Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries

Keeping the secondary "Honestly, a Good Table" List in TALK

The List gives: Date, State, Type, Delegate count (things you all want) .!. Let's not archive it. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

It is a little unclear what you are proposing. Should this table replace the schedule table or should it be added so they are both in the article or???? (This is not a sandbox or a subarticle or list to the main article. This is a talkpage where improvements of the article is dicussed.) Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

No, I vote to leave it here till 2013 so readers and editors can see it here in TALK. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

What's the purpose of having it on the talk page? If it's going to be anywhere, shouldn't it be in article space somewhere? Plus, it's going to difficult to keep it from being archived considering the page is auto-archived after a certain amount of time (every 7 days currently).--NextUSprez (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia readers (and editors) read the TALK pages when they are intently interested. The LIST does not warrant a separate article, and the main ARTICLE here is rather long already. As supporting editors know (plus the 160 editors who are 'watching') we had discussions about including this LIST or the current TABLE in the article. They both have advantages. Since the section above has no date, I'm thinking it will not be archived. At my earliest convenience I'll read WP information, but often the instructions are long and involved. I can always put the LIST back, you will be pleased to know. :-) . . . Thanks for asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

I actually read the guidelines for talkpages just now, and it does give room for putting a section like this in a talkpage. I dont really think it have any purpose, so I agre with Next. But that is not a matter of opinion. It is ok acording to guidelines. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

If it's okay by the guidelines, I guess there's no harm in keeping it here. Just seemed like an odd place for it, that's all. Whatever is decided by consensus is fine by me.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to a future consencus. I think it should go. Just my opinion Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for comments and teaching me — I learn something every day. Another idea from WP guidelines, "Be Bold .!." —— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC) —— PS: I can't think of anywhere else to put this LIST, can you?

There is no reason to have that list. Its just clutter on the page. Thought it was more of 68's antics and removed it.--Metallurgist (talk) 09:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

One thing that the List had (previously here on TALK) was correctly listing Northern Mariana Islands voting after Utah. It is missing in the Article table. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

What is your source for that information? The Green Papers list them as it is in the article table. Before I changed it I looked around the web and I couldnt find any other date than March 10. Not that it was easy to find anything about about that caucus at all. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not remembering a more authoritative source than Green Papers (which says 'March 10th') but here is one: [1] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I search their “Marianas Variety” newspaper in vain to find news on voting: [2] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

In their Island paper today (Super Tuesday) there is just one article, 'why Obama should be reelected'. Comments by the readers all agree. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Another newspaper with nothing after March 10th, and you should really take a look at the Main Page of the newspaper: http://www.saipantribune.com/default.aspx with a photo and caption: "Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's son, Matt, and wife Laurie, pose with traditional warrior dance group members at a luncheon hosted yesterday by Gov. Benigno R. Fitial at his private residence in Gualo Rai on the eve of today's Republican caucus in the CNMI. (Haidee V. Eugenio)" That's great; truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC) PS: The five provinces are mentioned.

And I'm just realizing that with DC, there are 56 states, DC, and provinces voting. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Map colors

For the map, let's match the colors of the candidates' ties: Romney - blue, Gingrich - yellow, Santorum - red. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What about Paul? His tie is a similar color to Santorum's.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

dont forget the colourblind issue Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul hasn't won anything yet.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the colorblind issue, if you are going to change the map please use one that is not obnoxiously bright with annoying colors. I don't know who created that map but if that is the one that will be used someone needs to tone down the colors, especially the green. I would update it but it's a .png so someone else will have to. The red and blue are too bright also and need changed but the green that was used is really irritating. Rxguy (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the fluorescent green. I just noticed there is a lot of discussion on the colors on this page. I think the current shade of purple (as of February 22nd) should be changed, as it is really bright and annoying, and hard to see/blinding. I personally this this map is perfect: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/c/c8/20120220051919!Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results%2C_2012.svg Stopde (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

oh shut up about the colorblind thing, we know that in reality everyone can read the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.167.8 (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want colorblind-friendly maps, I suggest you change all the maps to have the same color scheme for consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEL123 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

8% of the population is color blind in some form. Someone asked for it and the maps are supposed to be color blind friendly, but the mapmakers didnt think of that when they were originally made. Now they are presumably compliant. The color scheme is fine as it is. Metallurgist (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The colors that were pointed-out as inaccessible in the above comment: "Chart not colorblind friendly. Please change colors." were still in use. The differences can be seen in these links to the Wikimedia Commons: Here is the map before and here is the map after I changed the colors, hopefully, to be more accessible.

To see how difficult the previous colors were, save the old map as a raster image and upload it to http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckImage.php , or one of the other color-deficiency simulators on the web. Infoporfin (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nifty. The colors on the statewide polling map seem to have already been compliant.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the colors! It's amazing to be able to catch all the information so quickly. I am really not qualified to change the colors myself because I can't use the color-coding programs. I'm sure I'd miscode all the data since I can't see it in the first place. So I have to rely on charity.

Here is my problem with the primary schedule map: February is the same color as May. April is the same color as march. I recommend using the following colors: Red, blue, gray, orange, yellow, black. The colors need to be at maximal saturation. Red and black need to be different in brightess. The gray needs to be not at all blue. The orange needs to be different from the yellow in brightness. NO GREEN. NO BROWN. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.97.200 (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If forgot: NO PURPLE. NO PINK. I can't see any difference at all between blue and purple. And using pastel colors is just cruel because the colorblind have lower detection thresholds for saturation. Also, another way to code maps is with patterns. I'd love to see more pattern-coded maps. The colorblind actually have superior pattern-detection systems as a direct result of being colorblind. FYI. I'm so grateful. I study this stuff so I often provide too much data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.97.200 (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What people need to understand about the colorblind is that they have very good color vision. The colorblind are capable of reading highly color-coded maps. However, the colorblind are at a major disadvantage in almost every scientific field because no effort is made to code diagrams in a way that they can access the information. There are no colorblind friendly text books. There are no colorblind friendly electoral maps in the world. Software for the colorblind is inadequate. The only way that the colorblind can access this information is to ask for detailed descriptions of the patterns from normals.

