Talk:2016 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Source for delegate totals

The source for the delegate totals in the results table keeps being flipped between CNN, TGP, and AP—sometimes without the citation or the infobox being updated correspondingly. Could we decide on one and stick to it? I'm largely agnostic on which one, though my anecdotal experience has been that AP is often the least up-to-date of the three, so would perhaps prefer CNN or TGP. —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:15, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The Green Papers provides very detailed information on each state and is itself well-sourced. Let's settle on this one. — JFG ^talk 08:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I was the one that actually changed the source to AP and then CNN (You can view the history), but I've changed my opinion and now I agree with JFG, we should use the Green Papers instead of the other sources. Nike4564 (talk) 16:49, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

I also like the TGP but I am concerned that we rely to much on source even though it is trustworthy. When we use one source to one column we should use another source to another colum. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:27, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Delegates for Withdrawn Candidates

Folks — as far as I know, if candidates win delegates but then withdraw from the race (Carson, Bush, Fiorina, Paul, Huckabee), those delegates are still pledged to them. Shouldn't the "Projected Delegates" column on the "Candidates & Results" table reflect this? -CircleAdrian (talk) 22:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry to tell you that you are wrong. Look at the footnote in the schedule section. Candidates that withdraws looses their delegates - As a general rule. There are many small differences between the differents states rule on this subject. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:40, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Interesting. I'm not sure this is true, though — and the footnote has no citation. Reuters says: "For the Republican Party, it varies by state. In some states, delegates are required to stick with their original candidate at least through the first ballot at the Republican National Convention. In some other states, if a candidate drops out, his or her delegates may immediately pledge to another candidate. There is also a middle ground in which those delegates are reallocated to the remaining candidates." Also, the Green Papers continue to list delegates as being pledged to candidates who've dropped out, as does WaPo. Since it's at least possible that each of these candidates will have control over whom their delegates vote for, shouldn't be include them in the totals in this column — maybe with a footnote noting the uncertainty? CircleAdrian (talk) 19:57, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm gonna create a separate topic for this, to try to get more people to give an opinion. CircleAdrian (talk) 20:01, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with CircleAdrian. It appears that at least some delegates remain pledged and so we should note that, following the RS given above. Bondegezou (talk) 20:52, 7 March 2016 (UTC)

The green paper explains very clearly every state rule in each contests page and these information is already put as footnotes in the schedule tablet Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:11, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

It is, which is useful, but why not have the pledged delegate numbers in the table next to the candidates' names? That wouldn't take up any more space than currently. Bondegezou (talk) 11:14, 8 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree, given that it's not a mystery which states unbind the delegates of withdrawn candidates and which states don't I don't see any reason to hide the information from the table. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:16, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

The table in the "Candidates and results" section is startling in that the delegate count is shown as "-" with no explanation for the withdrawn candidates. The "Projected Delegates" column header has a citation which links to link for CNN's delegate tracker which shows 8 delegates for Carson and 4 for Bush, and 1 each for Fiorina, Paul, and Huckabee. I don't see a reason above on why this table can't match the sources that table is using. For example, there's another table at Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016#Major candidates whose numbers match what CNN is reporting. If the election goes down to the wire where the details of the rules for each state matter then we can start throwing in footnotes explaining how Huckabee's single delegate from Iowa could be be counted, etc.

Also, it appears the community consensus both here and in the previous #Delegate for withdrawn candidates thread on this topic is that the delegate counts be shown in the table. --Marc Kupper|talk 05:01, 10 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- It is good information, now and historically appreciated. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:26, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Not sure what you mean by "done"? I don't see the edit having been made CircleAdrian (talk) 20:23, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

I'm gonna go ahead & put withdrawn candidates' delegate numbers onto the "Candidates & Results" table, using totals as listed in the Green Papers (which are already cited for the "Projected Delegates" column). I feel like we have agreement on this — not sure what Charles Edwin Shipp was saying had been done. CircleAdrian (talk) 19:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

I have noting against the former candidates of withdrawn delegates are listed. But as it is put now it is simply lying. Bush dont have four delegates, he has one delegate (iowa), since the three delegates that he won in New Hampshire has been unbound. This can be learned by reading the Green Papers (same source) page on the Iowa and the New Hampshire elections. Maybe a notice can be put in the tablet somehow saying that some of these delegates was unbound as the candidate withdrew. Right now it seems even the Green Paper are not sure what state party do what. In some random news paper article I read last week that Virginia has the same rules (more or less) as Iowa. Of course this has very little real impact until a possible Rubio withdraw the day after tomorrow. Then state party rules on the subject would get interesting very fast. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:24, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

For now it is relative simple with a handful of delegates of withdrawn candidates from only four states. This is from the Green Papers pages on each contests.

Iowa: Delegates continue to be bound to withdrawn candidates unless only one candidate makes it to the convention. 7 delegates bound to withdrawn candidates (Carson 3, Paul 1, Bush 1, Fiorina 1, Huckabee 1)

New Hampshire: Delegates bound to withdrawn candidates becomes unbound. 3 delegates bound to Bush have already been released.

Nevada: Delegates bound to withdrawn candidates becomes unbound or are relocated (the rules are not clear). 2 delegates bound to Carson will be released or reallocated. It might become clear after the convention on Maj 7 (only might since it is Nevada)

Virginia: The Green Papers say nothing. 3 delegates may be elected as unbound, be reallocated or still be bound to Carson (after their election on April 30).

Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:50, 14 March 2016 (UTC)

Can we return to this issue? With Rubio out, this has become a significant issue. I think we should try and both describe what happened at the time (Rubio won X delegates) and also describe what the current situation is (some of those delegates are still bound to Rubio, some are unbound, some have to go with the 2nd-place winner of their district etc.). This is a good article on the issue. Bondegezou (talk) 14:09, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

"Open Convention"

I, myself, and Megyn Kelly, do not like the olde and antiquated term, “brokered convention” — there is nothing ‘brokered’ about it. Rush Limbaugh jokes that “the days of smoke-filled rooms, making brokered deals are over.” Also, I do not like the term, ‘disputed convention’ since the process is not ‘disputed’. It is a continuing contest and not a ‘dispute’. Several pundits/guests/hosts/commentators are beginning to use the term, “open convention”, and that seems most appropriate. The inference is that the final appointment is still open, and some might even say in the 2016 convention, that it is “wide open”. -- AstroU (talk) 12:33, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

Good idea! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 19:31, 27 February 2016 (UTC)

TV hosts and commentators still use the more formal term, "brokered convention" but I still like the terms of Megyn Kelly to avoid the antiquated and non-meaningful term. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:50, 1 March 2016 (UTC) -- (not to be brokered in smoke-filled closed-door rooms) .!.

Today on TV FoxNews, Megyn Kelly again referred to a "brokered or open convention". -- AstroU (talk) 06:13, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

Open convention, "contested convention", "brokered convention", they are being used to mean the same thing (which we all understand). They are terms used interchangably. -- AstroU (talk) 03:56, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

Ted Cruz distinguished between a brokered convention (being where leaders trade for support), and an open convention where the nominee gains the simple majority with repeated open voting of the delegates. -- AstroU (talk) 00:18, 11 March 2016 (UTC)

As of this date, some important people on TV continue to not distinguish 'brokered convention', 'disputed convention', and 'open convention'. However, there are differences as noted by Ted Cruz. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:42, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

'Open Convention' vs 'Brokered Convention'
The RNC of the GOP, Republican National Committee of the Grand Olde Party, think and say that they are in charge of their own political party. The have 'Rule 40' that was put in to benefit Mitt Romney, but they may change that rule the week or day before the national convention in Cleveland Ohio July 18-21, 2016.

