Talk:Results of the 2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries

New section

welcome to the Results page. This need work, but it's a start. The dead links are for the upcoming primaries. Create and enjoy!@

De La Fuente

Shouldn't he be listed with the other minor candidates? pbp 02:22, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

No. He is on the ballot in about 30 states, which considering that fact that getting on the ballot in most states is extremely difficult if you're not given the go-ahead by the State Committee, and that means that he should be listed with the big guys. He may do better than O'Malley.70.107.133.97 (talk) 16:47, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@70.107.133.97: As he hasn't participated in any of the debates, he should be in the section down with Judd and the others like him who have ballot access, but have not participated in debates or been polled. pbp 18:06, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

I think a reasonable place to draw the line on who is major and who is minor is whether someone is on enough ballots to capture the nomination. de la Fuente - even if he runs the tables - can capture max 1399, less than half of what he would need (although Superdelegates could theoretically put him over). PotvinSux (talk) 18:55, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

This is the RESULTS page, that makes it relevant. Remember, being in polls and debates (de la Fuente was in the "Lesser candidates forum, which doesn't mean much) does NOT matter anymore. Only raw numbers. Ballot access counts as results. In order to make the article manageable, we need to save space here and there, and putting a guy who is on the ballot in 30 states (not 20) with people who are on the ballot in 40 makes far more sense than than expanding the "kiddie table" section by ten times for one guy. Had he been in 12 states and everyone else had five or six, you might have had a point, but this is not the case.

De La Fuente is on the ballot in Michigan, but O'Malley is not....Unless he really does well in Iowa today or New Hampshire next week, O'Malley's done for. 208.125.9.220 (talk) 19:11, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

@208.125.9.220: Pooh-poohing O'Malley won't convince me that De La Fuente deserves to be listed alongside the others. He ain't gonna get 15% of the vote anywhere and he ain't gonna get any delegates. pbp 23:36, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Are you all serious? He does not need to be on the top chart just because he is on a few state ballots. I could hypothetically be a write-in candidate and win the White House! but I am not going to put myself on a wikipedia page for the general election to say so. Please remove him and put him in the appropriate chart. It's silliness like putting this candidate next to Clinton and Sanders that makes Wikipedia not taken seriously by many. He has not been in any debates or major polls. Let's be fair but realistic here. 2601:589:4705:B92B:C52:C7D1:9AB8:BCD2 (talk) 13:48, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I agree with the others, he has no place on the charts. I also like the removal of the other charts. He had no win in Iowa and isn't even on the ballot in SC and NV. Just because it's technically possible doesn't mean it's worth humoring on already long series of articles for the election. The list of candidates the way it is now suffices. Let's not go crazy here people. Manful0103 (talk) 14:42, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

remember, he's on most of the ballots on Super-Tuesday and now that O'malley is out could come in third (over 30 states isn't a few)208.125.9.220 (talk) 16:24, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

How about until a candidate wins at least one delegate they are not put on the chart? If not, then literally anyone can be on the chart since write-ins are allowed in many states. If this goes further I am going to recommend a dispute coordinator to address this page. Be reasonable people. As said above by someone, putting perennial candidates next to actual candidates featured in polls and debates diminishes the quality of Wikipedia. 131.91.7.2 (talk) 17:31, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Excellent idea! Trump as a write-in should be listed as he'll probably get a thousand votes or so in NH. Everyone who gets a vote SHOULD be on this page. All the results. Not just the notable people. Go to the 2012 Republican results page. Everyone is included who was on the ballot anywhere. That was the consensus. Don't keep any votes secret!66.108.159.118 (talk) 17:43, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually the 2012 results are just that, results. And it shows VOTES! This page isn't even showing percentage of votes won, it's showing DELEGATES. This become quite silly. Not sure why you seem to want to hold on to putting a random perennial candidate on the page? At least I am outlining a criteria for people to be shown. What is yours? That they exist? I am recommending this page be monitored. 131.91.7.2 (talk) 17:59, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Actually, it IS showing percentage of votes won, and the raw popular vote. Iowa is different as there's no popular vote. New Hampshire is next week, and when it comes, there will be all the popular votes for everyone on the ballot.65.88.88.71 (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

In my view, we don't need to include an entire separate column for De La Fuente or O'Malley unless they win delegates. That's what the "other" column is for. Geoffrey.mcgee (talk) 18:11, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Okay, sir, let's look at the consensus as it was a week ago, which was the Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 page, curated by User:William Saturn. It's clean and inclusive. It includes everyone who ran, including those who withdrew prior to the primaries but were still on the ballot. There is no results page for the Democrats that year, because Obama was kind of running unopposed. The Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012jpage shows that Keith Judd got 70,000 votes. It shows ALL the minor candidates who were on the ballot in more than three states, including Fred Karger and former Governor Buddy Roamer who weren't invited to any debates.

