Misplaced Pages

Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 22:56, 26 March 2012 editJack Bornholm (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,325 edits →Fraud: America is becoming more and more like North Korea?← Previous edit Latest revision as of 17:50, 29 August 2024 edit undoDukeOfDelTaco (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users20,064 edits →top 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{FailedGA|18:21, 20 July 2015 (UTC)|page=1|topic=Politics and government}}
{{tmbox
{{Talk header|search=yes}}
| type = notice
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=B|
| style = CSS values
{{WikiProject Conservatism|importance=Mid}}
| textstyle = CSS values
{{WikiProject United States|importance=Mid|USPE=Yes|USPE-importance=High}}
| text = Per discussion ] and ], the delegate count does not reflect what is in most media sources. In several of the contests so far, national delegates have not yet been chosen. They will be chosen later on in the year at state conventions. These delegates are not included in the current totals.
{{WikiProject Elections and Referendums}}
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low|American=yes|American-importance=Low}}
{{WikiProject 2010s|importance=low}}
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
{{Talk header |search=yes }}
|target=/Archive index |mask=/Archive <#> |leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes
{{WikiProjectBannerShell||1=
{{WikiProject Conservatism|class=B|importance=mid}}
{{WikiProject United States |class=b |importance=mid |USPE=Yes |USPE-importance=High }}
}} }}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012/Archive index
|mask=Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0 |indexhere=yes}}
{{Auto archiving notice |bot=MiszaBot I |age=7 |units=days}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config {{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{aan}} |archiveheader = {{aan}}
|maxarchivesize = 200K |maxarchivesize = 200K
|counter = 8 |counter = 12
|minthreadsleft = 5 |minthreadsleft = 3
|minthreadstoarchive = 1 |minthreadstoarchive = 1
|algo = old(7d) |algo = old(15d)
|archive = Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012/Archive %(counter)d |archive = Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive %(counter)d
}} }}


==Terrible Color Choices on Map==
== Keeping the secondary "Honestly, a Good Table" List in TALK ==
Ted Cruz is mud green and Donald Trump is dark blue. This provides almost no contrast. Cruz should be a lighter green like Santorum in 2012 or McCain in 2008. <small class="autosigned">—&nbsp;Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

The List gives: Date, State, Type, Delegate count (things you all want) .!. Let's not archive it. ] (]) 15:18, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

:It is a little unclear what you are proposing. Should this table replace the schedule table or should it be added so they are both in the article or???? (This is not a sandbox or a subarticle or list to the main article. This is a talkpage where improvements of the article is dicussed.) ] (]) 16:43, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
:: No, I vote to leave it here till 2013 so readers and editors can see it here in TALK. ] (]) 21:21, 14 February 2012 (UTC)
:What's the purpose of having it on the talk page? If it's going to be anywhere, shouldn't it be in article space somewhere? Plus, it's going to difficult to keep it from being archived considering the page is auto-archived after a certain amount of time (every 7 days currently).--] (]) 15:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::The Misplaced Pages readers (and editors) read the TALK pages when they are intently interested. The LIST does not warrant a separate article, and the main ARTICLE here is rather long already. As supporting editors know (plus the 160 editors who are 'watching') we had discussions about including this LIST or the current TABLE in the article. They both have advantages. Since the section above has no date, I'm thinking it will not be archived. At my earliest convenience I'll read WP information, but often the instructions are long and involved. I can always put the LIST back, you will be pleased to know. :-) . . . Thanks for asking, ] (]) 16:05, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::I actually read the guidelines for talkpages just now, and it does give room for putting a section like this in a talkpage. I dont really think it have any purpose, so I agre with Next. But that is not a matter of opinion. It is ok acording to guidelines. ] (]) 16:57, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
:::If it's okay by the guidelines, I guess there's no harm in keeping it here. Just seemed like an odd place for it, that's all. Whatever is decided by consensus is fine by me.--] (]) 17:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
::::Just to add to a future consencus. I think it should go. Just my opinion ] (]) 17:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
Thanks for comments and teaching me — I learn something every day. Another idea from WP guidelines, "Be Bold .!." —— ] (]) 13:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC) —— PS: I can't think of anywhere else to put this LIST, can you?
:There is no reason to have that list. Its just clutter on the page. Thought it was more of 68's antics and removed it.--] (]) 09:01, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
One thing that the List had (previously here on TALK) was correctly listing Northern Mariana Islands voting after Utah. It is missing in the Article table. ] (]) 14:54, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
:What is your source for that information? The Green Papers list them as it is in the article table. Before I changed it I looked around the web and I couldnt find any other date than March 10. Not that it was easy to find anything about about that caucus at all. ] (]) 16:55, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
::I'm not remembering a more authoritative source than Green Papers (which says 'March 10th') but here is one: ] (]) 21:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
:::I search their “Marianas Variety” newspaper in vain to find news on voting: ] (]) 23:38, 1 March 2012 (UTC)
::::In their Island paper today (Super Tuesday) there is just one article, 'why Obama should be reelected'. Comments by the readers all agree. ] (]) 23:17, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
Another newspaper with nothing after March 10th, and you should really take a look at the Main Page of the newspaper: http://www.saipantribune.com/default.aspx with a photo and caption: "Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's son, Matt, and wife Laurie, pose with '''traditional warrior dance group members''' at a luncheon hosted yesterday by Gov. Benigno R. Fitial at his private residence in Gualo Rai on the eve of today's Republican caucus in the CNMI. (Haidee V. Eugenio)" That's great; truly, ] (]) 11:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC) PS: The five provinces are mentioned.
:And I'm just realizing that with DC, there are 56 states, DC, and provinces voting. ] (]) 03:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
::Obama was right, with DC +50 states + five territories + ] = 57 like he said. ] (]) 04:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
:::Put Obama back in the 'wrong' column, because I just discovered a link that lists US states and provinces:
::::He omitted ] also listed here:
:::::He leaves out three overseas military zipcodes. ] (]) 12:55, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

== Maps and their colors ==

Since it is supertuesday and the maps will change a lot this will be a good time to make some good changes to the county map. So to all the mapguys out there:
*Could we make the county map colorblind friendly? (it would be good to use the same colors already used in the state map in the infobox)
*Could we included the Northern Marianna Islands in the territories?
*Wouldnt it be a good time to loose the Missouri nonbinding primary? No one is really going to care about it after the Missouri cacuses anyway.
*And if anyone has time: Could we update and make the schedule map colorblind friendly?
Here is some tips from a colorblind person, posted earlier about the schedule map: "Here is my problem with the primary schedule map: February is the same color as May. April is the same color as march. I recommend using the following colors: Red, blue, gray, orange, yellow, black. The colors need to be at maximal saturation. Red and black need to be different in brightess. The gray needs to be not at all blue. The orange needs to be different from the yellow in brightness. NO GREEN. NO BROWN. NO PURPLE. NO PINK. I can't see any difference at all between blue and purple. And using pastel colors is just cruel because the colorblind have lower detection thresholds for saturation. Also, another way to code maps is with patterns. I'd love to see more pattern-coded maps. The colorblind actually have superior pattern-detection systems as a direct result of being colorblind."
] (]) 19:59, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
:What is it with catering to the color-blind? We cant accommodate every single persons needs. Most of us have no problems with the map and are used to the colors already. Don't change it to hideous colors, the state map is already color-blind friendly.] (]) 22:14, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
::I qoute a comment from the discussion above:
::"If the maps are changed then 99.99% of the general population can access all the information. If the maps are not changed, 92% of men can access the information and 96% of the general population can access the information. If you think the 8% of men who are colorblind might have something to say about the data, then you will agree that changing the colors is acceptable even if they don't suit your aesthetic principles. I think it's morally wrong to oppose accessible maps for the sake of some aesthetic norms. What is your argument that the colorblind don't have a right to this information?"
::I would think that 8% is more than every single person even though I am not one of them. ] (]) 22:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
:::I don't see any overwhelming argument from people that the colors must be changed. The state map was already changed. You cant expect everyone to just jump because of one or two people here. You say 8%, but how many of that 8% check here everyday. The colors have been in place for months, more people will complain about the colors suddenly changing. Just leave them alone.] (]) 22:39, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
::::I agree the colors you chose clash and are awful on the eyes is there another color scheme you can come up with or revert the edit? There is clearly no consensus here. - ] (]) 04:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::Totally agree, my friend. I had my eyes checked in February, some of the people on this board need to go get theirs checked. I personally think the map looks sloppy as is, and leans to a negative image of the Republicans. It needs to be returned to a professional color scheme that shows the Republicans in a positive light -- such as the one that was in place several months ago. (By the way, I am not referring to policies of the Republican party, only the color scheme that CURRENTLY represents them). :) ] (]) 07:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
:Why not, then, impose letters on the map to show who won each state? R for Romney, G for Gingrich, S for Santorum, & P for Paul. That way, the colorblind can tell at a glance while rest of us can have our all-important color aesthetic. I don't know about the competition month map, but at least the winners & losers can be fit within 5 different levels of saturation (the fifth for future contests). --] (]) 17:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

'''To avoid having the same words said twice the chat can be found here:''' ] - ] (]) 04:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

== California ==

In the table it says Winner Takes All for California. I've read that each congressional district (of 53) has 3 delegates. Within each CD it's winner take all, but not statewide. Source: http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/CA-R Quote:
: 159 district delegates are to be bound to presidential contenders based on the primary results in each of the 53 congressional districts: each congressional district is assigned 3 National Convention delegates and the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in that district will receive all 3 of that district's National Convention delegates.
: 10 at-large delegates (10 base at-large delegates plus 0 bonus delegate) are to be bound to the presidential contender receiving the greatest number of votes in the primary statewide.
: In addition, 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the California's Republican Party, will attend the convention as unpledged delegates by virtue of their position.

