Talk:United States presidential election

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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.
B This article has been rated as B-Class on the Project's quality scale.
(If you rated the article please give a short summary at comments to explain the ratings and/or to identify the strengths and weaknesses.)

Contents

[edit] Useful standards

Some of these standards are useful for other Wikipedia:election types. France has a president, so does Russia, and some Latin American and many developing countries. Most examples of elections are for parliamentary styles, but not all. So the table styles, means of tallying up to the final winner, etc., would all be useful to document for other presidential systems (though hopefully no other country will ever have an Electoral College!).

Also mayoralty elections and governor elections also have a single winner who takes all.

[edit] External election maps

Someone might want to add the presidential election maps from,

http://teachpol.tcnj.edu/amer_pol_hist/_browse2000.htm

--Imran

[edit] Results format

Hm, I really dislike the table listing "President" and "Opponent", as if there always has been and can only be one of the later. This is a major distortion of elections like 1860 and 1912, and in many other elections additional candidates may have swung the ballance of power, and in any case are usefull to know as far as understanding the electorate at the time. --Infrogmation

This is an artifact of the source for the data (National Archives), and the format of the table. I agree that this could be done better. I've got an idea that I'm going to give a shot (listing all major opponents, where "major" is explicitly defined as greater than 1% of the total popular vote -- RobLa
Excellent! -- Infrogmation

I'm mulling over a new format for the box scores at the top of every article. Thoughts on this?

Old format

President: Bill Clinton (Democrat)
Main Opponent: Bob Dole (Republican)
Electoral Vote: Winner: 379 Main Opponent: 159 Total/Majority: 538/270
Popular Vote: Winner: 45,590,703 Main Opponent: 37,816,307
Vice President: Albert Gore, Jr. (379)
V.P. Opponent: Jack Kemp (159)
Other elections 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008
Source: U.S. Office of the Federal Register

New format (New #1)

Winner/Main Opponent Bill Clinton Bob Dole
Party Democrat Republican
Electoral Votes
(total: 538, majority: 270):		 379 159
Popular Votes: 45,590,703 37,816,307
Vice President (electoral votes): Albert Gore, Jr. (379) Jack Kemp (159)
Other elections 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008
Source: U.S. Office of the Federal Register

This moves all of the explanatory clutter off to the left, making it easier to see what happened at a glance.

Lemme know what you think. I probably won't have time to act on this for a while (if ever...that's a lot of work switching them all over, even with a script). -- RobLa 04:07 Jan 26, 2003 (UTC)

I like this, Rob. It seems easier to follow. -- Zoe

I also like this. I made one tiny change to help IE6: Instead of colspan='2', I changed it to colspan="2". For whatever reason, IE doesn't like the former. --Mrwojo

I also prefer the new proposed format. -- M Carling

Thanks for the feedback; glad you like it. Now that I've gotten everyone to agree, I've got a tweak to make.  ;-) How about adding a column header, as below? It's less compact, but a lot clearer, IMHO. -- RobLa 06:59 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

Even newer format (New #2)

Winner Main Opponent
Candidate Bill Clinton Bob Dole
Party Democrat Republican
Electoral Votes
(total: 538, majority: 270):		 379 159
Popular Votes: 45,590,703 37,816,307
Vice President (electoral votes): Albert Gore, Jr. (379) Jack Kemp (159)
Other elections 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008
Source: U.S. Office of the Federal Register

I liked your idea above of listing all oponents with 1% or more of the popular vote. Why is Ross Perot not in the table? I believe he got 9% or so in 1996. -- M Carling 13:55 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

The table looks good as long as it can be used with more than 2 candidates. Again while 2 candidates may be an acceptable oversimplification for most years, it becomes a major distortion of fact when talking about elections such as 1860 and 1912. Could you post an example of the table with more candidates? -- Infrogmation 17:00 Feb 5, 2003 (UTC)

One concern I have is, in the case of the 1860 election, there is no way to in which you can really identify who the "main opponent" was. There was no single, "main" opponent to Lincoln; Douglas got the most votes among those opponents, but several of them got a lot of votes that weren't much different from Douglas's total, and three of the opponents got electoral votes. It really isn't an accurate characterization of that election to describe any of Lincoln's opponents as the "main" one. soulpatch
As a followup, I would prefer that the table got turned on its side, so that the candidates were lined up vertically. Here is a very rough draft of what I think would be a preferable organization for the table (it is not polished, it is just meant to give a flavor of what I propose) soulpatch:

New #3

Candidate Electoral Vote Party Popular Vote Pct
Bill Clinton (Winner) 379 Democratic 45,590,703 49%
Bob Dole 159 Republican 37,816,307 41%
Ross Perot 0 Reform Party 8,085,402 8%
Looks good to me. -- Infrogmation
I would also suggest that we add a column for the Vice Presidential candidate (there is plenty room for it, I just left it out). We could also probably squeeze in a column for the VP's electoral vote count, if anyone really cares about that. And of course the "other elections" and Federal Register references can be added to the bottom as additional rows to the table. soulpatch

Here's another draft of my proposal soulpatch:
New #4

President Electoral Vote Party Vice President Popular Vote Pct
Bill Clinton (W) 379 Democratic Albert Gore, Jr. 45,590,703 49%
Bob Dole 159 Republican Jack Kemp 37,816,307 41%
Ross Perot 0 Reform Pat Choate 8,085,402 8%
Other elections 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008
Source: U.S. Office of the Federal Register

Other suggestions: The electoral vote, popular vote, and percentage columns should be right-justified so that they line up more nicely. soulpatch

I like soulpatch's table. -- M Carling 5 Feb 2003 18:20 (UTC)


I'm torn...I agree that significant third/fourth/fifth place finishers should be listed. I'm not sure I like the idea of switching the X and Y axis to accommodate that, though. I find it's easier to read with the candidates in a column.

New #5

Winner Runner Up Other Opponent
Candidate Bill Clinton Bob Dole Ross Perot
Party Democrat Republican Reform
Electoral Votes
(total: 538, majority: 270):		 379 159 0
Popular Votes: 45,590,703 37,816,307 8,085,402
Running Mate (electoral votes): Albert Gore, Jr. (379) Jack Kemp (159) Pat Choate
Other elections 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008
Source: U.S. Office of the Federal Register


There are problems once you get up to five candidates, but that is rare enough that the table could be split into two "macro rows". The column headers are also admittedly awkward.

If people really prefer New #4 above, I'd at least like to reorder and relabel the columns as below, making it easier to associated the popular vote with the candidate (running mate is more obvious, and can go far right):

New #6

Presidential Candidate Electoral Vote Popular Vote Pct Party Running Mate
(Electoral Votes)
Bill Clinton (W) 379 45,590,703 49% Democratic Albert Gore, Jr. (379)
Bob Dole 159 37,816,307 41% Republican Jack Kemp (159)
Ross Perot 0 8,085,402 8% Reform Pat Choate (0)
Other elections: 1984, 1988, 1992, 1996, 2000, 2004, 2008
Source: U.S. Office of the Federal Register

More thoughts? -- RobLa 06:54 Feb 6, 2003 (UTC)

Using the term "Running mate" could be problematic, since for the first dozen or so elections, the Vice President was whoever finished second in the Electoral College standings. That's why many of the first President/Vice President combinations featured politicians from different political parties. Also, is there some way to work in the total/majority electoral college numbers? Minesweeper
I like #6. It's true that the first three elections handled vice presidential elections differently (it was changed by the 12th amendment in 1804 after the 1800 election resulted in a tie; the framers of the Constitution didn't anticipate the rise of partisan politics where parties would submit two candidates for office in the hopes of capturing both president and vice-president). I think that the 1792, 1796, and 1800 elections probably need to have a different table format than the others, just because the elections were conducted according to different constitutionally defined rules. Another issue is the question of the occasional cases where people who didn't even run got an electoral vote because of some renegade elector, like Ronald Reagan in 1976 or John Qunicy Adams who got 1 electoral vote in 1820 which prevented James Monroe from winning the election unanimously. It seems like, for completeness, we should include lines in the table for these people, with the popular vote totals being blank, maybe with a footnote. But maybe there's a better way to handle those cases. soulpatch

