Talk:Superdelegate

"Democrat" to "Democratic"

The appropriate terminology is "Democratic Party". Use of the word "Democrat" is not only grammatically incorrect, but also an example of partisan bias. Tuckerma (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

A Republican is a member of the Republican party, an adjective followed by a noun. A Democrat is a member of the Democrat party, an adjective followed by a noun. They both can be considered compound nouns. "Democratic" is preferred by Democrats since it gives the impression of being "democratic." It is not. The use of superdelegates (which carries much more weight than its use in the Republican party) is an oxymoron to being "democratic" since they do not represent the people (or their wishes and intentions), who have voted in primaries for their elected officials. It is grammatically, and effectively, by definition of the term, incorrect, no matter how you would spin it.Danleywolfe (talk) 05:01, 15 March 2016 (UTC)

The name the party uses for itself seems definitive here. From democrats.org: "Since 1848, the Democratic National Committee has been the home of the Democratic Party, the oldest continuing party in the United States." Arguments about whether the word is an oxymoron or not are merely tendentious. Dgndenver (talk) 03:28, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Steer clear of term, Democrat delegates or Democrat Party. Wikipedia has a long-standing article, since November 2006, on the subject of such use of the term, Democrat in place of Democratic: Democrat Party (epithet).Dogru144 (talk) 03:15, 25 February 2020 (UTC)

Criticism

As of Feb 6, 19:07 (GST+9), there's this passage in Criticism:

However, with proportional wins in the primaries and caucuses, even though the popular vote may favor one candidate, that may not get accurately reflected in total delegate count either.[5] Thus, the limitations of the proportional allocation method legitimate the superdelegate system. It is an example of a case where two wrongs make a right.

How on earth is that impartial? It seems me that's simply two wrongs making a wrong. Also the previous sentence about "the limitations of the proportional allocation method legitimate the superdelegate system" is equally dubious. These aren't criticisms, these are counter arguments against the criticisms stated as fact. Imho these two sentenced either need to be weasel worded or deleted. Crypticfortune (talk) 10:18, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I concur that this statement about proportional wins not reflecting popular opinion is dubious at best, illogical at worst. Proportional delegation wins, by their very nature, more accurately reflect the proportions of popular opinion compared to a winner-take-all scenario. I'm removing it. If it's an important criticism, someone can re-state it in a way that's not misleading. Danielsteinbock (talk) 19:13, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

"It is an example of a case where two wrongs make a right How on earth is that impartial?"

Very simple. Two wrongs make right WING. They just left out one word. ---Dagme (talk) 16:24, 25 March 2016 (UTC)

NPOV issues

I think for this article to retain NPOV, there should be a section discussion the GOP use of super delegates as well. (As they also use them in the form of the RNC.) Additionally an "internationalization" of the article may be in order considering the U.S. isn't the only country to hold primary elections.Oorang (talk) 14:54, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I strongly agree with both of Oorang's points above. After the mention of the RNC in the introduction, there is no further reference to the role of superdelegates in the body of the article. I honestly don't know if there are "superdelegates" outside the US, but if there are there role should be discussed. I believe that it ought to be dealt with now, as the Republican Primaries are underway, and many people will likely want to know more about the role that superdelegates play. That is indeed how I myself came across this page.

Let me make it clear that I truly do assume good faith here. The original writer(s) probably just had more knowledge of the Democratic party than the Republican party, or of other international political systems. All that notwithstanding, it is time to fix the article.

I wavered a bit on which header to put (I'm not sure if NPOV or systemic bias is more appropriate). But it seems to me that perhaps (POV-check) will attract more attention. If someone disagrees, feel free to change the header, but I think that some header ought to stay on until the problem is fixed to some extent. I also moved this discussion to the bottom, and changed its name. If I am wrong to do that, feel free to correct it.

