Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries

Merge proposed

I suggest merging the individual states' articles on the primaries into the states' articles on the general elections. This would involve a large merger, but I believe it is a sensible alternative to the proliferation of micro-articles.

• Format: [[United States presidential election in State, year]]

In only a few states is there enough of an article to merit a separate article on that one election for that one party, so it seems unnecessary. Typically with elections to other offices, for example U.S. Senator, the primary and general elections are together in a single article, not three. I suggest, therefore, merging the potential 150 articles (plus three for each territory/DC), into merely 50 (plus one for each territory/DC).

• For example:
  • New Hampshire Republican primary, 2012 and New Hampshire Democratic presidential primary, 2012, would be merged into United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2012.
  • New Hampshire Republican primary, 2008 and New Hampshire Democratic primary, 2008, would be merged into United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008.
  • Texas Republican primary, 2012 and Texas Democratic presidential primary, 2012, would be merged into United States presidential election in Texas, 2012.
  • Texas Republican primary, 2008 and Texas Democratic primary, 2008, would be merged into United States presidential election in Texas, 2008.

• Also, in Massachusetts, I've already added the word "presidential" to the articles names because in Massachusetts there is a separate primary much later in the year for all offices other than President.
  • Massachusetts Republican presidential primary, 2012 and Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary, 2012, would be merged into United States presidential election in Massachusetts, 2012.
  • Massachusetts Republican presidential primary, 2008 and Massachusetts Democratic presidential primary, 2008, would be merged into United States presidential election in Massachusetts, 2008.

I welcome your discussion and seek a consensus.—GoldRingChip 15:25, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I could mention that articles are not proliferating since the states are all set up, awaiting their elections. I consider it up to Wikipedia editors in those states (mainly) to amplify the most, as some have done, Viz: Texas, Ohio, Idaho, Florida, and others. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC) PS: Can we talk about it after it is 'history'?

Please note, however, that this merger is suggested to apply to earlier years' elections, as well. It certainly isn't premature for 2008. As for this 'history' point, wikipedia is intended as a historical encyclopedia, not a running score sheet or a news site. Thus, the 2012 articles are history already; otherwise, they wouldn't belong here. Furthermore, what about other elections in 2012, such as Senate, Governors, House etc?—GoldRingChip 16:08, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I see the consern about stubs that will never be real articles. But it should also be considered not to confuse election in the sovereign republic of the United States of America with the internal party election of some parties that have nothing to do with the state. It might be every day life for US readers, but the very special american system can easy be made more confusing for readers from the rest of the world. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

But the presidential general election is just an election run by the state to pick its electors. Each state theoretically has a different electoral election system, too. —GoldRingChip 16:17, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes electors who are mentioned in the constitution and elections run by states that are part of an sovereign union. States and a constitution that will exist when the Republican and Democratic parties are long gone.the general election of 1848 saw the Free Soil and Whig parties. They didnt have primaries, but if they would have had party primaries it would still not be a part of the sovereign country USA. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:35, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I really don't understand why sovereignty would argue against merging these articles.—GoldRingChip 16:59, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I might be wrong but if they make it to the ballot any party can run a candidate for president. The american people simply choice to vote for the two major parties - until they collapeses, witch have happened several times in american history. So the primary election of the republican or democrat or green or any other party dont have the same status as the election of the states and the union. It is simply the partymembers that choice who they want to run in the real election. Maybe a merge will be a good idea, but the party primary are not really a part of the "real" election. And that have to be clear also for non us readers. That will have to be kept in mind when making the articles. the election of the current two major parties are not first step of the official US election. (the founding fathers, at least Washington, really didnt want any parties at all) Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:26, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct. However, in all other elections, primaries are included in the general election article, with a section about the primaries. See, e.g., United States Senate election in Kentucky, 2010. That's what I propose here.18:43, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I see that. I have been looking at state primary articles for both parties and it seems that (generally speaking) the only articles are from this and the last presidentiel election cycle. So it can be done, but if it is done it would be a major change in the articles pattern and it should be done with all the articles, both republican and democrat for both elections and for all state/territories. That is more than 200 articles! Can you really do all that work alone? Maybe it was an idea to bring this to the Wikipedia talk:WikiProject United States presidential elections This seem to be a dicussion to big for this talkpage. Do checkout the old merge proposal on Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012 also made to keep the wikipedia from being flooded in stubs. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:55, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Jack some. Something similar has been discussed on the Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012 page. What it seems you are proposing is redirecting the primary articles into the main general election articles. Are you going to be the one to take all that info and merge it into the new articles? Don't think it really should be done. The way it is now would be for the main general election article to have links to the primary articles. What is wrong with that? Frankly, the primaries need to have their own articles (or redirected to Dem or Rep presidential primaries 2012 article if they don't warrant their own. The presidential primaries are distinct elections for the party nominations. It would especially be a disservice to the articles and readers to merge major elections like the 2012 Republican primaries in New Hampshire or South Carolina. Those absolutely need their own articles. And in 2008, both major parties had competitive primaries. If merged into a general election article, you will invariably lose some info as it would become too cumbersome and not read well to have both the primary and general elections covered in the same article. Again, these are separate elections and should be treated as such. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

I can see some potential for incorporating the party primary articles into the state articles, perhaps for convenience and since some states do not generate a lot of media coverage or interested Wikipedia editors, but I'm officially still neutral on the idea for now. However, I've thought for a while that the "[State] Republican primary, [year]" format was poor, as it does not specify the office the primary is for. If it's a presidential primary, just referring to it as a state's "Republican primary" seems—while most certainly not intended to be—misleading. Connecticut Republican primary, 2012 is a presidential primary, but the state will have another primary in August for U.S. Senate, Congress, and state legislative seats. I'd like to see the word "presidential" added to the titles of all the state articles for the major party presidential primaries for clarity (unless, of course, they are merged instead if there is a desire to do so). —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 12:13, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

That is true, they definitely need to specify that they are presidential primaries. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 19:19, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:31, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep the parties separate: There is often a lot of interesting detail in the state parties' processes of contributing to the choice of a candidate (campaigns, caucuses, primaries, platforms, conventions), and I think that too much of that would be lost or muddled by merging all (or should I say "both"?) descriptions of those processes into one article per state. More important, those processes should remain conceptually associated with the state parties, not with the states themselves. Merging them would obscure the distinction and permit a mistaken concept that choosing candidates is or should be a function of the states, rather than a function of the state parties. The states choose the president, but they are not supposed to be choosing the nominees. The articles should remain separate for most of the same reasons the state political parties are not housed in the state capitols.CountMacula (talk) 02:49, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Yes, I'm willing to do all the work. I created a sandbox article with the New Hampshire election. That's the most involved of all the articles, I think, so it should give you a good idea of what's involved. The new article I created is much easier to read, more compact without removing any information. Looks like yet another article, New Hampshire primary, 2008 was also created which would be incorporated into it. So here it is: United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008/sandbox—GoldRingChip 13:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008#Merge proposed. —GoldRingChip 15:37, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008 merge completed without discussion/dissent:.—GoldRingChip 12:39, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How is it that you have claimed there was no discussion or dissent? Right here I see ample opposition to your proposal to negate any claim of consensus.CountMacula (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

GoldRingChip, how do we get access to the original articles on the 2008 NH party primaries you have apparently deleted or somehow removed?CountMacula (talk) 13:24, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Maybe I can help. write the name New Hampshire Republican primary, 2008 in search or just press the link. You will then be redirected to the article "United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2008" but just under the title there will be a line saying: "(Redirected from New Hampshire Republican primary, 2008)" press on that link and you will be back on what use to be the republican party primary. Go to history and undo the blanking of the page (properly the last edit and anyway the edit that erases a lot of bites), then you will have the old article back. Use the same procedure for the Democratic party or any other article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:06, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I fully support this proposal. For this year we have merged the Democratic primaries into the general article for all of them, but I will support including the Republican primary information in a main state article with general election information like United States presidential election in Massachusetts, 2012 when the time comes. Some of the 2008 primary articles are quite long, but I would support merging them into the general election articles for each state. It is silly to sometimes have articles that include only the final numbers of a meaningless primary, and even for those that include more analysis, combining it with the relevant information about the other side and general election would be a good idea. Reywas92^Talk 18:30, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Strongly opposed — This is one of the most idiotic ideas I have ever seen proposed. There is no Democratic article to even merge. The Missouri article is well sourced and deserving of its own article. Its plausible that it could reach featured article status in its own right, so this is absolutely ridiculous. Theres nothing significant to the Democratic primary and the Republican primacaucus is completely separate from the general election.--Metallurgist (talk) 11:15, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Please refrain from personal attacks as according to Wikipedia's rules. Stidmatt (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't see a personal attack. I see an attack on an idea and a proposal.CountMacula (talk) 10:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I have virtually no tolerance for personal attacks and I think WP is greatly harmed by the high tolerance for personal attacks that is currently accepted by the culture in general, and admins in particular. However, in this case, CountMacula is correct - referring to an idea as being idiotic is not a personal attack on the person who presented the idea. I'm sure even Einstein came up with some idiotic ideas - my saying that does not mean I'm saying Einstein was an idiot; it's not an attack on Einstein at all.

