Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 8

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

→

Archive 12

number of caucuses

So 9 primaries have been held, and 48 remain, right? (normally 47 but the Missouri one doesn't count). The page is a little jumbled at the moment so its a little unclear! 134.126.151.207 (talk) 17:55, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

There is 50 states, 5 Unincorporated territories and 1 federal territory. That is 56 contests. What is the last one you are counting? Republicans dont have a contest for republicans living abroad like the democrats have - At least not to my knowledge. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:19, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Didn't President Obama say there are 57? Which one didn't you mention. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:59, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Obama was talking about his (the democratic) primary wit 57 contest: 50 states, 5 Unincorporated territories, 1 federal territory and 1 contest for democrats living abroad. But I have never heard that the republicans should have the last one. Any help are welcome though, I might have forgot another contest. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:03, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

It's 56. No "Reps Abroad" for the GOP. Simon12 (talk) 21:54, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Infobox popular vote

I've noticed that the popular vote in the infox in the top right corner doesn't match up with the table further down. For some reason, I can't edit it. Could someone check it for me? EEL123 (talk) 23:36, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Corrections and updates to the infobox need to be made at Template:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. Fat&Happy (talk) 02:09, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Shouldnt the template be semi-protected? Thought that was the whole idea with the making a template, to avoid interruptive editing and vandalism on the election days. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:45, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The template allows the infobox to be protected without protecting the entire article. Based on recent experience here, it is likely to be needed at some point. But in my (somewhat limited) experience, the admins at WP:RFPP are generally averse to applying protection preemptively. Fat&Happy (talk) 17:26, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

The template seems to have prevented the editwarring. Thank heaven for lazy people!--Metallurgist (talk) 07:41, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Map colors

For the map, let's match the colors of the candidates' ties: Romney - blue, Gingrich - yellow, Santorum - red. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:30, 16 February 2012 (UTC)

What about Paul? His tie is a similar color to Santorum's.--NextUSprez (talk) 15:35, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

dont forget the colourblind issue Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:54, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Paul hasn't won anything yet.--William S. Saturn (talk) 20:36, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Regarding the colorblind issue, if you are going to change the map please use one that is not obnoxiously bright with annoying colors. I don't know who created that map but if that is the one that will be used someone needs to tone down the colors, especially the green. I would update it but it's a .png so someone else will have to. The red and blue are too bright also and need changed but the green that was used is really irritating. Rxguy (talk) 05:59, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree about the fluorescent green. I just noticed there is a lot of discussion on the colors on this page. I think the current shade of purple (as of February 22nd) should be changed, as it is really bright and annoying, and hard to see/blinding. I personally this this map is perfect: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/c/c8/20120220051919!Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results%2C_2012.svg Stopde (talk) 07:00, 22 February 2012 (UTC)

oh shut up about the colorblind thing, we know that in reality everyone can read the map. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.24.167.8 (talk) 15:58, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

If you want colorblind-friendly maps, I suggest you change all the maps to have the same color scheme for consistency. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEL123 (talk • contribs) 20:30, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

8% of the population is color blind in some form. Someone asked for it and the maps are supposed to be color blind friendly, but the mapmakers didnt think of that when they were originally made. Now they are presumably compliant. The color scheme is fine as it is. Metallurgist (talk) 06:05, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The colors that were pointed-out as inaccessible in the above comment: "Chart not colorblind friendly. Please change colors." were still in use. The differences can be seen in these links to the Wikimedia Commons: Here is the map before and here is the map after I changed the colors, hopefully, to be more accessible.

To see how difficult the previous colors were, save the old map as a raster image and upload it to http://www.vischeck.com/vischeck/vischeckImage.php , or one of the other color-deficiency simulators on the web. Infoporfin (talk) 07:22, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Nifty. The colors on the statewide polling map seem to have already been compliant.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:39, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for changing the colors! It's amazing to be able to catch all the information so quickly. I am really not qualified to change the colors myself because I can't use the color-coding programs. I'm sure I'd miscode all the data since I can't see it in the first place. So I have to rely on charity.

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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.97.200 (talk) 06:33, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

If forgot: 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. FYI. I'm so grateful. I study this stuff so I often provide too much data. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.97.200 (talk) 06:38, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What people need to understand about the colorblind is that they have very good color vision. The colorblind are capable of reading highly color-coded maps. However, the colorblind are at a major disadvantage in almost every scientific field because no effort is made to code diagrams in a way that they can access the information. There are no colorblind friendly text books. There are no colorblind friendly electoral maps in the world. Software for the colorblind is inadequate. The only way that the colorblind can access this information is to ask for detailed descriptions of the patterns from normals.

It would be great to be able to see this information and be able to comment on it and have an opinion. If the colors of the maps are not changed,I cannot access the information. 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? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.27.97.200 (talk) 07:00, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

The info on Texas is wrong on the schedule map anyway. I am still learning my way around maps, so not really capable to make the changes, but if someone can remember to get Texas right. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:39, 4 March 2012 (UTC)

What's with the colors changing?

The original color scheme of purple, green, yellow, orange was fine. What is going on? S51438 (talk) 02:08, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The maps were made to be color-blind friendly.--Metallurgist (talk) 02:37, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I agree S5. The map WAS much better than it was. The shade of purple that is up for South Carolina (as of February 25) is actually blinding to me, and difficult for me to look at. I guess the editors prefer to blind the normal people at large to benefit the extreme minority. I would bet that this tacky shade of purple will end up being changed sometime down the road. This is the best map of colors I have seen thus far, and I have no issue with this map: http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/archive/c/c8/20120220051919!Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results%2C_2012.svg Stopde (talk) 06:33, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Have you read the sections above about this? While it's mildly ugly, it's necessary for color-blind users. I've had other users complain about other maps I've created for the same reason, so the problem is more common than you might think. Magog the Ogre (talk) 07:03, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually you can say that you have CONTRIBUTED to the problem, because the extra bright purple is blinding and hard to see, and thus distracts from actually looking at the map. Maybe you should read other discussions above that said the colors were fine as they were. You can take credit for CREATING a color-blindING map. You would be wise to check this map out: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries_results,_2008.svg and this map: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1996RepublicanPresidentialPrimaries.svg as none of them are blinding. Stopde (talk) 12:29, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

First off, I'm not the one that changed the colors. Second off, if you have a recommendation on how the colors should look, then recommend some new colors above. Magog the Ogre (talk) 18:31, 25 February 2012 (UTC)

Um, I already did recommend the colors, I provided two links above where the colors were fine. TRY READING instead of being arrogant with keeping your Nazi colorblinding scheme and unprofessional photoshopping. You should visit an eye doctor. I did in February, and my eyes are fine. Why you are keeping blinding colors shows you have eye issues. Stopde (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

How on Earth is that somewhat deep purple blinding? Are your optical rods reversed or something?--Metallurgist (talk) 07:39, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe what you should be asked (since you obviously are ignorant and did not read all of what I typed above) that the maps: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Republican_Party_(United_States)_presidential_primaries_results,_2008.svg and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:1996RepublicanPresidentialPrimaries.svg are role models for maps, because you are showing that YOU obviously are blinded by these two maps, if you consider them unworthy of being replicated in colors. Go see an eye-doctor. I saw one in February, and my vision is fine. Obviously, you have eye health issues. Stopde (talk) 12:58, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

It is not me. It is other users who asked for color blind friendly maps (theres the link in case you do not know such a condition exists). The first map you linked looks all the same to color blind people. The second map is probably fine, but wasnt used because the mapmakers didnt know about it.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:50, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Projected delegate count in result section

A consensus about using only secured delegates in the infobox with the source DemConWatch have been reached some time ago.
But what about the result section? Should we have a projected delegate count row together with the secured delegates? And if we should what source should be used?. It seems that NBC, CNN and AP have very different ideas about what will the already elected state delegates will do at the state conventions in the future. For now I have put in a projected delegate count line in the resulttable using the DemConWatch's projected count. But I dont know where they get it from. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2012 (UTC)

