This article was nominated for deletion on 18 November 2023. The result of the discussion was keep.

This article is rated Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Elections and Referendums 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 U.S. Congress Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is about one (or many) thing(s).

Archives

Archive 1

This page has archives. Sections older than 1825 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III when more than 6 sections are present.

Where is the district by district listing? It has been my go to source for checking candidate viability for years. This is EXACTLY why I continue to refuse to donate to Wikipedia - to this day overzealous mods & contributors continue to wreck articles and destroy hours of people's work in the name of their idea of what constitutes proper citation or worthiness. 172.113.104.20 ( talk) 00:14, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

Are you referring to the collapsed table? You can expand it by clicking the "[show]" button in the top right of the table. It's common to collapse massive tables by default to reduce the amount of scrolling needed for people who aren't interested in the table. --Posted by Pikamander2 (Talk) at 01:48, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

FTR, I'm not sure I agree with many of the changes today. Collapsing the tables is neither here nor there IMO, but the 'Extremes' section should not have been removed – it's a straight WP:CALC section. Perhaps that can be made clearer at the top of that section, but it does not need to be removed. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 02:50, 8 September 2019 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Update Kentucky Governor to Democrat 71.254.15.47 ( talk) 00:16, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply

 Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. Nici Vampire Heart 03:40, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Update Kentucky Governor to Democrat

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/14/politics/kentucky-governor-recanvas-begins/index.html 71.254.15.47 ( talk) 11:05, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply

 Not done for now: We should wait until the result is certified and the new governor is inaugurated. Sceptre ( talk) 12:46, 16 November 2019 (UTC) reply

The state table shows how many D and R House members the state has. To supplement it, I think it should have a column showing how many D+, R+, and Even districts the state has. That way we can tell if a party won a significant amount of House districts that lean the other way without having to check the rating and representative from each district. In addition, the state table should have a total row at the bottom to show how many D and R governors, senators, and representatives there are, along with how many D+, Even, and R+ districts there are. These changes could be done without making the table too big, and they summarize information from elsewhere in the article and the article about the 2018 House elections, so there shouldn't be any objections that I am proposing inaccurate information or original research. EvanJ35 ( talk) 15:05, 7 December 2019 (UTC) reply

The PVI 'By state' list and section at this article is problematic. The Cook Political Report itself does not publish this info, and does not even seem to track it – their focus is exclusively on U.S. House districts. I've just spent several minutes looking, and I cannot find a legitimate secondary source that publishes this data (some articles look at state PVI on an election-by-election basis, but do not use the "standard" PVI method of combining the PVI of the previous two elections (e.g. 2012 & 2016) for their "by state" PVI figures) – the only sources that do publish "by state" PVIs are effectively election junkie blogs and forums (but blogs and forums are WP:NOTRS).

If an actual bona fide WP:RS cannot be found for this data (and, at this point, I think even a source for "by state" PVIs just for the 2016 election would be acceptable), I propose that the 'By state' section/list should be removed from this article as a classic case of WP:OR. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:04, 22 May 2020 (UTC) reply

It's literally sourced at the very top of the list https://cookpolitical.com/state-pvis Andibrema ( talk) 09:16, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply

Understand, that wasn't added until this edit on Oct. 31. Notice that my post above was well before that citation was added/updated. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:24, 23 November 2020 (UTC) reply

So, again, somebody has objected to the 'Extremes' section here, and again they seem unwilling to discuss it on this Talk page. Thus, I am posting here in case other editors actually want to discuss this issue.

FTR, I don't think the entire section should be removed – but I do think it should be substantially trimmed back from where it is now, and that its current length is WP:UNDUE.

But, as a general concept, reporting "extremes" comes straight from reading the table (which is sourced), is basically a simple WP:CALC-type interpretation, and in the case of "most D+ R-held district", etc. will in fact have some secondary coverage, at least on the general topic if not on the specifics.