: The selection of Presidential Nominating Convention Delegates to the Republican National Convention ... shall be chosen by the Presidential candidate who obtained the plurality of Republican votes within each Congressional district, and, for ... at large ... by the Presidential candidate who obtained the plurality of Republican votes statewide.

] (]) 07:16, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
::When both CD and AL is the same, as it is in California (winner-take-all) it is only written once. The information you have listed can easy be read out of the table in the AL and CD collums. ] (]) 10:35, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

:::When both the CD and AL are the same, it should be written twice. It costs the table nothing, and is clearer for the reader. When there is no CD allocation, the table should say so: "Winner-take-all (AL) - no CD allocation." There is a bit of redundancy in this, but with the benefit of far greater clarity for the reader. ] (]) 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
::::If it is done consistent and in a neat way I dont see a problem with that. Why dont you work with the table in your sandbox to see if that is possible. ] (]) 11:04, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
::::'''I have made a new section for this question, since it is not just about California but all the contests'''. ] (]) 11:35, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

== Guam ==

Mitt Romney is announced to have won Guam unanimously http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/03/09/romney-wins-gop-caucus-in-us-territory-guam/ , but I'm not experienced enough to edit the maps or tables to reflect this. Also, Alaska's county divisions are missing from the map. ] (]) 11:12, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

:Voting is not until Saturday, but the citizens in the five provinces are impressed with the campaigning of the Romney family. For example: You should really take a look at the Main Page of the newspaper: http://www.saipantribune.com/default.aspx with a photo and caption: "Republican presidential candidate Mitt Romney's son, Matt, and wife Laurie, pose with '''traditional warrior dance group members''' at a luncheon hosted yesterday by Gov. Benigno R. Fitial at his private residence in Gualo Rai on the eve of today's Republican caucus in the CNMI. (Haidee V. Eugenio)" That's great; truly, ] (]) 11:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
::They're on the other side of the date line, so Saturday is already nearly over, isn't it? --] (]) 17:28, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

The box says that Romney has won 16 states. I think you're counting Guam and the Northern Marinas, which are territories and not states. I'm not sure how to edit this, but can someone change it? ] (]) 19:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
:Maybe change it from "states" to "contests?" But then that brings in the dubious Missouri primary. --] (]) 20:10, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
::I have changed it in the fashion of the 2008 article. The territories are mentioned only in the winners row, but at the bottom and it is not counted in the states won number. ] (]) 21:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
:::Jack of Bornholm, you are the best! . . . Truly, ] (]) 14:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

== North Dakota ==

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe there will never be county-by-county results of the ND Republican Caucus because North Dakota is the only state in the union that does not require Voter Registration. This information is provided by http://www.nd.gov/sos/electvote/voting/vote-history.html and from Misplaced Pages's own Voter Registration article. I would suggest that the map be updated with the county lines removed and the state colored in for the only result we're sure of. Then perhaps a small little footnote below explaining why. (I do not know how to update the map)

Otherwise we're left at the end of this primary with a colorful map and North Dakota looking like a scene from Pleasantville. ] (]) 19:56, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
:What have voter registration to do with counting how many hands was raised or how many ballot casted in every caucus across the state? ] (]) 21:25, 10 March 2012 (UTC)
:: Sorry, my bad. I relied on a couple news articles to find out why Fox, CNN, and other networks weren't reporting county-by-county results. They were saying something about there being no voter registration. Looking further into the situation I'm finding that the North Dakota Republican Party releases results based on Legislative Districts, not Counties. http://www.northdakotagop.org/caucus/ is the results. Again, my bad for not looking at more official resources. All well, all that's hurt is my pride. ] (]) 00:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
:::The Green Papers are great with Republicans in the right column. ] (]) 03:18, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
::::Based on that map from NDGOP, it looks like Santorum won every county except Rollette, which was a Romney-Paul tie.--] (]) 16:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

== Who won Virgin Islands? ==

It seems to be a bit different opinion on who won the territory of Virgin Island. CNN, that normally jumps to the results to be first, are still processing. GP have uncommitted as winner with Paul second and Romney third, the same have DemConWatch (http://www.democraticconventionwatch.com/diary/5207/romney-did-not-win-usvi-ron-paul-did-romney-was-3rd). The New York Times have Romney as the winner, an he is if you count the votes his delegates recieved (one uncommitted switch to Romney). All 3 sources agrees in one thing: '''Paul didn't win the Virgin Islands''' - Sorry all Paul fans, nothing personal. But until there is more light on the situation and either the sources agree or we have a consesensus about what to do I am removing Virgin Islands from the winner colums. It is not very important since the delegatecount is hard and all agrees on that. ] (]) 13:35, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
:Just in from AP (via a google-search) "The Republican Party chairman in the U.S. Virgin Islands says Republican presidential front-runner Mitt Romney has won the territory’s GOP caucus. Chairman Herb Schoenbohm says Romney can count on seven delegates from the Virgin Islands. He already had three superdelegates before Saturday’s caucuses and he picked up three more in voting in St. Thomas and St. Croix. After the vote, an uncommitted delegate switched to Romney. Ron Paul got one delegate, and one delegate remains uncommitted. Residents of the U.S. Virgin Islands can participate in primaries but like residents of nearby Puerto Rico cannot vote in the general election." Indeed, ] (]) 15:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
::Yes, no one is arguing that this is the delegatecount and Romney won most delegates. But as all the other contests the one with the most popular vote "win" the state, not the one that actually wins most delegates. Like Iowa was a split, but the one with the most popular vote, even just a handfull, is declared the winner of the state. ] (]) 15:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
:::Except in those other states, there actually was a vote where hte caucus voters chose a president. This is not how the Virgin Islands do it. NO ONE voted for Ron Paul in the Virgin Islands. He had zero votes, just like Romney.
::::Warren Bruce Cole pledged to Romney after the vote totals so people did not vote his as Romney delegate. Paul recieved most votes, Romney won most delegates. Santorum also won most popular votes in Iowa despite he could have same amount of delegates as Romney and Paul. --] (]) 16:38, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::Actually uncommitted (in general elections known as '''nobody''' or '''none of above''') won the contest. That is part of the problem. ] (]) 17:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Actually, Mr. Bornholm, "Uncommitted" or "nobody" cannot win a contest; It would go to the first candidate who won, by popular vote, and that is Paul. This is America--You can't press "None Of The Above" in the polling booth on General Election day. Are you afraid of Ron Paul be given the credit for a win? I'm reversing your edit. ] (]) 17:39, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::::This is false. In many primary elections, especially in caucuses, Uncommitted is an absolutely valid choice. Wyoming selected an Uncommitted delegate this week, and so did the Virgin Islands. ] (]) 23:23, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Oh no, being an european I really dont care who will win this primary or the whole election. It will have no impact on my life what so ever if Obama, Romney, Santorum or indeed Paul was president of USA. In the spirit of the[REDACTED] you shouldnt edit something you are to close to emotionel, and I couldnt be farther away. In accordance with the norm of both general presidentiel election article and republican primary elections the territories dont count in states won though, nothing to do with Paul or not. The only article that put them in the infobox is the 2008 version, the rest leave all 5 out of the infobox. All articles put them at the bottom of the won list in the result table, but dont count them in the number and leave them totally out in the infobox. So whatever Paul have won or not, I think we should follow the wikepedia tradition, with both Paul and Romneys territorial winnings. ] (]) 17:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
::Sorry Jack, having trouble deciphering your English but I get the gist of what you're saying. I think the mere fact that the party chairman has declared Romney the winner should be the deciding factor in crediting this win. It should go back in the Romney column. I am a Ron Paul supporter, but that's the way I see it. Caucuses are not the same as primaries: vote totals don't matter so much as the decision of the party organization, and in this case it is in Romney's favor. -- ] ] (]) 20:31, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
:::I will try to accept my limited vocabulary and grammatical skills and choice my words more simple :) :)
:::For all Territories: Notice this article: ] John McCain 31 states won, territories dont count. Mike Huckabee 15 second places, terrioties dont count.
:::For all Territories: Notice the infobox in this article: ] together with most of the Republican primary articles. The Territories are not in the infobox at all.
:::For Virgin Islands: Notice these reliable sources ] and ] disagreeing.
:::For Virgin Islands: Delegates are legally bound if they declare themselve for a candidate, are we sure that is just the case before the voting starts?
:::I hope you understand my broken english. I am starting to understand why we sold you the islands for only 25 million dollars 96 years ago :) :) ] (]) 21:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
::::Very well, risking the ire of Paul supporters, I've placed VI back in the Romney column ''temporarily'' until the issue over who actually "won" can be resolved here. And Jack: your English is eminently better than my Danish, so don't sweat it. :p --] (]) 22:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
Add Virgin Isands to Ron Paul first place victories in the table on the page. ] (]) 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul didn't win anythiung. Unlike other caucuses, there was no candidate preference straw poll. It is an inacurate statement to say that ANYONE won the "popular vote" when not one single vote was cast for Ron Paul or Mitt Romey. The only reason why Ron Paul's delegates got more votes is because he had 6 and Romney had 3. Obviously many of Romney's supporters (who voted his 3 delegates as the top 3) picked three uncommitted delegates as their top choice.
Had Romney had even one more delegate, he would have had delegates with more combined votes. However, that would still not be a"popular vote" victory, since again, at no point did any voter at that caucus write down Ron Paul or Mitt Romney, or put a check next to either of their names. Wikipeia is about accuracy, and talkig about a popular vote that nevr took place is not accurate. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:That is a good point. With no strawpoll taken at the same caucus as the "real" voting (like the do it in Iowa) the only way to define a winner is by delegatecount - If a winner should be defined at all ] (]) 08:58, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
This qoute may be of interest (from the Virgin Islands Republican party (vigop.com)):
*PLEASE NOTE IN THE VI OUR RULES PROVIDE FOR THE ELECTION OF DELEGATES IN A PARTY CAUCUS. EVERY ONE WHO VOTES CAN CHOOSE DELEGATES (UP TO SIX) WHO MAY NOT NECESSARILY BE PLEDGED TO THE SAME PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE. SINCE GOVERNOR MITT ROMNEY HAD ONLY THREE CONVENTION DELEGATES RUNNING UNDER HIS NAME THAT GAVE VOTERS A CHOICE TO VOTE FOR OTHER COMMITTED OR NON-COMMITTED CANDIDATES. IT APPEARS THAT OUT OF RESPECT FOR CONGRESSMAN PAUL’S CAMPAIGN THERE WERE EXTRA VOTES TO GIVE TO OTHER CANDIDATES OR NON-COMMITTED CANDIDATES. ALTHOUGH DR. PAUL RECEIVED ONLY ONE DELEGATE, HIS TEAM RECEIVED UP TO THREE ALTERNATE DELEGATE SLOTS AND WILL BE WELL REPRESENTED IN OUR SMALL DELEGATION.
] (]) 12:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
:I think that also part can be important:
384 total cast:

*112 to Paul (29%) Won one delegate
*101 to Romney (26%) Won three delegates plus three RNC member pledge. (Picked up a uncommitted delegate after the balloting for a total of seven.)
*23 to Santorm (6%) No delegates
*18 to Gingrich (5%) No delegates
*130 Uncommitted (34%) Two delegates but one changed to Romney after the vote totals were announced

It looks they refer these results as results of "popular vote". Why would they otherwise present these numbers? It is also important to see the order. PS: To be clear. I am Czech citizen, not somebody who vote in U.S. elections. --] (]) 13:11, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think the confusion here stems from the fact that VI only has 9 delegates, and thus it is easy to ask them who they support. Meanwhile in Iowa and Nevada, there are thousands of county and—later—district delegates, so they cant be asked. Ron Pauls campaign asserts that he won the delegates in both states, despite losing both popular votes. And news Ive seen appears to indicate that they may be correct in their assertions! So thats why the media is reporting Ron Paul winning the VI popular vote, while Romney won the delegates. Its easy to determine the delegate total in VI, while it is not easy to determine that in bigger caucuses. Therefore, since the map is based on the popular vote, we should award VI to Paul (uncommitted makes no sense really). Perhaps we will have a second map, which shows what the delegations were, but thats kind of irrelevant because if this is brokered, then after the first round, they will switch.--] (]) 16:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
:It is a very small thing, but in VI the delegates that pledge themselve to an candidate before the voting are actually legally bound to their candidate. If you are elected delegate as uncommitted you are of course free to committed yourself to any candidate as all "superdelegates" are. So in the schedule table VI should actually have 4 delegates in the bound colum and 5 in the unbound (2 uncommitted and 3 RNC). 4 of these unbound have then committed to Romney, making his entry for VI to become 4 <small> (+3)</small> and one continues to be uncommitted. And of course one delegate for Paul. Am I right?
:about the brokered or open convention. To spice up things some state delegations are actually bound for the first two rounds, if not released by the candidate. All to keep us awake during an open convention ] ] (]) 17:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
A valid precedence came up on the result articles talkpage. I think it would be helpfull in our discussion. ] (]) 17:24, 12 March 2012 (UTC):
*Ron Paul won the most votes in the Virgin Islands, so he should be listed as the winner even if he got fewer delegates. See Nevada in the 2008 Democratic Primary - Obama got 13 delegates to Clinton's 12 even though Hillary won 51% of the vote. The map shows Nevada as a gold (Clinton) state. Smartyllama (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
:: At the time I wrote that, I did not realize "Uncommitted" received more votes than Paul. I think there are valid reasons to declare either "Uncommitted" or Ron Paul the winner, and I will have to think about which is better, but as this precedent shows, Romney is not the winner just because he received more delegates. ] (]) 19:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
:::Bottom Line: Uncommitted(1), Romney(7), Paul(1). Decision over, ] (]) 19:57, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
::::Oh yea I meant to mention the Nevada thing, but I couldnt remember when it occurred. The only reason this is debated is because of what I said. If the media hadnt been able to contact all 9 delegates, Ron Paul would be considered the uncontested winner. CES, dont be dismissive. This is a valid debate over whether we are counting popular vote or delegate votes. Its a real shame the Ron Paul campaign has to go thru this when they finally "won" a contest.--] (]) 07:02, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::I dont think the media had to contact the delegates. In contrast to Guam the VI delegates are legally bound by their presidentiel preferences. And it is the delegates that are on the ballot, not the candidates. (it was sort of an loophole caucus) If they are elected as uncommitted they of course can later pledge themselve just like the other unbound. But the rest are just as bound as all the other bound delegates. So right now VI have 4 bound delegates and 5 "unbound" (3 RNC and 2 Uncommmitted, the one have already pledge to Romney but could theoretical change if he likes). I have changed the informations in the Schedule Table to reflect this, so if I am wrong about this please say. ] (]) 09:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
:The winner of the overall primary is based on delegates, so surely the winner of individual states should be based on delegates. The popular vote effectively means nothing, it's just a nice little tool, the winner of a state should be based on delegates as this is a primary based on delegates not popular vote. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 03:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::Not to mention, the winner of a ''caucus'' is determined by the party organization, not by an unofficial vote count. The Republican Party of the United States Virgin Islands has unequivocally declared Romney the winner. If Iowa is going to be placed in the Santorum column based on a declaration from the Iowa Republican Party - despite the party's admission that there was no way to know ''who'' the real winner of the vote was - then Virgin Islands should be switched back to Romney. --] ] (]) 05:58, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
I am glad to see that Paul is marked as the winner because of popular vote totals. If Romney were marked as the winner because of delegates, we would then have to consider that all states in which delegates have not truly been selected yet as ties. <B>—]</B> <sup>]</sup><sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex;">]</sub> 08:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
:'''And the map looks better with a little yellow for Ron Paul — give him something!''' ] (]) 14:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
I think we should continue coloring states/territories based on who won the popular vote or preference poll. But for caucuses where no preference poll was held, like the Virgin Islands, we should color based on who won the most delegates. You can't take the delegate vote and say that's the presidential preference vote. Only three delegates that were running were pledged to Mitt Romney, so it's possible some Romney supporters voted for uncommitted delegates, especially the uncommitted delegate that pledged to Romney after the vote. If you REALLY want to decide the winner based on the delegate vote, then Uncommitted won, not Ron Paul. --] (]) 17:06, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
::You're right, this is absolute lunacy. To add up the vote totals for delegates who lost and from that claim Ron Paul "won" the total vote is akin to saying Al Gore won the 2000 election because he got more votes. Again, I'm a Ron Paul supporter, but this continual campaign by Paul supporters to overstate his wins (even when technically they're not wins at all) is ridiculous. --] ] (]) 17:23, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

May I say it is ridiculous to use so much time on so few votes. In total, 384 persons (according to GP) voted in the VI caucus. For all those that are having a small edit-war in the starting paragrafs on this article: Do you really think that the Virgin Islands are going to survive in the opening paragrafs at all? In May no one will care. If you want to use time on something else than just having a bit of political fun editing a few lines and the letting others erase them you could write the '''proper story in the mid-March section''' - Where it actually would have a change of surviving beyond the next 10 primaries. ] (]) 21:14, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
:It is even more ridiculous that that. There were not even 384 people voting. Since each one got to vote 6 times, those 384 votes were placed by just 64 people. And of those 64 people, it is clear that Romney had the most supporters. (He had at least 35 people voting for Romney delegates while Paul had at most 29.) Had he had just ONE more delegate for a total of 4 to Paul's 6, he would have "won" this non-existent "popular vote" and then the Ron Paul supporters would be complaining that media was calling it a popular vote.
::Yes! Agree with Jack. If you want further discussion, go over to the Virgin Island WP page where the last sentence is not sourced properly and fix it there. How do you get there, you ask? Go down in our Table to 'Virgin Islands' and over to the 7th column "Type-of-Race" and click on "Caucuses". That will take you over to ] where you can make sure it is correct. Be sure to put in newspaper and other references since the last sentence of the last section supports the Ron Paul popular vote (not sourced) and the rest of the article explains how it ''really'' works with districts. Sometimes we need a civics lesson, which would apply to the US Electoral College also. Hope this helps; Happy Editing; Thanks for valiant efforts, ] (]) 21:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
:::{{Done}} SchutteGod + Jack Bornholm + Ravensfire + Bondegezou + other Misplaced Pages editors added ref. ] (]) 13:18, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
'''BOTTOM LINE: "Article XIII Sec.1. states, "The method of selecting delegates to the Republican National Convention shall be determined by the Territorial Committee." ''' ] (]) 23:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
:::Further discussion continues at ] ] (]) 22:29, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

== Delegate Table sorting issues ==

The delegate table does not sort correctly on several fields:
#'''Date''' handles hyphenated dates incorrectly. Dates need to be reformatted, or the sorting button needs to be removed.
#'''Secured Delegates''' for each candidate is massively wonky. Looks like it is sorting alphanumeric? 9, 8, 7, 6, 50, 43, 4, 38, etc. Numbers need reformatting, or the sorting button needs to be removed.
] (]) 17:25, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
:Thanks for pointing it out; It is best when things work; WP readers need to see our best! . . . Not that anyone would want it, but I saved "The List" if it is easier. (See the first section in TALK here.) More likely, the excellent editors (my compliments) who maintain "The Table" can fix it to work. ] (]) 20:12, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
::I have done a little work on the schedule table, but I cant figure out how to solve this problem. I hope another editor can help us out. ] (]) 21:02, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

