Better Explanations Needed

The process by which the Democratic Party allocates delegates is complicated, so it's a good thing that CNN.com features this explainer. Unfortunately, their explanation is totally wrong. The Democrats only allocate 35 percent of the delegates based on the proportion of the statewide vote. The other 65 percent of the delegates are allocated to congressional districts, with the number of delegates per district varying (since congressional districts have the same population, I believe the variance has to do with how many people voted for John Kerry) from district to district. Then each congressional district has its delegates apportioned proportionately.

This is quite different from what CNN explained. Among other things, it impacts turnout strategy. If Congressional District Seven of State X is blanketed with snow and only 11 people turn out to vote, but all eleven vote for Candidate A, then Candidate A still gets all of CD7's delegates even if those eleven votes are the only votes A gets in a state where two million people vote.

CNN's system seems to me like one that would make more sense, but them's the breaks. You need to explain the real electoral system, not some more rational, easier-to-explain alternative system.

Comments

i've decided recently that yours is my favorite blog.

Posted by Jocie Fong | February 12, 2008 1:15 PM

"with the number of delegates per district varying (since congressional districts have the same population, I believe the variance has to do with how many people voted for John Kerry) from district to district."

Not quite.

The variance is based on a formula for the number of Democratic votes cast in the past 3 elections i.e. 2006, 2004, 2002 in that district.

Basically, the bigger and higher number of Democrats voting in the districts..the DNC weights the number of delegates for the general elections.

So states most likely to support the Democratic nominee have the most delegates.

Which undercuts what Obama is doing as he is going for getting all voters whether there are large number of Democratic delgates or not. i.e. Idaho and Nebraska and Utah

By contrast Hillary strategically focused on the heavily Democratic states with the most delegates. NY, CA, FL

Which means Obama is more likely to win in the general than Hillary as he has a 50 state strategy even though right now it looks as though Hillary is doing better, based on democratic delegates...and this accounts for why the Democrats have been losing Presidential elections, as well.

Obama goes for the long range he wants a large national coalition in as many states as possible to be able to govern and win the general election. Meanwhile, Hillary is expedient and only shoots for what is politically best in the moment...just like her Senate votes.

Posted by vicissitudes | February 12, 2008 1:17 PM

The other thing that HRC is cynically doing is taking into account the electoral college map as well.

If a candidate wins CA, TX, and FL...just those 3 states..no other candidate can acquire enough electoral college votes to win the election.

This strategy however makes it impossible for us to govern as a democracy.

The candidate is placing their personal political ambitions above the best interest of the nation. It is more important for that candidate to be President than to actually be an effective President for all americans. e.g. GWBush

Posted by vicissitudes | February 12, 2008 1:28 PM

vicissitudes:
That surprises you about Hillary? Why do you think Howard Dean put the 50 state strategy into place to begin with? What people don't want to face was that Bill Clinton was a disaster for the Democratic Party as a whole.

Posted by Joe Klein's conscience | February 12, 2008 1:28 PM

Joe

no I am not surprised at all..just stating the situation as is.

I agree with Dean and Obama...what they are doing is harder and makes it possible for us to actually govern.

I understand how WJC was a disaster in terms of a Democratic coalition and how he set the Democratic party back 20 years as we lost our majority to the 'new deal' 'contract America' and Gingrich, Barr and Delay...ugh

I do not want to get back on the Clintons bridge to the 20th century.

Posted by vicissitudes | February 12, 2008 1:36 PM

If a candidate wins CA, TX, and FL...just those 3 states..no other candidate can acquire enough electoral college votes to win the election.

55 (Ca.)+ 34 (Tx.)+ 27 (Fl.)=116. This leaves 422 electoral votes out of which another candidate would need 270. What prevents some other candidate from winning those, exactly?

Posted by washerdreyer | February 12, 2008 1:46 PM

The Dem nominee is not going to carry Texas in the general.

Posted by UN Plaza | February 12, 2008 1:53 PM

If a candidate wins CA, TX, and FL...just those 3 states..no other candidate can acquire enough electoral college votes to win the election.

Washerdreyer is right on, of course, but also... Is there any possibility that California and Texas are going to vote the same? And isn't it weird to leave New York out of this analysis? I mean, seeing as it's got 31 electoral votes compared to Texas' 34 and Florida's 27, and seeing as it's rather considerably more likely to vote Democratic than Texas (or, indeed, Florida).

Posted by Michael B Sullivan | February 12, 2008 1:55 PM

If a candidate wins CA, TX, and FL...just those 3 states..no other candidate can acquire enough electoral college votes to win the election.

