A survey of issues, I hope leading to some future agreement on these topics. The template has some standards that were created to handle other issues, and it's been clear they are not working any longer, for the current situation.
The "filed with the FEC" standard was agreed to eliminate the discussion about "exploratory" and "declared" when it was fashionable to have "exploratory" attached to a committee name. The FEC cares not about this kind of distinguishing without a differnce. See:
though the "Filed with the FEC" priciple tended to serve discussion in this area, in August, September and October 2007 and promoted creation of "draft" and "self-declared potential candidates," which clarified why the non-filing individuals were listed.
It did turn out that the FEC filing rule was applied to keep Colbert off of the list, as there was real question about the seriousness of his effort; had he ever filed with the FEC, he would have stayed on the list, though probably with a lot of discussion as a single state candidate. See:
The Colbert candidacy tended to solidify the "filing with FEC" principle, with the challenge that there are some 200 individuals that have filed for the current election cycle, and there are 700+ presidential committees, active and inactive in the FEC online database for the last several election cycles. In addition, there's been discussion about clearer minimum standards; so far, several proposed standards, all of which to date do not have consensus on use:
is there a wikipedia article for the individual
files electronically with the FEC ($50,000 of activity)
Using the FEC (mere) existence of a committee, whether an
independent draft committee (or otherwise independent and not cooperating with the candidate, as a number of the Nader committees demonstrate), or
avowed/acknowledged principal committee
appears to lead to the resurrection of "potential or draft" candidates, or the listing of "withdrawn" candidates who were visible in past election cycles, that have limited or no activity in the current one, on several non-uniform, non universal dimensions: fundraising, debt-pay-down, advertising, expenditures, statements about "will not run", media visibility, travel, and so on.
Um, thanks! But I'm not following. It still seems pretty clear-cut: (1) must have FEC filing; (2) must have WP article; and I presume STX would not object to (3) must have activity at FEC candidate page, testable as I explained above (this may relate to your $5K test). No one has objected to any of those as they are now, and no one has proposed how to verify any other quantifiable test (besides the presumably unworkable $50K). That leaves the open questions (under WP:BRD) merely as (a) what should Clark and Nader be categorized as, if anything, and (b) can we add 6 "withdrawn" candidates (active in this cycle, as I defined), for historical reasons (Bayh, Dean, Gore, Kerry, Sharpton, Stanhope)? (Wasted may still have a refactored question about separating categories.) John J. Bulten (talk) 19:29, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
For the Dean, Gore, Kerry, Sharpton, Stanhope types, how little (big) must the effort be to amount to an effort? Stanhope: zero dollars. The rest won't be resolved based on FEC statistics or filings, I believe. That implies some basis, rationale, or citations to mutually acceptable sources that they were actually active, to have withdrawn. Bayh I'll take as withdrawn, as he failed to disavow the committee. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Maybe I put this in the wrong section ... WP:Use common sense has to apply at some point. If you ask Tim Russert or Brit Hume or any other politically observant person, did Sam Brownback run for president for 2008? they'll say yes, he sure did, he was in a bunch of debates, he had a whole fundraising site set up, he campaigned all over the place, but he wasn't getting traction the polls and his money was running out, so after some time he quit. If you ask Russert or Hume or anyone, did John Kerry run for president for 2008? they'll say no, he thought about it and decided early on not to, announced that, and was never heard from again in that respect. He was never in a debate, he never did any real fundraising, he never did any campaigning, he never did anything. All your FEC minutae aside, any template that does not reflect this is not reflecting commonly understood reality. Wasted Time R (talk) 20:30, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Sorry STX. If we ask the FEC, they will not answer like Russert; they will say Kerry is moving $1 million around this quarter for some reason, and we (meaning FEC) have a ministerial duty to regard him as a candidate until he tells us otherwise in legally acceptable fashion. Now the commonsense argument is valid, because we can't overdo FEC's POV either; but since I got each name in that set from other WP articles sourcing their formerly unwithdrawn candidacy activity this cycle, I still think they should go somewhere. So will try again and we can handle any further disagreements as they arise. Thanks! John J. Bulten (talk) 21:21, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
JJB, if you are creating a template whose purpose is to track the FEC's "ministerial duties", you may have a point; I don't know about these processing rules and I don't care. If you are creating a template whose purpose it is to describe the U.S. presidential campaign in an attempt to give lay readers a grasp of who the candidates are and have been, you are absurdly wrong. Wasted Time R (talk) 21:36, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Thanks Wasted, but they are candidates in the legal sense, which is an important POV. They are not candidates in the generally popular sense you describe, any more than R. U. Sirius, which is an important POV. They are candidates in the sense that they have been named as such by certain political segments during this cycle, that they have notable FEC filings, and that they could change their minds at any time and immediately solicit funds, which are important POVs. My latest edit suggests a means of balancing these POVs. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:07, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Well, balancing becomes a question of weighting then, and I would weigh the "generally popular sense" as about 100 times greater than the "FEC ministerial/legal" sense (since I can't imagine more than 1% of readers understanding or caring about the latter), and thus I would say that putting the FEC sense anywhere into this general use, high visibility template is a violation of WP:UNDUE. But, I'm not going to argue it further; this template has been, and continues to be, a black hole of editor time. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:52, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Proposal: Minimum standard $5,000 reported FEC activity
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the Proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion after a week, as of November 27, 2007, is
The proposal is not agreed to, to specify minimum monetary and reported activity threshold of $5,000, as reported to the FEC, for a candidate to be listed on this template. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2007 (UTC)
Proposal:
There's been a lot of discussion about minimum standards for enabling listing of candidate here. I prefer $50,000 of reported activity to the FEC, which is the level for electronic filing at the FEC. I'll propose here though that any candidate or committee that fails to have $5,000 of activity is not sufficiently significant to warrant listing on this template (at this threshold a candidate is required to file a statement indicating candidacy and principal committee to the FEC) . It would probably reduce the discussion here significantly. There are other standards that could be clarified. We'll start with this. (Background… see above section: Non-comprehensive standards, a history) -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:27, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
Discussion
Yellow, would you start by telling us how to independently verify this threshold please? Which row and column of which form accessed by which link on FEC site, or such? John J. Bulten (talk) 21:35, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
On page two, are two columns, the current quarter, and an election cycle to date column, with lines for expenditures and contributions received. Lines 22 and 30 are the totals for each. For committees starting with prior election cycles, they appear to report "existance of committee-to-date" figures. So you'd have to add up several quarters in a row, during this election cycle to know how active the committee has been since the last election.
Um, thanks, but I don't see the answer. Do you mean that if, say, line 22 column B of form 3P for 3Q07 shows over $5K, the candidate is qualified (like Kerry is)? Or maybe column A? Or total all 22A's since 1Q05? Or, you pick? Sorry if I'm having a little fun with this. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
The standard requiring a candidate to file a statament of candidacy with the FEC, declaring an authorized committee is $5,000 of activity, so any of the lines going over the threshold. Contributions; expenditures, loans. Generally at this level, it's all contributions that pushes over the threshold. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I actually don't expect this threshold to be any use for previous-election-cycle committees, who will spend $10,000 a year just for their accountants. But it will deal with the 200 people who've filed this cycle that haven't raised any (much money), and thus are not significant. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 22:46, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
I interpret this as opposed, as the point of the proposal is to dispense with listing all candidates that are not required to register with the FEC, and cannot figure out how to garner enough support to hit that minimum threshold. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 15:55, 22 November 2007 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
To Comedy240
(moved to new section:)
I appreciate the zeal, but keep the following in mind and let us know if you have additional rationale:
Amondson, Grundmann, both Moores, and Templin have not filed with the FEC!
Bayh refused to repudiate over $5K of fundraising on his behalf within 30 days, so was taken by FEC as in.
Cox is in, despite your link: see my edits to John Cox and its talk.
After further research I see that Chester and Weber's committees are both long terminated (my mistake). Kennedy claims to have opened an exploratory committee, and FEC has accepted that filing but does not list evidence that he has avowed it, so under the more restrictive rule I accepted above, Kennedy would be out ATM.
I am also open to renaming "Open FEC committees", or adding a "Withdrawn" section to it (but that would be pressing the template format a bit).
That said, Comedy's latest edit history is an inappropriate communication style. We have agreed that non-FEC candidates are not to be listed here. Comedy should either solicit support for changing that convention, or provide evidence of FEC filing on other candidates (including Weber, who cannot reuse his lapsed committee). John J. Bulten (talk) 22:08, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
I cannot find a listing for either as presidential candidate in '08, though both still have open filings left over from past campaigns. A few months ago, I made the mistake of adding both of them to the navbox because I didn't pay close enough attention to the office and campaign year they had filed for. So to clarify, candidates must be filed with FEC specifically for the office of president for the 2008 election cycle.--JayJasper (talk) 18:17, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
They clutter up the page and are not directly related to the election. Follow the links and they will lead you were you want to go.--STX00:59, 30 November 2007 (UTC)
Elaine Brown (was: Proposal: Minimum standard $5,000 reported FEC activity/ Deeply flawed)
If Wayne Allyn Root, Jonathon Sharkey, Kat Swift, or Kent Mesplay don't meet criteria why included, and if they are to be included why not Elaine Brown.
on the grounds that many ligitamate third party candidates receive little to no funding untill they win there party's nomination even then $5000 may be more then is reported on for some nominee's till well after the election. An example of a legitimate candidate who didn't report to the FEC was Ralph Nader in 1996 who spent under $5,000 so that he wouldn't have to file with the FEC, yet got over 600,000 votes. There are also legitimate candidates both on the chart and off of it. If Elaine Brown is not to be listed then niether should Wayne Allyn Root, Jonathon Sharkey, Kat Swift, or Kent Mesplay, all of whom fail the $5,000 requirement. As a better way of determining weather a third party candidate belong, I believe that placement on minor party primary ballots is a better determinate.
