Talk:2024 Nevada Republican presidential nominating contests/Archive 1

Orphaned references in 2024 Nevada Republican presidential caucuses
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2024 Nevada Republican presidential caucuses's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "key" in group "lower-alpha": From 2002 Nevada Question 2: Key: A – all adults RV – registered voters LV – likely voters V – unclear From 2024 United States presidential election in Nevada: Key: A – all adults RV – registered voters LV – likely voters V – unclear From 2020 United States presidential election in Nevada:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT ⚡ 21:27, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Orphaned references in 2024 Nevada Republican presidential caucuses
I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of 2024 Nevada Republican presidential caucuses's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "Kyle Morris": From 2024 Mississippi Republican presidential primary:  From 2024 New Mexico Republican presidential primary:  

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. Feel free to remove this comment after fixing the refs. AnomieBOT ⚡ 07:33, 3 July 2023 (UTC)

Unclear
So who gets the delegates? The winner of the primary (probably Haley since the other major ones dropped out) or the caucus (probably Trump)? 27.125.241.220 (talk) 06:54, 7 December 2023 (UTC)


 * I am confused about that too. Maybe it depends on who wins the lawsuit? Since the Republican Party sued the State of Nevada over this? Tea and crumpets (talk) 18:40, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * According to this article, the courts decided that only the caucus candidates will get delegates: https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/explaining-nevadas-dueling-2024-primary-system-matters/story?id=104127101 Tea and crumpets (talk) 18:46, 6 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The primary will get boycotted by the GOP. If Haley wins, she won't get any delegates. Only the caucus will award delegates.

Other Primary Candidates
Please do not add primary candidates that are irrelevant Re Di New Hampshire (talk) 16:16, 16 January 2024 (UTC) However I wouldm't object to adding "Other" agaisnt Haley in the primary — Preceding unsigned comment added by Re Di New Hampshire (talk • contribs) 16:18, 16 January 2024 (UTC)


 * Also, since "None of These Candidates" is an option on all Nevada elections, it (or something along the lines of "Other/None of These Candidates" should be added. Imnotbrandonpresley (talk) 12:05, 18 January 2024 (UTC)

Trump vote bit early
is it not a bit a early to write vote total for Trump though we even know how many that will vote, even though is only major candidate in this causes? Andreasfroby (talk) 08:03, 24 January 2024 (UTC)


 * What? Your English isn’t good. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 04:10, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

None of the above candidates
The NV primary has a "none of the above candidates" option on the ballot. The results table is not showing this. Please include. Haley could theoretically be beaten by "none of the above" in the primary. Glasperlenspieler (talk) 05:19, 25 January 2024 (UTC)


 * She could be “beaten” in terms of being out-voted by that option—and the Governor Joe Lombardo implored Republicans to vote for “none of these candidates” if they vote in the primary—but she would still be declared the winner. Regardless, it’s not very relevant as the primary awards no delegates. I assume “none of these candidates” will be listed as an option in the results tab when it’s created. Dingers5Days (talk) 05:52, 25 January 2024 (UTC)

Formatting on Wikipedia app is funky
Hi,

When viewing the article in the Android Wikipedia app, the table of contents only shows the Background section, the Controversy and the Procedure subsections.

The other sections do display in the app, but pressing the pencil icon does nothing for the rest of the sections.

Thanks, David O. Johnson (talk) 21:30, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Some context and explanation please
This is simply a plea for an editor who can do so to give some context and explanation. Friendly regards to all and thanks in advance. Springnuts (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2024 (UTC)
 * The Controversy section of the article covers it. David O. Johnson (talk) 21:31, 29 January 2024 (UTC)

Candidate colors
Considering that the Republican primary is a two-horse race now, the complicated situation in Nevada means that there is only one major candidate in each contest, meaning that there is some degree of possibility that a different option may get a substantial amount of votes, although they are unlikely to win. Here is a proposed shading key for NOTA and Binkley:

Primary

{{legend|#000000|Infobox color}}

Caucus

{{legend|#99c938|Infobox color}}

Write-ins are not allowed under Nevada law, so we don't have to worry about that. Longestview (talk) 23:48, 6 February 2024 (UTC)

Nevada caucuses unbound delegate
I found an interesting footnote on TGP (The Green Papers) on their page for the Nevada Republican caucuses. It says "In the event that a Presidential Candidate should win all the National Delegates, the NRP Chair shall be automatically unbound ... [Standing Rules 5.2]."