That said, I also have to agree with Metallurgist - it's a truly idiotic idea. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:32, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Strongly support Agreed, it is very time consuming to drag through all this prose, and putting all these pages together would save a lot of time and be more useful to everybody. Stidmatt (talk) 20:36, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Strongly oppose This makes absolutely no sense and would be confusing to a great deal of people. 81.98.167.142 (talk) 03:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Oppose. These are separate and independent topics. There is virtually no overlapping information. Merging them makes about as much sense as merging Super Bowl XLVI and 2011 World Series. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:26, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Strongly support. Far easier, simpler and organised. --Inops (talk) 17:18, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Paulists' Distortion of this Page

Supporters of Ron Paul are extremely angry about the media's ignoring their favorite candidate, so I find it both hypocritical and offensive (as a Paul supporter) that they are attempting to use those same tactics to show a disproportionate amount of support for the good doctor. In addition to adding him to the candidates' infobox for the 2008 primary (a race in which he won no states), they have broken precedent with it; the infobox map for 2012 now shows "plurality delegation" instead of "plurality popular vote" like every previous race, simply because it gives Ron Paul Minnesota. This view is going to conflict with just about every news source from the period of the primaries which states that Rick Santorum was the first-place finisher in Minnesota. This page is reporting on a current event, which is soon to become a historical topic. Any historian---any scientist---knows that data collection and storage must be consistent in order to properly analyze the data. As much as I appreciate Ron Paul, I can't stand his supporters' spinning his 10% in the polls as more support from the American people than it really is. CumbersomeCucumber (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Green Papers has 40 delegates for MN, with 20 to Paul; 2 to Santorum; 0 to Romney; 0 to Gingrich, so far. [1] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see where that distortion is taking place. And I find it hard to believe you legitimately support Ron Paul when the 10% you claim in the polls is generally 5 to 10 points higher. Without question there is a 10% that is a rock solid base for Paul, so in that respect you are correct. But to exclude Paul intentionally when we know he has won a state according to RNC rules? For the sake of conformity to previous years? Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, who can hardly be called a Ron Paul supporter, mentioned how Paul is lined up to take several states. Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, among others, pointed to the bias of a media blackout of Ron Paul, yet you want us to rely solely on that same media for our sourcing in this article. I really find your claim to be a Paul supporter to be lacking credibility when these things are not only nationally apparent to those who follow the political process, but when Wikipedia has an ethical duty to maintain a neutral point of view. It is fair to give credit where credit is due, not more, not less. As has been reported many times in the media, many of the media hype events were nothing more than straw polls or beauty contests. We didn't create the weird system that Republicans use, if you have a complaint about how their process for picking candidates works, go complain to them. But at least be honest about things. -- Avanu (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the map currently in the infobox is out of place and is inconsistent with the practice used in last elections, where the popular vote has always been used. The "plurality delegation" map also conflicts with popular news reports, which also use the popular vote results, and is likely to confuse readers who don't frequent wikipedia very often (and in that vein, only encourage edit-wars). Not entirely sure this is the fault of Paul supporters, however — but rather the work of one prolific editor who seems to believe RNC rules should be enforced here rather than conventional wisdom. I'm not saying the "plurality delegation" map has no place on this page; just that perhaps the infobox at the very top of the page is not the right place for it. --SchutteGod (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The reason for using the plurality map is because of the new five state rule (rule 40). Not really important until Paul started to use it to get attention for his movement. I am the prolific editor, and I do take a little offense by being accociated with Paul. I do belive that we should show the things as the really are according to the persons running this election (the RNC) and not what different newsmedia wants to say. I dont see very much of these newsmedia since I am from Europe, but I believe that this is a encyclopidia, not newsmedia, and it should show how the things really are. We do have the popular vote map in the article too, actually there is a whole section devoted to the popular vote. Noteworthy and interesting. The state of the primary right now is that a "Santorum state" are showing plurality for Paul (minnesota) and if he can get 4 more of that sort he doesnt have to win any popular vote at all, he will be on the ballot. And I think it is still what will effect the National Convention that counts. And the fact that Paul with the second biggest bag of money still cant get more than 10 procent to vote for him and he know are using the rules very well for his own sake is noteworthy. By using the popular vote in the infobox we hide the fact that he has taken plurality in one state and maybe will do it in more. Maine is this weekend. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I see that Bielsko has changed the infobox to show both maps, and it looks really good. Now you can see at a glance the difference between popular vote and the actual delegate plurality (election). I am not sure all here understand the rule 40, but now the problem is solved for now. I am still offended by being called a Paulist though, maybe a bit of civility and NPOV in selection the discussion titles are in order! Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

It looks fine; I was not accusing you of being a Ron Paul supporter — I was accusing you of ignoring common past practices (illustrated in every single previous primary election article) giving popular vote precedence over delegate count. RNC allocation rules mean very little, are nearly always suspended during the actual convention, and have precious little bearing on WP policy. --SchutteGod (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

By the same argument the article about the metre should change that value because Wikipedia is not goverment by the SI. Do you understand rule 40? It means a lot for the future of the Republican party. If the Liberitarians get five states they get their candidate on the ballot and access to influencing the platform. If not they might still influence the platform but their power just went down a lot. Rule 40 is new and so the way to show it will be new too. This time it means something BEFORE it will be suspended at the roll call. I am sure you know that this years Republican primary are different from the older ones. Guess what, the ways of preparing for the convention have changed too. In 2008 it was easy to get on the ballot, this year it takes five states. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Using both maps is brilliant! and instructive to readers .!. Jack is a promising young man .!. Bielsko did great .!.!.!. Now I see the Virgin Islands in red for when it counts, and yellow for Ron Paul for the popular vote as his supporters want. Further, when it counts with delegates, Ron Paul shows in MN in yellow and Santorum in green. What could be better? If other WP pages are not like this, they should change if they want to be this good. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Republican candidates that follow the NRC rules are using "common sense". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

In response to the gentleman who doubted I was a Ron Paul supporter, note that my main problem was the use of INCONSISTENT METHODS as a way of making Ron Paul look like he performed better than previously reported. Paul himself ascribes to the axioms of "Honesty" and "Consistency" so I don't see how my support for both of these things on Wikipedia disqualify me as a Paul supporter. Second, I don't get why you're throwing up so much about being called a "Paul supporter." Like, seriously, you cited ethics rules at me over it. Calm down. Third, it looks much better now and is more consistent with all previous primaries since 1980, which I reiterate was my chief concern. Problem solved. Well done. CumbersomeCucumber (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I believe we have gotten to a good place, and that was my hope the entire time. I spend time on Wikipedia trying to fight against bias constantly. But I'm equal opportunity about it and I don't care for rhetoric that claims editors are trying to undermine Wikipedia's neutrality. In truth, a few are, but there are far more of us who just want to present information fairly. If you look at my overall contribution history, you'll see I push for this in political articles about Santorum, Romney, Obama, Paul, and more, and in non-political articles like those about Trayvon Martin or Gabrielle Giffords. I want us to be fair. Excluding information from this article that shows Ron Paul doing well isn't neutral, and regardless of how we have to adapt, we need an ethical and honest approach and a neutral tone. -- Avanu (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

A note to cumbersome cuke: National polls, or in fact the actual level of national support can mean NOTHING in relation to a party nomination. Yes, in many past years they usually reflect eachother, but this year the Ron Paul team is organizing better than has ever been done before. Al Gore getting the popular vote in 2000 was meaningless in an electoral college system for a general election, and popular vote is meaningless in a nomination battle if the delegates acquired differs from the popular vote. If every state were a primary state with mandatory pledged delegates that reflected the results of the primary, then popular vote would be the sole worthwhile quantifier. But the rules are the other way around, and popular vote is an intresting quaint coincidental detail that might become irrelevant. Ron Paul just won almost all of the delegates in 3 states' state conventions this weekend adding up to around 66 of them gained from states that he "lost" in the earlier stages of the process. Richard 50.47.246.194 (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

But out of 3 state conventions (Massachusetts, Nevada and Maine) the 2 have "mandatory pledged delegates that reflected the results of the primary, then popular vote would be the sole worthwhile quantifier". When it comes to delegates for the nomination process there is actually not that many that doesnt reflect the primaries. If you think what about Minnesota? They have only had district conventions for now. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Delegate map(s)

