Talk:2010 Michigan gubernatorial election

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Is Ted Nugent Ineligible?[edit]

Michigan Constitution, Article V, Section 22

§ 22 Governor and lieutenant governor,http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/8/80/Button_upper_letter.png qualifications.
Sec. 22. To be eligible for the office of governor or lieutenant governor a person must have attained the age of 30 years, and have been a registered elector in this state for four years next preceding his election.
History: Const. 1963, Art. V, §22,

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe Ted Nugent currently lives in Crawford, Texas, in which case he's probably not a registered Michigan elector. Unfortunately, that's hard information to come by. Unless we can find a more reliable source supporting his potential candidacy, I suggest we delete him from the list. Bradkoch2007 (talk) 13:37, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The Ted Nugent article talks about his gubernatorial ambitions in Michigan so I suggest looking for additional citations first. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:51, 31 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is a Theodore Nugent who is elgible to vote near Jackson, Mich., according to the database of registered voters at publius.org from the Michigan SOS. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.251.124.40 (talk) 06:21, 27 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Announced vs. Potential[edit]

I'm not sure if these categories are good enough to explain the step of the process each candidate is in. I've made some edits concerning Bernero and Dillon. As far as I'm concerned, both have the same status as the only thing either of them has done is formed exploratory committees. Neither is officially or formally announced as candidates for governor. Each has only officially announced they are forming exploratory committees looking at the possibility of running for governor. I think perhaps the list should say "potential" and "running", and only those that have officially filed papers for "running" should be included in that category. Everyone else gets "potential" listing until they officially file papers to run. Otherwise, you have folks putting folks like Dillon in one category and Bernero in another despite both formally being in the same category (i.e. potential candidats). --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Some people listed as "potential" are purely speculative and should be removed if they are not thinking about running for governor. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:29, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Added new subcategory "considering running" to separate names from the speculative "potential candidates." Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I appreciate the effort. However, "considering running" is quite a mouthful, and I think "potential" may not be the most accurate term for that category. I propose simply "considering" and "speculative" for the two categories, respectively. "Speculative" seems more appropriate for the "potential" category, because in the case of almost all of those listed under "potential", only others have speculated about their run. I think Bart Stupak is the only one that has speculated about his chances. Just an idea. --Criticalthinker (talk) 04:46, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]
and a good idea. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:00, 11 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This is for anyone looking to make changes to the list of candidates and their status: You can check this linke (http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/cfr/gub_search.cgi) to see who has formally filed to run or open exploratory committee, and who hasn't. If they are not on the list for this election cycle, yet, they are to be put in the "potential" category. --Criticalthinker (talk) 03:08, 23 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Polls[edit]

I'm proposing the following rules for adding data to the polls section:

  • the polls section should be limited to scientific polling data
  • the highlighted frontrunners shall include the person(s) with the highest percentage and all those who fall within the margin of error (so out of 21, 20, and 15 with a margin of error of 2, 21 and 20 would be highlighted)

This would allow us to keep the polling data reliable and be an easy to read and fair indicator of who is on top. I already implemented the second rule in my recent edit, and implementing the first rule would require removing the Michigan Conservative network poll as it is a non-scientific web based poll.

In addition, I'm concerned about declaring frontrunners in the intro, as currently the environment is too volatile and too early to declare anyone a frontrunner. If we do declare frontrunners, it should include all those who have been found to be the frontrunner in any given recent poll. Bradkoch2007 (talk) 00:40, 28 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're second proposal is a no go. It's simply not consistent with how polling standards and templates are done, here. We don't highlight margins of error, sorry. BTW, the Michigan Conservative Network poll should be removed, for starters. It's hardly scientific. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:43, 29 March 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there an administrator monitoring the article? We need an admin to talk to the IP address editor who keeps inserting the unscientific Oakland Press online poll in this article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:42, 20 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]


I suggest a reorganization of the tables for the polls. They should list certified candidates first (to the left), in alphabetical order by last name, then have some sort of clear break, and then list non-certified candidates (withdrawn, etc.), again in alphabetical order. Thoughts? cmadler (talk) 11:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

