Wikipedia talk:Style for yyyy U.S. presidential election

Hmm...I don't know that I have any specific problems with this suggested format, but you seem to have formulated it without any discussion (correct me if I'm wrong on this.) Several months ago, we had some discussion of how to format these articles at Talk:U.S. presidential election. Were you aware of this? john k 23:12, 5 Mar 2005 (UTC)

To answer your last question first, I was unaware of the discussion at Talk:U.S. presidential election. I still have not read it; I will do so as soon as I finish writing this posting.

I also formulated it without discussion because I didn't have any to draw on. Part of the reason I created this project page was precisely to gin up some discussion about the format. The other part was that I wanted to have a document of what exactly the format was for this set of articles. — DLJessup 02:34, 6 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Incorrect colour scheme

Why is it the colour scheme for the Democrats is red and the Republicans is blue when everyone knows it is the other way around? If that is how Americans identify those parties that way then non-Americans should do the same.

One reason is that the images come from the National Atlas of the United States, which is public domain, and that's how the National Atlas does it.

As for your comment that "[i]f that is how Americans identify those parties that way then non-Americans should do the same," your predicate is fundamentally wrong. Americans don't identify the parties that way; the American media does. More precisely, the red-state/blue-state thingie is a convenient shorthand for discussing certain cultural and political differences within the U.S. This is the current fad, and it may very well vanish in another decade. Note that, prior to 1989, "red" was shorthand for "Communist". In fact, certain people are annoyed by Republicans being "red" because of that association: red, in their minds, should be for the more socialist and less anti-communist of the two parties, the Democrats. — DLJessup 14:17, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Indeed, in many countries the leftist parties unabashedly use red because of its traditional associations with left politics. But in the US, at least since the late 1940s, associations with Communism are so taboo that no major party would voluntarily embrace this, and the association with redness has to come from somewhere else. --Matt McIrvin 17:46, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Prior to the 1992 Presidential election, the dominant media used the reverse color scheme ie., red=Democrats, and blue=Republicans. I always suspected this was due to the fact that the Democrats lodged, however informally, some sort of complaint to the effect they didn't want to be associated with Bolshevist red, whereas the Republicans, so clearly demarcated as the more Capitalist, more right-wing party, would have very little to lose by such a color-based association ie., no one would think it encoded any further meaning with regard to their party. Although that's purely speculative on my part.

Never-the-less, I strongly agree with the writer above who remarks how the current color scheme, and the use of it in political discussion & analysis ("red state" and "blue states," etc.) is just a media fad, and should not be taken seriously within the context of an encyclopedia. The fad may well change in a few years. Or perhaps the media decided to switch the color schemes every two decades. Who knows? One thing is for certain, its a trival matter that should not impinge upon the way articles are constructed at this site. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 22:57, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

It is not even the way the American media does it. Basically, every four years they switch the colors between incumbent and challenger party. So in 2004 the incumbent party (GOP) was red and the challenger party (Democrats) was blue. In 2000 the incumbent party (Democrats) was blue and the challenger party (Republicans) was red. In 1996 the incumbent party (Democrats) was red and the challenger party (Republicans) was blue. In 1992 the incumbent party (Republicans) was blue and the Challenger party (Democrats) was red. In 1988 the incumbent party (Republicans) was red and the challenger party (Democrats) was blue. In 1984 the incumbent party (Republicans) was blue and the challenger party (Democrats) was red. In 1980 the incumbent party (Democrats) was red and the challenger party (Republicans) was blue. It's only in the last two times that we've had Democrats/blue Republicans/red, and that's a coincidence. Given the prominence of stupid "Red America"/"Blue America" nonsense, that may change, but there's certainly no long-standing convention of coloring the Dems blue and the Republicans red. john k 14:30, 16 Mar 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the four-year switching hypothesis is correct; historically I don't think there has ever been any real pattern. Most years you could see different color schemes depending on which TV network you watched (including blue/green in some cases). The modern "Red America/Blue America" terminology dates from the aftermath of the disputed 2000 presidential election, when attention became sharply focused on geographic divisions and a popular, widely distributed map of county-by-county election results happened to use red for Republicans and blue for Democrats. The rise of these terms may well produce a consistent color iconography for US political parties, but it hasn't completely solidified yet. The parties themselves both use red, white and blue, of course. --Matt McIrvin 17:38, 20 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Matt McIrvin is correct that historically there was no pattern to the colors used to identify the two major parties on electoral maps. If anything, some right-leaning media sources would go out of their way to depict the Democrats in red, for precisely the reason DLJessup points out: to imply, subtly but deliberately, that the Democrats held Communist sympathies. And if Republicans are now "annoyed" by that association, so were Democrats in the past.