It would be great to be able to see this information and be able to comment on it and have an opinion. If the colors of the maps are not changed,I cannot access the information. If the maps are changed then 99.99% of the general population can access all the information. If the maps are not changed, 92% of men can access the information and 96% of the general population can access the information. If you think the 8% of men who are colorblind might have something to say about the data, then you will agree that changing the colors is acceptable even if they don't suit your aesthetic principles. I think it's morally wrong to oppose accessible maps for the sake of some aesthetic norms. What is your argument that the colorblind don't have a right to this information? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.97.200 (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The info on Texas is wrong on the schedule map anyway. I am still learning my way around maps, so not really capable to make the changes, but if someone can remember to get Texas right. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What's with the colors changing?

The original color scheme of purple, green, yellow, orange was fine. What is going on? S51438 (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The maps were made to be color-blind friendly.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree S5. The map WAS much better than it was. The shade of purple that is up for South Carolina (as of February 25) is actually blinding to me, and difficult for me to look at. I guess the editors prefer to blind the normal people at large to benefit the extreme minority. I would bet that this tacky shade of purple will end up being changed sometime down the road. This is the best map of colors I have seen thus far, and I have no issue with this map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/c/c8/20120220051919!Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results%2C_2012.svg Stopde (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the sections above about this? While it's mildly ugly, it's necessary for color-blind users. I've had other users complain about other maps I've created for the same reason, so the problem is more common than you might think. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually you can say that you have CONTRIBUTED to the problem, because the extra bright purple is blinding and hard to see, and thus distracts from actually looking at the map. Maybe you should read other discussions above that said the colors were fine as they were. You can take credit for CREATING a color-blindING map. You would be wise to check this map out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries_results,_2008.svg and this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1996RepublicanPresidentialPrimaries.svg as none of them are blinding. Stopde (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

First off, I'm not the one that changed the colors. Second off, if you have a recommendation on how the colors should look, then recommend some new colors above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, I already did recommend the colors, I provided two links above where the colors were fine. TRY READING instead of being arrogant with keeping your Nazi colorblinding scheme and unprofessional photoshopping. You should visit an eye doctor. I did in February, and my eyes are fine. Why you are keeping blinding colors shows you have eye issues. Stopde (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

How on Earth is that somewhat deep purple blinding? Are your optical rods reversed or something?--Metallurgist (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe what you should be asked (since you obviously are ignorant and did not read all of what I typed above) that the maps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries_results,_2008.svg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1996RepublicanPresidentialPrimaries.svg are role models for maps, because you are showing that YOU obviously are blinded by these two maps, if you consider them unworthy of being replicated in colors. Go see an eye-doctor. I saw one in February, and my vision is fine. Obviously, you have eye health issues. Stopde (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not me. It is other users who asked for color blind friendly maps (theres the link in case you do not know such a condition exists). The first map you linked looks all the same to color blind people. The second map is probably fine, but wasnt used because the mapmakers didnt know about it.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Projected delegate count in result section

A consensus about using only secured delegates in the infobox with the source DemConWatch have been reached some time ago.
But what about the result section? Should we have a projected delegate count row together with the secured delegates? And if we should what source should be used?. It seems that NBC, CNN and AP have very different ideas about what will the already elected state delegates will do at the state conventions in the future. For now I have put in a projected delegate count line in the resulttable using the DemConWatch's projected count. But I dont know where they get it from. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

DemConWatch gets its numbers from GreenPapers. GreenPapers uses a straight statewide proportional projection, which is as good or as bad as any other right now. Simon12 (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can/should do a projected count in the infobox, much as I would like to do so, because they vary so widely. Discuss in the article, sure, but I don't see a place for them in the infobox. Sorry I've been gone, I'll be back in a few days --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree, and I think we have talked about it some time ago and it was rejected. My question is solely about the result section Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would vote for not including the projected numbers in this article. I think the Results page, which is able to show multiple projections, seems to be a good place for this information. Simon12 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say include projected and secured. As the source for projected, go with GP or CNN. Anything else is a bunch of BS.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the source. So now it is DemConWatch for the Secured delegate count, Green Papers for the Projected delegate count and RealClearPolitic for the Populare vote. All in the result table. But that is just for now. I dont think we have reached concensus yet in the matter: Should we have a Projected delegate count row in the Result Table. It is one for (Metallurgist) and one against (Simon12) right now. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. What the hell happened to this page! I thought the big edit war of afew weeks ago had ended. Why does the chart of states NOT mention which candidates won how many delegates? Why why why? This page used to be highly valuable and helpful to me. Please please, I don't want to have to visit 16 different individual state primary pages to get a quick overview of how the candidates are stacking up regarding the types and percentages of wins. This was my go-to page, and I can't believe it has been ruined again. signed, Richard, the political worker. 50.47.246.194 (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look a little down to the result table you will at a glance see how the different candidates won what state. You want even more info at a glance go to the sub article (the result page) and you will get more info than you need. The schedule table now show - at a maybe little longer glanse - the just as important difference betwin state and districts delegate as they are bound. So now you can in this table where the votes are important. What political work do you really do ????? Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

INACCURATE

This page is inaccurate. Its not updated to reflect current vote and delegate totals.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_vote_count.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.224.141 (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

For the populare vote, feel free to update it, the source you state is the consensus source for this articles populare vote count. So please be a good citizen and do the update.

For the Source on Delegate Count source you cites, notice that it is a projected (guessed, estimated) count. Do not update the infobox with this, use http://www.democraticconventionwatch.com/diary/4726/republican-superdelegate-endorsement-list that is the consensus source on secured delegates.

If you would like another source for projected counts please see and participate in the discussion above. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Time for a new high quality sub article ?

By now it is pretty sure that there will not be a presumptive nominee next wednesday. The race will go on, and so will the lenght of this article.....
Right now the 2011 section is very large, also to large for an article about the whole primary from start to convention, if we should be looking into th future for a second. But it would be sad if this good section simply would slowly be shorter and shorter, loosing good information. So I propose:

• Lets make a new sub article about the Preface to the Republican presidential primaies, 2012 (please comment on my made up title too). It should be done simply by migrating the 2011 section to the new article and copi or migrate the Prospective candidates and the Declined to run from the Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012 article. These section have a ton of valuable information (in the links) and nice galleries. Together with the 2011 section it could be rewritten to make a high quality article about the beginning of the race. From the first desires of Romney at the election night 2012 to the Iowas and New Hampshire caucus where the hopefull prospects dropped out, leaving the real race to the four last man standing.