They could then just choose the (1) Nominee; (2) VP Nominee; and (3) Platform for the 2016 general election, to run against the Democrat(ic) Party replacement for HRClinton. This would be the old-style 'Brokered Convention' where the main (1) Nominee is decided in a 'smoke-filled room'.

On the other hand, an 'open convention' requires repeated voting. Delegates are 'bound' to vote on the first ballot for how they were selected, and released on subsequent votes.

This all becomes moot if Donald J. Trump achieves 1,237 (simple majority) before Convention. Of course, Ted Cruz could also achieve the number to grasp the gold ring, but there is a 50/50 chance we arrive at Cleveland Convention with a plurality (the most but not majority) and we feel that Trump would like the challenge and drama.

What are your thoughts and comments? -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:41, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

It could be a brokered convention, in the sense you mean. We don't know yet. Probably not smoke-filled rooms due to anti-smoking laws, but it's the same idea. Or it might not be. It might just be an open convention. We don't know yet. Smartyllama (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

What we do know is that hosts/guests on TV, and RNC leaders, are openly talking about the importance of having repeated votes for the eventual Nominee. Hence an open/'contested' convention is totally acceptable to most, but a 'brokered' (forced against the will of the delegates) is not. Most agree that NRC leaders have less power than the combination of the attending delegates. Newt Gingrich says NRC leaders are NOT powerful Republican leaders. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:56, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Utah, Arizona, and Samoa

Very interesting in Samoa (territory), Utah, and Arizona. Trump takes all the delegates in Arizona; Samoa is still counting, and Ted Cruz takes all 40 delegates in Utah. Why is this you ask (our table says 'winner-take-most') and it is because he had 69% of the popular vote which is more than 50% and so 'triggers' the 'winner take all' for him. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:23, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

So Trump has 58 delegates from AZ, Cruz has 40 from Utah, and they each win one delegate from Samoa (with three uncomitted delegates to represent Samoa). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:43, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Note that Green Papers list American Samoa with NINE delegate votes. Wait for the dust/counting to settle. Green Papers have yet to write the results. -- AstroU (talk) 21:21, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Thank you

Thank you for keeping this page up to date and having nice graphs and charts. It makes it very easy to follow and see who is winning what and all the history at each contest. Stoodpointt (talk) 22:58, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. At first I thought the charts (3) were excessive and repetitive--but now I am loving them more and more. I'm a visual person; and the brain processes at a glance. They are fantastic! THANKS, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:46, 24 March 2016 (UTC) -- Content is King.

Bolding of states

Some user removed the bolding of the states where a candidate got a majority of the delegates, claiming we don't need it and that it was wrong anyway because in most of those states a candidate didn't actually have a majority. The latter is clearly wrong unless we're talking about popular vote, which we're not, and the former is wrong too for the reasons explained in the article. Does anyone have an issue with adding it back? Smartyllama (talk) 22:05, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No, it is an elegant way of showing the current status on the §40 issue. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Seems fine to me as well. —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:16, 22 March 2016 (UTC) -- Bolding of the states w/majority is a good thing .!.

Per current rules, and directions, 'states won' is very important, w/bolding-specificity. -- AstroU (talk) 01:20, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

New Virgin Islands results

The uncommitted VI delegate slate has apparently been thrown out by the territorial party and new results announced with Rubio marginally in first place (struck, see below). Can't find a reliable published source for this yet so just worth keeping an eye out for news on this. —Nizolan ^(talk) 18:11, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Politico is normally reliable. http://www.politico.com/blogs/2016-gop-primary-live-updates-and-results/2016/03/trump-ted-cruz-virgin-islands-221102 Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks. Also, I've just recalculated the results taking account of the 6 disqualified delegates and uncommitted is still first place in popular vote (with 36.1%). Cruz is second with 21.6% and Rubio third with 18.2%. Rubio just got more delegates than Cruz because his votes were more concentrated. —Nizolan ^(talk) 03:52, 23 March 2016 (UTC)

Wow! That's interesting. Are the details of 'tossing' delegates on the WP state page? I.e., United_States_presidential_election_in_the_US_Virgin_Islands,_2016. Going there just now, it seems the table is correct and some discussion is incomplete. In contrast, our page here gives the compete details, if readers know where to look. They can always do a 'search'. -- AstroU (talk) 01:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

"A three-candidate race"

I do not understand why anybody has problems with that as a section heading title. Kasich dropping out (if he ever does) will necessitate a new section, so there's nothing wrong with "A three candidate race" in the title. pbp 14:03, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I think the logic was that saying that the race will be "a three-candidate race" until mid-April is WP:CRYSTAL, but I agree it seems pedantic; if one of the candidates drops out then it can just be changed. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:34, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree. And at this point, it seems unlikely that a candidate will drop out anytime soon, Kasich repeatedly stating he won't, so I think its fine. MB298 (talk) 16:18, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

I restored the title for now with a note in the edit summary —Nizolan ^(talk) 18:27, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

Someone noted that Kasich came in 4th in the three-man race in Arizona (behind Marco Rubio). And Hannity today notes that Kasich can achieve the 1,237 simple majority if he wins 105% of the remaining delegates. :-)  ;-)  :-) -- Just saying, AstroU (talk) 22:50, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

And Cruz has to win 95% of the rest of the delegates including most of the New York delegates. Trumps homestate with the current polls gives him 64% - Just saying :) More realistic Cruz and Kasich needs to win at least 324 to be sure it will go all the way to the convention. And of course the more they can win the more realistic it will be that it will go beyond the first ballot. Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:16, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and on the other hand, if Trump wins the 'bellwether' state of Wisconsin, ('bellwether' meaning that it indicates how things will go 'primarily' and 'generally') then Trump could sinch it with a big win in California. Cruz also wants to win WI, NY, and CA. We'll see how the momentum proceeds. -- AstroU (talk) 01:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Number of candidates in the start of the article

Would it be an idea to cut the numbers in the Candidate and result section to only the four that have won contests just like in the 2012 article? The others will have room in the main article Republican Party presidential candidates, 2016. That article could be enlarge with some more info on each candidate and it also might need a little clean-up of info on speculation from before the primaries. Info of no historic significance. Another idea would to make a table with 1st, 2nd and 3rd places and with popular votes at the bottom of the article as it is done in Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012#Results by popular vote Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:16, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

No. -- AstroU (talk) 13:00, 26 March 2016 (UTC) PS: Maybe later; much later.

"(the most but not majority)"

Charles Edwin Shipp has re-added (again, I believe) a parenthetical comment "(the most but not majority)" after each mention of the term "plurality". I believe these notes are unnecessary and probably somewhat condescending—if anyone is confused about the meaning of the term they can view the article, which is linked—and also misleading since the wording seems to imply that an absolute majority doesn't count as a plurality. —Nizolan ^(talk) 13:54, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Links at top of page

@Jp16103: It is wildly inappropriate IMO, on the basis of relative coverage in the reliable sources, to treat the Green primaries as equivalent to the Democratic and Republican primaries and advertise them at the top of this page. Per WP:BALASPS, WP:NPOV does not mean giving equal coverage to all aspects of a topic, it means giving balanced coverage that reflects the attention and the judgements given in reliable sources. I don't object to putting the links in the "See also" section, but the Democrat link at the top is non-conventional anyway and using the top space of one of the most-viewed pages on Wikipedia as a space to link to a far less well-covered topic seems to me to be advertisement rather than helpful hatnoting. Also paging MB298 and Nike4564 who edited the links as well. —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:13, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for accusing me of advertising, but I am simply trying to link readers to the other primary articles. Its either they are all there, or none are. Jp16103 01:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Why? —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:28, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Because they are part of a series of articles on the primary seasons. By putting only a single primary on the top shows preference. Wikipedia should give equal preference to all primaries. Jp16103 01:31, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

That doesn't really answer the question: there's no policy or precedent, to my knowledge, saying that every article in a series has to be linked at the top. The reasoning for the Democrats being there is that they receive roughly equal coverage to the Republicans and people visiting the article are likely to want to visit the other article. That doesn't apply to the third parties. —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

There really isnt any real reason they shouldnt be there, other than prejudice towards third party. Both parties have an opportunity to win the election due to ballot access. Besides, are you implying that the other articles dont receive equal coverage on wikipedia? That is false. Also, many of the states featured in this article and the Democratic article also have Green and or Libertarian primaries. The local elections treat the parties equally, so should wikipedia. Also go back through the articles, there is no "see also" at the top of previous primary articles, only at the bottom. Its either all or none. Jp16103 01:40, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, the Democratic article has the links because you added them there and then reverted them back when they were removed, so I think that's neither here nor there. I'll open a link to this discussion at the Democrat article's talk page so people there can have a look as well. In general, Wikipedia does favour the two major parties in its coverage, as indeed it should: see Nationwide opinion polling for the United States presidential election, 2016, for instance. Per Wikipedia's policies, if the current reliable sources trend in a particular direction then Wikipedia will as well; it's not our call to determine what constitutes "prejudice" in that sense and what doesn't. I'm well aware that previous primary articles don't use the hatnotes, but that's a call to be made on each article. I've given you the reason the Democratic article was linked on this one, and why it doesn't apply to the other parties. —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:47, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Jp16103: I agree with @Nizolan:. Only the parties that receive big coverage and people who would be interested to read them should be accepted. I bet barely anybody would want to see a third party. As I said, they are irrelevant and will not win an election. Only prominent parties should have their links at the top and those are Republican and Democrat. There is no preference at all. We are simply putting the parties that have equal coverage in the media and have widespread support that actually make them relevant to the MAINSTREAM electoral process. Third parties, with all due respect, have no relevance whatsoever at least in the United States. Nike4564 (talk) 01:50, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Lets clear any confusion: I am not a supporter of a third party. "Third parties, with all due respect, have no relevance whatsoever at least in the United States. " this is subjective. The entire argument against not showing them at the top of the article is subjective and shows bias towards third parties. I propose only having links to other primaries in the "see also" section. Jp16103 01:56, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Okay, now you are confusing me. You put links up at the top, now you say at the bottom where "see also" SECTION is located. So do you support putting their links at the top? Nike4564 (talk) 02:01, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Sorry, on mobile. I support either all at the top or none at all. I am okay with no hatnote and only a SEE ALSO section. JP16103 02:05, 28 March 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jp16103 (talk • contribs)

Okay, as for me I'll think about it since it's getting late in my area. You can check with @Nizolan:. I'll see if I can reach you tomorrow. Nike4564 (talk) 02:14, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nizolan: I agree with you, but I added the Libertarian primaries as well because I saw no reason they shouldn't be included when the Greens are. Obviously, the Dem and GOP primaries are much bigger deals than the minor party primaries, as those candidates have little to no chance of winning or even carrying a state. MB298 (talk) 02:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I personally don't mind only having a See also section, though I think the Democratic link is probably convenient for many readers. My objection is to having links to the third parties at the top, and to the "all or nothing" argument being presented. I disagree that "The entire argument against not showing them at the top of the article is subjective"—the point I've stated repeatedly is that the reliable sources do not accord them equal coverage, and that Wikipedia follows the emphasis lent by the reliable sources. These are both matters of objective fact. —Nizolan ^(talk) 02:26, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Back to the Delegate Bar Graph...

The consensus seemed to be that, in the "Projected Delegates" column of the table, we should put all the candidates' delegates total out of 1,237 (the number of delegates necessary to win) instead of out of 2,472 (the total number of delegates), with the rationale that no candidate seemed likely to obtain 1,237 at the time.

First of all, that decision doesn't really make sense to me - in other uses of the bar graph, like Republican Party (United States) or Liberal Party of Canada, the total is used as the denominator rather than the majority, and this isn't especially confusing. (If the bar graph extends more than halfway, they have a majority.) What is potentially confusing, however, is when Donald Trump's bar graph is more than half colored in, with "60.82%" directly below - which might give the impression to some that he already has a majority. (1,237 vs. 2,472 is only explained several dense paragraphs earlier.)

But in any case, back when the decision was made they mentioned they could change it to 2,472 'when graphically practicable". That was before Super Tuesday, and since then it's become increasingly clear that Trump might very well win a clear majority.

Therefore I propose we change the graphs to 2,472. If graphical practicability is a concern we could make the "Most recent position" and "Contests won" columns narrower and the bar graph wider - it's working for Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, and Clinton's not significantly further along her delegate count than Trump. Chuborno (talk) 05:43, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't really mind either way, but I do tend to agree that the denominator should be 2,472. At the moment, it's very easy to be misled into thinking that 1,237 is the total number of delegates if you're a casual browser. I also still think that the percentage should be of the total delegates and not the majority, for pretty much the same reason. For the bar chart, we can use the advanced composition bar template on the Democrats page, or we can continue using the simple version, Template:Composition bar:

Majority 752 / 1,237 463 / 1,237 144 / 1,237

Total 752 / 2,472 463 / 2,472 144 / 2,472

The version on the right looks more sensible in terms of demonstrating how few (relatively) delegates the candidates actually have. —Nizolan ^(talk) 06:06, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

There could be a vertical dashed-line at 1,237 delegate mark (to indicate the winning goal, so to speak.) -- AstroU (talk) 10:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Some suggestions: (1) The two graphics, side-by-side as shown here, is instructional to WP readers. I would like to see them added together. (2) the vertical-bar-line added to the graphic on the right would be good. (3) I think this article doesn't end well enough. It would end better if these two were added to the article between the last section "Primary schedule" (the main table) and the "Footnotes". More could then be said leading over to the WP page on 'Convention'. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 11:09, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Rubio - infobox

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.

