Talk:1852 United States presidential election

North Carolina Connection

The VP nominees of the two major parties were both born in North Carolina. Wm. R.D. King served in Congress from the southeast part of the state 1811-1816. Wm A Graham was Fillmore's Secretary of the Navy and a former NC Governor (1845-1849). Chronicler3 20:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3

Daniel Webster Campaign

Daniel Webster was the nominee of two different parties in 1852. After Scott won the nomination at the Whig Party National Convention, Fillmore's supporters started "Union" tickets of presidential electors. These Union Electors received votes in GA, MA, NY, and NC and possibly other states. In these four states, Webster received 6,995 votes. "Ohio Elects the President" (Mansfield OH: Bookmasters, Inc., 2000), p. 33.

Webster was also nominated by the Native American Party at its national convention in Trenton on 7/5-6/1852. That party's Electors were pledged to him until his death on 10/24/1852 just before the election. The NAP national committee substituted Jacob Broome of PA for President on 10/27/1852. Broome received 2,566 votes. "Ohio Elects the President", op. cit., p. 33. Chronicler3 20:43, 8 February 2006 (UTC) Chronicler3

Redirect from "Election of 1852"

Most of the others (1856, 1860) redirect like this; ie. Election of 1856, Election of 1860. How come this one doesn't?

"Election of 1852 = #redirect United States presidential election, 1852"

(68.14.143.194 06:01, 23 April 2007 (UTC))

John P. Hale and post-election infobox inclusion criteria

Most infoboxes require a candidate to get 5% of the popular vote (or at least 1 pledged electoral vote) to be included in the infobox. John P. Hale only got 4.9% of the vote. In order to be consistent I feel like he should be removed from the infobox. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 22:50, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

It looks like this article was written before that became the standard. I agree, though, that Hale shouldn't be in the infobox. It sets a precedent for everyone to argue that their favorite candidate almost qualifies, so there's no harm in having them in the infobox - and you know how that would go with modern elections. Otherwise the coverage of Hale is about right for the nominee of what was considered a significant party in this period, given that the election as a whole was no contest. 64.105.98.115 (talk) 03:35, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Agreed we have to be consistent because I was not aware of such standards. I also think the standards should be someone appropriate other than a talk page so people dont make good faith edits not knowing the requirements to add such a candidate. LuckyLag360 (talk) 16:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

The 5% rule is uniform across all Wikipedia election pages. There are some exceptions for certain types of elections, for example when there are electoral votes, or in some countries... guaranteed seats for minority parties (IE, they get less votes than another party's candidate, but still win anyway because they are constitutionally guaranteed to win)XavierGreen (talk) 21:22, 25 October 2016 (UTC)

Allowance have always been made in this regard for candidates that comes reasonably close to attaining the threshold, almost always within a tenth of a percent, though in some cases it is also two tenths of a percent as is the case with the article on the 2014 New York Gubernatorial, the arguement being that if you were to round up to the closest tenth or whole percent you would get (5%) anyhow. Probably would be better to get a few others here since this 'relaxed state' has been around since I began editing, and I've been in the middle of working on an article that makes use of said 'relaxed state'. --Ariostos (talk) 01:05, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's say Gary Johnson gets 4.99% of the national popular vote. I would argue we should not include Johnson in the 2016 template because you need 5% (not 4.99%) of the popular vote to get public funding for the next election. The current consensus at the 2016 talk page is my viewpoint. Therefore if we included Hale in the infobox here but not Johnson in the infobox for 2016 it would be inconsistent. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 01:16, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

I'd be arguing that we should include Johnson under those conditions, public funding or no, so that particular argument doesn't sway me; as it is, the implementation of public funding for elections has only be around since the 1976, and the bar at which a minor Party could be applicable for matching funds could be raised or lowered at any point. To date it has only been used twice (Perot '96, Buchanan '00), while Anderson qualified in '80 but didn't make use of it in '84. --Ariostos (talk) 01:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Just going to try and get a few more voices here so we can establish a larger consensus. @Lawrence King, Antony-22, JayCoop, Bcharles, and MartinZ02: --Ariostos (talk) 01:31, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Note: I just refactored the title of this thread from "John P. Hale" to "John P. Hale and post-election infobox inclusion criteria" (and I also refactored the link at the POTUS 2016 election article to point to the new title. Sparkie82 (t•c) 03:40, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

McMullen is a case where a candidate has notability and weight that exceeds what his national numbers would indicate. Another example is Ralph Nader, who was widely discussed and known, but whose national numbers were only 2.7%. The 5% threshold is somewhat arbitrary. Even though it has meaning because of the election rules, those rules themselves are arbitrary and can be changed. (When independents start getting more than 5% you can be sure they'll raise that threshold to 10% or 15% just as they did for the debate criteria.) I don't know how you get around the arbitrary nature of selecting a number for this. I guest we can just say that we selected a number based on existing law at the time, notwithstanding the fact that regulators/legislators/judges could change the number at any time; and we don't have to change it to always match what they do.

