Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search

Poll: Should the popular vote statistics be included in the infobox?[edit]

This is a two question RfC to determine if there consensus to include the recently added popular vote statistics in the infobox.

A. Should the popular vote count be included in the infobox?
B. Should the popular vote percentage be included in the infobox?

- MrX 🖋 15:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)


  • No to both - The popular vote does not determine the outcome of the caucuses. Best practice would be to adhere to the precedents established at 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses and 2008 Iowa Democratic caucuses. - MrX 🖋 15:07, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    • Comment - The examples you gave only present the national delegates. If you are arguing they are a standard, shouldn't SDEs also disappear from the Infobox? It would cloth a lot of information about this particular article, but that's the standard you are proposing. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:30, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
      • Probably, but we can tackle that separately. I'm neutral on the SDEs. - MrX 🖋
        • Just out of curiousity, what drives you to have an opinion on popular vote, but not SDEs, if it is not to keep consistency with the style on past caucuses? - Sarilho1 (talk) 17:28, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment - They weren’t reported before because the numbers weren’t released for the Democrats. This is the first year they released the popular vote totals. Smith0124 (talk) 15:41, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No to both - The first alignment and final alignment voting percentages are meaningful additional information for the results section of this article, but should not be in the infobox as they do not reflect the outcome of the caucus. There is no good reason to move from precedent on this.Wikiditm (talk) 15:13, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment - The precedent is to include the numbers, as the presidential election pages include both yet only the electoral college matters. So by not including them we are moving from precedent. The reason they aren’t in previous years for Iowa is because the numbers weren’t released for the Democrats. Smith0124 (talk) 15:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both, but only once numbers are verified. The popular vote did not determine the outcome of the 2016 election either, and those numbers are pretty important! As of right now, I can see why they'd be onerous given that the numbers are still updating. But once the caucus results are fully released, the raw total of votes given to each candidate will be information readers interested in this topic would want to know, and it therefore deserves to be front-and-centre. - EditDude (talk) 15:15, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No to both - Adding the extra info clutters up the infobox. David O. Johnson (talk) 15:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both The total number of votes is meaningful information and the percentage allows to put those values in perspective. - Sarilho1 (talk) 15:25, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both for all the reasons stated plus the fact that the popular vote and percentage is shown on presidential election pages, yet only the electoral college matters. So it’s consistent with Wikipedia standard. The Democratic Party changed their ways, so we should too. It’s important info, not clutter. Smith0124 (talk) 15:35, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No to both Those numbers have no impact on the actual consequences of the election, and there is no precedent for their inclusion. Most media outlets are reporting results in SDEs, not popular vote. Obviously they belong in the article, but not in the infobox. --WMSR (talk) 15:36, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment - Both are included in presidential election pages even though they have no effect on the outcome, so there’s only precedent for their inclusion. Caucuses work the same way. Smith0124 (talk) 15:38, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Compromise - Seems an issue people have is clutter in to infobox. So I propose that we remove Klobuchar since she’s not viable or close to viable (like, less than 1%) for delegates and make it a 2 by 2 to reduce clutter. I will edit the article so you see what I mean. Smith0124 (talk) 16:19, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment - That's not a compromise, nor does it relate to the subject of this RfC. Kindly stay on topic. - MrX 🖋
Comment - Yes it is. Some who say no say it’s because they think it’s too much clutter, so I propose only having the top 4 candidates to reduce the clutter yet keep the popular vote. Look at the previous edit where I removed Klobuchar. It makes sense because Klobuchar didn’t get 15% of the SDEs, so won’t be getting any pledged delegates. Smith0124 (talk) 16:43, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
That is not how delegate allocation works. Klobuchar is very likely to get a delegate from CD4, since she has exceeded 15% of SDEs there. Even if every remaining vote to be counted is for Yang, he would not reach viability statewide or in any congressional district. --WMSR (talk) 17:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
I suggest you to stay away from this article for a while. This is not a political battleground and your so-called compromise makes absolute no sense. - Sarilho1 (talk) 17:32, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
Nothing I’m doing here is influenced by my political beliefs. I like Mayor Pete yet I say we keep the popular vote because I think it’s right. This was an honest compromise, personally I could care less if Klobuchar is there. If you hate the compromise, fine, but don’t attack me. Smith0124 (talk) 18:04, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to A or B - Unlike previous years, the popular vote is part of the official results, which merits a change in the way this is reported, and including this info in some way matches general elections in which both popular vote and EC delegates are reported. However, I think we only need one or the other, to minimize clutter. My preference would be the percentage, but I could see arguments for the count instead. We should also make clear that we're referring to post-realignment numbers in either case. 204.246.8.98 (talk) 16:54, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both - Useful info. The infobox should be a summary, these numbers help.  Nixinova  T  C   19:21, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both, it is very clear that the popular vote is being reported and covered by both campaigns and the media, and is almost certainly something readers will want to know, and as such it should be included in the infobox. Devonian Wombat (talk) 20:17, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both - These are official statistics being widely reported by reliable outlets. I don't think it's a factor that popular vote doesn't determine the winner - by that logic, we might as well remove it from the presidential election as well.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 21:47, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    Or remove the home states and portraits from everywhere (Klobuchar isn't even smiling in hers). InedibleHulk (talk) 22:02, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
