WikiProject Elections and Referendums | (Rated Template-class) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
WikiProject Politics | (Rated Template-class) | |||||||||||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
![]() Archives |
---|
Contents
- 1 Carried/Delegate Count
- 2 Infobox Images
- 3 Remove "Popular vote" from the infobox
- 4 Popular Vote Proposal
- 5 Inclusion of popular vote
- 6 Idea for Popular Vote
- 7 Map is misleading
- 8 Why does the source for the template delegate numbers keep changing?!
- 9 WA three step caucus process/delegate count
- 10 The Delegate Gap section
- 11 Nevada
- 12 New map
- 13 The rules, measurements, and processes for the nomination have not changed, so why should the info-box?
Carried/Delegate Count
I'm putting back the Citation needed for states carried. Iowa has 52 delegates, only 47 are accounted with a difference of 5 between the two candidates. That means that there is at least a potential for the remaining superdelegates to align in such a way as to force a tie. So, this requires either committed superdelegates or a separate source from the delegate count.Andwats (talk) 05:01, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Jc86035 The table in the article says 23 because it is referring to hard/pledged delegates. The infobox was referring to total delegates. I think it is probably better like this, but the distinction is important. Andwats (talk) 13:32, 3 February 2016 (UTC)
Why does somebody keep changing the vote count on Bernie Sanders to inaccurately bring down his pledged count? There's something very odd going on here. Derroll (talk) 16:09, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is a big discussion about this over at Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016#Delegate count - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 16:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
Infobox Images
All of these (except #4 and #5) have appeared in the template at one point or another. I personally support Image #1. MB298 (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Prcc27:, @MelbourneStar:, @Abjiklam:, and anyone who may be intrested, new images to select from have been added, so you may want to take them into consideration.--Proud User (talk) 00:25, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- I prefer whichever one is newest *and* whichever one has the candidate facing completely forward. So for now #2, but I'm open to more options if they become available. Prcc27๐ (talk) 01:49, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Image #1 is the most recent, and I believe of good quality. Might I add, image #2 Clinton is not looking forward towards the camera either, so for me, that isn't an issue. โMelbourneStarโtalk 01:54, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- Prcc27 has the right idea. The portraits should be facing forward (never mind that the eyes don't look directly at the camera...). The time between #1 and #2 is not an issue since it is so short and especially since both pictures were taken during Clinton's campaign. #2 Abjiklษm (tษlk) 02:00, 24 February 2016 (UTC)
- The Republican template has images from 2015 (most/all of them are from then) and *all* of the photos are facing *forward*. Why should Hillary's photo be the unique one out of all the template photos across wikipedia..? We should be consistent. Prcc27๐ (talk) 08:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Image#1 is indeed of higher quality and more recent. I think the image needs to be of a reasonable head:body ratio, which is consistent with the images for Bernie Sanders, O'malley and so forth. The issue with image #2 is that it is cropped from an image where Hillary is sitting which distort the head/shoulder/ body ratio, whereas in Image #2 she is standing -- which is also consistent with the portraits of Sanders and O'malley. Clinton isn't facing forwads either in #2. Also currently the Hillary Clinton page and template (Template:Hillary Clinton series)all use #1, so I think that the primary page and templates should be no different to her personal page/ templates. #2 were used in the infobox when the Hillary Clinton page and templates used it, now that #1 is used in all those pages, the infobox should naturally follow. Sleepingstar (talk) 21:19, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Of course the image is the same on her page, the same user added it everywhere at the same time... Abjiklษm (tษlk) 21:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Bernie Sanders's photo is different on the Bernie Sanders page than the one on this template. Consistency on the main pages is one thing. But currently Hillary Clinton is the only candidate with a photo where they are not facing forward out of both this template and the GOP template. When you have Sanders facing forward and Clinton not that's a problem when comparing the two photos. But on the Hillary Clinton page the photo is not displayed next to another candidate and so it does not have to match up with anybody with regards to what direction she is facing. Prcc27๐ (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Agreed. I also expect that the portrait on Hillary's page will change in the future, whereas the one here will be more or less set in stone as her portrait during the 2016 elections. Both do not need to match, and indeed will eventually not match. Consistency within an article is the only criterion. Abjiklษm (tษlk) 22:55, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Bernie Sanders's photo is different on the Bernie Sanders page than the one on this template. Consistency on the main pages is one thing. But currently Hillary Clinton is the only candidate with a photo where they are not facing forward out of both this template and the GOP template. When you have Sanders facing forward and Clinton not that's a problem when comparing the two photos. But on the Hillary Clinton page the photo is not displayed next to another candidate and so it does not have to match up with anybody with regards to what direction she is facing. Prcc27๐ (talk) 22:03, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Of course the image is the same on her page, the same user added it everywhere at the same time... Abjiklษm (tษlk) 21:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
Look at commons:Category:Hillary Clinton in Durham, North Carolina. Perhaps one of those could be cropped. MB298 (talk) 05:05, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Hello everybody, we should also decide which Bernie Sanders image will fit best. Image #1 is the most recent, and was taken by the same man who took Image #1 for Hillary Clinton. Image #2 was from late last year, date says it all, while Image #3 is his Senatorial photo. Edit: I've added a few new photos! There is a huge variety here to meet your standards hopefully. --Bobtinin (talk) 23:08, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- @Prcc27:, @MB298:, @Abjiklam:, @Bobtinin:, and anyone else who may be interested in discussing, #1 has been retouched so you may want to consider using the retouched version. --Proud User (talk) 22:23, 20 March 2016 (UTC)
- Image #1 because it is the most recent image of him, and he is facing forward in it. Prcc27๐ (talk) 23:25, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- Image #2 because of #1's bad lighting. MB298 (talk) 04:04, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- #2. As MB298 said, #1 has very poor lighting. Abjiklษm (tษlk) 12:47, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Image #4 is my personal favorite since that's what Sen. Sanders usually looks like at his speeches, the lighting is great, and it's made by Gage Skidmore. --Bobtinin (talk) 22:46, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Image #2 - I'm against having the primary image being one where a candiadate is frowning or pursing their lip. That leaves 1,2,3,8. 3 is too old. 1 & 8 have uneven lighting โ in 1, half the face is dark, in 8, half the face has a light glare. Only leaves #2. โ 15zulu (talk) 03:08, 21 March 2016 (UTC)
Remove "Popular vote" from the infobox
![]() |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
The above discussion #Popular Vote primarily discusses Iowa popular vote, as determine by The Green Paper. Also, the posts predate the Nevada caucus and nothing has been said on them. It does not address the issue of misleading readers by showing a popular vote not reflective of real results.
Coming from the "Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016" page, the article doesn't use this template and thus had separate discussion on popular vote. Currently it's a three-to-one vote against having popular vote in the infobox. Timothy 2066, Shwoodham, and myself argue against, with Mteichm arguing for inclusion.
My opinion is that "Popular vote" should be removed from the infobox. What is currently being shown is completely misleading to a reader. On the line directly above popular vote, a reader sees three states have been decided (which is seconded by the colorful map below), yet then sees a popular vote claiming Sanders has a huge lead. For the reader to find out that popular vote only reflects some states, s/he must actually bother to look two sections down to notes (which most readers will skip since they already got all the important numbers). Further, the note doesn't sufficiently explain to the reader that popular vote only reflects 1/3 states, instead requiring the reader to already know which states hold caucuses vs. primaries. I don't care if someone wants to create a table within appropriate article(s) showing popular vote by state & then total line at end, but it's current location in the infobox is completely misleading and false. 15zulu (talk) 01:50, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support: there is no accurate popular vote total. Prcc27๐ (talk) 08:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- What about using a footnote, indicating that not all states are included in the popular vote count? Mteichm (talk) 08:39, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Suggest as a compromise, adding lines for caucus results in the infobox via a template edit request. Lines would be "Caucus vote" and "Caucus %". A note would be added in the notes section giving number of states with caucuses vs popular votes. I would still maintain that any of this is a violation of WP:OR "analysis or synthesis of published material", and also that this does a disservice to readers in perpetuating the myth that a candidate can win a national popular vote in a primary the same way it is won in the general election. Shwoodham (talk) 12:51, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support removal. Popular votes does not determine the election, delegates do. They are completely misleading in their current form. โMelbourneStarโtalk 13:25, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support removal. They only reflect New Hampshire at present, and can very easily mislead readers. Sleepingstar (talk) 21:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose: Every other Wikipedia page for presidential primaries includes the popular vote count, even when results were incomplete, as in 2008, 2004, 2000, etc. Failing to include the popular vote is a tremendous failing of this page, and, I suspect, a ploy by supporters of Senator Sanders to mask how handily he has been defeated in the national popular vote. Kiernanmc (talk) 18:51, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's like saying Clinton supporters want to include the national popular vote, even if caucuses vs. primaries clouds that distinction, and no matter whether the tallies are inaccurate, just to give her some feeling of being ahead, even though delegates and delegates alone are what win the nomination. Surely that can't be. I don't mind the popular vote tallies being included, but Democratic Primary politics needs to be kept out of this. Stevie is the man! Talk โข Work 19:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- Does not support: The popular vote should be reinstated after the South Carolina primaries, by then it will add up the totals of a couple states rather than just New Hampshire. --Bobtinin (talk) 22:58, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's still inaccurate and misleading because a significant amount of votes will be excluded from the total. I think we should keep the popular vote of the template. Prcc27๐ (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant, there will never be an "accurate" amount, because Iowa and Nevada will always be excluded from the total popular vote since they're caucuses. --Bobtinin (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. Unless we can display an accurate popular vote total we should not include it on the template at all. We shouldn't include it now, and we shouldn't include it later. Prcc27๐ (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- What do you mean "exactly"? Just because popular vote doesn't show up in two states doesn't mean it's meaningless. Every single previous primary article shows popular vote for a reason. It's absolutely relevant. --Bobtinin (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- The popular vote hasn't been counted in half of the states that have voted so far. That is a big deal. The previous primary templates include county delegates in the popular vote total which is not an accurate way to tally the popular vote. Just because it was done in the past doesn't mean we should make the same mistake now. The popular vote total is relevant to the articles where they can explain in detail that the caucuses don't release popular vote results, but we don't necessarily need them on this template. Prcc27๐ (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Why can't we just put a note under the map saying "Popular Vote does not include caucuses". The whole point of maintaining this current events article is that we use the data that's available now, and add on to it as more results come in. As it stands now it will not account for half of the states, but by the end it will account for 37 states, the majority. --Bobtinin (talk) 01:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- The popular vote hasn't been counted in half of the states that have voted so far. That is a big deal. The previous primary templates include county delegates in the popular vote total which is not an accurate way to tally the popular vote. Just because it was done in the past doesn't mean we should make the same mistake now. The popular vote total is relevant to the articles where they can explain in detail that the caucuses don't release popular vote results, but we don't necessarily need them on this template. Prcc27๐ (talk) 01:30, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- What do you mean "exactly"? Just because popular vote doesn't show up in two states doesn't mean it's meaningless. Every single previous primary article shows popular vote for a reason. It's absolutely relevant. --Bobtinin (talk) 01:16, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly. Unless we can display an accurate popular vote total we should not include it on the template at all. We shouldn't include it now, and we shouldn't include it later. Prcc27๐ (talk) 01:03, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- That's irrelevant, there will never be an "accurate" amount, because Iowa and Nevada will always be excluded from the total popular vote since they're caucuses. --Bobtinin (talk) 00:23, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- It's still inaccurate and misleading because a significant amount of votes will be excluded from the total. I think we should keep the popular vote of the template. Prcc27๐ (talk) 23:23, 27 February 2016 (UTC)
Because 26% of the states not releasing popular votes is still a big deal and enough to mislead the readers into getting the impression that one person is leading the popular vote when it might not be the case. A table is the appropriate place to explain in detail the status of the popular vote results. But showing the popular vote for less than 3/4 of the states isn't sufficient enough for inclusion on the template in my opinion. Prcc27๐ (talk)
- I see where you're coming from, but the fact of the matter is that the popular vote will be available for about 3/4 of states in the United States (excluding territories), so it is possible to demonstrate popular vote for the majority of the country. A potential compromise could be to include the Delegate Estimates underneath the popular vote to differentiate them. --Bobtinin (talk) 02:36, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- Fact of the matter, it will be deceiving to readers to put a popular vote there when it reflects less than 3/4 the states.
