This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the
United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject U.S. Congress, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of the
United States Congress on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join
the discussion and see a list of open tasks.U.S. CongressWikipedia:WikiProject U.S. CongressTemplate:WikiProject U.S. CongressU.S. Congress articles
The alliance shouldn't be removed as there is precedent in the 2020 alaska senate race
Greenhighwayconstruction (
talk) 18:29, 14 July 2022 (UTC)reply
The alliance tab is specifically reserved for cases of
electoral fusion, where the same candidate appears on the ballot under multiple party labels or lines. While McMullin is endorsed by these parties, he isn't listed as such on the ballot - he's only listed as an independent, and is only running under that line. Effectively, that is just an endorsement, not an alliance between parties.
Alaska is actually an unusual exception here as they have a joint Democratic/Libertarian/Independent primary and candidates can be listed as having the support of multiple parties; Gross was actually listed as a Democrat on the ballot, for example, so the alliance thing makes sense to a degree there. In contrast, in another independent vs. Republican race (
2014 United States Senate election in Kansas), we don't list an alliance even though Democrats stood down. ToaNidhiki05 18:36, 14 July 2022 (UTC)reply
First off Toa, it was wrong for you to remove the alliance without a discussion on the talk page. Secondly there is a HUGE difference between standing down and endorsing. I also wanna adress some things you said on your edit summary first you said "the alliance tab is for electoral fusion" what wikipedia policy do you have to back that up? Secondly on your edit summary you said "If we listed every party endorsement under "alliance", we'd have Obama as being in an alliance with the Communist Party, given they endorsed him" My response is that The dems UUP, and ASP all have ballot acces, unlike the commie party.
Greenhighwayconstruction (
talk) 22:52, 14 July 2022 (UTC)reply
You have noted that the Dems, UUP, and ASP all have ballot access in UT. If they are giving their ballot access to McMullin, please provide a source for that. As far as I know, Utah's laws do not permit the votes from multiple ballot lines to be added together. ―
Tartan357Talk 22:57, 14 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Yes tartan, however no wikipedia rule or guideline(that i know of) that states that the alliance tab is for electoral fusion only.
Greenhighwayconstruction (
talk) 23:05, 14 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Did I say it was a rule? I just don't see why we would do it if that is not the case. What information about the ballot are you trying to communicate with this? ―
Tartan357Talk 23:07, 14 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Tartan I believe I made it clear why we would do it. I said that parties that have ballot access are voluntarily giving up there spot AND SUPPORTING ANOTHER CANDIDATE. Witch sounda a lot like an allence
Greenhighwayconstruction (
talk) 23:12, 14 July 2022 (UTC)reply
So like the Communist Party in 2008, then? ToaNidhiki05 23:19, 14 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Toa,the office president and senator are complexly different. also may i see a source?
Greenhighwayconstruction (
talk) 23:35, 14 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Here. I am not arguing to add this. I am simply pointing out what sort of nonsense your idea will bring about. ToaNidhiki05 00:40, 15 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Nobody is denying that the commies supported obama. Im just asking if they had ballot acsess.
Greenhighwayconstruction (
talk) 01:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)reply
The "alliance" parameter is described in
Template:Infobox election/doc as "Political alliance in elections where coalition politics is common". I believe the countries where "coalition politics is common" usually means those with multi-party parliamentary systems and probably don't describe the US but someone might disagree with the documentation here. —
twotwofourtysix(
talk ||
edits) 00:47, 15 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Coalition politics has been in the senate for the past 20 years! The current senate majority is a coalition containing dems and non-dems.
Greenhighwayconstruction (
talk) 01:12, 15 July 2022 (UTC)reply
Yeah but the policy page doesn't specify a difference . There is also precedent witch you are completely ignoring. I have reason to believe that you have not read
WP:CON. Additionally there is no consensus and you are borderline edit warring!
Greenhighwayconstruction (
talk) 16:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)reply
This is an independent vs. Republican race, the "precedent" being cited here is not comparable; what is reflected on the ballot itself is the only relevant consideration here (e.g. VT-Sen 2018 and KS-Sen 2014). In any case there's a clear consensus here that it's not applicable.
Stroopwafels (
talk) 17:05, 15 July 2022 (UTC)reply
You do realize we are capable of reaching any kind of consensus on a talk page. "It's not in the template doc so we do what I want" is not the gotcha you seem to think is. Also, accusing me of edit warring for making a single revert is patently absurd since edit warring by definition requires multiple reverts. Stop digging a deeper hole and move on, the consensus is not with you on this. ―
Tartan357Talk 23:28, 15 July 2022 (UTC)reply
WP:ENDORSE requires third-party RSes
Per
WP:ENDORSE, personal sites, blogs and so on don't count to list endorsements. The endorsement needs to meet all of:
Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements by notable people.
Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which have been covered by reliable independent sources.
Lists of endorsements should only include endorsements which are specifically articulated as "endorsements".
So it needs a notable subject, a third-party RS and the word "endorsement".
Quite a lot of the "endorsements" here should be cleared out unless an RS meeting all three can be found -
David Gerard (
talk) 16:45, 23 September 2022 (UTC)reply