Jump to content

Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 24.54.218.119 (talk) at 00:52, 22 March 2012 (→Territories in the resultsection). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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

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

It is a little unclear what you are proposing. Should this table replace the schedule table or should it be added so they are both in the article or???? (This is not a sandbox or a subarticle or list to the main article. This is a talkpage where improvements of the article is dicussed.) Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
No, I vote to leave it here till 2013 so readers and editors can see it here in TALK. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
What's the purpose of having it on the talk page? If it's going to be anywhere, shouldn't it be in article space somewhere? Plus, it's going to difficult to keep it from being archived considering the page is auto-archived after a certain amount of time (every 7 days currently).--NextUSprez (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Wikipedia readers (and editors) read the TALK pages when they are intently interested. The LIST does not warrant a separate article, and the main ARTICLE here is rather long already. As supporting editors know (plus the 160 editors who are 'watching') we had discussions about including this LIST or the current TABLE in the article. They both have advantages. Since the section above has no date, I'm thinking it will not be archived. At my earliest convenience I'll read WP information, but often the instructions are long and involved. I can always put the LIST back, you will be pleased to know. :-) . . . Thanks for asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I actually read the guidelines for talkpages just now, and it does give room for putting a section like this in a talkpage. I dont really think it have any purpose, so I agre with Next. But that is not a matter of opinion. It is ok acording to guidelines. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it's okay by the guidelines, I guess there's no harm in keeping it here. Just seemed like an odd place for it, that's all. Whatever is decided by consensus is fine by me.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Just to add to a future consencus. I think it should go. Just my opinion Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

What is your source for that information? The Green Papers list them as it is in the article table. Before I changed it I looked around the web and I couldnt find any other date than March 10. Not that it was easy to find anything about about that caucus at all. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not remembering a more authoritative source than Green Papers (which says 'March 10th') but here is one: [1] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I search their “Marianas Variety” newspaper in vain to find news on voting: [2] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In their Island paper today (Super Tuesday) there is just one article, 'why Obama should be reelected'. Comments by the readers all agree. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

And I'm just realizing that with DC, there are 56 states, DC, and provinces voting. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Obama was right, with DC +50 states + five territories + United_States_Minor_Outlying_Islands = 57 like he said. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Maps and their colors

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

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

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

What is it with catering to the color-blind? We cant accommodate every single persons needs. Most of us have no problems with the map and are used to the colors already. Don't change it to hideous colors, the state map is already color-blind friendly.TL565 (talk) 22:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I qoute a comment from the discussion above:
"If the maps are changed then 99.99% of the general population can access all the information. If the maps are not changed, 92% of men can access the information and 96% of the general population can access the information. If you think the 8% of men who are colorblind might have something to say about the data, then you will agree that changing the colors is acceptable even if they don't suit your aesthetic principles. I think it's morally wrong to oppose accessible maps for the sake of some aesthetic norms. What is your argument that the colorblind don't have a right to this information?"
I would think that 8% is more than every single person even though I am not one of them. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I don't see any overwhelming argument from people that the colors must be changed. The state map was already changed. You cant expect everyone to just jump because of one or two people here. You say 8%, but how many of that 8% check here everyday. The colors have been in place for months, more people will complain about the colors suddenly changing. Just leave them alone.TL565 (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I agree the colors you chose clash and are awful on the eyes is there another color scheme you can come up with or revert the edit? There is clearly no consensus here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Totally agree, my friend. I had my eyes checked in February, some of the people on this board need to go get theirs checked. I personally think the map looks sloppy as is, and leans to a negative image of the Republicans. It needs to be returned to a professional color scheme that shows the Republicans in a positive light -- such as the one that was in place several months ago. (By the way, I am not referring to policies of the Republican party, only the color scheme that CURRENTLY represents them). :) Stopde (talk) 07:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Why not, then, impose letters on the map to show who won each state? R for Romney, G for Gingrich, S for Santorum, & P for Paul. That way, the colorblind can tell at a glance while rest of us can have our all-important color aesthetic. I don't know about the competition month map, but at least the winners & losers can be fit within 5 different levels of saturation (the fifth for future contests). --67.248.246.4 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

California

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

159 district delegates are to be bound to presidential contenders based on the primary results in each of the 53 congressional districts: each congressional district is assigned 3 National Convention delegates and the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in that district will receive all 3 of that district's National Convention delegates.
10 at-large delegates (10 base at-large delegates plus 0 bonus delegate) are to be bound to the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary statewide.
In addition, 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the California's Republican Party, will attend the convention as unpledged delegates by virtue of their position.
The selection of Presidential Nominating Convention Delegates to the Republican National Convention ... shall be chosen by the Presidential candidate who obtained the plurality of Republican votes within each Congressional district, and, for ... at large ... by the Presidential candidate who obtained the plurality of Republican votes statewide. [Standing Rules and Bylaws of the California Republican Party As Amended 20 March 2011 Article VI Section 6.01 (A)]

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

When both CD and AL is the same, as it is in California (winner-take-all) it is only written once. The information you have listed can easy be read out of the table in the AL and CD collums. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
When both the CD and AL are the same, it should be written twice. It costs the table nothing, and is clearer for the reader. When there is no CD allocation, the table should say so: "Winner-take-all (AL) - no CD allocation." There is a bit of redundancy in this, but with the benefit of far greater clarity for the reader. Jd2718 (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If it is done consistent and in a neat way I dont see a problem with that. Why dont you work with the table in your sandbox to see if that is possible. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have made a new section for this question, since it is not just about California but all the contests. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Guam

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

Voting is not until Saturday, but the citizens in the five provinces are impressed with the campaigning of the Romney family. For example: You should really take a look at the Main Page of the newspaper: http://www.saipantribune.com/default.aspx with a photo and caption: "Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's son, Matt, and wife Laurie, pose with traditional warrior dance group members at a luncheon hosted yesterday by Gov. Benigno R. Fitial at his private residence in Gualo Rai on the eve of today's Republican caucus in the CNMI. (Haidee V. Eugenio)" That's great; truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
They're on the other side of the date line, so Saturday is already nearly over, isn't it? --Coemgenus (talk) 17:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Maybe change it from "states" to "contests?" But then that brings in the dubious Missouri primary. --Coemgenus (talk) 20:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have changed it in the fashion of the 2008 article. The territories are mentioned only in the winners row, but at the bottom and it is not counted in the states won number. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Jack of Bornholm, you are the best! . . . Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

North Dakota

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

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

What have voter registration to do with counting how many hands was raised or how many ballot casted in every caucus across the state? Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry, my bad. I relied on a couple news articles to find out why Fox, CNN, and other networks weren't reporting county-by-county results. They were saying something about there being no voter registration. Looking further into the situation I'm finding that the North Dakota Republican Party releases results based on Legislative Districts, not Counties. http://www.northdakotagop.org/caucus/ is the results. Again, my bad for not looking at more official resources. All well, all that's hurt is my pride. SargeAbernathy (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Green Papers are great [3] with Republicans in the right column. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Based on that map from NDGOP, it looks like Santorum won every county except Rollette, which was a Romney-Paul tie.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Who won Virgin Islands?

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

Just in from AP (via a google-search) "The Republican Party chairman in the U.S. Virgin Islands says Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney has won the territory’s GOP caucus. Chairman Herb Schoenbohm says Romney can count on seven delegates from the Virgin Islands. He already had three superdelegates before Saturday’s caucuses and he picked up three more in voting in St. Thomas and St. Croix. After the vote, an uncommitted delegate switched to Romney. Ron Paul got one delegate, and one delegate remains uncommitted. Residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands can participate in primaries but like residents of nearby Puerto Rico cannot vote in the general election." [4] Indeed, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, no one is arguing that this is the delegatecount and Romney won most delegates. But as all the other contests the one with the most popular vote "win" the state, not the one that actually wins most delegates. Like Iowa was a split, but the one with the most popular vote, even just a handfull, is declared the winner of the state. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Except in those other states, there actually was a vote where hte caucus voters chose a president. This is not how the Virgin Islands do it. NO ONE voted for Ron Paul in the Virgin Islands. He had zero votes, just like Romney.
Warren Bruce Cole pledged to Romney after the vote totals so people did not vote his as Romney delegate. Paul recieved most votes, Romney won most delegates. Santorum also won most popular votes in Iowa despite he could have same amount of delegates as Romney and Paul. --Dezidor (talk) 16:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually uncommitted (in general elections known as nobody or none of above) won the contest. That is part of the problem. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, Mr. Bornholm, "Uncommitted" or "nobody" cannot win a contest; It would go to the first candidate who won, by popular vote, and that is Paul. This is America--You can't press "None Of The Above" in the polling booth on General Election day. Are you afraid of Ron Paul be given the credit for a win? I'm reversing your edit. Donatrip (talk) 17:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This is false. In many primary elections, especially in caucuses, Uncommitted is an absolutely valid choice. Wyoming selected an Uncommitted delegate this week, and so did the Virgin Islands. Simon12 (talk) 23:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh no, being an european I really dont care who will win this primary or the whole election. It will have no impact on my life what so ever if Obama, Romney, Santorum or indeed Paul was president of USA. In the spirit of the wikipedia you shouldnt edit something you are to close to emotionel, and I couldnt be farther away. In accordance with the norm of both general presidentiel election article and republican primary elections the territories dont count in states won though, nothing to do with Paul or not. The only article that put them in the infobox is the 2008 version, the rest leave all 5 out of the infobox. All articles put them at the bottom of the won list in the result table, but dont count them in the number and leave them totally out in the infobox. So whatever Paul have won or not, I think we should follow the wikepedia tradition, with both Paul and Romneys territorial winnings. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sorry Jack, having trouble deciphering your English but I get the gist of what you're saying. I think the mere fact that the party chairman has declared Romney the winner should be the deciding factor in crediting this win. It should go back in the Romney column. I am a Ron Paul supporter, but that's the way I see it. Caucuses are not the same as primaries: vote totals don't matter so much as the decision of the party organization, and in this case it is in Romney's favor. -- SchutteGod 70.181.184.7 (talk) 20:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I will try to accept my limited vocabulary and grammatical skills and choice my words more simple :) :)
For all Territories: Notice this article: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008#Candidates John McCain 31 states won, territories dont count. Mike Huckabee 15 second places, terrioties dont count.
For all Territories: Notice the infobox in this article: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2000 together with most of the Republican primary articles. The Territories are not in the infobox at all.
For Virgin Islands: Notice these reliable sources [[5]] and [[6]] disagreeing.
For Virgin Islands: Delegates are legally bound if they declare themselve for a candidate, are we sure that is just the case before the voting starts?
I hope you understand my broken english. I am starting to understand why we sold you the islands for only 25 million dollars 96 years ago :) :) Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Very well, risking the ire of Paul supporters, I've placed VI back in the Romney column temporarily until the issue over who actually "won" can be resolved here. And Jack: your English is eminently better than my Danish, so don't sweat it. :p --SchutteGod (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

384 total cast:

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

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

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

It is a very small thing, but in VI the delegates that pledge themselve to an candidate before the voting are actually legally bound to their candidate. If you are elected delegate as uncommitted you are of course free to committed yourself to any candidate as all "superdelegates" are. So in the schedule table VI should actually have 4 delegates in the bound colum and 5 in the unbound (2 uncommitted and 3 RNC). 4 of these unbound have then committed to Romney, making his entry for VI to become 4 (+3) and one continues to be uncommitted. And of course one delegate for Paul. Am I right?
about the brokered or open convention. To spice up things some state delegations are actually bound for the first two rounds, if not released by the candidate. All to keep us awake during an open convention Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