DemConWatch gets its numbers from GreenPapers. GreenPapers uses a straight statewide proportional projection, which is as good or as bad as any other right now. Simon12 (talk) 01:58, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I don't think we can/should do a projected count in the infobox, much as I would like to do so, because they vary so widely. Discuss in the article, sure, but I don't see a place for them in the infobox. Sorry I've been gone, I'll be back in a few days --Philosopher ^{Let us reason together.} 11:35, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I fully agree, and I think we have talked about it some time ago and it was rejected. My question is solely about the result section Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:29, 27 February 2012 (UTC)

I would vote for not including the projected numbers in this article. I think the Results page, which is able to show multiple projections, seems to be a good place for this information. Simon12 (talk) 02:05, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I would say include projected and secured. As the source for projected, go with GP or CNN. Anything else is a bunch of BS.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:29, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

I have changed the source. So now it is DemConWatch for the Secured delegate count, Green Papers for the Projected delegate count and RealClearPolitic for the Populare vote. All in the result table. But that is just for now. I dont think we have reached concensus yet in the matter: Should we have a Projected delegate count row in the Result Table. It is one for (Metallurgist) and one against (Simon12) right now. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:30, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Hello. What the hell happened to this page! I thought the big edit war of afew weeks ago had ended. Why does the chart of states NOT mention which candidates won how many delegates? Why why why? This page used to be highly valuable and helpful to me. Please please, I don't want to have to visit 16 different individual state primary pages to get a quick overview of how the candidates are stacking up regarding the types and percentages of wins. This was my go-to page, and I can't believe it has been ruined again. signed, Richard, the political worker. 50.47.246.194 (talk) 20:34, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

If you look a little down to the result table you will at a glance see how the different candidates won what state. You want even more info at a glance go to the sub article (the result page) and you will get more info than you need. The schedule table now show - at a maybe little longer glanse - the just as important difference betwin state and districts delegate as they are bound. So now you can in this table where the votes are important. What political work do you really do ????? Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

INACCURATE

This page is inaccurate. Its not updated to reflect current vote and delegate totals.

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_vote_count.html http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2012/president/republican_delegate_count.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by 129.10.224.141 (talk) 16:25, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

For the populare vote, feel free to update it, the source you state is the consensus source for this articles populare vote count. So please be a good citizen and do the update.

For the Source on Delegate Count source you cites, notice that it is a projected (guessed, estimated) count. Do not update the infobox with this, use http://www.democraticconventionwatch.com/diary/4726/republican-superdelegate-endorsement-list that is the consensus source on secured delegates.

If you would like another source for projected counts please see and participate in the discussion above. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Time for a new high quality sub article ?

By now it is pretty sure that there will not be a presumptive nominee next wednesday. The race will go on, and so will the lenght of this article.....
Right now the 2011 section is very large, also to large for an article about the whole primary from start to convention, if we should be looking into th future for a second. But it would be sad if this good section simply would slowly be shorter and shorter, loosing good information. So I propose:

• Lets make a new sub article about the Preface to the Republican presidential primaies, 2012 (please comment on my made up title too). It should be done simply by migrating the 2011 section to the new article and copi or migrate the Prospective candidates and the Declined to run from the Republican Party presidential candidates, 2012 article. These section have a ton of valuable information (in the links) and nice galleries. Together with the 2011 section it could be rewritten to make a high quality article about the beginning of the race. From the first desires of Romney at the election night 2012 to the Iowas and New Hampshire caucus where the hopefull prospects dropped out, leaving the real race to the four last man standing.

If this suggestion carries I can figure out to write a small resume of the current 2011 section to keep in this article. But I didnt really follow the debate and race in 2011, so the new perfect article is left to someone else. I would be happy to start it though. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:52, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The 2008 article is half as large. We can definitely cut out stuff into other articles. Try to use the 2008 article as a guide.--Metallurgist (talk) 11:00, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

No further reason to rank Paul ahead of Santorum

Rick Santorum has now secured more bound delegates than Ron Paul, has won more states, and by far exceeds Paul's tally in the popular vote. The order in the resultbox should be updated accordingly, however I'm not sure how to correct it. 29 February 2012 9:28 PM MST

Patience--Metallurgist (talk) 10:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

And Ron Paul ends up ahead of Rick Santorum in Washington state caucuses. Let's watch Super Tues. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk)

^Those aren't bound delegates. 4 March 2012 5:25PM MST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.16.52.235 (talk) 00:26, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

A lot of things are not bound, dedicated, and tied down; not just Washington state. But, it indicates a direction. Even after Super Tuesday, it is just an indication. Some states (delegates) may not make their final decision until they are at hotels at the convention in Tampa FL in August. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Update delegates

For instance, Santorum has more delegates than that. http://news.yahoo.com/limbaugh-comments-overshadow-gop-contest-220205487.html This article isn't about it, but it cites that Romney now has 203 delegates, Santorum has 92, Gingrich has 33, and Paul has 25. The article section needs updating badly. J390 (talk) 07:50, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Try to read the whole article or maybe just the notes in the infobox. Projecting delegates are a psedoscience. That is why the numbers in the infobox is actually secured delegates. As the article explains several times. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:18, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

The projected delegates are from the green papers. It is simply a crude projecting of the first step votes (precint caucuses) congressional district by congressional district. Not very accurate, but at least it doesnt make any futuretelling with a political bias toward any of the candidates. If any of the state conventions will be brokered when dont know, but they properly will. Such number just dont have any place in a encyclopidic article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:51, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

We need to go with delegates that have already been secured by candidates. Not predictions, but facts. Delegates who have been won by candidates. J390 (talk) 23:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

And that is what we are already doing Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:16, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Come on. Romney 136 delegates? Santorum only 19 delegates? He won 6 states! Gingrich 32 delegates? Paul 9 delegates? Every source I've seen has everybody with more delegates than that. The list needs updating and it needs updating badly. Think, someone wins a county, gets a delegate. Far more delegates have been sworn to someone at this stage than that. J390 (talk) 03:09, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

The one county one delegate state you referer to must be Idaho. Only the vote there is county by county. If anyone gets more than 50& of all state vote (witch the voting rules tend to favor) all the states delegates go to the state winner. And that is what was happpened - All delegates to Romney. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Dear J390: I'm not sure where you are looking; I do a search in the Article for 'delegate' and find two (under the pictures at the top). You will be happy to know the delegate count is current with : Romney(404); Santorum(167); Gingrich(106); Paul(66). And the update was put in when our sources put the numbers up. Here is a cut/paste from just under the pictures of the Article (on our methodology) >> "Convention delegate projections vary among sources. The counts here include only bound delegates and superdelegates who have committed to a candidate.[2] For various media delegate projections, see Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries." Hope This Helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:56, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

This is a encylopedia, not a news article or news media. So it sometimes takes a few hours before the actually information gets ready from the sources, not simply the news medias correct and logical projections but actually hard facts. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:16, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I have just updated the delegatecount according to the consensus source. This page dont use CNN's projections because they are not facts but simple guesses of what will happen in the early states upcoming conventions. For the projected count we use The Green Papers soft count because it is a simple projection of the numbers at the entry level caucuses to the convention without guessing what might happen (if a state convention will be brokered or who will corner what congressional district). It gives a more crude projection but it is not as much guessing involved. The secured delegate count source is DemConWatch because it is very conservative, doublechecking the counts before posting them, that means it take a little longer. These sources have been discussed weeks ago, and if anyone want to reopen the debate then do it at this talkpage, dont just change the numbers or sources. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:29, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Making the article supertuesday ready

This article was beginning to be a bit messy. And with supertuesday coming up and not much change of the race ending there I thought it may be time to implement some changes discussed before on this page and generally shorten the article, migrating information to the subarticles. So I have:

• Most of the start have gone down to the section the start of the race and in the beginning of the section the early states
• I have removed all other candidates than the four remaining from the result section. These informations are best kept in the result article and the candidate article.
• The long 2011 section have migrated into a seperate article: Preface to the Republican presidential primaries, 2012. This new article really needs some attention, so if you have any time and knowledge please have a look at it!
• The early states many subsections have been rewritten into one section. The info that are gone all is in the articles about the individuel state contests.
• The future event section was starting to simply be a second schedule table, so I replaced it with a more easygoing Next contest section.

