Talk:Results of the 2012 Republican Party presidential primaries/Archive 1

Iowa Pledged Delegates
No delegates have been pledged to any candidate in Iowa yet, the caucus was just to appoint delegates to the county conventions. Delegates will not be pledged until the state conventions later this year.XavierGreen (talk) 04:16, 5 January 2012 (UTC)

Maybe "unpledged" could be changed to "unprojected"?

--Lolthatswonderful (talk) 04:38, 6 January 2012 (UTC)
 * It would be nice if it was possible in an easy way to see how many delegates that already was Legally Pledged to an candidate (as New Hampshire, South Carolinas and Floridas) and how many that have "only" been projected (like Iowas). Maybe some sort of extra line in top of the table? Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:58, 3 February 2012 (UTC)

NPOV Primaries Section
There is no rational basis for choosing to use AP's delegate projections instead of CNN's or MSNBC's or any other reliable source. Perhaps the most neutral move is to remove the IA projections from this section entirely, as none have in fact been pledged yet, and just have the various projections in the state-by-state breakout in the section below. Then leave the summary box in this section for delegates that have *actually* been pledged. Either that, or have one line for AP's projections, one for CNN's, etc. Marktaff (talk) 03:16, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * We ought to do one line for AP's projections, one for CNN's, and one for NBC News/MSNBC. That's the only sensible way to do it. Neutralitytalk 07:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The best solution would be to list the lowest-highest projections, then have the rank calculated by the median of the low-high delegate count.


 * Including all sources in the overview would make it too cluttered.

--Lolthatswonderful (talk) 15:20, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

We once again are using a single source (unnamed even!) for delegate counts in the overview. @Katydidit, I've reverted this change you made. Before you change it again, please justify why we should use just your source rather than the consensus we have of accounting for various differing projections. Thanks. Marktaff (talk) 02:25, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Iowa has AP, CNN and MSNBC as sources, NH has FOX, CNN and MSNBC as sources. Any reason we don't have a consistent set of sources for delegate counts? Simon12 (talk) 04:02, 13 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The purpose the the various delegate counts is to show that there is no one "right" answer, but rather that there are differing good-faith estimates out there. We have no rational reason to use one source at the exclusion of all others.  As to the specific sources chosen,  I don't care, as long as we have at least three reliable sources, ideally chosen to reflect the actual variation in the projections out there.Marktaff (talk) 03:16, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Bachmann
What about Bachmann? She should be put in this table, cause of she's running in Iowa caucuses. Bielsko (talk) 11:32, 7 January 2012 (UTC)

She received 0 delegates and then dropped out. Theres no reason to include her in the overview. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 16:58, 7 January 2012 (UTC)


 * But she received 5% votes. For example Huntsman, Perry, Paul, Gingrich, all of them have 0 delegates. Bachmann was running in Iowa caucuses, so she should be in a table like Giuliani or Thompson here: Results of the 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries 78.88.58.233. What's more: she dropped out AFTER, not BEFORE Iowa caucuses. Bielsko (talk) 02:19, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * I have to concur: including Huntsman who received a mere 0.6% of the popular vote, and not including Bachmann who received more than 8-times that is inappropriate. Either Bachmann is to be added or Huntsman removed.  Rami  R  09:05, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Maybe there could be a second table with candidates who dropped out before receiving a delegate -and- minor candidates. But instead of including a row for each state in the second table, we could just include the overall vote and delegate totals. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 18:41, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Solution from this table is the best: Results of the 2008 Republican Party presidential primaries 78.88.58.233 (talk) 18:49, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Thats the ugliest table Ive ever seen. Keep in mind, it should be able to display normally on 1024x768 screen resolutions. A better solution would be something like this --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 18:52, 8 January 2012 (UTC)


 * So? As I understand it's fixed to change the table. Bielsko (talk) 21:09, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

America Symbol
Somebody put a special symbol next to all instances of Romney's name in the tables. I know he's the frontrunner, but he shouldn't deserve special treatment. I removed these. 173.61.102.126 (talk) 03:44, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * That symbol is not just for Mitt. It's represents the winner of each caucus/primary. It only appears next to Mitt currently because he has won both elections. Once Ron Paul wins, it will be next to his name. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 04:04, 11 January 2012 (UTC)


 * Oh, got it. Sorry. 173.61.102.126 (talk) 16:45, 11 January 2012 (UTC)

results from IOWA
in this source http://www.spiegel.de/politik/ausland/0,1518,810128,00.html the result is a bit differing from the 'at the moment' table:

Santorum 29.839; Romney 29.805 - from eight polling places are all ballots missing!

Please change if this result is definitive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.245.71.242 (talk) 14:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Seconded: Further Source — Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.14.35.105 (talk) 16:18, 19 January 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rico
Puerto Rico should be included in the "results by state" and "results by county" maps before their March 18 primary, since they'll be selecting 23 delegates, more than at least eight other jurisdictions, especially now that that the nomination may not be decided before them. Pr4ever (talk) 02:14, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

NH Green Paper Delegate Count
I do not like the GP delegate count in the NH table. It has two different delegate counts attributed to GP, with no explanation of what each count means. Please consider clarifying it, or removing it. Also, I think four delegate sources is overkill. I'd support removing GP from NH & IA, using them as one source for SC. I don't think we need to list every projection out there, but three sources is enough to demonstrate that there are varying projections. Marktaff (talk) 03:26, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Proposed Consensus Rules for Updating Election Results
We are having problems with editing conflicts and posting partial results on election days. I propose the following rules which should be enforced if they achieve consensus amongst the editors:


 * On election evenings, add the 'In Use' template to the article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Current_event_templates Remove the template when the night's major edits are finished.
 * Use the in use template when you make major changes to the summary table, to avoid wasted effort.
 * Do not update the summary table until after the state table is complete. A note can be placed above the summary table noting this.
 * Do not update the vote totals and percentages in the state table until the results are 100%, or until they have stabilized for the night (typically 97%-100%). If the results are not 100%, add the percentage in the table header.
 * As soon as overall finishing order is certain, reorder candidates from alpha order to finishing order, color winner, and add winner icon.
 * As soon as delegate projections are available, add three sources from amongst the reliable sources. Choose the three sources so they reflect the variation among the various reliable projections
 * Before you update a state's results, post a message on the talk page saying you are doing so. Remove the message when you are done.  If someone else has already claimed it, wait until they finish their changes, then see if additional changes are needed.  This should help avoid edit conflicts and wasted effort, especially on days with multiple primaries.
 * Changes violating these rules should be reverted.

I await your comments on this. Thanks. Marktaff (talk) 04:54, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I am opposed to all aspects of this proposal. None have been related to any requirement expressed in policy.TheEmbodimentOfResponsibility (talk) 06:45, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you please elaborate on exactly what you are opposed to, and why, and suggest a better proposal to limit editing conflicts and to keep the data consistent? Thanks. Marktaff (talk) 04:20, 23 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The precise objection is to proposals that don't cite policy justifications for their assertion. Inline link directly to the RNC tally, because they are a WP:RS about the status of their own processes underway for candidate selection.TheEmbodimentOfResponsibility (talk) 07:13, 24 January 2012 (UTC)

This page
is wicked and beautiful. Good work, everyone!--Metallurgist (talk) 18:35, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * I would like to say thank you for this good page too Jack Bornholm (talk) 07:49, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto that. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 09:01, 29 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Your welcome! And thanks to those who helped68.39.100.32 (talk) 23:05, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Delegate inconsistencies
All 3 sources in the SC table show 23 for Gingrich and 0 for Romney. (leaving 2 as yet allocated). Why does the SC table show the 2 allocated to Romney?