So by whatever criteria that was used to include Wayne Allyn Root, Jonathon Sharkey, Kat Swift, or Kent Mesplay, I am going to add Elaine Brown. If someone wants to remove her from being listed as a green candidate please explain why she doesn't belong but the four listed above due. Highground79 (talk) 00:51, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
My friend, last time you did that, my edit summary indicated Brown has not filed anything with the FEC. (That is the standard; $5K activity was rejected.) However, I could in good faith see an argument for a proposition like "someone who declines to file FEC tactically, but appears on at least one state ballot, should be included". But, even considering that on its merits, I feel that way lies madness of the Colbert variety; and verifiability, while doable, is strained. If someone refuses to file FEC but succeeds in primary ballot access in one state, is that person really running for president? However the proposition is certainly open to discussion, and we can restore Brown if there is any favor for your idea. But you would do well to provide also a primary source which shows Brown has been granted ballot access already-- or to rephrase my proposal of the standard accordingly. John J. Bulten (talk) 04:00, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Brown is on the California Green party primary ballot [1].
On the other hand Wayne Allyn Root has not filed with the FEC so by my current understanding he should be removed since that is what is keeping brown from being on the Template. unless someone can explain why Root and not Brown, the shouldn't Root be removed too. Highground79 (talk) 06:18, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Somehow missed root filing sorry for the inconvenience Highground79 (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2007 (UTC)
Initials
Why is it some candidates are given first and (in a couple cases, middle) initials, while others aren't? I can see why Tommy and Fred Thompson need initials, to help keep the two apart. But is there another Edwards or Hunter running for president?Nedlum (talk) 06:12, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
Agreed. Not wanting to make a bone of contention of it, but why is it necessary to disambiguate from other candidates who are not listed on the navbox? Or, for that matter, who don't even have articles?--JayJasper (talk) 21:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)
I'm wondering why these initials are being listed as well. I deleted them thinking it would be an uncontreversial edit, and was told I needed talk page consensus. So far it looks like there is a consensus that it is unnecesary. Does anyone oppose getting rid of the initials?Hoponpop69 (talk) 00:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I really don't see a need for the initials. There are no other, Edwards', Clinton's, or Hunter's on this list.--STX00:32, 15 December 2007 (UTC)
I have also taken the liberty of removing the initials, based on what appears to be a clear consensus here. We'll soon find out whether or not it is still a controversial edit. --JayJasper (talk) 22:19, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Looks good to me. Still a couple of unnecessary ones in the "Open FEC committees" line, but by far a better solution there is to dump the whole line, which is only meaningful to an FEC bureaucrat. Wasted Time R (talk) 22:32, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
I won't object to the deleting of initials because this is also a consistent approach. Twas just my advocacy for ballot access for the D.R. Hunter types, I suppose. John J. Bulten (talk) 15:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Sharkey and Stanhope
There are no details on their individual articles to indicate that Sharkey and Stanhope are/were registered with the FEC. Does anyone have any references to the contrary? Sharkey's article doesn't even mentioning him running for '08, and he doesn't seem to be listed anywhere on the main article.--The Bruce (talk) 05:47, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
They have or had a Federal Elections Commission registered presidential election committee, which so far, in combination with a (non-deleted) wikipedia article was sufficient for them to be put on and stay on the template. You may find other editors will desire re-instate the names. There was an effort on my part to dispense with insignificant candidates, which failed to receive the agreement of the other editors here: Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Proposal: Minimum standard $5,000 reported FEC activity Fuller background can be found in the talk archives here, on the specific candidates. Yellowdesk (talk) 20:49, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Actually, Sharkey's '08 candidacy is briefly noted in the second paragraph of his bio. Some elaboration would probably be in order, but it is mentioned. As Yellowdesk pointed out, he and Stanhope have (or had) filed with the FEC (this can verified by visting the FEC website[2][3]), and meet the criteria for inclusion on the template, per consensus. Thus, they have been re-listed.--JayJasper (talk) 21:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)
Thanks. I think you should add those references to the articles and expand them appropriately. Also, the reference for Doug lists him as a Libertarian, rather than Independent.--The Bruce (talk) 03:48, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
In addition to those currently listed in this section of the template, the following have open FEC commitees according to a search for the current election cycle. Should they be added to that section?
Of these six, Bauer has received more than $5,000 in contributions. George W. Bush and Bill Clinton do too (and Bush has recieved over $5,000), but they're obviously excluded from running. Al Gore and Al Sharpton actually have't had any activity in the current cycle, according to the search.--The Bruce (talk) 04:34, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
In my un-humble opinion, the section is a not informationally useful or accurate portrayal of actual activity relative to the 2008 election campaign. It represents candidates of past election cycles that have open committees and committee acitivity with reportable consequences, whether income, or paying down debts, perhaps with significant payments to accountants, laywers, or other political obligations, and none are active in the current election cycle, in a consequential way. I favor deletion of the section, but will not edit the template section without other editors agreeing on this topic. The section will evaporate with the start of the primary election process, as it clearly is of no consequence. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:04, 18 December 2007 (UTC)
As I've stated above, I strongly advocate removal of this section of the template. It tells readers nothing useful, and is potentially quite confusing. Wasted Time R (talk) 00:49, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
I greatly appreciate y'all's waiting on me to catch up. Yes, there is a (casuistic) distinction here. The six names above have not been considered by any reliable source as potential 2008 names, nor have they been asked about any 2008 candidacy. (In fact, I had already verified this for four of the six when I first added the Open FEC section, and so had already decided not to include them.) The six names on the template, however, have met these criteria: they have been considered potential candidates and have often made ambiguous statements about it. In that sense they have indeed had measurable and notable effect on the 2008 campaign-- particularly Gore, for whom it neatly resolves a long heated debate. While Yellowdesk's description of their FEC status is pretty well accurate, the conclusion of consequential inactivity in this cycle is not settled. The status of candidates in this row is "keeping options open, ready to jump in at a moment's notice" (particularly Nader and Sharpton) and I believe that status is a consequential factor in the campaign.
What is the template for? To navigate articles somewhat related to this election. The degree of "somewhat" is of course tested by the presence of links to independent (politician) and United States gubernatorial elections, 2008. This is not a candidate map only; we have, of course, agreed that names would only be taken from FEC/WP records as a proper limit on scope, but that agreement does not exclude the already-demonstrated influence of Gore and Nader and Clark on this election.
If the apparent consensus remains for deleting this line cold, that consensus must also explain why Gore's or Clark's "considered it and declined for now" status is different from Bayh's or Stanhope's "considered it and declined for now" status. Thank you. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Earth to Bulten: Howard Dean is not running for president this year. Maybe at one time he thought about it, but he didn't, he isn't, and he's not going to. Ditto Wes Clark, John Kerry, etc. If you want to include a list of all the people who thought about running but then decided not to, there's many more names than "open FEC committees" will give you: Newt Gingrich, Bill Frist, George Allen, etc. Hell, there's an old adage that at some point in time, every Senator in Washington deludes his or herself into thinking that they are presidential timber. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:16, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Bayh is a borderline case, you could reasonably argue either way about whether he had started running and then withdrew or whether he was never running at all. Never heard of Stanhope. Wasted Time R (talk) 17:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Hi Wasted. If Clark, Dean, and Kerry are not related to the 2008 campaign, they should be deleted from articles like United States Democratic presidential candidates, 2008 (see the sources for those paragraphs first). You demonstrate that, in answer to my question, there is no other firm line among the various "considered and declined" folks. I advocate FEC activity (plus 2008-related notability) as that firm line. Allen and Gingrich have FEC filings on their behalf but no personally traceable activity so are excluded on current principles. Frist has nothing. Thank you for listening. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:51, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Clark, Dean, and Kerry are listed as "Potential candidates who decided against running", which is correct, as it is for Daschle, Feingold, and Warner, whom are also listed there. A good metric for inclusion in this category might be people who formally announced or indicated to the press that they weren't going to run, as I think all of these did at one point or another. I remember the announcements for Feingold and Warner, for instance, as both came as a bit of a surprise to the political world. And the Kerry one certainly attracted attention at the time. If Senator Schmoe of State X harbors presidential ambitions, and consults a few advisors about it and decides not to try, and the decision is so unmomentous that no announcement has to be made, then it seems reasonable to leave Schmoe off our list. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Thank you, that's just what I mean by "2008-related notability". While Daschle, Feingold, and Warner have 2008-related notability, they do not have FEC activity for which they are personally responsible (though there is an impersonal filing for the latter two). Gore, Nader, and Sharpton have both; in fact I don't think Nader has even said "no" yet. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:28, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Tancredo withdrawal
Because it has been reported that Tom Tancredo withdrew from the race, and his Wikipedia article even says so, he should be moved to the list of withdrawn GOP candidates. Julyo (talk) 13:26, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Please update group 5 to include first and last names. Some of these are more recognizable this way (e.g., Ron Paul and Alan Keyes). Simply cut and paste the following, and preview before saving. This also fixes the Candidates to read "Republican Candidates". Thanks. Template Helper (talk) 20:31, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia! No offense, but the editors you canvassed, along with myself, have been very comfortable with last names only (with an exception for disambiguating initials) due to the potential for unnecessary clutter. There is no other "Paul" or "Keyes" filed with the FEC (there is another "Hunter" though). Also, it would be improper weighting to do this for just one group, or to respell out "Republican" without respelling out "Democratic". I don't think your potential gain in recognizability will be considered worthwhile based on the increased clunkiness in the template's look. Thanks for the concern though, and let us know if you have any other ideas. You might also review the guideline on undue weight to get an idea of why we would not do this for group 5 only. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:55, 20 December 2007 (UTC)