I have tried to cut out double information throughout the article, mostly in the process and schedule section. I have not checked the references, if they can still be retrived. But almost half of the references have migrated with the 2011 section.

Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:21, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

NICE WORK!!! You are the MAN!--Metallurgist (talk) 14:27, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Idaho

Idaho is listed by Jack Bornholm as "winner-take-all", he says for simplicity sake. The more accurate representation should be "Proportional^d", since we have a "d" superscript footnote for just such a case where it's only winner-take-all if the winner gets over 50% of the vote. Just because Romney did in fact get 61% of the vote does not mean that we should call Idaho strictly "winner-take-all", since it isn't. BGManofID (talk) 19:46, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I will just write what I have already put on my personal talkpage responding to the same thing. I welcome discussions on the schedule table as we have had many of them, but if the consencus are against my edits then remember to restore not only Idaho but also the other extra informations. my comment:

True, but the schedule was very very inacurate from the very start. It is a way to show an extremly complex system in one table. It didnt show either that Idaho elects one candidate during several ballots in each county caucus in a winner-take-all alike scenario. This happens county by county and that is the reason Romney got astonishing 61.6% And that is just to stay in Idaho, many states have there little rules and different ways like that. The schedule is to give the large picture, and in the large picture Idaho is a winner-take-all state now. All this very interesting informations are better written in the individuel articles, where there is room to show the very specific rules for the state. I hope you will take the time to improve the Idaho Republican caucuses, 2012 article. Many informations can be found in The Green Papers. I have moved many convention dates down to the early state and removed them from this table. And I have removed notes from other states where proportional have changed to Winner-take-all or where it havent been any change as in Tennesse. I think this table should be as simple as possible because it is very complex already. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

I live in Idaho, and that is not exactly what happened. In the heavily-Mormon southeastern portion of the state, all the counties voted for Romney by a landslide (usually in the 80-90% range) on the first ballot, and reported their results first. That is why Romney got 61% of the overall vote. And because of this, the state was called early for Romney. But Idaho is NOT winner-take-all. It only appears that way to some people because of the Mormon bloc voting solidly for Romney. Again, Idaho should be Proportional^d. BGManofID (talk) 21:26, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

From Idaho_Republican_caucuses,_2012: “First, the delegates are primarily awarded winner-take-all by county after a series of votes in which candidates are successively removed from the ballot. Then, if a candidate receives half or more of the county delegates, he will receive all the 32 delegates; if not, the delegates will be split proportionately according to the number of county delegates.” Catholics voted for Romney also, and Romney took 31 county caucuses, Santorum 7, and Ron Paul 6. So Mitt Romney receives “all 32 Delegates” to convention. Do I read correctly? Hope this helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:59, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

The Green Papers have listed Romney as winning all 32 Delegates, with the final Idaho State Convention to be held on Thursday 21 June - Saturday 23 June 2012. I guess they could change their minds then, or at the Republican Convention in Tampa FL in August. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:12, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

No Idahos delegates are bound to the results of tuesdays caucuses. So all 32 candidates are bound to Romney Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:13, 9 March 2012 (UTC)

Green Papers: "Note: Due to Article VI, Section 5 of the Rules of the Idaho Republican Party pertaining to Apportionment and Selection of Delegates to the Republican National Convention, once certified, Mitt Romney will receive all of Idaho’s 32 delegates." They are not going to change. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:17, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

How many total delegates are there?

The article lists how the totals are calculated per state, but doesn't say how many total there are, or why (per the news) 1144 is the magic number to win...Hires an editor (talk) 02:25, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Please read the second sentence of the article Simon12 (talk) 03:13, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

To me, the Green Papers seem the most authoritative, descriptive, detailed, and up-to-date (quickly). I've added an External Link after searching for the best latest results on Kansas. [1] lists chronological events. It's good, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC) PS: They get CNN updates.

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." Jack Bornholm (talk) 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.TL565 (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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.TL565 (talk) 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. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 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). :) Stopde (talk) 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). --67.248.246.4 (talk) 17:33, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

To avoid having the same words said twice the chat can be found here: File talk:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2012 (corrected).png - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 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. [Standing Rules and Bylaws of the California Republican Party As Amended 20 March 2011 Article VI Section 6.01 (A)]

Hordaland (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. Jd2718 (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. 109.10.56.71 (talk) 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, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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? --Coemgenus (talk) 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? 69.141.198.81 (talk) 19:41, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe change it from "states" to "contests?" But then that brings in the dubious Missouri primary. --Coemgenus (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Jack of Bornholm, you are the best! . . . Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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 Wikipedia'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. SargeAbernathy (talk) 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? Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. SargeAbernathy (talk) 00:33, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The Green Papers are great [2] with Republicans in the right column. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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.--Metallurgist (talk) 16:17, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate Table sorting issues

The delegate table does not sort correctly on several fields:

1. Date handles hyphenated dates incorrectly. Dates need to be reformatted, or the sorting button needs to be removed.
2. 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.

Jd2718 (talk) 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. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:11, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Personally I always sort the state column, to find a certain state. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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'. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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. Jd2718 (talk) 17:29, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

I have made two different suggestions in my sandbox [[3]]. One with one colum in the old delegate allocation and one with two colums. I just made a little sample of each. Take a look and comment on what you think. My worry is that the schedule table keeps getting wider and wider. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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). Jd2718 (talk) 00:05, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:10, 13 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! *[4] 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 Wikipedia--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." [5] 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. [6] 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." [7] 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 Wikipedia [WP, for brief] 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)

Explaining the table to Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

Keeping the secondary "Honestly, a Good Table" List in TALK

The List gives: Date, State, Type, Delegate count (things you all want) .!. Let's not archive it. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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.) Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. Charles Edwin Shipp (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).--NextUSprez (talk) 15:33, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

The Wikipedia 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, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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.--NextUSprez (talk) 17:12, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Just to add to a future consencus. I think it should go. Just my opinion Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:18, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for comments and teaching me — I learn something every day. Another idea from WP guidelines, "Be Bold .!." —— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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.--Metallurgist (talk) 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. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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: [8] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:04, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

I search their “Marianas Variety” newspaper in vain to find news on voting: [9] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:21, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Obama was right, with DC +50 states + five territories + United_States_Minor_Outlying_Islands = 57 like he said. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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 Federated_States_of_Micronesia also listed here: [10]

He leaves out three overseas military zipcodes. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:55, 22 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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." [11] Indeed, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. --Dezidor (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. Donatrip (talk) 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. Simon12 (talk) 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 wikipedia 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. -- SchutteGod 70.181.184.7 (talk) 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: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008#Candidates 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: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2000 together with most of the Republican primary articles. The Territories are not in the infobox at all.

For Virgin Islands: Notice these reliable sources [[12]] and [[13]] 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 :) :) Jack Bornholm (talk) 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 --SchutteGod (talk) 22:26, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Add Virgin Isands to Ron Paul first place victories in the table on the page. 99.233.134.148 (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.102.7 (talk) 05:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

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 Jack Bornholm (talk) 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.

Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:00, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I think that also part "Percentages" 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. --Dezidor (talk) 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.--Metallurgist (talk) 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 (+3) 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 Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. Smartyllama (talk) 19:47, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Bottom Line: [14] Uncommitted(1), Romney(7), Paul(1). Decision over, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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.--Metallurgist (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 144.173.65.109 (talk) 03:15, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

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. --SchutteGod 70.181.184.7 (talk) 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. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 08:42, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

And the map looks better with a little yellow for Ron Paul — give him something! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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. --Noname2 (talk) 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. --SchutteGod 70.181.184.7 (talk) 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. Jack Bornholm (talk) 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 United_States_Virgin_Islands_Republican_caucuses,_2012 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, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:57, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done SchutteGod + Jack Bornholm + Ravensfire + Bondegezou + other Wikipedia editors added ref. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 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." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Further discussion continues at Talk:United_States_Virgin_Islands_Republican_caucuses,_2012 Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:29, 19 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. [15] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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".[16] Further, DemConWatch has stated that AP is unreliable regarding superdelegates. [17] 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."

The last column in the table at Republican_primary#Contests 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.).

