Talk:2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 7

Nevada

I am seeing numerous reports claiming that Bernie Sanders has won the Nevada Caucus with the final delegate count being: "Clinton 2390 delegates. Sanders 2958 delegates."Source: [1] What should we do? JP16103 02:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Im not sure, on one hand it looks like Sanders won Nevada but on the other if he did by how much? I would hold off until something more concrete is in place, even the Green papers still has a Clinton win. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

From what I understand, he will win Nevada, but it has to be certified at the state convention in about a month. Buffaboy ^talk 02:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Here is an additional link: [2] it sounds like there was drama & confusion so I don't know if the results would be contested. Seeing that the official results wont be certified for a month, there are too many things right now to call NV for Sanders in my opinion. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:59, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree, until we have more conclusive evidence as to what has happened we should leave it be. However, if it is confirmed that Sanders has won the 2nd round, we should update the article to reflect this. JP16103 03:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes of course, a Sanders confirmed win in Nevada wouldn't be ignored by sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 05:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I personally don't think that either candidate should be listed for NV yet. Look at it this way. The conventions are ultimately what matter, not the vote. So in that case, you could say that it will go for Bernie. On the other hand, like was previously stated, Bernie winning Nevada could be contested. I think it should be left grey or just change the color completely and put a note that NV results are not known. TempTTC (talk) 06:16, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with TempTTC. Right now if we're to go by any estimate, it would go either way depending on what sources we use. So let's make this fair and keep it grey to avoid any possible conflicts between editors who want to use differentiating sources, or god forbid the clashing of Bernie and Hillary supporters. --Bobtinin (talk) 06:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

• Based on the following info from the first link cited above: "Sanders supporters outnumbered Clinton delegates by around 600 on Saturday, which means they'll make up a larger percentage of Clark County's delegates attending the state convention in May, despite Clinton's February victory in the county." & "But it remains to be seen how much of an impact Saturday's results will have at the state convention, as results of other county conventions continue to roll in and the total number of delegates for each campaign attending the state convention is still unknown."

it appears that nothing has been set in stone in NV as of yet. I wouldn't change anything from what is already an established win for Clinton based on the initial NV caucus.

This kind of thing should be expected in other states as well, since the Sanders campaign has basically stated a goal of trying to "win" more delegates at regional, county, or state Democratic Party conventions if possible. The Ron Paul supporters tried a similar thing during the 2012 GOP process, and it ultimately yielded mixed results for them in the end. Guy1890 (talk) 06:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

In the first step, the District level, Hillary won 13/23 pledged delegates (Bernie just 10). In this second step, the Clark County Convention, Bernie won 55% of the total State delegates, so proportionally to these results he should obtain 7/12 pledged delegates (Hillary just 5) in the third step (the State level).

So the final count should however show Hillary winning with 18/35 total pledged delegates (Bernie just 17).

The Washington Post is also reporting these numbers. See here. Rankinr (talk) 16:32, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That's wrong. The delegates at the state convention will decide about all Nevada National Convention delegates. See letter h on page 12 here: http://nvdems.3cdn.net/efafb4788ed845d0d3_08m6i2zsp.pdf The likely result will be 19 delegates for Bernie Sanders and 16 delegates for Hillary Clinton. Ich bin es einfach (talk) 00:34, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

According to your source all the pledged delegates will be selected on 5/14, but this doesn't mean that they all are going to be selected by the State delegates, according to your source 23 of them will be selected by the Congressional District Caucuses so they will be probably selected proportionally to the County delegates' number (and so to the election day results).--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 01:56, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

All the National Convention delegates will be selected by state delegates. The (National Convention) district-level delegates by state delegates which live in the respective Congressional District. The February 20th precinct caucuses did only elect delegates to the county conventions. That's it. Moreover, county convention delegates and state delegates are free to change their mind and support another candidate. I'm pretty sure that doesn't happen and change much. The bigger factor is obviously delegates not showing up. Ich bin es einfach (talk) 11:32, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

See also here http://nvdems.com/caucus/caucus-to-convention/ "District-Level Delegates are elected by State Convention Delegates from only the Congressional District in which a Delegate candidate is running." I added the highlight. Ich bin es einfach (talk) 13:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I just Read it. Ok, so you are right. Good news for Bernie. I'm sorry if I have sounded polemical. Anyway is it ok for you if we keep the footnote, waiting for supporting sources?--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 13:12, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Nevermind. The delegate selection process is complicated and not easy to understand. I just want to get it right and include all the available information for people interested. Can we put the footnote like this: Following the election of delegates to the state convention at the County Conventions in Nevada on April 2nd, Clinton is expected to be awarded fewer pledged delegates than the 20 initially estimated (18 or 16), whereas Sanders will get more than the estimated 15 (17 or 19) [3][4] Ich bin es einfach (talk) 15:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

It's ok for me. If you want to cite sources for the 18-17 projection there are Washington Post and Las Vegas Sun that you can easily find in this talk.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 16:31, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Before the Clark County Convention they were projected (According to Associated Press and Green Papers) 20 (Hillary)-15 (Bernie).

Here the sources: Las Vegas Sun 04/02, Las Vegas Sun 04/03 and Nevada State Democratic Party's Memo--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 13:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Now that we have multiple credible sources all saying the same thing, should we update the article to reflect this information? JP16103 16:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I just want to point out that taking different numbers from sources to try and make something out of it is original research (See also: WP:SYNTH). I know many online want to achieve the final results from Nevada before May, but since we already have so many out there that say that Wikipedia is a unreliable source doing this at a chance of being wrong isn't worth it. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:51, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

So if the AP updates their results to include this info, should we as well? I think that would be fair. JP16103 16:55, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It can even be from The Green Papers, but yeah we should go by some concrete numbers. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:56, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Cool. I don't have any objections to that. I guess we will have to wait and see. JP16103 17:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 17:43, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Is The Green Papers expected to update? Will it do so soon or will it take an extended period of time? I don't like the idea of waiting a month or two before acknowledging what occurred in some shape or form. Dustin (talk) 17:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Already done, there is a footnote by NV in Clinton's column. Feel free to add anything you feel should be included. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

We should probably change the color of Clark County to green on the results by county Map on the bottom of the page. If y'all agree I'll do it. --Bobtinin (talk) 19:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Given the sources, I think that's a good idea. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 19:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

If the map shows the counties according to the popular vote results I don't agree because Hillary won in the Clark County with 54.8% of the votes. If the map shows the counties according to the delegates allocated I agree.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 19:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@Bobtinin: Why not just color it different, and label the new color "Inconclusive"? We don't have all of the puzzle pieces yet, and Eric has a point regarding the popular vote. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:05, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

EricCantonaTheKing is right though. I think the map is meant to show the popular vote count, or in case the vote count is not released, the result of the caucus at the lowest level. The final number of delegate is not within the scope of that map and as such Clark county should remain gold. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 20:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

You guys are right, good point. Map is by votes, not delegates. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 20:28, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

