Template talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012

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

Percentages[edit]

I'm sorry, I haven't been very clear with my edits with removing the percentages. I'll try to explain it better. Here are the current numbers:

Name Votes Percentage
Mitt Romney 3,194,834 40.5%
Rick Santorum 1,957,515 24.8%
Newt Gingrich 1,827,245 23.2%
Ron Paul 900,099 11.4%
Total 7,879,693 100%

However, there is a quite large number of votes that are not being figured in these numbers. For example, in Iowa, Michele Bachmann, Jon Huntsman, and Rick Perry combined for 19,342 votes.[1] In New Hampshire, Huntsman got 41,964 votes, and Rick Perry got 1,764.[2] All the other candidates on the ballot combined for 3,451 votes.[3] In South Carolina, Bachmann, Herman Cain, Gary Jonhson, Huntsman, and Perry combined for 10,747 votes.[4] In Florida, Bachmann, Cain, Johnson, Huntsman, and Perry combined to receive 21,644 votes.[5]

If you add all those numbers up, you get 98,912 votes. That's just in the first four states.

Name Votes Percentage
Mitt Romney 3,194,834 40.0%
Rick Santorum 1,957,515 24.5%
Newt Gingrich 1,827,245 22.9%
Ron Paul 900,099 11.3%
Other 98,912 1.2%
Total 7,978,605 100%

So we can see that the numbers being used on the template are incorrect. There are approximately 50,000 more votes for other candidates in all the other states that I didn't add in, which would mean the numbers are even a bit more off, but it would be a big task to track them all down. That's why I've been removing the inaccurate percentages. Torchiest talkedits 22:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The percentage used in the infobox so far is very simple. You take all the vote numbers in the sourcepage, add them together and that will be the total number. True, then it does not included the "vasted" votes but it shows fast how the 4 candidates have divided the popular vote amongst themselve. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:34, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

I am being bold and reinstating the precentage - With one important new policy: We only uses interger numbers. That should "hide" the (now) small number of votes that are not cast for the four remainding candidates. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:35, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, I am willing to go along with that, but instead of rounding, just ignore anything after the decimal point. From my math above, you can see that all the correct numbers are going to be less than what has been calculated originally. For example, right now, the percentages in the template, after my last change, add up to 98%. There have been about 10 million votes cast. 2% of that is about 200,000, which should be pretty close to the number of votes received by other candidates. Torchiest talkedits 13:19, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Gingrich homestate[edit]

Both Gingrich and Santorum owns homes in the state of Virginia. Does that make their homestate Virginia? I would say no, but there has been some disagreement on this topic so lets see if we can find a consensus instead of starting a editing war. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I would agree with you. Gingrich is from Georgia, and Santorum is from Pennsylvania. These states are where thay spent the majority of their political careers representing.Light-jet pilot (talk) 03:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
Gingrich has spent his recent years in Virginia, while I think Santorum has been in PA? --Metallurgist (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I would also agree that Gingrich, by virtue of his actual living in VA for such a long time now (since 1999), and not just owning a home there, as R.S. did while as a Senator, should now be labeled with Virginia as his new State. He gave up on Georgia 13 years ago. Isn't that long enough to confirm a State? Katydidit (talk) 10:31, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Katydidit, I see you added sources for Gingrich's Virginia residency, but it's telling that each of them couches their statements in terms of just that--residency. Do a quick Google search for "gingrich home state" sans quotes. You get a cluster of Wikipedia results first, and everything else on the first page of results is about his primary victory in his "home state" of Georgia. On Newt Gingrich, there's only one mention of Virginia (again, residency), compared to copious statements detailing his Georgia ties. In the section Presidential campaign, 2012, Georgia is identified as his home state. His residence in Virginia has more to do with the jurisdictional vagaries of Washington DC than anything else; he resides in a part of the DC suburbs that simply happen to be within Virgina state lines. Now, I wouldn't argue that Northern Virginian politicians shouldn't be considered as Virginian "home staters," but that's part of the issue: Gingrich has nothing to do with the Republican Party of Virginia. Compare to Barack Obama, Hillary Rodham Clinton, William Weld, or any other politician with ties to multiple states: when a person represents an entire state, that defines their general "home state" identity. All else is qualified in terms of residence, birthplace, etc. The template field in question is "Home state," not "Place of residence." And as many soldiers, students, and expats would testify, residency doesn't mean home. I don't want to be overwhelming here--just to lay out all my reasons for reverting your well-sourced edit. --BDD (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Should the territories be counted in this infobox[edit]

