Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries

"Popular vote"?

From what I've read, the Democrats do not keep a tally of the statewide popular vote for Iowa, but rather the delegate count. Doesn't this mean that technically neither candidate can be colored for Iowa since we won't know who the real popular vote winner is..? Prcc27 (talk) 06:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

True. We could color by who wins the most delegates in that state. That would be the only logical thing to do (besides not coloring at all). --Majora (talk) 06:06, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Both are tied for Iowan delegates for the national convention but Clinton is slightly leading in Iowan delegates for the statewide convention. I'm sorry, but does the statewide convention even matter? If not, it would (as of now) be a tie between the candidates. The thing is, eventually there will be a delegate vote map and a popular vote map and well we just don't know who won the popular vote unfortunately... I don't know. Prcc27 (talk) 06:33, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

As far as I know, technically there is no result tonight. The caucuses selected delegates to county conventions in March (these numbers are never released), who will select delegates to district and state conventions in April (the reported 700-695 tie as of now are the estimated number of state convention delegates), where the eventual delegates to the Democratic National Convention will be selected. These 22-21 delegates is thus just a projection. I think we should somehow note that it is a projection (unlike primaries with actual voting if I'm correct?). SPQRobin (talk) 08:28, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"we just don't know who won the popular vote unfortunately". If you hover over the counties on this map the popular vote for each county should appear. Add the data for all the counties up, and you should get the statewide popular vote data. I don't know whether doing this would be a violation of WP:OR, though. Chessrat ^{(talk,contributions)} 09:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

It's still not popular vote in the source you linked. From the clarification: "At the county level, The Associated Press inflates numbers by 100, as state delegate equivalent numbers for some candidates are often very small fractions." So it's (delegates × 100), not popular vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Techgeekxp (talk • contribs) 09:18, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

There is no arguement that the Democratic officials in Iowa have awarded Hillary the plurality of delegates, and thus that constitutes the carrying of a state.   Spartan7W §   21:02, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: The map says popular vote winner, not delegate winner. Please stop adding Iowa without consensus as it is veey disruptive! No delegates have been awarded to anyone as these are only projections. In fact, last I checked NBC was calling her the "appaerent winner" not the "projected winner". We either need to turn the map into a delegate map instead of a popular vote map or we need to figure something else out. But this edit-warring has got to stop. Discuss first, thanks! Prcc27 (talk) 21:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Two cases that an be made are to make a "tied" color, or give it to Clinton, based on State Delegate Equivalents, which is supposed to be more based on popular vote than delegate numbers. "The Iowa Democratic Party reports only State Delegate Equivalents (SDEs), not vote counts. SDEs predict the share of Iowa’s national delegates that will be pledged to each candidate." This information can be found here. Hover over the question mark above the results. It cannot just be left blank, as this hides the result, and the Iowa Democratic Party will not release the pure popular vote. Or do what has happened in the 2008 maps, make a note explaining the Iowa situation.—SPESH531Other 21:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

"Virtual tie" is what the media was calling it. Since the SDEs were so close that either candidate could have won the popular vote, striping Iowa just might work. Prcc27 (talk) 21:38, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

@Prcc27:I personally consider it a tie. But if you look at 2008, for example, they are listed, and map is colored, according to state delegate allocation. If Clinton got 100% of delegates, this logic would mean you still don't color the map because you don't know who won in the popular vote. In this case, where no popular vote will ever be available, we use the delegate allocation, by DNC officials, to determine the winner. In this case, by less than 4 delegates, Hillary Clinton has the plurality. Therefore she carries the state. Anything other than that is simple analysis or rounding. It may be appropriate and prudent reporting, but it is not an appropriate way to color this map from an objective sense. Objectively, mathematically, Hillary Clinton won with about 3.7 delegates over Sanders. That means the state is shaded gold.   Spartan7W §   21:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

We can color Iowa based on what we infer the popular vote count was. Considering many delegates were awarded to Clinton by coin tosses and thatcregardless the delegate count was so close the media called it a "virtual tie" I'd say it would be a little inappropriate to pretend Clinton won the popular vote when honestly we will never know who actually did win. If we stick with a popular vote map it should be striped. If we switch to a delegate vote map then Clinton wins (for now as these are only estimates for delegates). Prcc27 (talk) 22:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I changed the map qualifier on the template to "first place finishers". As we know from 2008, popular vote doesn't get you the nomination (Obama v. Clinton), delegates matter. This way, we avoid carving out a special thing just for Iowa and instead group all those who win the state.   Spartan7W §   00:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: If we are going to do a delegate vote map we need to keep in mind that states are subject to change and that there may be ties if they get an equal amount of delegates. Also, do we include super-delegates from the state or no? "First place finishers" is vague. It should either say "first place finishers for popular vote" or "first place finishers for delegates". Prcc27 (talk) 01:05, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't know how else to word it. There was no tie in Iowa. Hillary Clinton won Iowa. If there is ever an actual tie, we reflect that. I don't care how you word it. In Iowa, there is no such thing as popular vote. Thus winning it means plurality of delegates.   Spartan7W §   01:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me clarify what I just said. If we declare Clinton the winner of Iowa due to delegate count, we can *not* have a popular vote map at all. So if Sanders wins the popular vote in NH and Clinton wins the delegate vote- we would have to color NH for her to be consistent with Iowa. I'm going to change it myself since there's no point in discussing this further. Prcc27 (talk) 01:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