- The only way it could be included without misleading readers is with a clear and obvious note. By clear, I mean that it must clearly state to the reader that popular vote reflects only x/y states/territories. A statement like "Popular vote excludes caucus states" doesn't help readers who who may think half of all states hold caucuses or think Iowa is the only caucus state. By obvious, I mean the reader will see it immediately in the same location they see the popular vote. The current 'Notes' section in the template is insufficient. They'll see the numbers, see the map, and skip the lines of text. "Popular vote" is an erroneous label, since a reader would rightfully assume it reflects all the states shown on the map. To counteract the erroneous label, the note must be right there (and not two sections below) to tell the reader that this label is wrong. If you can suggest the template change that meets that, I would consider a compromise.
- But honestly, I don't think that popular vote is needed here. The national popular vote decides nothing. It only gives readers a false impression. If readers want the national results, the pledged delegate count would be their best bet (not to mention an actual reflection of what the results of nomination process will be). 15zulu (talk) 06:54, 28 February 2016 (UTC)
- There are several people who disagree with the complete removal of Popular Vote, me being one of them, and I'm trying to seek compromise. The entire point of an encyclopedia is to give people a comprehensive summary of information. The popular vote should be quite obviously a part of that prerequisite since many articles for primaries before this include popular vote. To me the main thing that turns me off about ridding the popular vote is that it's out of place, and inconsistent with previous articles. I mean I know that just because it was done before, doesn't mean it should now, but the popular vote totals are a great indicator of how the people voted nationwide. The only real issue here are the states which use State Delegates and County Delegates instead of putting out the raw vote count. I know that many people are against putting up the estimates, but if we're to put the Popular Vote back up there, it's apparent that we'll have to specify that it's only in primary states. I think putting a note on the infobox saying that it only represents vote count from primary states is a great idea, since we're providing 100% accurate information to people, and giving popular vote count for 74% of the states which is like I said about 3/4. What do you think about this Zulu? --Bobtinin (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- 1) While "several people who disagree" with excluding popular vote, the majority disagree with it's inclusion. Wikipedia works by consensus, "several people" don't get to overrule the majority. Creating a separate section proposing to add popular vote does not magically make this section null and void.
- 2) An encyclopedia wants to give readers a comprehensive summary of information. More importantly it wants to give an *accurate* comprehensive summary of information. Giving a national popular vote where one doesn't exist is not accurate. Furthermore, this template isn't the entire encyclopedia. There are many sections, including Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 and Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, where information can be included. This template is not the end all. The goal of this template is to give quick, accurate information on the overall state of the primaries. National popular vote does not exist. Arguing that it's important will not magically make it exist. If readers want a "great indicator of how the people voted nationwide", their best bet is the pledged delegate count, since it exists for all states. An encyclopedia that gives inaccurate, misleading, or false information is worse than not having an encyclopedia.
- 15zulu (talk) 03:07, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I understand that there is no "national" popular vote, but it exists for 3/4 of the states, which is the vast majority. If we put a note saying it only applies to Primary States that would be a 100% irrefutable fact, which means it's not false information. As for the several people who disagree, in addition to them, there is the possibility that editors on the actual article could be confused as to why it's not included in the template. Such confusion can lead to people randomly coming onto the template and editing in the popular vote, and that's actually already happened if I'm not mistaken, several times. --Bobtinin (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Bobtinin: I have 2 objections to including popular vote in the infobox when it includes less than 100% of the "presidential preference vote" (to use the RNC term for both caucus and popular votes). First, people looking only at the infobox for quick facts typically don't read the notes section. The popular vote results by state/territory are available on both Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 and Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. Readers wanting that detail should find it there, not in the infobox summary, because a popular vote total isn't a summary of the total "presidential preference vote". Second, readers want a total popular vote number to compare to the delegate count as a means of determining how representational the delegate count is. This is valid in the general election, where all regions have both a popular vote and electoral vote, but not in the primaries. Reference the mass confusion after the first 3 primaries at which point Bernie had 60% of the popular vote total (NH), but fewer pledged delegates (IA, NH, NV). You're right that the popular media, other wikipedia pages and many other sources give a popular vote total. This is a dumbing-down of news to make it more easily consumable, but in doing that it creates false information and gives people the notion that the primaries are a kind of first round general election. There are many references to Hillary winning the 2008 Democratic Primary national popular vote, which is incorrect because there was no national popular vote to win. You're also right that readers looking for quick facts are often confused when they don't see a popular vote total in the infobox. This is due to a common misunderstanding of the primary process, and readers should be encouraged to read the article to better understand. Shwoodham (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Take a look at Abjiklam's primary infobox template proposal at Template talk:Infobox election#New type for primaries Shwoodham (talk) 16:01, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Bobtinin: I have 2 objections to including popular vote in the infobox when it includes less than 100% of the "presidential preference vote" (to use the RNC term for both caucus and popular votes). First, people looking only at the infobox for quick facts typically don't read the notes section. The popular vote results by state/territory are available on both Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 and Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. Readers wanting that detail should find it there, not in the infobox summary, because a popular vote total isn't a summary of the total "presidential preference vote". Second, readers want a total popular vote number to compare to the delegate count as a means of determining how representational the delegate count is. This is valid in the general election, where all regions have both a popular vote and electoral vote, but not in the primaries. Reference the mass confusion after the first 3 primaries at which point Bernie had 60% of the popular vote total (NH), but fewer pledged delegates (IA, NH, NV). You're right that the popular media, other wikipedia pages and many other sources give a popular vote total. This is a dumbing-down of news to make it more easily consumable, but in doing that it creates false information and gives people the notion that the primaries are a kind of first round general election. There are many references to Hillary winning the 2008 Democratic Primary national popular vote, which is incorrect because there was no national popular vote to win. You're also right that readers looking for quick facts are often confused when they don't see a popular vote total in the infobox. This is due to a common misunderstanding of the primary process, and readers should be encouraged to read the article to better understand. Shwoodham (talk) 15:12, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- I understand that there is no "national" popular vote, but it exists for 3/4 of the states, which is the vast majority. If we put a note saying it only applies to Primary States that would be a 100% irrefutable fact, which means it's not false information. As for the several people who disagree, in addition to them, there is the possibility that editors on the actual article could be confused as to why it's not included in the template. Such confusion can lead to people randomly coming onto the template and editing in the popular vote, and that's actually already happened if I'm not mistaken, several times. --Bobtinin (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are several people who disagree with the complete removal of Popular Vote, me being one of them, and I'm trying to seek compromise. The entire point of an encyclopedia is to give people a comprehensive summary of information. The popular vote should be quite obviously a part of that prerequisite since many articles for primaries before this include popular vote. To me the main thing that turns me off about ridding the popular vote is that it's out of place, and inconsistent with previous articles. I mean I know that just because it was done before, doesn't mean it should now, but the popular vote totals are a great indicator of how the people voted nationwide. The only real issue here are the states which use State Delegates and County Delegates instead of putting out the raw vote count. I know that many people are against putting up the estimates, but if we're to put the Popular Vote back up there, it's apparent that we'll have to specify that it's only in primary states. I think putting a note on the infobox saying that it only represents vote count from primary states is a great idea, since we're providing 100% accurate information to people, and giving popular vote count for 74% of the states which is like I said about 3/4. What do you think about this Zulu? --Bobtinin (talk) 00:13, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
The popular vote should clearly be included, as it has been in the past. States that don't report popular votes shouldn't be included. This is pretty simple.Kiernanmc (talk) 03:16, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
- I am not completely opposed to incorporating the popular vote ([1]), given it is of (debatable) significance. But, as a compromise, it is the writer's responsibility to ensure that the fact that popular vote totals do not account for the caucus states that do not report them, is clearly visible to the reader, and to ensure that this understanding is facilitated accordingly. Sleepingstar (talk) 20:08, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
- Green Papers incorporates caucus states by multiplying the number of delegates. As can be seen in discussion above (& discussion on other related articles), consensus has been that Wikipedia should not use this method, thus we can't use Green Papers numbers.
- So two issues: 1) We have no source, all we have is WP:OR. 2) As Shwoodham and I have tried to explain above, no writer has yet proposed a way to ensure that readers are not confused by "Popular vote" in infobox not reflecting national popular vote. Copying Shwoodham words: "people looking only at the infobox for quick facts typically don't read the notes section." Thus the infobox misleads readers into thinking "Popular vote" represents national popular vote when it doesn't.
- I'd love to hear solutions to these two issues instead of just "readers want popular vote". 15zulu (talk) 00:57, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not totally in support or opposed to having the popular vote, at this current time point. The only issue I have is the status quo of the popular vote field existing solely to denote Not available nationally, which I see little point of, rather than to attract further debate, or accidental edits of users who may have missed the discussion page. Can we just drop the entire field for now, since there is no agreement of whether to insert any measure of popular vote or not? Sleepingstar (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Believe it or not, having Not available nationally as a placeholder has done wonders to prevent many attempts (mainly from IPs) to reinsert the popular vote without consensus :) Abjiklษm (tษlk) 06:37, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) We've dropped the field multiple times. Unfortunately users kept coming in, without looking at the talk page, and adding back the field with data. I don't like how it's currently displayed โ seems like a waste of space in the infobox & drawing undue attention to the field. I'd say, comment out the field, leaving the current note in there, so when users come to edit, they'll find the field and see it's being purposefully left out. Perhaps, even add a line telling to go to the talk page to see full discussion before editing the field. Thanks, 15zulu (talk) 06:40, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Done Abjiklษm (tษlk) 06:49, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Cool, thanks. I would've done it slightly differently, but ends with same display. Cheers, 15zulu (talk) 06:51, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- I'm not totally in support or opposed to having the popular vote, at this current time point. The only issue I have is the status quo of the popular vote field existing solely to denote Not available nationally, which I see little point of, rather than to attract further debate, or accidental edits of users who may have missed the discussion page. Can we just drop the entire field for now, since there is no agreement of whether to insert any measure of popular vote or not? Sleepingstar (talk) 01:55, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Hi, I'm a first-time user of this Talk function. It was a bit confusing trying to figure out how exactly to get in on this discussion. I think this is right but hopefully somebody sees this and helps me get it in the right place if I'm wrong. I just wanted to add my two cents to the discussion. First of all, I'm a long time reader on Wikipedia but have never delved into this whole hidden realm of content creators and kudos to you all(whoever you are) on doing a great job with this page so far. I've been reading the back and forth you have going on and there have been some pretty intelligent proposals. As what I guess you would call an "average user", I have to agree with the folks who advocate adding the popular vote back into the article. The only reason I'm even here is because of this issue. I've been searching online for an accurate popular vote count and can't seem to find one anywhere(if there's a source you guys have outside of wikipedia or wherever please let me know). I think that what makes the most sense is the proposal of including the popular vote of the primary states and including avery obvious note (in the same place as the popular vote, not two sections below it) that the count only includes 15/20 states or whatever the number is. I guess it's a little messy but it is obviously a relevant piece of information to me and I'm sure to many other "average users" like myself. It would seem that it would keep with the idea of Wikipedia to try to include ALL information in the most objective format and not choose for the reader what information is relevant and what is not. I think it's very imperative that you all include the popular vote as soon as possible. You can argue about the specifics but it should be up there in some format. Or again, if there is some other source, please let me know. And this is pretty cool. I can't believe people do this for free. Keep up the good work. โ Preceding unsigned comment added by Rywilliams23 (talk โข contribs) 08:49, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Rywilliams23: The problem is that "an accurate popular vote count" does not exist. Any number we include would be original research which goes against Wikipedia's no original research policy. Also, while it's easy to say "put a very obvious note", no one has yet proposed the how. (Btw, this template is made using {{Infobox election}}, so anything we do must fit within it's constraints โ so we can't change "Popular Vote" to "Primary Popular Vote" or something like that.) Have you checked out Results of the Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016. If that page, which has plenty of room unlike an infobox, doesn't include the 'national popular vote' than there is no hope for the infobox having it. I think the first step is to argue it on that page's talk page. 15zulu (talk) 09:38, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- I like the idea of splitting the popular vote into two like we did with delegates. We put the raw vote count of the Primary states, and label it "Primary States", then make another category for Caucus states which says "Not Available" or something along the lines of that. Of course we would need to propose a change to the Template:Infobox election to do that, but hopefully we'll figure something out. --Bobtinin (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Would the mock-up posted above work? (Vote totals taken from: uselectionatlas.org) --SchutteGod (talk) 22:38, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
- I like the idea of splitting the popular vote into two like we did with delegates. We put the raw vote count of the Primary states, and label it "Primary States", then make another category for Caucus states which says "Not Available" or something along the lines of that. Of course we would need to propose a change to the Template:Infobox election to do that, but hopefully we'll figure something out. --Bobtinin (talk) 03:36, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
Popular Vote Proposal
Hello everybody, I have a proposal and compromise regarding the popular vote inclusion. I have just seen somebody edit in the popular vote into the template. This is most likely because the guy had no idea that there was some precedent for not having it there to begin with, and I understand this. However, popular vote consists of important information, which shows visitors what 3/4 of the country voted in the primaries for the Democratic Party. Since there are people who don't think it should be there on the basis that it would be misleading, we should add a note saying that it accounts for the popular vote ONLY in Primary states, as this is a 100% irrefutable fact. If we do decide to add this, it cannot be contended as a fact, but I think regardless there will still be opposition. The opposition, I anticipate will think it confuses people, which it may. To this I say we can all work this out together, find common ground on the addition of popular vote. However, to give my argument on this, I think that popular vote whether a confusing addition or not, parallels the entire point of an encyclopedia, which is to provide a comprehensive summary of information. The infobox is an important part of this summary, and popular vote is important information in the eyes of many TV networks and constituents of the United States. So just to be clear, this is what I propose:
- The reinstating of popular vote into the infobox.
- The popular vote will ONLY consist of raw vote count from Primary states, and by no means include Caucus estimates.
- The addition of a note which makes it absolutely clear that popular vote is only representative of primary states, and NOT caucuses.
This is without a doubt open to debate, and I would be more than glad to add more points to this proposition to reach consensus. --Bobtinin (talk) 01:26, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Support this proposal would provide highly relevant information to the reader (the popular vote) while ensuring the reader is aware that the popular vote only pertains to primary states. DylanLacey (talk) 05:54, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- We really don't need to make a new section for something that is already being discussed above. The winner of the popular vote for the primary is not that relevant because they could potentially be the loser of the overall popular vote (which we may never find out). Also, adding the popular vote from primary states only without a reliable source to back it up may be a violation of WP:OR. Prcc27๐ (talk) 06:47, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
Duplicate question: This proposal adds nothing new. It's just a revert to how things were. There is no point in debating the same issue in two sections. Discuss it above. 15zulu (talk) 11:42, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- This proposal does add something new, because at its current state none of what I said exists. Whether reverting it will accomplish the same thing is not the issue. I created a separate section so this specific proposal can be discussed, rather than the other section which is just discussing whether it should be included to begin with. We should updated it comparatively to the revision you linked. The popular vote info is relevant, especially to an encyclopedia! --Bobtinin (talk) 19:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Sure, popular vote is important. But there is no popular vote tallied for the Democratic primaries. Abjiklษm (tษlk) 19:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Reliable sources such as RealClearPolitics and The Guardian would disagree. There ARE popular vote counts, but it is excluded from the caucuses. If we look back at 2008, popular vote counts were released for primary states, and they are now as well. If they weren't being released, this wouldn't be discussed to begin with. --Bobtinin (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I guess I forgot a word. There is no national popular vote. Abjiklษm (tษlk) 23:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- You're right there isn't a complete national count, but it does account for 3/4 of the United States' states. Because of this, several people believe this template should put what popular vote is available on there, since it's an important indicator of how the majority of people voted, and to make sure we do not provide misinformation, we put a note saying that it ONLY applies to Primary states, which is a 100% irrefutable fact. --Bobtinin (talk) 23:37, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- I guess I forgot a word. There is no national popular vote. Abjiklษm (tษlk) 23:03, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- Reliable sources such as RealClearPolitics and The Guardian would disagree. There ARE popular vote counts, but it is excluded from the caucuses. If we look back at 2008, popular vote counts were released for primary states, and they are now as well. If they weren't being released, this wouldn't be discussed to begin with. --Bobtinin (talk) 22:17, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- A revert is not something new, it literally means to turn back to the old. You claim you created this section to discuss adding popular vote to the template while the previous talk section was "discussing whether it should be included". The majority of that discussion supports excluding the non-existent national popular vote. Since majority supports exclusion, this makes this section irrelevant. Until the majority "discussing whether it should be included" decides on inclusion, there is no point for this proposal. 15zulu (talk) 02:46, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Popular vote plays an even less role in the general election since states are winner take all not proportional, should we not include that in general election templates as well? 2601:589:4705:B92B:4036:9697:44FB:BC63 (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- You missed a big point โ national popular vote data is available for the general election, which is not the case here. Also, IP, if you wish to discuss "whether it should be included", go to the appropriate section, since this section assumes that section will come to the conclusion of inclusion (which it has not). 15zulu (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Haha that guy has the weirdest IP, looks like an IPv6 if I'll be honest. Back to the topic at hand, raw vote data is available for all primary states, which comprise 3/4 of the states in this country. If we put a note saying it only applies to Primary states, it's not going to be misleading or misinforming anybody. --Bobtinin (talk) 06:45, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- You missed a big point โ national popular vote data is available for the general election, which is not the case here. Also, IP, if you wish to discuss "whether it should be included", go to the appropriate section, since this section assumes that section will come to the conclusion of inclusion (which it has not). 15zulu (talk) 06:31, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
- Popular vote plays an even less role in the general election since states are winner take all not proportional, should we not include that in general election templates as well? 2601:589:4705:B92B:4036:9697:44FB:BC63 (talk) 04:34, 1 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Sure, popular vote is important. But there is no popular vote tallied for the Democratic primaries. Abjiklษm (tษlk) 19:55, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
- This proposal does add something new, because at its current state none of what I said exists. Whether reverting it will accomplish the same thing is not the issue. I created a separate section so this specific proposal can be discussed, rather than the other section which is just discussing whether it should be included to begin with. We should updated it comparatively to the revision you linked. The popular vote info is relevant, especially to an encyclopedia! --Bobtinin (talk) 19:41, 29 February 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
- @Bobtinin: In line with the point I made in the section above, I support your proposal in principle. Sleepingstar (talk) 20:16, 5 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
As I stated in above discussion, we have two issues: 1) We have no source, all we have is WP:OR. 2) As Shwoodham and I have tried to explain above, no writer has yet proposed a way to ensure that readers are not confused by "Popular vote" in infobox not reflecting national popular vote. Copying Shwoodham words: "people looking only at the infobox for quick facts typically don't read the notes section." Thus the infobox misleads readers into thinking "Popular vote" represents national popular vote when it doesn't.
I'd love to hear solutions to these two issues instead of just "readers want popular vote". Cheers, 15zulu (talk) 01:00, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
- Above was basically copy&pate โ this is why we have discussion in one section instead of two for the same issue. Regardless, this section is void, until other section actually gets consensus for inclusion of popular vote. 15zulu (talk) 01:05, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
Inclusion of popular vote
Should the popular vote be included in the infobox? (support one or more, provide rationale)
- Yes, it should be included based on extrapolation from delegate allocation from caucus states as well as those and primary states which release vote totals for candidates (i.e., as in the Green Papers). This would entail a footnote detailing this and/or citation.
- Yes, it should be included, but only from primary states and those which release vote totals. This would also entail a footnote and/or citation.
- No, exclude the popular vote.