---

Just preempting this should Rubio drop out after the result in Florida. We've been removing candidates from the infobox as they drop out, but in this case Rubio has actually won some contests, and we've been filling in the infobox map accordingly. That being the case, should Rubio drop out should we actually still keep him in the infobox? 80.68.32.198 (talk) 09:51, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I support keeping him there. As you said he's won some contests and there aren't too many people in the infobox anyway. I believe past articles have decided to keep 4 candidates at the end. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 10:21, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Abjiklam, at least for now. With all of the talk of an open/brokered convention the candidates with the most delegates remain relevant until they release their delegates, not if they suspend their campaigns. There is a large difference between the two. This has a while to play out.Lt. T. E. Lawrence (talk) 10:35, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

When delegates becomes unbound from the allocated candidate depends on the different state parties and only some of them have a release option. Others like Nevada frees the delegates if the candidate stops campaigning in any way (how that is to be decided in the real world the NV GOP hasent specified) and others, like Iowa, does not make any delegates unbound even if the candidate wants to release them. That aside I remember that we in 2012 decided to keep all active candidates and all candidates that had won a contest in the infobox. Fortunately that made four candidates to fill a neat infobox. It might work just as well in this cycle Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:58, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

He should stay as past candidates with notability have stayed in the box.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:45, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Agreed per Template:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 13:28, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep Marco Rubio in the Infobox?

Because Marco Rubio has been an important figure throughout the primaries, wouldn't it be wise to keep Marco Rubio in the infobox, as to not undermine his importance in the primaries, especially when this article is seen and read by people weeks, months and from now? Not only that, but a four-candidate infobox is better to the eyes than a two-row, three candidate split. Philip Terry Graham 02:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I disagree, the infobox should only include current candidates.Uspoliticswikipedia (talk) 02:57, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• @Uspoliticswikipedia: As I stated below, your opinion doesn't match the precedence of the infoboxes/templates in previous election cycles. Steel1943 (talk) 02:59, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• (edit conflict) @PhilipTerryGraham: This should probably actually be discussed at Template talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 since the edit pertains to the template. Either way, I agree he should be kept in the template per precedence in past primaries to keep the candidates who have dropped out but won states in the templates. Steel1943 (talk) 02:58, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
• Definitely keep Rubio in the infobox for now. He's won more delegates than Kasich who is still in the race. --A guy saved by Jesus (talk) 03:11, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

I think it is uncomfortable for voter. Now rubio is not current candidate.--Noi221 (talk) 05:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

It's OK to have these four (including Marco Rubio) because, in the end, there will be only one. It is very clear in the next segment of the article who is still running an active campaign and who has 'suspended' to hope for an 'open convention'. As noted, Rubio is more successful than Kasich. Yes, keep the picture of four (why have an infobox with just two?) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:31, 16 March 2016 (UTC)

• I vote to take him out. It doesn't make any sense to keep a candidate who's not in the race anymore in an infobox devoted to current candidates. Reece Leonard (talk) 03:39, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Who said the infobox is devoted to current candidates? It's devoted only to the results of the primaries. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 03:48, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

If that was the case, why has Carson been taken out? Why have any of the candidates who won any delegates been taken out? Reece Leonard (talk) 13:07, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Because more than four candidates in the infobox seems to be too many to many people. But if we're going to remove all the candidates who suspend their campaign we might end up with only one person left in the infobox. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 14:24, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

And Carson did not win any contests, Rubio did. I think everyone can agree that there is a difference between a second tier candidate with a handful of delegates and a candidate with 3 states won and more than 150 candidates. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Of course, but where do we draw the line? What are the parameters? How many delegates does a candidate need to earn to earn a spot in the infobox? Reece Leonard (talk) 17:50, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

The line is drawn where consensus is reached. There is no foolproof formula for inclusion in the infobox. In this particular case, since Rubio won a state, not including him in the infobox leads to confusion in interpreting the map of winners by states. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 23:20, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• 2012 infobox has top four candidates. Rubio is one of the top four candidates in this election; he is essentially guaranteed to finish the primaries with at least the 4th-most delegates. Keep him in. pbp 04:33, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
• I think keep him in. He has a non-trivial number of delegates which could prove relevant by Cleveland. – Muboshgu (talk) 17:59, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I was going to remove Rubio then I thought I should check the talk page first and add comments. Good thing I did because there IS a discussion. I lean towards removing Rubio since he is not a candidate. If many want to keep him, he should be put last even if he now has more delegates than Kasich. Ensign Hapuna of the Royal Hawaiian Navy (talk) 22:04, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

I would oppose that: until Kasich overtakes Rubio in delegates, Rubio came (and is coming) third in this election. —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:35, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

The delegates for Rubio will vote for Rubio on the first ballot. Keeping his picture in is good, and ordered to last is OK but not necessary. Let's see how Kasich does. He may not win anything more except a few delegate-votes in states choosing 'proportional'. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:32, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

And, although not too likely, Rubio could continue to win delegates, like he almost did in Arizona, beating Kasich in proportional-voting states. -- AstroU (talk) 01:01, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep in mind also that Rubio looks to Convention. Even though Marco Rubio 'suspends' he is still in the race. We can wait on changing pictures. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:32, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep it up Rubio plans to keep his delegates in case of contested convention because he's scared of Trump winning.ShadowDragon343 (talk) 09:18, 30 March 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.

Regarding the infobox map

For the sake of proper data visualization, the main infobox map should not display a winner-take-all-like color system for the current results in all states, regardless of whether or not this is mentioned in captions ("First place"). The graphics should tell the whole story, and accurately.

The current map is misleading and not representative of the actual results because some of the states reward delegates proportionally. This should be properly represented in the map in some fashion. I've seen small embedded pie charts being embedded for proportional states, and I think that would be good enough here. (Feel free to propose alternatives. I can't think of anything better, other than not using a map.)

We should strive for clarity and accuracy, and I trust Wikipedia should have higher standards for data visualization and presentation, simply because we can do something about it. — LucasVB | Talk 07:03, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

There are detailed maps of delegates and the vote given in the article. The infobox map is easy to understand and reflects the way virtually every reliable source presents the information. —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:07, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Just to add, the more detailed maps are also pretty incomprehensible at infobox resolution (see right). —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not "easy to understand" if it gives the wrong impression and requires the viewer to read full details to get an accurate picture. Given how the system works, winning first place is meaningless if a candidate wins narrowly in a proportional state, so coloring the whole state a single color is completely misleading and anti-informative. The fact a lot of sources make the mistake shouldn't be a justification for us to make the same mistake.

I do see the issue with the small space available you pointed out. I'm not sure if there's a decent solution or alternative. Part of me would rather not have a map at all if it's going to be like this. At the very least, I figured it's an issue that should be pointed out. Cheers! — LucasVB | Talk 07:20, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't actually think it's anti-informative or gives a wrong impression—particularly, again, given that this is the method that virtually all reliable sources are using to represent the results. The consensus as determined by previous discussions on this page is that we treat a state as "won" when a candidate comes top of the popular vote there. This also reflects longstanding practice both on Wikipedia and in the bulk of the reliable sources. Most people are looking to see which candidate came top in each state, and the map gives that information at a glance. —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:31, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with Nizolan on all that. Bondegezou (talk) 10:42, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

Rubio in pie map

• By the way, if we're talking about this pie map, I have a stupid question: how come they don't parse out the Rubio vote in Arizona? We have a color for Rubio, and he got 10% of the vote, more than Kasich. pbp 13:34, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree Rubio should be there, especially given the unusual result you point out. Editing the pie map is a bit of a mystery to me though so it'll have to wait for someone competent to comment (paging @Ali Zifan). —Nizolan ^(talk) 13:53, 27 March 2016 (UTC)

