I wonder if we could a sentence or foot note explaining the difference between estimated superdelegates and pledged delegates? The "Total Estimated Delegates" appears to be the sum of the two, so why isn't it called "Total Pledged/Estimated Delegates" or something similar. I do not know what the difference is which is why I'm requesting it. I would appreciate it if someone could add this information in order to clarify. If its already there, then could someone point this out. I tried looking at the Primary_election article and was unable to find the information there either. Thanks.
This is a good point and I was just going to start discussion on it. The New York Times does this in a clever way. Essentially, some delegates are estimates and some are firmly pledged (currently only NH) for the democrats. Does anyone have any ideas of how this information could be portrayed in the table? Perhaps an additional row at the top for estimated delegates? IE, we would have "Estimated total delegates", "Estimated superdelegates", "Estimated total pledged delegates", and "Actual pledged delegates". CNN has a good overview of the process here. Delegates would only be moved to the actual pledged delegates row when the delegate is BOUND to a specific candidate. ~ PaulC/T+20:18, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Elimination of Canidates as they drop out; Number of decimal places
Any particular reason we need to keep Biden and Dodd in this chart since they have dropped out of the race? I understand we want to show their results in Iowa, but those are essentially zero anyway. There could be an asterisk next to Iowa and an explanation at the bottom. Thoughts?
Also, there should be some consistency with either the number of decimal places or number of significant figures (i.e. its weird we have Dodd as 0.03% but otherwise just have to the nearest percentage point for others). I've updated it to show results to the nearest percentage point. But feel free to weigh in if you feel otherwise would be better.--Cms479 (talk) 17:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I think they should stay on the chart, but their percentages should be rounded to zero. For the main chart all the percentages should be rounded to whole numbers. – Zntrip23:24, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
can they at leastbe moved into one side of the table and separated from the other candidates that are still in the race by a thicker line? Nergaal (talk) 23:54, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
Does anyone know why Hillary Clinton is listed as receiving one more delegate from Iowa than John Edwards, even though Edwards polled at a slightly higher percentage? If the Iowa delegate counts are correct, it might be worth adding an explanation of this apparent discrepancy.
The results section of the actual Iowa Democratic Caucus article contains this information:
"The Iowa Democratic Party does not release vote counts (it releases only the number of delegates to the state convention).[7] Since Clinton had the highest delegate strength in the Fifth Congressional District (a district allocated four national convention delegates) and received the same amount of national delegates elsewhere, she is projected to receive the one more national delegate than Edwards despite receiving fewer projected delegates to the state convention.[7]"
It sounds like it's the same sort of situation that allows a national candidate to receive fewer popular votes but more electoral votes than another candidate. TSN (talk) 18:12, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Overview table
I'm not going to interfere with an otherwise great table, but could a row in the overview table be added totaling the "earned" pledged delegates from the primaries/caucuses? It's a bit confusing without that breakdown. Perhaps showing a logical flow along the lines of:
Total delegates = Superdelegates + Pledged Delegates
Also, if the emphasis is on adding up delegates, shouldn't the delegate totals be bigger than the percentages in each state?
Closer to the end of the primary season, the totals should also be repeated at the bottom. Just some thoughts... if someone who can do all of this without messing up the table is up to the task. Tim P (talk) 05:18, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
I was just coming in here to say the same thing about pledged delegates. The superdelegate numbers, as I understand it, just come from media polls, and the delegates themselves can change their minds at any time right up until the convention. The pledged delegate numbers are the only ones that can actually be trusted (for the most part) until then.
(EDIT) I went ahead and added a "Pledged delegates" row to the table. If people don't like the idea, I guess someone can remove it. TSN (talk) 05:41, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Why do the numbers in this table for the pledged delegates, superdelegates, and total delegates keep changing from the numbers listed at the CNN Election Center? The references for the rows clearly state that CNN is the source for the data. Can we all agree to keep CNN's numbers posted here, and revert any changes that don't match the CNN numbers? Otherwise, the numbers are going to be thrashing back and forth forever. Wdfarmer (talk) 02:02, 15 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for providing the link. Others have already noted that the media organization tallies of unpledged delegates are telephone preference polls. The estimates range widely, based on variables like who answers the phone and how hard they're pressed for a decision. There's a blog (with which I'm not affiliated) that's been using its readers' contributions to tally publicly announced endorsements of the candidates by superdelegates, and displaying its sources. That seems more in keeping with the wiki spirit of transparency and collaboration. It also has the advantage of confining its count to delegates who have made public statements, and who are accordingly less likely to change their minds. I was, apparently, too percipitous in implementing the change on the other page, so I'd appreciate feedback before I do so here. The blog can be found at demconwatch.blogspot.com MadPoster (talk) 20:26, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Right now the two pages are using different sources for their superdelegate numbers, and so the numbers are different, which is confusing. Either this page should start using the source the other page is using (my preference), or the other page should switch back to CNN. Simon12 (talk) 05:10, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
I am not a fan of Ibagli's map (the first map shown in the upper right of the page). There was a map in its place earlier, but I am unsure who the author of the previous map was. Ibagli's map has abbreviations/acronyms for autonomous territories, which is quite confusing for those without thorough knowledge of these regions. It is also less aesthetically pleasing. Whoever is in charge of this, please place the previous map onto the wiki page. Thanks. ~ Jimeroquai(talk) 09:16, 18 January 2008 (EST)
It is misleading to color a state with a particular candidate color. Candidates generally do not "win." They obtain delegates to the national convention, and so far, none are "winner take all", and none can be "winner take all" because of delegates from each state that are not appointed through the caucus or primary process.; for example, Clinton and Obama won the same number of delegates in New Hampshire. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 05:53, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
THE ASSOSIATED PRESS HAS DECLARED HILLARY CLINTON THE WINNER IN NEW MEXICO!!! WILL SOMEBODY PLEASE COLOR NEW MEXICO RED!!!!!!!!!!!!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.5.22.29 (talk) 00:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Even Further map issues
For starters I enjoyed the larger map; but clicking on the small map to enlarge it is fine.
I was wondering if the one "in charge" of coloring in the map, could color both Michigan and Florida a seperate color: a "No Delegates Awarded" color, perhaps white or black. Rather than coloring it in for Sen. Clinton (on account that she was virtually unopposed) and marking it "No Delegates". It seems to give a psychological advantage in favour of Sen. Clinton; whom followed through on her pledge not to campaign in either state, yet did not remove her name from the ballots (like Obama, Edwards, and Richardson).
If we are talking about bias then the new second map could be interpreted as an attempt to recast Nevada in Obama's favor when the popular vote went to Clinton and delegates have not officially been selected. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.123.153 (talk) 23:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
New Mexico has not been called for either candidate, as provisional ballots are now being counted to determine winner.
Vote Fraud Note
The page reads:
Reports of vote fraud are already surfacing regarding the New Hampshire primary.[4] Major discrepencies between hand-counted ballots and machine-counted votes have been discovered, which would indicate a Democratic victory for Barack Obama.[5] It is unclear whether, if such vote fraud occurred, it was large enough to change the delegate selection.
Two extremely sketchy sources (poorly designed web sites that are not widely respected new organizations) are used as sources. I suggest that unless a valid source can be provided, that this claim be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.6.199.251 (talk) 19:18, 12 January 2008 (UTC)
Section layout
Wdfarmer and I have been having a discussion regarding linking to primary and caucus articles. If you look at the page now, you will see that for the Iowa caucuses the heading is “Iowa caucuses” with “caucuses” linking to “Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2008”. Directly below appears {{details}}, which says For more details on this topic, see Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2008.