Don't WP:BITE the new comers. I think the "canvassing" was more a request for help. I concur that per first and last names should be used. TableManners U·T·C03:09, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I disagree with these edits and I believe that to be the consensus. Please follow WP:CONSENSUS when editing such a controversial template. Rather than just making the edit explain why that is the best edit to make. WP:BITE has not been violated here.--STX04:14, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the first/last/nowrap edits, and they are similar to Template:USDemVicePresNominees. Using first and last name is NPOV, fits the MOS, and just makes sense (if applied to all of the candadites). Why do you want last name only? The wrapping issue has been fixed with {{nowrap|adsf ads fasdf }} tags. TableManners U·T·C04:27, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I really don't think an RFC is necessary. I see your point and I'd like to see what the other editors think.--STX04:29, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Oh, sorry. I just wanted to see what others thought, too, and I thought an Rfc was a good way for that. Is it not a good method? Thanks. TableManners U·T·C04:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Usually RFCs are for disputes that have lasted days, sometimes weeks. I think that discussion is probably the best way to find a solution to this case.--STX04:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Okay, I just put it on hold. I suppose we can wait and discuss and see if those most interested (the ones with this on their watch list) think. TableManners U·T·C04:38, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree with the first/last/nowrap edits, and they are similar to Template:USDemVicePresNominees. Using first and last name is NPOV, fits the MOS, and just makes sense (if applied to all of the candadites). Why do you want last name only? The wrapping issue has been fixed with {{nowrap|adsf ads fasdf }} tags. First and last makes it easier on the user to find a candidate with whom the user is only vaguely familer. First and last name also reduces the amount of pipeing, e.g., [[John Smith|Smith]], that occurs. TableManners U·T·C04:42, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
This would solve John J. Bulten's concerns in the above "Initials" section, but I'd have to hear the other side (if there is one) before I establish my opinion on the matter. It seems reasonable enough. --STX04:47, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I won't object unless it looks worse on a different monitor. I will, however, trim to the forms "Dan Gilbert" and "Wes Clark", in accord with the use of nicknames by the other candidates. John J. Bulten (talk) 16:03, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
The template looks pretty good, actually. The {{nowrap|adsf ads fasdf }} tags have indeed solved the clutter problem, so i'm o.k. with it. Thanks for your contributions, TableManners.--JayJasper (talk) 21:53, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Listed candidates
I have removed a couple candidates from the template. My sole rationale is that they are not in the relevant lists in our articles United States Republican presidential candidates, 2008 and United States Democratic presidential candidates, 2008. On these grounds I would support removing Alan Keyes as well, but I wanted to gain a greater community consensus beforehand, as he is in the article but not listed as running a national campaign. I hope nobody takes objection to removing Bayh (which was erroneous) Cox (though long-standing, nothing really separates him from the others I removed) and a few others. Timotheus4 (talk) 18:30, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
Also, I would support removing the "Open FEC committees" line as it is really irrelevant. Timotheus4 (talk) 18:32, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
I hope you don't mind that I've reverted under WP:BRD. IMHO the proper response is to add them to the articles you mention, which I haven't gotten around to yet. The consensus above was that Bayh was not erroneous and that the other 5 you deleted were or are running notable, though not necessarily nationwide, campaigns. The two criteria here have been notability (existence of WP article) and personally responsible FEC activity (established by the links described above). Each candidate meets these criteria. Further, each candidate with an open FEC committee has contributed to the 2008 race-- at a minimum, being notable for declining the race. Please read this talk page closely, and remember, careful insertion (e.g. in the other articles) is always preferable to careful deletion. If you wish to press for deletion, see what the consensus is here first. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:57, 21 December 2007 (UTC)
On the Democratic article it lists Bayh as declining to run, and on this template it lists him as withdrawn. These need to be consistent, which is it?Hoponpop69 (talk) 17:35, 22 December 2007 (UTC)
Bayh elected to go for an "exploratory committee, " and announced its formation himself. Friends of Evan Bayh.
The standard for this templete is exploratory equals candidate, as the FEC does not distinguish between the two. "Exploratory" is a descriptive fig leaf and editors of this template judge anyone with such a committee to be a candidate.
First of all, its not vandalism, Secondly, not every candidate files papers, thirdly, Uga Man does have an article. Where are we supposed to list the "Write-in candidates" like myself? --Uga Man (talk) 00:53, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Through past discussion by editors interested in this template, agreements include the perspective that no individual will be listed on this template until they 1) file with the FEC, and the filing can be verified by other editors; 2) An article about that person in question citing reliable sources survives scrutiny and potential processes for deletion of non-notabile individuals, at Wikipedia:Articles for Deletion. I'll note that creating such article on your own or via a sockpuppet will not be received positively. See: Wikipedia:Autobiography. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 01:13, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Sockpuppets are bad. I will never, ever use them again. Some things happened back in May that I regret but all candidates have some skeletons in their closets, at least I am open enough to talk about mine. Thank you for your time. :-) --Uga Man (talk) UGA MAN FOR PRESIDENT 2008 05:04, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Hello Uga. The answer to your question is here, but remember that usual notability and verifiability criteria still apply, and linking from mainspace to userspace is inappropriate. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:54, 26 December 2007 (UTC)
Evan Bayh
He is listed as a withdrawn candidate but he was never in the race to begin with. He was a potential candidate who never entered the race. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.88.221.14 (talk) 04:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
There was a previous discussion on this, the original consensus of which was reversed by the "Listed Candidates" discussion above. If you feel there is a point (or several) to be made that was not addressed in these talks, feel free to make the case. You will undoubtedly get responses. Otherwise, suffice it to say, that ship has sailed.--JayJasper (talk) 20:18, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
John Cox is out
Chicago Tribune columnist Eric Zorn spoke with John Cox on Dec. 19, 2007 and reported the following day in his column a quote by John Cox saying that he had closed his offices in late November and wa not competing in the primaries and caucuses, calling it "a lost cause." - Nhprman23:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Well, you tried to make that case before and we kind of held back on making a final decision, but I think that dog won't hunt this time. He's out. I don't know how many times he can say "I'm out" to the press before we believe him, and hearsay won't work. It has to be sourced. - Nhprman05:07, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
OK here you go. Almost as easily googled as anyone else, This is the article I saw last week, and here he is campaigning in SC this month (Cap Fendig too, who wants to start that article?). I understand your source quotes him as closing his Chicago campaign office. Of course, formally, he's not out till he closes his file with the FEC. But for our purposes ... wouldn't we say that an active campaigner is in rather than out, even if the campaigner himself is giving decidedly mixed messages? I don't think they're mixed, I think they're consistent with a businesslike loss-cutting approach (cut here but not there), but I'll await consensus for reinclusion. However, I'll update the Cox article with what I've got. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
No. Wrong. Here's the quote from that article: "Cox, who touted himself as the first Republican to declare himself a candidate for president, made stops in Beaufort and on Hilton Head in January 2007." What was that last number? What year is it? The reporter was (accurately) reporting his visit there last year, when he was actively campaigning. I await the apology. - Nhprman03:16, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
It's on his talk. Again, I've updated Cox with what I've got, including CNN indicating he still had campaigners out two weeks ago (it took a blogger to find it, of course). The fact is, Cox has not made any formal withdrawal statement like the other candidates have. He did not state he was not competing. His website linked the Iowa Politics article well after he talked to Zorn. Why don't we recognize that his status is ambiguous and discuss the best way of handling it? It seems the category that best fits him is the Hugh Cort wing, those who believe they won't win but are keeping the formalities alive for the thrill and the message. However I won't move him back without someone else agreeing he has that status after reviewing the evidence. John J. Bulten (talk) 19:54, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Stephen Colbert
Should Stephen Colbert be listed under the "withdrawn candidates?" I don't know if he filed with the FEC but he did apply to be on the ballot in South Carolina. I figured I'd ask before making any changes. JMyrleFuller (talk) 22:16, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
Rfc: Should this political navigation box be put on articles that are not included in the navigation box?
{{RFCpol | section=Rfc: Should this political navigation box be put on articles that are not included in the navigation box? !! reason= Should this political navigation box be put on articles that are not included in the navigation box? Some candidates have two articles; one biographical, the other related to the presidential campaign (e.g., [[Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008]] and [[Hillary Rodham Clinton]]) while other candidates have only one article (e.g., [[Hugh Cort]]), with a section related to the presidential election (.e.g., [[Hugh_Cort#Presidential_campaign]].) !! time=23:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)}}
Should this political navigation box be put on articles that are not included in the navigation box? Some candidates have two articles; one biographical, the other related to the presidential campaign (e.g., Hillary Rodham Clinton presidential campaign, 2008 and Hillary Rodham Clinton) while other candidates have only one article (e.g., Hugh Cort), with a section related to the presidential election (.e.g., Hugh_Cort#Presidential_campaign.) 23:22, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment I think a few possibilities exist. One would be to include two links per candidate: one to the biographical sketch—the other to the campaign description. Another would be to not allow the navigation box to be included on articles not linked to by the navigation box. And the third would be to allow this (which may favor lesser known candidates that do not have two articles.) TableMannersC·U·T23:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment This template has been the subject of numerous revisions over the past year; at one point, it contained links to the main article, campaign article, and political positions article (if the latter two existed) for all the name candidates. Then the main and positions links got purged, maybe to make room for all the no-name candidates. I'd vote to go back to like it once was. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:29, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment It seems that removing it from the page of the candidate is getting away from the entire point of a nav box. It's there for ease of use and ease of navigation. Yes, nav boxes should not be in articles which they are unrelated to, but I don't think that anyone could argue that the Hillary Clinton or Mitt Romney articles are unrelated to the 2008 Presidential Election. Removing it from the parent article because the template now points to the daughter page seems to be splitting hairs at the expense of usability. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:00, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment did you see the recent changes that Southern Texas (talk·contribs) made? This should solve the problem. I actually agree with it. Now, the nav boxes can go on the articles you wanted them on, and the articles in question will be included in the nav. box as I think they should. Do you think this is a good compromise? (One thing I would change is to use first and last names). TableMannersC·U·T01:01, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Okay, we can close the Rfc I assume. This template is changing to fast, I think I am going to stop working on articles in relation to this template becuase it is a bottomless and thankless pit:) TableMannersC·U·T05:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Bill Clinton listed in "Potential VP candidates"
I just noticed this one. Considering that he is constitutionally barred from becoming Vice-President, shouldn't his name be removed? --Loonymonkey (talk) 01:35, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I added Bill Clinton since the idea of him being a possible running-mate for Hillary received significant media attention. [11] In my opinion, Bill Clinton can become VP since the constitution states that to be vice-president you must have the same qualifications to be president. Bill Clinton can still serve 2 more years as president since the Constitution allows for 2 terms plus 2 years.--STX04:13, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, Bill Clinton may run for VP; the constitution prohibits him from being elected president for a third term. There is no prohibition to Bill Clinton's arrival to the presidency by non-electoral means, and there's no prohibition against running for VP. See text below. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Twenty-second Amendment: Section 1. No person shall be elected to the office of the President more than twice, and no person who has held the office of President, or acted as President, for more than two years of a term to which some other person was elected President shall be elected to the office of the President more than once.
