An Alternative Way to Count Delegates

by bobdoleisevil, Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:28:38 AM EST

There's been a lot of hubbub about how the caucus system is unfair to Hillary, and how it favored the Birkenstock-driving, Prius-sipping, latte-wearing baby trust funds (or something like that) who tend to support Barack Obama.

But Hillary's actually lucky. We could've allocated every delegate for each state proportionately based on the number of popular votes each candidate got in that state.

For instance, under our current system, for Kentucky, we allocated:

At the district level

CD 1: 5
CD 2: 5
CD 3: 8
CD 4: 5
CD 5: 5
CD 6: 6
At large: 11
Pledged PLEO (Party leaders & elected officials): 6

She managed to barely make the 4-1 split in KY-1, KY-2 and KY-4, barely made the 4-4 split in KY-3, barely managed to keep Obama from viability in the 5th district, and barely made the 8-3 split with the at-large delegates (her 4-2 splits in KY-6 and of PLEO were a bit more solid).

This left her with 37 delegates and Obama with 14 delegates.

However, had they allocated proportionately statewide, she would've gotten 35 delegates, and Obama would've gotten 16 delegates.

So Obama would've gotten 2 more delegates under this, a clearly "fairer" but not in the rules allocation of delegates.

At least for Kentucky.

But what about nationwide?

The result would have been that Obama would have 16 more delegates than he does now.

Here is the detailed data (I left out FL, IA, ME, MI, NV, WA, MT, PR, SD for obvious reasons; no sanctioned data available)




Tags: Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, delegates (all tags)

Display:
Permalink :: 16 Comments :: Post a Comment


Fair, or unfair? (2.00 / 2)


by bobdoleisevil on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:29:24 AM EST

Re: An Alternative Way to Count Delegates (none / 0)

What would have happened if you counted them at the COUNTY level, though?

Hillary would have won by over 100 delegates!!!

Why? cuz she won all the RURAL counties....

The best way?

COUNT THE POPULAR VOTE PERIOD.


by nikkid on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:30:46 AM EST

Not really. It'd still be proportional. (none / 0)

Anyway, if we're counting the popular vote, we can't count places that don't vote in the general election, so Obama's won. She won't be able to make up 450,000 votes in MT and SD.


by bobdoleisevil on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:33:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not really. It'd still be proportional. (none / 0)

last I heard Florida and Michigan were still states that got to vote in the general election.

Or has Obama put forth a resolution to have them removed for the UN-united States?


by nikkid on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:35:13 AM EST
[ Parent ]

They didn't have sanctioned primaries. (none / 0)

Can't count them any more than we can count Washington, Iowa, Nevada, Maine (we don't know the numbers for those states)


by bobdoleisevil on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:37:02 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not really. It'd still be proportional. (2.00 / 1)

Yes, actually.  Barack Obama is advocating the relegation of Michigan and Florida to either territory status or purely private lands.  In fact, citizens in MI and FL will, under the Obama plan be sold into slavery and worked to death in toxic waste dumps.  But it doesn't stop there.  Obama wants to sell KY and WV to NC, where he has significant supporters, to develop as their vacation destinations.  All residents of KY and WV will work in cafeterias and as domestic workers tending to the needs of North Carolinians.


The future is unwritten
by Strummerson on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:41:35 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: Not really. It'd still be proportional. (none / 0)

You're kinda turned into a troll, you realize that? Or is that what you've been all along?


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:51:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Some one guessed or figured out (none / 0)

at one of the eight featured in the next diary...


Student Guy=JoeMentum. No really Student Guy=JoeMentum, after all JoeMentum was an embarrassment so is Student Guy. This sig is FAIL!!
by Student Guy on Thu May 29, 2008 at 01:14:11 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Not really. It'd still be proportional. (none / 0)

Anyway, if we're counting the popular vote, we can't count places that don't vote in the general election, so Obama's won. She won't be able to make up 450,000 votes in MT and SD.


by bobdoleisevil on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:33:15 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Alternative Way to Count Delegates (none / 0)

This makes way too much sense for this place.

Is this snark?


No way. No how. No McCain.
by freedom78 on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:31:24 AM EST

Yes. Of course. It's snarktastic. (none / 0)


by bobdoleisevil on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:33:54 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: An Alternative Way to Count Delegates (none / 0)

Anyway to more accurately reflect the will of the people, I'm all for.


Restore America's Strength.
by RJEvans on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:40:09 AM EST

Re: An Alternative Way to Count Delegates (none / 0)

Well, at least you're admitting that. Kudos to you, sir, since that was entirely without partisanship, giving the above-mentioned method wouldn't affect your candidate positively.

So most of us agree the methods need some attention. I'm sure it'll be fixed for 2012.


Hooray for John McCain!
by ragekage on Thu May 29, 2008 at 12:52:38 AM EST
[ Parent ]

The DNC needs a new primary method (none / 0)

The DNC needs to find a much better method of integrating the following three, and sometimes inconsistent measures:

A) popularity of a candidate (popular vote)
B) general election measure of a candidate (winner take all state electoral college metric)
C) electability of a candidate (swing state metric)

I would suggest the following:

1) forty percent of a candidate's primary delegates come from each state awarding its electoral college numbers based upon a winner-take-all approach to its state wide popular vote, just as in the general election (certain states which vary from the winner-take-all metric in the general election would also do so in the primary).

2) thirty percent of a candidate's primary delegates come from a nation wide popular vote measure allocated proportionally.

3) thirty percent of a candidates delegates come from swing county of swing state results awarded as winner-take-all for each county.

4) a caveat is introduced whereby any winner-take-all awarding only takes place above a certain threshold (perhaps 3%).

5) caucuses continue to take place as initial barometers of a candidate's ability to organize and generate enthusiasm, but all delegates are awarded only by state-wide primary results.

6) state primaries are arranged in a manner to reflect the country as a whole, to provide early indication of swing state preferences, and to allow meaningful adjustments in preferences as the candidates become vetted through the primary process.


by Liame on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:10:13 AM EST

Re: The DNC needs a new primary method (none / 0)

7. Super delegates would still be in place to break ties and would be expressly free to consider any metric as a reason for their support of a particular candidate.


by Liame on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:19:19 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Re: The DNC needs a new primary method (none / 0)

The DNC should then take such a scenario and run a multitude of simulations to tweak the allocated percentages such that the likelihood of a good and viable candidate is maximized.  For example, the DNC would not likely want a primary method in which a candidate with exceptional support in still un-winnable states would prevail over a candidate with strong support in winnable states.


by Liame on Thu May 29, 2008 at 08:25:04 AM EST
[ Parent ]


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.

Login
Username:

Password: