Talk:2006 United States elections

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Rename the Page[edit]

Can we rename this page? Give it 2006 United States Election or 2006 United States Mid-term Election? I dont like this one. To long

WHEN YOU START AN ARTICLE, YOU DONT REPEAT INFORMATION THAT DOES NOT RELATE TO THE TOPIC. EXPLAINIGN WHAT A MID-TERM ELECTION IS NOT NEEDED FOR THIS ARTICLE (HISTORY WRITING 101)

Not in detail but you need to offer some explaination. The article appears to do that well enough mentioning what is up for election. Note that although this may be obvious to Americans, it is probably not to non-Americans. Also please Wikipedia:Sign your posts on talk pages and don't type in all caps. Nil Einne 04:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Non american (australian) expresses gratitude for breif explaination of mid term elections. It helps me understand the context of the article better Fyntan 05:38, 15 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Results[edit]

Does anyone know of a news site that summarises the results as they are called (via exit polls) on a single page that can be refreshed?

I'm thinking of something along the lines of:

  • House:
    • Democrat: X seats
    • Republican: Y seats
    • Too close to call: Z seats
  • Senate:
    • Democrat: A seats (B not contested)
    • Republican: C seats (D not contested)
    • Too close to call: E seats

Every site I've found makes you drill down into specific races and add up the results yourself. If anyone can find a summary site it would be ideal for the references list at the bottom of this page.

Ben Arnold 10:56, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This sort of thing will probably start to come out around 7 PM EST, as that's when the major networks start their results coverage. Not enough information yet to make such calls. — ceejayoz talk 17:39, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

For this election almost every news media organization has sent two representatives from their corporation to an undisclosed location to collect exit poll data. According to the agreement made by the news organizations no communication out of the undisclosed location is to be made as to not release exit poll data before the polling places close as to not disrupt the election CFM865 18:22, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The CNN website seems to provide this feature. Either on the home page or http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2006/pages/results/bop/ . I'll try and add it into the article now because it seems fairly simple to read. (Justinboden86 00:54, 8 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

P.S. everyone should feel free to add other summaries on other websites, such as Fox or Washington Post, if the sites have it available, if anybody is concerned CNN might have a Democratic bias and could possibly predict a Democratic victory too early. But please do not remove the CNN link altogether. (Justinboden86 01:06, 8 November 2006 (UTC))[reply]

The numbers don't add up in the table for the HOR election results. They don't equal 435.rmagill 04:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you look at the top of the table, you'll find the number of contests still undecided. Add that number to the sum of decided elections and you get 435. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ballot systems[edit]

Why doesn't Congress mandate a uniform national balloting system instead of letting local officials choose it? Here are some excerpts from a news story on the web:

  • Poll workers couldn’t work the machines (Marion Co., Indiana)
  • Computer error prevented voters from casting ballots (Delaware Co., Indiana)
  • Activation cards for the machines were programmed incorrectly (Delaware Co., Indiana)
  • Struggled to get touch screen machines working (Cleveland, OH)
  • Election officials forgot to send out the cards required to activate electronic machines (Maryland)
  • Machines that have been criticized as susceptible to hackers (general criticism of 38 percent of the Americans who are voting on new equipment, which itself is a third of Americans)

Strange. In Canada, these sorts of problems only happen at the printing company's facilities, long before election day. Canadian polling stations don't seem to have problems with paper ballots, which are sheets of paper with each candidate's name with party name, and a circle to mark the X.