The only columns that readers would want to sort have to do with delegate count, now explained just above the Table. ] (]) 04:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
:Personally I always sort the state column, to find a certain state. ] (]) 17:12, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
::Yes, then 'total delegates' (click twice); then 'bound delegates'; then 'unbound delegates (click twice for all columns with delegates); and then back to 'Date'. ] (]) 22:47, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

== Schedule Table - Delegate allocation ==

In the California section above this comment was posted:
*When both the CD and AL are the same, it should be written twice. It costs the table nothing, and is clearer for the reader. When there is no CD allocation, the table should say so: "Winner-take-all (AL) - no CD allocation." There is a bit of redundancy in this, but with the benefit of far greater clarity for the reader. ] (]) 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
<s>I have made two different suggestions in my sandbox ].<s> One with one colum in the old delegate allocation and one with two colums. <s>I just made a little sample of each. Take a look and comment on what you think.<s> My worry is that the schedule table keeps getting wider and wider. ] (]) 11:34, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks, nice job. The single column looks better, I think, and doesn't widen the entire table. (Your point about width is well-taken). ] (]) 00:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
:::{{Done}}. ] (]) 19:10, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

== Ron Paul popular vote in the U.S. Virgin Islands==

Ron Paul won the Virgin Islands, not Mitt Romney as it says in the sidebar. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 17:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Dear 70.24.167.8 please read three sections up. Paul wins the popular vote and nets one delegate; Romney nets seven delegates; and one will decide at convention. Thanks for contribution, ] (]) 20:03, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
::NOTE: Under our "delegate Table", footnote g says, "g: Delegates from the '''Virgin Islands''' are legally bound if they are elected as pledged to a candidate. ] (]) 20:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
'''For now, let Ron Paul (indicated in yellow on the map) keep Virgin Islands. Others won't mind.''' ] (]) 15:02, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul won the Virgin Islands. Period. The media has consistently gone by popular vote, NOT "delegates." The general public does NOT understand/care about "delegates" when it comes to win/lose. See http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/03/15/rick-santorum-ron-paul-iowa-delegates_n_1347743.html where there is insider speculation that RICK SANTORUM or RON PAUL will get a plurality/majority of the delegates in Iowa, for example. Even though the AP count gives Santorum 13 delegates and Romney 12, that won't end up being the exact numbers, and no one in the general public cares, because Santorum won the popular vote and thus won Iowa.

Example:
The Michigan Republican Party voted to break a delegate tie and awarded 16 delegates to Mitt Romney and 14 to Rick Santorum. Before that, the delegates were split DEAD EVEN, 15-15. Even Romney supporters in Michigan said the change in delegates was unfair to Santorum, but delegates are decided SEPARATELY from a straw poll or popular vote. ALL media outlets declared Romney the winner in Michigan although in delegates it was a TIE until the GOP switched things up.

The same logic applies for the Virgin Islands. Ron Paul garnered the most VOTES, whether through committed delegates or directly to the candidate, it doesn't matter. The people that voted in their preference chose Ron Paul's name, OR a person directly representing Ron Paul which is in essense the same thing. In Alabama, voters choose their presidential candidate THEN choose delegates representing that candidate. The V.I. is just a reverse of Alabama. People choose delegates representing their candidate to "vote" for their candidate. If you're voting for official delegates for Ron Paul, and Ron Paul's delegates get the plurality of the votes, Ron Paul wins because that is considered the "popular vote."

Also, Time magazine, the Washington Times, Yahoo, WHNT-TV, the Huffington Post, and various other media outlets are all reporting a Ron Paul win. And the Times is a neoconservative newspaper, definitely not pro-Ron Paul at all. You can't have it both ways; you can't say Romney wins V.I. because he won the delegates unless you're gonna wait until delegates in states where you've declared Romney the winner are actually decided at state conventions. Romney may or may not end up winning the delegates in those states. Let's use ONE STANDARD here, and that's the popular vote. Thank you. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 20:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:You are right, popular vote ''doesn't'' count in the final analysis, except in ''influencing'' delegate selection. Virgin Islands is a good example, Republican leaders going with Romney. That is why leaders are chosen. ] (]) 04:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
::Further discussion continues at ] ... ] (]) 22:27, 19 March 2012 (UTC)
:::There WAS NO popular vote. Period. Trying to compare it to caucuses in states where the voters vote for a candidate and delegates are allocated proportionally is not a valid comparison. Ron Paul recieved ZERO votes in the Virgin Islands. So how could he win anything? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
::::Take the TALK conversation over to ] where you can notice two things: (1) the people there decide themselves how they will vote, and they voted for who would be delegates, not the Republican candidates. So it was up to the delegates voted in to say; and (2) our Misplaced Pages article calls it a 'caucus'. So be it, ] (]) 21:37, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
WP editors/readers who think there was media bias in reporting Ron Paul's popular vote win will be interested to know there is a Misplaced Pages page on Media Bias. FYI, I have reference our TALK discussion in ''their'' talk section: ] Take a look, ] (]) 00:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

== Where's the SECTION after "Super Tuesday" ? ==

We used to have a section after the now last section, "Super Tuesday". I don't think "Super Tuesday" should be the last section. Didn't we used to have a section reflecting important ''next elections''? People can see the schedule in the Table(s), but the article does not end properly with the results of Super Tuesday. ] (]) 20:45, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
:{{Done}}. But we need some text about more than just numbers in the super tuesday section. And we need a start on the Mid-March section with Kansas and the island caucuses. ] (]) 21:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
::Thanks, nicely done! It's good to list them by descending size. I'll look at the respective states (WP page of each). ] (]) 21:42, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
:::For each of the states and provinces in our Table, I have added a reference to Green Papers (showing a lot, including the order of the races.) We expect reader to 'drill down' for the details in the states and provinces, and we don't plan to include all details in this Article. '''Green Papers are great!''' * ] (]) 15:14, 15 March 2012 (UTC) "Let them 'drill down' for details."

== Ron Paul v Mitt Romney in Guam and Virgin Islands, popular vote vs delegate count ==

We need to devise a way to reflect this. My understanding is Paul won the popular vote in Guam 29-26% vs romney, but romney has convinced the 6 uncommitted delegates to join him. I'd suggest that the map reflect a winning of Ron Paul with an asterisks showing that the uncommitted candidates go to Romney as they can change their mind.

Now I am uncertain because it seems that these small places are changing the vote talleys.

http://www.2012presidentialelectionnews.com/2012/03/romney-wins-us-virgin-islands-northern-marianas-and-guam/

Any how it Seems that Romney did not win the popular vote in virgin islands and Paul was the winner. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 10:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

: Your understanding is wrong. Ther WASN'T ANY popular vote. Ron Paul received ZERO votes, just like Mitt Romney. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->

:Romney got all the votes in Guam according to GP ] (]) 12:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
:Yes, reading the Green Papers is always a good idea. They have understandable details and rapid results. ] (]) 12:35, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

== Candidate Photos ==

Not to be sounding a bit nit-picky, but is it not odd that out of the 4 pictures used to represent the candidates, one of them (Mitt Rommey) is an official picture from "Mitt Rommey Media", whilst the other three do not come from official sources, but from a semi-professional source? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 13:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:Feel fre to find better pictures, as long as they dont violated copyright laws. ] (]) 15:53, 13 March 2012 (UTC)
::The four portait-pictures (and for other candidates also) all look good to me. The photos all favor those running. I think this is important. ] (]) 12:33, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
:::Does anyone have a semi-pro picture of Romney in a suit? I think their wardrobes should be equal and the images should catch them "in real life"--an official photo is more staged and may be giving Romney vain edge. Then again, it's Misplaced Pages--I don't know how many peoples minds are being made up HERE based on a couple of images. Hopefully people come here for facts and summarized results. --] (]) 15:21, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::Since you feel it is important, (and affects likely voters as they read WP), and since I said it is important to have great photos, I asked my wife, not telling her what your complain was. I told her that (1) the lighting on Santorum looks better; (2) they all look rather great to me; (3) they are all smiling; (4) the 'O' and 'P' surrounding Ron Paul reminds me of Opey on TV. . . . Then I told her what you said about the Romney campaign, and she said, "I don't think so. His is the only one whose teeth are not showing. Team Romney would have done better!" So there you have it, ] (]) 21:25, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::Here are some things I like about the WP set of four portraits. The ties are primary colors: red, yellow, and blue, with Romney and Santorum wearing the blue and red ties. They make a 'V' like in DaVinci Code—It's great. Gingrich appears in gold/yellow tie, and he looks as good as he could. Each expression is appropriate: Gingrich the statesman; Romney the optimistic economist; Santorum the man-of-God family values man; and Ron Paul, the happy camper. Actually, the picture of Ron Paul is much better on the Puerto Rico page, with the American flag, which would be a much better addition to our favorite site here. Check it out: ] I vote to change the Opey picture, ] (]) 23:14, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::I wouldnt object to the photo from the Pouerto Rico article. I think it is his current official congressional photo (he being the only one in office right now, he is also the only one with a current official photo). But I actually like the Paul photo we have right now. I think he look more energized, the official photo is a bit to much old man. ] (]) 12:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::::Agreed. But it has the flag. ] (]) 15:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC) (And do we like O—P?)
:::::::::The photos as they were looked fine to me.--] (]) 20:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
::::::::::Me too — just TALKing to reader 130.88.182.77 and everyone WATCHing. ] (]) 13:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC) (PS: They have not been changed.)
:::::::::::And having them different (here and Puerto Rico page) makes for interesting variety. ] (]) 13:45, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

== Super Tuesday and Mid-March sections need expansion ==

It would be good to have a few line telling the story behind the numbers. Where did the candidate campaign most before supertuesday? What happened with Santorums filing delegate slates in Ohio (the 4 uncommitted delegates he "won"), What did the campaign do after supertuesday and what was the whole Virgin Island thing about?<br>
If anyone could write a few lines to make the whole story, not just numbers it would be great. And if you find one or two nice references that would be fantastic. Thank you to all the hardworking editors that contribute to this page ] (]) 11:17, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
:In my humble opinion, the three key words in the first sentence are, 'a few lines'—not to expand too much. ] (]) 12:29, 14 March 2012 (UTC) I.e., Not too much verbiage.