How to squeeze another name in the poll table[edit]

A new EPIC MRA poll has a surprise as non-candidate Geoffrey Feiger leads the latest Democratic poll. One citation is at [1] but the poll table for Democrats is crowded as it is. Can someone figure out how to squeeze another name? Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:16, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I'd prefer until he either denies or confirms he's running, that we don't just throw in extra names. I'd suggest this for any poll where some name is just randomly thrown in for kicks. --Criticalthinker (talk) 05:08, 26 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Major rewrite[edit]

Today is the deadline for candidates to be certified. When the official candidates' list is released by the Secretary of State's office, the potential lists can be removed with the names moved to the text of the article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:43, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Maybe it's a better idea to put them into the declined section?--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:30, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
No, the speculative and declined people can go in the body of the article in paragraphs about the large pool of potential candidates before the final list emerged today. Bulleted lists should only consist of actual candidates. Steelbeard1 (talk) 23:08, 11 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The final primary ballots[edit]

After the state released the unofficial list of party primary candidates appearing on the August 3 ballot, major revisions were made to comply with the list. There was one candidate who did not withdraw voluntarily and did not make the ballot on the Republican side, Tim Rujan. So he is in the "failed to qualify" subsection of the Republican side. There is no evidence that he withdrew from the governor's race and his web sites are still up and running, but not recently updated. Until there is verifiable proof about the status of Rujan's campaign, he is still in the "failed to qualify" list. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:47, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

On the other hand, there is no evidence that he ever filed, and failure to file could certainly be considered "withdrawal" from the race. To me, the only "failure to qualify" would be if he did file, but his filing was rejected (insufficient signatures or some such). The fact that his website has not been updated in a long time (the only information is a bio, a form to volunteer, and the announcement of his candidacy) suggests that he informally withdrew - he stopped bothering to update information or campaign, and just never said so. cmadler (talk) 23:45, 17 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
On the other hand, he was still listed as a Republican candidate this month before the deadline in a story in Crain's Detroit Business at [2]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:52, 18 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor parties[edit]

I have twice revert the unexplained removal of the Green, Libertarian, and U.S. Taxpayers Parties from the infobox. These three parties have automatic ballot access; their nominees will be on the ballot in November. If you think that these candidates should be left out of this article, please tell me why here. Until/unless a consensus is reached to remove them from the article, I will continue to revert that removal. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 09:53, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

