Talk:2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2: 14 days

Elections and Referendums

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Elections and Referendums, an ongoing effort to improve the quality of, expand upon and create new articles relating to elections, electoral reform and other aspects of democratic decision-making. For more information, visit our project page.Elections and ReferendumsWikipedia:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsTemplate:WikiProject Elections and ReferendumsElections and Referendums articles

United States: Iowa / Presidential elections Low‑importance

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Iowa portal This article is supported by WikiProject Iowa (assessed as Mid-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections (assessed as Low-importance).

Politics: American

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by American politics task force.

Section sizes

Section size for 2020 Iowa Democratic presidential caucuses (17 sections)
Section name	Byte count	Section total
(Top)	11,567	11,567
Procedure	1,605	36,520
Precinct caucus procedures	14,863	14,863
Satellite caucus procedures	8,350	8,350
County, district, state convention and national convention delegates	6,760	6,760
Key changes from previous caucuses	4,942	4,942
Polling	42,633	42,633
Results	22,194	100,305
Results by County	78,111	78,111
Delay in final results	7,902	14,482
IowaRecorder app	6,580	6,580
Inconsistencies in votes	5,794	5,794
Analysis	4,705	4,705
See also	63	63
Footnotes	28	28
References	28	28
External links	1,181	1,181
Total	217,306	217,306

Vote lead

One editor keeps rounding 26.186 to 26.19 and 26.182 to 26.18. My issue with this is it rounds 0.004 point lead to 0.01 point lead, which I think is biased. The lead is overall more around 0.0037 or 0.0038, and I’m ok with rounding it up just to be clear. I’m gonna playing devil’s advocate here. If it is ok to round to do this, then would it be ok to round 26.186 to 26.2 and 26.182 to 26.2. 0 is closer 0.004 than 0.01 is to 0.004. We also can clearly see a lead in state delegate equivalents, therefore it is unnecessary to show lead. Can someone please explain? Thank you! Pentock (talk) 16:11, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It's usually considered courteous to tag an editor when you're directly referring to them or their actions. Further to this, I feel a little nonplussed by your decision to violate the WP:3RR while also opening the discussion.

As for the point itself, it makes sense to round it to the number of decimal places necessary to show who won a higher percentage (and even then, only because it determines who 'won' the primary). 3 decimal places is more accurate than 2, but 4 is more accurate than 3, and 5 is more accurate than 4. These aren't neat numbers – if people want more specificity, that's what the results table is for – not the infobox. Domeditrix (talk) 17:34, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I would support rounding to one, or two at the most, decimal places in the infobox to be consistent with previous years articles. By the way it's not "0.004 point lead", it's "0.004 percent lead". In other words 4/10,000ths. - Mr X 🖋 17:51, 21 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Pentock, it makes sense to display the number of decimal places where there begins a difference in the result. The first two decimal places of Sanders and Buttigieg are identical (.18) but the third shows the difference (.186 vs .182). Xenagoras (talk) 18:05, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

We are broadly in agreement. We agree that we should limit the number of decimal places to as many are necessary to show the difference. Rounding to the nearest number (down for 0–4, up for 5–9) allows us to do that with two decimal places, not three. I think you are familiar with how rounding works, as, when stating Buttigieg won 26.186% and Sanders: 26.182%, you have indeed rounded those numbers up (from 26.1855% and 26.1818%). If we can round at the third decimal place, we can round at the second decimal place. Domeditrix (talk) 19:56, 22 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Pentock: Care to respond? Domeditrix (talk) 05:29, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Domeditrix. The reason I made the change is because when I saw the results on Wikipedia had changed. I thought the lead widened. If it was a 1.004 percent lead and rounded to 1.01. I would not care. We need to show how close the results are. Not everyone is in agreement. If I asked you how much Pete Buttigieg was leading by, would you say 0.01? The New York Times has the results tied at 26.2. Politico has it at 28.186-26.182. While I get rounding the numbers. At the same time if I were to round 0.4 point lead to 1 point lead. Would you find that misleading. We can’t mislead our viewers. Pentock (talk) 18:23, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

It is different to round 0.0037 point lead up to 0.004 point lead because if it is 5 or greater you round up. If it 4 or lower you round down. Pentock (talk) 18:24, 27 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

The SDE% totals aren't to show the vote lead so much as to show the SDE% attained by each candidate. If the field was 'how much did each candidate trail Buttigieg by', you'd have a point. Also, please stop edit warring while this discussion is ongoing, I so not want to escalate this, I think we can sort this out here, but that requires you engaging with the process. Domeditrix (talk) 05:18, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

AP Still refusing to call the race after recount

What are we to make of the AP refusing to call Iowa even after the recount? [1][2][3] How should we deal with this in the infobox and elsewhere? I guess that after the results are certified one way or another on Saturday, it won't really matter.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 02:15, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly, it will be certified on saturday so Pete will have won the contest by default then. I don't think there is a valid reason to leave it uncalled for anymore so. -HoxtonLyubov (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

@Darryl Kerrigan and HoxtonLyubov:: Agree that the still present AP vs IDP dispute is not notable enough, and that it will be solved when the election result most likely gets certified by IDP later today. However, the Politico source was updated 03:37 (28.Feb) with this notable small extra story:

The state Democratic Party will certify the results on Saturday, but Sanders' campaign said it has filed an implementation challenge with the DNC, stating that the Iowa Democratic Party conducted its recanvass and recount in a way that violated their delegate selection plan. The challenge argued that Buttigieg should not have been able to ask for a recount or recanvass. The Sanders campaign argued that the state party's delegate selection plan only allows for a recanvass or recount request if the request would change the allocation of a national delegate, and that neither of Buttigieg's requests met that criteria.

A short summary of the "Sanders vs. DNC" story above should be added to our article. Danish Expert (talk) 10:43, 29 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Delegates won vs. popular vote

Hi,

Drreid1212, the infobox is incorrect the way you have edited it. We have agreed that the delegate count, not the popular vote, is what should be counted as a win. David O. Johnson (talk) 18:42, 28 February 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress

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 23:05, 3 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rfc notice

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) 00:41, 8 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

sorry if simplistic - who won?

does this article state that someone was certified as the winner? I literally do not understand if a winner was conclusively determined. skak E L 04:26, 30 July 2020 (UTC)[reply]