Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 9

How bound are bound delegates?
Are bound delegates really bound?

The article currently states this about delegates:

Can legally "bound" delegates abstain in the first ballot? I can't find an answer to this. Anyone know? --Born2cycle (talk) 02:24, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A good question with a good answer available. I'd like to see what others say before weighing in. What do you say? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:43, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Give it up RonPaulians...delegates are NOT going to abstain. In fact, if Romney sails past 1144 before the convention, they don't even DO a formal vote. And you might take note of the fact that Ron Paul HIMSELF has told his supporters NOT to do this. Becuase it wouldn't work, and would DESTROY his son's career. At some point, the main editors of this pagehave to relaize that unless they edit this pageto just be "RON PAUL WINS!" in bold, 200 point font, that RonPaulians will complain about SOMETHING. It is best to just ignore.74.67.102.154 (talk) 06:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Please be civil and don't personally attack editors. --Inops (talk) 07:30, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

All blogs and websites I have seen talking about this states that they HAVE to vote for their candidate on the first (or more) ballot. Most of the are legally bound, some only morally. So what would happen if they dont? Those that have signed documents stating who they want to vote for (many of them) could be taken to court. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:57, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I always wondered what actually binds them. Will they be thrown out of the convention? Will they be arrested? Sued? Fined? Is there even a way to verify the vote? Im not sure how the votes are taken: roll call vs. ballot.--Metallurgist (talk) 12:08, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * What binds them is a piece of paper they have signed, just like any other contract. But what happens if they break the contract I dont know. Since it is a "private" or cooperate event they cant hardly be arrested. More likely they will be sued. Could be interesting to get to know more about it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:46, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Of course this doesnt mean anything when it comes to the National Convention 2012. No matter what 74.67.103.154 says there will be a formal vote, the important word being formal, in the form of a roll call. But when the Nominee have secured the majority all the other candidates normally releases their delegates so they can all vote for the winner. A few delegates will always abstain or vote for someone else. In 2008 21 out of Pauls 35 delegates did not vote for McCain. For the 2012 convention Romney will have a majority of the delegates, so if he doesnt die of a heartattack before the convention he will be elected by an almost unnanomuse convention as the nominee - Just like all the other nominees before him. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:17, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Good comments by all, including the question. The sentence we have in the article is very good (in the quote box above). Ron Paul and Gingrich may not even be on the First Ballot, according to some that refer to the formal Republican Party rules: In the news is that "Rule 40" specifies you need to win five states to be on the convention ballot: Gingrich has two (SC & GA) and Paul has none. I'm not making it up.  If you are old enough to have seen GOP national conventions, you remember the delegate spokesperson for each state proudly yelling from the floor, something like: "The proud state of Texas throws all 152 delegate votes to Mitt Romney, the next president of the United States of America, to bring us back to greatness!", as the crowd erupts in a moment of wild cheering.  Count on it! They did not work so hard to be chosen to go to convention to just say, "OK, that's it", before the show of the formal vote.  And to a prior commenter, be assured that editors (and you) will prevent unwanted slanting in the article. All in all, the article only improves by critical assessment. I would not have known about Rule 40 had it not been for this question.  Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:58, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And those five states are excactly what Paul are working so hard to get. The race is over - Romney won, everybody knows that. But with the majority of delegates from five states Paul will quit literally get his 15 minutes of fame (the 15 minutes nomination speech). And that might still happen. He is one delegate away from winning Minnesota. He might win Maine and Iowa. Who knows what will happen in Missouri and maybe he can "steal" one or two small midwestern states at the end of the primaries when no one cares anymore. He already have the influence on the party platform because of his small but dedicated group of followers. Romney have to give the libertarians something in the new party platform, or Paul will simply endorse Gary Johnson and Romney will lose the election. And Romney will never let that happen, he will give Paul something. But the 15 minutes of fame at the end of a long career, that Paul have to get by himself. If he will succeed is the last interesting thing to see (and write about) Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:55, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Its funny to me that folks like Jack Bornholm write "the race is over - Romney won, everybody knows that". Its a bit like the tortise and the hare. Romney still needs to get 1144 delegates, that's just half the total delegates, not all of them. If Romney doesn't make the target, aka half of the voting Republicans/etc to support him, there's no guarantee he'll even be the nominee in the end. Doesn't mean Ron Paul will be instead, but there's no telling what will be the outcome. People like Jack are the reason voters don't turn out to vote. -- Avanu (talk) 00:09, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am not saying that Romney is the presumptive nominee, it is the RNC that says it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sorry Avanu...but the only way Romney is NOT the presumtive nominee is in the same way that if the Yankees had a 15 game lead with 15 games remaining they are not the division winner. It is inevitable at this point, no matter how deeply you bury your head in the same. (The ostich that buries its head in the sane still gets eaten by the lion, you know.) There will be no unbinding...and Ron Paul himself has come out AGAINST that stupid plan back in 2008 when delusional cult members like you suggested it then. Because he knows it would simply result in a HUGELY lopsided victory for Obama as Romney's supporters won't particularly like being disenfranchicsed by a few hundred delusional delegates and will never vote for Ron Paul. (It is likely that Romney would top Ron Paul with write ins!) Ron Paul also knows that it would END Rand Paul's career, and the careers of EVERY politician that has assoiciated themselves with him. Again...nothing short of RON PAUL IS WINNING! would stop your whining. But that is not going to happen because Wikipedia exists in the real world. (And no..ther IS no formal vote when a candidate passes 1144. There wasn't one in 2008 and there won't be one this year.74.67.102.154 (talk) 09:28, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The vote of 2008 can be seen here: []. It was a bit of a theater piece as it was put up so Arizona got to give McCain the majority (by enough states passing) as you can see on youtube here: []. Amazing all this excist when no formal vote was taken (as it is always taken) in the form of a roll call. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:51, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Sort of disappointing when an editor like our IP friend doesn't even *read* the text on the page. You forget the possibility that NONE of the people currently running will get the nomination. As the Daily Show clearly pointed out the other day, many Republicans who were loathsome of Romney came out in a 180-degree pivot to support him now, but here's the question above that you didn't bother to read... why should the party continue to support a guy who can't even manage to get HALF the delegates of his own party? I don't see it being hard for those same people to pivot again if called upon to do so, and if Romney didn't reach 1,144, why not look for a candidate that people could support more strongly? You took my one mention of Ron Paul and turned everything I wrote into some pro-Paul speech. All I can say is, damn you're thickheaded. -- Avanu (talk) 14:17, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * About the whole formal vote or not discussion I will qoute the rules for this (2012) convention, §40 A and B:
 * It is the nomination of a vicepresidentiel nominee, not the presidentiel nominee that can be done by acclamation. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It is the nomination of a vicepresidentiel nominee, not the presidentiel nominee that can be done by acclamation. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:11, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Rule 40 requires plurality of delegates, not popular votes
Source:

Just to clarify... --Born2cycle (talk) 23:01, 27 April 2012 (UTC)
 * And that actually leads to a new question. I think it is safe to count on the plurality of the Minnesota delegation will be supporters of Ron Paul. Right now it is counted as a Santorum state, but after the state convention on May 5 how do we count Minnesota? Iowa and Missouri might be in the same situation. Santorum states with a plurality of delegates to another candidate. The delegation of North Dakota have officially no affiliation, so even though a majority might be Romney supporters I guess it will continue to be counted as a state Santorum carried. But what about Colorado? Romney dont have a majority of the total delegation, but he have a majority of the bound delegates (14 out of 20 with 13 elected delegates and 3 RNC delegates officially uncommitted). So is Colorado a Santorum state or a Romney state? A clear policy on this will influence the infobox and the two first tables in this article. (If any Santorum supporters are getting nervouse about his 15 minutes of fame, dont be. He won 5 states that allocated delegates at the primary, so he should have the right to speaking time if he wants it) Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:23, 27 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Charles Edwin Shipp, I don't see that "rule 40" says you 'need to win five states'. In fact, it says "Each candidate for nomination ... shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally". This means that they need to show that they got more delegates in a state than any other candidate, and they need to have done this in at least 5 states.
 * Sorry for posting this so late, my computer didn't post it earlier and just sat here. As for those states that Jack Bornholm calls "Santorum states", such titles won't matter, only whether the delegates are either bound/pledged to a candidate, or if they are unbound and declare a candidate, and according to that rule, it is up to the candidate to 'demonstrate' this. -- Avanu (talk) 00:01, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Avanu, that is excactly my point. In the tables right now Santorum have "won" 11 states, but one of those states are Minnesota where Paul have already proven that he has a plurarity of the delegates (having 20 to Santorums 2 with only 16 more to be "pledge" (13 Al and 3 RNC)). So wouldnt it be more accurate to say that Paul carried Minnesota? And if so, wouldnt it be more logical to sort the States Carried table by delegates? (lets just use a softcount) Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:16, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Let's wait for each state to conclude their 1.caucus, 2.primary, 3.convention, and then look at Green Papers for accurate results. Further, GOP.com has official NRC delegate counts, but are not as speedy. Keep in mind the states will themselves decide their support at convention with unbound delegates. Our Article reports the past, not the future. If we want to put in what candidates think, it needs to be documented (as you know), such as Gingrich dropping out May 1 and recommending support of Romney. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:32, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Notice the wording: “Newt Gingrich plans to formally leave the Republican presidential race next Tuesday, senior campaign aides told Fox News, after struggling for months to turn around his sagging bid for the White House. The former House speaker will "more than likely" endorse Mitt Romney when he makes his announcement to either suspend or end the campaign, a source said.” — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:55, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Most likely everybody or almost everybody are going to vote for Romney, as it is normally done. But BEFORE the voting starts the candidates have to "show" a plurality in five states ore more. The only way to show that are either if the local state rules allocated in one way or another delegates to the candidate, even if it is in a weird way as ND does. Or by getting unallocated delegates to say the support a candidate. The last delegates could vote for someone else when the roll call is taken. But according to rule 40 you have to get on the first ballot to get any votes on the first roll call. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed! Delegates are what count. To 'win' you need the most. And regarding definitions in 'Rule 40', see Wikipedia Plurality_(voting) to learn that if there are more than two running, the one with the most wins the 'plurality'. If there are only two, the candidate with the most votes wins both the 'plurality' and the 'majority' (over 50%). I think the world 'severally' is superfluous. Is it? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

No mention of Paul's recent delegate winnings in Minnesota, Iowa, and Colorado?
Why does the article still say that Paul has only won 26 delegates despite his now certified winnings in Minnesota, Iowa and Colorado? Seems like the article needs to be updated heavily. - BlagoCorzine2016 (talk) 18:26, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Agreed. This page needs to be updated to reflect Paul's wins in Minnesota and Iowa (has his victory been confirmed in Colorado?). The straw poll victories are basically irrelevant when compared to the delegate counts. I think this page should be updated so that either the delegate counts are the sole determination of who wins a state, or we could have two separate categories for "delegate winners" and "straw poll winners". - Mathias (talk) 18:44, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * While Paul's wins might arguably be practically inevitable, I don't think they're done going through the formal process yet, so not yet official. Iowa, for example, has their state convention where the national delegates are selected not until June 16 (see Iowa_Republican_caucuses,_2012). In CO, there is no binding, so there is no way to say for sure who the delegates are for, or who won, until the GOP convention. The Minnesota state convention is not until May 4-5, but 20 (out of a total of 37) from the Congressional District election have already gone to Paul, so I think we can declare it there ([Minnesota_Republican_caucuses,_2012]]). --Born2cycle (talk) 20:47, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I am sure the mention off Iowa is mistake, since the table in the article clearly shows that no delegates are elected there yet. What happened in Colorado is very interesting and should be mentioned (do go ahead). But Paul didnt get any delegates there, quit a lot of the undeclared delegates seems to be Paul supporters, but nothing official. The interesting thing is not that Paul got delegates, but that his supporters join up with Santorum supporters making a jointed slate, getting Romney to have fewer delegates. It was quit a local rumble.
 * Minnesota is interesting since so many of the districts went to Paul, but the state convention is still in the future. All in all it is worth a line or two with a good source as reference. Since it seems to be much interest on the two states local conventions why dont one of you write it and let the others edit it further. I could be a good start on a new section (Called later states maybe) Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Romney will win Colorado. They are tied, and if anyone thinks that the superdelegates are going to side with Paul, they are even more delusional that I expect from a RonPaulian. Since Romney got MORE delegates than he was "supposed to" based on the popular vote, and the only thing that matters is Romney reaching 1144 or not, Colorado was a HUGE victory for Romney. As was Wyoming and North Dakota. I think at this point, it is safe to accept that unless this page has in big bold letters "RON PAUL WILL WIN!" that Ron Paul supporters will whine in some way. Best to ignore them unless they come back to planet Earth.74.67.102.154 (talk) 05:04, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * According to what I've read in other places & on Wiki pages here, Romney has won the most delegates in CO & WY (with Paul coming in third in the delegate counts there). The IA process doesn't end until June 18th, and the MN process doesn't end until May 5th.  I posted some info on the CO process on the Wiki talk page associated with that process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Colorado_Republican_caucuses,_2012), and I'm pretty sure that that the CO GOP Caucus Wiki page has been updated with the "final" results now. Guy1890 (talk) 05:26, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * In Iowa, Paul forces dominate the nominating commission, so it is predictable but not official that Paul will get all of Iowa's delegates . "This group will select 13 of Iowa’s 28 delegates."  Three SCC officers are ex officio national delegates.  More at http://theiowarepublican.com/2012/iowa-gop-state-nominating-commission-loaded-with-paul-supporters/  So somebody please follow that link and edit Iowa Republican caucuses, 2012CountMacula (talk) 12:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The reference above says that the 13 AL delegates from Iowa will be elected by a committee, but the GP say it will be by state convention. Does anyone know what is correct? Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:51, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Controversies
should there not being a section that at least says that during the primaries people like Ron Paul we heavily ignored if not almost shutdown due to corperate news media outlets ? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.24.99.164 (talk) 23:26, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, Media_bias_in_the_United_States is entirely appropriate to include. Where do you want it included, specifically? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:45, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Thats mentioned on his campaign page. We could put a sentence or two here, but this is really just a general overview focused on the trend.--Metallurgist (talk) 04:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There needs to be more proof than just "They are not talking about a guy who is getting less than 10% of the votes as if he is a real contender." Because it just make SENSE not to spend a lot of time tlaking about a 4th place contender or one that still to this day has less than 1/8 as many delegtes as the front runner. But remember..unless this page is turned into RON PAUL IS WINNING, the Cult of Ron Paul will find something to whine about.74.67.102.154 (talk) 09:57, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The tone of the comments from the IP:74.67.102.154 are not helpful. Media bias was present in the last campaign, so much so that even Huckabee began to comment on it. During this campaign, Ron Paul has consistently outpaced every candidate except Romney in fundraising, and in at least 10 states has raised more than anyone else. Additionally, Ron Paul has enormous attendance at campaign events that far exceeds the attendance of his rivals. Ron Paul and Mitt Romney are the only candidates to have made it onto every state ballot. The media bias against Ron Paul specifically, and toward a 'flavor of the week candidate' generally, has been so apparent that Jon Stewart made a pointed effort to ask on the Daily Show why this was occuring. After a brief token effort of acknowledgement, the media went directly back to standard form. And now we are seeing a situation where it is more and more likely that Ron Paul will at least take a majority or plurality in 5 states, if not more. This is the standard that the National Republican Party has set for being on their convention ballot. Now if a candidate can do so well in so many ways, and YET still be ignored by the majority of media, how in the world is that NOT something notable? -- Avanu (talk) 10:21, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

If you think media bias is bad now, just wait till it is Obama vs [whomever] in /Sept/Oct/ coming soon. It's a reality; live with it; deal with it. Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Avanu, you can incorporate what was written on the Paul campaign page here. I have no complaints with that. If you want it, put it. If someone disagrees, theyll start an argument here after youve done so. Just make sure it fits into the flow.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

April primaries (and May primaries) concluding with June primaries.
With primaries in May coming, I changed "Early April" to just "April" and added Newt Gingrich supporting Romney soon (Tuesday, May 1). I don't think we need April split into two parts in the long run. Texas votes on May 29; California votes on June 5; the rest of the states also vote in June, with the Utah primary being the last on June 26.