There has never, ever been any consensus to include minor party candidates in the main infobox. The same argument was presented at California gubernatorial election, 2010. I refuse to fight someone who is blatantly wrong on this same issue here, as it is a waste of my time. Gage (talk) 10:04, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I just read that discussion, and all I found there was two users against including minor parties (with vague criteria for inclusion: "polled to have strong support", "receive a sizable portion of the votes in the election", etc.) and one registered and two IP users for including them. One of the two users arguing against inclusion stated that "The infobox couldn't possibly list all six candidates, so only the major party candidates are pictured" which is an absolutely absurd statement; {{Infobox election}} built to accomidate up to six candidates (see Template:Infobox election#Notes). cmadler (talk) 11:54, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
All the parties on the ballot should be included. "polled to have strong support, receive a sizable portion of the votes in the election" is all original research if we are the ones setting the cutoff for inclusion.--Profitoftruth85 (talk) 19:41, 15 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I have had the same problem. All balloted parties have equal standing in Michigan's general election, though participation in primaries depends on prior performance. The actual lineup for the general election won't be decided until after the primaries. Since the article is on the general election, minor party candidates who have already been nominated are every bit (if not more) notable than those seeking the nomination of a major party. To base inclusion on the future amounts to a claim of a gift of prophecy. If polls are to be considered, then the poll results must include the candidates they are being applied to, or they just beg the question. After the election, order of candidates in the info-box should reflect results with the highest vote getters at the top left.--Libertyguy (talk) 04:17, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Minor party candidates do not belong in the lead. They also do not have an impact on the outcome of gubernatorial elections in Michigan based on the last election. They were not allowed in gubernatorial debates in the last election because they did not meet the popularity threshold in polls. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:28, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Well, it's not quite that simple. Each of the 2006 debate hosts set its own rules for inclusion. WKAR set inclusion at 5% in polls, but many polls only asked about Granholm vs. DeVos. I don't know what criteria WOOD and WXYZ used; for that matter they may have just arbitrarily invited Devos and Granholm and excluded the other three candidates. CMN invited all five candidates. All the polling so far for the 2010 general election has been head to head D v. R, although the Rasmussen polls include an option for "some other candidate", which polled at 6% to 10% in the most recently released (early June) set of polls. cmadler (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
OTOH, in the 2006 general election, the strongest showing a minor party candidate got in the gubernatorial race was 0.6% of the vote. Again, no impact on the election results. Steelbeard1 (talk) 14:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Well, it's not true to say "no impact on the election results" because obviously there was: they got votes. It may be a small impact, but it is not "no impact". Further, we're here discussing the 2010 election, not the 2006 election. As of right now, there will be five candidates on the ballot -- one nominee from each party and no independents (independent filing requirement is 30,000 signatures by mid-July) -- and until the election occurs there is no way to know how big any particular candidate's "impact on the election results" will be. cmadler (talk) 15:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
But less than 1% of the vote is hardly considered to be an impact. They are not mentioned in polls for the 2010 race yet. Minor party and independent candidates are already mentioned in their own sections of the article and recognized minor parties are in the infobox. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:56, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As I mentioned above, in D v. R v. "some other candidate" polling, Rasmussen has the latter (which can be taken to mean "third pary" and independent candidates) at 6% to 10%. And, since you keep bringing up 2006, Dashairya's 0.2% got him the exact same impact as DeVos's 42.3% -- neither of them was elected to anything. cmadler (talk) 16:18, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For a minor party candidate to have a major impact, the candidate must prove that they can affect the outcome of an election, if not by winning then by playing spoiler by allowing a candidate, who would not otherwise win an election, to win. None of the 2006 minor party candidates even approached playing a spoiler role. Granholm's margin of victory was too large. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:21, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"For a minor party candidate to have a major impact, the candidate must prove that they can affect the outcome of an election, if not by winning then by playing spoiler by allowing a candidate, who would not otherwise win an election, to win." That's original research in the worst way. cmadler (talk) 18:05, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Remember Ross Perot and Ralph Nader whose minor party candidacies affected Presidential races? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:42, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


