Talk:Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries/Archive 3

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 → Archive 10

Superdelegate source

The table now shows superdelegates at 226/136 using this[1] source. That source has five news sources with different numbers - none of which match ours'. What source is actually being used here?--Appraiser (talk) 14:17, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Complete primary result tallies

Where on Wikipedia can one find the complete results of some of the later primaries, that is a list of the vote tallies for all candidates, even the minor candidates who may have withdrawn, or not been receiving >1-5% support? For the many of the most recent primaries, the tallies only show Clinton and Obama. Thanks. N2e (talk) 17:40, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Try clicking on the links to the indivual state primaries and cacuses; more candidates are shown there. But the primary source for primaries will be the indivual state secretary of state websites. Jon (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC)
I was under the impression that this page should list results for every candidate that was included on the ballot in each contest. Some contests have results for even more candidates (such as New Hampshire) and those results should be listed on the individual contest page. ~ PaulT+/C 20:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
The problem is that there are many minor candidates that only file to be on the ballot in their home state. The table would be become very awkward to say the least if all of them were included here. Jon (talk) 18:53, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I understand that, but if they were included on the ballot, I think those results should be listed here. Or at least, that was what was decided earlier this year. It can make the tables long, but the significant information will be in the top two or three rows and easily understood regardless of how long the results tables get for each contest. Just listing Clinton and Obama is not sufficient, especially since it can throw off the "total" summation by some editors who may not realize there were votes cast for additional candidates. However, that can be alleviated by including an "others" row. I'd prefer to have more information rather than less, but I can see this article getting quite long as a result.
This is somewhat unrelated, but some states hold multiple events to decide delegates to the national convention. Currently, each event has its own page. Would it make sense to merge these pages so each state has one "primary/state convention" page that lists results from every contest around determining the party's nominee from that state? ~ PaulT+/C 09:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

question...

on http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/fe1996/presprim.htm for political party, sometimes it lists W(D) and W(R)...at first I thought it meant Write-in votes, but Stanley Allen received 0 votes in California as a W(D). any idea what W(D) and W(R) are? The URL provides no key. Kingturtle (talk) 21:59, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Uh... that Web site is about the 1996 primaries. – Zntrip 00:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I am going to be creating articles about the 1996 primaries. But when I need experts on the subject to answer a question about the official results, I ask here, because this is where said experts frequent. Kingturtle (talk) 03:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Washington estimated delegates

The reference for the delegate allocation of Washington is currently "Estimated national delegates calculated by multiplying total national delegates by percentage for each candidate." I don't think it works that way. If it did, the news networks would probably do it. (I think they are capable of the math anyway...) There is a reason they are not reporting all of the estimated delegates for the state yet. They have to go through the process of precinct delegates to legislative district to county or congressional district, etc. to determine the national delegate numbers. That can't be estimated by a straight multiplication by the statewide percentage. I've seen different numbers on the various news links. I'm not sure which one(s) we are favoring right now. --Siradia (talk) 01:51, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I believe that CNN is now showing those totals. --Ross UK (talk) 02:52, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
Make that NBC. --Ross UK (talk) 03:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I'm the one who made the edits to use a calculation determining Washington's national delegates. I did so because I found all of the news organizations' estimates to be plainly in error. Perhaps this is because Washington has a somewhat unique method among states for determining its delegates and it just doesn't fit well into the nation-wide formulas that news orgs are using for their estimates.
Let me explain why I think the news orgs' estimates are in error. Until Washington holds its Congressional District Caucuses on May 17, none of the pledged delegates Washington will send to the Democratic National Convention have been chosen. So far, only Precinct Delegates have been chosen. Estimates that news orgs make must extrapolate the numbers of Precinct Delegates into National Delegates. These estimates must pertain to all of Washington's national pledged delegates since none have yet been chosen. In other words, there aren't some pledged delgates who have been chosen and some that need to be estimated. Washington will send 78 pledged delegates to the national convention. It seems logical that any estimate of the distribution of delegates to each candidate should therefore add up to 78. However, none of the news orgs I've seen provide estimates that add up to 78. For example, CNN and CBS's estimates for Washington show 58 delegates. Where are the other 20? It seemed to me that a simply multiplying 78 by the percentage of Precinct Delegates won by each candidate would yield simple results that are as likely to hold up as any other estimate we might find. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 10:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

