Talk:2014 Vermont gubernatorial election

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Hurricanehink (talk · contribs) 00:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I've never reviewed a gubernatorial election for GA before, but here it goes.

• "The 2014 Vermont gubernatorial election took place on November 4, 2014, to elect the Governor of Vermont," - this is pretty redundant. There's no rule that says you need the article title bolded in the first sentence. Why not something simpler like "On November 4, 2014, an election took place to elect the Governor of Vermont." This is much more concise, just as true, and crisper.

• That's the standard intro for all election articles, Congressional, Senate and gubernatorial.

• I'm just saying it doesn't have to be, especially if you decide to take this article further. It's fine for GA status though. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• Is it worth saying in the lead that it occurred during a Republican wave? Republicans did very well across the country that night, leading to problems for Democrats in Maryland and Illinois (where they lost) and Virginia and Vermont (where they nearly lost unexpectedly).

• It certainly is. Added.

Thanks! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16

• 57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Incumbent Democratic Governor Peter Shumlin ran for re-election to a third term in office against Republican businessman Scott Milne, Libertarian businessman Dan Feliciano and several other minor party and independent candidates." - does this need to be its own paragraph? Also, why no comma after "Feliciano"? Was this an editor choice to avoid the oxford comma or not? If it's your choice to avoid the third comma, then that's fine, as it appears you do the same under the "Republican primary" section

• Merged the second paragraph with the second. And you are correct, it was my choice not to use the Oxford comma.

• "Shumlin was expected to win easily" - this should be prefaced by "Based on polling" to give more context (and also summarize the large polling sections later in the article)

• Expanded.

• " The Constitution of Vermont requires that the 180-member Vermont General Assembly choose the winner when no candidate receives over 50% of the popular vote.[1] On January 8, 2015,[2] the Assembly chose Shumlin over Milne by a vote of 110 to 69" - 110+69 = 179. Since you make a point to include the size of the GA, I think you should include that one person didn't vote.

• Done.

• "Shumlin won the Assembly vote 145 to 28, with 7 legislators not voting." - source?

• Added.

• "Shumlin was re-elected in 2012 against Republican State Senator and former Vermont Auditor of Accounts Randy Brock by a landslide, 58% to 37.7%." - ditto

• Added.

• "He faced one opponent in the Democratic primary: lifelong Republican and Washington, D.C. resident H. Brooke Paige, who simultaneously ran against Democratic incumbent William Sorrell in the Democratic primary election for Vermont Attorney General. He was also unsuccessful in that effort, losing by 80% to 20%." - again, source? Also, you start two consecutive sentences with "He", but they apparently have two different antecedents. Perhaps change the latter to "Paige"? Also, how come you don't talk about the Democratic primary in prose? When was it held? How does one get on the ballot?

• Changed; sources and date added.

• When was the Republican primary?

• August 26; date and reference added.

• "But the party openly admitted that it lacked the money to run a gubernatorial campaign" - don't start a sentence with "But". Ditto later with "But after the election"

• Those sentences used to start with "however", but were changed by another editor. Changed back.

• The sections for "Progressive", "Liberty Union", and "Libertarian" could all probably be merged to an "Other parties" section, as they all have less than two candidates. It's better to write the information out in prose than having needless tables with minimal information in it. It would also be good to flesh out the "Independent" section (and perhaps have that included in such a larger section).

• I would disagree, they're all separate parties so they should all have separate sections for their primaries. There's really not much more info on the independents. They're all fringe candidates who don't get much attention (beyond their appearances at the debates).

• That's fine, it was just a thought I had, speaking as an outsider. I trust you know how to handle election articles. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• "Additional debates among the candidates were held" - when, and how many? You mention the one on 10/29, so I'm curious.

• There were at least two more, but sources contradict each other as to the number and the dates they were held on. Some of the sources conflated two of the larger debates when compiling "best of" clips of the debates and just referred to "the debate".

• I'm sure there was probably a debate in the media what constituted a "debate" - it's not like it's a presidential debate where it's officially sanctioned by both parties and it's televised to millions, so that makes total sense, thank you. ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

• "The result came as a shock to most observers" - seems a bit unencyclopediac. Perhaps - "The result was unexpected to most observers"?

• Done.