  • This discussion is ridiculous. The rule for every single election article is that a candidate needs to poll at least 5% in order to get into the infobox. Period. End of discussion.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:49, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • Can you point to a discussion where such a rule was established (other than the small discussion at California gubernatorial election, 2010)? Until that time, I will continue to insist on the inclusion of all 5 ballot-qualified candidates. cmadler (talk) 14:08, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Please use common sense. The purpose of the infobox is to summerize the article. If we included 10 candidates for example, it would look horrible and would defeat the purpose of having an infobox.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 15:10, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • That's obviously a straw man argument, since there aren't 10 candidates running in this case. The infobox is constructed to allow up to 6 candidates, and there are 5 candidates running here. cmadler (talk) 15:22, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • In the televised debates for the last election, none of the minor party candidates met the popularity threshold in polls for inclusion in the debates. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:58, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • You made that statement a month and a half ago (look up this page), and at that time I pointed out that it is factually incorrect. cmadler (talk) 16:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
              • But it was also pointed out that none of them made an impact in the outcome of the election along the lines of a Perot or Nader. That may change if a "right to life" minor party candidate tries to get the support of Republicans unhappy with Rick Snyder as the GOP nominee. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:42, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
                • Making "an impact in the outcome of the election along the lines of a Perot or Nader" is an arbitrary and undefined criteria, just as was "receive a sizable portion of the votes in the election", way back up at the top of this section. cmadler (talk) 17:04, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In this context, does the word "spoiler" mean anything to you? See [3]. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:48, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
And yet again, as I pointed out above, setting such criteria is original research. cmadler (talk) 18:35, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's not a matter of impact, it's a matter of due process. In every other election article, the rule applies. We have discussed this numerous times already and each time we come to the same conclusion.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:19, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
  • Cmadler, I have a question for you sir: What if there were more than 6 candidates on the ballot? The question is 100% relevent because we can't have one policy in one article, and a different one for another. After all, the infobox is constructed to allow up to 6 candidates--Jerzeykydd (talk) 19:32, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
    • I think that to an extent, you do have to take it on a race by race basis. For example, California gubernatorial election, 2010 lists 8 candidates, but two are write-in candidates, so I'd say include the 6 who are actually on the ballot. For a US Presidential election, I would start by only including candidates who are on the ballot in enough states that they could theoretically win election; in 2008, conveniently enough, there were six such candidates. Likewise in 2004. I think there were 5 in 1992. In 1996 and 2000 there appear to have been 7; I think the most neutral thing to do is to (pre-election) leave off whichever has the fewest possible electoral votes to win based on state ballot access and (post-election) leave off whoever got the fewest popular votes. I can also conceive of limiting US Presidential election (post-election) infoboxes to candidates who received electoral college votes, since technically the popular elections are for the purpose of choosing electors. Similarly for Sri Lankan presidential election, 2010, in which 22 candidates ran, though some withdrew between nomination and election. Another reasonable method for such ranking pre-election is on the basis of votes won by the party in the previous such election (which is the order I put them in for this article). So if, for example, in addition to the 6 candidates on the Michigan gubernatorial ballot, another party -- say, the Reform Party -- either had ballot access or placed a candidate on the ballot through petition, I would say to order them based on votes won in the previous such election (in which case the Reform Party would be left off the infobox). All of that, of course, is unless there is some other reason for ordering. For example, the 1996 US Presidential election was the first such for the Reform Party; Perot ran in 1992 as an independent. But the Reform Party was such an obvious outgrowth of his 1992 run, that it seems (to me) reasonable that the Reform Party would be ranked based on Perot's 1992 votes (3rd). There has also been some discussion of expanding the infobox to allow more than 6 candidates to be listed, continuing on with rows of 3 (in which case a 7-way race could be listed as 2-2-3, ordered as described above) but as far as I can tell that has not yet been implemented.
    • To sum up, I would say that where possible, all candidates on the ballot (in the case of US Presidential and similar multi-district elections, limiting to those with a mathematical possiblity of winning) should be included in the infobox, and where the candidates exceed infobox spots, the infobox should be filled, prior to the election based on some reasonable measure such as prior performance, polling, fundraising, etc., and after the election based on actual votes received. cmadler (talk) 20:15, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
      • Sir what you seem not to understand is that the entire purpose of having an infobox is to summerize the article. Otherwise, we there would be no purpose of having it. I have nothing against third party/independent candidates. But the fact is most of the time, they get little attention from the media and get very insignificant margins (usually less that 1% of the vote). I'm not trying to be unfair, I mean these candidates will be included in the election of course and they will be in the results table. But only the candidates who get at least 5% of the actual results get a spot in the infobox. It's due process, it's the way it always has been.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 21:44, 13 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
        • Well, I'm not sure I agree with you that the infobox should summarize the article; I think in the case of an election the infobox summarizes the election. For example, the article contains an awful lot of information relating to the primary elections, but none of that is reflected in the infobox -- nor should it be. cmadler (talk) 12:34, 16 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
          • You know what Cmadler you can't just come in one election article and rewrite the rules. I, and several other editors, have worked on not just 2010 election articles, but historical ones.--Jerzeykydd (talk) 01:10, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
            • I've read every past discussion to which I've been pointed, and I don't think I've yet seen a clear consensus for what you're suggesting, and certainly if the discussions are considered collectively the consensus is against you. cmadler (talk) 14:34, 17 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Request for Comment[edit]