That is original research. We are limited to numbers that have a source. If 20+ delegates are still "undetermined", than we must note that and post those numbers. The 78 pledged delegates for Washington are not pledged until later in the process. 51 are pledged on May 17 based on congressional district and 27 on June 15 based on the presidential preferences of the Election Committee as a whole. (That seems kinda weird, it doesn't seem to be based on any kind of public vote.) See http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/WA-D.phtml for details. That second event on June 15 is probably why so many sources have 27 or so delegates unpartitioned, there isn't any reliable way to estimate how they will be split. Therefore, I propose we show 0 delegates are awarded based on the caucuses (as well as the primary) and add additional rows to the table for the May 17 and June 15 events. ~ PaulT+/C 11:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I certainly don't want to violate Wikipedia's prohibition of original research, but I must admit I'm a bit confused as to where the line is drawn here. If it is original research to calculate the national delegates for a state based on a sourced list of precinct delegates, then why isn't it also original research to calculate (sum) the total pledged delegates for all states in the US based on their individual sourced delegate counts? Should we perhaps remove the totals of US pledged delegates from this article and replace them with totals given in a published source? That might get confusing if the totals don't match the data below. The article Wikipedia:These are not original research seems to suggest that none of these calculations are original research, though that article is not strictly a policy or guideline article itself.
It is true that 51 delegates are pledged on May 17 and the remaining 27 on June 15. The 27 delegates include 17 at-large pledged delegates (which don't represent specific districts as the 51 district delegates do) and 10 PLEO pledged delegates. All of these 27 delegates are chosen on June 15 by the 51 district delegates that were pledged on May 17. Therefore, by proxy, the distribution of delegates among the candidates would remain the same for all 78 delegates. Even if this weren't true, the fact that none of the delegates have been chosen yet (not the 51 district delegates nor the 27 at-large and PLEO delegates) means that the 51/27 split should have no bearing whatsoever on the news orgs' estimates. That might only come into play after May 15. In addition, none of the news orgs' estimates that I've seen split 51/27 (CNN and CBS, for example, split 58/20, and the Green Papers splits 37/41), so I doubt this is actually the reason behind the "missing" delegates in their estimates. The fact that the numbers seem close in some cases is probably coincidence.
Your proposal to show 0 delegates for Washington until May 17 or June 15 depends on the consensus we reach in the discussion above (Overview of results: Estimated vs. Actual delegates). You've made essentially the same proposal there, for which I have registered support. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 18:36, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
I just noticed that Ross UK has pointed out that MSNBC's estimate exactly matches the calculated estimate I used, so if we still think my calculation is original research, we could switch to using MSNBC's estimate. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 19:47, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I feel that I've provided a reasonable rebuttal to the original research charge and there's been no further discussion here. I'm therefore going to go ahead and remove the {{original research}} banner. If there are any objections to removing the banner, let's talk about it here. We may soon end up replacing the calculation with sourced estimates anyway. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 11:57, 18 February 2008 (UTC)

DC

On the results by county map, can someone get DC colored blue for Obama? Schoop (talk) 14:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed, DC's land area in it's entirely is smilar to a small (geographically speaking) county in either Maryland or Virginia. Jon (talk) 19:05, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Number of Delagetes Required to Win Democratic Nomination, 2025 or 1869 ?