Lastly, I must apologize for the unfortunate fact that I am really not in a position to be of help in fixing this article. I just don't have sufficient time or computer access presently. But I do hope that someone can adopt this issue. TachyonJack (talk) 14:41, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

Unfortunately, I myself find it hard to find many reliable sources on the GOP superdelgates. I assume it is because they are generally only 3 GOP unpledged delegates in each state, regardless of any of the factors that the Democrats use to allocate their superdelgates. Because of that low, flat amount across the states, political writers probably have felt that the GOP superdelgates are noncontroversial and/or there is not much to be said about them. Conversely, there are over 700 Democratic party superdelgates for the 2016 primaries, and the amount varies widely between states. Zzyzx11 (talk) 06:14, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Furthermore, content was recently added to the article stating that the GOP now requires theirs to vote according to the result of primary elections. Zzyzx11 (talk) 02:43, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Democratic superdelegates history

Cite for my change to the "Superdelegates were first appointed in the 1970s" error:

NYTimes, March 23, 1988, Democratic Battle Is On For 646 Elite Delegates: "The creation of these elite delegates after the 1980 election was one in a series of moves by the Democrats to moderate the impact of party reforms of the 1970's. The changes had the effect of diluting the power of elected officials to influence the party's choice of a nominee, and this, in the eyes of many politicians, helped lead the Democrats to defeat." Mediareport (talk) 13:46, 7 February 2008 (UTC)

100% correct making this sentence, "The purpose of the changes was to make the composition of the convention less subject to control by party leaders and more responsive to the votes cast during the campaign for the nomination. " 100% the diametric opposite of the truth. The purpose of the changes was to make the composition of the convention MORE subject to control by party leaders and less responsive to the votes cast during the campaign-OBVIOUSLY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 17:12, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

The sentence the unsigned editor of 9 March 2016 refers to, the one beginning, "The purpose of the changes...", is not about the introduction of superdelegates. It is about the earlier changes based on the McGovern-Fraser Commission. Those changes did make the convention less subject to control by party leaders. The later introduction of superdelegates, in the 1980s, was kind of a counterbalance or course correction that did give party leaders "MORE" control.--Dgndenver (talk) 10:58, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Excellent work! May as well just take out the entire purpose altogether instead of just trying to mislead folks. I particularly love the "conservative Carter line". This is an extremely NPOV encyclopedic wiki page, just suspend disbelief forever plus one day. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 09:30, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

This article really really needs to be updated

It seems that 38% percent are superdelegates. But very few articles are written on this. Seems to be a complicated concept and rules seems to change.

Also seems that if 38% are really pro-Hilary then sanders has almost 0% chance of wining since almost all super delegates support Hilary

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2015/7/2/1398743/-How-will-Bernie-overcome-the-superdelegate-problem — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.30.143.5 (talk) 04:43, 19 January 2016 (UTC)

Daily KOS is a poor source, but it is correct that Bernie won 60% of the vote and NRClinton won 38% but got 15 delegates and Bernie 13 because the Super Delegates are stuck on Clinton. -- Charles Edwin Shipp (talk) 22:04, 10 February 2016 (UTC) This will change as voting progresses through the nation (partly, due to her baggage).

Superdelegates make up about 15% of the total, not 38%. List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016 --Dgndenver (talk) 11:18, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Republicans

The lede mentions Republican superdelegates but the article doesn't discuss them at all. Should the lede be modified and the article made purely Democrat? Or does someone want to write about the Republican equivalent (which as I understand it, is not quite the same)? Colapeninsula (talk) 10:36, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

I believe the reason for this is because Republican superdelegates are a lot more simple and less controversial (As the lede mentions, they have to go to the person who won the state whereas Democratic superdelegates can go to any candidate regardless of popular vote). The article seems to mostly address controversy surrounding the effect superdelegates have on the nomination process, because that's most of the content there is about super delegates. While there should probably be a section about Republicans, it should by no means be as large as the one about Democrats. -NobodyMinus (talk) 15:38, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

There are no actual Republican superdelegates to be discussed. --Dgndenver (talk) 11:24, 8 May 2016 (UTC)

Confusing opinion with fact a bit?

Hello. Under the section "In 2008", the first paragraph reads like this: "At the 2008 Democratic National Convention, the topic of superdelegates went almost completely undiscussed by large media outlets in the United States, whereas in the current 2016 Democratic Primaries, superdelagates are being used as a tool by establishment Democrats of which to steal votes away from the massively popular Bernie Sanders."