Two users persist in removing sourced information pertaining to "third parties", including basic infobox information and polling results. This slow-moving edit war has been crawling along for more than 2 months. This has been done on the assertion of various criteria, such as "The rule for every single election article is that a candidate needs to poll at least 5% in order to get into the infobox. Period. End of discussion." #I have repeatedly asked for the source of this criteria, and keep getting pointed back to previous discussions in which the same two users made the same assertion.# Another asserted criterion is "For a minor party candidate to have a major impact, the candidate must prove that they can affect the outcome of an election, if not by winning then by playing spoiler by allowing a candidate, who would not otherwise win an election, to win." Again, there has never been a consensus for this criterion, just an assertion by two users that it is #and "always" has been# the requirement. I note for comparison Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006 and Michigan gubernatorial election, 2002, both of which include third party candidates in the infobox as well as the body of the article. cmadler (talk) 16:29, 26 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Since one of the argued criteria for listing in the infobox was participation in debates, perhaps we should leave everyone out, since it appears that there will be no debates this fall? Again, just pointing out the silliness of such a requirement. cmadler (talk) 13:09, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New poll[edit]

There is a new poll at [4] which gives Rick Snyder a comfortable lead over Virg Bernero. Can an administrator update the article to include the new info using the aforementioned link? On the subject in question, there is no minor party candidate even mentioned in the poll so my statement regarding minor party candidates who fail to meet the threshold of support criteria not being included in the infobox still stands. The next event regarding this article involves Virg Bernero's choice for a running mate which may occur this weekend. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:19, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Is there a reason you removed poll information regarding people expressing preferences for "Other" or "Undecided"? cmadler (talk) 15:36, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I did NOT remove poll information, that is the direct link from the Detroit Free Press article. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:45, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Your reasoning is circular, especially with the omission of data regarding people expressing a preference for "Other". If a pollster asks "Who would you vote for, Bernero or Snyder?" and 5-8% of people give another name, that's pretty significant. cmadler (talk) 15:38, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The article just mentions "undecided" and there is no mention of "other". Where do you see "other"? Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:44, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no "other" and "undecided" does not count either. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:12, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, I missed this question. Go to the article. Look at where, in bold type, it says "Poll results". Look just below that where, in bold type, there is a link that says "What Michiganders think on key issues". To save you the trouble, here's the link [5], but feel free to look yourself. The first sentence on that page, right after the heading "How would you vote?" is the poll question "If the November general election for governor were held today, would you vote for Rick Snyder the Republican or Virg Bernero the Democrat?" Right under that is a big pie chart, showing 51% for Rick Snyder, 29% for Virg Bernero, and 20% as "Undecided/Don't know". Or, from the main article, if you click the very next link, that says "Governor's race breakdown" ([6]), you get various demographic breakdowns, including that 19% of males and 20% of females chose "Undecided/Don't know". There is no "other" mentioned in this poll, but there was in the two Rasmussen polls, and you twice removed that information from the article. cmadler (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, only candidates listed by their names are to be listed in polls. "Other", "undecided", "don't know" and/or "none of the above" are not candidates on the ballot and therefore not to be listed. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:58, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm just responding to this at the bottom of this thread rather than copying every response to up here also.

