly use red to represent Republicans and blue for Democrats. —Dodiad 04:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)

I just came upon this same question independently myself. I do think we should retroactively standardize the color scheme or not-- I just misread the 1968 election map because I didn't bother to look at the key, but just assumed it was using the standard coloring.--Alecmconroy 20:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. I just was looking at the United States presidential election, 1988 and found myself confused, wondering:

• How the Democrats could have won in 1988
• How Bush was a Democrat

The color choice in the 2000 and 2004 elections was very high profile, even labeling such concepts as the Red state vs. blue state divide. --Loodog 00:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Minor problem with Uspresidentialelections template

66.167.253.89 03:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC): A preview view of U.S. presidential election, 1952 caused the Uspresidentialelections template to be laid out more narrowly than it appears in the finished product. To reproduce, edit that article, then view a preview version.

When I do it (as an anon contributor I have no user style customizations), I get something that looks like this

U.S. presidential elections

1789–1799: 1789 | 1792 | 1796
1800–1849: 1800 | 1804 | 1808
| 1812 | 1816 | 1820 | 1824 |
1828 | 1832 | 1836 | 1840 |  
1844 | 1848                  
1850–1899: 1852 | 1856 | 1860
| 1864 | 1868 | 1872 | 1876 |
1880 | 1884 | 1888 | 1892 |  
1896                         
1900–1949: 1900 | 1904 | 1908
| 1912 | 1916 | 1920 | 1924 |
1928 | 1932 | 1936 | 1940 |  
1944 | 1948                  
1950–1999: 1952 | 1956 | 1960
| 1964 | 1968 | 1972 | 1976 |
1980 | 1984 | 1988 | 1992 |  
1996                         
2000–2049: 2000 | 2004 | 2008

In other words, I get a narrow and tall version of the box.

What's particularly strange is that it is only rendered narrowly when the Uspresidentialelections template is positioned after the "See also" section and before the "External links and references" section. If I move it between "Results" and "See also" or after "External links", it previews fine, probably similar to what it looks like here:

Other than an assumption that its a weird CSS interaction, I'm puzzled what's going on here and thought I'd try to bring it to someone's attention.

I've seen this happen as well on occasion. It has never annoyed me enough to get me to investigate, though. — DLJessup 12:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Electoral picture peculiarity

Copies of the following posting was made to the talk pages of many of the U.S. presidential election, yyyy pages.

Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

Please see #Incorrect colour scheme above.

— DLJessup (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Error on 1932 page

There's an error on the 1932 election page. Pennsylvania's electoral votes is listed on the map as 38, but it should be 36. I don't know how to change it.