They received tens of thousands of votes, and under your criteria, they would be excluded from the page.

The question is: Should the consensus of previous elections be continued (the main page shows a list of very minor parties who, if the past is any guide, going to receive far fewer votes than most of the candidates whom you wish to exclude. Should we get rid of them as well?

Which brings us to another question, if you're proposed consensus is agreed to, then how will we list all the results, like this:

Date	State/territory	Calculated delegates		Type	Clinton	Sanders	Uncommitted	Other
		Pledged	Unpledged
February 9, 2016	New Hampshire	24	8	Semi-closed primary	0	0	-	*Eric Elbot 0 Mark Stewart Greenstein 0 Brock C. Hutton 0 Lloyd Kelso, 0 William D. French 0 William H. McGaughey, Jr. 0 Robert Lovitt 0 David John Thistle 0 Raymond Michael Moroz 0 Richard Lyons Weil 0 Steven Roy Lipscomb 0 Edward Sonnino 0 Edward T. O’Donnell, Jr.0 Graham Schwass, 0

Or would you ignore them all together? Do you wish Wikipedia to be encyclopedic and inclusive, or do you wish to be exclusive and ignore the votes of tens, if not hundreds of thousands? (John Wolfe, Jr. got over a hundred thousand votes in 2012, remember)

What if (and this is speculation) Bernie Sanders withdraws sometime in late March after winning only New Hampshire and Vermont? Should his votes be taken off the chart like you wish to do to O'Malley?

I stand with the old consensus. We formally decided to be inclusive long ago, and did so again on the "Candidates" page in either November or December.

The chart records POPULAR votes, not delegates. O'Malley and La Fuente should be up there with Bernie and Hillary as they're on the ballot in most of the states already and aren't going to be taken off.65.88.88.71 (talk) 20:03, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I am not going to jump in this edit war, but I have to make a point. If De La Fuente isn't featured on the main page for the election, why would he be here? They don't have him featured like Sanders and Clinton there. Just a thought. All these pages should flow and be consistent. Manful0103 (talk) 02:36, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

• Let me jump in here and point out that in the 2012 Democratic primary article, it doesn't give the votes or delegate by state for any candidates, and the 2012 Republican primary article, it doesn't give the votes or delegates by state for any candidates that a) weren't active at the start of Iowa, and b) hadn't participated in debates. So we would be wholly consistent in only tracking the state-by-state votes of Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley, though we could also include another table of the total votes for everybody everywhere. pbp 15:44, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Listing a person who got 95 votes with a photo up top is wrong. Dead people and superheros have gotten a lot more votes in elections. Legacypac (talk) 00:36, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

De La Fuente should be in the other table so then we are consistent with the other articles on Wikipedia which don't recognize him as a major candidate. Yes, he is on a lot of state ballots, but the main article defines a major candidate as someone that has "been listed in five or more major independent nationwide polls, participated in authorized forums and debates, and are on the ballot in at least twenty-five states." Until De La Fuente meets all of these requirements, he is not a "major candidate" by Wikipedia standards. I feel like keeping him where he is would violate WP:UNDUE and it would go against the consensus already established on the overwhelming majority of other articles that pertain to the Democratic Primary for this year. If none of the points I just made are refuted, I will be removing him from the major candidate table myself ASAP. Prcc27 (talk) 06:30, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

majors and minors

If you want to know how this pages should look, check out the Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. This is not about polls or debates, this is about actual tabulated votes. Iowa and a bunch of other caucus states do NOT have tabulated votes, which is why they are separate from the primaries. From here on out, the difference between major and minor candidates is ballot access and nothing else.70.107.133.97 (talk) 17:27, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Makes sense on the caucuses and primaries. On the ballot access, a line has to be drawn somewhere. See above on de la Fuente.PotvinSux (talk) 18:56, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Look, leave it as it is for the time being. Everybody and their sister is on the ballot in NH next week (except for Willie Wilson), and when Super Tuesday comes around. Remember, O'Malley's standing in the polls is abysmal. of the twelve candidates running in Iowa on the Republican side, nobody outside the top four has a chance either. Getting on the ballot in North Carolina and Massachusetts without party sanction is quite an achievement.208.125.9.220 (talk) 19:20, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

Popular votes

There seems to be a misunderstanding. The edit war is over whether or not this page is about popular votes or delegate votes. It was always about popular votes in the primaries. So....

