Talk:1960 United States presidential election

Eisenhower campaign

There's a paragraph claiming that Nixon asked Eisenhower to stop campaigning for him because Mrs. Eisenhower thought that it would be fatal to her husband. Is there any source for this because this seems insane? 153.33.157.28 (talk) 04:23, 21 March 2024 (UTC)

I've removed that paragraph and two others for having no sources at all. Dingers5Days (talk) 17:25, 25 May 2024 (UTC)

Changing infobox images to higher quality color ones

I think we should switch the infobox images for Kennedy and Nixon to these two higher quality color images.

1960 United States presidential election

November 8, 1960
537 members of the Electoral College 269 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout	63.8% 3.6 pp
Nominee John F. Kennedy Richard Nixon Party Democratic Republican Home state Massachusetts California Running mate Lyndon B. Johnson Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. Electoral vote 303 219 States carried 22 26 Popular vote 34,220,984 34,108,157 Percentage 49.72% 49.55%
Presidential election results map. Blue denotes states won by Kennedy/Johnson, red denotes those won by Nixon/Lodge, light blue denotes the electoral votes for Byrd/Thurmond by Alabama and Mississippi unpledged electors, and a vote for Byrd/Goldwater by an Oklahoma faithless elector. Numbers indicate the number of electoral votes allotted to each state.
President before election Dwight D. Eisenhower Republican Elected President John F. Kennedy Democratic

The Image Editor (talk) 20:02, 25 March 2024 (UTC)

While the Kennedy image looks okay, I think we should still hold off on updating to colored images until a better image of Nixon is available that doesn’t look like it was colored with AI HistorianL (talk) 17:11, 26 March 2024 (UTC)

yeah we need to change

there is this image btw I think could work

Richard Nixon In 1960

Randompandaeatcake (talk) 03:39, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

The only issue with this is that Kennedy’s photo is anachronistic to the year 1960. Albeit the 1968 election uses a photo of Nixon after he became president. However, I still think the info boxes should avoid using anachronistic portraits. USEditor.2007 (talk) 04:07, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

thats a good point, I think maybe we should change nixons image if that is the case Randompandaeatcake (talk) 21:42, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

References

Byrd Wikibox

I actually think he should be in the wikibox but with notes saying it was via unpledged electors, as he was in reality a canidate in the same vein as thurmond and wallace but just not formally Randompandaeatcake (talk) 03:31, 11 April 2024 (UTC)

Yes, I agree too. There's no reason why Byrd shouldn't be in wikibox. Nppfarcenter (talk) 03:00, 12 April 2024 (UTC)

Byrd was not a candidate himself or nominee of any major party, putting him on the wikibox would disregard precedent for election articles. I understand that 1960 is a special case with unpledged electors being sent to the Electoral College, but I feel that the current map represents this the best it can. Keeping this in mind along with his negligible popular vote score, I support sticking with the status quo for this article. JohnArizona1985 (talk) 04:30, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Mississippi was not won by either party! If we don't put Byrd into wikibox, we should at least do it for unpledged electors. Nppfarcenter (talk) 05:03, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I would personally support unpledged electors being added to the wikibox as a compromise, precedent exists for this already in previous articles, i.e 1956 in Mississippi and 1944 in Texas. However, there would need to be a way to display that those unpledged electors voted for Byrd without making it look as if Byrd was a candidate in the race, which previous revisions of this article inaccurately gave the impression of. JohnArizona1985 (talk) 05:31, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I thought a note about them voting for Byrd would be useful Nppfarcenter (talk) 05:58, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

Absolutley I fully agree with you Randompandaeatcake (talk) 21:13, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

I dont think there should be Byrd on the wikibox. The status quo works just fine. Byrd had no campaign and the unpledged electors were just votes for Democratic delegates who could vote however they wanted, they just so happened to vote for Byrd.

