Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries

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

EXACTLY. It is also a problem that the numbers in the graphic include "superdelegates" and presume that those "superdelegates" will support Clinton. This is the practice followed by NPR, the NY Times, and other Hillary supporters. The solution is to omit the "superdelegates" from the count and then to give a separate count of "superdelegates". You could also say a few words explaining that the "superdelegates" are Democratic Party operatives who, at the outset, usually support the status quo candidate. In my opinion, the running counts that include "superdelegates" as Clinton delegates, are nearly as pernicious as the "superdelegate" system itself. ---Dagme (talk) 05:08, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• I first apologize in advance for being away from the discussions here recently. Events IRL have taken precedence over Wikipedia issues recently for me.

Whether one likes it or not, the Democratic Party's superdelegate process has existed in some form or another since the 1980s. Some of the superdelegates from the 2008 Democratic Party process (which are, in many cases, literally the same, exact people in this process as in the 2008 process) did change their affiliation as that process moved forward. However, counting where those superdelegates currently stand (as shown in reliable sources) is not "political bias" or a violation of any of Wikipedia's guidelines at all...it's merely displaying verifiable facts, which is why Wikipedia exists in the first place. This article here should not be used by any side in this political fight to push a POV. We should merely be dedicated to compiling verifiable information about the topic of this article...nothing more, nothing less.

I support including both superdelegate and hard/pledged delegates in this article here and not summing their totals up as a compromise.

I'm also not sure if this has been done yet or not, but, at this late date, I feel that this article should be locked in order to prevent unregistered and/or IP editors from editing this article. Allowing those kind of edits will only allow for vandalism and obvious POV-pushing. Guy1890 (talk) 08:55, 10 March 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)

The pop vote should be restored to article as that gore bush thing can happen at the primarys as well and this fact should be for the readers to know about not for the editors to cover up that possibility. 178.55.45.14 (talk) 12:55, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Darn right!!!!! We should have the votes for the top candidates here and ALL THE MINOR ONES TOO on the results page. Supressing results for anyone is totally wrong. 38.125.33.54 (talk) 21:55, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• As has been stated on this talk page numerous times already, there really is nothing like a national popular vote that can be obtained from this state/territory primary/caucus process. While the individual state popular vote totals might be interesting to display for individual states that release that kind of info, this process will be determined by one thing & one thing only...and that's delegates. Guy1890 (talk) 08:56, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Then why are state wins included in the info box? When "this process will be determined by one thing & one thing only...and that's delegates." The popular vote is currently included on every other party's page and was included during the 2008 primaries. The ONLY reason it isn't included now is because it makes Sanders (and Trump apparently) look bad. It's incredibly biased to not include the current popular vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.104.111.82 (talk) 21:33, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Please take your attempt at POV-pushing somewhere else (preferably nowhere else) as these issues have been thoroughly discussed and settled at this late date. Guy1890 (talk) 02:29, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

and since you mention it, state totals are also not indicative of who is amassing more delegates, because the states are weighted differently, and have different populations, so listing so and so got 15 states is not a good reflection on the process. dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 06:43, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Discrepancy between tables

The upper table (in the section Candidates featured in major polls, lists the current delegate count as 495/405. Whereas the table in the section, Schedule and results of primaries and caucuses, lists the current count as 577/417. The table on the page, Results_of_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016, lists the current delegate count as 599/407. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonahmoosALD (talk • contribs) 17:00, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Additionally, none of the cited source links (AP, NYT, Bloomberg, ballotpedia pdf) for pledged & unpledged (super) delegates under projected (estimated) delegates in either table give a break down of pledged vs unpledged (super); they only give delegate totals. The column totals for pledged & unpledged delegates on the table Results_of_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries are not sums of their columns, nor do they match delegate totals on any other table here or on

Main article: Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016

Only states with citations by the state name have projected pledged & unpledged delegate data that match the source (Green Papers).Shwoodham (talk) 19:59, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

We've got 4 cited sources for the delegate counts in this article and none of them match:

Bloomberg: Clinton 601/457, Sanders 409/22

New York Times: Clinton 595/457, Sanders 405/22

Green Papers: Clinton 609/454, Sanders 412/19

CNN: Clinton 606/468, Sanders 405/21

The best way to keep an up-to-date count is probably to locate the most current source for each state and do the totals ourselves.

