This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2020 Nevada Democratic presidential caucuses article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From the Campaigns section: "With the early voting phase over, the 9th official debate between the candidates on the ballot will take place on February 19.[18] Steyer, who is in double digits in several polls in Nevada, may not qualify for the debate.[19]"
It seems editorial to only mention Steyer as missing the debate, when other candidates did not meet the thresholds to be included as well (Gabbard). Would it be more impartial to list all of the candidates that made the debate and those that did not? Rivere123 02:38 18 February 2020 (UTC)
There has been some dispute over the ordering of the infobox, so should we order it by
A): Nevada polling average, or
B): National Delegate count
Devonian Wombat ( talk) 21:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
A because delegate totals are only compiled from two early states, and give little information. National and state polling may not be perfectly reliable, but it is highly preferable to delegate counts from only two states. The current method does not reflect any data we currently have in Nevada, and it also leaves out Steyer, who is likely to place within the top five candidates even when accounting for changes in polling averages. This method is also at odds with the South Carolina article. User:Rivere123
B because national polling is not reliable. Not only is it often wildly inaccurate (as it was in Iowa), we also just don’t have enough polls post IA and NH for the polling average to be consistent with the state of the race. Smith0124 ( talk) 22:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
B because delegates are what matter WittyRecluse ( talk) 01:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
No images - Why not avoid the argument entirely. Have no images in the infobox, until the results are in. This should be the practice for each primary & caucuses articles. GoodDay ( talk) 05:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment If we order by national delegate count, Warren should be above Klobuchar as she has more delegates. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 07:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
A until the results come in. This was the case with the previous two states. With B, you could theoretically have someone's face in the infobox who isn't even running in that state, which would be absurd. No reason not to stick with precedent. Wikiditm ( talk) 15:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
A per Wikiditm. Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
A Until the results are in. Nixinova T C 19:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
A This should be obvious, no? What matters for this article is Nevada. So National polling or National delegate count that is a result of 49 other territories should have 0 influence on the ordering for the state's Caucus/primary. Please people. Don't let your politics bias you. After the results are in, order it by that. Or would you order it by national delegate count? I don't mean to be snide, but come on. -- ZombieZombi ( talk) 14:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
A until the results are in, then delegate count for the state (I guess that's option C). - Mr X 🖋 18:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
A Doesn't make sense to put Buttigieg first when he is narrowly placing third in Nevada polls, well behind Sanders and to a lesser extent Biden. Master of Time (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
How does it make sense to have a live update disclaimer on the top of the page, but then a rigid A or B ordering, which is outdated the second that the first results are coming in, which is the key time for web traffic? MichaelRS ( talk) 02:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
A I agree with Mr Idealigic ( talk) 15:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I note that, while there are seven candidates on the Democrats presidential ballot in Nevada, photos and information are only shown for six of them. I have no particular axe to grind for her, but why is Tulsi Gabbard not included, as she similarly qualified to be on the ballot? Surely this displays unacceptable discrimination prior to the ballot this week? Rif Winfield ( talk) 11:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Hey I'm a very sporadic editor (always forgetting my previous username & creating a new one like this), so I don't know the best way to move along this discussion in a timely fashion. Just added Tulsi Gabbard to the table of active candidates. This change was immediately reverted by one editor & commented on by another. This may have been done for a good Wikipedia reason ("There has to be consensus to overturn the status quo of Gabbard not being on the page, and that consensus does not currently exist"), but this will not play well outside of regular Wikipedians. What if the status quo is wrong, how can we demonstrate "consensus" for adding Gabbard's image in a timely fashion (i.e. in less than 24hrs since the NV debate is happening tomorrow night)? I imagine there is no way for a Wikipedia process to move that fast, but this is a problem. It is wrong for Gabbard to not be included. What is the correct procedural way to do this? MKwptfe ( talk) 23:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
In order to streamline this process, and as an editor has added Gabbard back in, I think we should hold a Yes or No vote on Gabbard's inclusion. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 11:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll start it off by voting No, as I believe that including Gabbard in the table would constitue Undue Weight due to her low polling average. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 11:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
That's not normal. Can someone please fix that? -- ZombieZombi ( talk) 14:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
"Point Blank Political" is not a credible pollster. Nothing I can find positions them as a credible organization with any kind of legitimate track record. These results should not be included. I'd remove them myself but I don't know how to do it without breaking the table :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.140.244.122 ( talk) 18:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The third paragraph ends "but it is not yet known whether delegates to the national convention will be distributed proportionally based on the popular vote in the caucuses or the number of county delegates.[4]"
Is this still true, or is it not the case that the number of county delegates will be used to calculate the proportions for each congressional district. I have seen some statements that county delegates will be used, but cannot find an authoritative source.