• "and with the bungled roll-out of Vermont Health Connect" - that seems a bit biased. Try rewording to be a bit broader

• Changed to "unsuccessful".

• "and the $100m budget gap" - why write the number this way?

• Not sure how else it could be written other than "the one hundred million dollar budget gap", which seems unnecessarily wordy.

• "by "acknowledg[ing] the result and com[ing] back [to] fight another day" - that's a bit too much reinterpreting a quote

• The actual quote is "acknowledge the result and come back and fight another day", so changed the wording prior to the quote and included it whole.

• "He did not rule out running again in 2016." - this is a bit odd putting at the end of "General Assembly vote", considering it's the first thing that's discussed in "Aftermath"

• "He" meaning Milne. Corrected.

All in all a pretty good election article. Hope my comments aren't too hard to address, and let me know if you have any questions. Cheers! ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 00:40, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for reviewing! Have either made the changes or responded to the suggestions. Tiller54 (talk) 15:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Passing now, good work! Just 35 more state gubernatorial elections to do (and three territories) to finish 2014 :P ♫ Hurricanehink (talk) 16:57, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Awesome, thank you! My first GA :D Just out of curiosity, how far away would you say it is from FA status? Ah, I wish I could finish the others. I changed jobs recently so I barely have time to edit any more. :( Tiller54 (talk) 18:27, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Subsequent comments

• There is no reason not to start a sentence with "but", and it is more natural here than "however". See Common_English_usage_misconceptions#Grammar Wukai (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

In this instance, however is more natural than but. Tiller54 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

• "Unexpected to" is ungrammatical. Things are expected by people, not to people. Wukai (talk) 22:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Incorrect. Unexpected to is fine. Tiller54 (talk) 21:57, 23 April 2016 (UTC)

Truthfully, I feel that this back and forth has been over a matter of personal preferences, not absolute correctness of style. Either of your choices of wording was acceptable. I'm glad that you came to a resolution. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 13:14, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Libertarian candidate

As the presence of a third-party candidate who received 4+% of the vote mathematically prevented either of the other candidates from reaching 50%, thus avoiding need for legislative decision—the ongoing, unresolved situation—and: 1) it is generally thought that a larger portion of the third-party candidate's 4+% might have gone to the Republican candidate (whose vote count is only 1% less than that of his Democrat opponent); and, 2) the Republican seems to be combining his votes with the third-party votes to support his argument that the people want to go in a different direction (quoted in the lede) I consider inclusion of this candidate's info in the infobox highly useful to understanding the situation being described immediately to the left of it..--Artaxerxes 23:11, 10 November 2014 (UTC)

Based on this, I'd say maybe. – Muboshgu (talk) 13:26, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

Looking at the 2010 page for precedent, that doesn't list the third-placed finisher in the infobox, although in that election, the non-major party vote was split pretty much evenly between three other candidates, with a further two candidates getting even smaller shares of the vote, so it's not really comparable to this election, with a single main "spoiler". Also, unlike 2014, Shumlin's majority in 2010 was larger than any the number of votes received by any one of the minor candidates. Given this, I'd agree that in this case Feliciano should be exempted from the usual 5% rule and listed in the infobox. Tiller54 (talk) 18:07, 11 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tiller54: I disagree with listing the Libertarian Party results in the infobox, since there was no conclusive evidence in the text that the Libertarian votes would have swayed the result in either direction. It says, "The presence of Libertarian nominee Dan Feliciano on the ballot divided opinion, with Milne and former Republican Governor Jim Douglas saying that he split the anti-Shumlin vote. By contrast, the Free Press said that Feliciano was likely to have drawn many voters dissatisfied with Shumlin but who would not have otherwise have voted for Milne. Feliciano agreed with this assessment, saying that he was "not a spoiler"."

Adding the Feliciano votes to Milne's would not have won him the election. Whereas adding them to the Shumlin votes would have done so for him—the catch being that Libertarians are further from Democrats than they are from Republicans, especially Vermont Republicans. Therefore, it's the cumulative effect of the minor parties that contributed to a non-majority, not the votes garnered by a specific minor party.

