Talk:2016 Libertarian Party presidential primaries

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

Why separate candidate tables?[edit]

What criteria are used to determine "Major Candidates" from "Other Featured Candidates?" It seems arbitrary. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mfeldmanmd (talk • contribs) 20:18, 8 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. Johnson and McAfee at least have standalone WP articles, but I don't see what's supposed to make Petersen a major candidate. I already took out the unsourced claim about him being a "frontronning [sic] challenger"; to my knowledge, there are no official polls for the Libertarian primaries to verifiably make anyone a frontrunner. Jah77 (talk) 16:51, 12 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
From this it appears that there was a poll done at some point. Different online polls at different stages have apparently had very different orderings (eg: Steve Kerbel was second in one, Austin Petersen first in another). The Minnesota Caucus results show those three in front. That said, I'm going to re-merge the table based on the fact that Republican Party presidential primaries, 2016 keep their table unified (cf Jim Gilmore), and it'll make rewriting the section lede less ugly. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:06, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Green Party presidential primaries, 2016 too... ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Winner of Missouri?[edit]

Why is Austin Petersen listed as the winner of the Missouri primary? It looks to me like "Uncommitted" won. I don't think you should list someone as a winner of an electoral contest if they failed to win even a plurality. Henrymrx (t·c) 02:21, 17 March 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Because Missouri awarded Petersen the state and uncommitted is not a candidate

Well the problem is that all these are preferential primaries, which are essentially just official polls. There is no "winner." --Hamez0 (talk) 07:49, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"N" vs. "A" in debate table[edit]

People keep switching "A" for "absent" to "N" for "non-invitee, future debate" for a debate that already happened (the Stossel one). I recommend using "A" for "absent" for anybody absent to prior debates rather than "N" because few prior debates had a published list of invitees. I know the North Carolina debate did, so we could redefine "N" to be "non-invitee" in general and add "N"s to the NC debate as well, but then what would we do with the other debates? Fill them with question marks because we aren't sure if the absent candidates weren't invited, or just didn't show? I'll switch the Stossel debate's absent participants back to "A" if nobody disagrees fairly soon, because right now, the debate table is in an inconsistent state. Professorstampede (talk) 22:01, 1 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

OK, since there were no responses, I thought about it some more and decided that it would make sense to redefine "N" to be "confirmed non-invitee" so that we could mark the Stossel and NC debates accordingly, and also keep the N's on the TX debate once that rolls around, without changing any "A"s to question marks. That does leave open the question of the Colorado debate, when the Colorado LP confirmed that they were not inviting Austin Petersen, but he showed up anyway. For now, I've left him there as a "P". Professorstampede (talk) 21:54, 2 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I liked it better the way it was before, with N being for non-invitees for future debates. In any case , it needs to be consistent. --Hamez0 (talk) 17:05, 6 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Debate Section[edit]

The Fox News Debate section is mostly editorializing, it needs to be cleaned up and brought to Wikipedia's standards. Jp16103 03:02, 15 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota Caucus Results[edit]

I have a map of Minnesota with caucus results based on http://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/03/gary-johnson-wins-75-3-of-first-choice-votes-in-minnesota-l-p-presidential-caucuses/ and https://www.lpmn.org/2016-lpmn-statewide-caucuses/ However, I have made the map in a different format than the other maps. Can anyone give me a good map to make the results on or is this map fine?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by LoganZombieOfTime (talk • contribs) 12:07, 24 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

LoganZombieOfTime: Thanks for producing; the map format is fine. There were eleven caucus locations but ten marked areas on the map -- were two located in the one district? ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 23:34, 5 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hydronium: Yes, there were two locations in one country. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.96.206.45 (talk) 10:14, 6 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Poll margin of error[edit]

@Jarodbuchta: Jarod, where does the margin of error come from. If you're calculating the figures yourself, then that'd count as WP:OR, but even if not, I have serious doubts about its accuracy since if the polls are self selecting then it's not a random sample - even assuming no (further) voter-buying. The LP website one may allow people who are not from the US to vote. For instance, I put my vote in for the Stossel debate (a true one-- I didn't watch it). Unless there's good reason to keep it, I believe that it'd be safest to remove the column. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 10:15, 3 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

How many primaries are there going to be?[edit]

I keep seeing new states being added to the list. Is that it or will there be more? And where is this new information coming from? Ghoul flesh (talk) 02:01, 7 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Should we be including the convention straw polls on the map template?[edit]