    You're right, a candidate's portrait or home state doesn't determine who won the election, neither does the number of contests won or states carried - we spent a lot of time in 2016 trying to find the right portraits for each of the candidates, and this would be avoided once and for all if we cut out all of the inconsequential stuff!  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 22:50, 6 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - include what's in the 2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses article. GoodDay (talk) 02:26, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both - these statistics are now being collected for the first year, and being reported by major news sources. -Kai445 (talk) 05:03, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both Popular vote is a key element of elections, even if it is not the determining factor of the final result. Number 57 10:48, 7 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both The Iowa Democratic County tallied and reported the popular vote, so the information should be included. We include the popular vote in infoboxes on state primaries and state presidential elections, too, even though delegates and electoral votes are what respectively determine the outcome of those elections. Surachit (talk) 02:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both - per the 3 above mine. Jusdafax (talk) 03:12, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both Of course they should be included. The popular vote in the Iowa caucuses is now, for the first time, released publicly as part of the official results (which makes this information even more noteworthy). So, if they're released publicly and part of the official results, then they must be included in a Wikipedia article in any places where results are displayed. Like U.S. presidential elections, while the raw votes don't ultimately determine the winner and the place in which each candidate finishes, it is vital, necessary data for obvious reasons. Imagine if the results in presidential election articles on Wikipedia only included electoral votes, with the popular vote totals left out. There would be an uproar like Wikipedia has never seen. The Iowa caucuses are no different; only the SDEs and delegate count (essentially, Iowa's equivalent to electoral votes) determine the winner, not the popular vote. But the popular vote tells us how many individual ballots were cast for each candidate (in each round of voting). The sole reason these raw vote totals were never included previously in Wikipedia articles is because they were kept secret from the public by those counting the votes. They aren't any more and therefore there's no longer any reasonable excuse for purposely excluding them from the infobox. 2605:A000:FFC0:D8:18AE:9870:D055:58D9 (talk) 05:22, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes but below delegates - relevant information but should be below delegates just like is done with electoral vs popular vote in with US presidential elections.--Staberinde (talk) 10:18, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to A, no to B – relevant, yes, but the infobox is quite cluttered and difficutlt to understand. I'd also put SDEs above popular vote (in the order), as that is used to determine how Iowa awards its delegates. Domeditrix (talk) 10:52, 8 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No to A and B - Iowa's Democratic Party haven't declared a winner yet. If we put anything in the infobox (itself a debatable proposition) it ought to be the winner as declared by the IDP. --loupgarous (talk) 21:02, 9 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both. It is politically relevant that (a)the party decided to report it this time and (b)that it affects post-Iowa media coverage of the Democratic primaries. 538 has done a rough-and-ready analysis suggesting Sanders receives 15% of the traditional "Iowa bump" on account of winning the popular vote. More importantly, there is no official means to declare the "winner" if the popular vote and SDEs diverge; only tradition implies the latter (but SDEs are obviously still relevant as the tradition drives the bulk post-election media coverage). PutItOnAMap (talk) 08:14, 10 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both - Understanding the popular vote is key to understanding the caucus process. It is valuable in terms of understanding the results on the ground, and also the nature of a caucus to include the vote totals. It is also key so that readers can understand the strengthens/weaknesses of primaries/caucuses. Similarly, while only delegates matter in US Presidential elections (given the nature of the electoral college) we always include the popular vote for similar good reasons.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:24, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Comment - If we are treating the first alignment vote as the popular vote, should we revisit the question of whether to include Yang in the infobox? On the one hand, he would be the only one in the box with no national delegates. On the other hand, as I understand it the usual cutoff for inclusion is 5% of the popular vote, and Yang met that threshold on the first alignment vote.Gambling8nt (talk) 23:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I think it would be fine to include him. There is already a space for a sixth, so it won't mess up the formatting. It is perhaps of note that by that metric he would not qualify to be included in the infobox for NH or the infobox for the primaries as a whole. I don't think that is necessarily a reason to keep him out of the infobox here though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 00:29, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
I am against inclusion of Yang in the infobox because I was under the impression that 10% of the popular vote was the metric used, as that is what it is on the New Hampshire page. I thought 5% was the threshold for polling average. In any case, the point of the infobox is to include candidates who are relevant to the caucus, and Yang did not have a significant enough impact to warrant being included in the infobox. WittyRecluse (talk) 13:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No to both - The numbers are not relevant to the final outcome of results.Idealigic (talk) 15:34, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