First off, there is no popular vote in Nevada, they don't do presidential preference vote. Secondly, It doesn't say anywhere that it's meant for the "lowest level caucus". When it comes to caucuses there's a whole process behind it, at the county level, district level, and yadda yadda. This isn't the end, the final results will be released in May, but since it says nowhere that it's meant for the lowest level caucus, we must keep it updated as it goes along. The official results of the county level have Bernie Sanders winning Clark County, and so it should switch to green. --Bobtinin (talk) 20:29, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Of course it doesn't say explicitly that it is for the lowest level caucus. But we're discussing now what info we should show and I gave my interpretation. Here's my logic: if the popular vote was released but there were still more steps towards the nomination of delegates, we would surely provide the result of that popular vote even if the county later on went to the other candidate. Since the popular vote is not available for Nevada, we have to go for the metric that most approximates the popular vote, that is, the caucus in which the population itself participated and not the precinct or county-level delegates. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 20:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I meant votes on election day. Citizens vote at local conventions for their delegate to represent them at the statewide convention. Clark County did support Hillary in caucus locations. However, Bobtinin is right, the map is about delegates, not (raw) votes. After looking at the maps on the left, indicating delegates by state, I thought this one was the opposite. Could you clarify it? Maybe note: "Delegates awarded by county." Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 20:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I got Bobtinin's point. I meant popular vote results or equivalent, in the case of Nevada the number of County delegates.

In Clark County Hillary gained 4774 County delegates (54.8%), Bernie 3928 (45.1%). Anyway the people elected the County delegates in the election day. But I repeat Hillary won the Nevada Caucus (also in Clark County), Bernie won the Clark County's Convention. Are differents things. But if the map show the counties according to the state delegates allocated, I agree.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 21:11, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

In Nevada, both caucuses and conventions tie into the statewide conference. Delegates are appointed in both. Combined, I think Bernie won more delegates from Clark County. Buzzards-Watch Me Work (talk) 21:39, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Then, as you said, the question we have to answer is what are we trying to show with this map. I was under the impression that it was the popular vote, but if the consensus is to show delegates instead that works too. I'd favor showing the popular vote, but I suppose a good case can be made for either option. We just have to remain consistent. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 21:44, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

To be clear we are talking about this map: File:Democratic Party presidential primaries results by county, 2016.svg right? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 22:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

That's right. Thanks for linking to it. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:22, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I think that this map is meant to show the ppular vote instead of delegates. → Call me Razr Nation 22:27, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Exactly. The problem is that in the same Clark County Hillary won more County delegates in the election day, but in the Convention Bernie won more State delegates. If the map shows the counties according to the election day's results we should keep the county gold, but if the map is supposed to show the overall result we should change it to green. I just supposed that it was showing the counties according to the election day's results, but if it isn't, as Bobtinin said, in my opinion it makes sense that the map shows the overall result.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 23:00, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Since what is going on with Sanders in the state this weekend is technically illegal and the voters in the state voted for Hillary by a 5+ point margin on the date of the actual caucus, it should stay Hillary for sure. The DNC needs to straighten this out. So far she is still ahead by a delegate though 2602:306:CC42:8340:D010:A0A4:DA2B:AC8B (talk) 23:49, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

No it's not technically illegal. A lot of county convention delegates simply didn't show up in Clark. Supporters of both candidates. But more Hillary supporters. That's the reason why Bernie Sanders got more state convention delegates than expected. Ich bin es einfach (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

To me it doesn't make any sense whatsoever to leave out the navada caucus information altogether at this moment, because the same uncertainty would hold true for ALL caucusses. The real "pledged delegate count" is always en extrapolation from the precentages of the votes at the precinct/county level. Certainty is only reached when we arrive at the state conventions. However, no news source, including the democratic party itself, has refrained from giving estimates of the state delegate (equivalent) counts in the meantime. So keep extrapolating, as is done on the Nevada Democratic caucuses, 2016 page. --77.172.213.154 (talk) 02:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That's true. A lot of results are estimates. It makes no sense to allways wait for the final national convention delegate selection. Otherwise the table would be useless. However, there should be notes that results aren't final. Unfortunately there is no source at the moment, that can be cited with the correct current estimate of national convention delegates from Nevada. I and some others have figured out, that the result will likely be 19 delegates for Bernie Sanders and 16 delegates for Hillary Clinton. But as mentioned above, that is original research. Ich bin es einfach (talk) 00:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

We can just project the final number of Nevada's national pledged delegates, and so, as you said, we need sources to eventually edit it. According to the sources, proportionally to the Clark County's results Bernie should obtain 7/12 of the residual pledged delegates (23 were already allocated in the election day, 13 to Hillary and 10 to Bernie). So it looks like Hillary could still lead with 18 delegates. Maybe your count 19-16 for Bernie is realized forgetting that part of the delegates are already allocated.

Anyway the point is not the State of Nevada's colour in the map or in the table, but just the Clark County's one. And it can be gold if we want to show the counties according to the election day's results, or green if we want to show the counties according to the State delegates allocated. These are not projections because we know (we have news sources) the accurate number of County and State delegates from Clark County. We have just to choose.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 00:57, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Now that I read your source, Ich bin es einfach, I still believe that my count works, because 23 delegates are selected by the Congressional District Caucuses (and so proportionally to the County delegates' number).--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 01:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'd again like to stress that if you read the above-highlighted sources that nothing really has changed in terms of who has "won" NV overall: "although the final count depends on results from the state-level convention.", "The first was the February caucuses, the results of which are used to apportion 23 of the delegates Nevada will send to the national convention. The second step, the county convention, is when delegates are selected to the state convention in May. The third step is the state convention, when 12 more delegates are apportioned based on attendees’ preferences." & "The apportionment of 23 delegates, known as 'district-level' delegates, is already decided, as they are based proportionally on the Feb. 20 caucus results in each district." & "Clinton emerged on caucus day with a lead of 20 to 15 in statewide delegates. According to a report from Nevada, that margin has narrowed to 18 to 17 after a second round in the process, known as the county conventions, which took place Saturday." & "Jon Ralston, a veteran Nevada reporter, said on his blog that Saturday’s action is 'expected to switch two delegates to Sanders, giving Clinton an 18 to 17 lead in Nevada, but that is still pending the results of the state convention next month, when those 12 slots could again change.'". The final process in the case of NV will be decided later at its state convention, and we really need to let that process play out to see what the final slate of NV delegates will be at the Democratic National Convention this summer. The real place to be adding this type of preliminary info is on a page like Nevada Democratic caucuses, 2016, not on this Wikipedia page here.

Again, we saw this exact same thing happen during the 2012 GOP process with Ron Paul supporters, and it really didn't end up changing a whole lot of anything. That didn't stop many Wikipedia users (usually anonymous IP users) from trying to state that Paul "won" this state or that state over & over again.