In any event, while the choice of colors may once have been more or less arbitrary, it is no longer. the "Red America/Blue America" shorthand may be a recent development, but it has now become embedded in American political discourse and is unlikely to go away anytime soon. The maps from the National Atlas probably predate this development and were not intended to mislead, but in today's widely accepted terms, mislead they do. I do strongly suggest that Wikipedia find a way to reverse the color scheme and uniformly use red to represent Republicans and blue for Democrats. —Dodiad 04:12, 18 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I just came upon this same question independently myself. I do think we should retroactively standardize the color scheme or not-- I just misread the 1968 election map because I didn't bother to look at the key, but just assumed it was using the standard coloring.--Alecmconroy 20:07, 20 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. I just was looking at the United States presidential election, 1988 and found myself confused, wondering:

How the Democrats could have won in 1988
How Bush was a Democrat

The color choice in the 2000 and 2004 elections was very high profile, even labeling such concepts as the Red state vs. blue state divide. --Loodog 00:37, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

With all due respect, an article about the 1988 U.S. Presidential election would be completely meaningless to any person without a certain level of understanding of the events of recent American history, which is to say a mere deviation from contemporary color scheming should not cause a person to suppose that George H.W. Bush was a Democrat, or Michael Dukakis a Republican. In point of fact, the present color scheme only became standardized (to the extent that the three traditional broadcast networks embraced it) in 1992. During all three Presidential elections of the 1980s (and I believe 1976 as well, but I was pretty young back then), the reverse scheme was generally used ie., red=Democrats, and blue=Republicans. I'm only 38, and I stil find it glaring to see the states located between Illinois and California generally painted as the uniform color of red, after having grown up with them always being uniformly blue (despite the fact Barack Obama did make some inroads into those states in 2008). I do not believe an encyclopedia should allow itself to be led around the nose by the color schemes currently in vogue within the confines of the corporate broadcast media establishment. We should be above such considerations. KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:09, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The color scheme as it is only dates back to 1996. The official urban legend is that the Republicans got the color red as booty when they won the Cold War. In the years before, and after the invention of color television, the Republicans were blue and Democrats red. I remember the Fords chanting "Go Blue! Go Blue!" during the 1976 election coverage. (drinking beer in the TV room at my college dorm with all the other political junkies...in '04 I went to bed early and saw the declaration of the winner after I got up the next day)Ericl 16:35, 8 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It is recent, but not all that recent; the Democrats were using blue and white signs in the 1980's, even if neutral sources were inconsistent. In any case, we should conform to the current usage for clarity. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 04:30, 11 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I can edit the picture and fix the colors, if need be. 24.30.68.171 00:41, 13 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The earlier comment about the incumbent party makes sense. Blue was often used for Republicans, and Red was the often used for Democrats until either the 1992 or 1996 election. Democrats did not like the association with the color red (i.e., the color of communism) and no doubt the use of Blue for Republicans had similar connotations around wealth or royalty (i.e., "blue bloods").

While no one (DNC or RNC) claims to "like" the association with the color red, due to it's association with communism, I find it interesting that so many of you wish to assert that it be left with Democrats = NOT red. Despite the negative historical context of communism, largely due to consistent dictatorial mismanagement of a perfectly well-meaning societal framework, the fact of the matter remains that of the two major US parties - the Democrat party, fundamentally and publically, embraces a set of goals that most closely, by far, resembles the generalized and idealized definition of the term "communism" (although it is much closer apt to socialism, not communism, per se). Since there appears to be a consensus amongst the editors (sic) of this article that the US, and perhaps the World, as people, perceive the color red as a "communist color", if any one party were to be assigned it, the Democratic party is the best candidate.