I think this was bad idea. We have to put a place for the VP candidate of each party when the election is over and if there is considerable coverage of an individual to be a possible VP candidate I don't see why it should be deleted. Perhaps its too early but I'm thinking about the future.--STX04:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
We should definitely not try to name potential veep candidates. There's no reliability behind such a list other than "who gets mentioned", which changes according to the whims of the pundits doing the mentioning. If this were the 1972 Democratic race and several people were explicitly running for the vice-presidential nomination independent of the presidential race (see Mike Gravel#Run for Vice President in 1972), then we could list them. Wasted Time R (talk) 12:23, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wasted Time R on this one. Too many potential candidates at this point and, as mentioned above, no reliable way to gauge the degree of "potentiality" this early in this race. Perhaps we could revisit this discussion as the time for nominations draws nearer.--JayJasper (talk) 14:03, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Agree with Wasted Time. At the very least we should wait until there is a front-runner from each party (as there is still a high likelihood that one of the current candidates will end up on the VP ticket). Sure, there are plenty of examples of pundits publicly guessing who the VPs will be, but I think we create serious crystal ball issues with such a list as it's all just pure speculation by outsiders (it's not like any of the campaigns have named potential running mates). --Loonymonkey (talk) 15:53, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I orginally erased George Philles and his campaign article since both were stubs but he was swiftly readded. I did this to the other stub candidates on this template and I think the same standard should apply to George. What does everybody think about KILLING all stub articles on this template?--STX04:58, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. The consensus for inclusion was a) having an article and b) being filed w/FEC. I don't recall stubs being an issue. Stubs are articles, and have potential for expansion, so I think they should be included here as well.--JayJasper (talk) 14:10, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Alright, I'm just trying to get a feel for what the consensus is on this page. I know User:Wasted Time R does not like the listing of candidates such as Hugh Cort or Dal LaMagna so I was thinking that maybe the removal of all stub articles from the template would work as a compromise. I will also remove the "Potential candidates" line since the old consensus was against that as well.--STX16:48, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Sounds like STX has been persuaded of my anti-pipsqueek views. I am ready to revisit the$5,000 or $50,000 expenditure/contribution rule for listing on this template. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Its a relevancy thing. Right now, Hugh Cort has no relevancy to the 2008 Presidental Election any more than you are I do. Sure he's filed with the FEC and he may be on the ballot in a few states. Every election almost 100 people are on ballots in both parties, sure there candidancies are factual and verifiable but not relevant to the election as a whole. They are listed on the Republicans 2008 candidates page where they are relevant. Potential Candidates are the same thing. --mitrebox (talk) 02:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
We had a fine method already. Propose the stub for deletion, and then let the template follow the result. Mitre's view (that Cort is as irrelevant as me) is pretty different from mine. I believe I've said already, where else can you go to get a good list of who is running of any notability? Only the FEC, who won't tell you anything about the difference between D.L. Hunter and D.R. Hunter (both of whom got votes in NH, BTW). It is precisely the niche of WP to be able to tell people who ran for president and attracted some news and notes outside of the mainstream list; and it is the niche of this template to tell people that Cort is running, and relevant as long as he has a WP article. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:11, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I am tired of reverting
I will NOT break 3RR. So let me explain this so everybody understands. The leading delegate winner should be in bold. If somebody feels differently please explain why without saying "Its too early". I've been hearing that garbage forever. Its NOT early since the caucuses and primaries have already begun and some delegates have already been distributed. Please give me a better reason.--STX20:36, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, I too am tired of reverting, and I will do so no longer, though I encourage other people at this page to take a look at the content and be willing to form an opinion. I apologize if I came along and reverted the second time, though I still think the bolding is a poor decision.
It comes down to this - it is indeed very early in the election, and as yet no candidate has come close to becoming a favorite, let alone wrapping up the nomination altogether. I really do not think that any candidate should have his/her name "bolded" at a stage when we have no way of knowing who the eventual winner will be. It comes a bit too close to candidate endorsement for me, and I believe it violates WP:NPOV. On a similar note, I have read a lot of newspapers, and I haven't seen any that have been willing to take such a step at this point.
The only other solution I see at this point it to arrange the candidates by delegates so far, and possibly even to include that number in parentheses. I do not see a problem with that. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:41, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Done. I am running out of time, so it does not appear I will be able to add the number of delegates each so far. If anyone else wishes to do so, I think that may be a viable solution. I got my data from [12] - we might also want to include the magic number. The Evil Spartan (talk) 20:49, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I am strongly against adding this kind of fluff to the navigation template. It's not an article. Put the article indicating the counts on the template, but don't make this template serve the function of an article. It will cause much edit consternation, fights over the current counts (think about the many hundreds of non-elected super-delegates). Give it up, and work on the delegates-count articles. I am further against ordering the names based on the counts. This is not the purpose of the template, and again, it causes edit wars and confusion. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
What other purpose would you propose? It was completely random before, first having a bunch of no-name candidates who haven't even been mentioned in major articles first. Is this worse than being random? The Evil Spartan (talk) 02:39, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I believe that the candidates' positions (viz Hillary [13], Obama [14], Edwards [15], etc.) should follow the "campaigns" link in the parentheses. Aren't these just as important as the exhaustive list of polls of the campaigns pages? Mdiamante (talk) 17:42, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
An earlier version of the navbox did include links to "positions" articles following campaign page links. If I recall correctly, the rationale for removing the links was that they made the box look cluttered. Also, not all candidates had a "positions" article and some felt that listing only some candidates with such a link gave the appearance of bias (or, at best, inconsistency). Personally, I'd prefer that only the candidates' bio pages be linked from the template. The campaign and positions articles can (and should) be linked from these pages, and the box looks neater and more consistent. That's my 2 cents worth--JayJasper (talk) 19:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
If someone is looking at a candidates positions (deep level research) they most likely have already read their campaign article. Link position articles from campaign articles. The whole point of templates is to have clean, manageable, high level information.--mitrebox (talk) 02:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
This navigation template for simplicity and clarity should list the names / bios of the individuals running. The bio articles all have appropriate navigation to the campaign article, and political positions articles. I propose taking all links but the Biography articles off of the template. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I would agree, but I'm in a 'election' article. If I see a link for Candidate Bob It is far more likely I want to read about how Bob is doing in the election, not what he majored in during college.--mitrebox (talk) 02:35, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
You're assuming that the reader will know who these people are. The readership is a lot larger than U.S. folks. Like english speaking residents of say...Hong Kong, Australia, South Africa, United Kingdom, and further...of China, Germany, Brazil, and so on. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm assuming that the majority of readers will. Wikipedia users are more connected to current events than the average American. And Yes I assume that anyone internationally who is reading about American PRIMARY candidates know who these people are, if not they click on the name and read. --mitrebox (talk) 03:04, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Yellowdesk. Not all the candidates/former candidates have campaign links, so for fairness and simplicity's sake, they oughta go. Mdiamante (talk) 14:30, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't favor too strongly having the campaigns and positions in or out. After SuperTuesday we might succeed in adding positions links only to the R&D candidates who are still in and already have campaign links. The tiering of those who have such articles and those who don't is a welcome and subtle addition. John J. Bulten (talk) 20:15, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Editor's Note
Please read the editors note at the beginning of this template. It states the consensus is that candidates who have filed with the FEC and have an article are to be included on the template. Please Do Not remove them again. --STX04:14, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I had previously proposed a compromise that I thought might work about removing all "stub" articles from the template. Everybody seemed to hate that idea. --STX05:33, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Most of those candidates don't have a wikipedia article so they wouldn't be on the template.--STX05:53, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
How bout only current candidates that have a campaign article? (like you can be president without having a wikipedia article?) --mitrebox (talk) 05:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I thought about that before but the only problem would be if it would also apply to third party candidates, should they be removed?--STX06:03, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Arbitrary financial boundaries aren't necessary. I think the fact that none of these men are even getting votes should be adequate to remove their names. --Tom (talk - email) 06:56, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Not so Arbitrary: at $5,000, a candidate is required to register a principal committee with the FEC; at $50,000, the candidate must report electronically, and the filings are nearaly instantly visible at the FEC web site. These threshholds have the advantage that they're verifiable, and not subject to judgement or opinion. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's wise to remove people that haven't received a single vote through 4 or 6 states. I believe that applies to Hugh Cort and Daniel Gilbert, and probably several others. The $50,000 thing works well. It's too arbitrary to include people simply because they have an article (being notable for something other than politics) and filed with the FEC for the National Barking Spider Resurgeance Party (an actual party name for someone in 2004.) Grandmasterka02:53, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Then the FEC regulations regarding money raised sounds like a good place to draw the line, including for third party candidates. --Tom (talk - email) 03:35, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I'd support a $50,000 threshold as long as it also applies to third party candidates. It seems there is reasonable consensus to do this.--STX04:12, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Revisited: Proposal on minimum standards for listing on template
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal to set a revised minimum standard for being listed on this template.. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result is that a new standard and threshold of $5,000 of activity as reported to the Federal Elections Commission is required for a candidate to be listed on this template; as before, the candidate must have a declared or acknowledged principal committee registered with the FEC. Candidates with a prior-election-cycle committee must demonstrate actual campaigning effort and activity in the current election cycle to be listed as a candidate. As before, a biography article on Wikipedia must exist for the candidate, and survive proposals for deletion. The proposal for a mixed threshold of $5,000 for minor/independent candidates and $50,000 (or other number) for major-party candidates is moved forward for more thorough consideration and discussion in a separate section. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:41, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposal:
Minimum activity required for appearing on the template:
$5,000 of activity as reported to the Federal Elections Commission in the current election cycle (or the greater number, $50,000, if others agree).