So there are April primaries (and May primaries) concluding with June primaries. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:36, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

What are the chances that. . . (Republican convention goes to the second ballot; that Ron Paul becomes the Nominee; or that Mitt Romney wins the third ballot). . . ? . . . Just asking. Consider the projections of CNN Mitt Romney 841;. . . Rick Santorum 273;. . . . Newt Gingrich 141;. . . Ron Paul 76. (The thing to know is that Romney is sounding very conservative and Conservatives will not be rushing to Ron Paul only. Some Santorum delegates, Gingrich delegates, and even Ron Paul delegates (that are not bound) will move over to Romney, rather soon.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * It doesnt matter if S or G delegates already allocated or elected will move toward Romney. With only Paul running activly against him it would take more than one miracle to prevent Romney from having a large solid majority after the June 5 primaries. All that is left is to see who will be on the ballot (are Paul gonna make it) and by the new rules get seriouse influence on the next 4 years of the republican party beyond who is running for president. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:26, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I am saying also that Romney will be the nominee. My only point is that with Romney projecting to 841 delegate currently, Paul at 76 currently, most of the 273+141 that were projected for the latest two candidates to drop out will go mainly to Romney, not Ron Paul. Hence, his being the Republican nominee is even more certain. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:50, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Counting territories as "states"
First of all, how many times a month does this article have to dramatically change? Second, we are not the RNC. Whatever rule that said Territories are States is very complicated and most people who come here will NOT catch this. I think the wording should be changed to "States and Terrories" or something because the way it is now will be confusing to a lot of people.TL565 (talk) 12:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since it is a template it will be hard to change the words to states and territories. And whatever all the people of the world thinks are true about the republican primary then it is still the party itself that decided what it want. And according to rule 27 territories are states. As already explained in the note at the infobox. Then it doesnt matter if all the rest of the parties and news medias in the world says the oppersite, this is the Republican parties own nomination process to elect their candidate for president. It is not the election of the american president. The rule is actually very simple, and I must say that the whole rulebook is very simple and easy to read. If only all rules and laws was so easy. And I guess the article is changing dramatically as many times as the natur of the republican primary 2012 changes dramatically, and it will keep chancing a little every time there has been a convention or primary. It is an ongoing process. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:46, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The vote is mainly carried by winning the states; only in a very close race would it need to be explained. Media will let us know. People see the territories in our table/schedule. Plus they read the news. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that the general public would probably prefer you not to refer to territories as states. While it is technically true, in this case the excessive legalism of some well-intentioned editors is probably just going to mislead people. Most people are not the RNC. Nobody bothers to plow through long, cryptic documents for some obscure regulations. States are states and territories are territories, to them if not to the RNC. EEL123 (talk) 09:46, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I respect you wiev on what should be put in the infobox even though I disagree, I think the way it have been put now looks nice. But would you please stop refering to refer to the RNC rules as long and cryptic or in other ways disrespect them. You can see rule 27 in the How do we count states carried or won? section, it is the first qoute box. It is actually a very simple rule, not cryptic in any way. And it took me 5 minutes to find when I finally used an half hour to read some of the RNC rules. Try to open the rulebook before talking it down: . The weird and complex system is not the RNC rules fault, it is the different state rules that something can seem cryptic. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:55, 1 May 2012 (UTC)


 * @EEL, The RNC rule document is not that long, and it is printed in HUGE type. For purposes of this primary process territories are counted in the same manner as states. In addition, we seem to have a unique process in many many of the states/territories where the exceptions seem to outnumber the rules. By misleading, do you mean not simply dumbing the entire article down to "Mitt Romney is your nominee"? We could just do that and avoid lots of this information. One thing I will agree with is that this article is heavy on statistical type information and kind of light on storytelling. But that's probably just a casualty of the type of article it is and a bit unavoidable. -- Avanu (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Ron Paul with first place finish in US Virgin Islands, Minnesota(?)
Why does it say Ron Paul got a first place finish when Romney got more delegates?--InformationContributor11 (talk) 21:01, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Even though Romney won more delegates, Paul won the popular vote. --William S. Saturn (talk) 21:03, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * It actually says both. In the states carried section (that specificly say it is by popular vote) Paul has VI listed as a win. But in the March and April section where the text states that it is by delegate count VI is a Romney win. (VI for US Virgin Islands.) This you can see by the numbers of wins in the first table in the State of the primary section, that counts all the wins from the timeline section (as its legend states). So the tables in the article shows the whole story. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:33, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The same is true with North Dakota by the way. Up north it is just Santorum and Romney, not Paul and Romney. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:35, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

My reason is that we need some 'yellow' on the map. This is the only 'yellow' on the first map. We must keep it. I will strongly disagree with changing that. Others have pointed out (in archived discussions, and also here now) that the reason has to do with popular vote vs district vote. We can keep in mind that the Republican leaders in the US Virgin Islands decide, not those who voted and definitely not outsiders and the media. Of course, the leaders follow the vote, but they also look at the trends and some states will make part of final decisions at the national convention. Not-Romney supporters hope to have a 'brokered' final nominee by Romney not having 1,144 votes on the first vote. Note that Romney can win more district-delegates and another can have more total votes. How does that happen you ask(?) Consider if a million Paul votes are in one district, and Romney has a dozen districts with a dozen votes and no Paul votes in those 12 districts. Romney would get a dozen delegate (for example only) and Paul would get one. In the case of the US Virgin Islands, less than 500 people voted. It is like the Electoral College for the general election in November. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:19, 5 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Another interesting thing (seen in our table) is that the numbers on the right add up to delegates to be allocated, but the numbers don't add up to the total, because of the three given to states from RNC (Republican National Committee) to state leaders. Of course, the five states that moved forward in the schedule (against RNC orders) have zero 'RNC' votes (NH, SC, FL, AZ, and MI). ... Current table has a lot of information. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:16, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

As I've said previously, there was no presidential preference straw poll done in the Virgin Islands. So we CANNOT determine the winner of VI the same way we did in Iowa, Maine, etc. The delegate vote is not the same thing, because we don't know which candidate the "Uncommitted" voters support (Uncommitted beat Ron Paul by the way). There weren't a lot of Romney-pledged delegates running, so it's possible some Romney supporters voted for uncommitted delegates. For cases like VI where there was no presidential preference vote, I think we should fall back on who won the most delegates, meaning it should be counted as a Romney win. Needing some yellow on the map is a poor justification, for obvious reasons. Lets have a vote now on who we should say won VI, for me it's:
 * Romney (for reasons stated above) --Noname2 (talk) 19:17, 7 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul (for reasons given by Jack Bornholm) I support Romney, but it need not change until delegate allocations are finalized, if ever. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:52, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I am a Paul supporter but if it has to accounted for in such a way it should be marked for "uncommitted"...it was set up so that the people voted for delegates and not candidates...9 people ran as "uncommitted delegats", 6 as Paul delegates, 3 as Romney delegates and 2 each as Gingrich and Santorum delegates and then the votes of the delegates were added up and granted to their pledged candidate. It ended up with Romney lucking out to get all 3 of his delegates in as the Paul votes were diluted and it ended up like this; delegates: Romney 3, Uncommitted 2, Paul 1....alts: Paul 2, Uncommitted 2, Gingrich 1...2 Paul's and a Santorum tied for last alt (the 6th Paul delegate missed that tie by 1 vote).50.96.79.172 (talk) 14:50, 11 April 2012 (UTC)Neal Mc.
 * Many informations are already in the United States Virgin Islands Republican caucuses, 2012, but maybe that article can be improved even more? Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:25, 11 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The scenario above is simply NOT true. Romney didn't "luck out" and Paul's delegates were not diluted. EVERYONE at the caucus acknowledges that there were far more Romney supporters. The ONLY reason why Paul's delegates got more combined votes is because every Paul voter got to place 6 votes for Paul's delegates. (You got to vote 6 times...do NOT diluted) whereas every Romney voter could only cast three votes for their favorite. If Romney had had 6 delegates on the ballot, he would have "wo" easily. In fact, the uncommitted that later pledged support to Romney said he did so because it was obvious that the people who voted for him were Romney supporters with no one else to vote for. So ethically, he felt obligated to honor their wishes. RonPaulians need to stop spreading the lies and disinformation simply because reality doesn't agree with them. There is NO scenario in which Ron Paul won the Virgin Islands. Either Romney did, or nobody did since none of the candidates got a single vote.74.67.100.241 (talk) 06:42, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

If Paul in NO scenario won the VI caucuses, then why does it say on the Virgin Island caucuses Wikipedia page that he won the popular   vote? Also, if we are determining the winner by delegate counts as with the VI, then why aren't Minnesota and Colorado been changed to Ron Paul victories? Mathias 128.208.85.72 (talk) 01:08, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * We shouldn't say he won a direct popular vote, it should be clarified that votes were only cast for delegates, not candidates. Also, we're not determining the winner of Minnesota and Colorado by delegates because those states held presidential preference polls, so we go by that. VI had no such poll, only a vote for delegates. --Noname2 (talk) 02:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Paul didn't win in CO, Romney did. See (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Republican_caucuses,_2012) & the talk page associated with the CO Wiki article has all the info that you'll need to confirm this.  As for MN, that process isn't over until May 5th, and none of the delegates that have been "chosen" there have been bound to any candidate, yet. Guy1890 (talk) 06:19, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Ultimately, however, the most important information to address is the effect the results of each state has on the Republican National Convention, the culmination of the Republican primary and caucus process. Our purpose in this page is to collect knowledge concerning this process and set it forth in a practical display that allows for an efficient retrieval of information. While we could conceivably create two maps, one to reflect the popular vote and one to reflect the delegates carried, that would be a spatial burden and breaking the precedent set by virtually every prior electoral map. Thus the choice is between either the popular vote or the delegates carried, and, as demonstrated in the United States 2000 presidential election, the latter is the much more important of the two in American politics. As Paul has the majority of RNC delegates from Minnesota, that is the relevant information to convey through the visual display. As such, I have edited the map accordingly to see Minnesota in his favor. If another user would like to do the same with respect to Virgin Islands except in Romney's favor, I believe that would be in order also. These specific distinctions should also, of course, receive address in the main body of the article. Dan Wang (talk) 04:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Okay, admittedly I just didn't want to do more editing of SVG images (a file format that is simultaneously the love of my life and the bane of my existence) and was hoping to pass it off to someone else, but the part of my conscience that pertains to Internet affairs caught up with me and I ended up doing it myself anyways. Dan Wang (talk) 06:03, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The county map gives a good visual display of the popular vote. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:22, 29 April 2012 (UTC)


 * To a certain extent, yes, but unfortunately there's a very uneven distribution of population over urban and rural areas in the United States. Counties, very roughly speaking, are meant to have similar population sizes with those in the same state as them. As such, urban counties can consist of a single geographically small but highly dense city, while rural counties will stretch out halfway across the state, causing a misleading representation of a candidate's political influence. For example, based on the county map, it would appear that Paul won by a very large margin in Maine, whereas we all know that Romney won at least the popular vote in the state. Therefore, I don't believe that the county map alone serves our purposes very well. Dan Wang (talk) 03:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks, Dan. Looks best with MN green. As to Virgin Islands yellow, it is like the referee in a sports game and it is in the last two minutes and the score is 755 to 55 and there is a close call. Does not the referee call if for the 'under-dog'? Let Ron Paul keep his place on the map, it is the only yellow and very tiny. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Oh, sorry; MN is yellow Ron Paul .!. Green Papers has 40 delegates for MN: 20 to Paul; 2 to Santorum; 0 to Romney; 0 to Gingrich. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:56, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * And someone changed the map to show Virgin Islands as red for Romney. Looking at the Green Papers, we see that the "soft total" yields eight delegates for Romney, one for Paul and zero for Gingrich and Santorum. Actually, of the nine delegates for the Virgin Islands, five are 'uncommitted', but who thinks they will not vote for Romney at August 28 convention? So did Ron Paul win more delegates in the Virgin Islands? No, there is only one vote for Paul, and 3, 5, or 8 for Romney (depending on when you ask.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:31, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All of which is why Minnesota is shown in Paul's favor on the map of delegations carried and Virgin Islands in Romney's. What's at conflict here? Dan Wang (talk) 21:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Scarce on Super PAC info
I was checking over the article and this sentence in the beginning struck me as interesting: "It is the first presidential primary to be affected by a Supreme Court ruling that allowed unlimited fundraising for candidates through super PACs."

Looking through the article, however, I see little direct discussion over how this has affected the Republican Party presidential primaries, yet media reports say that these Super PACs have millions upon millions of dollars, and especially for Gingrich (if we are to believe the press), seem to have kept campaigns alive far longer than they might have otherwise. I am think a section in the article specifically discussing SuperPACs and the impact they have had on the race might be a good addition. -- Avanu (talk) 03:26, 2 May 2012 (UTC)


 * I have been meaning to write such a section for a long time, not only with the SuperPAC but also with the campaigns own money. Two good source if anyone have the time to get it started:  and . At first that is all what is needed to start the section. I am sure others will make it better afterwards. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:49, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

How do we count states carried or won?
In the section How bound are bound delegates? above an interesting rule was mentioned: Rule 40. Quoting Avanu from the discussion above: "I don't see that "rule 40" says you 'need to win five states'. In fact, it says "Each candidate for nomination ... shall demonstrate the support of a plurality of the delegates from each of five (5) or more states, severally". This means that they need to show that they got more delegates in a state than any other candidate, and they need to have done this in at least 5 states."

This highlights very well how fragile the whole state won/carried concept is. As it has been already mentioned in the States won? section above. Right now Paul can demonstrate a plurarity of delegates in Minnesota and Romney can do the same in Colorado states this article have Santorum carrying. Since the important thing for the real world and for the history beyond the current newscircle is how many delegates every candidate can show he have in each state delegation, it seems a bit strange to me to keep Minnesota, Colorado and other future states like them as states carried by the winner of the nonbinding strawpoll.

If I understand the concept of showing a plurality right then it can be done by getting most delegates allocated to you in a primary election that allocate delegates or by getting enough unallocated elected delegates to committed to you. Betwin those to systems are ND, where the NDGOP officially were suppose to make a slate from the strawpoll (not totally binding, not totally nonbinding), and since most of the names on that slate now are ND delegates. The winner of the strawpoll (santorum) most be able to "show" a plurality in ND. This gives:
 * Santorum plurality in 6 states (Alabama, Kansas, Mississippi, North Dakota, Oklahoma and Tennessee)
 * Romney plurality in 22 states (Alaska, Arizona, Connecticut, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Nevada, New Hampshire, New York, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming) and all the territories.
 * Gingrich plurality in 2 states (South Carolina and Georgia)
 * Paul plurality in 1 state (Minnesota)
 * With Maine, Missouri, Iowa, Louisiana and Washington still undecided (together with 14 late states of course)

So my question is: Wouldnt it be better to have this information in the first table and the State Carried table? ...And does the territories delegations count in the 5 delegation requirement, and if not should we keep them in the States Carried table? Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:07, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

I have found the answer to my second question myself. (I can strongly recommend to actually read the RNC rules. ) The territories are also "states" as rule 27 says:

So Romney actually have plurality in 27 states, not 22. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:51, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think something like this came up in relation to Missouri, since the poll there wasn't binding in any way, but was used to mark the state for Santorum. At the time, I argued that it should be marked for Santorum, since caucus states were being marked, and were just as much for-show-only straw polls as Missouri was.  But, I also said that we should be updating states as the conventions occurred, when actual delegate counts came out.  Those counts are coming, and I agree, we should change the states as you've detailed above.  A lot of primary states are already bound and set in stone, even before the conventions, like Florida and South Carolina, so we should have a way to differentiate final tallies versus projections or estimates.  —Torchiest talkedits 14:05, 28 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I know that it is a change from earlier primary articles (2008 and older), but do we really need to have a table showing who became second and third? I have made a table that combines the two first tables in State of the primary section. It is right now in my sandbox User:Jack Bornholm/sandbox, take a look. I have removed the info about the unbound RNC delegates and the second and third places. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)

Can we just wait until the state conventions?--Metallurgist (talk) 05:26, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The Colorado state convention was two weeks ago. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:01, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

You are correct in every way. I just have two problems...Consensus and Precedent.
 * Consensus can hardly be defined by three or four editors. There has simply not been enough discussion about it to justify heavily modifying an entire election article series.
 * Precedent would involve all the previous presidential campaign articles, which happen to go by popular vote, not delegate count.

Also, all the maps would need to be changed for all the years up till now. Not fun. Respectfully requesting you reconsider, Light-jet pilot (talk) 03:04, 30 April 2012 (UTC).


 * Why would old stuff need to be redone? It is different this time because Ron Paul is focusing heavily on the delegate part of the process. I'm not sure I understand what you're asking for consensus on, Light-jet. We need to have an honest presentation of the material. Saying someone won a state when they didn't really win it isn't a good approach is it? -- Avanu (talk) 03:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Look at this page. Did they go by delegate count? No. We should be using the old pages as templates on how to make this one. Consistency. Light-jet pilot (talk) 03:16, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * So what are you saying we *do* go by? -- Avanu (talk) 03:19, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Popular vote totals. Like 2008, 2000, 1996, etc... and like 2012, before they changed it.Light-jet pilot (talk) 03:23, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * The article in mention didnt go by delegates but by popular vote because back then there was not five state rule (§40) Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:22, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Not every state operates on popular vote totals, and not every state has closed primaries, and more. There are so many weird exceptions and different ways that each state approaches this. The one size fits all approach only works if everyone just quits early like they did in 2008. Not sure why we would go with a deliberately misleading approach. -- Avanu (talk) 03:48, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * "...everyone just quits early like they did in 2008."???? The last major contender in '08 quit in March. The last major contender in 2012 quit in early April. Just because one candidate this year is "..focusing heavily on the delegate part of the process." does not mean we can or should throw out the way they have done it for many, many years. I have already said that I agree with the premise, that the delegate count means more in the end, but we can't have a series of articles all alike except for one. My whole point is, We must have consistency. Light-jet pilot (talk) 04:07, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Consistency is great as long as it doesn't interfere with a neutral point of view that avoids advocacy and is verifiably accurate. I think we can and should have whatever article we need to have this time. We are told Romney won Iowa, then Santorum, and now finally Paul. I've been helping to work on the Shooting of Trayvon Martin article and the media bias surrounding that was unbelievable, and honestly we have an enormous amount of media bias surrounding the primary processes as well. As I said to our IP editor in a section above, Ron Paul is second only to Romney in fundraising, is winning states, and will come out ahead of Newt and potentially ahead of Santorum, but in the interest of consistency, it sounds like you want to ignore this because the 'last major contender', I assume you mean Santorum, left the race. We don't know what will happen in the coming weeks, but if we start writing articles with this kind of bias, we don't need to be here. Write it right or don't participate. -- Avanu (talk) 04:33, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * In past years there was such a high correlation between "popular vote winner" and "delegate winner" that the distinction did not matter. This year apparently it does, so we need to pay attention to it more.  That does not mean we have to go back and change it for previous years when it was inconsequential.  This year it is likely to ultimately turn out inconsequential too (Romney will still get the nom), but we already know it won't be inconsequential in terms of how the process works out, because Ron Paul will almost certainly be on the ballot at the convention even though he will probably not be the "popular vote winner" in even one state, let alone five.  We could wait until the five wins (delegate plurality) are official, but it's also useful information now, so I lean towards making the change now rather than waiting.  --Born2cycle (talk) 04:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok. Maybe you could add a bit in the article saying what you just said, so others will not be confused. I was just initially concerned about the lack of community input about such a major change.

Avanu, I was not intending to be biased, I had not herd the news from Iowa...like you said, media bias. Light-jet pilot (talk) 04:51, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

However, this does not change my mind. Why would we change this article, when all the other articles, on Wikipedia and across the web, when referring to "States Won", go by popular vote totals. Can you give me an example where they use delegates when referring to states won? Light-jet pilot (talk) 04:59, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Well, like Jack Bornholm says above, from the RNC rule 27. Lots of people go around saying they vote for President in November, when they are really voting for electors. But if someone managed to get all the electors to vote differently than the popular vote, that wouldn't change the legality of the electoral vote, it would just undermine its public credibility and probably get our constitution amended. Point is, there is what people tend to believe, and then there is what actually IS. -- Avanu (talk) 05:14, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

If I must just add to the discussion an important fact (as far as I know). It is not different this time because of the candidates or because how the race has been unfolding, it is different because the rules have been changed! The §40 rule (five state plurality) is new! So no one have to change anything going back in the older primaries.

The format with 1st, 2nd and 3rd is only from 2008 though. Looking back through the articles on Republican Primaries there are so many ways to doing it, and many of them really needs some love and attention. Just if anyone have the time :)

And about Paul (or anyone else) being on the ballot at the convention: Riebus have made it quit clear, if you dont have the plurality of delegates in five states, not the populare vote, then you are NOT going on the ballot - Period. So if Paul arent going to win the plurality in five states he is not on the ballot. Actually that is what Paul have been saying since January, I just got what he is talking about. Being on the ballot means not just a bit of fame, it means the oppertunity to have influence on the republican platform too. So it is important.

The true state of the race, speaking frankly, is that Romney have won. The conservative wing lead by Santorum have their five states. Gingrich are crashing and burning. And the libertarian wing lead by Paul still have a good change to get their fie states. They have Minnesota and they have the change to get Maine (this weekend), Iowa, Louisiana and maybe South Dakota, Nebraska or Montana. With this new important five state rule I think it is important to show the state of the race in the beginning of the article.

If you like we could put the table with the populare 1st, 2nd and 3rd in a section at the end of the article. The very much mess up table (Yesterday it was changed inconsistently without changcing the Legend all the time by many different editors, the reason why I didnt waited for a consensus to be formed) is still in my sandbox for anyone to grap: User:Jack Bornholm/sandbox

For the benefit of editors just now coming to this discussion I would like to qoute to whole of rule 40: Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:29, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I see that there was a wish for the popular vote table to be in the article, so I have brought it back and placed it (together with the county maps) in a new section called Results by poular vote, at the end of the article. It also mean I have cleared my sandbox, nothing more to see. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:00, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * My quick thoughts on this matter mainly concern how we could handle things on the map and the template. For the purpose of shading a state or territory on the map as won by a certain candidate, first base the decision on the plurality vote winner of its primary or caucus—the events that the ordinary voters participate in. If the way the people voted is later different than the way the delegates are decided (Santorum won Minnesota, but Paul ultimately got more delegates, for example), perhaps a compromise would be to shade the state with the colors of both candidates, with a note explaining why. (See California, etc. on this unrelated map here for shading style example.)


 * Too much focus should not be placed on delegates alone for the purpose of this article. It's true that it's the delegates that will ultimately select the nominee, but if we get too carried away, it won't be long before someone proposes shading every state on the 2008 article green, as John McCain ultimately won all but 37 delegate votes at the Republican National Convention, "winning" every state delegation in the end.


 * Also, just because the Republican National Committee considers the territories as states for the purpose of delegate allocation does not mean that Wikipedia has to in all regards. I refer to how things should be handled with the template in this case. My personal thought would be to only count true states in the "States won" count, though I could see myself settling for counting them separately with a slash, e.g., Mitt Romney (23/5); Newt Gingrich (2/0). —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 09:35, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Saying "John McCain ultimately won all but 37 delegate votes at the Republican National Convention" is carrying this to the extreme. That outcome was after the state-selection process. Some states base their delegate counts on the popular vote and bind their delegates and some don't. Once a candidate drops out the delegates get reallocated. Perhaps it is time to retire a process that can't accurately reflect the vagaries of the 'winning' and 'losing' of states. It seems like some are suggesting we keep a flawed system because it is easier than being accurate. Perhaps it might be simpler to group by types of process, like Open Caucus, Closed Caucus, Binding or not, Primary or not, etc, and of course you have the special cases like the automatic delegates each of the states* gets. Either do it right or remove the misleading information. -- Avanu (talk) 10:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The important thing to show in the infobox is not how many delegates each candidate will get at the roll call. The important thing is to show in how many delegations the candidates can "show" a plurality BEFORE the roll call at the convention. This has nothing to do with older maps since the rules have been changed since 2008. Now it is important to carry states. Without five states you will not even reach the first ballot and no one can vote for you. So I think it would be good to show that in the infobox: How many delegations can each candidate "show" a plurality in. We can of course show territories/states as we like, but according to rule 27 of the RNC rulebook all the territories counts as states. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:40, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * The current setup seems fine. We go with the delegations as they are known. The popular vote is still worth noting, so put those tables and maps at the bottom like they are. This has been a lot different from 2008 because of what the Paul campaign has been doing, so as much as I am a precedentist, we need a new precedent here. Theres no need to go back and change 2008 because no one anywhere is saying how McCain won the delegations in the media then or the media now. But the media now does seem to be noting that Paul won Minnesota and is poised to win some other states. So I think the present writeup is fine, grammar issues aside. (sorry Jack :P)--Metallurgist (talk) 20:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Would it be possible for us to have two maps - one for popular vote, and another one for delegate allocation? Then we can stop the bitching (no offense). Both are important parts of the nomination process. The popular vote is what most people look at, and what the media incesssantly harps on about, while the delegate numbers are what actually determine the winner. EEL123 (talk) 09:39, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We actually already have. Right now the delegate map is in Template:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 and the popular map is inRepublican Party presidential primaries, 2012 Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:59, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By that I meant in the article, but never mind, the problem is solved to my satisfaction. EEL123 (talk) 07:05, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Right, but the popular vote map is the one with which most are popularly familiar (and the one upheld by all WP precedent), and degrading its importance in the infobox will likely breed confusion among non-regulars and inspire more edit-wars (as has already occurred). Last time I checked RNC rules did not govern WP policies. The previous map should be restored and the "delegate plurality" map placed elsewhere in the article. --SchutteGod (talk) 17:05, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you actually know what rule 40 means? Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:53, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

As it is the Romney campaign that is currently calling the shots in the GOP and not the RNC, I know it means absolutely nothing, in the long run. But the fact that you keep flogging this obscure rule and going on about what it could mean for "Libertarians" makes it sound like you have an agenda, so you should be careful. --SchutteGod (talk) 02:46, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * If, in fact, as you say it is the Romney campaign 'calling the shots' in the GOP, then we need to worry even more about our duty to NPOV on this article, unless we would like to rename it to "Romney's Rise to Front Runner in the 2012 GOP Primaries". -- 68.97.117.233 (talk) 02:54, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It certainly doesn't mean we need to artificially inflate the importance of a technical rule that only applies if there's a brokered convention, that's for darn sure. As there is not going to be a brokered convention, and there's only going to be one name on the ballot at the RNC, we don't need to do that. --SchutteGod (talk) 06:02, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

About the out image
Jack asked why I removed the purple 'out' image from Santorum's pic. First, it isn't being applied consistently. Second, its purple and it says out, and it is on Rick Santorum. It just seems like a bit of an entendre implying homosexuality. I'm sure there are other colors and expressions that would be more neutral, and these people are actually still candidates because they are hedging by saying "suspended", which has no FEC meaning. They are still raising money, still getting votes and it is a misleading graphic. -- Avanu (talk) 17:33, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I put it in both tables, so now it is consistently in this article. It is also used in the main article the section referes to: Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries. And it is from that article it have been introduced into this section. Out simply means out of the race, and personally I have a purple shirt I use frequently, that doesnt make me homosexual, neither does a purple tag. Lets not be homofobic. But if you want to design a new and better tag then feel free to do so. Until then lets do as the main article does. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:40, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Since they aren't really 'out', it isn't a factual tag. -- Avanu (talk) 17:43, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I really think the 'out' tag is unnecessary. We can put who's in or out of the races in prose form within the article, but this really isn't just a tally sheet. He ran and got some delegates. If I'm looking at this article next year, it would be really irrelevant to have the out symbols. Just show the four who have delegates without any extra tags. We, also, already have the timeline in the article which shows when people were in the race. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 17:53, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont like it either. Theyve only suspended their campaigns. It looks a little disruptive on the infobox. And technically they can still earn delegates.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:23, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * How about a blue circle with a short dash (minus sign) in it? A small symbol rather than a short word. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:55, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean like this: Torchlight viewmag minus.png or 30px or Electric charge symbol negative.svg or SmallMinusCircle.svg Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Small red "X" in the corner might be better, if we have to brand the losing candidates. --SchutteGod (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree with leaving the tag out. It's disruptive, it's not technically accurate, and it doesn't contribute much to public knowledge. Basically everyone knows Romney is going to be the nominee; branding the other candidates doesn't change that. Gingrich is also "out" if you want to know the truth; he just hasn't officially announced it yet. Putting a tag on his picture wouldn't be any more or less accurate than the one on Santorum -- so why do we need one on either? --SchutteGod (talk) 18:21, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont see how it could mean "out" as in out of the closet. haha I dont think anyone would get confused like that here. However I dont like it on the infobox. On the table further down the page, fine. But the infobox it shouldnt be there because the final article will have the four guys in the infobox.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:42, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I tend to agree with SchutteGod and Metallurgist. There's nothing wrong with the tag or its appearance, just don't have it in the template. Light-jet pilot (talk) 01:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

RE: top-of-the-article portrait/photos, I vote to leave the 'out' out (with nothing—as they are now). "Why?", you ask? Because (1) as noted, prior years don't have that; (2) this will become an encyclopedic history page; (3) that can be later in the article, as the race proceeds; (4) and mainly, everybody already knows who is in and who is out and who has 'suspended' but is not 'out' until he gets promises (Santorum). (5) Finally, I don't have strong feelings about this. Do what everyone thinks best. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:32, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

Why change?
the images(win states vote/win state delegate) change per minute or they delete? why change?92.70.49.243 (talk) 10:08, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See notice in infobox and Schedule table and its Legendu to learn more. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In this race, change accelerates. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * One technique of high-traffic websites is content excitement! Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

May
Speaking of Change (and Hope) moving into May will bring excitement, starting with Newt Gingrich dropping out but endorsing Romney "later". He wants to have maximum visibility by standing with Mitt Romney when he endorses him. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 17:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added four sentences to the May section on Newt Gingrich not campaigning now. I see news articles with video but Drudge links to Politico with the best description I have found to date. Feel free to add more if notable. This is quite monumental in my view. As Jack Bornholm suggests, money was a big, big factor — he would have had more money to continue had the voters supported him. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have changed the May section to be called late state (May to July). If a lot of things happen in May we can always make a May section again. But I really think that most of the news will be toward the "real" election. With Obama and Romney allready starting to heat up the fight. Those info should of course be put in the 2012 presidentiel election article. So left for the late state section is only to see how Paul does in the caucus states. Of course the race can change again, but then we simply chance the section. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:49, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

The "Out" Notice is gone for withdrawn candiates
It seems that when the template was updated, the little purple circle at the bottom of Santorum's image saying "Out" was removed. I think it's useful to have that back up. Now that Gingrich is out of the race too, he should have that "Out" notice at the bottom of his image too. Zachorious (talk) 19:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See ^ discussion above; I vote for SmallMinusCircle.svg (or prior "out"), lower-left corner. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:39, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

States won?
I noticed an editor mentioning ordering the candidates by the states they have won. Given the fact that Ron Paul seems to be actually winning delegates in many of these states, while the 'straw poll' was won by someone else, what is the proper definition of winning? Should I ask Charlie Sheen, or can we come to an answer without him? -- Avanu (talk) 19:12, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Many is for now something betwin none and two. Since he didnt win any in Colorado, but many unpledged delegates seems to be supporting him. Not that it matter since they are all legally unbound. He did win in Minnesota, but only the majority of the districts for now. So right now it is not really a big problem. There is a definition in the Legend of the first table in the article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:17, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I have to correct myself on the legend, it have been totally changed since I last looked. Some time ago it stated that the wins where by allocated delegates or elected unallocated delegates elected at state conventions, meaning that the nonbinding caucuses states will be counted as a win to the candidate getting most delegates at the state convention. It have proberly been changed because that would give Santorum very few states won. And all the news said he won 11 states (true when counting nonbinding strawpolls). Most of "his" states will proberly go to Romney or Paul. But maybe we should wait chacing this until it actually happens.
 * According to the greenpapers [] Colorado went to Romney (8 out of 12 at the state convention) taking by the state convention or also to Romney taking by the total delegatecount. 14 out of 36 to Romney. 6 to Santorum and the rest uncommitted. Minnesota havent finished its election yet. And Iowas havent elected a single delegates even though it seems that a lot of people think so. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:37, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * BTW, all the "chosen" delegates in MN so far are also legally unbound. The at-large MN state delegates can be bound after they are selected at the MN state GOP convention on May 5th. Guy1890 (talk) 06:27, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I thought so too, but the GP counts them as hard count (bound) . What is your source for this information? Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:00, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, the link that you just referred to has been updated like this (in red letters in the link): "The Green Papers has revised its 'soft count' of the 40 Republican National Convention delegates from MINNESOTA as follows:

The 24 Congressional District delegates formally bound/pledged to presidential contenders up through Sunday 22 April 2012 (and already 'hard count'ed on this website) are now 'soft count'ed as follows: Ron Paul: 20 Rick Santorum: 2 Uncommitted: 2 The 13 at-large delegates not yet formally bound/pledged to presidential contenders (these will be formally bound/pledged as a result of the Minnesota Republican STATE CONVENTION on Saturday 19 May 2012) are now 'soft-count'ed per the results of the 7 February Precinct Caucuses (proportionally among each presidential contender receiving at least 5% of the caucus vote) as follows: Rick Santorum: 6 [45.1% of 13= 5.86] Ron Paul: 4 [27.2% of 13= 3.53] Mitt Romney: 2 [16.9% of 13= 2.20] Newt Gingrich: 1 [10.8% of 13= 1.40] In addition, 1 of the 3 Party leaders has indicated support for Newt Gingrich. The total 'soft count' of GOP delegates from Minnesota is, therefore, now: Ron Paul: 24 [20 + 4] Rick Santorum: 8 [2 + 6] Mitt Romney: 2 Newt Gingrich: 2 [1 + 1] Uncommitted: 2 (available): 2"

Also, that same link says much farther down: "At-large delegates may be bound on the first ballot, unless released by the candidate, if directed by the state convention. No delegate to the Republican National Convention shall be bound by Party rules (unless bound by the State Convention pursuant to the State Party Constitution, Article 5, Section 3D) or by State law to cast his/her vote for a particular candidate on any ballot at the convention. [BYLAWS OF THE REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA - ARTICLE VI] No Delegate to the Republican National Convention shall be bound by party rules or by state law to cast his/her vote for a particular candidate on any ballot at the convention except that the state convention may bind the Delegates whom it elects to the National Convention of the Republican Party on the first ballot to vote for a candidate for the office of President of the United States, unless they be released by said candidate. [REPUBLICAN PARTY OF MINNESOTA CONSTITUTION. Section 5: C.]"

Also, the Wiki article on this process (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minnesota_Republican_caucuses,_2012) has similar language to the above. We'll all find out this weekend how things shake out in MN. Guy1890 (talk) 21:58, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Too many pages!
Why do we have so many pages for this one primary? It seems like overkill, and even as someone who visits every day it is annoying having to go through so many places to get the information I desire. There are also too many things that need to be updated for the primaries, also, as soon as the primary is over people are really not going to care except on occasion. I suggest we merge all of the pages down to one. Use the 2000 primary election pages as models for how you remake it, and keep good images, but leave the prose for another page or just get rid of it because it is tedious to drag through and not very useful. Stidmatt (talk) 20:34, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * that seems to be a bit extreme. Merging all articles? It would created a very very long article or it would mean erasing a lot of information. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:24, 24 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Two points: (1) The Wikipedia articles on the 50 state conventions and races contain not only the Republican presidential contest, but also the House and Senate races. These are very important also! Is there an article similar to this Republican presidential race Wikipedia article, for congressional races?  I didn't look. (2) Secondly, Much more information could be added to the Wikipedia articles on the 50 states and five provinces, obviously.  Here is an example: with all the voting members of the Utah caucus, Orin Hatch won the majority, but was about 50 votes shy of being the Republican nominee. Instead, there will be a 'run off' ballot in November with the 'Tea Party" more 'Conservative' candidate. This is quite significant! the conclusion here is that the 55 additional Wikipedia articles need to be enhanced, not merged here. Furthermore, it is very easy to jump over to them and then hit the 'back' button.  Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * A third point: We consider all the info you mainly need and want to see to already be in this article. What don't you see? There are stats (delegate counts, popular vote counts) and interesting and important history. Plus great pictures (Jack Bornholm suggest more caucus pictures). What else could be here, rather than there? Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 10:25, 25 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think you are exactly right, Mr. Shipp. It seems to me there is an enormous amount of significant information with no places to be written.  So it tends to not get written.  Has anyone noticed that, through processes that began well before the Republican caucuses and primaries, Ron Paul supporters are dominating Republican congressional-district conventions and state conventions and taking over state and city and county parties left and right (pun not intended)?  These events signal the possibility of the Republican Party being hobbled and eventually destroyed.  Paul supporters will be writing state- and local- party platforms, and it seems that if the Republican party is to remain viable, these events must lead to landmark reforms of the party's policy positions.  And do descriptions of these events have safe and reasonable places in the existing Wikipedia articles where they can't be deleted as off-topic?  I am thinking that the caucus/primary articles need to be generalized to something like "The Republican Party in New Hampshire, 2009-2012".  Maybe the cutoff date between articles would be Presidential Inauguration Days (January 20).  Searches such as "New Hampshire Republican Primary, 2012"  and "New Hampshire State Republican Convention, 2012" and "The New Hampshire Republican Party in the United States Presidential Election, 2012" would redirect to the general article.  Whether this is the optimal solution I cannot say, but the point is that there is more information and potentially more actual content than we currently have places for.  The proposal to cram that into fewer articles and at the same time blur the distinction between the major state parties and the states themselves is wrongheaded.CountMacula (talk) 11:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I actually have noticed it in news report I have seen in the process of finding sources for this article. But this process is not new to the 2012 primaries. It actually started just after the 2008 failure of the liberitarian wing to get a say on the National Convention. As one source I saw some months ago, now they are working inside the system instead of yelling at the conventions. A not so friendly source called it guerilla tactics. But isent this movemt in the Republican Party not better explained on the Republican Party (United States) and at the different state articles. This article(s) are about the primaries. Nevada Republican Party would be a good place to start. The Liberatarian strenght in the party organisation in that state are widely mentioned right now due to its state convention this weekend. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:45, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, things like the Ron Paul trends and the Orrin Hatch situation could be described briefly on the national party page and in detail on the state party pages. But I see some problems with that approach: 1) The trends I mentioned are rather closely related to the local caucuses, so it is convenient to the reader to be able to view the caucus results and controversies in the same article,  2) The state parties themselves are inclined to use "their" pages as advertisements and might be hostile to objective descriptions of the significant events, and 3) The party pages that you mention are undated, so that they would grow without bound or have to be compressed over time.  Maybe I am looking too far ahead.  The state party pages would be a possible first home for the kind of thing I mentioned.  My point (1) is probably the most important for now.  We should have some more people thinking and commenting about this.CountMacula (talk) 12:11, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Also, I guess that the state party caucus/primary pages are getting the most traffic now, and if we can construct on them homes for more general information, we can attract more contributions than if we 1) construct the homes on the existing state party pages, or 2) wait to make the change much later.CountMacula (talk) 12:22, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An article that might be intersting when writting about Paul influence on the party in larger scale: Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:58, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Delegate map
On the delegate count map, Mississippi should be counted for Romney, not Santorum. Santorum won the popular vote, but due to a peculiarity in the way the delegates were apportioned, Romney ended up with one more delegate than Santorum. 173.165.239.237 (talk) 23:30, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Green Papers have 13 for Santorum; 12 for Gingrich; 12 for Romney; and zero for Paul. [] Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The accompanying WP article, Mississippi_Republican_primary,_2012, has 13 for Santorum; 12 for Gingrich; 12 for Romney; and zero for Paul. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The AP/Google results project 14 delegates for Romney. See and hover over Mississippi on the map at the top. 173.165.239.237 (talk) 13:42, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The difference seems to be that Google-people decide to assign two of the three undecided for Romney. They may be correct, but others haven't, yet. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 20:59, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

On other issues there have been a broad concensus to take the info from GP, and they havent assigned the two last RNC delegates yet. But it is worth keeping an eye on Missipi in the next month. As it looks right now the 3 RNC delegates in Missippi can decide if Santorum is on the ballot or not (if Missippi goes he will only have 4 states). So my guess is that they will wait on Santorum to endorse Romney before they pledge themselve, not to rock the boat. When he does so he also shows that he has no interest in contending at the convention. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:28, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * All this is of course only important because it seems like it will be a sort of fake contended convention. Paul might go all the way to the convention even though Romney actually gets a majority before. But he needs plurality in five states to do so. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I decided to Google-search for official results and ended up at the GOP-Mississippi website. Interestingly they get unofficial count finals from AP. Their state Republican convention is coming soon, "May 18 & 19- State convention". Here is a direct quote from their website: "March 13 Republican primary results: President: Rick Santorum- 33 percent; Newt Gingrich- 31 percent; Mitt Romney- 30 percent; Ron Paul- 4 percent.  According to unofficial estimates from the Associated Press, Santorum will receive 13 delegates, while Gingrich and Romney will each win 12."  . . . Then you can click on their link "Official primary results as certified by the Mississippi Republican Party" and see: "Mitt Romney: 90,161 & Rick Santorum: 96,258"   Bottom Line for now: The official MS site for GOP will not give the delegate count until the state convention, May 18-19. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:03, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

Louisiana
How should Louisiana be depicted on the map? It has both a primary (which Santorum won in March) and a caucus (which was just held today, and Ron Paul won: ). Unlike Missouri, where the primary was just a beauty contest, in Louisiana the delegates are split between the primary and the caucus, although the caucus determines a slightly larger share. Should Louisiana be striped green/yellow? Maybe we should list Paul as having won 0.5 states and Santorum with 10.5? 173.165.239.237 (talk) 01:59, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That is why we need a good definition of what it means to win. To me, the most final thing is the number of national delegates, since they ultimately decide the vote at the convention. -- Avanu (talk) 02:04, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * According to nola.com news article, there are 46 delegates, broken down like so, Committed Delegates = Santorum: 10, Romney: 5, Paul: 17, and Uncommitted: 14. Not sure who the uncommitted ones are, they could be closet Ron Paul supporters, but Paul has the plurality at this time with 17 pledged delegates. -- Avanu (talk) 02:16, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * At least some of the uncommitted delegates haven't been chosen yet, but will be decided on at the state convention. Because the state convention will be dominated by Paul supporters, though, it seems likely that a majority of the uncommitteds will go to Paul. 173.165.239.237 (talk) 03:20, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Those numbers are from their state convention. -- Avanu (talk) 03:25, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

According to this article, Ron Paul has also won the majority of delegates in Iowa, Minnesota, and Washington. I read something that said a couple of other states, but I don't see an article verifying that. -- Avanu (talk) 03:33, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Nobody’s really won anything in IA yet, and none of IA’s 28 delegates are legally bound to support any candidate at the GOP national convention. In any event, IA’s long process isn’t over until June 16th, and MN’s process isn’t over until May 5th.  Paul is apparently doing pretty well so far in the ongoing process in MN...with around 20 non-legally-binding delegates in his camp at this point.  MN has 40 total delegates at stake.  At the May 5th MN state convention, a vote can apparently be had to bind at least the 13 at-large delegates to a particular candidate.  WA's process isn't over until June 2nd, and so far any delegates "chosen" there have not been legally bound to any particular candidate.  At WA's state convention in early June, WA's 40 state delegates to the GOP national convention will be legally bound to candidates.  WA's 3 automatic (RNC) delegates are not legally bound to vote for any candidate. Guy1890 (talk) 04:28, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * That article has been refuted by a member of Ron Paul's own campaign! Websites that are desperate for ad revenue know that they can just make up stories about how great Ron Paul is doing, no matter ho untrue it is, then make sure a few RonPaulians see it, and they will spread it around forever. Thus giving them free Google money.74.67.102.154 (talk) 09:50, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea based on my reading, he has been successful in state convention delegates but Iowa and Wash havent held their state conventions yet, so there are no firm numbers.Same with LOusisiana that was just county caucuses today. Patience.--Metallurgist (talk) 04:56, 29 April 2012 (UTC)

There have been claims that Paul are trying to steal the plurality in Louisiana by giving wrong guidance to voters about the natur of the slates. See ] and read the guidebook distributed by Paul supporters yourself here. I dont know if it is word a line in the article, but it is interesting. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:54, 29 April 2012 (UTC)
 * As far as I know, handing out such guides is perfectly legitimate and legal. The ballot just has a list of slates, which are largely unidentifiable. I also read that the Romney campaign or something tried to water down the Ron Paul vote by putting his slate several times, so this is just a stab back at them. Who knows? But the guide does seem legitimate and legal.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:09, 30 April 2012 (UTC)

Louisiana is spelled with a typo - Double 'n' in one location in the page — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ecrz (talk • contribs) 13:19, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Corrected to 'Louisiana' — Thanks for noticing, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:27, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

North Dakota
What is it with ND, according to the Green Paper Romney have won this state. The GP uses a count that was circulated on the floor of the state convention. When it comes to Plurality I for once disagrees with GP. Why? Because the NDGOP was suppose to make a slate that as GP puts it: "The National Convention delegates from North Dakota are elected at the State Convention in such a way so that they best reflect the presidential preference of the Caucus participants." This did not happen (this is the talkpage so lets be frank) but of course the NDGOP leadership will never admitt to breaking their own rules. The spiked slate was elected, but it should officially have been reflecting the straw poll.

Now, no one of the delegates are bound in any way, so in what way can anyone show a plurality in the state BEFORE the roll call?