Besides, if people are curious as to the nature of the unpledged elector victories, they can just click on Mississippi on the map or read the article. Gelid Lagopus (talk) 11:40, 15 April 2024 (UTC)

so I think overall people seem to be in agreement we should not keep the status quo but put "unpledged electors" on the wikibox simmilar to primaries as was my original plan, any objections? Randompandaeatcake (talk) 21:41, 26 April 2024 (UTC)

@Gelid Lagopus: @Orbitm8693:

Both of you should stop reverting before someone notices and you both get blocked. Orbit, while I think your boldness is commemorable, there does exist a debate on whether Byrd should be included in the infobox. Personally I believe he shouldn't be and as evidence I present " A total of 15 electors – eight from Mississippi, six from Alabama, and one from Oklahoma – all refused to vote for either Kennedy or Nixon, and instead cast their votes for Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia, a conservative Democrat, even though he had not been a candidate for president." All other candidates mentioned in any infobox, whether they won a state or not, were all candidates for president. Just because Byrd happened to receive electoral votes from unpleged electors does not make it infobox worthy. This is especially considering Byrd did not win any state (and no, Mississippi does not count.). Let's discuss. TheCartoonEditor_{(he/him/they)} (talk) (contribs) 01:46, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

The situation in Mississippi is completely different: Unpledged elector is not equal to Faithless elector. Byrd won there. Nppfarcenter (talk) 01:49, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

When the voters selected to have the unpledged electors instead of Kennedy, they were basically instructing the electors to vote however they wanted. It wasn't specifically for Byrd, that's just how it ended out. TheCartoonEditor_{(he/him/they)} (talk) (contribs) 01:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

In any case, neither Kennedy nor Nixon won Mississippi. I think this means they shouldn't be the only ones on Wikibox. Nppfarcenter (talk) 03:56, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

We should not have Byrd in the wiki box and instead have a thing saying “unpledged electors” on the wiki box, similar to how “uncommitted” apears on wikiboxs for primaries 159.196.168.88 (talk) 03:01, 13 April 2024 (UTC)

You guys need to stop being weird. Harry Byrd wasn't a candidate for president. He never waged a campaign. He won exactly zero states and zero popular votes. The only reason we're even having this discussion is because Harry Byrd happened to be the person the unpledged electors voted for. If you put him on the infobox, your average person is going to see it and think that Byrd was an actual candidate of some sort, like George Wallace or Strom Thurmond, and assume 1960 was a three-way race. We do not want to propagate false notions about this historical event because of lazy infobox design.

The way we do it now is fine. He is on the map, acknowledged as having won electoral votes, but is not listed as an actual candidate, because he wasn't. If you want to put anybody who won electoral votes on the infobox, then go ahead and put Faith Spotted Eagle on the 2016 infobox.

If you really wanted these southern segregationists to be represented on the wiki box, you could have "unpledged electors" listed alongside Kennedy and Nixon. But putting Byrd on the infobox is weird and potentially misleading. Born Isopod (talk) 01:03, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

I think at this point the "unpledged electors" idea seems to be the most agreed upon one by everyone. Should be stylized in the way others were on state wikiboxes. TheCartoonEditor_{(he/him/they)} (talk) (contribs) 16:29, 17 April 2024 (UTC)

The main reason that I feel that adding "unpledged electors" is the best course of action stems from this, it makes it very clear that Byrd was not a candidate in the race and that MI and AL voted for unpledged electors. The current status quo works fine, but allowing the wikibox to clear up this possible misconception is enough to make me support adding unpledged electors to it. JohnArizona1985 (talk) 23:58, 19 April 2024 (UTC)

About Georgia's Unpledged Electors

"In Georgia, the state legislature, although allowing for a separate group of unpledged electors according to state law, requested the people give a vote to determine whether Kennedy should have pledged electors on the ballot or whether his electors should be free to choose to act as unpledged electors. The voters overwhelmingly supported the "Pledge Free" Electors, which didn’t bind Democratic electors to act unpledged but instead gave them the choice to vote freely from their pledges, but after it became clear their 12 elector votes wouldn’t sway the results each elector ultimately voted for Kennedy. For this reason the popular vote for the pledge-free electors are commonly attributed to Kennedy. " Should these popular votes in Georgia be attributed to Kennedy? They seem to fall under the unpledged electors slate. For how this would affect the popular vote, attributing those popular votes to the national unpledged electors movement instead of Kennedy would give Nixon the National Popular vote victory of 49.55% (34,108,157 votes) to 49.05% (33,762,346).

Unpledged elector colour?

