Template talk:United States House election, 2006

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).

Single use templates are frowned on. Night Gyr (talk/Oy) 19:02, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Relax, it will used in more pages eventually (such as United States House of Representatives, which currently uses the 2004 results table but will use this one once the new House convenes). —Cuiviénen 20:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)


Why are all of the races listed as being called? You can't call some of them yet, especially TX-23, which is headed to a runoff. Blah42 05:25, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Contents

[edit] Template with zero-elected-official parties?

Really, I know that the Green Party and the Libertarian Party are 'major' third-parties, but even they don't have any elected officials at the national level. Do we really need to list them, much less Independence and 'Working Families' parties, which, as far as I can tell, don't have a single elected official at ANY level between them. (Constitution appears to have half a dozen, and Reform has had at least one in the past.) I say we stick with 'Republican', 'Democrat', 'Independent' (for truly no-party candidates,) and 'Other'. As soon as a Green, Libertarian, or other true third-party candidate actually gets elected to nationwide office, I would be all for adding their party to the template. But not until then. Ehurtley 10:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

They win votes, and a fairly significant amount nationwide. Once the popular vote totals are in, it will look less ridiculous to have them on the chart. —Cuiviénen 17:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, even with a significant number of VOTES, it doesn't give them any seats. Plus, in an election for representatives, it doesn't matter how many votes a party gets at all. If the Libertarian Party gets 50,000 votes in a Senate race in New York, that might be considered a big deal, but they don't. The only way any of the "other parties" look big is when you add together all their votes countrywide. They generally don't even get 10% of the votes in any one race, so, I'm sorry, they are irrelevant until they get a candidate in office. Sorry, as much as I personally dislike it (I'm registered with one of the parties I mention,) it's the way U.S. politics works. Ehurtley 20:37, 25 November 2006 (UTC) This comment placed before Ceejayoz's so as to keep continuity. If I put it after his comment, it wouldn't flow well.
How long will that take, though? For now, it seems more appropriate to have the template as: — ceejayoz talk 20:04, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
[discuss] – [edit]
Summary of the 7 November 2006 United States House of Representatives election results
Parties Seats Popular Vote
2004 2006 +/- Strength Vote % Change
Republican Party 232 196 -26 - - - -
Democratic Party 202 229 +27 - - - -
Independent 1 0 -1 - - - -
Other parties * 0 0 0 - - - -
Undecided 10
Total 435 -

* "Other parties" includes the Libertarian Party, Green Party, Independence Party, Working Families Party, Constitution Party, and the Reform Party.

Subject to change as results are tallied. 2006 results include only races which have been called. The lone independent seat was held by Bernie Sanders, who will move to the United States Senate in January.

I do agree with adding the third parties as soon as popular vote totals are available. —Nightstallion (?) 09:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Slight discrepacy in counts

Adding the totals, I'm counting 424 out of 435 called here. CNN has called 425 out of them with the most recent one being one of PA's sometime yesterday afternoon. Are the other news sites in agreement or not? (Of the 10 CNN has not called, I'm seeing 5 with 100% of the vote counted (4 R leading, 1 D leading) all of which might be close enough for trailing candidates to seek a recount, One of New Mexico's and Georgia's with very little not counted only what's not counted appears to contain a bit more of the trailing candidates strongholds, one of Washington which seems to be taking forever to count that's way too close, and 2 runoffs [TX-23, and New Orleans.] The New Orleans one will not affect partisian control because both candidates in the runoff will be Democrats. 168.166.196.40 15:15, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

You're right; we were missing PA-08, which was called for the Dems.
Uncalled races are:
-CT-02 (D lead)
-OH-02 (R lead)
-OH-15 (R lead)
-NC-08 (R lead)
-GA-12 (D lead)
-LA-02 (D v D runoff)
-TX-23 (R v D runoff)
-WY-AL (R lead)
-NM-01 (R lead)
-WA-08 (less than half of votes counted)
—Cuiviénen 17:22, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
The 424 included PA-08, I'm almost certain. The difference is FL-13, which CNN has called for the Republican while CQPolitics has not called the race at all. Based on the narrow margin and the news of lawyers descending on the district, I don't think that we should count it as called. NatusRoma | Talk 17:24, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
Checking FL-13 (hum only 400 votes) this is much closer than most of the uncalled races. (On CNN's site)

WA-08 is now 59% counted and still way close to call. NM-01 (R lead) 99% counted way too close to call because CNN is trucatinating past the decimals on percent of percents and one of the counties is much larger than the other. GA-12 (D lead) 99% counted way too close to call because it looks to me based on county by county like that might actually be a few more Republican votes not counted than Dems. The rest of the non-runoffs say they are 100% counted but recounts are possible based on the closeness of the numbers. I reverted back anon edits that implies calls to all 10 of them to "L"s edit. I seem to have messed up his name on the history line though. Sorry. Jon 19:18, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Updates here Friday per CNN