One could even go so far as to generalize the color-choice personality implications from a psychological standpoint. Republicans represent the conservative political track - slow-moving, stalwart, low energy (war-times notwithstanding, of course), resistant to change - characteristics easily associated with people who prefer the color blue. To address the "Blue Blood" issue - which predisposes Republicans to favor or covet wealth (particularly to excess and with lack of scruples) - perhaps a proper color would be green, the "color of money"? Democrats, with their endless optimism and unfaltering desire to diplomatically resolve any and all differences amongst the peoples would certianly be more fitting the color of "yellow", which all have some to associate with "friendship" and likewise, peace.

Given the fact that neither party has sufficiently supported the interests of the American people in recent years - perhaps a total deviation from the national colors would put each on a more even playing field in the psychopigmental arena the US has become. Everyone needs to remember the official historical meaning of the color red in the American flag - an abstract representation of the blood shed on the battlefields of the American Revolution.

Or call a spade a spade, a red communist a red communist, and a blue-blood wealth-monger a blue-blood wealth-monger.

We could continue to debate the nuances involved in assigning particular colors to American political parties, but one fact remains: for the past decade, using blue for Democrats and red for Republicans has been the undeniable standard, in everything from news media to casual discussion. To use a different scheme for elections of old is, to say the least, confusing for many. What's worse, the maps here on Wikipedia don't even adhere universally to a particular scheme. Be it red blue, pink, purple, yellow or green, a standard should be set. --Omertop 18:49, 10 February 2008

Please, for the sake of conformity, I know that the colors were once switched, but considering red=Republican and Blue=Democrat is universal all over, I believe on this site, all electoral maps shoudl be fixed accordingly. The reason, I believe this pattern holds so well is purely mnemonic, not anything to do with "communism" and plus, red is blood, and blood is toughness, which the GOP believes it is. Fixing the pre-1980 maps to the scheme of the 1980-2004 maps will make studying them and election results far easier for historical purposes. Tallicfan20 (talk) 03:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The biggest problem with the blue-is-democrat-and-red-is-republican-maps is that red is used for republican and blue for democrat in most lists etc. e.g List of Presidents of the United States! What is more the colored bar bellow the picture of the presidential candidates use the same color scheme as the List of Presidents of the United States however the map (in the same box) often uses a completly different color scheme. To avoid the resulting confusion the same color scheme should be used everywhere! I propose (as used in List of Presidents of the United States):

Laukster (talk) 12:32, 8 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

The Democrats were represented by red and the Republicans by blue until the 1980 election, when it was switched. By who, I'm not 100% sure, but that's when the change happened. I think the election pages before that should show the democrats as red and republicans as blue, since that's what they were at the time of those elections. 142.177.154.189 (talk) 01:36, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

First off, there was no widely used or official colors back then the way it is now, as the colors are not official, but high de facto. Some stations even used green and gray, or blue and gray. I think for the sake of consistency, all maps on this site should be red=Republican, blue=Democrat because that is how they are universally identified, even by the GOP themselves these days, as they call themselves "red staters" and Redstate.com is a popular conservative site. It will make it easier for historical study of the maps and politics in general. Too many people get confused with the alternate scheme, as they are not used to them. Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Those of you arguing that the maps should be switched: who's you're opponent? No one is stopping you from changing things. Go, make the change, do it! -- RobLa (talk) 02:31, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because of how the maps are, not many people here know how to change them, or make a new one using the templates and upload them. If I knew, or others knew, we'd have done it already.Tallicfan20 (talk) 05:54, 16 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I very strongly object to this recent decision to practice a quasi-revisionist history of sorts on the documentary evidence of past elections. Perhaps it makes sense to color Republicans Red and Democrats Blue as far back as 1996 or 1992, but when you get back further, you start to mess with historical nuance. For example, the term 'Lake Reagan' no longer holds much historical importance if the map used to represent the 1984 election has Mondale as blue, rather than Reagan.