We both agree that the current layout is awkward. However, Wdfarmer prefers using {{details}} as he believes it explicitly and clearly indicates that another article exists and removing the link in the heading to “Iowa Democratic caucuses, 2008”. I prefer simply having the link in the header, as I think it too is clearly indicated, and removing {{details}}. We are interested in anyone’s opinions. The conclusion to this discussion should parallel that on Results of the 2008 Republican presidential primaries so that both articles have the same layout. – Zntrip21:24, 13 January 2008 (UTC)
The {{flag}} template generates two links. One is a thumbnail link for the flag graphic, and one is a Wikilink for the state name. Since the latter appears the same as if it had been coded directly, I'd say the MOS:LINK rule applies to the state links. Subtle links such as the thumbnail probably weren't in mind when that rule was listed. Personally, I think the flags are overkill; they already appear in the summary table, and they apparently introduce oddness in the URL for their subsection headers: we get
The question, I suppose, comes down to how strictly we want to adhere to MOS standards. BTW, I found another MOS statement at WP:MOS#Section headings: "Avoid using links inside headings themselves (e.g. ==[[Ancient Rome|Roman]] colonisation==). Instead, link from the first occurrence of the term in the prose of the section." Wdfarmer (talk) 00:43, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Somehow the {{details}} have since been gradually edited to {{main}}, which is still fine with me. For consistency, I've added three more {{main}}s to the sections through February 5, 2008: those sections now all have both links in the header and a {{main}}.
Over on the Republican side there was also an inconsistent use of {{main}}, and so I added twelve {{main}}s to sections through February 5, 2008: those sections now also all have both links in the header and a {{main}}.
There hasn't been any comment pro or con on this side or the Republican side. Personally, I'd like to clean things up and remove the flags and links from the section headers on both articles, in conformance to MOS as I stated above. Wdfarmer (talk) 19:45, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Cleaning the links out of titles seems fine. As I've said in other articles, I am normally pro-flag on long lists, but if you think they should be removed once we have large blocks of results between states, I'd at least leave them in the "Overview of results." Joshdboz (talk) 21:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
How about moving candidates that have withdrawn for the race to the far right side of the chart so it is easier to compare the remaining current candidates? As candidate drop out just place them to the left of those candidates that have already with drawn but tot he right of those remaining (Thus, Chris Dodd and Joe Biden on the far right two slots, left of them Richardson, then left of him whoever drops out next......makes it more reader friendly —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.123.153 (talk) 01:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Democratic Primary Results.png is extremely misleading. State victories are not winner take all. This map implies a winner take all result. Is the map really necessary if it is so misleading? Kingturtle (talk) 18:23, 14 January 2008 (UTC)
The way it should be interpreted is that it displays which candidate recieved the most votes/delegates in that state. It helps those who don't understand the table to see who the winner was without coordinating through the top, bottom, and sides of a very large table. CoolKid1993 (talk) 00:37, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
But it is misleading. The map makes the reader think it's winner-take-all. Furthermore, the table is not that difficult to follow. Kingturtle (talk) 02:15, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. The county map is also misleading. On the image page for that map it says: "states of winners will have all counties in their color until i find more information". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.246.214.124 (talk) 02:32, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
1st/2nd/3rd place colors
I changed the color coding so that it reflects the number of delegates, rather than the percentage of the popular vote. The subject came up on the talk page for the Republican primary results. It hasn't really applied there yet, because the percentages and delegates have all come down in the same order. But, here, we have a delegate tie in N.H. and weirdness between Clinton's and Edwards' numbers in Iowa. It really seems like the delegate numbers should be considered the more important, since those are the only votes that will matter when the convention comes around. (I didn't bother to change Michigan, since its results don't count, anyway.) -TSN (talk) 09:21, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I've cleared the winning and second place colors from Michigan to make it consistent with Iowa. (Everyone's tied for 0 delegates there.) Jon (talk) 19:02, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I added a color for states with no delegates (MI and FL) as in this case there is no "winner". It is a clearer warning than just leaving the background white. Aprincef (talk) 01:45, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
Without wishing the map to be so big that it overlaps with other content, I do feel some edits make it too small. (Kingturtle's compromise seems good to me.) It's meant as an alternative way of showing the results, but too small and one can't make out what's going on! As an indicator of results, it needs to be bigger than a simple illustration. Bondegezou (talk) 22:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)
I feel uncomfortable with this map... It does not contain nearly as much information as the table, and it is somewhat misleading, in particular as one can well arrive first and yet not earn more delegates than whoever comes second (that's what happened to Sen. Clinton in NH, where she won by two percentage points, and yet ended up with the same number of delegates as Sen. Obama). Putting it this big at the top of the page makes it dominate over the table (its size is incredibly reduced compared to what it used to be) and all the (more accurate!) information is compressed and harder to read as a result. I would be tempted to move the map under the table, where it will be much less prominent (but still useful, of course), and easier to fit in the page without compressing the table. Any (negative) opinions on that? If not, I'll implement this change tomorrow night (EST). Aprincef (talk) 00:27, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
I think there is a psychological effect to "winning" a state, even if one doesn't get more delegates, and a graphical display offers something different to a table. So I think the map is a useful representation, complementary to the table. I like the map where it is -- I feel it uses the space better and would get lost under the table (given how big the table is) -- but I'm not categorically opposed to it being moved. That said, other changes can be and have been made to make sure that the table still displays nicely. Bondegezou (talk) 17:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
New Hampshire
If anyone has some free tima and wants all the results (% needs to be worked out) of the New Hampshire primaries for both parties see here: [1]. – Zntrip00:55, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
Is it really necessary to post the results of the candidates who are not running nationwide campaigns, on the main article? They have no chance of becoming the Democratic President candidate anyway. Wouldn't it just be best to keep them on the detailed article, and have the main article for the ones who are actually running for Presidency? lil2mas (talk) 23:07, 16 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This level of detail is not needed on the main article. I made this change and it was reverted. I'm going to make this change again. If you think this should be discussed please do so here before reverting it. ~ PaulC/T+19:34, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I’m totally against abridging the results. This is the whole point of this page, to have all the results. To Psantora specifically, I’m removing the “N/A” from the chart because the en dash sufficiently shows that they weren’t on the ballot and the number of delegates for states with none (Michigan and Florida) should just be zero, the parenthesis are confusing. Lastly color-coding first, second, and third place on the result tables is a bit excessive, after all the candidates are arranged by order anyways. – Zntrip20:21, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree. This is not an abridged encyclopedia. Furthermore, there aren't many (if any) places online where readers can get unabridged results. Kingturtle (talk) 20:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I do not think that the results should be abridged either, but there is no reason to have every single vote on this page. The main article for the New Hampshire primaries has all the results, including votes for John McCain and other Republican candidates, should those votes be included on this page? By your current reasoning, they should be. Having a huge table with double the amount of candidates makes things harder to read and edit. I don't think that this information should be suppressed, but there is no reason for it on this page. Furthermore, consolidating these votes into "other" shows how even aggregated these additional votes didn't really make much of a difference. At the very least this issue needs to be discussed more before coming to a decision. Zntrip, lets discuss those formatting issues in another section on this page. (Oh, and you are getting close to violating WP:3RR, so lets come to a consensus before any more edits to that section.) ~ PaulC/T+21:46, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
I think a safe rule is to include everyone that was on the ballot. So let’s take New Hampshire for example. All of the Republican candidates on Democratic ballots are included as “write-in” candidates (for some reason the New Hampshire Secretary of State tells us those write-ins but not the others). So basically, I think the rule should be include everyone that was on the ballot and everyone else under “write-in”. – Zntrip00:46, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
This makes more sense. There should be consistency on the Republican article as well tho. (I see you just made that change as I was.) As long as their is consistency on both articles regarding this, I don't have a problem with it. ~ PaulC/T+02:03, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't want to start putting it onto articles yet, because it's 90% red links. But once the articles begin to be created, I think it will be quite handy.
Also, if you have time, can someone make sure I got all the links correct (like which ones are primaries and which ones are caucuses)?
I think a separate colour is needed on the table for candidates who are not on the ballot in some states, because now (looking at how Edwards and Obama's results are shown for Michigan) a dash is used, and as this is the same as those who have withdrawn from the race I think it would be better to use a colour for them.
Like Gravel is only on the ballot in 19 states so far, and I'm sure Kucinich is in the same position.
86.7.80.172 (talk) 16:42, 18 January 2008 (UTC)
Michigan's superseeded by that green color for being striped of delegates. I heard last night Kucinich is withdrawing so the pink withdrawal color will superseed any not on the balot for him. So assuming Gravel is on the chart at all, it only affects him. Jon (talk) 18:42, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
State delegate totals
I added all the state delegate numbers given in the table and there are 54 delegates missing. There should be 3,253 pledged delegates but I only count 3,199, taking into account that Florida and Michigan delegates are not counted. Where do these delegate numbers come from for each of the states? Are they all pledged delegates or are some superdelegates? Where does the 3,253 number come from? (I think I saw it on the CNN site.) Does it include Florida and Michigan delegates? ~ PaulC/T+23:35, 19 January 2008 (UTC)
Nevada Delegates
Clinton won the popular vote, but Obama's winning more delegates - who should we count as the winner in the picture in the upper corner? --Mr Beale (talk) 01:26, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
In other words, who won Nevada? A tough question. Split the color in half? If so we should indicate in the legend that Clinton won the popular vote, but Obama won more pledged delegates. I don't think NH should be split, though since one could argue that a tie in delegates should go to the populat vote winner. I guess it's like the 2000 general election where the popular and electoral votes don't agree. I'm not firm in my opinion, though, so others should wade in. --Aranae (talk) 01:58, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Actually, nobody is still sure how the delegates will be split so to display Obama as the winner when Clinton received more votes is inaccurate.
OK, I just spoke with Jill Derby, the head of the Nevada State Democratic Party. Regarding the
Obama claim that he'll actually get more delegates out of this, essentially that's spin. Derby
said that the caucuses are an "expression of the support of Nevadans today." Around 11,000
delegates were elected today. That will be winnowed down at county conventions and eventually at
the state convention in May to the 25 that will go to Denver for the DNC. In 2004, Kerry didn't
win every delegate on Election Day, but most of the delegates that eventually went to the DNC were
his. Once there's a presumptive nominee, the delegate numbers are subject to change. It's non-
binding. [2]
It's not totally fair to say that it's all entirely spin from the Obama camp since they are only spinning it because AP and others reported it as such. Iowa national delegates are also not formally selected until later as well. Nevertheless, since this isn't formal, I think the page should stay as is with the map for Clinton and the chart for Obama. Superdelegates are also somewhat conjectural, but the important part is that it is CNN and other conjecturing and not us. --Aranae (talk) 03:25, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Further clarification:
The Nevada Democratic Party just issued this clarification (emphasis is ours): "No national convention delegates were awarded. That said, if the delegate preferences remain unchanged between now and April 2008, the calculations of national convention delegates being circulated by the Associated Press are correct. We look forward to our county and state conventions where we will choose the delegates for the nominee that Nevadans support." What does this mean? It looks like the Obama camp's math (as well as the AP's and NBC's) is correct.[3]
I don't think that there's any doubt any more that Obama has more delegates from Nevada than Clinton does (correct me if I'm wrong on this, it just seems that everyone is in agreement on this now). Given that the whole point of the primary/caucus system is to earn delegates to the convention, which decides on the candidate, is it accurate in any way to say that Clinton "won" Nevada?
If Clinton is being listed as the winner in Nevada, should we change the 2000 Election page to show that Al Gore won the election (as he won the popular vote) and leave a footnote mentioning that George W Bush became President?86.149.214.103 (talk) 12:12, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
No because nobody has been awarded national delegates from Nevada that will take place in april. The 12/13 numbers floating around are just estimates and could change by april. Pat (talk) 20:36, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Were Biden, Dodd and Richardson on the ballots? For that matter, were there ballots since this was a caucus. If they weren't, I think they should be excluded from the Nevada results. --Aranae (talk) 04:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The standard Democratic caucus process is the same as in Iowa... people gather in groups and hope that a 15% threshold is met for their candidate. None of the three met threshold in any precinct. Calwatch (talk) 08:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Nevada is actually a bad example, since only two candidates are projected to receive national delegates anyway. Iowa would be a more interesting hypotehetical situation if say Edwards were to withdraw before the Iowa convention since he was projected to receive delegates from there. Jon (talk) 19:01, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Proposal to remove misleading map from article
The following discussion is an archived discussion of the discussion. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result was no consensus on removing the original map in question. The discussion was superseded by the supplement of the original map with a new cartogram showing the number of pledged delegates for all candidates by state. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 18:22, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Support - it's all about the delegates when it comes down to it. And in that case, Nevada should change colors. Grsz11 (talk) 16:41, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Support - The map as it stands is hugely misleading, especially the colouring of Nevada. If somoene can think of a way for the map to be more accurate then it should stay, but I can't see that happening. Maybe it should be replaced by some sort of graph showing total delegate numbers and what proportion of these are superdelegats?86.149.214.103 (talk) 16:52, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Support - It really implies an electoral college type winner-take-all scenario, which isn't remotely the truth. Everything to do with results should be based on numbers of delegates, including the table. - Siradia (talk) 17:55, 20 January 2008 (UTC) Changed my mind, I like the dual map now, and see the point of the opposition. (Though not necessarily the response to this.) Siradia (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
No, it should be based on reliable sources and no one person's spin. The table cites CNN.com as its source yet the colors of the table do not correspond with what is presented at the link, a "2nd place" showing for Obama in Nevada. --musicpvm (talk) 23:57, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Opposed - While I agree that it is misleading, there is a psychological and media-driven boost that occurs from "winning" these contests that is indicated well with the map. The table does a good job of showing which candidate comes in first or second in the primaries in terms of delegates, but I think the map adds a lot to the article that cannot be conveyed in the table. The note that is currently there is sufficient, however I think the map could be augmented with an additional image, graph, or pie chart depicting total earned delegate totals for each of the candidates. ~ PaulC/T+19:00, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Opposed: because the media does assign states to "winner", and it also has the benefit of showing where the bases of each candidate are, especially when we get past Super Tuesday. For example, Clinton might do well in teh coasts, while Obama may do well in the south, and a map would readily show that to be the case. Calwatch (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 19:27, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The candidate who receives more votes and is declared by WP:RS as the winner in each state should be respresented as the winner at Wikipedia. This article should not try to put a spin on the primaries. The delegate system is very complicated so to declare a winner based on that is innaccurate as those numbers can change. Are we going to include the superdelegates for each state, what about the unpledged delegates, and the discrepencies between state and national delegates? --musicpvm (talk) 23:45, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. I see where everyone is coming from on this, but I think the map conveys the state of the race too usefully to discard it. Everything in these articles should be decided with an eye toward the use of the article in the future. The perceived winner of the states is very useful and is a regular feature of all of our other articles on primaries. Momentum is also very important and, on most years is nearly the major determining factor in deciding the nominee. Even this year, the resultant momentum is probably a big part of the reason that Obama is doing so well at this stage. I think the real problem with the map is not that delegates are also awarded to second and third place finishes. I doubt if we had this same conversation on the Republican side (ignoring the Democrats), the support count would be so high. The proportional allocation of delegates is easily dealt with by including an explanation/caveat in the figure legend. I think the bigger issue is that every state except for Iowa is an asterisked win somehow. NH was an even delegate split, MI is stripped of its delegates, and NV had separate vote count and delegate winners. I think the discussion should not be whether to delete the map outright, but how to incorporate this information into the map. Here are three ideas:
Figure legend: include in the figure legend something along the lines of "NOTE: Delegates were split evenly among Clinton and Obama in NH. Although Clinton received more state equivalent delegates in NV, Obama was awarded more national delegates due to geographic allocation of delegates. MI was stripped of its delegates by the DNC and the winner received no delegates." It really shouldn't have to get much longer than this since you can start adding to the lists: "split evenly ... in NH, TN, MN" or "MI and FL were stripped..." I don't think NV can ever be brought up in this election without a sentence explanation. Presumably there won't be too many incidents like that.
Map coloration: NV and perhaps NH could be colored half and half to reflect the disparities in delegate allocation and vote count. MI could be discolored (such as made pastel or have the color greyed or dulled) to indicate its lack of delegates.
Both 1 and 2. I think it would be difficult to implement #2 without also doing #1.