And you didn't answer my question. Do we include super-delegates or no? It's not a hard question! Prcc27 (talk) 01:29, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Where is there a reliable source that says that the Democratic Party of Iowa says that Clinton won the majority of county delegates at the 1 Feb precinct caucuses? Until there is a reliable source, I don’t think the map should be colored for either candidate, and I don’t think this article should say that Clinton carried Iowa. Info por favor (talk) 01:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I just found a primary source for what I said (note: primary sources are not acceptable reliable sources.). http://iowademocrats.org/statement-from-idp-chair-on-tonights-historically-close-caucus-results/ Info por favor (talk) 02:39, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• The 2016 Democratic Party nominee for President of the USA will need to win a majority of delegates in order to be on the ballot in November 2016. These contests are about delegates, not how many actual people actually come out to vote for whatever candidate. They way that many of the U.S. states select their delegates varies (and yes, it sometimes includes games of chance in IA), and the final delegate count may actually vary based on what happens in each state's convention process. The bottom line of what we really need to keep track of is the delegate count over time. If there is also available, reliably-sourced info about vote tallies, then that can be mentioned as well over time in this article here, but let's not take our eyes off of what really is in play here...and that's delegates, period.

Note: primary sources are just fine for non-controversial article content. Guy1890 (talk) 02:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

We could have two maps like some of the other articles have. One for popular vote and one for delegate vote. But on the popular vote map Iowa should be colored for "popular vote not tallied". Prcc27 (talk) 03:33, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The maps & tables at the last two contested, American Presidential nominee contests I think are illustrative for what could be eventually shown in this article here. Clinton won IA though, and there's really no credible claim otherwise at this early date.

FYI, I actively participated in shaping a lot of the content at the 2012 GOP nomination contest, and I will be watching this page until this contest is eventually decided. Guy1890 (talk) 04:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Except Clinton might not have won the delegate count if you count super delegates... From a user on the template talk page: "Iowa has 52 delegates, only 47 are accounted with a difference of 5 between the two candidates. That means that there is at least a potential for the remaining superdelegates to align in such a way as to force a tie." So if we are coloring the map based on delegates (including super delegates) it might be too early to say Clinton carried the state. Prcc27 (talk) 08:16, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Iowa has 52 delgates. 44 pledged and 8 unpledged (superdelegates). Clinton has 23 pledged vs 21 for Sanders. 6 of the 8 superdelegates are aligned with Clinton, zero aligned with Sanders and 2 uncommitted. So even if the 2 uncommitted superdelegates align with Sanders, Clinton carries the State Sgcosh (talk) 15:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

The so-called "super-delegates" can vote pretty much however they want to, regardless of how a state's hard delegate count gets allocated. We're keeping a running total of both hard & "soft" (super-delegates) here on this page, regardless of what's going on on other pages or templates. Who won which state will be determined by who wins the hard delegate count for that state.

As I tried to state before, there is an off chance that the delegate count could get jumbled up as a state's county/regional/state convention process plays out, but, from what I've heard so far this cycle about IA, the chances for that happening are significantly lower than they were in 2012 for the GOP, which was quite a mess (and not just in that state alone). Clinton won IA, period. Guy1890 (talk) 18:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, well I've been asking whether or not we should include super-delegates and nobody was answering me so that was really frustrating. How could we word it so readers know that we are not including super-delegates in our tally? I don't think anyone knows what hard vs. soft delegates means. Prcc27 (talk) 18:20, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

If you look at the table near the top of the article here, it's pretty clear that there's a separate tally for both hard & soft/super delegates, and in the table near the bottom of the page, it's also clear who has received which pledged/hard & unpledged/super delegates. I understand that these kind of issues can sometimes be hard to follow, but the major U.S. Parties have been doing things this way for quite some time now...although not in the same way in each Party. Guy1890 (talk) 21:03, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Hard/soft aren't terms used in the article (I think) and the readers won't be familiar with them. But the article does say pledged/non-pledged so could we say Clinton won pledged delegates for Iowa? Prcc27 (talk) 21:17, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I've now added some uses of hard & soft delegates to the text of the article. Guy1890 (talk) 23:25, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

I removed the hard and soft distinction from the top section because it was not used strictly correctly as applied to Iowa delegates (they're soft until the state convention) and this would make everything a lot more confusing and complicated. If we bother to use the arcane terminology then it should be used correctly. Otherwise it really doesn't have anything going for it. I don't see why we need to be more elaborate than a pledged/non-pledged distinction and that seems to be the prevailing view....Meanwhile, as far as map colorings - it makes sense to do it based on delegates because that is the common denominator among all states. I don't see any good reason to discriminate among pledged and unpledged delegates. As far as the nomination is concerned, all delegates are created equal (except the Democrats Abroad delegates who are created half equal).PotvinSux (talk) 11:06, 12 February 2016 (UTC)