@Nizolan: and @Purplebackpack89:, As far the map has a color for Rubio, his popular vote percentage should be indicated in a map,even though he dropped out. So thank you for noticing. Ali Zifan 04:58, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Many thanks Ali Zifan. —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:10, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

The shadow campaign

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/03/inside-the-shadow-campaign-to-deny-trump-the-gop-nomination-221172

http://www.nationalreview.com/article/433136/republican-contested-convention-favors-ted-cruz-over-donald-trump

“Voters in the primaries are not representative of the people who are gonna’ be sittin’ in the chairs in Cleveland,” (Curly Haugland, RNC member)

The campaign after the campaign--The one where the delegates are actually elected at conventions throughout the land--has started in earnest. It will not be like the Paul 2012 activity but it is still a real thing as effort is made to get a contested/open/brokered convention (personally I really dont care what the name is). How can we best incorporated this campaign, as we did it in 21012? Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:29, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

Good question. One thing is to remember the description of Ted Cruz, establishment-brokered vs contested-open. Per you suggestion, we should all look over at Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012 for insights. -- AstroU (talk) 01:36, 1 April 2016 (UTC) PS: The GOP started a new page on their website to assure everyone that delegates will have their say. Also today, Romney suggests to Ted Cruz that he coordinates with Kasich (Deseret News).

There was a surprise meeting of the NRC leader/staff and Donald Trump (who probably called them, but Trump says it was just "mutual" in instigation). After the meeting, Trump said to FoxNews that the meeting was great and everything is proceeding well for Convention. The next day we read of all the plans some are making for 'other' to be 'brokered' at Convention.[1] -- So the shadow campaign may yet yield an 'ESTABLISHENT candidate'. Developing. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Missouri & Trump

The fact that the final certified result of the Missouri contest is yet to be published casts a degree of doubt onto whether Mr. Trump has yet won this contest outright. Usually, posting a victory here without formal certification is fine and acceptable, but after this much time, with ambiguity as to how much, if at all, Trump won, I think it is safest to remove Missouri as a contest won by Mr. Trump until more clarity can be brought to the fold. In addition, I have colored MO on the map as a light pink, and added an associated color key, to indicate the 'result in question'. I have already carried this out. Thanks!   Spartan7W §   02:07, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

Is there a reason not to just leave it light grey? (edit: Thought this came across as a bit confrontational when re-reading it; I don't mind either way!) —Nizolan ^(talk) 03:19, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@SpartanW: When are the results expected to be certified? pbp 03:43, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

@Purplebackpack89: The actual date isn't known, most are either certified or plainly obvious. In this case, the fact that it hasn't been certified nor has Trump been formally declared a winner leads one to believe there is at least a reasonable doubt as to the results. Thus, it is safest to leave it undeclared here until we can have certainty. @Nizolan: Well the idea of colorizing a map is to show who won states, and by virtue of that, which states' races have been concluded. Leaving it grey would suggest to the reader that Missouri's contest isn't completed. Therefore, clearly marking it as 'results in question' establishes it as a concluded race, but doesn't jeopardize the encyclopedic value by declaring a winner when reasonable doubt may exist.   Spartan7W §   05:10, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

This is from ABC NEWS " Although 100 percent of precincts are reporting, only 99 percent of the expected vote is in because there are still military and overseas ballots that can be received until noon tomorrow, and those will need to be included." is there less then 2000 Military personnel? http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/results-missouri-primary/story?id=37727579 Either way the there still some more delegate to be allocated http://www.cbsnews.com/news/missouri-gop-announces-delegate-allocation-from-primary/

We're past the due date for the military personnel's ballots; have they been counted and has the total changed? If Trump is still winning after they've been counted, we probably should give him the state. pbp 22:45, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

The map color indications is defined as "First place by popular vote," not "won." All major networks have Trump in first place by popular vote. [2][3][4][5][6] Most importantly, the Missouri Secretary of State has Trump in first by popular vote.[7] (click "Submit"). I'll be returning this to blue until shown otherwise by reliable sources. --Oakshade (talk) 01:04, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@SpartanW:, you need to stop edit warring and discuss and gain consensus for your change. So far you have not gained any consensus for this. We might have to community scrutiny of these actions if this continues. --Oakshade (talk) 04:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

@Oakshade: I've restored the "Uncommitted" on the template as I don't think there is any contention over it, just the "Result in question" colour added by @Spartan7W. Let me know if I missed anything. —Nizolan ^(talk) 04:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't need consensus to do anything. I am simply trying to relay information in an effective way. There is nothing wrong with this.   Spartan7W §   04:19, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Spartan7W, you need to understand WP:CONSENSUS - "Consensus is Wikipedia's fundamental model for editorial decision-making, and is marked by addressing legitimate concerns held by editors through a process of compromise while following Wikipedia policies." You do need consensus for everything. --Oakshade (talk) 04:47, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

If one needed consensus for every action then no changes would ever occur. I gave a clear and specific description and rationale for what I did, both in edit description and here in the talk page. You didn't. A new user on the Commons side, whose only purpose of existence appears to be to mess with the primary map, restored MO for Trump on the map without a credible source. There is presently doubt whether Trump is the official winner of Missouri, due to the length of time it has taken without certification; the Associated Press, the source from which all networks receive their election returns data, has not declared a winner in Missouri. Other networks may indicate Trump ahead in a popular vote count, but he hasn't been called for it. In the interim, you removed not one but two elements of the map key without explanation, saying "category not existing", which was at least 50% false, if not 100% false. I restored the pink coloration of Missouri on the map to maintain this indication, and restored both elements of the legend to correspond. Now you accuse me of edit warring and threaten me with disciplinary action for restoring two color swatches when they were removed. That makes no sense. To quote WP:Consensus:

"Consensus is a normal and usually implicit and invisible process across Wikipedia. Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus. Should that edit later be revised by another editor without dispute, it can be assumed that a new consensus has been reached ... All edits should be explained (unless the reason for them is obvious) – either by clear edit summaries indicating the reason why the change was made, or by discussion on the article talk page. Substantive, informative edit summaries indicate what issues need to be addressed in subsequent efforts to reach consensus."'

You yourself did not satisfy this procedural burden in conducting your edits. You did not give any descriptive or otherwise explanatory rationale for removing these two color swatches from the legend. You proceed to accuse of me of edit warring before actually addressing the issue on the talk page, where I had already elaborated on my rationale, and you did not proceed to make a counter-argument as to why Missouri should be blue for Trump, or why coloring the state to indicate ambiguity and placing a legend to correspond shouldn't be included. Now, there is a state colored pink, but no legend to correspond, and readers will be left wondering what this means.   Spartan7W §   13:42, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