Lets say a person from Santorums campaign asked the NDGOP leadership about it.
 * S: Was the slate you proposed meant to be reflecting the straw poll we won?
 * ND: Of course
 * S: So the rumors about you bending the rules and it is really Romney that can show a plurality in the delegation you send to Tampa is simply untrue?
 * ND: OF course
 * S: So all the talk we heard from our supporters about a railroadjob from you disfranchising the voters and breaking your own guidelines, that was just a misunderstanding?
 * ND: Of course
 * S So we can tell the RNC that we have the plurality in ND?
 * ND: Yes of course :(

If anyone have any references saying that the NDGOP have acknowledge that Romney have the plurality in their delegation BEFORE the roll call begins please put it here and I will stop annoying everybody with North Dakota. But even if the numbers of GP is more accurate as the look inside the minds of the ND delegates, it is still not a plurality until the NDGOP says so, or a plurality of the delegates have personally committed themselve to anyone but Santorum. See the more neutral expl. in the article under the super tuesday section. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:37, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, Jack, but your opinion of what should have occurred and your hypothetical is completely irrelevant. Wikipedia goes by what can be verified by the sources provided. Official sources are the best in nearly every case. Basically, it looks like you are taking sides with some of the supporters protesting the delegate counts. If you want to put a citation in that states that this is going to be challenged, that is fine, but the actual results given by the convention and the sources in the article currently do show Romney as winning. Anything else would be original research or simply unverifiable opinion. Your "more neutral" explanation under the Super Tuesday section is not really more neutral, either. Thank you. -- JoannaSerah (talk) 23:08, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Of course I think it is neutral, but I respect your oppinion. But it is wellsourced, so feel free to change the wording. But GP is a blog and they simply decided to go with a count that they themselve say was circulated at the floor. That doesnt sound very neutral to me. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:15, 30 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I was just looking around for some references myself. If we are not going with the numbers from the "consultative" (in want of a better word) straw poll. What are we then going with? This reference/blog says 16 to Romney, GP says 20. I dont know how many counts there is. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:27, 30 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I think Jack's point was that you can't really claim a "Romney" in North Dakota win unless we have some way to verify that, and if the delegates are unbound how do we verify that? By the way, could Republicans make their delegate selection process any more weird and jacked up? This has got to be the most cumbersome, complicated and retarded system. However, I don't really trust 'popular' votes to elect competent leadership either since people are easily swayed by mainstream media bias. Sorry for the aside, it is just so weird. -- Avanu (talk) 08:02, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I have been thinking about the comments of Joanna and may I ask. Would the right thing be not to count ND for anyone when it comes to plurality? The plurality map could either leave it gray (or maybe black since that is used in the county map) or striped Santorum/Romney? Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:06, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * For now, stick with Green Papers. Change only when change occurs. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

Agree -- stick with Green Papers. It's obvious Romney got the most delegates there, and it's not like it will matter much in the long-run. ND (along with every other state) will probably cast all its votes for Romney on the convention floor and NDGOP rules won't matter one whit. --SchutteGod (talk) 16:52, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * True, as long as Santorum still have the other five states the conservative wing will have direct access to the ballot and to influence on the party platform. Lets just hope that not another of Santorums states by some forgotten rule go the way of Minnesota. Then the ND case would start to be interesting at the Convention. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:21, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * When Republicans vote for Romney, they will indeed be "following the rules" since they are sent their to vote as they should. Some state rules say they "follow their conscience". Understand that Republican caucuses and primaries are electing delegates to vote for them. If everyone drops out and Romney is left, are they going to caste an empty vote? I don't think so. Delegates do follow the rules when they switch their vote.Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:28, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * T think all the states have a rule saying that if a delegates candidate drops out/releases his delegates they are free to vote for anyone they want. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's why I believe they are just 'suspending'. -- Avanu (talk) 08:40, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That and even more important the fact that they can not keep fundraising in the same fashion if the withdrew. And they have all a lot of debt. Actually a few states says that a candidate have to have an "active" campaign at the time of their local conventions to get delegates. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:15, 2 May 2012 (UTC)

As is discussed & cited here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:North_Dakota_Republican_caucuses,_2012), not only are all of ND's delegates unbound, many of them have said that they would prefer to vote at the national convention along the lines of the original caucus results (regardless of how they were "elected" at the ND state convention). I don't think that it's going to matter that much in the end - Romney basically has the 2012 GOP nomination at hand. Guy1890 (talk) 22:14, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree that it will not matter much in the end, but I still would like to get the "right" colour on the delegate map and the "right" numbers on the schedule table. Do you have a reference that says the delegates want to vote according to the caucus result? If they say that I think we should color ND for Santorum and list the caucus result in the schedule table. I think Santorum will release his delegates before the convention and endorse Romney before the convention, so it will proberly not mean anything. But still, lets have the most correct table and map we can get. Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:26, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Here's the link from the referenced ND talk page above (http://wtop.com/?nid=278&sid=2817738). The relevant quotes are: "Almost all the national delegates interviewed by The Associated Press said they plan to abide by the March 6 caucus results, meaning Santorum would get to keep his delegates."

and "The delegates said they plan to meet prior to the national convention to decide how they will vote with the idea that they would divvy up votes to reflect the results of the caucuses. Shane Goettle was elected as a delegate at the state convention. He supports Romney, but said he would honor the results of the March 6 caucuses, even if that means voting for Santorum at the national convention. 'I'm willing to support who I must in order to try to achieve that,' Goettle said."

I've seen the Wiki page associated with *this* talk page use the original ND caucus split for the ND delegate count & the ND convention split for the ND delegate count. Again, since all of ND's delegate are unbound, they can vote any way that they see fit at the 2012 GOP national convention. Romney basically can't lose the 2012 GOP nomination at this point - his lead is too big and he can win the winner-take-all contests of AR (if he gets more than 50% of the vote), CA, NJ & UT and only be less than 50 delegates away from getting to 1144. Guy1890 (talk) 00:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Thanks. As you say it have not much relevance in the real world. But I still like to get the numbers right in the table and if the candidates said at the convention they would go by the caucus result it is good enough for me. If anyone disagree with that please lets continue the discussion but for now I am adding the reference and chancing the numbers back. Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Agreed. If major news sources say differently (Green Papers, CNN, WSJ) we can quote them. Suppose Santorum says, "I have met with Mitt Romney and I want all of my delegates to vote for him on the first vote at convention in August", then we can wait and see what they say and do. I'm sure other news sources will ask the delegates, one by one, and find out.  That will be soon enough. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:32, 4 May 2012 (UTC)

Timeline
The timeline needs to be updated, or should be updated soon, because Gingrich suspended his campaign yesterday. Alphius (talk) 13:29, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In what way?. I chanced the colour of Gingrich yesterday. Maybe some have chanced it back and now forth. But it seem ok. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:16, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:00, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Number of States Won
The table says that Mitt Romney won 24 states, but only lists 23. Is one missing, or is the number incorrect? Alphius (talk) 13:36, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Wrong number. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:18, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅ Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:05, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Interesting discussion of Paul versus Romney
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EEfgimB0LRM -- Avanu (talk) 01:59, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I enjoyed watching the 10-minute interview (5,327 views) which explained in detail the Ron Paul movement: (1) Pacifism; (2) Cut gov't spending in major ways to save America; (3) Importance of the US Constitution. The dialog is excellent in explaining a part of the Tea Party and the desire to return to the Constitution and fiscal responsibility. It also explained why many Conservatives don't align totally with Ron Paul.  The name of 'Mitt Romney' was not mentioned. They then link to other Ron Paul websites. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't remember if I watched that all the way to the end, but the news banner in front of the TV anchor said Mitt vs. Ron. Maybe it was only a section of general discussions on each of them. Didn't mean to mislead on that. -- Avanu (talk) 16:33, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Not a problem — It was actually very good, the whole ten minutes. The person being interviewed is from our great state of California and had a lot of wise, insightful comments about Ron Paul and possibilities. Although the name of Mitt Romney was not mentioned, everyone watching knows that Romney has about 850 delegates and Paul 50, and so his analysis has to do with those two. The bearded man being interviewed notes that Romney will definitely win the formal first ballot at August convention, but that Ron Paul is making his points known. He further says that he is changing the Republican Party for the better. The anchor of this small news outlet is a woman, and she and the interviewee are the only people shown during the ten minutes. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:58, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Maine, Nevada, and Louisiana
Maine[1 ], Nevada[2 ], and Louisiana Where he won 111 of 150 or 74 percent of delegates elected. Why have they not been listed under Paul yet. Hes won the clear majority in all four. In Louisiana he won 111 of 150 or 74 percent of delegates elected. In Nevada last night he took home 22 of the 25 delegates at large. Hes got the plurality in that state. It should be added with Minnesota. Same with Maine as he won 15 of the 25 which is just over half. They need to be colored yellow now as Paul has the majority of delegates in those states. Raymond SabbJr (talk) 17:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes these states should be coloured yellow. Paul has got the plurality.--90.187.143.144 (talk) 18:57, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From the NV article above:"Republican rules require the first vote at the national convention to reflect the results of the Feb. 4 caucus, which Romney easily won.

That means 20 of Nevada’s national delegates must vote for Romney, while eight will be free to vote for Paul in the first balloting. While some Paul supporters voiced an intention to challenge the binding requirement, the campaign opted not to further antagonize the Republican National Committee, who has threatened not to seat the delegates if they ignore the caucus results and vote for Paul. "We are sending a strong delegation to Tampa in August,' Paul’s Nevada chairman Carl Bunce said. 'There are rumors that (the Paul campaign) will actively work to not follow rules and unbind our delegates. That is false; we are not doing that. Congressman Paul is an individual who wants to follow the rules, follow the Constitution and we follow that lead.' Jim DeGraffenried, the secretary of the state party, stressed party officials will not allow the national delegation to deviate from the binding caucus results. 'We will not allow anyone to break that,' DeGraffenreid said. 'If they do, the will revoke their delegate status and they will be replaced by alternates.' The alternates are largely Romney supporters." LA's process doesn't conclude until June 2nd, though Paul is doing well there so far. Please be patient & read the material that you are posting here first. Guy1890 (talk) 02:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Until today none of these states had actually elected any delegates. Today Maine have its convention and when it is finished and the counts are not projected anymore Maine will be yellow for Paul on the delegate plurality map. Even though Paul got more supporters elected in Nevada they are bound to vote for Romney on the first ballot, so Nevado still goes for Romney. Louisiana have only started its election process of its unallocated delegates. Its convention is on June 2 and if Paul wins a plurality at this convention (what he properly does) then at june 2 the state will be colored yellow. Please no projected counts, there is so many different projected count from may different sources, if we use them it would destroy this articles NPOV. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:17, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * ok i agree with you on this Jack. We can have some patience on this. The conventions are coming down the pipe and the article will say what it says then. Also, a note on english jack. you are using "have" where "has" should be used. "Louisiana has only started..." :) --Metallurgist (talk) 20:21, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Maine is now official for Paul. (AP) --Gyroid (talk) 20:50, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * yep I see that now. Just be patient and everything will fall into place. :) --Metallurgist (talk) 23:14, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

North Dakota
In the delegate map, North Dakota should be recolored for Romney instead of Santorum, since the Romney people took the entire delegation for that state at the state convention. 173.165.239.237 (talk) 23:11, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yea, that is true.--Metallurgist (talk) 23:15, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * See the discussion above: Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 especially the last part. Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:18, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An important source from this discussion: The relevant quotes are: "Almost all the national delegates interviewed by The Associated Press said they plan to abide by the March 6 caucus results, meaning Santorum would get to keep his delegates." and "The delegates said they plan to meet prior to the national convention to decide how they will vote with the idea that they would divvy up votes to reflect the results of the caucuses."  Jack Bornholm (talk) 23:31, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Paulists' Distortion of this Page
Supporters of Ron Paul are extremely angry about the media's ignoring their favorite candidate, so I find it both hypocritical and offensive (as a Paul supporter) that they are attempting to use those same tactics to show a disproportionate amount of support for the good doctor. In addition to adding him to the candidates' infobox for the 2008 primary (a race in which he won no states), they have broken precedent with it; the infobox map for 2012 now shows "plurality delegation" instead of "plurality popular vote" like every previous race, simply because it gives Ron Paul Minnesota. This view is going to conflict with just about every news source from the period of the primaries which states that Rick Santorum was the first-place finisher in Minnesota. This page is reporting on a current event, which is soon to become a historical topic. Any historian---any scientist---knows that data collection and storage must be consistent in order to properly analyze the data. As much as I appreciate Ron Paul, I can't stand his supporters' spinning his 10% in the polls as more support from the American people than it really is. CumbersomeCucumber (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Green Papers has 40 delegates for MN, with 20 to Paul; 2 to Santorum; 0 to Romney; 0 to Gingrich, so far. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see where that distortion is taking place. And I find it hard to believe you legitimately support Ron Paul when the 10% you claim in the polls is generally 5 to 10 points higher. Without question there is a 10% that is a rock solid base for Paul, so in that respect you are correct. But to exclude Paul intentionally when we know he has won a state according to RNC rules? For the sake of conformity to previous years? Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, who can hardly be called a Ron Paul supporter, mentioned how Paul is lined up to take several states. Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, among others, pointed to the bias of a media blackout of Ron Paul, yet you want us to rely solely on that same media for our sourcing in this article. I really find your claim to be a Paul supporter to be lacking credibility when these things are not only nationally apparent to those who follow the political process, but when Wikipedia has an ethical duty to maintain a neutral point of view. It is fair to give credit where credit is due, not more, not less. As has been reported many times in the media, many of the media hype events were nothing more than straw polls or beauty contests. We didn't create the weird system that Republicans use, if you have a complaint about how their process for picking candidates works, go complain to them. But at least be honest about things. -- Avanu (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the map currently in the infobox is out of place and is inconsistent with the practice used in last elections, where the popular vote has always been used. The "plurality delegation" map also conflicts with popular news reports, which also use the popular vote results, and is likely to confuse readers who don't frequent wikipedia very often (and in that vein, only encourage edit-wars). Not entirely sure this is the fault of Paul supporters, however — but rather the work of one prolific editor who seems to believe RNC rules should be enforced here rather than conventional wisdom. I'm not saying the "plurality delegation" map has no place on this page; just that perhaps the infobox at the very top of the page is not the right place for it. --SchutteGod (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason for using the plurality map is because of the new five state rule (rule 40). Not really important until Paul started to use it to get attention for his movement. I am the prolific editor, and I do take a little offense by being accociated with Paul. I do belive that we should show the things as the really are according to the persons running this election (the RNC) and not what different newsmedia wants to say. I dont see very much of these newsmedia since I am from Europe, but I believe that this is a encyclopidia, not newsmedia, and it should show how the things really are. We do have the popular vote map in the article too, actually there is a whole section devoted to the popular vote. Noteworthy and interesting. The state of the primary right now is that a "Santorum state" are showing plurality for Paul (minnesota) and if he can get 4 more of that sort he doesnt have to win any popular vote at all, he will be on the ballot. And I think it is still what will effect the National Convention that counts. And the fact that Paul with the second biggest bag of money still cant get more than 10 procent to vote for him and he know are using the rules very well for his own sake is noteworthy. By using the popular vote in the infobox we hide the fact that he has taken plurality in one state and maybe will do it in more. Maine is this weekend. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that Bielsko has changed the infobox to show both maps, and it looks really good. Now you can see at a glance the difference between popular vote and the actual delegate plurality (election). I am not sure all here understand the rule 40, but now the problem is solved for now. I am still offended by being called a Paulist though, maybe a bit of civility and NPOV in selection the discussion titles are in order! Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks fine; I was not accusing you of being a Ron Paul supporter — I was accusing you of ignoring common past practices (illustrated in every single previous primary election article) giving popular vote precedence over delegate count. RNC allocation rules mean very little, are nearly always suspended during the actual convention, and have precious little bearing on WP policy. --SchutteGod (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By the same argument the article about the metre should change that value because Wikipedia is not goverment by the SI. Do you understand rule 40? It means a lot for the future of the Republican party. If the Liberitarians get five states they get their candidate on the ballot and access to influencing the platform. If not they might still influence the platform but their power just went down a lot. Rule 40 is new and so the way to show it will be new too. This time it means something BEFORE it will be suspended at the roll call. I am sure you know that this years Republican primary are different from the older ones. Guess what, the ways of preparing for the convention have changed too. In 2008 it was easy to get on the ballot, this year it takes five states. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Using both maps is brilliant! and instructive to readers .!. Jack is a promising young man .!. Bielsko did great .!.!.!. Now I see the Virgin Islands in red for when it counts, and yellow for Ron Paul for the popular vote as his supporters want. Further, when it counts with delegates, Ron Paul shows in MN in yellow and Santorum in green. What could be better?  If other WP pages are not like this, they should change if they want to be this good. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Republican candidates that follow the NRC rules are using "common sense". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to the gentleman who doubted I was a Ron Paul supporter, note that my main problem was the use of INCONSISTENT METHODS as a way of making Ron Paul look like he performed better than previously reported. Paul himself ascribes to the axioms of "Honesty" and "Consistency" so I don't see how my support for both of these things on Wikipedia disqualify me as a Paul supporter. Second, I don't get why you're throwing up so much about being called a "Paul supporter." Like, seriously, you cited ethics rules at me over it. Calm down. Third, it looks much better now and is more consistent with all previous primaries since 1980, which I reiterate was my chief concern. Problem solved. Well done. CumbersomeCucumber (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe we have gotten to a good place, and that was my hope the entire time. I spend time on Wikipedia trying to fight against bias constantly. But I'm equal opportunity about it and I don't care for rhetoric that claims editors are trying to undermine Wikipedia's neutrality. In truth, a few are, but there are far more of us who just want to present information fairly. If you look at my overall contribution history, you'll see I push for this in political articles about Santorum, Romney, Obama, Paul, and more, and in non-political articles like those about Trayvon Martin or Gabrielle Giffords. I want us to be fair. Excluding information from this article that shows Ron Paul doing well isn't neutral, and regardless of how we have to adapt, we need an ethical and honest approach and a neutral tone. -- Avanu (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A note to cumbersome cuke: National polls, or in fact the actual level of national support can mean NOTHING in relation to a party nomination. Yes, in many past years they usually reflect eachother, but this year the Ron Paul team is organizing better than has ever been done before. Al Gore getting the popular vote in 2000 was meaningless in an electoral college system for a general election, and popular vote is meaningless in a nomination battle if the delegates acquired differs from the popular vote. If every state were a primary state with mandatory pledged delegates that reflected the results of the primary, then popular vote would be the sole worthwhile quantifier. But the rules are the other way around, and popular vote is an intresting quaint coincidental detail that might become irrelevant. Ron Paul just won almost all of the delegates in 3 states' state conventions this weekend adding up to around 66 of them gained from states that he "lost" in the earlier stages of the process. Richard 50.47.246.194 (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But out of 3 state conventions (Massachusetts, Nevada and Maine) the 2 have "mandatory pledged delegates that reflected the results of the primary, then popular vote would be the sole worthwhile quantifier". When it comes to delegates for the nomination process there is actually not that many that doesnt reflect the primaries. If you think what about Minnesota? They have only had district conventions for now. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