Consensus?: The Popular votes are recorded in the top three charts. These will include everyone and anyone who gets votes (thirty or more states for the "major candidates" and two for the minor ones, and a list of people on one). At the bottom there will be a delegate chart, and only those who get delegates will be allowed on that one. OKAY?65.88.88.71 (talk) 20:19, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

County map

Any objection to me inserting the results by county map? File:Democratic Party presidential primaries results by county, 2016.svg. Magog the Ogre (t • c) 00:46, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

@Magog the Ogre: Go right ahead pbp 15:45, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Keeping candidates with suspended campaigns

Should candidates who have suspended their campaigns still have a section on this page? WaunaKeegan11 keeps removing Martin O'Malley. David O. Johnson (talk) 01:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

WaunaKeegan11, in my humble opinion, is doing a bit of mischief here. Going back to the day Jimmy Wales, and Larry Sanger founded Wikipedia, they and the millions of us who love it dearly and try to make it better each and every day and doing so mean that we should be inclusive and chock full of facts and factoids to keep us informed and entertained.

This page is titled: The Results of the Democratic party Primaries, 2016. This means that it's a kind of scorecard, a place where all the votes for all the candidates, with the exception of the stray write-in votes which are not published and are unavailable, are there for the easy perusal of any middle school kid who wants a quick reference for a social studies paper or a trivia quiz contestant at a local bar who wants to prove she's right.

Let's go, as others have tried to explain, to the Results page for 2012, which is the model for this page. You will notice that three candidates who were invited to the debates, dropped out right after Iowa and New Hampshire, and their votes were recorded on the page all the way through the end of May.

There should be little difference between that page and this. O'Malley tried damn hard (as did Sanders and Clinton, who just delivered 70 THOUSAND signatures to get on the New York primary the other day) to get his name on the ballots where it wasn't automatic. His votes should be recorded for posterity.

Also, it's extremely hard to find this kind of stuff on the internet, or will be as time goes on. Googling "results of the 1988 Illinois primary" won't get very much. (I mention this because Paul Simon, who had suspended his campaign the week before, WON that primary.) Going back further is even more difficult, especially when we go back to the days before the McGovern commission changed the primary process.

Wikipedia, God Bless it, is the quick and easy way to do preliminary research. We NEED a complete record on these topics because the mission of Wikipedians is to produce articles that are definitive and easy to read. WaunaKeegan11, by preventing the results of a candidate who's on almost all the ballots recorded, apparently does not.

Deleting Martin O'Malley and Rocky de La Fuenta and the rest is a very bad idea, not only because it censors history, but it makes the page less fun to read. There are all these people who worked and slaved for O'Malley over the past year. De La Fuente got thousands of petitions and jumped myriade hoops to get their places on the ballot.

Iowa doesn't have a popular vote, but New Hampshire does, and they've been absentee and early voting since December. South Carolina and the Super Tuesday/SEC states have had early voting since the middle of last month.

Keep them here for the sake of little Jenny's social studies report.74.101.76.238 (talk) 12:54, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

• I'm fine with it just being Clinton, Sanders and O'Malley. The rest can be covered in "other", and the "other" can be parsed out at the states' pages. It's not censorship...we don't have to delineate every candidate on the ballot everywhere. In particular, there are 20-30 guys on the New Hampshire ballot, plus write-ins; that information is better covered at United States presidential election in New Hampshire, 2016 or New Hampshire Democratic primary, 2016. Heck, I'd remove that second table that includes Judd and the other guys. Doing so would be consistent with the way we've done it in the past. pbp 15:09, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Should WIKIPEDIA be authoritative?