Uh, most of the states colored in on the delegate map haven't selected their delegates yet! How can we have such a blatantly inaccurate map on the page? 69.134.10.10 (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Wikipedia readers would like to come to this page and see reality. The counts are what they are, and will only swing more strongly to Romney now that NRC and nearly everyone is behind him. Remember, this is a Republican race. Our page reflects what reliable sources are noting. Wikipedia readers already know that the race is only finalized at convention in August. That delegates are not totally assigned at this point is already reflected in the table we provide. It will be interesting to see if Ron Paul can win his home state of Texas (and then California). Don't expect Santorum or Gingrich to win much, having quit the race. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice that it is now Romney 724 vs Paul 54, (and Gingrich and Santorum votes will mainly end up with Romney) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

You are severely mistaken. Paul has won 5 states (per official delegate count in IA,CO,MN,WA,LA) and the majority of delegates in Romney's own state (Massachusetts). Though I agree Paul should drop out, the article should reflect the info I just shared. ---- 69.174.58.156 (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

No delegates have been officially selected in IA (not until June 16th), and those IA delegates are all going to be unbound anyways. Romney won the most delegates in CO as of the conclusion of their delegate selection process on April 14th, and that issue is now pretty much settled as of this point. MN's final results won't be known until this weekend, and all the delegates "selected" so far there are unbound (this is Paul's best shot at "winning" a state though). The processes in WA & LA aren't over until June 2nd, and MA's delegates are bound by the results of the Super Tuesday results (where Romney won). Guy1890 (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I'm at work and don't have time to cite everything, but here's a cite for the Iowa win (which you claim Paul didn't win). Your other claims are equally erroneous. MSNBC report: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/02/maddow-ron-paul-supporters-infiltrating-republican-state-leadership/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.58.156 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think it would be a good idea to take some time when you get off work to actually read the article, especially the schedule and process part of it. The point is that No one can have a plurality of delegates in Iowa or the other states because no delegates have been allocated or elected yet! Please understand that neither the caucuses or the county convention or any other convention beside the state convention at June 16. We have been discussing this with different anonymouse and not anonymouse editors ever since the Iowa caucus. Please read about it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

I think insulting people as anony "mouse" is pretty damn childish. I'm done with wikipedia since I don't wish to associate myself with immature and rude adults. ---- 69.174.58.156 (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

An Anonymous user is a user that have no account, or are not loged in, it is a wikipedia term not a statement of anything positive or negative. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia it is very beneficial to make an account, one of them is being able to edit protected articles such as this one. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

'Please do not erase other peoples comments mr. or mrs. 69.174.58.156 as you did with the one just above at 20:00, May 4, 2012‎. Please read: Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines#Editing comments where it says: "basic rule is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission". Please respect that. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, if this is an attempt of making fun of my bad english and many gramma and spelling mistakes, then I am already aware that I am not perfect in english, being my second language. So not really any point in doing that. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Your english is just fine. I'm pretty certain you INTENDED to call me anony "mouse". ---- 69.174.58.156 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Believe what you want, I dont even know how that would be offending - Sorry, I am not american. Lets get back to the subject of this talkpage. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

But more important, you have to stop erasing other peoples comments as you did agaín on 22:00, May 4, 2012‎. Seriousely You really cant do that. I have put a notice on your talkpage and I am putting one more in there. If you keep doing this to other peoples comments you could be block. Dont do that. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

The delegate map shows states that have allocated delegates, so unless the local convention disregard its own state party rules (look out for Nevada this weeks) that is what the conventions/committee will elect according to its primary elections rules. It also show the states that have elected its delegates via local conventions, slates or comittees. You can see all about it in the schedule table, all the info are there. Look at the difference from the popular map and you can see what states that can still be turned differently. Massachusetts convention is a good example, Paul supporters actually "won" it. But the Paul supporters elected as delegates still have to vote for Romney on the first ballot. [2] [3] Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

That's actually not true, they're allowed to abstain. 69.134.10.10 (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a reliable source saying that. I have tried to look around a little and I can only find different people saying it in discussions on blogs, nothing reliable. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Delegates will be jumping on the band wagon, not abstaining. (I bet they could, but won't.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

By the way, this is the first primary, where we have a separate map for popular vote state wins and delegate state wins. All the previous primary articles have a map of only the popular vote wins. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Rule 40 is a new rule Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The two maps provide excellent insights for WP readers. The important vote is in the delegate map, since that is what counts in the end (illustrated by Bush/Florida.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

In the general election the winner of a state's popular vote always wins the delegates as well. Not the same in primaries (or caucuses, usually). --89.27.36.41 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

adding a bit more spice to the process. Actually in many of the states the delegate count follows the popular vote by winner-take-all or proportional (just remember it is on both state and district level) The state that doesnt do it that way just get most of the media attention right now. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

== Paul should NOT just drop out. Wikipedia says he's in 4th == But Paul actually has MORE DELEGATES than Romney

And wikipedia has cited references to back that up, so Paul should drop out. He's more done than Gingrich. ---- 69.174.58.156 (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Notice the remark at the top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject" thank you Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Anyway, Senator Paul has his reasons (likes the national stage) just like Santorum wants to make his pro-Life points and Gingrich wants to be "Citizen" and relieve debt. Focus on the Article here. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Suggestions to WP (Wikipedia) reader 69.174.58.156: (1) You additions to WP would be more valuable and convenient by signing up to WP with a user ID and password, so easy to do; (2) Consider taking your valuable insights over to Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012 where it may be more germane; (3) if you have a suggest for this Article, it needs to be succinct, fit in, enhance the Article, and have one or more citations from reliable and respected sources, such as WSJ or FoxNews.com Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

There are still primaries to be held. He has every right to remain in the race. Also, this is not a discussion/venting forum.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Correct you are. This is not a soapbox but how the Article is written is being influenced. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bottom Line on Delegate Map(s):  Done — I really like the discussion ending with two maps, one the popular vote and one most delegates, (by color). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

States carried — inconsistency with past precedent

Currently the info-box bases the "states carried" on delegate counts. But on all previous primary articles that has been based on popular vote wins. It's obvious that there's an inconsistency here. In the 2008 Republican Convention McCain ultimately got a majority of delegates in his favour in every state — so should the 2008 info-box read that McCain carried 50 states? --89.27.36.41 (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Perhaps you misunderstand what the delegate map is indicating. There is the delegate count prior to starting the national convention and then the delegate count as individual votes are taken. Once the delegates gather in convention, things can quickly change and there is no point is making maps of such changes. Additionally, we need to give readers an article with a neutral tone and presentation, not simply just whatever worked last time. I hope this answers your question. -- Avanu (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

I didn't mean the map. I meant the "States carried" section on the info-box. In all previous primaries it denotes the number of states where a candidate won a plurality of votes, but here it's different. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Rule 40, that have been very debated in this talkpage lately, is new, in 2008 it didnt really matter how many states you carried by plurality in delegates. This year it means a lot. Right now Paul is trying to reach five states by winning delegates in states where he have lost the popular vote, if he gets five he can get on the nomination ballot and take his campaign all the way to the convention. Of course Romney will properly have a majority at that time and it will be very unlikely that Paul would win. But that is not up to this article to decided. And in any case, with five states plurality Paul can make some noise at the convention, and that actually sounds likely. So with a new rule and a different "game" it might not be best simply to follow the 2008 example. Maybe when the primaries are over it would be good to only use popular vote, depends on what happens. But the best way to show the state of the primaries right now and explain what is happening is by using states carried by plurality. Both maps are avaible to show the difference. I am wondering if it would be better to have this talk at the Templates talkpage? (the infobox is actually a template that are use by several articles) Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Specifically, where? I did a Google-search on {wikipedia Templates talkpage} and got 9million hits—top ones look very interesting. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Template:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Forget rule 40. Thats not important. This is the first time delegation control has been relevant since all four want in on the RNC. So a new precedent is needed.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Rules may not be important to you but they are very important to who wins, Romney or Paul. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevada state convention

What do we do with this? It appears that the delegates are supposed to be bound, but this does say that Paul won 22-3. Also, it says even without that, the proportional allocation would be 17-8 (not incl superdelegates) because S&G dropped out. So what exactly should we do?--Metallurgist (talk) 20:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Good point! plus, didn't Ron Paul win a lot of delegates in Minnesota, Missouri, Maine, and Washington too (that were unexpected)? Athleek123 (talk) 20:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

We really don't need to do anything with this info. From the above article: "At the national convention, Romney still will be entitled to receive 20 Nevada delegate votes on the first ballot and Paul is entitled to eight because Romney finished first in the Feb. 4 GOP presidential caucuses in the Silver State. So most of the Paul-aligned delegates must cast a ballot for Romney."