Can anyone help with this? With only two days to go before the Nevada caucus, I feel that someone must know. I apologise if this question has been answered already.
Redhill54 ( talk) 22:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
16.Fair Reflection of Presidential Preference
a.Nevada is a caucus/convention state. Accordingly,national delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated so as to fairly reflect the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the caucus participants in each district. Therefore, the national convention delegates elected at the district level shall be allocated in proportion to the percentage of the county convention delegates won in that district by each preference at the first determining step, except that preferences falling below a 15% threshold shall not be awarded any delegates or alternates. (Rule 2.K.5, Rule 14.B & Reg. 4.30)
b.Within a district, if no presidential preference reaches a 15% threshold, the threshold shall be half the percentage of the vote received in that district by the front-runner. (Rule 14.F)
c.District-level delegates and alternates will be selected by a caucus of state convention delegates from the district who signed statements of support for that presidential candidate. (Rule 2.K.5)
4.Fair Reflection of Presidential Preference
a.The At-large delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated among presidential preference according to the statewide division of preferences among convention and caucus participants, at the first determining step of the process provided that no person participating in the allocation shall automatically serve by virtue of holding a public or Party office. (Rule 9.B, Rule 11.C & Reg. 4.19)
b.Preferences which have not attained a 15% threshold on a state-wide basis shall not be entitled to any at-large delegates. (Rule 14.E)
c.If no presidential preference reaches a 15% threshold, the threshold shall be half the percentage of the statewide vote received by the front-runner. (Rule 14.F)
d.If a presidential candidate otherwise entitled to an allocation is no longer a candidate at the time of selection of the at-large delegates, their allocation will be proportionally divided among the other preferences entitled to an allocation. (Rule 11.C)
e.If a given presidential preference is entitled to one (1) or more delegate positions but would not otherwise be entitled to an alternate position, that preference shall be allotted one (1) at-large alternate position. (Rule 19.B, Call I.I & Reg. 4.33)
4.Selection of Pledged Party Leader and Elected Official Delegates
a.The pledged PLEO slots shall be allocated among presidential preferences on the same basis as the at-large delegates. (Rule 10.A.2, Rule 11.C, Rule 14.E & Rule 14.F)
@ Redhill54, Gambling8nt, and Xenagoras:: Yes the state delegate selection plan was for an unknown reason unclear/silent about how PLEO+At-large pledged delegates shall be elected. The Nevada Indpendent however wrote the following lines outlining their election solely depends on the number of caucus elected CCD's (which I propose shall be reformulated and added into the procedure chapter of the article):
Danish Expert ( talk) 01:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The consensus is that the poll should not be included because it was not reported by any new service, that it had a small sample size and large margin of error, and that the organization does not have a record of historical accuracy or methodology.