Anyone else case to chime in?... -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 01:24, 18 January 2021 (UTC) reply

@ IJBall: The extremes section is definitely too long. It's okay to say West Virginia is the most Republican state with a Democratic Senator, but not that Joe Manchin is the Senator specifically, he's a moderate, his political history in his state, etc. A lot of what we could include in the Extremes section can already be inferred in the table. Here's what I would trim it down to:

Wikinights ( talk) 04:10, 6 February 2021 (UTC) reply

My $0.02? I would also completely cut the Governors from this section. PVI was originally created to track federal races, and there is much greater correlation between PVI and the results of federal races like House and Senate. Governors races are local affairs, and states have shown a much greater willingness to go "against partisan lean" – e.g. even some of the most D+ PVI states like MA, MD, and VT have Republican governors, etc. IOW, PVI is much less relevant when talking about Governors races. So the 'Extremes' section should really only talk about House and Senate seats IMO... Also, I would leave details, like Texas-13 being "R+33", in. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 04:17, 6 February 2021 (UTC) reply

My bad, I didn't intend to remove the R+33 part, only the Texas Panhandle part. Edited the prior collapsed section. Wikinights ( talk) 19:03, 6 February 2021 (UTC) reply

I have now trimmed this section back some, cutting the Governors paragraph, and cutting some really WP:OR-y stuff from the third paragraph. As of now, the third paragraph is still problematic, IMO – it would be better if that paragraph was citing some secondary sources. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:37, 26 February 2021 (UTC) reply

Three of the four columns should probably be removed, in my opinion. Cook PVI is strictly a function of presidential vote and including House delegations, etc. serves little purpose here beyond confusing readers. I understand why analysis of PVI in a broader electoral context is interesting but it would fit better in a blog. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkjeiau373671 ( talk • contribs) 04:18, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

It doesn't make sense to do that – it makes sense to either cut the entire section, or to leave the table as is. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 05:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

It isn't helpful to say, "doesn't make sense," and simply suggest your preference instead. To your idea of cutting the entire section, it's absurd to cut state PVI from the PVI Wikipedia article. It's relevant because PVI is the subject here and Cook tracks it. Sure, it isn't as commonly used as district PVI but it is on their web site. However, as I said, the section can be improved by removing extraneous non-PVI data. Disagreement is great but let's either justify our opinions or move on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dkjeiau373671 ( talk • contribs) 08:10, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

OK, have it your way – I oppose your proposed change. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:19, 24 February 2021 (UTC) reply

The footnote was written by D. Byler (2016), not anybody here, but I still want to point out that it's wrong. As an example, it says that if a Democrat wins by 5 points, he or she would be expect to win a D+2 state by 7 points. In reality, D+2 means 2 points more Democratic and 2 points less Republican, so you have to double the 2 before adding it to the 5. If anybody doesn't believe me, the data proves my point. Take Hawaii, which is D+15. In 2020, Biden won by 4.45 and won Hawaii by 29.46 for a difference of 25.01. In 2016, Clinton won by 2.10 and won Hawaii by 32.18 for a difference of 30.08. The mean of 25.01 and 30.08 is 27.545. Doubling 15 from D+15 to make 30 is much closer to 27.545 than 15 is to 27.545. EvanJ35 ( talk) 13:12, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

@ EvanJ35: PVI is based on raw percentages, not margins. Refer to Cook Partisan Voting Index#Calculation and format. Wikinights ( talk) 16:15, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Someone removed my map, I think it was in good faith because at least for me, if I try to see the full image it still shows the oldest version, but I want to say that what is correct (it may obviously have some mistakes in a few districts, but it is correct in general) -- Ngfsmg ( talk) 23:29, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

There was at least one mistake that I already corrected, with UT-3 that was shown as if R+20, but it's not exactly my fault because it's like that on the table in this article, that table must be corrected -- Ngfsmg ( talk) 23:40, 17 April 2021 (UTC) reply

The same user now decided to remove my map again with no justification... If there is some valid reason for that, it should be explained here or when making the change, I don't want to get into an edit war -- Ngfsmg ( talk) 15:28, 18 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Hi there, I just edited the section § Extremes and trends in which I added Governorship data, which I now know shouldn't be there, as per previous discussions in this Talk page.