The infobox currently has the unpledged electors' color as orange, not matching the color on the map. Should we fix? Georger0171 (talk) 02:04, 1 May 2024 (UTC)

I support this, while I don't support having unpledged electors as a candidate it should at least be the same colour in the candidate area as on the map, especially considering all the votes went to the Democrat Harry Byrd instead of like in 1968 where the votes went to a third party V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 04:22, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I have made that edit V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 04:30, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

I don't support having unpledged electors (or candidates supported by faithless electors) in this infobox or in any other presidential infoboxes. These should be a footnote. This issue should have been raised at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections or similar venues as it relates to multiple articles. ITBF (talk) 12:46, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there actually a genuine consensus for the change to the infobox or are we dealing with a sock farm? Almost all of the contributors appear to have few edits outside of this article/topic, and the proposer User:Randompandaeatcake has been blocked as a sockpuppet. ITBF (talk) 12:52, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

There is no consensus on adding "Unpledged Electors" in the infobox. It's just two accounts agreeing and saying they have a "consensus." NewDealChief (talk) 15:11, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

My mistake, it seems to be just a single person unilaterally adding the "unpledged electors" in the infobox. Why? I have no idea other than a simple case of that account's personal consensus. NewDealChief (talk) 15:14, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

Apologies again, it actually is two accounts doing it and calling it a "consensus." NewDealChief (talk) 15:17, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

While I personally supported adding unpledged electors to the wikibox for clarity reasons, there has not been anything close to a consensus on the matter and the wikibox should probably be reverted to the original form for now so that more discussion can be had. JohnArizona1985 (talk) 20:44, 6 May 2024 (UTC)

While I disagree, since Byrd was not ever a candidate for election, there needs to be a wide consensus for this, yes. It can't be just two accounts saying they agree and unilaterally changing the infobox while claiming they have a "consensus." I do propose adding protections for this article like the 2020 one to avoid this, in what is probably gonna become, an edit war. NewDealChief (talk) 00:15, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

There was a short period of protection a month ago which recently expired before a solid consensus could be reached. I would be in full support of returning to protections so that the current edit war is stopped while discussion goes on. JohnArizona1985 (talk) 02:14, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

I also agree, reverting and protecting the article would be the best choice, so people can come to a solid consensus V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 04:59, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It appears that someone re-added "Unpledged Electors" shortly before the page was fully locked. Let me just say that, when this lock ends, the wikibox should have "Unpledged Electors" removed from it.

Neither Kennedy nor Nixon conceived of themselves as competing against "Unpledged Electors." No voter would have cast a vote for an Unpledged Elector but would have voted for individual Democratic electors, who subsequently voted Byrd, or a slate of "Independent Democratic" electors. The existence of "Unpledged Electors" owes itself to very particular political mechanisms of the South at this time, which had no impact on the outcome and are not represented in any other election wikibox between 1952 and 1964. QuoProQuid (talk) 12:58, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Completely my line of thinking, yes (also hi Quid). NewDealChief (talk) 13:53, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

The inclusion of 'Unpledged electors' to the infobox such a strange thing. It stems from the fact that some editors like to be really techincal about stuff that doesn't really matter and it doesn't translate well to the aesthetic of the page. 'Unpledged electors' doesn't have a picture, it doesn't have a running mate, it doesn't have a home state, because why would it, as it's NOT a person running for president. It justs clutters the infobox for no reason. And this is not the first time this has been discussed, check the archives for this article's Talk page and you see the issue being brought *years* ago (and not just once), and the decision has always been to revert the infobox back to just Kennedy and Nixon because frankly, it looks silly if you include something else. When the protection is lifted the changes should be reverted back to what they were before. yeah_93 (talk) 13:45, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

It doesn't matter if it "clutters the infobox." They won 2 statewide presidential races. If "Uncommitted" gets to be on every single presidential primary race, then there's no reason for unpledged electors (not referring to faithless electors) not to be included. Longestview (talk) 15:00, 7 May 2024 (UTC)

Primaries aren't the same as general elections. NewDealChief (talk) 08:39, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Your point being? Longestview (talk) 08:47, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

My point being that we shouldn't treat the general elections as the same as primary ones by adding "unpledged electors", which are just a form of faithless electors in all but name. NewDealChief (talk) 08:50, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Is there any reason we should treat the general elections different than the primary elections for the purposes of infobox inclusion? Ticking off the "Unpledged elector" box in Mississippi or Alabama is much the same as voting for "Uncommitted" in Minnesota's Democratic primary. Is it something to do with infobox aesthetics, does not including the unpledged electors that people specifically voted for ruin the look? Longestview (talk) 08:56, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

This is an example of an absentee Alabama ballot from the 1960 election. There is no distinction between Governor Frank M. Dixon, an unpledged elector, and C. G. Allen, a Kennedy elector, on the Democratic side of the ballot box. There is no 'unpledged elector' box to tick. GDSPathe (talk) 13:44, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Mistake - My point only stands for Mississippi, I'm not too sure why I threw Alabama in there too. Election returns from Mississippi clearly differentiate the two competing Democratic slates. Longestview (talk) 17:09, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Consensus Needed: Unpledged Electors in Infobox

A few weeks back, a bold edit was made to adjust the infobox from the standard for US elections to also include unpledged electors as their own candidate. While this would make the page unique among US elections, there have been legitimate arguments made for the change. However, the last few weeks have been dominated by edit warring, largely by SPA accounts claiming there was consensus for the change.