All 3 sources in the NH table show Huntsman keeping his 2 delegates. Why does the main table show those 2 delegates being transferred to Romney? (Which, by the way, they haven't been. Actual delegates haven't even been selected yet in NH, as the vote is not yet certified, so we don't even know the names of the 2 Huntsman delegates, much less who they will support). Simon12 (talk) 19:49, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
 * The delegate counts are projections, so there is likely some error (this is why we use 3 sources). They also change over time if candidates drop out.  I suggest you re-check the original sources--if their projections have changed, feel free to update the counts with the most current projections.  The best we can do is try to keep up with the projections that reliable sources are making, keeping in mind that they are projected counts and not final tallies. Marktaff (talk) 04:54, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

Cain, Johnson, Karger et al
Please remember that Cain and Johnson are on most of the pre-super tuesday ballots, and that they, Karger and Rohmer are going to get some more votes.Ericl (talk) 20:30, 22 January 2012 (UTC)

Florida Primaries
is there someone standing by and updating the results on the map and in the charts, or do we wait for the final results? Milesgilbert (talk) 00:47, 1 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is Florida no longer on the "results by counties" map? User:Anonymous 12:23, 5 February 2012 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.221.86 (talk)

Florida is missing from the Results by Counties map again. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.176.22 (talk) 04:07, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources for ballot exclusions
Can we get sources for the ballot exclusions? Im trying to find them myself, but cant. Altho I know about Virginia. EDIT Heres one --Metallurgist (talk) 05:45, 4 February 2012 (UTC)

Here is one: http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/12/24/gingrich-ballot-failure-highlights-challenge-to-campaign/

http://reddogreport.com/2012/02/santorum-fails-to-qualify-for-the-indiana-ballot/

http://www.joplinglobe.com/local/x2009901121/Missouri-primary-may-be-dim-indicator-at-best

Sir Kingman Chat 05:37, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

VA Four GOP candidates fail to make Virginia primary ballot, judge rules

IN Rick Santorum Doesn't Qualify for Indiana Ballot

DC No Santorum on D.C.’s Republican ballot

OH, TN and IL

OH Rick Santorum files incomplete delegate slate for Ohio ballot Santorum comes up short, won’t appear on ballot in three Ohio districts

IL Perry, Santorum could be knocked off Illinois ballot Most Santorum delegates in Illinois don’t have enough signatures Metallurgist (talk) 10:02, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Missouri links to Minnesota main page
Under the heading "Missouri caucus," I see the following link:

Missouri caucus Main article: Minnesota Republican caucuses, 2012

I'm pretty sure that's a mistake, linking Missouri to a completely different state's main page. FYI. Thanks!114.148.193.68 (talk) 03:45, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
 * ✅. Fat&#38;Happy (talk) 04:41, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

Worthy of individual article?
I am looking at the relationship with this page and the Republican Party primary article, and am wondering if it is worthy of being a separate article. It might make more sense to incorporate the table to the main article for ease of use, because most of this information is a duplicate of what is already there. It would also mean we would have to change fewer places to stay up to date which means less work for everyone. Note: I am an inclusionist. Stidmatt (talk) 00:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia is full of duplications and redundancy. This page contains a more detailed version of the main page.--Metallurgist (talk) 09:39, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

What is this?
Under The withdrawn canidates in the nevada section, all three show bgcolor="#75a6ab"|. What does this mean? Fix please?71.180.171.44 (talk) 14:45, 8 February 2012 (UTC) Done. Sorry about that....Ericl (talk) 15:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Overview Table
Why do you keep reverting the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.39.100.32 (talk) 07:49, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

User 68.39.100.32, please stop changing the table to the 2008 format. The 2008 table makes no sense for the average user who visits the page. If the colors green, red, and blue are going to be used, it would make sense to color the winner green and the withdrawn candidates red. Adding green for "unable to appear on ballot" and blue for the winner makes no sense at all. But since the color used for the winner on all other republican wiki's is red, it makes the *most* sense to color the winner red and the withdrawn candidates gray. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 07:53, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Okay, but can I please redo the revert? You can work on the color coding. I've worked hard on the table. Also you keep reverting the other info. You can redo the colors I have no problem with that. The other format eliminates the pictures and makes it more precise. I suggest you redo the color table at the end. Please leave the "unable to get on ballot", etc.

I can redo the colors in a few hours if you would like.

done68.39.100.32 (talk) 13:33, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Delegate source. -- Why use the green papers? You cant see how many delegates each candidate got as clearly as on cnn. for example, it doesn't specify how much people got from Iowa or NH.68.39.100.32 (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2012 (UTC)
 * Hi, I'm EricCantonaTheKing from wikipedia-italy. I had difficulties with computing the exact number of delegates for each candidate. I have seen that you and the spanish colleagues use the CNN datas, instead the french colleagues use the Green Papers' ones. For the moment we are using New York Times-Wall Street Journal-USAToday's ones(that should be the Associated Press' ones I suppose). CNN maybe is a better choice cause they also say about the superdelegates/unpledged RNC delegates number, but also for this motivation their datas seem to me more confused than Green Papers' or AP's ones... I try to explain my mind: For istance about Iowa, has Santorum 8 or 7 delegates? CNN says 7 in the page about Iowa Results and 8 in the page about all the results. In Minnesota has Gingrich 1 or 2 delegates? Here CNN says 1 and there says 2. In Maine has Romney 9 or 11 delegates? I'm sure that in all these cases the more ones delegates are unpledged RNC ones and so that CNN isn't in a contradiction situation, but this way to operate is according to me too unclear and confusing... For the unpledged RNC delegates we can use the Democratic Convention Watch datas(very accurate and complete) and integrate with eventually others unpledged delegates reported by CNN, AP or other networks... In conclusion, why do you use CNN datas as officially in the overview table? Do you can say that CNN is more trustable than other networks? What do you suggest me to do in the article of wikipedia-italy? I asked myself this question because it bothers me to see very different datas between the various wikipedias. Thanks for your attention, I'm waiting for your suggestions, byeee!--79.27.12.116 (talk) 08:44, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Isn't Missouri Premature?
Isn't it a little premature to put MO down on the map as a victory for Santorum? This primary was nonbinding and they don't have their caucus for another month. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.221.86 (talk) 03:00, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I was thinking exactly this. They do not caucus until March 17th, which would be the official vote. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.176.22 (talk) 04:04, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Florida is missing from the new map too. --04:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)71.210.0.201 (talk) 04:10, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

Maybe Missouri could be in a faded hue to indicate the results are not binding? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.221.86 (talk) 04:49, 8 February 2012 (UTC)

I think someone should revert the map to the latest one with Florida. Missouri shouldn't be included until the Caucas. I'd do it, but I can't edit images on this account. ElectrifiedSpork (talk) 04:56, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The results do have SOME significance in messaging, but arent binding to anything. It shouldnt be how it is now, but I dont know what the solution is.--Metallurgist (talk) 09:41, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Fade it out or do some crosshatching or diagonal slash lines or something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.221.86 (talk) 15:52, 8 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Minnesota and Colorado were also NON-binding (caucuses). No difference between a non-binding caucus and a non-binding primary, as Missouri was. So, why are there delegates assigned to MN and CO, and counted in the Projected pledged and Projected total delegates? MN and CO should be treated exactly as MO: no delegates on their respective lines, and subtracted from the Projected and the totals. Katydidit (talk) 23:59, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually there is. The weird invention of this election cycle, the nonbinding primary is nothing but a strawpoll. True at the nonbinding caucuses there is also taken a strawpoll, but more importantly delegates for next political level is elected. Starting the process that in the end will elect delegates at the CD and state conventions. Most of such contests elect nonbinding delegates, not legally pledged to a candidate. But not all. Washington state binds each delegates. And other states can vote to do so at the state convention. So there is a difference. Jack Bornholm (talk) 01:10, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Why was the graphic changed so that MO's crosshatching was removed? We may have held a primary here, but we don't actually vote for our candidate until the caucuses in March. Our primary here in MO was more than just nonbinding like MN and CO; it was rendered completely impotent by the decision to also hold caucuses. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.221.86 (talk) 13:54, 13 February 2012 (UTC)

Page needs to be SEMI-protected
I'd like to propose this page be SEMI-protected, indefinitely. There is at least one abuser (who is unregistered: IP 68.39.100.32) who keeps changing the superdelegate numbers without going by the source specifically named, and changing other delegate numbers arbitrarily. Thank you! Katydidit (talk) 11:50, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't mind semi-protecting the page. However, the IP 'is' using a source specifically named: CNN. Looking back at your edits you seem to be using a different source. Which source are you using? Sir Kingman Chat  15:02, 9 February 2012 (UTC)


 * DemocraticConventionWatch.com is the most accurate source that is the only one listed for Superdelegate tracking. Katydidit (talk) 23:55, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

I requested page protection for the main page. Ill add one for this too. EDIT: Apparently it was declined tho. The best we could do is report 68 again.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:24, 10 February 2012 (UTC)