1824 is also a rather messy election. Not only were four presidential candidates, but the ultimate winner (John Quincy Adams) was not the one who got the plurality of electoral votes (that was Andrew Jackson), because no one carried a majority and it got thrown to the House. And on top of that, the vice presidential race DID have a winner with a majority. Part of what made that one messy was the fact that there was only one major party at that time, the Democratic-Republicans. soulpatch

I like table #6 for all but the first three elections. Renegade electors are not a problem -- just list in the table the recipient with their electoral vote and however many, if any, popular votes, with an explanation in the body below. M Carling


In response to my moving Zoe's maps over to the right (compare U.S. presidential election, 1860 with an older version), I received the following remark on my talk page:

I think the election maps look better centered. Kingturtle 05:15 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

I think it wastes a lot of space to center the map. I'm not sure exactly how it looks on your machine, but on mine, this means that any explanatory text gets shoved "below the fold", which is pretty awful. However, I'll hold off on 1808-1848 to let others weigh in. -- RobLa 05:50 May 4, 2003 (UTC)

Instructions for converting Electoral College maps

Here's how I converted the maps you see on U.S. presidential election, 2000 from the source material provided by NationalAtlas.gov. Clearly, there are many ways of doing this. This method relies only on free software:

  1. Visit http://nationalatlas.gov/electionsprint.html
  2. Download the "EPS download"
  3. Open in GIMP
  4. In the "Load Postscript" dialog, choose "Graphic Antialiasing: Strong", and "Text Antialiasing: Strong", and a resolution of 90
  5. In the full image, use selection tool to select map for given year
  6. Copy the region (Ctrl+C)
  7. Right click, select "Edit", "Paste as new"
  8. Save as ElectoralCollegeXXXX.jpg
  9. Close the EPS
  10. Reopen the EPS file, this time choosing "Graphic Antialiasing: Strong", and "Text Antialiasing: Strong", and a resolution of 264
  11. Repeat process, saving as ElectoralCollegeXXXX-Large.jpg

I just changed the description of when elections take place from "the first Tuesday in November" to "the Tuesday after the first Monday in November". For example, see Federal Election Commission. It is possible that I am misinterpreting something, as I am not an American. - Molinari 01:01 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

Good catch. You're correct...the old wording was in error. - RobLa 07:51 2 Jul 2003 (UTC)

There's a change I would like to make to all of the electoral articles. It involves adding this table to the bottom of all of them: Template:Uspresidentialelections

...and removing the seven election window that's included in the table near the top. I've done it on U.S. presidential election, 2000 already, but the question is whether that should be propogated to all of them. Thoughts? -- RobLa 06:03, 10 Aug 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Results format (again)

It appears as though we have three competing formats for the election result tables. They are (currently) reflected in these articles:

1. Current standard (discussed and agreed to above): 1996 2. Enhanced standard: 2000 3. Pres/VP split: a. old - 1916 b. new - 1920

Discussion'

I don't have a strong opinion one way or another as to which one it should be, but I do strongly feel that changes made to this many articles should be vetted before being made, as it's very time consuming to change them after the fact.

There are elements of the enhanced standard that I like. The consolidation of the "popular vote" header is a nice touch, as well as the more rows for voter turnout. The problem that I have with it is that it assumes that the VP always gets the same electoral votes as the pres (not true).

There are elements of the Pres/VP split I like. It's a simpler format, and works well even for the earliest elections. The problem that I have with it is that it doesn't make room for percentage breakdowns or totals. The center justification for numeric values doesn't look right, and will look worse once totals are added.

So, can we have some discussion about the various formats before an edit war breaks out? -- RobLa 19:34, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I think I prefer the Pres/VP split format. I think it's clearest and easiest to understand. Furthermore, for elections like 1824, 1836, 1840, 1872, and so forth, it makes a lot more sense, since Presidential and Vice Presidential candidates in those years (at least the ones who won electoral votes) weren't tied together in any predictable way. I think the Pres/VP split can be tinkered with to take care of your objections, as well. We could add a column for percentages, and (obviously) change the alignment of the numbers columns - I'd prefer a right justification, actually, I was just following the alignment already set. Another irritating thing about it would be harder to deal with - that it's in html code. But I think the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. Certainly there are tremendous disadvantages to moving several of the articles currently in the Pres/VP split format over to the standard/enhanced format. I'd also note that I don't particularly like the turn out figures - I think this would be better placed in the text than in an election results table. john k 19:50, 24 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I've updated the 1920 election with a split table I can live with. If we can agree on that or something closer to that, then I think the next step is to convert a highly visible article (e.g. 2000), so that more people see the new format and have a chance to throw rocks, make changes, etc. Once the dust settles, only then do I think a resumption of conversion would be in order. -- RobLa 04:08, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sounds fine to me. john k 22:49, 26 Oct 2004 (UTC)

