As I wait impatiently for Super Tuesday to bring some
measure of clarity to the race for the nomination, I pass the time working out
in my head alternative outcomes. Here is
one hypothetical example designed to illustrate the remarkably different
delegate allocations that could result from almost identical vote totals. The key is the presence in the race of so
many viable candidates.
In each state, leaving aside superdelegates, there is a bloc
of at-large delegates allocated to candidates according to their total vote in
the state as a whole, and another bloc of delegates allocated Congressional
District by Congressional District to candidates according to their vote total
in the CD. In either allocation, a
candidate must get at least 15% of the vote to earn any delegates at all.
Imagine a state with 100 at-large delegates, and suppose
Bernie wins the popular vote with 35% of the vote in that state. Depending on how the other candidates do,
Bernie could win anywhere from 35 to 100 of the at-large delegates. Consider three vote distributions, in each of
which Bernie gets 35%:
I. Biden,
Bloomberg, Buttigieg, Warren, and Klobuchar each get 13% of the vote. None of them qualifies for any at-large
delegates and Bernie gets all 100.
2. Bloomberg
gets 25% of the vote, and the remaining four candidates get 10% each. Only Biden and Bloomberg qualify for at-large
delegates, and they split the 100 delegates in the proportion 35/25. Bernie gets 58 delegates, and Bloomberg gets
42.
3. Biden,
Bloomberg, Buttigieg, and Warren get 16% each, qualifying for delegates, and
Klobuchar gets 1%. Bernie gets 35/99 of
100, or 35 delegates.
Now complicate this by the CD by CD allocations, and you get
some sense of how wildly divergent the possible outcomes are. All of which raises the prospect of a brokered
convention, in which the ~16.5% of unpledged superdelegates get to put their
fat thumbs on the scale in the second and subsequent rounds of voting.
From a certain point of view, namely, should one enjoy patterns and puzzles, I can understand the interest in how certain short-term outcomes might effect longer-term outcomes. But from another point of view, such a detailed accounting of POSSIBLE short-term outcomes and SOME among their possible effects does seem a little bit obsessional. Isn’t it just a vague sort of probabilistic analysis of the “horse race?” Wouldn’t time be better spent trying to explore why the horses are racing the way they are? Although I imagine it might not be to everyone’s taste, and it’s very possible that not everyone will agree with it, I have in mind the following sort of analysis:
ReplyDeletehttps://jacobinmag.com/2020/02/third-party-bernie-sanders-donald-trump-democratic-race-2020
This is an argument by a Brown University political scientist, Gourevitch, which is a sort of extension of Peter Mair’s posthumously published argument (2013) concerning the collapse of the formerly dominant West European political parties during approximately the last couple of decades.
Best wishes for your upcoming visit to Paris.
An extremely interesting and useful essay. Thanks for the tip. I wish I were young enough to see how this plays out over the next twenty years.
ReplyDeleteMe too. But on the bright (?) side I read somewhere recently that Britain's oldest person died at the age of 111, so maybe we both have a bit to go.
ReplyDeleteAnd since you liked my last reference, you might appreciate the following, which may be seen to be providing a bit larger context for Gourevitch's argument:
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/government-and-opposition/article/global-economics-of-european-populism-growth-regimes-and-party-system-change-in-europe-the-government-and-oppositionleonard-schapiro-lecture-2017/32CECBB2EB9F6D707564D5A7944FAB04
Complete Your Assignment From
ReplyDeleteAssignment Editing Proofreading Services
Don't let small errors ruin your hard work! Our UK based proofreading services ensure flawless content. Get in touch for meticulous editing support.
ReplyDelete