Talk:1892 United States House of Representatives elections
![]() | This article is rated List-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Ohio changes
[edit]I don't know what the happened here. The changes made to Ohio make no sense at all. Maybe You'd like to change United_States_congressional_delegations_from_Ohio to fit the illogical changes made here. Please explain Roseohioresident (talk) 20:05, 15 October 2012 (UTC)
- I'm sorry I didn't give edit summaries. That was my fault, and I should be doing a better job with that. With other years, we've noted redistricting and new districts this way. See, for example, United States House of Representatives elections, 1952#Ohio. You seem to know a lot more about Ohio elections than I do, so if I made mistakes please correct them. All I was trying to do is put it into this consistent format. When an incumbent is moved into a new district, we put the incumbent on the row for that new district and note that they were redistricted. If there are no incumbents in a district, then we note it as "None (District created)" and the Result is "New seat… Xxxx gain."—GoldRingChip 13:12, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- seems kind of silly to me- but it looks like the issue is settled.Roseohioresident (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
- No- nothing is settled in Wikipedia! Let's have a discussion. What do you you think we should do? For example, let's look at Ohio in the current election, United States House of Representatives elections, 2012#Ohio, since we're more familiar with that as a currently-happening event. How would you suggest changing it? —GoldRingChip 01:27, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- seems kind of silly to me- but it looks like the issue is settled.Roseohioresident (talk) 20:52, 16 October 2012 (UTC)
Here it is, as it shows today:
District | Incumbent | Party | First elected |
2012 status / Result | Candidates |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ohio 1 | Steve Chabot | Republican | 1994 2010 |
Running for re-election | Steve Chabot (Republican) Jeff Sinnard (Democratic) Jim Berns (Libertarian) Rich Stevenson (Green) |
Ohio 2 | Jean Schmidt | Republican | 2005 | Lost renomination | Brad Wenstrup (Republican) William R. Smith (Democratic) |
Ohio 3 | New seat | Joyce Beatty (Democratic) Chris Long (Republican) Richard Ehrbar (Libertarian) | |||
Ohio 4 | Jim Jordan | Republican | 2006 | Running for re-election | Jim Jordan (Republican) James Slone (Democratic) Chris Calla (Libertarian) |
Ohio 5 | Bob Latta | Republican | 2007 | Running for re-election | Bob Latta (Republican) Angela Zimmann (Democratic) Eric Eberly (Libertarian) |
Ohio 6 | Bill Johnson | Republican | 2010 | Running for re-election | Bill Johnson (Republican) Charlie Wilson (Democratic) |
Ohio 7 | Bob Gibbs Redistricted from the 18th district |
Republican | 2010 | Running for re-election | Bob Gibbs (Republican) Joyce R. Healy-Abrams (Democratic) |
Ohio 8 | John Boehner | Republican | 1990 | Running for re-election | John Boehner (Republican) |
Ohio 9 | Marcy Kaptur | Democratic | 1982 | Running for re-election | Marcy Kaptur (Democratic) Samuel Wurzelbacher (Republican) Sean Stipe (Libertarian) |
Dennis Kucinich Redistricted from the 10th district |
Democratic | 1996 | Lost renomination Democratic loss | ||
Ohio 10 | Mike Turner Redistricted from the 3rd district |
Republican | 2002 | Running for re-election | Mike Turner (Republican) Sharen Neuhardt (Democratic) David Harlow (Libertarian) |
Steve Austria Redistricted from the 7th district |
Republican | 2008 | Retiring Republican loss | ||
Ohio 11 | Marcia Fudge | Democratic | 2008 | Running for re-election | Marcia Fudge (Democratic) |
Ohio 12 | Pat Tiberi | Republican | 2000 | Running for re-election | Pat Tiberi (Republican) James Reese (Democratic) Robert Fitrakis (Green) |
Ohio 13 | Tim Ryan Redistricted from the 17th district |
Democratic | 2002 | Running for re-election | Tim Ryan (Democratic) Marisha Agana (Republican) |
Ohio 14 | Steve LaTourette | Republican | 1994 | Retiring | David Joyce (Republican) Dale Virgil Blanchard (Democratic) David Macko (Libertarian) Elaine Mastromatteo (Green) |
Ohio 15 | Steve Stivers | Republican | 2010 | Running for re-election | Steve Stivers (Republican) Pat Lang (Democratic) |
Ohio 16 | Jim Renacci | Republican | 2010 | Running for re-election | Jim Renacci (Republican) Betty Sutton (Democratic) |
Betty Sutton Redistricted from the 13th district |
Democratic | 2006 | Running for re-election |
- Wikipedia and wiktionary both define incumbent as the "current holder of a political office". While the way the table above is constructed has internal logic, the heading of "incumbent" and what appears below clash.
