In this campaign cycle, people have become increasingly aware of the odd and varied ways in which the Democrats and Republicans award delegates to the candidates seeking their respective party nominations.  The other day, RCP’s Jay Cost posted an analysis of the systemic biases in the method by which the Democrats award delegates to states:
In my opinion, the Democrats’ nominating system stinks. It doesn’t stink as much as the Republicans’ bone-headed scheme, but it still stinks.
Cost then identifies several sytemic biases that favor Obama in this cycle. First, there is a “small state” bias carried over from in the Electoral College.  Cost sees the bias in both as a sensible way to protect against regional candidates from winning the White House on a sectarian campaign.
However, after Cost “linearizes” that relationship, he finds a bias in favor of states Bush won in 2004; states of equal size get more or less delegates depending upon how strongly they went for Bush in 2004. Cost gives several examples, including this:
Compare Texas to Illinois. If there was just a “small state bias,” Illinois Democrats should be better represented than Texas Democrats. After all, Illinois is smaller than Texas. In fact, the opposite is true.
Finally, there is the caucus bias that Obama has exploited with his “cheap delegate” strategy.   The DNC does not take lower caucus turnout (relative to primary turnout) into account when it allocates delegates to states, which amplifies the Bush state bias.
The latter two biases arise from the formula the DNC uses to allocate delegates to states and can cause the “perverse” result in which the candidate who wins does not actually reflect the choice of the voters. Cost traces this to the half-baked reform of the nominating system in the 1970s. The parties decided to open the selection process to the people over party functionaries, but left in place the basic format of having delegates selecting the nominee at a convention:
There is no internal logic, no answer to the question: if the voters should decide, why retain delegates and conventions?
Moreover, the reform process tended to invert the relationship between the parties and the candidates. The latter used to serve the former; now the reverse is usually true. The diminishment of the parties in the process has led people to pay insufficient attention to what the parties still do, e.g., create the formulas by which delegates are selected, etc.
As usual, I recommend RTWT, as Cost lays these points out with the usual charts, tables and equations, plus examples I have omitted here.
In most years, this would be a topic so dry and technical that the eyes would tend to glaze over immediately. However, in a cycle where Barack Obama currently holds a near-insurmountable delegate lead, but the possibility remains that Hillary Clinton could end up with a lead in the popular vote, all sorts of folks — not least in the Clinton camp — will find it interesting.
“but left in place the basic format of having delegates selecting the nominee at a convention:”
One thing I have a question about is this…
What exactly is the penalty for a “pledged” delegate not voting as “pledged”.
This primary is starting to be fought like the Democrats have always fought the regular elections, as an all out war. Why would there not be the use of double agents, sleeper agents, blackmail and subversion? Get your own people to run as delegates for the other side. Blackmail or bribe others to vote your way no matter how they are “pledged”. The winner would be the head of the party and would not be punishing those who helped even if they broke some party rule and I don’t believe that voting different than “pledged” even on the first vote is against the party rules.
Needless to say I expect this to just get dirtier and dirtier.
geoffb
The answer is basically nothing. The pledged delegates are really not pledged at all under the DNC rules. On the GOP side they are obliged to vote as pledged on the first round ballot.
DNC JUST FAVOR FOR CLINTONs DIRTY MACHINE THEY ARE COWARD EVEN WITH ILLEGAL ALIEN THIS THE KIND PARTY WE WANT,SLICK WILLIE WILL BE WIN WITH CHEAT STEAL
primary mail in ballot,DEAD CAT DEAD DOG ,ILLEGAL ALIEN CAN VOTE ALL FOR BILLARY,CAUCUS ONLY CITIZEN CAN VOTE,CHEAT CHEAT LIE
HEY SEN.NAFTA AND MRS SLICK WILLIE, PLEASE SPEAK UP — I CAN’T HEAR YOU.