Romney is entitled to the NV delegate votes that he won as a result of the Feb. 4th contest. As for MO, their convoluted process isn't over until June 2nd. WA's process isn't over until June 2nd as well, and none of the delegates selected there are bound at all, yet. Guy1890 (talk) 01:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The rules say "Each candidate for nomination for President of the United States and Vice President of the United States shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally, prior to the presentation of the name of the candidate for nomination." I'm not sure how bound delegates count, but I'm assuming they count for Romney even though they support Paul? I don't know. --Gyroid (talk) 21:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

No delegates from those states have been elected, so Paul has won nothing from them. Of course a lot of projections show Romney or Santorum has won those delegates, but the primary schedule and the infobox dont use projected counts, so no Paul delegates (or any other delegates) from Minnesota or Washington for some time. Maine is electing today and even though some delegates have been elected from Missouri it will not finish the process before June 2. Just shows how dangerous projected counts is for NPOV. When it comes to Nevad the source Mettalurgis stated says: "At the national convention, Romney still will be entitled to receive 20 Nevada delegate votes on the first ballot and Paul is entitled to eight because Romney finished first in the Feb. 4 GOP presidential caucuses in the Silver State. So most of the Paul-aligned delegates must cast a ballot for Romney" It would be good to write some lines about the Nevada State convention (and Massachusetts where the same thing happened) in the Late state section, but the state still goes for Romney as far as nominating a Republican candidate. For all other convention matters I am sure both the Nevada and the Massachusetts delegations will be interesting to watch. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:08, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevada is one of the states binding their RNC delegates. So the bound count (that the delegates have to vote by) according to above source is 20 for Romney and 8 for Paul. I will correct the primary schedule to say so. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you know if NV counts as one of the fives states needed for Paul to be on the Tampa ballot (Rule 40, which I quoted above)? Or does it count as plurality for Romney since they are bound to him? --Gyroid (talk) 21:44, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

I have been looking for a source on that, but have found nothing. My best guess is that they will count for Romney since the whole plurality thing is for the first ballot and on the first ballot the plurality is voting for Romney. I would love to see any news article or anything on the subject. Remember it is not just Nevada, it is also Massachusetts' delegation and who knows how many delegations more to come. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:52, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

FYI, Santorum and Gingrich didn't drop out. They 'suspended'. Their campaigns still can raise money and keep delegates. -- Avanu (talk) 21:45, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

You are right, but the Nevada rules doesnt seem to take the difference into account. At least not according to the source Metallurgist have put at the top. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:48, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Looks to me Paul won Nevada: [4] Jørgen88 (talk) 22:40, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Romney most certainly does NOT have 20 delegates from Nevada. The only delegates that are bound to him would be the RNC delegates, and the CD delegates that he won. These delegates were awarded PROPORTIONALLY per Congressional District; even if Romney won 51% in a district, that does not mean he wins all of the delegates from that district. On another note, Ron Paul won all 15 of the "delegates at large". His number should be AT LEAST 15 + the number that were bound from the Congressional District voting. As it currently stands, you took the majority of the 6 Newt delegates, and the 3 Santorum delegates, and gave them to Romney. If ANYTHING, these delegates are "uncommitted" on the first ballot. With Ron Paul supporters winning the majority of delegate spots, there is no way Mitt Romney has 20 bound delegates in any way, shape or form. Please get your facts right, and stop trying to "fudge the numbers". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.188.143.17 (talk) 23:02, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

[5]:"At the national convention, Romney still will be entitled to receive 20 Nevada delegate votes on the first ballot and Paul is entitled to eight because Romney finished first in the Feb. 4 GOP presidential caucuses in the Silver State. So most of the Paul-aligned delegates must cast a ballot for Romney." Not my numbers Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Romney does, in fact, have 20 first round national delegate votes from NV (see above). Guy1890 (talk) 01:58, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

My question is more is it the four way count or 20-8?--Metallurgist (talk) 02:42, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What about stripes for NV and MA on the delegate map? The delegates may be bound but that doesn't necessarily mean that they are Romney's "delegates" because (hypothetically) if there is a second round of voting those delegates will vote for Paul. --haha169 (talk) 05:12, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

More importantly as far as I can read the rules they are free to vote for anyone for vice presidential candidate. And of course they are free to vote for platform, rules and all other none presidential matters on the convention. But the map is in the article on the presidential primary, and when it comes to who will be the nominee, those states are still Romneys. Of course if there is a concensus for stripes we could do that even though I dont agree :), we will have to make another map though, it is not easy to put stripe on this one for some reason. (have been an technical issue after the nonbinding Missouri primary) Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:43, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

People - let's be serious here. Romney has secured the majority of delegates from both MA & NV. There's not going to be a second round of voting for President at the 2012 GOP national convention, and Romney will be allowed to pick his own Vice-President. There's no need to further confuse the issue at hand (which is who is eventually going to win the 2012 GOP Presidential nomination) on these pages. Guy1890 (talk) 22:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I understand that this is the Presidential nomination article, but it is not neutral to completely ignore the fact that, while Paul's delegates may be bound to vote for Romney, they are not bound otherwise, including voting to amend the party platform or motioning to suspend convention rules. These delegates are not your normal delegates, and it is a little unprecedented. We can't simply follow past precedent in this case. By ignoring this fact, I believe, we are giving this article an undue (if slight) slant.--haha169 (talk) 23:28, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

why dont you write some lines about it in the late state section? Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:32, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all NO delegates are bound due to Rule 38. This rule has been enforced before. All delegates are free agents that may wish to vote for whom ever they choose regardless of state party bylaws or state party rules. No state party can force them to vote in units. All the Ron Paul delegates are not bound to any candidate and can vote for Ron Paul in the first round of voting. Although some states have laws and penalties to discourage not voting for the bound candidate. Ploxhoi (talk) 04:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Baloney. The "Rule 38" issue has been fully-vetted elsewhere on this talk page. States can & have bound their delegates to vote a certain way in any first-round of voting that may or may not happen at the 2012 GOP convention. Guy1890 (talk) 08:41, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, it would be reasonable to include some mention of Ron Paul's delegate strategy (using reliable sources, of course) and how sources view this changing the primaries. For example, how unique is it actually? How often have such things been done before, even to a limited degree? What prompted Ron Paul to take this approach? etc etc etc. -- Avanu (talk) 13:44, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Please do, it would be a good start on the late states section. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

disinformation

If true "The 2012 Republican presidential primaries are the selection processes in which voters of the Republican Party are electing delegates to the Republican National Convention of the party" then this article is disinformation. If you agree, how do you think : calculated or incidental? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done The sentence has been changed to emphasize the role of state Republican leadership.

"The 2012 Republican presidential primaries are the selection processes in which voters of the Republican Party are electing state delegations to the Republican National Convention of the party."
Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A tie of 2

Since Newt and Paul are now tied with 2 apiece (by state delegate majorities), and Newt is now out of the race, I suggest Paul be placed to the left of Newt in the photo thumbnails. I realize the argument can be made that Newt got more popular votes, but the fact he and Paul are tied in another way, and Newt is out of the race, suggests Newt's picture should be listed fourth. I do realize that Rick is out of the race as well, but the fact he has more delegate majorities than Paul, means Rick's picture should still stay second. Stopde (talk) 02:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Im not opposed to it, but I think we should hold off until Paul wins a third as he is slated to soon.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Agreed with Matallurgist, Once he has the three that are likely to happen and more it'll happen regardless. Raymond SabbJr (talk) 03:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That sounds fair. Does this qualify as his third win (Nevada)? Source: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/47314259/ns/local_news-reno_nv/t/ron-paul-takes-bulk-nevada-delegates Stopde (talk) 05:53, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont have strong feelings for one or the other but wasnt there an consensus in january that it was the delegatecount that the candidates was sorted by? Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:47, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I wish there was an "ignore user" feature on here, so that I could ignore everything you say on this page, because you are obviously here to corrupt the data and facts. I ignore 99.9% of everything you say, and maybe you should do the same to me, because I understand your purpose is not to provide an accurate article or a page that is enjoyable. I find it sad how you have continued for months to disrupt this page. Stopde (talk) 15:22, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Gingrich currently has more delegates and more votes. --Gyroid (talk) 13:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

The issue of who is displayed where in the infobox is an extremely minor issue. Paul hasn't "won" NV-Romney did a long, long time ago. That issue has been fully discussed elsewhere on this talk page. From the above link: "Under party rules adopted last fall, Romney was to get 20 of Nevada's 28 delegates for the national convention, and Paul was to get eight.

Paul backers say delegates will abide by those rules in the first round of balloting at the national convention in Tampa." Guy1890 (talk) 22:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Someone has updated it as showing Paul has won Louisiana, so Paul's picture should NOW move to the left of Gingrich's. Stopde (talk) 14:14, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Except no one have "won" Louisiana since they have not had their conventions yet. All in good time. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:34, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I skip over nearly every single thing you say on this page -- I read what other people have to say. You are the cause of the reason the map colors look like a sloppy mess, due to your weird fascination with color blindness. Everything you say has zero credibility. Try again. Your corruption of this article is grounds for banning. Stopde (talk) 15:13, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

I love that the you still hold the map colors discussion against me, since that is proberly the one thing about this article I didnt take an active part in the last months. Back then I didnt know how to do anything with maps. Pretty much any other contreversity I have a small or big stake in, but not that. I simply had 2 or 3 comments about it months ago. Being more seriouse though: Be careful to be polite on this discussionpages, someone that had never read your comments could be very offended. On the other hand if you think I should be banned, and you are not simply shouting out uncivil comments, you should go through the proper procedure and get it done to protect the intergrity of Wikipedia. In any case: Have a good day. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:33, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

LA's long process for selecting their remaining, unbound delegates doesn't conclude until June 2th. Please wait until then to declare anyone the "winner" there. If anyone needs to be "banned" from these pages, it's the Ron Paulers that seem to be desperate for their candidate to "win" more contests before anyone has been declared a winner in those actual contests. I personally don't care who wins the 2012 GOP nomination. I only care that we are accurate in describing the the long, convoluted process that the GOP is unfortunately using to select their 2012 nominee. Guy1890 (talk) 22:15, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Primary Schedule Table - 'Secured Delegates' Columns

Hi all. I just spent an hour cleaning up the Primary Schedule Table. I found the table very neglected from continuous editing of allocated and unallocated delegates. I have gone ahead and edited the 'Secured Delegates' columns and candidate totals so that these reflect the correct amount of unallocated delegates as well as the correct candidate totals for known allocated delegates. I have not used any new sources - only the figures that where already present in the table.

I read through the archived talk section referred to in the page notice for the table which briefly discussed what to do with super delegates. I chose to include these in the Unallocated column as I am sure I am not the only one tired of doing the math in my head as to the allocation of delegates for individual states. I believe this gives a clearer picture of how many delegates are left to be allocated.

This leads to my next point. Delegate totals in the Primary Schedule Table contradict those in the infobox and the 'The state of the primaries' section. I am not going to touch these as I know there are many points of contention around the delegate figures but would like to see discussion on how to procede with this. --Domentolen (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

You did a nice job, just one thing. According to the Legend the 117 unbound RNC delegates are not counted in this table. Since the sources varies a lot on who are committed to witch candidate and how many sources are needed to put them in a candidatet row and so on and son, we stopped putting them in to this table some time ago. I have taken out the unbound RNC delegates again (and there was a small error in Tennesse, a unfaithfull allocated delegates have been messing with the numbers for some time, but I went with the GP info). You added mostly of the Unbound RNC delegates as uncommitted, but actually about half of them have already committed. If we should change the Legend we should have clear rules for what source we use and how when it comes to this Unbound RNC delegates. Last we tried that it very quickly became a mess, and with the much contention about delegates numbers right now I think it would be again.

The numbers in the infobox are sourced numbers while the totals from the shcedule table are simply adding up every line in the table (witch are mostly from GPs state pages except ND where GPs secondary count are used, see supertuesday section for the sources). This make something as rare as a unprojected softcount (I havent seen that anywhere but here), meaning that it count the unbound delegates that are actually elected and are supporters of a candidate but not the "look in the crystalball" projections of Iowa and other states where no unallocated delegates are elected yet. Because of that I dont think it is a good idea to have a total in any case. The infobox shows a hardcount from a reliable source. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

A source for the RNC unbound: [6]. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What's up with the Virgin Island numbers in this section of the Wiki page now? The numbers that I've seen show Romney with 5 delegates, Paul with one delegate, and the other 3 delegates being RNC delegates, which we don't include in the count in this section (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Virgin_Islands_Republican_caucuses,_2012#Results). Guy1890 (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Do you have a source saying Gwendolyn Brady have committed to Romney? The article dont say so, but only that she is uncommitted (in the text) but also that she is committed (in table) Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Ms. Brady was the final holdout until apparently April 23, 2012, when she pledged herself to Romney. Sources:

http://vigop.com/2012/03/vi-gop-2012-caucus-results-coming-soon/ and http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/VI-R Guy1890 (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Bound delegates and Rule 38

"RULE NO. 38 Unit Rule No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule."

http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf (page 37)

What does this mean in terms of states that bind their delegates? NV and Mass have a lot of Paul supporters bound to Romney, for example. --Gyroid (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

That's a confusing paragraph. It's called the "unit rule", but it also refers to the "unit rule", without specifying what the "unit rule" is.

But wait, apparently there is a standard definition for it:

A rule of procedure at a national politcal convention under which a state's entire vote must be cast for the candidate preferred by a majority of the state's delegates.

Okay, well, "the candidate preferred by a majority of the state's delegates" is not "the candidate to which a delegate is bound by the laws/rules of his state/state party". So I don't think Rule 38 says anything about delegates who are bound to a candidate by the laws of their state, the rules of their state party, or a contractual commitment to support a particular candidate they had to sign in order to become a delegate. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Very intriguing. I wonder why this wasn't brought up a long time ago. Zach Vega (talk to me) 21:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It hasn't been relevant in decades, and almost certainly won't be this year either. It only becomes relevant if a state party chairman declares all delegates from his state are for some candidate, when some delegates are not. But the delegates who are not for that candidate (if they are not legitimately bound in that round of voting) can ask for a roll call count, by Rule 37(b)[7].

Rule 37 (b) In the balloting, the vote of each state

shall be announced by the chairman of such state’s delegation, or his or her designee; and in case the vote of any state shall be divided, the chairman shall announce the number of votes for each candidate, or for or against any proposition; but if exception is taken by any delegate from that state to the correctness of such announcement by the chairman of that delegation, the chairman of the convention shall direct the roll of

members of such delegation to be called, and the result ...

--Born2cycle (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just looking at it (without doing any research) I would say it means that it is ok to have proportional votes in the states. In the old days the whole delegatetion have to go with the majority of the state delegation. Now some persons just waking up from the 60ths cant say that to everyone at the convention. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Rule 38 was written to PREVENT voters from being disenfranchised by a state chairman who just arbitarily decide to go against the rules of the popular vote or caucus and give them all to one candidate. It was NOT written (nor will it be used) TO disenfranchise voters simply because one candidates supporters can't accept defeat. Since Romney won Massachusetts' delegates within the rules, rule 38 does not apply. Now...if, for example, the North Carolina chair decided to give Romney all 55 delegates from his state, THEN it could be used. It is SOLELY about a state arbitarily awarding delegates against the wishes of the voters. So no...it cannot be used to do exactly what it was written to prevent. People need to stop getting their rules interpretation from no-name local Fox affiliates like Ben Swann who has never done anything to suggest that he is an expert on the rules.74.67.98.207 (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Rule 39

If I read rule 39 right then it will give room for some motions (and roll calls) from the floor if Paul controlls 6 delegations. It could be an interesting convention. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

RULE NO. 39 Record Vote
If a majority of the delegates of any six (6) states severally shall demand a roll call vote, the same shall be taken of the states in the order hereinbefore established.

That just says that a roll call vote can be demanded. Normally the chairman just states X for candidate A, Y for candidate B. Demanding a roll call means every delegate votes individually. That would really slow things down, but really shouldn't change the outcome. How is this relevant to the article? --Born2cycle (talk) 22:05, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Roll calls don't unbind...so it doesn't make any difference.74.67.98.207 (talk) 08:07, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, but the chair might report the votes per the binding, while with a roll call any number of the individual delegates might abstain. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:16, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No state delegates that are bound to vote a certain way on any first-round of voting will be abstaining, period. This has been fully-vetted in other sections of this talk page, and it's a dead issue at this point. Guy1890 (talk) 08:36, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

New updates for Maine and Nevada

The delegate table should be updated with the news from last Saturday.

Results for Nevada - Paul 22, Unpledged 3

This issue has been discussed at length elsewhere on this talk page. From the above link: "Nevada delegates are bound by the state’s results on the first convention ballot, so Romney will still get their support. Paul’s Nevada supporters are not challenging that rule, for fear of losing their convention seats altogether. Delegates who abstain will be replaced with alternates."

