Talk:2012 U.S. Virgin Islands Republican presidential caucuses

Votes = delegates?

How is it that the candidate that gets the most votes, dont gets the majority of delegates? Don't the votes count? Jørgen88 (talk) 07:05, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Probably a large Ron Paul majority in one precinct, and small Romney majorities in each of several other precincts... AnonMoos (talk) 08:42, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

From what I understand, most of the Virgin Island delegates are superdelegates rather than delegates assigned by caucusing/voting. 68.42.243.198 (talk) 11:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

An explanation I found online; take with a grain of salt, as always

"The Virgin Islands caucus system was set up with participants voting for specific delegates rather than candidates, with the different delegates claiming they would vote for different candidates. The popular vote counted all of the votes for delegates who pledged to vote for the various candidates. Seven delegates pledged their support for Paul but only three listed Romney. So the total vote total for Paul was split amongst seven people and only one finished in the top six. All three of Romney's finished in the top six. One of the top six was uncommitted but after the vote declared for Romney. The other top six finisher remained uncommitted. Romney's other three delegates are super delegates. So while Paul's team got more votes than Romney's team, Romney's votes were consolidated and more useful. Running fewer delegates made sure that any Romney supporters would be voting for the same delegates. As only the top six delegates would go to the RNC convention, by having seven declared delegates, Paul's team diluted their votes and made it harder for any one of them to win."68.42.243.198 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 12:02, 11 March 2012 (UTC).

Fleshed out the article a bit with an explanation for why media organizations are reporting the popular vote as a Romney victory. For the record, as a Democrat who's probably a neutral party, I think the current approach is correct as voters selected delegates based on their claims, with no control as to who they would support after the vote (i.e. for some fantasy scenario in which 100% of votes were for Romney, electing all Romney delegates, and then they all decided to switch to Paul afterwards for some reason, it would probably be better to report the popular vote as 100% Romney rather than 100% Paul.) 68.42.243.198 (talk) 12:13, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

This explanation has been very helpful with all the media reports I saw saying Ron Paul won. Whats interesting is that the media liked reporting the popular vote up until now, when they report the delegate vote. Ron Paul supporters claim to have won majorities of delegates in a few states, but that hasnt been reported.--Metallurgist (talk) 21:55, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, the delegate majority thing can't really be confirmed. What's happening is that the Paul campaign has focused on organization in caucus states with unbound delegates, which may be able to win majorities of delegates... after numerous conventions, most of which have yet to come. Essentially, we won't have any idea what's going on (besides the campaign's word) until a couple of months. 67.194.72.6 (talk) 22:49, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

On the other hand, what their Republican leaders say now will probably hold (Romney support). Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 13:38, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

I've tried to build upon the extremely helpful explanation that 68.42.243.198 added. This is a really interesting process, perhaps exaggerated by the small nature of the election. Ravensfire (talk) 18:49, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Although Romney picked up more delegates, Ron Paul won the popular vote. In every preceding state, the winner was declared on the basis of the popular vote. Therefore, (admittedly only in the techinical sense of the word) Ron Paul won the Virgin Islands. Is this not true, using a consistent basis for determining the "winner"? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nemoliberestquicorporiservit (talk • contribs) 02:49, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

No. VI does a really odd process. You don't vote for a candidate, you vote for a delegate. In fact, you vote for up to 6 delegates. Delegates get on the ballot and can either declare for a candidate or remain uncommitted. As the article notes, 6 of the delegates declared for Paul, 3 for Romney, 2 for Gingrich, 2 for Santorum and 9 stayed uncommitted. At the time of the election, if you total up the votes, the order was uncommitted, Paul, Romney. However, the total votes means even less here than in the main Presidential election. It's all about the delegates. Romney won 3 out-right and a fourth switched from uncommitted to him. Paul won a single delegate and one delegate remains uncommitted. So who wins? From delegate count, Romney. From vote for delegates as they declared before the election, Paul. From vote for delegates after delegate Cole switched, Romney. Ravensfire (talk) 03:03, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Also, look at the New York Times reference - they base their win/lose on delegates, not on votes. Ravensfire (talk) 03:04, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Shouldn't the vote total be listed in terms of delegates? Voters were not voting for candidates, they were voting for delegates.76.218.120.23 (talk) 01:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

They really voted for both as apparently there were two polls. The article lists the popular vote and the total delegates earned and goes into detail in the text. If you're confused, so am I! This was a really odd caucus. Ravensfire (talk) 02:01, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Controversy?