States carried — inconsistency with past precedent
Currently the info-box bases the "states carried" on delegate counts. But on all previous primary articles that has been based on popular vote wins. It's obvious that there's an inconsistency here. In the 2008 Republican Convention McCain ultimately got a majority of delegates in his favour in every state — so should the 2008 info-box read that McCain carried 50 states? --89.27.36.41 (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you misunderstand what the delegate map is indicating. There is the delegate count prior to starting the national convention and then the delegate count as individual votes are taken. Once the delegates gather in convention, things can quickly change and there is no point is making maps of such changes. Additionally, we need to give readers an article with a neutral tone and presentation, not simply just whatever worked last time. I hope this answers your question. -- Avanu (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean the map. I meant the "States carried" section on the info-box. In all previous primaries it denotes the number of states where a candidate won a plurality of votes, but here it's different. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rule 40, that have been very debated in this talkpage lately, is new, in 2008 it didnt really matter how many states you carried by plurality in delegates. This year it means a lot. Right now Paul is trying to reach five states by winning delegates in states where he have lost the popular vote, if he gets five he can get on the nomination ballot and take his campaign all the way to the convention. Of course Romney will properly have a majority at that time and it will be very unlikely that Paul would win. But that is not up to this article to decided. And in any case, with five states plurality Paul can make some noise at the convention, and that actually sounds likely. So with a new rule and a different "game" it might not be best simply to follow the 2008 example. Maybe when the primaries are over it would be good to only use popular vote, depends on what happens. But the best way to show the state of the primaries right now and explain what is happening is by using states carried by plurality. Both maps are avaible to show the difference. I am wondering if it would be better to have this talk at the Templates talkpage? (the infobox is actually a template that are use by several articles) Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Specifically, where? I did a Google-search on {wikipedia Templates talkpage} and got 9million hits—top ones look very interesting. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Template:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Forget rule 40. Thats not important. This is the first time delegation control has been relevant since all four want in on the RNC. So a new precedent is needed.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rules may not be important to you but they are very important to who wins, Romney or Paul. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

disinformation
If true "The 2012 Republican presidential primaries are the selection processes in which voters of the Republican Party are electing delegates to the Republican National Convention of the party" then this article is disinformation. If you agree, how do you think : calculated or incidental? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ The sentence has been changed to emphasize the role of state Republican leadership.

"The 2012 Republican presidential primaries are the selection processes in which voters of the Republican Party are electing state delegations to the Republican National Convention of the party." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Primary Schedule Table - 'Secured Delegates' Columns
Hi all. I just spent an hour cleaning up the Primary Schedule Table. I found the table very neglected from continuous editing of allocated and unallocated delegates. I have gone ahead and edited the 'Secured Delegates' columns and candidate totals so that these reflect the correct amount of unallocated delegates as well as the correct candidate totals for known allocated delegates. I have not used any new sources - only the figures that where already present in the table.

I read through the archived talk section referred to in the page notice for the table which briefly discussed what to do with super delegates. I chose to include these in the Unallocated column as I am sure I am not the only one tired of doing the math in my head as to the allocation of delegates for individual states. I believe this gives a clearer picture of how many delegates are left to be allocated.

This leads to my next point. Delegate totals in the Primary Schedule Table contradict those in the infobox and the 'The state of the primaries' section. I am not going to touch these as I know there are many points of contention around the delegate figures but would like to see discussion on how to procede with this. --Domentolen (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You did a nice job, just one thing. According to the Legend the 117 unbound RNC delegates are not counted in this table. Since the sources varies a lot on who are committed to witch candidate and how many sources are needed to put them in a candidatet row and so on and son, we stopped putting them in to this table some time ago. I have taken out the unbound RNC delegates again (and there was a small error in Tennesse, a unfaithfull allocated delegates have been messing with the numbers for some time, but I went with the GP info). You added mostly of the Unbound RNC delegates as uncommitted, but actually about half of them have already committed. If we should change the Legend we should have clear rules for what source we use and how when it comes to this Unbound RNC delegates. Last we tried that it very quickly became a mess, and with the much contention about delegates numbers right now I think it would be again.
 * The numbers in the infobox are sourced numbers while the totals from the shcedule table are simply adding up every line in the table (witch are mostly from GPs state pages except ND where GPs secondary count are used, see supertuesday section for the sources). This make something as rare as a unprojected softcount (I havent seen that anywhere but here), meaning that it count the unbound delegates that are actually elected and are supporters of a candidate but not the "look in the crystalball" projections of Iowa and other states where no unallocated delegates are elected yet. Because of that I dont think it is a good idea to have a total in any case. The infobox shows a hardcount from a reliable source. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A source for the RNC unbound: . Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What's up with the Virgin Island numbers in this section of the Wiki page now? The numbers that I've seen show Romney with 5 delegates, Paul with one delegate, and the other 3 delegates being RNC delegates, which we don't include in the count in this section (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Virgin_Islands_Republican_caucuses,_2012#Results). Guy1890 (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source saying Gwendolyn Brady have committed to Romney? The article dont say so, but only that she is uncommitted (in the text) but also that she is committed (in table) Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ms. Brady was the final holdout until apparently April 23, 2012, when she pledged herself to Romney. Sources:

http://vigop.com/2012/03/vi-gop-2012-caucus-results-coming-soon/ and http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/VI-R Guy1890 (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

New updates for Maine and Nevada
The delegate table should be updated with the news from last Saturday.

Results for Nevada - Paul 22, Unpledged 3
 * This issue has been discussed at length elsewhere on this talk page. From the above link: "Nevada delegates are bound by the state’s results on the first convention ballot, so Romney will still get their support. Paul’s Nevada supporters are not challenging that rule, for fear of losing their convention seats altogether. Delegates who abstain will be replaced with alternates."

The end result is that nothing has basically changed from the original NV caucus result-Romney won a majority of the delegates from NV. Guy1890 (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Results for Maine - Paul 21, Romney 2, Unpledged 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iknama (talk • contribs) 07:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)  This section moved from what is currently the top of this page to what is now the bottom. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 20 NV are bound to Romney. 8 to Paul. --Gyroid (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maine was updated yesterday. It is 21 for Paul and the 3 last is unbound RNC that according to Legend arent in primary schedule. If you want to change the legend start a new discussion. Infobox and state of the primary changes when the source changes. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's actually 20 delegates for Paul in ME & 2 delegates for Romney, with 2 other ME delegates uncommitted at the moment (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Republican_caucuses,_2012#Convention). Those numbers include the RNC delegates, which I know we're not counting in the "Secured Delegates" listing on this talk page's Wiki page. Some other sources for this info:

http://www.kjonline.com/news/Delegate-fight-Snowe-LePage-today-at-convention.html and http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-05-06/ron-paul-maine-gop/54794126/1 I guess there's still an issue of the Romney campaign potentially challenging these above results, but who knows there. Guy1890 (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To Change Text (Maine moving to Paul)
The site source Saying Paul won Maine says that Romney won delegates and popular votes, so I think we should go and change the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeks4ever (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What source is that? It should say that Romney won popular vote and Paul won delegation plurality.  --Gyroid (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ With two excellent detailed maps ("a picture is worth a thousand words") readers see that Romney won the most cast votes and Paul won the delegate count which counts most. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also added text as you suggest (you can search in the Article and improve text, if you want.) Here is what I added (which may change at convention), Currently, 21 Maine delegates have moved to Paul, leaving Romney with two delegates. There remains one undeclared delegate. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Rule 38 (Delegates not bound)
It should be discussed in the article. I read the PDF file released by the GOP, and basically it says "winner take all" states (or counties) can not force delegates to all vote for Romney (or Paul). That's a surprise twist I had not been expecting and means Romney has fewer delegates than claimed in the table. For example he does not have all the delegates in "winner take all" Maryland.

QUOTE: No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose thje unit rule. 69.174.58.156 (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends how you interpret it, but why make a new section for it when I brought it up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012#Bound_delegates_and_Rule_38 --Gyroid (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Because I'm not a perfect person that's why. I did not see your contribution.   69.174.58.156 (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Paulists' Distortion of this Page
Supporters of Ron Paul are extremely angry about the media's ignoring their favorite candidate, so I find it both hypocritical and offensive (as a Paul supporter) that they are attempting to use those same tactics to show a disproportionate amount of support for the good doctor. In addition to adding him to the candidates' infobox for the 2008 primary (a race in which he won no states), they have broken precedent with it; the infobox map for 2012 now shows "plurality delegation" instead of "plurality popular vote" like every previous race, simply because it gives Ron Paul Minnesota. This view is going to conflict with just about every news source from the period of the primaries which states that Rick Santorum was the first-place finisher in Minnesota. This page is reporting on a current event, which is soon to become a historical topic. Any historian---any scientist---knows that data collection and storage must be consistent in order to properly analyze the data. As much as I appreciate Ron Paul, I can't stand his supporters' spinning his 10% in the polls as more support from the American people than it really is. CumbersomeCucumber (talk) 13:49, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Green Papers has 40 delegates for MN, with 20 to Paul; 2 to Santorum; 0 to Romney; 0 to Gingrich, so far. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:04, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see where that distortion is taking place. And I find it hard to believe you legitimately support Ron Paul when the 10% you claim in the polls is generally 5 to 10 points higher. Without question there is a 10% that is a rock solid base for Paul, so in that respect you are correct. But to exclude Paul intentionally when we know he has won a state according to RNC rules? For the sake of conformity to previous years? Rachel Maddow of MSNBC, who can hardly be called a Ron Paul supporter, mentioned how Paul is lined up to take several states. Jon Stewart of the Daily Show, among others, pointed to the bias of a media blackout of Ron Paul, yet you want us to rely solely on that same media for our sourcing in this article. I really find your claim to be a Paul supporter to be lacking credibility when these things are not only nationally apparent to those who follow the political process, but when Wikipedia has an ethical duty to maintain a neutral point of view. It is fair to give credit where credit is due, not more, not less. As has been reported many times in the media, many of the media hype events were nothing more than straw polls or beauty contests. We didn't create the weird system that Republicans use, if you have a complaint about how their process for picking candidates works, go complain to them. But at least be honest about things. -- Avanu (talk) 15:25, 1 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree that the map currently in the infobox is out of place and is inconsistent with the practice used in last elections, where the popular vote has always been used. The "plurality delegation" map also conflicts with popular news reports, which also use the popular vote results, and is likely to confuse readers who don't frequent wikipedia very often (and in that vein, only encourage edit-wars). Not entirely sure this is the fault of Paul supporters, however — but rather the work of one prolific editor who seems to believe RNC rules should be enforced here rather than conventional wisdom. I'm not saying the "plurality delegation" map has no place on this page; just that perhaps the infobox at the very top of the page is not the right place for it. --SchutteGod (talk) 16:48, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The reason for using the plurality map is because of the new five state rule (rule 40). Not really important until Paul started to use it to get attention for his movement. I am the prolific editor, and I do take a little offense by being accociated with Paul. I do belive that we should show the things as the really are according to the persons running this election (the RNC) and not what different newsmedia wants to say. I dont see very much of these newsmedia since I am from Europe, but I believe that this is a encyclopidia, not newsmedia, and it should show how the things really are. We do have the popular vote map in the article too, actually there is a whole section devoted to the popular vote. Noteworthy and interesting. The state of the primary right now is that a "Santorum state" are showing plurality for Paul (minnesota) and if he can get 4 more of that sort he doesnt have to win any popular vote at all, he will be on the ballot. And I think it is still what will effect the National Convention that counts. And the fact that Paul with the second biggest bag of money still cant get more than 10 procent to vote for him and he know are using the rules very well for his own sake is noteworthy. By using the popular vote in the infobox we hide the fact that he has taken plurality in one state and maybe will do it in more. Maine is this weekend. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:14, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I see that Bielsko has changed the infobox to show both maps, and it looks really good. Now you can see at a glance the difference between popular vote and the actual delegate plurality (election). I am not sure all here understand the rule 40, but now the problem is solved for now. I am still offended by being called a Paulist though, maybe a bit of civility and NPOV in selection the discussion titles are in order! Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:01, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks fine; I was not accusing you of being a Ron Paul supporter — I was accusing you of ignoring common past practices (illustrated in every single previous primary election article) giving popular vote precedence over delegate count. RNC allocation rules mean very little, are nearly always suspended during the actual convention, and have precious little bearing on WP policy. --SchutteGod (talk) 18:34, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * By the same argument the article about the metre should change that value because Wikipedia is not goverment by the SI. Do you understand rule 40? It means a lot for the future of the Republican party. If the Liberitarians get five states they get their candidate on the ballot and access to influencing the platform. If not they might still influence the platform but their power just went down a lot. Rule 40 is new and so the way to show it will be new too. This time it means something BEFORE it will be suspended at the roll call. I am sure you know that this years Republican primary are different from the older ones. Guess what, the ways of preparing for the convention have changed too. In 2008 it was easy to get on the ballot, this year it takes five states. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:58, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Using both maps is brilliant! and instructive to readers .!. Jack is a promising young man .!. Bielsko did great .!.!.!. Now I see the Virgin Islands in red for when it counts, and yellow for Ron Paul for the popular vote as his supporters want. Further, when it counts with delegates, Ron Paul shows in MN in yellow and Santorum in green. What could be better?  If other WP pages are not like this, they should change if they want to be this good. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:09, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Republican candidates that follow the NRC rules are using "common sense". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:24, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In response to the gentleman who doubted I was a Ron Paul supporter, note that my main problem was the use of INCONSISTENT METHODS as a way of making Ron Paul look like he performed better than previously reported. Paul himself ascribes to the axioms of "Honesty" and "Consistency" so I don't see how my support for both of these things on Wikipedia disqualify me as a Paul supporter. Second, I don't get why you're throwing up so much about being called a "Paul supporter." Like, seriously, you cited ethics rules at me over it. Calm down. Third, it looks much better now and is more consistent with all previous primaries since 1980, which I reiterate was my chief concern. Problem solved. Well done. CumbersomeCucumber (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I believe we have gotten to a good place, and that was my hope the entire time. I spend time on Wikipedia trying to fight against bias constantly. But I'm equal opportunity about it and I don't care for rhetoric that claims editors are trying to undermine Wikipedia's neutrality. In truth, a few are, but there are far more of us who just want to present information fairly. If you look at my overall contribution history, you'll see I push for this in political articles about Santorum, Romney, Obama, Paul, and more, and in non-political articles like those about Trayvon Martin or Gabrielle Giffords. I want us to be fair. Excluding information from this article that shows Ron Paul doing well isn't neutral, and regardless of how we have to adapt, we need an ethical and honest approach and a neutral tone. -- Avanu (talk) 17:54, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I agree Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:12, 2 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A note to cumbersome cuke: National polls, or in fact the actual level of national support can mean NOTHING in relation to a party nomination. Yes, in many past years they usually reflect eachother, but this year the Ron Paul team is organizing better than has ever been done before. Al Gore getting the popular vote in 2000 was meaningless in an electoral college system for a general election, and popular vote is meaningless in a nomination battle if the delegates acquired differs from the popular vote. If every state were a primary state with mandatory pledged delegates that reflected the results of the primary, then popular vote would be the sole worthwhile quantifier. But the rules are the other way around, and popular vote is an intresting quaint coincidental detail that might become irrelevant. Ron Paul just won almost all of the delegates in 3 states' state conventions this weekend adding up to around 66 of them gained from states that he "lost" in the earlier stages of the process. Richard 50.47.246.194 (talk) 07:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But out of 3 state conventions (Massachusetts, Nevada and Maine) the 2 have "mandatory pledged delegates that reflected the results of the primary, then popular vote would be the sole worthwhile quantifier". When it comes to delegates for the nomination process there is actually not that many that doesnt reflect the primaries. If you think what about Minnesota? They have only had district conventions for now. Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:58, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