Rocky is on the ballot in the following states: Alabama, Alaska, American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Colorado, Democrats Abroad, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, New Hampshire, North Carolina, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Vermont, West Virginia, Ballot Access to 2,629 of 4,051 (or 64.90%) Pledged Delegates, thus he deserves to be on the top chart. Sure he's got almost nothing NOW, but wait until Super-tuesday. After al he's on over 37 states. Remember we've only got the results from ONE primary. (wow! what a primary, though, but I digress). They just announced the candidates for the California primary: HILLARY CLINTON, ROQUE DE LA FUENTE, HENRY HEWES, KEITH JUDD, BERNIE SANDERS, MICHAEL STEINBERG and WILLIE WILSON go here. Candidates are chosen by the Secretary of State's office. Fred Karger, who had no support but managed to get on the ballot in California as a Republican, got 6,481 votes there and was only on the ballot in four other states for a total of something like then thousand. He was treated like the big guys on the proper pages.

Wikipedia should be authoritative, and in order to do so, pages like this should include everybody, which was the consensus (after an edit war) until yesterday. So whaddaya say? Wait until March 2nd, and if Rocky and his friends don't get FIVE HUNDRED votes en toto for all the primaries up to Super tuesday, we drop everybody except Hillary and Bernie, that's what going to happen on the GOP side....21:16, 10 February 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.108.159.118 (talk)

We're not going to play games with meeting arbitrary benchmarks here. Incredibly minor candidates with zero delegates do not belong in the main table. Wikipedia can still be authoritative by listing the nobodies below. Reywas92^Talk 22:43, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

There are no arbitrary bechmarks and all the "very minor candidates" (some of whom might get into the 100k vote range), but one are not on the main table, they're on the supplement. Wait 'till March 2.72.226.125.231 (talk) 02:00, 11 February 2016 (UTC)

It is quite silly to have a candidate such as De La Fuente at the top next to Clinton and Sanders. And the fact that you address him by his first name makes me wonder if you have a real life connection to him, thus this strange insistence that he is a serious candidate. If he is, he would be listed on the main page for the election next to Clinton and Sanders, yet he is not. He is not in any major poll, and he also has not been in any debate. I also notice the edits that keep putting him there are by IP addresses and not people with Wikipedia accounts. People with wikipedia accounts keep removing him, but IP addresses keep putting him back. That's suspicious to me. I don't like to get involved with edit wars, but I wish someone would step in and fix this article appropriately. If De La Fuente is not placed in any other article involving this election, there is no reason for him to be at the top chart here. He is not listed as a major candidate in any single other article for this election. Why on earth would you put him here? Manful0103 (talk) 03:20, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

I am going to repeat what I said in one of the sections above:

“ De La Fuente should be in the other table so then we are consistent with the other articles on Wikipedia which don't recognize him as a major candidate. Yes, he is on a lot of state ballots, but the main article defines a major candidate as someone that has "been listed in five or more major independent nationwide polls, participated in authorized forums and debates, and are on the ballot in at least twenty-five states." Until De La Fuente meets all of these requirements, he is not a "major candidate" by Wikipedia standards. I feel like keeping him where he is would violate WP:UNDUE and it would go against the consensus already established on the overwhelming majority of other articles that pertain to the Democratic Primary for this year. If none of the points I just made are refuted, I will be removing him from the major candidate table myself ASAP. ”

Furthermore, Fred Karger was *not* treated as a major candidate on the Results of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 which is akin to this page. So that argument actually works against you OP. Prcc27 (talk) 08:16, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Great job guys. The top chart and the bottom one look much better. Keep it this way unless a consensus is made otherwise by wikipedia users, not random IPs. Manful0103 (talk) 18:12, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Still would be happy to see the whole second chart removed later, it's undue weight to actual coverage. No other primary results article gives significance to the insignificant candidates, though some do list everyone on the ballot on the individual state results. Reywas92^Talk 21:59, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

We should at least get rid of the candidates that are not WP:NOTABLE. Prcc27 💋 (talk) 22:05, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Most of the candidates who are notable became so because of votes they got as "vanity candidates" Wolfe and Judd got huge numbers of votes. Let's leave them here until after March 2nd because they're all going to get new vote totals which are orders of magnitude higher (even Valentine and Adams)66.108.159.118 (talk) 18:04, 15 February 2016 (UTC)

50 or less votes and less than a percent of votes is not a "huge" number of votes- it is extremely tiny. Tiny enough for them not to be considered "notable". We can remove the candidates now since they are not notable whatsoever. We don't need to push this off. Prcc27💋 (talk) 05:32, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