(Florida and Michigan) Divide the delegates in to 3rds. Nullify 1/3 of the delegates as a penalty for not following party rules. Split the second third evenly among the two candidates. Mail In vote, proportional results unless one candidate breaks 66%. If 66% is broken the winning candidate receives the remaining third in total. You have to penalize Florida and Michigan something, because that is the only way that they won’t defy the party in the future. You are setting a precedent that will foil the process in the future.
Karl, thanks for the info. I thought that that was the case but wasn’t sure.
It’s going to be interesting seeing that it is only the “pledged word” of political people that gives either candidate their supposed edge.
geoffb,
To be fair, I should add that most people who stand to become delegates are heavily political people in the first instance. In general, someone does not stand to be a delegate for BO or HRC unless they really, really support that candidate.
because it worked so well when they knew they wouldn’t have any delegate if they moved their primary up. The fact the Dems are even debating this speaks volumes.
You are setting a precedent that will foil the process in the future.
They are so cute when they are young.
I do agree with you that the delegates are heavily political people and that candidates pick as their delegates people who profess to support them. If a candidate has been in National political circles for years they would know who they could trust in all the States.
I’m sure the delegates for Hillary have been throughly vetted by her and her husbands staff over the 16 years they have been in National politics. Obama however has not had that long presence and must to a great degree rely on others to vouch for the reliability of his delegates.
It was Bill Clinton whose top campaign staff were called “The War Room”. More and more in recent times the Democrats treat elections as total war. No quarter given and victory the only acceptable outcome.
This is the first time I know of that two Democrats have gone at each other like they usually go at Republicans. It has also meant that it is getting reported on, as the press is not united behind one side.
I truly expect that some very down and dirty deals will be made and actions taken during the course of this election. If it wasn’t so serious it would be entertaining.
Something really needs to be done about these states having open primaries. I am all for someone being able to vote as they want but that is not what is happening. I think the Republican swing for Hillary was significant in Ohio and especially Texas. It will be again in Miss. Maybe in Texas it even determined the winner. I know that probably not that many registered Pubs swung but its the non registered Pubs that did the damage. That is not the purpose of the open primary and it is kind of dispicable to me to have a party cross and vote for someone they know they can beat instead of the candidate that they are scared to death of. How bad do we need a rule that whatever party you vote for in the presidential primary you must vote for in the general. At least it would give people a choice and take away the option for what is basically fraud. I sure hope the Supers are paying attention to this because Obama would be even further ahead if not for low life people like Rush Limbaugh and others around the country. Do whatever it takes to win, pay no attention to ethics or truth. Hmmm, I think we need a change.
So, Vince would take away the secret ballot?
huh? if we’re talking about Texas, they don’t indicate party on the register. ever.
According to exit polls in Texas 10% (120,000) of Republican voters (1.2 million total) crossed over to vote Dem. Of those 85% voted for Clinton giving her another 102,000 or so votes. She won by 100,000 votes. There were tranditionally republican counties in Texas where the vote went 95% Clinton & 5% other.
Thank you Rush Limbaugh for employing the very same tactics you always accuse them ‘dirty liberals’ of using.
where the heck are you getting those numbers?
Boo hoo, elections are great until the Dems get results they don’t like.
Maggie – They are just making shite up. It is what they do.
Here in Georgia, nobody belongs to a political party unless they pay dues. It’s an entirely private matter and the only interest the state takes is in case the primary results in a runoff. They don’t want people who voted in one party’s primary going back three weeks later to vote in the other party’s runoff.
Aside from that, Georgia doesn’t give a $#!+. By definition therefore, it is not possible to be a “crossover” voter here.
Unless you somehow manage to get the other party’s ballot in the runoff. I’ve never tried so I don’t know how hard that would be.
McGehee, sounds like it’s the same as here in Texas. There is no party indicated on the registry. but, anytime you vote your card is stamped. and in the primaries the stamp indicates which party’s ballot you voted on.
If the DNC tossed out the FL and MI contingents for good and sufficient reasons (and that’s another argument), then shouldn’t they simply reduce the total of delegates by the same amount, and the number required to win by roughly half that?
What’s the freakin’ PROBLEM here, folks?