If this suggestion carries I can figure out to write a small resume of the current 2011 section to keep in this article. But I didnt really follow the debate and race in 2011, so the new perfect article is left to someone else. I would be happy to start it though. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The 2008 article is half as large. We can definitely cut out stuff into other articles. Try to use the 2008 article as a guide.--Metallurgist (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No further reason to rank Paul ahead of Santorum

Rick Santorum has now secured more bound delegates than Ron Paul, has won more states, and by far exceeds Paul's tally in the popular vote. The order in the resultbox should be updated accordingly, however I'm not sure how to correct it. 29 February 2012 9:28 PM MST

Patience--Metallurgist (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And Ron Paul ends up ahead of Rick Santorum in Washington state caucuses. Let's watch Super Tues. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk)

^Those aren't bound delegates. 4 March 2012 5:25PM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.52.235 (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A lot of things are not bound, dedicated, and tied down; not just Washington state. But, it indicates a direction. Even after Super Tuesday, it is just an indication. Some states (delegates) may not make their final decision until they are at hotels at the convention in Tampa FL in August. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Update delegates

For instance, Santorum has more delegates than that. http://news.yahoo.com/limbaugh-comments-overshadow-gop-contest-220205487.html This article isn't about it, but it cites that Romney now has 203 delegates, Santorum has 92, Gingrich has 33, and Paul has 25. The article section needs updating badly. J390 (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Try to read the whole article or maybe just the notes in the infobox. Projecting delegates are a psedoscience. That is why the numbers in the infobox is actually secured delegates. As the article explains several times. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The projected delegates are from the green papers. It is simply a crude projecting of the first step votes (precint caucuses) congressional district by congressional district. Not very accurate, but at least it doesnt make any futuretelling with a political bias toward any of the candidates. If any of the state conventions will be brokered when dont know, but they properly will. Such number just dont have any place in a encyclopidic article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We need to go with delegates that have already been secured by candidates. Not predictions, but facts. Delegates who have been won by candidates. J390 (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And that is what we are already doing Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Come on. Romney 136 delegates? Santorum only 19 delegates? He won 6 states! Gingrich 32 delegates? Paul 9 delegates? Every source I've seen has everybody with more delegates than that. The list needs updating and it needs updating badly. Think, someone wins a county, gets a delegate. Far more delegates have been sworn to someone at this stage than that. J390 (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The one county one delegate state you referer to must be Idaho. Only the vote there is county by county. If anyone gets more than 50& of all state vote (witch the voting rules tend to favor) all the states delegates go to the state winner. And that is what was happpened - All delegates to Romney. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear J390: I'm not sure where you are looking; I do a search in the Article for 'delegate' and find two (under the pictures at the top). You will be happy to know the delegate count is current with : Romney(404); Santorum(167); Gingrich(106); Paul(66). And the update was put in when our sources put the numbers up. Here is a cut/paste from just under the pictures of the Article (on our methodology) >> "Convention delegate projections vary among sources. The counts here include only bound delegates and superdelegates who have committed to a candidate.[2] For various media delegate projections, see Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries." Hope This Helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a encylopedia, not a news article or news media. So it sometimes takes a few hours before the actually information gets ready from the sources, not simply the news medias correct and logical projections but actually hard facts. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have just updated the delegatecount according to the consensus source. This page dont use CNN's projections because they are not facts but simple guesses of what will happen in the early states upcoming conventions. For the projected count we use The Green Papers soft count because it is a simple projection of the numbers at the entry level caucuses to the convention without guessing what might happen (if a state convention will be brokered or who will corner what congressional district). It gives a more crude projection but it is not as much guessing involved. The secured delegate count source is DemConWatch because it is very conservative, doublechecking the counts before posting them, that means it take a little longer. These sources have been discussed weeks ago, and if anyone want to reopen the debate then do it at this talkpage, dont just change the numbers or sources. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Making the article supertuesday ready

This article was beginning to be a bit messy. And with supertuesday coming up and not much change of the race ending there I thought it may be time to implement some changes discussed before on this page and generally shorten the article, migrating information to the subarticles. So I have:

• Most of the start have gone down to the section the start of the race and in the beginning of the section the early states
• I have removed all other candidates than the four remaining from the result section. These informations are best kept in the result article and the candidate article.
• The long 2011 section have migrated into a seperate article: Preface to the Republican presidential primaries, 2012. This new article really needs some attention, so if you have any time and knowledge please have a look at it!
• The early states many subsections have been rewritten into one section. The info that are gone all is in the articles about the individuel state contests.
• The future event section was starting to simply be a second schedule table, so I replaced it with a more easygoing Next contest section.

I have tried to cut out double information throughout the article, mostly in the process and schedule section. I have not checked the references, if they can still be retrived. But almost half of the references have migrated with the 2011 section.

Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

NICE WORK!!! You are the MAN!--Metallurgist (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Maps and their colors

Since it is supertuesday and the maps will change a lot this will be a good time to make some good changes to the county map. So to all the mapguys out there:

• Could we make the county map colorblind friendly? (it would be good to use the same colors already used in the state map in the infobox)
• Could we included the Northern Marianna Islands in the territories?
• Wouldnt it be a good time to loose the Missouri nonbinding primary? No one is really going to care about it after the Missouri cacuses anyway.
• And if anyone has time: Could we update and make the schedule map colorblind friendly?