Should the article include the February 13-15 Point Blank Political poll? - Mr X 🖋 14:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Poll source | Date(s) administered |
Sample size |
Margin of error |
Joe Biden |
Cory Booker |
Pete Buttigieg |
Kamala Harris |
Amy Klobuchar |
Beto O'Rourke |
Bernie Sanders |
Tom Steyer |
Elizabeth Warren |
Andrew Yang |
Other | Undecided |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Point Blank Political | Feb 13–15, 2020 | 215 (LV) | ± 5.6% | 14.3% | – | 12.6% | – | 15.6% | – | 13% | 18.6% | 7.1% | – | 1.7% | 17.1% |
MichaelRS, what are your sources for the current infobox order? According to the NYT [4] ,the descending order is Sanders, Biden, Warren, Buttigieg, Steyer. If you look at the Results chart, the order is the same as well. David O. Johnson ( talk) 02:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC) CNN MichaelRS ( talk) 02:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Why is it Biden if Bernie is the first photo in the infobox? -- ZombieZombi ( talk) 09:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times is not reporting national delegates and The Associated Press has only allotted 7 to Bernie Sanders. Where are we getting these numbers from and should they be up with only 50% of the results in? Leonardo Lazov ( talk) 10:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, CNN is currently not a reliable source for the delegate counts. CNN has not updated their numbers for a while now (they're still stuck at 50% reporting, but we have 72% of the results published). The Associated Press is most reliable, if you ask me -- sure they're stuck at only 10 delegates for Bernie but they seem to be very careful with publishing delegate counts so why not follow their reports? Leonardo Lazov ( talk) 00:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
No surprise! After 100% of the result now has been reported, we can for the third election race in a row now conclude, that The Green Papers was spot on when doing their calculation for "certainly won pledged delegates" (see my reply above)! I sincerly hope ( MrX and Leonardo Lazov), that we do not need to repeat this same discussion multiple times again, whether or not efn-notes should be added for pledged delegates for all the remaining 54 races of the Democratic primaries. I predict, that we will continue to see the exact same TGP+CNN+AP result pattern for future election races, as the TGP+CNN+AP result pattern for the Nevada race (documented by my reply above); meaning that The Green Papers will again and again be prooven to be both the fastest and most accurate source, that always provide correct calculations for the "certainly won pledged delegates", for those situations where less than 100% of the official result has been reported.
I accept, that we never use the TGP-source as our sole data source. I however insist, that we at least temporarily include an efn-note behind the prelimary displayed CNN/AP/TGP figures (until 100% of the result has been reported), where we list all the latest calculated preliminary "pledged delegate" figures from TGP+CNN+AP, so that readers become aware of their preliminary calculation disagreements.
For the Nevada article, our debate problem has now solved itself, as we now have a 100% reported result and full agreement between TGP+CNN+AP about the number of calculated pledged delegates. Once again, AP had to admit their figures calculated earlier today based on 96% of the results were way too conservatively performed (as they had left a massive 16 delegates with a status still TBD), while The Green Papers when performing their analysis based on the same 96%-result were proven to be able to calculate the exact correct final result (with 0 delegates with a status still TBD). Danish Expert ( talk) 22:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a push to keep inserting the Green Papers into this article, and cite them as authoritative. They are not. We have to stick secondary sources, like major newspapers and news orgnizations for official counts, as was discussed at WP:RSN and on previous articles. - Mr X 🖋 13:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
This RFC about the question was launched by MrX two weeks ago. The result of the RFC was per today, that 5 out of 7 found The Green Papers was a reliable source, while one found it not to be reliable but still allowed to be added for wikipedia articles per IAR, and with the last editor MrX today voting that the source is not reliable and should never be used. To be frank, I do not see any need for this debate to be reopened again. We have found a nice solution where we add an efn-note to explain the disagreement about the prelimiary calculated figures between CNN and TGP (see my reply in the debate above about the infobox listed number of pledged delegates). Danish Expert ( talk) 14:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
"Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight."- Mr X 🖋 14:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Smith0124 and Tony Patt: I have added a link both on this page and in Wikimedia Commons that tells us the source of the information in the map. In the name of Wikipedia, I demand that we always add a link to the source every time. Us ignorant rubes want to know where the information is coming from. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 23:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
That’s totally fair! Smith0124 ( talk) 23:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
While the claim has since been removed, it has been floating around that Sanders is the first presidential candidate to win the popular vote in the first three contests. (Most recently, referencing this Newsweek article repeating the claim.) On the most charitable read this would seem to be quite conceivable given that until this election caucuses did not report popular vote results, so the popular vote is not known for all three of the first contests for many elections.