Failing that, we need to pick a single source for all counts and stick to it to avoid inconsistencies.

Green Papers seems to be the best source for the state-level delegate counts so I'd suggest we take their totals. I'll change all the totals to match the Green Papers numbers for now.2A02:8108:6C0:50C:8B1:27C2:F276:4432 (talk) 06:46, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

The people claiming to run the Results page want as little information on the page as possible. That's why won't let 20,000 votes for minor candidates be displayed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.125.33.54 (talk) 21:57, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

• I think I finally need to ask here why there is even a separate page on Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 in the first place...all of the info contained there should likely be merged into this article here. Guy1890 (talk) 08:57, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for an WP:Editnotice

I suggest we place an edit notice on the following pages:

• Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016
• Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016
• Template:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016
• Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016
• Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016
• Template:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016

With the following message:

Any comment/suggestion/opposition? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:09, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

I second this. Anywikiuser (talk) 18:28, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

As someone who edits during elections and made this mistake once on Super Tuesday, I concur. DARTHBOTTO _talk•cont 21:41, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't necessarily agree. I realize Wikipedia is not news, but if a reliable source makes a projection for a certain amount of delegates being awarded to someone why do we have to wait for the contest to be 100% done? Are we going to have to wait for 100% of Nebraska's electoral college votes to be called in the general election before updating despite what the reliable sources say? Prcc27🍀 (talk) 22:06, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Many reliable sources don't show the complete amount of delegates until 100% of the vote is in. I second adding this edit notice since it's helpful. → Call me Razr Nation 02:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm pretty sure the sources listed above actually update the delegate totals before 100% of the vote is in. There are many occasions where the vote isn't 100% in for a few days even though 99% of precincts have reported. We should not ignore the projections that reliable sources make and should reflect them on the template when the projections are made. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 03:06, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I understand what you mean, but this isn't the purpose of the edit notice. The purpose is to mostly avoid constant edits of users updating the popular vote count every five minutes. Original delegate predictions can be placed, and then later updated with the final value once the count is complete. → Call me Razr Nation 04:03, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

We can also soften the language. As Razr Nation said, this is mostly to prevent pointless edits every five minutes during primary nights. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 06:42, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

This seems like a sensible proposal to me. If several reliable sources call a state for someone, changing the shading in a table is probably fine, but I don't see the point of updating vote tallies until there's a full count. RocioNadat 04:19, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I think an editnotice for popular vote is fine, but not for projected delegates. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 08:29, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Prcc27🍀 wholeheartedly. If enough reliable sources, especially the ones above, announces a projected winner the night of the primary, why should we wait? Is it better to give people reliable information now or later? This is not meant to be news, but there is a fine line between reporting breaking news and stating facts, and the Associated Press has a reputation for reporting facts, so we should state them. --Bobtinin (talk) 23:08, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

• If this hasn't been done yet already, I support adding this notice to this page here. Guy1890 (talk) 08:58, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Why wouldn't we write the popular vote margin?