Someone has been adding to the map template the results of convention straw polls in states that didn't have a primary. Considering this is a page for primaries, should we really be including those? There aren't any credible sources attached to them either. --Hamez0 (talk) 05:07, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Temporary protection[edit]

I've protected the page (of course the wrong version) for 24 hours in response to this request. I'm not counting reverts, but I'm sure that several parties have exceeded three reverts in the last 24 hours. Please discuss, don't revert. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 06:30, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation Provided[edit]

TheLibertyLover (talk) 06:34, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Citation needed under The Blaze debate in Las Vegas May 16th: https://www.independentpoliticalreport.com/2016/05/lpnevada-gary-johnson-to-attend-may-16th-event-with-penn-jillette-in-las-vegas/

Generally, we try to avoid sources like Facebook pages and try to go for press releases. Dschslava Δx parlez moi 18:25, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Disabling request for now, pending consensus — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 19:06, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Protected edit request on 8 May 2016[edit]

Please re-add the candidates: John Hale, Keenan Dunham, Nathan Norman, and Merry Susan Nehls. LibertyLover mistakenly believes this page is a list of candidates, but it is a list of primary results. Whether the national party lists them on its website is irrelevant. These individuals attained ballot access (as is referenced) and so their exclusion causes a major POV issue.--William S. Saturn (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC) William S. Saturn (talk) 06:53, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

To clarify, is there consensus to revert to revision 719190682? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 11:51, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's what I asked for and I think it's safe to assume that's what was seconded and thirded.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 08:46, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
This also rolled back the work on the debate table, which I believe we wanted to keep, could that part be restored? Professorstampede (talk) 20:53, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
That's why I wanted to confirm the revision number. Other people okay with restoring this? — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:40, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes. When is the protection going to be lifted? --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:45, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Now. I only wanted to protect for 24h - apparently I hit the wrong button. I hope we won't see another edit war. --Stephan Schulz (talk) 23:06, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. I restored the debate table work.Professorstampede (talk) 04:23, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

RENAME: "Libertarian Party presidential nomination, 2016" ?[edit]

"primaries" are not an accurate description of the method the party uses, and are held in very few states ARClitePangloss (talk) 10:05, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

  • Disagree - "A primary election is an election that narrows the field of candidates before an election for office." - taken from Primary Election. So how exactly is it not a primary? I'd even argue the straw polls are a form of a Caucus. Acidskater (talk) 16:27, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
    • That works for me too, just seems that some people didn't think "primaries" included official state party preference votes like that. But it's impossible to describe the process while excluding them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ARClitePangloss (talk • contribs) 20:47, 8 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
  • "Primaries" is the term used in the articles for the other parties even though the various state parties follow different processes. Stick with a uniform description. – S. Rich (talk) 00:27, 9 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed edits to debates and candidates section, and proposed addition of content about Russia Today debate (Protected edit request on 10 May 2016)[edit]

My edit request (you can view the edits I am proposing will look by going to User:SecretName101/sandbox1) is as follows. I intend to add to the table of debates the upcoming Russia Today debate (scheduled to be held May 12th), as well as create a subsection discussing it, similarly to the April 1 and April 8, 2016 Stossel Debate (Fox Business Network) subsection. Included in this will be relevant citations about said debate. I also intend to add ballot access information about uncommitted ballot options to the table of candidates. SecretName101 (talk) 22:07, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

All changes require consensus from other editors. Please discuss before requesting the edit. Thanks — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 22:42, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I like the idea of having a small write-up for each of the nationally televised debates. The debate table already had the RT debate; it was removed during the lock, and I just restored it. Feel free to add the additional references and your write-up. A few comments on the write-up, though. For one, the network will be RT America, not Russia Today itself. Also, the Green Party debate will have been 3 days prior, not 2. Finally, double-check the spelling of Feldman's name. Professorstampede (talk) 04:50, 11 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

New section for state convention straw polls?[edit]

Over at the talk page for the map template, some have expressed that they think there should be a new section that shows straw polls taken at some State Libertarian Party conventions. I think it would definitely be usedful since so few state actually have primaries. The biggest issue though is finding official sources for such results. For some states all we have is a picture of someone taking the count on a notecard, which could be bogus numbers. --Hamez0 (talk) 23:13, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Support adding in Straw Polls, though sourcing is a nightmare. For this kind of thing, primary sourcing is likely to be common. If on official Facebook page only, archive a screenshot? (ugh). SP without some kind of official statement/acknowledgment should be omitted/clipped. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 23:35, 10 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A separate page for Austin Petersen?[edit]