The infobox entries should be the headlines of the article. The headline is that neither major party received a majority, not that some votes that may have been split in some unknown fashion by a minor party might possibly have prevented a majority. User:HopsonRoad 19:30, 7 June 2016 (UTC)

Note that in the Vermont gubernatorial election, 2010, neither party received a majority, yet the third runner-up was not mentioned in a situation where the independent votes of either of the third or fourth runner-up could have been added to Shumlin's votes for a victory. Neither merited mention in the infobox any more than the Libertarian party merits here. In this election cycle, the sum of the non-Libertarian votes could also have given Shumlin a victory. User:HopsonRoad 13:42, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The text does support that: some argued that if he won mostly anti-Shumlin votes which would have gone to Milne and thus given him a plurality and others argue that he took dissatisfied Shumlin votes from people who would otherwise have voted for Shumlin, costing him a majority. Either way, his presence on the ballot certainly affected the result. Had Milne won said plurality, the Democratic-controlled Assembly would have faced the prospect of having to either confirm the election of a Republican or overturn the result and re-elect Shumlin.

Your comments that "Libertarians are further from Democrats than they are from Republicans" are POV and unsourced. The claim that Feliciano is only part of a "cumulative effect" and comparing the third party votes in 2014 to 2010 are also incorrect: in 2010, Shumlin and Dubie took 97.13% of the vote, with none of the third party candidates taking more than 0.8% of the vote and the votes of no one candidate being more than the difference between Shumlin and Dubie. In this election, Feliciano's votes were more than the difference between Shumlin and Milne. He thus clearly affected the result of the election. Tiller54 (talk) 20:38, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The Libertarian candidate should remain in the infobox. We can't know if Libertarian votes came more from liberals dissatisfied with Shumlin or conservatives who didn't like the Republican nominee for whatever reason. What matters is that Shumlin didn't reach 50%, and the 4%+ that the Libertarian candidate received is part of that. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:48, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in, Tiller54 and Muboshgu. The speculation about where Libertarian votes might have gone is just that. It could be that there are now more committed Libertarians in the state. My observation about where Libertarians fall on the political spectrum is supportable, if you wish to have it documented on the Talk page. There is an absence of evidence to the contrary, presented anywhere in the article. Additionally, if the Libertarian column applies here, then both the third and fourth runners-up should gain entry to the infobox in Vermont gubernatorial election, 2010, either one of them denied the election to Shumlin in the same manner as described here. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 21:44, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

The 3rd and 4th placed finishers in 2010 should not be listed in that article's infobox. They received less than 0.8% of the vote each and the combined total of their votes doesn't exceed the difference between Shumlin and Dubie. That's a big difference to, as Muboshugu says, getting 4.4% of the vote and affecting the outcome of the result, whichever way it was affected. Tiller54 (talk) 18:15, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Tiller54, thanks for your patience in this conversation. Would you not agree that it's not the difference between the two leading candidates that counts, but, instead, it's the difference between the top vote-getter and a majority that counts? So, either runner-up in that election was in the same situation as the Libertarian candidate, here. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 18:39, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

Hi Tiller54, saying "The default option is the one that existed before you turned up and started deleting it." in an edit summary doesn't demonstrate WP:Civility, but I can understand your frustration with my sudden intervention. I have searched in vain for guidance on what the standard is to determine what percentage of the vote merits entry in the infobox (the 5% rule). I appreciate that this may be a case where WP:NORULES apply. However, it seemed to me that with two editors supporting the presence of the Libertarian candidate and two not supporting it, that the 5% rule would apply, (if it exists) until consensus can be reached. That was the basis for my edit that you found to be unfriendly. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 02:53, 19 December 2016 (UTC)

Remove him, 5% is the universally agreed upon threshold. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 02:31, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Shivertimbers433, what is the basis for your observation that, "5% is the universally agreed upon threshold"? If you can point to such a rule, what is the justification that may apply here? We have Artaxerxes, Muboshgu, and Tiller54, who feel that inclusion provides clarity to the outcome of the election. I disagree, but we're trying to build WP:Consensus, which involves persuasion, more than the invocation of rules. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 03:13, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Every other presidential, senate, and gubernatorial election with a page. Take a look at anything in United States elections, 2016. I could add many, many more but my fingers would probably end up bloody from typing too much.--Shivertimbers433 (talk) 06:07, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