Is there a plausible reason, or perhaps it's because Hillary is trouncing him? Maybe because she won Texas by almost 500,000 votes, and he won Oklahoma by only 40,000 votes? Remember, we wrote that in the 2008 primary entry. Archway (talk) 23:31, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Why would we write the vote margin? Is it done on the Republican article? Prcc27💋 (talk) 00:05, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, look (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016). So I understand Bernie's fans didn't want to write it in, from an obvious reasons, but I will not let them corrupt this entry. Archway (talk) 00:47, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't see any margins. When you said margin I was thinking something like "Trump +20,000 lead, Cruz -20,000 loss, Kasich -65,000 loss." But if you are talking about the popular vote total on the template we actually removed it when it said Sanders was beating Clinton in the popular vote by a wide margin even though that probably wasn't true since IA and NV didn't release their popular vote totals. We removed it when it benefited Sanders, we decided to keep it out even though it would benefit Clinton. We are complying with WP:NPOV while you might want to take a look at WP:AGF. Besides, this should be discussed at the template talk, not here. Thank you. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 01:04, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm a right-leaning republican, so I have no dog in the fight (except that I admit that I would prefer Sanders as president over Clinton if it came down to just the two of them, since I think he is more honest and sincere, and has better policies and track record, in my view, 'socialist' brand notwithstanding). So, I am not biased -- OK, now that I've gotten that out of the way, I would prefer that both the popular vote and the delegate vote (with a breakdown between pledged, unpledged, super, and whatever else there is in that regard) to be shown. In that sense, I am what you might call an 'inclusionist,' as I would prefer to have all sides of the story presented, no matter whom it benefits at the moment. (If this article were a sandwich, I'd say: "I want it all the way - with everything on it.") Does that help everyone figure out what readers would probably want?96.59.168.151 (talk) 03:15, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

There is no national popular vote. Tallying up the popular vote yourself would be a violation of WP:OR. Prcc27🍀 (talk) 03:50, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

If that's the case then every primary article, both Democratic and Republican, should be edited to remove the total primary vote. Personally, I think the popular vote should remain in those articles and included in this one.

I read the article you linked and it says for editors not to do original research which I agree with but what about http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D ? Also, some people have been arguing that the vote totals have nothing directly with who gets chosen but that's also true for Contests Won and yet that someone is important enough to keep on the article. There should be vote totals to keep this article with the template of past democratic nomination contests (republicans and every other election).68.35.230.20 (talk) 16:29, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Again, if there was a national popular vote available there would be no question whether we should add it. The reason it's not on the infobox is because it's not available, not because popular vote is irrelevant for the nomination. The problem with the Green Papers popular vote figures is that, among other things, it seems to replace Iowa's popular vote with SDE × 100 which has nothing to do with the popular vote. As for past primaries, all I have to say is that past mistakes should not dictate how to do thing now. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:47, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

It IS available! Please check the Green Papers. Yes I know some object, but it's the best we got, and it's quite accurate. If it's good enough for the people doing the GOP side, it should be good enough for us. The national vote totals in the General don't really matter as to who gets elected. Look at 2000.Arglebargle79 (talk) 17:54, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The Green Papers figures you are linking to are wrong because they sum popular vote in some states with county delegates in other states. They are in fact not accurate. The reason the Republican primaries can show a national vote is because all Republican primaries, unlike the Democratic primaries, publish popular vote. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 06:52, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

agreed, the 2016 GOP one has it, as does the other primaries in history. Hillary is winning nearly 60% of the two-candidate vote in contests where popular votes are publicly tallied. I simply used Excel.

Total popular vote should be included like it has been in included in EVERY Democratic and Republican primary article since 1912. This is a purposeful hijacking of information because people don't like the results. Both the Democratic Party and Republican Party have states that do not included the popular vote. That has not stopped information from being presented before.

Should superdelegates be mentioned in the sidebar?

After all, they can change their vote at any point in time and are not actually votes for either candidate until the convention. Hobbitschuster (talk) 21:47, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

The same can be said of pledged delegates. - Davodd (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

No, not really. Pledged delegates won't change unless their candidate drops out, while superdelegates can and often do change. Dustin (talk) 22:07, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the Superdelegates should be removed from the sidebar entirely. AvRand (talk) 22:20, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, urgent fix needed here. The superdelegates do not vote until the convention. There is no total. Nothing more than empty promises. It's like including poll data for an election 3 months away ...included into the already voted total. In 2008 the supers totally switched away from Hillary to Obama as soon as he got a majority of the pledged delegates. So a superdelegate is nothing more than a tentative endorsement. No such total should be included in an encyclopediac article, unless we include a whole endorsements, money raised, and other external factors. This article should be about the voting process of delegate allocation... which has not happened yet for the supers ! dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 06:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