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)

Current/Latest news we can use in the Article

"Romney wins in Puerto Rico while focused on Illinois". . . [(yes, we can wait till it is finalized, but here is pre-notice.)]
“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.”[18] 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, [19] 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) [20] 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 Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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. [21] 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.”"[22] 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)

Wikipedia'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 Wikipedia 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/wiki/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[23], 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 Wikipedia 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 wikipedia page run by Goldman Sachs as well??? [Against Ron Paul]

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^UTC 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 Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not#Wikipedia 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), Wikipedia 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, Wikipedia authors should strive to write articles that will not quickly become obsolete. However, Wikipedia'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)

and i also posted that article: http://www.digitaljournal.com/article/321855 --Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:10, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Seriously? You didn't bother to look to closely, did you? Not reliable, not even close. Ravensfire (talk) 23:17, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Here's the thing I haven't understood of Ron Paul supporters: you say 1) that the Paul campaign's master plan to harvest delegates from caucus states is working like a charm, and that Paul actually has the second most delegates of the candidates, but you also say 2) that there is a massive voter fraud operation to disenfranchise Paul voters in the caucus states to deny them delegates. How do you not see the contradiction here? Both claims can't be true, since they pretty much cancel each other out. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 20:26, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

The videos and articles provided ^above show some of the mechanisms by which the GOP is stonewalling Paul delegates, but they are deemed unreliable sources. The strategy *is* working which is why the GOP is resorting to dirty tricks, inside influence leveraging, or whatever the skulduggery of the moment to block or disqualify Paul delegates. In other words it's a very protracted and complex process which can't be characterized by either/or propositions. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.231.69.178 (talk) 03:17, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources which mention fraud, can any be used

there are many other sources which mention fraud, yet fraud & vote rigging is not mentioned even once in the article: Business insider, simple news, msnbc, local newspaper, professional blogs abc news. video evidence: Fraud in missouri, Fraud in Maine. which of these are acceptable to use in this article to bring up fraud/vote rigging e.t.c--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:32, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Not doing your work for you. I want you to go through WP:RS and tell me why you think those are reliable sources. Hint, also look at WP:YOUTUBE. Ravensfire (talk) 23:34, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

ok then you tell me what is a reliable source then?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:37, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Nope, not gonna do it. Ravensfire (talk) 23:40, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

are you kidding me? your accusing me of being a troll for trying to mention fraud?--Misconceptions2 (talk) 23:48, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

For the RS comment, hell yeah you're gonna get that. Ravensfire (talk) 23:49, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

YouTube can sometimes be acceptable if it includes actual news broadcasts, as opposed to random people making videos in their basement. Both of those videos are from a local Fox news channel reporting on the issue; sourcing to the news site itself is far better than sourcing to YouTube though. As for the text sources above, I think all of them except the Making Gold Simple one are reliable. However, none of those sources mention "fraud" specifically in the context of the recent voting or delegate selection events. The Michigan story includes some accusations from the Santorum campaign of shenanigans, but that's not quite the same thing. —Torchiest ^talk_edits 02:49, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Michigans problems are already mentioned in the article with source Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Your MSNBC link[24] says absolutely nothing about voter fraud. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 19:05, 27 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) . . . : Done ... Also completed. Thanks Jack! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:45, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

It is working right now, but it was NOT working right when I wrote this. I did read the table and DID click the table twice. But if Mr Shipp would have read MY comment, he would have realized that the issue had nothing to do with clicking on the triangle twice. I was not saying it was sorting least to most. I was saying that it was sorting by the first digit. It sorted from highest to lowest, but it saw 7 delegates as more than 43 delegates because 7 is more than 3.74.67.106.207 (talk) 03:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Hay no problems, a simple thank you would have been enough. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:53, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Visual delegates bar

The red bar below each candidate's photograph used to give a visual representation of the percentage of the delegates that each candidate has secured. Now it is just a red bar. Any way to fix this? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 12.41.1.54 (talk) 17:19, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Election Fraud

Some more sources on that. There's quite a few actually for a variety of different states in the primary, so it should probably get its own section in the article.

Ron Paul Hints at Suspicion of Election Fraud - The New American

Maine GOP recounting caucus votes - Politico

BLACK BOX ELECTION FRAUD ALLEGED IN GOP PRIMARIES - American Free Press

Reps to investigate robo-call election fraud in Washington State - Digital Journal

Reality Check: GOP scrambles under allegations of rampant election fraud in Maine caucus - Fox19

I think this is enough to start with. Silverseren^C 19:52, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Why dont you write it yourself? If the sources are good and the incidents are important enough to warrent mentioning on the national article then there should be no problems. Maybe you can find room for some of the minor incidents in the state articles. Or maybe it could be a whole new article in the republican primary series.Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:55, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

March Delegate Count

Are there really 3,488 delegates at stake in the March primaries, as half the delegates is the 1,144 needed to win? Perhaps this was just a typo? Captain Gamma (talk) 02:02, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a typo. It should be 348. If an admin would kindly edit to that effect, it would be appreciated. --Zak (talk) 06:20, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I am just a simple user, but I have corrected the typo. This article is only semiprotected so any autoconfirmed user can edit it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:55, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done ... A 'simple user' but also a profound contributor to Wikipedia here. Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:11, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The state of the Primaries section

It currently says Tuesday is April 3rd. I'm pretty sure this is a mistake that someone should fix. 74.90.121.53 (talk) 05:53, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Let's think. One way to remember is this: Monday is when the 1940 US Census becomes available, and that is April 2nd. April Fools Day is traditionally on April First and that would be Sunday, I just checked. OK, yes, you are right in believing April third will fall on Tuesday as you suggest. PS: Check out https://the1940census.com/ Hope This Helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:24, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't suppose the 1940_United_States_Census will change the 2012 Election, but you may find its WP page interesting. Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:59, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

 Done I'm confused why reader 74...53 is confused. Am I missing something? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk)

My apologies all I was tired and didn't realize that google gave me a 2011 calendar. 74.90.121.53 (talk) 14:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

That's OK; gave me a chance to mention my other hobby Thanks for helping edit! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:55, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Twitter Poll

Is there any point in including a Twitter based poll here or in a related page? e.g. that compares the relative number of followers or mentions of candidates? e.g. http://tpredict.com/predict.php?predictId=41 The split of followers for Romney v Santorum 69/31 correlates with their delegate count (568 v 273). But the split including Gingrich and Paul looks very strange with Newt winning the follower battle. http://tpredict.com/predict.php?predictId=154 Is there value to this data in any of the articles? Obviously, it is verifiable fact (since all data is accessible at Twitter.com) but is it neutral or relevant? Uptodateinfo (talk) 10:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

There is an article with strawpolls, it sounds like it would be the place to put it. Straw polls for the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Twitter is on the rise and I'm ramping up myself. Jack's point is well-spoken: put it in the 'Straw Poll' article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:58, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The results

You might as what have happened to this nice and big resultsection, now we are left with just the small one in the start? The answer is that the results have migrated to the resultarticle. Both to streamline this article but also to bring more attention to the result article. this very good article have all the results, want the numbers then go to the resultpage, they have all the numbers. I hope that fine article will keep getting improved as the certified elected real human alive delegates start appearing. So the 2012 result article one day will be the article with all the delegate and populare count from the whole race. Not just the CNN and Fox projections but the real certified results. If anyone dont like this move they are of course welcome to revert it an we can have a discussion and a consensus about it. This is just my opinion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:07, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

A bit of funny editing

An editor put this on the top of the article. I undid his edit, but I still think it is funny, so I will put it here for other editors to have a laugh

For a less confusing nominee selection process, see Calvinball.