The end result is that nothing has basically changed from the original NV caucus result-Romney won a majority of the delegates from NV. Guy1890 (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Results for Maine - Paul 21, Romney 2, Unpledged 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iknama (talk • contribs) 07:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC) This section moved from what is currently the top of this page to what is now the bottom. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

20 NV are bound to Romney. 8 to Paul. --Gyroid (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Maine was updated yesterday. It is 21 for Paul and the 3 last is unbound RNC that according to Legend arent in primary schedule. If you want to change the legend start a new discussion. Infobox and state of the primary changes when the source changes. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It's actually 20 delegates for Paul in ME & 2 delegates for Romney, with 2 other ME delegates uncommitted at the moment (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Republican_caucuses,_2012#Convention). Those numbers include the RNC delegates, which I know we're not counting in the "Secured Delegates" listing on this talk page's Wiki page. Some other sources for this info:

http://www.kjonline.com/news/Delegate-fight-Snowe-LePage-today-at-convention.html and http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-05-06/ron-paul-maine-gop/54794126/1 I guess there's still an issue of the Romney campaign potentially challenging these above results, but who knows there. Guy1890 (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To Change Text (Maine moving to Paul)

The site source Saying Paul won Maine says that Romney won delegates and popular votes, so I think we should go and change the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeks4ever (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

What source is that? It should say that Romney won popular vote and Paul won delegation plurality. --Gyroid (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done With two excellent detailed maps ("a picture is worth a thousand words") readers see that Romney won the most cast votes and Paul won the delegate count which counts most. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I've also added text as you suggest (you can search in the Article and improve text, if you want.) Here is what I added (which may change at convention), Currently, 21 Maine delegates have moved to Paul, leaving Romney with two delegates. There remains one undeclared delegate. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Rule 38 (Delegates not bound)

It should be discussed in the article. I read the PDF file released by the GOP, and basically it says "winner take all" states (or counties) can not force delegates to all vote for Romney (or Paul). That's a surprise twist I had not been expecting and means Romney has fewer delegates than claimed in the table. For example he does not have all the delegates in "winner take all" Maryland.

QUOTE: No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose thje unit rule. ---- 69.174.58.156 (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

It depends how you interpret it, but why make a new section for it when I brought it up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012#Bound_delegates_and_Rule_38 --Gyroid (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Because I'm not a perfect person that's why. I did not see your contribution. ---- 69.174.58.156 (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Stealth delegates - supporting Candidate P but bound to Candidate R

What, if anything, do we do about delegates who support one candidate but are bound to another? It's unclear how they might act. In the voting where the binding applies (first round, first two rounds, or first three rounds, depending on what state they are from), what if they abstain?

If the point of counting delegates in advance is to establish who is ahead and who, if anyone, will have enough to get the nomination, can we really count these stealth delegates in the candidate's column[8]?

But that may not be the full story. Paul’s forces are not bound to make it easy for Romney to coast to victory, as delegate selection expert Josh Putnam, a Davidson College political scientist, writes on his Frontloading HQ blog.

Paul’s highly organized campaign continues to amass what Mr. Putnam labels “stealth delegates” – delegates pledged to Romney, or one of the withdrawn GOP candidates – who are personally in favor of the libertarian congressman from Texas. It’s hard to determine how many such folks Paul has, or what they’ll do in Tampa.

--Born2cycle (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Write about it in the late states section. You are right even though Nevadas and Massachusetts (and who knows who else) have to vote Romney they are not bound to anything more than that. They could make noise already when the VP candidate are going to be elected. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Who cares what some nobody with a blog says? Just because he has a college next to his name he is some kind of expert? Sorry, but the Romney campaign knows FAR more about the rules (ALL OF THEM) than every single RonPaulian and this Putnam moron put together. They know that not only that abstaining will not work (which Ron Paul himself has said) but that if it weas attempted, there are PLENTLY of ways to fight it..within the rules. But again...until this page says simply "RON PAUL IS WINNING, DESPITE REALUTY" you Ron Pauilians will find someting to complain about.74.67.98.207 (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

This is also the case for North Dakota where Romney supporters will supposedly be voting for Santorum? --Gyroid (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

In the NV delegation, delegates can't abstain from voting the way that they were pledged in the original NV caucus early this year. If they try to abstain, they will immediately be replaced with an alternate (see the other NV discussions on this same talk page for more info on this). This really is a non-issue that even the Paul campaign isn't pushing as a "real" issue now. Romney will be allowed to pick his own Vice-Presidential candidate. The ND delegation has pledged to meet before the 2012 GOP convention to determine how they will vote, and many have already pledged to vote the way that the original Super Tuesday caucus went (again, see other ND discussions on this same talk page for more info on this). Guy1890 (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

We can wait and see. We are historical, not newsy. If WSJ and other notable sources say something about this, we can add to our Article and quote them, if we want to. Three states vote today, Santorum endorsed Romney last night and tells his supporters to defeat Obama by supporting Romney. The closer we get, the more Romney support everyone will see. It will not need to be mentioned here. At convention in Tampa in August, there will be the 'for show' First Vote, and everyone will want to say their delegation jumps on the Romney bandwagon. (Please note that I am not on a 'soap box' but just indicating how our excellent Article should read: namely, that we can best wait and see. There is time enough, and the Article is doing great, in my opinion.) What do you think? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Guy wrote: "If they try to abstain, they will immediately be replaced with an alternate" - what if all the alternates also try to abstain? It's not an impossible scenario, arguably even a very likely one in some states this year, so if we can find out what happens in that case, we should cover it. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Impossible scenario? Maybe not. But then again, neither is a baseball team down 25-2 with 2 outs in the 9th inning and an 0 and 2 count on a relief pitcher who is the only one left to bat. Romney has far more delegate than the delusional RonPaulians want to accept. And with the alternates, it means that even if 60% of Romney's delegates were stealth Ron Paul supporters (which they won't be) it would still take just 20% of Romney's delegates away in that state. But the reality is, it will be less than 50% in almost every state, so Romney will get every one he is entitled too...which is why he was not concerned with these state conventions since he knows they are voting for him either way. And again...there are plenty of other safeguards to prevent disenfranchising millions of voters (which would cause a unanimous electoral college win for OBama) BEFORE the official first round of voting. It isn't as if delegates are going to step up to a microphone on live TV and say "I abstain" All that would be done in back rooms, and will be taken care of LONG boefre the networks go on the air. The reason why a handful of delegates abstain every cconvention is becuase the parties don't CARE..it doesn't matter if 4 or 5 abstain, so they let the babies have their bottles and let them go. But if a lot more did it to the point of making a difference, they would invoke the rules that are designed to protect againsttaht sort of thing. Again...Romney and his campaign knows FAR more about the rules than you do. Far more than John Stossel does. Certainly far more than local Fox affiliate reporter Ben Swann who is in no way a political expert. They know all the ways out they have at their disposal. Ron Paul does as well, which is why he came right out and told a Ron Paul delegate NOT to attempt to abstain becuase it wouldn't work, and would hurt his image.74.67.98.207 (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't see an answer to my question here. Say a given state N has 20 delegates bound to R and 10 bound to P. The chairman reports the votes accordingly, but 6 or more states ask for a roll call vote per Rule 39, and when they get to State N, all 20 of the R delegates abstain? Do they go to the alternates? What if all the alternates abstain too? What rules would be invoked to deal with this? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I dont know the answer to that, but I just want to say that the delegates actually goes to the microphone and give their vote. In 2008 some states passed their vote (not abstained though) so that Arizona could be the state that gave McCain the nomination. Normally all this is just a show as it can be seen on this video: [9]. Maybe it will be different this year, but what ever happens delegates will come to the microphone. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I don't understand your point. Are you saying normally every single delegate comes to the microphone? --Born2cycle (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

No I am just saying that their will be people coming to the mic, not all will be done in smoky back rooms, as a responds to 74.67.98.207 rather spicy comment. A delegate from each of the 56 delegations will come to the mic and read the votes from each delegation, that is the normal way. Sort of a show, with everyone chearing and so on, normally everyone knows who will be the nominee but they like to do it anyway. Just a sidecomment to the discussion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Normally, I don't think it's merely "a delegate", but the chairman of that state's delegation that comes to the mike. But if Rule 39 is invoked, then each individual delegate is polled, I believe. --Born2cycle (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it will be their moment of "15 seconds of fame" for participants. Count of grandstanding on the First Vote. Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

States, Provinces, District of Columbia (US capital), vs “non-states”.