Finally, I don't think superdelegates are really relevant to this situation. Frankly, all we have to go on there (other than public endorsements) is CNN telling us they had a private conversation with superdelegates and here's what they said (but they could change their minds). I don't think we'll ever have the full story of how each individual voted, merely a set of numbers. If it doesn't already, the map should say "pledged delegates", but otherwise I wouldn't worry about them. --Aranae (talk) 05:19, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. There are challenges to how display the results of what is a rather complicated system. However, reliable sources regularly talk about individual candidates "winning" states, i.e. getting the most votes, even though they don't get all the delegates or even when they don't get most of the delegates. E.g., it was widely reported that Clinton "won" Nevada even though Obama ended up with more delegates. So, I think the map does show us something real, useful and important to record, even though it does need the caveats it has around states whose delegates have been excluded, how this isn't a winner-takes-all contest and so on. In particular, the map tells one about the geographical spread of support, something not easily done through a table or bar chart. However, if someone wants to be clever, they could try doing a map that uses more complicated shading to represent the results in more detail. Bondegezou (talk) 16:15, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Comment. My position has hardened on further consideration. Given the table focuses on delegates won (so Obama is bolded for NV), I feel it is important to have a map that focuses on the popular vote. All the talk of delegate numbers ignores that NV and NH were reported as Clinton wins by every media outlet. That's what reliable sources focus on, so it must be covered here too. The map legend can explain the complications (as suggested above by Aranae). Bondegezou (talk) 15:08, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Oppose. Leave both maps. One of them clearly tells who came in first on the popular vote (or in case of Iowa, Nevada, and probably the other cacus states delegates to the county conventions) And the other clearly tells who is projected to come in first in number of national delegates received. Jon (talk) 19:04, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
Neutral
To an extend it is misleading, but I still think this page should still have and image. Perhaps a bar graph of delegates and a map of primary dates. – Zntrip20:16, 20 January 2008 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.
Mike Gravel and Nevada caucus
I know people are saying that Mike Gravel was not on the Nevada ballot, but he is listed at the Nevada Democratic Party's results on its Website. – Zntrip00:50, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
Colors on main table
It seems that there is a little problem with the current use of colors. Joe Biden’s column is colored red after Iowa because he dropped out. Both John Edwards and Joe Biden weren’t on the Michigan ballot, but only Edwards is listed gray since Biden is red. I propose that if a candidate is not on a ballot there is just an en dash (–). – Zntrip00:56, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
An en dash alone can be misleading since future results all have en dashes. If a candidate drops out it is assumed they are no longer on the ballot, unless they get 0% or some percentage in a race. The grey coloring is to show candidates still in the race but not placed on the ballot (for whatever reason) in certain states (IE Edwards and Gravel). The green background is tricky because Michigan was the first race after Richardson dropped out. Without having his column red it could be mistaken that he dropped out after the Michigan race. I think the green should only be used where candidates got votes that didn't result in any delegates due to the penalty by the DNC. Dodd dropped out prior to Michigan, so dispite his votes his column should still be red. At least that is my understanding of the current situation. It would make things a lot easier to have striped colors in the table. ~ PaulC/T+01:09, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
But wouldn't you agree that we should use as few colors as possible since we can't have them striped? There can be a note at the bottom of the chart saying that en dashes mean that a candidate wasn't on the ballot, except for upcoming elections. – Zntrip01:35, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I don't think en-dashes are good enough for candidates not on the ballot. Just because the candidate isn't on the ballot that doesn't mean they wont get votes (as evidenced by Gravel in NV) those votes (however small they are) should be in the table with a 0% or whatever showing. Having the en-dash implies there were NO votes for that person, which can be misleading. ~ PaulC/T+20:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I just changed the top row of the delegate box to use a pink background (bgcolor="#FFE8E8") shading the name of candidates who have dropped out. 66.98.99.155 (talk) 19:32, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
Two maps
I like the new map as a way to deal with the complicated delegate vs. popular winners. Nevada obviosuly needs to be blue. Michigan and (either now or later) Florida should be colored black (brown, or other similar color) along with an additional color in the key saying "states without delegates". --Aranae (talk) 22:55, 21 January 2008 (UTC)
The two maps are just confusing. They're basicly the same. I think it would be a lot simpler to have a bar graph with candidates' total delegates. – Zntrip01:37, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Two maps is hardly a hardship, particularly compared to the length of the TOC next to it. The issue that we've been debating all over this page is which of the two definitions of "winner" is appropriate. I think it's clear that both should be addressed and two maps showing that disparity is the way to do this. --Aranae (talk) 03:28, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Given the long TOC, one might as well fill the space usefully. However, two maps which are very similar, differing only for Nevada and half of New Hampshire, seems unnecessary to me. (One could make the maps more different, e.g. colouring in Michigan and Florida differently as they have no delegates.) I feel the popular vote map remains the most appropriate. Every media report I've seen described NH and Nevada as wins for Clinton and it's that that the map is capturing. Delegate numbers do matter, but I feel they can be left to the table. The legend for the first map could be expanded to note the exceptional cases of NH and NV. Bondegezou (talk) 14:09, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that the two maps seem to be a better solution than the previous way of showing the information... But there is also a strong argument for doing away with the maps all together. A map showing each state is very useful in a winner takes all election, but it's difficult to know what is being communicated by a map which tries to show the narrow leader of an election with proportional representation in each state...86.132.186.71 (talk) 19:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Image:Democratic Primary Results 2.png
I am very confused by this map. New Hampshire shows two colors, Clinton's and Obama's, but no color for Edwards. Edwards got ~20% of the delegates and Clinton and Obama got ~40% of the delegates. Shouldn't New Hampshire reflect that?
Iowa only shows one color, for Obama, but shouldn't Clinton, Edwards and Obama each have a third showing?
Shouldn't Nevada show colors for half Clinton and half Obama?
The original map showed the person who got most votes. The second map shows the person who got most delegates, which means Obama in NV rather than Clinton and a split result in NH. I think the second map is unnecessary given the table focuses on delegate results. As per my and others' comments above, I think the first map (who "won" in popular vote terms) is very useful and should remain. Bondegezou (talk) 15:31, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
This map should show multiple colors for each state. Iowa results are 14, 15 and 16 delegates for three different people. That should be reflected. Kingturtle (talk) 15:41, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
These are "winner" maps. The goal is not to show subtleties in vote/delegate count. That's for the table and the text. Hopefully the legends are clarifying in that regard, but if you have suggestions on how to improve that, feel free. --Aranae (talk) 17:30, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I already made my suggestion. The map unintentionally implies winner take all. The solution to this would be to have each state divided into parts representing the different candidates who received a high % of delegates in said state. Kingturtle (talk) 17:46, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
I think Clinton's color and Gravel's should be closer, I can almost tell them apart. What are they, Orange and Medium Orange? What about Brown or Purple for one of those guys, please? (all in sarcastic fun, no offense, please) Padillah (talk) 17:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Techincally when it comes to delegates obama and clinton tied in Nevada --- superdelegates make it 14-14 even. So the real question is why are we making a map that reflects only half the delegate slection truth......I agree that the chart reflects the delegate count fine and that the second map should be deleted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.175.123.153 (talk) 23:01, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
The superdelegates are not committed yet, but the pledged delegates most likely are. It's doubtful that the superdelegates won't change their votes to match the public's vote. Illuminatedwax (talk) 23:40, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
Even if Obama and Clinton did not tie in Nevada, Obama did not get all the delegates. It does not really make sense to me to show only the first place for the second map because it is not winner take all. The caption does said first place does not mean winner take all, but the map looks as if that is the case. I think even if we do divide the states proportionally, imagine how that map is going to be like after most of the states have voted (Color all over the place that is most likely going to confuse people). I think we should remove the second picture. Icaazn614 (talk) 01:23, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
It's slightly more accurate than the first version of the map, which shows the entire state having gone to the candidate with fewer delegates. The second map is there to counter balance the incorrect picture given by the first map, but they both seem to be a long way from perfect. I'm beginning to agree with those who have suggested replacing the maps all together with some sort of bar chart.81.155.2.36 (talk) 07:58, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that, on the "most delegates winner" map, Michigan, Florida etc. should be blanked. However, I repeat that a map showing the "popular vote winner" is useful and important. Whatever the delegate distribution, all media sources I've seen still talk about who "won" each state based on who get the largest popular vote. Yes, we need legends saying this isn't a winner-takes-all election, but we cannot ignore the widespread focus on the popular vote winner, something which is underplayed elsewhere in the article. Bondegezou (talk) 11:08, 23 January 2008 (UTC)
I think having either map colored red for MI is inaccurate. Clinton was unopposed by the other major candidates, and thus voters were not able to show a preference for her. It is incomplete data because the map's purpose seems to be to show how the candidates did in comparison to each other. Michigan did not take the data for a comparison, and so I suggest it be colored a neutral color, and the same should be done for Florida. Does this sound appropriate to anyone else?