States carried — inconsistency with past precedent
Currently the info-box bases the "states carried" on delegate counts. But on all previous primary articles that has been based on popular vote wins. It's obvious that there's an inconsistency here. In the 2008 Republican Convention McCain ultimately got a majority of delegates in his favour in every state — so should the 2008 info-box read that McCain carried 50 states? --89.27.36.41 (talk) 14:23, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you misunderstand what the delegate map is indicating. There is the delegate count prior to starting the national convention and then the delegate count as individual votes are taken. Once the delegates gather in convention, things can quickly change and there is no point is making maps of such changes. Additionally, we need to give readers an article with a neutral tone and presentation, not simply just whatever worked last time. I hope this answers your question. -- Avanu (talk) 14:56, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I didn't mean the map. I meant the "States carried" section on the info-box. In all previous primaries it denotes the number of states where a candidate won a plurality of votes, but here it's different. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 15:19, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rule 40, that have been very debated in this talkpage lately, is new, in 2008 it didnt really matter how many states you carried by plurality in delegates. This year it means a lot. Right now Paul is trying to reach five states by winning delegates in states where he have lost the popular vote, if he gets five he can get on the nomination ballot and take his campaign all the way to the convention. Of course Romney will properly have a majority at that time and it will be very unlikely that Paul would win. But that is not up to this article to decided. And in any case, with five states plurality Paul can make some noise at the convention, and that actually sounds likely. So with a new rule and a different "game" it might not be best simply to follow the 2008 example. Maybe when the primaries are over it would be good to only use popular vote, depends on what happens. But the best way to show the state of the primaries right now and explain what is happening is by using states carried by plurality. Both maps are avaible to show the difference. I am wondering if it would be better to have this talk at the Templates talkpage? (the infobox is actually a template that are use by several articles) Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:58, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Specifically, where? I did a Google-search on {wikipedia Templates talkpage} and got 9million hits—top ones look very interesting. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:46, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Template:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:56, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Forget rule 40. Thats not important. This is the first time delegation control has been relevant since all four want in on the RNC. So a new precedent is needed.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:23, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rules may not be important to you but they are very important to who wins, Romney or Paul. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:59, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

disinformation
If true "The 2012 Republican presidential primaries are the selection processes in which voters of the Republican Party are electing delegates to the Republican National Convention of the party" then this article is disinformation. If you agree, how do you think : calculated or incidental? 99.90.197.87 (talk) 01:40, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ The sentence has been changed to emphasize the role of state Republican leadership.

"The 2012 Republican presidential primaries are the selection processes in which voters of the Republican Party are electing state delegations to the Republican National Convention of the party." Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:15, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Primary Schedule Table - 'Secured Delegates' Columns
Hi all. I just spent an hour cleaning up the Primary Schedule Table. I found the table very neglected from continuous editing of allocated and unallocated delegates. I have gone ahead and edited the 'Secured Delegates' columns and candidate totals so that these reflect the correct amount of unallocated delegates as well as the correct candidate totals for known allocated delegates. I have not used any new sources - only the figures that where already present in the table.

I read through the archived talk section referred to in the page notice for the table which briefly discussed what to do with super delegates. I chose to include these in the Unallocated column as I am sure I am not the only one tired of doing the math in my head as to the allocation of delegates for individual states. I believe this gives a clearer picture of how many delegates are left to be allocated.

This leads to my next point. Delegate totals in the Primary Schedule Table contradict those in the infobox and the 'The state of the primaries' section. I am not going to touch these as I know there are many points of contention around the delegate figures but would like to see discussion on how to procede with this. --Domentolen (talk) 03:56, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * You did a nice job, just one thing. According to the Legend the 117 unbound RNC delegates are not counted in this table. Since the sources varies a lot on who are committed to witch candidate and how many sources are needed to put them in a candidatet row and so on and son, we stopped putting them in to this table some time ago. I have taken out the unbound RNC delegates again (and there was a small error in Tennesse, a unfaithfull allocated delegates have been messing with the numbers for some time, but I went with the GP info). You added mostly of the Unbound RNC delegates as uncommitted, but actually about half of them have already committed. If we should change the Legend we should have clear rules for what source we use and how when it comes to this Unbound RNC delegates. Last we tried that it very quickly became a mess, and with the much contention about delegates numbers right now I think it would be again.
 * The numbers in the infobox are sourced numbers while the totals from the shcedule table are simply adding up every line in the table (witch are mostly from GPs state pages except ND where GPs secondary count are used, see supertuesday section for the sources). This make something as rare as a unprojected softcount (I havent seen that anywhere but here), meaning that it count the unbound delegates that are actually elected and are supporters of a candidate but not the "look in the crystalball" projections of Iowa and other states where no unallocated delegates are elected yet. Because of that I dont think it is a good idea to have a total in any case. The infobox shows a hardcount from a reliable source. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A source for the RNC unbound: . Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:09, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What's up with the Virgin Island numbers in this section of the Wiki page now? The numbers that I've seen show Romney with 5 delegates, Paul with one delegate, and the other 3 delegates being RNC delegates, which we don't include in the count in this section (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_Virgin_Islands_Republican_caucuses,_2012#Results). Guy1890 (talk) 00:47, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a source saying Gwendolyn Brady have committed to Romney? The article dont say so, but only that she is uncommitted (in the text) but also that she is committed (in table) Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:08, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Ms. Brady was the final holdout until apparently April 23, 2012, when she pledged herself to Romney. Sources:

http://vigop.com/2012/03/vi-gop-2012-caucus-results-coming-soon/ and http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/VI-R Guy1890 (talk) 02:09, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Thanks Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:52, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

New updates for Maine and Nevada
The delegate table should be updated with the news from last Saturday.

Results for Nevada - Paul 22, Unpledged 3
 * This issue has been discussed at length elsewhere on this talk page. From the above link: "Nevada delegates are bound by the state’s results on the first convention ballot, so Romney will still get their support. Paul’s Nevada supporters are not challenging that rule, for fear of losing their convention seats altogether. Delegates who abstain will be replaced with alternates."

The end result is that nothing has basically changed from the original NV caucus result-Romney won a majority of the delegates from NV. Guy1890 (talk) 23:04, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Results for Maine - Paul 21, Romney 2, Unpledged 1 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Iknama (talk • contribs) 07:41, 7 May 2012 (UTC)  This section moved from what is currently the top of this page to what is now the bottom. --Born2cycle (talk) 16:39, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 20 NV are bound to Romney. 8 to Paul. --Gyroid (talk) 17:02, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maine was updated yesterday. It is 21 for Paul and the 3 last is unbound RNC that according to Legend arent in primary schedule. If you want to change the legend start a new discussion. Infobox and state of the primary changes when the source changes. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:18, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's actually 20 delegates for Paul in ME & 2 delegates for Romney, with 2 other ME delegates uncommitted at the moment (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maine_Republican_caucuses,_2012#Convention). Those numbers include the RNC delegates, which I know we're not counting in the "Secured Delegates" listing on this talk page's Wiki page. Some other sources for this info:

http://www.kjonline.com/news/Delegate-fight-Snowe-LePage-today-at-convention.html and http://www.usatoday.com/news/politics/story/2012-05-06/ron-paul-maine-gop/54794126/1 I guess there's still an issue of the Romney campaign potentially challenging these above results, but who knows there. Guy1890 (talk) 00:22, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

To Change Text (Maine moving to Paul)
The site source Saying Paul won Maine says that Romney won delegates and popular votes, so I think we should go and change the text. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Geeks4ever (talk • contribs) 19:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * What source is that? It should say that Romney won popular vote and Paul won delegation plurality.  --Gyroid (talk) 20:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ With two excellent detailed maps ("a picture is worth a thousand words") readers see that Romney won the most cast votes and Paul won the delegate count which counts most. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:21, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I've also added text as you suggest (you can search in the Article and improve text, if you want.) Here is what I added (which may change at convention), Currently, 21 Maine delegates have moved to Paul, leaving Romney with two delegates. There remains one undeclared delegate. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:56, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Rule 38 (Delegates not bound)
It should be discussed in the article. I read the PDF file released by the GOP, and basically it says "winner take all" states (or counties) can not force delegates to all vote for Romney (or Paul). That's a surprise twist I had not been expecting and means Romney has fewer delegates than claimed in the table. For example he does not have all the delegates in "winner take all" Maryland.

QUOTE: No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose thje unit rule. 69.174.58.156 (talk) 20:44, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It depends how you interpret it, but why make a new section for it when I brought it up here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Republican_Party_presidential_primaries,_2012#Bound_delegates_and_Rule_38 --Gyroid (talk) 20:45, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Because I'm not a perfect person that's why. I did not see your contribution.   69.174.58.156 (talk) 20:54, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bound delegates and Rule 38
"RULE NO. 38 Unit Rule No delegate or alternate delegate shall be bound by any attempt of any state or Congressional district to impose the unit rule."

http://www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf (page 37)

What does this mean in terms of states that bind their delegates? NV and Mass have a lot of Paul supporters bound to Romney, for example. --Gyroid (talk) 15:50, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * That's a confusing paragraph. It's called the "unit rule", but it also refers to the "unit rule", without specifying what the "unit rule" is.  But wait, apparently there is a standard definition for it:


 * Okay, well, "the candidate preferred by a majority of the state's delegates" is not "the candidate to which a delegate is bound by the laws/rules of his state/state party". So I don't think Rule 38 says anything about delegates who are bound to a candidate by the laws of their state, the rules of their state party, or a contractual commitment to support a particular candidate they had to sign in order to become a delegate.    --Born2cycle (talk) 21:03, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Very intriguing. I wonder why this wasn't brought up a long time ago. Zach Vega (talk to me) 21:11, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It hasn't been relevant in decades, and almost certainly won't be this year either. It only becomes relevant if a state party chairman declares all delegates from his state are for some candidate, when some delegates are not.  But the delegates who are not for that candidate (if they are not legitimately bound in that round of voting) can ask for a roll call count, by Rule 37(b).


 * --Born2cycle (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Just looking at it (without doing any research) I would say it means that it is ok to have proportional votes in the states. In the old days the whole delegatetion have to go with the majority of the state delegation. Now some persons just waking up from the 60ths cant say that to everyone at the convention. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:20, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Rule 38 was written to PREVENT voters from being disenfranchised by a state chairman who just arbitarily decide to go against the rules of the popular vote or caucus and give them all to one candidate. It was NOT written (nor will it be used) TO disenfranchise voters simply because one candidates supporters can't accept defeat. Since Romney won Massachusetts' delegates within the rules, rule 38 does not apply. Now...if, for example, the North Carolina chair decided to give Romney all 55 delegates from his state, THEN it could be used. It is SOLELY about a state arbitarily awarding delegates against the wishes of the voters. So no...it cannot be used to do exactly what it was written to prevent. People need to stop getting their rules interpretation from no-name local Fox affiliates like Ben Swann who has never done anything to suggest that he is an expert on the rules.74.67.98.207 (talk) 08:15, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Russia Today is reporting that Ron Paul has won 11 states
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zm9H1ojpIlA 5/8/2012 PLEASE CONFIRM AND UPDATE DELEGATE MAP ON WIKIPEDIA — Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.112.190.175 (talk) 11:02, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * We can also watch what Democrats say. GOP.com has the official counts, and "the jury is still out" so to speak. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:13, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting clip, but again: "Projected counts are not real!" They where not real when they showed Romney winning a lot, and all the Paul supporters reminded us about it, and they are not real now, when the Paul supporters seem to have forgotten that. He might win the plurality in a few states like Iowa, but not before the state convention. It is my experience that Russia Today is not really a reliable source when it comes to western news, at least not european, they seems to have a big bias. But maybe all media outlets have that today. Jack Bornholm (talk) 14:18, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yeah, but delegate projections based on strawpoll popular vote percentages are one thing; delegate projections based on county/district actual delegate percentages are something else again. But, yeah, they're still just projections, until each state convention (which Maine, for example, just had).  --Born2cycle (talk) 21:11, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Russia Today isn't based on ANYTHING except delusions. Like many sites desperate for ad revenue, tey know that if they post a pro-Paul article, no matter how inaccurate it is, the RonPaulians will latch on to it FOREVER and spam all their friends until they are defriended (both online and in real life) and it will give them lots of page views. Not only have many of those supposedly 11 state wins not awarded delegates yet, but many are not wins for Paul to begin with...evenn IF theycould be unbound (which they can't.)07:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.67.98.207 (talk)
 * Funny the projections were cited by wikipedia previously (such as giving Romney/Santorum all of Iowa's delegates, and Paul none). Now suddenly projections are not okay, even though it's confirmed Paul already got 60% of them).  Double standard from a biased organization that supports ACTA and CISPA.   69.174.58.156 (talk) 22:29, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's easy for you to sign up with a Wikipedia ID/pw and assist in improving this Article. Before the state primaries began, projections were important; now that most of the elections are in, projections are less important.  Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

Delegate map(s)
Uh, most of the states colored in on the delegate map haven't selected their delegates yet! How can we have such a blatantly inaccurate map on the page? 69.134.10.10 (talk) 18:00, 3 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia readers would like to come to this page and see reality. The counts are what they are, and will only swing more strongly to Romney now that NRC and nearly everyone is behind him. Remember, this is a Republican race. Our page reflects what reliable sources are noting. Wikipedia readers already know that the race is only finalized at convention in August. That delegates are not totally assigned at this point is already reflected in the table we provide. It will be interesting to see if Ron Paul can win his home state of Texas (and then California). Don't expect Santorum or Gingrich to win much, having quit the race. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Notice that it is now Romney 724 vs Paul 54, (and Gingrich and Santorum votes will mainly end up with Romney) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:11, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * You are severely mistaken. Paul has won 5 states (per official delegate count in IA,CO,MN,WA,LA) and the majority of delegates in Romney's own state (Massachusetts).  Though I agree Paul should drop out, the article should reflect the info I just shared.   69.174.58.156 (talk) 00:20, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No delegates have been officially selected in IA (not until June 16th), and those IA delegates are all going to be unbound anyways. Romney won the most delegates in CO as of the conclusion of their delegate selection process on April 14th, and that issue is now pretty much settled as of this point.  MN's final results won't be known until this weekend, and all the delegates "selected" so far there are unbound (this is Paul's best shot at "winning" a state though).  The processes in WA & LA aren't over until June 2nd, and MA's delegates are bound by the results of the Super Tuesday results (where Romney won). Guy1890 (talk) 00:33, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I'm at work and don't have time to cite everything, but here's a cite for the Iowa win (which you claim Paul didn't win). Your other claims are equally erroneous.  MSNBC report: http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/05/02/maddow-ron-paul-supporters-infiltrating-republican-state-leadership/  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.174.58.156 (talk) 01:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think it would be a good idea to take some time when you get off work to actually read the article, especially the schedule and process part of it. The point is that No one can have a plurality of delegates in Iowa or the other states because no delegates have been allocated or elected yet! Please understand that neither the caucuses or the county convention or any other convention beside the state convention at June 16. We have been discussing this with different anonymouse and not anonymouse editors ever since the Iowa caucus. Please read about it. Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:35, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think insulting people as anony "mouse" is pretty damn childish. I'm done with wikipedia since I don't wish to associate myself with immature and rude adults.   69.174.58.156 (talk) 15:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * An Anonymous user is a user that have no account, or are not loged in, it is a wikipedia term not a statement of anything positive or negative. If you wish to contribute to Wikipedia it is very beneficial to make an account, one of them is being able to edit protected articles such as this one. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * 'Please do not erase other peoples comments mr. or mrs. 69.174.58.156 as you did with the one just above at 20:00, May 4, 2012‎. Please read: Talk page guidelines where it says: "basic rule is that you should not edit or delete the comments of other editors without their permission". Please respect that. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:07, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Oh yes, if this is an attempt of making fun of my bad english and many gramma and spelling mistakes, then I am already aware that I am not perfect in english, being my second language. So not really any point in doing that. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:11, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Your english is just fine. I'm pretty certain you INTENDED to call me anony "mouse".     69.174.58.156 (talk) 20:00, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Believe what you want, I dont even know how that would be offending - Sorry, I am not american. Lets get back to the subject of this talkpage. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:06, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * But more important, you have to stop erasing other peoples comments as you did agaín on 22:00, May 4, 2012‎. Seriousely You really cant do that. I have put a notice on your talkpage and I am putting one more in there. If you keep doing this to other peoples comments you could be block. Dont do that. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:14, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The delegate map shows states that have allocated delegates, so unless the local convention disregard its own state party rules (look out for Nevada this weeks) that is what the conventions/committee will elect according to its primary elections rules. It also show the states that have elected its delegates via local conventions, slates or comittees. You can see all about it in the schedule table, all the info are there. Look at the difference from the popular map and you can see what states that can still be turned differently. Massachusetts convention is a good example, Paul supporters actually "won" it. But the Paul supporters elected as delegates still have to vote for Romney on the first ballot.  Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:20, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * That's actually not true, they're allowed to abstain. 69.134.10.10 (talk) 19:36, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you have a reliable source saying that. I have tried to look around a little and I can only find different people saying it in discussions on blogs, nothing reliable. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:51, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Delegates will be jumping on the band wagon, not abstaining. (I bet they could, but won't.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:38, 4 May 2012 (UTC)