I noticed that searching Austin Petersen just redirects to this page. I was wondering if perhaps a separate page for him should be made? I can understand arguments both for and against a page for him, so I wanted to gauge the views of other editors on this subject. Austin fridenberg (talk) 19:03, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There is an ongoing discussion about that taking place here. Here is the Afd discussion that resulted in the redirect.--JayJasper (talk) 19:19, 18 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The Austin Petersen page has been redirected to Austin Petersen presidential campaign 2016. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austin_Petersen_presidential_campaign,_2016 The Libertarian Party nomination will be announced in a couple of days (May 29, 2016)Bunco man (talk) 21:57, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Did you look at the page history at all? That page was approved from a draft into article status by Namiba after a proper review. You also seem to misunderstand Wikipedia as it is not an article about Austin Petersen, it is an article about Austin Petersen's 2016 campaign. Acidskater (talk) 22:49, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's been repaired back to normal. Bunco man (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Acidskater, she moved it from the draft to an actual article. The page was never declined or accepted; after it was moved to a real article page the tag was removed. Ghoul flesh (talk) 01:27, 28 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"uncommitted"[edit]

Please add somewhere in the general prose-text or introduction that people can vote "uncommitted" -- this might be obvious to party-members, but it's new to the rest of us. 184.101.253.15 (talk) 07:16, 19 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

"National polling"[edit]

This isn't like Republicans or Democrats, where they can ask people on the street their preferred candidate of their party. These are polls that were done online. Does anyone think the heading should be changed to "Online polling"? Ghoul flesh (talk) 01:49, 22 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Seconded. Not to mention that there is no guarantee that these polls are restricting international votes. Professorstampede (talk) 23:49, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I went ahead and made this change since nobody seems to be disagreeing. Professorstampede (talk) 03:57, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And just like that, a scientific poll came out, from Hammer of Truth. I went ahead and added a new "National polling" section, with just that poll in it, and kept the others in the "Online polling" section. Hopefully that's agreeable to everyone. Professorstampede (talk) 06:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Why don't we put the Libertarian Parties polls on the National Polling since it is directly done by the Party itself? Political Boss (talk) 16:15, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

The LP.org polls are still non-scientific online polls, like the Libertarian Future and other similar polls. Only the Hammer of Truth poll was scientific. I think that's the important distinction. Are there better section names we can think of to express that? Or maybe we should mention the scientific vs. non-scientific distinction in the sections as text? Professorstampede (talk) 18:33, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

What makes the Hammer poll so scientific? Political Boss (talk) 03:05, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

IPR Poll...[edit]