No objection yet in 2000...one thing that I do find irritating about the table is that the two popular vote/popular vote percentage columns in the President table are slightly wider than the Popular vote column in the VP table. I'm not comfortable with the html, so I don't really want to jigger with it, but I think that once that's settled, we should start converting the rest of them. john k 16:38, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

If you wish to attract even more attention, then you might wait until the second and use your proposed format for the 2004 results page. (Then again, one might have to wait even longer to find out results in some states.) -- Emsworth 20:08, 30 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I agree. John K, this change is your baby, so I'll let you do the honors. -- RobLa 06:11, 1 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'd like to argue that all candidates be listed in the table. Not just those with > 1% of the poll. In 2004, that decision would mean that only the two main candidates are listed. I believe that all presidential candidates should be listed even if they only ran in part of the country. After all this is an encyclopedia, and should be complete. What do others think? -- Bernfarr 18:18, 4 Nov 2004 (UTC)

[edit] Project page and results format

Hi there:

John K just made me aware of the discussions happening on this page. As it happens, I have been working to make the presidential election pages consistent, and I have created a project page for the "U.S. presidential election, yyyy" pages. Please take a look; I'd like to know if my proposals are good ones or if I've totally screwed the pooch.

One thing I should mention is that, since I wasn't aware of this discussion page (or, more precisely, that discussions about the set of U.S. presidential election pages was occurring here), I have been making changes to the "Electoral results" sections of the various presidential election pages. I started at 1789 and am up to 1904. I have been employing templates, using the same techniques as were used for the succession tables, to generate the results tables. For example, here is the election results table for the election of 1828:

Presidential Candidate Party Home State Popular Vote(a), (b) Electoral
Vote		 Running Mate Running Mate's
Home State		 RM's Electoral
Vote
Count Pct
Andrew Jackson Democratic Tennessee 647,286 56.0% 178 John Caldwell Calhoun South Carolina 171
William Smith South Carolina 7
John Quincy Adams National Republican Massachusetts 508,064 44.0% 83 Richard Rush Pennsylvania 83
Total 1,155,350 100 % 261 261
Needed to win 131 131

(a) The popular vote figures exclude Delaware and South Carolina. In both of these states, the Electors were chosen by the state legislatures rather than by popular vote.
(b) The popular vote total omits votes for candidates besides those listed, which skews the popular percentages up slightly.

and here is the code I used to generate it:

{{start U.S. presidential ticket box|pv_footnote=<sup>(a), (b)</sup>|ev_footnote=}}
{{U.S. presidential ticket box rowspan| name=[[Andrew Jackson]]| party=[[United States Democratic Party|Democratic]]| state=[[Tennessee]]| pv=647,286| pv_pct=56.0%| ev=178| vp_count=2| vp_name=[[John Caldwell Calhoun]]| vp_state=[[South Carolina]]| vp_ev=171}}
{{U.S. presidential ticket box vp subrow| vp_name=[[William Smith (1762-1840)|William Smith]]| vp_state=[[South Carolina]]| vp_ev=7}}
{{U.S. presidential ticket box row| name=[[John Quincy Adams]]| party=[[United States National Republican Party|National Republican]]| state=[[Massachusetts]]| pv=508,064| pv_pct=44.0%| ev=83| vp_name=[[Richard Rush]]| vp_state=[[Pennsylvania]]}}
{{end U.S. presidential ticket box| pv=1,155,350| ev=261| to_win=131}}
<sup>(a)</sup> ''The popular vote figures exclude [[Delaware]] and [[South Carolina]].  In both of these states, the Electors were chosen by the state legislatures rather than by popular vote.'' <br>
<sup>(b)</sup> ''{{U.S. popular vote total disclaimer}}''

The advantage to using templates is that style tweaks that don't change the underlying information can be made instantaneously across all the presidential election pages.