66.108.159.118 mentioned that Wolfe and Judd got huge numbers of votes last time. Let's look:

|title=New Hampshire Democratic Delegation 2012 |publisher=Thegreenpapers.com |date= |accessdate=2012-08-10}}</ref>

	Candidate	Votes	Delegates	States on ballot
	NP	426,336	72	9 (AL, DC, KY, MA, MD, MI, MO, MT, NC, RI, TN)
	John Wolfe, Jr.	117,033	0 (23)	5 (AR, LA, MO, NH, TX)
	Darcy Richardson	109,764	0	5 (LA, MO, NH, OK, TX)
	Keith Russell Judd	73,138	0 (1)	1 (WV)
	Bob Ely	29,947	0	4 (LA, NH, OK, TX)
	Randall Terry	22,734	0 (7)	4 (AK, MO, NH, OK)
	Jim Rogers	15,535	0 (3)	1 (OK)

Yes, "50 or less votes and less than a percent of votes is not a "huge" number of votes- it is extremely tiny." but that is only New Hampshire. Bob Ely, whom no one ever heard of before, got almost thirty THOUSAND VOTES!!!! The TX, LA, and OK Democrats Don't like Hillary or Bernie very much and a significant (5-15%) will vote for these guys. Remember, Jim Rogers got the OK Senate nomination in 2010 without lifting a finger72.226.125.231 (talk) 14:24, 16 February 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that these candidates will get a lot of votes is WP:CRYSTAL. Prcc27💋 (talk) 20:08, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Assuming that these candidates will not get any whatsoever is WP:CRYSTAL too. The South Carolina primary today has the participation of almost a million people, and that means that the Republicans who dropped out previously be are still on the ballot will all get thousands of votes each but still get a teensy percentage. That is not WP:CRYSTAL, that is math. This article is about raw popular results, nothing else.24.39.127.187 (talk) 13:33, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I never said they wouldn't get any votes. What I'm saying is that as of now they are not notable enough for us to give WP:WEIGHT to them. They may be notable enough in the future, but per WP:CRYSTAL we don't edit the article based on what *might* happen in the future. Yes it is WP:CRYSTAL to make a prediction about how the election will turn out. We don't edit articles based on speculation, we edit it based on the information we have at the time. This article deals with popular vote results as well as delegate results. As far as I'm concerned, the candidates that are not notable have 0 delegates and an extremely low popular vote total. And it is very disruptive adding these candidates to the table when they have already been rightfully excluded on other pages per WP:UNDUE WEIGHT. Prcc27💋 (talk) 19:41, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

This edit war must stop.

First: Consensus was officially reached on December 14th. Non-notable candidates are to be listed.

Second: The rules specifically mention that non notable people can be on lists.

From the rules on the subject

The criteria applied to article creation/retention are not the same as those applied to article content. The notability guidelines do not apply to article or list content (with the exception that some lists restrict inclusion to notable items or people). Content coverage within a given article or list (i.e. whether something is noteworthy enough to be mentioned in the article or list) is governed by the principle of due weight and other content policies. For additional information about list articles, see Notability and lists and Lead and selection criteria.

Notice the words "some" and "exception." These do not apply in this case. First there was the December 14th Consensus (Based on ALL previous election articles). Add to this the fact that the "micro-candidatess" were on the list from before the moment the article went live. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Results_of_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016&diff=700826609&oldid=700456521. Since then, there has been an effort by some to prevent the results from being displayed for anyone besides Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

The purpose of Wikipedia is to provide information in a clear and easily accessible manner. Forcing the reader to add up totals or go all over the site or even all over the web is a betrayal of James Whale's original mission.

While someone voting for his/herself in New Hampshire doesn't belong here. Someone on the ballot in 8 to 10 states does. 24.39.127.187 (talk) 13:25, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

I clicked the link, but I certainly did not see a consensus in your favor. Furthermore, WP:CONSENSUSCANCHANGE so even if you did have consensus then (you didn't) you don't have it now. Instead of edit warring you should get consensus here at the talk. Prcc27💋 (talk) 19:48, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Do we need this article?

