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.
17 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.
情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣用品,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,情趣,
^^ nice blog!! thanks a lot! ^^
徵信, 徵信社,徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 離婚, 外遇,離婚,
徵信, 外遇, 離婚, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信社, 征信, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 征信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
^^ nice blog!! ^@^
徵信, 徵信, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 感情挽回, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 挽回感情, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信, 捉姦, 徵信公司, 通姦, 通姦罪, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 捉姦, 監聽, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 外遇問題, 徵信, 捉姦, 女人徵信, 女子徵信, 外遇問題, 女子徵信, 徵信社, 外遇, 徵信公司, 徵信網, 外遇蒐證, 抓姦, 抓猴, 捉猴, 調查跟蹤, 反跟蹤, 感情挽回, 挽回感情, 婚姻挽回, 挽回婚姻, 外遇沖開, 抓姦, 女子徵信, 外遇蒐證, 外遇, 通姦, 通姦罪, 贍養費, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信公司, 女人徵信, 外遇
徵信, 徵信網, 徵信社, 徵信網, 外遇, 徵信, 徵信社, 抓姦, 徵信, 女人徵信, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 外遇, 抓姦, 徵信公司, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信社, 女人徵信社, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 女子徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社, 徵信, 徵信社,
艾葳酒店經紀公司提供專業的酒店經紀, 酒店上班小姐,八大行業,酒店兼職,傳播妹,或者想要到打工兼差、打工,兼差,或者八大行業,酒店兼職,想去酒店上班, 日式酒店,制服酒店,ktv酒店,禮服店,整天穿得水水漂漂的,還是想去制服店當上班小姐,水水們如果想要擁有打工工作、晚上兼差工作、兼差打工、假日兼職、兼職工作、酒店兼差、兼差、打工兼差、日領工作、晚上兼差工作、酒店工作、酒店上班、酒店打工、兼職、兼差、兼差工作、酒店上班等,想了解酒店相關工作和特種行業內容,想兼職工作日領、假日兼職、兼差打工、或晚班兼職想擁有快速賺錢又有保障的工作嗎???又可以現領請找專業又有保障的艾葳酒店經紀公司!
艾葳酒店經紀是合法的公司工作環境高雅時尚，無業績壓力，無脫秀無喝酒壓力，高層次會員制客源，工作輕鬆，可日領、現領。
一般的酒店經紀只會在水水們第一次上班和領薪水時出現而已，對水水們的上班安全一點保障都沒有！艾葳酒店經紀公司的水水們上班時全程媽咪作陪，不需擔心！只提供最優質的酒店上班,酒店上班,酒店打工環境、上班條件給水水們。心動嗎!? 趕快來填寫你的酒店上班履歷表
水水們妳有缺現領、有兼職、缺錢卡奴的煩腦嗎?想到日本留學缺錢嗎?妳是傳播妹??想要擁有高時薪又輕鬆的夜間兼職工作,打工機會和,假日打工,假日兼職賺錢的機會嗎??想實現夢想卻又缺錢沒錢嗎!??
艾葳酒店台北酒店經紀招兵買馬!!徵專業的酒店打工,想要去酒店的水水,想要短期日領,酒店日領,禮服酒店,制服店,酒店經紀,ktv酒店,便服店,酒店工作,禮服店,酒店小姐,酒店經紀人,
等相關服務 幫您快速的實現您的夢想~!!
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店經紀,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店工作,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
專業酒店經紀,
合法酒店經紀,
酒店暑假打工,
酒店寒假打工,
酒店經紀人,
菲梵酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
禮服酒店上班,
酒店小姐兼職,
便服酒店工作,
酒店打工經紀,
制服酒店經紀,
酒店經紀,
菲
梵,
Post a Comment