How many pledged delegates did Buttigieg win? 13 or 14?[edit]

This page cites results.thecaucuses.org, which states that Buttigieg won 14 pledged delegates.

The main article cites the New York Times, which states that Buttigieg won 13 pledged delegates.

The Des Moines Register backs up the New York Times page, which states that Buttigieg won 13 pledged delegates.

How should we handle this discrepancy? I'd assume that thecaucuses.org is ran by the Iowa Democratic Party and that it's a primary source, but are the NYT and DMR just being slow to update their numbers, or do they have legitimate reason to report that the number is 13? They're both reputable reliable secondary sources. Is it actually the case that we don't know for certain what the final number is? Should we leave a footnote explaining this to the reader?

I'm not prescribing any solutions myself since I'm not sure what to do here, but I do want to invite discussion to see if anyone else knows relevant information, to see if anyone believes one number is more correct than the other, or if anyone believes that we truly don't know the final result of the Iowa caucuses yet.  Vanilla  Wizard 💙 23:55, 11 February 2020 (UTC)

Iowa results are being recanvassed in 134 precincts. First result of it is reducing Buttigieg's national delegates from 14 to 13. Xenagoras (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
A Des Moines Register article dated after the "last update" of their results page states Buttigieg picked an additional delegate and had 14 instead of the initial 13. I think there should at least be a credible source presented to update the projected count to be something different than what the state party reports.Froo (talk) 00:21, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
In my edit of the delegate numbers you find the link to the AP article. Xenagoras (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Many news organizations are not forecasting who will get the last delegate, pending the current recanvassing and likely following recount where the incorrect arithmetic assigning delegates in a number of precincts is corrected. The final recipient will depend on how many SDEs are shifted by correcting both the errors (presumably against Sanders/in Buttigieg's favor) that the Sanders campaign identified, and the errors (presumably against Buttigieg/in Sanders' favor) that the Buttigieg campaign identified.Gambling8nt (talk) 00:43, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Is there some reason why we would not use the party's own numbers[1]? They are obviously aware of the recanvassing, yet they have published these numbers. Where are the secondary sources getting their information if not from the IDP? - MrX 🖋 00:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
They're following the AP's lead, I think. Broadly, the recanvassing throws into doubt the question of who will get the fifth delegate from the five delegate party leader pool, since there are enough SDEs in question to possibly flip who has the highest statewide total, with the delegates splitting 2-1-1-1 between the highest statewide total, the second highest total, Warren and Biden. Based on the AP's projection, none of the other close calls are evidently likely to be in play. (Biden barely managing the 15% viability threshold in the third district by a little more than 1 SDE, Warren narrowly failing to meet the viability threshold in the fourth district by about 2 SDEs, and, as you stretch the definition of close, Klobuchar meeting the viability threshold in the fourth district by 5ish SDEs, and Buttigieg beating Sanders in the third district by about 6.5 SDEs and the fourth district by about 7.5 SDEs) Just like the initial counting, I don't think we have any kind of timeline for how long this is expected to take; we're just left with the question of whether it is better to report the existing official count (which might change by enough to shift one pledged delegate) or the reliably sourced projections (which leaves open the question of who will get the last delegate).Gambling8nt (talk) 02:39, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Sorry, misread your question. The recanvassing is in response to the initial numbers from the IDP; those official numbers were published first. I don't know if there is some sort of procedural rule causing them to leave them up during the recanvassing, or if they have some other reason to leave them up.Gambling8nt (talk) 02:52, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Because the reliable sources in the press and television found a ton of errors in the numbers reported by the IDP. The media did their own SDE calculations based on raw data from the precincts which is available at the party's website.[2] Already on the day of the caucus, AP noticed massive errors in the reported numbers by the IDP and AP calculated that "it is too early to call the race." Sanders' campaign calculated the SDEs from the raw data of votes and published their summary stating that 2.5 SDEs will switch from Buttigieg to Sanders when using correct calculation. This will switch positions of Buttigieg and Sanders. Xenagoras (talk) 14:28, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
You have to be more specific. What press found what errors, and why should we use that over the press that are using the IDP's numbers? - MrX 🖋 00:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The following RS did their own data analysis and found the IDP's result to be erroneous at vote counting, realignment, SDE calculation, delegate allocation and result transmission: AP [3], NYT [4] [5] [6], NBC News [7], CNN [8] and DesMoines Register. [9] Xenagoras (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Just saw this conversation. I put the count to 13 and added a footnote explaining the undecided delegate. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 05:32, 12 February 2020 (UTC)

You're still using a source from February 7th to say that the results reported on February 9th by the Iowa Democratic Party aren't accurate. I think it would be best to find an article dated after February 9th (from a credible/reliable source) saying why that one delegate shouldn't be estimated for either Buttigieg or Sanders. Again it's kind of a moot point because those totals sometimes change at the county/district/state caucuses historically.Froo (talk) 14:57, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
Yeah, you can't use old sources to contradict newer sources and the IDP. Reverted. - MrX 🖋 00:19, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
We should use the primary IDP official website results (last updated on Feb.9), for the pledged national convention delegates displayed in our article. Implicit it is understood that this calculation is based upon the results before the recanvass/recount, but I think an efn note should be added to explain this situation in the infobox. The Green Papers and CNN article (from Feb.10) now report the same calculated pledged delegates as the primary "IDP official website" source. The decision by AP not to allocate the last pledged delegate until a recanvass/recount has been made is notable (meaning the efn note about it is OK), but it should not replace the headline figures calculated and reported by the "IDP official website" source. Danish Expert (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2020 (UTC)
I could agree to that as a compromise. The pledged delegate numbers should reflect the official IDP published results. I'm sure they will change them, if warranted, after the partial recanvassing. - MrX 🖋
NYT still reports just 13 delegates won. We use reliable sources over primary sources. Be patient for the recanvassing. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 02:34, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
The Washington Post is reporting 14, for what it's worth. It also happens to agree with the IDP. - MrX 🖋 02:48, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

@Nice4What: Will you please point out where it was "agreed to on the talk page" to list 13 delegates for Buttigieg? I see 2 for; 2 against; and 2 undeclared. That is not consensus by any stretch. - MrX 🖋 02:41, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

My point is that since the results are disputed and there is no consensus for 14, we should keep 13 with the footnote explaining the dispute. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 11:47, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I didn't ask what your point was. I asked you to point to the agreement on the talk page. - MrX 🖋 16:18, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC about change proposal for infobox for caucus results[edit]

Proposal for change to infobox for caucus results:

  1. Shall the infobox for a caucus display the first alignment vote count and percentage as the popular vote "First alignment (popular vote)"?
  2. Shall the infobox for a caucus display the final alignment vote count and percentage below the line of the popular vote "First alignment (popular vote)"? (together with a mouse-over hint explaining: "supporters of candidates below 15% per precinct realigned themselves to other candidates")

Several reliable sources say that first alignment is the popular vote (see details below). These two proposals would result in an infobox display like this.

Edit 20 February: changed proposed text from "popular vote" to "First alignment (popular vote)" to adapt to editors' comments. Xenagoras (talk) 21:23, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

The reliable sources New York Times [10] [11], Washington Post [12], ABC News [13], USA Today [14] [15], Forbes [16] and The Raw Story [17] say that the first alignment is the popular vote (see detailed quotes there). Xenagoras (talk) 23:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)

Xenagoras, As a technical point, I believe the proposed mouse over text:
"supporters of candidates below 15% per precinct realigned themselves to candidates above 15%")
is incorrect. Supporters of candidates below 15% and realign themselves to candidates above 15% or other candidates below 15% if the resulting combination would bring them about 15%. As an example, if one candidate had 9%, and another 8%, the supporters of the 8% candidate could join the supporters of the 9% candidate resulting in 17%. This is based on my recollection of hearing news reports, and so someone should check the actual wording. I also note that this RFC seems to be generically about caucuses and the rule I'm siding citing applies to Iowa. I don't know about the other states.S Philbrick(Talk) 01:05, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Sphilbrick, thanks for your info. I changed the wording for the final alignment hint. Could you please link to those news reports? I found Vox saying, rules in Nevada will the be same as in Iowa, and Vox confirms what you said, As in Iowa, any supporters of candidates with more than 15 percent support in the precinct (including both in-person and early votes) get locked in. Supporters of candidates below that threshold, though, get to realign. They can back a viable candidate, combine forces to make a nonviable candidate viable, or refuse to support anyone. [18] Xenagoras (talk) 01:43, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Xenagoras, Thanks for checking the rule, and the confirmation that Nevada is the same as Iowa. S Philbrick(Talk) 01:59, 14 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC Survey[edit]