In 2008 they made the maps based on popular vote. The guy responsible for making the maps is Spartan, so if you want to make any changes to it, go ask him. Also, we should NOT include superdelegates, since they make their decision at the DNC later this year. The pledged delegates are concrete and can't be changed unless the candidate they're pledged to releases them. For this reason, we cannot include superdelegates based on some ancient survey made by Associated Press last year. --Bobtinin (talk) 20:13, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Since this is a race for delegates and not popular vote, I feel like we could just do an estimate for the popular vote of each of the caucus states, which much better represents the current popular vote than just not including them at all. Here is my spreadsheet work that I feel is much better at representing the real current popular vote: https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/16zL6qvFyrq2ZdQNoRbV3qDWa9qJYg7tJPlgJJTEQVeQ/edit?usp=sharing It is easy to find estimates for the number of actual people who voted in each caucus, even if it isn't exact. Xacobi (talk) 21:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

• Strongly oppose: per WP:OR. Prcc27💋 (talk) 22:47, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I oppose as well. I agree with the impulse, but you'd probably have to round to the nearest hundred thousand when all was said and done and that's the sort of thing that would violate WP:OR.PotvinSux (talk) 02:09, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Questioning whether it's possible to meaningfully show popular vote count or percentage when there is no national popular vote in the primaries. Over a quarter of the voting states or territories have caucuses that produce much lower counts than a popular vote. Showing the candidates with only the popular vote numbers from NH at this point is misleading and gives the impression that the pledged delegate count is grossly unrepresentational. The first place (popular vote or delegate count) map may be as meaningful & accurate a representation as is possible here. Shwoodham (talk) 22:14, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

There should be no listing of "Popular Vote." It's not an actual metric; there's no actual way to tabulate it. I keep seeing this number referenced and Wikipedia listed as the source. By listing a popular vote, this site is distorting the data. Timothy (talk) 01:55, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

"Popular Vote" is an information potentially interesting to the reader, even if it is not used as part of the nomination process. The purpose of the article is supposed to collect detailed information regarding the current primary, not to briefly summaries the most important data. It contains lots of information not relevant for the final nominee selection at the Democratic National Convention, for example "States carried". "Popular Vote" is potentially very interesting for the reader, I therefore think it should be included. Mteichm (talk) 08:42, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree that there should be no national tabulation of "Popular Vote" since there is no national popular vote in the primaries. Tabulating a national "Popular Vote" is a violation of WP:OR. "Popular Vote" results for states that have popular vote primaries should certainly be shown for those states individually.Shwoodham (talk) 12:12, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Agree that "Popular Vote" should be removed from infobox. Regardless of "potentially interesting to the reader", since the data isn't being released by a significant number of the states, the total does NOT exist. We can't make-up info just to fulfill reader interest. What is currently being shown is completely misleading to a reader. On the line directly above popular vote, a reader sees three states have been decided (which is seconded by the colorful map below), yet then sees a popular vote claiming Sanders has a huge lead. For the reader to find out that popular vote only reflects one state, s/he must actually bother to look two sections down to notes (which most readers will skip since they already got all the important numbers). I don't care if you create a table in this article showing popular vote by state & then total line at end, but it's current location is completely misleading and false. 15zulu (talk) 13:50, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggest as a compromise, adding lines for caucus results in the infobox via a template edit request. Lines would be "Caucus vote" and "Caucus %". A note would be added in the notes section giving number of states with caucuses vs popular votes. I would still maintain that any of this is a violation of WP:OR "analysis or synthesis of published material", and also that this does a disservice to readers in perpetuating the myth that a candidate can win a national popular vote in a primary the same way it is won in the general election. Shwoodham (talk) 14:13, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need much of a compromise here. Popular vote is neither measurable nor meaningful nationally. It only makes sense on a per state basis. I agree with the proposal of removing it from the infobox. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:26, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I spent some time researching this yesterday and found that it's an overwhelmingly common misconception that a candidate can win a national popular vote in the primaries. Every wikipedia page I've seen about US presidential primaries perpetuates this myth. A compromise here may be easier than rectifying all that. That said, I agree that the best option is to remove it from the infobox, if consensus can be reached. Shwoodham (talk) 15:05, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Please put popular vote back! It's not fair that you are removing the facts in order to cover up what is really happening! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.4.227.101 (talk) 23:13, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

A few here are saying popular vote doesn't matter. But a lot of people were sure interested in the popular vote for Bush v. Gore in 2000. It's a viable metric. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Gadly Circus (talk • contribs) 06:52, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Popular vote needs to be re-inserted. Every single other party primary includes popular vote, and while it does technically mean little in terms of who wins the primary, it is still included due to having relevance going into the general election. By removing it for just 2016, for just the Democrats, you are removing the neutral point of view in this article. AndrewRayGorman (talk) 11:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Let me respond to the 3 messages above:

1. No one is "covering up what is really happening". What exactly do you think is being covered up?
2. Bush v. Gore was during the general election and popular vote counts were available, just like they will be in this year's election. However, for the primaries, the Democratic Party chose not to disclose popular vote for some states' caucuses. This invalidates your claim that it is a "viable metric".
3. What number do you suggest we add to the infobox? National popular vote for the Democratic primaries is simply not available. Any number we decide to include instead will either be WP:OR or completely misrepresent the situation by ignoring states such as Iowa and Nevada. The fact is that including a made-up or incomplete popular vote is actually the option that violates NPOV.

Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:53, 29 February 2016 (UTC)

Suggest not using Template but including infobox here

The talk threads for Template:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 discuss many of the same issues as discussed here and could plausibly reach different consensus. In the interest of a centralized discussion and consistency, I think we should not use the template but just put in the election box here.PotvinSux (talk) 21:00, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

@Spartan7W: What do you think? You're the one who added the template, so I think you should be the one to answer PotvinSux on this matter. --Bobtinin (talk) 21:12, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

The template was used in 2012 and makes ease of editing easier, and control of vandalism easier. I have added first to GOP and just now to DNC templates, a navbar to make single-click viewing, talk, and editing accessible from wherever the template is.   Spartan7W §   21:26, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree with the benefits of having a template. It's just hard to come to consensus in two places at once with a rotating cast of characters. The template doesn't seem to go so many places that there is a major advantage (though there is still some and it should be noted) in terms of catching vandalism. Also, the needs of at least two pages where it goes - this one and Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 - might be different in that the latter article is about the results of individual primaries and this one has traditionally been about the primary process more generally. That seems particularly relevant to our Superdelegate issue - less so to the pop. vote issue.PotvinSux (talk) 22:02, 15 February 2016 (UTC)PotvinSux (talk) 21:55, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

I support getting rid of the template. It's been a little confusing having to use both talk pages for the same topics. Another possibility though is we could consolidate discussions by leaving a note on the template talk that discussions will take place on this talk page only. We'd have to get consensus at that talk page to move discussions to this one though. Prcc27💋 (talk) 02:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Anyone who suggest or supports this is a partisan hack that needs to shut the fuck up (see above) 184.101.229.165 (talk) 21:53, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

• You need to calm down and abide by WP:AGF & WP:CIVIL. Prcc27💋 (talk) 23:01, 16 February 2016 (UTC)
  • I'm quoting from above. Nice to know we agree. 184.101.229.165 (talk) 12:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
    • Whom are you quoting..? Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:50, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

I support having an infobox, as having a template is simply confusing and unnecessary. AvRand (talk) 03:32, 17 February 2016 (UTC)

I support keeping the template, its much easier to handle vandalism and keep wikipedia consistent if we use a template. Infobox's are prone to anon vandalism, using a template will ward off a ton of potential vandals. Jp16103 17:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

It makes no sense to not use the template here. Isn't Wikipedia supposed to be consistent? We could potentially have conflicting information on different pages otherwise. Template talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 would be the appropriate place to discuss issues relating to the template. DylanLacey (talk) 01:14, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

1) I am not sure that a template is significantly helpful in warding off vandalism because the centralization cuts both ways - one can both more easily vandalize to more effect and more easily clean up the vandalism 2) Consistency is no virtue when pages have different needs. For example Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 is an article about the process of selecting a nominee - "Results of Presidential Primaries, 2016" Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 lists the results of primaries. The first has traditionally included Superdelegates in Delegate Count for contested elections because they are equally relevant in selecting a nominee. The second has no analog but could plausibly not include Superdelegates because it is an article about the results of individual primaries. There is nothing that can possibly be said on the talk page for the Template that will resolve this dilemma.PotvinSux (talk) 19:43, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, individuals unfamiliar with wikipedia have much more difficulty finding templates and editing them. Besides, the republican primary article has a template. This should as well. PLUS immediately after an infobox was created the whole superdelegate controversy started again. Let's keep the template, its safe, and keeps everything organized. Jp16103 19:52, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

That is a reasonable point on vandalism, although it is also true that this limits users' ability to edit it in good faith. But the vandalism issue is I think sufficiently minor (the whole page is susceptible to vandalism after all) next to the question of consistency and the appropriateness of consistency. Per usual, if we are using analogous pages as support for our points then the template should include unpledged delegates (the GOP template totals rely on a source that sums pledged and unpledged). And this goes to my broader point: We cannot untangle these two issues from one another and it seems that the bulk of users want to have that discussion here as opposed to on the Template talk page (you're right fewer users think to look for the Template). So long as that is the case, I don't think it makes sense to rely on a Template that populates onto a page with potentially different criteria. The Superdelegate controversy did not restart after the Infobox was created - it has been ongoing.PotvinSux (talk) 20:27, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Sorry about that, when I said "restarted" I meant that there had been an understanding (at least I assumed that there was one) to not include the superdelegates until we come to a conclusion. I just don't want to see an edit war occur. I've been watching this article for sometime and it has been awhile since somebody included the superdelegates. My apologies for the confusion. I did not mean to imply the superdelegate issue is settled. Jp16103 21:11, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @Spartan7W:'s intial decision to add the template. Sure, some inexperienced Wikipedians might have trouble finding it, but so did I. The way I cleared the confusion was by learning how to find and edit templates. I also agree with what @Jp16103: is saying, infoboxes are extremely prone to vandalism! I've seen many instances where that happens, and I think that a template would keep vandals away. --Bobtinin (talk) 22:12, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I completely agree with all that you said. I think we should try to come to a resolution soon, especially with Super Tuesday around the corner. Jp16103 22:30, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Brain Fallon (Hillary guy) says Clinton has won the final delegate from NV-04, not seeing it anywhere else