But I had also updated the information into a list type format, making it much easier to follow (see this revision). So I just don't see any drawbacks of updating it to a list format. But that has been reverted by IJBall, with the edit summary "...and don't convert to list-format..." in the subsequent edit. Can you please give your opinions in this matter. Thanks. Cheers! CX Zoom ( talk) 20:56, 29 April 2021 (UTC) reply

I am against converting this section into list-format. It should not be the focus of the article, and putting it in list-format will draw undue attention to it... The question is not between what we have now and "expanding" the current section – the question is actually whether the entire 'Extremes and trends' is too WP:UNDUE and should be removed, or whether it should remain roughly as is. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:02, 29 April 2021 (UTC) reply

Can I add a list of new PVI for redistricted states such as Oregon and Texas? Or should I wait until the whole redistricting process ended? Hong Kong Ian ( talk) 10:07, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

It's best to wait until the entire redistricting process is ended before updating the PVIs. Secondly, it will have to be sourced to something. Hopefully the Cook Political Report will publish the update themselves, but if they don't it will need to come from somewhere. Finally, the new figures should simply be put into the original table – we do not need a second table for this. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 12:15, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

I think there should be both sets of PVIs until the next Congress is seated (or at least elected next year). Until then, all existing members will be from the previous district lines, and the PVI to party-membership thing will be completely messed up. Let's also remember that the new districts don't even necessarily remain numbered similarly. The new PVIs are going to be valuable and important information, but you can't jettison the existing PVIs until they are no longer relevant. Gabrielthursday ( talk) 17:01, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

In that case, the best suggestion may be to wait until after the 2022 elections to update the table. The figures for the redistricted districts can be mentioned in prose in the meantime, citing the relevant source. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 17:03, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Perhaps, but I don't see the harm in having both figures available. The new PVIs will also be relevant, since primaries and elections will be fought within them for most of 2022. Right now, the house PVIs are collapsed/hidden in the article, so there isn't much of a downside, imho. Gabrielthursday ( talk) 20:32, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

In thinking it over, as the revised districts will be used in the 2022 elections, we should switch to the redistricted figures after all states have redistricted (which was my original thought). The odds of any election in 2022 being run under the "old" lines is extremely small, so the new figures will be relevant as of next year. But as per things like WP:INDISCRIMINATE, I do not support having two sets of tables, esp. on a "temporary" basis – including prose and a reference to the "2020 PVIs" should be sufficient. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 21:17, 26 October 2021 (UTC) reply

Since both sets of figures will be relevant until the next election, I think they should both be present. Since thye are both relevant, WP:INDISCRIMINATE doesn't apply. You don't have to have two sets of tables, just adding the new PVIs to the existing table will be adequate. Gabrielthursday ( talk) 16:41, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply

This is an encyclopedia, not a news or politics "website". Simply citing the pre-2022 figures is sufficient, while updating to the 2022 figures when applicable is all that is needed. We should not be trying to duplicate what Cook's website is for – that's what they do, not what we do. This basically falls under WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:50, 5 November 2021 (UTC) reply

Moved from User talk:IJBall § Cook Partisan Voting Index

 – -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 02:29, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Didn't mean to undo your undoing of my edits on the page so quickly, should've moved this here first. I think there's a strong argument to be made that DC needs to be included in one of the visual charts on this page. The DC delegate may not have voting power, but DC is in a unique position as the only state-level entity with a non-voting representative that has electoral college votes, unlike the territories or Puerto Rico. While I don't really think it's appropriate to include DC on the state chart, an argument could be made that because DC has electoral college votes, it should be included on the state chart to allow readers to compare it with the other entities that have electoral college votes (the states). But I actually think it belongs on the district list to allow a dynamic visual comparison with the other Congressional districts. I'm not sure why it would even be mentioned in the prose if it weren't eligible to be included on the list. -- 19h00s ( talk) 02:02, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

I do not think it should be included in the "House districts" table, as that should be reserved for the 435 voting members of the House. If it went in either table, I agree that it would better belong in the U.S. states table. But it would be an awkward fit there as well, as most of the cells would be blank. I think the current solution, including it in prose, is the best of the available options, and I'd prefer that we stay with the current arrangement. I don't know how other editors feel about this. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 02:35, 23 March 2022 (UTC) reply

Hi all talk page watchers, as you might be knowing that all of the states have completed redistricting now. Should we replace the current PVI with upcoming PVI in which the 2022 elections are to be held; keep both the PVIs side by side; or don't add the new PVIs? — CX Zoom[he/him] ^{( let's talk • { C• X})} 08:40, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