Oversteek (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, as the initiator of this request for comment, I support its inclusion and proposal 1 (and proposal 2 as a second option). Its total omission makes little sense; while delegates are what matter, they're chosen roughly proportionally to the popular vote in the Democratic primaries, the rules for which the distribution of differ from state to state, but none with winner-take-all or -most, as in the Republican primaries. There is no precedent for the exclusion of the popular vote in any previous articles; even the 2008 article uses an extrapolation of the popular vote, based on the inclusion of voters from states where the DNC initially disqualified and later awarded half the delegate total, as well as estimates of popular vote in caucus states where vote totals were not released. (I don't wish to be inflammatory, but I personally suspect that it's because Sanders supporters feel that it puts their candidate in a worse light, based on comments on this talk page as well as that of the main article arguing against its inclusion.) The delegate dispute has already been cleared up, so might as well get this one out of the way as well. Oversteek (talk) 04:02, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- No - There is no such thing as a national popular vote in this kind of primary/caucus process. Delegates from this process are not entirely "chosen roughly proportionally to the popular vote in the Democratic primaries", since there are other considerations that come into play as well (like how a state has behaved in prior national elections for President of the USA, how many statewide office-holders are Democrats, etc.). Once again, we are not here to push any POV from a candidate's perspective...only to document what can be reliably sourced during this process. This issue has been discussed elsewhere ad nauseam as of this late date. Guy1890 (talk) 04:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, I agree with both option 1 and 2. If there is anyone willing to compromise, option 2 is the best, since there are NO estimates and a footnote, ergo an irrefutable fact. --Bobtinin (talk) 04:56, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes โ Support primarily option 1 however would be willing to go for option 2. MB298 (talk) 05:03, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
Strong no. I oppose (1) because the Green Papers figure is inaccurate as it sums up popular vote in some states with county (or other) delegates in other states. I oppose (2) because excluding many contests leads to a misrepresentation of the outcome of the primaries. Unless arguments are put forward that can rebut these oppositions, I see no reason to add a made up popular vote. As for past articles, the fact that they are using inaccurate figures cannot be an argument to repeat the same mistake this year. I take offense at the suggestion that the opposition is due to a bias towards Sanders. When the decision was first taken to remove it, the popular vote was actually benefiting Sanders. I think it is best not to imply partisanship where there is none, and I remind everyone to assume good faith. Abjiklษm (tษlk) 05:29, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Yes, In light of the changes made by the Green Papers, and after realizing that only four states (Iowa, Maine, Nevada, and probably Washington) don't release popular vote, the issue doesn't seem so important anymore. With a clear asterisk mentioning the states that don't release popular vote counts, I agree that the national popular vote can be put back into the infobox. A simple message like "Excluding Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washingon" should suffice. Abjiklษm (tษlk) 01:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- No per what I already stated here & here. Prcc27๐ (talk) 06:00, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- No. I strongly oppose (1), because if we extrapolate numbers from delegate allocation for caucus states then we should do the same for primaries โ all states should be treated equally โ at which point we might as well not have popular vote since it'll be equivalent to the delegate count. I oppose (2) per Abjiklam. This topic has been extensively discussed above. Two issues that the 'Yes' camp has failed to address: a) We have no source, all we have is WP:OR. b) As Shwoodham and I have tried to explain above, no editor has yet proposed a way to ensure that readers are not misled by the "Popular vote" not being the national popular vote. Copying Shwoodham words: "people looking only at the infobox for quick facts typically don't read the notes section." The infobox misleads readers into thinking "Popular vote" represents national popular vote when it doesn't. 15zulu (talk) 06:48, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- No. WP:NOR is policy. Rami R 12:36, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- No. as per my comment here. Would love to find a compromise, but a partial summary is not a summary. If a summary of popular vote is shown, then a summary of caucus results must also be shown. It appears to be impossible to summarize caucus results as they represent different levels of delegates state to state. Barring an ingenious and accurate (not estimated) method of summarizing caucus results, popular vote and caucus results should be left to state by state detail in the articles. Shwoodham (talk) 15:18, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: We've currently split the delegate count field into two lines: Pledged: XYZ and Unpledge:XYZ. Would it be an acceptable compromise if we split the popular vote field into two lines: Primary:XYZ and Caucus: unavailable? Or even P:XYZ and C:unavailable if the words become too long for the field. Splitting them would mean both lines are irrefutable facts, and allows for some sort of representation, regardless of the (debatable) significance level on the results. (I know I appear to be continually changing my mind on this issue haha, but I'm just trying my best to find a compromise between the two sides).Sleepingstar (talk) 20:09, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Still WP:OR. Still ambiguity. Can a candidate win the primary popular vote and lose the nomination & the (non-released) national popular vote? Yes. To have primary popular vote, the reader needs to know what it really means in comparison to national popular vote, delegates, etc. All of which is too much to explain in an infobox. 15zulu (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly that happened with the popular vote in 2008. We still have popular vote in the infobox for 2008. โ Red XIV (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- And if you read all the discussion on this page & related talk pages, you'll know that 'just because it was done in past articles' doesn't make it correct. 15zulu (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Stop citing WP:OR, if we're citing facts then it's not original research, so quit it. I agree with Sleepingstar, that actually sounds like a great solution. Why don't we just put the primary totals and then another section for caucuses with "Not Available". Then we would not be misrepresenting anything. If the reader wants to equate the primaries to the entire popular vote total, then that would be his/her problem, they need to read the article, it exists for a reason. --Bobtinin (talk) 18:32, 23 March 2016 (UTC)
- And if you read all the discussion on this page & related talk pages, you'll know that 'just because it was done in past articles' doesn't make it correct. 15zulu (talk) 21:23, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly that happened with the popular vote in 2008. We still have popular vote in the infobox for 2008. โ Red XIV (talk) 20:26, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Still WP:OR. Still ambiguity. Can a candidate win the primary popular vote and lose the nomination & the (non-released) national popular vote? Yes. To have primary popular vote, the reader needs to know what it really means in comparison to national popular vote, delegates, etc. All of which is too much to explain in an infobox. 15zulu (talk) 06:15, 13 March 2016 (UTC)
- No As not all states use the popular vote, it would be misleading to include it. I don't think including it in two lines is particularly useful either; the only thing that matters is the delegate count. Number 57 23:20, 12 March 2016 (UTC)
- No I would pretty much like to have it there but caucus states really skew the result. โ Call me Razr Nation 02:00, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
- No Popular vote doesn't win the presidency due to the weighting of electoral college (California could be unanimous with 38 million, and no more than it's 55 electoral votes would matter), and popular vote skews from delegate allocation, because 1. the states are all weighted differently due to past Democratic performance, and 2. states who agree to vote later in the calendar are awarded additional delegates, ...so the populations do not reflect the number of delegates they get, and 3. because for the caucus states, thousands of people could show up at one precinct, and only earn the 5 delegates that precinct will award, making the popular vote skyrocket without actually being reflected in delegate gains. dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 07:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
No โ If this was the Republican primary, yes. But this is the Democratic primary, which does not do popular votes in all states/contests. Very misleading if it were to be included. โMelbourneStarโtalk 10:33, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Just to clarify: There is also no national popular vote in the Republican primary; in fact there are 6 states and territories that have no presidential preference vote this year, per the RNC. It's unclear to me whether there is a consistent method for when & how delegates are chosen in these areas, and there are conflicting reports as to whether they are pledged. See Denver Post, Ballotpedia on CO, WY, Council on Foreign Relations, etc. Shwoodham (talk) 11:36, 16 March 2016 (UTC)
- Strong yes - We have popular vote totals in the infobox for this year's Republican primaries, and we have them in the infobox for every Republican and Democratic primary campaign going all the way back to 1912. It's completely inexplicable that the popular vote would be excluded from the 2016 Democratic primaries' box. โ Red XIV (talk) 20:22, 17 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes - Option 2. Extrapolating results from caucus percentages doesn't seem reliable. However, there's already a running total listed on The Green Papers for states where the votes are known, so it seems simple enough to cite that. โ Preceding unsigned comment added by Rocio Nadat (talk โข contribs) 05:08, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I wouldn't trust that vote total. I'm pretty sure they added the state delegate equivalents from IA, NV, & ME to the popular vote total which is totally inaccurate. Prcc27๐ (talk) 08:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes There is strong precedent for including it as it has been included in all previous Democratic and Republican primaries, as well as the current 2016 Republican primary. The claim that it is not 'representative' is not true as the vast majority of states - including many caucus states - release the popular vote. The claim that it is 'original research' is not true as The Green Papers - a reliable source - releases the popular vote. DylanLacey (talk) 11:51, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes There is strong precedent and we have a good source as Green Papers now excludes the caucus states that do not release raw vote (as they should have from the start). I see no reason why a figure that represents 98% of the voters (a figure based on popular vote minus turnout estimates for IA, NE, and ME) should not be included so long as there is an appropriate footnote about those states' exclusion.PotvinSux (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Comment: I 100% agree with PotvinSux. --Bobtinin (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Responses to others' points thus far: 1) If this question raises a POV issue, then either answer to it will invariably represent one view over another. If we assume good faith, then this factor resolves itself. 2) I would argue that addition is not OR for several reasons, but now that Green Papers provides a total it is definitely not OR. 3) Green papers now excludes the three caucus states that don't report vote totals so their figure is now accurate. 4) These three states don't severely skew the result - certainly not to the point of meaninglessness. Back of the envelope calculations suggest that they represent a shift of roughly 10k votes to Sanders among an additional 300k votes. Practically, that is the difference between a 41.7% share of the two candidate vote and a 41.9% share. This is the sort of thing asterisks were made for. 5) Precedent is not definitive, but a helpful guide. The figure has historically been included in the box because the box is there for summary and quick reference and rough popular vote total is a summary figure, as well as one occasionally referenced by reliable sources.PotvinSux (talk) 16:58, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: I 100% agree with PotvinSux. --Bobtinin (talk) 18:13, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes: in light of the progression of this discussion since my previous comment, and the proposal of potential compromises and solutions, I agree in principle to the addition of the popular vote. Sleepingstar (talk) 02:21, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- UPDATE: @Guy1890, Prcc27, 15zulu, Shwoodham, Number 57, Razr Nation, 50.34.102.73, and MelbourneStar: Hey, I wanted to see if you guys still disagree with the addition of the popular vote in light of the new revelations about the popular vote. Apparently, the popular vote totals are provided by every state aside from three: Iowa, Nevada, and Maine. Thankfully, the people at the Green Papers decided to also exclude those states rather than making made up estimates for them. As a reminder, in the Republican Primary 2016 article they include the popular vote, despite the exclusion of six states (44/50). With all of that said, would you guys be willing to add the popular vote now that the popular vote totals will be available for 94% of states? Edit: Apparently WA and AK have also decided not to disclose the popular vote counts, so the Green Papers have excluded them as well. This still makes up for 90% of states. --Bobtinin (talk) 02:38, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- There are no "new revelations about the popular vote" in this primary/caucus cycle on the Democratic side. Again, there is no such thing as a national popular vote in this kind of primary/caucus process, period. Guy1890 (talk) 06:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Well then I expect you to march over to the Republican Primary article and tell them all to piss off since there is "no such thing as a national popular vote". --Bobtinin (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- See "other stuff exists" on Wikipedia. I actually was very involved in the formation of the 2012 GOP primary article, and I don't remember any issues coming up with the supposed "popular vote". These contests involve delegates and really nothing else. Guy1890 (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, WP:Other Stuff Exists can be a VALID argument, and it says at the bottom of the introduction, that "countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged." It seems you should read the article you're referring me to. Second of all, I'm talking about the 2016 Republican Primary article, and this year according to the RNC themselves, there are six states and territories not doing presidential preference vote (CO, ND, Guam, American Samoa, WY, Virgin Islands). Just because it involves delegates doesn't mean that Popular Vote is irrelevant. There's a reason why major TV networks broadcast both the delegates and popular vote. --Bobtinin (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- I