It would put her up 52-51. https://twitter.com/brianefallon/status/701866653181730816?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw MAINEiac4434 (talk) 21:34, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Until multiple sources say this is true, we should not include this."Democratic Delegate Count". RealClearPolitics. Retrieved 23 February 2016. Jp16103 14:58, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2016

Adding up the pledged delegates for Clinton does not equal 52. She won 23 from Iowa, 9 from New Hampshire and 19 from Nevada. That equals 51. The total unpledged delegates for Clinton equals 448, not 451. Clinton's total is then 499 and not 502. Sanders has 51 pledged (21 from Iowa, 15 from New Hampshire and 15 from Nevada. Sanders' unpledged totals 18 for a total of 69. Dsides12 (talk) 03:49, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• Neveda's final results are in, and she won 20 delegates – not 19. See Politico & The Green Papers. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:21, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Can you also update the results page with this information as well? It was very confusing to see two different totals. ~ Paul^T+/_C 21:26, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Superdelegate Resolution

@Guy1890, Prcc27, Bobtinin, Geoffrey.mcgee, Jeppiz, Ryopus, and Bondegezou:@Jp16103, Sleepingstar, MB298, Nike4564, Rockhead126, MAINEiac4434, and Officialhopsof:

All, you have participated at one turn or another in our electrifying discussion about whether or not to include Superdelegates in the delegate count in the template at the top of the page (apologies if I have mistakenly included or excluded anyone). Views seem to be split approximately down the middle and the discussion - split over the threads "Super delegates", Unpledge delegates not counted in infobox, Flagrant violation of WP:CRYSTAL and WP:OR, and to some extent Superdelegate count - seems to be going in circles. In the interest of bringing this to resolution, I am seeking consensus for a potential compromise independently raised by a few editors (myself being one): specifically, the idea of including both Pledged and Super delegates but not summing them (i.e., next to "Delegates:" the box would include "Pledged: X" "Unpledged: Y" for each candidate). It is highly unlikely that any of us will find this optimal, but I think it is the only realistic way that we can resolve this without moving to a resolution process. What are your thoughts on such a compromise?PotvinSux (talk) 09:50, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• I think that works. Bondegezou (talk) 10:09, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• I support the proposal detailed above as a good compromise on the issue. Sgcosh (talk) 12:32, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• I support this. Jp16103 14:45, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• I support your proposal. Sleepingstar (talk) 18:15, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• I support this, on the condition that we keep the Superdelegate count updated consistently. --Bobtinin (talk) 21:51, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with @Bobtinin, I support the inclusion of superdelegates contingent on consistent updates. Jp16103 22:28, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

• I support this compromise as well. Nike4564 (talk) 23:04, 23 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support proposal. MB298 (talk) 00:11, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
• Support. The supers might turn out to be crucial, and many sources, such as the New York Times, list them as part of the delegate breakdown. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 01:44, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Thats a majority, so how do we go forward? Is it okay to include the superdelegates now? Jp16103 02:15, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think we can proceed. I will go forward and delete the total section for the delegates table, leaving superdelegates and pledged ones. Nike4564 (talk) 22:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Sweet, sweet compromise.PotvinSux (talk) 05:18, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

I am shocked at this at all. NO superdelegates have voted yet. They don't vote until the convention at the end of summer. There is no count to even report other than the (possibly empty) promises of how the supers *think* they may vote 5 months from now. This is as valid as if the page were to report polling numbers for the states that vote in June, into the current totals. The other delegate numbers are from people actually ticking a box or standing to be counted, delegates that promise to do the will of the voters in their neighborhood and state. In 2008, hundreds of supers switched their plans and totally voted differently than the loose polling that happens months ahead. You are all mistaken to even count and report them at this stage. Superdelegate possible future intentions are no more a statistic than endorsements, earned media, donations received etc... all interesting, but NOT part of the delegate count at this time. 50.34.102.73 (talk) 07:15, 2 March 2016 (UTC) dude

Semi-protected edit request: Popular Vote Totals Need Updating!

