Template talk:2016USDem

Untitled
So with regards to the delegates columns, could someone PLEASE label what P | U | T stand for? Of course I can inference, but I can't find any useful leads on any of the other pages or polluted Google search results. I'm less frustrated that I don't know what it means, I'm more frustrated that I'm sure there's hundreds of other citizens, just like me, who will leave this page confused or with wrong/incomplete data. AUTHOR: I am calling on you to PLEASE put (pun unintended) a lot more thought into this and add some useful context. Thanks, sorry for being upset. -Nuvigil (talk) 02:30, 10 March 2016 (UTC)
 * If you mouse-over the P, U, T in the table, it tells you what they mean...Pledged delegates, Unpledged delegates & Total delegates. Guy1890 (talk) 05:47, 11 March 2016 (UTC)


 * Thanks. This is kind of embarrassing, but in my defense the computer/browser I was on at the time did not function that way. Thanks. "That was an overreaction" - Andy from The Office. Nuvigil (talk) 10:29, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

A request: Could someone please edit the chart to include a running total of the "Popular vote or equivalent"? I'm curious how actual votes compare to delegates and who leads in them. Thanks. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:445:8101:2AF6:C4E4:76D1:E35F:BC76 (talk) 00:11, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
 * There is a thread in the other template's talk about this issue. There are problems because the contests have very different rules, we should decide what to do with Caucuses that don't release vote numbers but equivalent numbers, or if we can correctly count together closed primaries votes and open primaries ones because they have substantially different weight. There is a very interesting debate, I suggest you to join it!--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 18:33, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Source
AP has different popular vote numbers for a few states (AR, CO, MI that I've noticed so far), and those are the numbers being used everywhere else I've looked. Is The Green Papers being considered definitive for some reason? -24.46.199.98 (talk) 23:17, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

Michigan totals changed?
Not sure why the Clinton & unpledged/uncommitted delegate totals were recently changed in this template here from these numbers, which are still cited in the template as a source. Guy1890 (talk) 07:38, 18 March 2016 (UTC)


 * The Green Papers uses Politico as source which in turn uses AP as source. However, TGP doesn't even have the same delegate count as Politico so I have no idea where they are getting those number for delegates. Furthermore, Politico's delegates numbers haven't been updated to the latest AP report, so again I don't know where they are getting those numbers. I think both Politico and The Green Papers are trying to get ahead of their source just to say they have the most updated numbers which they way well be ending as the final result, but as of the moment of the update it is not the most accurate result. Burotar (talk) 14:44, 19 March 2016 (UTC)


 * If 100% of precincts are reported, then why should there still be any leftover delegates? The delegates are assigned proportionally, are they not? Doesn't that mean the calculations can be done purely mathematically, and be entirely accurate? I would assume this is what The Green Papers is doing. Morphinapg (talk) 17:26, 24 March 2016 (UTC)


 * All aforementioned sources are not primary sources. Can I assume Michigan Department of State http://miboecfr.nictusa.com/election/results/2016PPR_CENR.html as the primary source? Doing the math on these figures according to proportional primary rules would give 67 - 63 advantage Sanders. Districts 13 and 14 are still provisional but very unlikely to swing a delegate.Alain David (talk) 21:33, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Applying the official Florida figures ( http://enight.elections.myflorida.com/ ) and Florida Democratic Delegate Selection Rules ( http://files.www.floridadems.org/our-party/party-affairs/Florida_2016_Plan_v8.2.pdf ) I calculated following results

District level delegates Total 140 Clinton 93 Sanders 47 PLEO delegates Total 28 Clinton 18  Sanders 10 At Large delegates Total 46 Clinton 30  Sanders 16

Total Pledged delegates 214  Clinton 141  Sanders 73

Those available 3 go to Sanders, I think. Alain David (talk) 01:29, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

Suggestion: Cumulative Popular vote or equivalent in Schedule and results of primaries and caucuses chart
It would be awesome to add, at the bottom of the "Schedule and results of primaries and caucuses" graph, a running total of the average/cumulative "Popular vote or equivalent". Just add up the votes for each candidate and divide by the total.

