| Revision as of 22:29, 17 October 2003 editSmith03 (talk | contribs)20,765 editsmNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 00:30, 18 October 2003 edit undoMcarling (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers3,373 edits more on inclusion standardsNext edit → | ||
| Line 61: | Line 61: | ||
| A person could make a similar argument that even thougt the Libert and Greens are on enough state ballots neither one has a "real" chance to win the election and should not be treated the same as Dems and Reps. Depending on what states your are on it would only take 12 states to win Of course you have to win all thoses states and thoses are the biggest states, but in "theory" you could do it. I think in the interest of being "inclusive" and giving people more information let's include other parties. We could add call them minor parties or regional parties, but they deserves as much of a platform as the greens and libitarians | A person could make a similar argument that even thougt the Libert and Greens are on enough state ballots neither one has a "real" chance to win the election and should not be treated the same as Dems and Reps. Depending on what states your are on it would only take 12 states to win Of course you have to win all thoses states and thoses are the biggest states, but in "theory" you could do it. I think in the interest of being "inclusive" and giving people more information let's include other parties. We could add call them minor parties or regional parties, but they deserves as much of a platform as the greens and libitarians | ||
| Just checking the 2000 election and the Reform party got more votes than the Libs, so one could make a case that base on the the last election the reform party should be included on this last as as well as the lib] 22:28, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC) | Just checking the 2000 election and the Reform party got more votes than the Libs, so one could make a case that base on the the last election the reform party should be included on this last as as well as the lib] 22:28, 17 Oct 2003 (UTC) | ||
| There is no chance that Natural Law, Constitution, or Reform will be on the ballot in 40 states in 2004. As of the end of September, Libertarians are on the ballot in 27 states (expected 47 to 50), Greens are on in 20 (expected 40 to 47), Natural Law are on in 12 states (expected 20 to 30), Constitution are on in 10 (expected 15 to 18 including CA), and Reform are on in 7 (expected 10 to 12). ] is correct that the Reform candidate ] received more votes in ] than did ] the Libertarian candidate, however, it was only about one twentieth the votes received by ] in ] and the Reform Party has continued to implode since then. If I recall correctly, the Reform Party fielded a total of 7 candidates nationwide in ], compared to several hundrend Greens and about 2000 Libertarians (partisan races only). | |||
| ] has argued that we should have a more inclusive standard that the one we've been using, however, has not proposed a specific standard unless it was the suggestion that we include any party that's on the ballot in even just one state. The problem with that standard is that we would have to include several dozen parties about which information is scarce. I can't think of an objective standard higher than on the ballot in one state but lower than on the ballot in enough states to win that makes any sense. Perhaps someone else will. Until someone suggests a different standard and there is some consensus on it, I'm going to revert to the standard we've been using. -- ] 01:26, 18 Oct 2003 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 00:30, 18 October 2003
Why don't we stop talking about the future? Future release album, future election, future etc... -- Taku 08:13 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
- This is actually the present. The U.S. "election season" for presidential elections is beginning in earnest now, with several announcements about who is (and isn't) running. Election day is the end of a long public process that has already begun. - RobLa 08:33 Jan 5, 2003 (UTC)
-Hehe, getting ready are we. :)--Sv
There is no room for a waste of time with self-centered crap like this in an encyclopedia. Things like this are what make Misplaced Pages an unreliable joke by idiots with nothing more to do than create something of no real value.....DW
- Yay, me for President! Hmmm...have to add my announcement to the timeline... :) -- RobLa
What ever happened to the fine art of procrastination? :) --mav
- whaddya mean...working on Misplaced Pages is how I procrastinate. :) Seriously though, I'm hoping that by getting an early start and tracking this election early, we'll have a really complete record of what transpired.
DW: What do you mean by self-centered? And you really think its things like this that are troubling? Read the nonsense under Fifth World and Micronation. -- Zoe
gotta go with Zoe on this. rofl.-Sv
---
Although it's not possible to list potential issues in say the 2008 election, it is certainly possible to list potential issues cited by the candidates that motivate them to run in the next election. For instance Cynthia McKinney will certainly make an issue of the Iraq crisis, 2003 and oil imperialism. Gary Johnson will certainly make an issue of the War on Drugs. Ralph Nader will make an issue of the War on Terrorism and its civil rights impact. Issues mentioned by lots of potential candidates ought to be in an 'issues' section or separate article on "likely issues in the 2004 U.S. presidential election" just so people can bone up on them in one place.
This could get a *lot* of people reading Misplaced Pages, if the articles established a high reputation for quality and impartiality. It's worth doing for that reason if no other.
Our distinction between "considering" and "announced" is problematic. What exactly do we mean by "announced"? There are two formal actions taken with the FEC: statement of organization of an exploratory committee and statement of candidacy. Perhaps we should have "considering," "formed exporatory committee," and "declared"? M Carling (03 March 2003 14:18 UTC)
- No objection, though I'm not volunteering to fix this up :-) -- RobLa 07:53 Mar 4, 2003 (UTC)
- Yes the formal FEC actions are the ones that count, it's the only neutral/objective basis for any such classification. Go for it.
The 2004 election timeline is a terrific idea. I am glad to see people working on it already. As a high school history teacher, I intend to use this as a resource. The more well-informed I can stay on the election, the better I can teach my students. keep up the good work! and i'll probably be helping here too! Kingturtle 02:30 Mar 10, 2003 (UTC)
- Glad you like it. However, it's six months later, and there are still gaping holes, like no biography of Michael Badnarik, former State House candidate from Texas, a stub for Gary Johnson, former Governor of New Mexico, none for Carol Miller, New Mexico Green, David Cobb, Green legal advisor to the party and former candidate for Texas attorney, nor even Cynthia McKinney, former Congresswoman from Georgia or Paul Glover, creator of Ithaca Hours. It took some time before even all Democrats were covered, which is kind of surprising.
- Perhaps your students can chip in and help by digging up biographies of the above, and filling them in?
I guess I don't understand why the Democratic candidates have been moved to their own page. Moreover, I don't know why anyone in the next few months would assume they could find info about candidates at an encyclopedic entry marked "Democratic Primary". I would be bold and change it, but I haven't been working on this page, and don't want to muck up the works if there's a good reason for how it's being run. My suggestion: couldn't we leave the candidates on this page for the time being...maybe say that more information is available on whatever party's primary page? Then, after the primaries start to thin things out, we move all the candidates to the primary page at that point (say, mid-March) with the assumption that people will know at that point that info on who's in and who's out will be on the primary page? If I'm missing something here, let me know. I just doubt the wisdom of forcing someone looking for the Democratic candidates to follow another link (which may confuse them at this juncture), but leaving independent and Green candidates on this page...I don't know why we're tossing in the roadblock. Please enlighten me: Jwrosenzweig 22:12, 16 Sep 2003 (UTC)
Is there a reason for parenthetical italicized notes (this note is unnecessary)? Wouldn't it be better to put them in