 * Since this behavior from 68 is from his first day coming out of the last block it would properly be a good idea Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:36, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * 68 have been blocked for 24 hours for edit warring. See Administrators' noticeboard/Edit warring Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:45, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Sources for delegate projections
Should we continue to use Fox as a source for projections? If you look at the note on their election pages they use the Associated Press projections rather than their own, so wouldn't it be better to cite AP rather than Fox? Rxguy (talk) 16:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that we should continue to cite CNN as the source. They have it listed as PROJECTED delegates; and no matter where you get the info from, it will always be projections. CNN has been generally fair and doesn't over-exagerate or under-exagerate the numbers; a medium, if you will. AP should not be used and Fox should not be used.68.39.100.32 (talk) 19:49, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Why is CNN used in the total delegate count in the main table?. This is the the projected count retrived right now. All is without Superdelegates.
 * CNN: Romney 95; Gringrich 34; Santorum 33; Paul 20
 * MSNBC: Romney 84; Gingrich 29; Santorum 14; Paul 11
 * AP: Romney 94; Santorum 71; Gingrich 29; Paul 8; Huntsman 2
 * Should the different projections not be considered in some way in this article. I might have been looking up the wrong numbers, but they look quit different to me Jack Bornholm (talk) 22:10, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * To me, we should stick with one source. If we incorporate CNN and MSNBC and AP into the main table, we have a mess. CNN's projection totals seem the most logical - MSNBC doesn't even acknowledge the specific state delegate count. I can't find a link to AP's individual states let alone the delegate allocation. Fox is pretty hard to find the individual states, but when you do, it allocated the delegates incorrectly. At least we can go here and find everything we need to know in one shot and it looks pretty logical. http://www.democraticconventionwatch.com/ seems pretty good. But they don't always update their delegates and use the same sources we do PLUS outside sources. Why do that when we can do that? Better yet, why use that source in addition to another, when the same result will be a total mess?68.39.100.32 (talk) 00:43, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I am NOT suggesting we do not put the different sources into the individual state results. I do like that - that way we aren't biased toward one or another. When it comes to the table, and the totals etc. I think we should use CNN. In the future, if a source comes foward with the FINAL and ACTUAL delegate results that had happened at the convention, we can use that.68.39.100.32 (talk) 01:18, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * CNN do seem to be the only sensible tallies.--Metallurgist (talk) 07:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Most of the caucus states do not have pledged delegates. The table is therefore misleading.  I suggest that row be deleted from the chart.

Move the 3 dropped out candidate to the Minor candidates / withdrawn candidates section
Since 3 candidate was out early in the race, would it not make the table easyer if they where moved to the Minor candidates / withdrawn candidates section. I know that they was/are on the ballot in some state contest after they dropped out, but so is Cain. He actually have about the same votes as Bachmann. But she is on the main table and Cain is down in the withdrawn table. Jack Bornholm (talk) 21:43, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The 3 candidates are considered the 'major' contenders. They were In the race at the start of the primary season and so they were in the table. The other candidates were not in the race once the primaries began. The minor candidates / withdrawn candidates were not major contenders for that reason. However, I guess we could distinguish with a note at the bottom that this section is for the candidates that have dropped out prior to the primaries - which isn't true for the people that haven't even ran. The table should be reserved to the seven candidates as has been done with prior election articles.68.39.100.32 (talk) 00:30, 10 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I guess I can also argue that it is nice to scroll down and see when these candidates have dropped out in relation to the state's primaries and see if the other candidates' total was "affected" by the other dropping out. And the table isn't going to be used just for the people in the race. If Romney is the winner and everyone else drops out tomorrow, I would still like to see how Hunstman did in New Hampshire.68.39.100.32 (talk) 00:32, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Bachmann but not Cain?
Why is Michelle Bachmann (12,572 votes) on the table, but not Herman Cain (12,530)? The next closest are Huntsman (+40,000) and Johnson (-10,000), so that 42 vote difference is pretty arbitrary. They've also both had significantly more media coverage (good and bad) then the other also-rans. It makes sense to have Cain on the table, especially with Bachmann up there. ▫  Johnny Mr Nin ja  09:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Cain is not included because he dropped out of the race before the Iowa Caucus. --Gibsonan (talk) 12:47, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
 * With the satirical bid on the south carolina primary and the fact that Cain is still non-campaigning on his issues while Bachmann concentrate on her own congressional campaing. It would say that the fact that cain dropped out before Bachmann is not good enough. Either Bachmann goes down to minor candidates or Cain goes up. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:14, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * There's the problem of Rohmer and Karger, too. While a few minor minor candidates were just put on the list by me, Rohmer and Karger are still campaigning and are on the ballot in quite a few states and may very well wind up with more votes than any of the candidates that have withdrawn so far. So where do we put them? As of now, we'll have to leave them where they are, but think about it.Ericl (talk) 16:02, 13 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The current setup makes sense. People who dropped out before the primaries are essentially irrelevant. The existence of a few minor candidates (which is unfortunate that they get no attention) is meaningless really. We cant overemphasize something.--Metallurgist (talk) 03:26, 14 February 2012 (UTC)

Why is the total number of delegates sometimes zero?
e.g. in Iowa the sum is 7+7+7+1=22 but the total is 0. --Bgm2011 (talk) 09:34, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Cf: Iowa_Republican_caucuses,_2012 —— Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:27, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

FYI, an instructive paragraph on ‘Methodology’ .!.
Methodology: Delegate numbers for each state are after the application of penalties and include unpledged delegates. In some states where actual delegates are assigned and bound to support candidates by multi-step procedures, the AP uses results from local caucuses to calculate the number of national delegates each candidate eventually will win and assigns those delegates at the end of the caucus. Additionally, the AP interviews unpledged delegates to determine their preferences and includes them in the total; these national party leaders have the freedom to back any candidate of their choosing and may make the decision about which candidate to support at any time during the primary process, and they may or may not tell reporters of their decisions.

[This article contains a link for ‘correction/modifications’.] Note: This tally excludes nine delegates each for American Samoa, Guam, Northern Marianas and the Virgin Islands, and Puerto Rico, with 23. http://projects.wsj.com/campaign2012/delegates/ Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:19, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we TALK before major structural changes are made to this excellent Article ?
Who 'improved' the Article by condensing everything that was at the end of the Article (Super Tuesday, and what follows) ? On the one hand, it makes the Article look better, but loses content. There are 160 editors watching this page, plus WP readers who come in and anonymously change structure, not just correcting tense, improving accuracy, and adding a note here or there. To make structural changes should first have more discussion in TALK. Thanks, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:17, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The new 'improvement' will make the Article easier to maintain. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:18, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Ill throw up a note at the top, and maybe an editors note. And you can check the history to see who did it.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:03, 15 February 2012 (UTC)

Authoritative Sources for Popular Vote Results
Unless there is objection, I propose updating the existing vote counts to those shown in the table below. All of the cited sources are links to the Secretary of State's website or the state's GOP website for each election; I believe these are the most authoritative sources available to date. --Gibsonan (talk) 12:25, 11 February 2012 (UTC)




 * Sounds good --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 05:58, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Absolutely. Theres no reason not to.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:49, 12 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Does MO get double votes then? IMHO its upcoming caucus votes should be the ones added to the total, not the primary vote.

Keep up the good work. Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:21, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Could you update the table to include the Maine results? Thanks. EEL123 (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Can we get the Missouri Cross-Hatching Back?
Every time I come to this page that map graphic flip-flops back and forth. I thought the idea of having the cross-hatching indicated that MO's real results and predicated on the caucus coming up in March. But all references to that keep being removed. Why? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.221.86 (talk) 02:16, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * It's because one particular user is revert warring to put it back in. By all means restore the correct one; if he does it again I'm going to report him to the edit warring noticeboard. Magog the Ogre (talk) 04:34, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Youve my support on this.--Metallurgist (talk) 05:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

The minor minor candidates
With Arizona coming up in only two weeks, we have to discuss the chart I made for the minor/withdrawn candidates. I've gotten into arguments and edit wars over this, and I want to make it clear how I think it should be.

First there are the major candidates who withdrew before the voting started and after they got on the ballot in almost every primary up to and including Super Tuesday: Cain and Johnson. They have and will receive thousands of votes and Cain may get more than Bachmann. The date they withdrew is listed because they withdrew.

Then there are Fred Karger and Buddy Roemer. They are actually serious candidates who were refused access on many ballots and were not permitted to take part in debates. Karger is on the ballot in around six states and Roemer around twelve, and are going to have more votes than several of the withdrawn "major" candidates. If they withdraw, then we'll put up a date.

Finally, there are the "one-state wonders." Arizona and New Hampshire made it very, very easy to get on the presidential primary ballot. While lots of people knew this about New Hampshire, it wasn't that well known about Arizona except for the people who lived there. Fifteen people whom nobody outside of the state have ever heard of are on the ballot in Arizona, and as you may notice from the chart (which doesn't have any of Arizona candidates up there yet), there are a bunch of non-notable people who got on the ballot in New Hampshire and got less than a hundred votes. Two of these got on the ballot in Missouri and didn't get more than a thousand votes there either. We should assume that they will, or in the case of New Hampshire, have suspended their campaigns the day the primary ended. Why? They didn't try to get on the ballot in Arizona. The people on the ballot in Arizona only are ALL Arizonans. Also, there are a couple of people who got on the presidential ballot in their home state.