The totals both in the summary box at the top of the page as well as in the detailed table are not correct. Discovery720266 (talk) 16:34, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

The popular vote count is correct, caucuses do not count in popular vote since they're decided by county/state delegates. --Bobtinin (talk) 21:53, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Texas delegate count reduced

The number of unpledged "super delegates" from Texas has been reduced from 30 to 29 [1] giving the state a total of 251. The reduction is due to the realization that former Houston Mayor Annise Parker is not eligible to serve as an unpledged delegate as she no longer holds elected office nor is she a DNC member. Fortguy (talk) 02:05, 24 February 2016 (UTC)

Article currently seems to be lacking

My two cents, but this article currently does not have a detailed prose section on the progress of these primary races like Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016#Timeline of the race or even Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008#Chronicle. Trying to have it instead more resemble Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012 is an unfair comparison since Obama (as the popular incumbent back then in 2012) was practically unopposed, and thus there was understandably not much content to cite. On the other hand, there seems to be some competition between Clinton and Sanders now in 2016 just like there was competition between her and Obama in 2008. Without such content, it gives the appearance of somewhat of a systemic bias when comparing this 2016 DEM article with either the 2016 GOP article or the 2008 DEM article. Zzyzx11 (talk) 13:13, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton photo

There seems to be some disagreement about which photo to use for Hillary Clinton. Please go here to discuss. Thanks! Prcc27💋 (talk) 01:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Why was the running popular vote total removed from the article headings?

It has very obviously been removed. It was on this article last time I checked. Jmzap (talk) 03:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Go to the Talk Page on the template, a bunch of guys decided they would just remove it. --Bobtinin (talk) 03:55, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

It was removed per WP:CONSENSUS, actually. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 03:58, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

This guy is sat there wondering why it's gone. Take a look at the talk page like I said, I'm trying to seek a compromise to prevent people from wondering why the popular vote isn't there and randomly editing it in, or asking about it on the talk page. --Bobtinin (talk) 04:05, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Well first of all, your characterisation of "a bunch of guys" "decided they would just remove it" obviously reads in a negative light. We had our reasons, and I'm sure just like you have yours, we genuinely believe in them → WP:AGF. Now, regarding the compromise – with respect, others, such as myself – are trying to prevent people from getting awfully confused when it comes to pop-votes; said votes do not determine the nomination – delegates do. Delegates are used in 50/50 states from my understanding – as another editor confirmed, pop-votes are only used in 2/3rd of states. An example: Hillary Clinton won more pop-votes than Barack Obama in 2008, yet lost to Obama who had more delegates; my question is to you: why confuse the reader, into thinking pop-votes determine who wins the nomination? —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:27, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Just a little side note. Since AFAIK caucuses don't release their popular vote totals and Obama did well in those states. For all we know Hillary Clinton might not have even been the true popular vote winner. Yet people get that impression based on the results in primary states. Prcc27💋 (talk) 04:40, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. Popular votes are completely misleading, as though were in 2008, and are now. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 04:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

First of all, I answered the guy's question, and I always assume good faith, but I did not believe there was a consensus since there are several people within this talk page who would probably disagree based on their previous statements, on what happened to the template in regards to popular vote. Second of all, it's not 2/3 of states, it's actually 3/4 of states. Although the Popular Vote totals may confuse people, the entire point of an encyclopedia is to give people a comprehensive summary of information. The popular vote should be quite obviously a part of that prerequisite since many articles for primaries before this include popular vote, the Republican counterpart article for this includes it, and because many television networks broadcast this info to people for a reason. It is already clearly explained in this article that delegates are what matters. What I proposed was having the Popular Vote totals in the infobox from the 3/4 of states that do Primaries, and then add the State Delegate Estimates underneath that, rather than combining both of them and misleading people. --Bobtinin (talk) 05:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Our Republican counterpart does not have states which do not release their popular vote totals. Adding the SDEs of Iowa to the CD of NV which have no direct relation to each other whatsoever is a very bad idea. Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:26, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Good point, but the SDEs are made clear that they're just estimates. To me the main thing that turns me off about ridding the popular vote is that it's out of place, and inconsistent with previous articles. I mean I know that just because it was done before, doesn't mean it should now, but the popular vote totals are a great indicator of how the people voted nationwide, but since it's only covered in 3/4 of states, we're forced to have SDEs to roughly estimate it (however wrong). So adding them, and making it clear that they're estimates, in a separate row is not too bad an idea, is it? --Bobtinin (talk) 05:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

@Bobtinin: The SDEs are not estimates, they are inflated because some counties only have a fraction of a delegate. They should not be included in the template because they are not even close to being popular vote estimates. Prcc27💋 (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of an encyclopedia, like Wikipedia, is to provide information. So why is relevant information being removed? Look up the GOP primary in Wikipedia and you get a running popular vote and percentage for each candidate. Jmzap (talk) 07:00, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

• @Jmzap: Like I said before, all states in the GOP race have popular vote totals so the national popular vote is (or at least will be) clear. This is not true for the Democratic race. Btw, this conversation does not belong here, it belongs on the Template talk page. Otherwise, if you get consensus here it won't actually count. Prcc27💋 (talk) 07:12, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

On the results page, some want to keep the Popular vote totals for the lesser candidates a secret. I guess that except for the two top candidates, they don't think the votes should be counted.66.108.159.118 (talk) 23:39, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Hillary map color

