Talk:2016 Libertarian Party presidential primaries

Why separate candidate tables?

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)

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)

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)

Green Party presidential primaries, 2016 too... ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 11:35, 13 March 2016 (UTC)

Winner of Missouri?

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)

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)

"N" vs. "A" in debate table

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)

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)

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)

Debate Section

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)

Minnesota Caucus Results

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)

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)

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)

• Thanks - I'll update if noone else does once the edit war settles down. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:17, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Poll margin of error

@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)

How many primaries are there going to be?

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)

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

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)

• I think the information could be considered for it's own section but only if it uses credible sources. I don't believe it should be included in the map template for the results of actual state primaries. Acidskater (talk) 06:03, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Given the contents of the page, and the nature of the selection process, it might be better to rename the page to something like 2016 Libertarian Party Candidate Selection, and merge in most of the LP contents from United States third party and independent presidential candidates, 2016#Libertarian Party. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:21, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
    • Straw polls could also be covered in that case (and a different patterning could be used on the map for caucus vs primary vs official binding straw polls).^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 06:48, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Temporary protection

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)

Citation Provided

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

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/

• I don't think this citation is sufficient. It doesn't mention TheBlaze, a debate, or debate participants, unless I'm missing something. Professorstampede (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 8 May 2016

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)

• Seconded. Professorstampede (talk) 06:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)
  • Thirded. The article was (hopefully) clear that they were not endorsed by the national party. ^~Hydronium^~Hydroxide^~(Talk)~ 07:06, 8 May 2016 (UTC)