Now, this election results table doesn't work for a Presidential election in which a presidential ticket has a presidential candidate who is paired with at least two veeps, and a veep candidate who is paired with at least two presidential candidates. It also doesn't work for pre-Amendment XII elections. For these elections (unless any happened in the 20th century, the elections for which this applies are: 1789, 1792, 1796, 1800, 1812, 1824, 1836, and 1872), I generate three tables: one for the presidential election, one for the vice presidential election, and one to show how the candidates are paired up. All of these tables also make use of templates.

Let me know what you think. — DLJessup 04:07, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I generally like the new table format, and I definitely like leveraging templates. I think the best way to get everyone's attention is to edit the 2004 election results, and see if that sticks. If it does, then finish off the rest of the results for 1908-2000 -- RobLa 20:14, Mar 6, 2005 (UTC)
Well, the 2004 election does have one twist: it has the only elections results box that contains a "Ballot Access" column. What I think I'll do is break out that column into a separate table for now, and then put that column into a revised template format if further discussion indicates that I should do so. I am currently hesitant to add the "Ballot Access" column to the templates for a couple of reasons:
  • On low resolution monitors, the elections results table is already plenty wide without adding in new columns.
  • Currently, the only election for which we have this data is 2004. Unless we can get the data for other elections, it really doesn't make sense to have a separate set of templates for the 2004 election alone or to have a dummy column for all elections except 2004.
I will proceed to split off the "Ballot Access" column and edit the 2004 election results momentarily. — DLJessup 05:20, 7 Mar 2005 (UTC)

[edit] Maps

On some of the maps on the pages for specific elections, blue is Republican, and red is Democrat. However, it is the other way around on the U.S. presidential election, 2004 page. Does anyone think this is potentially confusing? And isn't it blue for Democrat and red for Republican anyway, i.e isn't the 2004 version correct and the others wrong?

I was sort of thinking the same thing. I mean, I don't think either party has an official color (actually I'm sure the official colors for both parties are red, white, and blue) but certainly today with the whole red state/blue state terminology it's basically essential that the coloring should remain as it is for the 2004 map. Unfortunately, if we want consistency, that means changing all the other maps. I'd be for this, as I don't think there was any particular reason why it was done the other way for the earlier maps. However, I don't know how to do this, and I sort of doubt it can be done without redoing all the maps from scratch. Can anyone help out here? -R. fiend 07:30, 8 Jun 2005 (UTC)

It isn't just the 2004 election - the 2000, 1984, and 1980 presidential elections also have the states which voted Republican in red. I agree it should be changed, as it is rather irritating to have to refer to the legend on every map. I'm not sure where the contemporary "red state/blue state" terminology came from, but it certainly seems to be in the minority of the maps referenced. IstvanWolf 17:14, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

Most of the Presidential maps used here are from the National Archives (i.e. are free to use by Wikipedia). The thing is that before the 2000 election there was no real strong connection between the colors and the political parties. In fact, for most of the 2nd half of the 20th century, the major TV networks agreed on a color scheme and just switched them every election (i.e. in 1996 the Dems were colored Red and the Reps Blue). I think that the drama of the 2000 election, in which we all stared at that map for a month while the whole recount played out, really just cemented the whole Republican=Red and Democrats=Blue connection into everybody's mind, and the phrase "red state" and "blue state" started entering the political discourse; by the time 2004 rolled around, it was sort of unthinkable that they'd switch colors as they did traditionally, but it is really quite a recent phenomenon.
According to the Red State vs Blue State article, it was just a coincidence that all major networks used the same scheme for the first time in the 2000 election. Schoop 13:27, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
I think people in Europe must think it's kind of funny, actually: over there colors tend to be very strongly associated with parties, but almost always more left-wing parties use red and more right-wing parties use blue. --Jfruh (talk) 03:33, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] How to get your name on the ticket