From your chosen quote: "Any edit that is not disputed or reverted by another editor can be assumed to have consensus." Your edit was disputed and reverted almost immediately. You are the only editor who wants Missouri shaded that color. You have failed to gain consensus for your desired edit. If you'd like to change WP:CONSENSUS so that you can state "I don't need consensus to do anything" then you need to make your case on Wikipedia talk:Consensus, not try to change the fundamental tenant of that policy on a single article's talk page. I addressed the issue on this talk page before making any edits on this topic [8][9] which either you missed or ignored. Getting further community scrutiny for disputes is always encouraged. Sorry you don't like that.--Oakshade (talk) 16:45, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• For what it's worth, I support Missouri being awarded to Trump by Wikipedia. Earlier on in our process, there was a consensus that Wikipedia should agree with the calls made by selected news outlets. These outlets have given Missouri to Trump. So should we. pbp 15:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment I think this is the most ridiculous dispute made. I lean towards the view that the map for Missouri on Trump should be shaded blue, since Missouri GOP had tentatively declared that Trump had 37 delegates vs Cruz 15 delegates. (See sample source: [10]) If it turns out over the next few weeks that after counting the overseas vote (or a recount if Cruz wants to) that Cruz had won instead, just change it to Yellow. Simple. What's the big fuss about? Just go along with the news. Mr Tan (talk) 08:19, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
• Comment on the Comment Mr Tan, You are a wise and commonsense kind of guy! Thank You, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done Thanks for a good discussion; thanks for good results! -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Trump won Missouri won by ~1700 votes

Could someone change the color of Missouri to blue?

http://www.decisiondeskhq.com/results/2016/primary/gop/president/missouri/

100% reporting

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.242.229 (talk) 19:59, 19 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:46, 22 March 2016 (UTC) Making MO blue looks best on the map, with Trump solidly BLUE for a solid South.

RfC - Missouri color on "First place by popular vote" map.

Should the shade for the state of Missouri on the "First place by popular vote" map be blue (representing Donald Trump), gold (representing Ted Cruz) or another color? As of now, the Missouri Secretary of State and all major news outlets show that Trump is in first place from the March 15 primary election. [11](click "Submit")[12][13][14][15][16] Official certification for the election won't occur until around April 7.[17]

Please note we are discussing the "First place by popular vote" map, not a "winner" one. --Oakshade (talk) 06:44, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

If the map really is "first place by popular vote", then it needs to be changed. It should indicate who has "won" the state (whatever that means). StAnselm (talk) 09:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It has been agreed in prior discussions that "winning" the state means coming in first place by popular vote; that is how the "Contests won" column and count are determined. In some states, e.g. Vermont, the winner tied for delegates with the second-place candidate, but we still list that as a win. —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:24, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

It should definitely not be in pink, a colour that is not even explained in the map description. One could think that the state was narrowly won by Rubio. --87.110.95.164 (talk) 09:38, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Donald J. Trump has been declared the winner in Missouri, the color should be changed to reflect this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.230.242.229 (talk) 10:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Keep the color 'grey', until the final results of the primary are announced. GoodDay (talk) 12:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support Missouri being awarded to Trump by Wikipedia. Earlier on in our process, there was a consensus that Wikipedia should agree with the calls made by selected news outlets. These outlets have given Missouri to Trump. So should we. pbp 15:08, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of this. In that case, Missouri goes in Trump's colum & so should be colored as such. GoodDay (talk) 15:28, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Comment: I just wanted to comment quickly that the file in contention is used on a lot of different wikis, so I have to urge people not to use this as an opportunity to edit war over the image on Commons. It is unfair to the other language wikis that rely on the file. —Nizolan ^(talk) 22:07, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

• Oppose Missouri being awarded to Trump by Wikipedia. Most reliable news outlets have not yet called Missouri for Trump.[18][19] With provisional and military ballots remaining uncounted, and the possibility of a recount, the state remains too close to call. Until the consensus among reliable sources is that Trump has won the state, Wikipedia should not be jumping the gun by declaring him the winner.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:10, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

This isn't about "calling" it for any of the candidates. It's about shading on the map of who is in first place by popular vote as indicated by reliable sources which is how the map shading has been the deciding process throughout this primary season. --Oakshade (talk) 22:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

We don't shade states until they are officially called by reliable sources, otherwise on the nights of primaries the shading of states would be changing as the candidate in the lead changes.--Tdl1060 (talk) 22:41, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Actually since the beginning we have been shading states by popular vote - hence the map name "First place by popular vote." --Oakshade (talk) 22:58, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Yes, it is shaded by the popular vote, but not until a winner has been declared. We don't shade it until a winner is declared. It is not shaded on election night when votes are still being counted and no winner has been declared. As it stands right now, Missouri still has votes that have not been counted and no winner has been declared.--Tdl1060 (talk) 23:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Some are missing the point. A state is called for a candidate when they win. They win by receiving more votes than any other, i.e. a plurality or majority. The reason Missouri is not yet called for Trump is because there is reason to believe that not all votes are in, and the result is so close they cannot make a definitive, confident call. So if they don't call a state for somebody, that means the winner, the recipient of a popular vote victory has not been reached. By using this logic, and coloring Missouri for Trump at this point, with reasonable doubt to suggest it should be marked as in question, then we should color the map for whoever leads the popular vote at any given time. If more returns come in and it changes, we change the color. At this point, no call has been made because there is a question as to whether Trump actually has a plurality of the votes. Thus, with this reasonable doubt, we cannot call it for Trump here just because he leads in the current counts. Until the AP and others definitively call it, or the Missouri GOP certifies a result, we cannot color it for Trump. And if a recount is ordered, it should also be colored pink for result in question.   Spartan7W §   00:09, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Agree with User:Spartan7W and User:Tdl1060. We follow reliable sources, so we wait until those are clearly reporting a definitive and final winner. Bondegezou (talk) 10:23, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support colouring state blue, per most current information from various sources, all ballots have been counted and nobody asked for a recount. If official results differ whenever they are published, we can quickly switch it to another colour. — JFG ^talk 11:15, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Comment Nobody can ask for a recount until after the certification of election results, which hasn't yet occurred. Only then can it be contested.   Spartan7W §   14:29, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

• Dear TD: Seems to me we are doing just fine. Continue on. Note that there are like three elections in many states, (vote, district, state) and WP readers want to know ASAP. That is why they come here. In one day we had about 300,000 hits. Final decision with some state will not happen until April, May, or even just before Convention. The leaders are 'uncommitted' meaning they can vote how they choose, even though they are supposed to honor the earlier voting. Hence, we should just go with the major TV and other sources, like the Green Papers. An example is American Samoa: the territories have nine delegates, and they will wait to see who has momentum later, even though they already voted. -- AstroU (talk) 01:13, 26 March 2016 (UTC)

• Support The color of the state on the map being changed to reflect the fact that Trump, at this point in time, has the largest number of votes, as described in reliable sources. Honestly, I cannot see the controversy here; if the result changes, then we change the color. Vanamonde93 (talk) 04:31, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"Contests won" count

Can somebody also change the number of contests won by Donald Trump to 20?85.230.242.229 (talk) 15:17, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

I only see nineteen. Can you clarify which one is twentieth? Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 01:33, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

They're talking about Missouri (hence the section placement) —Nizolan ^(talk) 01:36, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

Oh... well now I feel stupid. Colonel Wilhelm Klink (Complaints|Mistakes) 01:45, 21 March 2016 (UTC)

No, Col. You asked the question for many of us. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:13, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

 Done ~~ '20' it is (MO is in for Trump) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:37, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

 Undone—per the RfC above there's no consensus to count MO as a win for Trump just yet. Let's wait a bit. —Nizolan ^(talk) 18:25, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Missouri again.

Its seem the Result by delegates maps and other tables need to be updated again for Missouri.