Mechanization might seem cool, but when they cause problems, can be hacked, important details are forgotten, programming errors can occur and poll workers don't know how to fix them... is it worth it? GBC 18:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

As I understand it (think I heard this after 2000 or perhaps 2004), Americans like to have thousands of different things to vote on in their elections like school boards and other stuff like that so they end up allegedly having too much to count This is supposedly why they like to use mechanised ballots rather then the paper ballots which you tick or number which probably every single other country uses Nil Einne 09:22, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Do we have any references for the states with voting problems? 64.80.155.106 23:10, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, I saw that and I am trying to find sources for that section. Nishkid64 23:50, 7 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I have references for 9 of the 16 states that had voting problems. I would appreciate any help in trying to finding sources for all the listed states. Nishkid64 01:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Congress doesn't mandate how districts vote because it's considered to be a part of states' rigts Grundler1 05:32, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grundrler1 has it about right, but to be more exact, Congress’ powers are set by Article I of the Constitution, and the power to regulate state elections is not part of Article I. First off, Article I Section 4 states that the State legislatures get to determine how State elections are done. Even if this were not the case, Congress still probably couldn’t do it, because the power doesn’t exist under Section 8. It would be possible for Congress to try get around Section 8 in a number of ways, but I don’t know that they would work. For instance, Congress could find some way that elections are related to interstate commerce, and regulate them under the commerce clause (given the makeup of the Supreme Court, that wouldn’t last). Congress could also tie balloting systems to funding (if you don’t do this system, we cut some funding), but the funding would have to be related to the balloting system, which would be hard to find. You have the further problem that any regulation would require state officials to do Congress’ bidding, which raises 10th amendment issues (they are hardly ever actually raised, but this would do it). So short answer, Congress can’t mandate voting systems because the Framers didn’t give them the power to do so. --Skeenbr0 06:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The Help America Vote Act of 2002 does the kind of thing you suggest. But I'm sure the states would raise a ruckus if the feds tried to take over the ballot design itself. One issue with that is most of the ballot is for state and local offices, which the feds have no authority to regulate. -- Mwalcoff 04:01, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't forget that it was Congress, known for its objectivity, wisdom, and patience, that was a major player in the move to electronic voting. (I will give you $500 for every member of Congress who ever served as a precinct worker if you give me $100 for every one who hasn't.) The rush to "solutions" after the 2004 debacle saddled a good part of the country with electronic voting machines that you cannot double-check -- unlike, say, the optical scan systems, which have a paper form in addition to the electronic total. That said, people longing for the good old days of the paper ballot have never see a pile of, say, two million of them (which is what you'd have with the Virginia senate race) -- checks instead of Xs, choices scratched out, overvotes (choosing too many for a given office or question), etc. There's no panacea. — 69.138.9.90 03:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Don't they have polling divisions in the US? There are precincts, but I wonder how large those precincts are. In Canadian federal and provincial/territorial elections, of course, the members are elected by single-member districts, but each district is broken down into convenience-sized polling divisions; Whitehorse (pop 21,000) has about 30 polls, so each covers about 700 people, 400-600 voters perhaps. Several polls might be grouped in one polling place (a school or whatever), but you go to whichever poll number you live in. When counting begins, each poll counts its own ballots and those counts are reported to the district's returning officer to be added together. Rural polls have far fewer voters and reach several miles out of a village so a small number of people have to drive a long way to vote, but unless they're conveniently next to each other, you don't find two villages or a village and a town in the same poll. And given the choice, I think optical read paper ballots would be preferable, or at least some sort of technology that poll workers can easily set up and verify. GBC 22:08, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The precinct is the smallest unit for voting purposes, and sounds like your poll, GBC. In the Maryland county where I live (population around 1 million), there are about 240 precincts. That makes for an average of 4,000 residents per precinct, though the number of voters would be less since population includes children, non-citizens, and people who are not registered to vote. My own precinct has 1895 registered voters, of whom about half came to the polls (the absentee ballots have not yet been counted). The precinct is the same for local (municipal or county), state, and federal elections, though the number of precincts can change from election to election. I have heard of multiple-precinct locations, but don't know any specifically. The average precinct is geographically larger in rural areas; Caroline County (population around 32,000) has only eight precincts and about 9,000 votes in the governor's race this year.
In the Yukon, as in my native Nova Scotia, you have a unicameral legislature; in the U.S., except for Nebraska, every state has two houses in its legislature (meaning, more offices to vote for). The Maryland house of delegates has multi-member districts (one riding with three seats, if you will) based on the state senate district. There are 47 senators, and so 141 delegates (47 x 3). In some cases, the delegate district is divided into subdistricts because of size, but will total three seats.
— OtherDave 13:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Claims of Election irregularities[edit]