While it's important to record their vote totals for posterity, it's not important to do much elseEricl (talk) 15:16, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

Maine Results
Maine results were updated by the Maine GOP, which was successfully updated on the Maine Results page but not yet on this page. Not sure if someone was waiting for the final results after Washington County Caucuses Saturday, though. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.176.22 (talk) 03:57, 18 February 2012 (UTC)

Removal of Zeros
Hey guys, new(er) editor here. I was wondering what we thought of the removal of zeroes from the table. I don't see any reason whatsoever to keep it. Why say that a candidate that has dropped out has recieved 0% and 0 delegates? The table will become one huge table of zeroes once there is a winner. EditRoll (talk) 15:07, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Good idea! Candidates that drop out are noted elsewhere. And, Welcome. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:11, 15 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Hes not new. It's just User:68.39.100.32 with a new account. But I do agree, removing the 0's looks good now since the table has been cleaned up. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 07:40, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
 * How do you know this?--Metallurgist (talk) 05:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Its unlikely that a new user would make two of the exact same edits as 68.39.100.32 (removing zeros and collapsing the minor candidates table) right after 68.39.100.32's account was banned. He probably also has other accounts that I havent noticed. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 01:31, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Lulz. He was blocked for 9 weeks.--Metallurgist (talk) 01:15, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Minnesota county map mistake
I can't change that map myself, but I've noticed that Lincoln County is colored green for Santorum even though it was a tie between Santorum and Paul.
 * Source?--Metallurgist (talk) 05:48, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/02/07/map-minnesota-caucus-2012-results_n_1261272.html

http://elections.nytimes.com/2012/primaries/states/minnesota

http://www.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/mn EEL123 (talk) 07:43, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
 * I changed it a while back but I screwed up the wikicode and I don't have th patience to fix it quite yet. I'll get it eventually if no one else does. Magog the Ogre (talk) 08:23, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Finishing up the "withdrawn/others" table =
AS you know, the Arizona primary is now less than a week away. There are 17 or so minor candidates on the ballot there, and after checking and rechecking, I've discovered that there's only one "one state wonder" on the ballot in the remaining primaries. So, in order to save up space I need some help. In a number of "list articles" one list is to the right of another even though it's on a different (how do you call it?-- it divides this thing from the one above and has two equal signs in the code) module(?). If you look at List of German presidents, you'll see what I mean. anyway...

I don't know how to do that, so I need your help. I want to cut the "Other candidates on the ballot in two states or less" table in two, and do what I mentioned is in the German presidents list article so there's more space and it looks better. Remember, ALL of these candidates' totals will be final for the season with one or two exceptions (plus Karger and Roemer, who are on the ballot in 5 and 7 more primaries at least). Again, thanks in advance. Ericl (talk) 21:26, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Candidates with less than 100 votes can be split into a 2nd table and collapsed. Or candidates on less than 3 states can be collapsed. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 17:38, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
 * The table here only shows major candidates. Minor candidates can be shown on the actual primary page. Theres no reason to clutter up this page with someone who is only on one or two ballots with easy access laws.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:08, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Texas
The Texas primary is listed as being held April 3, but that was never official and just a hope, which is now all but quashed. Best guesses now are for May 22 or 29; with a possibility of June 26; see Texas Republican primary, 2012. I'd suggest putting it at May 22, with a note explaining the uncertainty. Anyone who's good with Wikipedia tables want to take a stab at this? TJRC (talk) 00:22, 23 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I've addressed this (for now) with this edit. In reflection, it didn't make sense to move it to a new date when those dates are all "best guesses"; better to leave it at the official date (however unlikely), with a note explaining it will probably be rescheduled.  When it is actually officially rescheduled, the table can be edited to reflect the new official date. TJRC (talk) 17:44, 24 February 2012 (UTC)

Inclusion of Google Earth (KML) Chart(s)
I have included a link to a Google Earth (KML) format map in the section for Florida above the table showing results by candidate. This map shows who won each county. When the user clicks on the county, it also shows background data and a bar chart with vote counts by candidate. (even for ones that have withdrawn) I am contemplating creating more for each state. One user has already signaled that they do not like the location of the link, so before I do so, I would like to solicit ideas for a better location. Any ideas would be appreciated. Until we find a better location, please leave the link in so people can see what the discussion is about.--Coryellc (talk) 01:34, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

These delegate counts are ludicrous
All these delegate counts are wrong. Rick Santorum only has 4 delegates at the moment. Most of the "delegate count" for each candidate is conjecture. Yes, it is says "projected" but it is very misleading. Every source gives a different delegate projection for each caucus and none of them should be taken as any sort of authority on the matter. For the record, I am talking about the overview of results section — Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.192.237.98 (talk) 20:58, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

I wouldn't call them "ludicrous," but I think there should be guidelines for delegate counts. These have been changing repeatedly and seemingly randomly (different sources for different state estimates.)

There should be a row listing only officially-bound delegates, those from primary states and Nevada, the states where the delegates are factually-correct. Non-binding caucus projections should be a separate row as well; since those will undoubtedly change by May and June when most of the state conventions take place. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.145.112 (talk) 21:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

This is a very great WP page; keep up the good work. Sincerely and Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:10, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I second that, great article. You might find what you are looking for in the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:28, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Wyoming caucuses/straw poll
What do you think about putting result from Wyoming precint caucuses/straw polls on our table? This straw poll is an unofficial part of primaries (sth like Missouri). http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P12/WY-R   http://edition.cnn.com/election/2012/primaries/state/wy

Bielsko (talk) 00:18, 29 February 2012 (UTC)


 * I agree with the fact that Wyoming should be placed on the table as a non-binding primary (like Missouri) as well as be placed in the state winner map. Thearchitect117 (talk) 02:47, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, can we get some cross-hatching for Wyoming on that map? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.76.221.86 (talk) 21:15, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Actually, the Wyoming caucus is just as official as all the other nonbinding caucuses. (such as Iowa or Maine) It is the first step to elect National Delegates. The next step is the county convention, that in Wyoming have Congressional District status. They elect some National Delegate and the state convention later elects some National Delegate. Just as Iowa. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:20, 1 March 2012 (UTC) This link explains it: http://www.npr.org/2012/02/29/147692143/romney-wins-nonbinding-vote-at-wyoming-precincts Notice that the caucus elects delegates to the county convention. You cant just turn up at the county convention and vote. This make the Wyoming Caucuses the entry level to the caucus process in Wyoiming. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:30, 1 March 2012 (UTC)

Wyoming Results available on WY GOP facebook page
As each strawpoll takes place, the strawpoll results for each county is being posted on the wall. If someone is updating the "by county" map of all 50 states, this would be a very helpful resource. http://www.facebook.com/WYGOP?sk=wall&filter=2 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.51.145.112 (talk) 01:59, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

The Sublette County results are available here 50.51.145.112 (talk) 02:08, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Merge within text of another article?
While reading this page, as somebody who has helped insert data from elections, I think this page should be merged onto the data table of Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 which will make keeping the numbers right easier and save time. It will also ensure that all the superdelegate counts are the same. It also will make it easier to find all the information by having it all at one place. Does this sound reasonable? Stidmatt (talk) 04:03, 29 February 2012 (UTC)
 * Do you mean ensure the data are the same or literally merge the articles? Merging the two would be insane. This is a huge article that needs to be separate. The other article is big and cant really get any bigger.--Metallurgist (talk) 10:35, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

They are both important articles, and many other articles reference both the main article and the results article. Yes, they are both huge. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:22, 1 March 2012 (UTC) PS: Thanks for your interest; keep up the good work.

Consistency with main article
I've noticed that the delegate totals and popular vote in this article and the main article are always different. Would it be possible for the same source to be used for both articles for the sake of consistency? Otherwise it gets very confusing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by EEL123 (talk • contribs) 10:23, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * In the popular vote it is Missouri that makes trouble. The main article doesnt count the nonbinding primary but the future caucuses. I looks like the result page counts the Missouri primary. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:41, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * That should be rectified then.--Metallurgist (talk) 19:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

"Unpledged delegates" rather than "Superdelegates"
I think that we should use term "unpledged delegates" instead of "superdelegates". This second name is used for unpledged only in Democratic primaries. Article: Superdelegates: "Despite this similarity in procedure, the term "superdelegate" is generally used only about Democratic delegates, although there are exceptions." What is more, the Republican National Committee rules do not use the term superdelegate - look: www.gop.com/images/legal/2008_RULES_Adopted.pdf

Bielsko (talk) 10:38, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There are many unpledged delegates (from states which do not bind their delegates), other than the superdelegates. Calling them unpledged delegates would be confusing. Also, the Democratic rules don't use the term superdelegates either. (They called them "Party Leaders and Elected Officials (PLEOs)). Finally, the superdelegate article was written mostly in 2008, when the Democratic superdelegates were all the rage. This year, it's the GOP's turn. I think superdelegates is the term most of our readers would expect, so I think it should stay as is. Simon12 (talk) 12:51, 2 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It's also the term the AP is using. From an AP article today:
 * The Associated Press has polled 106 of the 117 superdelegates, members of the Republican National Committee who will automatically attend the party's national convention this summer and can support any candidate for president they choose, regardless of what happens in the nominating contests.Simon12 (talk) 16:17, 3 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Also, the Democratic rules don't use the term superdelegates either." <-- This.--Metallurgist (talk) 12:42, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe there can be some way of seeing the difference betwin the unbound RNC delegates and the unbound delegates that soon will be eleted at the conventions of the caucus states. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:49, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Santorum Tennessee Ballot Problems
I have read two articles saying that Santorum has failed to file for the total number of delegates in Tennessee, however this is not shown on the table. What do you guys think?