I don't think this poll should be included, due to its sample size. Only 173 respondents in this poll where all the others are over 2000. Look pretty unreliable due to this fact and as many as 5 peoples' opinions shift the results. --Hamez0 (talk) 04:52, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I like this one because they also took a delegates-only sampling, which showed the difference between the overall vs. delegates-only preferences and how those differ. To me, that's more useful data than any online poll of any size, since online polls have extreme selection bias. The Libertarian Future polls, for example, tell us more about the makeup of the readership of Libertarian Future than they do about how delegates might vote. Professorstampede (talk) 09:32, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Looks like somebody removed it anyway without discussing here first. For reference, it was a poll on Independent Political Report with 173 total respondents and 47 delegates. Does anybody else want to see it restored? To be honest, it's the only online poll I've found useful for making any sorts of predictions. The other new poll the same user added, from the "Conservatarian," tells us much less because there's no evidence that "Conservatarian" readers are likely to be delegates. Professorstampede (talk) 23:12, 23 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I conducted and oversaw the IPR poll. It was done in a fair manner with no vote inflation. I have no evidence, but from what I've seen, I am under the belief that the polls from "The Libertarian Republic" are not honest and inflate the vote totals for Petersen. Remember that Petersen owns the website. Additionally, the earliest poll on the list from October 2015 was not from IPR. I don't know where it came from. I conducted the first IPR poll in August 2013 but only three individuals who actually ended up running were included in the poll.--William S. Saturn (talk) 00:13, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I removed the fake IPR poll, I agree it should be properly labeled if it is to be restored. What do you mean by "Libertarian Republic" polls, by the way? Isn't "Libertarian Future" different? Any online polls tend to be biased toward certain candidates, in the sense that their readership is more likely to prefer one candidate to another; "Libertarian Future" perhaps is biased for Petersen, as is "Conservatarian," and IPR perhaps is biased for Perry. [edit: originally in this comment I said "inflates" here but I meant "biased".] The question is what other information can be gleaned from these. For what it's worth, I think that the 2nd IPR poll should definitely be restored, but I don't think we need to include the 1st one. Professorstampede (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I don't think that we should include the IPR poll because of such a small sample size. 48 delegates is less than 0.04% of the total delegates. I'm sure that in larger sample sizes on recognized libertarian sites, there are more than .04% of delegates voting. Therefore, I sustian that the 2nd IPR poll should remain dropped with a minimum requirement being 500 voters (seeing that that is around half of registered LP delegates. Also, to user above, no other poll on there is from Libertarian Republic, they are from "A Libertarian Future, which has endorsed Governor Gary Johnson. Bouncycorn (talk) 00:27, 24 May 2016 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:C3:4302:BF80:6842:1F07:BE52:36B1 (talk) [reply]
0.04% of total delegates? There isn't going to be 120,000 delegates. I suppose you mean 4% of delegates. Have there been any other polls of delegates? Because the other online polls are useless for determining how delegates might vote, regardless of the absolute number of delegates voting in them, if they don't separate delegate votes. Professorstampede (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I agree, the IPR site is run by Daryl Perry supporters and only accounted for a very small fraction of delegates and libertarian voters. It should remain down. Andrew30126 (talk) 01:40, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If the concern is bias, let's remove all online polls. Professorstampede (talk) 02:00, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Excuse me for my error, I mistakenly believed "Libertarian Future" was "Libertarian Republic." The problem with some of these polls appears to be external. I am currently experiencing a sudden overflow of Petersen supports on the latest IPR poll. This is being investigated. I see the same issue occurring on the current LP.org poll where Petersen is now at 51% even though he was significantly lower earlier in the day.--William S. Saturn (talk) 05:50, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Petersen has been on top of many of the latest polls for weeks. He has been ahead on the LP.ORG poll since the day it was put up. He's been over 50% for 3 days now. And it's legitimate- many conservatives are supporting Austin Petersen. Andrew30126 (talk) 18:25, 24 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the campaign floods the polls with votes for Petersen. Look at the scientific poll from Hammer of Truth and you will see that IPR's numbers are much more accurate than those from other online polls.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:26, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay if you are begging the question of bias let's go through this.

Independent Political Report and the Libertarian Party polls are the least biased. Libertarian future seems to be unbiased as well.

Liberty Hangout is extremely biased towards Petersen and links the polls to twitter followers which predominantly support Petersen. Libertarian Republic is guilty of the same. Political Boss (talk) 16:14, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Latest IPR poll has Austin and Gary tied with Austin winning the nomination among delegates- but sample size is still too small. Andrew30126 (talk) 17:24, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

That's because the Petersen campaign flooded the poll. The same thing is happening in the LP.org poll.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Those are Votes by people who support them. It isn't the campaigns fault they get more active supporters. Political Boss (talk) 03:04, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure that is true. It could be just a handful of people using IP spoofing to make each vote look unique. It is the flooding that makes the polls inaccurate. I'm not saying it's a good or a bad thing. Perhaps it is an effective campaign strategy to build support. What I am saying is that it is annoying for those of us interested in accuracy. --William S. Saturn (talk) 06:08, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I have been investigating Austin Petersen fan groups and pages for the last at least 24 hours and haven't found any evidence that 1) Austin Posted the poll or 2) Users were spamming the poll. I also found no evidence that this poll was even posted in groups or pages except once. The main polls I found that were posted several times were twitter polls. Andrew30126 (talk) 15:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Then that supports the theory that one person or a small group of people are using IP spoofing to flood results.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:38, 26 May 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Order of candidates in infobox[edit]