It'd be nice to see even if it's not electorally relevant. Thanks! -AbeFM (talk) 05:20, 20 March 2016 (UTC)Abe (is that a good signature?)
 * It would be nice to have such a graph but we can't really add popular vote with county delegates or others. A good alternative is to have a cumulative pledged delegate count. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 10:13, 20 March 2016 (UTC)

Available pledged delegates total
Total shown is 1,889, when I add up the individual rows I get 1,760. Am I missing something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TDCram (talk • contribs) 16:47, 27 March 2016 (UTC)
 * The numbers change all the time and not everyone is careful enough to correct the total every time. Feel free to make the corrections you see fit. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 16:06, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

Available Pledged Delegates
I noticed that many of the states that have already had their primary/caucus are listed as having 0 available pledged delegates even though the totals from Clinton and Sanders are less then the total amount of pledged delegates. I fixed the discrepancy and updated the totals. The source for the data has been uniformed to just the New York Times, and they do not list the total number of pledged delegates or the number of available pledged delegates on their site.

People should be aware when updating totals to not just zero out the available pledged delegates. You need to subtract the number of pledged delegates that have been allocated to both Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders from the total number of pledged delegates to obtain the number of available pledged delegates. -98.127.63.109 (talk) 16:17, 29 March 2016 (UTC)


 * There was a long debate about acceptable sources on Talk:Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2016; a consensus solution is emerging: keeping New York Times / Associated Press as source for settled states, switching back to The Green Papers for states where some delegates are not allocated by NYT / AP, with a note that TGP numbers are unofficial projections. Would you agree to this approach? — JFG talk 22:57, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
 * I can't agree to this approach because it's unorganized. Let's remember that AP numbers are also unofficial projections, and we agreed on using AP/NYT as the source, so why should we use TGP numbers for projections but not AP projections? It makes no sense. Every major news source uses AP as a source, I don't know anyone that uses TGP.
 * I have now adjusted the states with missing delegates and the totals. Sources and explanation note included. — JFG talk 06:54, 30 March 2016 (UTC)


 * As long as the totals are consistent with the sources there is not a problem in my book. When I had made the original comment everything was sourced to the NYT and nothing to AP or The Green Papers and there was about 200 pledged delegates completely missing not being listed as being for Clinton, Sanders, or Unpledged. 98.127.63.109 (talk) 22:53, 2 April 2016 (UTC)

No sources for unpledged delegates
With the switch from Green Papers to New York Times, we've lost our sources for the unpledged delegate count. I don't know what to suggest as an alternative to TGP, but I welcome any suggestions. What is certain is that we cannot keep the superdelegate count without a source. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 09:47, 3 April 2016 (UTC)


 * I think List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016 is enough explanation. Alain David (talk) 12:14, 3 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure about that, not according to WP:WPNOTRS. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 15:50, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