This is a very interesting article and I enjoyed reading it. I am hoping someone can expand on how someone is legally allowed to have thier name on the ticket for the Presidential election. The Republicans and Democrats most people know about, but there are always those third parties that are at the bottom of the ballet and then there is the crazy guy who is running for President on the Neo-Nazi Communist ticket who asks everyone to "write in" his name. Why can't that guy have his name printed on the ticket ahead of time? I know there is a set of laws stating who can be be pre-printed on the election ticket and that would be a good addition to the article. -Husnock 12:33, 17 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] More years to the Voter turnout table

I think we should add more years and numbers to the voter turnout table using statistics gathered from the other Presidential Election pages. I will be doing this soon, barring any major objections. Any objections? Copysan 08:48, 26 May 2006 (UTC)

In addition, it would be useful to explain the acronym VAP - Anonymous

[edit] The general format of the elections

One thing that I would suggest is that the entire process of the US elections is described. A I am from outside the US I don't know a great deal about the system, except that there is a race to lead a party and then the two candidates go against each other for the Presidency, with each state given a number of points and the candidiate with the most overall points will win. Maybe it would bw nice to give a general idea of the process, how (and when) candidtates can enter, what eventually decides who will lead each party, the caucus and primary elections, etc. --TheTallOne 20:15, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I'm also from outside the US and I find the american system a bit strange, to say the least, since the winner is not neccessarily the one that receives the most votes. The 2000 president election seems like a semi-democratic farce to me given the knowledge I currently hold on the subject. I would like to see a comparation between how a president is selected in USA and other countries. 83.177.66.212 20:02, 1 July 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Electoral maps

Can we get consistent with the Red/Blue and which party it denotes? Thanks 70.177.37.131 14:28, 11 February 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Election trends

Contemporary electoral success has favored state governors.

Is this saying that governorship bodes better then senatorialship for getting elected POTUS? If so, I'm not sure 4 of 5 really indicates a trend from 50-50 choices.Techsmith 05:12, 28 June 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Limit on number of terms?

Is there a limit on the number of terms a US president can serve? Can Bush get elected for a third term in 2008? JIP | Talk 17:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Short answer: no. See Twenty-second Amendment to the United States Constitution. A person can only be elected president twice, and can only serve as president for 10 years. --Jfruh (talk) 23:05, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
Slightly longer answer - George Washington was asked to seek a third term (and he would probably have won unopposed), but he declined. Every successive President followed Washington's example through the Nineteenth century. Franklin Roosevelt violated precedent by seeking and winning reelection in 1940. The 22nd amendment was put into place following Roosevelt's death, during Harry Truman's presidency. Schoop 13:44, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Improper source for popular vote

I am not sure if this has been discussed elsewhere, or if this is the proper place to bring this up, but is there any reason why the source for the popular vote is uselectionatlas.org instead of archives.gov, which is the source for the electoral votes? There are significant variations in the numbers when these two sites are compared. I compared all of the US election pages (which use uselectionatlas.org) to the National Archives' totals, and every election back to 1888 is off. Why is this? I propose using the National Archives' results unless there is some reason why uselectionatlas.org's totals are correct over and above the official results. The discrepancies are as follows:

     candidates              popular vote                  
2004 Bush/Kerry              62,040,610/59,028,111 - total used on article page from [1]
     NARA                  60,693,281/57,355,978 - total from National Archives
2000 Bush/Gore               50,460,110/51,003,926
     NARA                    50,456,062/50,996,582
1996 Clinton/Dole            47,400,125/39,198,755
     NARA                    45,590,703/37,816,307
1992 Clinton/Bush            44,909,806/39,104,550
     NARA                    44,908,254/39,102,343
1988 Bush/Dukakis            48,886,597/41,809,476
     NARA                    48,886,097/41,809,074
1984 Reagan/Mondale          54,455,472/37,577,352
     NARA                    54,455,075/37,577,185
1980 Reagan/Carter           43,903,230/35,480,115
     NARA                    43,904,153/35,483,883
1976 Carter/Ford             40,831,881/39,148,634
     NARA                    40,830,763/39,147,793
1972 Nixon/McGovern          47,168,710/29,173,222
     NARA                    47,169,911/29,170,383
1968 Nixon/Humphrey          31,783,783/31,271,839
     NARA                    31,785,480/31,275,166
1964 Johnson/Goldwater       43,127,041/27,175,754
     NARA                    43,129,566/27,178,188
1960 Kennedy/Nixon           34,220,984/34,108,157
     NARA                    34,226,731/34,108,157
1956 Eisenhower/Stevenson    35,579,180/26,028,028
     NARA                    35,590,472/26,022,752
1952 Eisenhower/Stevenson    34,075,529/27,375,090
     NARA                    33,936,234/27,314,992
1948 Truman/Dewey            24,179,347/21,991,292
     NARA                    24,179,345/21,991,291
1944 Roosevelt/Dewey         25,612,916/22,017,929
     NARA                    25,612,610/22,117,617
1940 Roosevelt/Wilke         27,313,945/22,347,744
     NARA                    27,313,041/22,348,480
1936 Roosevelt/Landon        27,752,648/16,681,862
     NARA                    27,757,333/16,684,231
1932 Roosevelt/Hoover        22,821,277/15,761,254
     NARA                    22,829,501/15,760,684
1928 Hoover/Smith            21,427,123/15,015,464
     NARA                    21,437,277/15,007,698
1924 Coolidge/Davis          15,723,789/8,386,242
     NARA                    15,719,921/8,386,704
1920 Harding/Cox             16,144,093/9,139,661
     NARA                    16,153,115/9,133,092
1916 Wilson/Hughes           9,126,868/8,548,728
     NARA                    9,126,300/8,546,789
1912 Wilson/Roosevelt        6,296,284/4,122,721
     NARA                    6,293,152/4,119,207
1908 Taft/Bryan              7,678,395/6,408,984
     NARA                    7,676,258/6,406,801
1904 Roosevelt/Parker        7,630,457/5,083,880
     NARA                    7,626,593/5,082,898
1900 McKinley/Bryan          7,228,864/6,370,932
     NARA                    7,218,039/6,358,345
1896 McKinley/Bryan          7,112,138/6,508,172
     NARA                    7,108,480/6,511,495
1892 Cleveland/Harrison      5,553,898/5,190,819
     NARA                    5,551,883/5,179,244

Have there been any previous discussion about this? If I am missing something, I apologize and please let me know. Otherwise, any comments or feedback would be appreciated. Regards.--Old Hoss 18:27, 4 November 2007 (UTC)

good point--there is a difference. There is no "official" source. however the NARA uses an old CQ book and the Atlas is very specific about the high quality state sources it uses (election returns are a state matter, not federal). Rjensen 21:29, 4 November 2007 (UTC)
Ah, I was not aware of that. Do you think it would be appropriate to note that somewhere on the election pages (maybe in the notes or something), or is this something that draws little concern?--Old Hoss 04:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

[edit] 1824 Election

"Aaron Burr responded by shooting Alexander Hamilton." Is it just me or does that sentence not really explain what happened? Maybe my 8th grade history teacher was just lying to us, but that's not how I remember it going down... (yes, it happened, but that sentence is incredibly misleading).128.187.192.227 (talk) 21:51, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] News Media Source Link

Hi Wikipedia, Please add my link to the News Media section of United State Presidential election page. I am a reliable news source on the 2008 Campaign and Elections. I get news from major news sources. I tried placing my link but it repeatedly got deleted. Here is my link. Presidential Election Campaign 2008, Campaign 2008 Headline News, Breaking News, Top News Video My site is "The Bird's Eye View Newsstand".

I look forward to your response. I would appreciate my link as a news media source at United States Presidential Election page.

I enjoy Wikipeda.

Sincerely, Robin Casey —Preceding unsigned comment added by Isavesmart (talk • contribs) 06:45, 23 January 2008 (UTC) --Isavesmart (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Results table

Is there a pticlr reason why the results table is colour-banded, rather than being coloured to show which party won? Certainly it makes it very difficult to see party trends, as it is… — OwenBlacker (Talk) 12:21, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

[edit] Libertarian Party

Twice now, people have tried to add Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party nominee, to the Major Candidates list. As the Libertarian party has gathered <1% of the popular vote of the two major parties in the last two elections, I reverted the edits. I wonder now if my actions were appropriate and in keeping with Wikipedian policy? Please respond :) NuclearWarfare (talk) 23:44, 31 May 2008 (UTC)