not every network used blue as Republican. the "lake reagan" was just one thing from one channel. other channels, like ABC used red-GOP blue-Dem since 1980 every election. There is nothing revisionist about making the maps the convention which is universally recognized. Many networks used the modern scheme in the 80's, CBS, ABC both used red-repub blue-dem. the colors have never been official anyway, but are now almost red-GOP blue-Dem, go to the party websites to see, and the GOP site features tons of red, the Dem tons of blue. some networks in the past used grey and blue, or red and grey, some even green in some instances. But if this site is to have encyclopedic value, there must be consistency, it must not be confusing, and therfore must use a uniform scheme, and the scheme which is most recognized, most used, and least confusing is red=republican, blue=Democrat. After all, on Laukster's post above, he points out that every other page on Presidents on Wikipedia, like the lists of Presidents, VPs, and close states are all red=rep blue=Dem. So why not be consistent.Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Similarly, before 2000 - and even since, to some extent - the academic standard for coloring election maps has been the traditional Republican Blue/Democrat Red scheme. The original source for these maps - the US National Atlas - continues in this scheme. The standard was well enough engrained that it is nearly unconscionable to see the 1936 election map covered in blue; or the 1860 election map emblazoned with a Red North.

The argument of 'this is the way we do it now, so we should go back and revise all the other maps' doesn't hold much water, except as a practical bowing to the lowest common denominator. Rather than distorting historical records to fit the mindset of today's population, we should be educating today's population about the historical record. --patton1138 (talk) 17:42, 3 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If the Archival source of the maps uses a particular color scheme, why would you go back and edit them? The maps are now lower quality than the originals. Also, you're sacrificing the historical accuracy of one hundred years of map color schemes to fit your 10-15 year old color schema. Where is the commitment to historical accuracy? The amount of effort involved would be better spent on adding additional content, instead of doctoring the record. If this is the philosophy, why not change the flag in the French_and_Indian_War article to a 50 star US flag for the colonies? After all, that's the modern convention ... ryan (talk) 14:30, 6 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

because none of these colors were official of the parties anytime, not for "one hundred years" as there was no color TV until the 70's. They used black and white on maps back then. The American flag WAS something official back in the French-indian war, and there was only one way. Sometimes, red and grey, blue and gray, green was even used on maps of elections until recently. Blue-Republican was never "historical." before TV, the maps were all printed in books in greyscale anyway. So seeing that, as wikipedia is an encyclopedic source, there needs to be a standard. Not to mention, the red-republican blue-Democrat is more historical anyway, as in 1980, ABC used it, in 1984, CBS and ABC used it, same in 1988-present. You can find these on Youtube if you want to see them. Also, the parties use the colors almost officially, go to both parties websites. it is the most used, recognized, and recognizable scheme, used on most wikipages, like the List of Presidents, Vice Presidents, close states, etc.Tallicfan20 (talk) 06:04, 8 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I concede your point. However, there's still the quality issue, as some of the new maps exhibit sloppy use of the fill tool. ryan (talk) 18:39, 23 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

They've all been fixed. I used GIMP originally which didn't have anti-aliasing. I got Photoshop, and Photoshop did, and as you can notice, they look way better now.Tallicfan20 (talk) 22:57, 25 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

There was no color t.v. until the 1970s? News coverage of the 1968 Presidential election which I have seen (such as the assassination of Robert F. Kennedy on 6/5/68) was in color (although in 1964, and previous, news coverage was in black-and-white). KevinOKeeffe (talk) 23:19, 23 February 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minor problem with Uspresidentialelections template

66.167.253.89 03:42, 7 August 2005 (UTC): A preview view of U.S. presidential election, 1952 caused the Uspresidentialelections template to be laid out more narrowly than it appears in the finished product. To reproduce, edit that article, then view a preview version.[reply]