With Florida (185) and Michigan (128) having their delagetes stripped (assuming this remains unchanged), their will only be 3736 delagets participating in the vote at the democratic convention (4049 - 128 - 185 = 3736). This means that 1869 delagets would be a majority of the voting delagetes (3736 / 2 = 1868), and thus sufficient to secure the party nomination. So far everyone is assuming that either candidate will still fall short of the 2025 needed to win, and that the outstanding superdelagets will have to come into play. However, since the total voting delagetes is now a smaller figure, the "bar" that one needs to pass for the nomination should be adjusted accordingly to 1869 as explained above. This is significant because it means that a clear winner could be decided prior to the convention and without the votes of the outstanding superdelages. I haven't seen any discussion anywhere about this, all the news networks are still using the 2025 figure. Discuss! -Mariokarter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.126.213 (talk) 22:57, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

The figure of 2025 already excludes the Michigan and Florida delegates. There are 4049 delegates not counting MI and FL. Data Fever (talk) 23:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, and I know that perhaps the simple answer to this, is that the democratic nominee still requires the support of a majority of total delagetes (ie 2025), regardless of the fact that that some won't be voting. Its just that I haven't seen anyone adress this point with any certainty. Also, this is potentially problematic, because if this race remains close, both candidates couls STILL be short of 2025 delagetes even after the outstanding delagetes have voted! -Mariokarter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.126.213 (talk) 23:12, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Actually, the 2,025 number takes into account the stripped delegates in MI and FL. If they weren't stripped, there would actually be 4,414 (4,048 + 210 + 156 this includes superdelegates) delegates and a candidate would have to win 2,207 to secure the nomination. See http://www.thegreenpapers.com/P08/tally.phtml ...
This does pose an interesting question tho, isn't the real magic number based on pledged delegates? The Democratic party won't let the superdelegates invalidate the will of the people or they will have a riot on their hands. That would mean 3,253/2 or 1,626 is the number to watch ((3,253+128+185)/2 or 1,782 if MI and FL are included). Once that number is reached, a majority of pledged delegates have "spoken" and there will be massive pressure for the other candidate to withdraw at that point. Each candidate is about 500 delegates away. ~ PaulT+/C 23:42, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe that part of the rationale for superdelegates is to prevent the nomination of an "unelectable" candidate. If the difference in pledged delegates is small, it will be the superdelegates making the choice. Only if the difference in pledged delegates were quite large (but not deterministic) would it be mutinous for the superdelegates to override the choice of the people, IMO. Data Fever (talk) 23:54, 14 February 2008 (UTC)
If a candidate is getting more than half of the pledged delegates I hardly think they could be properly described as 'unelectable'. --Ross UK (talk) 20:19, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
If I recall correctly, the superdelegate system was put into place after McGovern's landslide loss in 1972. While McGovern was a favorite of the people and won nomination easily, there were many party leaders who felt that he was a poor choice to lead the party into the general election (i.e. they felt he could not win in the general election; he was 'unelectable'). Turns out they were right. That's my understanding of how the current situation came to be. Data Fever (talk) 20:41, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Ok 2025 and 4049 are already adjusted to take the stripped delagates into consideration, makes perfect sense. So I guess we can just delete this section now so the talk page is less cluttered, right? -Mariokarter —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.51.127.128 (talk) 03:28, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Remove "Effect of stripped delegates & plurality voting system"

This section does not help anyone's understanding of the primary results, and looks to me to be an unbalanced look at different ways of voting that might favor Clinton. If it is to stay, we should add what the results would be on a strictly popular vote which would favor Obama - or any other voting method anyone can think up. The best option is to just remove it - it is original research, and the numbers are outdated anyway. Dfuss (talk) 23:32, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

While I am disinterested in the inclusion of the effect of stripped delegates, I oppose the inclusion of winner takes all results on the basis that it is not the system in use. There are other systems that are not in use either. It would make no sense to try to figure out every possible scenario for dividing the delegates (or what the effect would be if the Dems did not use a delegate system at all, but some other imaginary device for selecting a candidate). Data Fever (talk) 23:39, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

