File talk:Democraticprimary2008.gif

Should states where Clinton won the popular vote, but Obama won the delegate count, go on his side, because the image is showing the pledged delegate count not popular vote count? -— Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.61.85 (talk • contribs) 19:39, 8 March 2008

I think so too. Also, states where they tied should be in the middle. -Aknorals (talk) 03:36, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure if tied states delegate wise should go in the middle, rather I think they should go to the side of the person who got the popular vote for that state. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.61.85 (talk) 05:26, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This graphic was desiged primarily for Democratic Party (United States) presidential primaries, 2008. On that article, there is consensus for recognizing "states won" on the basis of primary vote, even while reporting the actual delegate totals (which may differ from popular vote). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Northwesterner1 (talk • contribs) 12:37, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, but this image is specifically showing pledged delegate totals. I think that needs to be taken into consideration. Also, we have popular total charts, so *another* representation of who won popular totals could get redundant. Also, the Democratic party's election system means that only delegates matter, not popular vote. So for example, Clinton won Nevada's popular vote, but Obama won delegate vote, which is really all that matters(like the electoral college system, remember 2000?). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.118.7.120 (talk) 20:27, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Why does the image show that Obama won 2 delegates and Clinton 1 when Obama really won all three? Jeltz talk 11:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I have fixed it. Jeltz talk 11:15, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Obama won Texas. If you add primary + precinct conventions, you'll see that Obama have 5 delegates more than Clinton. 84.40.210.164 (talk) 13:28, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I cite the above confused user as a reason why this graphic should be indicative of the delegate count rather than the popular vote. There are other graphical representations that would better show popular votes (such as Northwesterner1's map). As the kind of graphical representation in here appears to be about delegates, it is both confusing and unintentionally deceptive to simultaneously represent delegates in the key, but not on the physical position on the graphic. -Aknorals (talk) 14:41, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm making a new graph that will be geographically situated to get rid of the "states won" alignment... expect it tomorrow. Northwesterner1 (talk) 15:08, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

 Done Thanks for the feedback. Hopefully this works better. Northwesterner1 (talk) 16:48, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Good job Northwesterner, but could you make the colors for Edwards and not assigned different? Now that you've fixed the geographical arrangement, that's the only thing I can think of to complain. Other than that, it is a great map. —ScouterSig 20:50, 9 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]