• Its seem this tweets comfirms the new totals: https://twitter.com/MissouriGOP?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw

NBC pick this up: http://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/primaries/MO

Your link doesn't work. Surely you mean these announcements from the Missouri GOP? Case looks pretty much settled, hopefully the other media outlets besides NBC will pay attention. — JFG ^talk 19:24, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

It can always be changed when the leader of the Missouri delegation announces from the national convention floor, anything that is different. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:37, 30 March 2016 (UTC) -- July 18-21, 2016.

 Done -- Green Papers (and other recent sources) note the following state, as MO is 'winner take most' (i.e., two to one distribution of delegates): Trump 37 delegates (382,094 popular votes) and Cruz 15 delegates (380,365 popular votes). Zero for everyone else.[20] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:12, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Alaska on delegate count map

On the map that shows delegates a person has in a state, Rubio should be given his 5 delegates back as the Alaska Republican Party is allowing him to keep his delegates.Jvikings1 (talk) 03:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Reference: http://www.alaskagop.org/rubio_to_retain_five_delegates_earned_on_march_1 Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:35, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

End of 2015 section title

Knowledgekid87, Abjiklam, Purplebackpack89, MB298, et al., could someone have a look at the history and tell me whether there's any consensus behind 74.216.53.99's insistence on deleting the section title "End of 2015: The field stabilizes" with the reasoning of "Stupid title."? (I've had enough edit-warring for the day for my part :P) —Nizolan ^(talk) 17:49, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

None of the sources say anything about "stabilizing". Titles are supposed to be factual not whatever some editors buzzword of the day happens to be. 74.216.53.99 (talk) 17:59, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

74.216.53.99, the section titles are meant to summarise the content of the sections; they don't themselves need to be cited. What's the factual contention over the accuracy of "The road to the early primaries", which you've just reverted as well, exactly? —Nizolan ^(talk) 18:16, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

It's not encyclopedic to add these metaphorical-like subtitles which have no meaning. 74.216.53.99 (talk) 18:19, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

I don't agree. It gives users a quick description of what is occurring. MB298 (talk) 18:21, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The dem primaries page doesn't do it, why does this one? Was it you who decided you would make these stupid little subtitles? 74.216.53.99 (talk) 18:23, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

The Democratic titles were added recently and these have been around for a while. MB298 (talk) 18:27, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Looks like this has calmed down for now, so I think filing a formal edit-warring report is probably pointless despite the 3RR breach (the initial edit is also a revert since it removed content inserted by a previous edit). In future, though 74.216.53.99 could you possibly approach this a bit less belligerently? The section titles have stood for months now—if your changes to them are being reverted, that probably means you should come to the talk page and seek consensus before altering them further (WP:BRD). I've admittedly been impatient recently but this is an extremely high-visibility page so stability is generally desirable. —Nizolan ^(talk) 18:57, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

A revert and removing words is not the same thing. If you can find a wikipedia policy that says editing an article is a revert, then post and prove it. To be clear, the definition of a revert is to return an entity to it's previous state. If the subtitle was always in the title along with "End of 2015" then that is not a revert. It's a change. 74.216.53.99 (talk) 00:22, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

They are the same, actually, 74.216.53.99. The relevant policy is WP:3RR, which states "A "revert" means any edit (or administrative action) that reverses the actions of other editors, in whole or in part, whether involving the same or different material." Since the words were inserted by a previous editor, removing them is a revert. —Nizolan ^(talk) 05:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

As I can see we have gone past the edit war state maybe the IP editor could suggest some new titles and we could discuss them? I am sure we all agree that there has to be titles (the alternative was simple to name the sections 1,2,3 ect.) And I think we also agree that it should not simply be month and year, not much better than simply numbering them. The section title should in the shortest possible way sum up what the section is about. So what would be the new names? Jack Bornholm (talk) 03:56, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestions for the title of section 2.6

• End of 2015: Only six candidates gain traction -- Take the section title from the gist of the section paragraphs. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:35, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• End of 2015: The field stabilizes -- I don't mind the existing/current section title. It says this in the first sentence. -- AstroU (talk) 09:39, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
• End of 2015: The field stabilizes, six candidates gain traction -- Try this, for now. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:00, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Need to clarify California's "winner take all" rule

The chart listing California as "winner take all" is misleading and I think it is important to fix, given that the CA primary really could matter this year, even though it does not take place till June 7. California does not give all California's delegates to the one winner. Rather each individual congressional district gets 3 delegates regardless of how many registered Republican voters are in that district. An overwhelmingly Democratic district will get 3 and so will an overwhelmingly Republican one. and whoever wins that particular district gets all three, but just for that district.

"California’s primary is a winner-take-all system by Congressional District. The Presidential candidate who wins any given Congressional District will receive all 3 delegate appointments for that district. In addition, 10 at large delegates are awarded to the presidential candidate receiving the largest number of votes statewide."

It's kind of crazy. Read: http://bigstory.ap.org/article/652e439966b4463991fa3610237790c4/once-forgotten-california-primary-could-sway-2016-contest VanEman (talk) 06:20, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@VanEman: The answer is that the table has separate columns for at-large and district delegates and you're reading the at-large ("AL") column as though it were a description of the state as a whole. This system applies in many states, e.g. South Carolina; it's not specific to California. —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Nizolan! I appreciate your explanation. But this is complex, and I think the chart is insufficient. I think it's important under the allocation section to show how the number of delegates in a district is determined (e.g. in California it's 3 per district, regardless of whether the district has 100,000 Republicans or 10), and then how the delegates are allotted to the candidates. The chart alone isn't sufficient. I think there should be more wording and examples in the text. VanEman (talk) 07:46, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

@VanEman: The section already states both of those, though: the 3 delegates per district is true for all states allocating delegates per district (Under the party's delegate selection rules, the number of pledged delegates allocated to each of the 50 U.S. states is 10, plus three delegates for each congressional district. in the explanatory section above the table), and it does show how they're allotted to the candidates (winner-take-all per district in this case, and there's a key describing each allocation method in the explanatory section above). —Nizolan ^(talk) 07:50, 31 March 2016 (UTC)0

@VanEman: The wording should be in the section about the california primary (the june subsection of the timeline section). This section has not been written yet so feel free to do so. For the table I think there is enough wording, especially because California is not at all special in this regard. And the state delegation split clearly shows that 159 delegates will be allocated in the Congretional Districs. Close to a majority of all contests are divided into state and CD. Most attention to this fact was given at Missouri, a Winner-take-all state in the same way as California. So CAs way is the normal way of doing things :) Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:18, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

BTW, as you know, any of the states you click on 'Contest' under the 'Allocation' column to go to the state Repubican primary--the California writeup is woefully inadequate: United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2016. People should be able to read the detailed description over there (for each state), especially the most important ones. It is hard to understand from other sources, but a Google-search leads to the secretary of state of California site describing the process.[21] & [22] -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:59, 31 March 2016 (UTC) -- PS: My wife will be working in the precinct on June 7th.