  • Ron Paul won the most votes in the Virgin Islands, so he should be listed as the winner even if he got fewer delegates. See Nevada in the 2008 Democratic Primary - Obama got 13 delegates to Clinton's 12 even though Hillary won 51% of the vote. The map shows Nevada as a gold (Clinton) state. Smartyllama (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
At the time I wrote that, I did not realize "Uncommitted" received more votes than Paul. I think there are valid reasons to declare either "Uncommitted" or Ron Paul the winner, and I will have to think about which is better, but as this precedent shows, Romney is not the winner just because he received more delegates. Smartyllama (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Bottom Line: [7] Uncommitted(1), Romney(7), Paul(1). Decision over, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Oh yea I meant to mention the Nevada thing, but I couldnt remember when it occurred. The only reason this is debated is because of what I said. If the media hadnt been able to contact all 9 delegates, Ron Paul would be considered the uncontested winner. CES, dont be dismissive. This is a valid debate over whether we are counting popular vote or delegate votes. Its a real shame the Ron Paul campaign has to go thru this when they finally "won" a contest.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I dont think the media had to contact the delegates. In contrast to Guam the VI delegates are legally bound by their presidentiel preferences. And it is the delegates that are on the ballot, not the candidates. (it was sort of an loophole caucus) If they are elected as uncommitted they of course can later pledge themselve just like the other unbound. But the rest are just as bound as all the other bound delegates. So right now VI have 4 bound delegates and 5 "unbound" (3 RNC and 2 Uncommmitted, the one have already pledge to Romney but could theoretical change if he likes). I have changed the informations in the Schedule Table to reflect this, so if I am wrong about this please say. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The winner of the overall primary is based on delegates, so surely the winner of individual states should be based on delegates. The popular vote effectively means nothing, it's just a nice little tool, the winner of a state should be based on delegates as this is a primary based on delegates not popular vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.65.109 (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Not to mention, the winner of a caucus is determined by the party organization, not by an unofficial vote count. The Republican Party of the United States Virgin Islands has unequivocally declared Romney the winner. If Iowa is going to be placed in the Santorum column based on a declaration from the Iowa Republican Party - despite the party's admission that there was no way to know who the real winner of the vote was - then Virgin Islands should be switched back to Romney. --SchutteGod 70.181.184.7 (talk) 05:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

You're right, this is absolute lunacy. To add up the vote totals for delegates who lost and from that claim Ron Paul "won" the total vote is akin to saying Al Gore won the 2000 election because he got more votes. Again, I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but this continual campaign by Paul supporters to overstate his wins (even when technically they're not wins at all) is ridiculous. --SchutteGod 70.181.184.7 (talk) 17:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

May I say it is ridiculous to use so much time on so few votes. In total, 384 persons (according to GP) voted in the VI caucus. For all those that are having a small edit-war in the starting paragrafs on this article: Do you really think that the Virgin Islands are going to survive in the opening paragrafs at all? In May no one will care. If you want to use time on something else than just having a bit of political fun editing a few lines and the letting others erase them you could write the proper story in the mid-March section - Where it actually would have a change of surviving beyond the next 10 primaries. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It is even more ridiculous that that. There were not even 384 people voting. Since each one got to vote 6 times, those 384 votes were placed by just 64 people. And of those 64 people, it is clear that Romney had the most supporters. (He had at least 35 people voting for Romney delegates while Paul had at most 29.) Had he had just ONE more delegate for a total of 4 to Paul's 6, he would have "won" this non-existent "popular vote" and then the Ron Paul supporters would be complaining that media was calling it a popular vote.
Yes! Agree with Jack. If you want further discussion, go over to the Virgin Island WP page where the last sentence is not sourced properly and fix it there. How do you get there, you ask? Go down in our Table to 'Virgin Islands' and over to the 7th column "Type-of-Race" and click on "Caucuses". That will take you over to United_States_Virgin_Islands_Republican_caucuses,_2012 where you can make sure it is correct. Be sure to put in newspaper and other references since the last sentence of the last section supports the Ron Paul popular vote (not sourced) and the rest of the article explains how it really works with districts. Sometimes we need a civics lesson, which would apply to the US Electoral College also. Hope this helps; Happy Editing; Thanks for valiant efforts, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

BOTTOM LINE: "Article XIII Sec.1. states, "The method of selecting delegates to the Republican National Convention shall be determined by the Territorial Committee." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Further discussion continues at Talk:United_States_Virgin_Islands_Republican_caucuses,_2012 Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate Table sorting issues

The delegate table does not sort correctly on several fields:

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

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

Thanks for pointing it out; It is best when things work; WP readers need to see our best! . . . Not that anyone would want it, but I saved "The List" if it is easier. (See the first section in TALK here.) More likely, the excellent editors (my compliments) who maintain "The Table" can fix it to work. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I have done a little work on the schedule table, but I cant figure out how to solve this problem. I hope another editor can help us out. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The only columns that readers would want to sort have to do with delegate count, now explained just above the Table. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I always sort the state column, to find a certain state. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, then 'total delegates' (click twice); then 'bound delegates'; then 'unbound delegates (click twice for all columns with delegates); and then back to 'Date'. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Schedule Table - Delegate allocation