If there are reliable sources on these possible situations (Michigan and Florida being included is a real possibility), they should be included. Hypothetical situations are not worth discussing. ~ PaulT+/C 23:45, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Wiki is not a crystal ball; unless and until major news sources start reporting the possibility, does not belong on the articles themselves. Personally I don't see them being given votes unless either Hillary or Obama drops out before the convention. (A few nights ago on the "what-if" scenario one of the CNN analysts showed that even if either Obama or Hillary got 70% of the votes from here on out, neither of them could reach the magic number with elected delegates alone.) Jon (talk) 19:00, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Michigan and Florida cannot be included. First, Obama was not even on the ballot for Michigan, so the results are invalid. Second, if there is not some type of punishment with valid consequences (eg. the state's candiate of choice not winning the primary) we will end up with states competing with each other to become the "first". At what point do we as the people say a primary date is too early? Personally, beyond maybe a couple of states for people to get a feel for how candidates will do both under pressure and in different areas of the country, all of the states should vote in a primary on the same date: First Tuesday in February. 69.120.135.108 (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 14:53, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

New Mexico

Hillary already won New Mexico so please update that map. kardrak 01:24, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Done. Next time, put new sections at the bottom of the page. ~ PaulT+/C 11:58, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Misleading Colors

Could somebody please change the colour scheme back to the way it previously. With Clinton's results in Navy Blue, I can barely make out the text behind it. In addition, with 2nd place having a darker blue than than 1st place, it suggests that Clinton is in first place. --Edmoil (talk) 02:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

What exactly are you talking about? HoosierStateTalk 03:05, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
You took the words out of my mouth, HoosierState. As it currently stands, the color of Navy Blue is for the winner of a particular contest, regardless of who it is. Second place is white (uncolored). Therefore the initial statement of "2nd place having a darker blue than than 1st place" makes no sense. Where are you looking that it would appear that Clinton is in first place? Data Fever (talk) 03:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, I've found the problem; I was using the the latest version of Opera, so the table looks like this to me:--Edmoil (talk) 03:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Does anyone know if there is some reason that prevents the current color scheme from displaying correctly with Opera? I would hope that users of all major browsers would be able to see the results as expected. Thank you for bringing this to our collective attention, Edmoil. Data Fever (talk) 03:54, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Hmm... apparently we are using non-standard HTML color names. I'll change "navyblue", which doesn't seem to be on the list, to "cornflowerblue", which looks similar and should work nicely... Let me know if you see additional issues. If you don't I'll change the republican page to match these colors. ~ PaulT+/C 06:40, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, now the page looks identical in both IE and Opera. --Edmoil (talk) 14:35, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I'm removing the "recently pledged delegates" row

This discussion page is peppered with opposition from many editors to the "recently pledged delegates" row, which is so far only supported (however strongly) by the single IP editor at 77.132.*.*/77.128.*.*. I feel that enough time has passed that if support among any other editors existed for this user's idea, then it should have been voiced by now. I'm therefore going to go ahead and remove that row entirely. If you'd like to add your support below once again for this row's removal, that can only help clarify to this IP user that the consensus of the editors on this page is to remove it. Thanks. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 12:55, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

  • Support - There was never any need for there to be a recently pledged row.86.146.127.41 (talk) 20:31, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
  • Support - No need. --Siradia (talk) 23:03, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Democrats Abroad?

There's no information on this page or on the page for the Primary itself about when we can expect to hear results back from Democrats Abroad. Do they have a convention at some point? When and where is it? If voting has already closed, shouldn't we hear some sort of early figures at some point?86.146.127.41 (talk) 20:33, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