The results are already listed on Democratic party presidential primaries, 2016. Why do we need an extra page? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Greeninventor999 (talk • contribs) 00:36, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• The popular vote results are not listed on that article though. Prcc27 (talk) 08:10, 13 February 2016 (UTC)

Vermin Supreme

Shouldn't Supreme be added to the table..? Prcc27💋 (talk) 20:14, 18 February 2016 (UTC)

Vermin Supreme should be on a list of "on one state only" candidates that has been removed from the page by those who wish to hide such things.72.226.125.231 (talk) 13:29, 19 February 2016 (UTC)

Replace template with infobox

I think we should replace the template with an infobox so it will be easier to edit from this page. Currently the template is only used on this article which kind of defeats the whole purpose of having one. Prcc27💋 (talk) 22:06, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Proportional representation vs winner take all states?

Where can I find a list of the states that are winner take all vs proportional with regard to how pledged delegates are distributed? I thought I would find this information here (and I suppose it will be listed once the results are in), but it would be nice to see this information before votes are cast, if possible.  ~ Paul^T+/_C 18:39, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I saw in another talk page that all Democratic primaries and caucuses this year are proportional. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:48, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yep, just saw the same thing. I was going to delete my comment, but you beat me to it! Thanks for the info. ~ Paul^T+/_C 19:12, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Mind you, you're not the first to ask this question. I guess it wouldn't hurt to add this information somewhere if we can get a reference for it. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 19:26, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

O'Malley's superdelegates

In the Delegate totals table, O'Malley still has his own column where 3 superdelegates are marked as supporting him. Since he's dropped out of the race, shouldn't we remove him from the table? He obviously has to stay in the popular vote tables since people will continue to vote for him. However, besides the 3 superdelegates who I assume will not vote for him at the convention, all O'Malley's cells will remain at 0. If he had won some pledged delegates it would be a different story, but as it stands now his column is not so useful. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 20:09, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we should remove him based on assumptions. If there is a reliable source that says those 3 superdelegates won't vote for him then that would be a different story. Prcc27💋 (talk) 23:02, 21 February 2016 (UTC)

Yes I agree. However, I don't know where the information from the superdelegates comes from. Moreover, the total doesn't match with the actual numbers either and I don't know where those numbers came from. So my question is where is the reliable source that says the 3 (or is it 2?) superdelegates will vote for O'Malley? Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:15, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There's a (rather small) list of O'Malley's super-delegates on this page. There are references next to the names, but IDK how reliable they are since I didn't click on them. Prcc27💋 (talk) 06:02, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for that, I'd forgotten that list. After following the two references, I still think O'Malley should be removed from the delegates total table. Both references predate the primaries and one of them dates back to last July. To think that they still hold is just an assumption. Plus, AP's delegate tracker makes no mention of O'Malley. Finally, our own table for superdelegate endorsements omits O'Malley with a note explaining the situation. I think that is the best solution at the moment. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 07:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I don't like including delegate projections because it's all speculative and almost violates WP:CRYSTAL. For me it's an all or nothing kind of thing. We either include all speculative delegates (which we shouldn't) or none of them. If there is a source that says that those two people are now "uncommitted" or voting for someone else then that would probably be enough for us to know for sure that they do not support O'Malley anymore. Yes, the sources for O'Malley are relatively old, but so are some of the ones for the other superdelegates like Larry Cohen. Prcc27💋 (talk) 07:24, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

But the thing is we do have more recent references that do not mention O'Malley. In fact, none of the delegate trackers I found online allocate any delegates to O'Malley. The old sources (two news articles dating back to November and July 2015) don't measure up against the consensus of all delegate trackers. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 13:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I went ahead and made the change. There is a note at the beginning of the table that clearly explains the situation. Do let me know if it's not enough. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:40, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Delegate count

There is something wrong with the delegate count total. It says that Clinton has 52 and Sanders 51. But for Clinton 23+9+19 is 51 which should tie her with Sanders. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.2.200.31 (talk) 05:31, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Hillary Clinton photo

There seems to be some disagreement about which photo to use for Hillary Clinton. Please go here to discuss. Thanks! Prcc27💋 (talk) 01:43, 28 February 2016 (UTC)

Contradiction with votes in two different tables

There's a contradiction within the article. The table in the section 'Major candidates' suggests that Clinton got 267,299 votes and Sanders got 94,767 in South Carolina.

The table in the section I marked out suggests that Clinton got 271,515 and Sanders got 95,978 in the same location.

Which is it?