In the California section above this comment was posted:

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

I have made two different suggestions in my sandbox [[8]]. One with one colum in the old delegate allocation and one with two colums. I just made a little sample of each. Take a look and comment on what you think. My worry is that the schedule table keeps getting wider and wider. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC) [reply]

Thanks, nice job. The single column looks better, I think, and doesn't widen the entire table. (Your point about width is well-taken). Jd2718 (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
 Done. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

Dear 70.24.167.8 please read three sections up. Paul wins the popular vote and nets one delegate; Romney nets seven delegates; and one will decide at convention. [9] Thanks for contribution, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
NOTE: Under our "delegate Table", footnote g says, "g: Delegates from the Virgin Islands are legally bound if they are elected as pledged to a candidate. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

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

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

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

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

Also, Time magazine, the Washington Times, Yahoo, WHNT-TV, the Huffington Post, and various other media outlets are all reporting a Ron Paul win. And the Times is a neoconservative newspaper, definitely not pro-Ron Paul at all. You can't have it both ways; you can't say Romney wins V.I. because he won the delegates unless you're gonna wait until delegates in states where you've declared Romney the winner are actually decided at state conventions. Romney may or may not end up winning the delegates in those states. Let's use ONE STANDARD here, and that's the popular vote. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skiingff (talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You are right, popular vote doesn't count in the final analysis, except in influencing delegate selection. Virgin Islands is a good example, Republican leaders going with Romney. That is why leaders are chosen. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Further discussion continues at Talk:United_States_Virgin_Islands_Republican_caucuses,_2012 ... Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There WAS NO popular vote. Period. Trying to compare it to caucuses in states where the voters vote for a candidate and delegates are allocated proportionally is not a valid comparison. Ron Paul recieved ZERO votes in the Virgin Islands. So how could he win anything? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.102.7 (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Take the TALK conversation over to United_States_Virgin_Islands_Republican_caucuses,_2012 where you can notice two things: (1) the people there decide themselves how they will vote, and they voted for who would be delegates, not the Republican candidates. So it was up to the delegates voted in to say; and (2) our Wikipedia article calls it a 'caucus'. So be it, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

WP editors/readers who think there was media bias in reporting Ron Paul's popular vote win will be interested to know there is a Wikipedia page on Media Bias. FYI, I have reference our TALK discussion in their talk section: Talk:Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Media_bias_claimed_in_the_Virgin_Island:_.28Ron_Paul_win.3F.29 Take a look, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Where's the SECTION after "Super Tuesday" ?

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

 Done. But we need some text about more than just numbers in the super tuesday section. And we need a start on the Mid-March section with Kansas and the island caucuses. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, nicely done! It's good to list them by descending size. I'll look at the respective states (WP page of each). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
For each of the states and provinces in our Table, I have added a reference to Green Papers (showing a lot, including the order of the races.) We expect reader to 'drill down' for the details in the states and provinces, and we don't plan to include all details in this Article. Green Papers are great! *[10] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC) "Let them 'drill down' for details."[reply]

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

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

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

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

Your understanding is wrong. Ther WASN'T ANY popular vote. Ron Paul received ZERO votes, just like Mitt Romney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.102.7 (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Romney got all the votes in Guam according to GP Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, reading the Green Papers is always a good idea. They have understandable details and rapid results. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Candidate Photos