There are three regional conventions and one global one in the next few weeks/months. Apart from that there doesn't seem to be much information available at the moment, though ABC shows a 3-1 lead for Obama in delegates (from a total of 14 I suppose). --Ross UK (talk) 23:57, 16 February 2008 (UTC)
Democrats Abroad collectively only gets 7 delegates, not 14. Jon (talk) 21:54, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Indeed, but their votes are valued at 0.5 each. --Ross UK (talk) 22:57, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Is that 14 at 0.5 each, or 7 at 0.5 each meaning that they get a total say of 3.5 delegates? And is there anyone else who counts for only half a delegate, or is it only the Democrats Abroad delegates?86.132.186.249 (talk) 00:15, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry it wasn't entirely clear. There are 22 Democrats Abroad delegates: 14 pledged, 8 super. All get half a vote, making 7 pledged, 4 super. Now we have had some super pledges there are halves appearing in the totals. Apart from Dems Abroad there are no halves; all other delegates have one vote each. --Ross UK (talk) 02:01, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That's true for the supers (no other 1/2 votes), but not for the pledged delegates. The pledged delegates from Guam, American Samoa and Virgin Islands also get 1/2 votes. But the number of votes in the article are still correct. Just twice as many delegates casting them. (This is done solely to allow more delegates to attend the convention, since the allocated votes for these areas are so small). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Simon12 (talk • contribs) 04:05, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
That brings up another issue. On the main page it starts you need 1/2 a delegate less to win than on this page. Mathematicly speaking, the former would be a majority, but I don't know if a fractional half vote would get kept or droped in their tabulation at the convention. In any case one of these two pages should be changed to bring these two pages into agreement. Jon (talk) 18:38, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Map file

From WP:IUP: Drawings, icons, political maps, flags and other such images are preferably uploaded in SVG format as vector images. --Ibagli rnbs (Talk) 09:09, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Washington

Whats up with Washington, why is there 6 different events listed? HoosierStateTalk 19:06, 17 February 2008 (UTC)

Ah nevermind. Washington's process is seriously screwed up. HoosierStateTalk 19:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I don't think it's useful to list events in which no delegates will be assigned. Jon (talk) 21:51, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
Agreed. What does everyone else think? HoosierStateTalk 22:01, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
There's been discussion on this subject above, though I'm inclined to agree with you both. --Ross UK (talk) 22:58, 17 February 2008 (UTC)
I think any state/party-sponsored event where a straw poll or delegate selection takes place should be included in this article.24.60.19.247 (talk) 07:42, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for that further info. --Ross UK (talk) 20:36, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
If no delegates are being assigned, I don't really see that an event belongs on this page (though I can see why an exception would be made for Michigan and Florida). I don't really see that an event where no delegates are assigned in Washington is any more significant than a televised debate or a major straw poll. We wouldn't suggest putting an extra row in the table for each televised debate, why have an extra row for events which don't have any impact on the outcome of the delegate race?81.155.3.114 (talk) 20:53, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
Well, technically the caucuses and convetions are all connected. The Feb. 9th caucus started the process for those delegates to continue. The estimates are based on those delegate commitments. They just go from being estimates to actuals as the process goes through the formalities. The Feb. 19th primary is unrelated and is not used in any delegate selections in any way. I don't understand why the state even does it, but it does serve as a statewide straw poll. And yes, the system is screwed up. Most in the state don't understand that theur primary ballot means nothing. sigh. --Siradia (talk) 22:45, 18 February 2008 (UTC)
An event held by the state where people actually go to the polls to vote is very different from any straw poll or televised debate. Votes are officially tallied and while the results may be political theatre in the purest sense of the words, they are "Results of the 2008 Democratic Party presidential primaries" and judging from the title of the article, should be included. (That 24.x.x.x IP above is me.) ~ PaulT+/C 06:16, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
An event where people go to the polls to vote, but where that vote doesn't count towards anything or have any impact on the number of delegates isn't really all that different to a straw poll or an opinion poll of people who don't get a say. If people feel that it's important to keep them in, then fair enough... I just can't quite see the point of having a load of rows for Washington that don't actually impact the totals in any way.217.44.122.167 (talk) 19:46, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
There has been a fair amount of controversy within Washington State regarding the caucus vs. primary question (see this article), which might partly explain Washington's crazy patchwork quilt of party nomination events. The controversy may be motivating some voters to shun the caucus in favor of the primary, knowing full well that the primary won't decide delegates. Their vote in the primary thus becomes a kind of protest vote. Also, unlike a straw poll, a great many voters are unaware that their vote in the primary doesn't actually choose delegates. Suppose the primary shows overwhelming support for Clinton (who didn't do well in the caucuses). That result might affect the votes cast by those delegates who are representing their respective neighborhoods. For these and other reasons, I feel that even though the primary doesn't directly affect the delegate counts, its presence in the process is significant. I'd like to see Washington's primary included in this article. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 21:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

