Talk:2004 United States presidential election/Archive 4

Sorryeverybody link

I emphatically don't agree with VV's characterization of the site as "lame", but I don't see the point of including it in external links. It illustrates that Bush had substantial opposition and that there was more intensity on both sides than in the average U.S. presidential election. Both those facts are already noted in the article. JamesMLane 06:33, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

It's "lame" in the sense that it has no useful content for an encyclopedia reader. There are a gazillion anti-Bush and anti-Kerry sites out there, but most of our external links seem to include useful information such as raw data and solid analysis. The Sorry link contains none. VeryVerily 06:35, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

There are a gazillion worse links on wikipedia. A link in and of itself is not encycolpedic. Perhaps it should be moved to a link section titled "Post-election reaction and commentary". That website is not really an anti anything site, it's merely therapy for those with post election depressed-democrat disorder. :-) Zen Master 06:44, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I agree that it's therapy. That's why I've visited it several times. But in saying that it's therapy, you confirm my point that it doesn't belong here. The purpose of this article isn't therapy, it's information. JamesMLane 06:49, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I believe therapy is acceptable in the context of "post-election reaction and commentary" as I mentioned above, but if I am the only one defending it then I defer to the will of the people. Zen Master 06:53, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

No Zen-master, you are not the only person defending it. [1]

Keep it, it's a good demonstration of the disatisfaction of half of America.

I don't understand on what basis "therapy is acceptable". In the real world, of course it is, but it's not a valid purpose of a Wikipedia article. The standard here is information. That there was widespread dissatisfaction is certainly information, but we don't need a "demonstration" of that fact. We can simply report it in the article. As I stated above, I think it's covered adequately now. If it weren't, the solution would be to add something like, "After the unusually bitter campaign and the close finish, many of the people who had voted against Bush were very unhappy." Is that the information that the link is supposed to convey? I also don't understand Zen Master's comment, "rv, sigh. If that link is unacceptable 90% of links on wikipedia are unacceptable." Just in this section of links, we see links that report self-selected poll results from non-Americans. That gives information that's relevant to the article but isn't important enough to be covered in the article with as much detail as the external link has. Those links seem fine to me. When you get to the point of linking to convey the information that the Cornell Womens Study Department backed Kerry, though ([2]), I think the granularity is excessive.

There is some related information for this article and/or for George W. Bush, still missing from Wikipedia but not conveyed by this link. It would be along the lines of: "Bush came to office having finished second in the popular vote, and promised to be a uniter not a divider. Nevertheless, he governed from his base. He played heavily to his bases on the Christian right (abortion, stem cell research, gay marriage, channeling government money to religious institutions, etc.) and among the wealthy (huge tax cuts for the rich, reduced regulatory oversight of business). He led the nation into a divisive war and impugned the patriotism of anyone who disagreed with him. The Civil Rights Commission denounced his regressive policies. The Sierra Club called him the worst environmental president in history. As a result, when he sought re-election he had little opportunity to win support from people who opposed him. Instead, his campaign aimed to mobilize his base and to attract a few swing voters who felt nervous about replacing a 'war President' at time of conflict (which the American electorate has never done)." Obvously, that would need a lot of work to be properly NPOV'd and sourced. There are commentators who could be cited for the point that Bush governed, and campaigned, from his base, and did not make significant efforts to be a uniter. IIRC, there are also poll results showing Bush with the least "crossover" appeal of any president since FDR -- that is, a lower percentage of support among Democrats than his father or even Reagan had, and lower also than Clinton's or Carter's percentage of support among Republicans. I think that whole constellation of facts is a large part of why SorryEverybody exists -- because Bush was so divisive. Linking to the site, though, doesn't add to the statements in the article that the campaign was intense and Bush's margin slim. JamesMLane 16:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

Your position is untenable, you are stuck thinking it is therapy. What is wrong with a site that has images of people that claim to have voted against bush? This is an election article, that link by definition is election relevant. The information is who the individual people themselves are that do not support Bush. You are ignoring the spirit of wikipedia, that link is to a community oriented visual discussion website between America and the world. By your logic links to all op-ed articles and message boards should be disallowed? NPOV does not mean no POV or bland POV it means a balance of all points of view. All the links in that section are exactly the same as the one you removed, some are to message boards, why did you single out that link? Ironically, the top message board post on the "theworldspeaks.net" site currently is a link to the counter site of the link you removed, notsorrynoteverybody.com (there are many other counter sites). Can the link be added back if we balance the POV by adding a link to the counter/alternative POV website(s)? Should I go about removing links to all op-ed articles and message boards on this and other articles to fully and fairly implement your logic? (just scratching the surface of the implications of your logic) What is encyclopedic about having a link to "Over 3000 Links..." on the page? The link you removed would additionally be acceptable in an "Election Discussion" link sub-section. Again, the information requirement you are looking for is the people themselves, it's a visual discussion website. In that sense it definitely should be allowed on wikipedia because it's groundbreaking. Zen Master 17:54, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I'm surprised that you claim I'm "stuck on 'therapy'" -- I merely responded to your use of that word. The "information" about what some Bush opponents (or their dogs or children) look like, or the names of some of the 56 million of us, just doesn't add to the article. I haven't checked every other link in the article. Maybe some others should go (though not 90%). It's not a question of balancing POV. I took a quick look at http://werenotsorry.com/ (photos of Bush supporters or their SUVs or their guns) and found it equally worthless in terms of adding any information to this article. JamesMLane 18:15, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I used therapy originally as an attempt at humor, not as a link defense argument. It's a completely valid post-election discussion website. It should be added just because of the "humor" factor, there are countless links on wikipedia just like that. In fact, I could argue the sorryeverybody.com site is popular enough to warrant it's own wikipedia article, which would make it even more relevant for inclusion here. But if I am the only non-anon user defending that link then I defer to the group/you, but we remain in disagreement. Zen Master 18:31, 13 Nov 2004 (UTC)

My name is Chaz and I think the link should stay. How is that anonymous? I can be blocked just like you.