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

Feel fre to find better pictures, as long as they dont violated copyright laws. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The four portait-pictures (and for other candidates also) all look good to me. The photos all favor those running. I think this is important. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Does anyone have a semi-pro picture of Romney in a suit? I think their wardrobes should be equal and the images should catch them "in real life"--an official photo is more staged and may be giving Romney vain edge. Then again, it's Wikipedia--I don't know how many peoples minds are being made up HERE based on a couple of images. Hopefully people come here for facts and summarized results. --67.248.246.4 (talk) 15:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Since you feel it is important, (and affects likely voters as they read WP), and since I said it is important to have great photos, I asked my wife, not telling her what your complain was. I told her that (1) the lighting on Santorum looks better; (2) they all look rather great to me; (3) they are all smiling; (4) the 'O' and 'P' surrounding Ron Paul reminds me of Opey on TV. . . . Then I told her what you said about the Romney campaign, and she said, "I don't think so. His is the only one whose teeth are not showing. Team Romney would have done better!" So there you have it, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Here are some things I like about the WP set of four portraits. The ties are primary colors: red, yellow, and blue, with Romney and Santorum wearing the blue and red ties. They make a 'V' like in DaVinci Code—It's great. Gingrich appears in gold/yellow tie, and he looks as good as he could. Each expression is appropriate: Gingrich the statesman; Romney the optimistic economist; Santorum the man-of-God family values man; and Ron Paul, the happy camper. Actually, the picture of Ron Paul is much better on the Puerto Rico page, with the American flag, which would be a much better addition to our favorite site here. Check it out: Puerto_Rico_Republican_primary,_2012 I vote to change the Opey picture, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnt object to the photo from the Pouerto Rico article. I think it is his current official congressional photo (he being the only one in office right now, he is also the only one with a current official photo). But I actually like the Paul photo we have right now. I think he look more energized, the official photo is a bit to much old man. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Agreed. But it has the flag. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC) (And do we like O—P?)[reply]
The photos as they were looked fine to me.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Me too — just TALKing to reader 130.88.182.77 and everyone WATCHing. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC) (PS: They have not been changed.)[reply]
And having them different (here and Puerto Rico page) makes for interesting variety. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Super Tuesday and Mid-March sections need expansion

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

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

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

Just so you know, these rules will apply on Sunday 18 March 2012: "20 of 23 of Puerto Rico's delegates to the Republican National Convention are bound to the presidential contenders based on the island-wide vote. If a Presidential candidate receives 50% or more of the vote, that candidate receives all 20 delegates. Otherwise, the delegates are allocated proportionally. (The threshold is apparently 15%. Rounding rules are not known.). Delegates are directly elected on the primary ballot and are bound for the 1st ballot at the national convention. In addition, 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Puerto Rico's Republican Party, will attend the convention as unpledged delegates by virtue of their position." [11] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC):[reply]

Then, the table (saying that Puerto Rico is WTA) is wrong?--194.38.144.2 (talk) 12:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I'll let others say; "It's all so confusing"; what's 'WTA'? I was just quoting Green Papers. [12] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Winner-take-all"--81.84.110.167 (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Change it to Proportional (c) Metallurgist (talk) 20:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
If a candidate gets over 50% then he gets all 20 delegates (plus, probably the three leaders). If not, then the delegates are divide among those that get over 15% (or some 'threshold'.) This is in the Green Papers for Puerto Rico: "If a Presidential candidate receives 50% or more of the vote, that candidate receives all 20 delegates. Otherwise, the delegates are allocated proportionally." [13] I'm sure you all knew this. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC) This should be borne out Sunday, 20MAR2012.[reply]
I didn't. So it is proportional with the foodnote about 50%. Good thing to get the mistakes sorted out. But the whole process is made more confusing by some states chancing the rules from 2011 to now. Well, as long as they don't change them after the voting is over, like Michigan did :) :) we're OK. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks, Jack. You are doing an amazing job! Some Wikipedia [WP, for brief] editors from the various states coming up to their Republican primary elections should join in to assist. They can also go to their respective state WP web pages and expand. Some have, but some state pages have just a beginning. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dump AP projections

The AP projections have been dodgy from the start. Now, the Iowa Republican Party is saying that they are an absolute joke: "they don't know what they're talking about".[14] Further, DemConWatch has stated that AP is unreliable regarding superdelegates. [15] I propose that we dump all AP delegate projections per WP:RS. Its one thing to be unbiased and use all sources. Its another thing to use completely unreliable sources without any legitimate basis.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. They appear to be misleading at best. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I guess we are talking about the projections in the Convention State table, right? Since that is the only place we use AP in this article. It is widely used in the result article, but not here. The projections in the convention table is meant to show how different, unreliable and a absolute joke all the projections are. Since everybody seems to believe in different newsmedias projections I thought it would be nice to show them against each other and let people judge for themselve.
the projection in the result section is from The Green Paper. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I would leave the CNN and GP projections as those are still deemed reliable. Projections are not the antichrist. They are ok to have as long as they are listed as projections. Yes people want them, but the AP projections are clearly abject nonsense.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I wouldnt say that projections are antichrist itself, that might be a tiny bit to harsh a wording . But it is important not to take them as the gospel (to stay in the liturgy). If we are dumping the AP projection it might be an idea to dump both convention tables and incorperated the events in the big contest schedule. It would be 16 more rows, that is all. And we would have all the info in one table. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Question about "Uncom."