In Calvinball there is only one rule - You cannot use the same rule twice! - I wonder if some Republican state committee members reads Calvin and Hobbes Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:15, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

Truly funny. I laughed out loud. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:18, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I think normally the system 'works' when the media is able to force a frontrunner. This year we have 4 solid candidates going into April. Thats highly unprecedented in the Republican Party. From what Ive been reading, it may enable Paul to get 2nd in the delegate count because his supporters study the rules like theres no tomorrow. But who knows...--Metallurgist (talk) 22:39, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And a longer race with more solid candidates is excactly what the RNC wanted with the rulechanges. To give the "giving lesser known candidates a chance and making it harder for a frontrunner to secure the majority early". That is excaclty what happened, but no one seems to rejoice that the plan works. Humans are funny. Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:34, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Who fucked up the article

Excuse my french, but the editing of this article is just frantic. One day it looks totally different from the previous day. Its no need to remove useful info and media unless its got absolutely no relevance or if its unsourced. Jørgen88 (talk) 19:15, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Civility fail. – Muboshgu (talk) 19:23, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Not at all, I haven't attacked any one or been aggressive. And swearing is just a word. So Civility win, I'd say. Oh btw, do you have anything to add that is of relevance? Jørgen88 (talk) 19:52, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Yes, that whether or not you attacked a specific person or spoke generally, it is still bad form, as it can easily be seen as aggressive and disruptive. It detracts from the content of any argument you may have. – Muboshgu (talk) 20:10, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

The title itself is pretty much an attack using the word fucked up instead of a more polit term, but anyway. I dont know about any info that have been removed, but I might be wrong. The words have been copyedited and rewritten to get a better english (what I am thankfull happens to most my edits) and since it is an ongoing process new info are been added and info stated twice in the same section is being compressed. The only info that have been removes I know of is in the primary schedule, and that happened to make the sortable table working, there are limits to how much info there can be in each colum in a sortable table. Personally I also migrated the results to the result article (there is more than one excellent article on this primary) but I see that it is back, No one have commented though in the explanation I have stated in the section just above. Do you have any specific examples of info being removed? Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:56, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

"Life's disappointments are harder to take when you don't use swear words", Calvin & Hobbs, Hope This Helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

And if you need political satire from Pulitzer Prize winning Conservative Michael Ramirez, check this: [25] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:35, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Awww you nicked that cool table. What was wrong with it? If you have problems with the sortable, you can get rid of sortable. I dont know why we even needed it really. Also, you can make specific columns unsortable. Discuss before making huge changes (unless you did. I havent read above here yet).--Metallurgist (talk) 22:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

I did, it was after a request was made. And I did make the date colum unsortable. The only info that had to go was the RNC delegates that had pledge themselve. There can only be numbers in the number colums in sortable tables. No brackets, spaces, puntuations and so on. The table is still there, just in the later part of the article - The nerd part :). I am actually working on improving it, bringing all the election of delegate info into it. My work is in my sandbox, but still a lot more to do. Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:39, 1 April 2012 (UTC)

Pictures in the article

Right now there is pictures of all 12 major candidates in this race. But it would be nice to have some photos from an actual caucus, from primary voting, from campaign events or from ???
As events unfold the article is going to be a little longer and it could be nice to have such a photo or maybe even two in the later sections. So if anyone have the oppertunity then bring your camera. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:00, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

I found four pictures of the candidates campaigning, one for each. I think it would look nice if there will be one in each section (Super Tuesday, Marts and April, April 24, May). The last two I have put in the state of the primary section for now. Not to get a outcry from the Paul and Gingrich supporters. This was the best pictures I could find on Wiki. Maybe there will be better later. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:04, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree! Good pictures are always great for Wikipedia readers. Photos need to be wisely selected. A good picture is "worth a thousand words" but a bad picture distracts. Let's see some pictures of citizens in caucus, as you suggest. Can anyone find interesting photo-shots? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:04, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Delegate Count Discrepancy

The delegate counts in the infobox and later in the article don't match up. Is it supposed to be this way for some reason, or does one of the areas need to be updated? Alphius (talk) 15:12, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

The infobox is a template used in several of the primary articles. It uses DCW as a source for the delegatecount. This source only accepts delegates already elected and pledged. That includes RNC, Bound and Unbound delegates. It is very conservative with the RNC delegates, requiring 2 sources for each.

The delegatecount in the resultsection of this article:

The source for Bound delegates are NPR, they simply counts all bound delegate (both legally and morally). These delegates have to vote for their candidate on the first ballot

The source for Unbound delegates are for now GP, not a specific subpage but gathered from the different subpages of the GP. We need a good source for this. So if anyone can find a source that lists all the Unbound delegates it would be great. Unbound delegates dont have to vote for their candidate but want to because they are strong supporters, and that is why they have been elected delegates at their conventions. Right now this is only from the territories, but other conventions are comming soon.

The source for the unbound RNC delegates are DCW because of their two source policy. The unbound RNC delegates stands outside the electionprocess and can pledge to any candidate they find is in their and their political base's interest.

The source for the projected count is GP. This could also be CNN or any other news organisation. This is simply a guess on what will happen at the local conventions in the future.

Since there is no official delegatecount I dont think it would be good to only have numbers from a single source. If any of these sources should change then let us discuss it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:52, 28 March 2012 (UTC)

I would myself like to suggest that the projected count in Results#Delegate count be changed from GP to CNN. It is nothing more than a guess anyway and CNN is a highly known source to the general public. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:40, 29 March 2012 (UTC)

Green Papers seem the best to me. CNN is 'highly known' but to many of us in the public, it is highly known to be Liberally biased. An example was when former Clinton top-advisor and now with CNN, George_Stephanopoulos reported that Florida had gone to Gore when the panhandle had not closed voting. Anyway, in the instance of Republican race reporting, they are second-to-none (except Green Papers and Wall Street Journal). I give highest marks to Green Papers, CNN, and WSJ. PS: It was Stephanopoulos that started the whole 'contraceptive flap' by asking Mitt Romney if states should be able to decide about paying for contracetives, and Mitt Romney said, in affect, 'What are you talking about George? Nobody is even talking about that; no one is suggesting that." George, of course, persisted in trying to ask, but Romney didn't fall into his trap. Trap, you ask? Yes, and you can see what it did to Santorum's campaign because of his prior quotes. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:18, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I would just note that Stephanopoulos does not work, and has never worked for CNN. He works for ABC News. Simon12 (talk) 02:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Oh. Thanks! I never watch CNN (they did great as the first to cover Desert Storm); and now I watch Wolf Blitzer and John King occasionally during election nights. Their website is great for delegate counts. Sorry about misspeaking and I'll transfer my bad memories of "Florida" to ABC. I watch them even less. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:15, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

So how do major editors and readers like the Article now ?

In the past, there has been a lot of TALK about this excellent and important Article. For a few days now there has been no discussion, no edit in TALK. Does this mean we have reached a point to be nominated for award(s)? How now can the Article be improved even more, one asks not rhetorically(?) Thanks to ourselves for all the excellent work. The Article here is significant, important, and of interest in the United States of America and internationally. And, especially to Jack, Thanks Again, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:56, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

The primary schedule is still just a schedule that will be obsolete, it needs a more lasting look and also info on the election on delegates not just the allocation. I am working on that right now in my sandbox.

This article also needs info on the money, both campaign and Super Pac. It have been such a big part of the race and not a word (ex. The only time anyone matched the Romney superpac spending was the week before South Carolina when the Gingrich Superpac peaked its spending). Romneys superpac have been pooring out money on attackadds and no other pac have been able to keep up. It is some of the expl. on the Winsoncin result. It is not all the story, but it is part of the story and that we need before we can even think about excellent. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:53, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I forgot to mention the references. Right now the way they are stated are in mess. We need date on when each article is written and all the references should be in the same style (dates and so on). I have tried to make a style that I think would be good for this article in the March and April section. Whatever the style will be, it is important to have actually writting dates on the news articles, along with the retrived dates. A little thing maybe, but important if we talk GA and above Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:58, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I dont really think "The state of the primaries" suits the article any better than "Results of the primaries". Jørgen88 (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

I think a lot of the regulars just threw their hands up in frustration at the overall article. After magog the ogre and jack ramrodded over everyone else by putting irritating and ugly color map schemes up that make the Republican results look like a failed art experiment ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results,_2012.svg ), no one really cares much about the article anymore. All they care about is making the Republicans have a bad image. In fact, every day I see that "lock" icon on this main article, I laugh, because those 2 people are probably the cause of the "lock". They have contributed to the vandalism, and they probably revert every attempt to make any other professional color scheme accessible. Those two people do not even deserve to be editing this page, if wikipedia at all. Stopde (talk) 11:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