I didn't want to change it without consensus, but can we please change Hillary's color on the map to a different, or at least darker color. The yellowish color doesn't shows up too light sometimes. --75.168.137.45 (talk) 03:59, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with you. I think we should use a color which is similar to his campaign logo; for example this one:   Navy blue (#0047AB) -- Nick.mon (talk) 14:40, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

I also support this. You can't even see the color on American Samoa right now. We need a different color. --Shadow (talk) 04:52, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Right now Sanders is colored green. If we change Clinton to blue, it will be the exact opposite of the colors used on the statewide polling map i.e. blue for Sanders, green for Clinton. This could cause confusion. Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:10, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, but we could upload a new version of the statewide polling map, maybe with the same colors used in the primary one. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

You would have to get consensus at that talk page first. But if anything needs to be changed it's this map IMO. The polling map has had the same colors for several months and shouldn't be changed to accommodate this map. If anything, this map needs to accommodate that map. I would suggest having the colors match the polling map so that Clinton is green and Sanders is blue, but then people will get confused and mistake Sanders for green since that's what his current color is. I'm okay with a color change, but I do not support Clinton's color being changed to blue. Maybe it should be red since that's another color that appears on her campaign logo. Prcc27💋 (talk) 08:32, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Ok, in my view, any other color is better than the one used now for Clinton. As you said, we could use red, maybe this one   (#F0003B); and for Sanders we can leave green or maybe use a shade of blue, which similar to his campaign logo, for example   (#0087DC). Anyway, let's wait for other opinions. -- Nick.mon (talk) 08:54, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Superdelagate bars

This might come across as nitpicky, but why are there now 2 bars showing pledged superdelegates? You and I know this isn't going to change throughout the entire primary process, so practically the only purpose it will serve is to confuse the average reader that's only looking at the article for 25 seconds. Buffaboy ^talk 05:09, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

The bars are there so we can visualize what percentage of superdelegates each candidate will get. I think we should keep it there. Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:22, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I fear the visualizations will yield misconceptions on the size of the lead. One who doesn't understand the concept of pledged delegates will falsely believe Sec. Clinton has a >63% lead. Buffaboy ^talk 05:37, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

We should have a "Total Delegates" column, don't you think? I personally think that will get rid of confusion, but keep the differentiation. --Bobtinin (talk) 05:25, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I wouldn't mind it, but there is already strong consensus against it per this section. Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:29, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

That was just for the infobox template though, right? --Bobtinin (talk) 05:33, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Oh, I think you're right. Then we can go ahead with a "total delegates" column if nobody objects. Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:42, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure why it would only apply to the template, but I personally am not opposed.PotvinSux (talk) 06:52, 28 February 2016 (UTC) I thought more about this: if we do end up having opposition, I would support that opposition because we did establish consensus. There is at least an argument that the bars and the potential for confusion because of them warrant a reopening of the conversation, but I think that is kind of a weak argument, frankly. Is there a way to adjust the length of the bars to the number of delegates in each category?PotvinSux (talk) 16:11, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

There hasn't been opposition yet. This is meant to avoid confusion to the average viewer. I also changed it to "Projected Delegates" as some guy proposed earlier. --Bobtinin (talk) 16:31, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Alright, good - I changed "projected" to "estimated" - this cannot be a forecast and is not a forecast. Even for soft delegates for caucus states who have not yet been elected by the state convention the number is based on electors elected to county level conventions, meaning there is a concrete basis for the number in the present.PotvinSux (talk) 08:06, 1 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, I do think that there needs to be a disclaimer like Google has, that says "Pledged delegates are based on state primary results, while superdelegates can support any candidate. Delegate results aren't final until the convention in July." Buffaboy ^talk 02:02, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Including the Super Delegates is no different from including polls for the remaining states. These people haven't voted yet, they've just promised to vote a certain way -- their word means nothing in terms of how they will in the end. These votes are unpledged and likely to change at the last minute -- they should at very lease be removed from the leading infobox to avoid confusion. OttselSpy25 (talk) 06:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with OttselSpy25 above. NO superdelegates have voted yet. They don't vote until the convention at the end of summer. There is no count to even report other than the (possibly empty) promises of how the supers *think* they may vote 5 months from now. This is as valid as if the page were to report polling numbers for the states that vote in June, into the current totals. The other delegate numbers are from people actually ticking a box or standing to be counted, delegates that promise to do the will of the voters in their neighborhood and state. In 2008, hundreds of supers switched their plans and totally voted differently than the loose polling that happens months ahead. You are all mistaken to even count and report them at this stage. Superdelegate possible future intentions are no more a statistic than endorsements, earned media, donations received etc... all interesting, but NOT part of the delegate count at this time. Dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 07:22, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually, you're incorrect. Superdelegates count towards the totals. Even if delegates can change their minds up until the convention. If either HRC or BS reached the total delegate count of 2,383, they could rightly claim to be the Democratic nominee. By the end of March HRC will have almost 2,000 delegates and Sanders will have around 900. Still enough to stay in the race if he wishes, but during April with NY and Pennsylvania delegates, it should be wrapped up. It's probably better for the Democratic Party if Sanders stays in for awhile after that and makes his own decision. But there doesn't seem to be a path to victory for Sanders, especially with such little support from the African-American and Hispanic communities. Dave Dial (talk) 17:19, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure, they'll count towards the total at the convention but while the pledged delegate counts are fixed (once the final primary/caucus results are in anyway), the superdelegate counts can change at any time. It's fine to keep track of the current standings but those numbers are not equivalent to the pledged delegate count and it's disingenuous to present them as if they were.