Articles:

http://www.cleveland.com/open/index.ssf/2012/03/rick_santorum_faces_bigger_ohi.html http://bostonglobe.com/news/nation/2012/03/04/romney-campaign-hammers-santorum-for-not-meeting-ballot-requirements/pYrcHsBF6TwOwvrjJx87DJ/story.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Thearchitect117 (talk • contribs) 17:57, 4 March 2012 (UTC)
 * He is eligible for at least one delegate, so theres nothing to put on the table as of now. Itll be interesting (and awful for him) if he wins a district he didnt file in.--Metallurgist (talk) 12:57, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Alaska is Missing from the Main Grid
The State of Alaska is holding its Republican primary/caucus on Super-Tuesday, March 6, 2012. Alaska appears to have been omitted from the main, summary table. Can the Editor of that table add Alaska in? However, Alaska is listed below the main table in the individual States' summaries. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kenjach (talk • contribs) 19:37, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Done. (I am not specially the editor of this table, but anyone can edit in a usefull way on wikipedia. Feel free to edit the next mistake you encounter yourself. But remember to doublecheck that your facts are right :)) Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:07, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There has been some confusion about the dates of the Alaska caucus. As far as I can find the caucus is on march 6 and only on march 6. Dont be confused by other dates for democratic caucuses or the date for the different conventions in Alaska. Only the entry level caucus where all republican voters can vote. And this is the event that binds the delegates from alaska to the national convention! Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:29, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Maps and their colors
Since it is supertuesday and the maps will change a lot this will be a good time to make some good changes to the county map. So to all the mapguys out there: Here is some tips from a colorblind person, posted earlier about the schedule map: "Here is my problem with the primary schedule map: February is the same color as May. April is the same color as march. I recommend using the following colors: Red, blue, gray, orange, yellow, black. The colors need to be at maximal saturation. Red and black need to be different in brightess. The gray needs to be not at all blue. The orange needs to be different from the yellow in brightness. NO GREEN. NO BROWN. NO PURPLE. NO PINK. I can't see any difference at all between blue and purple. And using pastel colors is just cruel because the colorblind have lower detection thresholds for saturation. Also, another way to code maps is with patterns. I'd love to see more pattern-coded maps. The colorblind actually have superior pattern-detection systems as a direct result of being colorblind." Jack Bornholm (talk) 20:01, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Could we make the county map colorblind friendly? (it would be good to use the same colors already used in the state map)
 * Could we included the Northern Marianna Islands in the territories?
 * Wouldnt it be a good time to loose the Missouri nonbinding primary? No one is really going to care about it after the Missouri cacuses anyway.
 * And if anyone has time: Could we update and make the schedule map in Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 colorblind friendly?

To avoid having the same words said twice the chat can be found here: File talk:Republican Party presidential primaries results by county, 2012 (corrected).png - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 04:38, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Where are the best places to find up-to-date results ?
I like our links to WSJ and CNN (in "external links") but the 'RNC Official Delate Count: That's Saul, Folks' has not been updated since February 9th. Is this the best 'official count'? Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:36, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I suggest the Green Papers seem very current and authoritative in results. (Good for WP editors, are they.) Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 18:23, 10 March 2012 (UTC)

Fox News uses AP as a source
Since Fox uses AP, the same source is actually being listed twice right now. A lot of medias uses AP Jack Bornholm (talk) 13:00, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Since many of us (editors and WP readers) think that AP has a liberal bias and FoxNews is "fair and balanced", I would vote for removing AP rather than FoxNews if one of them is removed. On the other hand, three columns looks good and what would replace AP ? Just asking, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 16:14, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If Fox is using AP's numbers, they are the same, and redundant to include both. I would favor using the AP, since it is the original source.  I don't see how bias comes into the estimates when all the candidates are Republicans. —Torchiest talkedits 17:35, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I find that Green Papers simple "matematical" projection is a good 3rd source to balance all the "guessing". NBC have also their own projection as far as I know. I am not conservative or liberal myself, but watching Fox on their website it strikes me that Fox have a clear bias - towards Romney. Maybe just because I havent watch enough Jack Bornholm (talk) 19:34, 7 March 2012 (UTC)
 * I think FoxNews Channel is being realistic about the best Republican changes; Democrats have Obama, of course. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 07:02, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Green Papers has one of the best delegate counts available, as they take into account pledged (hard) delegates, and have a separate listing for their mathematical estimate (soft) count. Perhaps CNN (they estimate their own) AP, and Green Papers should be the three sources? Most other org. use the AP count. 50.51.175.234 (talk) 02:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a good set of sources. I support this proposal. Simon12 (talk) 03:48, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ditto. I've added Green Papers (chronological) to External Ref. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

State/county conventions
I split the table into two, but in the future (possibly after the rep. nominee is chosen) both tables should be merged into one table with 1 row per state. --Lolthatswonderful (talk) 09:06, 8 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This table is a really good idea. I have taken out those convention where no delegates are allocated. All states have entry level caucuses where delegates to different levels of conventions are elected. Also the states having primaries. Just follow Texas problems with their precint caucuses (their entry level) to learn that. But the conventions and caucuses are about more than just the presidentiel nomination, and so are the National Convention for that matter. But this article is about the Republican Presidentiel Nomination, so I think only the conventions that have an effect on it should be listed. Also the midlevel conventions as the BPOU conventions of Minnesota (well done). I havent listed all the conventions from the nonbinding states, so the list is right now incomplete. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:41, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

Wyoming counted twice - A policy change and if so lets make it consistent.
Right now Wyoming is twice in the result table. Remembering that the Wyoming Caucuses (feb 11-29) is not unrelated to the selection of delegates as the Missouri nonbinding primary is. The Wyoming precint caucuses elect delegates to the county conventions. Why are the county conventions (march 6-10) also listed. At the county conventions in Wyoming the congressional districts delegates to the national convention is elected. Wyomings state convention where the Al-large delegates to the national convention is April 12-14. Shouldnt that also be listed? Right now only the entry caucuses are listed for each state. The entry causes are those where all republicans (and sometimes independents) can vote. They then elect delegates to the next political level in the state and so on depending on how many levels each republican state party haves. If other than the entry level caucus should be listed it should be done consistent with all the "caucus states", from Iowa to Nebraska. Until that is decided and done I dont think we should list Wyoming twice, it indicated that the feb 11-29 caucuses is worth less than the Iowa cacuses or the other contests that have already started. See the last table in Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012 for dates and information on the caucus states conventions. Jack Bornholm (talk) 11:45, 6 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Ok, I'm officially confused. If the Feb and Mar caucuses do not select delegates then why have them listed?  Also, what are reporters referring to when they state that yesterday (March 10, 2012) Romney won 7, Santorum won 5, and Paul won 1?--Edmonton7838 (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * March 10 was the end of the Wyoming county conventions where 12 bound delegates was elected (one of them was actually elected as uncommitted). The Wyoming caucuses was in February. You can see the conventions in march and april here: Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. Some caucuses allocated delegates, they are called binding caucuses, some dont allocated delegates, they are called nonbind caucuses. Jack Bornholm (talk) 18:46, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Someone put it there by accident. Good on you, being bold.--Metallurgist (talk) 14:15, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Found the Virgin Islands results.
http://vigop.com/

According to the Virgin Islands GOP, Ron Paul won with 112 (29%), Mitt Romney placed second with 101 (26%), Santorum 23 (6%) and Gingrich 18 (5%). 50.51.175.234 (talk) 04:34, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Actually, Uncommitted won with 130 votes. Simon12 (talk) 05:50, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * "Uncommitted" for President. Nonsense, no such person. Only real persons can win a contest.--90.186.120.242 (talk) 07:09, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Also nonsense is talking about "contests" that never took place...such as the popular vote in the Virgin Islands. Ron Paul didn't win anything. He received ZERO votes. Yet you are tryin gto claim that he received more votes than there were people voting.74.67.106.207 (talk) 03:48, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Historical Nobody has been a official candidate in many races, both in US and abroad. So yes, an imaginary person could (highly unlikely) win a election. Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:57, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This isn't about 'nobody' or 'none of the above'. Uncommitted is an absolutely valid designation for delegates in a primary. An Uncommitted delegate is a delegate who is not pledged or has endorsed a candidate. Uncommitted delegates were elected in Wyoming and Virgin Islands this week.Simon12 (talk) 23:28, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