This means that theoretically, Trump would receive 25 delegates (assuming Binkley doesn't achieve the 3.85% threshold which is highly unlikely based on current polling) and one delegate would be uncommitted.

Now the chairman of the Nevada Republican Party (who would go unbound) is a Trump ally and has already pledged his support to him. So when it comes time to report on the results of the caucuses, is it easier to put all 26 of Nevada's delegates for Trump under the bound column or 25 delegates under the bound column and 1 delegate under the unbound column? Thelittlepoliticalboy (talk) 11:37, 7 February 2024 (UTC)

Results section
The results sections currently highlights and bolds Nikki Haley, implying that she was the winner. But "none of these candidates" (in effect a de-facto vote for Trump, who wasn't on the primary ballot, but just in the caucus) actually got more than twice as many votes as Haley did. So I would recommend reformatting to show "none of these candidates" as the winner. -2003:CA:8717:D21F:6EFB:E75C:B579:393F (talk) 23:09, 7 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Per this source in the article, though None of these Candidates obtained more votes, "the person who gets the most votes is declared the winner." David O. Johnson (talk) 00:38, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * That's interesting. In other jurisdictions, when "none of the above" (or equivalent) gets the most votes, there is no official winner, and the election often has to be redone.  Of course this contest didn't have any direct impact on the delegate selection process, it was more just a "beauty contest."
 * I would note that the same link you shared has the headline: "Nevada primary takeaways: 'None' beats Haley. Trump wasn't on GOP ballot. Biden wins Dems" (emphasis mine) and the first paragraph reads: "In an embarrassing setback, former South Carolina Gov. Nikki Haley lost the Nevada GOP presidential primary Tuesday to "none of these candidates.""(emphasis mine)
 * In any event, I think the intro section of the article strikes a reasonable balance, with the last paragraph reading: "Nikki Haley lost the popular vote in the non-binding Nevada primary to None of These Candidates. Although None of These Candidates received more votes, Haley was the official winner of the primary."  But I would still take issue with the "Results" section, in particular the table and map for the "Nevada Republican primary, February 6, 2024" subsection....It seems to me that it's Wikipedia's discretion which ballot choice to bold and highlight, and which to show the percentage of in the accompanying county results map.  So there's no reason that couldn't be the winner of the popular vote, rather than the meaningless title of "official winner" in a contest with no actual direct effect on the nomination.
 * In the USA Today article you linked, the fact that Haley was the "official winner" was buried deep down in the article, while her losing the vote was highlighted in the headline and early paragraphs. So it would be fully in line with your source for Wikipedia to deemphasize the "official winner" part (just noting it in the last paragraph of the intro), with all of the graphics/highlighting/bolding focused on the popular vote. -2003:CA:8717:D21F:6EFB:E75C:B579:393F (talk) 07:53, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * I did a bit of searching, to see how news sources are presenting it, and it's pretty clear that most (if not all) of the major ones are indeed highlighting/bolding "none" and showing none on their counties map. Here are some prominent examples:
 * Decision Desk HQ: "None of These Candidates" is bolded, highlighted, with check mark, and shown on the map.
 * CNN: "None of These Candidates" is bolded, highlighted, with check mark, and shown on the map.
 * NYT: Nothing bolded or highlighted, but "None of These Candidates" shown on the county map, shaded for the percentage this choice received.
 * So it's clear to me that Wikipedia highlighting, bolding, and mapping Haley's percentage is out of step with what most mainstream media sources are doing when they show the results of this contest. -2003:CA:8717:D21F:6EFB:E75C:B579:393F (talk) 08:20, 8 February 2024 (UTC)

Can we explain
why 70k people voted on the 6th if it was pointless? 82.36.70.45 (talk) 12:43, 8 February 2024 (UTC)


 * Please do not use this talk page for discussion about this Wiki page. It is only for improvements. Thelittlepoliticalboy (talk) 15:11, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * Please notice that I obviously believe that explaining that would be an improvement. 82.36.70.45 (talk) 18:28, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
 * they cant vote in caucuses ig, so they voted earlier Braganza (talk) 06:14, 9 February 2024 (UTC)