== Anticipating the voting in Puerto Rico (before you ask or complain) ==

Just so you know, these rules will apply on Sunday 18 March 2012: "20 of 23 of Puerto Rico's delegates to the Republican National Convention are bound to the presidential contenders based on the island-wide vote. If a Presidential candidate receives 50% or more of the vote, that candidate receives all 20 delegates. Otherwise, the delegates are allocated proportionally. (The threshold is apparently 15%. Rounding rules are not known.). Delegates are directly elected on the primary ballot and are bound for the 1st ballot at the national convention. In addition, 3 party leaders, the National Committeeman, the National Committeewoman, and the chairman of the Puerto Rico's Republican Party, will attend the convention as unpledged delegates by virtue of their position." ] (]) 22:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC):
:Then, the table (saying that Puerto Rico is WTA) is wrong?--] (]) 12:56, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
::I'll let others say; "It's all so confusing"; what's 'WTA'? I was just quoting Green Papers. ] (]) 15:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
:::"Winner-take-all"--] (]) 18:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
::::Change it to Proportional (c) ] (]) 20:28, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::If a candidate gets over 50% then he gets all 20 delegates (plus, probably the three leaders). If not, then the delegates are divide among those that get over 15% (or some 'threshold'.) This is in the Green Papers for Puerto Rico: "If a Presidential candidate receives 50% or more of the vote, that candidate receives all 20 delegates. Otherwise, the delegates are allocated proportionally." I'm sure you all knew this. ] (]) 04:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC) This should be borne out Sunday, 20MAR2012.
::::::I didn't. So it is proportional with the foodnote about 50%. Good thing to get the mistakes sorted out. But the whole process is made more confusing by some states chancing the rules from 2011 to now. Well, as long as they don't change them after the voting is over, like Michigan did :) :) we're OK. ] (]) 09:43, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::::Thanks, Jack. You are doing an amazing job! Some Misplaced Pages editors from the various states coming up to their Republican primary elections should join in to assist. They can also go to their respective state WP web pages and expand. Some have, but some state pages have just a beginning. ] (]) 13:52, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

== Dump AP projections ==

The AP projections have been dodgy from the start. Now, the Iowa Republican Party is saying that they are an absolute joke: "they don't know what they're talking about". Further, DemConWatch has stated that AP is unreliable regarding superdelegates. I propose that we dump all AP delegate projections per ]. Its one thing to be unbiased and use all sources. Its another thing to use completely unreliable sources without any legitimate basis.--] (]) 20:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
: I agree. They appear to be misleading at best. --] (]) 21:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
::I guess we are talking about the projections in the Convention State table, right? Since that is the only place we use AP in this article. It is widely used in the result article, but not here. The projections in the convention table is meant to show how different, unreliable and a absolute joke all the projections are. Since everybody seems to believe in different newsmedias projections I thought it would be nice to show them against each other and let people judge for themselve.
::the projection in the result section is from The Green Paper. ] (]) 22:00, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
:::I would leave the CNN and GP projections as those are still deemed reliable. Projections are not the antichrist. They are ok to have as long as they are listed as projections. Yes people want them, but the AP projections are clearly abject nonsense.--] (]) 07:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
::::I wouldnt say that projections are antichrist itself, that might be a tiny bit to harsh a wording {{smiley}}. But it is important not to take them as the gospel (to stay in the liturgy). If we are dumping the AP projection it might be an idea to dump both convention tables and incorperated the events in the big contest schedule. It would be 16 more rows, that is all. And we would have all the info in one table. ] (]) 17:08, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::Since there are no objections and we still have two sources, I am going to proceed to excise the AP projections.--] (]) 02:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

== Question about "Uncom." ==

The last column in the table at ] is "Uncom." - what exactly does that stand for? I presume "Uncommitted", but what does that mean? Immediately above the table it says there are "3 uncommitted delegates", yet this column shows 25 for Iowa alone (33 more for Colorado, etc.). <p>I think we need a better description of what that means and how many there are. --] (]) 21:04, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

:True, 3 bound delegates have been ELECTED as uncommitted so far. The numbers in the Uncom. colum is all the delegates that have not committed themselve or have been pledged to a candidate. Maybe because the primary where they are allocated (bound delegates) or the convention where they are elected (unbound delegates) is still in the future. And it is the colum for all the real uncommitted elected delegates. (right now only 3 plus huntsmans 2). The unbound partyleaders (RNC) are in small brackets so it is easy to keep track of them too. In other words: It is the colum for all the delegates still out there to "win" for the candidates.
:I think you are right, this colum needs a better title. But what? It have to be short. ] (]) 22:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
::'UnCmtd' ? ] (]) 02:03, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
:::I prefer Uncom or Uncommitted. We have a problem tho. There is a difference between Uncommitted and Unpledged. VI elected 2 uncommitted delegates, while Iowa has 28 or whatever unpledged delegates that havent even been elected yet.--] (]) 07:53, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
::::That is not really a problem when it comes to this collum. All "free" delegates can committed themselve, that being elected uncommitted or supporters of one of the candidates elected at a convention. The colum is simply to show how many delegates that are still on the market so to speak. ] (]) 09:39, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::While it is true that they are all free to vote for whom they choose, I do think a distinction should be made. The truly uncommitted delegates like the Virgin Island delegates are far more likely to vote for their own personal choice than unbound delegates in states because the VI delegates were not expected to represent the will of the people. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::::: Only those elected as uncommitted (2 delegates) are unbound, the rest is legally bound. And one of those felt that he best represented the will of the people by committing to Romney straight after his election. ] (]) 12:15, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

== Talk page archival problems ==

There has been problems with Mizabot for a long time now. Would it be an idea to switch to ]? I am not sure how to do it and still keep the archive pages in the right order. ] (]) 22:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
:Whats the problem?--] (]) 07:54, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
::it is not working. The server from where Mizabot are operating are down and have been so for a month or so. The User have been runing it manually from time to time, but are continuing to having problems. See the Mizabot talkpage for informations. ] (]) 09:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
:::Oh. Weird. We can switch then if you know how.--] (]) 02:24, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

== Explaining the table to Misplaced Pages readers by adding a line at the top of the Table. ==

Someone removed my improvement. Let's talk. ] (]) 13:33, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
:I have never seen such information listed in article, but maybe i havent been looking for them. Does anyone know if there is a wiki policy on the subject? I have retrived the improvement (since I was the one removing it and adding uncom. explaning in the lines above). This is it:

::'''For each state or territory, click on the 'Contest Type' to go to its Misplaced Pages page for details. The last column here lists uncommitted delegates'''
::'''To sort in descending order the total, bound, and unbound delegates, click twice on the triangles above the columns.'''

:If there should be such info in that article the lines are fine. ] (]) 16:59, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

:Hi, Jack. Thanks. I had it stored also but wanted a 'straw poll' which might not be necessary. Let me make some points:
* We are told to "be bold" in Misplaced Pages improvements; sure, there are 'rules' but who leads in improving the rules?
* We don't know what the rules and precedences are since they are endless, but imho Common Sense rules !
* Not all Misplaced Pages readers are familiar with how such tables work; this helps them with only two lines.
* Even if they know how the table can sort, who knew you had to click on the 7th column to drill down to a state?
* We note double-clicking delegate-count columns will display the table in descending order (large to small).
* I didn't know you could click on the 7th column "Contest Type" until I experimented.
* At first, I thought you would click on 'State' to get there but that takes you to the main WP page for the state.
* That's very nice for Territories which I have learned about now; Most people know about the states, but not worldwide.
'''* My main point is that we need to advertise at the top that you can drill down to WP state 2012 races.'''
* Another advantage is that we can explain the header of the last column (that we have been discussing).
* I think this is better than explaining under the Table where new and casual readers will not see it.
:Thanks for consideration, ] (]) 21:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)<br>
'''For each state, click on the 'Contest type' to go to its Misplaced Pages page for details. The last column here lists uncommitted delegates.'''<br>
'''To sort in descending order the total, bound, and unbound delegates, click twice on the triangles above the columns.'''
::{{Done}}. I waited a while for comments, then put up the next 'draft' version<br>—looks good to me, ] (]) 22:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

== Current/Latest news we can use in the Article ==

'''"Romney wins in Puerto Rico while focused on Illinois"'''. . . <br> “Romney overwhelmingly wins Puerto Rico's primary, while he and rival Santorum face crucial days ahead as each strives to collect delegates needed to become the inevitable GOP presidential candidate.” FYI, ] (]) 02:31, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a good reference and has the delegate count (as does the Green Papers) for Romney and Santorum in Illinois, ] (]) 05:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC) This reference has great graphics and stats! You should take a look. Statistics include a state-by-state graphic and annotation of total delegates for the four hopefuls. '''It looks to me like Romney is half way to having the requisite 1,144 delegates (needed to win the Republican nomination); and that he also has half of the delegates to this point, (pledged+unpledgedRNC): Romney(562), Santorum(249), Gingrich(137), Paul(69).''' So that is 562 delegates for Romney, and 455 for "Not Romney", (as some people say). PS: If there is a 'comma-fault', is there also a 'semicolon-fault' ? ] (]) 14:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

