Talk:2016 United States presidential election in Iowa

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States: Iowa / Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Iowa portal This article is supported by WikiProject Iowa (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Mid-importance).

Orphaned references in United States presidential election in Iowa, 2016

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of United States presidential election in Iowa, 2016's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "realclearpolitics.com":

From Republican Party presidential debates, 2016: "RealClearPolitics - Election 2016 - 2016 Republican Presidential Nomination". Real Clear Politics.
From Ben Carson presidential campaign, 2016: http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2016/president/2016_presidential_race.html Real Clear Politics
From Democratic Party presidential debates, 2016: "2016 Democratic Presidential Nomination".
From Mike Huckabee presidential campaign, 2016: Scott Conroy (October 23, 2014) In Iowa, Mike Huckabee Is Making Moves RealClearPolitics.

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 19:31, 16 January 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate rounding

Candidate	Votes	Percentage	Projected	Fractional	Round up
Ted Cruz	51,574	27.63%	8	7.459437742	8
Donald Trump	45,381	24.31%	7	6.563709315	7
Marco Rubio	43,071	23.07%	7	6.22960102	7
Ben Carson	17,393	9.32%	3	2.515647432	3
Rand Paul	8,478	4.54%	1	1.226220832	2
Jeb Bush	5,235	2.80%	1	0.757167499	0
Carly Fiorina	3,483	1.87%	0	0.503765883
John Kasich	3,473	1.86%	0	0.502319527
Mike Huckabee	3,344	1.79%	0	0.483661531
Chris Christie	3,278	1.76%	0	0.47411558
Rick Santorum	1,783	0.96%	0	0.25788532
Jim Gilmore	12	0.01%	0	0.001735628
Total:	186,676	99.92%	27	26.97526731	27

Does anyone know how delegate estimates are rounded? I extracted the GOP table the this article into a spreadsheet and looked at exact percentages, and everyone seems rounded up except Rand Paul, so I'd assume Paul should round up to 2 delegates, and Bush rounded down to zero. (I added last two columns to show this.) Tom Ruen (talk) 07:01, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I can't see on those numbers how it cannot be 7,7,6,3,1,1,1,1 RodCrosby (talk) 14:29, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The usual practice of proportional assignment of winners rounds UP, so even a small surplus, like 7.01 delegates rounds to 8, and you keep assigning down the list until you run out of winners. For 27 delegates, anyone under 3.7% (1/27) of the vote will guarantee to get zero winners. In this example Jeb at 2.8% is below the minimum threshold, so ought to get knocked off, at least by my count. Tom Ruen (talk) 15:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Well, the "usual" rounding in PR systems is by largest remainder. This seems to be round-down, and add one by rank order, until all seats are filled, equivalent to round-up. Still doesn't explain the Bush anomaly. RodCrosby (talk) 15:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Green Papers [1] after initially agreeing with me, changed it to something else. Cruz 9, IIRC, and is now back to 7,7,6 etc. The wording of ByLaw VIII suggests, albeit convolutedly, Largest Remainder to my eyes.RodCrosby (talk) 17:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

According to the text stated at TGP, the rounding is to the "nearest whole number", which means despite the large gap between them, Cruz and Trump both round to 7, and as the rounded numbers all add to 27 the remainders don't come into it. What I don't see is where we're getting the two unpledged delegates from. I can't see any rules which would have them bound to a candidate, unless any of those three individuals have publicly come out and pledged themselves to supporting a candidate. 86.3.110.34 (talk) 01:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

My point is the rules appear to be functionally equivalent to the Largest Remainder rule, despite different wording. Consider what would happen if Kasich had 0.49. I think you're correct about the unpledged delegates. Someone thinks they know how two of them may vote, as of today. But "unpledged" delegates often change their mind as the contest develops a certain inevitability, and are best ignored when reporting the strictly electoral outcomes. My experience of previous primary elections indicates that we must be alert to confusion in the delegate count, and the propagation of errors in feedback loops etc. The MSM is usually the most inaccurate and inconsistent in this regard, imho. TGP, on the other hand, is dedicated to getting it right, and usually includes the relevant wording of any rule.RodCrosby (talk) 03:58, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