Here is some tips from a colorblind person, posted earlier about the schedule map: "Here is my problem with the primary schedule map: February is the same color as May. April is the same color as march. I recommend using the following colors: Red, blue, gray, orange, yellow, black. The colors need to be at maximal saturation. Red and black need to be different in brightess. The gray needs to be not at all blue. The orange needs to be different from the yellow in brightness. NO GREEN. NO BROWN. NO PURPLE. NO PINK. I can't see any difference at all between blue and purple. And using pastel colors is just cruel because the colorblind have lower detection thresholds for saturation. Also, another way to code maps is with patterns. I'd love to see more pattern-coded maps. The colorblind actually have superior pattern-detection systems as a direct result of being colorblind." Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

What is it with catering to the color-blind? We cant accommodate every single persons needs. Most of us have no problems with the map and are used to the colors already. Don't change it to hideous colors, the state map is already color-blind friendly.TL565 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I qoute a comment from the discussion above:

"If the maps are changed then 99.99% of the general population can access all the information. If the maps are not changed, 92% of men can access the information and 96% of the general population can access the information. If you think the 8% of men who are colorblind might have something to say about the data, then you will agree that changing the colors is acceptable even if they don't suit your aesthetic principles. I think it's morally wrong to oppose accessible maps for the sake of some aesthetic norms. What is your argument that the colorblind don't have a right to this information?"

I would think that 8% is more than every single person even though I am not one of them. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't see any overwhelming argument from people that the colors must be changed. The state map was already changed. You cant expect everyone to just jump because of one or two people here. You say 8%, but how many of that 8% check here everyday. The colors have been in place for months, more people will complain about the colors suddenly changing. Just leave them alone.TL565 (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree the colors you chose clash and are awful on the eyes is there another color scheme you can come up with or revert the edit? There is clearly no consensus here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Why not, then, impose letters on the map to show who won each state? R for Romney, G for Gingrich, S for Santorum, & P for Paul. That way, the colorblind can tell at a glance while rest of us can have our all-important color aesthetic. I don't know about the competition month map, but at least the winners & losers can be fit within 5 different levels of saturation (the fifth for future contests). --67.248.246.4 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

To avoid having the same words said twice the chat can be found here: File talk:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2012 (corrected).png - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Idaho

Idaho is listed by Jack Bornholm as "winner-take-all", he says for simplicity sake. The more accurate representation should be "Proportional^d", since we have a "d" superscript footnote for just such a case where it's only winner-take-all if the winner gets over 50% of the vote. Just because Romney did in fact get 61% of the vote does not mean that we should call Idaho strictly "winner-take-all", since it isn't. BGManofID (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I will just write what I have already put on my personal talkpage responding to the same thing. I welcome discussions on the schedule table as we have had many of them, but if the consencus are against my edits then remember to restore not only Idaho but also the other extra informations. my comment:

True, but the schedule was very very inacurate from the very start. It is a way to show an extremly complex system in one table. It didnt show either that Idaho elects one candidate during several ballots in each county caucus in a winner-take-all alike scenario. This happens county by county and that is the reason Romney got astonishing 61.6% And that is just to stay in Idaho, many states have there little rules and different ways like that. The schedule is to give the large picture, and in the large picture Idaho is a winner-take-all state now. All this very interesting informations are better written in the individuel articles, where there is room to show the very specific rules for the state. I hope you will take the time to improve the Idaho Republican caucuses, 2012 article. Many informations can be found in The Green Papers. I have moved many convention dates down to the early state and removed them from this table. And I have removed notes from other states where proportional have changed to Winner-take-all or where it havent been any change as in Tennesse. I think this table should be as simple as possible because it is very complex already. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I live in Idaho, and that is not exactly what happened. In the heavily-Mormon southeastern portion of the state, all the counties voted for Romney by a landslide (usually in the 80-90% range) on the first ballot, and reported their results first. That is why Romney got 61% of the overall vote. And because of this, the state was called early for Romney. But Idaho is NOT winner-take-all. It only appears that way to some people because of the Mormon bloc voting solidly for Romney. Again, Idaho should be Proportional^d. BGManofID (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

From Idaho_Republican_caucuses,_2012: “First, the delegates are primarily awarded winner-take-all by county after a series of votes in which candidates are successively removed from the ballot. Then, if a candidate receives half or more of the county delegates, he will receive all the 32 delegates; if not, the delegates will be split proportionately according to the number of county delegates.” Catholics voted for Romney also, and Romney took 31 county caucuses, Santorum 7, and Ron Paul 6. So Mitt Romney receives “all 32 Delegates” to convention. Do I read correctly? Hope this helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The Green Papers have listed Romney as winning all 32 Delegates, with the final Idaho State Convention to be held on Thursday 21 June - Saturday 23 June 2012. I guess they could change their minds then, or at the Republican Convention in Tampa FL in August. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No Idahos delegates are bound to the results of tuesdays caucuses. So all 32 candidates are bound to Romney Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Green Papers: "Note: Due to Article VI, Section 5 of the Rules of the Idaho Republican Party pertaining to Apportionment and Selection of Delegates to the Republican National Convention, once certified, Mitt Romney will receive all of Idaho’s 32 delegates." They are not going to change. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

How many total delegates are there?

The article lists how the totals are calculated per state, but doesn't say how many total there are, or why (per the news) 1144 is the magic number to win...Hires an editor (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read the second sentence of the article Simon12 (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

To me, the Green Papers seem the most authoritative, descriptive, detailed, and up-to-date (quickly). I've added an External Link after searching for the best latest results on Kansas. [3] lists chronological events. It's good, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC) PS: They get CNN updates.

California

In the table it says Winner Takes All for California. I've read that each congressional district (of 53) has 3 delegates. Within each CD it's winner take all, but not statewide. Source: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/CA-R Quote:

159 district delegates are to be bound to presidential contenders based on the primary results in each of the 53 congressional districts: each congressional district is assigned 3 National Convention delegates and the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in that district will receive all 3 of that district's National Convention delegates.

10 at-large delegates (10 base at-large delegates plus 0 bonus delegate) are to be bound to the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary statewide.

In addition, 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the California's Republican Party, will attend the convention as unpledged delegates by virtue of their position.