Table key at top as well as bottom.
I think it would be better served if the color key was at the top and bottom for the main table. Or, even group the states into groups of ten and have the key after every group. It's annoying to have to scroll all the way to the bottom of the list to see what the green in MI and Florida means. Padillah (talk) 17:04, 22 January 2008 (UTC)
How come Hillary gets a middle name, and none of the others do? Favouritism! :)
I think it's her maiden name rather than her middle name (which is Diane)... You can probably guess why none of the other candidates have one!81.129.108.217 (talk) 21:45, 24 January 2008 (UTC)
The middle name she goes by is indeed her maiden name. (I don't know if/how she changed her legal name when she married Bill [whose legal first name is William.]) But it is quite common in the US for ladies to legally drop their old middle name and replace it with their maiden name when they get married. It's the same fee to just change the last name as change both the middle and last name at the same time. Jon (talk) 18:49, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Now that four candidates have dropped out, and five still remain, perhaps it is time to reorganize the table to make it more useable? I'd suggest shifting the people who are in to the left and the ones who are out to the right. This preserves all of the data, but it makes it easier to scan the results when comparing the remaining contenders. --StuffOfInterest (talk) 13:53, 25 January 2008 (UTC)
Nevermind - I just did myself. I'm not too savvy on this but I figured it out. The thing I don't understand is how permanent my changes are or if someone approves them. I did it correctly though. For not being computer savvy it only took 15 mins. :) (DaveIseminger (talk) 01:12, 26 January 2008 (UTC))
Because there is so little text before the chart begins, the maps bleed into the chart. To avoid this, I have put the maps in between two {{-}} signs and I have centered the two maps onto one plane. Please understand that not all monitors see what you see and that some monitors saw an ugly overlapping bleed between the maps and the charts. Kingturtle (talk) 03:19, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
I created a temporary image to show you what the article looked like prior to my edit tonight: Image:Map-chart-bleed.PNG . Kingturtle (talk) 03:28, 27 January 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for the illustration. I have been unable to recreate the problem you've been getting with the maps. Can I ask about your set-up? What browser are you using, and so on? Bondegezou (talk) 10:45, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
Mozilla/5.0 (Windows; U; Windows NT 5.1; en-US; rv:1.8.1.11) Gecko/20071127 Firefox/2.0.0.11.
Display: Plug and Play Monitor on NVIDIA GeForce2 MX 100/200
Before there was another map of the country that highlighted the states not by the popular vote but by the Delagate Vote Totals. Therefore, it displayed Obama and Hilary Splitting New Hampshire; and Obama Winning Nevada by 1 Delagate. I see that another map has been added to represent the states not by their geographical boundaries but by the size of their voting populations; to be honest I've never been a fan of that type of graph/map. Anyone who doesn't realize that the larger (rural) states in the middle of the country have much smaller populations than the geographically smaller states, say, on the East Coast, is pretty ignorant (and likely not reading this article). —Preceding unsigned comment added by McGrupp10799 (talk • contribs) 14:22, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree we should switch back to the other map if only because this one is incomprehensible. And it still doesn't address the issue of representing split states any more representationaly than the other map did. Padillah (talk) 18:23, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I disagree - I think this map better reflects accuracy and reduces the perceived bias that was discussed and noted earlier. Keep this new map. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.208.190.54 (talk) 03:57, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I also think this new cartogram is exactly what we're looking for in relaying information in one straightforward fell swoop. --Aranae (talk) 05:31, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
Straightforward? You mean you can look at that and tell me what the outcome of the Nevada race was? I find that difficult to believe. Also there's a question of accuracy, Where did it come from? Who made it? Does it constitute OR? And, inasmuch as those questions have not been answered regarding the other map they apply there too. Padillah (talk) 13:12, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this new map is the right way forward. Media reports talk of who won each state in terms of who got the highest popular vote, so the first map makes sense to me. However, the complaints about the first map are that it misrepresents the delegate count. So, this new second map seems a good solution to that, in that in represents all the delegate results. You look at this map and you can see how close the contest actually is in delegates. If you want exact numbers, the table listing those remains there as it always has. Accuracy concerns should be addressed by other editors checking the picture is correct. I do not see the graphing of available data in a reasonably straightforward manner to be original research. Bondegezou (talk) 14:28, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
OK, so long as the map doesn't start trying to "depict" something, the OR is out. And, from the looks of things, I'm the only one that thinks this is the least bit "kooky". I still hold that a bar graph would be a much better representation (maybe a stacked bar graph to also show how far we are from the 2000+ needed) but if you guys really feel this random configuration of color better represents how close the race is then I guess I'll have to concede. Humor aside, I mean no offense to whomever made this, you obviously know more about graphical representation of statistics than I do, I'm just being sardonic. Padillah (talk) 15:16, 29 January 2008 (UTC)
February 5
As we all know, there are over 20 different races occurring on February 5th. We are going to have our resources here stretched thin. We should prepare ourselves so that no race slips through the cracks that night. Place your name under the race(s) you intend to help with on February 5th. Certainly pick the races you are most interested it. I hope we can have at least two editors for each race. As we draw closer to February 5th we will be able to see where we are thin, and where we might need help. Kingturtle (talk) 04:40, 28 January 2008 (UTC)
I am a little concerned that we only have seven primaries covered. I encourage everyone to sign up and help. It's ok if we have more than one per primary, but it would be especially helpful if we could get at least one per primary. Kingturtle (talk) 04:34, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Just to note, I and a few others covered the results for the South Carolina primary. The CNN election center usually has the most up to date tallies as the votes are being counted and reported. We updated the results every few minutes (along with the % reporting), but this was probably overkill. It was fun though, so really do whatever seems right. I have started a few more individual primary pages, and I assume each one is notable in its own right. Joshdboz (talk) 22:54, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Thank you! The red links were a big problem, and you took care of basically all of them. CNN is the source that is used until the state secretary of states release primary information or the state parties release caucus results on their Web sites. – Zntrip02:07, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
The voting conlude almost two days ago,
How come nobody talks about the results or anythig?
It´s not in the news either.