We should replace the old PVIs with the current ones (it's not worth it to keep the old PVIs for two or three remaining special elections). Do we have a source from Cook with the updated PVIs though? We need that before we can change the figures. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 13:45, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Yes, at https://cookpolitical.com/redistricting/2022-maps-and-ratings — CX Zoom[he/him] ^{( let's talk • { C• X})} 15:05, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

Then I have no objection to updating to the new PVI figures. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 16:37, 16 June 2022 (UTC) reply

While I defer to others here, there are a few problems with using the new PVI figures - the existing chart is designed to tell us not only what the PVI of the district is, but also who represents the district. Nobody represents the new districts, some are renumbered, and in plenty of cases, it's difficult to say who the nominal "incumbent" is. And, of course, there are seats that have been reapportioned out of existence and those which are newly coming into existence. One solution would be simply to remove the "Party of Representative" column until November if adding the new PVIs. Gabrielthursday ( talk) 18:09, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

That is not desirable. If this is an issue, then I suggest we don't update until closer to election day 2022. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 18:17, 20 June 2022 (UTC) reply

The table has since been updated to the new districts. This comes at a significant cost in readability, because the links are often basically irrelevant. For example, people click through the CA-12 link at the top of the table and think it's Pelosi's district in San Francisco; the CA-12 page does not once mention that in 2022 and beyond, CA-12 will change to Barbara Lee's current district in Oakland and Berkeley, which is what Cook is referring to. The confusion is evident in the multiple edits we've had attempting to correct "Oakland" to "San Francisco" in the Extremes section. The same is true on basically all of the `ushr` template pages: there's no mention on the district page of the new map that will be applied in the upcoming elections.

I propose that instead of linking to the district pages, e.g. California 12, we link to 2022_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections_in_California#District_12, which correctly points to the district in question. (The display text can remain unchanged, of course). Failing that, we should at least add some text above the table making it clearer that these are post-redistricting districts. 73.70.83.208 ( talk) 09:28, 16 August 2022 (UTC) reply

@ Skm989898: Your move request was correct, it is officially "Voter" as used by Cook.The correct title for this subject would be "Cook Partisan Voter Index", not Voting. — CX Zoom[he/him] ^{( let's talk • { C• X})} 10:25, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

Yeah, I had no opinion on the move request at this point, but I wonder why it was removed – there must be a reason it was removed, and I'd like to know what the rationale was. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 15:46, 12 July 2022 (UTC) reply

I think this came up somewhat recently, but Cook's revised PVI scores for the 50 U.S. states has just been published:

https://www.cookpolitical.com/cook-pvi/2022-partisan-voter-index/republican-electoral-college-advantage

Important note: Starting now, Cook has changed the way it calculates PVI. The important line is this:

Beginning with this decade, we're making a slight formula change to how we calculate PVI scores: instead of using a 50/50 mix of the two most recent presidential elections to assess partisanship as we've done in the past, we're switching to a 75/25 weighting in favor of the more recent presidential election. For the 2022 dataset, that means that the 2020 result in each state district is weighted three times as heavily as the 2016 result.

This, especially the change to how PVI is calculated, should be added to the article. I'm posting this here, so it's available for other editors. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 23:20, 22 July 2022 (UTC) reply

After many years with the proper history, sometime in July 2022 someone removed the originating role that FairVote (then the Center for Voting and Democracy) had in introducing the partisan voting index in July 1997. This is the language: "The index is based on analysis by the Center for Voting and Democracy (now FairVote) for its July 1997 Monopoly Politics report."

I was on CSPAN [1] releasing FairVote's report [2] and it got a good amount of coverage. Charlie Cook recognized its value and wrote this piece about it [3] e then introduced the PVI using the same approach -- the only difference being averaging the presidential vote deviation from the national norm over the past two elections rather than using only the most recent one, as we did. Notably, using only one has been highly accurate for FairVote, and the PVI has since come to weight the most recent election much more heavily than the previous election.