  • No to both – the only binding vote in the caucus is the final alignment vote. It is the popular vote, because that is the number that gets converted to SDEs. The first alignment is certainly an interesting data point, but it does not need to be in the infobox. --WMSR (talk) 21:29, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
WMSR, you are right that the final alignment is used to calculate the SDEs. The first alignment of a caucus shows the same vote distribution that a primary in that state would show. It was widely reported in reliable sources and is a useful information for comparing voter preference between states with caucus results and states with primary results. Displaying both the first and final alignment data also allows to see the effect of realignment in a caucus. Xenagoras (talk) 14:51, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both - per explanation below the questions of this RfC, especially the top tier reliable sources supporting this proposal and the comparability of the first alignment of a caucus with the vote result of a primary. Xenagoras (talk) 21:35, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No to both We need to be sparing with how much stuff we cram into infoboxes. Only the final alignment vote is relevant IMO. Number 57 21:55, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Both 1st and 2nd Alignment - Information on both is important and valuable. My preference would be for the 2nd alignment number to be given prominence above the 1st as it has more significance to the final results (but it is important to include the 1st alignment votes, otherwise it makes candidates who lost ground on the realignment (ie Biden and Klobuchar) who are top five/six candidates look less viable than they are. I don't think it is too much information, and all of those results are pretty important to be able to understand the caucus process as a whole.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 01:13, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both: Supported by these arguments: (1) Displaying a "First alignment popular vote" percentage will make the result 1:1 comparable with the popular vote results of the 50 primaries in 2020. (2) CNN and a majority of reliable sources reported as headline stories, that the caucus resulted in two winners: Sanders winning the undecisive popular vote while Buttigieg won the decisive SDEs and pledged delegates, (which support that a popular vote figure is important enough to be displayed in the infobox). (3) Infobox already display 3 county maps for "first popular vote" + "final popular vote" + "SDEs", which justify that we also display all these 3 statewide percentage figures at the top of the infobox. (4) For transperency reasons and the purpose to provide a fast educational overview for first time readers to learn how the caucus proces and math is working, its best to display all four figures. Danish Expert (talk) 12:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to 1, no to 2: - While I personally disagree with the notion that the first alignment is the popular vote on the basis that there is no popular vote equivalent in a caucus, if reliable sources are stating en masse that the first alignment is the popular vote, then my opinion is superseded by the opinions portrayed in the RS documentation. As popular vote and delegate totals are the most critical pieces of information needed for portrayal to readers, then the info box should contain that information and not the final alignment numbers. Final alignment numbers are still relevant enough to warrant inclusion on the page, just not in the info box. WittyRecluse (talk) 13:10, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No to both per my previous comments on the subject, as well as the comments by WMSR and Number 57. I think that the only tallies that should be displayed in the infobox are pledged delegates, and possibly SDEs. The percentage calculations and alignment votes are best covered in the body of the article. - MrX 🖋 15:32, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • No to 1, yes to 2: As the article currently is. Nice4What (talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ) 18:47, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both, per Danish Expert.  Kolya Butternut (talk) 22:52, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both agree with Danish Expert arguments.--SharʿabSalam▼ (talk) 00:36, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both, for something as messy as the Iowa caucuses, it is necessary to display all four statistics to prevent confusion on the behalf of people unfamiliar with the caucus process. Devonian Wombat (talk) 08:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
  • not described as popular vote No objection to displaying the information that reveals the process more fully, but describing this as a popular vote is grossly inaccurate. ResultingConstant (talk) 16:43, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
ResultingConstant, why do you think it's "grossly inaccurate"? Xenagoras (talk) 20:07, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Xenagoras Pretending that thousands of local level multi preference processes are a state/nationwide single preference vote. Its like reporting on the world series, and the statistic we decide to show is the total number of runs summed across all the games. While its a "true" number, its completely irrelevant and misleading. ResultingConstant (talk) 03:40, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
ResultingConstant, how about we name that line "First alignment (Popular vote)" ? Danish Expert made the same proposal. Xenagoras (talk) 22:56, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both as I've already said in a previous vote.  Nixinova  T  C   19:21, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to 1, modification to 2 in any electoral process, the popular vote is the share of vote cast for you. The first ballot is the purest form of that. If you’re not on the second ballot in some places, that’s, in the view of the popular vote, akin to an election being fixed such that you do not appear on the ballot in some precincts. Still, the final alignment is an important caveat, although slightly redundant given the SDE count. Perhaps a separate section for the final alignment vote in the “Results” section or as a note, and a reference to it in the popular vote row.GGLLFFP (talk) 01:18, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Yes to both They're each useful in their own way. Sdkb (talk) 00:15, 24 February 2020 (UTC)


  • Summary of comments. After comments from 14 editors and no comment during the last 3 days, I remove the RfC tag and give my summary of editors' comments. Rough consensus exists for proposal 1: the infobox for a caucus shall display the first alignment vote count and percentage as "First alignment (popular vote)", and for proposal 2: the infobox for a caucus shall display the "Final alignment" vote count and percentage below the line of "First alignment (popular vote)" (together with a mouse-over hint explaining: "supporters of candidates below 15% per precinct realigned themselves to other candidates"). 10 editors support proposal 1. 8 editors support both proposals, arguing that these data points are important, reported as headline stories by reliable sources, help readers understand the realignment during a caucus, allow for comparing caucus results with primary results, and are already displayed for counties. 2 editors support only proposal 1, arguing that the final alignment is not important enough for the infobox. 11 editors want to display the final alignment in some form in the infobox. 3 editors want to only display the final alignment as popular vote in the infobox, with one arguing via space consumption and two arguing that the final alignment is the relevant one / the popular vote because it gets converted into SDEs. 1 editor does not want any of that data in the infobox by arguing, it would consume too much space. Xenagoras (talk) 20:48, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

RfC Discussion[edit]

Redrose64, thanks for telling me about WP:RFCBRIEF. I shortened the RFC's text considerably. Will this enable Legobot to publish it? Could you please tell me the maximum length of an RFC? Xenagoras (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2020 (UTC)
I just noticed that Legobot published this RfC. Xenagoras (talk) 00:08, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
Worth pointing out that the statement accompanying the RFC is not neutral. --WMSR (talk) 01:04, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
We've not yet determined the exact length above which Legobot will trip up, but it's known to be somewhere between 1,500 and 2,000 bytes, including signature and timestamp. But Face-smile.svg Thank you for splitting into two (summary and detail), that's often the best way. Legobot runs once an hour, and if an RfC statement is altered at any point, Legobot will copy the modified statement to the listings on the next hourly run. --Redrose64 🌹 (talk) 07:19, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Proposal adaption: after 7 days, on 20 February, I changed my proposed text from "popular vote" to "First alignment (popular vote)" as adaption to editors' comments. If my adaption of proposal creates a problem in assessing consensus, I have no problem reverting to my original proposal. Naming both data lines "...alignment..." makes them better synchronized with the result table in the article and it emphasizes that these two data lines are connected by the process of realignment. This aims to improve understanding of the caucus process by the reader, which appears important to editors like Darryl Kerrigan, Danish Expert, Kolya Butternut, SharʿabSalam, Devonian Wombat and ResultingConstant. The renaming to "First alignment (popular vote)" also adapts to proposals/objections by editors. Danish Expert proposed (agreed by Kolya Butternut and SharʿabSalam) displaying a "First alignment popular vote." ResultingConstant has no objection to displaying the information, but describing this as a popular vote is grossly inaccurate. Xenagoras (talk) 20:57, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
  • Remark: @Sphilbrick: may I ask you to asses the consensus of this RfC? Xenagoras (talk) 21:04, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
    Xenagoras, Sorry, but I haven't closed any RFC's and I have to be away for most of tomorrow, so not a good time to do my first. S Philbrick(Talk) 02:49, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

@Xenagoras: You cannot close your own RfC. --WMSR (talk) 22:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

WMSR, I did not close the RfC. A closed RfC would have a colored background and a frame and a closing statement (the consensus assessment) and would prevent adding more comments. I asked [19] an uninvolved administrator to asses the consensus (implying to formally close the RfC), but he declined friendly. WP:RFCEND states, there are several ways in which RfCs end: ... 5. The discussion may just stop. ... Please remove the rfc tag when ... discussion has ended. During the last 3 days no additional editors commented and during the last 6 days only 1 additional editor commented. The discussion appears to have ended on its own. So I ended the RfC (and wrote the optional summary of comments). Request for closure states, Many discussions do not need formal closure. Many discussions result in a reasonably clear consensus, so if the consensus is clear, any editor—even one involved in the discussion—may close the discussion. ... When the consensus is reasonably clear, participants may be best served by not requesting and then waiting weeks for a formal closure. The WP:ANRFC page has a long list of RfCs waiting for formal closure, therefore I heeded the advice given at WP:ANRFC and ended the RfC without formal closure to avoid a long waiting time in the queue. Xenagoras (talk) 23:19, 22 February 2020 (UTC)

I think people meant we were going to use the final votes and SDEs and then that was spun by an Rfc that wasn’t neutral into including the first alignment votes as well. Smith0124 (talk) 18:05, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

14 delegates for Buttigieg[edit]

CNN[20] is reporting that "The tightening does not, however, impact the national delegate count, which awarded Buttigieg 14 national delegates out of Iowa, compared to Sanders' 12 delegates, according to the state party." We need to stop reporting outdated information. Sanders count challenge does not change this official result unless the party determines such. - MrX 🖋 03:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

→NBC[21] has also reported that the Iowa DNC officially awarded Buttigieg 14 national delegates. Wikipedia has not historically held off reporting final information when a candidate challenges a count. This should be updated. Grabillr92 (talk) 23:35, 24 February 2020 (UTC)

Recount still pending[edit]

As noted in for example, the CNN source linked by MrX (talk · contribs) "With the recanvass complete, the campaigns have 24 hours to respond to those results with evidence that the outcome of the national delegate allocation could be impacted, according to state party rules. Sanders' campaign responded to the new results by saying they will formally request a recount of several precincts."

The result is updated, but not yet settled.Gambling8nt (talk) 03:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

What the hell does that mean? I literally quoted the party's determination. What higher authority are you referencing?- MrX 🖋 03:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Going to leave it here as well. AP, These results are not final pending recount. HoxtonLyubov (talk) 03:48, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This USA Today article gives a basic view on the difference between a recanvass and a recount. In brief, a recanvass checks whether the reported results match the original written worksheets the individual precinct chairs used to record tallies of votes. If some precinct chairs incorrectly reported those worksheet results, that would be caught by a recanvass. (Given the modest changes caused by the recanvass, a few did precincts were incorrectly reported, either from an error by the precinct chair, or the phone line operator.)
But a recanvass will not correct errors made on the worksheets themselves; such errors require that a recount be called to tally the underlying votes.
The recanvass is completed. A recount is likely to occur. (The Sanders campaign has said it will call for one, the Buttigieg campaign hasn't yet said anything either way; I don't know if proper procedure is for them to call for theirs at the same time as Sanders, or sequentially after if they think it will shift enough votes to put them back in the lead.)
Hopefully that clears up some confusion.Gambling8nt (talk) 04:06, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
That's interesting original research, but we can't use it. We have to reproduce what is reported in sources without trying to analyze the intricacies of the caucus. See below:

I am aware of what AP said. They are not running the show. As I have already shown, CNN reported:

The tightening does not, however, impact the national delegate count, which awarded Buttigieg 14 national delegates out of Iowa, compared to Sanders' 12 delegates, according to the state party.
— [22]