If we look back on the earlier republican primary articles 2008 stands out stating the territories as "Others", else they are not to be found in infoboxes in the primary articles older than 2008. Should they be in the infobox? Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with them being included.Light-jet pilot (talk) 03:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we should include them and go back to revise the 2008 one to include them.--Metallurgist (talk) 04:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

An interesting point was made on the talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. There was no strawpoll taken at the caucuses on Virgin Island, so no votes was actually cast for any candidate. The votes was cast for delegates that had filed Presidentiel preference lists. I cant find any strawpoll taken for the two pacific territories that caucused yesterday either. So no candidate win as such. Maybe that is why they are not mentioned in the infobox in the "2004 and back" articles? If so, it is 2008 that is in error. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


Since I started this discussion there has been some interesting statements on the VI GOP homepage (http://vigop.com/) so since there has not bee much discussion in this section I am being bold and removing the territories from the infobox. Correct me if I am gone to far, but as I see it there will never be a consensus about the VI vote. Followers of different candidates have all valid arguments and whoever is shown to have won VI it will be argued that it is not a NPOV. Since only 2008 have the territories in the infobox (had since I have changed that) I would think the best is simply not to mention the VI or any other of the terrioties in the infobox. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:00, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Seconded. It was always a misnomer to include them when the field is called "States carried." Good call. --BDD (talk) 18:25, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Party affiliation[edit]

How necessary or helpful is this field? No one from outside the Republican Party is contesting its nomination. I'm going to be bold and de-wikilink them, at any rate. --BDD (talk) 20:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC) EDIT: Scratch that, it looks like it's hard-wired. Any one else think getting rid of that field is a good idea? --BDD (talk) 20:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh yes, an wonderfull idea. How do you do it? Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:05, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
I agree, it's a wonderfull idea, but you would also have to remove it from every primary template since the first one, in 1940. Light-jet pilot (talk) 00:34, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
Ah, that's a shame. Probably not worth it, then, though I'd applaud anyone with the tenacity to actually do it. --BDD (talk) 18:01, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The source for the delegatecount[edit]

Torchiest suggested a new source for our delegatecount (http://www.npr.org/2011/12/29/144456395/primary-calendar-republican-delegates-and-whats-at-stake-in-each-state?tab=delegates) The difference from our current source being that it does not count the superdelegates, both the RNC and the unbound elected delegates (like the ones from Guam). The reason being that they could change their mind.
I disagree with this new source. As long as the source is conservative in acception new committments from superdelegates (as DCW needs two sources before they list them) and it uptodate and removes a delegates that deflects I think it is a better way to show the current state of the race. But the editors that visit this talkpage might not have noticed the new source being suggested in the history, so I ask for your opinion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:44, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Someone had switched to Green Papers count, since no explanation was given on the talkpage I switched it back to the consensus source (DCW). But there is room for discussion in this section. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:04, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Missouri[edit]

