"26, 31 January 2012 (UTC)

Partial consensus reached
This is Florida election night, so we really should enjoy ourself, and get on with improving this article. Therefor I would like to sum up what we have reached so far. As i see it we have concensus on most parts. Concensus meaning no one goes from the table happy, but nobody goes from the table with empty hands.
I have been bold and put in a new table, where I have incorporated much of what have been said in this discussion and other dicussions on the talkpage. Please read through this before undoing it.

Main Consencus: The table gets to stay, but it have to be changed

Lets go through the table colum by colum:
Date colum. Consensus: Days and years are gone to make it more elegant. Action: I have removed this from the colum
State colum. Consensus: No argument. Action: None
Type colum. Consensus: No argument. Action: I have removed the nonbinding/binding in caucus. It really couldnt explain the complex ways of the caucus. And it is redundant if the delegate count will be unbound/bound. Then everyone can see what kind of caucus it is anyway.
Delegates colum. Consensus: It have to change to something neater and easyer. Action: I have made two colums, unbound and bound. It is neater ) But more important. Personally I think it is the most important and educationel part of the table. So many comments on this talkpage shows that many have no idea what races actually gives delegates to the candidates and how many. Just read the discussions on the delegate count in the infobox. And the main tv channels dont help either. This will show how the delegates really are going.
Allocation colum. Consensus: No one in this dicussion, but on 3 other sections on this talkpage have been requesting it. Action: I have tried not to make it a tell-everything-in-depht colum as the old table have been accused to be. I have keept a very complex election cycle as simple as I could, without actually stating false fact. I feel this colum is important because in many ways this is new from the 2008 race. The complexity and the fact that many races are proportional means that a long race have a bigger chance of ending in a brokered convention. An fact that is important to educated about. And this can be seen out of this colum.
Winner, second and third colum. Consensus. Not yet reached. Action: I have kept them so far. And it is up to you all (me included) to figure out what to do.~
Source colum. Consensus: Get rid of it. Action: I have removed it. The references was mostly from the time of the ""schedule war"" and 95% of those have been replaced with the reference at the end of the remarks in the top of the section (just above the table)

I might be wrong, but onless there is a strong consensus against the Bound and Unbound delegate colums, the only consensus left is about the Winner/second/third colum. No one gets everything (including me) but no one got nothing with this new table.
Now I have been bold, what do you say?    

I support the removal of the Winner, second and third colum. I don't see a reason to list X person as the winner in the infobox, then in this table, then in the subsequent table (immediately after), and then in each of the states own little blurbs on this page. That's similar to me copying this sentence and pasting it four different times in this talk page. Anyway guys, good luck. I am out. If need be, you know where to find me > Chat  23:"