Delegates In California: A Caution

If, in many congressional districts in California, a Democrat does not receive more than 62% of the vote, he or she will receive the same number of delegates from that CD as the he or she who finishes second. (Only Clinton and Obama will earn viability -- above 15% in those CDs.)

Hence Hillary Clinton could win California by, say, 20 points... and take a sliver of a delegate advantage there.

This is intelligent design at work. The creators of the modern primary rules for the Democrats wanted to make sure that a diverse array of interests had their say. Well, now there are two candidates who are viable, who have lots of money, who have a diverse base of support... and the primary rules will be manifestly unfair to the supporters of one of them. (This is why I've been skeptical of the Obama campaign spin... yes, they'll likely lose a number of states, but the delegate differences will be minuscule.)

Bob Mullholland, a very smart Democratic Party adviser in California, has calculated the exact percentages needed for one candidate to take an extra delegate from an even delegate congressional district.

"In the 26 congressional districts that are allocated four delegates, one candidate would have to get more than 62.500% of the vote, otherwise, both candidates will get two delegates each. In the six congressional districts that are allocated six delegates, one candidate would have to get more than 58.330% of the vote to get four delegates, otherwise each gets three delegates."

Comments

I would like to point out that by this logic, the delegate counts in South Carolina and Florida would vary significantly from the popular vote total. But they were very similar.

Posted by Nicholas Beaudrot | February 5, 2008 9:16 AM

Screw Hillary. May she get boned up the backside today!

Posted by ken | February 5, 2008 9:22 AM

On behalf of Obama supporters everywhere, I disown ken's support, and urge him to reflect on his violent misogynistic language (per his 9:22 AM post).

Posted by Beth in VA | February 5, 2008 9:34 AM

That built-in advantage for the runner-up might somewhat (though it cannot completely) offset the massive institutional advantages HRC has had since the race began: a popular former President as husband and the vast majority of Superdelegates in her pocket.

Barack Obama is still ahead by a large margin in delegates awarded by the electorate, rather than by career politicians. Maybe today, after weeks of the media claiming the establishment candidate is inevitable in the biggest states, these massive institutional biases will finally have the self-fulfilling effect the DNC has been counting on since day one, when they threw their lot in with the Clintons.

But if people are really looking for positive political change in this election, for an improvement on the Bush disaster and a repudiation of what the election process itself has become in this country, I can't imagine a change any sweeter than real people overriding pollsters, pundits and party alike to elect the first leader in recent memory whose aspirations and potential are worthy of the office.

Posted by Tim | February 5, 2008 9:39 AM

I don't think ken is an Obama supporter. I seem to remember him posting some nonsense yesterday in support of Hillary.

And as far as the process being "manifestly unfair" to the winner... I guess that depends which side you're on. At least we know what the rules are going in. But it's always possible Hillary could go to court at the last minute and try to make California winner-take-all.

Posted by John SFL | February 5, 2008 9:44 AM

If this method is unfair, then so is the Electoral College. I'm not saying that the Electoral College is fair (supporters of Al Gore in 2000 certainly don't think so); just recognizing that the primary system for the Democrats is similar in principle to the general election system.

To play devil's advocate for a second, though, I think this system is actually fairer -- particularly in a primary. It discourages candidates from concentrating on a few huge, vote-rich states (or vote-rich counties within states) and forces them to appeal to a wide range of voters, particularly in rural areas that candidates would love to ignore. In other words, the caucuses and elections today in places like North Dakota and Kansas and Colorado and Delaware and Idaho will actually mean something. Under a winner-take-all system, a candidate would just concentrate on New York, New Jersey and California and tell all those other Democrats to pound sand. Which approach do you think builds the party? Which one increases the chances for victory in November?

Posted by Fred App | February 5, 2008 10:01 AM

It is only "manifestly unfair" if you start with the premise that the nomination process is intended to be an exercise in counting up the current total number of "supporters" of each candidate within the relevant political party (where "supporters" is defined as people who will name that person if forced to choose only one person at this time). Of course, it isn't intended to be such a process, as even a quick survey of the process would tell you. Nor is there any particular reason why it should be, given that the process will end not in an actual office-holder, but rather in the party choosing a nominee for an office.