The template used to make this protected-page edit request says "This template should be used only to request edits to fully protected pages that are uncontroversial or supported by consensus". This is clearly not the case here, as the above discussion indicates, so I am declining the request. JamesBWatson (talk) 21:17, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You (Steelbeard1) did remove poll information, twice: [7] and [8]. The information you removed was taken directly from the linked press releases. cmadler (talk) 17:49, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
They are NOT polls, cmadler. Again, you are lying. Polls indicate the popularity of a candidate. The info removed was simply infobox listings for minor party candidates who DO NOT meet the threshold criteria of support for inclusion in infoboxes. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:26, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the links and look at what you actually removed before you accuse me of lying. You removed infobox listings for candidates who will appear on the ballot ("threshold criteria of support..." is POV, as I and others have repeatedly pointed out), AND you removed poll information from the "General election polling" section of the article. cmadler (talk) 18:31, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The above linked article only mentions Snyder and Bernero. NO ONE ELSE!!! My statment still stands and Cmadler is still a liar. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:44, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You can say it as many times as you want, but you still removed sourced polling information. I even linked to the diffs to jog your memory but I guess you're claiming that it was someone else signed in to your account? Edit history doesn't lie. cmadler (talk) 19:10, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The links you gave DO NOT give the popularity of individual minor party candidates in polls which compare them with major party candidates. So CMadler is still lying. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:16, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Read what I wrote earlier in this section. Did I ever state that the links gave the popularity of individual candidates other than Democrats and Republicans? No, I didn't. I wrote Is there a reason you removed poll information regarding people expressing preferences for "Other" or "Undecided"? Look up near the top of this section. There it is, in black and white. And then when you denied it, I gave you links to the diffs. Look up again, not quite as far. There it is. You can call me a liar as often as you'd like; I really don't care, because the edit history is clear and the edit history doesn't lie. You did -- not once, but twice -- remove poll information regarding people expressing preferences for "Other" and "Undecided". That's a fact, and you can call me a liar 100 times but it will remain a fact. cmadler (talk) 19:48, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Cmadler is clearly missing the point. The reason for the temporary block is the dispute involving minor party candidates who fail to meet the threshold of support required to be included in infoboxes. This discussion is strictly about the new poll mentioned at [9] which, as mentioned already, only lists major party candidates Snyder and Bernaro and no one else. Steelbeard1 (talk) 20:18, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
My point in this discussion is that the "Undecided" and "Other" numbers, when published, should be included in the chart in this case (20% undecided), as well as in the five previous polls for which you removed information from the article and then denied doing so. cmadler (talk) 20:34, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Then what do you do when individual minor party candidates appear in a future poll? Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:15, 30 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
If they appear in a legitimate public poll, such as those currently listed in the article, the result (even if it rounds to 0%) should be listed. (By "legitimate public poll", I simply mean polls similar to those currently listed; I'm not trying to start an argument over which polls are listed here.) cmadler (talk) 01:14, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no candidate whose name is "other" or "undecided". Let the record be known that Cmadler did NOT answer my simple question regarding individual candidates who appear in future polls. BTW, a single decimal point such as 0.1% for a listed candidate, that is a LISTED candidate mentioned by name, can be included in a poll. Steelbeard1 (talk) 10:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You asked "what do you do when individual minor party candidates appear in a future poll?" I answered "If they appear in a legitimate public poll, such as those currently listed in the article, the result (even if it rounds to 0%) should be listed." If you can't comprehend such a simple and straightforward answer to a simple question, further discourse is unlikely to be fruitful. I refuse to continue to answer your questions and arguments two or three times each. cmadler (talk) 11:43, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I had stated that 0.1% is fine. Not 0%. Again it is for listed individual candidates. Am I led to believe that Cmadler is abandoning his argument about "other" or "undecided" being included? It is obvious that if the total of listed candidates do not total 100% in a poll, the difference is either undecided or unlisted other candidates. Steelbeard1 (talk) 15:41, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

All polls in the article are currently rounded to the nearest whole percent. So a candidate receiving 0.1% in a poll would presumably be rounded to 0%, but should still be included. And while it is obvious that if the total of listed candidates do not total 100%, the difference is either "other" or "undecided", there is no way to know how much goes to each category without actually giving that information. If the remainder is 25%, there is a big difference between 25% undecided, and 20% volunteering the name of another candidate with only 5% undecided. That's why the information should be included, rather than leaving it to readers to guess. cmadler (talk) 15:55, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006 article does give fractional percentages, if you bother to read it. Steelbeard1 (talk) 16:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
That article gives decimal percentages for 7 out of about 50 polls. This article -- the one we're writing about -- the one one linked to this talk page -- lists 7 general election polls, 15 Republican primary polls, and 11 Democratic primary polls, for a total of 33 poll listings, of which one gives decimals. cmadler (talk) 16:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This article, the one this discussion is about which again is at [10] only lists two names: Republican candidate Rick Snyder and Democratic candidate Virg Bernero. No one else. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:32, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The poll also lists a result of 20% "undecided", and that information needs to be included. cmadler (talk) 17:42, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Once again, "undecided" or "other" does not count. It must be a candidate listed by name. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:01, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Why? Because you say so? If a pollster releases that data, if it's published by a reliable secondary source such as the Freep, who are you to say it "does not count"? cmadler (talk) 18:33, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
For possibly the fourth or fifth time, there is no candidate whose name is "undecided" or "other" on the ballot. There are also no candidates whose names are "I don't know" or "none of the above" although I understand that in Nevada, you can vote for "none of the above" but if N.O.T.A. is the top vote getter then the second place finisher is the winner. But this is Michigan, not Nevada. So once again, only the names of individual candidates listed by their names, are to be listed in polls. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:50, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Again, why? Because you said so? This is a poll, not the actual election result. The pollsters thought there was enough value in the information to collect it, the newspaper thought there was enough value in the information not only to publish it, but at least in the case of the most recent poll, to include the demographic breakdown. Who are you to say that the pollster and the newspaper are wrong? cmadler (talk) 19:15, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
We are clearly at an impasse. Can an administrator step in? Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:21, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