I think the section would be better worded as "Claims of". They need to be investigated and proven before they are accepted as actual Election irregularities. Jeff Carr 02:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

All irregularities have been verified by other sources. Also, I don't think they really appear to be "claims". Nishkid64 03:14, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The presentation of this section leaves the impression of invalidation of the general election and seemingly implies that the results themselves are debatable. Based on how large an event this is, it would be wise to have an interpretation of their relevance based on a numerate assessment. Otherwise I think there is a risk of media bias or sensationalism not appropriate for encyclopedic reference. It could be that I just interpret the world "irregularities" as implying too much. Perhaps remove the implication then and just put "Election incidents, scandals and accusations". Or something along those lines? Jeff Carr 06:12, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think the suggestion of election irregularities implies that the results are debatable. Whether or not the results are likely to have been affected, irregularities are still irregularities as in the rest of the world (and most elections, especially large ones have irregularities of some sort. Americans ones probably have more on average then much of the developed world because they use complicated machines which most of the world doesn't). Election monitors do usually comment on whether they think irregularities are enough to potentially invalidate the results. This will probably take a few days of course. Note that given how close some seats are, even relatively minor irregularities could be enough to affect the results. Nil Einne 09:21, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think this section is very useful without knowing locations, and I don't think the "States with voting problems" section is very useful without having any indication as to what those "problems" might be. Perhaps combine them? And either provide citations for problems, or cut... Psyno 23:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, the Oregon 'problem' was simply that there was high voter turnout on the last day. We do all vote-by-mail, but the ballot has to be in to the county election office by 8 PM on election day, not just postmarked on election day, so there is usually a 'stampede' of ballot turn-ins on election day. The 'problem' was that so many had come in on election day that it was taking longer than expected to count them. That's not a 'problem', that's just a delay. The voters in towns that were flooded by the heavy rains on Monday would qualify as having 'problems'. (One small town got 13 inches of rain on Monday!) But heavy voter turnout doesn't qualify to me as a 'problem'. Ehurtley 09:51, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I think there's a good deal of hyperbole in the 'irregularity' charge, especially by people who were not in polling places. Consider the moaning and groaning in Maryland: I am a chief judge (head precinct worker) in Maryland. When we printed off the vote totals at the end of the night in our relatively small precinct (950 out of 1895 registered voters), we were observed by a representative for one of the two parties. In addition to the machine totals, we had to count the paper "authorization forms" collected at each voting machine -- a way to double-check the count. Nine machines at a polling place open for 13 hours (7 a.m. to 8 p.m.). At each machine, the total registered on the machine matched the total of authorization forms collected at that machine. Not one number off. That, of course, doesn't make a compelling headline, and you're not going to read about it in someone's blog. We had our mistakes and shortcomings, but managed the crucial part of the process with a team of ten election workers, four of whom had never worked an election before. — 69.138.9.90 03:31, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Reminder[edit]

Just a reminder to those interested, the United States House of Representatives page will need updating once the official results are in. Justinboden86 06:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Also the Classes of United States Senators article. Please make sure you don't confuse things tho. An anon user updated it to suggest the results were as of 8th November and the last election occured in 2006 with the next in 2012 for Class 1. This was misleading as said anon did not change the actual numbers. I feel the best thing is to leave it as is now that I've changed it, with the table true as of November 6th. Nil Einne 10:05, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Partisan mix of congressional delegations also needs updating. Note that the majority party is oriented to the top of each chart, so the order needs to be flopped in addition to the delegation details updated. NoSeptember 16:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

state referendums[edit]