This whole kerfuffle above shows very nicely that (at least in caucus states on the Democratic side of the 2016 process) that there really is no such thing as a "popular vote". That whole hypothetical concept is almost meaningless to the way delegates are selected in those kind of contests. Guy1890 (talk) 02:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Guy1890, you are perfectly right. The point is not the colour of the State of Nevada (that at least could change after 05/14), the point is the colour of the Clark County in the Counties map, for the reasons that I said (Most of County delegates are for Hillary, most of State delegates are for Bernie). At now there is no reason nor supporting source to say that Bernie won Nevada because, also after the Clark County Convention Hillary should stay ahead with 18-17. The sources, including this one explains why (23 delegates will be selected by the Congressional District Caucuses).--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The news reports are wrong and you misinterpreted the NEVADA DELEGATE SELECTION PLAN. Nonetheless, regarding the county map, Clark county should remain yellow, because this map should reflect the results on election day. Hillary Clinton won more county convention delegates on February 20th. Ich bin es einfach (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

If the map should reflect the results on election day I agree that it remains yellow. The Delegate Selection Plan says: "district-level delegates and alternates will be elected by Congressional District Caucuses" (page 12, letter h), a.)so according to me the 23 district level delegates will probably be selected proportionally to the election day results. Maybe I'm wrong and you are right, but probably we'll know it only after 05/14.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 12:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'd like to again stress that we can only report what reliable sources say the (eventual) totals will be for a state like NV. Anything else is basically "original research", which is really frowned upon here on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 04:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Jollisonpdx (talk) 05:45, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Wiki should update delegate count from the last vote they accepted, to the current vote... Hey, Washington has a multi-tiered system, where they have delegate changes too, as new voting events occur. Is Wiki waiting to post delegate counts for Washington? I would think that if you are reporting Washington incrementally, then you should be consistent, and do the same for NV...

Maybe we could update this kind of preliminary info in the page Nevada Democratic caucuses, 2016 citing the Las Vegas Sun, as Guy1890 said.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 08:49, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Anyway somebody added notes explaining what happened in the results' table. In my opinion it's a good solution.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 09:20, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. The estimated delegate count can be updated as soon as we have a reliable source for that. Ich bin es einfach (talk) 11:46, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

How about we just leave everything alone and wait until after May 5. If Sanders comes back with more delegates than Hillary then we should include it in the article on Nevada but not change the color of the map. We didn't do it in 2008 when the same thing happened so why do it now? Hillary still won the state.2602:306:CC42:8340:8579:2510:5219:993A (talk) 05:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

You are right, infact Nevada is still gold (Clinton's color if you are colorblind) in the map. We just added a footnote in the table explaining what happened in Nevada on April 2. Anyway we kept gold also the Clark County in the Counties map because the maps, if I'm not wrong, are supposed to reflect the Election day results.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 12:48, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't say anywhere that it's only meant to reflect Election day results. If we're going to keep the image/article updated accurately, there's no reason not to color Clark County green. Here's your [source]. It's from the Reno Gazette Journal, part of USA Today. The article confirms Bernie Sanders' victory in Clark County. Also in case you're wondering, it also confirms that Hillary is still technically in the lead statewide, so nobody should color the entire state green. --Bobtinin (talk) 21:46, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

http://www.dailynewsbin.com/news/fact-checkers-confirm-hillary-clinton-is-still-the-winner-of-the-nevada-caucus/24415/2602:306:CC42:8340:D071:F045:B863:BD3D (talk) 03:20, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Popular Vote

Why is popular vote shown in the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 article but not here? In the Republican article the current total popular vote is shown in the main card of the article below each candidate and in the Major candidates section.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.191.226.209 (talk) 21:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Because all the obsessive Sanders supporters are trying to live in denial and want to avoid showing in any way that Sanders is actually losing. Anything else they believe is biased... even popular votes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:589:4705:B92B:8DDE:AD55:9E0D:B542 (talk) 22:27, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The actual reason is because there is an active discussion about whether or not to add that info. You can find that discussion here among other places. You're welcome to join in, but please respect the editing process of Wikipedia and assume good faith. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:36, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Pledged delegate gap

Could you add a graph of the delegate gap in percentual terms? this is because as the total number of already elected pledged delegates grows, a difference of, say, 100 delegates, becomes less important in relative terms. Thanks. 200.90.250.106 (talk) 12:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure that's necessary. Isn't closing the gap a matter of raw delegate count rather than proportion? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:36, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

In a way, yes. But there is another way of looking at it as well: The gap at this moment is 228 pledged delegates with 1,747 to be decided; Clinton has a 13.1% lead, which is to say that Sanders must get 56.5% of the remaining pledged delegates to pull even in that category.

Now, let's say that Sanders wins the Wisconsin primary and the Wyoming caucus, getting 56 delegates to Clinton's 44. The gap in raw numbers is now 216, but there are only 1,647 pledged delegates remaining, so Clinton's lead in that category remains 13.1%, and Sanders must win 56.55% of remaining delegates.

Just as the gap in raw numbers is finite and shrinking, so the number of remaining available pledged delegates is also finite, and shrinking, and the percentage of remaining delegates needed rises.

Clear as mud?  :-) -- Couillaud 19:21, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

(Edited to correct the number of available pledged delegates -- read the number of Sanders' totals, rather than available pledged.) -- Couillaud 19:37, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Why is the pledged delegate gap inverted? Shouldn't the line represent the absolute value, in which case it goes up as the gap increases? --120.138.182.102 (talk) 13:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It's not really inverted though, precisely because it shows absolute values. Whether Clinton's or Sanders's lead is shown above the origin doesn't matter. However, I now decided to invert the graph to show Clinton's lead above the origin because it actually brings the bars closer to the state labels, making it easier to see the outcome of each individual contests. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:30, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Abjiklam: Graph looked better in its original orientation. New version doesn't look like a "gap" at all. I'm not rooting for a candidate or the other here, just the intuitive definition of a "gap". When the "gap is widening", I expect the graph to go down; when the "gap is closing" I expect it to go up, so this new version triggers some cognitive dissonance... That would be fine is we wanted to represent a "delegate lead" instead of a "delegate gap". Hope that makes sense; comments welcome. — JFG ^talk 14:54, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I think, in that case, calling it a "delegate lead" would be better, with the current orientation kept as is. Just feels like as the graph sinks as the difference in delegate numbers widens, there's a judgment being implied. --120.138.182.102 (talk) 15:03, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

PS: We discussed this a bit earlier too. The choice of graph orientation indeed implies two different narratives: if the line is drawn in the y>0 region, it says "Hillary's lead is growing / shrinking", if it's drawn in the y<0 region it says "Bernie's gap is widening / closing". The message is the same, but the perspective is from Clinton's or Sanders' side (Einstein would love this). And because we want to illustrate the phrase "delegate gap", I feel that we have to show it from Sanders' perspective, because he is the one who has a gap... — JFG ^talk 15:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm not so convinced the term gap justifies one orientation over another. What's more important in my opinion is ease of understanding. When the bars and labels are closer together, it makes the graph easier to read. However, another option is to revert to the original orientation but have the labels on top of the graph. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Agree with placing labels on top, let's try that. — JFG ^talk 02:13, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

On second thoughts it would look awkward. Labels are generally placed on the bottom, and I think we would need a better reason to deviate from that. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 09:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Opinions on graphs

There's been a bit of back and forth recently between two sets of graphs. Rather than edit warring, let us gauge the support from the community.

Option 1

• 
• 

Option 2

• 
• 

• Option 1. Disclaimer: I am the author of option 1. I believe it is better for the following reasons:

1. It is in svg, making it smoothly scalable at any dimension.
2. It follows the color scheme that was agreed upon by the community.
3. The source code to generate the graph is available on the file's page. Therefore, we are not relying on a single contributor. Anyone so inclined, even without programming skills, can run the code and generate updated graphs.