There has been an argument on Template:Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016 as to the order of the candidates, either being based on contests won or the popular vote. Now that the template has been moved to an infobox on this page I wanted to transfer over the discussion I started on the order of the candidates. I have not found any relevant guidelines so if anyone has anything to show formatting guidelines on this issue please bring it to the table. From going through the primary pages of Democrats and Republicans it seems that more often than not it is ordered by contests won and not the percentage/popular vote count, such as Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008. Although I should note there are instances of the order being based on the percentage of the popular vote, such as [[]]. One major consideration to also take in is the fact that the Libertarian party primaries have no sway over how the delegates vote at the convention and thus the delegate count is not a factor in the infobox like it is in the examples given. Acidskater (talk) 20:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There's other contradictory examples. Democratic Party presidential primaries, 1968 places the popular vote winner (McCarthy) before the nominee (Humphrey). However, Republican Party presidential primaries, 1968 places the nominee (and winner of most primaries) (Nixon) before the popular vote winner (Reagan). As Acidskater said, the result of Libertarian primaries does not affect the allocation of delegates at National Convention so the nominee should not automatically be listed first as in Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008. What it comes down to is the number of contests won versus the popular vote. Let's consider the following scenario and perhaps it will provide some clarity: Let's say that in addition to the primaries already listed on this page (Missouri, North Carolina, Minnesota, Nebraska), that primaries were also held in the Virgin Islands, Puerto Rico, Guam, Northern Mariana Islands, and American Samoa. Overall, a total of 100 people voted in these hypothetical primaries. One candidate, Candidate X, who was not on the ballot in any of the first four state primaries, won all five contests, garnering a total of 45 votes. Under the contest winner method, Candidate X would necessarily be listed first. That is an untenable situation. Listing the popular vote winner first is the only option left. --William S. Saturn (talk) 23:48, 2 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
However, this discussion will most likely be moot shortly. I hear the Oregon Primary had 800 voters and about 70% voted for Johnson. That should push him past NOTA. --William S. Saturn (talk) 00:23, 3 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Counterhypothetical: What if California, which is held after the nomination had already been decided, happened to have a ridiculously high turnout and the result was that after the counting McAfee ended up with the highest total of primary votes? (no, not expecting this to happen).
DP primaries 2008 and 1984 are both ordered by delegate count (which is their most important factor). Given that in the LP preference primaries the points don't really provide anything determinative, I have a weak preference for ordering by number of states simply because it matches the states highlighted on the map. If it's to be left in vote order then my preference would be for the map to be moved down to the primaries section. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 02:31, 4 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Your hypothetical does not pose a problem. If that is the case, what's wrong with listing McAfee first? He's the choice of the people. You've proposed no workaround for the actual problem I've identified.--William S. Saturn (talk) 09:37, 7 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@William S. Saturn: Thanks and apologies - counterhypothetical struck. (Countercounterhypothetical related to yours: what if someone were to have come second in every primary, but were to take a plurality of votes because a heavily polarised set of primaries makes them the most acceptable candidate?) ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 11:51, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It looks like McAfee is about to end with more votes than Petersen once California is finalized, despite having fewer delegates. So does Petersen get booted from the infobox in favor of McAfee? I'd personally like to see Johnson, uncommitted, McAfee, and Petersen all there, in that order. Professorstampede (talk) 15:35, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
5% is the threshold normally used for election infoboxen. Since Petersen and McAfee both received over 7%, both should be included.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:19, 8 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The order got changed again, with the justification "Sort by delegate count, which is what we do in every other primary article, especially because these are non-binding primaries." I actually think that the fact that these are non-binding primaries is why we should sort by popular vote rather than by delegate count. Since they are non-binding, the primaries have no relation to the delegates. And since this is the article about the primaries, we should sort by votes in the primaries, not by the unrelated delegate count. Do others agree? Professorstampede (talk) 17:19, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Yes I agree. The insistence on using the convention delegate count comes down to a misunderstanding that the LP primaries are anyway connected to the convention delegate count. It should be sorted by popular vote. --William S. Saturn (talk) 19:06, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Personally I think the only 'candidates' which should be in the infobox should be Johnson and Uncommitted. While William S. Saturn's argument that the 5% threshold is normally used on election infoboxes is normally true it isn't the case for presidential primaries where the position has been that only candidates which win states should be included. See for example the Republican Party presidential primaries, 2008 where Ron Paul won 5.6% of the vote but no state and so is not included. Conversely see Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2004 where Wesley Clark only wins 3.4% but is included because he won a state. As for ordering, obviously we do it by contests won which is standard for all articles, see for example Democratic Party presidential primaries, 2008 where Clinton won more of the popular vote but Obama won more states. Ebonelm (talk) 22:12, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