The 200 watchers of this important page can see an undeclared mini-edit-war as to what to call the 57 states, {Obama-grin}. In the formal rules, GOP rule 27 says ‘states’ refers to the 50 states plus the five territories plus Washington DC (District of Columbia). So we could just call them states, but for the reader, it is more interesting to distinguish. We should call territories, ‘territories’ and the District of Columbia, ‘Capitol’. The term ‘non-state’ sounds like ‘nonsense’. What do you think? Jack Bornholm has been a true gentleman and asked for comments here in TALK discussion. What do you think? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the best would be, "States Won: 22 + DC & 5 territories". I also think it could stay like it is now. "States Won: 28 (incl. DC & 5 territories)" >>>Light-jet pilot (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

I think the conflict is in the popular vote section Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, correct. Popular Vote section. I vote for DC and 'provinces'. I plan to edit in the morning (Manyana; manana) OK? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Provinces makes it sound too Canadian. While technically correctly, far more Americans refer to them as territories. Why not just something like "Votes won" or "Primaries/Caucuses Won"?74.67.98.207 (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I know that a some editors here dislike any rules made by the RNC and anything that cant be understood at glanse, but still. Why not just follow the RNC rule 27 and call them all states, with a small note explaining it of course. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I meant to say 'territories' since that is what they are. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I think there should just be one term for all. Just "territories" should do even if it is only one territory. Having multiple terms like "territory" for just one territory and "DC" or "capitol" is unnecessary. TL565 (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Just the small problem that D.C. is not a territory Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

A territory would just be a region under U.S. jurisdiction, so all states and DC are technically U.S. territories. TL565 (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

So do what I said. DC + Territories. >>Light-jet pilot (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestions. (1) DC, territories; (2) Territories; (3) Territory; and (4) DC: District of Columbia. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Like I said before, just "Territories" is fine under all candidates. We don't need to over do it by making sure it's singular or that its DC. DC is technically a territory. The issue was people didn't like the term "non-states". TL565 (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Santorum won the delegations of six states, not five

The ticker screen should change it to that. North Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee. The screen says he won the delegations of five, he won the delegations of six. J390 (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

 Done Alabama, Kansas, North Dakota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Russia Today is reporting that Ron Paul has won 11 states

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm9H1ojpIlA 5/8/2012 PLEASE CONFIRM AND UPDATE DELEGATE MAP ON WIKIPEDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.190.175 (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

We can also watch what Democrats say. GOP.com has the official counts, and "the jury is still out" so to speak. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting clip, but again: "Projected counts are not real!" They where not real when they showed Romney winning a lot, and all the Paul supporters reminded us about it, and they are not real now, when the Paul supporters seem to have forgotten that. He might win the plurality in a few states like Iowa, but not before the state convention. It is my experience that Russia Today is not really a reliable source when it comes to western news, at least not european, they seems to have a big bias. But maybe all media outlets have that today. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Yeah, but delegate projections based on strawpoll popular vote percentages are one thing; delegate projections based on county/district actual delegate percentages are something else again. But, yeah, they're still just projections, until each state convention (which Maine, for example, just had). --Born2cycle (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Russia Today isn't based on ANYTHING except delusions. Like many sites desperate for ad revenue, tey know that if they post a pro-Paul article, no matter how inaccurate it is, the RonPaulians will latch on to it FOREVER and spam all their friends until they are defriended (both online and in real life) and it will give them lots of page views. Not only have many of those supposedly 11 state wins not awarded delegates yet, but many are not wins for Paul to begin with...evenn IF theycould be unbound (which they can't.)07:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.98.207 (talk)

Funny the projections were cited by wikipedia previously (such as giving Romney/Santorum all of Iowa's delegates, and Paul none). Now suddenly projections are not okay, even though it's confirmed Paul already got 60% of them). Double standard from a biased organization that supports ACTA and CISPA. ---- 69.174.58.156 (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

It's easy for you to sign up with a Wikipedia ID/pw and assist in improving this Article. Before the state primaries began, projections were important; now that most of the elections are in, projections are less important. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Colorado Numbers Correct?

Colorado GOP says Romney 14, Santorum 6, Unbound 16. http://www.cologop.org/assembly-results/ Ploxhoi (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

What numbers are you talking about? These numbers are also in the Primary schedule, but as it is clearly stated in the Legend the unbound RNC delegates (that are not elected in the primary process) are not included in the table. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

From the above link, I get 13 delegates for Romney, 6 delegates for Santorum & 14 uncommitted delegates. The various CO delegate issues have been sorted out on the CO Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Republican_caucuses,_2012) & talk pages. Guy1890 (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The effect of May 8 results {WV, NC, IN} Romney winning.

Even with their Liberal Democrat leanings, CNN does one of the best jobs counting Republican delegates. Here is their good website following the sweep of three states by Romney. People are still voting for Santorum and Gingrich. Paul garners 15% in Indiana. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/dates/20120508 Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

It's been my experience recently that both CNN & the AP have been over-inflating the total GOP delegate counts by using phony, projected delegate counts from states that haven't really finished their delegate selection processes. MSNBC has been a lot closer to what the real, total delegate count has been all along IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting. I've searched for a summary/current count that the Green Paper people might have, since I consider them only second to the official Republican counts, and find this: The Green Papers: "Republican 2012 Delegate Count, Current Summary". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The delegatecount and its sources

I think we should change the way we display the delegatecount because right now it doesnt show the state of the primaries clearly. I think we need:

• A Hardcount. That is the count of the delegates that can not change their vote, the bound delegates. When Romneys hardcount number hits 1,144 it is over, even for the most hardcore Paul supporter (of course Paul still gets his 15 minutes and a vote where he will loose - if he gets plurality in five states). We already have such a count and the source is the GP's hard count. No problem.

• A Unprojected Softcount. Right now we have a projected softcount from the GP. It uses results from caucus states that are simply projected directly to delegates. How many believes that will be true numbers after Maine? Right now projections of Iowa and Washington State are worth very little. But there is a lot of unbound delegates that are elected and strongly supports a candidate (like the 21 Paul supportes from Maine), they are not included in the infobox right now. So we need a softcount that dont project, just counts all the delegates, both the bound and unbound. That excluded the 117 unbound RNC delegates and unallocated delegates that havent been elected yet. The unbound RNC delegates are not a part of the election process and besides the few states where Paul supporters have taken over the state party they will all vote with the majority as the always does not to rock the boat at the convention. I havent been able to find a source for such a count, but we already have one - The count from the Primary Schedule. It is numbers from the GP, even though their softcount is projected they have all the info of other counts on each states subpage. It would take a lot of work to gather all this info, but it have already been done in the Primary Schedule table and it is controlled and updates by several diligent editors. Since all the numbers are from GP, checked with USA Today it can hardly be original research.

I suggest that we drop the projected counts, they are hardly true with the new development of the primaries and replace it with a unprojected softcount derived from GP and checked against USA Today as we find it in the Primary Schedule of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012.

I feel strongly that we should stay away from any projected counts for states that haven't finished their delegate selection process yet (IA, MN, WA, MO, IL, PA, LA & IN). All of those kind of counts are based on pure speculation, at best. All those kind of counts do is further confused an already Byzantine-like process. Guy1890 (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I also suggest that we chance the hardcount in the infobox template to this softcount, since it more clearly shows the real state of the primaries. I have put a link to this dicussion on the templates talkpage so all discussion about this subject can be done here. To generate interest for this discussion I am being bold and are chancing both template and article right away, we can always chance it back. I look forward to hear your comments. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Regarding "delegates that can not change their vote", there has been some talk that the Paul people who are officially bound Romney delegates can abstain from voting in the first round, whereupon they will be freed to vote for Paul in the second round. Is there a way to include something like this? Esn (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

There is a discussion about abstaining just above: Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 #Stealth delegates - supporting Candidate P but bound to Candidate R. Personally I think it should be mentioned in the text in the Late State section. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

As stated in the above-mentioned section of this talk page, this abstention issue is basically a baloney issue. Just mention some text about it on the the Wiki page associated with this talk page & be done with it. Guy1890 (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul and Nevada

Ron Paul has won the plurality of delegates in Nevada as well as Maine and Minnesota. AP. Just an indication to whoever is editing the contest maps that Nevada should be yellow in the first. Sir Richardson (talk) 16:10, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Qoute from your source (AP): "In Nevada, for example, 22 of the 25 delegates chosen Sunday to go to the national convention openly support Paul. Under party rules, Romney was supposed to get 20 delegates, based on party caucus results in February. The delegates have agreed to vote for Romney on the first ballot at the convention, but no one can stop them from cheering for Paul." Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Well said Jack. People need to read the sources that they are using before posting here. These same issues keep coming up over & over & over again. MN's process doesn't end until May 19th, but Paul is currently ahead in the unbound delegate count there. Patience! Guy1890 (talk) 21:27, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

For your interest in latest counts: The Green Papers: "Republican 2012 Delegate Count, Current Summary." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:56, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

He has shown a strong showing in Romney's home state, Massachusetts, getting the majority of delegates there.[106] Also, he has won a majority of delegates in Louisiana, with 74% of them [107]. Paul also managed a delegate win in Nevada, with 88% of delegates supporting him.[108] (Ron Paul campaign wikipedia page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.95.190 (talk) 20:19, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

Polling order

In Talk:United_States_Senate_election_in_Massachusetts,_2012#Polling_order, we are having a dispute concerning whether polls should be listed in chronological or reverse-chronological order. We would appreciate any outside input from the broader group of editors who contribute to these articles. Thanks! Light-jet pilot (talk) 22:18, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Delegates are NOT bound.