The last column in the table at Republican_primary#Contests is "Uncom." - what exactly does that stand for? I presume "Uncommitted", but what does that mean? Immediately above the table it says there are "3 uncommitted delegates", yet this column shows 25 for Iowa alone (33 more for Colorado, etc.).

I think we need a better description of what that means and how many there are. --Born2cycle (talk) 21:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

True, 3 bound delegates have been ELECTED as uncommitted so far. The numbers in the Uncom. colum is all the delegates that have not committed themselve or have been pledged to a candidate. Maybe because the primary where they are allocated (bound delegates) or the convention where they are elected (unbound delegates) is still in the future. And it is the colum for all the real uncommitted elected delegates. (right now only 3 plus huntsmans 2). The unbound partyleaders (RNC) are in small brackets so it is easy to keep track of them too. In other words: It is the colum for all the delegates still out there to "win" for the candidates.
I think you are right, this colum needs a better title. But what? It have to be short. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
'UnCmtd' ? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
I prefer Uncom or Uncommitted. We have a problem tho. There is a difference between Uncommitted and Unpledged. VI elected 2 uncommitted delegates, while Iowa has 28 or whatever unpledged delegates that havent even been elected yet.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
That is not really a problem when it comes to this collum. All "free" delegates can committed themselve, that being elected uncommitted or supporters of one of the candidates elected at a convention. The colum is simply to show how many delegates that are still on the market so to speak. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
While it is true that they are all free to vote for whom they choose, I do think a distinction should be made. The truly uncommitted delegates like the Virgin Island delegates are far more likely to vote for their own personal choice than unbound delegates in states because the VI delegates were not expected to represent the will of the people. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.102.7 (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Talk page archival problems

There has been problems with Mizabot for a long time now. Would it be an idea to switch to ClueBot III? I am not sure how to do it and still keep the archive pages in the right order. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Whats the problem?--Metallurgist (talk) 07:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
it is not working. The server from where Mizabot are operating are down and have been so for a month or so. The User have been runing it manually from time to time, but are continuing to having problems. See the Mizabot talkpage for informations. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Explaining the table to Wikipedia readers by adding a line at the top of the Table.

Someone removed my improvement. Let's talk. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I have never seen such information listed in article, but maybe i havent been looking for them. Does anyone know if there is a wiki policy on the subject? I have retrived the improvement (since I was the one removing it and adding uncom. explaning in the lines above). This is it:
For each state or territory, click on the 'Contest Type' to go to its Wikipedia page for details. The last column here lists uncommitted delegates
To sort in descending order the total, bound, and unbound delegates, click twice on the triangles above the columns.
If there should be such info in that article the lines are fine. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi, Jack. Thanks. I had it stored also but wanted a 'straw poll' which might not be necessary. Let me make some points:
  • We are told to "be bold" in Wikipedia improvements; sure, there are 'rules' but who leads in improving the rules?
  • We don't know what the rules and precedences are since they are endless, but imho Common Sense rules !
  • Not all Wikipedia readers are familiar with how such tables work; this helps them with only two lines.
  • Even if they know how the table can sort, who knew you had to click on the 7th column to drill down to a state?
  • We note double-clicking delegate-count columns will display the table in descending order (large to small).
  • I didn't know you could click on the 7th column "Contest Type" until I experimented.
  • At first, I thought you would click on 'State' to get there but that takes you to the main WP page for the state.
  • That's very nice for Territories which I have learned about now; Most people know about the states, but not worldwide.

* My main point is that we need to advertise at the top that you can drill down to WP state 2012 races.