Posted by DTM | February 5, 2008 10:08 AM

Has everyone forgotten what the Clinton's did to this country? Why should we waste time and money on the campaign and election? Just throw the Constitution out the window, and declare Hillary the queen of the world gov. Who needs freedom? We want Hillary to take care of our health, our children's dumbing down, our demise, and to just flush the country down the toilet. Freedom was just a pipe dream anyway. Who needs it? Let's just cave and be gay, feminist, green, globally cold, nuked, aborted, minimum wage unionists, buying foreign, and so on, you get the picture, and lock up all of our natural resources, fold up the country and go home. If you fight against it, you may just become part of the trail of blood that follows the Clinton's wherever they go.

Posted by marjay | February 5, 2008 10:11 AM

This from Washington Post.com: "[The National Organization of Women, aka NOW] supporting Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.) distributed an e-mail yesterday accusing Sen. Barack Obama (D-Ill.) of being soft on abortion rights, revisiting an eleventh-hour attack that some analysts credited with swaying female voters in New Hampshire."

This is just one itsy bitsy piece of her machine, grinding along in its hateful way. 11th hour attacks are the stuff of victory at any cost, the truth be damned. And so, to paraphrase Ken in less incendiary words: Hillary Clinton and her politics be damned.

Posted by Tim | February 5, 2008 10:46 AM

Rather than all the sniping between supporters, keep in mind the REAL issue.

We are in a Republican recession brought about by Republican fiscal irresponsibility partly due to a Republican Middle East Crusade to secure oil profits.

Also a Republican president that wants to cut Medicare benefits so as to preserve the Republican tax cuts for the Rich.

FWIW I voted for Hillary in the Fl primary but now lean toward Obama. I WILL VOTE FOR EITHER ONE IN THE GENERAL ELECTION OVER ANY REPUBLICAN! ... and I was a registered republican for 17 years

Posted by Rick | February 5, 2008 11:00 AM

Dear Marc Ambinder,

Only 70% of the California delegates are
"proportional".

Whoever wins the STATE-WIDE popular vote automatically gets the other 30% of
delegates.

Therefore, it really does who matter who
comes in first place.

Posted by Hennessy | February 5, 2008 11:25 AM

Hennessey, that is incorrect. The 35% of delegates that are allocated statewide are also allocated proportionally, but based on the statewide vote rather than the CD-level vote.

Posted by P. Henry | February 5, 2008 12:23 PM

Hey Marc,

I wrote a similar analysis of the Tennessee delegate allocations on Campaign Diaries, explaining why Obama could lose the statewide vote by 15% but tie Clinton in the district-by-district allocation.

Why? The 9th delegate (the most African-American district) is 6 delegates but Obama is likely to get 4-2 there. The 1st, 2nd and 3rd, Clinton's best, are all 4... and Clinton is likely to be forced into a 2-2 split. etc...

The same dynamic as in California, really.

Posted by Daniel | February 5, 2008 12:42 PM

Barack Obama is still ahead by a large margin in delegates awarded by the electorate, rather than by career politicians.

Tim: According to the Real Clear Politics delegate count, Obama's margin over Hillary in non-super delegates is fifteen (63 to 48). Fifteen delegates doesn't strike me as being a "large margin."

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epolls/2008/president/democratic_delegate_count.html#moreraces

And Hillary, of course, has attracted the votes of several hundred thousand more primary voters than Obama. The rules drawn up by "career politicians" have, of course, enabled him to eek out a small lead in pledged delegates despite gaining fewer votes than Hillary.

Posted by The Obama Spin Truth Squad | February 5, 2008 12:51 PM

I agree with DTM: the process is only unfair if the purpose of an election (particularly a primary election) is simply to count the number of supporters. But that isn't the purpose -- the purpose is to identify and select a candidate who has not only strong support, but broad and consistent support. And that's even more important if a party is trying to pick someone who can compete in the general.

It's the same reason that we have a best-4-out-of-7-game World Series, and don't simply tally runs and give the championship to those with the biggest tally. The series is won by the team that is most *consistently* successful (i.e. who can win the most *games*), not one that can simply rack up a lot of runs in one or two games. It's very possible to have one team outscore the other in total runs through the series, but lose the actual championship. And I don't know of anyone who would call that process unfair.

So the idea of this (or the electoral college, for that matter) being somehow "unfair" often betrays a misunderstanding of what the electoral mechanism is actually trying to do.

Posted by Cranston | February 5, 2008 2:32 PM

Bottom Line:

Like all of you. I know that health care is the most critical, and important issue facing the American people. Now, and in the coming elections. And like the vast majority of the American people, I want HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law NOW! "Single payer, Tax Supported, Not For Profit, True Universal Health Care" free for all as a right. Like every other developed country in the world has. See: http://www.house.gov/conyers/news_hr676.htm

“HR 676:
For church goers: less money to insur. companies and more to the church- lots more.
Srs on Medicare: save way over $100/wk. Because no more medigap, long term care & dental insur. needed. No more drug bills.”