The use of "New York Times" for delegate projection is out of line with the other states. NYT uses the AP projection, so it should be listed as AP in the future when used. 50.51.175.234 (talk) 20:11, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Several Wikipedia editors note that AP/NYT is reliably unreliable in delegate counting. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:59, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

North Dakota County Results
Google Politics and Elections page has county results for North Dakota (click on the state to view). The county map should reflect those results instead of being state-wide.--70.58.54.59 (talk) 11:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed Jack Bornholm (talk) 15:58, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Those aren't counties, they are districts. Unless someone can superimpose a district map on top of this map, it would not be consistent with the rest of the map. I really wish there were county results, but unfortunately there aren't. 50.51.177.33 (talk) 23:52, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

Districts are still more accurate than just blank-slating the entire state. If it helps any, the 2008 results had the exact same outlines. I don't see why there should be any changes from then and now. --71.32.123.239 (talk) 06:01, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This year's caucus used post-2011 redistricting borders. The 2008 contest obviously did not. Rarohla  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 146.187.88.87 (talk) 23:24, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Wyoming
The Wyoming system is quite complex, but apparently they vote in February and also in March. In our article we do not show the final result in Wyoming and we have Wyoming listed very early in February. The Wyoming results were final yesterday and we need to update the chart to reflect that finalization. Romney won 7, Santorum won 5, and Paul won 1. See |Wyoming caucus results 2012: Mitt Romney picks up delegates in Wyoming caucuses. I would do the update but I wanted to get a consensus on how to do it first. Should we move the Wyoming caucus listing down to March 10 or just leave it where it is and update it there? I vote to leave it where it is and update it there.--Edmonton7838 (talk) 17:20, 11 March 2012 (UTC)
 * All of the caucus states hold county/district and state conventions where delegates are chosen. Wyoming isn't unique in this case. A separate map will need to be created similar to the one in the 2008 page to track delegates. The current maps and information shown are only for the straw poll results and should remain that way. That means don't change Wyoming's information.--70.58.54.59 (talk) 02:37, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * The Wyoming system is not more complex than the rest of the nonbinding caucus states. They simply have their congressionel district convention very close to their entry level caucuses (the caucuses where all republican voters can vote) so the media have given it more attention. Wyoming will have its State Convention when it is scheduled allocating the AL delegates then. Same procedure as the other nonbinding caucus states. The final result from Wyoming is already in the second table, with all the conventions that allocated delegates. Jack Bornholm (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

numbers don't look right
A while back according to this page Ron Paul had over 50 delegates, but now he only has 35 after gaining more delegates from super tuesday and from March 10th? That seems a little odd to me. Every major news site I look at has him at close to 80 or so. Also, I counted up the total in all the states for romney for the pledged delegates and ended up with 364 instead of the 379 it says at the top. I think someone should go through and make sure all of the numbers are correct.

It looks like some of the states were exluded from the count of delegates. Is this how it is meant to be? Aidan0816 (talk) 03:55, 12 March 2012 (UTC)


 * The footnote in the info-box reads: "Convention delegate projections vary among sources. The counts here include only bound delegates and superdelegates who have committed to a candidate." --62.78.234.31 (talk) 12:01, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Virgin Islands
Ron Paul won the most votes in the Virgin Islands, so he should be listed as the winner even if he got fewer delegates. See Nevada in the 2008 Democratic Primary - Obama got 13 delegates to Clinton's 12 even though Hillary won 51% of the vote. The map shows Nevada as a gold (Clinton) state. Smartyllama (talk) 16:59, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting precedence. There is a similar discussion on Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. I have been so bold to qoute you in it. Take a look. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:28, 12 March 2012 (UTC)
 * There WAS NO VOTE in the Virgin Islands. Both Ron Paul and Mitt Romney received the same number of votes. ZERO. No one (Not even the Paul campaign) is disputing that there were more Romney supporters that night, but they could only vote 3 times for their favorite while Paul supporters could voe 6 times for Paul delegates. You simply can't claim someone won a vote that never took place.74.67.106.207 (talk) 03:44, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

Alaska counties
I have noticed that the Alaska results have the same problem as North Dakota's results. I don't know if we ever got county results from there. Jay72091 (talk) 12:43, 27 March 2012 CST
 * Counties results won't be available, because Alaska March caucus was a district conventions. Bielsko (talk) 09:48, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Missouri Caucuses
It has been announced that there will not be a presidential straw poll at the Missouri caucuses, and that no other results of any kind will be reported. I suggest that that contest be removed from maps and the table. Rarohla (talk) 23:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Interesting, you wouldnt happen to have a reference where it was possible to read more? Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:41, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Here: and here: Rarohla (talk) 15:48, 15 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Just return the results of the February primary to the map. It was non-binding, sure, but it nevertheless had an official status. --62.78.234.31 (talk) 00:40, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Agreed. And thanks for the references. Interesting reading. Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:18, 16 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Definitely; we've filled in the map for non-binding caucus straw polls, this one just happened to be on a different day than the actual caucuses.50.51.151.21 (talk) 18:02, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

I've edited the map, here's the file: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Republican_Party_presidential_primaries_results_by_county,_2012_(corrected)-2.png I've also uploaded it to the page, but I think I messed up the previous revision history. I'm new to Wikipedia and I wasn't sure how to upload and replace the file directly from the page itself so I went into the code and replaced it with the one I made. --RoteDelano (talk) 11:23, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Okay, remove my edit and don't state why, someone in the main article liked it. --RoteDelano (talk) 19:54, 26 March 2012 (UTC)
 * If you don't like the unofficial results of the caucuses, just keep Missouri blank. The primary results should still be separate, because they aren't really a proper contest because they don't have any effect on delegate allocation. If you want to, go in and make Missouri blank, but don't replace the caucus results with the primary results. They are different.EEL123 (talk) 19:54, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * And I forgot to say, keep it consistent between the main page and the results page. The main page has the map with the Missouri primary on it. EEL123 (talk) 19:56, 27 March 2012 (UTC)
 * How about consistency between the state map and the county map? The state map has Missouri colored solidly for Santorum without any caveats. And do note that there will never be official results from the caucuses because there were no straw polls: "“Unlike many other caucus states, there will not be a straw poll attached to the caucus,” the memo said. “Caucus-goers will be voting for delegates, and with few exceptions, these delegates will not be bound to a particular candidate. Because there is no vote on candidate preference, neither the Missouri GOP nor any election authority will have or release any data regarding the ‘winner’ of the caucuses.”" The primary was the only official presidential preference poll. You play it down because no delegates were awarded on its basis, but you do understand that no delegates were awarded on the basis of the Iowa caucuses' non-binding straw poll either? Yet no one is demanding that Iowa's county map, based on that non-binding straw poll, be blanked. --89.27.36.41 (talk) 20:32, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

updates and references
When updating information, we should be updating references if available. --RichardMills65 (talk) 00:26, 15 March 2012 (UTC)

Hear, here ! . . . The Green Papers are an excellent source of correct and timely info. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:45, 21 March 2012 (UTC)
 * This is a good reference and has the delegate count (as does the Green Papers) for Romney and Santorum in Illinois, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:56, 21 March 2012 (UTC) This reference has great graphics and stats! You should take a look. Statistics include a state-by-state graphic and annotation of total delegates for the four hopefuls. It looks to me like Romney is half way to having the requisite 1,144 delegates (needed to win the Republican nomination); and that he also has half of the delegates to this point, (pledged+unpledgedRNC): Romney(562), Santorum(249), Gingrich(137), Paul(69). So that is 562 delegates for Romney, and 455 for "Not Romney", (as some people say). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:48, 21 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit Request
Could we please get the results about Iowa's delegate allocating convention? 15:31 22 March, 2012
 * It depends on if there are enough sources about them, which I doubt there are unfortunately, but I will look.--Metallurgist (talk) 14:49, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It looks like what little info there is, is based on eyewitnesses, not even journalists, so theres nothing reliable to go on really.--Metallurgist (talk) 14:55, 25 March 2012 (UTC)
 * Keep in mind two or three things: (1) After a 'caucus' or 'primary' the delegates have a direction but may switch support bound or unbound of the rules of the state; (2) counts vary from CNN, The NYTimes, FoxNews, AP; (3) You can measure their reliability by how close they come to the more authoritative Green Papers for Iowa  which lists the uncommitted counts: Santorum 7,  Paul 7, Romney 6, Gingrich 4, and "Available 4"  (Total 28). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:44, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Maybe the county and other level convention betwin the entry caucuses and the State Convention are not that important in this article. Jack Bornholm (talk) 16:57, 26 March 2012 (UTC)

Where is the Results by county/parish Map?
I'd looked this page today, i see difference, there was April primaries added (which is good) but, the thing that makes me confused is the Map Showing the results of 2012 GOP Primaries which is gone. Can Anyone Return backed that map. Kumpayada (talk) 05:46, 31 March 2012 (UTC)
 * It was deleted by mistake by one of users. I've restored it. Bielsko (talk) 09:42, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks's ! from Kumpayada (talk) 10:28, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Virgin Island Caucus Results
Can someone please update the results displayed in the page?