Actual campaigning or effort in the current elections cycle. (This takes care of Al Gore, and others with existing committees from previous cycles, with greater than the threshold of monetary activity).
A non-deleted biography article about the candidate.
Rationale and history:
A revised agreement and standard, is more obviously desirable, now that the primaries are well on their way.
There are a few "candidates" listed on this template because they fit the past regime more or less agreed to to date:
filed with the FEC, declaring a principal committee
a non-deleted wikipedia article
commonsense review of those who had comittees from previous election cycles that are not candidates in this cycle
The previous effort on this topic was Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Proposal: Minimum standard $5,000 reported FEC activity which failed to reach an agreement in November of 2007. Repeating a fair bit of the argument there:
The advantage of this standard is that the "candidates" that cannot get elected to the school committee of their locality will drop out for lack of effort, and ability to undertake a campaign that can reach an electorate of consequence. Further, this standard is verifiable, and any person may look it up, and not subject to opinion.
A significant disadvantage is that researching it is not entirely straightforward, and requires genuine diligence to verify. See: the Discussion section of the cited previous proposal on this topic.
I prefer the standard of $50,000 of reported activity to the FEC, which is the level for electronic filing at the FEC, and I would welcome agreement at that level.
But I propose here though, that any candidate or committee that fails to have $5,000 of activity is not sufficiently significant to warrant listing on this template (at this threshold a candidate is required to file a statement indicating candidacy and principal committee to the FEC). The proposal implies that some third-party "candidates" will also drop off this template for the same reasons as inadequately-funded independents.
Background:
A summary of the conversation as of January 30, 2008. 1. No editor objects to $5,000 for being too high, and one for being too low. 2. One objects to $50,000 as too high, and one suggests it is too low for major party candidates. 3. A couple would go along with a split threshold. Major party candidates $50,000, and all others $5,000, with some not commenting. 4. One editor requires $50,000 for both major and minor/independent candidates. My tentative assessment is we can safely set the floor at $5,000 for all individuals registering with the Federal Elections commission, and bring the topic of split thresholds forward to a separate conversation. Comments and critique invited. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:29, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I think your assessment is right on the mark. A seperate discussion on the subjects of split thresholds is probably a good idea. There seems to be a consensus developing, but best to be sure.--JayJasper (talk) 22:17, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Support -- This seems much in the spirit of the standards currently in place (at least as I've understood them), and it could prove helpful to have a clear statement. -David SchaichTalk/Cont07:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Support -- Seems to make more sense now that the primary season has begun, and the list of active candidates is becoming increasingly smaller--JayJasper (talk)18:32, 26 January 2008 (UTC)
Supoort -- at this point is a candidate REAL if they can't get $5000 I think most city mayors have larger campaigns.--mitrebox (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose - $5,000 is a very low threshold, and would likely encompass many, many of the "vanity" candidates who have simply thrown their name on the ballot to participate in some way in the system. Any candidate can throw $5K into his campaign every three months. That doesn't make him a viable candidate in any way, given the huge task candidates face getting their name out to the voters in so many states on Super Duper Tuesday. Nhprman19:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Support - As we head into Super Duper Tuesday and other major media markets, $50,000 is the bare minimum required to be able to afford media buys and compete in some small way. Even then, it ain't much. See note above re: throwing $5K into the race. The same applies for $50K. There are thousands of millionaires who can afford $50K for a vanity race for president, and a few candidates have done just that. But at least it's a higher cutoff and makes one more plausible. Frankly, $50K per MONTH (rather than per filing period) is closer to reality when we're talking about serious campaigns for president at this point. The days of putting "toes in the water" by paying a thousand bucks to get onto the New Hampshire Primary ballot in a vanity exercise are over. Nhprman19:03, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
To clarify, am I correct in assuming that your comments are not meant to apply to third-party and independent candidates, who are not involved with "super duper Tuesday" or most other primaries? —Preceding unsigned comment added by David Schaich (talk • contribs) 20:01, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
You are correct. While major party candidates without $50,000 in "activity" aren't really active at this point, I'm sure a candidate for the Constitution Party or Green Party nomination can get by with far less. Good observation. I guess I would split the vote then, and say $50K for Dems and Repubs, $5K for minor party candidates. - Nhprman03:06, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Support I think at this point (or at least after Feb5th) a REP or DEM must have at least 1 delegate & all candidates must have $50000 to be considered REAL. --mitrebox (talk) 22:23, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Support the "split" proposal, per Nhprman: $50K and minimum 1 delegate for Dem.'s and Rep.'s, 5K for minor party candidates. Very reasonable, considering smaller parties don't have to spend on primaries and caucuses.--JayJasper (talk) 22:51, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Support — High enough to exclude dozens of candidates who appear on a handful of ballots and low enough to encompass all candidates with national campaigns. – Zntrip00:48, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose -- At this point in time (and probably for a few months to come), I don't think $5,000 is too low a cutoff -- particularly in the case of minor-party and independent candidates, who largely don't have primaries for which to raise and spend money this early in the year. Easy as it is to forget, election day is still a long way off. If need be, we could switch to a higher threshold over the summer, when it would be more reasonable, but I actually don't expect there will be much need to do so. -David SchaichTalk/Cont07:05, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
We had a very clear, simple rule: WP article and FEC filing. When I pointed out that this let in quite a lot of candidates and others objected to including so many, I assented first to limiting it to active FEC filing, and then assented to removing formal candidates whose former-year campaigning was significantly more notable than 2008. (This presumably eliminates Gore, e.g., but not Nader, who just announced his exploratory.) These additional, straightforward limits do not hurt the necessary balance needed toward third parties.
I have already pointed out that using either money limit would have a tremendous bias against third-party candidates (in fact, even the name "third-party" is biased). Third parties make up the majority of presidential candidates. We must balance this fact with the fact that D&R are more notable. Listing all the hundreds of FEC candidates would be one extreme, listing D&R only would be the other, but listing WP-notable candidates is a happy medium. Money limits would not be happy; they would exclude many notable third-party candidates and only a few two-party candidates.
Someone asked why we don't list Elaine Brown, who is on a state ballot but presumably refuses to file FEC. I could there argue that her POV is that she should be considered a viable candidate without FEC filing, and that this is a minority POV small enough not to mention. However, the POV that a notable third-party FEC filer should be considered legitimate is a significant POV in this country, and should be well-represented. That POV may in fact be considered majority, because it is, after all, the POV necessitated by the formal, ministerial operations of the FEC, who takes all qualified comers.
Rather than propose lots of variations of new rules, why doesn't someone do the research and say here, "I propose deleting candidates X, Y, Z, and them only, because they fail criterion Q while all others pass"? In all this confusing discussion I don't see a single instance of the exact results any proposal would achieve. Here's an example of such a proposal (one which I already acted on, I trust acceptably). "I propose (re)adding candidates who meet the criterion 'withdrawn third-party', which category currently includes only one person, Doug Stanhope. This is necessary because candidates in this category have already campaigned and thus made themselves relevant; as third-party conventions occur, the category will fill up; and without such a category we would be compelled to delete third-party withdrawals for no good reason." Would someone please make a list of exactly which candidates they want to delete and exactly how the deletion criterion is verifiably replicated? Thank you! John J. Bulten (talk) 20:45, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
What about the "split thresholds" proposal: $5K for small party and independent candidates, $50K for Dem's and Rep's? I don't see it mentioned in your comments. It was proposed to deal with the problem of bias against third parties.--JayJasper (talk) 23:29, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Republican Candidates
In the main article, it is listed that Hugh Cort, Dan Gilbert, and Alan Keyes have dropped out of the race, yet on the template they are still shown among the candidates. Could someone clear this up, please? Thank you, (74.134.124.3 (talk) 04:52, 23 January 2008 (UTC))
Nevermind. They weren't listed in the Election 2008 article, but I could recall seeing them before that's why I thought that they dropped out. They might as well though, anyways, sorry for the confusion. (74.134.124.3 (talk) 00:52, 24 January 2008 (UTC))
I've said it before (somewhere) and I'll say it again. Canidates should really be in alphabetic order. Its the way they appear on ballots because its the least contentigous way. (Do we list by national polls, or delegate counts? Do we count super delegates as there really not pledged until the convetion? What about as the the vote results come in on super tuesday?) Its just simpler.--mitrebox (talk) 16:08, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
Additonally I move that if a canidate has 0 delegates at the end of Super Tuesday we remove them from the template. --mitrebox (talk) 16:10, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
I preferred to put the candidates in alphabetical order and bold the candidate with the most delegates. Also, if you think we should remove candidates that receive no delegates does this mean you feel we should remove the "withdrawn" candidates without delegates and all the "third party" candidates as well? --STX22:38, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
And I alphabetized the Democrats, so there would be consistency on the template. We'll soon find out whether or not there is consensus on this.--JayJasper (talk) 21:59, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
I would agree that alpha order, with tiering determined solely by whether WP carries an additional campaign article, gives the necessary refinement. However, as to side issues: many ballots use random instead of alpha; bolding a particular candidate as "leading" would not be well-balanced; and extant candidates should not be removed unless consensus determines they have not meaningfully contributed to the election. (I argued that Ralph Nader should be included because he could announce at any time, and guess what, he did today, so I reinserted him. Wes Clark could too.) John J. Bulten (talk) 19:42, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I might be willing to support the idea of bolding the candidate with the most delegates, but only if the reason for bolding were clearly stated on the navbox (something like "Candidates in bold currently have the highest number of delegates"). If this could be done without looking tacky, I'd favor it. Otherwise, I agree it would give the appearance of bias.--JayJasper (talk) 23:37, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
Someone thought Keyes had had dropped out. Keyes is still in. He is running a multi-state campaign (at least 18 states so far.) He is campaigning the last week in Jan through March 4th, 2008 in Texas. (The TX primary is March 4th.) Here's documentation for his contributions in excess of $50,000 and current status as a candidate:
Keyes entered the race on 9-14-07. Per the FEC, as of 9-30-07, Keyes had net receipts of $77,768. It still remains that Keyes is a multi-state candidate, with net receipts above $50,000 going into Super Tuesday and should be included. Search Keyes at the FEC website at:
Per the FEC, http://images.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?_28990167738+0 Keyes Net Contributions as of 12/31/2007 were $206,796.32 well in excess of the $50,000 mark set to be considered a major candidate in the GOP. Savvyconsumer7 (talk) 08:35, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is documentation Keyes is still in the race and campaigning in Texas until March 4th, when they have their primary:
PLEASE DO NOT REMOVE MY STATEMENT. Thank you! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Savvyconsumer7 (talk • contribs) 12:08, 1 February 2008
Nader?