From time to time, the ] via GOP.com will put out their official delegate count, to date. Here is the latest I can find (for March 9th) ] (]) 02:36, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

== Territories in the Result section ==

Right now all the territories are in the resultsection in 1st, 2nd and 3rd place. But this is a bit of fictionally writing. According to the Samoa caucus Misplaced Pages article there was no formal vote taken, so there can be no popular winner. Who won Virgin Islands? That is best not discussed further. Guam didnt have a 2nd or 3rd since all elected delegates supports Romney. And in no of the small territories was there a strawpoll of any kind. So no one really won the populare vote. May I suggest that we either
*Remove all the territories from the resultsection and write about each of them in the midmarch section Or
*Remove all but Pouerto Rico. PR had a proper primary and sends 23 delegates. Or
*Leave things as they are.
I personally vote for the only keeping PR. Like Real Clear Politicis does it (http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_vote_count.html] ] (]) 15:15, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

:The RCP table shows the popular vote which, in the Virgin Islands case, is really hard to determine. Voters didn't vote for a candidate, they voted for up to 6 delegate who could either declare for a candidate or remain undecided. There was not "Voter A prefers Paul, Voter B prefers Romney, Voter C prefers Santorum" type of vote, making the notion of a popular vote difficult at best. If you look at RCP's , they do list the territories there.
::It's a good question you raise though. There are various tables in the article that list the popular vote - should there be a mix of popular vote and delegates earned, with different indicators for candidates to win each? Likewise, if a state has mixed results like that, should the graphs show the state won by two different colors to indicate popular vote vs delegate count? <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 15:50, 20 March 2012 (UTC)
:But the point that was being made is that some territories DIDN'T HAVE a popular vote. In those cases, there is no reason to have two colors for different winners. You can't win something that never took place. As much as a certain candidate's supporters want to believe otherwise, the ONLY reason that candidates pledged delegates got more combined votes is becuase he had 6 delegates to take all 6 votes that the voters were allowed to cast while the candidate that got the most delegates only had 3. (After all....the Knicks score more points in 6 games than the Miami Heat score in 3. That doesn't make the Knicks a better or even higher scoring team.) It was clear to every single person who was at the caucus that there were more supporters of Romney at the Virgin Islands. That is the reason why the uncommitted delegate pledged to Romney after the vote. He KNEW that almost all of the votes he received were from Romney supporters who had no other Romney delegates to vote for, so he felt ethically obliged to pledge his support to Romney. But again...when there was not a popular vote, mentioning a popular vote winner makes Misplaced Pages inaccurate.
::This is not about the map, maybe your comments should be in the discussion in the maps talkpage? ] (]) 05:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
:::There's a maps TALK page? I learn something about WP every day! ] (]) 13:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

* My vote is leave things as they are. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 00:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
* Ditto That, at least for now. I like seeing a bit of yellow on the map. Keep yellow for Virgin Islands (popular vote). ] ] (]) 13:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
* Yea, leave it as is. This is nitpicking.--] (]) 02:25, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

== Understanding the Green Papers ==

Here is what I understand about Louisiana: '''Louisiana''' allocates 20 delegates in their March 24 primary election and 18 delegates with April 28 district caucuses; they also have 8 unbound delegates for a total of 46 delegates. ] (]) 23:30, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

== Missouri popular vote ==

Since we are listing the "states won" by popular vote, Missouri should be counted for Santorum. The primary was non-binding, but so were straw polls in the caucus states. And the Missouri caucuses , so the only popular vote was the February primary. --] (]) 15:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
:Agreed ] (]) 21:44, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
::In addition, based on my research of the caucus results, it appears that Santorum wouldve won a caucus straw poll anyway. I think we can safely award it to him. 40 counties have reported results, which has a MoE of ±12.57. Santorum won 35% of the counties, Paul won 21.25%. Altho this is within the margin of error now that I think about it. But according to this , Santorum has a 81% chance of being ballot leader, if Im using it correctly.--] (]) 22:23, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I also agree - Unless we start showing half-blank with slashed lines for Maine or any of the other states where the delegate winner won't be known until the state convention then it makes no sense for Missouri either. Santorum was the definite winner there. -] (]) 23:30, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

I also noticed that Missouri isn't shown at all on the county results page. Again, I fail to understand the logic here...Most of the caucus states have a straw poll (the results of which are released the same day) and a more long and drawn out delegate selection process. The only difference with Missouri is that the staw-poll part is a separate event from the caucus and the caucus itself has no straw-poll of its own. So if we're going with the straw-poll/popular result numbers for every other state then we shouldn't treat Missouri any different simply because their straw poll was on a different day than the start of the caucus process. -] (]) 23:47, 24 March 2012 (UTC)
:Not sure what youre talking about, but there were new straw polls on the caucus day (not in every county however). The primary results were meaningless.--] (]) 00:31, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
::Well, according to the state party: ''"“Unlike many other caucus states, there will not be a straw poll attached to the caucus,” the memo said. “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'''.”"'' So, the state party will not declare a winner of the caucuses. Thus the Febuary primary was the only contest, where a winner was declared, and that winner was Santorum. So, either we color the state map and the county map (as he won every county in the primary) with Santorum's color or we leave them grey or grey-striped ''in aeternum'', which would make no sense. --] (]) 02:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
:::It doesn't make sense to still have Missouri striped. The caucuses are over and the state party has said that it will announce no winner from them, since they didn't hold straw polls. So the only vote held on presidential preference was in February. --] (]) 14:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
::::Well the state party can say armageddon is upon us, but the facts may be different. What they meant is that no straw polls were mandated. Several counties did in fact take straw polls. Others had the slates announce which side they were supporting. Thats where the county data is from. The primary is not a straw poll. Its a monkey poll that means nothing and shouldnt even be used for anything really, but is included here because it does have official Missouri standing (altho not from MOGOP).

::::As for the county results page, what are you talking about Helvetica? There is no county results page. Only a results page, which I do need to add the caucus county map to. I wonder if well get district results map from every caucus state. Then we could have a district map.--] (]) 14:45, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

:::::Misplaced Pages's reporting on election results must be based on official data, not unreliable and incomplete hearsay. According to the state GOP such data do not exist of the caucus winners. The Missouri GOP does not acknowledge any winner in the caucuses. The only official winner of a popular vote in Missouri is Santorum on the basis of the primary, which was an official event, regardless of your personal opinions about it. --] (]) 16:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

I've taken the liberty of editing the county results map, although I'm not sure if I've broken upload rules or not. I'm new to editing on Misplaced Pages and successfully replaced the file on the results page but I think I accidentally removed the revision history. This is the file that I made, if there are any changes anyone thinks should be made to it I'm up for suggestions. Also, I'm unable to edit it on the main primary page as since I'm a new user and the article is semi protected there are restrictions, but it is changed on the results page.
http://en.wikipedia.org/File:Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results_by_county,_2012_(corrected)-2.png
--] (]) 11:19, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:It looks really good to me. But instead of starting a new map file would you be able to update the '''File:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2012 (corrected).png'''? I dont think that is semiprotected. By updating this file with your work it would appear in all the article using this map. ] (]) 12:28, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I tried changing it last night but it appears to be semiprotected. I was able to change it on the results page but then someone reverted it without stating why. --] (]) 19:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

== Maps ==

Well I can now edit the PNG and SVG maps, so if the other editors dont get to it first, just let me know on my talk page. is the editor I use for SVG, which anyone can do online. Its pretty easy to use. On that note, the nationwide and Missouri maps are now updated based on the caucus results I was able to dig up. =D --] (]) 01:33, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
:It's not consistent to apply a different standard to Missouri than to all other states. We have, for example, colored Iowa's counties on the basis of the preferential vote, not on basis of delegate allocation. The Missouri GOP (which is the definitive authority on the issue) has said that there were no straw polls, and that it does not release any data concerning the winner of the caucuses.(source, also see quote in the section above.) Thus any data you "dug up" must be unofficial and unreliable. The February primary remains the only official preferential vote with a declared winner both statewide and by county. It was non-binding, but so were straw polls in most of the caucus states as well. We can't use a different standard for one state. Besides, having most counties as grey gives the wrong impression that there were no votes cast. --] (]) 03:06, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
::Great job on learning the way around maps. Since the Missouri GOP wanted to make this weekends caucuses not about the presidential race it will be hard to find even unofficial numbers for all counties. All delegates to the CD and State conventions are unbound of any presidential preferences and many caucuses may have followed the lead from the leadership and not even discussed it. I too think the best think to do is to use the old strawpoll from the nonbinding primary. Not perfect but that is the best numbers to come out of missouri. Check out the reference in the contest tables, Missouri row to learn more. ] (]) 10:59, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
:::No different standard was applied to Missouri. The primary effectively didnt exist. It doesnt mean anything and shouldnt be used at all, if we have to pick one. The Missouri GOP can say what it wants, but many of them did take straw polls. Others made clear who the delegate slates supported. Everything I dug up is perfectly reliable since journalists who were there recorded the results. As for the gray, a note can be added.--] (]) 14:38, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
::::Yes, a different standard was applied. At the moment the winner in caucus states like Iowa, Washington and Kansas, is indicated by the solid color of the popular vote winner on the state map, and the county map is colored on the basis of the straw poll. In most caucus states the straw poll was non-binding, do you claim that those straw polls did not exist? Do you want to grey stripe most of the other caucus states as well? And should their county maps be scrapped too? Why should Missouri be the only exception? You might think that the Missouri primary didn't exist, but the state party disagrees with you. And I think the Missouri GOP is a more reliable authority in this matter than you. I don't understand why we should use unofficial and incomplete results not recognized by the state party instead of official and complete results. --] (]) 16:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
'''To keep the map discussion in one place, lets have it on the county maps talkpage: ]''' ] (]) 19:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