If a candidate had only reached the required 2383 when including a couple hundred superdelegates, they could by no means "rightly claim" to be the nominee! 2A02:8108:6C0:50C:8B1:27C2:F276:4432 (talk) 19:25, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Dave Dial, I think you are not being unbiased. The pledged delegates have actually been written down by the party as allocated. They are not expected to switch from that formally recognized position unless their candidate has tanked. The supers have not been asked for their vote by anyone but the media and campaigns. It's no different than endorsements or polling for votes to take place in June or later. In 2008 almost all the superdelegates who gave Hillary empty promises, switched to Obama because they had not actually voted yet. it is not anything like a hard count, it is loose plans. Pledged delegates are hard plans with expectations to remain true. dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Campaign Finance Section

Hello everyone, I added a neat little Campaign Finance section. I was looking at the Republican Primary article and thought it would be a great chart to add here. Tell me what you think, and if you find more updated information, absolutely add it to the chart. --Bobtinin (talk) 20:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Precedent for popular vote is absolutely clear

I realize that people have said that there is a consensus around not including the popular vote. But I think that's misguided. Sure, it's not the determining factor. But look at how Wikipedia covers other elections. They always include the popular vote even if seat counts are what matters. The idea that we shouldn't include the popular because it is 'confusing' doesn't make sense. It's not consistent with how Wikipedia covers elections generally. Past Democratic primary articles also have the popular vote. As well, while I imagine it will sound conspiratorial, people from the Clinton campaign probably will continue to have a vested interest in not showing the popular vote because it downplays the strength of Sanders support. In fact, I'd find it hard to believe that people from the Clinton campaign aren't editing this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greeneditor491 (talk • contribs) 02:59, 2 March 2016‎

I agree. We should include the popular vote count. If it is confusing, then that is the nature of the electoral system, but we cannot choose to withdraw a piece of information that gives a lot of context to this election. Let's include the popular vote and if people are confused, then we should explain how elections work in the USA. We don't withdraw so-called "confusing" information from any other article in Wikipedia. This isn't about conspiracies or anything, this is just the way elections work in this country and we should respect that. And this is great occasion to explain it to even more people, especially those outside of the USA. We are not reporting news here. It doesn't need to be digestible in 5 seconds. This is an encyclopedia. Hamsterlopithecus (talk) 03:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I also agree. This is, after all, an election. MAINEiac4434 (talk) 03:14, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. Although the popular vote alone does not decide the election due to the caucuses and superdelegates, it should still be included. Anywikiuser (talk) 11:08, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I invite you to join the discussion at Template talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Remove "Popular vote" from the infobox. It's no use having simultaneous discussions in several places. Most of your arguments have already been answered to over there. And, by the way, supporters of both Clinton's and Sanders's campaign have called it a conspiracy benefiting the opponent. I suggest you thoroughly read the debate at the link I provided and realize that everyone can edit Wikipedia, and that every decision is taken transparently. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:04, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Hillary's won American Samoa, 73-27

Delegate split is 8-3.MAINEiac4434 (talk) 02:24, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that? Everything I could find only shows the 5 superdelegates...

2A02:8108:6C0:50C:8B1:27C2:F276:4432 (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure if it was a mistake or something intentional, but in the results, the blue mark has changed from total to pledged. It was on total this morning. 79.153.46.94 (talk) 17:39, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

That was me. The table is titled "Schedule and results of primaries and caucuses" for a reason, the Superdelegate counts shouldn't be part of the table at all since they don't (directly) result from the primaries/caucuses and have nothing to do with the schedule. Until the table is complete and the (super-)delegates have actually voted at the convention, only the pledged delegates can be said to have been 'won' by a candidate. Also, this way the blue marks in the "Projected delegates" columns match up with those in the "Popular vote or delegate equivalent" columns.2A02:8108:6C0:50C:8B1:27C2:F276:4432 (talk) 19:06, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for Estimated Delegates table

Instead of "Superdelegates", it should say "Unpledged Delegates", and instead of "Total" it should say "Projected Total at Convention". That would be more technically correct because Unpledged Delegates do not vote UNTIL the Convention and the DNC Chair herself has stated that they should not be reported as part of any total number. Chadlupkes (talk) 19:40, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Absolutely. An uninformed reader coming here for a quick explanation would be totally misled by the progress bars showing superdelegate votes added in as if their votes had been taken yet. The supers do not vote until end of summer. in 2008 they massively switched. There is no real count of anything but empty promises and plans. Pledged delegates are a hard count who have actually voted and solidly promise to stick with their candidate. dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 19:48, 2 March 2016 (UTC)