quite frankly don't care about the 2016 GOP article, since this discussion here is for a entirely different process which has very different rules than the GOP's process. Yes, the "popular vote" in this process is, in fact, irrelevant by its own definition. The process under consideration here only concerns delegates...who "wins" or "loses" the "popular vote" doesn't matter any more than the difference in the candiate's physical heights. Wikipedia is also not a "major TV network". Really people, it way past time to move on from this dead issue. Guy1890 (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- The issue isn't dead just because you think it is. There is now a slight majority of people on this thread who believe that popular vote should be added, so in any case it's you who is wrong. Popular vote is an important piece of information that is repeatedly used by reliable sources, which is why I alluded to TV networks. The difference of rules between the GOP and the Dems is irrelevant, that's not the point I was making. The GOP counterpart article also uses Popular Vote, despite six different states not performing a presidential preference vote. This is THE EXACT SAME CASE with the Democratic Party Primaries. So please stop acting like this entire discussion is centered around what you think is right or wrong. --Bobtinin (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I understand that your Wikipedia experience is apparently limited to around a year or so, but you're going to find that Wikipedia consensus isn't a simple head count of who says what, especially in an RfC like this one. There have been now some untold number of discussions over a variety of different talk pages that relate to the 2016 Democratic Party presidencial primary Wikipedia article that have discussed this exact issue ad nauseam, and all of them have concluded thus far that there's no reason to include a "national popular vote" in that article. The difference between how the GOP & Democratic processes in 2016 are very significant and numerous, and they relate exactly to this issue here. For one, a lot of Democratic & GOP caucuses are run very differently, which makes comparisons between them almost impossible. There's really no reason to go on & on about this issue at this late date. Guy1890 (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- The whole point of me pinging you guys is that I want to reach a consensus through discussion. Although there was consensus before, there were enough people that wanted to include popular vote for this RfC to arise. Several people have changed their minds on the topic, and that's why the discussion still stands. The reason why I'm trying to keep a count is as a way of keeping track the amount of people who agree or disagree through the whole jumble of text. With that said, we seem to be split on the issue which makes it harder to find a consensus. Most caucus states do presidential preference voting, a method of voting which is used by both the Democrats and Republicans, and since there are six states that don't do that for the Republicans, and five states that don't do that for the Democrats, they seem to be increasingly similar in that aspect. We should include popular vote in the infobox, not only because of past precedent, but because it accounts for the vast majority of states. My idea at the bottom of the talk page is my way of trying to implement the popular vote by specifying which states do not do presidential preference voting. --Bobtinin (talk) 17:04, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I understand that your Wikipedia experience is apparently limited to around a year or so, but you're going to find that Wikipedia consensus isn't a simple head count of who says what, especially in an RfC like this one. There have been now some untold number of discussions over a variety of different talk pages that relate to the 2016 Democratic Party presidencial primary Wikipedia article that have discussed this exact issue ad nauseam, and all of them have concluded thus far that there's no reason to include a "national popular vote" in that article. The difference between how the GOP & Democratic processes in 2016 are very significant and numerous, and they relate exactly to this issue here. For one, a lot of Democratic & GOP caucuses are run very differently, which makes comparisons between them almost impossible. There's really no reason to go on & on about this issue at this late date. Guy1890 (talk) 06:23, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- The issue isn't dead just because you think it is. There is now a slight majority of people on this thread who believe that popular vote should be added, so in any case it's you who is wrong. Popular vote is an important piece of information that is repeatedly used by reliable sources, which is why I alluded to TV networks. The difference of rules between the GOP and the Dems is irrelevant, that's not the point I was making. The GOP counterpart article also uses Popular Vote, despite six different states not performing a presidential preference vote. This is THE EXACT SAME CASE with the Democratic Party Primaries. So please stop acting like this entire discussion is centered around what you think is right or wrong. --Bobtinin (talk) 05:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I quite frankly don't care about the 2016 GOP article, since this discussion here is for a entirely different process which has very different rules than the GOP's process. Yes, the "popular vote" in this process is, in fact, irrelevant by its own definition. The process under consideration here only concerns delegates...who "wins" or "loses" the "popular vote" doesn't matter any more than the difference in the candiate's physical heights. Wikipedia is also not a "major TV network". Really people, it way past time to move on from this dead issue. Guy1890 (talk) 04:24, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- First of all, WP:Other Stuff Exists can be a VALID argument, and it says at the bottom of the introduction, that "countering the keep or delete arguments of other people, or dismissing them outright, by simply referring them to this essay by name, and nothing else, is not encouraged." It seems you should read the article you're referring me to. Second of all, I'm talking about the 2016 Republican Primary article, and this year according to the RNC themselves, there are six states and territories not doing presidential preference vote (CO, ND, Guam, American Samoa, WY, Virgin Islands). Just because it involves delegates doesn't mean that Popular Vote is irrelevant. There's a reason why major TV networks broadcast both the delegates and popular vote. --Bobtinin (talk) 17:27, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- See "other stuff exists" on Wikipedia. I actually was very involved in the formation of the 2012 GOP primary article, and I don't remember any issues coming up with the supposed "popular vote". These contests involve delegates and really nothing else. Guy1890 (talk) 06:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- You can declare that "there is no such thing as a national popular vote in this kind of primary/caucus process, period" all you like, but the fact remains that for the entirety of Wikipedia's existence, a national popular vote total has been compiled for every primary campaign. For this to suddenly be changed (and only on the Democratic side at that), you need a better reason than just the fact that the national popular vote doesn't decide the outcome. It doesn't decide the outcome in the general election either, but you'd be dismissed out of hand (or at least, I hope you would be) if you tried to exclude national popular vote from that article. The national popular vote total is information that exists, reported by reliable secondary sources. It is information that would obviously be of interest to people reading the article. That's the reason we include national popular vote totals in the infobox for every presidential general election, despite those being decided entirely by the electoral college and in no way bound by national popular vote, and it's why we've included it in the articles for every other Democratic and Republican primary campaign dating back to the first primaries in 1912 (in which only a small minority of states actually held primaries). โ Red XIV (talk) 05:47, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
- Well then I expect you to march over to the Republican Primary article and tell them all to piss off since there is "no such thing as a national popular vote". --Bobtinin (talk) 06:39, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Yes Second Option, with an explaining footnote and citing the sources now available, like The Green Papers or RealClearPolitics.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 15:07, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
-
@EricCantonaTheKing@Redxiv: "for the entirety of Wikipedia's existence" is no valid argument. We took wrong, sometimes thoughtless decisions in the past, when our coverage was considered far less reliable. Though WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS, if we reach a consensus here to get it right this time, the decision may be applied to all comparable cases in the past. --PanchoS (talk) 07:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think it might be time to get a user not involved in this discussion to close the RfC. Besides, this RfC will soon close automatically anyways. To whoever closes this RfC, please note that there have been many discussions pertaining to this topic on other sections of this talk page in addition to this RfC. Prcc27๐ (talk) 01:48, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- No. Extrapolation is right out based on WP:NOR. And reporting a result that does not include caucus totals is highly misleading because one candidate has done systematically better in the primaries than in caucuses. The popular vote percentage reported would be simply inaccurate. We could explain it in a footnote, but it makes little sense to include incorrect information and then put a footnote saying "Oh, by the way, this is incorrect. ~ RobTalk 21:51, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong Yes with option 2 (exclude the few states which do not release this information). This is obviously relevant data about the election, including for foreigners and nonpartisans. It is also notable, in that journalists and political analysts do regularly discuss the popular vote trends in addition to the delegate trends. Moreover, as Red XIV mentioned, WP has always included the total popular vote in US presidential contests, even though the election is decided by delegate counts, so this whole discussion sounds peculiar.
<rant>
How ironic to be called the Democratic Party -- where is democracy? If this page was about an election in Angola or Russia, the whole self-righteous cohorts would demand transparency and call this situation a rotten attempt at manipulation and information suppression, but in the oh-so-democratic U.S. of A. what do you call it?</rant>
Publish the numbers and move on; readers are smart enough to make their own conclusions from the data. โ JFG talk 00:39, 11 April 2016 (UTC) - No As BU Rob13 said, this would by synthesis or WP:OR when we don't know the vote count for caucuses. Buffaboy talk 03:31, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- No. I believe calculating a total popular vote would even be WP:OR if we didn't have to extrapolate caucus vote counts. Finally, all of these are individual contests rather than a national one, with widely differing parameters. Participating in a county caucus is a much more burdensome and time-consuming task than simply voting on a regular ballot at your neighborhood ballot box. Then you have swing-constituencies and others where only a 75โ25% vote ratio would make a difference in the delegate apportionment, and you have quite differing vote weights between states. Also, open primaries and closed primaries aren't comparable either, so not even the electorates are the same. And finally, in many (most?) states the presence at state conventions is the basis for delegate apportionment, rather than the first-tier primary/caucus popular vote, so from a national perspective, we actually need to consider these state contests as black boxes. We may add up the projected national delegates, as they are meant to be added up, but that's about what we can do here. --PanchoS (talk) 07:15, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- No. I don't agree with those who say that inclusion of population count represents WP:OR. We have sources, so it's not OR. But, I still do not think we should include it, and this is why: not every state has the same method of voting. Some states hold closed caucuses, which means that only party members can vote. In such states, few thousands votes out of a population of million may be a huge victory. On the other hand, some states hold open primaries where anyone can vote. In such state, few thousand votes out of a population of million may be negligible. So, counting whose popular votes together would be like counting apples and carrots together. Simply speaking, in different states popular vote has different meaning. So, the comparison with general election is not useful. In the general election, every state has the same method: any adult person can vote. So, in the general election, popular vote has the same meaning in every state, while in primaries and caucuses it does not. Vanjagenije (talk) 08:54, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Interesting, haven't heard that argument yet. I guess it makes some sense, but all caucuses that do count votes do the "presidential preference" voting method. The only difference really is whether it's open or closed, which doesn't make too much of a difference since registered Democrats are the only ones allowed to vote/participate in some caucuses/primaries, so even if there hypothetically were a national popular vote, those who aren't registered wouldn't be included in the closed caucuses/primaries anyway. --Bobtinin (talk) 02:38, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- (see below)
NoPer Vanjagenije above. Including a total popular vote in the primary/caucus elections makes even less sense than including total popular vote (D vs. R) in the infobox for United States Senate elections, 2014 or United States House of Representatives elections, 2014. But I see that they add apples and carrots together in those infoboxes, sigh. I suppose it makes some sense for Senate and HR elections if you are thinking in terms of the Swing (politics) in a Westminster system (which we don't have in the US). But there are far more dissimilarities than similarities between Westminster and US primaries/caucuses. YBG (talk) 07:10, 13 April 2016 (UTC)- Yes In retrospect, I think adding a clear footnote could alleviate most of my concerns. Following the precedent set by prior elections seems a good idea. And despite what I said above, I can see that swing (politics) does make some sense in our non-Westminster system. But care must be taken in the wording of the footnote to avoid giving the impression that a disparity between the popular vote and the delegate count somehow de-legitimizes the result. Getting the wording right could prove to be a challenge. YBG (talk) 04:21, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
I'd like to see a running total of the "Popular vote or equivalent" at the bottom of the large chart. I went through and added up all the individual "Popular vote or equivalent" values up before and after Arizona and came up with this analysis:
"Before Bernie Sanders' winning streak started after the Arizona Primary. Hillary had won 8,959,975 votes with 1216 pledged delegates. Bernie had won 6,362,519 votes with 890 pledged delegates. That had Hillary ahead by 2,597,456 votes and 326 pledged delegates. Now after Bernie's 7 state winning streak Hillary has 9,430,961 votes with 1310 pledged delegates and Bernie Sanders had won 7,053,713 votes with 1094 pledged delegates. Hillary's lead has been reduced to 2,377,248 votes and 216 pledged delegates. He's chopped off a 3rd of her pledged delegate lead and whittled her vote lead down by 8.5%."