I am gladly taking comments and suggestions to improve the graphs.

Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:31, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

What were the reasons of the back and forth? I ask because your arguments seem really conclusive in favour of the Option 1.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 13:40, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Post Scriptum: If it wasn't clear, I favour the Option 1. Anyway the Graphs should be updated because, after the last update about Kansas results, Clinton has 1303 total pledged delegates and Bernie has 1087.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 17:21, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I favor option 1, per WP:BRD this should not change unless there is a consensus here. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:49, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I favour Option 1. Anywikiuser (talk) 16:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Both are good, but I think Option 1 is better. Just two things: These are pleged delegate graphs, so graph 1 should display the majority of pledged delegates. That would be at 2026. And it would be nice to have the gap at every single contest in numbers included in graph 2. Above the line, when Sanders won more delegates, below the line, when Clinton won more delegates. Ich bin es einfach (talk) 18:15, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Ich bin es einfach in particular about the 2026 line.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 18:26, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

I'll work on having a label for every contest. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Minor comment -- would you consider using the abbreviations for the states/ territories/ democrats abroad rather than writing them out in full? It looks a little clogged up. Sleepingstar (talk) 23:13, 8 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes it's possible. I just wonder whether everyone will understand labels such as MP for Mariana Islands and DA for Democrats Abroad. I could also space out the labels a bit more to make the graph more leglible. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Option 1 - The color scheme is better, and I like the labeling on the graph(s) of what the final total(s) are at the end of each line.

These are pledged delegates, correct? If so, the graphs should be labelled as such.

I disagree though about the "goal line" of the second graph...it should remain 2383, as that's apparently how many delegates one needs to get the 2016 Democratic nomination. I know there's an issue about whether anyone can get there just with pledged delegates, but that's the final goal in any event. Guy1890 (talk) 04:29, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean the "goal line" in the first graph of the option 2. In the second option model the final goal of 2383 isn't shown, you are right (this is also one of the reason in favour of the Option 1), infact in my opinion we shouldn't change the 2383 goal line with the 2026 one (like in the option 2), but just add also the 2026 line obviously keeping the 2383 one on the top(beacuse it is the one that really matters). I think that in this way the graph would be more complete primarily because it is very unlikely, although it is theoretically still possible, that any of the candidates can get to 2383 without unpledged delegates. I mean, if there are no particular difficulties (if there are I unsay what I said) to technically implement it, why not to add it? Anyway I too prefer the Option 1 with or without the 2026 line.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 09:12, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree with EricCantonaTheKing. --Ich bin es einfach (talk) 11:51, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

@Guy1890: Right now the graphs of Option 1 both specify that they track pledged delegates.

@EricCantonaTheKing and Ich bin es einfach: I'm not against a 2026 line, but I wonder whether it is necessary. Ultimately I plan to add the final convention results to the count graph. In any case it is not complicated to add a second line. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:09, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

You now appear to have added the majority of pledged delegates line as well as keeping the final, nomination "goal line", which is fine by me...thanx. Guy1890 (talk) 03:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

@Abjiklam:You are right, it isn't strictly necessary, but this doesn't mean that it is necessarily superfluous or useless. Anyway if it seems inopportune to the most we don't insert it in the graph. However I remind you to update the pledged delegates numbers to 1303-1087.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 14:41, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

Point taken. I'll update the graph asap. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:00, 9 April 2016 (UTC)

• Option 1 per SVG format superior to PNG format, and due to color scheme. It can be confusing as red (Clinton's color in Option #2) is associated with the Republican Party. MB298 (talk) 18:47, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
• Option 1 as it has evolved by now. IMHO both thresholds are relevant and should be given. The other set of graphs is clearly sub-par. --PanchoS (talk) 06:58, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The graphs are very nice now, thank you Abjiklɐm --Ich bin es einfach (talk) 16:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Lacking information Wyoming

The discrepancy between the difference in popular vote and the lack of difference in the number of delegates should be explained. I could attempt it myself one of these days but I am not an American so I prefer to leave it to someone else. ;) Generally speaking, there have been several state in which strange things happened: cheating from the Hillary-team, rule which changed after the cauces, votingstations which suddenly disappeared, mostly in counties which favour Sanders, fraud (allowing unregistered Hillary-volunteers to vote) etcetera. A bit more explanation about these incidents would be welcome (possibly with links to seperate wiki's and a summary in this wiki). This can be done in a NPOV way by just stating the established facts. 145.132.75.218 (talk) 22:53, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

You don't have to be American to contribute to U.S. election articles. Just find some WP:RS covering the alleged incidents, and add a short paragraph taking care of WP:NPOV, including WP:DUE. If it's not covered by WP:RS, then we can't include it though. --PanchoS (talk) 00:16, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I don't know if there were cheats or frauds, but, as PanchoS said, if you find the sources and write the paragraph with a neutral point of view, of course you can do it!

Regarding the specifc case of Wyoming I try to explain what happened, and maybe I could write a paragraph in the Wyoming Caucus' article. These unusual situations can occur in the states that assign few delegates also without cheats or frauds. Here in the small table The Green Papers explains everything: The pledged delegates belong to three categories (district, at-large and PLEO) and the delegates from each category are awarded proportionally but separately.

So Hillary with 44.3% should (they will be elected on May 28 according to Wyoming Democrats) correctly get 4/8 district delegates (because 44.3% of 8 is more than 3.5 and 55.7% of 8 is less than 4.5) and 2/4 at-large ones (44.3% of 4 is more than 1.7, 55.7% is less than 2.3) and 1/2 PLEOs (44.3% of 2 is more than 0.8, 55.7% is less than 1.2).

Obviously these should be the results except Nevada style surprises. Bernie should have won with at least 56.3% to get 5/8 district delegates, more than 62.5% to get 3/4 at-large ones, and more than 75% to get 2 PLEOs.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 10:26, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Indeed, as EricCantonaTheKing said, the math was done correctly, and heavily favored an even split in pledged delegates. Those allegations of electioneering etc. are a different issue. --PanchoS (talk) 10:50, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

I love when a Bernie Bro comes on the thread, spreads a bunch of crap with no evidence, and then leaves us with addressing his ridiculous claims. 129.7.157.121 (talk) 22:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@145.132.75.218: @129.7.157.121: When discussing these matters, please be polite and do not engage in personal attacks.

Missouri

Similar to Nevada, there are reports that Sanders has won the county conventions in Missouri, and is now estimated to take 37 delegates versus Clinton's 34, when Clinton was expected to beat him 36-35. Should the map be changed to green to reflect the Sanders victory, or should another map be created to show the states after their county conventions? -100.34.125.225 (talk) 07:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Probably not, as the map is colored to popular vote or equivalent rather than delegate count. E.g. in Wyoming we colored it green as the popular vote equivalent had Sanders winning, despite Clinton and Sanders actually tying in the delegate count. Sleepingstar (talk) 08:10, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Read this http://progressivearmy.com/2016/04/10/bernie-sanders-wins-missouri-after-all/ • Sbmeirow • Talk • 09:11, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

As we allready did for Nevada, I would insert just a footnote explaing what happened and citing the supporting source, waiting for official final results.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 13:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Actually, the MISSOURI DELEGATE SELECTION PLAN FOR THE 2016 DEMOCRATIC NATIONAL CONVENTION states the following:

"The Missouri’s presidential primary election is a “binding” primary. Accordingly, delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated so as to fairly reflect the expressed presidential (or uncommitted) preference of the primary voters in each district. The National Convention delegates and alternates selected at the district level shall be allocated in proportion to the percentage of the primary vote won in that district by each preference, except that preferences falling below a 15% threshold shall not be awarded any delegates or alternates."