Unfortunately for this claim, even setting aside cases with caucuses like Gore in 2000, and Clinton's reelection in 1996, John F. Kennedy's first three contests in the election of 1960 were all primaries, which he won (and thus won the popular vote). ( New Hampshire going first, and Illinois going third already have pages and references. Wisconsin, going second, can be referenced here.)
This question might be worth revisiting if Sanders wins South Carolina, since JFK did not compete in the fourth contest of 1960 ( New Jersey instead was evidently sending a selection of unpledged delegates intending to support Governor Robert Meyner.) unless another example exists wherein a candidate clearly won the popular vote in the first several contests. Gambling8nt ( talk) 04:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
As in previous states, there should be an analysis section for this article. I have created this, but it keeps on being deleted and the paragraphs shifted up all the way to the intro, where they don't belong in my opinion. If you feel there shouldn't be an analysis section in this article, please explain. Wikiditm ( talk) 10:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Is Biden the first? No Who is first? Sanders Why do we see Biden's face? Hmm Filippos ( talk) 18:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
What is the criteria for this? I've seen the 5% cutoff be referenced but is this 5% of county delegates? If so, why? Why not pledged delegates (wouldn't include Warren) or first alignment vote (would include Steyer and Klobuchar)? It seems odd to me to base the cutoff on the middle measure of county delegates. Wikiditm ( talk) 09:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I did a careful read of the official caucus math file and early vote file. The entire procedure can be understood and is well explained by examples. Exept for one important point concerning the "procedure for realignment of early votes", which I hope some of you can find some clarifying info on.
Early vote participant preferences (required to give minimum 3 ranked preferences, but allowed to give up to 5 ranked preferences) will be combined with all the in-person caucusgoers preferences, in order for each precinct to determine the presidential preference group viability number on Caucus Day. We have clarity and no problem for the calculation of the viability number for the "first alignment" (as the first choice of early voters in the precinct is simply added to the first choice of the present caucusgoers in the precinct).
As I understand it, we however have a major problem for the second realignment round. The linked NDP-source above have only written the following procedure rules:
Rule 1+3 is clear and does not create any problems.
Rule 2 (the bolded part), however is problematic. Because how can caucusgoers in an "after first alignment non-viable group" get together with other caucusgoers of another "after the first alignment non-viable group" for the purpose of making it viable, when they do not know how many "early votes" exactly will follow from the 2nd+3rd+4th+5th ranked choice of the early votes? Shouldn't those ranked choices of early votes be included when dertermining viability in the second alignment round? As I see it the posted rules does not sufficiently describe how this process shall be done; which mean that the rules above open up for multiple ways to do this last procedure step for the early votes resulting in different kind or disputed end-results (i.e. some precincts could organize uptil 5 realignment rounds to count in how the shifting of early-vote ranked choises affect the viability for those groups who were deemed non-viable after the respectively first, second, third, fourth and fifth round; while other precincts could skip this kind of process). Danish Expert ( talk) 13:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes. - Mr X 🖋 01:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Why is Klobuchar not included in the infobox? She hit 7% in the final vote alignment, and we generally put candidates with over 5% in the infobox. Buzzards-Watch Me Work ( talk) 09:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 Alabama Democratic primary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Editors of this page are encouraged to participate in an Rfc on Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries pertaining to the infobox of this page and all state by state primary pages. The Rfc is about candidates who have withdrawn. Smith0124 ( talk) 00:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
2020 Nevada Democratic presidential caucuses article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
From the Campaigns section: "With the early voting phase over, the 9th official debate between the candidates on the ballot will take place on February 19.[18] Steyer, who is in double digits in several polls in Nevada, may not qualify for the debate.[19]"
It seems editorial to only mention Steyer as missing the debate, when other candidates did not meet the thresholds to be included as well (Gabbard). Would it be more impartial to list all of the candidates that made the debate and those that did not? Rivere123 02:38 18 February 2020 (UTC)
There has been some dispute over the ordering of the infobox, so should we order it by
A): Nevada polling average, or
B): National Delegate count
Devonian Wombat ( talk) 21:06, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
