This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

United States Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Politics Mid‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
Mid	This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

Change of Control

Untitled

It would be nice to have an asterisk next to the years when control of the chamber was lost. e.g. 'D-77' supposes a change, but one can't be certain with that information alone. BillMcGonigle (talk) 00:10, 19 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Capitals

You are invited to join the discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject U.S. Congress#Capitals. —GoldRingChip 13:11, 17 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Specific sizes of the caucuses before and after

The table under the section "Historical record of midterm elections" is easily narrow enough to hold some useful information in some more columns or in wider columns. I'm thinking of tabulating not just the change in the number of seats held by the president's party, but listing the specific before-and-after numbers of seats. My main thought is that that will help readers consider effects of regression to the mean---for example whether when the president's party has a large majority, they lose more seats than when they have a smaller majority. It is considerable work to make the changes to the whole table, so I'm going to revise a few lines in the table and then quickly revert, so that people can get an idea of the usefulness of the proposed change. Then we can discuss it, and I'll wait for a consensus or vote by interested parties before changing the whole table.CountMacula (talk) 00:44, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, I made the revision at 00:58 15 October 2018 https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=United_States_midterm_election&oldid=864086660 and then reverted it. Please take a look and discuss. Note that the preview is a prototype. The discussion should include details of formatting (e.g., whether the new info should appear in new columns or be appended to existing columns). Thanks.CountMacula (talk) 01:06, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Discrepancies in table

There are discrepancies between the "Historical record of midterm elections" table and the pages on which it is supposed to be based.

2006 House election. The indicated page does not list the number of seats before the election.
2002 Senate election. The table states a Republican gain of 2 seats. But the indicated page shows the count going from 49 to 50.
1994 Senate. The table shows a Dem loss of 8, but United States Senate elections, 1994 shows a loss of 9.
1978 Senate. Table shows Dem loss of 3, but United States Senate elections, 1978 shows a loss of 2.
1970 Senate. Table shows Rep gain of 1, but United States Senate elections, 1970 shows a gain of 2.
1962 Senate. Table shows Dem gain of 2, but United States Senate elections, 1962 shows a gain of 4.
1958 Senate. Table shows Dem loss of 13, but United States Senate elections, 1958 shows a loss of 12.

That is what I have found so far. I'm posting it now, as I am now going to examine the info for years 1910-1954. Can some people look into how to resolve this?CountMacula (talk) 20:25, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More:

1946 Senate. Table shows Dem loss of 11, but United States Senate elections, 1946 shows a loss of 10.
1930 Senate. Table shows a Dem loss of 8, but United States Senate elections, 1930 shows a loss of 6.
1926 Senate. Table shows Dem loss of 7 United States Senate elections, 1926 shows a loss of 6.
1918 Senate. Table shows Dem loss of 5 United States Senate elections, 1918 shows a loss of 4.
1914 House. Table shows Dem loss of 60, United States House of Representatives elections, 1914 shows loss of 61.
1914 Senate. Table shows Dem loss of 4, United States Senate elections, 1914 shows a loss of 3.
1910 House. Table shows Rep loss of 57, United States House of Representatives elections, 1910 shows loss of 56.
1910 Senate. Talbe shows Rep loss of 3, United States Senate elections, 1910 and 1911 shows loss of 9.

Okay, those are all the errors I found.CountMacula (talk) 21:12, 15 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Colouring in Historical record of midterm elections

The meaning of the colouring behind the house and senate seat changes (red/blue) is not clear. There should be an explanation added by someone who understands it --213.55.211.37 (talk) 05:53, 22 October 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Previously the color was of the party that gained seats. At 18:49, 25 October 2018,‎ AmYisroelChai changed it to the color of the party that was in control of the given chamber after the midterm. I think that it is confusing either way. Both of those questions are answered easily enough by looking at the numbers. I am inclined to say that the coloring of the gain/loss columns should be removed.CountMacula (talk) 02:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

there's no point showing the color of the party that gained seats as we can see that with the + & -. By looking at the numbers you can't always see which party controls congress because prior to 1949 there were less senate seats so even though the dems fall to 49 they still control the senate and in a year where it's even the party that holds the presidency controls the senate so i think it's relevant to keep the colors to the party that controls each chamber after the election עם ישראל חי (talk) 15:26, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

If there is any coloring of the gain/loss columns, it is of negative value unless there is an explanatory note.CountMacula (talk) 19:01, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

added note עם ישראל חי (talk) 20:10, 5 November 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Terminology

...on the Tuesday after the first Monday in November.

Why not just say 'first Tuesday in November'? Valetude (talk) 10:00, 17 July 2022 (UTC)[reply]

cause there might be a november starting on a tuesday, then there would be a difference betreen tuesday the 1st and tuesday the 8th, which is the tuesday after the first monday (monday the 7th) 212.43.91.246 (talk) 09:37, 7 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

House popular vote

The house popular vote for 3% for the recent midterm isn't correct because it includes uncontested seats. And I'm not sure this column should be here at all. It was recently added. Andre🚐 21:34, 28 November 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Color code

Kennedy and Johnson color code.. shoudln't it be red since they lost seats? Andre🚐 03:09, 7 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Include independents?

Was there a past discussion that determined independents should not be included? Andre🚐 01:52, 8 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]