Here is the latest updated results from the Virgin Island GOP page, as of March 10: http://vigop.com/2012/03/vi-gop-2012-caucus-results-coming-soon/

Not only has the votes total changed, Romney has also gained the last undecided delegate, bringing his total to five (before the super delegates).

Thanks. Misha Atreides (talk) 19:06, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * Fine. But you can also update the article... Bielsko (talk) 19:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've replaced Fox with the Virgin Island GOP. However, I am wondering if we should retain NYT and CNN, considering their data is incomplete/not updated Misha Atreides (talk) 21:21, 6 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I've updated main table (delegates) and created a new Virgin Island table. Bielsko (talk) 22:12, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Rick Santorum Out
Should the 'out' logo now be added to Rick Santorum's picture in the top right of the page (in the box) as well as the table? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.169.109.17 (talk) 19:09, 10 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I've added OUT sign to the template. Bielsko (talk) 19:30, 10 April 2012 (UTC)

Merge proposal
It has been proposed that the contents of Super Tuesday, 2012 be merged with this article. Here is the discussion.--JayJasper (talk) 17:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Colorado and Minnesota delegate selections
An IP added some information about the Colorado state convention, and I corrected their numbers as well as adding similar information for Minnesota. That has been removed, but I don't believe the removal was correct. The reason given was "CO state convention elects only 12 delegates, MO [sic] state convention will just be in May". However, that doesn't jibe with the facts presented in the sources.

The Denver Post article states, "At congressional assemblies Thursday and Friday, Republicans elected 21 delegates and 21 alternates. [...] [Saturday], to the relief of Romey backers, eight of the 12 at-large delegate slots, and six of the 12 at-large alternate slots went to Romney supporters." That indicates that 33 delegates were selected in total.

The article about the Minnesota delegates states, "Supporters of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex) won delegate slots for the National Republican Party Convention at three Minnesota Congressional District conventions Saturday. [...] So far four districts have picked delegates and Paul has won 10 delegates and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum won two."

I have replaced the information, correcting it from "Convention Results", which doesn't apply to all the delegate selections, to "Actual delegate count", which matches the "Projected delegate count" column better. —Torchiest talkedits 19:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Actual delegate count" is much better...


 * Source http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/apr/15/colorado-further-evidence-ron-paul-will-challenge-/ is unreliable. It's a community article, not an editorial one. What is more, Thomas Mullen is a libertarian publisher, so in this case he is biased. This is the only source which says that Paul receives so many delegates in CO. It have to be changed to for example results based on The Green Papers. Bielsko (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I added a note explaining the intentions of the unpledged delegates in Colorado, while leaving the official numbers the way they have been reported. Hopefully, this compromise will be suitable for all. —Torchiest talkedits 17:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Colorado and Minnesota delegate selections
An IP added some information about the Colorado state convention, and I corrected their numbers as well as adding similar information for Minnesota. That has been removed, but I don't believe the removal was correct. The reason given was "CO state convention elects only 12 delegates, MO [sic] state convention will just be in May". However, that doesn't jibe with the facts presented in the sources.

The Denver Post article states, "At congressional assemblies Thursday and Friday, Republicans elected 21 delegates and 21 alternates. [...] [Saturday], to the relief of Romey backers, eight of the 12 at-large delegate slots, and six of the 12 at-large alternate slots went to Romney supporters." That indicates that 33 delegates were selected in total.

The article about the Minnesota delegates states, "Supporters of Rep. Ron Paul (R-Tex) won delegate slots for the National Republican Party Convention at three Minnesota Congressional District conventions Saturday. [...] So far four districts have picked delegates and Paul has won 10 delegates and former U.S. Senator Rick Santorum won two."

I have replaced the information, correcting it from "Convention Results", which doesn't apply to all the delegate selections, to "Actual delegate count", which matches the "Projected delegate count" column better. —Torchiest talkedits 19:03, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * "Actual delegate count" is much better...


 * Source http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/reawakening-liberty/2012/apr/15/colorado-further-evidence-ron-paul-will-challenge-/ is unreliable. It's a community article, not an editorial one. What is more, Thomas Mullen is a libertarian publisher, so in this case he is biased. This is the only source which says that Paul receives so many delegates in CO. It have to be changed to for example results based on The Green Papers. Bielsko (talk) 20:25, 17 April 2012 (UTC)


 * I added a note explaining the intentions of the unpledged delegates in Colorado, while leaving the official numbers the way they have been reported. Hopefully, this compromise will be suitable for all. —Torchiest talkedits 17:23, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Puerto Rico caucus results
Could anyone translate official results from Spanish to English election language? http://64.185.222.182/cee_events/PRIMARIAS_PARTIDO_REPUBLICANO_2012_36/NOCHE_DEL_EVENTO_55/default.html <BR> What exactly does it mean?<BR> NOMINACIÓN DIRECTA 69 (write-ins???)<BR> EN BLANCO 1,453 (blank votes???)<BR> PROTESTADAS Y NO ADJUDICADAS 1,022 (???)<BR> RECUSADAS NO ADJUDICADAS 215 (???)<BR><BR>

Bielsko (talk) 11:06, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

Rick Santorum Out II: Electric Boogaloo
This brings us to a really interesting conundrum. Santorum may very well come in second or third in the PA primary, so how are we going to deal with that now? In DC, Huntsman got 7%, and the powers that be slapped down my attempt to put that fact in the chart. So what's going to happen if Santorum does real well?, remember Paul Simon and Howard Dean won primaries after they left the race.Ericl (talk) 13:59, 11 April 2012 (UTC)
 * Wait, see, and apply common sense. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 14:01, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Delegates counted that don't really exist
It seems in some states that there are delegates being counted (washington state, maine, etc) that are being listen and counted, when the delegates haven't even been decided yet. The article should only show delegates that have actually been set to a certain candidate, if someone could fix that. 50.135.250.142 (talk) 06:46, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * There is a discussion on the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012's talkpage relating to this matter. You get there by using this link: Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012.   Jack Bornholm (talk) 10:19, 28 April 2012 (UTC)
 * I think, we should back to previous version of this template. Now, it suggest readers that e.g. Maine, Missouri, Washington caucuces haven't been conducted yet. Maybe template should include two versions of map (by popular vote and by delegates)? Bielsko (talk) 08:12, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * It could also suggest that the delegates are not allocated and the states can still go both ways. Maines convention is this weekend, and the popular vote map suggest that it is a clear Romney state and if Paul wins the plurality it will be a huge win for him and a huge defeat for Romney. In the real world the strawpoll was a near split and the state have all they time been undecided, it can go both ways. Jack Bornholm (talk) 12:36, 1 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Paul has the plurality in Maine. We should mark the state in yellow.--90.187.143.144 (talk) 18:53, 6 May 2012 (UTC)

Nevada and Map Update
Ron Paul has won a majority of Nevada's delegates. Shouldn't this be included in either chart?68.39.100.32 (talk) 23:41, 6 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Source for Nevada - http://www.lasvegassun.com/news/2012/may/06/ron-paul-supporters-capture-majority-nevadas-natio/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.185.14.171 (talk) 00:17, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * His supporters are the majority of delegates, but they are still bound to vote mostly for Romney, at least in the first round. <B>—Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex;">edits 03:13, 7 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Paul gets the majority though. It is likely that they wont vote for Romney in the first round.