Map showing percent of blue and red in each state.

This map should be included with the rest of the maps: http://www.pascal.com/diary/images/2004-11-05/redvsblue.gif

It's on this webpage: http://www.pascal.com/diary/archives/000232.php

"Using final vote percentages from electoral-vote.com, I made a map showing the percentage of “red” voters in each state along with the percentage of “blue” voters. The color on top of each state shows the party that won that state’s electoral votes. (Note: this is not perfectly scientific, as my approximations were made by eye, but I tried to be as accurate as possible for the purpose of this exercise.)

Here we see a slightly better representation of the feelings of the American populace. Those red states have a lot of blue in them. The reverse also holds true for the blue states, with the notable exception of Washington, D.C., where an overwhelming 90% of citizens voted for Kerry. D.C. is only 6 pixels high on this map, but to be fair I gave the bottom row to red."

That's a great idea...possibly easier to read than a "purple" map. However, on your website you mentioned it wasn't done scientifically. Couldn't there be a program to fill states accordingly to remove any possibility of bias either way? --Doctorcherokee 23:15, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

There should be some specialist geographical projections in existence which show the States in terms of "area proportional to population". Otherwise in order to represent voter numbers accurately, why not supplement the map with a simple 2 line bar chart something like this: File:Example USA voter graph.PNG Do we need to show numbers of voters, in an article on the question of "election fairness"? FT2 01:54, Dec 5, 2004 (UTC)

Map colours

are we going to use my map, which has the same colours as the previous 40 or so elections, and which looks professional, or are we using this amatuer map which is currently posted, but which is in the "proper colours"

if you REALLY want I can do a professional looking map with the proper colours 24.222.31.82 02:19, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

edit- sorry, its me Pellaken

It does look odd going through every election in history and seeing Republican as blue and Democrat as red, and then coming to this map and seeing them switched. Juppiter 18:15, 26 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Results table

The results table doesn't seem to be working - none of the cell borders are showing up, making it look very ugly - and it doesn't match the tables on the other presidential election pages.

The current revision looks good.

It looks fine to me. I was actually planning to go back and change the tables for the other elections—I think this version looks a lot less crowded and is easier to look at. --bdesham 02:57, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

State by State Results Table

What happened to the per state results table? It's missing. Zen Master 18:02, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I don't think it was ever on this page. It's on 2004 U.S. election in progress. Presumably the contents of that page will eventually be divided between this and U.S. presidential election, 2004 (detail).

Yeah, it indeed needs to be on one of the two pages and clearly linked to and/or easy to find. I had trouble finding it, and it's information that needs to be readily available on Wikipedia. --Doctorcherokee 23:09, 4 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Official source?

Some of the numbers (vote totals) here seem a bit off; what do Wikipedians use as the "official" tally source?

At this point there is no "official" source, as far as I know. Several states are still counting. In a quick web search, I found our current number for Bush's vote total (61,194,773) at this site: [3]. Unfortunately, I didn't see any place on the site that indicates the source of the numbers. It would be helpful if people would list on this talk page the sources they're using for vote totals. JamesMLane 12:56, 30 Nov 2004 (UTC)

I was using that same site. I don't know any other sites that update the vote totals. 24.0.239.252 02:04, 16 Dec 2004 (UTC)

The official site is [4]

but they won't have all the certificates of votes in until Dec 22. 34 States are in at NARA so someone can compare or change the totals once they all get in. 24.0.239.252 00:09, 20 Dec 2004 (UTC)

New York votes for "John L. Kerry" ???

Take a look at NARA

Did NY cast its electoral votes for John L. Kerry (and not John F. Kerry)? Can someone explain this or do we have to have two listings of EVs for John F. Kerry and one for John L. Kerry? Jewbacca 00:39, Dec 21, 2004 (UTC)

I guess we'll find out on January 6 when Congress counts the votes.... *shrug* --Goobergunch|? 00:49, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Looks like he's down to 220 electoral votes. I guess it doesn't matter if he overturns ohio now.  :) 24.0.239.252 16:26, 21 Dec 2004 (UTC)

It seems a mite ridiculous to edit the electoral vote table to include the mythical "John L. Kerry". It was an obvious error, and I'm betting that when Congress certifies the electoral vote totals on January 6 they'll give New York's votes to Kerry. When that happens, hopefully we can eliminate the extraneous row in the table.

I'll refrain from commenting on the fact that Democratic electors seem awfully error-prone :) VoiceOfReason|?

At least the NY certificate didn't say "Patrick Buchanan" :) Jewbacca 07:24, Dec 22, 2004 (UTC)

New York submitted an amended page 3 that corrects this mistake. Take a look at NARA Dec 29, 2004

Record turnout

I tried to find a somewhat authoritative source for the record turnout edit (highest since '68, in the Overview), but could only come up with this Washington Post article. As of 12:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC), the official website for the Committee on the Study of the American Electorate looks like it hasn't been updated in a few years. - Walkiped 12:25, 18 Jan 2005 (UTC)