Update: Finally, information on the actual magnitudes of the districts! The LA Times has posted a PDF with a useful map.
It is good to see Americanists–and maybe the Obama campaign–paying attention to district magnitude. From Marc Ambinder, as seen at PolySigh:
Even though some advisers concede that Hillary Clinton will probably win California, Barack Obama’s campaign will heavily target a number of large-and-small, odd-and-even congressional districts in the Bay Area (think Oakland, Berkeley, Marin County) because Democrats there tend to be more educated and younger — and black — exactly the demographic profile Obama has used to success in earlier states. But wait — if you’re in charge of Obama’s California spending, do you spent, say, $100,000 extra in the 6th Congressional District, which comprises Marin County and Somona County north of San Fransisco? It allocates an even number of delegates — six. Unless there’s a landslide, both Obama and Clinton will get 3, each.
Why not spend that money trying to beat Clinton in the 7th congressional district across the bay — Solano County and parts of Contra Costa counties, where the congressman, George Miller, has already endorsed Obama? CD 7 allocated 5 delegates, an an extra effort there might give Obama one extra delegate.
Of course, the greater seat (delegate) payoff to small vote swings in small and odd-magnitude districts is old hat to us comparative electoral systems analysts…
I move to have Armbinder’s entire post stricken as invalid since he failed to use the adjective “complex” or “complicated” before the phrase “system of proportional representation” as required by Title IX, Chapter 7, Section 3(c) of the Reportage of Election Act 1947. The nearest he gets is “[a] further layer of complication is demographic” and that, sir, is not near enough.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 31 January 2008 @ 08:13
Well, fortunately, the LA Times writers remain in good standing. On the front of today’s print edition: “The complex rules on Democratic delegates could favor the runner-up.” (Oh, really, so if I prefer Obama I should vote for Clinton?)
And in the article headline of the article itself: “Democrats do hard delegate math.” (Oh, I can’t take this. I mean numbers, and calculations and all that!!)
Seed planted by MSS — 01 February 2008 @ 15:46
A 3 to 6-seat setup sounds like Republic of Ireland before the 1950s (when the largest DM was capped at 5). If the majority are 4-seaters, Obama and Clinton might as well start talks on a co-presidency ticket now: it’ll be a Chilean result doubled.
Someone at Armbinder made the point that, to win 3 of 4 or 4 of 6, you need 60% or 57% of the *viable* votes, which may fall far below the total votes if one or two runners-up just fail to crack the 15% barrier.
This is an important difference from STV, where the exhausted votes are rarely enough to break an even-numbers tie without something at or exceeding 55% of the total valid votes. But with party (well, “Team”) lists, a 51%-33%-10%-6% split in votes would in fact allocate 3-1-0-0 seats under many formulas.
I’m curious why, since they’re already using lists, the Dems don’t just allocate the elected seats statewide, then devolve ‘em down to districts to determine which individual candidates for delegate go to the convention (you could use limited vote, eg Taagepera’s “cube root of the number of seats” version, 2 votes if 4 seats, etc). They could apply the 15% threshold both Statewide and at district level.
Seed planted by Tom Round — 01 February 2008 @ 18:22
Know your magnitude
There are a lot of even-magnitude districts.
Scion grafted by Fruits and Votes — 02 February 2008 @ 00:33