The reason this is important to me is people keep telling me that the superdelegates have never decided the nomination, they've always went with the pledged delegates. They exist to decide close races. But what if Sanders passes Hillary in pledged delegates, but doesn't pass her in the "Popular vote or equivalent"? In my mind the superdelegates would be more justified supporting a candidate who won the popular vote over the one who won the delegates. In my analysis I just added the equivalent values given in the chart to the other popular vote values. I don't see why anyone is opposed to giving a running vote total at the bottom of the chart when the information is already in the chart. If the equivalent values are so far off, then why are they included in the chart at all? It doesn't make sense to me to be debating the accuracy of the various state totals in deciding to add them all up and provide a total. The accuracy of the individual state totals is a different issue that should be resolved on a state by state basis. It is a given that if a state is not accurate then the total will be off by that inaccuracy.
There is a big national debate going on right now about if the current delegate/superdelegate system is fair or democratic, so comparing popular votes to delegate count is relevant to people. โ Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:8101:2AF6:D45B:D3CE:ACC:F808 (talk) 22:45, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes In favor of option 2. I often visit this page to get information on the Democratic nomination campaign. I also visit the Republican nomination campaign page, and if it's (read, popular vote) included in the Republican article it should also be included in the Democratic one regardless of who is leading. Intentionally withholding this information makes it seems as if Wikipedia has a consensus to hide factual information for the sake of a narrative regardless of who it supports. Ralphw (talk) 03:10, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes, option 2, as stated also in below section- support of that similar compromise. Not only is the popular vote notable and important, but it's included on the Republican side and every single Democratic primary page since 1912. I just don't buy the arguments the opposition is making. Popular vote not reported in some states? Make a note of it! But that's not an argument to make an exception this year. It's historically encyclopedic. I don't see these editors arguing to remove the popular vote from all the other primary pages. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:03, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Also the statements like "caucus states skew the results" are true. So? The popular vote, backed by the reliable sources we have, is still a good measure of how many people are actually participating. So while some candidates "win" states, the popular vote that's reported shows how many (or how few) people participate. We report the number of states that each candidate have won, while they are also not equal. So I don't see how that reasoning can hold up to remove this additional sourced and notable information. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:21, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
- Not to mention that while nationwide popular vote doesn't directly decide the winner in any sense, it could certainly end up being a decisive factor should the outcome be in doubt as of the convention. Superdelegates would certainly be looking at the popular vote in that case. It's unlikely such a scenario will actually play out (the odds of Sanders catching up in pledged delegates are at this point quite low), but it's still something that illustrates that the popular vote total is a piece of information worth displaying. And frankly, at this point I'm convinced that much of the strident objections to displaying popular vote (an argument that to my knowledge has never even come up before in Wikipedia's history) is coming from Sanders supporters who would prefer it to not be widely known how far behind he trails in the popular vote (for the record, it's a larger percentage gap than in the pledged delegates). โ Red XIV (talk) 05:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, another thing about the argument that popular vote shouldn't be displayed because that's not how the nominee is selected...by that logic the number of states won shouldn't be listed either, since it has no bearing on who gets nominated. โ Red XIV (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Redxiv: Please read WP:AGF. I proudly support Bernie Sanders, but please do not make merit-less accusations like that. If you look at the discussions in this talk page you will see that the proposal for removing the popular vote was done right after IA, NH, and NV voted. NH is the only state that recorded the popular vote out of those states so this template displayed the popular vote only for NH which showed Bernie had a large lead even though this probably wasn't the case because of IA and NV where he did worse. I supported removing the popular vote from this template when it made Bernie's lead appear larger than it really was and I still support keeping the popular vote off this template because it makes Clinton's lead appear larger than it really is. That is a good example of WP:NPOV as I have remained consistent on this issue without letting my political views get in the way. Prcc27๐ (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- It really doesn't matter how the popular vote "appears" to you (your opinion) because it is verified by reliable sources. That's not really a sufficient reason for excluding information. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Redxiv: Please read WP:AGF. I proudly support Bernie Sanders, but please do not make merit-less accusations like that. If you look at the discussions in this talk page you will see that the proposal for removing the popular vote was done right after IA, NH, and NV voted. NH is the only state that recorded the popular vote out of those states so this template displayed the popular vote only for NH which showed Bernie had a large lead even though this probably wasn't the case because of IA and NV where he did worse. I supported removing the popular vote from this template when it made Bernie's lead appear larger than it really was and I still support keeping the popular vote off this template because it makes Clinton's lead appear larger than it really is. That is a good example of WP:NPOV as I have remained consistent on this issue without letting my political views get in the way. Prcc27๐ (talk) 06:13, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, another thing about the argument that popular vote shouldn't be displayed because that's not how the nominee is selected...by that logic the number of states won shouldn't be listed either, since it has no bearing on who gets nominated. โ Red XIV (talk) 05:56, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
- So since there hasn't been very little discussion left on the matter. As it has been mentioned, while the specific popular vote count doesn't directly affect the delegate count, neither does the amount of states won, which is included in the template. Option 2 is definitely a sufficient compromise to address the legitimate concerns raised here. But the popular vote is relevant โ cited by the news media, debate moderators, and candidates โ and it's doing a great disservice to exclude it. Every other primary page includes the popular vote, going back to Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1912- would editors really support removing historical information across every primary page? It's time we conclude this debate and forge a consensus. Because as it stands, it feels like most of the opposing editors are holding this debate hostage by no longer participating. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:14, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- What does matter is that there is no way to display the "national popular vote" for the Democratic primaries/caucuses, because no reliable source has the popular vote information for IA, ME, NV, etc. It certainly is a sufficient reason to exclude it from this template because templates should only be for quick overviews while the articles are where people should go for the complicated explanations of the popular vote results or lack thereof. "Every other primary page includes the popular vote, going back to Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1912". Well obviously something is going to have to change for those templates too. Right now the popular vote is displayed on Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008 without any footnote stating that IA et al. are excluded from the totals. So option 2 โ the status quo on the other templates and therefore this "precedent" argument that people keep making on this talk page is moot. Nobody on here AFAIK is arguing for us to display the popular vote without any footnote whatsoever even though that is what the current "precedent" is. Prcc27๐ (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- FYI a week ago User:Prcc27 requested a close on the admin noticeboard; no reaction yet, and their backlog is growing... Perhaps it's time to just be bold and do it? โ JFG talk 20:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
- We really need an uninvolved admin to assess consensus. A lot of the people here think their side has consensus, but we need someone else to confirm whether or not this is true. Prcc27๐ (talk) 01:13, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- FYI a week ago User:Prcc27 requested a close on the admin noticeboard; no reaction yet, and their backlog is growing... Perhaps it's time to just be bold and do it? โ JFG talk 20:57, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- Honestly I think the compromise position of inclusion with an explanation/footnote satisfies both "sides." On the one hand, it presents the sourced popular vote for those of us who believe its inclusion is necessary for comprehensiveness-sake. And on the other hand, the note we will include listing those caucus states without reported information speaks for itself and should satisfy your concerns. While scrolling through this discussion as well as the section directly below, it seems to me that compromise seems like the sensical path towards ending this conversation and forging consensus. What do you think? -- Wikipedical (talk) 02:04, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- The compromise position (option 2 + footnote) looks like the most reasonable thing to me, but given the level of edit warring previously witnessed on this issue, we do need a neutral admin to close the discussion so that everybody can keep the eventual decision enforced, and move on. I just pleaded for closure again at the relevant noticeboard. โ JFG talk 17:30, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-
Let's consider the issue this way.
-
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1972 includes the popular vote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1976 includes the popular vote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1980 includes the popular vote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1984 includes the popular vote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1988 includes the popular vote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1992 includes the popular vote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1996 includes the popular vote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2000 includes the popular vote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2004 includes the popular vote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008 includes the popular vote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012 includes the popular vote.
- Quit playing games, add the popular vote or get to work changing all of the above pages. The lack of consistency is shameful. S51438 (talk) 04:26, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1972 does not include a footnote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1976 does not include a footnote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1980 does not include a footnote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1984 does not include a footnote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1988 does not include a footnote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1992 does not include a footnote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1996 does not include a footnote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2000 does not include a footnote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2004 does not include a footnote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008 does not include a footnote.
- Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2012 does not include a footnote.