The Hill reported similar:

Buttigieg retains his 14-12 advantage in delegates to the Democratic National Convention due to caucus rules regarding delegate allocation. However, that result could change if either campaign asks for a recount. Both campaigns now have 24 hours to officially request a recount.
— [23]

The Des Moines Register reported:

As it stands, Buttigieg, the former South Bend, Indiana, mayor, has 14 of Iowa's national delegates and Sanders, a U.S. senator from Vermont, has 12, the Iowa party reported.
— [24]

The article needs to be updated accordingly. The current footnoted claim of 13 is misleading to our readers. - MrX 🖋 04:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I don't care if the box says 14 or 13 (as is currently asserted by The New York Times and PBS, following AP's lead, for a few examples). Some might care, and have some reliable sources backing them up, but it makes no difference to me. I care that the current results are not necessarily final. The recount process is ongoing, and the last delegate may yet wind up going to Sanders. Or Buttigieg. Depending on the results of a likely partial recount.

USA Today:

The twists of the caucus aren't necessarily finished: An official with the Sanders campaign said it will ask for a recount. A recanvass was a prerequisite to a recount request, according to party rules.
— [25]

CNN, from the same article you quoted:

With the recanvass complete, the campaigns have 24 hours to respond to those results with evidence that the outcome of the national delegate allocation could be impacted, according to state party rules.

Visit CNN's Election Center for full coverage of the 2020 race

Sanders' campaign responded to the new results by saying they will formally request a recount of several precincts.
— [26]

PBS:

Bernie Sanders’ presidential campaign plans to ask for a partial recount of the Iowa caucus results,after the state Democratic Party released results of its recanvass late Tuesday that show Sanders and Pete Buttigieg in an effective tie.
— [27]

Politico:

In the results posted by the Iowa Democratic Party, Buttigieg still had 14 delegates to the national convention to 12 for Sanders — a result that could flip after a recount.
— [28]

If you want the results table and infobox to say 14-12 instead of 13-12, without removing the note indicating that the process is not yet over and a recount is pending, I personally will not stop you (although you may find yourself in an edit war with Sanders partisans who will care about the distinction). My--reliably sourced--objection is to the removal of the footnote noting that the results are not yet final as a recount is likely pending.Gambling8nt (talk) 04:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

While I have no strong opinion on whether Buttigieg should be listed as having 14 or 13 delegates, I agree that it would be misleading to remove the note when a recount is almost certainly going to occur. Devonian Wombat (talk) 05:14, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

I have no idea why the Iowa Democratic Party's assertion of delegates is not being taken at face value, and I'm not sure I've ever seen anything like this on Wikipedia before. The information in this article directly contradicts the result as (preliminarily, so sure, add an efn note) decided by the organisation in charge of providing the results. Domeditrix (talk) 09:27, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

We can certainly leave a footnote about the recount (but without expression of doubt, or other WP:OR), but I don't think we should be undermine the reporting that the party has declared that Buttigieg has 14 delegates simply because a bunch of newly minted user accounts are using Wikipedia to astroturf. - MrX 🖋 14:59, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
That's nonsense. Devonian Wombat's account goes back to June 2019: [29]. Domeditrix goes to September of 2014: [30]. Gambling8nt goes to August 2007 [31]. You might want to read through this: [32].David O. Johnson (talk) 15:49, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Calm down. I'm not talking about any of those users. - MrX 🖋 15:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
MrX, who did you talk about? Xenagoras (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
It's not because you made 10000 more edit than someone else the other person doesn't make a valid point. Cleary there is a disagreement in the media about the reporting. The IDP reporting is known to be faulty, even after the recanvass. After all these days it's become very clear the actual results of the Iowa caucus might never be known but to me it makes more sense to follow the lead of the AP and not report on a final delegate count until all the recounts etc are done. Thalous (talk) 15:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I agree there is disagreement in sources about the delegates won. I do not agree that "The IDP reporting is known to be faulty", but if you would like to show some sources that say that, it would certainly influence my view that the IDP is an authoritative source. - MrX 🖋 15:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Now Nice4What has hidden the disputed tag, which I strongly object to. The claim that "If it's a disputed note, you place it inside the note so it doesn't break the infobox." There is no such guideline that I'm aware of. If fact, such tags are meant to draw editors to the discussion, which can't happen if they are buried in a footnote. - MrX 🖋 17:35, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

SDEs divided by 18?[edit]

Why are the SDEs displayed in the results section roughly divided by 18 compared to the results at the top of the results from results.thecaucuses.org ?209.54.86.136 (talk) 05:10, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Nvm upon refreshing the page, they were no longer multiplied by 18 on that website. I guess it wasn't changed at that moment. 209.54.86.136 (talk) 05:13, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

As of this edit, the SDEs in the Results section are 3 times more than the SDEs in the infobox. I don't know enough about this process to know which is accurate, and wonder if the ongoing recount is a factor. Nonetheless, there is a discrepancy. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 16:16, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
@Spiffy sperry: Just [reverted the incorrect edit. The official results comprise 2151 SDE's. After the recount, we can expect the overall SDE to be pretty close to 2151 SDE's. If Sanders manage to win the statewide SDE count over Buttigieg he will however steel 1 pledged national convention delegate (in the at-large category); meaning he might still have a chance to get a 13 vs 13 result out of Iowa instead of a 14 vs 12 result. The recount will settle this question, but we should not expect any huge corrections to the already published SDE totals. A maximum of 14 SDEs can be switched by the recount, as its only partial (concerning 63 out of 1765 precincts). Danish Expert (talk) 17:24, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Why is the AP the arbiter?[edit]

This line currently exists in the article (with the bit in squared brackets hidden): | candidate1 = Pete Buttigieg [Do NOT bold until a winner is declared by the AP (likely won't happen until a recount is completed due to reported inconsistencies)]

Where, when, why and how was it decided that AP, not Reuters, the Des Moines Register, or the Iowa Democratic Party themselves determine the winner? It seems absurd to me. I have removed it from the article because I can think of no sane justifiation for it. Domeditrix (talk) 09:23, 19 February 2020 (UTC) Edited Domeditrix (talk) 09:39, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