I can't find any evidence that Nader has filed with the FEC, just that he has "formed a committee" which can mean many different things. Setting aside the above debate on monetary thresholds, isn't the minimum standard for inclusion on this template a wikipedia article and an FEC filing? Obviously he has the former, but can anyone provide a ref for the latter? Thanks. --Loonymonkey (talk) 18:17, 1 February 2008 (UTC)
Registered committee called "exploratory" equals candidate. Named Committee Nader 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee not yet visible at FEC: see note below about "testing the waters." It's unclear how his previous committees fit in with this, if at all. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:13, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Even if he hasn't filed with the FEC? Note that all of this is based on him simply saying that he's forming an exploratory committee, not actually filing to do so. --Loonymonkey (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
His 2004 campaign committee is still active, and still listed as his principal campaign committee. In 2000 and 2004, Nader filed statements of candidacy in mid-to-late February. If he's in again this year, we'll see something here before too long. -David SchaichTalk/Cont00:06, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
That's kind of my point. Aren't we supposed to wait until he actually files a statement of candidacy with the FEC before we include him? The warning at the start of the template reads "All others, which have not filed with the FEC, are POTENTIAL candidates, and subject to discussion and removal."--Loonymonkey (talk) 00:50, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Interestingly Nader describes the effort as "TESTING THE WATERS" which is a specific legal and regulatory term for committees of individuals who have not determined that they are candidates and are not actually campaigning yet, and whose committee's activity does not have to be reported to the FEC, though any expenditures or contributions recieved must comply with the FEC regulations and law. Reporting is required when the "testing the waters" potential candidate undertakes several key electoral activities: Campaigning, registering for primaries, advertising/soliciting votes. I'll look up the specifics. See transcript here: http://www.democracynow.org/2008/1/31/ralph_nader_launches_presidential_exploratory_committee This is yet another borderline case. Thompson was considered a potential candidate and not listed on this template, until his "testing the waters" activity was converted to actual campaigning. Result: Nader is not yet a candidate, he is a potential candidate at this point. HIs committee Nader 2008 Presidential Exploratory Committee does not appear on the FEC database. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 06:11, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm going to disagree but will do my research later. For now, keep in mind that Thompson DIDN'T have a committee until about September, but Nader HAS had an open committee from day one of "testing the waters", whatever he calls it. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:20, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
You can bet Thompson had a committee raising hundreds of thousands before he indicated he was actually a candidate and intended to get on a ballot, and advertize. It became visible with the FEC only upon ending his "testing the waters" phase, and it was controversial as soon as he announced his "testing the waters" activity; further it was controversial that he raised as much money as he did as a "non-candidate" in FEC terms. See: Youngman, Sam (June 29, 2007). "Thompson's 'testing' ploy raises eyebrows". The Hill. Capitol Hill Publishing Corp. Retrieved 2008-02-05. {{cite news}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help) For example, this FEC listing shows other political committee contributions to Thompson's committee in July 2007, well over the $5,000 dollar threshold. Yet the statment of organization for Friends of Fred Thompson was filed with the FEC on September 09, 2007 So the committee existed much earlier in 2007, and was permitted to file much later, after the candidate actually started campaigning within the FEC's standards. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
i voted for nader today on the green party primary ballot in california. i can upload a pic of my sample ballot. see the image here: —Preceding unsigned comment added by Boomgaylove (talk • contribs) 05:00, 6 February 2008
It may be that Nadar is not required to act, or others may have acted to put him on that party's ballot. There are many instances of party activists in U.S. history attempting to nominate a person who did not act to obtain the nomination. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:09, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The California Green Party's website lists him as an "undeclared" candidate. It looks like they unilaterally put his name on the ballot. --Loonymonkey (talk) 21:25, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Given Mr. Nader's announcement today on NBC's Meet the Press, I think we can conclude that Ralph is running and that a declaration will follow this week, probably even Monday. It would be silly to exclude him any longer given he unequivocally said that he is running, no longer just "testing the waters." The new website is also using the "Nader for President 2008" committee name, dropping exploratory.--68.118.158.4 (talk) 23:29, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposal: Mixed monetary threshold for being listing on template
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the discussion was (after two weeks of opportunity for comment) no consensus for a mixed minimum monetary threshold, as reported to the FEC, in order to be listed on the template. The discussion for a zero monetary threshold has been revived further below. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 04:23, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposal:
Carrying forward a proposal started in the discussion about minimum thresholds, Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Revisited: Proposal on minimum standards for listing on template.
Major party candidates (Republican/Democratic) proposed to have a minimum threshold of $50,000 of Federal Elections Commission reported activity (or some other number agreed upon), and $5,000 for other parties or independant candidates, in order to be listed on this template. Note that $5,000 would represent a mere 200 people donating $25 each, and $50,000 would represent a mere 2,000 donors in the same $25 amount. The aim is to have candidates with a measurable minimum standard that acknowledges the difference between major party and other candidates; these are low thresholds indeed.
Other standards to remain unchanged:
A declared or acknowledged principal presidential campaign committee, as reported and filed with the Federal Elections Commission
Actual campaigning or effort in the current elections cycle. (This takes care of those with existing committees from previous cycles, with greater than the threshold of monetary activity).
A surviving Wikipedia biography article about the candidate.
Oppose for my reasons above stamped 01/31 20:45 (which see). Additional reasons: no one has yet made a list of which candidates are intended to be deleted under this rule, as I requested last week; and it looks like someone has jumped the gun and deleted their list of these supposedly borderline candidates anyway. And, if we make the list, it'll be folks like Cort and a couple others and the question becomes why go to so much effort to exclude the couple of them when their campaigns are properly sourced and categorized; where is the improvement to Wikipedia in deleting them? It seems to me that (say) Kubby should clearly be included; that including (say) Cort is no more undue than Kubby; and that deleting Cort but not Kubby because only one seeks a duopoly nomination WOULD be undue. And, another funny thing, whenever I make a proposal and make room for people to support and oppose, I keep getting told WP is not vote-driven, this is NOT a vote, and (I seem to recall hearing) I should be blocked for proposing such a ridiculous concept. Reviewers of this talk page will know why I make this last observation. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:19, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment: Here's a potential compromise, especially seeing as The Evil Spartan started deleting names the day after this debate went up. If we take it to $50K for the duopoly and NO threshold for third parties, that addresses most all my concerns. That means that we restore Cox, Gilbert, and LaMagna, and we leave off Cort and McKinney only (compared to last stable version; sorry, Ray). It also means we don't have to wait indefinitely on third-party candidates to report raising $5K, but can include them as long as they're notable. I don't think new duopoly candidates will pull a Keyes at this date, but if they do, we can discuss. Remember, listing the candidates affected (as I requested from others but didn't obtain) is the key to demonstrating what the proposal really accomplishes. I obtained these candidate listings by going to "http://query.nictusa.com/cgi-bin/fecimg/?P" followed by the 8-digit candidate number; clicking the committee; and clicking the most recent report. The standards as phrased by Yellowdesk are not as I'd phrase them, and that may create another issue later, but I hope this can wrap up this nonvote consensus exercise for now. I will edit accordingly. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:47, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment Hmm, this sounds pretty reasonable to me, and heaven knows it's high time this thing was resolved (given the small handful of editors who've participated in this discussion thus far, it would seem that most have either lost interest or are getting just plain tired of the whole conversation). For now, I'm changing my position to "neutral" so I can mull this over and see what others have to say (if anything) within the next two or three days.--JayJasper (talk) 19:44, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Against lowering the floor below $5,000 for any candidate. Candidates that have raised zero, or a couple of thousand dollars, and decided to register with the FEC, (and perhaps later gave up, which there were a few on this template) don't have a clue as to what it means to be an influential candidate (i.e. notable), and don't understand what it takes, in financial where-with-all and personal and organizational effectiveness to have people support them in an electable and publicity-generating way that is persuasive to many hundreds, or hundreds of thousands of people. Bear in mind the average size of a mere congressional district is about 650,000 people. Typical expenditures for a contested house campaign are several hundred thousand dollars for that much smaller entity. A national campaign must be gigantic to have any influence. For example, the leading candidates so far have expended about $500 million in total: $5,000 is ONE THOUSANDTH of ONE PERCENT of $500 million. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:58, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
So? Please don't take my counterproposal of retaining the zero-threshold for third parties as if I were lowering some previously agreed minimum, as you do here and below. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral on the mixed thresholds. Against lowering the minimum for all candidates below $5,000 (which is not part of this proposal). $5,000, by the way is the amount of activity which requires every candidate to register with the FEC. I believe the only big party candidate to drop off at $50,000 would be Evan Bayh, who had less than $50,000 in the non-disavowed "Freinds of" committee.-- Yellowdesk (talk) 17:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
FEC filing standards, again
The standard requiring a candidate to register with the Federal Elections Commission?