--98.122.20.56 (talk) 06:41, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

The lower table has a source, and may reflect later data, while the upper table may have been based on preliminary or incomplete reporting. That said, the page United States presidential election in South Carolina, 2016 has a different set of numbers, with a different source. I think we will need to wait for the official results to be certified before the sources will come together with more consistent numbers. _{Please ping if replying} Etamni | ✉ | ✓  12:01, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

This is how it's supposed to look like!

Notice that the main candidates, the ones who are on most ballots, are seamlessly on the top chart, and there's a supplemental chart below it with everyone else who's on the ballot in one state. Notice that several of the "non-notable" ones have received more votes than some of the more notable ones. ALL have received more than a thousand votes each. Except for California, all the minors are going to be finished by the end of the month.

I know that prior to this, it was hard to visualize, especially when Rocky only had 95 votes and none of the others had more than 250 TOTAL. I get that. But I hope that this is clearer now.66.108.159.118 (talk) 19:51, 2 March 2016 (UTC)

Yeah no one cares. It was always easy to visualize the minors not being there, just like they've never been in any real conversation about the election, and the article wouldn't suffer without the second table. 128.95.130.129 (talk) 01:23, 3 March 2016 (UTC)

So information supression is what you want to do? isn't that exactly what wikipedia is against?38.125.33.54 (talk) 21:51, 5 March 2016 (UTC)

I am going to assume this is the same user who fought to put De La Fuente on the top chart earlier. Please let it go, there is consensus against it. He has not been featured in any major polls, he is not in the debates, he is not featured on any of the election's other pages, and he is not a major candidate. And the fact that you keep calling him by "Rocky" makes me wonder if you have a real life personal connection to him. He is not a major candidate, stop trying to promote him on here as such. Manful0103 (talk) 18:44, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

He doesn't. Calling him "Rocky" is the same as calling Senator Sanders "Bernie" or Secretary Clinton "Hillary." We who had created the page in the first place just wanted the results page to have ALL the results, not just the for the candidates who a few here deem worthy. Who is on the major polls isn't jermaine, as the case of Larry Lessing and some others show. Tens of thousands of votes aren't allowed to be shown on this page, and that's very, very sad.72.182.52.89 (talk) 02:57, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Proposal for an WP:Editnotice

I made a proposal over here to add an editnotice to this page and others. Please join the discussion if you have any comments or suggestions. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 18:12, 4 March 2016 (UTC)

Illinois

Clinton and Sanders split delegates 78-78 according to Green Papers, but the table shows it is 76-73 for Clinton, why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by DrHadesCZE (talk • contribs) 09:57, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

Errors in calculation of available delegates

According to the table, there are currently no remaining delegates to be allocated but, adding the numbers of the available delegates up again, you see that only 1747 – not 1833, as the table suggests – pledged delegates will be distributed by the upcoming primaries. So the numbers seem to be incorrect. Looking closer, you see that Arizona, Idaho and Utah are still each missing one delegate, Michigan, Florida, Missouri and North Carolina three and Illinois seven. And only 34 of Washington's 101 delegates have been allocated so far (NYT mentions that). This should definitely be corrected. MoldBreaker (talk) 09:50, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Washington state delegates

The delegates of Washington state don't add up. The caucus has already been held, so all delegates should be allocated right? If they will be allocated at a later point they should show in the unallocated delegate section because right now it doesn't add up to 101. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.170.117.151 (talk) 15:59, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Missing info

The article doesn't include info on four primaries that occurred in April. David O. Johnson (talk) 00:18, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

I meant March, but someone has updated it. David O. Johnson (talk) 04:32, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

New section

May 5th, Hi Wiki-people. Did you know that BOTH Nevada and now Missouri have been awarded to Bernie Sanders? Some of us would REALLY appreciate it if you could correct your chart ( from yellow to green) as well as the correct amount of delegates for each! It makes a difference! Thanks in advance! from an ardent follower, Helene Millas, Wheelock,VT — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.169.81.0 (talk) 14:22, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Give us the reference. GangofOne (talk) 01:12, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

"Beauty Pageant Primaries"