The selection of Presidential Nominating Convention Delegates to the Republican National Convention ... shall be chosen by the Presidential candidate who obtained the plurality of Republican votes within each Congressional district, and, for ... at large ... by the Presidential candidate who obtained the plurality of Republican votes statewide. [Standing Rules and Bylaws of the California Republican Party As Amended 20 March 2011 Article VI Section 6.01 (A)]

Hordaland (talk) 07:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

When both CD and AL is the same, as it is in California (winner-take-all) it is only written once. The information you have listed can easy be read out of the table in the AL and CD collums. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

When both the CD and AL are the same, it should be written twice. It costs the table nothing, and is clearer for the reader. When there is no CD allocation, the table should say so: "Winner-take-all (AL) - no CD allocation." There is a bit of redundancy in this, but with the benefit of far greater clarity for the reader. Jd2718 (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

If it is done consistent and in a neat way I dont see a problem with that. Why dont you work with the table in your sandbox to see if that is possible. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made a new section for this question, since it is not just about California but all the contests. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Guam

Mitt Romney is announced to have won Guam unanimously http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/09/romney-wins-gop-caucus-in-us-territory-guam/ , but I'm not experienced enough to edit the maps or tables to reflect this. Also, Alaska's county divisions are missing from the map. 109.10.56.71 (talk) 11:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Voting is not until Saturday, but the citizens in the five provinces are impressed with the campaigning of the Romney family. For example: You should really take a look at the Main Page of the newspaper: http://www.saipantribune.com/default.aspx with a photo and caption: "Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's son, Matt, and wife Laurie, pose with traditional warrior dance group members at a luncheon hosted yesterday by Gov. Benigno R. Fitial at his private residence in Gualo Rai on the eve of today's Republican caucus in the CNMI. (Haidee V. Eugenio)" That's great; truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

They're on the other side of the date line, so Saturday is already nearly over, isn't it? --Coemgenus (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The box says that Romney has won 16 states. I think you're counting Guam and the Northern Marinas, which are territories and not states. I'm not sure how to edit this, but can someone change it? 69.141.198.81 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe change it from "states" to "contests?" But then that brings in the dubious Missouri primary. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

I have changed it in the fashion of the 2008 article. The territories are mentioned only in the winners row, but at the bottom and it is not counted in the states won number. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Jack of Bornholm, you are the best! . . . Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

North Dakota

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there will never be county-by-county results of the ND Republican Caucus because North Dakota is the only state in the union that does not require Voter Registration. This information is provided by http://www.nd.gov/sos/electvote/voting/vote-history.html and from Wikipedia's own Voter Registration article. I would suggest that the map be updated with the county lines removed and the state colored in for the only result we're sure of. Then perhaps a small little footnote below explaining why. (I do not know how to update the map)

Otherwise we're left at the end of this primary with a colorful map and North Dakota looking like a scene from Pleasantville. SargeAbernathy (talk) 19:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

What have voter registration to do with counting how many hands was raised or how many ballot casted in every caucus across the state? Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, my bad. I relied on a couple news articles to find out why Fox, CNN, and other networks weren't reporting county-by-county results. They were saying something about there being no voter registration. Looking further into the situation I'm finding that the North Dakota Republican Party releases results based on Legislative Districts, not Counties. http://www.northdakotagop.org/caucus/ is the results. Again, my bad for not looking at more official resources. All well, all that's hurt is my pride. SargeAbernathy (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Green Papers are great [4] with Republicans in the right column. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Based on that map from NDGOP, it looks like Santorum won every county except Rollette, which was a Romney-Paul tie.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Who won Virgin Islands?

It seems to be a bit different opinion on who won the territory of Virgin Island. CNN, that normally jumps to the results to be first, are still processing. GP have uncommitted as winner with Paul second and Romney third, the same have DemConWatch (http://www.democraticconventionwatch.com/diary/5207/romney-did-not-win-usvi-ron-paul-did-romney-was-3rd). The New York Times have Romney as the winner, an he is if you count the votes his delegates recieved (one uncommitted switch to Romney). All 3 sources agrees in one thing: Paul didn't win the Virgin Islands - Sorry all Paul fans, nothing personal. But until there is more light on the situation and either the sources agree or we have a consesensus about what to do I am removing Virgin Islands from the winner colums. It is not very important since the delegatecount is hard and all agrees on that. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Just in from AP (via a google-search) "The Republican Party chairman in the U.S. Virgin Islands says Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney has won the territory’s GOP caucus. Chairman Herb Schoenbohm says Romney can count on seven delegates from the Virgin Islands. He already had three superdelegates before Saturday’s caucuses and he picked up three more in voting in St. Thomas and St. Croix. After the vote, an uncommitted delegate switched to Romney. Ron Paul got one delegate, and one delegate remains uncommitted. Residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands can participate in primaries but like residents of nearby Puerto Rico cannot vote in the general election." [5] Indeed, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, no one is arguing that this is the delegatecount and Romney won most delegates. But as all the other contests the one with the most popular vote "win" the state, not the one that actually wins most delegates. Like Iowa was a split, but the one with the most popular vote, even just a handfull, is declared the winner of the state. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Except in those other states, there actually was a vote where hte caucus voters chose a president. This is not how the Virgin Islands do it. NO ONE voted for Ron Paul in the Virgin Islands. He had zero votes, just like Romney.

Warren Bruce Cole pledged to Romney after the vote totals so people did not vote his as Romney delegate. Paul recieved most votes, Romney won most delegates. Santorum also won most popular votes in Iowa despite he could have same amount of delegates as Romney and Paul. --Dezidor (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually uncommitted (in general elections known as nobody or none of above) won the contest. That is part of the problem. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Actually, Mr. Bornholm, "Uncommitted" or "nobody" cannot win a contest; It would go to the first candidate who won, by popular vote, and that is Paul. This is America--You can't press "None Of The Above" in the polling booth on General Election day. Are you afraid of Ron Paul be given the credit for a win? I'm reversing your edit. Donatrip (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This is false. In many primary elections, especially in caucuses, Uncommitted is an absolutely valid choice. Wyoming selected an Uncommitted delegate this week, and so did the Virgin Islands. Simon12 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh no, being an european I really dont care who will win this primary or the whole election. It will have no impact on my life what so ever if Obama, Romney, Santorum or indeed Paul was president of USA. In the spirit of the wikipedia you shouldnt edit something you are to close to emotionel, and I couldnt be farther away. In accordance with the norm of both general presidentiel election article and republican primary elections the territories dont count in states won though, nothing to do with Paul or not. The only article that put them in the infobox is the 2008 version, the rest leave all 5 out of the infobox. All articles put them at the bottom of the won list in the result table, but dont count them in the number and leave them totally out in the infobox. So whatever Paul have won or not, I think we should follow the wikepedia tradition, with both Paul and Romneys territorial winnings. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Sorry Jack, having trouble deciphering your English but I get the gist of what you're saying. I think the mere fact that the party chairman has declared Romney the winner should be the deciding factor in crediting this win. It should go back in the Romney column. I am a Ron Paul supporter, but that's the way I see it. Caucuses are not the same as primaries: vote totals don't matter so much as the decision of the party organization, and in this case it is in Romney's favor. -- SchutteGod 70.181.184.7 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I will try to accept my limited vocabulary and grammatical skills and choice my words more simple :) :)