I actually havent done any of the map work, since I dont know how to edit maps. I believe that this article also should be accessable to the colourblind and I have said so on the different talkpages, but I cant take the credit for any maps. And Since I cant I dont recall having reverted anything to do with maps, at least not what I remember. I am more the table guy, I got the idea with the gold/silver/bronze for allocated wins/unallocated wins/district convention wins, and I also did some work on the primary schedule table, adding colours at the last 4 colums. But I believe all the editors working with the maps (especially Magog the Ogre, EEL123 and Gage Skidmore) are doing a really good job, and I applause them. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:38, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Hear, here .!. Love the maps. Keep up the good/great work! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:11, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

North Dakota

We have made a mistake with North Dakota in the Super Tuesday section. The caucuses that day actually didnt allocated delegates and all the delegates from North Dakota is unbound. Well not a big mistake and not worth mentioning here - Unless.....
The state convention was this weekend and it seems that the state that went to Santorum on Supertuesday actually are going with a majority of the delegates to Romney. That will be the first time this cycle that an unallocating state goes to someone other than the winner of the nonbinding strawpoll. I have tried to find reliable sources reporting, but a google search is full of youtube videos and blogs from Paul supporters screaming fraud. Maybe the convention was taken over by Romney supporters or maybe something else happened. But it is worth keeping an eye on. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

"Time heals all wounds" and "History will tell" can be kept in mind. Keep in mind also: the Republican leaders in each state decide how their delegates will be declared and voting on the first vote at national convention (August, Tampa Florida). It is not a popular vote. The Green Papers seem to be the most authoritative. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:06, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Improved table

I have improved the old schedule table with info on the election of all the delegates, not only the unallocated ones. Now each delegation only have one row and then it is possible to sort them according to the 3 important dates for each delegation (see Legend). There was also room for info on the type of caucuses, something that we havent had before. I think that the table is a long way to become more than just a schedule that are removed after the primary have ended. Now it is the table on almost all info on the allocation and election of delegates. Have a look. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:14, 4 April 2012 (UTC)

Jack of Bornholm, Congrats on the success of all your work. Just one thing: Possibly not now, but in a week, consider moving the 'date' column to be first, on the left, since the table stands sorted by date. It would be easier to find the division between past and future state nominating elections. I think the color and color-legend is good. Sorting works. Other details on information, also good. (I' sorry for not previewing your work when you told all of us, in your sandbox work space.) . . . PS: Where you are do you spell 'column' without the 'n' ? . . . Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:59, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

In danish we spell it: Kolonner, I guess that is with two N's. My many spelling mistakes are partly because english is my second languges and partly because I am slightly dislectic.

Interesting point on the date colum. I was considering it from the start (being so many spaces and techical leftovers in the table I rewrote it) but the problem is what date colum are you talking about when it comes to past and future states? As we have seen with ND the conventions in the unallocated states matters too (the AL election date colum). That is why I have put the old calendar row back in the article (got it from you talkpage by the way, thanks) since the table have less at a glanse schedule quality. We can put the primary date colum to the left if everybody thinks it is a good idea, but wouldnt that simply hide the fact that many conventions are about to start? Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:14, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

On further consideration I see your point.  Done (Matthew 21:30) Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:10, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

How about the grey shading area in the table of primaries/caucases yet to be held? I thought that was a nice detail to quicly get an overview. Jørgen88 (talk) 16:09, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

No problem.  Done Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

FLASH .!. . . . Santorum suspends his campaign.

FLASH: just breaking :: . . . Santorum suspends his campaign. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:04, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Right you are. Here's the confirmation: [26], [27] --NextUSprez (talk) 18:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Congratulations to Jack Bornholm .!.

Jack, Congratulations on your high achievement, Golden Wiki Award, "You are among the top 5% of most active Wikipedians this past month!" This article should be up for awards also. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:38, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks. I think we are getting there. But we still need something about the money, the mothermilk of all (US) political campaigns. This place: [[28]] might give some helpfull informations if it is a reliable source. New York Times is a reliable source and they have a nice site: [[29]] Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:01, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

We'll try to keep it balanced with FoxNews since The New York Times has a Liberal bias. FYI, Washington Post and The New York Times are Liberal; New York Post and Washington Times are not. But wherever it is found, Truth is paramount, even from Glenn Beck or Rush Limbaugh. This is a comment on accurate sources and acceptable references, hopefully, the same. . ... OK? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:39, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I just wanted to say that this is a really fine article. Congratulations to all for terrific effort and wonderful results. Poihths (talk) 15:42, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

My friends are all watching this article and it 'hits' very high on Google-search. It's a great article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:46, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

If you check under 'History' for this Article, and choose 'Extended tools' you can find that:
Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 has been viewed 445,653 times in the last 30 days.
Yes, search engines come to Wikipedia often. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:05, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Concerning "something about the money", this is interesting: List_of_richest_American_politicians which you find as a "See also" under Mitt Romney, worth $200million to $250million. The way I look at it, money is not the main factor in the 2012 presidential election, since the likely-voters of USA will seek truth and value. Yes, super-PACs will be a big factor due to the CFR act and the Supreme Court ruling on First Amendment, free speech. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:18, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, I don't consider a negative ad that is true to be an attack ad. The other side can 'set the record straight' rather than just cry, 'Foul!' Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:20, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

Jack and all 200 'watchers', you may be interested to know that I have joined the discussion over at the US campaign finance reform page (McCain-Feingold of late) and you can see the TALK section I started (after linking 'See also' back to here.) :: Talk:Campaign_finance_reform_in_the_United_States#Effects_of_U.S._CFR_on_2012_presidential_.26_congressional_elections
Just like we don't put everything here, we can direct over to this article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:55, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

new sections with Santorum out

With Santorum out on april 10 the sections have to be rewritten. Now there will not be a separate April 24 section and the many conventions coming up are no longer so important. I suggest that we end the April and March section with Santorum dropping out (and Gingrich if he does the same tomorrow). We could call it March or ????. And the rest of the results from the primaries could be called later states. I dont think we need the results from the conventions electing unallocated delegates at all. The are already in the result article. Unless the Paul campaign are going to make noise about the North Dakota convention it doesnt really fit in anymore either. Maybe it can be put in the north dakota article. But just for this once I am going to park the lines here to move or put back into the article, have patience:

North Dakota Republican Party had its state convention from Friday March 30 to Sunday April 1 where twenty-five unbound National Convention delegates were elected. Rick Santorum had won the strawpoll at the Legislative Districts caucuses on Super Tuesday with a large margin to Ron Paul in second place and Mitt Romney in third place. The party leaderships recommended slate of delegates was to reflect this strawpoll result. According to Santorum and Paul supporters the slate did not live up to this requirement, but gave Romney a large majority of the delegates. Former NDGOP Chairman Gary Emineth called the vote undemocratic and a railroad job on the Say Anything Blog.

What are ideas concerning the layout in the rest (future) part of the timeline section? Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:38, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

History needs to settle in for a moment. States will still proceed with procedures anyway. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:53, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Gingrich will have no reason to drop out now that Santorum has. Santorum has kicked the door open for him. Jay72091 (talk) 02:27, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
Could be. And don't discount Ron Paul with some of the Tea Party support. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

• I'd say having no money and bouncing checks might give Gingrich a reason to drop out in the near future. April 24th was already gearing up to be a Romney bloodbath. Now it will be even worse. It is doubtful Gingrich will last into May.74.67.111.95 (talk) 05:26, 12 April 2012 (UTC)
• => I suppose some Santorum support will scatter to the remaining three. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:04, 11 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, I just modified our paragraph for April results (Santorum suspending his campaigning). Here is how it reads: Four days later, on April 10, 2012, Rick Santorum ‘suspended’ his campaign.[56] Romney said that Santorum had made a important contribution to the political process and that he will continue to have a major role in the Republican Party.[57] Santorum carried eleven states, six states that allocated delegates and five non-binding caucus states, securing 202 delegates. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Keep in mind that his campaigning is 'suspended' but he could still pick up delegates (not too likely). Like Gingrich, he could hope (1) he could still win at the national convention; (2) he can bargain with Mitt Romney to keep family values high on the Republican agenda/planks/platform/messages; (3) angle for some position in the Romney Administration; (4) [Add your thought here]; (5) Other; (6) Etc.