So, there should be no change in the delegate allocation. --Ich bin es einfach (talk) 16:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Most primaries don't directly elect the delegates. A few states do elect the delegates directly in a primary, such as Illinois. In Missouri, as with most states that hold a primary, the primary is a poll that determines how the state's delegates to the Democratic National Convention are bound. The actual human beings who serve as the delegates are then selected through other means, usually (as is the case here) by state-level party conventions. So in the case of Missouri, 36 of the state's delegates will be bound to vote for Clinton and 35 will be bound to vote for Sanders. This will be the case even if a majority of the Missouri delegates actually support Sanders. I know that in the Republican National Convention, delegates are only bound on the first ballot and then afterwards can vote freely - I am not sure what the rules are for the Democrats. Anywikiuser (talk) 17:02, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Again I would hold off until the state convention as we have done with Nevada, we cant predict the final outcome. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:44, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I didn't read the selection plan, but, if it is like Ich bin es einfach said, probably the source "progressive army" is wrong and not reliable, so I wouldn't add the footnote. Anyway we should keep the map coloured according to the election days results and the numbers of pledged delegates in the table according to TGP projections. EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 19:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

@EricCantonaTheKing: I would say it is unreliable as I have not seen this same info in any other reliable sources. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:27, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 09:08, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

This has been widely reported in blogs, but not covered in other news outlets, so we can't know if it's correct or not. However, the mere fact that other news outlets don't cover a particular piece of information doesn't turn the one that does, unreliable. Time will tell. --PanchoS (talk) 11:20, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you are right. I just say, as Ich bin es einfach did, that the Progressive Army's count looks incorrect according to the Missouri Delegate Selection Plan. There should be no change in the delegate allocation, but as you said, only time will tell.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 18:13, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• The initial, likely unreliable website cited by the original IP editor at the top of this thread has been updated to say: "Correction – I wrote initially that Bernie Sanders got more delegates than Hillary Clinton in Missouri because many Hillary Clinton supporters didn’t show up. However, the Missouri Democratic Party explains that this wouldn’t alter the vote because the vote is ‘binding’ based on sections III.A.6.a, III.C.4.a, III.D.4.a in the Delegate Selection plan. The delegates selected in the April 7 mass meetings were not selected, as I initially thought, to vote for the candidate of their choice. The Missouri Democratic Party already issued a document declaring that Hillary Clinton wins 36 delegates compared to 35 delegates for Bernie Sanders."

In other words, the initial claim made here in this thread has no merit anymore. I was also under the impression that there was some kind of recent official announcement from MO officials that Clinton had won the Democratic contest their during this cycle? Guy1890 (talk) 04:26, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Shift in Colorado delegates

A calculating error resulted in the wrong delegate allocation. The official count has shifted to Sanders - 39, Clinton - 27. http://www.denverpost.com/election/ci_29755029/colorado-democrats-admit-mistake-that-cost-bernie-sanders -- Xession (talk) 12:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The Denver Post seems reliable to me, so I added this footnote in the table. The problem is that The Green Papers and The New York Times still project 38-28.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 14:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

The footnote makes it sounds like a similar situation to Nevada, but it's a bit different. Perhaps "after discovering a reporting error" would be better. The convention was not a dispositive factor in the change, according to the article.8.23.143.38 (talk) 00:46, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

The Green Papers now projects 39-27 so the table was updated.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 17:57, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

There is a problem with the chart showing how much each candidate spent. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lavacheval (talk • contribs) 12:56, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

What kind of problem?--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 14:43, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Bernie Sanders won two additional delegates today at the State Convention. The final Colorado result is 41 to 25. --Ich bin es einfach (talk) 20:11, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

http://www.denverpost.com/election/ci_29775876/bernie-sanders-bests-hillary-clinton-at-colorado-democratic-convention --Ich bin es einfach (talk) 20:19, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

I definitely think a footnote should be added. Prcc27🎂 (talk) 21:10, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

The Map - something should not be there

Can anyone tell me why there is a world map insert at the lower right corner of the US map? And why is it green? It's like Bernie Sanders is winning the world support. It makes no sense. Please remove it. I would have removed it myself if I know how. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Haihe (talk • contribs) 02:36, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

@Haihe: The Democrats Abroad primary (registered Democrats residing abroad) was held already, and Sanders won. MB298 (talk) 02:42, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

While a case can be made that the world map is misleading, the explanation is valid and I think it should stay, though possibly with the addition of a small label. Jusdafax 03:25, 14 April 2016 (UTC)

I live in Australia, and not a US citizen. I did not find it confusing at all, especially since there is a contest there called 'Democrats abroad'. I mean, it's a US election, and i suppose we're talking of US voters in that area. Wendy.krieger (talk) 00:11, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm Italian, I've lived in France and now I live in China. My sister lived in two other important European countries. No confusion for us. It is possible that some foreigners know it better than US citizen unaware of the presence of a Democrats Abroad primary. Personal view: In 2008 it was like the "whole world" wanted to "vote for Obama" so this primary was widely publicized (like Americans interviewed outside the embassy o the consulate or at home whilst preparing their documents, things like that). Since than, it is known at least for those who read newspapers. I am not saying it may not be a issue, but from a global reader point of view, not a big issue. My advice: look for similar charts in newspaper around the world. If in general they use this type of map without the US., that's the most acceptable standard.--Alexmar983 (talk) 03:05, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm Irish, and it confused me, and wasted my time, and I rather doubt that I am so uniquely ignorant and/or stupid that I am the only reader to have been confused (and neither have I or anybody else any reason whatsoever to suppose, let alone wittingly or unwittingly imply, that Haihe (who wisely and usefully started this section - thanks, Haihe) is similarly uniquely ignorant and/or stupid). It badly needs either an explanatory footnote, or better still, text below the map saying "Democrats Abroad". Tlhslobus (talk) 09:53, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Did you waste more or less time than writing such a "rich" comment :D Tlhslobus ? Noone accused those who don't understand it to be ignorant or stupid, so why point out? We just said is not so strongly confusing as stated. Best layout should emerge from a balanced consideration, not from strong opinions, and the strongest opinion is not mine (very open to possibilities), not Wendy.krieger's one (personal case). Come on, how can people make such a big deal out of a simple map?--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