State Delegation Order

I ordered the delegation results alphabetically by state here and it was reverted here. I believe the information is presented in a much more organized fashion if the full tallied results are listed by state instead of date. The overview table does a nice job of showing a timeline of when each event happened. I don't think we need to duplicate that in the full results. In addition, many states have more than one contest, which occur at different dates throughout the process. I think it is much more beneficial and informative to list these events under one state heading rather than chronologically, which would break up events in the same state. It also makes it possible to outline each states full delegation to the Convention, including superdelegates, which I believe should fall under the scope of this article since we are listing superdelegate numbers in the overview table. The superdelegate headings need more discussion, but I think we can come to consensus pretty quickly on whether the full state delegation results should be ordered alphabetically by state or chronologically as it is currently. Please comment below. ~ PaulT+/C 06:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)

Support alphabetical state delegation results. ~ PaulT+/C 06:00, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. I'd been planning to consolidate the material below the summary table by state alphabetically myself. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 08:26, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Support. What state information will be under state headings on the Results article, and what will appear in subarticles? Right now it seems we have a separate subarticle for each caucus, state convention, etc. for a state. Wdfarmer (talk) 18:40, 19 February 2008 (UTC)
Comment — Before we alphabetize the list (and I do support doing so) I would like to explore the proposition of adding superdelegates under each state heading. While superdelegates are grouped by state on CNN and other news sources, they really have nothing to do with each state and it is all up to personal preference (as some Republican delegates are). Furthermore, superdelegates can change their preference at any time. For these reasons, I would urge that we do not include superdelegates as proposed by Paul, but perhaps a whole other section. This new section could have a chart of the superdelegates by state much the main one towards the top. If we want to get elaborate (I would suggest another article) we could list the superdelegates by name and have their endorsements and than later change (after the convention) it to how they voted. – Zntrip 02:10, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I believe the lists of superdelegates you're proposing already exist at: List of 2008 United States Democratic Party superdelegates and List of 2008 United States Democratic Party Superdelegates (by endorsement). Perhaps we should merely direct users looking for superdelegate details there. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 05:55, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Support this page is about results, and not a timeline of events; the Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008 article serves better as a timeline/outline and already orders states by time. Andareed (talk) 06:31, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

There seems to be consensus on alphabetizing by state at least, so I went ahead and changed it. If we decide to employ Zntrip's superdelegate idea above, this new organization will make it an easier task. --Bryan H Bell (talk) 13:35, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Can someone explain the half-a-superdelegate?

That just looks like someone trying to get the most they can or trying to hold out as long as possible. Is it possible to have half a vote? I'm not as familliar with the process as some so I thought I'd ask. Padillah (talk) 13:27, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

In the 1970s there was quite a bit of fractional voting at the Democrat conventions, usually when a state sent more people than it was entitled to. My guess is something similar's happened here - have any states had their delegations halved, with superdelegates from that state correspondingly only getting half a vote? Timrollpickering (talk) 13:34, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
From our source for superdelegate counts: "Democrats Abroad has 8 people, but 1/2 vote per person." Democrats Abroad represents citizens living outside of the US. Apparently their superdelegates only get half votes. Cypher2100 (talk) 18:43, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
I think this was also in the discussion on the main 2008 DP primary article, but basically some of the smaller territories elect half-pledged-delegates and have half-super delegates instead of full ones. There's also one territory that while it has full pledged delegates gets half super delegates. Jon (talk) 19:06, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Update the map!

I think the first map should be updated with Obama's Hawaii victory. 79.32.231.16 (talk) 16:09, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done ~ PaulT+/C 22:25, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

Nebraska

The Nebraska results seem to have vanished. Could someone please re-add them? --Jedravent (talk) 20:59, 20 February 2008 (UTC)

 Done. They were inadvertently lost during the February 18, 2008 alphabetizing of sections. Wdfarmer (talk) 21:58, 20 February 2008 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Results_of_the_2008_Democratic_Party_presidential_primaries/Archive_3&oldid=1050740754"