Keep in mind also that Rick Santorum personally made the decision to 'drop out' but not 'cancel out'. I.e., he suspends but does not end. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:39, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

There is further discussion of Santorum at Talk:Rick_Santorum_presidential_campaign,_2012#Who_gets_his_delegates ... FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:02, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The four-day break from campaigning Easter weekend (Friday – Monday).

I had some good information under the April pictures of Romney and Santorum. It was at first modified, then added to, and then entirely deleted. Can I suggest the following brief info:

Around April 8, 2012, both Romney and Santorum took a four-day Easter break from campaigning. At that date, the delegate count from WSJ was Romney 661, Santorum 285, Gingrich 136, Ron Paul 51, and Huntsman 1 delegate. [30] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:42, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it really relevant that they took a bit of time off for the holiday? I think the whole strategy meeting that santorum had is more interesting, havent checked if that part is gone too. What is WSJ? Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:03, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

by the way, I think most of your original info is still there. I moved the lines below the tables up to the the rest of the text. I think it looks better to keep the paragrafs together and then have the results below them. I dont know if that is the modified text you are talking about. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:14, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

It looks more relevant now (can we move it back?) with the next section in TALK I just added. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:07, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Very true. Maybe a new section or redefining the sections could be done. But let us leave to the news agencies to make the news and lets us write it when it is at least a few hours old. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:28, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Your fine references and the info was already in the section, just a little above. Now it is in the april section. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:31, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

 Done Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:51, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

PS: WSJ abbreviates Wall Street Journal (online and a newspaper), most authoritative. Truly Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:19, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Extremely Dubious "Projected first Republican National Convention vote"

Somebody added a "Projected first Republican National Convention vote" based a single white paper which was released: [31]. I have many qualms about the methodology in this, and the author seems to have a very poor understanding of statistics (e.g. says that having multiple independent sources with error margins "increases" the uncertainty, when it does exactly the opposite). As well as a bunch of very unlikely consequences of Santorum dropping out (Romney loses a third of his support, Ron Paul doesn't lose any, Ron Paul gets half of Santorum's voters, some of gingrich's, Romney gets none). The net result is the projection that Ron Paul will pick up 550 of the remaining delegates, but Romney will only get 310. Now I don't contribute to wikipedia much, so I don't know the procedures for debating or assessing the validity of external sources, but this does seem very out of line with virtually ever other projection by any credible media source, as well as seeming just generally unlikely to any independent observer.

Additionally, I can't actually find the article anywhere else to verify its source- on the wiki page it says "David MacMillan III University of Northern Alabama", but I can't find the article linked to anywhere else on the internet- it seems to literally just be a pdf hosted on a pdf hosting service with no other information about the author than their name. It could literally just be some random person's vague projections formatted into a pdf and uploaded on the internet. Is that really worthy on it's own row, presented as of comparable accuracy to totals from sources such as the green papers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.15.2 (talk) 05:08, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

answers your last question> http://www.dailypaul.com/226532/delegate-count-actual-statistical-analysis

Athleek123 (talk) 05:20, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I think this clearly shows the source is not anywhere near neutral. This is important in this case because the projections can vary wildly depending on the assumptions you make and almost anybody could justify their projections as being plausible whilst making the outcome suit the candidate they support. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.171.15.2 (talk) 08:58, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree. One person's speculative analysis on how the convention vote will go down is definitely not needed, especially if this person is a non-neutral Paulite. I'm removing the item from the article. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 11:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Not only is this silly analysis ridiculous based on what it is expecting to turnover to Ron Paul..but it is wrong even then. Somehow even after winning NY, NJ, UT and CT, it has Romney getting only 163 delegates, even though he would get 90 from UT and NJ alone. The problem with RonPaulians is that Wikipedia exists in the REAL world. And they don't. The way they make these "predictions" is they keep playing with the numbers until they can come up with Romney getting less than 1144. They don't care how ridiculous those numbers are as long as it keeps Romney under 1144. I mean...my god...it is predicting that Ron Paul wins EVERY district in California..a state where Romney currently has a THIRTY THREE percent lead in the polls.74.67.108.222 (talk) 07:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

All of the mainstream media is biased against Ron Paul, so every prediction in this article is biased. Adding a prediction from a non-mainstream source, then, adds neutrality, not bias, to the article. Besides, his prediction is already showing itself to be true: http://www.denverpost.com/breakingnews/ci_20399310/colorado-republicans-split-delegate-votes-between-romney-unified Athleek123 (talk) 20:03, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

But then Romney's count needs to be INCREASED as well. The media was expecting Romney to get just 35% of Colorado's delegates. But he got 45%. Similar results have happened in North Dakota and Wyoming where Romney picked up several more delegates than the media was counting on.74.67.108.222 (talk) 07:36, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

How is this even remotely a WP:RS? That's it's hosted at a open site immediately disqualifies it. We don't know who did it? (There's a name, but nothing about him), cannot verify if it's an accurate copy and extreme notability concerns. I'm removing it, please address these concerns and get consensus here before readding it. Ravensfire (talk) 21:02, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

All projections have bias. We must either remove all projections or make a table of all of them. A source doesn't need to be necessary for a projection, because some of the most "reliable" news sources often have the most bias in their projections. Athleek123 (talk) 21:26, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, we have to have a source - projections from a news source ARE sourced to that news source. Read the WP:RS page. Ravensfire (talk) 21:28, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Whoops, meant to say "A source doesn't need to be reliable for a projection..." Athleek123 (talk) 21:32, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Umm, no. Ravensfire (talk) 21:34, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes. There is no such thing as a "reliable" projection. If you wrote up a projection and posted it somewhere it would be just as reliable (if not more reliable) than the extremely biased mainstream media. Athleek123 (talk) 21:36, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Bluntly, if you'd read the WP:RS page, you'd know that anything that might be questioned in a WP page must be sourced to a reliable source. Period. Not necessarily unbiased, but it must be from a reliable source. You'll note that any projections are both sourced to a WP:RS and we say where it's sourced from so that readers can estimate potential bias in their eyes. But you MUST have a reliable source. Ravensfire (talk) 21:40, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Ok then, all delegate counts and predictions must be removed. For one, the counts and predictions themselves are completely inaccurate because they use the popular vote to estimate delegates, which has nothing to do with the actual delegate count. Athleek123 (talk) 21:46, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

If they are sourced to a WP:RS, then no, they don't. And yes, CNN / FoxNews, etc are considered reliable sources. Ravensfire (talk) 21:49, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Is the Washington Times a reliable source? http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/apr/15/colorado-further-evidence-ron-paul-will-challenge-/ Who gets to decide that some news organizations are reliable just because they are well-known?

I like the Washington Times. Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:47, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

Generally, yes, the Washington Times is reliable. It meets the criteria in WP:RS. Specifically how you use it may be an issue, so without any context, it's impossible to answer definitively. Ravensfire (talk) 00:30, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

The Washington Times is not a "reliable source"; it is a publisher with a good reputation. Please go read the criteria for what makes something a reliable source. It has 3 factors (Publisher, Writer, Article) for something to be a reliable source, not 1. -- Avanu (talk) 16:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Well it's just that that article^ confirms the reliability of the projections I put up earlier Athleek123 (talk) 01:29, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

You don't get it, do you? Some delusional college kid making RIDICULOUS predictions for future contests...some that have already not come true...is in NO way, shape or form, the same as the Washington Times. Based on what has happened in caucus states, Romney is getting MORE delegates than the media is reporting...not less. Because they have been estimating based on the popular vote, and Romney is getting a higher percentage of delegates than he got in the popular vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.100.241 (talk) 06:31, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Is there a hurry to project? Time will tell. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:06, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

There is a move afoot to coalesce behind Romney (and soon).[32] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:00, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Countdown to securing the Republican Nomination