WA-08 precent count of precints has gone up into the mid 60s, and the percentages both candidates are getting haven't moved much. Still way too close to call. NM-01 (R lead) is now 100% counted, but too close to call due to recount possibility here as well. GA-12 (D lead) is still 99% counted, but the only county with outstanding votes is one the Dem is carrying with 99% of that county counted. Still, there's probably not enough votes outstanding to move this outside of recount possibilities. Jon 19:37, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Would anyone object if I included LA-02 in the Democratic Party total? After all, both candidates in the run-off, Karen Carter and William Jefferson, will be Democrats, so the Democrats have definitely held on to the seat. —Cuiviénen 20:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid I'm going to have to object because CNN isn't including it in their tally and I'm not aware of any major news site that is. Now if and when most major news start doing so, then it will become ok. Jon 21:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
No one is going to include it in their tally because each news outlet calls the winner, not the winning party, of each race. In LA-02, the winner will be a Democrat no matter what the result of the run-off (which won't happen until December and thus the race wouldn't be "called" until then), so we can reasonably include it in partisan totals without saying that Jefferson or Carter will win. CNN doesn't have that luxury. —Cuiviénen 21:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
But as I understand the wiki, everything is supposed to be sourced and there's no original reserach allowed. So if we give the Dems here a number one higher than all sources, we would seem to be in violation of it, no matter how obvious it is that in January the Democrats will control the seat.
A related question is do we intend to create a new article for the 2006 Runoffs are just incorporate the results here in a few weeks? Jon 19:36, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
In the mean time, I've added a note about the party breakdown includes the NO primary next Month. Jon 19:43, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
No separate article on runoffs, IMHO. jesup 17:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Question: how did the party totals each go up by one without adjusting the undecided? It may be correct - but PLEASE annotate your edits as to why you're doing it!!! thanks. jesup 17:10, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WA-8

Now conceded to the Republicans; totals updated. jesup 04:42, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

What's the source? I didn't see anything on Yahoo News about that race this morning and CNN web site has yesterday morning's vote count and has not called it. Jon 14:28, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Answering my own question, This is from the Seattle Papers (reprinted on ABC News, Forbes, and other sites) which apprently have much more recent numbers than CNN. The key factor in the Dem concession is that the Republican took the lead in the urban county portion of the district yesterday during the counting. But please everyone, site the source here. Jon 14:41, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I got the concession from an AP article. Didn't seem controversial for updating a table. I wasn't updating the WA-8 section of the main page. jesup 17:01, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
I think the underlaying issue is that WA-8 was very much underreported compared to CT-2. I certinately don't object to updating the table when the losing candidate has conceeded though. Jon 17:44, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] CT-2

According to the AP, the Republicans, Democrats, and state election officals are now all in agreement that while the Democrat margin of victory shrank a bit from the 152 margin (exact count under slight dispute, Republicans say Dem won by 95, Dems say Dem won by 93, CT State officals say Dem won by 91). State numbers to be certified later today. CNN still has the pre-recount numbers on their site, nor has it called this race, so I have NOT adjusted totals. Jon 14:34, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, Republicans have an announcement pending today I believe - it's possible there will be court action. In that case, we'll need to decide if official results remove it from "undecided" (I think they do, and we note that there's a court case over the race). Could be a consession, too. jesup 17:03, 15 November 2006 (UTC)
Yahoo News is now reprinting from the AP that the Republican plans to concede today. It's ok with me if you adjust the totals. Jon 17:46, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] WY-AL

Yahoo News is now reprinting an AP article that WY state tabulation has now finished and the Republican incumbent has won by outside the margin that would have trigured a recount. It's also printing that while the Dem challenger hasn't conceeded yet he would have no problem with the results unless he saw something that threw the outcome in doubt. I'll update the counts for this and CT-2. Jon 18:56, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

Strike that, an anoms editor earlier today added CT-2 and WY-AL to D & R, but did not reduce the uncalled race count from 8 to 6. Uncalled race count fixed. Jon 19:08, 15 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Remaining districts with unclear partisian results per AP

  • TX-23 R vs D runoff Dec 12.
  • FL-13 (R declared winner but D challenging) The Republican was certified the winner by aprox 400 votes. Moments later, the Democrat formally challenged the outcome in court. In addition, there was already an ongoing court case related to the apprent 13% undervote in one county (by machine only). There's now no telling when this will be resolved. (Included in totals pending court action.) Auditing of machines in progress.