You're making up your own standards. 5% is the consensus standard. Just because you can find some obscure article with a less than 5% candidate included or a greater than 5% candidate excluded (as in RP 2008 which you changed in order to make this point), does not make that the consensus standard. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:25, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
And in the Democratic 2008 page, Obama is first because he won the nomination. Primary victories there confer delegates, unlike here. Trying to base this on the number of states won is rubbish for reasons already explained above.--William S. Saturn (talk) 22:29, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
It's not 'making up' to point to a large number of articles which do not follow what you consider to be the consensus. Also I didn't edit the RP 2008 article to make my point I reverted your edit which you made to make yours which was against established consensus. Ebonelm (talk) 22:30, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
No. Ron Paul had been listed on the page since 2012. The IP address before edited against consensus and was reverted. You then reverted to make your incorrect point above. Please list for us the large number of articles (that you did not personally change) that exclude candidates from the infobox with more than 5% of the vote. --William S. Saturn (talk) 22:33, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Merger proposal[edit]

@Ghoul flesh: has started creating pages for Libertarian contests in each of the states. The resulting article is very short and will in all likelihood not be expanded much. Separating the content across many articles is not useful, especially when the shorter one only repeats the content of the bigger one. Please do not create new articles for other states until this discussion comes to a consensus on how to go forward. Please explain, why state-by-state articles are needed. Abjiklɐm (tɐlk) 00:25, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

There can be more added to the article. And the Republican and Democratic primaries have many of their own individual pages:
The list goes on. California was the LP's most successful primary and I decided to make a page for it. It does offer information not seen on other pages, such as who California's delegates went to. But by all means, nominate it for deletion or merge it. Ghoul flesh (talk) 00:43, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
We do not need to duplicate material. It would not be controversial to redirect the articles Ghoul flesh created to this page.--William S. Saturn (talk) 07:07, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
I support the merger proposal per Abjiklam & William S. Saturn. Besides, California Libertarian primary, 2016 does not pass WP:GNG.--JayJasper (talk) 17:47, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, okay. But if it's going to be merged to any page it should be United States presidential election in California, 2016#Libertarian primary. Ghoul flesh (talk) 17:33, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@JayJasper: @William S. Saturn: @Abjiklam: If something's gonna be done to the page can it just happen already? I'm tired of seeing this message on top of both articles. Ghoul flesh talk 01:19, 13 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]


Primary endorsements vs. general election endorsements[edit]

People have put general election endorsements for the Johnson campaign in the endorsement section of this page, which I've removed. The endorsements section should be endorsements for the primary, otherwise we have absurdities like Petersen looking like he endorsed Johnson for the primary, or Kokesh looking like he endorsed both McAfee and Johnson, when in fact both Petersen and Kokesh only gave Johnson endorsements for the general election, but not the primary. Ghoul flesh recently blanked the Johnson section in favor of a link to a page of general election endorsements for Johnson. I'll revert that because it's just like putting general election endorsements for Johnson on this page. Professorstampede (talk) 18:16, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Do we really know the primary endorsements versus the general election endorsements? If so, then those can be kept on this page. But I thought that list was updated after Johnson won the nomination. Ghoul flesh talk 20:41, 17 August 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Unreliable sources and incorrect information[edit]

@William S. Saturn: has called my edits dishonest and a copyright violation! Non of which are true and he has not explained how his sources are correct. The source listed (https://www.lp.org/candidates/presidential-candidates-2016) does not exist. It leads to a 404 page. He has no sources that prove any of the candidates listed participated in the primaries expect Johnson, McAfee and Petersen. He has no sources proving candidates meet the requirements to be listed which are displayed on the page listed as: 

   had a campaign website;
   been a dues-paying member of the party;
   met all U.S. Constitutional requirements to serve as President; and
   not have simultaneously been a candidate for another political party.

Additionally non of the vote totals are sourced and I'm asking ether his edits be explained or someone remove it as I do not want to be banned for edit Waring because I remove this unsourced content. LuckyLag360 (talk) 03:35, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