That seems to make the standard customary, which is a notch down from being a rule IMO. Just because others do it, doesn't mean that everyone must. I'm interested in seeing a rule and the reason behind it. User:HopsonRoad 15:22, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

To avoid giving undue weight to nonviable candidates. If the purpose of the Infobox is to give an abstract summary of the race, why is a completely noncompetitive candidate who only received 4% of the vote and isn't even notable enough to have their own Wikipedia page being included? Fails other notability requirements, such as not being included in major polls.[1] Granted he was included in debates, but so were candidates who ultimately received less than 1% of the vote. --Shivertimbers433 (talk) 19:04, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above was that neither major-party candidate received a majority because of the presence of the Libertarian candidate, whose votes denied the winner of the plurality a majority. I feel that is important for the body of the article, but does not earn a place for the Libertarian candidate in the infobox, so I agree with your position. However, three other editors feel otherwise. User:HopsonRoad 21:59, 20 December 2016 (UTC)

Try this: I have put a footnote next to Shumlin's percentage to explain that it was insufficient to win the election, which footnote mentions Feliciano and his vote percentage. Does this work for everyone? User:HopsonRoad 13:21, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

No, you're just repeating information that's already in the intro. His presence affected the result and including him in the infobox reflects this. Tiller54 (talk) 14:46, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

I was looking for a compromise that doesn't give a non-notable candidate a presence in the infobox, yet acknowledges the cause of not achieving a majority. Having the Feliciano component to the box does not explain the significance of his presence in the election. It's wrong to infer that Feliciano votes were taken away from Shumlin (although some sources quote people speculating about that), instead the only correct thing is to say that, neither major party candidate achieved a majority in a state where there are many independent voters. Therefore, an infobox presence for Feliciano gives a non-notable politician undue weight. User:HopsonRoad 16:10, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Check out how it was handled at the 1999 Mississippi gubernatorial election article. GoodDay (talk) 22:26, 21 December 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for this example, GoodDay. That election demonstrates that the third-party candidate, whose votes represented a 1% margin from a majority by the winner of the plurality, did not gain prominence in the infobox. This is a reductio ad absurdum example of what's being discussed here. No majority, no win; no win, the contest goes to the legislature. This does not bring the marginal party to prominence, it merely highlights the failure of one candidate to persuade a majority of voters to vote for him. The infoboxes give proper prominence to the major contenders. User:HopsonRoad 04:34, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

There is no longer a consensus on this question; see WP:TALKEDABOUTIT. By my reckoning, there are three active editors in the discussion for the proposition and three against. I was disappointed that no-one but GoodDay has taken the opportunity to participate in the discussion at Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard on this topic. I have invited Shivertimbers433, Artaxerxes, Muboshgu, and Tiller54 to engage there. What is expected is for each of you to frame the discussion in your own words, so that a volunteer can help steer us to resolution through consensus, compromise, and advice about policy. User:HopsonRoad 16:09, 22 December 2016 (UTC)

I thank GoodDay for proposing a compromise that does not repeat information in the lede, does not give undue weight to a minor party candidate, yet factually cites in footnote form (readable by mouseover in the infobox) the number and percentage of votes that said candidate received without speculating on whether those votes were taken from one major-party candidate or the other. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 03:59, 23 December 2016 (UTC)

Tiller54, rather than discuss GoodDay's compromise here, you have chosen to summarily revert it, which doesn't bring us closer to consensus. I ask you to ponder Mississippi gubernatorial election, 1999, where the Reform candidate with 1.07% of the vote represented the margin that the winner of a plurality needed to obtain a majority—also forcing the matter to the legislature. Do you see a difference between that situation and the one under discussion here? If not, it would seem that you would either concur with the Mississippi model and agree to it here or protest it at that article's talk page. It would also be good, if you left your summary of the issues in the space provided under your name at: Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 15:21, 25 December 2016 (UTC)

Foot notes infobox

Interesting discussion, I agree that the foot notes belong in the infobox, they do not mention %, and therefore shouldn't belong in the percentage portion, rather the raw vote portion. Also, shouldn't context maybe be provided, as it insinuates that Libertarian votes are just dissatisfied Republican voters, which is not always the case PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 20:30, 27 December 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment, PalmerTheGolfer. I'm a little puzzled, because the footnotes correspond to the units measured for the candidates shown, in each case: votes to votes and % to %. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 20:12, 28 December 2016 (UTC)