Whoever reaches 1,144 delegates, (not the most popular votes), wins the nomination! What is the controversy? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 03:28, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

If you're a Paul supporter ... Ravensfire (talk) 03:33, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The United States of America is a republic, not a democracy. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk)

The controversy is the way the media reported Virgin Islands. Most American news agencies simply reported that Romney won. If they did venture any further, it was simply to state that Romney picked up more delegates. No mention was made of the fact that Ron Paul won the popular vote. In every preceding state, the winner was declared on the basis of the popular vote. Even if the news agencies decided to call the Virgin Islands for Romney, they ought to have addressed the issue properly. Instead, they said nothing. That is the controversy. I thought my small paragraph neatly encapsulated what all the fuss was about? Nemoliberestquicorporiservit (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

In summary, it stated four things: 1. Many were vexed the way most news media agencies reported the story. 2. Some news media reported that Ron Paul won, others made claims of bias (which is really where the controversy comes from). 3. The majority of news media reported the story the way they did because of the way Virgin Islands works(referring the reader to the well set out section above). 4. The other news media reported the story the way they did because the yardstick used in the past was popular vote, and although Virgin Islands worked differently, they felt the distinction was artificial.

It took me a while to work all this out, and it would be nice if someone could just click the page and have a quick summary of it all. Nemoliberestquicorporiservit (talk) 03:52, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

Any objections to me re-uploading it? Nemoliberestquicorporiservit (talk) 04:56, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, I will re-upload it on the assumption that you no longer have objections. If you do still have objections, than feel free to remove it and we can discuss the matter further. Nemoliberestquicorporiservit (talk) 08:27, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

I'd like to actually see some discussion happen, not you simply ignoring the objects and point made. Let me pose you a question - what was actually being determined in this election? Specifically. Ravensfire (talk) 17:26, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

Popular vote section revamped to hopefully better explain things and note disparity. Ravensfire (talk) 21:29, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

WP editors/readers who think there was media bias in reporting Ron Paul's popular vote win will be interested to know there is a Wikipedia page on Media Bias. FYI, I have reference our TALK discussion in their talk section: Talk:Media_bias_in_the_United_States#Media_bias_claimed_in_the_Virgin_Island:_.28Ron_Paul_win.3F.29 Take a look, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 00:34, 22 March 2012 (UTC)

One thing that's really been yanking my chain about this: how does the process in VI work, exactly? Are all voters entitled to vote for six delegates, and the top six are declared elected? Or are the voters entitled to choose only one delegate, and still the top six are declared elected? Because if it is a multiple-vote system (not unlike elections for city council or local school board), then there's no way to know who won the popular vote, is there? A voter who ticked the boxes for the three Romney delegates could just as easily have chosen three Paul delegates as well, and vice versa. Or any number of uncommitted delegates, and your choice of Paul/Romney delegates to go along with them. This is ridiculous. All the hyperventilating over "media bias" and the suppression of a "Ron Paul win", and the hijacking of WP pages by Ron Paul diehards determined to make sure everyone knows their candidate "won" in a minor territory caucus, over a "popular vote" that is not a typical "one man, one vote" election at all, but a multiple-choice ballot with distorted results. --SchutteGod 70.181.184.7 (talk) 23:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

In the final analysis, it will all come via the people that live there. Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 01:57, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

One ballot ... or two?