"New seat", and "none - district created" need better terminology. The third district is not "new" nor "created", it has been there since 1823. The boundary may have changed, but the seat is still the same. I've been reading wikipedia for years, and I assumed the whole "new seat" change was some kind of vandalism. I can imagine a more naive reader would assume it just another case of editors gone wild.Roseohioresident (talk) 19:00, 17 October 2012 (UTC)- Maybe we can come up with a better term? Instead of "new seat" pehaps we could use "new boundaries without an incumbent"? Or is there something shorter and more elegant than that? How about "New District" or "Empty District" or "No Incubent"? (I like the last one the best.) —GoldRingChip 21:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- “No incumbent” is better than the others, but seems to me to imply something like “Vacant - died” , “Vacant - resigned” or “Vacant - expelled”. If the district has a rep in 112th congress, "no incumbent" just doesn't seem correct. Roseohioresident (talk) 20:47, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- Maybe we can come up with a better term? Instead of "new seat" pehaps we could use "new boundaries without an incumbent"? Or is there something shorter and more elegant than that? How about "New District" or "Empty District" or "No Incubent"? (I like the last one the best.) —GoldRingChip 21:02, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- also, Dennis Kucinich is noted as "democratic loss". I think Marcy Kaptur would think differently. It seems that Ohio 9 is democratic now and will probably be democratic next year, thus "democratic hold", while ohio 10 is democratic now, and will probably be republican next year, thus "republican gain". The party representing the seat is what is important, not what counties it represents, or the fate of individuals, at least as far as I see it. The incumbents from ohio 17 and ohio 18, which are lost due to population loss in this state, would be in the fifth column as redistricted, democratic loss , and redistricted, republican loss, and the sixth column would say, "district inactive" . That was the logic behind the table for ohio 1892, as originally uploaded by me, [1].Roseohioresident (talk) 19:18, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- The Kucinich "loss" is because where there were previously two Democrats, and at least one of them, Kucinich, will no longer be in office. Where once there were two, now there is one. Thus, there is a loss of one Democrat. The Democrats in Ohio and in Washington see it as a Democratic loss, even if Kaptur still represents some of the same constituents; I think Kaptur is glad she beat Kucinich, but I'm sure she sees it as an overall loss because she'd rather have him in the House with her under a different redistricting. Furthermore, if she loses re-election, then it would be a "Republican (or Libertarian) gain." Similarly for the 10th district with two Republican incumbents.—GoldRingChip 20:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
- I don't have time today to explain myself fully. There is no hurry, wikipedia will be here forever. I'll try to compose a detailed account of the strengths and weaknesses as I see them. One thing I will note is that Party shading/loss and party shading/hold look the same on my screen, very confusing. I have ideas on how I would assemble a table, starting from scratch, but since dozens or maybe hundreds of tables are already there, I will also consider what could be done with minimal disruption to existing code.Roseohioresident (talk) 21:26, 18 October 2012 (UTC)
- The Kucinich "loss" is because where there were previously two Democrats, and at least one of them, Kucinich, will no longer be in office. Where once there were two, now there is one. Thus, there is a loss of one Democrat. The Democrats in Ohio and in Washington see it as a Democratic loss, even if Kaptur still represents some of the same constituents; I think Kaptur is glad she beat Kucinich, but I'm sure she sees it as an overall loss because she'd rather have him in the House with her under a different redistricting. Furthermore, if she loses re-election, then it would be a "Republican (or Libertarian) gain." Similarly for the 10th district with two Republican incumbents.—GoldRingChip 20:49, 17 October 2012 (UTC)
Why not shade Candidates column
[edit]If starting from scratch, assuming winners and losers just to make it more interesting, I would probably go with something like:
District | Incumbent | Party | First elected |
Result | Candidates |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Ohio 1 | Steve Chabot | Republican | 2010 | Re-elected |
|
Ohio 2 | Jean Schmidt | Republican | 2005 (s) | Lost Re-nomination Republican Hold |
|
Ohio 3 | Mike Turner | Republican | 2002 | Re-districted to 10th district Democratic gain |
|
Ohio 4 | Jim Jordan | Republican | 2006 | Re-elected |
|
Ohio 5 | Bob Latta | Republican | 2007 (s) | Re-elected |
|
Ohio 6 | Bill Johnson | Republican | 2010 | Lost Re-election Democratic gain |
|
Ohio 7 | Steve Austria | Republican | 2008 | Retired Republican hold |
|
Ohio 8 | John Boehner | Republican | 1990 | Re-elected unopposed | John Boehner (R) 100.0% |
Ohio 9 | Marcy Kaptur | Democratic | 1982 | Re-elected |
|
Ohio 10 | Dennis Kucinich | Democratic | 1996 | Re-districted to 9th district Lost re-nomination Republican gain |
|
Ohio 11 | Marcia Fudge | Democratic | 2008 (s) | Re-elected unopposed | Marcia Fudge (D) 100.0% |
Ohio 12 | Pat Tiberi | Republican | 2000 | Re-elected |
|
Ohio 13 | Betty Sutton | Democratic | 2006 | Redistricted to 16th district Democratic hold |
|
Ohio 14 | Steve LaTourette | Republican | 1994 | Retired Republican hold |
|
Ohio 15 | Steve Stivers | Republican | 2010 | Re-elected |
|
Ohio 16 | Jim Renacci | Republican | 2010 | Re-elected |
|
Ohio 17 | Tim Ryan | Democratic | 2002 | Re-districted to 13th Democratic loss |
District in-active
|
Ohio 18 | Bob Gibbs | Republican | 2010 | Re-districted to 7th Republican loss |
District in-active |
I think the most important part of this table to me is the shading in column Party and column Candidates. Just compare the two and change in compositon of delegation and change in each district is obvious, kind of like United States congressional delegations from Ohio turned on its side. With the current system, like shown at United States House of Representatives elections, 2012#Ohio and United States House of Representatives elections, 1892#Ohio, the change in composition and change of party in individual district, not so much. Shading in column “Result” would call attention to holds and changes in party. Even for years without any re-districting, I think shading the columns for party in previous congress, and elected party for next congress is the most important change that I think would clear things up. The only times there would be no incumbent would be (1) in cases of death, expulsion, or resignation with no replacement chosen in special election before the new term, or (2) for actual “new districts” created due to population growth.
Also, one small thing, in United States House of Representatives elections, 2012#Ohio, I don't know why Ohio 1 has two first elected dates for Steve Chabot. He won in 1994, 1996... 2006, lost in 2008 and won again in 2010. I think we should probably choose either the first election, or the first election contiguous to the this one. This could really get out of hand. Imagine the table for New York Elections in 1888... column 1 : New York 9 ; column 2 : Samuel S. Cox ; column 3 : Democratic ; column 4 : Ohio 1856, New York 1868, New York 1884, and New York 1886 (s). This could get silly looking.
Roseohioresident (talk) 21:08, 23 October 2012 (UTC)
- I like this idea! It would take a lot of work to change all the existing pages, though. As for the multiple dates, I think it makes sense for individuals with discontinuous terms to list the first time they were elected and then the start of their current term in office. Although I'd probably go with something like "district eliminated" rather than "inactive" XinaNicole (talk) 03:54, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Though, one small comment, it would be good to be able to show when there are two incumbents running in a single district. Perhaps something like italicizing candidates who were serving in Congress at the time of the election (and both bold and italic for someone who was re-elected) XinaNicole (talk) 03:59, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- I disagree. Shading the candidates column leads to too much shading.—GoldRingChip 14:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
- Also, we should not list by representative, but by district.—GoldRingChip 14:46, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
Incorrect Results from Duplicate Entries
[edit]Unfortunately, it looks like the information for the Iowa 1st is an accidental duplication of the information for the Indiana 1st?