What about the state referendums that also took place? They should be linked to, if there's a seperate article? 87.78.150.42 10:34, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Split congress[edit]

Should we bother to mention that if Congress is split, it will be the first time in a long time (I think I heard this on CNN, not sure how long, possibly WW2 or earlier I guess an American will know) Nil Einne 11:56, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Not too long ago. Congress was split a couple years during Reagan's Administration, Democratic House & Republican Senate. Democrats also held the Senate from 2001 to 2003 while the House was Republican.--12.110.169.7 14:23, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

In addition to the first 6 years of the Reagan administration, Congress was also split from mid-2001 through 2002 (after Senator Jeffords became an independent and caucused with the Democrats). NoSeptember 15:55, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

51 Democrats / 49 Republicans[edit]

The article says that if the Democrats win the last two seats, this will be the end result (51/49). However, there are two independent senators. Why are they being lumped in with the democrats? Trampled - talk 16:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Both Independents have repeatedly said that they will caucus with the Democrats. Technically, the split would be 49-49-2, but the Independents would be effectively Democrats. Lieberman, at least, might even sit as a Democrat. —Cuiviénen 17:15, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Im just curious because I have looked at the results and all of the polls are in. But they havnt called these two seats, and the democrats leave in both of them. I mean they can recount the ballots but the likelyhood of it changing is not overly huge. I think it would be safe to say that both of these seats will probably go democrat. --Meanie 17:18, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I personally hope so.Cameron Nedland 21:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's probably going to be true, but we won't know for sure where the Senate stands if a recount does occur. It's either 51-49, or 50-50, which doesn't look to bad in either case. Nishkid64 22:39, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well, Allen hasn't conceded yet, but according to AP reports, it's over. One of Allen's campaign staffers (under condition of anonymity, of course,) said that unless there are obvious 'irregularities', he won't ask for a recount. And as for 50-50 not looking too bad? Assuming you mean that you would prefer a Democrat controlled Senate, 50-50 would still be a Republican controlled Senate. (At least until the next Presidential election,) since in the case of a tie, the VIce President casts the tie-breaking vote. Ehurtley 09:57, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I heard that the recount won't be finished for 6 weeks or so. Pyrospirit 15:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
George Allen has now conceded; no one familiar with the voting process in Virginia seriously believed a recount would make up the 7,000+ vote gap with Webb. In addition, Virginia state law places many controls on recounts, so that the results aren't all that likely to change. Despite impressions to the contrary that many people have, most of the "recounting" involves someone double-checking the addition of printouts from electronic machines -- it's not as if the electronic voting machine is asked a second time how many votes were cast. I say this as a chief election judge (one of two head workers in a precinct) in neighboring Maryland, which also uses the electronic machines. — 69.138.9.90 03:17, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Montana results in[edit]

Somebody please change the map to reflect a confirmation of the Montana result. It still shows undecided. Pizzadeliveryboy 18:50, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hey there! I've made an attempt at a map reflecting the Montana result, as close as possible to the one formerly on this page. The one main difference is the (regrettable) use of silver rather than red and black stripes to signify that there's one Republican and either Allen or Webb. --It's-is-not-a-genitive 23:25, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irregularities[edit]

Can we add "Democrats win big" to this? As much as I love the Democrats, one must admit it's irregular. :-p — ceejayoz talk 19:01, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually given what the polling etc had been saying I would argue it would be more of an irregularity if they didn't win big Nil Einne 03:58, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps changes in control of state legislative bodies should be listed here as well?[edit]

For instance I heard late last night that the Democrats had taken control of the Indiana state house. It was by a well known Democratic analyst though, so Indiana news paper sites would have to be checked. 168.166.196.40 19:35, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

VA recount[edit]