RfC responses[edit]

I've started this subsection as a place where editors brought here by the RfCcan respond. JamesMLane t c 06:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Include poll data as reported. As a reader, if I saw a poll giving the Democrat and the Republican a combined 80% of the vote, I'd want to know about the rest. Pollsters usually lump together Undecided/Don't Know/Not Sure, but there might be a minor-party candidate drawing a chunk of support. As I understand it from this version, the answer to the question "What do we know about the people not supporting Bernero or Snyder?" is different for different polls -- they're not all just "Undecided" types -- and the fuller version of the polling data provides the reader with that information. In response to Steelbeard's statement that "only the names of individual candidates listed by their names, are to be listed in polls," I'd say that the decision is made in the first instance by the company conducting the poll and providing its results, and then by the secondary sources (mass media) that report the poll. We should be faithful to the sources. If, for some polls, the sources report votes for the Libertarians and Greens and whatnot by lumping them together as "Other", then we provide the information as per our cited sources. JamesMLane t c 06:13, 1 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate photos[edit]

Candidate photos should be resized to be equal. This currently presents an apparent bias to whomever's image is larger. 64.139.239.77 (talk) 21:35, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

It's pretty difficult to get two images the exact same size when they're in different proportions.But if you feel strongly about it you should be bold and fix it yourself. My bad, didn't realise the article was protected. – Hysteria18 (Talk • Contributions) 21:37, 27 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

{{editprotected}} Please replace the current photo of Virg Bernero with File:Virg-2.jpg, which is the same photo, cropped to match the proportions of the Snyder photo. In this way, they can be made the same size. Thanks, cmadler (talk) 12:47, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

 Done, but I'd prefer a closer crop so that the faces are roughly the same size. Can you do that and upload it as a new version of the Virg-2.jpg file? --Waldir talk 14:35, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I tried a closer crop, but it just doesn't look good. His face is in profile, while Snyder's is straight on. Also, the resolution is not good enough to crop in so close, it's ever-so-slightly out of focus (which becomes more apparent when you get closer to a 1-to-1 resolution), and the background gets distracting with a close crop. I think this is about the best we can do with this photo. cmadler (talk) 14:49, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Virg Bernero's running mate[edit]

{{editprotected}} A news report at [11] says that Virg Bernero will appoint Southfiled MI mayor Brenda Lawrence at a news conference to be held on Saturday morning, August 28. When the official announcement is given, can the article, including the infobox, be updated to add Bernero's running mate's name? Steelbeard1 (talk) 02:15, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I assumes that "morning" doesn't mean "four in the morning". Disabling until there's actually something to do here. EP requests are for immediate action. Chris Cunningham (user:thumperward: not at work) - talk 11:12, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The official announcement was given based on the news story at [12] so I am reinstating my request to update the article to indicate that Brenda Lawrence, mayor of Southfield, Michigan, is the running mate of gubernatorial candidate Virg Bernaro. Steelbeard1 (talk) 19:18, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Brenda Lawrence has her own article, conveniently. -- MichiganCharms (talk) 19:19, 28 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
 Done HJ Mitchell | Penny for your thoughts? 14:37, 29 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official campaign site for Ken Proctor[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Please list the official campaign website for Ken Proctor under "Official campaign sites" in the "External links" section. These are currently listed in alphabetical order, so Proctor should be added below Mathia and above Snyder. The link is [13]. Thank you. The only other candidate missing from that section is Harley Mikkelson, for whom I am unable to find a website. cmadler (talk) 12:22, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:27, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Campaign sites in "External links" section[edit]