Also:

Paul wins Iowa: click

Massachusetts: click

Colorado: click

Washington: click

I think Nevada and Iowa and maybe even Massachusetts should be added to the MAP as yellow. The only reason why I really bring this up is because Ron Paul has qualified for the Convention Ballot. Fox News reported this and you can google it here. In order to qualify, one must win a plurality of delegates in FIVE states. We only have two. They say that these are the states: Iowa and Minnesota, Louisiana, Washington State, Colorado, Alaska and Rhode Island.68.39.100.32 (talk) 10:51, 7 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Why only two states should be marked yellow?
 * Colorado - official sources says, that Paul have no delegates / Romney wins state having 13 delegates / see http://www.cologop.org/assembly-results/
 * Massachussets - all delegates are bound (primary) to vote for Romney (in the first round)
 * Louisiana - we'll see after June 2 (after state convention) / now, Santorum has 10 delegates and Romney 5 ones
 * Washington - we'll see after June 2 (after state convention) / no delegates are elected now
 * Iowa - we'll see after June 16 (after state convention) / no delegates are elected now
 * Nevada - delegates are mostly bound (binding caucuses) to vote for Romney (in the first round)
 * Minnesota - 20 for Paul, 2 for Romney - yellow state on a map
 * Maine - 20 for Paul, 2 for Romney - yellow state on a map
 * Alaska - delegates mostly are bound (binding caucuses) to vote for Romney (in the first round)
 * Rhode Island - delegates are mostly bound (primary) to vote for Romney (in the first round)
 * Bielsko (talk) 12:06, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Remaining Candidates
This page still shows Santorum and Gingrich as active candidates in the upper right corner. Shouldn't they be removed? Or at least order changed to show the remaining two contenders in front? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Truther2012 (talk • contribs) 19:54, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I don't think it's that pressing, really, since both are still receiving substantial numbers of votes, and aren't really fully suspended either, since they're continuing fundraising to pay off debts. It's quite possible Paul will end up with more votes than Gingrich and maybe Santorum by the end of the primary season anyway. <B>—Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex;">edits 20:03, 15 May 2012 (UTC)

Rule 38
This is a good article here about Rule 38. It doesnt seemed biased at all. I think a mention of rule 38 should be in the article, or at least state that bound delegates do not need to vote for the winner of the state. I am not neccesarily trying to say "Ron Paul will get the votes" or anything (Herman Cain could very well win the Tampa Convention if Paul and Romney's supporters decided to vote for him first round), I am just saying to give the article a non-biased stance and make rule 38 very clear.68.39.100.32 (talk) 01:29, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Merging all U.S. states presidential primary and election articles
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:Republican Party presidential primaries, 2012. Jack Bornholm (talk) 17:01, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Virginia and Michigan
The State Congressional Districts held their elections in Virginia and Michigan, where Ron Paul has won a majority according to this article. Since Louisiana and other states congressional district conventions are mentioned with winners in the table, can i go ahead and add these two as wins for Paul? other source 68.39.100.32 (talk) 02:26, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Virginia and Michigan have a BINDING primaries / in article we put only conventions in states having nonbinding caucuses (or in states having primaries, but not electing all delegates - as Indiana, Pennsylvania). Greetings
 * As per rule 38, there are no bound delegates.68.39.100.32 (talk) 22:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * According to this article, there are varying rules about just how "bound" delegates are in each state, depending on which group it falls into. It would take a good amount of additional research to determine which states are in which groups. But I'm almost certain Virginia falls into Group 1, meaning the delegates are bound to follow the primary results, at least initially. Michigan, on the other hand, sounds like it is in Group 2, where Paul is doing best.  But the article you linked does not indicate he has a majority of delegates there, but only 8 (out of 30 total). <B>—Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex;">edits 22:49, 22 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Maybe we should show the number of stealth delegates, bound for Romney but Paul supporters.--90.186.43.112 (talk) 00:05, 23 May 2012 (UTC)
 * I think that could be getting a bit WP:POV, since I'm sure there are other delegates who, in their heart of hearts, would prefer Santorum or Gingrich. <B>—Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex;">edits 00:33, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Paul campaign
Just to be clear, the campaign is not suspended, per this official campaign memo released today. To quote campaign manager Jesse Benton: "Let me be very clear. Dr. Paul is NOT ending his campaign. As Dr. Paul has previously stated, he is in this race all the way to the Republican National Convention in Tampa this August." So changing his status to out, or suspended, or anything similar, would be inappropriate at this time. <B>—Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex;">edits 16:10, 15 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Candidate Ron Paul is staying in till the convention in August is over. He wants to change the soul of the GOP (from being less like career Democrat politicians and more like Tea Party Conservatives to save America). Hence, he has no expectations of winning the nomination (Romney has ten times the delegates he does) but will make his voice heard. We can thank him. Ron Paul does not expect to win the Nomination — He expects to make his points of view heard, and change the soul of the GOP. Just saying, FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:14, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

Best 'RESULTS' sources
In addition to Green Papers, I like &  — Hope this helps, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 05:54, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Kentucky Map in US and Individual State
Ron Paul won 1 (one) county in Kentucky on Tuesday. Can someone please fix this? I do not know how, or else I would.68.39.100.32 (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Projected delegate count
Use of projected delegate count which so far has been highlight inaccurate is unencyclopedic and an issue of WP:CRYSTAL. I suggest all projected information is removed. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 10:59, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Interesting theory, but I believe WP:CRYSTAL applies to arguments about notability, based on the idea that we as editors can't predict the future. However, I don't think it applies to reporting what multiple reliable sources are saying, per this quote: "Predictions, speculation, forecasts and theories stated by reliable, expert sources or recognized entities in a field may be included, though editors should be aware of creating undue bias to any specific point-of-view."  Since we're including multiple sources of predictions, and they mostly agree, I don't think it's undue bias.  And we've been correcting counts as soon as final numbers are available. <B>—Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3.5ex;">edits 11:41, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * The sources for projected delegates are not reliable sources because they are a predictions and also they conflict with each other. If this article was about a music song with projected date of release it would be removed as being WP:CRYSTAL. I see no reason that the quality of this article should be below standards used elsewhere on Wikipedia. Regards, SunCreator (talk) 21:24, 25 May 2012 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia readers want to know reality (which is what we are reporting). The numbers won't be changing as Romney approached the requisite delegate count. Readers understand two things: (1) the voting so in favor of Romney will carry over to subsequent state and national conventions; (2) It is not finalized until national Republican convention in August. Further: (3) They don't want to wait till then to read reality. (4) And I would add:  Texas is the clincher, and California is the hammer (to put Romney in).  (5) What Green Papers say will not be changing (in my opinion). ... And so: Do we need to wait to say this?  Yes.  We can follow the comments and analysis of major news sources, since we need to put them in as references. Truly, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:23, 25 May 2012 (UTC)

huntsman en bachman
Huntsman en bachman had 2 delegates, there is zero. Can someone change it? martijn — Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.166.83.216 (talk) 10:34, 30 May 2012 (UTC)
 * Can you give a reference? Here is one: (two for Huntsman y one for Bachmann). — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 02:34, 12 June 2012 (UTC)

American Symbol next to primary winners
Why is there an american symbol next to the candidates name who won each primary, all the candidates are us citizens? The symbol appears next to each primary/caucus winner but is unnecessary because candidates are listed in order of finish in primary so whoever is listed first won and there is no need for the symbol. I plan to remove this unnecessary symbol because it serves no real purpose and could be construed as a form of bias. Highground79 (talk) 21:16, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * I have no problem with removing them. —<B>Torchiest</B> talk<sub style="margin-left:-3ex;">edits 22:01, 24 August 2012 (UTC)
 * No objection to removal. I think the original intent was to have a freely licensed symbol that was similar to the Republican elephant. Compare: File:America Symbol.svg, File:Republicanlogo.svg. —Sgt. R.K. Blue (talk) 22:08, 24 August 2012 (UTC)

The maps
The maps showing who won state districts are great; some still need to be added. Also, the results of Nebraska can be added, (Romney won.) Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:11, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

RfC: Use of 'out' designator on candidate photos
A primary election or caucus takes place before the Republican National Convention in order to bind delegates or assist potential delegates in naming their preference at the RNC.

The questions in this RfC are as follows:


 * Do the 'out' designators serve a purpose still since the primaries are over? Can they all be removed?
 * Since Mitt Romney and Ron Paul continued their campaigns all the way into the RNC (i.e. after the primaries), do either of their photos require/deserve the 'out' designator?
 * Are the primary contests and caucuses separate and different than the assembled delegates and votes cast at the national convention?

Please provide WP:Reliable Sources for your replies. Thanks. -- Avanu (talk) 01:24, 8 September 2012 (UTC)


 * (1) I do not think the 'out' designators are necessary at this point and all can be removed. (2) If the 'out' designators persist, then the example set by one reliable source (New York Times) has 6 pictures: Gingrich, Huntsman, Perry, Santorum are in muted colors (their equivalent to 'out'), while Romney and Paul are full-color. (3) Yes. --Spiffy sperry (talk) 21:51, 12 September 2012 (UTC)