If a link is dead then mark it as such or bring the issue up on the talk page. Don't go on a blanking spree. This page is about the primaries, not the convention. The convention page is 2016 Libertarian National Convention. Perhaps that is what you were looking for. Additionally, please do not remove candidates who received votes and replace them with a candidate who received no primary votes. Please do not add photos you uploaded without regard for copyright. Did you take the photo of McCormick? Do you have permission to upload the photo? Please be honest. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The link you posted can easily be located in the Internet Archive. Please be more diligent before making such charges as you did here and in your edit summary. --William S. Saturn (talk) 04:28, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Hello thanks for you're speedy reply, I am aware this is a primaries page, that is not the issue. You still havent addressed the vote totals not being sourced. As for the archive please update the source with the latest archive that has candidates listed. I do not have the resources to find web archives and its not up to me to fix you're sources. So please display that. I look forward to you're reply. LuckyLag360 (talk) 04:58, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@LuckyLag360: The reference page content has (repeatedly) changed. The first step before removing significant text (other than for copyediting reasons) would be to have a look at when it was added and by who. If you look at page history, click on "Revision History Search" and binary search for instance of "dues-paying member of the party", like so (I bumped the number of search revisions up from 500 to 5000 to get there), you'll find that I added that on 25 Mar 16 in this edit. A glance at my edit history would indicate that I am probably not a vandal, and may know how to reliably source information (though reliable sourcing for the Libertarian Party appears to be interesting at the best of times). In that case, the addition is likely to be good faith and somewhat reliable (though it would have been nice if I'd used an accessdate parameter). If you then go to http://archive.org, and search for "www.lp.org/candidates/presidential-candidates-2016", you'll find a whole bunch of snapshots. Lo and behold, you'll find http://web.archive.org/web/20160322121515/http://www.lp.org/candidates/presidential-candidates-2016, which will provide you with evidence that at the time, the reference was correct. You can now fix the link per Wikipedia:Link_rot. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:02, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
In the case of the poll numbers, the individual primary/caucus votes are listed below in Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries,_2016#Primaries_and_caucuses and were sourced (at least at the time). Per Wikipedia:These_are_not_original_research#Simple_calculations, the addition of multiple voting numbers to get a single overall vote is fine. For clarity, a footnote to indicate that this has been done might be best. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 08:10, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@Hydronium Hydroxide:Well thank you for the reply and I have always assumed good faith in this case the problem is I tried to edit it to the latest page that I saw (before the lp removed the page) which was http://web.archive.org/web/20161013043631/https://www.lp.org/candidates/presidential-candidates-2016
I'm not arguing whether the information at the time had those candidates listed. Im simply stating according to the consensus and the lp.org latest archive my edits are justified and supported by the source.
@William S. Saturn: said my edits where dishonest and violated copyright. Which is not assuming good faith. But anyways thank you for explaining it. Unless there is objection I will update the page to the candidates listed in the latest lp.org archive. LuckyLag360 (talk) 16:32, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
You didn't go back far enough in the archive. You just deleted a bunch of candidates for no reason. I am reverting you again.--William S. Saturn (talk) 18:26, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
@William S. Saturn: I've seen it. But as of October 13 these where the recognized candidates by the party. You are violating the consensus that was met which states clearly the canadidates listed there must be recognized by the party. LuckyLag360 (talk) 18:49, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
There is no such consensus. The candidates listed are those who received votes in primaries.--William S. Saturn (talk) 19:06, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
Right and I make up random stuff up for fun. Totally. LuckyLag360 (talk) 20:56, 4 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]
The candidates listed in text as recognised were recognised at the start of convention (eg, Briggs) or at some period before its start (eg, Ince or Hale). Suggest a closer reading of the article since you've misunderstood the purpose of the table you've been reverted on, which reflects participation in primaries/caucuses. Nathan Norman (who stood in Oregon, but was not a recognised candidate, did not get listed on the federal LP website, never filed with the FEC, and was not on the convention ballot) and John David Hale (who is not even eligible to become President but nonetheless appeared in two primaries and came sixth in the number of primary votes) are in that table and should continue to appear there. Conversely, Joey Briggs, who was recognized but who didn't participate in any primaries/caucuses, is mentioned in the text as having been recognized but does not appear in the table, and should not. The six remaining members from the 29 May version are those candidates who were on the ballot at the convention; this is probably sufficiently reflected in the convention section. ~Hydronium~Hydroxide~(Talk)~ 00:13, 5 November 2016 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:05, 15 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Libertarian Party presidential primaries, 2016. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:16, 22 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Move discussion in progress[edit]

There is a move discussion in progress on Talk:2020 Libertarian Party presidential primaries which affects this page. Please participate on that page and not in this talk page section. Thank you. —RMCD bot 00:54, 10 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:2016_Libertarian_Party_presidential_primaries&oldid=1212500282"