[10]

Looks like some changes have to be made. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.134.10.10 (talk) 06:50, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Benn Swann 5/10/2012: ALL RNC delegates are free agents and unbound

Swann's source? Jennifer Sheehan, Legal Counsel for the RNC, who apparently made the following statement in a letter in 2008:

The RNC does not recognize a state's binding of national delegates, but considers each delegate a free agent who can vote for whoever they choose.

Reality Check: Why all RNC delegates are 'Free Agents' and unbound

I can't find a copy of the Sheehan letter online, but there is this reference to it in this January 2009 blog post on the Utah county GOP website: Utah County GOP: Mr. Jenkins Goes to St. Paul. And there is a reference to Sheehan here and here.

I don't think this is solid enough to run with it in the article yet, but if the veracity of that statement is verified, we must, because that changes the delegate counts completely, making them virtually unknown, actually. --Born2cycle (talk) 06:57, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Only 10 states binds their RNC delegates (and of course there is ND with is alternative rules) so it will in all cases only be 30 delegates. If this was true then the these 10 state parties would have to reapportion their delegations. And several of them have already had their conventions and their delegations are elected and ready to go to Tampa. So why havent the RNC said anything about it, they have been very strict in - trying to - inforce the new rulebook on the state parties. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:04, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The RNC hasn't said anything because now the rules go against their candidate. 69.134.10.10 (talk) 09:29, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

After researching this issue for a while online, the only thing I can say for sure is that this is super confusing.

http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features//2008/0804W.auspitz.html

This guy Josiah Lee Auspitz sounds like an expert in understanding party rules.

http://www.loc.gov/rr/main/republican_conventions.pdf

Taft won easily on the first ballot with 556 votes, although 348 delegates present at the convention abstained from voting in protest

http://wygop.org/wp-content/uploads/2012/03/2010.bylaws.pdf

The unit rule method of voting is defined as:

a. Permitting a delegate to vote on an issue on behalf of other delegate; or,

b. Binding a delegate to vote in any particular manner; or,

c. Any device which would cast a vote to the delegation as a block rather than pursuant to the wishes of the individual delegates

-- Avanu (talk) 11:35, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

The result is that many state delegations will decide to jump on the Romney bandwagon on First Vote. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:14, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Romney has 811 hard count votes and Paul has 60. Republican 2012 Delegate Count, Current Summary Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:25, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

But the Green Papers data is based on the assumption that bound delegates are actually bound. For example, for Nevada they give Romney 14 hard delegates, Gingrich 6, Paul 5 and Santorum 3. Yet of those 28 delegates, 22 are hardcore Paul supporters; only 6 are Romney supporters [11]. How do you think those 22 will act and vote at the convention?

If the assumption that bound delegates are actually bound is not true, then everything changes. So if we adjust just for Nevada, Romney's "hard" 811 drops by 8 (14 - 6) and Paul's goes up by 17 (22 - 5), so we have 803 for Romney and 77 for Paul. But this is true in many more states than Nevada (including Massachusetts, where 18 of 27 -- more than half -- are Paul supporters[12]).

So, unless they find a way to actually bind "bound" delegates to vote for the candidate to which they are bound, there is nothing "hard" about the 811 delegates that are presumed to be Romney delegates, and if we start counting delegates that actually support a given candidate, Romney's numbers plummet and Paul's numbers go way up. Enough to win? Probably not, but not necessarily not. There is just no way to know.

Now, if we were talking about a minority of delegates in a few states, then the Chairman and the majority of that delegation could easily enforce the binding. But that's not the case. What we're seeing in state after state is a majority of the delegation, often including the Chairman, supports a candidate different from the one to which they are supposedly bound. Who, in all those cases, is going to enforce the supposed state binding, and how?

It seems to me we're in unchartered territory and only time will tell. --Born2cycle (talk) 15:36, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

Getting back to why I made this section, it's my understanding now that the article will have to be modified in terms of delegate counts. The delegate map will also have to be altered as many of the states featured on it are only filled out because of binding rules. Most of them haven't had their conventions yet.

If by most you mean a simple majority I guess you are rigt a week or two more. Right now a little less than half the delegations have finished their delegation electing process. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This probably doesn't fit wikipedia's definition of a reliable source, but here's something to give you an idea of how things really look right now. [13] 69.134.10.10 (talk) 19:17, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

In a way all this talk about delegates are really not about the Presidential primaries but more about what else would happen at the convention. It does do a lot more than simply elect a candidate to run for president. Now even though this article is mainly about electing that candidate, I do think all this deserves a some lines in the article but it is not the main thing. It is welldocumented with sources and statements from the candidate (Paul) and from the actual elected delegates that they will vote according to how they are bound when voting for a Nominee. So when it come to that person and his campaign all the numbers and maps are correct. Ok, there may be a little confusion about 30 bound RNC delegates but that is all - 30 out of 2,286. If this trend with Paul supporters taking over state conventions continues, maybe a section in the National Convention Article would be better, since it is about the national convention and all the things that will be decided and vote on and not mostly about the process of electing a Republican candidate for president. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:02, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

This entire section of the talk page is about a completely & totally bogus set of issues. From the above-cited links: "But to win its coveted early caucus state status, Nevada had to promise to make the results of the caucus binding. Under those rules, 20 of the national delegates must vote for Romney on the first round of balloting and eight must vote for Paul.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76125.html#ixzz1udreJPGK" and "According to Josh Putnam, a scholar on the presidential nominating process at Davidson College in North Carolina, the rule is a throwback from the days when party bosses would strong-arm a state delegation into backing a single candidate.

Most party officials and observers say it doesn’t apply to states that have binding caucuses.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76125_Page2.html#ixzz1udrlWOIe" and "RNC rules clearly say a delegate can abstain from the vote. Wouldn’t that set Paul loyalists free from voting for Romney?

Well, probably not.

In practice, when a majority of delegates decide they are going to abstain from the nominating vote, that state’s delegation is skipped over in the roll call.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76125_Page2.html#ixzz1udrr5Fu8" and "But Nevada Republican Secretary Jim DeGraffenreid notes that the roll-call vote doesn’t allow individual delegates to shout out their vote.

Instead, the delegation chair submits the state’s total. In Nevada’s case, the chair would shout out 20 votes for Romney and eight for Paul.

Any delegate looking to circumvent that bind would likely be replaced by an alternate delegate, DeGraffenreid said. And all of the alternates elected at the state convention are Romney supporters.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/news/stories/0512/76125_Page2.html#ixzz1udrwIWkH" and "Bradford P. Wyatt, a Worcester businessman who helped lead the pro-Paul movement, has promised the bad dream will not become a reality for Romney.

'We like Ron Paul a lot, but Mitt Romney is our nominee,’’ Wyatt said. 'We’re not going to abstain. I’ve had conversations with most of the delegates, and I’d say we’re of the same mind that it would be a horrible thing to show disunity at the convention.’"

Of course, there's also this about "Rule 38": http://www.dailypaul.com/230881/urgent-ben-swann-and-matt-larson-are-wrong-about-38-and-delegates-being-unbound-based-on-rnc-rules

These are really bogus issues people. Guy1890 (talk) 08:31, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

If we are going to talk about this sily unbound thing (as if some nobody local affilaite reporter is an expert on the rules) then we may as well delete this page entirely since we would have to preent to know all the rules that are also in place to prevent this sort of stupidity of disenfranchising millions of voters. (Gee...you think that maybe Ben Swann doesn't know about ALL the rules?) It is not going to happen, and even if it was attempted (even thogh Ron Paul has been very clear that he does NOT want his supporters to do this) then there are plenty of safeguards in place to prevent it...within the rules. Which of course would make the RonPaulians whine about how they were manipulating the rules to prevent them from manipulating the rules.74.67.106.1 (talk) 04:16, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

Holding back on commenting on the future . . .

I'm at the annual pharmaceutical conference in San Francisco CA for SAS programmers/mgrs and JMP programmers/mgrs; hence, will not be assisting in the TALK discussion much. Actually, I think it appropriate to withhold and limit comments for the next few weeks. I'll have one comment just before the voting in Texas, the homestate of Ron Paul, and one commnent soon after and before the major delegation is selected in California. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:44, 13 May 2012 (UTC)

New Paul states?

Paul took 22 of the delegates in Nevada. He has 13 of the delegates in Iowa, meaning that he will win the state regardless of what happens at the state convention. He just won Oklahoma and Arizona, and is looking good to win MA and Missouri.

This site keeps track of the convention, but has yet to include Paul's recent OK and AZ wins: http://thereal2012delegatecount.com/ FreakyDaGeeky14 (talk) 07:15, 14 May 2012 (UTC)