Changed "probable recount" (referring to VA Senate race) in lead paragraph to "possible recount." Per [1], the Allen campaign has not yet committed to seeking a recount. SS451 22:00, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Notable in South Dakota?[edit]

Didn't check to see who added this, but does anyone think this is necessary in the article? I was thinking it would be appropriate in Election Irregularities, but I'm not totally sure. Nishkid64 23:43, 8 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I merged that section into "Local Elections". It seems like the appropriate place, now that I think about it (and it also expanded the section, so it's not a one-liner anymore). Nishkid64 01:26, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Irregularities - suggestion[edit]

I propose that if irregularities have been reported to be only in specific subset/area of the US voting population that this be made clear. For example "Poll workers unable to get a zero count when voting machines were started, meaning officials could not verify that the machines were secure and did not already have votes in them" appears to only be in Pennsylvania. Nil Einne 04:07, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just fixed a few of them. TCC (talk) (contribs) 04:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Another suggestion. The list is getting long; I suggest to trim the specific decriptions which have as sourcing less or non notable sources (e.g., non prominent blogs). Then add at the end of that section something like "Many additional isolated reports of irregularities have been made." and then put all or many of the less prominent references to that. Note I suggested "isolated reports of irregularities", not "reports of isolated irregularities"; the irregularities themselves might not (be claimed to) be. Just scanning the sources my best guess is maybe a third could be consolodated as such. Baccyak4H 18:31, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Query: Vandals chained the main door and broke keys into the locks of New Jersey Republican candidate for Senate Tom Kean Jr.'s headquarters. Accusations have been made towards Democratic incumbent Bob Menendez, but they deny any involvement in the situation.

Who is they, exactly, if the accusations have been leveled towards one man? Noabsolutes 07:14, 16 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regarding the summary[edit]

Re: "Summary of the 7 November 2006 United States House of Representatives election results" Why do we list all of the fringe parties in which none of them won a seat. Why not just list GOP/Dems/Indep and lump the rest into Other Parties? Mdelves 09:42, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be fine with this, but I suspect some will object. — ceejayoz talk 15:05, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Well it's useful for other people to know who else was running in the election. It's not that big of a space that we're using up. Nishkid64 15:23, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
How about an "Other" category with a footnote under the table mentioning all the party names? This would replace several rows of the table with maybe two lines of text. Baccyak4H 18:34, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Closing times[edit]

Are the closing times really relevant to an encyclopedia article? jaco♫plane 18:49, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just saw you removed them. Thanks, I agree with you. Baccyak4H 18:55, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed, particularly since I'm not sure all the times were correct (I'm fairly certain peninsular Florida is that the lines close at 7 PM EST, but whoever is in line by then can vote). The Dark 19:06, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
That section was useful on Tuesday night; but yup out of date now. Jon 19:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

House Seats[edit]

Here's it's stating 231 - 196 among called races (8 uncalled), but CNN is stating 229 - 196 among called races [10 uncalled]. I also note that the House page on this site is also using the 229 (along with the template here) so I'm changing it to that. Jon 19:39, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ballot Inititives[edit]

What's the criteria for including them here, I don't think the Wine Sells one is of much interest outside that state. MO did have a tobacco tax hike on the ballot (it failed), along with a few other initives not listed there that weren't even of much interest here. In addition, CNN has not called the AZ ban on gay marriage the last time I checked. Is there a source that has called it? If not, then it that portion such be removed. Jon 19:53, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Layout?[edit]

The layout of this page is horrendous! I know I'm no one to talk because I haven't contributed and i don't plan to, but please! It's basically just some lists. More on the analysis sections would be nice...and lots of statistics, too. → JARED (t)  21:10, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll particularly agree with you. Layout is definately a mess. I'd recomend starting by striping the list of Senators in the Senate section and replacing that with the 2006 Senate Election Template. The actual list of Senators would be be much better suited for the page about the 2007-8 Senate. I would disagree about posting "lots of statistics" here. Jon 21:44, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
I'll have to admit that this page has gotten better, but the problem now is that the "Irregularities" section doesn't explain itself. Maybe put an intro in there and reduce some of the list to only the important ones. → JARED (t)  17:27, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Complaint?[edit]

