Ok, I haven't found the revision that introduced the 48+VP language yet, but it was sometime in the last year. Points in favor of not including the VP at all in the majority number at all are that: We already have the majorities bolded and a note about tiebreakers at the top of the infobox, and that it could be confusing to a reader to see that the VP is present before the election but not after. Points in favor of having the VP in the pre-election majority number: it's accurate, and there's a note right there explaining it if anyone's confused.
I could be convinced either way. What I can't be convinced of is including the VP in majorities where that does not impact whether there is a majority. TheSavageNorwegian 18:34, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
- I am of the opinion that the VP indicator should only be there when the VP's presence breaks the tie to determine the majority. I generally think it should be visible as it has been instead of just as a footnote, but other state legislative pages have simply used footnotes to explain lieutenant governors breaking ties or other things like that. We have precedent for the "+VP" indicator going back to at least the 2020 election when Democrats narrowly won control, so I lean on that instinctually, but I could be convinced that it only needs to be in a footnote. OutlawRun (talk) 18:41, 21 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
While Sanders and King's seats weren't up in 2022, there were still independent candidates for Senate, so shouldn't their vote totals be included in the infobox? Talthiel (talk) 17:34, 22 April 2024 (UTC)Reply
.svg)