So I'm putting the same language back in that was there for years. History is history, and let's get it right! Thanks. RRichie ( talk) 21:14, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

User:ElectionWiz did that on July 25, 2022. That contributor was a short-term editor that only edited for a week. They gave no explanation for removing this content. -- IJBall ( contribs • talk) 22:40, 22 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Thanks for the heads up. I did put the old text back in the article. RRichie ( talk) 21:07, 24 June 2023 (UTC) reply

Someone has edited this out again. I can't quite see where, but the old text (and accurate one) is here: "<<The index is updated after each presidential election cycle, as well as after congressional redistricting. It is based on the methodology introduced by the Center for Voting and Democracy (now FairVote) for its July 1997 Monopoly Politics report.[4] [5] The Cook Political Report first introduced its modified PVI in August 1997 to better gauge the competitiveness of each district using the 1992 and 1996 presidential elections as a baseline.[6] The most recent iteration is the 2022 Cook Partisan Voting Index, which was released with an updated formula for calculating PVI values.[7]>>

I will restore it in some form — Preceding unsigned comment added by RRichie ( talk • contribs) 16:46, 18 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I don't see any reason why these tables should be included. especially with the whole article body only being sourced bu primary sources i.e. independent notability of them has not been established. The first removal was reverted by an IP user not giving a reason, the second by @ Thesavagenorwegian on the grounds that the table has personal utility value for them (not a relevant criterion for inclusion) and that the article isn't too long (which was not the reason for removal). @ Hirolovesswords You have not given a reason why these tables should be included. Including such a string of information just based on primary sources is dubious. Cortador ( talk) 13:12, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

@ User:Cortador Your removal of sourced content has been reverted by three separate editors. There is an WP:EDITCONSENSUS that this material is acceptable. If you continue to violate the WP:3RR you risk another block. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 15:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Don't pretend I've violated the 3RR - your own link states that "all edits should be explained", which one user (2001:1388:90:d24f:f1ca:2c94:b1d:7b87) didn't do, leaving one explained reverted edit (by Thesavagenorwegian), which, as I have laid out above, was not explained sufficiently, as personal utility of article content isn't a valid reason for inclusion. Likewise, verifiability alone isn't sufficient for inclusion. Cortador ( talk) 16:04, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The PVI of each district is a straightforward, descriptive statement of facts that can be verified by any educated person with access to the primary source and acceptable use of WP:PRIMARYSOURCE. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 18:38, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

None of this is by itself sufficient for inclusion, and your false accusations don't give me confidence into your knowledge of Wikipedia guidelines. Cortador ( talk) 18:58, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

You nominated this page for deletion and failed to gain a consensus. Your edits since have not gained any support. Move on. -- Hirolovesswords ( talk) 19:05, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

The only support you have is an IP edit with no edit reasons giving, and one person who likes the inclusion of the list for personal reasons. Stop pretending there's a consensus here. Cortador ( talk) 20:00, 22 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Replying here in the talk page, because evidently leaving edit summaries is insufficient participation to count as "bothering to join in the discussion." (You quoted my points. I didn't see the need to chime in and reiterate them.) @ Cortador, I don't believe you are arguing in good faith here. Any who reverts you doesn't count as being against your changes unless they participate in the talk page? You're shifting the burden of proof, as though this is a trial where we must all prove to you, by your metrics, that this is encyclopedic. The consensus is for inclusion. The onus is on you to convince us otherwise. I'm not convinced, seemingly neither was anyone else. We can RFC if you want, but I don't think you're gonna win. Not that this is a fight. Let's not fight. The Savage Norwegian 16:36, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Articles are build by consensus, not by the number of editors who revert edits. The onus is indeed on those who want to include content, not the other way around. Consensus is based on arguments, not votes, and as I mentioned above, personal utility of article content isn't a valid reason for inclusion. Cortador ( talk) 18:59, 8 April 2024 (UTC) reply

What do you define as the difference between "encyclopedic utility" and "personal utility"? I've never seen anyone make this distinction. PVI is invoked and populated in so, so many articles. It's arguably the single most important political data point about states and congressional districts. I don't see how you don't see that as either encyclopedic or notable. Per WP:NNC, "notability guidelines do not apply to content within articles or lists" either. We've established this page is notable, I don't have to prove notability for the individual items within. The list *is* the index. You're fine with us using a map shading according to the data, but not including the actual data? A map is encyclopedic but a list is not? Again, I don't think you're being serious when you say things like your citation is a non sequitur. I think you're arguing for the sake of arguing. Are you similarly against the inclusion of PVI in articles like Colorado's congressional districts? That's not a standalone list article, yet there the PVIs stand. I just don't see how an article about PVI shouldn't actually contain the PVI. The Savage Norwegian 18:09, 9 April 2024 (UTC) reply

