Misplaced Pages

Thanks, nice job. The single column looks better, I think, and doesn't widen the entire table. (Your point about width is well-taken). Jd2718 (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.167.8 (talk) 17:36, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:30, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

For now, let Ron Paul (indicated in yellow on the map) keep Virgin Islands. Others won't mind. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Skiingff (talk • contribs) 20:20, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

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. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:24, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion continues at Talk:United_States_Virgin_Islands_Republican_caucuses,_2012 ... Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.102.7 (talk) 04:42, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Take the TALK conversation over to United_States_Virgin_Islands_Republican_caucuses,_2012 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, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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: Talk:Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Media_bias_claimed_in_the_Virgin_Island:_.28Ron_Paul_win.3F.29 Take a look, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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! * Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.237.167.71 (talk) 10:39, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Your understanding is wrong. Ther WASN'T ANY popular vote. Ron Paul received ZERO votes, just like Mitt Romney. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.102.7 (talk) 00:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Romney got all the votes in Guam according to GP Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:25, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, reading the Green Papers is always a good idea. They have understandable details and rapid results. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 130.88.182.77 (talk) 13:45, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Feel fre to find better pictures, as long as they dont violated copyright laws. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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. --67.248.246.4 (talk) 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, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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: Puerto_Rico_Republican_primary,_2012 I vote to change the Opey picture, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:34, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. But it has the flag. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:18, 15 March 2012 (UTC) (And do we like O—P?)

The photos as they were looked fine to me.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:29, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Me too — just TALKing to reader 130.88.182.77 and everyone WATCHing. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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?
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 Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:09, 14 March 2012 (UTC):

Then, the table (saying that Puerto Rico is WTA) is wrong?--194.38.144.2 (talk) 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. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:21, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

"Winner-take-all"--81.84.110.167 (talk) 18:59, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Change it to Proportional (c) Metallurgist (talk) 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. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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 WP:RS. Its one thing to be unbiased and use all sources. Its another thing to use completely unreliable sources without any legitimate basis.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

I agree. They appear to be misleading at best. --Born2cycle (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:51, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

I wouldnt say that projections are antichrist itself, that might be a tiny bit to harsh a wording . 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:26, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

Question about "Uncom."

I think we need a better description of what that means and how many there are. --Born2cycle (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:11, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

'UnCmtd' ? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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.--Metallurgist (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.102.7 (talk) 04:21, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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 ClueBot III? I am not sure how to do it and still keep the archive pages in the right order. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:32, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Whats the problem?--Metallurgist (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Weird. We can switch then if you know how.--Metallurgist (talk) 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. Charles Edwin Shipp (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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:37, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

For each state, 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.

 Done. I waited a while for comments, then put up the next 'draft' version
—looks good to me, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:25, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Current/Latest news we can use in the Article

"Romney wins in Puerto Rico while focused on Illinois". . .
“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, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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' ? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:07, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

From time to time, the NRC via GOP.com will put out their official delegate count, to date. Here is the latest I can find (for March 9th) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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] Jack Bornholm (talk) 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 delegate count, 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? Ravensfire (talk) 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? Jack Bornholm (talk) 05:54, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

There's a maps TALK page? I learn something about WP every day! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

• My vote is leave things as they are. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.54.218.119 (talk) 00:52, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Ditto That, at least for now. I like seeing a bit of yellow on the map. Keep yellow for Virgin Islands (popular vote). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:00, 22 March 2012 (UTC)
• Yea, leave it as is. This is nitpicking.--Metallurgist (talk) 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. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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 do not have a straw poll, so the only popular vote was the February primary. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 15:28, 24 March 2012 (UTC)

Agreed Jack Bornholm (talk) 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 ballot lead calculator, Santorum has a 81% chance of being ballot leader, if Im using it correctly.--Metallurgist (talk) 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. -Helvetica (talk) 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. -Helvetica (talk) 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.--Metallurgist (talk) 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. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 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. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 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.--Metallurgist (talk) 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. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 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 --RoteDelano (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. --RoteDelano (talk) 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. Here 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 --Metallurgist (talk) 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. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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.--Metallurgist (talk) 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. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 16:26, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

To keep the map discussion in one place, lets have it on the county maps talkpage: File talk:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2012 (corrected).png#Missouri Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:51, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Louisiana

Shouldn't Louisiana be striped since it still has a caucus that decides over half their delegates? 205.217.238.62 (talk) 04:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Will there be taken a strawpoll at the caucuses coming later? Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:00, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Good point. Yea it should be.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Metallurgist (talk • contribs) 14:34, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

According to the Misplaced Pages article on the 2008 Louisiana process there was no straw poll, but I don't know, whether they still have the same rules. But in any case, in the 2008 map of the GOP primary, LA is solidly colored with Huckabee's color, as he won the primary, although McCain ended up with more delegates. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 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: File talk:Republican Party presidential primaries results, 2012.svg Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

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 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--Misconceptions2 (talk) 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: United States presidential primary explains how the whole primary system works. Very interesting. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 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?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 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. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 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.74.67.106.207 (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:56, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Fraud: America is becoming more and more like North Korea?

Evidence: Fraud in missouri, Fraud in Maine. 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?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:52, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

- Hot Stop 20:54, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

source, reality check: Fraud in missouri, Fraud in Maine, seems america is becoming more and more like north korea and americans are too lazy to do anything about it--Misconceptions2 (talk) 20:58, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

YouTube is not a reliable source. Especially not YouTube videos uploaded by wackos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.106.207 (talk) 07:06, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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.--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:15, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

The burden of action is yours, not the active editors of this excellent article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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 !--Misconceptions2 (talk) 21:46, 26 March 2012 (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. Ravensfire (talk) 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--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:00, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd also note that Wead isn't quite independent in terms of the election, but surely you already knew that. Ravensfire (talk) 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"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:03, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously, do you know of any national election that doesn't have allegations of fraud? Won't happen. Ravensfire (talk) 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--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:16, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

WP:DFTT Plenty of things they could do - add material to the appropriate state's primary election article, backed by actual WP:RS, etc. Ravensfire (talk) 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--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:46, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Qoute from Misplaced Pages:What Misplaced Pages is not#Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox or means of promotion
"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? Jack Bornholm (talk) 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?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:52, 26 March 2012 (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. Ravensfire (talk) 22:53, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

just in case you missed it, these are the original video proof i was reffering to Evidence: Fraud in missouri, Fraud in Maine. i wrong said go to section that says "see 2 videos"--Misconceptions2 (talk) 22:56, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Not reliable, hence I don't give a shit. This is WP, not a forum. Ravensfire (talk) 22:59, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

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 55.74.67.106.207 (talk) 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. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:38, 26 March 2012 (UTC)