Kansas Reults
http://www.ksdp.org/2016/03/kansas-democratic-caucus-results/ Isn't This a better source for the results? Dajasj (talk) 08:22, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * We put this source in the footnote.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 08:53, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The New York Times and The Green Papers updated Kansas results. Obviously Kansas Democratic Caucus was right. I updated and removed the footnote.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 16:38, 8 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Clinton's delegate count doesn't add up 188.64.156.195 (talk) 09:45, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Corrected.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 13:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Sources stability
Please refrain from blanket changes of sources and results (particularly  by ) – NYT and AP were shown to list outdated results for many states, so they are not used as exclusive sources. Recently the involved editors had a long debate and reached a carefully-balanced position which was designed to match reality as closely as possible; let's go back to the consensus. Sorry I have no time to do it myself right now. — JFG talk 10:37, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I just modified it, I had read in the Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016's talk that we had to use Green Papers projections untill the official results are released. I undo my modify, but I underline that in this way we show different results in the page and in the table. Could it look inconsistent to the wiewers?--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 10:55, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Wait, but you were talking about the same debate in the page's talk, so I don't understand why the table reported wrong results, my modify was correct I undo again XD --EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 11:02, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Someone anonymous is changing the results not according to the agreed sources. What can we do?--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 11:28, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thanks for your help. Several editors unaware of the consensus have intervened, so I think our best course of action is to restore the sourced delegate counts as they were standing in and then add relevant changes if any (Nevada?). Also ask IP editors to take their concerns to the talk page here. — JFG talk 11:47, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The numbers previously there did not match up to the total, and AP/NYT did not agree with the 156 total. I set the total to 149 and fixed the numbers to comply with AP. Remember that every major news source uses AP/NYT, not TGP.
 * I understand, but if you read our debate on the issue here you can see that according to the consensus achieved "The Green Papers are to be used for projections until the official results are published by The Associated Press.". According to this consensus we should use Green Papers projections untill the official results are released. Anyway about the total you are wrong. The total is correctly 156 (102 District-level delegates, 20 PLEOs, 34 At-Large delegates), as you can read in the table (pages 31-32) in the Illinois Delegate Selection Plan. Maybe you don't know that AP's projections are incomplete and just for this reason we prefer to use provisionally The Green Papers--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 12:24, 4 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I just restored consensus sourcing on each state for clarity. — JFG talk 13:26, 4 April 2016 (UTC)


 * The real solution here is likely to protect this template from any IP edits at all for the remainder of the caucus/primary process. Guy1890 (talk) 03:51, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * This would be a welcome move indeed. Filing a request now. — JFG talk 07:40, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Page semi-protected for a month. — JFG talk 16:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

Margins for Wisconsin are wide enough to call all pledged delegates (48 - 38)(in line with district chart Green Papers), have already adjusted WI Pages and templates, will check up on votes figures later on (minor changes possible). Please adjust USDem template asap to give an up to date picture of the race. Alain David (talk) 16:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * I agree, if the District chart says 48-38 probably that will be the final projection. But Wikipedia isn't a newspaper and so, if there is no particular hurry, we can just wait for updates by The Green Papers. I'm sure that they are going to update as soon as possible.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 16:29, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Updated.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 18:32, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Available delegate totals are wrong
In the table by state, the totals at the bottom for P U and T delegates for Bernie and Hillary are fine, but the last three columns with available delegates (those not yet committed, usually for states that have not yet had primaries/caucuses) is consistently wrong.

For example. There are a total of 4051 pledged delegates available. Since O'Malley got none, and no one else besides Bernie and Hillary have gotten any, that means the total for Hillary, Bernie, and available P columns should always add up to 4051, or very close. If is possible that some states may end up having some of the pledged delegates turned into uncommitted (that is possible in WA), but it is very unlikely.

Currently, uncommitted says 1266, which is clearly wrong. 71.35.189.237 (talk) 16:03, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Thsnks, must have been a typo. Corrected to 1,747. — JFG talk 16:52, 5 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Delegates count for Arizona is wrong -> http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P16/AZ-D Alankazame (talk) 16:44, 6 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Corrected.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 17:16, 6 April 2016 (UTC)

Are the Washington state delegates inaccurate
Are the Washington state pledged delegates inaccurate, because they still have a Primary coming up in addition to the Caucus they have already run. see http://www.sos.wa.gov/elections/2016-presidential-primary.aspx I'm not informed enough to know but I wondered why there was a big difference for Washington between numbers here and the google delegate count (wherever that comes from) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.40.155 (talk) 08:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Obviously 74-27(37 with superdelegates) is not an official result, but waiting for it we show the TGP (source cited in the template) and the AP estimations.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 08:56, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The NYTimes article states at the bottom disclaimer: **The Times estimated the 67 district-level delegates by using county vote totals and estimating each district’s share based on the county’s voting-age population. So the 67 district level delegates are still up for grabs in the upcoming primary, no? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.208.40.155 (talk) 09:46, 10 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The 67 district level delegates as the other categories of pledged delegates are allready allocated by The Green Papers and NYTimes according to their estimations and so we report 74-27 as they do. Anyway yes, the 67 district level delegates will be officially selecetd only on 5/21 at the congressional district caucus (it isn't an upcoming primary) by delegates elected at the legislative district caucuses (in the election day of 3/26).
 * At page 52 of the Washington State Delegate Selection Plan you can find a very clear table explaining how the process works.--EricCantonaTheKing (talk) 10:16, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 April 2016
Sanders has now officially won 41 of Colorado's unpledged delegates to the National Democratic Convention, while Clinton has only received 25. http://www.denverpost.com/election/ci_29775876/bernie-sanders-bests-hillary-clinton-at-colorado-democratic-convention Sanders has also increased his unpledged delegate totals from primary or caucus days in, at least, the following other states: Missouri and Nevada. Please update totals and percentages to reflect these facts.

