"Caucuses aren't fair!" But how fair are the primaries?

[TheDoorbellRang]

We've heard a lot in the M$M and right here in GD-P about how unfair caucuses are because they don't reflect the will of the people -- the implied but unstated correlate to this is that the primaries DO reflect the will of the people via popular vote. The Nevada caucus was especially pointed out as unfair because Obama got a delegate that the popular vote said should have gone to Clinton. Then there was a lot of hoopla that the Texas primary would be unfair because Obama's black supporters would garner more delegates than Clinton's Hispanic supporters. But -- oddly enough -- the distribution of TX delegates in the primary ended up closely matching the popular vote: of the 126 primary delegates, Obama got 47% (60) and Clinton got 51% (64), with the two leftover (2% uncommitted in popular vote) going one to Obama and one to Clinton. Obama's "unfair" advantage in the Texas primary never materialized, but it was sure ballyhooed in the media that he'd had one.

Now, some of you may have noticed that the delegate apportionment in some of the states doesn't necessarily correlate with the popular vote. I noticed Alabama early on: Obama won there 56-42%, but the delegates were only 27-25 in his favor. The apportionment by popular vote would have been 29-22, with one left over to go either way.

I decided to take a look at the other primary races to date to see how the delegates got apportioned compared to the popular vote. Thirteen states were "fair:" each candidate in these states got the percentage of delegates according to popular vote, and the leftover delegates from a state's uncommitted percentage were distributed equitably between the two candidates.

Thirteen states, however, did not have a delegate apportionment that correlated with the popular vote, so I thought it'd be educational to show what the difference would be if they had been.

Here are those thirteen states. Sorry I couldn't figure out how to line these up in neat columns, but here's what the numbers on each line across represents: total PD's for the state; percentage of popular vote Obama vs. Clinton; actual delegate apportionment Obama vs. Clinton, highlighted in BLUE if the results favored Obama, and in RED if they favored Clinton; delegate count per popular vote (with leftover "uncommitted" vote shown in parentheses afterwards if applicable).

AL 52 56-42% 27-25 30-22 (29-22 +1)
AR 35 27-70% 8-27 10-25
CT 48 51-47% 26-22 25-23
DE 15 53-43% 9-6 8-7 (8-6 +1)
IL 153 65-33% 104-49 102-51 (100-50 +3)
MA 93 41-56% 38-55 39-54 (38-52 +3)
NM 26 48-49% 12-14 13-13
NY 232 40-57% 93-139 96-136 (93-132 +7)
TN 68 41-54% 28-40 29-39 (28-37 +3)
MD 70 60-37% 42-28 43-27 (42-26 +2)
WI 74 58-41% 42-32 43-31
OH 141 44-54% 66-75 63-78 (62-76 +3)
MS 33 61-37% 19-14 20-13 (20-12 +1)

Total pledged delegates in these states: 1040
Actual apportionment of delegates: O-514 / C-526
Apportionment by popular vote: O-521 / C-519

IOW, in a "fair" system, Obama should have had seven of Clinton's delegates, which would have put him an additional 14 delegates ahead.

Folks, this whole system is anything but "fair." Each one of these states has some byzantine process for awarding delegates, and popular vote is just a part of it. But the rules in each state are the rules, and the player that can win by the rules -- handicapped or not -- is the winner.

[papau]

1. I agree - which is why total popular vote nationwide incl Mich/FL should decide winner

[Bill McBlueState]

2. in theory, that's fair

But in applying that to this year, you'd have to address the following:

*Popular votes were counted at different times in different states. For example, people in Mississippi had access to information that people in Iowa did not.

*The popular vote in Michigan and Florida may be skewed due to the candidates' varying responses to the DNC rules.

*All along, candidates have been campaigning for delegates, not popular votes. Changing the rules in the middle of the game may unfairly benefit candidates who were less successful under the rules that were in place at the beginning.

[TheDoorbellRang]

6. You do realize

that Obama is currently the winner in the popular vote by 190,866 -- even with FL and MI -- and is unlikely to lose that lead?

[gort]

19. But who pays for that?

The Democrats and the Republicans are not government sanctioned parties. Thank goodness.

A recent Supreme Court ruling stated that a "political party has a First Amendment right to limit its membership as it wishes, and to choose a candidate-selection process that will in its view produce the nominee who best represents its political platform." http://supremecourtus.gov/opinions/07pdf/06-766.pdf

These are not national elections, the state will pay for primaries as part of a general election, but I believe caucuses are paid for by the party. I am not sure about closed primaries.

Republicans award delegates as winner-take-all and Democrats award proportionately.

I believe the party has a right to act in it's own best interest, so in that I hope a solution for Michigan and Florida can be achieved or the Democrats will lose millions of voters who will feel betrayed and abandoned by the party come November.

What is amazing is how much passion there is this year for the nominating process. Normally, it would've been over by now and Senator Clinton would've been the presumptive nominee just like Kerry was in 2004 and the magic number would've been exceeded long ago and all the remaining delegates would've fallen in line by the time of the Convention. Give Obama credit for that.

I voted for Obama in my state caucus. Many people feel the caucus process in unfair, but nobody complained when Kerry won it and Gore before that, so what is so bad about caucuses, now?

I think a caucus shows how much support a candidate has within her/his local party and it prevents the opposing party from interfering with the selection process ala Rush Limbaugh and KOS encouraging voters to crossover and vote for the weaker candidate. Shameful.

