Talk:Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008 article.
Please sign and date your posts by typing four tildes (~~~~). Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Ask questions, get answers. This is not a forum for general discussion about the article's subject.	Be polite Assume good faith No personal attacks Be welcoming	Article policies No original research Neutral point of view Verifiability

This article must adhere to the policy on biographies of living persons. Controversial material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted or if there are other concerns relative to this policy, report it on the living persons biographies noticeboard.

	This article is within the scope of the United States presidential elections WikiProject. This project provides a central approach to United States presidential elections-related subjects on Wikipedia. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to good and 1.0 standards.
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the Project's quality scale. Please rate the article and then leave a short summary here to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses of the article.

A fact from Bob Barr presidential campaign, 2008 appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know? column on 30 May 2008.

Contents 1 Requested move 2 Pro-life stance? 3 Citations 4 Anon added section removed from article.

[edit] Requested move

[edit] Pro-life stance?

The lead for this article casts Barr "as an advocate for Pro-life issues". It's not at all clear that this is a major thrust of his campaign. For example, at http://www.bobbarr2008.com/issues, there's no mention of abortion. Further, under "individual liberty" on that web page, he states "Finally, an increasingly intrusive Nanny State is watching over our nation, meddling in the lives of its citizens." Which, taken at face value, seems to argue for a pro-choice stance. That said, I imagine that Barr is pro-life (the Libertarian Party takes no official position). What's at issue is whether those beliefs are prominently displayed by his campaign. I believe they are not. -Noca2plus (talk) 04:32, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

I changed it to border security.--William Saturn (talk) 04:37, 25 May 2008 (UTC)

Strictly speaking, the stance of the LP is that the government should not be involved, which is essentially pro-choice. creativename (talk) 01:05, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

I believe that the LP takes no official position for the sole purpose of allowing LP candidates to assert their own specific positions on this highly contentious issue. As you imply, most Libertarians would be opposed to; for example, government funding of abortions, or a federal prohibition of all abortions. However, some Libertarians (myself included) believe that the government does have a role in protecting the right to life of the unborn. And indeed, Roe v. Wade allows states to pass laws prohibiting third-trimester abortions. Now, I'm not sure I would call myself "pro-life", but I do believe that most third-trimester abortions should be illegal. Further, I believe it is the responsibility of government to enforce that ban. -Noca2plus (talk) 01:21, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Nope. I just got back from Denver; the existing 2006 language was preserved in the 2008 platform, that the government should “neither compel nor prohibit abortion.” Individual Libertarians may disagree, but we are mostly agreed that the government should not be the agency of resolution, as creativename says. — crism (talk) 06:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I stand corrected -- http://www.lp.org/issues/platform_all.shtml. Perhaps I'm not as Libertarian as I thought. -Noca2plus (talk) 17:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Citations

The internet inline citations used in this article are improperly formatted. Internet citations require at the very least information on the title, publisher and last access date of any webpages used. If the source is a news article then the date of publication and the author are also important. This information is useful because it allows a reader to a) rapidly identify a source's origin b) ascertain the reliability of that source and c) find other copies of the source should the website that hosts it become unavaliable for any reason. It may also in some circumstances aid in determining the existance or status of potential copyright infringments. Finally, it looks much tidier, making the article appear more professional. There are various ways in which this information can be represented in the citation, listed at length at Wikipedia:Citing sources. The simplest way of doing this is in the following format:

<ref>{{cite web|(insert URL)|title=|publisher=|work=|date=|author=|accessdate=}}</ref>

As an example:

• <ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.discovery.org/a/3859|title=Avoiding a Thirty Years War|publisher=www.discovery.org|work=[[The Washington Post]]|date=2006-12-21|author=Richard W. Rahn|accessdate=2008-05-25}}</ref>

which looks like:

• Richard W. Rahn (2006-12-21). Avoiding a Thirty Years War. The Washington Post. www.discovery.org. Retrieved on 2008-05-25.

If any information is unknown then simply omit it, but title, publisher and last access dates are always required. I strongly recommend that all internet inline references in this article be formatted properly before this article undergoes any review processes, and indeed this is something that a reviewer should insist you do before promoting your article. If you have any further questions please contact me and as mentioned above, more information on this issue can be found at Wikipedia:Citing sources. Regards--Jackyd101 (talk) 08:09, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Anon added section removed from article.

I have removed the following from the article to the talk page for discussion:

"Gold States" strategy

Barr's campaign has begun to lay out a strategy by which he could win the election. There are a total of 538 electoral votes (435 represent Congressman, 100 for Senators, 3 for Washington D.C.). Traditionally in order to win the victorious candidate must reach a majority, 270 electoral votes - but if no candidate reaches that number, the election is thrown to Congress to decide, with each state having one vote for its entire delegation. The field is leveled. California with its 50+ electoral votes gets one vote. New York, Texas, and Illinois have exactly the same voting power as Montana, Wyoming, and New Hampshire.

In a tightly contested three-way race, it is possible--perhaps even likely--that no candidate reaches 270 electoral votes. If Barr is able to win just over one third of the electoral vote (180 electoral votes) while the other two candidates split the remaining electors with 179 each, Barr will be able to claim the mandate of the most electoral votes going into that congressional decision-making process. Barr need not win a majority of all votes cast even in any given state to win the electoral votes. Virtually all states give all electoral votes to the recipient of the largest number of popular votes.

If Congress is unable to agree to the selection of one of the two "major party" candidates, Bob Barr also then becomes the ideal "compromise candidate". McCain is loathed by his Republican Senate colleagues, who can use such a compromise to get back at McCain for his grandstanding and his outbursts. McCain is also distrusted by conservative Republican Representatives, who would have fonder memories of Barr's time in the House. Obama, on the other hand, is at the head of a party fractured by a grueling nomination process, and some die-hard Clinton supporters in the House and Senate - especially woman who experienced the sexism of some Obama partisans - may be so embittered by the tone of the race that they will take the opportunity to vent their frustration by also agreeing to such a compromise.

Barr's campaign has proposed a "Gold State Strategy", aiming to garner 197 electoral votes, while only needing to compete in 18 states. Thus if Barr can reach 34% of the vote in in 18 of 50 states, the election would be thrown to Congress with Barr as the leading electoral vote winner.

The link does not seem to be an official Barr website. The tone is speculative, especially with respect to what Congress would do. Can anyone confirm that this actual reflects Barr's campaign plan? bd2412 T 20:46, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

To answer your question, no, I cannot. This proposal is very interesting. But unsourced as it is, it appears to violate the No original research policy. Further, the speculative nature violates policy that Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. I agree with your implication that the only way this can merit inclusion, in its present state, is if the Barr campaign publishes it as their plan. If a journalist publishes it as a possible strategy for Barr, the text can likely be included with some modification. Barring that (get it? Barring?), I don't think it should be included. The non-majority "special case" text, if it can be verified, would be useful in the United States presidential election acticle. -Noca2plus (talk) 23:05, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I see the "special case" text already exists at United_States_Electoral_College#Contingent_presidential_election_by_House. Although this is not to say that United States presidential election wouldn't benefit from its inclusion also. -Noca2plus (talk) 23:23, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

In any event, the information added is factually incorrect. It suggests that Senators would vote one way or another, but the article to which you have linked clearly indicates that only House members vote in such a scenario. I doubt very much that Barr's campaign would make a mistake of that nature. bd2412 T 23:36, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

If there wasn't a majority in the electoral college, the House of Representatives would pick the president. The Senate would select the vice-president and therefore would not be voting for or against Barr.--William Saturn (talk) 23:35, 7 June 2008 (UTC)