I'm really beginning to get confused by VI's process. At least one of the secondary sources talk about a preference poll being the source of the popular vote number. I went with that in the re-write, but I'm not so sure about that anymore. Nothing on the VIGOP site mentions a preference poll, including the polling procedures. All they mention is the single ballot with the delegates. The numbers listed as the delegate counts and the totals given as the "popular vote" match up, which if this was the preference poll they should not match. (Up to 6 delegates per voter, vote totals should be much higher than total number of voters). Also, only that one secondary source mentions the preference poll. I'm going to rewrite my rewrite to remove the preference poll stuff and go back to the total number of votes for delegate that supported candidate X. Ravensfire (talk) 02:52, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your persistence. Green Papers have added notes to explain: [*The Green Papers: for the U.S. Virgin Islands] FYI, Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:19, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Trying to revamp for clarity

I made some (more) change to revamp the results section to try and better explain the process and to note the several media reports noted the delegate results vs "popular vote" results. Also added the statement from the Paul campaign. SchutteGod reverted my change, noting, in part to "Please stop taking RP talking points as fact." I didn't think I was, as nearly everything I added was sourced to multiple points. There are a couple of articles that mention the popular vs delegate results, so I think it's failing NPOV not to mention them. Not a lot, so it deserves a small mention (probably too much in the version that was reverted but some) in the article. Not as sure about the Paul campaign note, might be pushing the weight too much as SchutteGod noted. What do folks think about this? Ravensfire (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

What about adding this to the end of the popular vote section?

"Several media reports noted that despite Paul winning the popular vote, Romney was declared the winner because he earned more delegates in the caucus and overall from the Virgin Islands, adding in the superdelegates and the uncommitted delegate who switched to him."

It's fairly short and notes the discrepency and the reason for it and can be sourced. Ravensfire (talk) 16:39, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Delegate and Popular vote sections

I've made some small changes today, replacing the WHNT source with the VIGOP. I cannot verify the WHNT source at all - it does not exist on their site which is very odd. The editor that added the WHNT source replaced the VIGOP reference without changing the reference name, so several facts in the article were essentially unsupported. I've put the VIGOP source back as it supports all cited information.

I've removed a phrase about most media sources giving the popular vote to Romney after the delegate switch. Problem one, it was not supported at all by the source. The NY Times only reports the delegate count now. Second, the article itself is about the results as of the election, not after.

I also like the section split between delegate results and popular vote, but I'm switching the order as most media mentions are about the delegate results, not the popular vote, so putting that first is warranted. Ravensfire (talk) 16:16, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

A precedent exists for how to handle the VI results

None of the other editors seem to be aware of this, but the same issues at play here were also present in the 1960 presidential election. I'll quote from the Wikipedia article:

"The actual number of popular votes received by Kennedy in Alabama is difficult to determine because of the unusual situation in that state. The first minor issue is that, instead of having the voters choose from slates of electors, the Alabama ballot had voters choose the electors individually. Traditionally, in such a situation, a given candidate is assigned the popular vote of the elector who received the most votes. For instance, candidates pledged to Nixon received anywhere from 230,951 votes (for George Witcher) to 237,981 votes (for Cecil Durham); Nixon is therefore assigned 237,981 popular votes from Alabama." [emphasis mine]

Uncommitted electors were also treated as their own vote bloc. So under that traditional way of reckoning the popular vote, Romney would be credited with 42 votes, "Uncommitted" with 37, Paul with 29, Gingrich with 16, and Santorum with 15. Is there a compelling reason not to follow past practice? 69.225.199.36 (talk) 03:21, 25 March 2012 (UTC)

Indeed, uncommitted should be counted separately. However, once a delegate commits to a candidate, the votes should be calculated towards their total instead.

Here is the final tally from the Virgin Island GOP: http://vigop.com/2012/03/vi-gop-2012-caucus-results-coming-soon/

Summary:

Total Votes / 390 / 100%
Romney / 172 / 44.1%
Paul / 112 / 28.72
Santorum / 23 / 5.90%
Gingrich / 19 / 4.87%
Uncommitted / 64 / 16.41
Misha Atreides (talk) 21:33, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your excellent work; and also for explaining clearly.
Another thought is this: how will the delegates act at convention? Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 12:43, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Move discussion in progress

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2016 Iowa Democratic caucuses which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 08:42, 12 June 2020 (UTC)