It is fundamentally based contributions received and expenditures made, for those who are actually running.
If you are running for the U.S. House, Senate or the Presidency, you must register with the FEC once you (or persons acting on your behalf) receive contributions or make expenditures in excess of $5,000. Within 15 days of reaching that $5,000 threshold, you must file a Statement of Candidacy (FEC Form 2 [PDF]) authorizing a principal campaign committee to raise and spend funds on your behalf. Within 10 days of that filing, your principal campaign committee must submit a Statement of Organization (FEC Form 1 [PDF]). Your campaign will thereafter report its receipts and disbursements on a regular basis. Campaigns should download the Campaign Guide for Congressional Candidates [PDF] for more information on the laws that apply to them. From the Federal Elections Commission:
For people testing the waters and not actually campaigning for office, there are standards as well. Among a number of registerable actions, these individuals do not yet state that they are a candidate, or do not yet undertake efforts to become a candidate (such as taking actions to qualify for the ballot), or do not advertise. From the FEC. Testing the Waters and Campaign Committees. Those people must keep track of expenditures and receipts as if they were a registered committee, are subject to all of the contribution and expenditure limits, and report the financial activity of the "testing the waters fund" at the regularly scheduled reporting dates, after passing one or more of the qualitative thresholds. And register a principal campaign committee upon passing the qualitative threshold. Most of these people would have already passed the $5,000 dollar thresholds during their "testing" activities, and would need to file immediately with a Statement of Candidacy, authorizing a pricipal campaign committee for their activities.
If a candidate, or potential candidate can keep their activities below $5,000, they will not need to register (and defacto have no ability to organize a campaign of any substance, since they cannot even pay the phone bill or travel costs to enable visibility, and publicity). -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:32, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
John Edwards has not officially whithdrawn from the race, no matter what CNN says, but he has just suspended his campaign. He still appears in ballots and can get delegates. OneCorps is still working to get out the vote for Edwards, and his campaign HQ claims to be working on "something", and has urged his supporters to vote for JRE on Super Tuesday.
So, Edwards should be in a separate category as "Suspended", and not in "Withdrawn" among candidates officially off the race.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.19.34.199 (talk • contribs) 11:07, 4 February 2008
It's unclear what you mean by "officially withdrawn." What process are you referring to? There isn't any question that Edwards has withdrawn. He gave a speech after SC in which he announced as much. His name still appears on most ballots because they do not reprint millions of ballots every time a candidate withdraws.--Loonymonkey (talk) 15:44, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Technically Edwards did indeed suspend his campaign rather than end it. This allows him to continue to receive federal matching funds, and perhaps keep some of his delegates. See this article for example. For the purposes of the template, though, 'withdrawn' will do. Wasted Time R (talk) 23:47, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Finally, someone is discussing this category for someone besides John Cox! Yes indeed, both Cox and Edwards are essentially suspended (though Cox doesn't get matching funds), and I agree with using "withdrawn" for that category. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:09, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Should redirected links be updated?
Some articles linked by this template have been moved, and redirects were automatically created for them. Should this template be updated to link to the new name, rather than continue to use the redirect? (And is that recommended practice in general?) Wdfarmer (talk) 23:43, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
In general it is not necessary. However, in the case of templates, the "what links here" page looks cleaner if the redirect is removed as you suggest; but there is no reason for it to be necessary or even specifically desirable. I did change a couple of them though; feel free to be more specific. John J. Bulten (talk) 22:02, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Change in Layout?
Was there a specific reason for the change in layout? This new design is smaller and more confusing in my opinion and not nearly as organized. Can someone please explain the reasoning in changing what was a very good template box? Rtr10 (talk) 19:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
In a few weeks everybody will be withdrawn except for 2 candidates. This isn't a scoreboard where we label a candidate's current standing. This template will be used for years to come and all the candidates will be listed together, not under "withdrawn". Take a look at Template:United States presidential election, 1968, this is how I hope this template will look after the election and the new format is a step towards that.--STX20:01, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand your points, but this will not be a "past" election for another 9 months. What brought about the change out of no where? It just seems a little pre-mature in my opinion. Especially with two current Democrats and three Republicans still running. I don't see what happened in the last two days to make the changes that were made.Rtr10 (talk) 21:24, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
What happenned in the past few days? Withdrawals of Edwards, Giuliani, and Romney. It wouldn't have been too long until there was two sections: one with about ten withdrawn candidates and the other with one active candidate. More than half of the candidates had been "withdrawn" on this template and it just wasn't reasonable to leave it that way. For visibility I don't know if I agree with the italics but it was a compromise with another user. --STX04:12, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Southern that the template has to make sense when viewed many years from now. I don't think the current "bold in, italics out" font convention makes much sense, though ... Wasted Time R (talk) 09:20, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
I think that as long as it is clearly marked on the template, which it is, that "candidates in italics have withdrawn" I don't see a problem with it. Another idea might be to place "Active:" and "Withdrawn:" markers in front of the appropriate lists, within the same column. There's still room for tweaking and fine tuning, but overall I think the new layout works.--JayJasper (talk) 16:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
As of Dec 31, 2007, Sharkey had not passed the threshold to appear on this template. The party listed on his form The VWP Party is not registered with the FEC, hence a non-entity without substantial activity. -- Yellowdesk (talk)
The FEC also lists Sharkey's party specifically as "Independent". However, please don't act as if some extant threshold has been determined for template appearance. John J. Bulten (talk) 18:31, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I see what the problem is here... the VWP is recognized by the FEC, and at the same time the FEC listing for it lists him as the chair (this is the source from the JS article), yet the listing for him as a candidate does not list it as his party affiliation. I suspect it was an idea he abandoned before filing his presidential paperwork. Independent would be correct then. 69.221.114.153 (talk) 19:32, 24 February 2008 (UTC)
FEC Summary of all candidate filings through Dec 31, 2007
Swift, Kat - Green - (Green Party) - $1,100 in donations received at December 31, 2007.
Mesplay, Kent Phillip - (Green Party) - $4,200 in donations received at December 31, 2007.
I'd been waiting a few months for Moore to appear in the FEC database -- he hit the $5,000 threshold in November 2007, but arranged with the FEC to bundle his statement of candidacy and committee's statement of organization with the year-end report, due 31 January. His statement of candidacy finally appeared online on Friday, 8 February, and I expect his principal campaign committee similarly to be processed shortly. (I heard Friday evening that the FEC apparently forwarded some of his paperwork to the Senate for some reason, which may delay things.) -David SchaichTalk/Cont21:08, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
LaMagna, Cox, Gilbert: these seem to have met every test proposed seriously by anyone, yet got deleted again without comment, so I reinserted.
R McKinney, Cort: I offered deleting these two as an attempt at compromise. Looks like that compromise didn't succeed. Now what?
Nader: According to Green Papers he filed on 1/30, and he already has an open FEC committee and requisite activity. I am readding him as an independent.
Calero, Grundmann: these seem not to have passed any test proposed seriously by anyone, so I deleted.
Moore: formerly not qualified, but he is now verifiably qualified and should not face any argument.
Mesplay: has $8K debts, and Yellowdesk said in Nov and again above that we could count "any of the lines going over the threshold [including] expenditures". Clearly qualified, even on Yellowdesk's current proposal.
Sharkey, Stanhope, Swift: these appear the only candidates where Yellowdesk and I would actually disagree on dollar-threshold grounds. (Thank you for finally providing this list.) Of course we have no proof Stanhope spent $0, what we have is evidence that he spent under $5K. Of course it's likely that Sharkey has gone well over $5K in his several cycles, while recognizing that Yellowdesk is concentrating on current cycle only. Should retain, without regard for arbitrary threshold.
I truly don't understand the lengths to which Yellowdesk has gone, over several months, to fight for the exclusion of a small handful of candidates. What has worked so far is (1) "candidates" by definition are limited to the list ministerially provided by the jurisdictional body, FEC, which is easily verifiable and timely; (2) "notable" candidacy at WP is perfectly answered by the open-source solution of whether a WP article survives, which (though hackable) is easily verifiable. By contrast a dollar threshold is not easily verifiable, not timely, and not directly related to notability. Look, Keith Judd raised over $500K, more than a lot of folks we listed, but nobody has found him notable yet; he got one line here. The constant barrage of exclusion arguments here is the same as those for excluding other nonmainstream nonestablishment POVs, and they are just as poor. The proper balance is instead that each candidate needs correctly weighted space on WP, and so the smaller ones have smaller and fewer articles. When we are navigating the articles, though, the weight argument does not carry over, because we don't have larger and smaller space, we only have in or out for each article. To fail to provide navigational links to the smaller articles because they're smaller is to exclude them from consideration. Is there any other navigational template which refuses to include some articles in its subject area on the grounds that the articles are too short? To adopt such an argument in such a partisan-tempting template as this one at such ongoing lengths is completely mysterious to me. John J. Bulten (talk) 21:27, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
For Nader, see my comments several sections above: Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Nader?. Greenpapers is not reliable, and contrary to the statement and transcript of Nader's interview on the topic. He has clearly declared he is a "potential candidate" during a "testing the waters" effort, which does not require his committee to register with the FEC. Further as of Feb 10, 2008, there is no candidate statement, or registration of his 2008 committee. Not a candidate, yet.