While that may or may not be true, I think it's pretty heavily opinionated. I recommend that we either tone down the statement from the "Superdelegates are being used as a tool by establishment Democrats of which to steal votes away from the massively popular Bernie Sanders" to something more along the lines of "Superdelegates can make it difficult for candidates who are popular with the public, but not with established party leadership (for example, Bernie Sanders) to gain their party's nomination."

I put forward that the article, as currently written, is a bit inflammatory and can be toned down a bit and still get the original writer of that section's point across. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.243.158.225 (talk) 22:25, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

• I'm reverting the change again. It 1) is opinionated. 2) in unsourced 3) is factually incorrect (votes are not "stolen" and super delegates certainly weren't "undiscussed" in 2008 and 4) has nothing to do with the 2008 section anyway since the issue is 2016. Chrismaverick (talk) 22:34, 6 March 2016 (UTC)
• Or... I guess maybe someone will delete it before I got the chance. In any case, something to watch since someone seems to be very persistent with wanting that opinion in there. Chrismaverick (talk) 22:39, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

IS THIS TRUE? Superdelegates have only actually voted on one occasion in 1984?

Please address the veracity of the following article by providing actual official, written rules for the delegate process. CLEARLY DEFINED OFFICIAL RULES! Superdelegates are no more than a Clinton & DNC ploy to create false impression of inevitable win.

Caitlin Easter (talk) 23:17, 30 March 2016 (UTC)

"This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Superdelegate article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." Much less the veracity of somebody's opinion on a blog. Dgndenver (talk) 03:18, 9 May 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes to the lede

This edit [1] which I have reverted twice, doesn't seem to summarize the article, and it puts, I think, undue weight on one person's opinion. I would like others to weigh in. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:07, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

I have fixed the reference. The one person's opinion is the Chairwoman to the DNC, who's opinion is very important. Tbacon143 (talk) 13:37, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

As far as summarizing the article, the most valuable portion of the article is the point that the DNC Chairwoman is explaining why superdelegates exist. A valuable insight for anyone seeking to learn more about superdelegates. Tbacon143 (talk) 13:46, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

The portion of the article that is summarized is the direct quote from DNC Chairwoman: "Unpledged delegates exist really to make sure that party leaders and elected officials don't have to be in a position where they are running against grass-roots activists." Tbacon143 (talk) 13:52, 3 April 2016 (UTC)

If somebody is seeking to know what superdelegates are and why they exist, then the stated purpose by the highest official in the democrat party is an important piece of information. The fact that there is a stated purpose by the highest official in the democratic party makes it self evident that the stated purpose belongs in the lead. Maybe a direct quote would be more to your preference? Tbacon143 (talk) 17:11, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

We are putting undue weight on one person's opinion, (though the person is prominent for sure). The lede is supposed to summarize the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:17, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

It's the highest official of the democratic party, we are not defining the term based on their opinion but allowing their statement to be seen. It's a paraphrase of the relevant part of the article, just like almost every other reference on the page. If it were to summarize the entire article it would be far to lengthy. Tbacon143 (talk) 20:24, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

The lede summarizes the article, please see WP:LEDE. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:39, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, and since the statement by the Democratic Chairwoman is of importance and is expanded upon later on the page it is important to have it in the lede. Tbacon143 (talk) 23:49, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

Yes, you think that is super important, i get that. You have been reverted by two different editors, there is no WP:CONSENSUS for the addition. You should check out WP:BRD too. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:12, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Are we not establishing consensus? If you are going to begin patronizing I will take that as a sign you have no reasons for the statement about the purpose of superdelegates by the highest official in the democratic party to be excluded in the summary of what superdelegates are. Tbacon143 (talk) 01:41, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I'm sorry if it is coming off as patronizing, it is not my intention at all. I have outlined my objection, it is undue weight. Again, I am truly sorry if it came across as patronizing as it was not my intention at all. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:40, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I disagree. Say GE came out with a system that affected the entire nation, and that system was a bit controversial, if the CEO of GE made a statement as to why the system exists then that CEO's statement would be relevant in any discussion about what that system is and why it exists. This is the exact same scenario with plaDNC in place of GE and Chairwoman in place of CEO.