After all, there are 22 delegates at stake! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.146.172.12 (talk) 09:01, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
For some reason, the table lists that Mike Gravel got 14% in Florida while John Edwards got 0%, when the opposite is correct. When I tried correcting it, my edit was reverted for being "incorrect". Will someone mind fixing this technical problem properly? 79.183.138.147 (talk) 17:19, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
In all primaries so far, Obama got at least as many delegates as Hillary, or more - so how can she be in the lead in estimates total delegates? --KnightMove (talk) 18:21, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
While Obama leads in pledged delegates, Hillary leads in superdelegates. Her margin among superdelegates is larger than Obama's lead in pledged delegates. There is a couple of footnotes though, a superdelegate that made a public commital to a candidate can retract it at any point, including the first round of voting. The other is that Iowa & Nevada's delegates still need to be chosen at their state conventions. CNN is assuming the preferences of the delegates to their state conventions will remain unchanged in it's projections. Jon (talk) 18:39, 30 January 2008 (UTC)
The Florida estimates list Hispanics as a stronghold for Democrats, however I don't think this is true. I lived in Florida for 7 years and every single Hispanic friend or other Hispanic person I knew was republican - Many Hispanics believe in low taxes and a non interfering government, which Republican's are SUPPOSED to stand for, though it seems they have been interfering a lot. Now there may be many mexicans that are democratic due to immigration issues, however most voting Hispanics (ie American Citizens) are Puerto Rican, which is where this Republican bent comes from. --192.147.58.6 (talk) 16:02, 31 January 2008 (UTC)
I think "Hispanics" in Florida should be changed to "Non-Cuban-descent Hispanics". On the Floria Primary night, CNN was very clear in distinghing Hispanics of Cuban descent from Hispanics of non-Cuban descent. Jon (talk) 18:57, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
Florida and Michigan delegate numbers
Even though, as of now, Florida and Michigan have been stripped of their delegates, they could well be restored before or during the convention. The question of their restoration has certainly been in the news, so I would think readers would want to know, if they're restored, how would the delegates be allocated. Official numbers are available from Michigan: Clinton, 73, Uncommitted 55.[6]. Official numbers for Florida are not yet available (waiting for certification of vote by Florida election officials), but are estimated (so not up to Wiki standards yet) to be Clinton 102, Obama 71, Edwards 12. I think at least the Michigan information should be in this article somewhere, but not exactly sure where. Maybe a second table in the Michigan section? Simon12 (talk) 05:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, but that would be unsourced speculation and/or original research as to weather or not they will get seated. But in any case Edwards percentage in Florida was 14.4%, which is below the 15% viability threshold, which as I understand it means no stripped delegates for him and somewhat more. Jon (talk) 18:58, 6 February 2008 (UTC) (actually earlier; forgot to sign this)
It's just as "original research" to assume they won't be seated as to assume they will. That's why I propose giving both sides. As for Edwards, he broke 15% in a number of Congressional Districts, so he will get delegates. Just not any state-wide ones, as he didn't break 15% state-wide. Simon12 (talk) 22:22, 4 February 2008 (UTC)
CNN is citing 0 for Michigan (& Florida), so that part is not OR. Thanks for the clarification of the application of the Democrat 15% rule though. Jon (talk) 19:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Well he have to assume they will not because no physical delegates (i.e. people) have been picked to represent Michigan. – Zntrip02:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Michigan is picking its district delegates on March 29, and at-large delegates on May 17, similar to many other states. Still don't see a good reason not to show the delegate numbers as an alternative. Simon12 (talk) 02:57, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
County map
Is there any chance of someone making up a county results map similar to the one on the Republican results page? I think it would be a great addition. Subsurd (talk) 05:30, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
You could query the author of that map, which you could learn by clicking on it, and seeing who uploads the graphic image. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
feb 5 results in map
population based map add Missoury for obama, utah for obama, american samoa for clinton —Preceding
Could we add a field to each state in the table to distiguished which states award all delegates to one overall winner, and which ones award them in proportion to the votes? I can't do it by myself, and I'm not certain I should, but I want to know! Ace Frahm (talk) 07:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
This is correct; to get all of a given states delegates on the Democratic side, all other candidates (including uncommited) would have to fall below the 15% viability threshold in the state (and also in most states in all congresssional districts.) Jon (talk) 19:04, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Candidate colors on map
Can someone change the colors for the candidates to more neutral ones? Red and blue in politics have a very prejudicial nature, and if this is supposed to be unbiased, then we need to remove any chance of people's choices and decisions being affected by seeing Hillary represented by the Republican color. I'm just suggesting using Yellow and Green for these two, and changing Gravel (if he even remains after yesterday) to something else. Gelbza (talk) 14:31, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
I couldn't agree more. The red vs blue thing has been ingrained in our minds so much that this really needs to be addressed. While I know it seems nitpicky, this really does seem to have a subliminal bias toward Senator Obama. Shostakov (talk) 03:58, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Valid single source for the numbers.
Is there a single source that people have been using for this? I ask because I am noticing some numbers that don't quite match what I'm seeing on other sites. (i.e. MSNBC has Obama with 40 delegates but this article only has him with 18). there's also the outlook that we don't have to scoop anyone, we are not a news service and don;t need as up-to-the-minute numbers as a news service would. What is the attitude of this article? Padillah (talk) 19:33, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
The votes haven't even all been counted in a few states (New Mexico). This site shows wildly different delegate counts than we do. I think we need to settle down and wait a bit. Wrad (talk) 20:45, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Super Tuesday - when will we know the results?
I'm surprised to see that the Super Tuesday results still don't seem to be decided... By this stage after the previous primaries and caucuses, the full results had been posted on this page.
What's different this time? Is it just that there are more news sources to sift through to find reliable numbers and more States to look at, or are the results not in yet? When are we likely to have accurate figures as to where the delegates from California, Minnesota, Missouri, Georgia, etc. are going?86.151.16.127 (talk) 20:03, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Each State has its own version of the national party. So there is a Massachusetts Republican Party, a Florida Republican Party, etc. Each State party, sometimes in conjuction with other parties within the State and sometimes in conjunction with the State's legislature, creates the rules for its caucus or primary. Of course, they have to be in step with and cannot contradict rules laid down by the national party. With that said, there were about 40 different primaries/caucuses on Super Tuesday, each with its own quirks and rules and special bits - especially in the Democratic Party because they have set up a very complicated scheme for divying out delegates. Kingturtle (talk) 21:27, 6 February 2008 (UTC)
Actually I would say the Republican party is more complex overall. The Democrats are consistent: state and district delegates are assigned by porportion with 15% viability standard. On the Republican side, each state has it's own different rules, some are WTA statewide, others are WTA district, others are proportion, some are even WTA at 50%+ and proportional otherwise. What's different on the Democratic side is that 20% of delegates are superdelegates while the Republicans only have 6% superdelegates. The main reason that delegate counting takes so long for Democrats (and Republicans in non WTA states) are the gerrymandered congressional districts. We'll probably have good estimates by Saturday. Jon (talk) 03:00, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
So what happens to the delegates that would normally be assigned to someone below the viability point? For example, if Hillary had taken 50% of California, Obama 40%, and Edwards 10% (he was still on the ballot) then strict percentages would give them 185, 148, and 37 respectively. But Edwards doesn't get those 37 because he got below 15%, so what happens to them. Do they just become "extra superdelegates" or do they go to the candidate with the majority (in this case Hillary)? Also, what happens to Edwards 26 that he's already gotten now that he's "withdrawn"? Thanks for the help. Gelbza (talk) 14:14, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
People below the threshold were never assigned delegates. Only people over the threshold are assigned delegates. As for previously "won" delegates, it depends on state laws and party rules, generally considered to be released from their obligations. But generally these people were vetted by the local organizations, and have continuing loyalty to the candidate in question. Edwards stated he was "suspending" his campaign, and commentators have indicated this allows him to obtain Federal matching funds in the future; there's reason to state his campaign is not over, merely sleeping. -- Yellowdesk (talk) 14:22, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
In most states, including California, the district delegates are assigned by district. So instead of the total number of California delegates, the first check is state wide + bonus. In the example above 50% of those would first go to Hillary and 40% for Obama. Then the summation would show oops, we have 10% more delegates to assign in a matter that as nearly as possible maintaigns the same porportions of the viable vote. So that would result in about 55% for Hillary and 45%. Each Congressional District has 4 deglates so in the district that exactly mirrors the state, that would be a 2 - 2 split. In the CD where say Hillary had 50%, Obama 36%, and Edwards 14%, it would initaaly be 2 - 1 but then the summation shows oops, we have another delegate to assign and it would be assigned Obama since that comes closet. As to Edwards, saying he's suspended instead of withdrawn might allow him to hold onto some of his projected Iowa delegates at the state convention, but it's up to those state delegates. In addition if a brokered convention occurs then he could also reenter the race there more easilly if he's suspended rather than withdrawn. Jon (talk) 19:06, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I actually took Edwards' suspending his campaign to be a way of giving himself an edge for a VP nomination. If the battle between Hillary and Obama comes down to a matter of only a few votes, Edwards throwing his support one direction or the other could be incentive for them to tap hium for the VP. Granted I don't think, regardless of what Edwards does, that either will, but I think there's a good chance he's hoping for it anyways.Gelbza (talk) 12:56, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
Personally I think speculation about a brokered convention is very much premature, the primaries & cacuses on the first Tuesday of March may show a clear leader. (I am having a hard time seeing a scenerio where this is effectively decided before then.) Jon (talk) 19:02, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
None and never. I think the reason is that there aren't enough Democratics in the Northern Marianas. – Zntrip05:32, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
Not determined yet != Uncommitted
While most of the numbers on the Super Tuesday states agree (or at the very least are very close) to CNN; this table is calling a lot of delegates for "Uncommited" that CNN is not calling at all. The overall state numbers in most of these cases have "uncommited" at such a low percent it's highly unlikely "uncommited" won a single delegate in them. Jon (talk) 02:47, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This page is inaccurate, especially with the delegates listed under the "Uncommitted" column, the rest are(at this point its now "were") undetermined, not uncommitted. The only states in which the numbers for the uncommitted column are likely accurate are Michigan and Florida. The other states have assigned those delegates between the two candidates, and this list/the totals at the top should reflect that. [unknown anom user]
It's now gotten extremely ridicous, I'm seeing rows where percent of the vote > 100%. I'm going to clear the uncommited column in the states where it's clear the count listed as the not yet determined delegates. Jon (talk) 19:04, 9 February 2008 (UTC)
North Dakota, Idaho, Colorado, Kansas caucus errors?