Response to third opinion request:

The Cook Partisan Index's district PVI score is a widely used shorthand for how the partisan lean of a district and referenced regularly by reliable sources across the political spectrum. Per WP:LISTN each individual item in a list need not be notable if the list as a whole is notable. I believe this also falls under the informational use of WP:LISTPURP as a list that is presumably widely referenced. The index is notable per a deletion discussion. It follows that its scores are notable as well. They are regularly referenced by reporters reporting on each district in reliable sources and, in fact, in each of our district articles. Furthermore, they are verifiable. I don't see any reason why they shouldn't be retained. DCsansei ( talk) 23:46, 25 December 2023 (UTC) reply

This isn't relevant because the article in question isn't a list article, the list being notable due to the article being notable is a non sequitur. Cortador ( talk) 20:32, 28 December 2023 (UTC) reply

Please debate this section on extremes because it keeps getting deleted and there needs to be consensus on whether it should be there. I am pasting below the section that there is debate on whether it should be included. A problem with not including it is that currently the section that keeps getting deleted is the only section that gives what the Cook PVI is for the District of Columbia. If the section is to be deleted, the Cook PVI for the District of Columbia will have to be put somewhere else. I think this debate is urgent because this section keeps getting deleted by the same user who asked for the whole article to be deleted and then tried to prevent any of the tables on any of the articles to be included in the article. Given that that user was overridden on deletion and on not including the tables, it ought to be debates whether the extreme section should be included. I think the section should be included but others disagree Here is the section that keeps getting deleted:

The two most Democratic districts in the nation are California's 12th, based in Oakland, and Maryland's 4th, based in the D.C. suburbs of Prince George's County, both with a PVI value of D+40. The most Republican district in the nation is Alabama's 4th (R+33). With a Cook PVI value of R+25, Wyoming is the most Republican state in the nation. At D+16, Vermont is the most Democratic state, though Washington, D.C., is substantially more Democratic with a PVI value of D+43. In the Senate, the most Republican-leaning state to have a Democratic senator is West Virginia (R+22 PVI), represented by Joe Manchin. The least Democratic-leaning state to have two Democratic senators is Georgia (R+3 PVI), represented by Jon Ossoff and Raphael Warnock. The most Democratic-leaning state to have a Republican senator is Maine (D+2 PVI), represented by Susan Collins. The least Republican-leaning states to have two Republican senators are Florida (R+3 PVI), represented by Marco Rubio and Rick Scott, and North Carolina (R+3 PVI), represented by Ted Budd and Thom Tillis. 2607:FEA8:53E1:E200:9086:449F:DB0E:7B7D ( talk) 04:53, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Wikipedia is not a guide. If you want this information included, establish independent notability. This article has an issue with the article body relying too heavily on primary sources. Cortador ( talk) 05:08, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

The primary sources thing has already been rejected by consensus. But I'm letting other users weigh in. I'm not weighing in right now any more. 2607:FEA8:53E1:E200:9086:449F:DB0E:7B7D ( talk) 05:11, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

No, it has not. The edit hasn't been discussed at all, and no consensus was established above for the other edit. Cortador ( talk) 05:26, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

I'm not going to keep talking, but regarding the other edit there was a consensus. It is why we still have tables on this article, which you wanted to all be deleted. You were overridden on that. On this particular point there is currently no consensus which is why I want other users to weigh in. 2607:FEA8:53E1:E200:9086:449F:DB0E:7B7D ( talk) 05:30, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

There's no consensus regarding the tables. One editor only wanted them for personal reasons, another was an IP that never contributed another edit, and the editor who provided a third opinion confused this article for a list article. Cortador ( talk) 05:39, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply

Notability isn't necessary for article contents. If the information is useful and verifiable, we can include it. Elli ( talk | contribs) 15:28, 7 January 2024 (UTC) reply