I've now added an explanation at the bottom. I leave it to others to improve its format, perhaps with text on the map itself and/or something like '(see Note a)' beside it with the footnote itself then appearing as 'Note a' (tho I'm not sure how technically easy that is, given that it's embedded in a template, and that we don't want the footnote number to change; plus adding this to the map probably requires the assistance of the Graphics Lab). Tlhslobus (talk) 10:18, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

if we start with this level of explanation, I start to think that we should also clarify that the small 5 maps are the territories. Actually, in my experience in my milieu there are more people that know what a overseas primary is (and you kinda get that that's the extra-US world) than people that are aware that US have so many territories. Plus, they're really small, I assume I am no ignorant but I can recognize only Puerto Rico from the shape. it is my fault if I don't immediately remember which is Wyoming and which is Nebraska, I don't think it is my fault if I have no idea what those tiny dots are. I can recognize them on a world map on their position compared to other areas but this way... I would refine the picture in that direction too, if possible.--Alexmar983 (talk) 11:51, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Additional delegates needed for nomination

User:Purplebackpack89 did several revisions to the "Additional delegates needed for nomination" numbers. The point is: these numbers should reflect the percentage of delegates needed or the percentage of delegates achieved in relation to the total 2,383 delegates needed for the nomination? Maybe we should talk about this to avoid edit wars.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 08:38, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

• Needed: We already have other bars in the table that reflect how many they already have. pbp 12:57, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Needed: is more informative. However, we must take care to draw the progress bar relative to how many delegates are left to allocate; see how it's done on the Republican side. — JFG ^talk 14:44, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
• Needed: I agree.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 15:08, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I gave it a try, take a look. — JFG ^talk 06:38, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

• Suggestion: In the "Total delegates" column, show progress towards majority threshhold needed to secure the nomination, instead of all convention delegates. I don't feel bold enough to just do it, so here's how it would look, please comment. — JFG ^talk 06:58, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Candidate		Most recent position	Candidacy	Estimated delegate votes		Contests won
				Pledged and superdelegates	Path to nomination
Hillary Clinton		67th U.S. Secretary of State (2009–13)	(Campaign • Positions)	Pledged delegates 1310 / 4051 (32%)	Delegate votes secured towards nomination 1787 / 2384 (75%)	20 AL, AR, AS, AZ, FL, GA, IA, IL, LA, MA, MO, MP, MS, NC, NV , OH, SC, TN, TX, VA,
				Superdelegate endorsements 477 / 715 (67%)	Additional delegate votes needed for nomination 597 / 1846 (32%)
Bernie Sanders		U.S. Senator from Vermont (2007–present)	(Campaign • Positions)	Pledged delegates 1094 / 4051 (27%)	Delegate votes secured towards nomination 1132 / 2384 (47%)	17 AK, CO, DA, HI, ID, KS, ME, MI, MN, NE, NH, OK, UT, VT, WA, WI, WY
				Superdelegate endorsements 38 / 715 (5%)	Additional delegate votes needed for nomination 1252 / 1846 (68%)

References

@JFG: Support proposal. Sleepingstar (talk) 10:52, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

@JFG: Support proposal.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 11:09, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Support. I believe that was what we had agreed on a while ago. I'm glad you're proposing that again. If a candidate reaches the threshold we'll simply change it back to share of total delegates. Until then, the threshold for nomination is in my opinion more relevant. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 12:01, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Done. Glad we are making progress. — JFG ^talk 02:54, 13 April 2016 (UTC)

ARE YOU FUCKING KIDDING ME? The current table is adding pledged delegates and the current standings of superdelegate endorsements together and calling it "Delegate votes secured".

You are correct, those votes are not secured; however the total is still meaningful as it reflects current endorsements. Wording was changed to "Total delegate votes towards nomination". — JFG ^talk 10:07, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You're still adding secured pledged delegates unpledged endorsements together. It's fine to keep track of the current standings but those numbers are not equivalent to the pledged delegate count and it's disingenuous to present them as if they were. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8108:4EC0:12C0:4537:C96D:51EE:27DF (talk) 12:45, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. As said above, superdelegates may change their vote at any time. MB298 (talk) 01:12, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Well, I support only if superdelegates are not included in the column. MB298 (talk) 01:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Strongly support this proposal. Further, strongly support including Superdelegates - we have had this discussion so very, very many times. The sources we use sum pledged and unpledged delegates and we should do the same. That Unpledged delegate votes can change is not a good argument because pledged delegate totals can also change (e.g. if they are projections flipped at a convention or if a loser "releases" them to a presumtive nominee). Per WP:CRYSTAL we cannot track what will happen at the convention - we can only track the current allocations (including the Superdelegates who self-allocate).PotvinSux (talk) 16:42, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Figures under dispute

The official figures seem to be under dispute, see [5], [6]. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 20:16, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

There is no dispute, you linked to two pro Sanders facebook posts which have zero creditability in terms of them being WP:RS. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 21:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

Suggest Locking Page until after Polls Close 4/26/2016

I'm seeing large changes in the numbers of "pledged" super-delegates. I suggest locking the page for today. 71.175.169.139 (talk) 12:09, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The change was made with nothing to back it up so it has been undone. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:20, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'd actually again suggest that we semi-protect the page from anonymous IP editors until after the primary season is completed in mid June. Guy1890 (talk) 20:30, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

• I wouldn't mind that but disruptive edits don't appear to be a current issue. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:48, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

The Map: Wyomming

Why isn't the State of Wyomming green?

--Wednom (talk) 01:57, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It was accidently dropped when an editor updated the map, no worries it will be re-added. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 02:06, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Okey. Thank you for the answer.

--Wednom (talk) 02:18, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It's been blanked again today! What's the best way to edit it? Ordinary Person (talk) 03:25, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

I re-added WY back to the map. Prcc27🌍 (talk) 04:11, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Major Candidates data table

Please provide a table of Democratic Major Candidates with data similar to section 2.1 of the Republican Party presidential primaries Wikipedia page

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Major_candidates

--StelioJ (talk) 16:41, 27 April 2016 (UTC) StelioJ 04/27/2016

Graphs / maps updates

@Abjiklam: @Ali Zifan: Could you kindly update the maps and graphs following New York results? Many thanks in advance. — JFG ^talk 06:10, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

 Done updating the graphs. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 22:21, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

Could you also put titles on the maps? Jp16103 15:35, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The graphs could be updated again, now that there are more delegates for Sanders in PA and Maryland --209.59.106.25 (talk) 01:03, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

New York's missing voters

Just a heads up that yes over 125,000 votes from Brooklyn are yet to be counted due to a "purge" that took place. Needless to say the mayor of NYC isn't happy. This wont change Clinton's win in New York, but will impact the delegate count. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:15, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Ok, so we'll update the delegates number if these 125,000 votes will be counted. Are there sources already talking about it?--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 14:49, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes I added one in the article's body. [7] The latest I heard is that this is going to be heard in a federal court to clear the way for counting. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:55, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

This "purge" of 126,000 previously registered Brooklyn democratic voters doesn't equate 126,000 votes yet to be counted in this primary. The New York Board of Elections claims this number is explained by 12,000 voters moving out of the borough, 44,000 moved from "active" to "inactive" lists (hadn't voted in more than 4 years), and 70,000 voters taken off the inactive list. It's unclear how many of these inactive voters tried to vote in this primary (which would be the outstanding votes to be counted). Obviously this should and will be investigated to determine the facts. Sgcosh (talk) 14:58, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