For all Territories: Notice this article: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008#Candidates John McCain 31 states won, territories dont count. Mike Huckabee 15 second places, terrioties dont count.

For all Territories: Notice the infobox in this article: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2000 together with most of the Republican primary articles. The Territories are not in the infobox at all.

For Virgin Islands: Notice these reliable sources [[6]] and [[7]] disagreeing.

For Virgin Islands: Delegates are legally bound if they declare themselve for a candidate, are we sure that is just the case before the voting starts?

I hope you understand my broken english. I am starting to understand why we sold you the islands for only 25 million dollars 96 years ago :) :) Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Very well, risking the ire of Paul supporters, I've placed VI back in the Romney column temporarily until the issue over who actually "won" can be resolved here. And Jack: your English is eminently better than my Danish, so don't sweat it. :p --SchutteGod (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Add Virgin Isands to Ron Paul first place victories in the table on the page. 99.233.134.148 (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul didn't win anythiung. Unlike other caucuses, there was no candidate preference straw poll. It is an inacurate statement to say that ANYONE won the "popular vote" when not one single vote was cast for Ron Paul or Mitt Romey. The only reason why Ron Paul's delegates got more votes is because he had 6 and Romney had 3. Obviously many of Romney's supporters (who voted his 3 delegates as the top 3) picked three uncommitted delegates as their top choice. Had Romney had even one more delegate, he would have had delegates with more combined votes. However, that would still not be a"popular vote" victory, since again, at no point did any voter at that caucus write down Ron Paul or Mitt Romney, or put a check next to either of their names. Wikipeia is about accuracy, and talkig about a popular vote that nevr took place is not accurate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.102.7 (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

That is a good point. With no strawpoll taken at the same caucus as the "real" voting (like the do it in Iowa) the only way to define a winner is by delegatecount - If a winner should be defined at all Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

This qoute may be of interest (from the Virgin Islands Republican party (vigop.com)):

• PLEASE NOTE IN THE VI OUR RULES PROVIDE FOR THE ELECTION OF DELEGATES IN A PARTY CAUCUS. EVERY ONE WHO VOTES CAN CHOOSE DELEGATES (UP TO SIX) WHO MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE PLEDGED TO THE SAME PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. SINCE GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY HAD ONLY THREE CONVENTION DELEGATES RUNNING UNDER HIS NAME THAT GAVE VOTERS A CHOICE TO VOTE FOR OTHER COMMITTED OR NON-COMMITTED CANDIDATES. IT APPEARS THAT OUT OF RESPECT FOR CONGRESSMAN PAUL’S CAMPAIGN THERE WERE EXTRA VOTES TO GIVE TO OTHER CANDIDATES OR NON-COMMITTED CANDIDATES. ALTHOUGH DR. PAUL RECEIVED ONLY ONE DELEGATE, HIS TEAM RECEIVED UP TO THREE ALTERNATE DELEGATE SLOTS AND WILL BE WELL REPRESENTED IN OUR SMALL DELEGATION.

Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that also part "Percentages" can be important:

384 total cast:

• 112 to Paul (29%) Won one delegate
• 101 to Romney (26%) Won three delegates plus three RNC member pledge. (Picked up a uncommitted delegate after the balloting for a total of seven.)
• 23 to Santorm (6%) No delegates
• 18 to Gingrich (5%) No delegates
• 130 Uncommitted (34%) Two delegates but one changed to Romney after the vote totals were announced

It looks they refer these results as results of "popular vote". Why would they otherwise present these numbers? It is also important to see the order. PS: To be clear. I am Czech citizen, not somebody who vote in U.S. elections. --Dezidor (talk) 13:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the confusion here stems from the fact that VI only has 9 delegates, and thus it is easy to ask them who they support. Meanwhile in Iowa and Nevada, there are thousands of county and—later—district delegates, so they cant be asked. Ron Pauls campaign asserts that he won the delegates in both states, despite losing both popular votes. And news Ive seen appears to indicate that they may be correct in their assertions! So thats why the media is reporting Ron Paul winning the VI popular vote, while Romney won the delegates. Its easy to determine the delegate total in VI, while it is not easy to determine that in bigger caucuses. Therefore, since the map is based on the popular vote, we should award VI to Paul (uncommitted makes no sense really). Perhaps we will have a second map, which shows what the delegations were, but thats kind of irrelevant because if this is brokered, then after the first round, they will switch.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

It is a very small thing, but in VI the delegates that pledge themselve to an candidate before the voting are actually legally bound to their candidate. If you are elected delegate as uncommitted you are of course free to committed yourself to any candidate as all "superdelegates" are. So in the schedule table VI should actually have 4 delegates in the bound colum and 5 in the unbound (2 uncommitted and 3 RNC). 4 of these unbound have then committed to Romney, making his entry for VI to become 4 (+3) and one continues to be uncommitted. And of course one delegate for Paul. Am I right?

about the brokered or open convention. To spice up things some state delegations are actually bound for the first two rounds, if not released by the candidate. All to keep us awake during an open convention Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

A valid precedence came up on the result articles talkpage. I think it would be helpfull in our discussion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC):

• Ron Paul won the most votes in the Virgin Islands, so he should be listed as the winner even if he got fewer delegates. See Nevada in the 2008 Democratic Primary - Obama got 13 delegates to Clinton's 12 even though Hillary won 51% of the vote. The map shows Nevada as a gold (Clinton) state. Smartyllama (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