2601:1C2:E00:E7FA:3DB2:B01C:EE1:95A5 (talk) 21:20, 16 April 2016 (UTC)


 * Bernie won 41 delegates in Colorado and Clinton won 25. Link: http://kdvr.com/2016/04/16/bernie-sanders-wins-majority-of-delegates-at-colorado-democratic-convention/ Please update  2001:558:6025:5C:4489:7AB4:48D1:2B38 (talk) 21:27, 16 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Yes check.svg Done — JFG talk 22:41, 16 April 2016 (UTC)

Delegate dispute
Feel free to comment here: Talk:List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2016 - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 April 2016
The spreadsheet is wrong due to the caucus states. Hillary Clinton has actually lost some of her pledged delegates to Bernie Sanders for people not showing up to continue caucusing for Clinton. The state of Nevada has actually now flipped to being a Bernie State.

66.207.16.170 (talk) 20:42, 19 April 2016 (UTC)
 * ❌ We are waiting for the final certified state results in May. - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 20:59, 19 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 April 2016
Would be nice to see total number of votes and percentages at the bottom, to get a feel for how democratic the process actually is.

Currently (after New York) this would be: Clinton: 10,486,727 (57.28%) Sanders: 7,819,822 (42.72%) -145.23.254.101 (talk) 11:42, 21 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Nope - there have been numerous discussions about this issue in many different forums on Wikipedia as of this late date, and they've all ended up so far stating that we shouldn't be doing that, since there's really no such thing as a national "popular vote" in this kind of nationwide Party process. Guy1890 (talk) 01:35, 22 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. clpo13(talk) 19:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC)
 * Pictogram voting comment.svg Note: Marking request as answered -- Cameron11598  (Converse) 00:58, 26 April 2016 (UTC)

Totals wrong
Today's results (27 Apr) have been updated in the table but the totals still show the old values. Can someone update? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.236.23.139 (talk) 04:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The numbers in this template that have needed to be updated recently have been done so accurately. Guy1890 (talk) 05:07, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 April 2016
The total delegate count at the end of the table need to be altered to include the results from the 27 April primaries - Clinton's total should be 1640, Sanders' total should be 1334.

Alexxbrookss (talk) 08:16, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
 * The numbers in this template that have needed to be updated recently have been done so accurately. Guy1890 (talk) 05:06, 29 April 2016 (UTC)

Your super delegate count is wrong. Clinton has 520 and sanders has 39. Why is your count so far off from all other sites, including The New York Times. You have Clinton at 498 and sanders at 39???? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.82.78.237 (talk) 20:38, 2 May 2016 (UTC)
 * FWIW, there's a an ongoing discussion about the issue that the IP editor (with no other contributions to Wikipedia before) raises immediately above. The short answer though is that we have our own reliably-sourced Wikipedia article listing each superdelegate and how they have "pledged" to vote at the Democratic National Convention this summer. Guy1890 (talk) 01:22, 3 May 2016 (UTC)

Popular vote total
For consistency with the results of the relevant RfC, I just added the popular vote total here at the bottom of the table, sourced from The Green Papers like the bulk of the table, with the agreed-upon footnote mentioning excluded states. I don't think it's necessary to start yet another debate on this issue, but of course editors opposed to this move can feel free to revert and discuss. — JFG talk 07:16, 13 May 2016 (UTC)