Jon 20:24, 15 November 2006 (UTC) Updated Nov 20, 22, 27, Dec 4, Dec 11 (forgot to login prior to that update; sorry)

[edit] GA-12

The Republican candidate annouced today that he's conceeding and will not seek the recount. (Yahoo News reprinting Congressional Quarterly). Totals adjusted. Jon 17:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

Interesting. Another Republican does not seek a recount. I wonder how many close elections there is a recount request and where there is not. user:mnw2000 22:02, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The factor here is that GA's law permits one at 1% and the vote spread was barely within that margin. Since GA uses Optical Ballots and not Punch Card Ballots, the Republican challenger here belives (correctly in my opinion) that a recount would not change the outcome. I think he might be at least thinking of running again in 08 in which case it's much better politically to be remembered as having taken defeat gracefully. Jon 14:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] FL-13

Sometime this morning, CNN exteremly quitely took back their call of the Republican being the projected winner of this race. Has any other major news org (AP, FOX, Washington Post, etc.) taken back their call? Jon 19:00, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

USA Today is also now calling this too close to call. This makes at least 3 sources that are now all saying too close to call, so I am adjusting the table back to reflect this. Jon 14:18, 17 November 2006 (UTC)
Yahoo News reporting an AP article that following "manual recount", Republican still leads by 400 votes. However, this election is in court due to the aprox 13% undervote on electronic machines in the most populated county in the district. Jon 21:46, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Who decides when a race is called?

When one of the leading candidates concedes an election, it could be called even before the state declares a winner. However, if no one concedes the election, why is it being called by anyone. When did a news organization become the decider of an election? In fact, many news organizations have been wrong (Gore wins Florida and thus the election) and (please forgive me) are bias against one party or another.

Shouldn't the rule simply be to wait until 1) someone concedes or 2) until the state certifies a winner? user:mnw2000 21:49, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The system we've been using for House and Senate here (see discussion above) has been first of:
  • A very large majority of the major news org called the race.
  • Losing Candidate conceeds (usually but not always after the above)
  • (LA only for partisian breakdown); both advancing candidates of the same party.)

Jon 21:59, 16 November 2006 (UTC)

The reality is that the every news organization can declare someone a winner, but if the losing candidate does not concede and the state does not declare a winner, then there is no winner. For a news organization, they may feel compelled to "declare a project winner" for competitive reasons, but an encyclopedia should deal in facts, not speculation. Remember, most major news organizations called Al Gore the winner in Florida and, therefore, the country. They were wrong (regardless of what you think about the eventually outcome from a political point of view). In Washington State, the Republican candidate was declared the winner (twice) by the press, but eventually lost during a third recount. Since Wikipedia can be changed when a mistake is made, there is a tendacy to publish quickly, but we should refrain from it so that the information is known to be accurate, not just expected be accurate. And after all, there is no rush. Eventually a winner will be declared either by the state or by Congress.
So, I recommend that we should only report it when a loser concedes (since there would be no recount and the candidate in the lead will remain in the lead until the a winner is officially declared), or they are declared the winner by an official source. (Remember, a state could declare a winner and Congress could invalidate that winner! They have the final word!)
As for Al Gore or John Kerry, they did not concede the night of the election. And even after the State declared a winner, there was an attempt in the Congress to invalidate that declaration. Eventually, both attempts failed and the rest is history. user:mnw2000 21:29, 17 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What's the "strength" column supposed to represent?

It's now the only column totally blank?

[edit] Popular vote?

Why does the popular vote matter? Really. This is, in actuality, a bunch of separate local races (435 of them.) Why does it matter how many votes each party received nationwide? In the Presidential election, it makes sense, as it shows how the popular vote doesn't actually decide anything. In Senate races, it makes sense to show it per state, but even there, the nationwide totals don't matter. With regard to third parties, you also run into the problem that if you stay within the letter of the parties, you'd end up with a few dozen parties, many of them "duplicates" of each other. (For example, the "Green" party goes by a few different names in different states.) Sorry, but this is the way U.S. politics works. Party vote counts don't mean squat. Ehurtley 20:42, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

The popular vote nationwide cannot be viewed as an entirely separate matter from the state-specific races. Afterall, a whole is always defined by its parts. The nationwide results reflect the national mood and the political direction of the country. The Congress is listed here in a national sense to (1) show national sentiment (2) summarize the results in an easy-to-read table, and (3) list federal-level results for a federal institution. Of course it could be listed by state, but it would be more difficult to digest and see the whole of the issue. I believe it would be beneficial to perhaps have statewide results listed in another table and have it linked to from this article. Whoblitzell 23:32, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Well it could have something to do with the fact that some people (maybe not you) care what the majority of the voters thought. The number of seats won doesn't tell you a thing about that since the districts are so badly gerrymandered. The popular vote tells you, roughly, what percentage was voting for "more of the same" vs. "a new direction." That doesn't mean they'll get a new direction from the Democrats, but it does tells you something about where the public is.--Tklodt 21:55, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

[edit] What is the % under Seats supposed to represent?

It's still blank and is after a column sbout the change in number of seats between 2004 & 2006. I think it needs a better description. Thanks Jon 18:57, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../u/n/i/Template_talk%7EUnited_States_House_election%2C_2006_5034.html"