User:24.2.254.27 wrote, " This map is misleading. Lieberman is an Independent, not a Democrat. Bernie Sanders is an Independent, but he also caucuses with the Democrats -- THEY SHOULD BE CONSIDERED THE SAME !" right above the map. I know nothing about this and this IP user did not use the proper channels to fix it. If someone can look into it and possibly change either Lieberman or add a footnote on Sanders. Thank you. --Farquaadhnchmn(Dungeon) 23:28, 9 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Green mayor[edit]

Please see my edit here. As I explained in the edit history, there is no need to mention s/he's the first mayor of that specific city since logicially if s/he's the first mayor of a city of that size then s/he's must be the first mayor of said city Nil Einne 03:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see this was toned down a bit, and I think that's appropriate. The mayor's election is a victory for the Green Party, but in terms of population Richmond is not even in the fifty largest cities in California. — OtherDave 13:40, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Voter turnout?[edit]

I'm interested in the voter turnout but didn't see anything on this. Can someone add a section and some material? Thanks, Hu Gadarn 17:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That will take at least a couple of weeks just like totaling up how many Americans voting for which party in each of the 435 House Districts. Jon 19:55, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Turnout in Canada in recent elections achieved what the US ignobly achieved decades ago - enough non-voting citizens who, if they all voted for one particular third party, would likely sweep the electoral college votes for that third party's presidential candidate! If some party can inspire all those people, there could be a political earthquake so powerful, the Republicans and Democrats would sink like skyscrapers due to liquefaction! It's sad - I intend to vote in every US election for any office I understand as soon as I can become a US citizen. Until October of this year, I have never abstained from voting in an election since I turned 18. GBC 22:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Ummm ... i was only interested in the #s. I wasn't making a political statement. Hu Gadarn 22:44, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Re turnout: it might take a while. For example, in Maryland, it's easy to total the votes cast at the polls, since nearly every location uses electoric voting. However, absentee ballots are accepted if postmarked by the day before the election and received by the board of elections by Nov. 17 (so they can't be counted till then). Over 160,000 people requested absentee ballots in Maryland.
In addition, provisional ballots -- paper ballots cast at the polls -- cannot be counted before all the other ballots, and before checking to see whether a provisional voter might have voted in some other way. (Example: a person shows up at the polls to vote, but the poll book says he received an absentee ballot. He can choose to complete a provisional ballot. When the absentee ballots are counted, the board of elections will check to see whether this voter submitted an absentee ballot. If he did, that will be counted; the provisional ballot will not. If he did not submit an absentee ballot, the provisional ballot will count.)
On the other hand, about 1.6 million votes were cast at the polls for governor of Maryland, so even if all 160,000 absentee votes were cast (and they were not), the total turnout will at most be 10% higher. — OtherDave 13:51, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Much of the above is specific to state law. For instance, some states won't wait for the final day for mail in ballots to arrive before counting the ones that have already arrived. Some counties in Ohio are known to have counted the absentine ballots on the Monday the day before the election. In many states, before provisional ballots are even opened they will check to see which races have a margin of victory less than the number of provisional ballots and only get around to investigating (and counting qualifing provisional ballots) if they could effect the final outcome of that race. Jon 14:36, 14 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Implications ==> Rumsfeld?[edit]

I have been cleaning up the implications and analysis section, especially trying to make clear (verifiable) the connection between the election and Defense Secretary Rumsfeld's resignation. However, I found a noteworthy source which essentially reports that he was due to be terminated right after the election, regardless of its outcome. The implication would be that it was only the arbitrary timing of the election, and the political calculus to avoid his resignation beforehand actually impacting the elections, that connects the two events.

