Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries

Seriously guys? Three maps?

I think three maps is a little overboard doesn't represent a neutral POV because they make it look like Ron Paul did better than he really did which gives the reader a false impression, especially a reader just skimming through. NO other primaries have three maps saying which state voted for who in their caucuses and which states voted for who in the convention vote. They are largely all irrelevant details that might require mentions somewhere in the article, but not a map that is one of the first thing a reader will look at. 161.253.11.22 (talk) 00:31, 20 September 2012 (UTC)

The third map . . . (delegates after the convention roll call)

The third map is appropriate and looks great (delegates after the convention roll call) but the problem is that a paragraph has appeared under the map that wrong. The map reflects reality of finalized state delegations, NOT PROJECTIONS. Can this be removed? "Convention delegate projections vary among sources. This count is a unprojected softcount, which only includes allocated delegates and unallocated delegates that have been elected. It does not included any projected count on future local conventions or the 117 unbound RNC delegates that are not a part of the primary election process. According to party rules all territories are counted as states, and a state is carried when a candidate can show a plurality of delegates in that state.[3]" — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:43, 29 August 2012 (UTC)

 Done — Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:08, 30 August 2012 (UTC)

Table should say Paul won four states, not three

It's no biggie but he won four states, as the table shows so it should say he won 4 states. Right now it says he won 3. J390 (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

Which four? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)

In the second table, Minnesota, Iowa, Louisiana, and Maine. J390 (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)

Yes, I see that you are absolutely correct! And adding to the Paul total before the roll call would then add correctly to 57 states, territories, providences, and DC, as so correctly noted by Obama that there are 57 'states'. ;-) The difficulty is that the text is not in this page but is brought in with the graphics, which is hard to identify, then hard to find the storage. Patient editors tried to teach me this before. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)

As of this date, the numbers under the top three maps add correctly to 57 only in the middle map. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

Due to Maine, Romney gets one more in 1st & 3rd map. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)

two comments

first, congrats on a fabulous page second, in the county by county resutls maps at the end - may I suggest you consider using maps where the area on the screen (# of pixels) is proportional to population , rather then square miles. use of square mile proportional maps, while having the great virture of being accepted, greatly (greatly) overstate the emphasis of large sparsely populated states like WY, MT, etc if a pop map (see sam wangs web page) you would see that the entire upper plains is a tiny fractio of the population, which shows that R Santorum's wins are much less important then they appear this is a pscyhological perception thing; the brain equates area with importance, even tho almost no one (roughly ) lives in MT; the huge populations of LA and NYC are invisible. thanks