Of course, the Republican nomination will not be secured, formally, until the first vote at the 2012_Republican_National_Convention starting August 27th in Tampa, Florida. When will the 1,144 votes actually be secured? Not till the end of May, not that far away now. Look to Texas to be the 'clincher' and California to be the 'hammer', (my words, original thought/research). Here is the path to securing the nomination delegate votes (with each state, total delegates & cumulative count, if Romney is allocated them all) :: Start with today from our Table(591) +CT(28,619) +DE(17,636) +NY(95,731) +PA(72,803) +RI(19,822) +LA(46,868) +ID(46,914) +NC(55,969) +WV(31,1000) +OR(28,1028) +AR(26,1064) +KY(45,1109) +TX(155,1264) +CA(172,1436). And so you see that Connecticut, Delaware, New York, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Louisiana, Idaho, North Carolina, West Virginia, Oregon, Arkansas, Kentucky can all vote and still not reach the magic number of 1144 (1,144 is half plus one) . . . so if everybody jumps on board with Mitt Romney, he goes over the top with Texas on May 29th and definitely then with California on June 5th. After June 5th, only Nebraska, Montana, and Utah will be voting. So, you see, although Romney is on a roll, so to speak, (Ann too now that she has a Twitter account and secures the Motherhood vote) the requisite number isn't reached until Texas votes. What if Ron Paul takes his home state of Texas? Then CA would be both the 'clincher' and the 'hammer', in my humble (but obvious) view. All of these states vote not only for their presidential choice, but regarding other details such as their state delegation, local Republican arrangements, and state races. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:36, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

FYI, This looks like a good 'current delegate count'. [33] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:03, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

RealClearPolitics says this is the official RNC delegate count: [34] . . . (Romney:573 vs 479) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:42, 16 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is something to keep in mind (both for rules and for nomenclature).
"NRC Delegate Count ... April 2012 ... Posted by: Sean Spicer, Communications Director [for NRC]"
"Please find below an updated delegate chart. Please keep in mind that these numbers do not reflect any potential delegate disputes and this information may change based on the results that come in after the initial vote that may affect the delegate count."
"The following is based on the information provided to the RNC by each state party which has held a presidential primary, caucus or convention to date where delegates were bound or delegates have publicly endorsed a candidate. It does not include states which do not bind delegates. These numbers reflect the current results of the Congressional Districts and the actual results may not be certified for up to 2 weeks. The current delegate tracking is set out in the chart below:
DELEGATE COUNT AS REPORTED BY STATE PARTIES " [35] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:00, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

^I like this.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:38, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

Why is Santorum still shown in the article's infobox?

Rick Santorum officially dropped out of the race a few days ago; why is he still featured in the infobox on the right? Only show the 3 CURRENT candidates!
68.174.106.170 (talk) 02:16, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Since I was a programmer, I started to look at taking Sanorum out; Lynnette called me to dinner; then I figured God didn't want me to remove his picture; (what would Santorum say?) You can realize that he suspended, not ended. He did not say to Romney (or Paul or Gingrich) "OK, I'm out!" What he did say was that his campaign suspends and he will continue to fight for the right, (or something like that). For consistency, we should add "OUT" to his first picture, like in the next picture of him. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:11, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Notice that Santorum has more delegates (202) than the combined total of Newt Gingrich (132) and Ron Paul (26) and they all three hope for a 'brokered' convention if and when Mitt Romney does not have half the delegates on the First Vote. Of course, that will go to Romney anyway, but isn't it premature to take Rick Santorum "out"? Just Asking, 03:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Santorum should absolutely remain in the infobox, if for no other reason than he won a significant number of states (11). Mike Huckabee ended his campaign in a similar fashion to Santorum in 2008, and he is still in the 2008 infobox. Heck, Alan Keyes, who won only five percent of the overall popular vote and zero states, is included in the 2000 infobox.

As for adding "out" to Santorum's infobox image, I probably wouldn't, as I don't recall this having ever been done in infoboxes of the past. However, if it is done, I wouldn't want to see the label left in place after the primaries conclude, as that has never been done before either. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:10, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Sgt, thanks for your wisdom, experience, insights, and advice. Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:20, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It has been standard policy in past presidential primary articles to include in the infobox all candidates who won at least one state or were otherwise among the top contenders. Remember that this article is going to stay here long after the primaries are over, so we can't be thinking solely about the current view. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 01:50, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess that would be exactly the four shown there now, right? In order of states won: Romney, Santorum, Gingrich and Ron Paul. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:43, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Additionally, one could ask, "Why didn't Santorum endorse Romney?" ANSWER: He still hopes to win at convention, or at least lobby for something. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:45, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

I obviously agree that Santorum should be included in infobox, but there should be a clear indication that he is out of the running. I have two proposals: his image being in black and white (and the same for Paul and Gingrich when we assume they will eventually leave). Or an alphabetical footnote in the infobox, next to the delegate count: (a) Santorum suspended his campaign on April 10, 2012. Sir Richardson (talk) 19:29, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Sir Richardson, why would "we" assume that Gingrich and Paul will eventually leave? Both have stated numerous times that they are going to stay in the race until the convention. Paul has already won Minnesota and Iowa so I don't see him going anywhere, although Gingrich has been bouncing checks just to get himself on ballots so I wouldn't be surprised to see him leave. Mathias 173.250.193.35 (talk) 19:15, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

It is customary that other delegates suspend their campaigns and even endorse the winner after he have secured the majority of the delegates, something Romney will do in June at the latest unless the race once more will turn upside down, witch could happen. I simply think that is what Richardson refereres too. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:21, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

He only suspended and hasnt endorsed. Hes also one of the "final four" and a major competitor. I say keep em all at this point. We can order them by final delegate totals when those are available, or at the convention (unless he releases them prior to the first vote).--Metallurgist (talk) 10:33, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Why are Gingrich and Santorum still pictured at the top if they are out?

We don't see Perry or anyone else there, so I assume this lists current candidates, which at this point are two. 67.87.36.182 (talk) 05:55, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

If you are talking about the infobox, then it is customary to keep the main candidates (those carring states or otherwise being important) in the box. See primary articles from 2008 and older. If not then only the nominee would be there since it is also customary for the other candidates to drop out when the frontrunner have secured a majority.

If you are talking about the first table in the article you have a point. When the primary is finished we should properly remake it in the image of earlier primary articles. But for now the dropped out candidates are still securing delegates (look into Colorado and write about it in the later state section) so it would be good to keep the four main candidates in this table for now. Oh and by the way Gingrich have stilled not supspended. Lets wait for it to be official since this is not a news media page. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:39, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Introductory Typo

I don't have editing rights to this article, but the phrase "five state" should be "five states" in the most recent paragraph.

Thanks.

 Done - Thanks for spotting the error.--JayJasper (talk) 20:58, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

Santorum reasons for suspending his campaign

Currently, our article hints it was because of money. I'm not sure this is entirely appropriate in our brilliant article, and it does not have a footnoted external reference.

Here are some additional reasons that could be documented and still be not up to our standards:

• He did not want to face the possibility of losing in PA, where he lost his Senate seat by 17%.
• He wanted to stay a possibility for 2016; or lobby for his ideals; or leverage an appointment.
• He could indeed see that with upcoming votes, he could do no better than 2nd place.
• He wanted to suspend but not end his campaign and hope for a 'brokered convention'.
• Yes, by suspending, there are several financial advantages, some of which I understand.

It could also be said that Gingrich has no money, but is it appropriate? Just Asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:45, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

I am sure that the is many reasons for all candidates to end their campaigns, and it could be added if good reference are found. But it is a fact that Santorum was running out of money, and it also a fact that Gingrich campaign is in deep depth by now. Money is important in politic everywhere in the world but even more in USA. If Santorum have stated any official reasons for his supsension it would be good to state them, so would Gingrich reasons when he suspend next week. But not to mention anything about the money would be hiden information. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Didn't we use to note "Next Primaries" ?

We used to have a paragraph I would keep up (regarding the next Republican primaries) which I thought readers would appreciate. What happened? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Tomorrow, Louisiana holds its convention with their 28 delegates. Then on May 8th IN, NC, and WV have open primaries for a total of 123 delegates. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:34, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Actually Louisiana have caucuses, the Louisiana convention is on June 2 Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, I added IN, NC, WV, and Louisiana Green Papers to our external link list at the bottom of the article. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)