It was not so much the Associated Press per se, it was the fact that other news organisations like The New York Times, PBS, NBC and Politico all refused to declare a winner, and they cited the decision of the Associated Press as one of the reasons for doing so. With so many reputable news organizations refusing to declare Buttigieg as having received 14 delegates it was considered inappropriate for Wikipedia to do so. Devonian Wombat (talk) 10:31, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I have made the same argument that the AP is not the authority. I have cited multiple current sources that show Buttigieg with 14 delegates and that it consistent with declarations by the party itself. - MrX 🖋 17:30, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Because AP and many other top tier reliable secondary sources say that the claims from the primary source Iowa Democratic Party are incorrect. Xenagoras (talk) 19:44, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
At least it's clear then that the AP are disputing the result. Plenty of reliable sources, including Reuters and the Washington Post, have reported 14 as the delegate figure (meaning victory for Buttigieg). My question is then, why do we take the AP declaration sacrosanct and not Reuters' or the Washington Post's? Domeditrix (talk) 19:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
We do not take AP sacrosanct. Many news organizations use AP as worldwide leading news source and let AP guide their own reporting. Some larger news organizations including the NYT have determined via their own reporters in Iowa that the IDP's results are erroneous. The sources you refer to are not refuting or even disputing anything AP, NYT etc have written about the problems with Iowa's result. They have only chosen to not do SDE calculations/verifications of Iowa's result and therefore report what the IDP tells them. We could definitely say that the Iowa result is "disputed" or "unclear", because the Sanders campaign has announced it will request a recount. [33] On 6 February, the Sanders campaign presented their own SDE calculation showing that the IDP's initial result gave Sanders 2.5 SDEs less than warranted. I had put this into the article [34], but MrX deleted it. [35] If Sanders gets these additional 2.5 SDEs, the overall result will flip to Sanders having 14 national delegates and Buttigieg 12 delegates. AP and NYT did the SDE calculation on their own and therefore have refused to call the race. Xenagoras (talk) 20:58, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Do you have a source that states that Sanders will receive 14 delegates? To my knowledge there is only one statewide delegate (in the PLEO category) which would flip to Sanders should he win the statewide SDE count. So the final results would be either the current 14-12 (Buttigieg-Sanders), or a tie at 13. Rogl94 (talk) 10:42, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Rogl94, the IDP's rules state, SDE will be the only information used to determine the allocation of ... Party Leader and Elected Official (PLEO) delegates, and ... national delegates. [36] I understand this means if Sanders receives the same or more SDE than Buttigieg, that will result in Sanders receiving the same or more national delegates than Buttigieg. The candidate with the most SDE will receive one additional national delegate via PLEO. [A Sanders adviser] said, "We now believe a recount will give Sen. Sanders enough [SDE] to put him over the top." If the specific errors Mr. Sanders’s campaign claimed were all verified, he would net about six [SDE], moving him into first place. [37] Xenagoras (talk) 15:43, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
AP is disputing the results; other top tier sources are not. All we can do is dispassionately present both views. The AP does not have superior standing. I'm not aware that the AP is actually saying that the IDP results are incorrect per se. That wouldn't make a lot of sense. - MrX 🖋 21:00, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
MrX, please do not make false statement of facts like, other top tier sources are not disputing the results. The following RS did their own data analysis and found the IDP's result to be erroneous: New York Times [38] [39] [40], NBC News [41], CNN [42] and DesMoines Register. [43] You wrote, the AP does not have superior standing. The AP explains, it's race calls are used by media on both sides of the political spectrum and have been regarded for years as highly reliable. [44] You also wrote, I'm not aware that the AP is actually saying that the IDP results are incorrect per se, which is disproven by the AP:

After observing irregularities in the results once they did arrive, The Associated Press decided it cannot declare a winner. Numbers could yet still change. An AP review of the results provided by the Iowa Democratic Party also found numerous precinct results that contained errors or were inconsistent with party rules. For example, dozens of precincts reported more final alignment votes than first alignment votes. In one precinct in Polk County, home to the state capital of Des Moines, the party’s data showed no candidates winning any votes in the first alignment but winning 215 votes in the final alignment. In some other precincts, candidates won state delegate equivalents even though officials recorded them as receiving no votes in the final alignment. There were also a handful of precincts in which officials awarded more state delegate equivalents to candidates than there were available to be won. [45]

Xenagoras (talk) 22:16, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
The NYT has a detailed analysis of the types of errors during vote counting, realignment, SDE calculation, delegate allocation and result transmission. [46] Xenagoras (talk) 16:33, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
My statement was fully factually. I already presented the relevant sources upthread. I stand by my original comment. - MrX 🖋 15:22, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

Reference to IDP results webpage[edit]

The IDP webpage found using https://results.thecaucuses.org/ only shows the latest version of the results. It does not show a history of the many different sets of figures, before all precincts reported, or after there were results for all 1765 precincts.

I do not know of any way of finding all of these earlier sets of results. If someone does know of such, it would be useful.

The question I want to raise is whether this lack of a results history create problems in referring to this webpage as is done 5 times in the Wikipedia article, as reference 1, (which is to a footnote. Is that OK?) and references 4 a, b, c, and d, as anyone using to link to the page will only find the latest results. The reference notes are sometimes about the latest results, but sometimes about earlier sets of results.

Should the reference to the 9 February version of the results note 4 c, be made into a different reference to, for example, 4 d, which is for the latest results in the results table? Or are there other things which should be changed instead of or as well?

I do not have enough knowledge about what and how to do about this, but thought I should raise the questions.

