OK, I think I've finally figured out what Chuck Todd and the First Read guys are talking about:
As for the actual meeting itself, there's one more angle you ought to be aware of: a 50% cut and a halving of the delegates is not the same thing. For instance, if Florida delegates are seated in their entirety, but only have their vote counted as a .5, then Clinton will net approximately 19 delegates out of the state. But if the delegation is cut in half, that's done in every congressional district as well as statewide, then suddenly Clinton's advantage is only a net of six. That's right, the complicated nature of the DNC delegate selection process will be a good reminder to math majors everywhere that a 50% cut is not the same as a halving of an individual number. Go figure...The distinction is in the way that the delegates are divided up in individual congressional districts. Take for example a district that Clinton won 70-30, and that originally had 4 delegates. If you do the multiplication, you get 2.8 fractional delegates for Clinton and 1.2 for Obama, which rounds up to a 3-1 delegate take for Clinton.
But now suppose that this district only has 2 delegates because Florida's delegation has been cut in half. With her 70 percent of the vote, Clinton wins 1.4 fractional delegates, and Obama 0.6. However, Clinton's number now rounds down to 1 delegate, whereas Obama's rounds up to 1 delegate. So the same district that went 3-1 for Clinton with four delegates (+2) instead is split 1-1 if it has 2 delegates. On the other hand, if the district had four half-delegates, Clinton would win it 1.5-0.5, for a one-delegate advantage.
To be clear, there's nothing intrinsic about halving the number of delegates that works to one or another candidate's advantage. But I tried to re-create Todd's math in Florida, and it indeed appears to be the case that the delegate thresholds just so happen to fall such that Clinton loses a few extra delegates due to what amounts to rounding error. This does not appear to be the case in Michigan; in fact, it looks like Clinton might make out a delegate or two better in that state if this method is applied.
12 comments
I think halving the delegates is more fair, as this gets more people involved even though their vote doesn't count as much. This helps Hillary and I am an Obama supporter. I want fairness, not blindly follow any candidate.
If they reduce the number of delegates they should make sure to take away the votes of the superdelegates who took part in moving up the primary dates in both states. Otherwise it seems more fair in principle to give each delegate a half vote. I still feel that the most fair result would be to follow the agreed upon rules and give neither state any delegates, but Clinton has pushed this past the point of being decided by the rules rather than by lawyers in a back room.
I agree. Halving the delegations requires choosing which individuals are cut.
Giving each a half vote still allows each to participate, just weighted half as strong.
I'd even be open to giving FL/MI full votes (with some sensible way to determine the MI delegates) if they take away the vote of all the superdelegates of those states. Agreeing with Anonymous @ 10:27PM, those supers are the ones that need to lose influence for trying to gain an advantage for their states over the rest of us. In MI, as I understand it, this has been going on over and over since 1980, and only this year did one of the serious candidates (Sen. Clinton) stay on the ballot. Those supers must not be rewarded, or the next time Iowa and NH will be moving their contests into summer of the year before!
I can't believe Obama hasn't openly advocated seating all the delegates according to how their states voted. There's no way Hillary can catch him among pledged delegates and he's ahead among superdelegates with more soon to come. So what if she then can make a popular vote argument. He needs to worry about how he will look to these states in the general.
The combination of rounding up errors and the onerous task of deciding precisely which CD delegates will\wont seems to make halving the delegation a troublesome route.
Incidentally, technically we are talking about restoring delegates not cutting them.
The distinction could be important as part of managing the message, restoring 100 of the delegates seems to me, easier to sell & more straight forward to calculate.
That said political ships have a tendency to veer into choppy waters so the more complex solution (halving delegates) could carry the day.
Alabama and Mississippi are demographically similar, but geographically rather different. Alabama's population is much more cenetered in cities. The biggest city in MS would only be ranked 5th in Alabama.
I haven't decided what difference I think that makes, but it is true. Maybe it has to do with political machinery or an independent streak in rural voters. In the south, cities are very segregated (economically), whereas in rural areas there is a lot more integration, and maybe less racial tension. Just some ideas.
"To be clear, there's nothing intrinsic about halving the number of delegates that works to one or another candidate's advantage. But I tried to re-create Todd's math in Florida, and it indeed appears to be the case that the delegate thresholds just so happen to fall such that Clinton loses a few extra delegates due to what amounts to rounding error. This does not appear to be the case in Michigan; in fact, it looks like Clinton might make out a delegate or two better in that state if this method is applied."
intruiged, i whipped up this table, using the rounding logic you applied, for the "halve the district" method, not the "halve the individual delegates" method (florida's districts have 3-7 delegates each):
3 – 50%+1 (2-1 split)/83.33...%+1 (3-0 split); 1.5 – 83.33…%+1 (1.5-0 split)
4 – 62.5%+1 (3-1 split)/87.5%+1 (4-0 split); 2 - 75%+1 (2-0 split)
5 – 50%+1 (3-2 split)/70%+1 (4-1 split)/90%+1 (5-0 split); 2.5 – 70%+1 (2-0.5 split)/90%+1 (2.5-0 split)
6 – 58.33…%+1 (4-2 split); 75%+1 (5-1 split); 91.66…%+1 (6-0 split); 3 – see above.
7 – 50%+1 (4-3 split); 64.28…%+1 (5-2 split); 78.57…%+1 (6-1 split); 92.85…%+1 (7-0 split); 3.5…
if this math is right, it's actually nearly impossible for the person who is leading in a given district to benefit. it only occurs under one scenario: carrying a district with 6 delegates by 50-58.33% of the vote (the range in which a 3-3 split would mutate into a 2-1 split, a gain of one delegate). otherwise, you're mathematically guaranteed to lose delegates in every district you carried under this scenario.
however, this doesn't, as poblano notes, mean it's impossible for the leader to come out ahead, especially not having run the tables on the other method. but it does mean that any significant delegate advantage will plummet. whichever scenario is chosen to halve the delegations, it seems, will probably reduce the delegate margin from these states by more than half almost every time.
and feel free to shoot down my math. it's ass o'clock in the morning and i'm beat, and haven't done any serious math in four years besides.
Poblano,
This dKos diary explains delegate halving and gives delegate allocations based on The Green Papers' data.
cheers
Poblano, what is the net effect on Edwards' Florida delegates?
For the Obama camp, that variation/variance seems at least as important.
Of course, if the Democratic Party used D'Hondt like most proportional-representation systems, 70-30 would still give 3-1 in a 4-seat district, but 2-0 in a 2-seat district.
Post a Comment