They have not completed the contest yet in Missouri. "Results of the Missouri primary are nonbinding, so they are not included in this count. Missouri selects its delegates through a caucus system, to be completed in June." Light-jet pilot (talk) 17:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Neither have Iowa, Colorado, Minnesota, Maine, Wyoming and Washington. The strawpoll taken the same day as their caucuses are just as nonbinding. But they are counted as state carried without a fodnote. The only straw poll taken in Missouri is the nonbinding primary, the only difference betwin it and the strawpolls of the other state is that it is not taken on the same day. It would be consistent to have the same rules for all the nonbinding caucus states. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
As long as I'm making contentious edits, I'll explain this: we ought to strive for internal consistency above all else. As long as we've colored Missouri for Santorum on our map, we should credit him for it in the template (I assume a ".5" would look strange). If someone else wins the caucus, we can revisit the issue as appropriate. --BDD (talk) 22:25, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
Since lots of caucus states are colored for candidates who only won non-binding straw polls, it makes sense to credit Santorum with Missouri, where he also won a non-binding straw poll. I assume that once true delegate counts come out of the state conventions, the map will get a lot of adjusting. Torchiest talkedits 22:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I must say I am pleased to see that everyone's determination that they are right and everyone else is wrong entitles them to edit-war. But I'd like to cast in my two cents as well. (I'm not going to revert anyone's edits, but I like to think my opinion counts just as much.) I'd say the reason we should count caucus preference polls and not nonbinding primaries is because the people who cast the votes at caucuses are actually part of the delegate-selection process. You can't say that about primary voters. The primaries are not related to the caucus process in any way (except perhaps that both were sponsored by the Missouri Republican Party). There's no guarantee that the same people attended the caucuses as voted in the primary, that even half the primary voters even bothered showing up for the caucuses, or that they actually voted the same way that they did back in February. That's probably why Missouri is only cross-shaded and not solid on the map. (Because aren't we supposed to be blindly following the "preference poll" regardless of the actual results?) And what are we going to do when someone else wins the caucuses? Count Missouri twice? Don't bet on it. It's probably going to be more akin to Texas '08, when Hillary won the primary but Obama won the caucuses. Since the primary counted more toward the actual delegate-selection, the state was credited to Hillary, but a special "TXC" note was added to Obama's total along with his territory wins. (And Texas isn't even cross-shaded on the '08 map.) So I guess we have three options here: we can keep edit-warring until the other person gets tired, we can "wait and see" what to do after the caucus returns are released, or we can all get over ourselves and just follow precedent. I elect the latter. --SchutteGod (talk) 19:50, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

You have some good points. In april the conventions starts in the caucus states. A good question would be if such an convention would allocated delegates (bound or not) that would vote for someone totally different than the winner of the caucus day strawpoll. Should that states status be changed?
But the problem right now is that there will not be any statewide informations from the Missouri caucuses - at all. The local central committee is a bit weird on that point. It seems right now that they are under pressure to change that policy, the chances are not great on them caving. So right now there is not, and there will not be any other data from Missouri than the nonbinding primary. It is bad data or no data. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:31, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
Yes, I agree with you. But like Jack said, they will not release any more results. From the Missouri page,
"Caucus-goers will be voting for delegates, and with few exceptions, these delegates will not be bound to a particular candidate. Because there is no vote on candidate preference,
neither the Missouri GOP nor any election authority will have or release any data regarding the ‘winner’ of the caucuses."
Light-jet pilot (talk) 02:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
More like "data unrelated to the actual results" or no data. I'm still having trouble understanding why we need to count Missouri as a "win" for anyone, especially if the state party is claiming no candidate can credibly win it. The primary is wholly meaningless and says nothing about which direction that state is actually going in right now. At least the caucus polls are a more or less accurate count of voters who actually participated in the delegate-selection process. --SchutteGod (talk) 15:22, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
What caucus polls? Light-jet pilot (talk) 15:30, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
Repetition of my argument from earlier on: that these primary results in MO are not akin to the "preference polls" they hold in other caucus states; this primary does not reflect the opinion of the people who actually showed up to caucus a couple weeks back. It is not part of the process, and as such, should not be given equal weight with the preference polls conducted in other caucus states. If we can't declare a winner, then that's just it. Let it be. Santorum won a meaningless beauty contest, not the whole state. --SchutteGod (talk) 20:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

"meaningless beauty contest" is a Mitt Romney talking point. Just sayin. Light-jet pilot (talk) 02:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm a Ron Paul supporter. Just sayin'. --SchutteGod (talk) 17:44, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
OK. No hard feelings. Light-jet pilot (talk) 21:59, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

District of Columbia[edit]

Because of here, here, and here. Light-jet pilot (talk) 02:29, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Potentially more relevant: DC will be there with the rest of the Electoral College in November. The territories won't. --BDD (talk) 21:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Map[edit]

Why is the states won map on the template missing NY for Romney? NY is there when you go to the image page. EEL123 (talk) 04:48, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

patience Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:49, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
Perhaps I am lacking in patience, but given the number of Wikipedia readers, the short delay has probably mislead several hundred, if not several thousand, visitors. EEL123 (talk) 09:50, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
Everybody will be going for Romney; patience was justified. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