A because delegate totals are only compiled from two early states, and give little information. National and state polling may not be perfectly reliable, but it is highly preferable to delegate counts from only two states. The current method does not reflect any data we currently have in Nevada, and it also leaves out Steyer, who is likely to place within the top five candidates even when accounting for changes in polling averages. This method is also at odds with the South Carolina article. User:Rivere123
B because national polling is not reliable. Not only is it often wildly inaccurate (as it was in Iowa), we also just don’t have enough polls post IA and NH for the polling average to be consistent with the state of the race. Smith0124 ( talk) 22:02, 14 February 2020 (UTC)
B because delegates are what matter WittyRecluse ( talk) 01:30, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
No images - Why not avoid the argument entirely. Have no images in the infobox, until the results are in. This should be the practice for each primary & caucuses articles. GoodDay ( talk) 05:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
Comment If we order by national delegate count, Warren should be above Klobuchar as she has more delegates. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 07:05, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
A until the results come in. This was the case with the previous two states. With B, you could theoretically have someone's face in the infobox who isn't even running in that state, which would be absurd. No reason not to stick with precedent. Wikiditm ( talk) 15:52, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
A per Wikiditm. Nice4What ( talk · contribs) – (Don't forget to share a Thanks ♥) 18:47, 15 February 2020 (UTC)
A Until the results are in. Nixinova T C 19:28, 16 February 2020 (UTC)
A This should be obvious, no? What matters for this article is Nevada. So National polling or National delegate count that is a result of 49 other territories should have 0 influence on the ordering for the state's Caucus/primary. Please people. Don't let your politics bias you. After the results are in, order it by that. Or would you order it by national delegate count? I don't mean to be snide, but come on. -- ZombieZombi ( talk) 14:31, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
A until the results are in, then delegate count for the state (I guess that's option C). - Mr X 🖋 18:53, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
A Doesn't make sense to put Buttigieg first when he is narrowly placing third in Nevada polls, well behind Sanders and to a lesser extent Biden. Master of Time (talk) 04:08, 21 February 2020 (UTC)
How does it make sense to have a live update disclaimer on the top of the page, but then a rigid A or B ordering, which is outdated the second that the first results are coming in, which is the key time for web traffic? MichaelRS ( talk) 02:46, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
A I agree with Mr Idealigic ( talk) 15:41, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
I note that, while there are seven candidates on the Democrats presidential ballot in Nevada, photos and information are only shown for six of them. I have no particular axe to grind for her, but why is Tulsi Gabbard not included, as she similarly qualified to be on the ballot? Surely this displays unacceptable discrimination prior to the ballot this week? Rif Winfield ( talk) 11:39, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
Hey I'm a very sporadic editor (always forgetting my previous username & creating a new one like this), so I don't know the best way to move along this discussion in a timely fashion. Just added Tulsi Gabbard to the table of active candidates. This change was immediately reverted by one editor & commented on by another. This may have been done for a good Wikipedia reason ("There has to be consensus to overturn the status quo of Gabbard not being on the page, and that consensus does not currently exist"), but this will not play well outside of regular Wikipedians. What if the status quo is wrong, how can we demonstrate "consensus" for adding Gabbard's image in a timely fashion (i.e. in less than 24hrs since the NV debate is happening tomorrow night)? I imagine there is no way for a Wikipedia process to move that fast, but this is a problem. It is wrong for Gabbard to not be included. What is the correct procedural way to do this? MKwptfe ( talk) 23:26, 18 February 2020 (UTC)
In order to streamline this process, and as an editor has added Gabbard back in, I think we should hold a Yes or No vote on Gabbard's inclusion. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 11:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
I'll start it off by voting No, as I believe that including Gabbard in the table would constitue Undue Weight due to her low polling average. Devonian Wombat ( talk) 11:09, 19 February 2020 (UTC)
That's not normal. Can someone please fix that? -- ZombieZombi ( talk) 14:26, 17 February 2020 (UTC)
"Point Blank Political" is not a credible pollster. Nothing I can find positions them as a credible organization with any kind of legitimate track record. These results should not be included. I'd remove them myself but I don't know how to do it without breaking the table :p — Preceding unsigned comment added by 38.140.244.122 ( talk) 18:39, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
The third paragraph ends "but it is not yet known whether delegates to the national convention will be distributed proportionally based on the popular vote in the caucuses or the number of county delegates.[4]"
Is this still true, or is it not the case that the number of county delegates will be used to calculate the proportions for each congressional district. I have seen some statements that county delegates will be used, but cannot find an authoritative source.