None of the delegates vote until the Democratic Convention this summer. This issue has been discussed ad nauseam and is long since settled at this late date. The article does include info on money raised, and super delegate "pledges" are basically endorsements by another name. Guy1890 (talk) 05:46, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Popular vote

We should add the Popular vote, just as in 2008(https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2008). Same rules, but this page has Popular vote in the infobox. Look at this link(http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/D), same source as 2008(infobox), so why not now? This are the full results http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/DGhostmen2 (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

This has been extensively discussed above. Guy1890 (talk) 09:51, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

Request for comment: Exclusion of popular vote

See Template talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Exclusion of popular vote. Oversteek (talk) 04:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request

The Democrats Abroad row is missing a pipe link, shifting the row by one column. I believe there should be 13 pledged delegates in column 3 and 2 unpledged delegates in column 4 per results. -76.14.51.178 (talk) 00:56, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

You'll have to make this request at this talk page, since the info that you apparently want changed is kept there. While you may have a point about the 13/8 pledged/unpledged (0.5 vote) delegates, it appears that any results of this primary appear to be preliminary at this time. I think the voting was supposed to take place through March 8th, but the results of that voting weren't supposed to be officially released until some time much later for some reason. Guy1890 (talk) 09:18, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Link superdelegates with: list of Democratic party superdelegates, 2016

The number of superdelegates mentioned in the sidebar seems to be off. According to the list of democratic party superdelegates, 2016 articke, Clinton has only 464 unpledged delegates and Sanders has 24. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.117.151 (talk) 11:40, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually neither Hillary nor Bernie has any superdelegates at all. They don't vote until the convention. All there is right now is tentative empty promises about how they may vote 3 months from now. It is fallacious to include "totals" of superdelegate promises. n 2008, almost all Hillary superdelegates totally switched to Obama, so their advance promises are worthless as a statistic. If anything they would be on a list of endorsers, if such a list were added. dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 06:54, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Popular Vote

Where is POPULAR VOTE COUNTS? -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 100.34.113.103 (talk) 14:12, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

They are in the article under each state that actually reports them. Guy1890 (talk) 05:48, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Can you make this article show the popular vote that each candidate has nationwide(as the republican article does)? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rywilliams23 (talk • contribs) 06:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Republicans release popular vote in all states. Democrats don't. Thus why a nationwide popular vote exists for Republicans but not Democrats. 15zulu (talk) 09:41, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

The Republican article is in error. There is also no national popular vote there; in fact there are 6 states and territories where there is no presidential preference vote. From the RNC: "American Samoa (9 delegates), Colorado (37 delegates), Guam (9 delegates), North Dakota (28 delegates), Wyoming (29 delegates), and the U.S. Virgin Islands (9 delegates) will not hold presidential preference votes in 2016." It's unclear to me whether there is a consistent method for when & how delegates are chosen in these areas, and whether they are pledged. See Denver Post Ballotpedia on CO, WY, etc. For more of the discussion on national popular vote totals, see Template talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Remove "Popular vote" from the infobox Shwoodham (talk) 11:29, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

This → Template_talk:Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Exclusion_of_popular_vote ← is the current discussion taking place regarding popular votes in the infobox. —MelbourneStar☆^talk 11:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I should've included that. Both are active. The first is a discussion; the second is a vote. Shwoodham (talk) 12:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

@Shwoodham: We're not going to change anything about the Republican infobox/pages by discussing it on Democrats infobox/pages. If you believe there is an issue with the Republican popular vote, you should take that discussion to those pages. A major difference between the issues: Democrats voted, Republicans did not. Popular vote, my definition, counts only those who voted. Cheers, 15zulu (talk) 22:47, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Different number of delegates

Hi, is it possible to use the same counting? e.g. Pledged deleg. of Clinton:

• infobox at the top: 1132
• Candidates featured in major polls: 1139
• Schedule and results of primaries and caucuses: 1099

It means three different values. Thank you.--Kacir 00:28, 17 March 2016 (UTC)