The article lists these states' results in terms of State Delegates, but I'm fairly sure those are actual vote totals. For ND, for instance, I doubt a state with 640,000 people will have 20,000 state delegates. Any reliable source for this? CNN lists them as delegates, but they make this error for Minnesota. Subsurd (talk) 05:15, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
I found these links, eventualy I'd like too get rid off the CNN sources and replace them with official results from either state secretary of states of state Democratic parties.
I agree that primary sources are prefered, and that would indeed by secretary of states in primary states and state parties for cacus & convention states. Jon (talk) 14:20, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
This page is inaccurate, especially with the delegates listed under the "Uncommitted" column, the rest are(at this point its now "were") undetermined, not uncommitted. The only states in which the numbers for the uncommitted column are likely accurate are Michigan and Florida. The other states have assigned those delegates between the two candidates, and this list/the totals at the top should reflect that.
The 1 delegate this table is marking as "uncommited" is actually not determined yet. The percent of vote for the withdrawn & minor candidates (all of which are non-viable) are coming from a site that lists them. The New Mexico Secretary of State page would be the primary source in that case. Jon (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2008 (UTC)
This "actual pledged delegates" section in the table with only 185 delegates in it makes no sense. Why are 185 of them more "actual" than the 1,966? Please either describe it meaningfully in the accompanying text of the article, or leave it out. GaryJolt (talk) 22:48, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
"Actual" pledged delegates is exactly that, the number of committed, bound delegates that have been decided for each candidate thus far. The "estimated" number projects delegate allocations for future contests based on previous contests that don't necessarily lead to pledged delegates. (Such as Iowa, Alaska, Nevada, etc...) Those numbers are just estimates and will be set in stone after their state convention. This distinction is important as only half of Edwards' delegates are "bound" to him currently. See Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Explanation of Estimated vs. Pledged Delegates for previous discussion. ~ PaulT+/C23:26, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
Oh, that low sub-200 number was added by an anon IP. Here are the values I had in the row that I updated (these numbers have since changed):
Actual pledged delegates (1,570 of 1,986, 39% of 49%)[1]
The listed number can someone not understand either, since it is very close to the total pledged number. So I think the best description for actual pledged delegates should be aggregation of the primaries and caucus´results of the last seven days. So we can drop out Super Tuesday on Tuesday, 12 th in this total count row for actual pledged delegates. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.233.129 (talk) 13:49, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Vandalism by User in 77.132.192.0 - 77.132.255.255 / Vandalism by User Wdfarmer against 77.132.192.0
There's been quite a bit of editing activity in Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries from the 77.132.192.0 - 77.132.255.255 domain in Germany; I believe all the edits are from the same anonymous user, who apparently also posted the proposal above to only aggregate results for the last seven days. I've left messages on the user's IP talk pages each time, inviting them to register and discuss, but I haven't gotten a response yet, other than rants against my reverts: see the change history for this article. My latest warning to the user is at User talk:77.132.240.19, and includes a Level 3 vandalism warning. Next step would be to issue a Level 4 warning; if that didn't result in a stop to the edits, then an administrative request to ban the IP at WP:AIV. I can't do any more reverting; I've already reached my WP:3RR limit against this person. I hope we can get this person to become more collaborative. Any advice or help you can give would be appreciated. Wdfarmer (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry Wdfarmer. I am not doing any vandalism , but it looks like you are doing it. Please look at my changes they are correct. So what are the differences between us? Would you please tell anyone here?
The only difference is that you still want to include in the row actual pledged delegates promaries and caucus more than just the one which were held in the past seven days.
We already agreeded that we just want to use this actual pledged delegates for primaries and caucus´ within the past seven days. You always reverse that. You got more than one warning about it.
So maybe you can agree, that we do not use this row at all and skip it out. It looks like that you have a preference for a running candidate here.
So the words you are using here, will be the measure for yourself.
Please work with us in wikipedia , not aggainst wikipedia. And please do not work here for an other personal interest. Thanks a lot! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.240.19 (talk) 22:34, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I guess this discussion is already solved by the discussions down the row.
I hope wdfarm you will take part in it with interesting statements. Looking forward to it! Wikipedia is great1 Work with the wikipedia community!
You claim that "We already agreeded that we just want to use this actual pledged delegates for primaries and caucusß within the past seven days", but in fact no such agreement has been made. You made a proposal, in the above paragraph beginning "The listed number can someone not understand either..." in this talk section, but it received no comment and no consensus agreement from the community of editors that has been maintaining this table. Lacking any such agreement, I was within my rights to revert your changes to the table. Please read WP:CONSENSUS. As for your charges that I have been biasing my edits with candidate preference or personal interest, I will let the other members of our community answer. I believe I have consistently acted according to the Wikipedia principles (see WP:PILLARS). Finally, you invite me to "work with us in wikipedia". Indeed, I have asked the same of you, repeatedly asking you to become a part of our community by registering per WP:REGISTER, yet you have continued to make edits under the varying IP addresses assigned by your ISP. Please register now, participate in the discussion below in the new Overview of results talk section, and sign your posts by appending ~~~~ to them (see WP:TILDE). We are attempting to develop a consensus on what changes, if any, should be made to the Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Overview of results section. Meanwhile, please refrain from making changes to that section's structure and meaning. Wdfarmer (talk) 23:11, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't see anyone who has suggested that the past seven days translates into "actual". The edits by the anon IP are confusing and have been without discussion. There is a difference between estimated pledged delegates and "actual" pledged delegates and I believe it is important to make that distinction. Showing momentum is important, but I don't think the "totals" row is the place to show it. Keeping the table sorted in chronological order should show who has the momentum at any given moment. ~ PaulT+/C00:05, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for your contribution. Please make your CONCRETE suggestion down the row under "Estimated vs. Actual delegates" . Then we will get the thing solved for sure. 77.132.240.19 (talk) 00:24, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Wdfarmer and Paul on two counts. First, I agree that the "Actual Pledged Delegates" row should refelect the entire history of primary/caucus results in the 2008 Democratic Party primary race, not just the past seven days. Giving the past seven days special representation in the table could have the effect of introducing unnecessary POV into the results. Second, I agree with Wdfarmer and Paul that there is no consensus that the "Actual Pledged Delegates" row should contain only delegates chosen in the past seven days. I see only a proposal for this change by the IP user 77.132.192.0 - 77.132.255.255 with no further supporting responses. In fact, counting Wdfarmer, Paul, and now myself, I see that the consensus does not support the IP user's proposal. I am therefore going to restore the "Actual Pledged Delegates" row to its state prior to the IP user's changes. I propose we leave the row alone after that until a consensus has been reached in how we'll handle estimated vs. actual results in the Overview of results discussion below. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:52, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Bryan, you want to put all results in the actual pledged delegates line. But then this line will be exactly identical to the estimated pledged delegates!!! So, if we want to keep up an "actual pledged delegates" row, we have to decide about a certain time period. As we do not get to an angreement about this timeperiod, we rather should skip the line, cause Wdfarm, Paul and you do not bring us any further, if you do not suggest a time period - otherwise the two lines actual pledged delegates and estimated delegates are indentical. Don´t you want to see that? So I agree with user 77.132.240.19. He seems to be a logical mathematican. As long as you guys (and maybe girls ) do not bring any arguments to the problem, I will go ahead and skip the line. As I counted the votes, including the one under the right topic listed down the row, it looks like a tie to me (three against three). As long as there is no clear majority the row will be skipped until the consensus according to WP:CONSENSUS is reached. And plese do not state anything further here and in betweeen. No one , who is using wikipedia will be able to follow this discussion. You make people run away with this kind of fighting. You make an elephant out of one small disagreement. I am so disappointed about it. 77.132.223.232 (talk) 14:50, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Since the question of whether or not to display a row summarizing the past seven days of results is being discussed below, I won't repond to your arguments about that here. What I will say is that I have a strong suspicion that you are using IP sock puppets to bolster your various positions. This practice is forbidden on Wikipedia: see Wikipedia:Sock puppetry. I'm guessing you'll respond to this by accusing me of using sock puppets myself. I'll let my account record of past contributions on Wikipedia speak for itself on that point. I invite you to build your own good reputation on Wikipedia by signing up for an account. Doing so will help you avoid some of the difficulties you've been encountering from other editors, such as this discussion topic. However unfair it might be, the contributions of editors without accounts are often judged more harshly. The longer you continue your arguments here while avoiding the creation of an account, the more other editors may suspect that that you are not serious about your contributions here and are instead intending only to disrupt the pursuit of improving Wikipedia. Here are some other reasons to sign up for an account: Wikipedia:Why create an account?. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 00:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Dear Wdfarm, why are you still blowing up this ballon? We just have one disaggreement about the row "actual pledged delegates". You still did not answer, why you always reverse the explained changes. You are not telling us, which time period you are using (and want to use) for the row "actual pledged delegates". You just have a right to make changes, when there is a reason for it. But as long as you do not bring any good arguments, I am the one who has the right of the WP:CONSENSUS. So, I believe I have consistently acted according to the Wikipedia principles (see WP:PILLARS), too.