Last night, the results chart included the results of yesterday's (May 10) Nebraska primary, and now that is missing. Like Nebraska, in two weeks Washington state will also hold a "beauty pageant primary" (a normal primary that does not award pledged delegates, as those were already apportioned to the candidates according to the prior caucus results). I found including the Nebraska primary results, even though they did nothing to the delegate counts, to be highly informative, as it shows how suppressed turnout is in caucuses and also had a very surprising result: a clear win by Clinton even though Sanders had defeated Clinton handily in the state caucuses. It's an important part of the record, and they were still official primaries. A chart listing results from this year's primaries and caucuses should be complete, and unlike listing minor candidates, we're only talking about two states here, so an addition of two rows in a chart, which won't be a drastic visual change. And anyway, why did Nebraska's appear initially last night but removed today? I see no discussion about it, or record of the deletion. Prosandcons (talk) 22:51, 11 May 2016 (UTC)

An addendum to this, should vote totals from these non-binding primaries be included in the overall vote totals in the infobox? Nevermore27 (talk) 21:53, 4 June 2016 (UTC)

I think they should definitely be included in the chart. I would either include them in the overall vote totals, or maybe include them in alternate figures available in a footnote? Bondegezou (talk) 09:18, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Point of Clarification for CA Primary

Point of Clarification The LA Times reports 6/8/16 that as many as 3 million ballots are uncounted statewide[1]. 3 Counties have as may as 950,000[2] These include  Vote by Mail Ballots rec'd on Election day and VBMs rec'd up to 3 days post Election day with the correct postage date. There was also a large number of Provisional Ballots cast due to machine breakdown,lack of NPP Democratic Crossover Ballots etc; Provisional Ballots with be counted towards the total if the individual had been registered Democratic or NPP at time they were cast [3].

CA releases un-official results from the date of the Primary; Official results are released approx 1 month later after each County has verified the ballots described above[4].

The number of uncounted VBM and Provisional ballots may not alter the outcome of the Primary, but the percentage differences may narrow.

References: [1] http://www.latimes.com/politics/la-pol-ca-california-primary-wednesday-s-big-question-how-many-1465375928-htmlstory.html [2] https://www.reddit.com/r/SandersForPresident/comments/4n7rp5/950000_ballots_still_have_to_be_counted_in_just_3/ [3] https://mobile.twitter.com/LACountyRRCC/status/740641362979098624 [4] https://mobile.twitter.com/LACountyRRCC/status/740646383481294848 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forbrydelsenfan (talk • contribs) 15:41, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Official Ca gov: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/unprocessed-ballots-status/ and http://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2016-primary/unprocessed-ballots-report.pdf 1,959,908 total uncounted. See last column: http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/status/ "County Canvass Update. Returns are updated as county elections officials process vote-by-mail, provisional and other ballots during the 30-day post-election canvass period." GangofOne (talk) 01:21, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Ca.gov site says "100% of counties PARTIALLY counted". Our page says 3982617 total counted votes, so 3982617./(3982617 + 1959908) = 67% of vote in CA is counted. GangofOne (talk) 01:31, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Also Ca vote counts on this page and California Democratic primary, 2016 no longer match the latest on Ca Sec of State http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/president/party/democratic/ GangofOne (talk) 02:10, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Statewide_opinion_polling_for_the_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#California another place to update as changes continue, same info, but out of sync. GangofOne (talk) 22:03, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Another quirk http://vote.sos.ca.gov/returns/status/ says 7,350,883 votes cast, (I presume this includes invalid ones,), 3982617./7350883 = 54%, curious. GangofOne (talk) 04:28, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Those are all the votes, including Republicans, you know. Nevermore27 (talk) 16:06, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

Popular vote discrepancy

The infobox at the top of the page and the "Major candidates" table gives the total popular vote count for Clinton as 16,847,084 and for Sanders as 13,168,222. However, the pie chart headed "2016 Democratic Party presidential primaries popular vote" gives the total for Clinton as 16,313,888 and for Sanders as 12,559,086. The infobox and both tables state that these figures exclude Iowa, Maine, Nevada, North Dakota, Washington and Wyoming, so it's unclear why there is a discrepancy and which set of figures is correct. Can anybody correct and/or clarify accordingly? 155.136.80.163 (talk) 14:34, 1 August 2016 (UTC)

Error in the Delegation Map

Why is the rest of the world (a green color) included? This is the American election, not a world election. It falsely misleads readers in thinking that the rest of the world voted for Sanders. Yoshiman6464 (talk) 01:59, 1 January 2017 (UTC)