Hoping that some of you may find this useful,

Redhill54 (talk) 14:51, 19 February 2020 (UTC)

We could replace the link to the IDP website with an archived version from the relevant time. Xenagoras (talk) 19:41, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
No, I think we should only use their most recent results, and rely solely on secondary sources for any analysis of how the results have changed. We should not use references to previous versions of a primary source to explain to readers that the results have morphed. That's what news organizations are for. - MrX 🖋 20:54, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Please do not use straw man arguments. Neither Redhill54 nor me proposed to use references to previous versions of a primary source to explain to readers that the results have morphed. Redhill54 asked how to solve the problem that different text passages in the article refer to different version of IDP's result. I proposed to link to the archived result version that is meant at a specific text passage. This would avoid confusing the readers. In addition, we should use RS to explain that the IDP's results have changed over time, e.g. [47] Xenagoras (talk) 21:29, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Que? The OP asked "The question I want to raise is whether this lack of a results history create problems... " I answered no, and explained how we should be approaching the issue. I'm firmly opposed to linking to an obsolete version of a primary source, for obvious reasons. - MrX 🖋 21:40, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
Redhill54 raised the problem that some text in the article mentions vote/delegate numbers that are not anymore displayed on the linked IDP website because IDP changed these numbers but does not provide a history of their result changes. If we can replace these links with ones that match the article text, that is fine, but what if we cannot? Then we could link to the archived IDP site where their numbers match what is written in our article. Xenagoras (talk) 22:26, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
This might make more sense if you could give an example of the issue. Until then, I stand firmly by my objection to linking to an obsolete version of a primary source. - MrX 🖋 17:40, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Example 1: infobox, Buttigieg delegate count 14 has a footnote that contains a reference to IDP's result and quotes "100% reporting: 1765 of 1765 precincts." This should be replaced with the version from 2020-02-10 00:05:41 because this footnote mentions result disputes and corrections. Example 2: section Results, sentence with "February 9" refs to the same quote "100% reporting: 1765 of 1765 precincts" and should be replaced by the 2020-02-10 00:05:41 version because it is locked to a date and accompanied by result dispute and corrections. Example 3: the table "2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses" lists the current result and its header should therefore ref to the original IDP site. Example 4: the table "2020 Iowa Democratic caucuses" entry Buttigieg has the same footnote as the infobox and and should be replaced by the 2020-02-10 00:05:41 version. Example 5: in the lead "41 are pledged delegates allocated on the basis of the results of the caucuses" should ref to the original IDP site because it describes the current result. Example 6: in the lead "correction of some incorrectly reported results" should not ref to any version of IDP's result but only to media reports about corrections. Xenagoras (talk) 20:08, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
Examples 1, 2, and 4 are as they should be. They should not link to an old version of the official IDP results. Example 3 does not represent IDP results because Buttigieg's delegate count was forced back to 13 by zealous editors, some of them editing from "new" accounts. It represents AP results. Example 5 is a basic undisputed fact that can be verified in any number of secondary sources. It shouldn't be referenced to the IDP at all. Example 6 should reference to secondary sources, but also include a cite to the current IDP results for further reference. - MrX 🖋 15:18, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I'd missed this, edited accordingly. Yesterday I explained in an edit summary why the delegate count ought to show 14, at least until the Iowa Democratic Party says otherwise. I can't see any attempt to explain why this change was reverted.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Domeditrix (talkcontribs) 15:25, February 21, 2020 (UTC)
Yes, I advocated for using the official result of the party, but as of now, there is no consensus either way, so we will keep going back and forth between 13 and 14 until WMF's servers blow a gasket. Welcome to Wikipedia. - MrX 🖋 15:39, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
MrX, my proposal to use archived result versions or media reports from that day is based on the fact that some article text refers to old result versions from the past which can differ from current and future result versions. Using a date-locked reference for these old results solves this problem. Example 2 means the result from February 9. Example 3 and Example 5 should link to the original IDP site because they mean the current result. We should add links to media reports for Example 5 as soon as available. Currently, the result is not final because a recount is pending [48]. Xenagoras (talk) 18:32, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Please know what you're talking about before linking to fallacies. OP mentioned wanting earlier versions of the results, and above the wayback machine has been linked, so there is absolutely no strawman here.  Nixinova  T  C   01:45, 20 February 2020 (UTC)

Vote lead[edit]

One editor keeps rounding 26.186 to 26.19 and 26.182 to 26.18. My issue with this is it rounds 0.004 point lead to 0.01 point lead, which I think is biased. The lead is overall more around 0.0037 or 0.0038, and I’m ok with rounding it up just to be clear. I’m gonna playing devil’s advocate here. If it is ok to round to do this, then would it be ok to round 26.186 to 26.2 and 26.182 to 26.2. 0 is closer 0.004 than 0.01 is to 0.004. We also can clearly see a lead in state delegate equivalents, therefore it is unnecessary to show lead. Can someone please explain? Thank you! Pentock (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)

It's usually considered courteous to tag an editor when you're directly referring to them or their actions. Further to this, I feel a little nonplussed by your decision to violate the WP:3RR while also opening the discussion.
As for the point itself, it makes sense to round it to the number of decimal places necessary to show who won a higher percentage (and even then, only because it determines who 'won' the primary). 3 decimal places is more accurate than 2, but 4 is more accurate than 3, and 5 is more accurate than 4. These aren't neat numbers – if people want more specificity, that's what the results table is for – not the infobox. Domeditrix (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
I would support rounding to one, or two at the most, decimal places in the infobox to be consistent with previous years articles. By the way it's not "0.004 point lead", it's "0.004 percent lead". In other words 4/10,000ths. - MrX 🖋 17:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
Pentock, it makes sense to display the number of decimal places where there begins a difference in the result. The first two decimal places of Sanders and Buttigieg are identical (.18) but the third shows the difference (.186 vs .182). Xenagoras (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
We are broadly in agreement. We agree that we should limit the number of decimal places to as many are necessary to show the difference. Rounding to the nearest number (down for 0–4, up for 5–9) allows us to do that with two decimal places, not three. I think you are familiar with how rounding works, as, when stating Buttigieg won 26.186% and Sanders: 26.182%, you have indeed rounded those numbers up (from 26.1855% and 26.1818%). If we can round at the third decimal place, we can round at the second decimal place. Domeditrix (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)