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.
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2016USDem template. |
|
This template does not require a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||
|
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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
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?)
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)
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)
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)
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)
Please refrain from blanket changes of sources and results (particularly these edits by @ThiefOfBagdad:) – 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)
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)
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)
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)
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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
Feel free to comment here: Talk:List of Democratic Party superdelegates, 2016#Removal of David Paterson (NY) - Knowledgekid87 (talk) 18:49, 18 April 2016 (UTC)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
{{edit semi-protected}}
template. clpo13(talk) 19:45, 23 April 2016 (UTC) 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)
This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request. |
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)
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)
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)
This article uses material from the Wikipedia English article Template talk:2016USDem, which is released under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 3.0 license ("CC BY-SA 3.0"); additional terms may apply (view authors). Content is available under CC BY-SA 4.0 unless otherwise noted. Images, videos and audio are available under their respective licenses.
®Wikipedia is a registered trademark of the Wiki Foundation, Inc. Wiki English (DUHOCTRUNGQUOC.VN) is an independent company and has no affiliation with Wiki Foundation.