== Louisiana ==

Shouldn't Louisiana be striped since it still has a caucus that decides over half their delegates?
] (]) 04:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
:Will there be taken a strawpoll at the caucuses coming later? ] (]) 11:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
::Good point. Yea it should be.<small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 14:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC) </span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned -->
::According to the Misplaced Pages article on the there was no straw poll, but I don't know, whether they still have the same rules. But in any case, in the , LA is solidly colored with Huckabee's color, as he won the primary, although McCain ended up with more delegates. --] (]) 16:32, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

'''The state map are used in different articles. It would be good to have discussions about this map only at one place - its own talkpage: ]''' ] (]) 19:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


== Delegate Vote Map for Presidential Nomination at the Republican National Convention ==
==Is this[REDACTED] page run by Goldman Sachs as well??? ==
How can the page show ron paul with so few delegates? several soruces like this one http://www.stltoday.com/news/local/metro/ron-paul-supporters-dominate-gop-caucuses-in-st-louis-jackson/article_4c7977d4-75e0-11e1-858e-001a4bcf6878.html say "Paul's backers won all 36 delegates" in 1 of several caucuses (remember this is just 1)


::I had been thinking of putting together an Info-box that detailed the vote by state at the Roll-Call for the Presidential Nomination, but quickly realized it would prove too unwieldy to put together without overly stretching the page once it was opened. Therefore, I decided to run something of a test, and put together the map you see below. The only real issue I had was the votes for Huntsman, Bachmann, and Roemer, given they had not been given their own color codes, so I simply threw in some. Tell me what you lot think, and how it would be best to implement it into the article(s) should it be decided to do so. --] (]) 14:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)
I am assuming a few select group of people have "made up" rules on what delegates should be counted(i.e only the ones from winner take all states)


]
p.s i am not a US citizen i live in england, so excuse me if i made some mistake about US politics--] (]) 19:48, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
::The delegates in this source is not National Convention Delegates. It is delegates from the caucus to the next political level in the Missouri GOP system. The entire state delegation to the national convention is 52 delegates from Missouri. this article: ] explains how the whole primary system works. Very interesting. ] (]) 22:18, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
:As I understand, the infobox shows only bound delegates. That's because there are so many varying estimates of actual delegates, it would be hard to justify picking one estimate over the others. --] (]) 19:53, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
::"As I understand, the infobox shows only bound delegates", which gold man sachs employee decided only bound delegates should be on the info box. was there consensus for this?--] (]) 20:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
:::I don't know, maybe you should call Goldman Sachs's customer service and ask them? Be sure to tell us how that turns out. --] (]) 20:20, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
:::You ADMIT you aren't from the US and have no idea what you are talking about. Then you go on to prove it to the world.] (]) 07:08, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:Read the whole article. It explains the primary procedures and the difference betwin bound and unbound delegates. Very informative actually, good to use a little time reading. Different counts are avaible. If you are even more interested go to the result article with even more indeep informations. ] (]) 19:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


'''I think it is fantastic!''' Excellent work—it provides encyclopedic insights. Very appropriate for Misplaced Pages. It should go at the very end of the article, just after the current ending two map presentations, and before the "See also" section. It could be labeled "Final voting at convention roll call". Of course, there would be a legend (for candidates by color) and I would like to see the font smaller for the numbers in circles, and smaller circles. It will be a tremendous addition to a legendary article. To me, it makes a summation of the entire article. The legend could be to the right of SC, GA, and Florida. ] (]) 15:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)
==Fraud: America is becoming more and more like North Korea?==
Evidence: , . Why is the word fraud not mentioned once in this article? Its been noted in the media and even with video proof that there was fraud. like what happened in maine, missouri?--] (]) 20:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)


Ariostos, a legend would help. Do you favor the larger circles and font for the numbers as they are now? Or could they be smaller? ] (]) 02:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
-{{cn}} <span style="color:#FF2400">'''Hot Stop'''</span><sup>''']]]'''</sup> 20:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
::source, reality check: , , seems america is becoming more and more like north korea and americans are too lazy to do anything about it--] (]) 20:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
:::YouTube is not a reliable source. Especially not YouTube videos uploaded by wackos. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 07:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:Unsigned IP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->
:::North Korea? Really? Maybe episods of voting irregularities could be mentioned in a sober way if it was not for such illiterate comments. There was some real problems in Nevada, and it seems that right now the Missouri GOP are having problems with their voting procedures too. That would be worth a few wellsourced lines in the article. Why does these conspiracy discussions that pops up on the talkpage always involves Paul? It is really slandering a honourable candidate that represents a wellorganised and seriouse minority in the GOP. ] (]) 21:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
::::you call them "irregularities", call a spade a spade, the sources i used (if i recall) also use the word fraud, America is going down the gutter.--] (]) 22:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::The burden of action is ''yours'', not the active editors of this excellent article. ] (]) 11:26, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
===More vote rigging and fraud===
see 2 videos http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321855 : why does america want to be more like north korea, i thought it was the land of the free, thats why they keep invading countries to give them freedom. joke, but this is more evidence of fraud, yet this article does not mention the word "fraud" or "vote rigging" even once !--] (]) 21:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


::I'll tweak it and update it tomorrow. Looking at doing similar maps for other elections as well. --] (]) 04:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
:Ahh, love the utterly overblown phrasing choices. So nice to see someone interested in information, not spin. Oh, wait, reverse those last two. Primary politics, full of the usual dirty tricks. Paul's folks aren't above pushing the envelope and manipulating things to their own advantage. Case in point - Paul's only hope of any influence on the primary is through caucus states where it's not voters that make decisions, but highly active delegates willing to spend hours in a caucus. It's a primary election. It's full of crappy rules, bad organization and people way, way out of their element. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 21:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:::so its ok to break the rules/law if the rules a crap anyway? is that what a your saying--] (]) 22:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


:::'''Still fantastic!''' Move it in. Is there a question? — ] (]) 04:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)
::I'd also note that Wead isn't quite independent in terms of the election, but surely you already knew that. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 22:01, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:::excuse me if i said something wrong about US politics. i am from england, but i find this primary thing fascinating, because its so full of fraud yet american say they are free and recently their media & gov criticzed russia for not having "fair elections"--] (]) 22:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


Two years later, it is still a telling and great graphic; did it make it into the article herein? I'll look. -- ] (]) 21:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC) -- Ariostos (talk) did a great job!
::::Seriously, do you know of any national election that doesn't have allegations of fraud? Won't happen. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 22:11, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:::::well i have given video evidence of it, including from the media, in first 2 video on my first post, "see 2 videos...." part--] (]) 22:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


== New status for this article? ==
The Conservative Party of England just had a scandale (again again), it is unfortunatly but it does not mean that Cameron is now the supreme dictator of UK, England is not pointing at Denmark with its nuclear missiles, they are not kidnapping danish citizens. Miscon you stated that you are from England, have you found yourself without food this week, without the right to say what you want, without the possibility to use the internet because of the Conservative Party Scandale? Because what happens in England must be the same as England is just like North Korea now - Right? Dont belittle the suffering of the korean people by making such stupid remarks. ] (]) 22:41, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:scandal in the uk (about cash for acess to pm) is not the same as what am talking about, what am talking about is vote rigging and fraud, an unfair election, the same thing US gov criticised putin for--] (]) 22:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


I have made request for a new assessment for this articles status. It might not be ready for featured article status yet, but hopefully we will get to know what to do to bring it there in the process. I really think we owe it to us self and this article to keep going all the way, to bring the article into history and not just leave it when the news interest have gone. Personally I think we have done a really good job, but what need to be done as the finishing touch? Go to the assessment discussion and take part:
::] Plenty of things they could do - add material to the appropriate state's primary election article, backed by actual ], etc. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 22:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:::Why link to DFTT, are you suggesting that i am engaged in vandalism on wiki? am assuming you made an error typing the link--] (]) 22:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


]
]
Qoute from ]<br>
'''"Opinion pieces. Although some topics, particularly those concerning current affairs and politics, may stir passions and tempt people to "climb soapboxes" (for example, passionately advocate their pet point of view), Misplaced Pages is not the medium for this. Articles must be balanced to put entries, especially for current events, in a reasonable perspective, and represent a neutral point of view. Furthermore, Misplaced Pages authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Misplaced Pages's sister project Wikinews allows commentaries on its articles."'''
:Maybe there is a place on Wikinews for this discussion? ] (]) 22:50, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
::it seems you just want to put this under the rug, how come you dont want to give any attention to vote rigging and fraud (which is fact, not opinion as i gave video proof) in this article itself?--] (]) 22:52, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


] (]) 16:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)
::Perhaps, but the quality of sources needs to go way, way up. Youtube, partisan blogs and non-professional opinion pieces aren't going to cut it. <b><font color="darkred">]</font></b> <font color="black">(])</font> 22:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)