Because of the edit war, the page has now been locked pending consensus. As there is very clearly not yet a consensus, I am starting a new discussion here, separate from the SPAs and separate topics, to determine if there is one.

Note: User:Ymblanter -- as the mod who closed the page to stop the edit war, if there is no clear consensus that emerges, once unlocked could the page please be reverted to the previous stable version of the infobox, rather than the new version for which there is not yet a consensus? Yaksar (let's chat) 05:53, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Note: I've struck the !votes from a sockpuppet SPA account from the now-blocked user responsible for the edit war.--Yaksar (let's chat) 20:57, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

They're still commenting on the replies of those who voted "Remove." NewDealChief (talk) 22:56, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Eh, it is what it is, they'll presumably be blocked soon, and for now at the very least if they keep the edits to the talk page rather than edit warring it is less problematic (although of course not ideal for finding any actual consensus).--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

Yes, normally it should be reverted to the pre-war version. Please ping me if this would happen to be the case. (Anybody can revert the article, but it is probably better if I do it, to avoid further edit-warring). Ymblanter (talk) 05:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

Thanks, Ymblanter. It's now pretty clear that, with the lock on the page expiring in a few hours, there is not a consensus for the change. With most of the sock accounts responsible now banned, the discussion can hopefully continue here in a civil manner without an edit war on the page, but if you'd please be able to revert the addition and restore the consensus version in the interim once the lock expires. Thank you!--Yaksar (let's chat) 23:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

 Done Ymblanter (talk) 07:06, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep – Why are you trying to deny the difference here? I want to stress again, Kennedy did not win Mississippi, and Nixon did not win Mississippi. The Unpledged elector won the state. This is completely different from faithless elector. Nppfarcenter (talk) 03:09, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Remove I don't see any reason why unpledged electors should be treated like a candidate, if there's no consensus for the change it needs to be restored to what it's been for years, and it really does look like a sock farm when you look at the history. SportingFlyer T·C 07:34, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep – What a lot of people don't seem to understand is that these are not simply "faithless electors" - they are UNPLEDGED electors. It's closer to voting for "Uncommitted" in a primary, so comparing this to including John Hospers and "John Ewards" in the infobox is ludicrous. These were actual people on the ballot who you could vote for to protest the national Democratic Party. Longestview (talk) 07:57, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Remove – I vote that the Unpledged Electors part should not be included in the main infobox. Not only is Harry F. Byrd NOT an official candidate, he didn't even campaign for it in any way. The infobox should return to what it was before, which is only Kennedy and Nixon while a footnote is given for the Mississippi and Alabama votes being for Byrd as faithless electors. And yes, unpledged electors in this case are simply just faithless electors in all but name. NewDealChief (talk) 08:45, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Remove – Argument presented above. The infobox should be reverted back to what it had looked like for years (just Kennedy and Nixon) instead of making a change over a technicality that adds little and looks aesthetically silly. yeah_93 (talk) 09:43, 8 May 2024 (UTC)
• Remove – The infobox should be showing major *candidates* for President at a glance, it doesn't need to show all the complexities of the election at the cost of being unclear and ugly. The map that's *right below the candidates' faces* adequately treats the issue of unpledged electors in a prominent place. Chajusong (talk) 13:48, 8 May 2024 (UTC)

• Remove – How I understand the concept of unpledged electors is that they are basically given express permission to act as faithless electors, They are very clearly not a real candidate in any manner. As well as the note under the map already serving well and having it as an actual candidate possibly creating confusion from people unfamiliar with concepts like unpledged electors. V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 00:04, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Keep – Why are you trying to deny the difference here? I want to stress again, Kennedy did not win Mississippi, and Nixon did not win Mississippi. The Unpledged elector won the state. This is completely different from faithless elector. Nppfarcenter (talk) 03:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

My point was that the official instruction of the voters was to vote for whichever candidate, much like a faithless elector, which vote for whichever candidate they wish, just without the instructions of voters V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 04:03, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

This doesn't change any facts. They won a state. Nppfarcenter (talk) 04:24, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