I have chosen my side. I hope to vote for Obama in November, but I will fall in line and vote for Clinton as hard as that will be for me. I have stated on other posts that in no uncertain terms would I ever vote for her based on her approval of Bush's goal to invade Iraq, but we can't afford a third term of Bush with McSame.

I am for Obama, but I love my country above all candidates. If it's Clinton at least we may still have a chance to bring our men and women home and start healing the wounds left gaping by Bush and his cronies.

Please think beyond your favorite candidate and vote for what will be best for this country.

Vote the Bush Regime Out.

[paulk]

3. the argument against caucuses is not the one you're presenting

caucuses are unfair because, by their very nature, they exclude people from the process. Average turnout for caucuses is around 6%, primaries 22% (I think).

Because of the lower number of people voting, the influence of organized special interests is magnified and, as a consequence, caucuses may not be representative of the polity as a whole.

[TheDoorbellRang]

8. This is not an argument against caucuses

It's an argument against the "unfair" argument. You say that caucuses exclude people from the process. The above primaries disenfranchise voters because their representation is not equitable. Then we can throw in the arguments about open vs. closed primaries being fair or unfair.

These are all moot points. The only thing that matters is which candidate gets to 2025 (or 2208 with FL and MI). Any railing about the individual state's M.O.s on the way there is completely irrelevant to the contest and can only be addressed after the primary season is past.

[rug]

4. Your beef is with the allocation of delegates, not the manner of voting.

[TheDoorbellRang]

10. Actually, my beef is with the unending cries of "It's not fair"

For better or worse, we've got a race with 50 variations on the game in each state. Each candidate has to play the game differently in each state. The first one to 2025 wins. Period.

When all is said and done and TPTB from all 50 states sit down to "fix" this Byzantine system, I suspect we'll have 50 arguments about whose system is the most equitable. Should be interesting.

[Benhurst]

5. The whole Democratic primary system sucks and should be totally

revised following the general election, win or lose.

[flor de jasmim]

7. I agree - it's also not fair that...

by the time some states roll around candidates are off the ballot

OR

that we know so much more about the candidates later in the game

OR

that absentee ballots get lost or the voting machines may "malfunction"

OR

that people may not even know they've been stripped from the election rolls until it's too late

OR

that may have been unfairly stripped from the rolls

OR

that incorrect information has been given out and they are sent to the wrong place

etc. etc. etc.

My point? We have the system we have, until we change it. LET'S FIGHT TO CHANGE IT BEFORE NEXT TIME and finish the process now as soon as possible.

[TheDoorbellRang]

11. Probably should, but who has the perfect process?

For every post I see condemning how a particular state runs its primary process, I see multiple posts by folks from that state retorting, "Well, WE get it. Too bad you out-of-staters don't. So butt out." I can just see this turning into a wonderfully harmonious discussion when all 50 states sit down to decide who's got the perfect system, can't you?

[ElsewheresDaughter]

9. it all depends on whether they are opened or closed primaries...closed primary is the way to go

[TheDoorbellRang]

12. See? That's a whole 'nuther argument

Can you just see the Democrats sitting down to revamp this? They'll be fighting not only over caucuses vs. primaries, but open vs. closed primaries, how the delegates get apportioned, etc., etc.

I don't think most of us looked too closely at how things were run in previous primary seasons, because it was never this close for so long. I'm just now looking at some of these races and saying to myself, "Well, now -- that's just downright peculiar."

Glad I won't be the Solomon trying to come up with a better system when this is all over.

[jody]

13. I believe HC has more Dem votes in states with primaries. Repug and Ind votes should not count

because the task is to select a candidate for the Dem Party.

Caucuses have been stacked with people from other voting districts.

IMO those claiming to be Dems who also say they would not vote for the other candidate in the GE are not true Dems.

[rosesaylavee]

14. Should be interesting.

I support the right of individual states to arrange their system the way they see fit. Who is going to tell them differently? The DNC? I don't think that will fly too well. I predict the system, such as it is, will be the same next presidential election. Hopefully by that tho, states will understand that their caucus or primary date that they agree to with the DNC a year out is carved in stone and not to be f**ked with a few months before.

K & R

[TheDoorbellRang]

15. Hey! We're in complete agreement on this!

I support the right of individual states to arrange their system the way they see fit.

After all the wailing and gnashing of teeth about which state's system is best, this is what they'll probably decide.:hi:

[rosesaylavee]

17. ...

:toast:

Yuppers. I also predict that by fall, everyone forgets how unfair they thought the caucuses and primaries were. Either the new DEM nominee fighting to get elected will be distration enough... or the economy or war with Iran will be take the focus elsewhere. In ideal times we are not good about remembering our 6 month history. This year, lots bigger problems are looming to take our concern elsewhere.

[TheDoorbellRang]

18. You got that right

and in January 2012 we'll suddenly remember, and the "OH, NOES!!11!1" will start anew.

[ElsewheresDaughter]

16. and that is why we need the super delegates...to keep repuke voters from mudding the Dem waters

[zarath]

22. Those "repukes" who are voting overwhelmingly Hillary?

I guess it's ok for them to "muddy the Dem waters" as long as they are muddying it in favor of YOUR candidate.

[VotesForWomen]

20. the whole system is a joke; that's why O's 1/2% lead doesn't amount to a hill of beans. nt

[TheDoorbellRang]

21. ???

Obama is ahead of Hillary 52-48% in total delegates to date.

[Texas Hill Country]

23. i will say that the caucases in texas were ridiculous... i wont say all the scandalous stuff i saw