It looks like it should be 237 seats for the Republicans, since of course they lost one and there are 3 seats vacated by Republicans. If there are other vacant seats, they should be noted.108.48.94.223 (talk) 15:22, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

Alredy noted in section:Retirement incumbents-->Non-retirements.Noncommittalp (talk) 16:19, 30 April 2018 (UTC)Reply

If the Republicans retain majority in the House in 2018 elections, most likely House Majority Leader Kevin McCarthy would become the next Speaker, should he be on the photo?Paul Lincoln (talk) 06:49, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply

Imho, the infobox should have the two party leaders at the time of the time of the election, as is the case with United States Senate elections, 2016. Orser67 (talk) 07:27, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply I agree that the leaders here should be those in the election, not those thereafter. Besides, McCarthy's promotion is only speculative, not confirmed.—GoldRingChip 11:31, 7 May 2018 (UTC)Reply Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Capitals edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

  You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Capitals. —GoldRingChip 13:10, 17 May 2018 (UTC)Reply FiveThirtyEight race ratings edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Nate Silver's popular and well-regarded site, FiveThirtyEight, has just issued its House forecast, including race-specific probabilities and ratings. I propose we add the ratings (not the probability ones, the regular ones) to the table showing competitive races. The main problem is that FiveThirtyEight's forecast is actually three sets of predictions based off the same model: "Lite", which only accounts for polls, "Classic", polls plus fundamentals, and "Deluxe", which also accounts for expert ratings (specifically Cook, Inside Elections, and Sabato's Crystal Ball). If we had to pick just one, I would suggest using Classic, because it seems to provide the highest-quality forecast without creating a feedback loop from other races rated on the page. I'd love to hear everyone else's opinions. Sbb618 (talk) 18:09, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply Non retirements edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

Should Ed Perlmutter still be listed in the section? Unlike the other non-retirements, who resigned before the expiration of the term, he said he wouldn't run but changed their mind. He is hardly the first person to do this, and it's unlikely that membership changes will result from this. For example, in 2016, Ron DeSantis, Todd Rokita, and Susan Brooks all at one point left the house race, but returned and were reelected. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:31F0:CCC5:2EF1:59AF (talk) 04:52, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply I agree that Perlmutter shouldn't be on that list. His place in the regular list should have a footnote with this information. And a resignation during a Congress is very much a "retirement," so the section should be renamed. JTRH (talk) 11:51, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

Keep Perlmutter or remove section: I created this section to list races that started as retirements but then changed. Isn't that what Perlmutter did? He announced his retirement and then took it back. So if we keep this section, then he should remain in it. HOWEVER, I'm fine with deleting this section altogheter if you think it doesn't add anyting notable to the article. —GoldRingChip 14:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply The definition of "elections 2018" should include both the November general election and special elections held during this Congress. I don't think the section should be deleted. JTRH (talk) 14:58, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

For what it's worth, the page for United States House of Representatives elections, 2016 includes in its "Retirements" section Mark Takai, who had announced that he would retire, but died before the completion of his term, and Ed Whitfield, who also announced that he would retire, but resigned early 2 months before the election to the next term, so perhaps the one's who announced that they would retire but resigned early can just be moved to the retirement section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:146F:9757:3234:31F8 (talk) 21:47, 18 August 2018 (UTC)Reply Number of competitive seats edit

Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

"Of the 435 seats available, 120 seats are considered competitive (not "safe" or "solid") by at least one of the groups making ratings. These seats are listed below." It appears that, as ratings change, people are adding (and maybe subtracting) races to and from the table. If so, the "120" number should be edited to reflect an accurate total. JTRH (talk) 13:28, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

• It might be easier/safer just to removed the count altogether… just so say, "The following seats are considered…" —GoldRingChip 15:03, 23 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
  • That works, too. JTRH (talk) 02:10, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
    • Done. —GoldRingChip 15:30, 24 August 2018 (UTC)Reply House diagram image edit
      Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

      The current House diagram image seen here shows the total seats as 425. I understand miscounting the number of retirements and vacancies (they can be hard to keep track of). But there are 435 voting members of the House. Clearly the diagram should add up to that. Woko Sapien (talk) 19:31, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

      I found the issue. The number of Republican incumbents retiring should be 37, not 27. Sbb618 (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

      Fixed it. Thanks for noticing! —GoldRingChip 01:57, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply Five Thirty Eight edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments5 people in discussion

      Five Thirty Eight's ratings keep getting added and deleted, with a lot of work on both ends. Can we please discuss why it is/isn't relevant here, and come to some kind of an agreement? Thanks! JTRH (talk) 16:55, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply There house model is pretty good and they gave the best chance to Trump of any model of any office.Casprings (talk) 17:51, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

      That's not relevant. They're not comparable with the ratings on this article, which are race ratings assigned by human prognosticators/handicappers – what FiveThirtyEight did was to create a House model and assign "ratings" by their estimated probability of victory in each district. To the best of my knowledge, there are six other House models out there right now, and there's no real reason to include any of them when what the section is meant for are race ratings designated by handicappers. Mélencron (talk) 18:21, 27 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

      The section doesn’t state that only ratings published by handicappers should be included; it simply includes “[s]everal sites and individuals [who] publish ratings of competitive seats” and does not specify the method used in determining these ratings. While I agree there may be more models out there, they’re simply not as notable as FiveThirtyEight to be added to the section. Furthermore, FiveThirtyEight has been included on the wiki pages of past elections, including the 2012, 2014 and 2016 Senate elections and the 2016 presidential election. (2018 is the first time they created a House model.) So, since it’s been used for the past 6 years in various elections, I believe there is consensus that it can be added to the section and there’s nothing that bars probability models from being included in the section. As such, until there is a clear evident consensus here that FiveThirtyEight should be removed, I’ve added it back, consistent with previous election pages. Thanks. Wpeneditor (talk) 14:02, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

      I tend to agree with Wpeneditor, though I'd be interested in seeing what other models have been published. Also, if the model is used, I strongly suggest using their "classic model", since the site says "You should think of Classic as the preferred or default version of FiveThirtyEight’s forecast unless we otherwise specify." Orser67 (talk) 20:34, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply RFC on Russian Interference edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago16 comments14 people in discussion

      The following discussion is an archived record of a request for comment. Please do not modify it. No further edits should be made to this discussion. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

      There is clear opposition to such an addition as undue. —Compassionate727 ^(T·C) 19:37, 12 September 2018 (UTC)Reply

      ---

      Should the article include Russian interference in the 2018 United States elections as a subsection and in the lead? Casprings (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply

      • Include As nom. Clearly WP:N and one of the more important aspects of this ongoing house election. Casprings (talk) 23:01, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply Oppose how many RFCs do you plan to start on this topic? power~enwiki (π, ν) 23:06, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply Note: Related RFC for the U.S. Election and the U.S. Senate Election. Casprings (talk) 23:08, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • Include but the three RfCs is a bit confusing. – Muboshgu (talk) 23:12, 15 August 2018 (UTC)Reply Oppose: include as a "See also" link for now. K.e.coffman (talk) 01:03, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply Exclude as UNDUE, especially for the lede section. A brief mention may be warranted in the body text (not as a full subsection), duly attributed to cited intelligence sources. — JFG ^talk 12:53, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply
      • Oppose for now at least. If Russian interference in multiple House races is covered widely by reliable sources, than I might change my mind in the future. Orser67 (talk) 19:13, 16 August 2018 (UTC)Reply Oppose as it represents WP:UNDUE weight and POV pushing in the form that the initiator has tried to insert it into articles. At the very least, it shouldn't be given prominence over content on the elections themselves (i.e., mentioned briefly within a subsection with a link to the main article or as a link within the see also). Mélencron (talk) 01:11, 17 August 2018 (UTC)Reply Oppose for the reasons stated here in the related RfC. Chetsford (talk) 05:00, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply Include per Casprings (editor summoned by bot) --BoogaLouie (talk) 22:09, 26 August 2018 (UTC)Reply Exclude I hope Casprings takes to the heart the discretionary sanctions about post-1923 US politics. (Summoned by bot) Chris Troutman (talk) 01:07, 28 August 2018 (UTC)Reply Exclude - It does not suit WP:Lead as it does not have much coverage in the article or major influence. It seems mostly WP:SPECULATION at this time, until factual events show up. Cheers Markbassett (talk) 05:51, 29 August 2018 (UTC)Reply Exclude (Summoned by bot) not in the lead ^Thanks, L3X1 ◊distænt write◊ 21:42, 5 September 2018 (UTC)Reply (Summoned by bot) Exclude — From what I gather, the Russian interference is—from the looks of it—is mostly speculation at this point, and as such mentioning it in the lede would be undue.
        Regards, SshibumXZ (talk · contribs). 12:24, 9 September 2018 (UTC)Reply The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion. Generic ballot polls edit
        Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

      Generic ballot polls needs to be updated. it hasn't been updated with new polls since July 2018. MroWikipedian (talk) 09:20, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply Yes, it does. Will you add them, please? WP:BB! —GoldRingChip 12:09, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Reply

      • Hi, sorry I can't that's why I was asking somebody here to do it. MroWikipedian (talk) 05:08, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply
        • Why can't you? The page is protected to require autoconfirmed or confirmed access; is that why? Or is it because you don't know how. If you don't know how, then I encourage you to learn more about editing on Wikipedia. If you're not allowed, then post your proposed edit here and I'll transfer it to the article. —GoldRingChip 19:34, 20 October 2018 (UTC)Reply Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Louise Slaughter in the 115th Congress edit
          Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

            You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Louise Slaughter in the 115th Congress. —GoldRingChip 13:27, 5 November 2018 (UTC)Reply District 22 edit

          Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

          While at 1:09 am EST you have Tenney re-elected, other sources have the race as too close to call as recently as 7 minutes ago ? 2604:6000:B4AA:C300:F463:5DA0:C67C:527 (talk) 06:10, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Turnout edit

          Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

          When it becomes available, will there be a turnout percentage added to this article? Abductive (reasoning) 16:55, 7 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Semi-protected edit request on 8 November 2018 edit

          Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments3 people in discussion

          This edit request to United States House of Representatives elections, 2018 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

          I'm not a pro at this whatsoever, but all three of New Mexico's congressional districts have been called for the Democrats. Change NM-02 to Democratic flip. 73.194.235.92 (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply   Already done Checked New Mexico and all three of its races are already updated. NM-02 is also updated in the section Latest published ratings for competitive seats. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:55, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      This edit request to United States House of Representatives elections, 2018 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

      A quibble: the mention of the New York Times in paragraph 3 should be wikilinked and italicized. OofyProsser (talk) 03:08, 8 November 2018 (UTC) 02:07, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply   Not done: According to the page's protection level you should be able to edit the page yourself. If you seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. ♪♫Alucard 16♫♪ 15:46, 8 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Called races edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

      Just for the record, we are going with 13 uncalled races rather than 10 (per some sources) out of an abundance of caution. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:31, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply I'd recommend holding off putting up numbers in the infobox, until all 435 races are decided. GoodDay (talk) 02:05, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      I agree with GoodDay. The numbers are going to change very quickly in any case. JTRH (talk) 02:27, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      We traditionally use AP race calls – the reason for the discrepancy this year is the split in the National Election Pool which means that the AP and Edison Research (which traditionally conducts exit polling, which also split this year) are both calling races this year. (For the record, the list of races not called by the AP is as follows: CA-10, CA-25, CA-39, CA-45, CA-48, GA-07, ME-02, NC-09, NJ-03, NY-22, NY-27, TX-23, UT-04.) If AP/Edison continue to report results and call races independently, this might be something to revisit in future elections – though I would note that Edison has been forced to uncall multiple races this year after initially declaring winners. Mélencron (talk) 04:34, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      I don't think the numbers will change quickly regarding called races, if you want though we can leave out the popular vote and percentages for now. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:35, 9 November 2018 (UTC)Reply If the Democrats have confirmed 226 seats? then that's an increase of 33 from their current 193. Also, if Republicans have confirmed 198 seats? then that's a decrease of 37 from their current 235. GoodDay (talk) 17:19, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply I'm going by what the WP:RS is saying ([1]) rather than going by math here. It should even out by the end, and if it doesn't then our numbers could be wrong. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:23, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Look if you go by the AP numbers, then right now the Democrats got 224 & the Republican right now got 204. Those numbers can't go down. The 11 (by AP math, actually 7) undecided will only add to the 224-204 totals. Let's not dumb down this thing. GoodDay (talk) 17:35, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Just forget about it. You've mixed me up with your math. GoodDay (talk) 17:44, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply FWIW, CNN's got it at 225-200 for Democrats, with 10 undecided. GoodDay (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Kevin Hern of Oklahoma 1st district. edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

      FWIW, Hern's won the special election & concurrent regular election in his district. Due to the former, I believe his tenure began in November 2018 to finish out his predecessor's term until January 3, 2019. Then he'll be sworn in again for his own (2019-21) full term. GoodDay (talk) 05:48, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      No special election election was called to fill his vacancy; it was filled by a general election. (It turns out that Oklahoma is also a special case in which vacancies filled not by special but general elections in even years are filled immediately in November, like special elections elsewhere, as opposed to January). This is pretty easy to prove: no sample ballots refer to any special election in the district, and the only results available from the Oklahoma State Election Board are for the general election. Mélencron (talk) 05:56, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      A source at the Kevin Hern article & write up, says there indeed was a special election held concurrently with the regular election. GoodDay (talk) 06:01, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply The source doesn't corroborate that; the article is incorrect. Special elections aren't called in even-numbered years in Oklahoma; the vacancy for these seats is filled by the regular general election. (What I was previously unaware of, however, was that these vacancies were filled immediately following the general election from November onwards like special elections – but if I've failed to sufficiently emphasize this point, no special election was held, and no special elections are held because of the aforementioned reason. See [2][3] – Bridenstine resigned in late April.) Mélencron (talk) 06:11, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      Very well, but he is completing an unexpired term & will be sworn in (again) on January 3, 2019 to begin his full term. GoodDay (talk) 06:19, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      He was sworn in on November 13 for the unexpired term. The election on November 6 appears to have simultaneously covered both the two-month unexpired term and the regular term beginning in January, even though there was no separate special election on the ballot. The Oklahoma statute is unusual because it calls for the winner of such a special election to be "appointed" to the vacancy in either the House or Senate, even though the Constitution doesn't provide for appointment to the House. JTRH (talk) 13:44, 14 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Semi-protected edit request on 15 November 2018 edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

      This edit request to United States House of Representatives elections, 2018 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

      This article claims that the Democratic Partie popular vote lead of 7.2% for the 2018 House of Representative election is the largest for a party not in the house majority sense 1946, which is false. The Democrats won the popular vote for the House of Representatives elections in the 2006 election by 8.0%, while not holding a congressional majority. 50.201.177.110 (talk) 09:33, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      • Where in the article does it say that, please? —GoldRingChip 16:32, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply It was removed: [4]. David O. Johnson (talk) 17:21, 15 November 2018 (UTC)Reply PA-15 special election edit
        Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

        Here's a reference ("Pennsylvania Elections - Office Results - 2018 Special Election 15th Congressional District". Pennsylvania Elections - Summary Results.) I used on the Pennsylvania's 15th congressional district for the results of the special election. Unless vote tabulation is ongoing (I'm not sure) it looks like Marty Nothstein has won the special, but will not be continuing into the 116th Congress. In these circumstances, what's the best way to fill in the box? Should it be gray and marked as a Republican hold?

        I should add, the new PA-15 seems to be disjoint from the current one, and will be represented by Republican Glenn Thompson. Airbornemihir (talk) 18:10, 10 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

        • It turns out tabulation was indeed ongoing, and has now completed in favour of Susan Wild. The PA-15 district page has been updated. Airbornemihir (talk) 12:26, 16 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Semi-protected edit request on 17 November 2018 edit
          Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

          This edit request to United States House of Representatives elections, 2018 has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

          Change 37 seats to 38 seats. Vt1997 (talk) 01:28, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          Assuming you mean Republicans, it's currently 235 down to 198, which is a drop of 37. GoodDay (talk) 01:33, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply   Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. DBigXrayᗙ 03:41, 17 November 2018 (UTC)Reply NY 22 edit

          Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

          Looks like Democrats gained another seat (NY 22): "Faced with insurmountable numbers, Republican Incumbent Congresswoman Claudia Tenney has conceded the 22nd district congressional race, telling local radio station, WUTQ, that she will help her rival in the bitter, hard-fought race, to transition to Washington." Jonathunder (talk) 00:53, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          Yep, made the appropriate changes. GoodDay (talk) 02:20, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Kentucky's 3rd congressional district edit

          Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

          Why is Kentucky's 3rd congressional district coloured in light grey on the map? Should be light blue. PlanetDeadwing (talk) 02:28, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          Map hasn't been updated, by those who know how. GoodDay (talk) 02:31, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply We should use the best WP:RS for the final votes edit

          Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

          We should use what is the most accurate source for the final votes counts. That is the Cook Political Report and Dave Wasserman. I would suggest that we use that and make sure our numbers match his when he says the race is done.

          Their work is here: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1WxDaxD5az6kdOjJncmGph37z0BPNhV1fNAH_g7IkpC0/htmlview

          Casprings (talk) 16:32, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Uncalled Races edit

          Latest comment: 5 years ago30 comments8 people in discussion

          Can we agree on a standard for uncalled races here? The article was previously inconsistent within itself over the status of CA-21 and such. I propose keeping a loose standard for now and keeping CA-21, NY-22, and NY-27 as uncalled until the AP takes action. Westroopnerd (talk) 04:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          TBH, I'm getting peeved now & loosing interest in trying to keep this article accurate. We now got an editor who's continuing to edit NY-27 as being over. I wouldn't mind it as much, if he'd fix up the numbering across the entire article. GoodDay (talk) 04:33, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          I'm trying to keep the article consistent but it's impossible to do with how many people are editing it. We need to establish a clear standard here, as I already proposed. Westroopnerd (talk) 04:34, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          We should keep it simple & skip the prose in that section. Just list the races that aren't called. GoodDay (talk) 04:38, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Should this page be semi-protected, perhaps until the races are certified? Levivich (talk) 17:12, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          • I unprotected the page last week. I'm reluctant to protect a page, even a moderately-high-profile one, if there's no actual vandalism, etc. —GoldRingChip 18:21, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Maybe we should place <!-- comments --> explaining the standard for uncalled races, gains/losses, etc., so future editors will know? I'm not sure of the best phrasing for the comments but it seems like there are a few areas that are leading to confused good-faith edits: That who won a race, whether a race is called or uncalled, whether a district is a "flip" or not, the number of seats gained/lost by a party... all need to be cited to independent reliable sources (as they are), and editors shouldn't "do the math" themselves, or otherwise include original research
          • The distinction between a district "flipping," and an incumbent losing, which usually go together, but are two distinct things (does it count as a district flip if it's an open race?)
          • The distinction between "gain" and "net gain" (seats gained - seats lost = net gain)
          • The distinction between counting gains/losses from Nov. 5, 2018 (115th Congress as it stood on election day) vs. Jan. 3, 2017 (115th Congress as it was seated) vs. Nov. 8, 2016 (115th Congress as it was elected)

          Perhaps some succinctly worded comments explaining these things will help stabilize those parts of the article? Related pages may also benefit from comments. Levivich (talk) 22:18, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          Two races, both in New York remain uncalled unless other sources can back up things otherwise. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:42, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          @Knowledgekid87: Please refrain from making edits that violate the consensus we've got here without engaging in the discussion first. CA-21 has been uncalled by several sources and NY-22/NY-27 have been called by several sources. Westroopnerd (talk) 23:47, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          Can you post these sources then here? None are present in the article. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:49, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Let's, first of all, acknowledge that Brindisi's victory in NY-22 is quite literally mathematically guaranteed. CA-21, as well, has been cited as still up in the air by several sources, most prominently FiveThirtyEight. AP's decision to not call NY-22/27 and not uncall CA-21 has been simply bizarre and is legitimately unjustifiable. These sources were cited in the article before being stripped away during several edit wars. I'll cite these sources but obviously I'd have to roll back your edits to do so. Westroopnerd (talk) 23:55, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          Wait... "simply bizarre and is legitimately unjustifiable" is your opinion on the matter. Sticking to the sources the only dispute I see is between the AP and 538. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 23:57, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          The race is mathematically guaranteed to go to Brindisi. It's over. CNN and ABC, among others, have already called it as such. AP's decision isn't a be all end all. Westroopnerd (talk) 23:59, 23 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          I don't care who wins the race, its over when it is certified. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:03, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          That makes absolutely no sense and that's no reasonable standard for an article. I'm reverting back to the consensus and adding the sources unless the consensus has clearly shifted, which it hasn't. Westroopnerd (talk) 00:06, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          You are reverting back to things which are not supported by sourcing, at the very least the status should be disputed if reliable sources disagree. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 00:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          I'm adding sources, hold your horses. Westroopnerd (talk) 00:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          Dang, that rhymes. GoodDay (talk) 00:25, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          Westroopnerd Knowledgekid87 GoodDay The trailing candidate in the NY-22 race has conceded (see https://www.wktv.com/content/news/Tenney-Brindisi-to-work-together-in-transition-501038641.html). The status in NY-27 is a bit murkier. Local elections officials in both parties have stated that it is mathematically impossible for the trailing candidate to win; however, the trailing candidate has not conceded, claims that there were irregularities in the voting process, may push forward with a previously-filed lawsuit, and will be making a further announcement after the weekend (see https://buffalonews.com/2018/11/21/mcmurray-will-not-concede-to-collins-citing-extensive-irregularities/). I would be OK with listing the NY-27 race as called or as uncalled; it really depends on the standard we are using. SunCrow (talk) 00:42, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          Well if we are going by that then Mia Love in Utah also hasn't conceded as reflected by 538. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:15, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          Interesting... I think it's fair to keep NY-27 as called for now, with one eye on the situation in case something develops. Westroopnerd (talk) 01:14, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          I wouldnt as our reliable sources are disputed, we have to be neutral and reflect that fact. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          Here we go again :( GoodDay (talk) 02:43, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply "This page in a nutshell: Articles must not take sides, but should explain the sides, fairly and without editorial bias. This applies to both what you say and how you say it." at WP:NPOV. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:46, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply The only only other thing I did was edit the "Seats to be called" section to reflect what has been discussed here. We cant pick and choose to say 538 hasn't called CA-21 so we will include that but not include UT-4 which is on the same page. Just like we cant go with the Associated Press on saying CA-21 is called when 538 says its not. I'm sorry, I know this is frustrating but we have to do our best to present both sides on a divided descision by our WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

          To clarify, I'm not annoyed with you. But rather annoyed with the people who are counting the votes in these congressional districts. It's going on three weeks. GoodDay (talk) 03:04, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      Look, folks. There's no rush to be the "FIRST!" to edit something. Wikipedia is not a news source and there's no reason to post within 5 seconds of someone saying something. This is an encyclopedia… let's act like it. —GoldRingChip 03:11, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply The last question here is CA-23, which looks more and more certain to go to the dems. The house divide will be 235-200. It’s interesting how long AP has left CA-23 called for the GOP when it’s pretty clear it will go for the dems. We might start to consider Cook political report (https://twitter.com/redistrict/status/1065273697169276935?s=21) and ‪FiveThirtyEight‬ (https://twitter.com/natesilver538/status/1065384348206211072?s=21) the gold standard for WP:RS for elections. They are just more accurate in election coverage. That the AP and most of the networks still have this race called for Valadao is just lazy, given the reality of the race. Should have been uncalled 2 weeks ago. I agree with the no rush comment. It is an encyclopedia. That said, we should use the source that has the historical record for the most accuracy. The BEST WP:RS. An encyclopedia goal is accuracy and the AP has caused Wikipedia to be inaccurate.Casprings (talk) 12:41, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      @Casprings: Be careful about relying on Nate Silver's tweets; he keeps "accidentally" tweeting "CA-23” because he's trolling Kevin McCarthy. In CA-21, David Valadao is in trouble of losing his seat to Draft:TJ Cox according to FiveThirtyEight's projection. They put CA-21 in the "Lean D" category with a 67% chance of flipping. -- RobLa (talk) 19:09, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      You think it's tough here? There's an editor over at Rick Scott who keeps removing Ron DeSantis from the successor section of the infobox. GoodDay (talk) 15:47, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Map edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

      The map needs updating, as it's not in sync with the current district results. Particularly in New York. GoodDay (talk) 02:18, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      I updated it, as a .PNG because I don't have the technology to save as .SVG. Levivich (talk) 01:30, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply NY-27 edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

      This race should not be called until the race is certified. We are WP:CRYSTAL BALLING here as the dispute could go-to the courts if McMurray seeks legal action. [5][6]. The results are disputed by sources, so how can we call the race in favor of one candidate when there are still unknowns on the table? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:27, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      I don't think we need to wait until the race is certified, but imo we should wait until the sources all agree that the race is over. Orser67 (talk) 18:34, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      If the standard were "certified," wouldn't all of California (and other states) be "undecided?" How about "conceded?" Levivich (talk) 21:07, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      The Buffalo News is reporting McMurray conceded today. Jonathunder (talk) 21:50, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Open Seats edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments4 people in discussion

      Can we come to a consensus on the definition of an open seat? I would contend that any general election without an incumbent, including the races in MA-07 and NY-14, would qualify and should be listed as an open seat. Evidently, @GoldRingChip: disagrees. Thoughts? Westroopnerd (talk) 04:49, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      That is the definition of an open seat. It can become an open seat in the middle of an election cycle when an incumbent loses a primary. South Carolina 1 qualifies because Mark Sanford, having lost the primary, was not on the ballot in the general. Pennsylvania is particularly confusing this year because the districts were not only redrawn but renumbered, so there's a dispute going on about whether "the Fourth District of Pennsylvania" - which is not at all the same territory in this election as "the Fourth District of Pennsylvania" was previously - qualifies because the Rep. from the old 4th, Scott Perry, ran in the new 10th (but still in the York/Lancaster area), and there was no incumbent on the ballot in the new, suburban Philadelphia, 4th. I contend that it is an open seat. JTRH (talk) 05:07, 24 November 2018 (UTC) @Westroopnerd: @GoldRingChip:Reply Did some googling... (all bold/italics below is added) UVA (also published by Rasmussen): "For our purposes, the most vital figure is the number of open seats held by the president’s party. There can be some confusion in counting such seats, however. For example, sometimes members have announced their retirement, only to resign or die prior to the regular November election, leading their state to call a special election to fill the seat, which usually produces a new incumbent who seeks election in November. However, in other cases, that seat might remain vacant until November, maintaining its status as an open seat. Additionally, an open seat could occur when an incumbent loses a primary, which one cannot account for by just looking at retirements. So not every open seat is the result of a retirement. In this article, the definition of an “open seat” is any House seat lacking an incumbent in the regular federal November election."

      But Pew seems to not count incumbent loses as open seats: "Those statistics are important for an “out” party in shaping its strategy to gain seats because knocking off incumbents has produced more seat switches than has picking up open seats. In 2014, for instance, 13 of the 19 seat switches were due to incumbent defeats. In 2010, a near-record year for seat switches, 55 incumbents were unseated (one in a primary, the rest in the general). It’s even less common for incumbents to lose their party nominating primaries, but when they do their party almost always retains the seat anyway. Since 2000, a total of 39 House incumbents have lost their primaries; in only five of those cases did their seats flip to the other party. Given the ease with which most incumbents win re-election, party strategists and media pundits often look for pickup opportunities in open seats – occasioned by the incumbent’s retirement, resignation, death or decision to run for another office."

      This Wash. U. book on Jstor, p. 199: "Any general election in which no incumbent ran for reelection I considered an open-seat race. Open seats most frequently occurred when incumbents retired, resigned, or sought higher office, but I also included 29 races in which an incumbent lost a primary election."

      FairVote: "An open seat occurs when an incumbent does not seek reelection. Under this definition, 63 of the 435 House seats are open heading into the November election."

      This MIT paper seems to distinguish between "open seats" (vs. incumbent-challenger) and "competitive general election"

      This Harvard paper cautions that an open seat can still involve incumbency advantage if it's in a safe district (p.3 n.3): "A number of scholars have also noted the differences in the contestation between open seat and incumbent contested primaries (e.g. Turner (1953); Jacobson and Kernell (1983)). However, these studies do not distinguish between safe, competitive and unsafe constituencies."

      I agree with the Harvard paper's point that a race with no incumbent in a safe district is not really similar to—in fact quite different from—a true "open seat" in which no one has incumbency advantage (because in a safe district, even a non-incumbent can have incumbency advantage). My personal definition would be that an "open seat" is a race in which no candidate has incumbency advantage.

      For example, in MA-7, the incumbent lost the primary, but the challenger had no opponent in the general election. It doesn't seem like a general election with no opponent should be categorized together with general elections with multiple candidates, none of whom are the incumbent, because the former (no opponent) is in no way a competitive race, and the latter is the most competitive type of race. Similarly, the D candidate in the NY-14 general election had incumbency advantage in the general election because it's a safe D district. For the same reasons, I think PA-2 should not be considered an open seat. It had an incumbent running with incumbency advantage (and half of his old district was part of the new one^[1]), a point that was made by someone above or on a related talk page.

      After looking around a bit, I cannot find any instance of the media referring to MA-7, NY-14, or PA-2 as an "open seat." If RS's referred to those particular races as an "open seat," I think that would be definitive on the matter. Perhaps this can be solved by adding a separate subsection under "open seat" called "other" or something, which includes races where the incumbent lost the primary, and races with redistricting? Sorry this reply was so long. Levivich (talk) 08:36, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      PA-2 was not an open seat because Boyle was an incumbent, albeit from a differently-numbered district. JTRH (talk) 18:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Any race in which the incumbent isn't running in the general election is an open seat race. I can see there being some room for different interpretations when redistricting/district changing is involved, or when the incumbent loses re-nomination and seeks re-election as an independent/third party candidate. But when an incumbent loses the primary and doesn't continue to seek re-election in the general election, that is clearly an open seat race. The competitiveness of the race has no bearing on whether or not it qualifies as an open seat race. To give just one example, the New York Times describes NC-09 and SC-01, both of which saw incumbents defeated in the primary, as "open seat races." Sabato's Crystal Ball similarly describes NC-09 and SC-01, as well as uncompetitive races like PA-05, as open seats. Orser67 (talk) 19:24, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      Thanks for the links. Question: "Any race in which the incumbent isn't running in the general election is an open seat race," but the Sabato link doesn't list MA-7 or NY-14 as an open seat race, though neither had an incumbent in the general election. In Sabato's table "2018 Crystal Ball House race ratings table," the section, "Open seats by party (not including lost renomination)*" has a note* that says, "Does not include seats of incumbents defeated for renomination." Unless I'm misreading it, or your comment, Sabato's seems to support not listing MA-7, NY-14, or PA-2 as open races? I can't read the NYT link, out of free articles: if they list NC-9 and SC-1 as open, do they list MA-7, NY-14 or PA-2 as open? Thanks again. Levivich (talk) 20:57, 24 November 2018 (UTC)Reply I think you are misreading the Sabato article. They do have tables that break open seats into those where the incumbent lost the primary and those where the incumbent retired, but then they have a third table that lists "Total open seats in November by party" which combines the two previous tables. Also, Inside elections and Cook each have e.g NC-9 and SC-1 listed as "open seats." As for the NYTimes article, it doesn't list all seats (whether or not the incumbent is running); it only describes seats that are rated as "Tossup" or "Lean." But again, I have literally never heard of any major prognosticator distinguishing "open seats" based on competitiveness rather than just incumbent status. Orser67 (talk) 18:49, 25 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      Yup, I see that now. Also, the Cook link (thx for that), if you click on "solid seats," Cook lists MA-07, and NY-14 as "Open." Barring other countervailing sources, I'm now persuaded that MA-07 and NY-14 should be listed as "open." Levivich (talk) 00:00, 26 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      Are we in agreement that an “open race” is any in which an incumbent isn’t running, including due to primary loss? Which would include NY-14 and MA-7 but not PA-2? Levivich (talk) 15:11, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply NC-09 edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

      The North Carolina State Board of Elections has refused to certify the result in NC-09 (Mark Harris vs. Dan McCready), citing irregularities in Bladen County which have not yet been publicly disclosed. As it stands, this is a Republican hold (Harris defeated Robert Pittenger in the R primary), but the Board has the power to order a new election. There is no reason yet for WP to change this to undecided, but there is a possibility that the result is not definitive. JTRH (talk) 13:24, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Results summary section edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago6 comments3 people in discussion

      Is there a reason that so many third parties are included regarding popular votes and seats won? This might make sense on a page for a country that uses some form of proportional representation (e.g. German federal election, 2017), but seeing as no third party won a seat in Congress, this doesn't really make any sense to include. Jay eyem (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      They're included because third parties aren't outlawed in the US. GoodDay (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply That wasn't the point. The point is that they ultimately aren't really that important. Maybe a few are worth including (e.g. the Libertarians, the Greens, and the Constitution party, plus independents) but it certainly is not notable to include every party. The appropriate weight should be considered here. Jay eyem (talk) 02:39, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      Ok. GoodDay (talk) 02:47, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      It's meant to be a comprehensive summary... once the Office of the Clerk publishes the results, they should be added. Mélencron (talk) 02:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      I suppose that's fair, I just don't see why it needs to be as extensive as it is. I guess it's at least worth waiting for those results, then. Jay eyem (talk) 02:53, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply CA 21 edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

      What's is the status of California's 21st congressional district race? GoodDay (talk) 02:27, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Too close to call – Muboshgu (talk) 02:32, 22 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      We've got editors (who weren't interested in this article much, before) & ips continuing to edit CA-21 as resolved. GoodDay (talk) 03:37, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply How many seats did the Republicans & Democrats hold going into this election. edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

      As I understood it, the Republicans held 235 & the Democrats 193. There were 7 vacancies. GoodDay (talk) 04:14, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Why has this page been renamed? edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

      There is a regular pattern used for naming pages of elections, but this page, as well as the pages for the 2 previous elections, no longer follow that pattern. It has long been [Place][Office] election(s), [year]. Why is this no longer the case? Cazzy82 (talk) 04:50, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply An Rfc was held at Wikipedia:Naming conventions (government and legislation), with the result being to move pages from P/O-E/Y to Y/P/O-E. GoodDay (talk) 22:52, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Why edit undone? edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago10 comments4 people in discussion

      I edited the page to mark CA-21 as a Democratic flip, since the LA Times called it for Cox, but it was apparently undone. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skittleflake (talk • contribs) 03:44, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      We need more sources then that. Please stop making these edits & argue your case here. GoodDay (talk) 03:46, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply @Peterjack1: PLEASE stop ignoring me & come to this talkpage. GoodDay (talk) 03:48, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply hey the Washington Examiner called it (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/tj-cox-defeats-california-rep-david-valadao-democrats-flip-40-in-the-house) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skittleflake (talk • contribs) 04:03, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      Fine. I'm editing that way, now. GoodDay (talk) 04:07, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      Okay then — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skittleflake (talk • contribs) 04:08, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      • Boy I hope that doesn't turn out to be a waste of time. A couple of weeks ago, CA-21 was called for the Republican. Then it was uncalled. Then the lead changed. It's a bunch of work to change the numbers across every infobox and section, across every article, on the site. All of our time would be better spent if we didn't change it one way, then back again, then back again, etc. Sure, LATimes and Examiner have called it as of now. Probably Cox will win. But if he doesn't, or if it stays in limbo for a while, we are misleading the reader by saying this race is "decided" when it is (1) not certified, (2) not conceded, and (3) not even called by a majority of RSes. What is the big deal about leaving it TBD or as a range until there is no more controversy over the result? Note other races that seemed to be sure things are now creeping towards questionable. If other races get uncalled, it'll be a bunch of work to change everything.

      I hope the editors who are opposed to leaving it TBD/ranged will also be updating all the numbers on all the articles/sections/infoboxes, as well as the pictures. And how does one have time to do all this so soon after a few media outlets called the race, yet apparently not have time to join the discussion above over the last few weeks? Levivich (talk) 04:20, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      I wish the protection board would heed my advice & semi-protect this article. GoodDay (talk) 04:26, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      If you need an administrator to semi-protect the article, ping one, but I think it's stable now. Jonathunder (talk) 23:19, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply For the moment it's stable. Though I find these edits here, here and here by Peterjack1, to be troubling. GoodDay (talk) 23:41, 29 November 2018 (UTC)Reply RfCs: uncalled races, open seats, "seats before"/"seat change" edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

      Please comment:

      • RfC: When has a candidate won an election? RfC closed. Result: "There is a clear consensus for option 3: an article should state that a candidate has won an election when the election is called by reliable sources (All sources? Most sources? A particular source?) for United States elections. Some editors expressed support for requiring that more than one source call the election. There is no consensus owing to the lack of discussion by a number of the RfC participants on this, so there is no prejudice against opening a new RfC to discuss this further."
      • RfC: Definition of "open election" or "open seat"
      • RfC: "Seats before" and "seat change"

      Thank you. Levivich (talk) 00:55, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply What does "Other" refer to? edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

      In the results table, "Other" seems to mean all the parties not listed in the table, but in the bar chart, does Other refer to ALL third parties at once? Does this mean that, when all the Libertarian, Green, etc. vote totals are added, the Democratic and Republican percentages will drop? Also, what does "NR" stand for? PlanetDeadwing (talk) 13:22, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Correct. Until there are numbers for all the 3rd (and 4th, 5th, etc) party candidates, the "Other" vote total is for ALL "other" votes (that aren't Dem or GOP) I put those numbers there so people can see the amount of votes that were cast for Non Rep or GOP candidates. Also, with that number, you can add that to the Dem and GOP votes to come up with a total off ALL votes cast. That "others" number will be updated once the individual party numbers come in, and will be in fact, the *other votes* that aren't part of any of the other multiple parties listed in the table. BTW, the Dem and GOP percentages won't be affected. They already figure as part of the TOTAL vote, of 112+ million (which includes ALL non Dem and GOP votes) --Dr Z (talk) 01:02, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply Seat change. edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago12 comments5 people in discussion

      Going by how it's done on the other House election articles, seat change goes by the number of seats heading into the election, not by the number of seats in the last election. GoodDay (talk) 16:06, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      On further review of past House election articles (didn't check the Senate election articles), there's an inconsistency concerning 'seat change'. GoodDay (talk) 17:01, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply Following up on the discussion on GD's talk page, my apologies for editing this to count from "last election" instead of "seats before." The reason I did that is because that's what it says in the infobox documentation (template:infobox election, defining "seat change" as "The change in the number of seats won at the election compared to the previous election."), and the last two House election pages ('16 and '14) were counting from "last election" not "seats before" (before GD updated them—thank you), so I thought "last election" was the proper measure.

      After looking through some past pages, there appears to be inconsistency. It looks like, last I checked, House elections 2008–present and '96 use "seats before," but 04, 02, 00, 98, 94, 92, 90 use "last election." I didn't look back any further than 90. I didn't check anything other than House elections.

      Personally I think "seats before" makes more sense and that's what we should use, template documentation be damned. But more importantly, I think it should be consistent across US House elections (and probably also Senate and every other US election?). Also, whatever we go with, I think it ought to be documented somewhere, so some other wikinoob like me doesn't come along, RTFM, and then make a bunch of counter-consensus (and frankly counter-common-sense) edits. (Unless that's just a hazing thing here.)

      Thoughts? Should this be discussed somewhere broader than this talk page, e.g. a project page (and if so, which one?), or RfC or village pump? Levivich (talk) 17:10, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      Note that I 'fixed up' the 2004 House race. GoodDay (talk) 17:13, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      One other wrinkle: our "seats before" number is 193 – the number of Democratic members of Congress on Election Day – but there were two vacancies in "safe" Dem districts, so it seems most of the media count it as 195 seats before (hence the widely-reported number of 39 pickups, 234-195=39). If we go with a 193 "seats before," we're going to end up with a "seat change" figure of 41–42, whereas I believe the rest of the world will be reporting 39–40, and this inconsistency may lead to further instability on this page, even if we clarify consensus here. My thought is "seats before" is seats before, not members before, and the Dems had 195 seats, even if they had only 193 members. Also, that seems to be in line with what the RSes report, and would bring our "seats change" number in line with what most RSes seem to be reporting (39–40, not 41–42). But I don't really have a strong feeling on how we define it, as long as it's consistent and documented somewhere that editors can find. Perhaps just dropping a comment at the top of the page describing consensus on these issues (and open seats while we're at it) would be helpful. Levivich (talk) 17:31, 27 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      An RFC or something similar might be a good idea, as it would be great to get a consistent standard across Wikipedia. The 39/40 figure is/was widely used in reporting on this election, but I don't think that academia, journalists, etc. consistently use that standard or any other standard when talking about congressional seat gains. Orser67 (talk) 04:58, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply I would go with 195 Democratic seats. I had noticed a discrepancy and this (partly) explains it. If a seat goes from Dem to vacant to Dem again, it hasn't changed parties. (Vacant isn't a party.) But I still only see a one-seat difference, compared with 538's reporting. [[7]] they say that that if the Democrat wins CA-21, they will show a net gain of 40 seats, which suggests that only 39 seats have changed hands. They also say that there's only one seat left to call, so their information is current. Did we call a seat wrong? Is the count wrong? Is 538 wrong? What accounts for this discrepancy?—MiguelMunoz (talk) 10:10, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      Without examining the issue in detail, the 538 article refers to "net gain," which may be different than the raw number of seats that changed parties. I would imagine that "net gain" accounts for things like the fact that one Democratic-held Philadelphia-area district (the old PA-1, where Brady retired) effectively disappeared in the Pennsylvania redistricting. There are four Democrats in Pennsylvania who replaced Republicans, but only a "net gain" of three D seats because of that. JTRH (talk) 12:35, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      If the Democrats were occupying 193 seats at the time of the 2018 election (November 6)? then we should go with 193. Vacant seats aren't held by any party. GoodDay (talk) 15:16, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      But it's a seat change when a D wins a vacant seat previously held by an R, or vice versa. JTRH (talk) 15:41, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      That's only if we go by the by last election results (241-194 for Republicans), instead of seat number going into this election (235-193 for Republicans). GoodDay (talk) 15:44, 28 November 2018 (UTC)Reply

      Pat Meehan (R-PA) resigns. The seat is vacant for several months. Mary Gay Scanlon (D) eventually wins the newly configured seat. That is an R-to-D seat change. JTRH (talk) 16:56, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply Are we getting ahead of ourselves? edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

      The lede and the infobox make it appear that all races are now resolved. Why? CA-21 results will not be certified until Dec. 7 (https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/tj-cox-defeats-california-rep-david-valadao-democrats-flip-40-in-the-house). The NC-9 race looks like it will not be resolved for awhile yet (https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fraud-allegations-leave-north-carolina-house-race-unresolved-no-clear-n942816). SunCrow (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      Multiple reliable sources have now stated that Cox won, so I don't see a problem with listing that race as a Democratic victory. The NC-9 race, however, should be listed as uncalled. Orser67 (talk) 20:24, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply North Carolina 9 Now Undecided edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago14 comments9 people in discussion

      NC-9 has now be downgraded from an R win to undecided, with election officials refusing to certify the results so that they can investigate potential tampering with absentee valleys, according to Vox.

      I swear, this election will NEVER END

      It hasn't been certified yet, as is true of many races, and there will be a hearing. Let's not get ahead of our sources and start changing the numbers in the article again. Jonathunder (talk) 20:50, 30 November 2018 (UTC)Reply AP I called the race. https://apnews.com/16671b61ebc24e51afe63372d39f7bd4?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP_Politics&utm_source=Twitter Casprings (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      "In this case, AP is treating the board’s action as if the race has proceeded to a recount. AP does not call winners in any election that is subject to a recount. AP will not call the race until state officials certify the results." Same stance they took with CA-21; they're not calling until certification. There seems to be consensus forming at the RfC above. Levivich (talk) 03:21, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply https://apnews.com/16671b61ebc24e51afe63372d39f7bd4?utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_medium=AP_Politics&utm_source=Twitter — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joshwolff7 (talk • contribs) 07:28, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      It is an R hold until something changes. There would have to be specific action taken, which hasn't happened yet. There will be a meeting of the State Board of Elections on or before December 21. JTRH (talk) 16:57, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      But the Board has now taken action by voting NOT to certify the results in this race. I think it should be listed as undecided (see https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/politics-news/fraud-allegations-leave-north-carolina-house-race-unresolved-no-clear-n942816). SunCrow (talk) 22:07, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      I'm not opposed to calling it undecided. However, here's my reasoning: Harris leads in the vote as currently reported, which according to the standards we've used is at least as reliable a source as an AP call of the race; in order for Harris not to be declared the winner, the State Board of Elections would not only refuse to certify, but would have to affirmatively vote either to throw out enough suspicious votes to change the result of the election, or to order a new election. And if something does happen to change the status of a Harris victory, there will be a lawsuit filed on his behalf, which is one more obstacle for McCready to overcome. "Undecided," to me, implies that there's an equal probability that it could go either way, when in fact - unless something changes, at which point the article can change - it's considerably more likely that it will be Harris and not McCready. As posted above, the SBOE will meet on this no later than Dec. 21. It may be more or less definitive in a couple of weeks than it is now. JTRH (talk) 23:20, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      In addition, McCready has not retracted his concession. JTRH (talk) 23:24, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      I don't know why you would take the position that "undecided" means that there's an "equal probability that the race will go either way." Undecided just means "there's a significant chance of more than one election outcome." In this case, there's no chance of a McCready victory, but there's a significant chance that a new election will be ordered. Orser67 (talk) 20:28, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      I see your point about the definition of undecided. I was just trying to find a way to describe the fact that the burden is on those who are trying to prevent Harris from taking office. But there are several possible outcomes short of ordering a new election. One is that they could throw out the absentee ballots in Bladen County and certify the remaining result. There was a news article today that the House could refuse to seat him if he is certified, but that's highly unlikely. JTRH (talk) 20:37, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      Wish we could keep things consistent between here, 2018 United States elections, 116th United States Congress and now the Harris bio articles. GoodDay (talk) 06:29, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      The fact that multiple news agencies have retracted their calls for NC-9 makes it proper to put this race in its own section titled "Undecided races" or something similar. And to JTRH's point, FiveThirtyEight has now labeled the race a tossup. Moreover, this election has been labeled as "TBD" in the table of competitive races. Our desire for the election to be over should not overlook what the sources say and how this race is characterized throughout the article. S51438 (talk) 02:13, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      And note that the race is characterized as a tossup in the respective map of House races. S51438 (talk) 02:15, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      In light of recent developments, I'm fine with listing it as undecided. JTRH (talk) 23:28, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply "The highest turnout in a midterm election since..." edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

      The currently cited source does not refer to midterm elections, but to presidential years. Someone changed it from "since 1912" (which was not a midterm election) to 1914 (which was a midterm but is not discussed in the source). A previous version accurately stated that it's the highest midterm turnout since contemporary records began being kept in 1920. Can someone please revert to that version? Thanks! JTRH (talk) 18:17, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      Never mind. I misread the cited source. The article is correct as written. JTRH (talk) 12:25, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply NC-9 edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

      The Democratic candidate in NC-9 has now retracted his concession, and the leader of the NC GOP has stated that he's "open to a new election" due to the controversy over alleged election fraud. I think we need to stop listing this as a Republican pickup in the infobox or anywhere else. To be clear, this isn't about partisanship (it really doesn't matter whether the Republicans have 199 or 200 seats), but about trying to stick to what the reliable sources are saying. Orser67 (talk) 23:27, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      We should leave it as a Republican pick up (their 200th seat) until the Democratic nominee over takes the race or a new congressional election is scheduled. Can we please leave the numbers stable for at least a week :( GoodDay (talk) 23:58, 6 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      Nothing will change until the State Board of Elections holds its next hearing, on or before the 21st. However, as I stated above, I'm fine with now calling it undecided, and I'm the one who was earlier insisting on giving the presumption of victory to Harris. JTRH (talk) 00:02, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      Does this lower the number for Republicans, from 200 to 199 (for now)? GoodDay (talk) 01:03, 7 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      It should. JTRH (talk) 12:26, 10 December 2018 (UTC)Reply 40 Seats edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago9 comments8 people in discussion

      Please let’s keep the gain/loss at 40 seats, this article is specifically for the November election, PA-18 special doesn’t count. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Peterjack1 (talk • contribs) 04:31, 1 December 2018 (UTC)Reply These November elections were for all 435 seats. The seats gained/lost is as compared to the count following the 2016 election. See the infobox and the results summary section. 235 (2018) - 194 (2016) = 41. Please sign your comments. 173.91.60.85 (talk) 08:19, 2 December 2018 (UTC)Reply I agree that it should be 41 seats. Prcc27 (talk) 05:38, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      The lede said that the Dems had picked up 40 seats and everything else in the article said that the Dems picked up 41. So we had self-contradictory information. I changed the lede to say 41. SunCrow (talk) 22:04, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      It is 41 seats in comparison to the result after the 2016 election. It is 40 seats in comparison to immediately before the 2018 election. Either one is a legitimate statistic, but can we please agree on which one to use and not keep reverting the article back and forth? JTRH (talk) 23:23, 3 December 2018 (UTC)Reply At the very least, the infobox should say 41 seats since it has the amount of seats in 2016 right above it. Prcc27 (talk) 03:10, 4 December 2018 (UTC)Reply Ugh...here we go again with the 40/41 nonsense. --Dr Z (talk) 04:17, 11 December 2018 (UTC)Reply It makes absolutely no sense to say the Democrats won 41 seats in the "2018 US Midterm Elections" when they won 40 seats in that election; they won an additional seat in a SPECIAL election earlier that year. They are not the same elections. Seat change should reflect changes in that specific election. The PA-18 special election was months prior to this election and therefore should NOT count in this total. Gibbsness (talk) 18:29, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

      I agree it makes no sense to say that, but the article doesn't say that. The article says net gain of 41 from the last election, which is true. FYI there was a recent RfC on seat change Template talk:Infobox election#RfC: "Seats before" and "seat change" if you want to revive it. Levivich (talk) 07:16, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply How to classify a possible new election in NC9 edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

      Through action of either the NC State Board of Elections or the US House, there may be a new election in NC 9. If the state board orders it, it is theoretically possible (but unlikely) that it will happen before Jan. 3. and the winner will be seated at the beginning of the next Congress with the people elected last month. I would argue that if the election is held in time to seat the winner at the beginning of the Congress, it does not qualify as a special election, but should be counted as one of the midterms. Otherwise, it's a 2019 special. JTRH (talk) 13:12, 8 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      I agree that approach makes sense. The official FEC result will settle this eventually. Levivich (talk) 15:23, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      If there ends up being a new election, it will not happen until next year. Even if it's run among the same candidates and not a completely new election (including new filing and a primary), the timeline requirements for early voting and distribution of absentee ballots make it impossible that it will happen before January 3. The only way someone from this district takes office at the beginning of the new Congress is if, hypothetically, the State Board of Elections reverses itself and decides to certify Harris, and the U.S. House doesn't overturn that decision when they meet in January. So a new election would be a special, not an add-on to November. As for the ongoing dispute about 235/236 D vs. 199/200 R, there is no way McCready gets added to the Democratic total as someone elected in November, but Harris *could* be included as a Republican winner if the hypothetical (but unlikely) situation I just described ends up taking place. JTRH (talk) 16:14, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      I agree with your analysis 100%. Most likely, the 116th will have 434 members instead of 435 on Jan. 3. What I don't understand is why Wikipedia needs to say that today. When the reliable sources agree that there are 434 members in the 116th Congress, that's when Wikipedia should say it. When the reliable sources agree that there are 235 Democrats and 199 Republicans, that's when Wikipedia should say it. And not before. I believe this was the consensus at the very recent RfC about Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Elections_and_Referendums#RfC:_When_has_a_candidate_won_an_election? Until the RS's say otherwise, Wikipedia should say that 434 out of 435 races have been decided, and one is still undecided, thus the numbers are 235–236, 199–200, 40–41. I don't see why it matters what I or any other editor thinks is likely to happen in the future–even if we're right! (Preceding comment not directed at JTRH, but at other editors who have been edit-warring the infobox numbers.) Levivich (talk) 16:53, 12 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      The State Board has postponed its evidentiary hearing until January 11, making it all but certain that the seat will be vacant at the beginning of the Congress. Some media sources are reporting that the vacancy is definite, but there's no official confirmation of that. It's still theoretically possible that they could certify Harris, but the US House would be likely to refuse to seat him (which is within their constitutional authority). JTRH (talk) 13:26, 16 December 2018 (UTC)Reply Third party NC edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago5 comments3 people in discussion

      The infobox should not say "235 or 236" and "199 or 200", because it assumes that the third party candidate in NC-9 does not have a chance. Prcc27 (talk) 06:54, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      Well... how many votes did the third party candidate get? So is it a reasonable assumption? More to the point, is it an assumption all the RSes make? If so, I think we can go with it. Although no strong objection to just making it "235" and "199" to err on the side of not crystalballing. Levivich (talk) 07:38, 22 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      "235" and "199" works because we already have a footnote that explains the situation. Prcc27 (talk) 01:30, 23 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      There's nothing wrong with using "235 or 236" & "199 or 200". Wish ya'll would stop removing it. GoodDay (talk) 06:57, 25 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      In that case should we put "0 or 1" seat for the Libertarian Party as well? Prcc27 (talk) 01:52, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply Details on Individual State Results edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

      Previously I added details to each section for the state results on the page listing the changes in the congressional delegations of each state between the 2016 and 2018 elections, and also included a small detail about when the last time a party held a majority of seats in the state, or held a seat in a state, or held the at-large seat of a state. I added them because I thought it would be helpful for readers to have some insight into how massive this election was, and how states and districts have changed politically over the years. They also make it less cumbersome for readers to have to traverse multiple pages to find that info. However, some editors have pointed out that the details might make the article too large and are unnecessary. Some extra views would be helpful in resolving this disagreement. Civilbeegee (talk) 23:50, 27 December 2018 (UTC)Reply Someone reverted those edits and they were unreverted and then I reverted them and now here we are. Basically the article is very large, it's the 38th largest article (with the aforementioned information removed from the article), and is more viewed than any article larger than it. The difference between 2016 and 2018 results by state are already there in the article and I don't think it's worth making the article needlessly longer to accomodate facts like saying Alaska had a Democratic representative in 1974. Other perspectives much appreciated. Onetwothreeip (talk) 00:24, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply Count me as one who appreciates the extra info Civilbeegee added. You both asked for other opinions, so here's mine for the record.--Dr Z (talk) 03:53, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      The information for each individual state can probably be put on each state's individual results page, since those generally give more detail.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:A5FA:EDEB:24A5:4DF7 (talk) 20:41, December 27, 2018 (UTC)

      I think that's a fair compromise, putting the information into the state results articles. Onetwothreeip (talk) 04:44, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      I guess that could be done. Is there an easy way to put all that info on each separate page? Civilbeegee (talk) 07:39, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      It seems to be that the wall of state-level tables is what makes the most sense to push down to the state-level results. Civilbeegee's original additions were excellent examples of proper WP:summary style. -- RobLa (talk) 17:00, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      I agree, and I also intend on splitting the opinion polling and predictions from the article. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:05, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply

      It seems to be the preferred style to put the summary tables on the main page, as this is the case with all other House elections pages for previous years. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:241:300:C930:7188:89D4:A564:4A9A (talk) 22:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)Reply Archiving edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago8 comments3 people in discussion

      Consensus requested: I suggest removing the archives of this talk page (and restoring them here). They were created recently (@Pigsonthewing:) for good reasons: archives are often used when talk page length exceeds 75k (See Help:Archiving a talk page), and this talk page was over 100k at the time. However, I believe this talk page will not grow too much more as the article itself is based on an event that is just-about considered settled. Although there are definitely lingering issues and questions for editors going forward, its busiest period is now behind it. I think there is some value in keeping it all together. Should there be a consensus to remove the archives, I will restore them to this single talk page. —GoldRingChip 13:29, 2 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

      @Onetwothreeip: Would you like to un-archive or re-archive this? —GoldRingChip 15:28, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

      Just leave it archived, we have better things to do. Onetwothreeip (talk) 20:16, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

      If the argument for archiving it is you've got "better things to do," then why did you revert all my changes? —GoldRingChip 20:40, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

      That's not "the argument". I reverted your changes because the archiving should be kept. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:21, 6 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

      OK, but why should the archiving should be kept? I put forth a request for discussion (see above), got no objections, so I acted. You reverted for no reason other than saying it shouldn't happen. I'll accept a disscussion about why it should be archived, but so far I haven't read one. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GoldRingChip (talk • contribs) 13:44, 7 January 2019 (UTC)Reply Keeping it all in one page makes it harder to read and harder to edit. This is pretty bizarre honestly. I reverted your un-archiving and based on WP:REFACTOR we normally keep talk pages as they are if someone objects. You've got two people in favour of archiving and two against, hardly a consensus to remove the archives. Onetwothreeip (talk) 21:25, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

      Support having one talk page because it's unlikely to grow bigger (this thread notwithstanding) and it would be easier for posterity to have just one page to search if needed. Also, oppose reverting an editor who asks for consensus on the talk page in advance of making an edit and receives no response. Levivich (talk) 07:09, 8 January 2019 (UTC)Reply Number of Members edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

      I believe on noon EDT January 3, the 116th Congress will convene, reliable sources will report how many members of the House there are, and we can update the infoboxes (yay!). As of this writing, incoming House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer has said that there will be 434, not 435, members, because they will not seat someone from NC 9 pending the conclusion of fraud investigation by the state.^[1][2][3] For further info: 2018 election in North Carolina's 9th congressional district#Refusal of certification.

      References

      1. ^ "House leader says Democrats won't seat candidate in unresolved North Carolina race". AP via NBC News. 2018-12-28. Archived from the original on 2019-01-03. Retrieved 2019-01-03. {{cite web}}: Unknown parameter |dead-url= ignored (|url-status= suggested) (help)
      2. ^ Gardner, Amy (2019-01-02). "GOP congressional candidate says he will ask N.C. court to certify his victory as election officials delay fraud hearing". The Washington Post. Retrieved 2019-01-03.
      3. ^ Morrill, Jim; Murphy, Brian (2019-01-02). "Mark Harris says he'll go to court as officials delay hearing on election fraud". The Charlotte Observer. Retrieved 2019-01-03.

      I don't think we need to put these refs in the article right now, I think we can just wait until it's official in less than 24 hours, but I leave them here should they be useful. Levivich (talk) 04:38, 3 January 2019 (UTC)Reply Seat 435 exists, even though it's currently 'vacant'. edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

      I see that the undecided seat, has 'again' been deleted from the infobox & graphs near the top of the article. Giving the impression that there's only 434 seats in the House. GoodDay (talk) 03:55, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

      Is that something I broke with my edits to the infobox and results summary table the other day? If so I apologize. I still see "undecided" under the map... did it used to be somewhere else, also? Levivich (talk) 04:24, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply

      I haven't checked the edit-history. Anyways, I've added notes into the infobox, mentioning the undecided seat. GoodDay (talk) 05:26, 10 January 2019 (UTC)Reply Seniority edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago4 comments2 people in discussion

      My edit adding the losses of combined seniority for each party was removed on the grounds that it was original research. I tried, in the first place, to find where someone else had tallied it up, but could only find an article about seniority losses in the 2010 elections. My source is Wikipedia and basic addition. I went to the pages of each and every member of the House who left office in 2018, and added up their tenures using a calculator so I wouldn't lose track. Is this satisfactory? -ShorinBJ (talk) 01:48, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

      Aside from the accuracy of the calculation, what is the basis that this information (total years of seniority gained/lost) is significant? If there aren't many RSes discussing this statistic, is it worth including or is it trivia? ^Leviv_ich 02:03, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

      I dunno. The lopsided seniority losses in 2010 got a fair bit of play, from what I remember. It's something pundits talked about, at least. --ShorinBJ (talk) 10:32, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

      ShorinBJ, I remember reading about it, too. For this election cycle, I can find sources talking about collective loss of seniority for the Texas and Arizona delegations, but like you I can't find any articles talking about the collective gain/loss of seniority for an entire party in either chamber. Personally I have no problem including it, but the weakness I see is the lack of sources establishing the significance of collective seniority loss/gain in this particular election cycle. By the way–and this is not a dismissive comment but a sincere one–if there are no sources who have "done this math" nationwide (or party-wide in Congress), you may consider just writing an article about it, which I bet political publications would publish, particularly if you the article compared the gain/loss in this cycle with previous cycles and thus placed the recent numbers in context. Then we could just cite your article :-) ^Leviv_ich 15:22, 2 February 2019 (UTC)Reply TX 32 edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

      missing in close election section--2001:62A:4:6000:221:86FF:FE1C:2BF1 (talk) 19:28, 5 February 2019 (UTC)Reply Outcomes of non-House races edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

      @GoldRingChip: I have serious reservations about your edit, in which all the information about the success or failure of House members running for Senate/Governorship/what-have-you was removed. There is precedent for retaining this information (see 2016_United_States_House_of_Representatives_elections#Incumbents_not_seeking_re-election) and even without this precedent, it's plainly useful to have this information aggregated on the House election page for anyone who wants to learn how popular U.S. Representatives were when running for other office. Please consider rolling back this part of your edit. Airbornemihir (talk) 17:47, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

      • You make a good point… these facts may be interesting to readers. Perhaps it should be restored. I'll restore it, per your request. Perhaps other editors, meanwhile, would have an opinion on this? —GoldRingChip 17:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply

      Question: Should this article include whether a retiring/resigning member is successful in an election to another post? —GoldRingChip 17:52, 27 February 2019 (UTC)Reply Should NC09 be counted in the national popular vote? edit

      Latest comment: 5 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

      Since the results weren't certified, I'm not sure those votes should be in the top-line tally. Filinovich (talk) 16:29, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply

      I agree, since there was evidence of fraud. JTRH (talk) 17:57, 25 March 2019 (UTC)Reply Close races edit

      Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments1 person in discussion

      I just edited the Close races section inserting two close races, specifically NV-4, which Steven Horsford won by 8.18%, and NV-3, which Susie Lee won by 9.06%. I found these just by chance, not by doing a systematic search. I am concerned that there may be other missing races in this section, and I wonder how this list was generated in the first place. —Anomalocaris (talk) 07:57, 28 April 2019 (UTC)Reply

      I also inserted PA-8, which Matt Cartwright won by 9.29%. Based on the election results page at The Washington Post,^[1] I think I have found all races won by 10.00% or less. Note that the URL here will obviously not work after the November 2020 election.

      References

      1. ^ "Live midterm results: House races". The Washington Post.

      —Anomalocaris (talk) 19:04, 29 April 2019 (UTC)Reply Condense? edit

      Latest comment: 4 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

      This article has far too much length and detail. I'd suggest removing the following sections: Resignations and retracted retirements; close races; and special elections. Thoughts? SunCrow (talk) 02:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)Reply

      I definitely want to keep the close races, but would be open to moving some of the information about special elections and resignations to another page. Orser67 (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply Relevant discussion edit

      Latest comment: 4 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

      There's a discussion on the inclusion of each individual house race in these overall election articles at: Talk:2020 United States House of Representatives elections#RFC on inclusion of House elections. Orser67 (talk) 20:55, 9 December 2019 (UTC)Reply