GE Tbacon143 (talk) 09:34, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Yeah I see your disagreement. the system was created quite a while before her tenure though. I am interested to know what other editors think, as I think we two have laid out our points. Let's hope some come along. It would be most helpful. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:08, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Agreed Tbacon143 (talk) 14:56, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The quote is clearly being taken out of context for POV purposes. It is being misrepresented. It also doesn't belong in the lead as it's just one person.Volunteer Marek (talk) 05:05, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Please refer to the previous talk. It is not being taken out of context. It is also the highest ranking official in the democratic party and therefore belongs in the lead. Tbacon143 (talk) 11:13, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This has been reverted many times by different editors, it does not belong in the lede, which is supposed to summarize the article. As it is one person's opinion, it probably doesn't even belong in the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:20, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

This is expanded upon later in the article and thus the lead would be an incomplete summary without it. Again, you seem to be downgrading the weight of the "one person." This is not just an official, it is the highest ranking official in the democratic party...hardly an opinion that should be brushed aside. As far as being reverted, it is clearly an inconvenient truth that makes it politically beneficial for some editors to revert it. Given the reasons for reverting it is clearly about politics for the reverting editors. If one was truly here to add to the article in a meaningful way, that would further educate one trying to learn about superdelegates, then they would understand that the statement is relevant and necessary. Tbacon143 (talk) 12:50, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Please stop edit warring. Many people have reverted you, and, you keep inserting this info. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:32, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

I participated in the talk but it is clear you seek no consesus. You are the one who is creating this edit warring. As has been discussed in this talk page this is important and relevant information but you clearly don't care about the page being informative. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Tbacon143 (talk • contribs) 17:52, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

We have at least three editors who have reverted you and given policy based reasons. You don't seem to like the reasons, so you reverted the article five times today. You just can't do that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:24, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

What policy reasons were they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:8805:DC01:3E00:64A2:5805:C86C:E9C (talk) 22:07, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE for starters. We would be giving undue weight to one person's view. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:25, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

It seems that undue weight article is referencing "minority viewpoints." That quote doesn't seem to fall in that category. Coming from Debbie Wasserman Shultz, it seems that quote (or paraphrase of a quote) would represent the status quo or in other words the majority.166.172.63.71 (talk) 22:42, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

No, in this context it means that a quote by a single person, taken out of context, is not a very good definition or description of the subject, hence it shouldn't be in the lede. Also, I'm assuming you're Tbacon14, who just got blocked for edit warring. Please don't WP:SOCKPUPPET but just wait out your block before making edits (to either articles or talk pages).Volunteer Marek (talk) 22:43, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Sorry not logged in. It seems to be none of those things. OB1KINOB (talk) 22:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Ummm... if you are Tbacon14, who just got blocked, you can't just create a new account and resume right where you left off. Sit out your block and try to get consensus on talk.Volunteer Marek (talk) 00:14, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

Coordinating two users to circumvent edit warring rules is unethical. A request for mediation has been filed, please participate. OB1KINOB (talk) 00:51, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

There was no coordination. My message on Marek's talk page was not unlike using the 'thank' button. If you think there has been some misconduct report it to WP:ANI. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:02, 5 May 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Superdelegate. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://public.cq.com/docs/cqw/weeklyreport110-000002675899.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/08/24/democrats.convention/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 17:10, 4 April 2016 (UTC)

Explanation for existence of superdelegates

"According to Democratic Chairwoman Debbie Wasserman Shultz, superdelegates are in place to protect party leaders from running against grassroots activists" - What? The citation here is a live interview where Shultz gave an obviously irrelevant answer on the fly. This should not be at the top of the article as the actual reaason.174.114.28.136 (talk) 23:23, 10 April 2016 (UTC)

I agree. If you watch the full interview she actually suggests the point of super delegates is to allow greater grassroots participation (although I find this so absurd I almost feel like watching the video again to make sure I'm not mistaken). The current interpretation being spread by Bernie Sanders supporters (myself included) is actually taken out of context to incorrectly support an (otherwise correct and entirely justified) anti establishment narrative.— Preceding unsigned comment added by CXUD111 (talk • contribs)

The recent 'what's the big deal with super delegates' stuff

This edit [2] is original research, and it ought to be removed. Please see WP:OR as well as WP:BRD. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:54, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Agree. It has no sources. Plus, it's style is condescending and un-encyclopedic. It might merit inclusion if sources are given to support this, and reworded. --A D Monroe III (talk) 18:43, 4 M ay 2016 (UTC)