Can anyone help with this? With only two days to go before the Nevada caucus, I feel that someone must know. I apologise if this question has been answered already.
Redhill54 ( talk) 22:54, 20 February 2020 (UTC)
16.Fair Reflection of Presidential Preference
a.Nevada is a caucus/convention state. Accordingly,national delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated so as to fairly reflect the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the caucus participants in each district. Therefore, the national convention delegates elected at the district level shall be allocated in proportion to the percentage of the county convention delegates won in that district by each preference at the first determining step, except that preferences falling below a 15% threshold shall not be awarded any delegates or alternates. (Rule 2.K.5, Rule 14.B & Reg. 4.30)
b.Within a district, if no presidential preference reaches a 15% threshold, the threshold shall be half the percentage of the vote received in that district by the front-runner. (Rule 14.F)
c.District-level delegates and alternates will be selected by a caucus of state convention delegates from the district who signed statements of support for that presidential candidate. (Rule 2.K.5)
4.Fair Reflection of Presidential Preference
a.The At-large delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated among presidential preference according to the statewide division of preferences among convention and caucus participants, at the first determining step of the process provided that no person participating in the allocation shall automatically serve by virtue of holding a public or Party office. (Rule 9.B, Rule 11.C & Reg. 4.19)
b.Preferences which have not attained a 15% threshold on a state-wide basis shall not be entitled to any at-large delegates. (Rule 14.E)
c.If no presidential preference reaches a 15% threshold, the threshold shall be half the percentage of the statewide vote received by the front-runner. (Rule 14.F)
d.If a presidential candidate otherwise entitled to an allocation is no longer a candidate at the time of selection of the at-large delegates, their allocation will be proportionally divided among the other preferences entitled to an allocation. (Rule 11.C)
e.If a given presidential preference is entitled to one (1) or more delegate positions but would not otherwise be entitled to an alternate position, that preference shall be allotted one (1) at-large alternate position. (Rule 19.B, Call I.I & Reg. 4.33)
4.Selection of Pledged Party Leader and Elected Official Delegates
a.The pledged PLEO slots shall be allocated among presidential preferences on the same basis as the at-large delegates. (Rule 10.A.2, Rule 11.C, Rule 14.E & Rule 14.F)
@ Redhill54, Gambling8nt, and Xenagoras:: Yes the state delegate selection plan was for an unknown reason unclear/silent about how PLEO+At-large pledged delegates shall be elected. The Nevada Indpendent however wrote the following lines outlining their election solely depends on the number of caucus elected CCD's (which I propose shall be reformulated and added into the procedure chapter of the article):
Danish Expert ( talk) 01:44, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
The consensus is that the poll should not be included because it was not reported by any new service, that it had a small sample size and large margin of error, and that the organization does not have a record of historical accuracy or methodology.