These two links are not very descriptive of the Republican presidential primary race. Try Green Papers for CA.[23] -- AstroU (talk) 23:40, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Charles Edwin Shipp (talk OMG, I clicked on the link you gave to the United_States_presidential_election_in_California,_2016. It is atrocious, and the voting is only two months away. I will try to work on it.VanEman (talk) 03:20, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

TNKS! I looked at some of the other big-delegate states (NJ, PA, MD, IL, etc.) and some have results listed before the voting date. I'll look again. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:34, 1 April 2016 (UTC) Check United_States_presidential_election_in_Indiana,_2016

Whoever created the results template for these states did a quick copy-n-paste without updating (or zeroing out) everything, probably thinking that the templates wouldn't be added to the articles this early. I've fixed CA and IN, and will look at the others. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 15:11, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

Good work! I also looked at all 56 {states, DC, five territories} both past and future, and they all look in order, after a few minor tweeks, with the singular exception of CO (Colorado). When I put in the proper notation for CO (Colorado), it brings up the table for NV (Nevada.) -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:45, 2 April 2016 (UTC) -- Very interesting.

FYI, the Colorado (CO) link is better now, much better. The article isn't perfect, yet, but has two tables (district and state conventions) with results coming in a week, April 9th. We can get back to answering about the California (CA) delegate selection, since it is so large and determining, most likely. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:54, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Color North Dakota on the map black for uncommitted?

Shouldn't North Dakota be black on the map now since they had their convention yesterday (choosing uncommitted delegates)? North Dakota is not having any sort of straw poll so there will never be a popular vote winner for this state. 98.113.101.148 (talk) 13:01, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

@98.113.101.148: Since ND doesn't hold a primary or a caucus it should carry on being coloured in light grey as not voting, IMO (following precedent e.g. Republican Party presidential primaries, 1968). Wyoming also ought to be grey but that can be discussed separately. —Nizolan ^(talk) 13:12, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Wyoming shouldn't be colored grey because they had caucuses where pledged delegates were chosen. ND should be colored black due to uncommitted delegates. MB298 (talk) 15:17, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

There was no presidential preference poll, though, so no one was voting for any presidential candidates in those caucuses—hence "no popular vote". The presidential preference vote only happened at the conventions. I'm not overly bothered by it, though, it might just need better wording on the caption. —Nizolan ^(talk) 15:53, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

It is actually a bit premature to color Wyoming based on plurality of delegates in lack of a presidential strawpoll at the primary/caucuses(I guess that is what you are referring to?) Their State Convention is still two weeks ahead and with 14 AL delegates it could technically but not likely turn Trump. It is the same with Colorado, Cruz have already got six delegates (from two CDs) this weekend but it will not be finished electing delegates before next Saturday. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:57, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The title under the map should probably be changed. Although, in Wyoming, the people caucused and chose delegates to the county conventions.Jvikings1 (talk) 03:18, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Just as they did in North Dakota and Colorado Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:41, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I changed the wording, which seemed a bit clunky yesterday, to "First place by first-instance vote", let me know what you guys think. —Nizolan ^(talk) 09:01, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think that works.Jvikings1 (talk) 14:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

At the very least, North Dakota should be colored dark grey to make it stand out from the states that have not voted yet at all. Although I still don't get why it's not black since "uncommitted" did win. 98.113.101.148 (talk) 11:57, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Virgin Islands (I know again and again)

It seems that the disqualification of the first delegates stands. This lead to two questions:

• Have Rubio now won the virgin islands? And if so shouldn't we put that in table and maps?

• Have Rubio retained his delegates after he suspended. TGP seems to indecated he has, but others do not. At least when I read it. It is not totally clear to me.
  • http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/VI-R
  • http://talkingpointsmemo.com/dc/virgin-island-gop-chaos

Maybe someone knows more about this debacle? Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:10, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Two articles come to the top with a Google-search: [what happened in the 2016 virgin islands republican voting?] one from W-Post, and one locally. Bottom line: it is going to court. NOTE: (1) Apparently, an operative came in with a few friends from Michigan, but didn't arrive soon enough to be a legal resident, apparently; (2) a mere 744 people voting was the highest vote, for the illegals; (challenged now in court); (3) John Yob, the leader from Michigan, recently released a book "Chaos: The Outsider's Guide to a Contested Republican National Convention," (4) His wife, and two friends garnered the vote, presumably illegally. Let's wait and see. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:46, 5 April 2016 (UTC) -- Read these[24][25] to see "On March 4, the supervisor of elections for the U.S. Virgin Islands ruled Yob, his wife Erica L. Yob, and Ethan Eilon and Lindsey Eilon ineligible to vote."

• TGP shows the count as: 3 RNC unbound, 2 elected unbound, 2 bound for Rubio, 1 for Trump, 1 for Cruz.
• Talking Point Memo says "Yob and the five other delegates ... will be replaced by two Marco Rubio delegates (the caucus took place before Rubio dropped out), two uncommitted delegates, a Donald Trump delegate, and a Ted Cruz delegate."
• No source has been cited which says that Rubio's delegates automatically became unbound by operation of the territory's GOP party rules when Rubio suspended his campaign.

@Jack Bornholm: I don't think anything has changed since the last time we discussed this. "Uncommitted" wins the popular vote with or without the suspended delegates, so it stays black in the infobox and isn't counted as a contest won for anyone. There are 2 uncommitted delegates and 2 Rubio delegates, and 1 each for Cruz and Trump. The delegate map was already updated by me a while back. My opinion on the pie in the vote map is that it shouldn't be changed; although the delegates were disqualified, they were still marked as uncommitted on the ballot paper and people therefore still cast their votes for uncommitted rather than just for the delegates. But like I said, Uncommitted wins either way. —Nizolan ^(talk) 19:19, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, Now I just need an answer to the other questions. Are the Rubio delegates freed because he has suspended his campaign. To me it seems that from TGP but for a very committed IP editor it seems the other way from the other reference I posted. I think we are on the edge of a 3R suspension both of us :) :). So it would be good to have someone else take a look on it. The TGP does not change its result even in state we know have relased their Rubio delegates. If one reads the whole page it will at the end say "Delegate Candidates ... whose declared candidate ... has withdrawn ... prior to the Caucus Date shall be deemed uncommitted" What Caucus are they talking about. Since no delegates is elected before the Islands Caucus, it looks weird that a person would declare for a candidate on that day who have already withdrawn. But of course then again this is the Virgin Islands. It would be nice if someone could read the whole reference and maybe knows more. Not just take a TV generations look at the reference. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:47, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

What that quotation means is this: In the Virgin Islands people cast votes for particular delegates. The candidates specify what presidential candidate they're standing for when they enter the ballot (or if they're uncommitted). If their chosen presidential candidate subsequently withdrew in the period in between the prospective delegate announcing their candidacy and the Virgin Islands caucus, they would then be considered uncommitted. The Rubio delegates are still bound, since he withdrew afterwards—I can't find any RS saying they're not. —Nizolan ^(talk) 23:58, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Graphs

I'm thinking about making some graphs to illustrate the primary process. One idea is a graph showing the cumulative delegate count/popular vote count over time. Do you think such a graph would be useful, and do you have other ideas for potentially useful graphs? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 01:30, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

I think a line graph showing delegate count over time would be great to show delegate progression.Jvikings1 (talk) 03:19, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

That's done. If anyone comes up with another graph idea I'll gladly work on it. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

The source code is now available at commons:File:Delegate count for the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries.svg and commons:File:Delegate share for the 2016 Republican Party presidential primaries.svg in case I take too long to update the graphs. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:52, 6 April 2016 (UTC)