On second thoughts, I suspect they may have got it wrong here. Apparently even the three RNC delegates are to be bound according to Josh Putnam, who called the Iowa GOP to check. Calculating this gives 8-7-7-3-1-1-1-1-1-1, but that adds up to 31, so I imagine where outlets have numbers adding to 27 they're waiting for official confirmation of which candidate will be missing out. Unofficially it looks like Chris Christie, but I don't think anyone has a full 30-delegate breakdown yet. 86.3.110.34 (talk) 06:04, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

So, apparently the "rules" are not set in stone either! A very moveable feast. Grrrr... RodCrosby (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The rounding of the percentages also appears wrong in the Democratic Party table: Clinton had 49.89... %, which rounds to 49.9; Sanders 49.68... %, which rounds to 49.7; and that er, uh, other guy, had 0.35... %, which rounds to 0.4.138.246.2.239 (talk) 18:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Many other source, outside of this Green Papers site, have 8-7-7 with no delegates for Kasich or Fiorina. Many sources have this. We cannot conduct original research here, we must use reputable sources. Spartan7W § 02:00, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The Iowa Republican Party bylaws are very simple:

1. Candidate's statewide vote times 27 divide with the total statewide.
2. Round fractions to the nearest whole number.
3. If there are too few delegates allocated, the candidate nearest the rounding threshold receives the additional delegate.
4. If too many delegates are allocated, the candidate furthest the rounding threshold looses a delegate.
5. If any candidate suspends his campaign before the delegates are elected his votes are removed and the whole things is recalculated.

Since not a single delegate is awarded before April the sources are all projecting delegate numbers. Some are using their own projecting tools and others (as the Green Papers) are only using the words in the bylaws. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:52, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I think you need to re-read the bylaws because it looks like you have 1 and 5 wrong. Article VIII of the Iowa GOP bylaws simply states that "The Iowa delegation to the Republican National Convention shall be bound on the first ballot to vote proportionally in accordance with the outcome of the Iowa Caucuses" and makes no mention of its three members of the RNC. Contrast this with the New Hampshire GOP bylaws, where Article III specifically states that those three individuals are neutral, which implies they cannot pledge or be pledged to a candidate. As for candidates suspending their campaign, again the wording of Iowa's Article VIII is explicit: delegates are bound to vote for candidates "regardless of whether any such candidate has withdrawn from the race". 86.3.110.34 (talk) 15:04, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Also, the Iowa GOP has now published its certified results, complete with allocation breakdown. 86.3.110.34 (talk) 15:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes you are right. It is to be divided by 30 since the the RNC delegates from Iowa will be bound this time around. The reallocation or recalculation is correct though. But of course it will not be done before at the conventions, many can still drop out before then. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:30, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

No, the recalculation isn't correct. The bylaws explicitly exclude any possibility of that. Iowa's delegates will be bound as described in the certified results for the first ballot, and released should there be a second ballot. 86.3.110.34 (talk) 13:09, 5 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't delegate numbers match up to the total?

Call me a noob, but I'm confused as to why the total number of projected delegates don't match the totals for either party. (Dems 22+21+3=46 rather than 52; Reps total 27 rather than 30). Would this be a good piece of information to add? (Or will it eventually sort itself out when final results are called, or something?) 2602:306:CDB5:F940:E029:AD8C:A0F5:B3EC (talk) 14:27, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed. The difference might be super delegates? Tom Ruen (talk) 15:45, 2 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, you are right. Try this: enter [Nevada unpledged delegates] into a Google-search (or for any state), and the first 'hit' (most popular on Google) goes to the Green Papers. You will see the following: (Iowa:27+3=30 delegates); (New Hampshire:20+3=23); South Carolina(53+6=59); Nevada(35+8=43). Usually, the pledged delegates are bound to vote for the Republican candidate they represent for the first vote (states vary) and the unpledged delegates are leaders of the Republican Party in their state and can vote as they choose at any time. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:51, 3 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hillary

is the nominated for sure why are you hiding her? this is pure BS biased. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 213.57.205.219 (talk) 13:32, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

General election graphic

Maybe it's just me, but wondering why the general election page is located before the caucuses, and not after. Could some one move gen election full results after the primary results PalmerTheGolfer (talk) 19:03, 6 December 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Results by County

Could someone explain to me why the 2016 election data by county is tabulated differently that 2012? It makes it much more difficult to compare data across presidential election years.

Infohack (talk) 01:51, 3 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This background section doesn't belong

What does Obama have to do with the background of the 2016 US Presidential election in Iowa? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 97.86.9.209 (talk) 12:14, 4 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]