So there will be an impact, but it looks to be minimal result-wise if this is the case. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

• I guess there's sometimes a fine line between an overly aggressive voter "purge" effort & benign voter roll maintenance. In any event, the Green Papers and The NY Times seem to indicate that almost all the votes have been counted at this late date in the 2016 NY Democratic Primary. Guy1890 (talk) 04:08, 21 April 2016 (UTC)

The various irregularities and inconsistencies regarding the NY primary seem to have sparked quite some controversy, and not just because hundreds of thousands of democratic and (formerly) independent voters were barred from voting who'd priorily voiced their support for Bernie, especially in Bernie's own neighborhood: [8], [9], [10], [11], [12], (link to a whitehouse.gov petition went here to investigate the purge of hundreds of thousands, seems like that URL is blacklisted), [13], [14], [15] The official who'd ordered the factually incorrect purge of 125,000 voters in Brooklyn alone has been fired now: [16] Several official investigations have already been taken up. This could still get interesting, not least of all because of the fact that Bernie won in 50 out of 62 NY districts with as much as three quarters of the votes, while Clinton only won in 12, and she won mainly where purges and other irregularities took place. -79.242.222.168 (talk) 20:33, 24 April 2016 (UTC)

The reddit posting (which I had previously read through) is filled with a bunch of baloney and isn't a reliable source at all. As is stated below in another thread, Facebook posts aren't reliable sources at all, and I highly doubt that the "Marshall Report" is a reliable source either.

When I actually voted in the 2012 fall election, the exact same thing happened to me in terms of the one (and only) scantron machine at my polling station being jammed, and poll workers were accumulating ballots that were to be fed through at a later time (and that wasn't in NY state)...it happens, unfortunately. The fact is that there really are no national rules for who specifically can & can't vote in primary or general election in the USA. The fact that NY state apparently has some very (overly?) strict rules for voter registration and Party affliation doesn't mean that any one election there has been "stolen". Purging voter rolls of people that have moved or not voted in a while is also a pretty common best practice in many U.S. states. The Sanders campaign actually has had a pretty comphrehensive website from very early on in this process that showed voters in each U.S. state specifcially what they had to do (and when) in order to vote for Bernie in any given caucus/primary. Winning across a large majority of the geography of a particular state (where usually not that many people actually live) and not winning that same state (due to losing where most of the people live...in cities) is a pretty common occurrence in the USA. Guy1890 (talk) 04:36, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

Again: The official responsible for the Brooklyn purge has been sacked within two days after the primary because they had incorrectly purged 125,000 people from the rolls who had neither moved nor had been inactive. If you read the reports above, it's obvious that entire buildings and blocks were removed in chunks, people were denied the right to register in time or change their party affiliation or had their party affiliation changed without their involvement. Also, it would be news to me that Ed Schultz (who AFAIK is a Clinton supporter) is that insignificant a source. And it's no news to me that the counties where Bernie officially won are less densely populated than the ones where the official figures say that he lost, but the correlation between areas with obvious misconduct and Hillary victories are overwhelming in NY. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 07:32, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

All of these issues have already been pretty throughly discussed earlier in this thread by others at this late, and a whole lot of what you've recently said about these issues ("125,000 people from the rolls who had neither moved nor had been inactive", "entire buildings and blocks were removed in chunks, people were denied the right to register in time", "the correlation between areas with obvious misconduct and Hillary victories are overwhelming in NY") really doesn't appear to be true at all. Again, Facebook posts and/or YouTube videos aren't reliable sources on Wikipedia. The bottom line here is that there's a very small chance indeed that anything will change with respect to who won the 2016 NY Democratic primary, period. Guy1890 (talk) 08:02, 25 April 2016 (UTC)

So you're pretty much saying that US Uncut is lying when they say that NY official Diane Haslett-Rudiano was fired exactly because of her misconduct over incorrectly kicking 125,000 voters off the rolls in Brooklyn alone? And that Ed Schultz, being a Clinton supporter himself, calls the purge very fishy and a way bigger story than her NY victory? [17] --79.242.222.168 (talk) 04:15, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

That is not what he is saying at all. Try to assume good faith. What he is saying is that it's not going to change. Someone can be fired for doing their job poorly (neglecting to maintain the voter rolls until a mad dash at the last minute) without having been guilty of major fraudulent manipulation. You care a great deal about this issue in only one direction, please try to be cognizant of that when you evaluate what other people are saying. --209.59.106.25 (talk) 01:12, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

We've been over these kind of sourcing issues before on this talk page, so I'll try & be brief here, since I'm not even sure (at this late date) what our German IP editor would even like to have added/changed to this Wikipedia article in the first place. Like it or not, Wikipedia has rules about what can & cannot be added to a Wikipedia article, and a lot of those rules revolve around using reliable sources for the addition of material (especially contentious material) to any Wikipedia article. Again, I doubt that "US Uncut" is a reliable source for any information here. The idea that adding around 100,000 more votes to the recent NY Democratic Primary results would change the final outcome (where Clinton won by roughly 300,000 votes) is kind of silly. In any event, our current Wikipedia article (highlighted immediately above) might be a location to discuss some of these claims, given the use of reliable sources to back them up. Guy1890 (talk)

Delaware

Many odd hiccups and discrepancies with the Delaware results, particularly magically disappearing votes that had already been reported, reported results that suddenly switched from one candidate to the other, and 150% results: [18] I tried to ask the Washington Post people what was wrong with their website with those discrepancies, but all that happened was that my post got deleted within a minute. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 04:02, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

I noticed the hiccup as well via the New York Times, I suspect it was a glitch as at one point they also had one of the counties at 152/151 reporting (The rest were at 100%) with 99% overall in. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:18, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

No reason to suspect anything but a reporting error. One false keystroke and you get a bad readout in the interface. If you think that the department of elections released the real number, then went back and released a false number, then the NYT helped them cover for it, then you are suggesting a major felony which would put dozens of people behind bars for decades. That's not the sort of thing you can base off of one number on an interface bouncing around, and no source that is reliable enough for this article is going to make that kind of leap. --209.59.106.25 (talk) 01:02, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

I fully expect it was a reporting error, it sadly adds fuel to the conspiracy theorists though. (Everyone knows that programs never have problems) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:57, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Missouri

Should we add a note about Missouri too since Bernie might have won the delegates there..? [19] Prcc27🌍 (talk) 21:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

That article was from nearly a month ago. Things have changed since then and Hillary won the majority of votes in the state.Bjoh249 (talk) 00:27, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Translated text into German

Pls add this link - https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pr%C3%A4sidentschaftswahl_in_den_Vereinigten_Staaten_2016#Demokratische_Partei - to the part where this article is translated into GERMAN. Thx Joram Ulmke (talk) 22:35, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Inclusion of popular vote at Template:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Hello. There is a standstill at Template_talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Inclusion of popular vote and Template_talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Idea for Popular Vote, where a number of editors have removed the popular vote from the Democratic primaries template and refuse to allow its inclusion, citing a lack of consensus. Feel free to comment on the RfC, which has been going on since March (or, if you're an admin, feel free to close the discussion and help determine an outcome). -- Wikipedical (talk) 20:10, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