Now if this is born out, I would deem any mention of Rumsfeld's departure as irrelevant to this article. But despite the source appearing reliable, I will wait a few days for more stuff to come out. Then I'll update (which includes the possibility of deletion) the reference to Rumsfeld to reflect the new information (if any). Baccyak4H 19:25, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

-

For pete's sake, can someone lock the article? I just edited out a couple of defamatory remarks...

wording of intro[edit]

The following line in the intro is rather clumsy while South Dakota became the first state to reject a ban on abortion except in the case where the life of the mother is in danger. It reads rather like South Dakota removed the ban except when the mother's life was in danger (in which case the ban is still in effect). Would it not be better to remove the one exemption in South Dakota's now defunct law, or do we need to reword it? Sabine's Sunbird talk 23:13, 10 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I noticed that when I was reading the article as well. I think the last part of the sentence ("except in the case where the life of the mother is in danger") can just be removed. --musicpvm 00:06, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

States with Voting Problems section[edit]

Thanks to whoever put up that tag regarding the "States with Voting Problems" section. I noticed myself that it was just a big list, and that expanding it out would be more helpful. I'm planning to do this, but I am still asking for help in finding sources for the two remaining unreferenced states. Nishkid64 02:13, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, I'm thinking of just merging this into "Election Irregularities" and separating each incident by state? Anyone agree/disagree? Nishkid64 02:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Popular vote[edit]

Does anyone have popular vote data, which is a useful comparison point of the swing in terms of actual voters rather than just seats (which can be misleading). Sad mouse 02:26, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I would assume that the links to individual state House/Senate races should provide popular vote data. Also, CNN should have exit polls for individual states here. Nishkid64 02:41, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I posted some popular vote data for the US Senate results, they are from www.uselectionatlas.org and are unofficial. Whoblitzell 21:32, 12 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Stem Cell Research?[edit]

Why no mention of the stem cell initiative in Missouri? 72.161.57.144 09:15, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Reference: http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/news/stories.nsf/politics/story/9F7DE82B974D006D86257220002BEA72?OpenDocument" (Stem cell proponents claim razor-thin victory). 72.161.57.144 09:33, 11 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps because little impact to the rest of the nation, but if that's the case the Wine Sells failing in Mass. should be removed which has little impact here in Missouri. I'm a bit more suprized that the tobacco tax hike proposal failing isn't listed. Jon 15:51, 13 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Protection[edit]

I've noticed that there is lots of vandalism on this page. I believe that this page should be at least semi-protected for the sake of the article. I mean we can't always have one person removing vandalism repeatedly.

I disagree. Some of the IP's have made great contributions to the article thus far. For example, see Special:Contributions/144.35.254.12. That user alone has made a good deal of additions to the page. Nishkid64 00:09, 17 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
The page has been removed from the limelight, and there is decreasing activity on this page. I think it's fine now, so there's no need for any protection, whatsoever. Nishkid64 22:18, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]


Biased International Reaction section?[edit]

I'm a bit concerned that the only three mentions of international reactions all seem slanted towards the idea that the Democratic victories were a bad thing. I'm sure people can find some opinions from overseas that are favorable to balance out the list, or at least include reactions from some more countries that aren't China and Iran.

That was the reason why the section was removed by a new editor a few days ago. I replaced the section back into the article, as I believe it is an important portion of the article, and could be reworked to get both the positive and negative international response. I'll try to find some quotes, sources, etc. Nishkid64 17:49, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Oh and by the way, the Iran response makes no real mention of the Democrats, but just says that they are happy that Americans finally realize that the current government was too hawkish in its foreign policy, and they believe this change in government is a victory for Iran. Also, the Al-Quaeda response says nothing about Democrats, and just issues another threat, as usual. Nonetheless, we need to expand that section. Nishkid64 17:54, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, I significantly reconstructed and expanded the "International" section of the article. Here's the changes/additions I have made to the page: [2] . Feel free to add sourced responses from other places such as South America, Africa, Australia, and from other countries in Asia. Nishkid64 19:32, 19 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