-
It is quite clear that the consensus on this talk page is either remove the popular vote altogether or add it with a footnote. Regardless of the outcome of this RfC we are going to have to get to work and change all of the above templates by either removing the popular vote from them or adding footnotes to them. Then the templates will be accurate and consistent. Please keep in mind that consensus can change and that consensus certainly *will* change one way or the other. Prcc27๐ (talk) 05:52, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Impact on pages about earlier primaries should bear no undue weight in this decision about the 2016 primaries. Nobody complained about the inclusion of votes or lack thereof in all those historical pages; let's focus on resolving the very hot issue appearing this year towards an acceptable consensus which would best inform readers. Older contests can be debated separately if somebody cares enough to raise a question there. โ JFG talk 17:38, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- So Prcc27, by that response, are you suggesting that your main issue is those articles' lack of a footnote rather than their popular vote inclusions? Because that is easily fixable without keeping this conversation going in perpetuity and fulfills the compromise position we've discussed. -- Wikipedical (talk) 04:37, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
- What I'm saying is that the "well all the other templates have the popular vote totals" argument does not make sense if everyone/almost everyone against removing the popular vote is for adding a footnote. Everyone here seems to be arguing for something which isn't how it has worked in the past. I have an issue with those templates because they have a "national" popular vote, but what's worse is that there isn't even a footnote to explain those aren't actually "national" results. I'd prefer that the popular vote wasn't included in those templates for the same reason I'm against them being displayed in this template. Prcc27๐ (talk) 05:25, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- I do not find your arguments against the popular vote convincing. Whether the number provided to us by various sources is inaccurate will need to be judged beforehand. I assume the Wikipedia members before us have determined popular vote totals for the Democratic Primaries of the past to be accurate representations, and yet, we find issue with this year because of only a few states that do not release popular vote totals, an issue which apparently escaped the minds of all of the previous editors. What you are in fact doing is advocating for the complete removal of popular vote totals among all templates, which is an extreme position that will unlikely come to fruition. I must say I find ire at the Wikipedia community's suppression of relevant information in the name of so-called "consensus". No rationale, in my mind, can overcome the burden placed on the reader by an impervious editor. S51438 (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- The users before us neglected to mention that the popular vote excluded certain states. That's very important information and since those templates do not have a footnote the information is very inaccurate. The 2008 template shows Clinton "won" the popular vote even though Obama did very well in caucus states. Caucus states often don't report popular vote totals so it is inaccurate to portray Clinton as the popular vote winner on that template especially without mentioning that the popular vote totals are not national popular vote totals. If I am "advocating" for removal of popular vote totals from templates then I assume many people here are "advocating" for adding a footnote across all the templates. Both proposals would change the status quo among templates and both would improve the status quo if I might add. Prcc27๐ (talk) 06:09, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I agree that it needs to change, but because I find the information to be necessary to the reader, I vote yes on the second proposal. S51438 (talk) 23:37, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- I do not find your arguments against the popular vote convincing. Whether the number provided to us by various sources is inaccurate will need to be judged beforehand. I assume the Wikipedia members before us have determined popular vote totals for the Democratic Primaries of the past to be accurate representations, and yet, we find issue with this year because of only a few states that do not release popular vote totals, an issue which apparently escaped the minds of all of the previous editors. What you are in fact doing is advocating for the complete removal of popular vote totals among all templates, which is an extreme position that will unlikely come to fruition. I must say I find ire at the Wikipedia community's suppression of relevant information in the name of so-called "consensus". No rationale, in my mind, can overcome the burden placed on the reader by an impervious editor. S51438 (talk) 05:32, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes โ as a matter of consistency, and also considering it's only a few States, less than 10%, of which do not release popvotes. Provided this is specifically outlined in the infobox, I support the initiative to add popular votes. โMelbourneStarโtalk 05:14, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes - Can we put this discussion to bed? There is no reason why we cant be consistent with our articles. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 01:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- We still need an admin to assess consensus. By "consistent" does that mean you are against a footnote explaining that the popular vote total doesn't include some states? Once this discussion is resolved we could certainly change the templates to match this one. Prcc27๐ (talk) 02:24, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Keep the popular vote I will repeat what others above have said. The rules are the same they have been for over 30 years. It is quite silly to not keep consistency and keep the populate vote in the template. At the very least, once all the primaries and caucuses are held there is no reason whatsoever to not have the popular vote total even if it excludes some caucuses. You can have a footnote, I do not see an issue with that. But to exclude it all together? That would make no sense. Manful0103 (talk) 20:55, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
Idea for Popular Vote
Hey guys, I didn't want to block the popular vote discussion with this huge infobox, but do you think something like this could work for popular vote? This is just an idea. --Bobtinin (talk) 22:08, 25 March 2016 (UTC)
![]() |
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
- Support: as per proposal discussed in above section.Sleepingstar (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: @Bobtinin: I would also suggest putting a field for percentages, and also splitting that field into Primary: XY% and Caucus:N/A.Sleepingstar (talk) 00:42, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support proposal. MB298 (talk) 00:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Comment: It is not accurate that the popular vote is not available for all caucus states. Separating the states by that criterion would probably over-represent the success of Clinton over Sanders who has had better results during caucuses. I think it is better to include the full popular vote with a notice explaining that Iowa, Maine, Nevada and Washington are excluded. Abjiklษm (tษlk) 01:43, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I completely agree, but there are some people who think that's misrepresenting the national popular vote. In a way this is meant to be a compromise. --Bobtinin (talk) 01:53, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Response: @Abjiklam: I agree wholeheartedly with your point, and support the incorporation of all states/territories/DA that release popular vote totals. @Bobtinin: might seem a little silly, but if we're really so worried about the misrepresentation argument that keeps cropping up, we can change the two lines from "Primary: XYZ" and "Caucus:XYZ" โ "Released: XYZ" and "Withheld: N/A". If anything, the "misrepresentation argument" will become even less relevant, if we incorporated caucuses which release popular votes, such that it is essentially all contests except for Iowa, Nevada, Maine and Washington. Sleepingstar (talk) 02:31, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Sleepingstar: Yeah, I pinged the people who disagreed with adding the popular vote in the section about Exclusion of Popular Vote, to see if they would add it now that we know about the exclusion of only three states. But if we really did have to compromise despite the new revelations, then I think your idea of withheld and released would be fine. --Bobtinin (talk) 02:44, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
@Bobtinin: Yes. MB298 (talk) 03:47, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support as compromise position. Yes, there is no national popular vote, and yes, this is a contest of delegates, but there's little sense in excluding it entirely. Only additional request would be to add a link to those three states' results from the infobox. Oversteek (talk) 13:24, 26 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support/Comment I like this idea with some adjustments. I think just stating what is available with a note to the bottom of the box or the bottom of the page explaining it would be fine. We have had this in 2012 and 2008, indeed, Green Papers offers a current count of the available popular vote. We didnt even make a note of unavailable data in 2008.--Metallurgist (talk) 19:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support no logical reason to exclude popular vote simply because a small handful of states don't release it. A note will clear up any possible confusion. DylanLacey (talk) 05:11, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support. This is a reasonable compromise to include the popular vote while taking into account the concerns of editors who have opposed the Green Papers' info outright. Popular vote information, as brought up repeatedly on this talk page, should be included in the infobox. -- Wikipedical (talk) 19:06, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support. I also posted a "compromise" solution (that's nearly identical to this one) in a pop-vote discussion above; I guess I just wasn't as polite as you have been by creating a separate section. I also like Metallurgist's suggestion of a footnote rather than another line on the pop vote totals. --SchutteGod (talk) 18:29, 7 April 2016 (UTC)
- I think there's a consensus here to make the change... -- Wikipedical (talk) 05:28, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Support Sorry, I saw only now this thread. I think, as others in this talk, that the presidential primaries are a contest of delegates, not of popular vote, but I don't see reason to exclude this information from the article.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 15:20, 9 April 2016 (UTC)
- Strong support per arguments above. โ JFG talk 00:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note This is basically a concretization of variant 2 as currently discussed in the above RfC, so the point is mute unless the RfC turns out in favor of variant 2. Also, per EricCantonaTheKing the national contest is one of delegates rather than of popular vote. More importantly, the total figures are questionable. As infoboxes are generally not meant to include questionable or contested information, these don't belong here. --PanchoS (talk) 08:46, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Note This layout is probably the best if popular vote is included, but the RfC above should decide whether we're including popular vote at all before we start turning to the "how". ~ RobTalk 01:47, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
Map is misleading
(copying from Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016, with a small addition in italics)
As opposed to the winner-takes-all republican primaries, the democratic primaries reward delegates proportionally. Therefore, I believe that a map highlighting the winner in each of the states seems wholly inappropriate and potentially misleading, regardless of whether or not this is mentioned in the caption or image description. This is a basic principle of good data visualization. This issue is especially important considering the narrow margins in which candidates have "won" states, and how the primary election is based on delegate count and not popular votes, making the win/lose distinction moot.
Wikipedia should have higher standards for data visualization, and I'm sure our users can come up with better alternatives, or a way to qualitatively capture the actual nature of the primary race and how the total number of delegates are distributed in terms of popular vote.
The other map used in the article, further down the page and reproduced on the right as a reference, is an attempt to address this type of issue. While it may be more complex to read (and embedded pie charts also have their own issues) it does a better job at representing this kind of results. โ LucasVB | LucasVBWikipedia | Talk
Support compromise. Both maps can be included in the infobox. MB298 (talk) 04:19, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Good idea, this would give people an accurate view of the delegate proportion in each state, from the infobox. --Bobtinin (talk) 17:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support Came here to point out this same thing (The idea came to my head because of those couple of States that were a tie.) Given the proportional distribution of delegates seems to me that the most accurate representation should be a graded colour scheme. The closest to a tie, the colour of the state should be a blend of both candidates' colours. The closest to a landslide, the colour should be near the pure colour representing the candidate that achieved the landslide. And anything in between should be the appropriate mix of the two colours, etc. As it stands now I think that instead of giving a quick-glance overview, the map is giving a rather inaccurate view. --Tycho (talk) 00:51, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Strongly oppose: I completely agree that Wikipedia should have higher standards for data visualization, which is precisely why we have the all the maps in the maps section of the article. The point of the infobox is to give an overview, and all the breakdown data should be detailed appropriately in the remainder of the text, there seems to be little value in overcomplicating and cluttering the infobox with too much technical detail. Besides, even if we were to use another map it should be the final delegate count map (i.e. pledged + superdelegate) not the vote shares, since if anything it should be the final delegate counts that determine the nominee NOT the vote shares NOR the pledged delegates alone. Finally, a minor point but the proposed map does not include results for the DA vote, which is presently on the bottom right corner of the current map. Sleepingstar (talk) 20:52, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I don't think you understood my point. I included that map as a reference on how to address the issue, not as a suggestion for a replacement. For the infobox, if we were to change it, final pledged delegates distributions should be used instead of popular vote. This is pretty obvious and I don't think anyone here would disagree. However, I strongly disagree that superdelegates should be included or even mentioned, as they are only decided at the convention, and Wikipedia is not a crystal ball. That being said, I reaffirm that the current map does a pretty terrible job as an "overview", as I explained in the original comments above. โ LucasVB | Talk 22:10, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I agree with you on the topic of superdelegates, but that issue was already resolved with a compromise, since some people didn't even want to distinguish the pledged and super and just wanted to combine it in one number. On the topic of delegates instead of popular vote, you're 100% correct but there isn't much to distinguish them anyway, since delegates are distributed proportionally. --Bobtinin (talk) 22:26, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- Response: @LucasVB: I do apologise if I interpreted your paragraph incorrectly, but I am very opposed to using the pie graph overlay on the map. The biggest issue with the pie graphs on states version is that the pies are bigger for states that are geographically larger. However, a geographically large states is not necessarily a state with more delegates. Given the large discrepencies with the geographical area of states, and also the fact they do not necessarily correlate well with the delegate counts -- this creates a huge issue of visual disproportion. Using delegate counts (i.e. numbers) circumvents the issues since the numbers of delegates are directly written onto each state, and at the end of the day, the primary results are determined by delegates. To cut a long story short, I don't mind the delegate count maps, but am absolutely opposed to the pie graphs on the maps. Finally if you were to change the status quo, the map should also incorporate the DA results, they send delegates too! I apologise again: but that was my rant over. Sleepingstar (talk) 22:55, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
- @Sleepingstar: I'm changing over to oppose after reading your argument. MB298 (talk) 23:12, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
-
-
-
- Oh, I agree completely, pie charts are also bad for this. Hell, even coloring the states in different ways is misleading because delegate count doesn't correlate with area of the states, so that's a visualization faux pas either way. I brought that particular map up because it's the only alternative available in the article without text. Having numbers is fine by me, but kinda hard to read at that resolution. (See the other one included here.)