{{Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012/GA1}}
==Any way to fix the "Sort By" function?==
Right now when you click on a candidates column, it sorts by the first digit only, which is something you might expect from an 80s computer, not a 2012 top 5 web site. So, states where a candidate won 6 delegates comes up before ones where he won 55.] (]) 07:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:Two suggestions: (1) Become an editor by creating your ID; (2) Read the two lines above the Table to see that it sorts correctly by clicking on triangles twice. ] (]) 11:21, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
No, 74 are right. There is a real problem with the table. It does not sort correctly, because it does not conform to the limits of the sortable table. It can be fixed, but there is a price to pay. If a sortable table should sort numbers nothing else must be in that colum. So the RNC brackets have to go. If it should sort the dates right only one date can appear in the colum. But since it is sorted this way from the start the best thing will be to make that colum unsortable. Even though it will mean changes in the table, 74 is right. Why have a sortable table when it cant sort prober. I will work on it. ] (]) 11:44, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:Putting the unbound RNC delegates info in the result section and compiling the schedule to one table instead of three. When I am finished with this it the sorting troubles should be done away with. ] (]) 14:51, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
:{{done}} Feel free to check the numbers and dates. But please read the legend first. It need some gramma check too. ] (]) 16:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 17:50, 29 August 2024

Good articles2012 Republican Party presidential primaries was nominated as a Social sciences and society good article, but it did not meet the good article criteria at the time (July 20, 2015). There are suggestions on the review page for improving the article. If you can improve it, please do; it may then be renominated.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12Auto-archiving period: 15 days 
This article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject iconConservatism Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Conservatism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of conservatism on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.ConservatismWikipedia:WikiProject ConservatismTemplate:WikiProject ConservatismConservatism
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconUnited States: Presidential elections Mid‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States
MidThis article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as High-importance).
WikiProject iconElections and Referendums
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums
WikiProject iconPolitics: American Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as Low-importance).
WikiProject icon2010s Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject 2010s, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2010s on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.2010sWikipedia:WikiProject 2010sTemplate:WikiProject 2010s2010s
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale.

Terrible Color Choices on Map

Ted Cruz is mud green and Donald Trump is dark blue. This provides almost no contrast. Cruz should be a lighter green like Santorum in 2012 or McCain in 2008. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:646:4001:F315:2C8F:7CCA:9A9:7726 (talk) 05:53, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Delegate Vote Map for Presidential Nomination at the Republican National Convention

I had been thinking of putting together an Info-box that detailed the vote by state at the Roll-Call for the Presidential Nomination, but quickly realized it would prove too unwieldy to put together without overly stretching the page once it was opened. Therefore, I decided to run something of a test, and put together the map you see below. The only real issue I had was the votes for Huntsman, Bachmann, and Roemer, given they had not been given their own color codes, so I simply threw in some. Tell me what you lot think, and how it would be best to implement it into the article(s) should it be decided to do so. --Ariostos (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)

I think it is fantastic! Excellent work—it provides encyclopedic insights. Very appropriate for Misplaced Pages. It should go at the very end of the article, just after the current ending two map presentations, and before the "See also" section. It could be labeled "Final voting at convention roll call". Of course, there would be a legend (for candidates by color) and I would like to see the font smaller for the numbers in circles, and smaller circles. It will be a tremendous addition to a legendary article. To me, it makes a summation of the entire article. The legend could be to the right of SC, GA, and Florida. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)

Ariostos, a legend would help. Do you favor the larger circles and font for the numbers as they are now? Or could they be smaller? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:04, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I'll tweak it and update it tomorrow. Looking at doing similar maps for other elections as well. --Ariostos (talk) 04:55, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Still fantastic! Move it in. Is there a question? — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:37, 12 April 2013 (UTC)

Two years later, it is still a telling and great graphic; did it make it into the article herein? I'll look. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:10, 2 April 2015 (UTC) -- Ariostos (talk) did a great job!

New status for this article?

I have made request for a new assessment for this articles status. It might not be ready for featured article status yet, but hopefully we will get to know what to do to bring it there in the process. I really think we owe it to us self and this article to keep going all the way, to bring the article into history and not just leave it when the news interest have gone. Personally I think we have done a really good job, but what need to be done as the finishing touch? Go to the assessment discussion and take part:

Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Conservatism#Request Featured article candidate: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012

Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:15, 17 June 2013 (UTC)

GA Review

GA toolbox
Reviewing
This review is transcluded from Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Wugapodes (talk · contribs) 20:26, 1 July 2015 (UTC)

Checklist

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose is "clear and concise", without copyvios, or spelling and grammar errors:
    The writing is very well done for the most part, however there are some sentences that could use clarification. Also, there are some places that were clearly writen in 2012 that haven't been changed, so a once over for proper tense would go far (I've tried to list as many as I found below but I may have missed some)
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    Lead and use of lists need work, see below.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. Has an appropriate reference section:
    B. Cites reliable sources, where necessary:
    See comments 1 and 4 below
    C. No original research:
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    B. Focused (see summary style):
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content:
    See comment 5 below
    B. Images are provided if possible and are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions:
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    7 days pending revisions

Comments

Criterion 1

  • The caucuses allocated delegates to the respective state delegations to the national convention, but the actual election of the delegates were many times at a later date. I have no clue what this sentence means, please clarify.
  • The lead is far too long. A general rule of thumb is about 4 well written paragraphs as a lead that is too imposing can cause readers to lose interest. For example, the Super Tuesday paragraph is a little too much information. If that were deleted, I think the lead would be much more readable and manageable. See WP:LEAD for more info
  • Nine other states have small numbers of uncommitted delegates. The tense here does not match the tense of the rest of the list.
  • Timeline sections have bullet points at the beginning that need to be removed or incorperated into the prose per MOS:EMBED and WP:USEPROSE
  • The persons on this slate was elected delegates at the April 1 state convention. This sentence is unclear because of the tense.
  • The elected delegates have stated that they will divide up in such a way they reflect the caucus result, even if that means to vote for a candidate other than the one they support. Tense here is different from the rest of the paragraph.
  • ...therefore our table does not show popular vote percentages in these rows but the number of delegates committed to each candidate This should be stated closer to the table, not in the prose. Also, first person feels weird and unencyclopedic.
  • he or her both should be nominative
  • while eight delegates was committed to Romney, two to Santorum and one to Paul. Subject verb agreement
  • take the fight to the much more deep-pocketed and organized Romney This is poorly worded and should be revised.
  • The primary elections take place from January 3 to July 14 and will allocate and elect 2,286 voting delegates and 2,125 alternate delegates in 56 delegations to the 2012 Republican National Convention in the week of August 27. Event already passed, so it should not be referred to in the future tense.
  • This means that the binding status of a delegate only become of importance if no candidate have reached an majority of delegates before the National Convention. This sentence is awkwardly worded and has a couple of typos. Please revise.
  • Except from Wyoming county conventions all these conventions are at the state and district level. I don't understand what this sentence means.

Other Criteria

  1. Ron Paul surged to the lead in Iowa but questions regarding racially insensitive material included in newsletters he published... This needs a citation per WP:BLP as it's controversial and refers to Paul who is still alive.
  2. brought an ongoing federal lawsuit is the lawsuit still ongoing in 2015? I couldn't find anything on it so if it is still ongoing a source should be provided.
  3. Ohio Republican central committee will decided how to allocate the four unallocated delegates in April. This needs to be updated as I doubt they will be allocating their delegates from 2012 in April of 2016.
  4. The citation for this sentence: Former Family Research Council chief Gary Bauer, who was present at the sit-down with Santorum, called it a strategy meeting. is The Blaze which I'm unsure of as a reliable source looking at its front page, and particularly when compared to the caliber of sources surrounding it.
  5. The following nonfree images are lacking a fair use rational for this page. They must either have one provided or be removed:
    1. Rick Santorum Logo
    2. Ron Paul Logo
    3. Newt Gingrich Logo

Result

On Hold for 7 days pending changes. Length may be extended depending on progress. All editors should be very proud of their work on such a comprehensive article. Wugapodes (talk) 00:22, 2 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the notice of seven days, pending. I've read through the article and it brings back great memories of the campaigns of 2012. Jack Bornholm of Denmark made fantastic contributions (and edits), albeit I helped him w/spelling, at times. Just now, I've read through the Article herein, and it looks great to me--no changes needed (except as noted with grant permissions.) I don't think text needs to be clarified. I'm believing that the great graphic of "Delegate Vote Map for Presidential Nomination at the Republican National Convention" on the TALK page here, can remain, since WP readers/editors can see in here, not in the article. Thanks for compliments and the review! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:35, 10 July 2015 (UTC)
@Charles Edwin Shipp: while the article is well written for the most part, I do feel that I cannot pass the article without a number of the changes being addressed or at least talked through (ie, why a particular comment shouldn't be acted on). You don't have to be the one to do it if you don't want to; no one is required to participate in a GA review. If you'd like to be involved in the process, addressing the comments, either fixing or saying why they shouldn't be fixed, would be helpful (especially the problems with WP:RS and WP:BLP). If you don't want to that's perfectly fine, just let me know. Wugapodes (talk) 21:57, 11 July 2015 (UTC)
I knew I was not addressing properly; I'll read through for date/tense first; wishing Jack Bornholm would help with other requirements, such as the three pictures. Thanks! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:48, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
After making a few minor grammatical changes in the lede, I clicked on 'history' and see other WP editors making improvements. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:05, 12 July 2015 (UTC)

Hold Extended until 20 July pending changes to the article. Wugapodes (talk) 23:56, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

Not Listed as the nominator appears to be inactive, the other editor I notified seems to be busy with other topics, and no changes have been made since the extension. An editor can always renominate, however I would strongly recommend addressing a number of these aspects before doing so. Wugapodes (talk) 18:20, 20 July 2015 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries: Difference between revisions Add topic