Huh? You need 270 electoral votes to win. CA has 55. TX has 34, and FL has 27. Together those only add up to 116, less than half of the amount needed to win.

If my math is correct, the fewest amount of states (or federal districts) a candidate could win with is 11: CA (55) + TX (34) + NY (31) + FL (27) + IL (21) + PA (21) + OH (20) + MI (17) + NJ (15) + NC (15) + GA (15) = 271 electoral votes. The next-smallest state is VA, with 13 EVs.

Posted by Adam Villani | February 12, 2008 2:03 PM

CNN's website sucks. There is no link on the frontpage to their election stuff today I couldn't even find how many pledged delegates will be coming from the primaries being held today. This info may be there somewhere, but I'm a pretty savvy computer user, so if I can't find something important, the site sucks.

Posted by mpowell | February 12, 2008 2:15 PM

I'll also point out CNN's explanation isn't even self-consistent. The seconds pie chart semi-correctly notes that candidates with 10% of the vote don't get delegates, but then says Candidates A and B get 55% and 25% of the delegates respectively. What happens to the other 20% of the delegates remains unexplained.

Posted by Larry | February 12, 2008 2:26 PM

Right before super Tuesday the press was full of stories about how the complicated delegate system on the Democratic side could result in the loser winning more delegates than the winner. In fact, it was occasionally suggested that the frontrunner was at a disadvantage.

That's not how it worked out on election day. The proportion of delegates won pretty well matched the percentage of the popular vote won.

A winner take all system is easier to figure out, not more democratic. McCain clinched the nomination quickly despite a fairly tepid showing at the ballot box. Clinton and Obama have been closely matched in voter enthusiasm, voter percentages and number of delegates won.

Reporters want to know who the winner is and they're too impatient to wait for voters to decide. I'd prefer we used a direct vote, but until then, proportional representation is doing a pretty good job of picking the best candidate and making them work for the victory.

Posted by Jinchi | February 12, 2008 2:36 PM

A friend of mine just created a website called www.ObamaIsWinning.com. I thought it made a point that is still not clear in most of the press coverage – that if you count the voters and the pledged delegates (i.e., those delegates who are not superdelegates), Obama is winning. Obama’s margin is likely going to grow after tomorrow’s primaries in Maryland, Virginia, and DC, where Obama is the heavy favorite. The website also makes the point that others are beginning to make too -- that it would be an outrage if somehow the superdelegates could overturn the choice of the voters, no matter if that choice ultimately is Obama or Clinton. I encourage you to pass around this link to others.

Posted by Brady | February 12, 2008 2:54 PM

A friend of mine just created a website called www.ObamaIsWinning.com. I thought it made a point that is still not clear in most of the press coverage – that if you count the voters and the pledged delegates (i.e., those delegates who are not superdelegates), Obama is winning. Obama’s margin is likely going to grow after tomorrow’s primaries in Maryland, Virginia, and DC, where Obama is the heavy favorite. The website also makes the point that others are beginning to make too -- that it would be an outrage if somehow the superdelegates could overturn the choice of the voters, no matter if that choice ultimately is Obama or Clinton. I encourage you to pass around this link to others.

Posted by Brady | February 12, 2008 2:54 PM

A friend of mine just created a website called www.ObamaIsWinning.com. I thought it made a point that is still not clear in most of the press coverage – that if you count the voters and the pledged delegates (i.e., those delegates who are not superdelegates), Obama is winning. Obama’s margin is likely going to grow after tomorrow’s primaries in Maryland, Virginia, and DC, where Obama is the heavy favorite. The website also makes the point that others are beginning to make too -- that it would be an outrage if somehow the superdelegates could overturn the choice of the voters, no matter if that choice ultimately is Obama or Clinton. I encourage you to pass around this link to others.

Posted by Brady | February 12, 2008 2:54 PM

Thanks for the succinct election information. It's sleeting in Northern Virginia, where I cast my primary vote; but the weather hasn't kept people from the polls. Hillary Clinton flew off to Texas, in search of greener pastures. I view a vote for Barack Obama as a win, win situation, because voting for the best candidate also means a vote against Bill and Hillary Clinton. Speak of the devil that was Hillary herself on the phone! She left a message, wants my vote! The poles closed over 30 minutes ago lady. Thanks for the call Hillary, but I'd swim through shark infested waters, on a night like tonight, to vote against you: http://theseedsof9-11.com

Posted by Peggy McGilligan | February 12, 2008 7:48 PM