• Keep - While they weren't a traditional third-party candidacy in the way that Wallace was in 1968, the unpledged electors of the 1960 election still represented a distinct political force that attained electoral votes in the election. While they officially had the permission to act as faithless electors, they mostly coalesced around Harry Byrd. They were by no means simply thrown in the stratosphere in terms of alleigance, but rather acted as their own bloc inside the electoral college - their behaviour was identical to Nixon or Kennedy electors, even if the legal procedure behind how they were to vote was different. Their behaviour also had the implicit approval for their actions due to nature of how voting works in the United States. The concern that this change would imply that 1960 was a three-way race is nullified by the minuscule size of the popular vote achieved by the Unpledged/Byrd candidacy. Furthermore, there are other infoboxes where third-party candidates are included even when their races didn't end up being three-way races - 1948 (Thurmond), 1980 (Anderson) and 1996 (Perot) spring to mind. Because they "nominated a candidate" in all but procedure for the vote in the electoral college and were a coherent force that just didn't have the infrastructure behind it that the mainstream Democrats and Republicans had, I would even argue that Byrd should be put in the infobox with the asterisk of "(via unpledged electors)". Collorizador (talk) 20:33, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Remove The standard format is both consistent with other US presidential election articles and more accurately portrays the general public and historic perspective on the election. The full context and information on the unpledged votes is better relayed through the stable version on the map, and of course in further detail in the article and intro itself. --Yaksar (let's chat) 21:07, 9 May 2024 (UTC)
• Remove on the basis of the WP:5% rule – the number of unpledged electors and number of votes received by them are both less than 5%. Number 57 21:10, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

  They won some EVs, otherwise Thurmond shouldn't be on the 1948 election wiki Nppfarcenter (talk) 22:38, 9 May 2024 (UTC)

My point remains that unpledged electors won a state. Mississippi. Therefore they should be displayed. Nppfarcenter (talk) 15:11, 10 May 2024 (UTC)

Voting for unpledged electors in this election was the exact same as voting uncommitted in primaries. Uncommitted delegates are included in the info boxes for the primaries, so equivalent electors should be included in general election info boxes. 2600:100C:B2F0:3819:85E2:4B42:C1E9:AEB3 (talk) 20:00, 8 June 2024 (UTC)

We've already formed a consensus in favour of removing the unpledged electors, there is no reason to comment V. L. Mastikosa (talk) 06:04, 9 June 2024 (UTC)

“There’s no reason to comment,” other than the fact that the so-called “consensus” is based upon objectively fallacious reasoning. 2600:1700:1040:4A9F:AD15:921D:B82:85EA (talk) 00:42, 7 August 2024 (UTC)

• Keep. We have "uncommitted" on primary wikiboxes and that's not a candidate. Why should this be any different?

New Wikibox portraits

Hey what do you think, I know with Kennedy there is an anachronistic portrait problem however we have examples from 1928, 1936, 1956, 1968, 1996, 2004, 2020 all using anachronistic portraits. So what do you think? Also yes the portraits need to be cropped a little more I'm just a bit lazy and sleep deprived rn. (Nixon portrait should be higher quality)

1960 United States presidential election

November 8, 1960
537 members of the Electoral College 269 electoral votes needed to win
Turnout	63.8% 3.6 pp
Nominee John F. Kennedy Richard Nixon Party Democratic Republican Home state Massachusetts California Running mate Lyndon B. Johnson Henry Cabot Lodge Jr. Electoral vote 303 219 States carried 22 26 Popular vote '34,220,984 34,108,157 Percentage 49.72% 49.55%

KlaudeMan (talk) 03:09, 7 September 2024 (UTC)

● Support: Kennedy's Portrait proposed Is closer to 1960 than the actual one, and Nixon's picture is spot on (1960). InterDoesWiki (talk) 15:45, 3 October 2024 (UTC)

● Support: I generally support the use of color portraits when there are color portraits of both candidates available, and when it would be chronologically consistent. Helloguyswhatisup (talk) 00:48, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

B&W Images. Nixon’s picture is proven to be colored using AI. This has been brought up every time this image is used for Nixon. And as I was always say, until a better colored image of Nixon is found, use the B&W ones HistorianL (talk) 01:05, 2 December 2024 (UTC)

Trump?

Paragraph two: "As such, this was also the most recent election in which the defeated presidential nominee would later win the presidency until 2020." 2024? 2600:1000:B107:1C3E:B1D3:3442:11F7:6F12 (talk) 05:49, 24 November 2024 (UTC)