why does this section of the article even exist? in response to my attempt to remove it, someone claimed it was "very important." that might make sense if the discussion talked seriously about the impact of the election on international relations. but all of the entries are really just mean-spirited attempts to malign the democrats. with that in mind, i'm deleting this section again. ctj 22:12, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Now you're just POV pushing. If you have a section on Domestic Response, then you should have a section on International Response, since this was a very worldly election and can influence future relations between the US and foreign countries. By the way, read the section. It's all quoted and referenced, so how can that be POV? Also, remarks to the elections were both positive and negative. I incorporated both facets of that view. Nishkid64 22:45, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
at the time i had deleted this section, there had been only the three negative references. i'm glad to see that it has been embellished, although its relevance is still dubious. that being said, i think it makes more sense to talk about reaction to a thing after describing the thing first.ctj 23:29, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]
It's all a response on Rumsfeld's resignation or the elections itself. What exactly do you have to describe? Nishkid64 23:38, 20 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Possible Copied Text Under Ramificiations/International?[edit]

Under the Iran part it says the following: (there should probably be some kind of quotation box around this next paragraph but I don't know the markup for it and can't seem to find it anywhere)

Iran's Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei on Friday called U.S. President George W. Bush's defeat in congressional elections a victory for Iran. "This issue (the elections) is not a purely domestic issue for America, but it is the defeat of Bush's hawkish policies in the world," Khamenei said in remarks reported by Iran's student news agency ISNA on Friday. "Since Washington's hostile and hawkish policies have always been against the Iranian nation, this defeat is actually an obvious victory for the Iranian nation." "The result of this election indicates that the majority of American people are dissatisfied and are fed up with the policies of the American administration," the IRNA state news agency quoted Ahmadinejad as saying.

The bolded emphasis is mine. That sentence looks suspiciously like a line from a newspaper or online newspaper article, and the citation listed is to Reuters. Unfortunately, I can't actually view the article linked to, clicking the link gives me an error that says the article is not currently available. Anyway, I think this entire paragraph is simply copied from the Reuters article, and only part of it is quoted, the parts that Reuters quoted themselves. The paragraph should probably be reworded, with the actual quotes intact (if suitable), but I'm not sure how to go about it since I can't view the source cited. NobleHelium 18:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Cleanup[edit]

  • Heading changed for accuracy
  • "In Gateway, Arkansas, a town of 122 people, 199 votes were cast in an uncontested mayoral race. In nearby Pea Ridge, Arkansas, 3,997 votes were cast in a contested mayor's race for the city of 3,344 people" - clarified for accuracy, numbers were esitmated from previous year's census.
  • Added non-dead link to Wooten, added more info
  • FL CD13 is no longer duplicated and now reflects current information
  • "Poll workers struggled with e-ballots in several states" - removed, overly generic and link dead
  • dead link
  • dead link
  • "Programming errors and inexperience dealing with electronic voting machines caused delays in Indiana, Ohio and Florida." duplicative, removed
  • dead link
  • ars link removed. Doesn't support content, discusses primary.
  • "Irregularities with Diebold and other voting machines have been reported in the early elections" - removed, not supported by refs
  • does not support content - removed
  • deadlink
  • deadlink
  • deadlink
  • "Vote flipping of voting machines in several states." Not supported by refs
  • "Demonstration of crackable Diebold Election Systems voting machine in HBO's documentary" is neither an irregularity nor a problem. - removed
  • Removed advertising "A database of reported problems can also be found at Voters Unite."

71.178.193.134 (talk) 02:26, 21 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on United States elections, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 21:45, 14 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 9 external links on United States elections, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:18, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 11 external links on United States elections, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:41, 18 September 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on United States elections, 2006. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 04:22, 13 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2006_United_States_elections&oldid=1199374388"