Should the article include the February 13-15 Point Blank Political poll? - Mr X 🖋 14:53, 22 February 2020 (UTC)
Poll source | Date(s) administered |
Sample size |
Margin of error |
Joe Biden |
Cory Booker |
Pete Buttigieg |
Kamala Harris |
Amy Klobuchar |
Beto O'Rourke |
Bernie Sanders |
Tom Steyer |
Elizabeth Warren |
Andrew Yang |
Other | Undecided |
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Point Blank Political | Feb 13–15, 2020 | 215 (LV) | ± 5.6% | 14.3% | – | 12.6% | – | 15.6% | – | 13% | 18.6% | 7.1% | – | 1.7% | 17.1% |
MichaelRS, what are your sources for the current infobox order? According to the NYT [4] ,the descending order is Sanders, Biden, Warren, Buttigieg, Steyer. If you look at the Results chart, the order is the same as well. David O. Johnson ( talk) 02:01, 23 February 2020 (UTC) CNN MichaelRS ( talk) 02:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
Why is it Biden if Bernie is the first photo in the infobox? -- ZombieZombi ( talk) 09:21, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
The New York Times is not reporting national delegates and The Associated Press has only allotted 7 to Bernie Sanders. Where are we getting these numbers from and should they be up with only 50% of the results in? Leonardo Lazov ( talk) 10:59, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
In my opinion, CNN is currently not a reliable source for the delegate counts. CNN has not updated their numbers for a while now (they're still stuck at 50% reporting, but we have 72% of the results published). The Associated Press is most reliable, if you ask me -- sure they're stuck at only 10 delegates for Bernie but they seem to be very careful with publishing delegate counts so why not follow their reports? Leonardo Lazov ( talk) 00:16, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
No surprise! After 100% of the result now has been reported, we can for the third election race in a row now conclude, that The Green Papers was spot on when doing their calculation for "certainly won pledged delegates" (see my reply above)! I sincerly hope ( MrX and Leonardo Lazov), that we do not need to repeat this same discussion multiple times again, whether or not efn-notes should be added for pledged delegates for all the remaining 54 races of the Democratic primaries. I predict, that we will continue to see the exact same TGP+CNN+AP result pattern for future election races, as the TGP+CNN+AP result pattern for the Nevada race (documented by my reply above); meaning that The Green Papers will again and again be prooven to be both the fastest and most accurate source, that always provide correct calculations for the "certainly won pledged delegates", for those situations where less than 100% of the official result has been reported.
I accept, that we never use the TGP-source as our sole data source. I however insist, that we at least temporarily include an efn-note behind the prelimary displayed CNN/AP/TGP figures (until 100% of the result has been reported), where we list all the latest calculated preliminary "pledged delegate" figures from TGP+CNN+AP, so that readers become aware of their preliminary calculation disagreements.
For the Nevada article, our debate problem has now solved itself, as we now have a 100% reported result and full agreement between TGP+CNN+AP about the number of calculated pledged delegates. Once again, AP had to admit their figures calculated earlier today based on 96% of the results were way too conservatively performed (as they had left a massive 16 delegates with a status still TBD), while The Green Papers when performing their analysis based on the same 96%-result were proven to be able to calculate the exact correct final result (with 0 delegates with a status still TBD). Danish Expert ( talk) 22:05, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
There is a push to keep inserting the Green Papers into this article, and cite them as authoritative. They are not. We have to stick secondary sources, like major newspapers and news orgnizations for official counts, as was discussed at WP:RSN and on previous articles. - Mr X 🖋 13:41, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
This RFC about the question was launched by MrX two weeks ago. The result of the RFC was per today, that 5 out of 7 found The Green Papers was a reliable source, while one found it not to be reliable but still allowed to be added for wikipedia articles per IAR, and with the last editor MrX today voting that the source is not reliable and should never be used. To be frank, I do not see any need for this debate to be reopened again. We have found a nice solution where we add an efn-note to explain the disagreement about the prelimiary calculated figures between CNN and TGP (see my reply in the debate above about the infobox listed number of pledged delegates). Danish Expert ( talk) 14:14, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
"Articles should always verifiably use the best and most reputable sources, with prevalence in reliable sources determining proper weight."- Mr X 🖋 14:28, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
@ Smith0124 and Tony Patt: I have added a link both on this page and in Wikimedia Commons that tells us the source of the information in the map. In the name of Wikipedia, I demand that we always add a link to the source every time. Us ignorant rubes want to know where the information is coming from. Geographyinitiative ( talk) 23:48, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
That’s totally fair! Smith0124 ( talk) 23:49, 23 February 2020 (UTC)
While the claim has since been removed, it has been floating around that Sanders is the first presidential candidate to win the popular vote in the first three contests. (Most recently, referencing this Newsweek article repeating the claim.) On the most charitable read this would seem to be quite conceivable given that until this election caucuses did not report popular vote results, so the popular vote is not known for all three of the first contests for many elections.