First, how does one reference simple math? And at what point do you see anything condescending? Please let me know so I can review. Second, many object to the superdelegate process because of the concern that it violates the premise that our country is built upon "one man = one vote." In order to understand this, the example I've provided helps in the understanding of it. I am a math teacher. Third, the heading is under "Critism." I have included that this is one of the main criticism of the process and have stated such in an objective method. "Some believe..." type of stance. If one can't include the various reasons for criticism then this heading should be removed, because if you are insistent that this criticism is absent, it therefore implies that the only controversy of the process lies just in the fact that superdelegates can change their support at anytime. (The fact is pledged delegates can also change preference groups at conventions.) The flexibility of the superdelegate is a minor flaw in the system compared to the fact that their delegate vote can equal as much as 10,000 "regular" voters. I'm just putting it together. Rarely, if at all, can you find the facts combined into an understanding such as this.

I really know my stuff, but new at helping to improve Wiki. Please help me to achieve my goal of helping readers to understand the MAIN criticism of superdelegates. This article does not have one reference to this problem!

BDLA1111 (talk) 20:36, 4 May 2016 (UTC)BDLA1111 (talk) 19:58, 4 May 2016 (UTC)BDLA1111 — Preceding unsigned comment added by BDLA1111 (talk • contribs) BDLA1111 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC) I am confused about the sign part. Please forgive me if I have not done this process correctly. BDLA1111 (talk) 20:38, 4 May 2016 (UTC)BDLA1111

You'll need a reliable source that says what your edit says. Bring it here first so we can discuss it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:29, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for explaining what I need to do. But I am at a loss. How can I give a reliable source for doing math? Shall I use Euclid? I'm not understanding how I'm supposed to provide a reliable source for using logic. A=B and B=C, then A=C. It's called the transitive property. Should I provide that as a source? I've sourced the primary results for my example of Utah. BDLA1111 (talk) 23:08, 4 May 2016 (UTC)BDLA1111

OK, for example, your edit says 'For those who understand the mathematical process of the delegate process, their main criticism of the use of superdelegates is that they believe it violates the Constitutional rule of "one man = one vote" in that one superdelegate can be equivalent to thousands of primary voters or caucus goers. In some cases over 10,000/ You can't just say that, you need a citation to a reliable source that says that. Does that make sense? So when you say 'their main criticism' you need to find a cite that has that criticism. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:31, 4 May 2016 (UTC)

What is the purpose of superdelegates?

To usurp power from the people for the ruling elite. It is neither rocket surgery, nor brain science and obviously encyclopedic in nature. So why isn't it on the page? Carter the conservative is on the page which is neither factual, encyclopedic or anything but the output of obviously liberal denialist spinbots yet the entire purpose of the superdelegates is missing? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.224.251.239 (talk) 09:35, 25 July 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Superdelegate. 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:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080509121826/http://www.ctdems.org/documents/2008planv4FINAL.pdf to http://www.ctdems.org/documents/2008planv4FINAL.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 04:14, 10 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Superdelegate. 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:

• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.sacbee.com/110/v-print/story/640529.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071204165509/http://www.gop.com/images/2008_Call_FINAL.pdf to http://www.gop.com/images/2008_Call_FINAL.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080213002439/http://www.demconvention.com/how-to-become-a-delegate/ to http://www.demconvention.com/how-to-become-a-delegate/

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) 17:54, 4 September 2017 (UTC)

Official nomenclature is now "automatic delegate"

The Democratic party now officially calls unpledged delegates "automatic delegates." This is my own original research; they announced it at the DNC Summer 2018 meeting. I don't remember how to edit for Wikipedia any more, but someone knowledgeable might want to update the article. Katharine908 (talk) 23:36, 27 August 2018 (UTC)

Language for laypeople

It is important to keep the language of the article very clear and simple enough for lay readers. There will be many schoolchildren or people that have not taken a college level course in American politics reading this article. The terms and the acronyms need to be very clear for such non-specialist readers.Dogru144 (talk) 03:19, 25 February 2020 (UTC)