When I do it (as an anon contributor I have no user style customizations), I get something that looks like this


U.S. presidential elections

1789–1799: 1789 | 1792 | 1796
1800–1849: 1800 | 1804 | 1808
| 1812 | 1816 | 1820 | 1824 |
1828 | 1832 | 1836 | 1840 |  
1844 | 1848                  
1850–1899: 1852 | 1856 | 1860
| 1864 | 1868 | 1872 | 1876 |
1880 | 1884 | 1888 | 1892 |  
1896                         
1900–1949: 1900 | 1904 | 1908
| 1912 | 1916 | 1920 | 1924 |
1928 | 1932 | 1936 | 1940 |  
1944 | 1948                  
1950–1999: 1952 | 1956 | 1960
| 1964 | 1968 | 1972 | 1976 |
1980 | 1984 | 1988 | 1992 |  
1996                         
2000–2049: 2000 | 2004 | 2008

In other words, I get a narrow and tall version of the box.

What's particularly strange is that it is only rendered narrowly when the Uspresidentialelections template is positioned after the "See also" section and before the "External links and references" section. If I move it between "Results" and "See also" or after "External links", it previews fine, probably similar to what it looks like here:

Template:Uspresidentialelections

Other than an assumption that its a weird CSS interaction, I'm puzzled what's going on here and thought I'd try to bring it to someone's attention.

I've seen this happen as well on occasion. It has never annoyed me enough to get me to investigate, though. — DLJessup 12:11, 7 August 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Electoral picture peculiarity

Copies of the following posting was made to the talk pages of many of the U.S. presidential election, yyyy pages.

Why is the graphic depiction of electoral votes skewed? Rarely nowadays does one see democratic votes colored red and and republican votes blue. --maru (talk) Contribs 20:51, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Please see #Incorrect colour scheme above.

— DLJessup (talk) 21:32, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Error on 1932 page

There's an error on the 1932 election page. Pennsylvania's electoral votes is listed on the map as 38, but it should be 36. I don't know how to change it.

I changed it for you. (Cardsplayer4life 04:59, 13 July 2007 (UTC))[reply]

Series/Adding Template proposal

I propose that we make and all "United States presidential election, yyyy" articles intergrated with the series header. What I mean by this is using the template like the one used in the presidents bios, that gives the previous president(in this case, previous election) as well as a general summary. This will make for a consistant and standard description of the elections and allow the reader to take each election in historical context with ease. I would do it myself but 1) I am unsure of how to do it and 2) that fact that a similar idea has not been implemented seems indicative that there is some good reason not to. Tmchk | Talk 00:28, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'm for it. A few years ago, the election results box was at the top, with links to two or three elections in either direction. That made it easy to cruise through elections getting comparative stats. Now, with only prose at the top, it's harder to get that context. -- RobLa 07:51, 8 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

MoS naming style

There is currently an ongoing discussion about the future of this and others MoS naming style. Please consider the issues raised in the discussion and vote if you wish GnevinAWB (talk) 21:01, 25 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

For want of a nail

It's too bad this failed. As a result we now have failure to attend to the lower level articles. See, for example, [1]. ALL presidential elections at the state level are written in this style, endlessly repeating the material in the higher level article for each state, mindlessly. There are few editors who are interested. Mercifully, probably not very many readers either. Student7 (talk) 20:41, 28 February 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Talk:United States presidential election, 1800#1801

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States presidential election, 1800#1801. —GoldRingChip 15:24, 18 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Depiction of Maine in the Electoral Maps

The depiction of the border of the part of Massachusetts that is now Maine is incorrectly depicted as the modern border for the elections 1788-89, 1792, 1796, and 1800. It is depicted correctly from 1804 onward, gaining its modern shape in 1844 after the Webster-Ashburton Treaty that ended the Aroostook War. I encourage someone who is more skilled and familiar with these maps attempt to fix this. I know it's difficult given the weird borders of the states and territories in these early elections. Mdewman6 (talk) 01:34, 20 March 2020 (UTC)[reply]