This is my final comment here, cause it is getting ridiculous. The question is discussed further down. Please take part in it and do not get personal. So, if you want , you can set here your finishing statement to finish it up. (I guess not many wikipedia users will read it anyway - do not be in a bad mood, cheer up for the interests of wikipedia!) 77.132.240.19 (talk) 00:08, 13 February 2008 (UTC)77.132.240.19 (talk) 23:54, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Sir, you are wrong when you say "as long as you do not bring any good arguments, I am the one who has the right of the WP:CONSENSUS". Read what WP:CONSENSUS says:
"Being bold is useful to both starting a discussion and breaking a stalemate. Make a change, and use the feedback from that change to guide you in making further changes. If someone reverts your change, discuss it, and then offer another version to repeat the cycle until compromise and eventually consensus is reached. Don't ignore the arguments of other editors in a conflict though, or a healthy bold, revert, discuss cycle quickly turns into disruptive editing."
Your first changes resulted in reverts by myself or another editor. Rather than entering into a discussion per the process above (and per the flowchart at WP:CONSENSUS), you instead made a brief comment in the article's change history, and then reapplied your change. You did this even when I told you to stop, register, and enter into a discussion. Furthermore, you have since refused to register per WP:REGISTER; you continue to hide behind an anonymous IP address, which is apt to change each time you reconnect to your ISP. If you want to enter into a civil discussion, it is important that you register so that we may begin to treat you as a person with a demonstrated history of civility and cooperative effort. Wikipedia is under constant attack by vandals, most of them using anonymous IP addresses, who briefly observe an article, decide to make a change either maliciously or without regard for the history and standards of the article, and then disappear. As long as you continue to post under an anonymous IP address, you are apt to be mistaken for one of these vandals, and your edits are likely to be reverted without discussion.
Imagine that you were walking down the street and saw a complex but incomplete mural painted on a wall. Clearly much thought had gone into making that mural. Yet as you look at the mural, you decide that you have a better idea, and decide to draw a broad yellow stripe around the borders of the mural. You do this, and then disappear into the city, without leaving a note giving your name. The next day you reappear, and are outraged to find that someone has erased your yellow stripe. You again reapply the yellow stripe, and leave a note threatening anyone who removes it, but do not sign the note. When the yellow stripe is again removed, and a note is left warning you not to reapply it, you apply the yellow stripe yet again, and complain that the people who are erasing the yellow stripe are "ïn a bad mood".
That is how I view your actions over the past several hours. But finally, you have begun to enter into a dialogue with us. Good. You are beginning to understand how Wikipedia works. I look forward to working with you. But please, do register so that I can talk to you using something other than an anonymous IP address.
Wdfarm and 77.132.240.19 please stop it! Wdfarm you do not bring any arguments to the problem itself. You are only accusing your rival in a way, which is not the stile of the wikipedia community. - But in one thing is your rival completly right. Your are blowing up a big balloon, blowing, blowing,... - Instead uf blowing up this unhappy section (it is showing an example on how discussions here should not be done) , you should go down the row, to the discussion "actual vs. estimated delegates". And do not bring in, your personal fight against your rival. 77.132.223.232 (talk) 14:51, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Mr. 77, do you realise that we can see how similar your IP addresses are, and that you are the only person who I have ever seen using the phrase "blowing a balloon" in this context? If you address your own sock monkey, you will seem insane.81.155.2.42 (talk) 22:56, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
Mr. 81.155.2.42 does your statement solve the problem? The section of solving the problem is down the row. Nice people trying to communicate with each other and respect each other. (besides that: Are you can be wdfarmer as well or aree you just his best friend?) I guess this section will expand and expand.... 77.132.223.232 (talk) 23:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
While I personally think that a row that shows the number of delegates assigned over the past seven days is unnecessary, I do not think that it should supplant a row of actual delegates. If there absolutely must be a row showing recent delegates, then add an additional row. Don't remove data that is informative at this stage of the process, i.e. actual delegates. But for the record, I oppose a row that shows recent delegates. Data Fever (talk) 02:28, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
This is getting ridiculous...
77.132.192.0-77.132.255.255 has repeatedly reverted against consensus on including a "recent delegates" row. It is disruptive and makes it harder to improve the article. If there is support, I'd like to begin a requests for comment on this user's conduct. ~ PaulT+/C07:03, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Here is a partial list of the IPs used so far, please add more if I missed any...
Support. Judging by the similarity in language of the edit summaries, I also suspect 77.128.*.* is the same user, which all belong to the same ISP (freenet Cityline GmbH) in Germany. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 07:59, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Unlike ND, KS, etc from Super Tuesday, which were vote totals mistakenly listed as delegates, I think the WA caucus result consists of delegates rather than votes. The New York Times website [12] lists them as such. Can anybody find an actual state source on this? Subsurd (talk) 01:19, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Whats the deal with Colorado's large number of unallocated delegates?
It has been nearly a week since the caucus and Colorado is reporting 99.13% in, so why are so many delegates still not awarded to a candidate? This seems to be hurting Obama, and if anyone can find a reason why or more recent delegate numbers, it would help understanding of this page. 24.180.130.222 (talk) 04:33, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I found the party rules in Colorado under: http://www.coloradodems.org/docs/2008DSP.pdf
It seems that they still have not elected any DNC-delegate yet. So I can not understand the listed 19 pledged delegates for Obama and the 9 pledged delegates to Clinton already awarded in our column at wikipedia. The pledged delegates of the District Level will be selected in May, 10th and 16th.
Congressional District 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 will get respectively 6, 6, 5, 4, 5, 5,5 pledged delegates.
/ pledged PLEO´s and 12 at-large pledged delegates will be elected at the state convenbtion May, 17th in Colorado Springs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.132.233.129 (talk) 13:40, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
It is true that the delegates have not been selected yet and, as a result, Colorado results are not included in the "actual" pledged delegate count. But since these pledged delegates can be estimated (and have been by reliable 3rd party sources) there are some estimated results in the tables. The county data, allocated by congressional district, will calculate the estimated number of delegates each candidate has. This has not been done completely yet. We cannot do it on our own as that would be original research, but these numbers will be estimated at some point. The Colorado results will not be added to the "actual" pledged delegate count until the May 17th convention. ~ PaulT+/C18:29, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
Similar to the above Colorado situation, on Super Tuesday only 21 delegates were allocated. Kansas has an additional convention in May where the remaining 11 pledged delegates will be chosen based on the Super Tuesday vote. These delegates can be estimated because they are based on the popular vote, but they haven't been picked yet. See http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/KS-D.phtml for info on the dates and delegates. ~ PaulT+/C18:13, 11 February 2008 (UTC)
I propose merging the two lines into one. We already do the same in estimating the results of every other state, all of which use the same process, so Kansas should be no different. The split should be 23-9 to Obama, for which there are reliable sources. --Ross UK (talk) 16:27, 12 February 2008 (UTC)
Done. I'll do the Republican side next. Wdfarmer (talk) 08:24, 7 February 2008 (UTC)