 * By the way, this is the first primary, where we have a separate map for popular vote state wins and delegate state wins. All the previous primary articles have a map of only the popular vote wins. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 14:10, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Rule 40 is a new rule Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:01, 5 May 2012 (UTC)
 * The two maps provide excellent insights for WP readers. The important vote is in the delegate map, since that is what counts in the end (illustrated by Bush/Florida.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:10, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In the general election the winner of a state's popular vote always wins the delegates as well. Not the same in primaries (or caucuses, usually). --89.27.36.41 (talk) 15:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * adding a bit more spice to the process. Actually in many of the states the delegate count follows the popular vote by winner-take-all or proportional (just remember it is on both state and district level) The state that doesnt do it that way just get most of the media attention right now. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:24, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul should NOT just drop out. Wikipedia says he's in 4th
But Paul actually has MORE DELEGATES than Romney

And wikipedia has cited references to back that up, so Paul should drop out. He's more done than Gingrich. 69.174.58.156 (talk) 23:41, 3 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Notice the remark at the top of this page: "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject" thank you Jack Bornholm (talk) 00:05, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Anyway, Senator Paul has his reasons (likes the national stage) just like Santorum wants to make his pro-Life points and Gingrich wants to be "Citizen" and relieve debt. Focus on the Article here. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:57, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Suggestions to WP (Wikipedia) reader 69.174.58.156: (1) You additions to WP would be more valuable and convenient by signing up to WP with a user ID and password, so easy to do; (2) Consider taking your valuable insights over to Ron_Paul_presidential_campaign,_2012 where it may be more germane; (3) if you have a suggest for this Article, it needs to be succinct, fit in, enhance the Article, and have one or more citations from reliable and respected sources, such as WSJ or FoxNews.com Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:23, 4 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There are still primaries to be held. He has every right to remain in the race. Also, this is not a discussion/venting forum.--Metallurgist (talk) 20:25, 6 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Correct you are. This is not a soapbox but how the Article is written is being influenced. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:57, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Bottom Line on Delegate Map(s): ✅ — I really like the discussion ending with two maps, one the popular vote and one most delegates, (by color). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:16, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Stealth delegates - supporting Candidate P but bound to Candidate R
What, if anything, do we do about delegates who support one candidate but are bound to another? It's unclear how they might act. In the voting where the binding applies (first round, first two rounds, or first three rounds, depending on what state they are from), what if they abstain? If the point of counting delegates in advance is to establish who is ahead and who, if anyone, will have enough to get the nomination, can we really count these stealth delegates in the candidate's column?

--Born2cycle (talk) 20:48, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Write about it in the late states section. You are right even though Nevadas and Massachusetts (and who knows who else) have to vote Romney they are not bound to anything more than that. They could make noise already when the VP candidate are going to be elected. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:23, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Who cares what some nobody with a blog says? Just because he has a college next to his name he is some kind of expert? Sorry, but the Romney campaign knows FAR more about the rules (ALL OF THEM) than every single RonPaulian and this Putnam moron put together. They know that not only that abstaining will not work (which Ron Paul himself has said) but that if it weas attempted, there are PLENTLY of ways to fight it..within the rules. But again...until this page says simply "RON PAUL IS WINNING, DESPITE REALUTY" you Ron Pauilians will find someting to complain about.74.67.98.207 (talk) 07:55, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * This is also the case for North Dakota where Romney supporters will supposedly be voting for Santorum? --Gyroid (talk) 21:49, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * In the NV delegation, delegates can't abstain from voting the way that they were pledged in the original NV caucus early this year. If they try to abstain, they will immediately be replaced with an alternate (see the other NV discussions on this same talk page for more info on this).  This really is a non-issue that even the Paul campaign isn't pushing as a "real" issue now.  Romney will be allowed to pick his own Vice-Presidential candidate.  The ND delegation has pledged to meet before the 2012 GOP convention to determine how they will vote, and many have already pledged to vote the way that the original Super Tuesday caucus went (again, see other ND discussions on this same talk page for more info on this). Guy1890 (talk) 23:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * We can wait and see. We are historical, not newsy. If WSJ and other notable sources say something about this, we can add to our Article and quote them, if we want to. Three states vote today, Santorum endorsed Romney last night and tells his supporters to defeat Obama by supporting Romney.  The closer we get, the more Romney support everyone will see. It will not need to be mentioned here. At convention in Tampa in August, there will be the 'for show' First Vote, and everyone will want to say their delegation jumps on the Romney bandwagon. (Please note that I am not on a 'soap box' but just indicating how our excellent Article should read: namely, that we can best wait and see.  There is time enough, and the Article is doing great, in my opinion.)  What do you think? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:04, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Guy wrote: "If they try to abstain, they will immediately be replaced with an alternate" - what if all the alternates also try to abstain? It's not an impossible scenario, arguably even a very likely one in some states this year, so if we can find out what happens in that case, we should cover it.   --Born2cycle (talk) 21:15, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Impossible scenario? Maybe not. But then again, neither is a baseball team down 25-2 with 2 outs in the 9th inning and an 0 and 2 count on a relief pitcher who is the only one left to bat. Romney has far more delegate than the delusional RonPaulians want to accept. And with the alternates, it means that even if 60% of Romney's delegates were stealth Ron Paul supporters (which they won't be) it would still take just 20% of Romney's delegates away in that state. But the reality is, it will be less than 50% in almost every state, so Romney will get every one he is entitled too...which is why he was not concerned with these state conventions since he knows they are voting for him either way. And again...there are plenty of other safeguards to prevent disenfranchising millions of voters (which would cause a unanimous electoral college win for OBama) BEFORE the official first round of voting. It isn't as if delegates are going to step up to a microphone on live TV and say "I abstain" All that would be done in back rooms, and will be taken care of LONG boefre the networks go on the air. The reason why a handful of delegates abstain every cconvention is becuase the parties don't CARE..it doesn't matter if 4 or 5 abstain, so they let the babies have their bottles and let them go. But if a lot more did it to the point of making a difference, they would invoke the rules that are designed to protect againsttaht sort of thing. Again...Romney and his campaign knows FAR more about the rules than you do. Far more than John Stossel does. Certainly far more than local Fox affiliate reporter Ben Swann who is in no way a political expert. They know all the ways out they have at their disposal. Ron Paul does as well, which is why he came right out and told a Ron Paul delegate NOT to attempt to abstain becuase it wouldn't work, and would hurt his image.74.67.98.207 (talk) 08:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't see an answer to my question here. Say a given state N has 20 delegates bound to R and 10 bound to P.  The chairman reports the votes accordingly, but 6 or more states ask for a roll call vote per Rule 39, and when they get to State N, all 20 of the R delegates abstain?  Do they go to the alternates?  What if all the alternates abstain too?  What rules would be invoked to deal with this? --Born2cycle (talk) 16:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I dont know the answer to that, but I just want to say that the delegates actually goes to the microphone and give their vote. In 2008 some states passed their vote (not abstained though) so that Arizona could be the state that gave McCain the nomination. Normally all this is just a show as it can be seen on this video: . Maybe it will be different this year, but what ever happens delegates will come to the microphone. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't understand your point. Are you saying normally every single delegate comes to the microphone?  --Born2cycle (talk) 17:45, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * No I am just saying that their will be people coming to the mic, not all will be done in smoky back rooms, as a responds to 74.67.98.207 rather spicy comment. A delegate from each of the 56 delegations will come to the mic and read the votes from each delegation, that is the normal way. Sort of a show, with everyone chearing and so on, normally everyone knows who will be the nominee but they like to do it anyway. Just a sidecomment to the discussion. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:28, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Normally, I don't think it's merely "a delegate", but the chairman of that state's delegation that comes to the mike. But if Rule 39 is invoked, then each individual delegate is polled, I believe.  --Born2cycle (talk) 18:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, it will be their moment of "15 seconds of fame" for participants. Count of grandstanding on the First Vote. Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:07, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

States, Provinces, District of Columbia (US capital), vs “non-states”.
The 200 watchers of this important page can see an undeclared mini-edit-war as to what to call the 57 states, {Obama-grin}. In the formal rules, GOP rule 27 says ‘states’ refers to the 50 states plus the five territories plus Washington DC (District of Columbia). So we could just call them states, but for the reader, it is more interesting to distinguish. We should call territories, ‘territories’ and the District of Columbia, ‘Capitol’. The term ‘non-state’ sounds like ‘nonsense’. What do you think? Jack Bornholm has been a true gentleman and asked for comments here in TALK discussion. What do you think? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:27, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the best would be, "States Won: 22 + DC & 5 territories". I also think it could stay like it is now. "States Won: 28 (incl. DC & 5 territories)"  >>>Light-jet pilot (talk) 01:26, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think the conflict is in the popular vote section Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Yes, correct. Popular Vote section. I vote for DC and 'provinces'. I plan to edit in the morning (Manyana; manana) OK? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:23, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Provinces makes it sound too Canadian. While technically correctly, far more Americans refer to them as territories. Why not just something like "Votes won" or "Primaries/Caucuses Won"?74.67.98.207 (talk) 07:52, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I know that a some editors here dislike any rules made by the RNC and anything that cant be understood at glanse, but still. Why not just follow the RNC rule 27 and call them all states, with a small note explaining it of course. Jack Bornholm (talk) 08:01, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I meant to say 'territories' since that is what they are. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:56, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think there should just be one term for all. Just "territories" should do even if it is only one territory. Having multiple terms like "territory" for just one territory and "DC" or "capitol" is unnecessary. TL565 (talk) 21:51, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Just the small problem that D.C. is not a territory Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:04, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * A territory would just be a region under U.S. jurisdiction, so all states and DC are technically U.S. territories. TL565 (talk) 22:39, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * So do what I said. DC + Territories. >>Light-jet pilot (talk) 00:15, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for suggestions. (1) DC, territories; (2) Territories; (3) Territory; and (4) DC: District of Columbia. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:49, 10 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Like I said before, just "Territories" is fine under all candidates. We don't need to over do it by making sure it's singular or that its DC. DC is technically a territory. The issue was people didn't like the term "non-states". TL565 (talk) 05:27, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Santorum won the delegations of six states, not five
The ticker screen should change it to that. North Dakota, Kansas, Oklahoma, Mississippi, Alabama, and Tennessee. The screen says he won the delegations of five, he won the delegations of six. J390 (talk) 00:32, 8 May 2012 (UTC)


 * ✅ Alabama, Kansas, North Dakota, Mississippi, Oklahoma, and Tennessee. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:04, 10 May 2012 (UTC)

Colorado Numbers Correct?
Colorado GOP says Romney 14, Santorum 6, Unbound 16. http://www.cologop.org/assembly-results/ Ploxhoi (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * What numbers are you talking about? These numbers are also in the Primary schedule, but as it is clearly stated in the Legend the unbound RNC delegates (that are not elected in the primary process) are not included in the table. Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:45, 8 May 2012 (UTC)
 * From the above link, I get 13 delegates for Romney, 6 delegates for Santorum & 14 uncommitted delegates. The various CO delegate issues have been sorted out on the CO Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colorado_Republican_caucuses,_2012) & talk pages. Guy1890 (talk) 21:47, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The effect of May 8 results {WV, NC, IN} Romney winning.
Even with their Liberal Democrat leanings, CNN does one of the best jobs counting Republican delegates. Here is their good website following the sweep of three states by Romney. People are still voting for Santorum and Gingrich. Paul garners 15% in Indiana. http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/dates/20120508 Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:42, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It's been my experience recently that both CNN & the AP have been over-inflating the total GOP delegate counts by using phony, projected delegate counts from states that haven't really finished their delegate selection processes. MSNBC has been a lot closer to what the real, total delegate count has been all along IMHO. Guy1890 (talk) 21:41, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I've searched for a summary/current count that the Green Paper people might have, since I consider them only second to the official Republican counts, and find this: The Green Papers: "Republican 2012 Delegate Count, Current Summary". Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:33, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

The delegatecount and its sources
I think we should change the way we display the delegatecount because right now it doesnt show the state of the primaries clearly. I think we need:


 * A Hardcount. That is the count of the delegates that can not change their vote, the bound delegates. When Romneys hardcount number hits 1,144 it is over, even for the most hardcore Paul supporter (of course Paul still gets his 15 minutes and a vote where he will loose - if he gets plurality in five states). We already have such a count and the source is the GP's hard count. No problem.


 * A Unprojected Softcount. Right now we have a projected softcount from the GP. It uses results from caucus states that are simply projected directly to delegates. How many believes that will be true numbers after Maine? Right now projections of Iowa and Washington State are worth very little. But there is a lot of unbound delegates that are elected and strongly supports a candidate (like the 21 Paul supportes from Maine), they are not included in the infobox right now. So we need a softcount that dont project, just counts all the delegates, both the bound and unbound. That excluded the 117 unbound RNC delegates and unallocated delegates that havent been elected yet. The unbound RNC delegates are not a part of the election process and besides the few states where Paul supporters have taken over the state party they will all vote with the majority as the always does not to rock the boat at the convention. I havent been able to find a source for such a count, but we already have one - The count from the Primary Schedule. It is numbers from the GP, even though their softcount is projected they have all the info of other counts on each states subpage. It would take a lot of work to gather all this info, but it have already been done in the Primary Schedule table and it is controlled and updates by several diligent editors. Since all the numbers are from GP, checked with USA Today it can hardly be original research.

I suggest that we drop the projected counts, they are hardly true with the new development of the primaries and replace it with a unprojected softcount derived from GP and checked against USA Today as we find it in the Primary Schedule of the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012.
 * I feel strongly that we should stay away from any projected counts for states that haven't finished their delegate selection process yet (IA, MN, WA, MO, IL, PA, LA & IN). All of those kind of counts are based on pure speculation, at best.  All those kind of counts do is further confused an already Byzantine-like process. Guy1890 (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)

I also suggest that we chance the hardcount in the infobox template to this softcount, since it more clearly shows the real state of the primaries. I have put a link to this dicussion on the templates talkpage so all discussion about this subject can be done here. To generate interest for this discussion I am being bold and are chancing both template and article right away, we can always chance it back. I look forward to hear your comments. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:43, 9 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Regarding "delegates that can not change their vote", there has been some talk that the Paul people who are officially bound Romney delegates can abstain from voting in the first round, whereupon they will be freed to vote for Paul in the second round. Is there a way to include something like this? Esn (talk) 13:08, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion about abstaining just above: Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 . Personally I think it should be mentioned in the text in the Late State section. Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:13, 9 May 2012 (UTC)
 * As stated in the above-mentioned section of this talk page, this abstention issue is basically a baloney issue. Just mention some text about it on the the Wiki page associated with this talk page & be done with it. Guy1890 (talk) 21:36, 9 May 2012 (UTC)