- Bottom line: as it is, it is misleading if you consider how delegates are distributed proportionally. Do we at least agree that we should look into improving this? Other than pie charts and numbers, any other ideas? โ LucasVB | Talk 00:35, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @LucasVB: Electoral maps are always difficult because it is notoriously difficult to balance the three competing principles of shape preservation, topology preservation, and visual equalisation. Trying to summarise our discussion so far, (1) I believe that we all agree that the status quo may not score very well in this respect, but any changes should be made on the condition that we are able to agree on an alternative that is significantly better than the status quo (2) I believe that we have all reached the conclusion that it is the delegate count that is the most important consideration when it comes to visual equalisation. Maybe I haven't made it clear earlier: but out of the pack, I do feel that File:Delegation_Vote_,2016_(Democratic_Party,_total_delegates).svg is probably the closest to being loyal to all three competing principles, and this also happens to be the same format as the general election infobox maps. If the numbers are too tiny we can consider blowing up the text in the map. (I adamantly oppose to putting a distorted area cartogram in the infobox, because it is simply way too confusing for the average reader). Final point, I think we need to put in the DA results into that map if it is to go into the infobox at the top of the page. Sleepingstar (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @Sleepingstar: Agree on all points, and yes, DA absolutely needs to be included. Could anyone whip up a larger numbers version to see how it works out? โ LucasVB | Talk 03:24, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- @LucasVB: Electoral maps are always difficult because it is notoriously difficult to balance the three competing principles of shape preservation, topology preservation, and visual equalisation. Trying to summarise our discussion so far, (1) I believe that we all agree that the status quo may not score very well in this respect, but any changes should be made on the condition that we are able to agree on an alternative that is significantly better than the status quo (2) I believe that we have all reached the conclusion that it is the delegate count that is the most important consideration when it comes to visual equalisation. Maybe I haven't made it clear earlier: but out of the pack, I do feel that File:Delegation_Vote_,2016_(Democratic_Party,_total_delegates).svg is probably the closest to being loyal to all three competing principles, and this also happens to be the same format as the general election infobox maps. If the numbers are too tiny we can consider blowing up the text in the map. (I adamantly oppose to putting a distorted area cartogram in the infobox, because it is simply way too confusing for the average reader). Final point, I think we need to put in the DA results into that map if it is to go into the infobox at the top of the page. Sleepingstar (talk) 01:55, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
-
- I'm not convinced we need to change the map. The infobox is only meant to be a quick, rough overview of the results. In my opinion, it is enough to show the national total won by each candidate and who got the most delegates in each state. Giving the exact number of delegate each candidate won in each state is too much information. Even if we were to make the numbers bigger on Sleepingstar's proposal, it would still be a confusing jumble of numbers. Readers who wish to have a more exact understanding can go into the body of the articles, but the infobox should remain as simple as possible. Abjiklษm (tษlk) 16:11, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
- Oppose Do people come for delegate counts-ish in each state when they're looking for an image or for a quick view at who won? Probably the latter, and only unnecessarily clutters the infobox further. Oversteek (talk) 01:04, 31 March 2016 (UTC)
- Support numbers map per the above points raised in support above, with a couple modifications. First, agree with Sleepingstar's point to find a way to include Democrats Abroad. Second, I think the map should only include pledged delegate numbers. The superdelegates are entirely separate from the candidate winning a state's primary (or primary-equivalent) and including them incorrectly displays such narrow margins as IL, IO, MA, MO and NV (and WY's weird even split despite a 12-point result difference). The superdelegates are functionally an at-large voting block and aligning them to their state of origin is misleading (no matter what Politico and others insist on doing). The endorsement bars here do a good job of separating them out from the total pledged delegate estimates. Idk if that bar should be included in the infobox as well (...) but I strongly oppose their inclusion for the map. (Talking in circles now. Apologies.) Therequiembellishere (talk) 08:32, 13 April 2016 (UTC)
- Suggestion: Make the size of each pie chart proportional to the number of delegates awarded in each state. This would be faithful to the underlying data and enhance the relevance of the map. In practice, choose the pie chart diameter as proportional to the square root of delegate count, so that the circle's area is representative of the weight of each state. An exception can be made with a minimum diameter for small states. Inspired by Edward Tufte's works on the visual display of quantitative information (VDQI). โ JFG talk 19:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)
On the Dem map NC should already be colored gold for Hillary Todd4069 (talk) 13:27, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
Why does the source for the template delegate numbers keep changing?!
I absolutely don't understand what is going on! The delegate count in the table in the original article is AP, so why do people keep on changing it to CNN or Green Papers?! It should be consistent with the delegate count otherwise this article would be conflicting itself. It's really just mind-boggling why users are doing this! This is really causing more trouble than there is! So, is there a reason why users keep on changing the source! โ Preceding unsigned comment added by Nike4564 (talk โข contribs) 16:38, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- I believe someone started a vote in the talk page for the main article regarding this issue. --Bobtinin (talk) 17:14, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
- There is a handful of editors on Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016 that have argued in favor of using AP, this being the case the consensus has swung that way. Any further edits that go against the change should be reverted. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 14:04, 28 March 2016 (UTC)
WA three step caucus process/delegate count
I see the delegate count has changed because to represent the fact that not all of the delegates from WA have technically been awarded. I do not agree with doing that, but if that is going to be to shown that way, there absolutely must at least be a note down by WA indicating that not all of their delegates have been included in the total above. Preferably, it would be indicated directly below the totals.
-
-
- Almost ALL the states have a multi stage process. Usually this kind of count projects the state's entire number of pledged delegates, in the proportion that the voters went with. it is misleading to only refer to the portion that is technically awarded by the WA system. Most states we base the number on state or county equivalents distilled by the winning ratio into what will be their national convention delegation. dude 50.34.102.73 (talk) 17:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)
-
The Delegate Gap section
It says the delegate gap was reduced to 228 after this past Saturday's caucuses. That is correct, however, it is not accurately reflected (read: it directly conflicts with) in the delegate count up top (where it matters) because of the issue with the remaining delegates from WA.
It sounds like a simple solution would be what I suggested yesterday: to note directly below the delegate count, with an asterisk, that more are on their way/not all have yet to be officially awarded/however you want to phrase it. 68.142.187.132 (talk) 14:31, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
Nevada
What should we do about Nevada on this template? Prcc27๐ (talk) 05:12, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Prcc27: Probably nothing. See here: [2]. Vanjagenije (talk) 09:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing per Vanjagenije. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 17:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Nothing until final official results are released. Anyway we added a footnote in the table (other template), explainig what happened and how the numbers can change (from 20-15 to 18-17, according to Washington Post and Las Vegas Sun, or 16-19, according to other sources). Anyway I think that Vanjagenije's source is right.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 11:02, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
New map
Since Bernie Sanders won the popular (delegate equivalent) vote in Wyoming, but tied the pledged delegate count, shouldn't we add a new map to the template based on pledged delegate wins..? Here is what the map would look like. Gray would mean that the candidates tied for pledged delegates (obviously). Prcc27๐ (talk) 02:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Btw, Illinois was a pledged delegates tie too. Prcc27๐ (talk) 02:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Prcc27๐ is right.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 08:47, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- PS: Anyway I would wait to insert such a map because part of the total pledged delegates will be elected only after the State Conventions, but this is just my opinion.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 09:02, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'd favor letting go of the popular vote map altogether. Do we really need two maps? The popular vote is a nice info to have, but ultimately the delegate count is what is really important. I know some past primary articles have included up to 3 maps, but I find it just adds superfluous info at best and confusion at worst. Abjiklษm (tษlk) 22:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I support something similar to Template:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. It has three maps (popular vote, delegate count, and convention roll call). MB298 (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I kind of want to get rid of the popular vote map too considering many states don't even release a "popular vote". But if the reliable sources say Clinton won IL and Sanders won WY, we have to reflect that somehow. Prcc27๐ (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sure we do, and we already are. That information can be found in the table of results. Not everything has to be crammed into the infobox. Abjiklษm (tษlk) 22:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, but this template has a "contests won" section. If it says Clinton won 20 contests and Sanders won 17 contests but we only have a map that shows they won 19 and 16 respectively- it might confuse the readers. Yes they can always read the articles for more information, but the one's that don't would spend a lot of time looking at the template and wondering why the numbers don't add up with the map. Prcc27๐ (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- That's a good point which I hadn't thought of. Ultimately I think these problems arise because we're using a template originally meant for bona fide elections, not long convoluted nominating processes that are only partly dependent on popular vote. I'm not yet sure what the best solution is. Abjiklษm (tษlk) 22:40, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yeah, but this template has a "contests won" section. If it says Clinton won 20 contests and Sanders won 17 contests but we only have a map that shows they won 19 and 16 respectively- it might confuse the readers. Yes they can always read the articles for more information, but the one's that don't would spend a lot of time looking at the template and wondering why the numbers don't add up with the map. Prcc27๐ (talk) 22:29, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- Sure we do, and we already are. That information can be found in the table of results. Not everything has to be crammed into the infobox. Abjiklษm (tษlk) 22:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I kind of want to get rid of the popular vote map too considering many states don't even release a "popular vote". But if the reliable sources say Clinton won IL and Sanders won WY, we have to reflect that somehow. Prcc27๐ (talk) 22:14, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I support something similar to Template:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. It has three maps (popular vote, delegate count, and convention roll call). MB298 (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
- I'd favor letting go of the popular vote map altogether. Do we really need two maps? The popular vote is a nice info to have, but ultimately the delegate count is what is really important. I know some past primary articles have included up to 3 maps, but I find it just adds superfluous info at best and confusion at worst. Abjiklษm (tษlk) 22:04, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
I don't see a problem with having two maps. It's better to have both maps on the template where the readers can compare the "popular vote" winner to the delegate vote winner instead of forcing the reader to dig through the article to see a map that sums up who won the most pledged delegates. I think it's more informative than it is clutter. Prcc27๐ (talk) 00:20, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- If you're going to add this map, please consider zebra coloring the tied states instead of greying them out as suggested. Grey looks like they are excluded from the election process. Example of zebra coloring for a complex election: European Parliament election, 2014 (shows the party winning most seats in each country or voting districts). โ JFG talk 07:00, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- Oh, I just used the "tied gray" from other maps. But we could certainly stripe the tied states. I'll probably have to make a new map from scratch to do that though. Prcc27๐ (talk) 20:32, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I'm in favor of retaining it as a popular vote map. The delegate count maps are actually in the main text of the article. Sleepingstar (talk) 08:14, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- per EricCantonaTheKing, this is a good idea for the post state-conventions period. As long as all delegate apportionments are just a projection from the popular vote that in a number of cases proved incorrect, we should rather stick by the popular vote. Note that it's a completely different thing from the discussion about calculating, partly extrapolated, U.S. totals of popular votes. Vote totals of the individual states are widely established, often official, and overall acceptable. --PanchoS (talk) 08:33, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
-
- Exactly, this is my opinion but I have no objections to add it (keeping the other maps) because we are allready showing projected results in the table. I just underline that we should explain that the map reflects the projected results according to the cited sources and not official final results.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Prcc27: The basic layout from the polling map could be used. MB298 (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Yes it certainly can. I'm kind too busy with all the school work I have, but if there is ever consensus for adding it to the template then I might make a map with stripes when I get around to it. Prcc27๐ (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- @Prcc27: The basic layout from the polling map could be used. MB298 (talk) 03:15, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- Exactly, this is my opinion but I have no objections to add it (keeping the other maps) because we are allready showing projected results in the table. I just underline that we should explain that the map reflects the projected results according to the cited sources and not official final results.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 12:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The rules, measurements, and processes for the nomination have not changed, so why should the info-box?
OK there was a big edit war on whether or not to include the popular vote on here and there seemed to be a big disagreement about it. I never jumped in as I don't like edit wars. I mean this legitimately here, why don't we look back at the past primaries? The template in 2012, 2008, all the way back to 1972.... all had populate vote and the rules were the same as now. Caucuses were held and head counts were not always released. But the popular vote total was still used on the page. There is no reason to suddenly make this election's page any difference.
Keep the popular vote The rules are the same they have been for over 30 years. It is quite silly to not keep consistency and keep the populate vote in the template. At the very least, once all the primaries and caucuses are held there is no reason whatsoever to not have the popular vote total even if it excludes some caucuses. We did it every other year. Don't have a slanted POV due to recent events. Manful0103 (talk) 12:44, 25 April 2016 (UTC)
- There is already a discussion going on about this here. Prcc27๐ (talk) 16:25, 25 April 2016 (UTC)