Those Weird At-Large Districts

So here are the delegate allocation formulas for those special, at-large precinct caucuses today on the Las Vegas Strip.

Basically, can get the same number of delegates with a turnout of 400 as you can with 800. That cuts against the whole premise that the delegate allocation here is based on turnout for THIS caucus since there is no history.

• If the total number of Democrats in attendance at the At-Large Precinct Caucus does not exceed 400, divide the total number of attendees by 5. Based on attendance, the total number of delegates in these At-Large Precincts will range from 1 – 80.

• If the total number of Democrats in attendance at the At-Large Precinct Caucus is between 401 and 600, divide the total number of attendees by 8. Based on attendance, the total number of delegates in these At-Large Precincts will range from 50 – 75.

• If the total number of Democrats in attendance at the At-Large Precinct Caucus is between 601 and 800, divide the total number of attendees by 10. Based on attendance, the total number of delegates in these At-Large Precincts will range from 60 – 80.

• If the total number of Democrats in attendance at the At-Large Precinct Caucus is between 801 and 1400, divide the total number of attendees by 15. Based on attendance, the total number of delegates in these At-Large Precincts will range from 53 – 93.

• If the total number of Democrats in attendance at the At-Large Precinct Caucus is between 1401 and 2000, divide the total number of attendees by 20. Based on attendance, the total number of delegates in these At-Large Precincts will range from 70 – 100.

• If the total number of Democrats in attendance at the At-Large Precinct Caucus is between 2001 and 3000, divide the total number of attendees by 30. Based on attendance, the total number of delegates in these At-Large Precincts will range from 67 – 100.

• If the total number of Democrats in attendance at the At-Large Precinct Caucus is between 3001 and 4000, divide the total number of attendees by 35. Based on attendance, the total number of delegates in these At-Large Precincts will range from 86 – 114.

• If the total number of Democrats in attendance at the At-Large Precinct Caucus exceeded 4000, divide the total number of attendees by 50. Based on attendance, the total number of delegates in these At-Large Precincts will be at least 80.

Comments

Hmmmm.... I don't get it, all I want to know is if this is good for Barack???

Posted by Danny | January 19, 2008 9:29 AM

In other words, Bill Clinton lied.. again? Please, please Marc, say it ain't so!

Posted by cynic5.0 | January 19, 2008 10:13 AM

So basically a precinct with 400 voters will get more delegates than one with 2001?

That is absolutely ridiculous.

Posted by Matt | January 19, 2008 10:57 AM

Keep in mind that these crazy rules were set up by the Nevada dem party establsihment, most of whom are for HIllary i.e. the Redi political machine.

Maybe they dseigned this as a way to limit the effect of big turnouts which generally do not favor Hillary.

But the math is complicated and I don't pretend to understand the point.

But everyone needs to be clear: these rules were set up by the pro-Hillary nevada dem party rory reid establishment.

So you all in the media should not allow the clintons to blame the rules for anything.

Posted by RKA | January 19, 2008 11:12 AM

Why is Andre Agassi not campaigning for Barack Obama? (He supports him.)

How come the press (that loves celebrity supporters of the two Clintons) does not focus on those from Las Vegas who support Obama?

Posted by eorse | January 19, 2008 11:27 AM

eorse, where did you hear about Agassi supporting Obama? I didn't know that.

As far as these At-Large districts, we don't know what this means because we don't know how many people will show up. But in the end, I don't think it'll matter too much. There are so many precincts out there where just a hanful of people or less will get their own delegate.

Posted by Tom | January 19, 2008 11:46 AM

The wacky formula is mis-adapted from a Nevada statute governing county conventions.

http://www.leg.state.nv.us/NRS/NRS-293.html#NRS293Sec133

The statute's intent was that with small counties of varying size (or with small parties), roughly 50-100 authorized delegates in total would gather at a county convention -- using a formula based on total party registration in the county.

As adapted to this year's caucus, allocating delegates based on registration or attendance in the precinct (for conventional or at-large precincts, respectively), the formula makes no damned sense for either precinct type.

We should know later today who got misrepresented and by what margin.

I'll venture a guess that in many precincts, the caucus will allocate more delegates than there are attendees will to serve as delegates, and hence many delegate slots will go unfilled ... and the impact of this on national convention delegate tallies may escape the attention of media scorekeepers.

Posted by RonK, Seattle | January 19, 2008 1:21 PM

Nevada has already been called for Romney on the GOP side.

Posted by Dan | January 19, 2008 1:28 PM

I did an analysis of the Democratic delegate race... and painted a possible scenario with Edwards and the super-delegates playing kingmaker.

I would be interesting in feedback from other bloggers and could refine the model.

http://electopundit.blogspot.com/2008/01/democratic-delegate-race.html

Posted by Daniel | January 19, 2008 1:36 PM

Obama dirty? Feds tie him to Rezco.

Sun-Times Exclusive:
Obama surfaces in Rekzo's federal corruption case
Source confirmed Obama is the unnamed "political candidate" referred to in document which outlines case against Rezko

Obama is not named in the Dec. 21 court document. But a source familiar with the case confirmed that Obama is the unnamed "political candidate" referred to in a section of the document that accuses Rezko of orchestrating a scheme in which a firm hired to handle state teacher pension investments first had to pay $250,000 in "sham" finder's fees. From that money, $10,000 was donated to Obama's successful run for the Senate in the name of a Rezko business associate, according to the court filing and the source.

Rezko, who was part of Obama's senatorial finance committee, also is accused of directing "at least one other individual" to donate money to Obama and then reimbursing that individual -- in possible violation of federal election law.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/politics/ob ama/749138,obama20web.article

Posted by Mike Mann | January 19, 2008 1:47 PM

Mike Mann, how did you conveniently overlook the fact that Rezko's donations were given to charity by the Obama campaign? And that no reputable commentator believes that Obama is dirty. Your attempt to mislead people here is simply contemptible.

Posted by S Brennan | January 19, 2008 2:43 PM

Rezco is to Obama what Hsu is to Billary what Mike Mann is to Moron.

Posted by Jay | January 19, 2008 3:23 PM

S Brennan - Obama was the recipient of close to 170,000 dollars from Rezko. The charitable donation was less than 40,000 dollars. If they give another $135,000 to charity you might have a point.

Posted by robert ethan | January 19, 2008 5:33 PM