  • Another advantage is that we can explain the header of the last column (that we have been discussing).
  • I think this is better than explaining under the Table where new and casual readers will not see it.
Thanks for consideration, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

For each state, click on the 'Contest type' to go to its Wikipedia page for details. The last column here lists uncommitted delegates.
To sort in descending order the total, bound, and unbound delegates, click twice on the triangles above the columns.

 Done. I waited a while for comments, then put up the next 'draft' version
—looks good to me, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Current/Latest news we can use in the Article

"Romney wins in Puerto Rico while focused on Illinois". . . [(yes, we can wait till it is finalized, but here is pre-notice.)]
“Romney overwhelmingly wins Puerto Rico's primary, while he and rival Santorum face crucial days ahead as each strives to collect delegates needed to become the inevitable GOP presidential candidate.”[16] FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

This is a good reference and has the delegate count (as does the Green Papers) for Romney and Santorum in Illinois, [17] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC) This reference has great graphics and stats! You should take a look. Statistics include a state-by-state graphic and annotation of total delegates for the four hopefuls. It looks to me like Romney is half way to having the requisite 1,144 delegates (needed to win the Republican nomination); and that he also has half of the delegates to this point, (pledged+unpledgedRNC): Romney(562), Santorum(249), Gingrich(137), Paul(69). So that is 562 delegates for Romney, and 455 for "Not Romney", (as some people say). PS: If there is a 'comma-fault', is there also a 'semicolon-fault' ? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Territories in the resultsection

Right now all the territories are in the resultsection in 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. But this is a bit of fictionally writing. According to the Samoa caucus Wikipedia article there was no formal vote taken, so there can be no popular winner. Who won Virgin Islands? That is best not discussed further. Guam didnt have a 2nd or 3rd since all elected delegates supports Romney. And in no of the small territories was there a strawpoll of any kind. So no one really won the populare vote. May I suggest that we either

  • Remove all the territories from the resultsection and write about each of them in the midmarch section Or
  • Remove all but Pouerto Rico. PR had a proper primary and sends 23 delegates. Or
  • Leave things as they are.

I personally vote for the only keeping PR. Like Real Clear Politicis does it (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_vote_count.html] Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The RCP table shows the popular vote which, in the Virgin Islands case, is really hard to determine. Voters didn't vote for a candidate, they voted for up to 6 delegate who could either declare for a candidate or remain undecided. There was not "Voter A prefers Paul, Voter B prefers Romney, Voter C prefers Santorum" type of vote, making the notion of a popular vote difficult at best. If you look at RCP's delegate count, they do list the territories there.
It's a good question you raise though. There are various tables in the article that list the popular vote - should there be a mix of popular vote and delegates earned, with different indicators for candidates to win each? Likewise, if a state has mixed results like that, should the graphs show the state won by two different colors to indicate popular vote vs delegate count? Ravensfire (talk) 15:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
But the point that was being made is that some territories DIDN'T HAVE a popular vote. In those cases, there is no reason to have two colors for different winners. You can't win something that never took place. As much as a certain candidate's supporters want to believe otherwise, the ONLY reason that candidates pledged delegates got more combined votes is becuase he had 6 delegates to take all 6 votes that the voters were allowed to cast while the candidate that got the most delegates only had 3. (After all....the Knicks score more points in 6 games than the Miami Heat score in 3. That doesn't make the Knicks a better or even higher scoring team.) It was clear to every single person who was at the caucus that there were more supporters of Romney at the Virgin Islands. That is the reason why the uncommitted delegate pledged to Romney after the vote. He KNEW that almost all of the votes he received were from Romney supporters who had no other Romney delegates to vote for, so he felt ethically obliged to pledge his support to Romney. But again...when there was not a popular vote, mentioning a popular vote winner makes Wikipedia inaccurate.
This is not about the map, maybe your comments should be in the discussion in the maps talkpage? Jack Bornholm (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There's a maps TALK page? I learn something about WP every day! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

My vote is leave things as they are.

Understanding the Green Papers

Here is what I understand about Louisiana: Louisiana allocates 20 delegates in their March 24 primary election and 18 delegates with April 28 district caucuses; they also have 8 unbound delegates for a total of 46 delegates. [18] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries&oldid=483279852"