I suggest that the links to campaign websites for candidates who lost primary races should be moved to the bottom of the section on the appropriate primary race, leaving only links for general election candidates in the external links section. If anyone has an alternative suggestion for cleaning this up, I'd welcome it. I think we should find some way to (1) keep those links in the article, while (2) separating them from the remaining general election candidate links; if anyone has another way that they'd prefer to accomplish those two things, I'll agree with the edit. If you have a change to these links that doesn't meet those two criteria, let's discuss it here first. cmadler (talk) 12:28, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

My personal preference is to keep campaign links in the body of election articles, in parentheses (along with Project Vote Smart, if the candidate doesn't have his/her own article). Each of the nominees appears to have his own article, so the campaign site (and Project Vote Smart, FEC, Open Secrets, etc.) links are there. If you want to see the alternative, look at Texas gubernatorial election, 2010#External links. I don't see that as particularly helpful. Flatterworld (talk) 14:10, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure I understand what you mean. The links in the Texas election article seem to be formatted similarly to this one. Can you point to an article that's formatted in the way you prefer? cmadler (talk) 14:52, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

NYT link[edit]

{{editprotected}}

Please add: *[http://elections.nytimes.com/2010/governor/michigan Race Profile] in ''[[The New York Times]]'' after the CQ Politics link in the External links section. Thanks. :-) Flatterworld (talk) 14:07, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Done. However, I commented out the ourcampaigns.com link. That site doesn't seem to be an acceptable external link, as it looks like a community site consisting of 100% user-generated content. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:38, 31 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Third Party Candidates[edit]

Why aren't the two third party tickets listen in the infobox? This certainly doesn't seem to be an expression of NPOV... 68.40.174.101 (talk) 15:33, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Because they fail to meet the popularity threshold based on the results of previous gubernatorial elections and the polls for the current election campaign. Steelbeard1 (talk) 17:53, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
This is disputed. A "popularity threshold" set by Wikipedians is POV and OR. cmadler (talk) 18:38, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Look at the 2002 election results at Michigan gubernatorial election, 2002#Election results and the 2006 results at Michigan gubernatorial election, 2006#Election results. None of the minor party candidates even got 1% of the vote. All the minor party candidates got less than 1%. This is clearly not POV or OR. These are cold, hard, official, verifiable facts. Steelbeard1 (talk) 18:46, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The vote totals and percentages are verifiable facts, but the decision to include/exclude candidates from the infobox is an editorial decision, and must take into account POV and OR concerns. cmadler (talk) 12:20, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is painfully obvious that Cmadler either did not read or chose to ignore the discussion mentioned immediately below in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Inclusion in Infobox which was posted before his comment was. Steelbeard1 (talk) 12:33, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It is painfully obvious that I did read the discussion, seeing as how I posted two comments in that discussion thread. cmadler (talk) 13:03, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
After I had posted my above comment did Cmadler take part in the Elections and Referendums discussion. Check the date and time stamp after each posting. Steelbeard1 (talk) 13:26, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

See the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Elections and Referendums#Inclusion in Infobox Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:15, 13 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Predictions[edit]

The predictions table MUST have links to each source to support each prediction. Currently the wikilinks link Wikipedia articles for each predictor. Those wikilinks must be replaced by the source of each prediction. If they do not appear, the section will be deleted. Steelbeard1 (talk) 01:04, 27 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

After allowing a few days for the citations to be inserted, this section was deleted because no citations were inserted. Steelbeard1 (talk) 11:25, 1 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nothing[edit]

Sorry, conflict resolved. . —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.99.65.10 (talk) 18:34, 3 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Official Results[edit]

We still need a table showing the official results from the MI SOS at [14]. Can someone put one together? Thanks. Steelbeard1 (talk) 21:04, 27 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Completely agree. It's not enough to simply have the results in the infobox. Like every other election page on this site, we need the standard chart at the bottom to show the results. --Criticalthinker (talk) 02:20, 28 November 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2010_Michigan_gubernatorial_election&oldid=1196570217"