At the time I wrote that, I did not realize "Uncommitted" received more votes than Paul. I think there are valid reasons to declare either "Uncommitted" or Ron Paul the winner, and I will have to think about which is better, but as this precedent shows, Romney is not the winner just because he received more delegates. Smartyllama (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Bottom Line: [8] Uncommitted(1), Romney(7), Paul(1). Decision over, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh yea I meant to mention the Nevada thing, but I couldnt remember when it occurred. The only reason this is debated is because of what I said. If the media hadnt been able to contact all 9 delegates, Ron Paul would be considered the uncontested winner. CES, dont be dismissive. This is a valid debate over whether we are counting popular vote or delegate votes. Its a real shame the Ron Paul campaign has to go thru this when they finally "won" a contest.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

I dont think the media had to contact the delegates. In contrast to Guam the VI delegates are legally bound by their presidentiel preferences. And it is the delegates that are on the ballot, not the candidates. (it was sort of an loophole caucus) If they are elected as uncommitted they of course can later pledge themselve just like the other unbound. But the rest are just as bound as all the other bound delegates. So right now VI have 4 bound delegates and 5 "unbound" (3 RNC and 2 Uncommmitted, the one have already pledge to Romney but could theoretical change if he likes). I have changed the informations in the Schedule Table to reflect this, so if I am wrong about this please say. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The winner of the overall primary is based on delegates, so surely the winner of individual states should be based on delegates. The popular vote effectively means nothing, it's just a nice little tool, the winner of a state should be based on delegates as this is a primary based on delegates not popular vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.65.109 (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Not to mention, the winner of a caucus is determined by the party organization, not by an unofficial vote count. The Republican Party of the United States Virgin Islands has unequivocally declared Romney the winner. If Iowa is going to be placed in the Santorum column based on a declaration from the Iowa Republican Party - despite the party's admission that there was no way to know who the real winner of the vote was - then Virgin Islands should be switched back to Romney. --SchutteGod 70.181.184.7 (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I am glad to see that Paul is marked as the winner because of popular vote totals. If Romney were marked as the winner because of delegates, we would then have to consider that all states in which delegates have not truly been selected yet as ties. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 08:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

And the map looks better with a little yellow for Ron Paul — give him something! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I think we should continue coloring states/territories based on who won the popular vote or preference poll. But for caucuses where no preference poll was held, like the Virgin Islands, we should color based on who won the most delegates. You can't take the delegate vote and say that's the presidential preference vote. Only three delegates that were running were pledged to Mitt Romney, so it's possible some Romney supporters voted for uncommitted delegates, especially the uncommitted delegate that pledged to Romney after the vote. If you REALLY want to decide the winner based on the delegate vote, then Uncommitted won, not Ron Paul. --Noname2 (talk) 17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate Table sorting issues

The delegate table does not sort correctly on several fields:

1. Date handles hyphenated dates incorrectly. Dates need to be reformatted, or the sorting button needs to be removed.
2. Secured Delegates for each candidate is massively wonky. Looks like it is sorting alphanumeric? 9, 8, 7, 6, 50, 43, 4, 38, etc. Numbers need reformatting, or the sorting button needs to be removed.

Jd2718 (talk) 17:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing it out; It is best when things work; WP readers need to see our best! . . . Not that anyone would want it, but I saved "The List" if it is easier. (See the first section in TALK here.) More likely, the excellent editors (my compliments) who maintain "The Table" can fix it to work. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I have done a little work on the schedule table, but I cant figure out how to solve this problem. I hope another editor can help us out. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Schedule Table - Delegate allocation

In the California section above this comment was posted:

• When both the CD and AL are the same, it should be written twice. It costs the table nothing, and is clearer for the reader. When there is no CD allocation, the table should say so: "Winner-take-all (AL) - no CD allocation." There is a bit of redundancy in this, but with the benefit of far greater clarity for the reader. Jd2718 (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made two different suggestions in my sandbox [[9]]. One with one colum in the old delegate allocation and one with two colums. I just made a little sample of each. Take a look and comment on what you think. My worry is that the schedule table keeps getting wider and wider. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, nice job. The single column looks better, I think, and doesn't widen the entire table. (Your point about width is well-taken). Jd2718 (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul

Ron Paul won the Virgin Islands, not Mitt Romney as it says in the sidebar. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.167.8 (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear 70.24.167.8 please read three sections up. Paul wins the popular vote and nets one delegate; Romney nets seven delegates; and one will decide at convention. [10] Thanks for contribution, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

NOTE: Under our "delegate Table", footnote g says, "g: Delegates from the Virgin Islands are legally bound if they are elected as pledged to a candidate. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

For now, let Ron Paul (indicated in yellow on the map) keep Virgin Islands. Others won't mind. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul won the Virgin Islands. Period. The media has consistently gone by popular vote, NOT "delegates." The general public does NOT understand/care about "delegates" when it comes to win/lose. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/rick-santorum-ron-paul-iowa-delegates_n_1347743.html where there is insider speculation that RICK SANTORUM or RON PAUL will get a plurality/majority of the delegates in Iowa, for example. Even though the AP count gives Santorum 13 delegates and Romney 12, that won't end up being the exact numbers, and no one in the general public cares, because Santorum won the popular vote and thus won Iowa.

Example: The Michigan Republican Party voted to break a delegate tie and awarded 16 delegates to Mitt Romney and 14 to Rick Santorum. Before that, the delegates were split DEAD EVEN, 15-15. Even Romney supporters in Michigan said the change in delegates was unfair to Santorum, but delegates are decided SEPARATELY from a straw poll or popular vote. ALL media outlets declared Romney the winner in Michigan although in delegates it was a TIE until the GOP switched things up.

The same logic applies for the Virgin Islands. Ron Paul garnered the most VOTES, whether through committed delegates or directly to the candidate, it doesn't matter. The people that voted in their preference chose Ron Paul's name, OR a person directly representing Ron Paul which is in essense the same thing. In Alabama, voters choose their presidential candidate THEN choose delegates representing that candidate. The V.I. is just a reverse of Alabama. People choose delegates representing their candidate to "vote" for their candidate. If you're voting for official delegates for Ron Paul, and Ron Paul's delegates get the plurality of the votes, Ron Paul wins because that is considered the "popular vote."