One possibility to allow for candidates like Hale and McMullen is to set the threshold based on performance in any state. Candidates that are just under 5% nationally will certain be over 5% in some states and candidates who do what McMullen has done in Utah would also get in the infobox with that criteria. Sparkie82 (t•c) 04:03, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

It's WP:SPECULATION to say that the threshold will be raised if a third party wins 5% of the vote (especially since it has already happened in the past). If McMullin doesn't qualify for the infobox on the main article, he could still qualify for the infobox on the Utah article as well as articles for other states. The 5% criteria is not arbitrary and I really hope we aren't going to have a repeat of what we saw with the pre-infobox inclusion criteria discussions i.e. endless debate. Post-election inclusion criteria has already been discussed at the talk on the 2016 article so to re-open the discussion just a few days before election day means that edit wars might occur. Including anyone in the 2016 article that gets less than 5% of the popular vote and/or less than 1 pledged electoral votes would be WP:UNDUE. While you feel a 5% national popular vote threshold is arbitrary; any other criteria you think of would probably be just as arbitrary if not more. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 04:37, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Hence why I'm not arguing here against (5%) being the set bar, but that leeway should be granted for those candidates who are within spitting distance of it, as was apparently the case until the last couple days. --Ariostos (talk) 22:32, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Like the IP user said "it sets a precedent for everyone to argue that their favorite candidate almost qualifies". How close is "close enough"? Is 4.5% close enough since it rounds up to 5%? Is 4.49% close enough because it's .01% away from rounding up to 5%? The person that added him to the infobox said "added John Hale to the infobox because he made the 5% requirement" [1]. This is false, he did not get 5% of more of the popular vote and therefore he should have never been added without first discussing it at the talk. Prcc27🎃 (talk) 00:09, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27: If we are talking about precedent, then it has already established it; John Hale had been in the Infobox for four years until you reverted it, and there are plenty of other articles that have done the same thing in granting leeway. And no, I think we could fairly argue that operating within the range of a tenth (0.10%) should be the standard given, at least with the Presidential Infoboxes, they only go to the tenths place; no matter how you were to round to the next tenth, you wouldn't be able to meet the threshold with say (4.85%) given the next step would be (4.9%), unlike with (4.95%) where it would be (5.0%). Now an argument could be made in terms of lowering the threshold as a whole, I've seen those often referencing Henry Wallace or Nader arguing it should be set at (2%) for example, but that a different discussion entirely. --Ariostos (talk) 02:01, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Wikipedia operates on consensus not precedent. This was an example of consensus being applied improperly and without explaining how Hale supposedly met the 5% threshold. One rogue user's edit on a page that is hardly active doesn't overturn an established consensus. And now the consensus has been reasserted on this talk page. You and that user might even have a different idea of what qualifies as "close enough". Prcc27🎃 (talk) 02:22, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

I suppose I begrudgingly agree on that point. And I'd ask @Creativemind15:, but he doesn't seem to have been active for the last year or so. --Ariostos (talk) 02:45, 6 November 2016 (UTC)

Election results appearing at the bottom of United States presidential election in Massachusetts, 1852, etc.

I am not sure why, but the elections results box is appearing at the bottom of the article page for United States presidential election in Massachusetts, 1852, United States presidential election in Vermont, 1852, and perhaps other state articles. Perhaps it needs to be formatted like United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 1852. All three of these pages were created by JCC the Alternate Historian.–CaroleHenson (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2017 (UTC)

Hello there, CaroleHenson. I am JCC the Alternate Historian, the creator of the 1852 US Presidential Election articles in Vermont, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts. I apologize for any inconveniences with those three articles! I tried fixing the Vermont one several times, but none of my edits worked. The New Hampshire article got screwed up as well, but a user named Mr.Election fixed it for me (I'll thank him for that when I get the chance, probably tomorrow). As for the Massachusetts article, it got screwed up like the Vermont article. CarikHenson, I see that you tried to fix the Massachusetts article, but ran into a similar problem as I did. Hopefully, either you, I, or someone else can fix the articles so that they aren't train wrecks. --JCC the Alternate Historian (talk) 20:40, 19 March 2017 (UTC)