But if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our current politicians to get HR 676 passed into law before the elections. We will have to identify, and replace all the politicians standing in the way of passage of HR 676. And, I think the best first place to start is with the politicians that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bills for the kids. Passed by congress twice.

But what about the President. It was Bush after all that blocked the bipartisan SCHIP bill passed by congress to assure more health coverage for Americas kids. So which of the presidential hopefuls do I think will be most supportive of implementing the demand of the majority of the American people to have HR 676 (Medicare For All) passed into law immediately!

We have some very fine presidential candidates who would make good presidents. But none of the top Presidential candidates directly support HR 676, the only true Universal Health Care plan. So I am supporting Hillary Clinton. She is the only top candidate that has ever actually fought for universal health care before.

I have enormous admiration, and respect for Hillary Clinton. She fought a pitched battle against overwhelming odds back in 1993. To prevent this disastrous health care crisis that is now devastating the American people, and America. She fought so hard for the American people that she risk almost completely destroying her husbands presidency. I haven't forgotten her heroic effort. If any Presidential hopeful for universal health care deserves my support, it's her.

Also, if we the American people fail to bring enough pressure on our government to give us HR 676 which we all so desperately need NOW! Then we will need the most skilled politician we can get on our side to broker the best health care plan for the American people that we can get. Though it will be less than we need, and less than we deserve. The politician I think to best do this is Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are probably the most skilled politicians in American history.

The insurance industry, and medical industry that has been ripping you off, and killing you has given Hillary Clinton so much money because they fear her. They have also given Barack Obama so much money because they fear Hillary Clinton. They think they can manipulate Barack Obama against the best interest of the American people better than they can manipulate Hillary Clinton. There is no race issue with Hillary Clinton. The Clinton's are the poster family for how African Americans want white people to be towards African Americans.

As always, African Americans are suffering, and dieing in this health care crisis at a much higher rate than any other group in America. The last time there was any significant drop in the African American death rate was when Bill Clinton was president.

My fellow Americans, you are dieing needlessly at an astounding rate. In higher numbers than any other people in the developed world. Rich, and poor a like. Insured, and uninsured. Men, women, children, and babies. And we the American people must stop it. And fix it NOW! Keep Fighting!!! Never! give up hope. There are millions of lives at stake. Bless you all... You are doing great!

Posted by jacksmith | February 5, 2008 3:44 PM

Guys make sure you check out the article "The Intoxication of Inspiration" on the blogzine SAVAGE POLITICS (not related to Mike Savage) at www.savagepolitics.com. It is awesome......everyone should read it before voting.

Posted by Elsylee | February 5, 2008 3:45 PM

Why are there soooo many Obama supporters? Bush made a wrong turn in mixing religion with politics, and look at the return damage that the citizens suffer from! And now Obama is doing the same thing!!!! It's not about what religion is the right one, it's about taking care of the people. Remember when Clinton's husband was President? Well, at that time, Hillary was trying to get involved with helping the people, except she was told to back off, because she was learning too much. To this day, she knows the in's and out's, and it's about time a woman comes in to clean up a man's mess - isn't that what we're good for??????

Posted by Noreen | February 5, 2008 3:51 PM

Sen. Clinton and her disbarred ex president semi-spouse are nothing more than a couple of razzle dazzle con artists.
Their goal is simply to enrich themselves no matter who gets Fostered.
The senator plans on garnishing our wages while her scuzbag accomplice shakes down other scuzbags for multi million "donations" for his Foundation.
Gee Bill, how much will you charge Chavez for access to Hillary?
We need to look forward with Obama instead of watching our country sink even further with the Clinton Duoacracy!

Posted by Remus | February 5, 2008 4:14 PM

Hey Marjay,
In case you haven't noticed the current administration of King George has already thrown the constitution out the window and flushed our country down the toilet. What we need now is a plumber. I don't support Clinton, but its far from fair and a fair stretch to accuse her of doing or about to do what has already been done. The lack of logic in your post is the disease that got us in this mess in the first place.

Posted by chaoszen | February 6, 2008 1:19 AM

I would like to point out that by this logic, the delegate counts in South Carolina and Florida would vary significantly from the popular vote total. But they were very similar.

I would like to point out to Nicholas Beaudrot that neither South Carolina nor Florida are California which is the subject of this particular blog post.

Posted by Don | February 6, 2008 4:02 PM