Ok sorry, that's an error on me!!! I would like to know why you guys feel it is necessary for footnotes to be prevalent in both the boxes of Dem and Rep candidate # and %? Why not just have it in the Dem PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 18:41, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

It hasn't been discussed, PalmerTheGolfer, but I view it as a neutral way of reporting the presence of the third-party candidate. One the hand, his votes represented the numbers gap that the Democrat was missing—but not necessarily the voters who would normally vote for a Democrat. On the other hand, his tally was perhaps from voters, who might have voted Republican, had he not run—thus, making it equally appropriate to have them show up on the Republican column. I agree that it seemed strange, when I first saw it. It's probably most accurate to say the Libertarian votes went to a Libertarian candidate irrespective of the ability of the two major-party candidates to draw swing voters to their side. Since there were so few such voters, it falls below the normal threshold for reporting a candidate in an infobox. User:HopsonRoad 21:54, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

There is no good reason to have footnotes in the infobox singling out one candidate in particular (Feliciano) as being notable. The exact same reasoning could be applied to Emily Payton, whose 1.64% of the vote exceeded Shumlin's 1.36% margin of victory. This gives undue weight to Feliciano. There is a Results infobox with the full vote count for a reason. The footnotes should go. Nevermore27 (talk) 02:12, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Hi Nevermore27, in principle, I agree with you on this. However, there was a long and contentious discussion, verging on an edit war above, about the significance of the presence of the Libertarian candidate in the race. One POV was that, since the number of votes received by that candidate could have contributed to a majority for the Democratic candidate who received only a plurality. The other POV was that the Democratic candidate, who received only a plurality, failed to attract sufficient votes to achieve a majority that instead went to others and that the number of votes received by the Libertarian candidate was beside the point. Additionally, Emily Peyton's votes could not have given Shumlin the majority, whereas Feliciano's could have, if they had all gone to Shumlin. The footnotes were a compromise to resolve those two points of view. Sincerely, User:HopsonRoad 04:04, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

But if all of Payton's votes had gone to Milne, @HopsonRoad:, he would have gotten a plurality. So the picking and choosing in this hypothetical situation is absurd. The threshold for candidates being included in the infobox is 5%. This whole argument is just Libertarian fanboys trying to get around that threshold. There should be some consistency across all of our elections pages. If Feliciano is going to being footnoted on this page:

• Ron Vandevender should be footnoted on the Montana gubernatorial election, 2012 page
• Bob Henry Baber should be footnoted on the West Virginia gubernatorial special election, 2011 page
• Carmen Chimento should be footnoted on the United States Senate election in New Hampshire, 1974 page
• Aaron Day should be footnoted on the United States Senate election in New Hampshire, 2016 page.

I could keep digging up more. It should be noted I absolutely do not think this is the right way to go. The relevant information is already included in the full results infobox and that is the only place where it belongs. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:19, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Nevermore27, in Vermont, if there is no majority, the selection of governor is decided in the legislature. That's why the margin between the plurality and majority is the more important question than the margin necessary to achieve a plurality. I personally am fine with removing the footnotes. However, it was days of wrangling to get to that compromise. If you opt to remove them, I won't revert, but I expect you to make the case to those who may try to make the Libertarian candidate co-equal, again, in the infobox, which was where the discussion began. Cheers, User:HopsonRoad 04:29, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

@HopsonRoad: I'm aware of the particular situation with Vermont, but as a) the Vermont General Assembly has never once defied the popular vote when electing the governor and b) Dan Feliciano received no votes in that GA election, it's really a distinction without a difference. Nevermore27 (talk) 04:34, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Vermont gubernatorial election, 2014. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140903042919/http://az357346.vo.msecnd.net/resultsSW.aspx?type=SW&map=MPRC to http://az357346.vo.msecnd.net/resultsSW.aspx?type=SW&map=MPRC
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141106151422/http://az357346.vo.msecnd.net/resultsSW.aspx?type=SW&map=MPRC to http://az357346.vo.msecnd.net/resultsSW.aspx?type=SW&map=MPRC

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) 12:43, 12 May 2017 (UTC)