Jump to content

Talk:2012 Republican Party presidential primaries

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Charles Edwin Shipp (talk | contribs) at 15:42, 9 January 2013 (→Delegate Vote Map for Presidential Nomination at the Republican National Convention). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Template:Community article probation

Table should say Paul won four states, not three

It's no biggie but he won four states, as the table shows so it should say he won 4 states. Right now it says he won 3. J390 (talk) 21:50, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Which four? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 23:20, 3 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
In the second table, Minnesota, Iowa, Louisiana, and Maine. J390 (talk) 18:30, 4 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, I see that you are absolutely correct! And adding to the Paul total before the roll call would then add correctly to 57 states, territories, providences, and DC, as so correctly noted by Obama that there are 57 'states'. ;-) The difficulty is that the text is not in this page but is brought in with the graphics, which is hard to identify, then hard to find the storage. Patient editors tried to teach me this before. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 21:04, 10 October 2012 (UTC)[reply]

As of this date, the numbers under the top three maps add correctly to 57 only in the middle map. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:00, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Due to Maine, Romney gets one more in 1st & 3rd map. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:04, 2 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Numbers in the 1st and 3rd map still do not add up to 57 due to Maine ending up in the Romney column. — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:18, 15 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Olde Man! Are you nuts? Are you batty? Are you balmy? Your problem is you looked at the legend of territories and thought it was 2x3 and it is NOT! This makes you wrong, wrong, wrong: just as Willie Wonka would say to Charley Buckets, Charlie. Tell President Obama next time you invite him to lunch. What does this mean for the maps in this article, you ask? It means that only one of the maps add up incorrectly (of the top three) — the second map adds incorrectly to 57, and the first and third map adds correctly to 56. You can clearly see by noticing Maine in the three map. There are 50 states, five provinces and DC, and Romney has 44 (not 45) in the second map at the top of the article because of Paul winning Maine in the end. Look in your 'Lessons Learned' document-file that you keep for yourself; then be brave and fix the text yourself. Rewards tonight, sweety. — Carrie Lynnette Sims Shipp (talk) 12:49, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]
First off, I'd like to show you WP:NPA. Secondly, the results of the Louisiana caucus remain heavily disputed. The convention split into two, so honestly the state should be grey in the second map (if anything, it and Maine should be for Romney, since the delegates voted for him in the end). Mr. Anon515 22:48, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

It seems that the color of Maine on the second map is correct. I cannot find evidence to the contrary (that Ron Paul won the electoral votes 10-2 over Romney.) I checked the Maine GOP website for news at the end of August [1] and they don't even mention the results at the Republican national convention. We should change the Romney count on the second map from 45 to 44 and leave the colors as they now stand. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 06:15, 3 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

two comments

First, congrats on a fabulous page. Second, in the county by county results maps at the end - may I suggest you consider using maps where the area on the screen (# of pixels) is proportional to population , rather then square miles. Use of square mile proportional maps, while having the great virture of being accepted, greatly (greatly) overstate the emphasis of large sparsely populated states like WY, MT, etc. If a pop map (see Sam Wang's web page) you would see that the entire upper plains is a tiny fractio of the population, which shows that R Santorum's wins are much less important then they appear this is a pscyhological perception thing; the brain equates area with importance, even tho almost no one (roughly ) lives in MT; the huge populations of LA and NYC are invisible. Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.91.51.31 (talk) 01:43, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

But in the electoral vote, MT was important. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 04:29, 13 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]
As to your population point, most people reading this article understand states like Utah, Nevada, Wyoming, etc. don't have the same population as NY, CA, et.al., and the mind can process the information. Perhaps a different sub-article would use a different graphical representation technique: perhaps at the bottom of Results_of_the_2012_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries — Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:42, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Actually, in re-reading your second comment, your suggestion may be a great one applied to the county-by-county maps at the end of this article. Where is the example of Sam Wang's website? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:45, 20 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Any particular reason that there's no red bars underneath the four major candidates' pictures yet? They're there on all other pages for Republican primaries, just as blue bars are for Democratic primaries. Can someone please add them? 71.140.88.129 (talk) 02:51, 27 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Note: The system of area proportional to population works better for the general election map, where the popular vote is more important. In primaries, there's a lot of factors going into electing delegates, and the popular vote is just one of them. Furthermore, the practice of "voting" in various states works differently, especially betweeen caucuses and primaries. This skews turnout levels. Finally, it's logical that after the winner (Romney) was clear, turnout would drop in following states, since he shifted from campaigning against other Republicans to campaigning against the POTUS. That means that later states have proportionally lower turnout than earlier states. Mr. Anon515 22:44, 1 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Delegate Vote Map for Presidential Nomination at the Republican National Convention

I had been thinking of putting together an Info-box that detailed the vote by state at the Roll-Call for the Presidential Nomination, but quickly realized it would prove too unwieldy to put together without overly stretching the page once it was opened. Therefore, I decided to run something of a test, and put together the map you see below. The only real issue I had was the votes for Huntsman, Bachmann, and Roemer, given they had not been given their own color codes, so I simply threw in some. Tell me what you lot think, and how it would be best to implement it into the article(s) should it be decided to do so. --Ariostos (talk) 14:52, 7 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is fantastic! Excellent work—it provides encyclopedic insights. Very appropriate for Wikipedia. It should go at the very end of the article, just after the current ending two map presentations, and before the "See also" section. It could be labeled "Final voting at convention roll call". Of course, there would be a legend (for candidates by color) and I would like to see the font smaller for the numbers in circles, and smaller circles. It will be a tremendous addition to a legendary article. To me, it makes a summation of the entire article. The legend could be to the right of SC, GA, and Florida. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 15:42, 9 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2012_Republican_Party_presidential_primaries&oldid=532193913"