Also, Time magazine, the Washington Times, Yahoo, WHNT-TV, the Huffington Post, and various other media outlets are all reporting a Ron Paul win. And the Times is a neoconservative newspaper, definitely not pro-Ron Paul at all. You can't have it both ways; you can't say Romney wins V.I. because he won the delegates unless you're gonna wait until delegates in states where you've declared Romney the winner are actually decided at state conventions. Romney may or may not end up winning the delegates in those states. Let's use ONE STANDARD here, and that's the popular vote. Thank you.

Where's the SECTION after "Super Tuesday" ?

We used to have a section after the now last section, "Super Tuesday". I don't think "Super Tuesday" should be the last section. Didn't we used to have a section reflecting important next elections? People can see the schedule in the Table(s), but the article does not end properly with the results of Super Tuesday. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. But we need some text about more than just numbers in the super tuesday section. And we need a start on the Mid-March section with Kansas and the island caucuses. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, nicely done! It's good to list them by descending size. I'll look at the respective states (WP page of each). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

For each of the states and provinces in our Table, I have added a reference to Green Papers (showing a lot, including the order of the races.) We expect reader to 'drill down' for the details in the states and provinces, and we don't plan to include all details in this Article. Green Papers are great! *[11] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC) "Let them 'drill down' for details."

Ron Paul v Mitt Romney in Guam and Virgin Islands, popular vote vs delegate count

We need to devise a way to reflect this. My understanding is Paul won the popular vote in Guam 29-26% vs romney, but romney has convinced the 6 uncommitted delegates to join him. I'd suggest that the map reflect a winning of Ron Paul with an asterisks showing that the uncommitted candidates go to Romney as they can change their mind.

Now I am uncertain because it seems that these small places are changing the vote talleys.

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012/03/romney-wins-us-virgin-islands-northern-marianas-and-guam/

Any how it Seems that Romney did not win the popular vote in virgin islands and Paul was the winner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.167.71 (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your understanding is wrong. Ther WASN'T ANY popular vote. Ron Paul received ZERO votes, just like Mitt Romney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.102.7 (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Romney got all the votes in Guam according to GP Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, reading the Green Papers is always a good idea. They have understandable details and rapid results. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Candidate Photos

Not to be sounding a bit nit-picky, but is it not odd that out of the 4 pictures used to represent the candidates, one of them (Mitt Rommey) is an official picture from "Mitt Rommey Media", whilst the other three do not come from official sources, but from a semi-professional source? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.182.77 (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel fre to find better pictures, as long as they dont violated copyright laws. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The four portait-pictures (and for other candidates also) all look good to me. The photos all favor those running. I think this is important. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Does anyone have a semi-pro picture of Romney in a suit? I think their wardrobes should be equal and the images should catch them "in real life"--an official photo is more staged and may be giving Romney vain edge. Then again, it's Wikipedia--I don't know how many peoples minds are being made up HERE based on a couple of images. Hopefully people come here for facts and summarized results. --67.248.246.4 (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Since you feel it is important, (and affects likely voters as they read WP), and since I said it is important to have great photos, I asked my wife, not telling her what your complain was. I told her that (1) the lighting on Santorum looks better; (2) they all look rather great to me; (3) they are all smiling; (4) the 'O' and 'P' surrounding Ron Paul reminds me of Opey on TV. . . . Then I told her what you said about the Romney campaign, and she said, "I don't think so. His is the only one whose teeth are not showing. Team Romney would have done better!" So there you have it, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Here are some things I like about the WP set of four portraits. The ties are primary colors: red, yellow, and blue, with Romney and Santorum wearing the blue and red ties. They make a 'V' like in DaVinci Code—It's great. Gingrich appears in gold/yellow tie, and he looks as good as he could. Each expression is appropriate: Gingrich the statesman; Romney the optimistic economist; Santorum the man-of-God family values man; and Ron Paul, the happy camper. Actually, the picture of Ron Paul is much better on the Puerto Rico page, with the American flag, which would be a much better addition to our favorite site here. Check it out: Puerto_Rico_Republican_primary,_2012 I vote to change the Opey picture, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldnt object to the photo from the Pouerto Rico article. I think it is his current official congressional photo (he being the only one in office right now, he is also the only one with a current official photo). But I actually like the Paul photo we have right now. I think he look more energized, the official photo is a bit to much old man. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. But it has the flag. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC) (And do we like O—P?)

Super Tuesday and Mid-March sections need expansion

It would be good to have a few line telling the story behind the numbers. Where did the candidate campaign most before supertuesday? What happened with Santorums filing delegate slates in Ohio (the 4 uncommitted delegates he "won"), What did the campaign do after supertuesday and what was the whole Virgin Island thing about?
If anyone could write a few lines to make the whole story, not just numbers it would be great. And if you find one or two nice references that would be fantastic. Thank you to all the hardworking editors that contribute to this page Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

In my humble opinion, the three key words in the first sentence are, 'a few lines'—not to expand too much. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC) I.e., Not too much verbiage.

Anticipating the voting in Puerto Rico (before you ask or complain)

Just so you know, these rules will apply on Sunday 18 March 2012: "20 of 23 of Puerto Rico's delegates to the Republican National Convention are bound to the presidential contenders based on the island-wide vote. If a Presidential candidate receives 50% or more of the vote, that candidate receives all 20 delegates. Otherwise, the delegates are allocated proportionally. (The threshold is apparently 15%. Rounding rules are not known.). Delegates are directly elected on the primary ballot and are bound for the 1st ballot at the national convention. In addition, 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Puerto Rico's Republican Party, will attend the convention as unpledged delegates by virtue of their position." [12] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC):

Then, the table (saying that Puerto Rico is WTA) is wrong?--194.38.144.2 (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I'll let others say; "It's all so confusing"; what's 'WTA'? I was just quoting Green Papers. [13] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Winner-take-all"--81.84.110.167 (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)