I've added two sentences under the delegate map (explaining Louisiana and Montana). References could be applied. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:15, 25 July 2012 (UTC)

Out note[edit]

I think we should put a outnote on the pictures of the candidates that have suspended their campaigns. This template are used in several articles, and not all of them have that information ready on hand as the main article have. So until the end of the primary election it would be good to have this information in this template. After the voting has ended the notes can simply be removed. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Please notice how the out image/tag is applied in Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries#Major candidates Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:42, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
A similar discussion is on the main primary articles talkpage: Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#About the out image Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:50, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Popular vote totals[edit]

I think we should use this source for the vote counts, as it is comprehensive, and includes all candidates, thus providing us with the ability to also list accurate percentages. Torchiest talkedits 23:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I understand the problem with the accurate percentage, but I dont like the idea that this template will only have one source, namely the GP, for all its informations. Maybe we could take the percentage from GP and the numbers from RCP? Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:42, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

How do we count states carried or won?[edit]

I have started a discussion here: Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#How do we count states carried or won? about how we count states won. This is important conserning Colorado (Romney plurality of delegates) and Minnesota (Paul plurality of delegates) both counted right now as Santorum wins. Please make your comments on the Republican Party presidential primaries talkpage and not here. So everone can see your comments, thank you. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:15, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

The choice of Map[edit]

As the primaries have changed pace and direction I thought it would be good to display who really won (real delegates not nonbinding strawpolls) or more important carried a plurality in the state delegations. According to rule 40 every candidate that want on the first ballot must have plurality in five states or more. And according to rule 27 the territories and DC is counted as states in the Republican Party. (all decided on at the 2008 convention and admentent in 2010). First I tried to simply change the map file we were using, not really so good at it though. But Gage did very correct advice me on Wikimedia Commons that this map was suppose to show the popular vote, and I should make another map to display the plurality in delegates that are important to the primary procedure right now (the big question being can Paul get five states) and the benchmark RNC uses to count who carried the states. So I did that and I replaced the popular vote map in the infobox with it. I do thing that the popular vote map is worth noting, so I also put that in the popular vote section in the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. It is noteworthy but not what counts in the world of the Republican Party. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:19, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

The map now suggest readers that e.g. Maine, Missouri, Washington caucuces haven't been conducted yet. I think, we should include two versions of map (by popular vote and by delegates)? Bielsko (talk) 08:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
It could also suggest that the delegates are not allocated and the states can still go both ways. Maines convention is this weekend, and the popular vote map suggest that it is a clear Romney state and if Paul wins the plurality it will be a huge win for him and a huge defeat for Romney. In the real world the strawpoll was a near split and the state have all they time been undecided, it can go both ways.
I tried to put in two maps but failed, does anyone know if it is possible at all? We also have to think about the lenght of the template, it might become to long for some of the articles using it? Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I have added secound map to the template. The length is as long as "Contents" - so everything is OK. Bielsko (talk) 17:27, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
I think including both maps was a wise decision. I approve. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 14:06, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
Me too. It looks very good. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:17, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The delegatecount and its sources[edit]

Please go to Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#The delegatecount and its sources to discuss the chance in delegatecount source. That way all editors will be seen. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:44, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Percentages[edit]

Why is Romney listed as only having 11%? Last I checked he has over 40% of the popular vote. Mr. Anon515 01:03, 3 June 2012 (UTC)

Delegations for Romney[edit]

In the Article, there are 43 states, provinces, and District of Columbia listed (by name) for Romney. Hence I changed '42' to '43' since I counted them. Now, I've changed it here in the template also. I'm speaking of WP Article Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012

I think the difference was District of Columbia. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:50, 16 July 2012 (UTC)

State borders[edit]

The Texas–New Mexico border on File:Republican Party presidential primaries results, 2012 by plurality.svg isn't as clean as it is on the other map image, File:Republican Party presidential primaries results, 2012.svg. Oklahoma also isn't as sharp. Can someone edit this? —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 14:19, 16 July 2012 (UTC)