What a surprise that those discussions have basically gone nowhere over time. It's not even worth commenting there anymore, as this article here has another template with all of the available "popular vote" totals for each state that has reported them so far. If someone outside of Wikipedia wants to add those totals up to get a meaningless number, there's nothing that we can do about that. Guy1890 (talk) 03:51, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

How exactly is it a meaningless number? Obviously, different states have different rules and turnout, but that doesn't render a popular vote total meaningless. DylanLacey (talk) 13:38, 30 April 2016 (UTC)

It's meaningless because it holds to inherent value to the process that it's attempting to describe. In other words, we don't elect anything or anyone based on the national popular vote in the USA. You do also bring up another good point that relates to comparisons between national popular vote totals in American general elections vs. this process here...in that the rules for who can vote from state to state vary pretty wildly (Democrats, "independents" & Democrats, or any registered voter). Guy1890 (talk) 03:55, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Fair point you make about elections. US general election is by electoral college not popular vote. Does that make the general election popular vote meaningless? No, as it indicates what the will of the people was/is. It is interesting information. Same principal applies here. Rules vary by state in the general as well, such as felon voting, voter I.D. laws and electoral college vote allocation. DylanLacey (talk) 13:30, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

Don't try to talk sense with these people. They are obviously Sanders supporters who are doing everything they can to downplay the fact that Sanders is losing. Suddenly the popular vote is not worth listing to them (even though it's been listed for every other election since 1972 when the current primary/caucus process started). You better believe that if Sanders was winning in popular vote that they would put it at the top in big bold numbers and demand it stay there. They claim there is no "consensus" on putting it there but really the burden of proof is on THEM. Having it there is the same it's been for every single other primary page. The suggestion to remove it is a burden of theirs. And if they had valid reasons (which they don't), it would then have to apply to ALL pages. Don't think so. Hopefully after the primaries the Bernie trolls will go away and allow the popular vote to be shown as it should. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.153.105.65 (talk) 20:48, 1 May 2016 (UTC)

"They are obviously Sanders supporters"...lol...you'd be surprised who I've voted for the (in recent & relatively distant) past anonymous IP editor with no other edits but to this page here. The fact that there may only recently have been substantive discussions in a number of different forums about this issue that has resulted apparently in a different consensus is a good thing & not necessarily a bad thing. "Other stuff exists" arguments are also some of the weakest arguments to make here on Wikipedia. Guy1890 (talk) 04:09, 2 May 2016 (UTC)

How about the argument that people want it, and are talking about it? Just because you don't personally find the number useful, that doesn't mean that there aren't a lot of people who do personally find the number meaningful. There are plenty of articles talking about the popular vote, and talkingheads in media. Just because it's not the official number used in the convention that doesn't mean we should expunge it. --Opcnup (talk) 23:23, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Consensus has now been reached on the template. Adding the popular vote to the chart near the top of the page will require another assessment of consensus. S51438 (talk) 02:33, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Tables in the Timeline section

Is there any way we can set the results tables to collapse by default? I designed these tables back when we had no images for the candidates when I was rewriting the whole section, but now that we got some images I think the tables are redundant to the Schedule and results section of the article. So since some people want the tables to stay, is there wikicode to set them to be collapsed by default? I used to know this stuff back when i was an administrator but I forgot how to do it. → Call me Razr Nation 13:12, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

@Razr Nation: If you have a title cell e.g. single column top row, then you could use the code {|class="wikitable collapsible autocollapse". Sleepingstar (talk) 23:37, 6 May 2016 (UTC)

Does the New York primary bit in Timeline => Late March and early April merit a paragraph?

The part about New York goes into extensive details of the primary (unlike the other contests in the Timeline section). Should this bit be a separate paragraph?

Nelson Richards (talk) 14:50, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

New York was considered a turning point in the primary race with sources, as for the rest is there room for expansion? - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 15:02, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Illinois

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#safe=off&q=United+States+Democratic+primary+results+illinois&eob=m.03v0t/D/2/short/m.03v0t/

Hillary won the state and took home 79 delegates to Sanders' 77. Why does wiki give them a tie in delegates in the state? 2602:306:CC42:8340:D07F:30D1:98B8:9DD3 (talk) 01:46, 17 April 2016 (UTC)

A detailed delegate breakdown is provided in the quoted source, which was chosen as a reference by editor consensus. — JFG ^talk 10:16, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

You mean editors who were Sanders supporters.2602:306:CC42:8340:F1CE:7A40:D498:CE6A (talk) 19:04, 20 April 2016 (UTC)

Please assume good faith. The Green Papers has proven itself over many years and in many circumstances to be a neutral source. Their delegate count for Illinois has been updated in the meantime, so we're back to 79-77 — JFG ^talk 22:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)

Chicago Election Board members are claiming Sanders won the state or at least the city, and that what happened to make it look like a Clinton victory was that after counting, there was a close to 20% difference between the hand-counted vs. the machine results, and then an auditor just "fixed" the result by making the machine result the official one: [20] Here's the link to the official election board meeting video with the accusation: [21] --79.242.222.168 (talk) 04:00, 28 April 2016 (UTC)

Again, none of the highlighted-above sources are likely to be reliable. Guy1890 (talk) 03:16, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Since when is the official YouTube channel of the Chicago Election Board not a respectable and reliable source? Is it the fact that the board members there dismiss as an alleged amateur a political scientist with a recognized degree in her field who took part during the audit when during the hearing she cries foul at the misconduct, which she does along with other witnesses? Lee Camp has dedicated an entire show to this official Illinois hearing directly linked above and the accusations raised there, but then again you may say that RT America is another dubios source (unlike the official YT of the Chicago Election Board, that is). Still, it's a fact that these very accusations were raised at the hearing, with one of the whistleblowing witnesses a professional political scientist. --79.242.222.168 (talk) 00:47, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Since I started this talk and my concerns were addressed and dealt with, I would like to erase it please.2602:306:CC42:8340:9879:E1A3:69E0:9DE7 (talk) 00:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Yes, RT is, in fact, a notoriously unreliable source for pretty much anything but Russian propaganda. Guy1890 (talk) 03:14, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

The entire american media is treated as a credible source in almost every article of wikipedia, including this article, when it has been caught being a propaganda machine. So the only reason RT would not be treated as a credible source in this case, just as credible as an american media source, would be because there is a clear bias by members of the supposedly unbiased wiki community.74.57.167.5 (talk) 18:42, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

RT has been shown again & again to be pretty much nothing but Russian propaganda by the Reliable Sources Noticeboard many times by this late date. You could take it up with them if you'd like. Guy1890 (talk) 05:19, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

Hi, I am 74.57.167.5, I just made an account because in another reply to me on this page it seemed to bug you that I didnt have an account. Anyways I went and looked at the archive of the Reliable Sources Noticeboard and found this saying that RT is as reliable a source as any american media source. I would appreciate if people put in slightly more effort to be unbiased by either a) not calling RT russian propaganda, or b) start calling the american media american propaganda. Thank you.Kswikiaccount (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)

You should try actually reading that archived section of the RS/N again IP...because it doesn't say at all what you've implied above. Guy1890 (talk) 03:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.