Likewise, the New Jersey 8th appears to be the results for the Iowa 8th? Bkmoore (talk) 20:54, 21 December 2019 (UTC)
- This has been wrong for 5 years at least now, so I deleted everything but inserted the incumbent for Iowa 1st. Someone can complete it with the right info, but no info is better than wrong info. Jim0101 (talk) 19:50, 18 August 2024 (UTC)
Proposed Changed Format for House of Representatives Elections
[edit]In looking over old political data again I've decided to add new information for the House elections, but the information that I want to add is not conducive to the current format. The problem lies in that I want to add the voting data into the tables, but there isn't any way to do so currently as that was meant to be presented in detailed articles on the House elections in a State by State basis; that however only makes sense when done in the context of more modern House elections where information on the campaigns are more readily accessible. What I have done instead was add four additional columns to the right; one for the party color where applicable, one for the name of the State Party of the candidate, one for the number of votes won, and one for the percentage of the vote won. Each District is then divided from each other by an additional row so as to keep the vote numbers and percentages from "blending" into those of the other Districts. --Ariostos (talk) 19:28, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
District | Incumbent | Party | First elected |
Result | Candidates | ||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Alabama 1 | Richard Henry Clarke | Democratic | 1888 | Re-elected | Richard Henry Clarke | Democratic | 12,514 | 60.50% | |
William Mason | Jeffersonian Democratic (Endorsed by People's Party) |
7,156 | 34.60% | ||||||
Frank H. Threatt | Republican | 1,015 | 4.91% | ||||||
Alabama 2 | Hilary A. Herbert | Democratic | 1876 | Incumbent retired. Democratic hold. |
Jesse F. Stallings | Democratic | 16,781 | 58.82% | |
Frank Baaltzell | Jeffersonian Democratic (Endorsed by People's Party) |
10,894 | 38.18% | ||||||
John D. Bibb | Republican | 856 | 3.00% | ||||||
Alabama 3 | William C. Oates | Democratic | 1880 | Re-elected | William C. Oates | Democratic | 16,885 | 62.38% | |
J. F. Tate | Jeffersonian Democratic (Endorsed by People's Party) |
9,931 | 36.69% | ||||||
A. W. Harvey | Republican | 252 | 0.93% | ||||||
Alabama 4 | None (District created) | New seat Democratic gain |
Gaston A. Robbins | Democratic | 16,159 | 60.66% | |||
Adolphus P. Longshore | Jeffersonian Democratic (Endorsed by People's Party) |
8,534 | 32.03% | ||||||
George Henry Craig | Republican | 1,948 | 7.31% | ||||||
Alabama 5 | James E. Cobb | Democratic | 1886 | Re-elected | James E. Cobb | Democratic | 13,456 | 49.31% | |
M. W. Whatley | Jeffersonian Democratic (Endorsed by People's Party) |
11,528 | 42.24% | ||||||
John V. McDuffie | Republican | 2,306 | 8.45% | ||||||
Alabama 6 | John H. Bankhead | Democratic | 1886 | Re-elected | John H. Bankhead | Democratic | 14,342 | 62.77% | |
T. M. Barbour | Jeffersonian Democratic (Endorsed by People's Party) |
6,453 | 28.24% | ||||||
Ignatius Green | Republican | 2,054 | 8.99% | ||||||
Alabama 7 | William H. Forney | Democratic | 1876 | Incumbent retired. Democratic hold. |
William Henry Denson | Democratic | 10,917 | 54.30% | |
William Wood | Jeffersonian Democratic (Endorsed by People's Party) |
9,091 | 45.22% | ||||||
J. T. Blakemore | Republican | 98 | 0.49% | ||||||
Alabama 8 | Joseph Wheeler | Democratic | 1884 | Re-elected | Joseph Wheeler | Democratic | 15,607 | 52.45% | |
R. W. Austin | Jeffersonian Democratic (Endorsed by People's Party) |
11,868 | 39.89% | ||||||
R. T. Blackwell | Republican | 2,279 | 7.66% | ||||||
Alabama 9 | Louis Washington Turpin (Redistricted from the 4th district) |
Democratic | 1890 | Re-elected | Louis Washington Turpin | Democratic | 19,848 | 66.97% | |
Henry Persons | Jeffersonian Democratic (Endorsed by People's Party) |
9,154 | 30.89% | ||||||
George Baggott | Republican | 461 | 1.56% | ||||||
J. B. Ware | Unknown | 103 | 0.35% | ||||||
B. M. Brazealle | Unknown | 70 | 0.24% |
- Seems reasonable to me; I like it. But it adds a lot of code, which will make these articles even busier. Perhaps make this change only on the state-level article, not on the national article?
- I also suggest keeping the "Result" column to the three-line structure used elsewhere:
- Incumbent retired.
New member elected.
Democratic gain.
- Incumbent retired.
- or
- Incumbent re-elected (only 1-line).
- If we go forward with this, I suggest developing a template to keep it standardized. —GoldRingChip 21:02, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
- I see you already went and simplified parts of it, principally truncating the "spacing" sections. I'll admit that I am not well versed in building infoboxes outside of the existing templates, and that has proven to be a struggle when I have a concept 'in mind', but don't know how to execute it. An obvious example is the 1828 Congressional Elections in Georgia which I've posted below; I was working on a basic example case with the 1828-1829 Congressional Elections. The problem is that when you are working with a single Congressional District it is fairly straightforward as seen above, but it becomes convoluted when two Districts are involved in the same election. What I had hoped to find was some sort of wrapping option where there are still rows under the section 'Candidates', but the rows aren't forced to line up with the rest; for example I would have seven rows normally, but then there would thirteen rows under the 'Candidates' section, none locked in with any of the main seven rows as they are now. That would be the optimal solution, provided it is possible.
- I have also established the Infoboxes at a set width of 1500px, meaning that they'll be uniform the whole way down instead of being at varying widths; I don't know what the recommended width would be, so I settled on what I've been comfortable using in the past. Also, I have no idea why we keep track of when new members are elected within the results section, as it is only useful for when denoting a former Congressmen wins a seat. --Ariostos (talk) 06:10, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
District | Incumbent | This race | |||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Member | Party | First elected | Results | Candidates (Note) | |||||
Georgia at-large 7 seats on a general ticket |
George R. Gilmer Redistricted from the 1st district |
Jacksonian | 1827 (Special) | Two Incumbents Retired (m.) Five Incumbents re-elected Jacksonian Hold(s) George Gilmer failed to accept the position within the legal time frame. Governor John Forsyth ordered a new election. |
George R. Gilmer | Jacksonian (Tf) | 18,440 | 77.15% | |
Richard H. Wilde | Jacksonian (Tf) | 18,285 | 77.09% | ||||||
Wiley Thompson | Jacksonian | 16,857 | 71.07% | ||||||
Richard Henry Wilde Redistricted from the 2nd district |
Jacksonian | 1827 (Special) | James M. Wayne | Jacksonian (Tf) | 15,683 | 66.12% | |||
Charles E. Haynes | Jacksonian (Tf) | 14,558 | 61.38% | ||||||
Wiley Thompson Redistricted from the 3rd district |
Jacksonian | 1820 | Thomas F. Foster | Jacksonian (Tf) | 13,869 | 58.47% | |||
Wilson Lumpkin | Jacksonian (Cf) | 12,681 | 53.47% | ||||||
Wilson Lumpkin Redistricted from the 4th district |
Jacksonian | 1826 | John A. Cuthbert | Jacksonian | 11,141 | 46.97% | |||
Thomas U. Cuthbert | Jacksonian | 10,298 | 43.42% | ||||||
Charles E. Haynes Redistricted from the 5th district |
Jacksonian | 1824 | James Meriwether | Jacksonian | 9,261 | 39.05% | |||
William Triplett | Jacksonian | 9,067 | 38.23% | ||||||
Tomlinson Fort Redistricted from the 6th district |
Jacksonian | 1826 | Charles Williamson | Jacksonian | 8,465 | 35.69% | |||
John Floyd Redistricted from the 7th district |
Jacksonian | 1826 | Daniel H. Braiseford | Jacksonian | 7,422 | 31.29% |
- I like to keep these tables simple; if more info is needed (which is often the case), then I'd include it elsewhere. So I'm reluctant to make tables that are complicated to read. Also, the wide width is a problem. I try to avoid adding columns or rows purely for space. —GoldRingChip 20:23, 5 February 2020 (UTC)
- I've removed the hard width for both tables given that is a matter of preference and it may not translate well to all screens. I don't particularly agree with the idea of creating the kind of skeletal articles that exist for Congressional Elections 'by State', as those would be very bare bones and have little hope for expansion barring having boots on the ground in local libraries, whereas for those elections of the last two decades there are digital sources accessible to a wider crew. Essentially, it seems little more than a duplicate of what already exists, but with the vote numbers added, which in my opinion seems …. superfluous.
- In trying to determine how best to represent elections that involve multiple Congressmen, I've actually changed the example of Georgia to have a "single" Results box, with the information of the various results being combined. In practice, the color of the box would be determined by the net result of gains and losses. --Ariostos (talk) 05:55, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
- List-Class Elections and Referendums articles
- WikiProject Elections and Referendums articles
- List-Class United States articles
- Low-importance United States articles
- List-Class United States articles of Low-importance
- List-Class United States Government articles
- Low-importance United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States Government articles
- WikiProject United States articles
- List-Class U.S. Congress articles
- Low-importance U.S. Congress articles
- WikiProject U.S. Congress events
- List-Class politics articles
- Mid-importance politics articles
- List-Class American politics articles
- Mid-importance American politics articles
- American politics task force articles
- WikiProject Politics articles