Stanhope - indeed there is proof of zero expenditure, as he asserts in his own report to the FEC that zero expenditure occured. Check his filing with the FEC
Judd would be on the template, if he had registered his candidacy with the FEC this cycle. He has not.
Moore not yet verifiably qualified. Looking for a citation indicating as much.
Mesplay is well on the way to surpassing the threshold; I would accept listing of that name.
Swift just is not there yet.
Sharkey, not there yet, but apparently close to surpassing the FEC threshold. At this point I would accept listing of that name.
As for the reason for dropping make-weight candidates: they cannot possibly be notable if they cannot persuade a couple of hundred people to support them, so that they can make their message influential. The FEC lists 126 filing candidates at December 31, 2007, which excluded a number of individuals that had previously declared their candidacy, and registered their committee, but never made it to $5,000 in activity, Stanhope among them. These are not new views, nor a surprise to the readers of this page. For background on the development of those views, there is the archive, though there's a succint summary in the section Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#Non-comprehensive standards, a history.
This has become too complicated as I figured it would. I'd like to return to the old standards of an FEC-filing and wikipedia article. --STX04:13, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I didn't agree with that proposal but I thought it might get consensus. I am making proposals that try to simplify matters and keep the standards as straightforward as possible whether that is inclusive or exclusive. --STX04:42, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Proposal: A return to the old standards
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the proposal was (after three weeks of opportunity for comment) to have no stated minimum monetary threshold of committee activity (as reported to the FEC) in order to be listed on this navigational template. Other standards continue: 1. Candidate must have registered with the FEC with a statement of candidacy. 2. Candidate must have specifed to the FEC a principal presidential campaign committee via a statement of organization. 3. Existence of a (surviving) wikipedia article about the candidate. See the talk section (or archives) for details about the FEC process: Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#FEC filing standards, again. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 21:42, 8 March 2008 (UTC)
Proposal
I feel that a $5,000 threshold for inclusion is becoming overly complicated and the subject of much disagreement (see above). I propose a return to the old standards:
Wikipedia article
FEC-filing
A sourced statement of candidacy (or future candidacy) for the 2008 election.
I think it should be thrown out since it doesn't work as effectively as it seemed it could. The amount of money changes so often that it can be interpreted in many different ways. $5,000 is not really a significant amount of money and you said you'd allow for a candidate that was approaching that mark to be on the template, that's inconsistant. It doesn't work but it looked good on paper and that's why it passed. This proposal is much more practical and has a history of working effectively.--STX21:26, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I intended find your thoughts on different topic: your views on not-yet-candidates, unregistered with FEC by failing to have a current declaration of candidacy? Nader is whom I have in mind at the moment, but it appears that Grundman and Calero fit this category too. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
As far as I heard Nader has not filed with the FEC yet even though he expressed that he might be a candidate. If he files with the FEC on an exploratory committee he should be included, until that happens he is ineligible because he fails rule 2.--STX01:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Perhaps people could enlighten me as to some of these candidates, and whether they fit the old standard vs. the new one. I tried to add the candidate for the Constitution Party, by no means a no-name third party, and was reverted because he didn't fit one of the standards. I would also like to know if some of these otherwise noname candidates would fit either standard. Perhaps we should use a standard closer to what he mainstream media uses. The Evil Spartan (talk) 07:05, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
They would not pass the standards in both instances, for lack of a FEC filing declaring their candidacy, and declaring a principal campaign committee. Basically, we have been following this outside standard, apart from monetary standards, as it saves a lot of discussion about the various metaphysics and nuances of potential candidates. The FEC database is public, and verifiable, and reliable, and represents candidate compliance with federal laws. At the FEC it is optional for a candidate to register, when their activity (donations or expenditures, as separate tallies) are less than $5,000, and required at the $5,000 amount. The FEC considers non-candidates those who have made no effort to advertise or get onto a ballot, denominating this as "testing the waters" activity, which allows the individual to not to register, with the FEC, pending actual candidate activity. These non-candidates could optionally register and file, disclosing their principal campaign committee activity. See Template talk:United States presidential election, 2008#FEC filing standards, again -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe that considerations must be made for smaller party candidates. There can be no good reason to exclude Constitution Party candidates, While the party surely will not win the white house it will pick up a hundred thousand (or more) votes. With this in mind why can't there be two sets of standards. one for the major parties and another for parties that have been (either of last two cycles) or are currently qualified on enough ballots to "conceptually be elected" president. Highground79 (talk) 08:56, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
My well considered view: the FEC filing threshold, without including any monetary threshold, has worked really well for deciding how serious many of the wingnut and inconsequential "candidates" are. Steven Colbert is the most famous non-candidate example who was not allowed to stay on the template, for lack of an FEC filing; but there are others. What does it take to have influence (that is notabiity enough to be written about)? Personal and organizational effectiveness to have numerous supporters, and financial wherewithall capable of creating an electoral influence, and publicity-generating activity persuasive to many hundreds, or hundreds of thousands of people. It's really deminimus to require a registration with the FEC as an indicator of intent to carry on an effective effort. From a financial perspective, a national campaign must be very large to have the slightest influence. For example, the leading candidates so far have expended more than $500 million in total as of December 31, 2007, and the mandatory threshold to register with the FEC is $5,000: one thousandth of a percent of $500 million. Many individuals elect to register well before that threshold, as indicated by the FEC's December 31, 2007 summary of the year-end filings -- Yellowdesk (talk) 02:02, 22 February 2008 (UTC)
An assessment: At this time, one objection to departing from $5,000 threshold, three neutral (inclding myself), and three in favor. It's looking like six of seven participants can live with no mention of monetary thresholds, while retaining the other thresholds: FEC registration, declaration of candidacy with FEC, and wikipedia article. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:44, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
Tentatively Support While I don't think the $5,000 threshold is unreasonable, another option might be to specify all candidates must have a principal campaign committee on record in the FEC database. This confirms that the candidate has personally filed as a candidate (as opposed to having been filed by a draft committee or such, the FEC specifies "If no official documents of an authorized committee appear, the individual identified here has taken no action to become a candidate"). It would also eliminate some of the "controversial" candidates (like Cort), and likely not alter the template drastically from its current version.--JayJasper (talk) 23:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
"FEC-filing", as stated in item two of this proposal, was intended to mean to carry on with the past standard for the template, of having a candidate signed statement to the FEC declaring a principal committee, and a candidate signed FEC-filed statement of candidacy. It is potentially possible that a candidate may fail to disavow a "draft" or "friends of" committee, by failing to respond to a request for information or response from the FEC, and in such a case (failing to respond to the FEC, to avow/disavow a committee) the FEC would consider that committee to belong to the individual, and would consider that individual a candidate, despite lack of initiative on the candidate's part. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 03:45, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
Oppose
Oppose The $5,000 threshold is an FEC standard and I personally do not think it is too much to ask to have a candidate that has raised $5,000. These records can be traced online through the FEC. If it is opened back up to anyone who has declared candidacy and is on Wikipedia, this will muck up the template in my opinion. I see no real problem with the current arrangement and do not see a good reason to revert back. Rtr10 (talk) 07:19, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
Tentatively neutral. I will not be defending the listing of insignificant candidates. I think just as many complicated discussions occur from having no FEC-reported dollar activity thresholds. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 16:49, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Permanently neutral. I was invited to comment, but I've long since made my peace with however this template looks. I will comment that Mike Gravel traffic has been up ever since he, Hillary, and Obama became the only ones bolded for the Dems, which indicates that the bolding makes a difference. Wasted Time R (talk) 04:32, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I hate to be the third to fail to advance the cause of consensus, but I'm pretty much neutral too. I'm not sure that I see the problems with the $5,000 threshold, but I also wouldn't be adverse to using the standard that User:Southern Texas suggests. Sarcasticidealist (talk) 07:21, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
He's as legitimate as some other fringe party candidates, so he deserves a WP article (and has been in the news so is surely notable) but he has raised no money and has filed no FEC reports, so I'm not sure why he would be listed on the template. I'm not sure WHERE a neo-Nazi would be listed on the template, either, from a practical point of view. He's technically not running with a party, just as a garden-variety National Socialist. There are probably 20 or so others like him 'running' but no really ready for prime time, or this template. - Nhprman02:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
A federal committee is required to disclose contributors over $200. He probably has several thousand dollars of small contributions. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:52, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Under the now-current standards, with approximate agreement on zero dollar reported FEC activity threshold, it appears this person qualifies for listing on the template (though I won't be adding him). -- Yellowdesk (talk) 20:20, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
A candidate can still run a campaign without filing with the FEC. Its called a "write-in campaign". For example Ralph Nader ran a "write in" campaign in 1992 and won a large amount of votes. What is wrong with having a column for "write in candidates"? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Uga Man (talk • contribs) 22:07, 25 February 2008 (UTC)
It would be difficult to verify the authenticity of such candidates without FEC filings. Anyone can declare himself or herself a write-in and create a website. Such individuals could number in the the hundreds, or even thousands. There are some "write-in" candidates who do file with the FEC, perhaps to assert the legitimacy of their campaigns. This type of candidate, if having a WP bio and (for now, anyway) a minimum of $5,000 in reported activity would be placed in the Independents column. So there does not appear to be a need for a separate column for write-ins.--JayJasper (talk) 22:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)
Listing presumptive nominee first
Would it not be appropriate to list the "presumptive nominee" first in the candidate listings? I know the consensus was to list candidates alphabetically, but now that McCain has secured enough pledged delegates to win his party's nomination, shouldn't he be listed first? After all, we have the active candidates listed ahead of the withdrawn ones, so it seems logical to move the PN up the list as well. If no one objects to this, I will make such a move in the very near future (unless someone beats me to it).--JayJasper (talk) 23:42, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Done No article exists, no Federal Elections filing. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 00:37, 25 December 2007 (UTC)
Done, unless someone makes a valid case for reverting.--JayJasper (talk) 19:28, 8 March 2008 (UTC)