Unfortunately for this claim, even setting aside cases with caucuses like Gore in 2000, and Clinton's reelection in 1996, John F. Kennedy's first three contests in the election of 1960 were all primaries, which he won (and thus won the popular vote). ( New Hampshire going first, and Illinois going third already have pages and references. Wisconsin, going second, can be referenced here.)
This question might be worth revisiting if Sanders wins South Carolina, since JFK did not compete in the fourth contest of 1960 ( New Jersey instead was evidently sending a selection of unpledged delegates intending to support Governor Robert Meyner.) unless another example exists wherein a candidate clearly won the popular vote in the first several contests. Gambling8nt ( talk) 04:14, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
As in previous states, there should be an analysis section for this article. I have created this, but it keeps on being deleted and the paragraphs shifted up all the way to the intro, where they don't belong in my opinion. If you feel there shouldn't be an analysis section in this article, please explain. Wikiditm ( talk) 10:12, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
Is Biden the first? No Who is first? Sanders Why do we see Biden's face? Hmm Filippos ( talk) 18:30, 24 February 2020 (UTC)
What is the criteria for this? I've seen the 5% cutoff be referenced but is this 5% of county delegates? If so, why? Why not pledged delegates (wouldn't include Warren) or first alignment vote (would include Steyer and Klobuchar)? It seems odd to me to base the cutoff on the middle measure of county delegates. Wikiditm ( talk) 09:42, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
I did a careful read of the official caucus math file and early vote file. The entire procedure can be understood and is well explained by examples. Exept for one important point concerning the "procedure for realignment of early votes", which I hope some of you can find some clarifying info on.
Early vote participant preferences (required to give minimum 3 ranked preferences, but allowed to give up to 5 ranked preferences) will be combined with all the in-person caucusgoers preferences, in order for each precinct to determine the presidential preference group viability number on Caucus Day. We have clarity and no problem for the calculation of the viability number for the "first alignment" (as the first choice of early voters in the precinct is simply added to the first choice of the present caucusgoers in the precinct).
As I understand it, we however have a major problem for the second realignment round. The linked NDP-source above have only written the following procedure rules:
Rule 1+3 is clear and does not create any problems.
Rule 2 (the bolded part), however is problematic. Because how can caucusgoers in an "after first alignment non-viable group" get together with other caucusgoers of another "after the first alignment non-viable group" for the purpose of making it viable, when they do not know how many "early votes" exactly will follow from the 2nd+3rd+4th+5th ranked choice of the early votes? Shouldn't those ranked choices of early votes be included when dertermining viability in the second alignment round? As I see it the posted rules does not sufficiently describe how this process shall be done; which mean that the rules above open up for multiple ways to do this last procedure step for the early votes resulting in different kind or disputed end-results (i.e. some precincts could organize uptil 5 realignment rounds to count in how the shifting of early-vote ranked choises affect the viability for those groups who were deemed non-viable after the respectively first, second, third, fourth and fifth round; while other precincts could skip this kind of process). Danish Expert ( talk) 13:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)
You are invited to join the discussion at Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries#Two part RfC about inclusion criteria for listing candidates in infoboxes. - Mr X 🖋 01:51, 26 February 2020 (UTC)
Why is Klobuchar not included in the infobox? She hit 7% in the final vote alignment, and we generally put candidates with over 5% in the infobox. Buzzards-Watch Me Work ( talk) 09:05, 1 March 2020 (UTC)
There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 Alabama Democratic primary which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. — RMCD bot 23:06, 3 June 2020 (UTC)
Editors of this page are encouraged to participate in an Rfc on Talk:2020 Democratic Party presidential primaries pertaining to the infobox of this page and all state by state primary pages. The Rfc is about candidates who have withdrawn. Smith0124 ( talk) 00:42, 8 June 2020 (UTC)