Talk:2020 Green Party presidential primaries

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the 2020 Green Party presidential primaries 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. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 1 year

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Articles for creation This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles This article was accepted from this draft on 28 January 2019 by reviewer Bkissin (talk · contribs). Politics: American / Political parties Low‑importance 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 Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by American politics task force (assessed as High-importance). This article is supported by Political parties task force (assessed as Mid-importance). 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: Presidential elections Low‑importance 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. This article is supported by WikiProject U.S. presidential elections.

Daily pageviews of this article A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org

Opening the discussion here to address the issues presented about the MA Green Rainbow Primary. As of now there are two core issues:

1. The Massachusetts Sec of State website recognizes Dario Hunter as the winner of this primary, despite the same website showing No Preference as getting more votes.
2. The Green Rainbow Party recognizes No Preference (NOTA) as the winner of the primary and has allocated their delegates accordingly.

The election results in MA show No Preference (which was on the ballot) as receiving 316 votes versus Hunters 224 and so on. With No Preference receiving the most votes, the state's website is conflicting itself and Massachusetts General Law.

Howie Hawkins' website shows him receiving 1 delegate from Massachusetts, in order for him to receiving a single delegate from MA the No Preference votes had to be counted.

Jp16103 20:09, 13 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Somewhat confusing, but as the Green-Rainbow Pary of MA recognises No Preference as winning the primary we should defer to them. Devonian Wombat (talk) 01:30, 14 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

"The Green Rainbow Party recognizes No Preference (NOTA) as the winner of the primary." No source whatsoever has been provided for this statement.
Also the claim that "the state's website is conflicting" is ludicrous. I've read them and the two sources offered here on the talk page lend no support to your argument.
The candidate with the highest number of votes is declared the winning candidate. That's what the MA Sec. of State did. You have to be a person - an actual living breathing candidate - to be the winner of a state-run primary race. This is so common sense that it's unbelievable that it has to be explained. The notes already in the article clarify the situation - Hunter was declared the winner by MA Sec. of State, the no preference option had the highest number of votes overall. Those are the facts. 98.221.197.24 (talk) 04:36, 17 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]

I reached out to the GRP and they confirmed that the delegate selection that we have on our article is correct. The Party State Committee should be posting this in their minutes. Maybe I shouldn't have said the "candidate with the highest number of votes is declared the winning candidate", in Massachusetts you select your preference when voting in primaries. So in this case, the candidate with the most votes was indeed Hunter, however the most preferred ballot option was No Preference. Jp16103 14:13, 19 June 2020 (UTC)[reply]