A colleague just forwarded to me the first state-by-state list of elected-only delegates that I have seen.
If it is accurate, Obama has 53.55% and Clinton has 46.44%. So the proportional system is actually working, despite all the quirks in individual states. Obama’s roughly 5-point vote lead has translated into just over a 7-point lead in delegates. That’s an advantage ratio of 1.08, which is fairly typical of a moderate-magnitude PR system. Clinton’s advantage ratio is slightly smaller (1.04).
In California, where Clinton won the vote 52%-42.3%, she won the delegates, 54.9% to 45.1%. So, Obama had a very slightly bigger boost (ratio of 1.067 compared to Clinton’s 1.055). Not much, but consistent with expectations we had due to all the even-magnitude districts.
When I have a chance to look at other states, if anything anomalous comes out, you can be sure I will say so!
I wonder is some of Hillary’s problem has been campaign advisers that could not get their heads around a PR election, thinking, for example that the big SuperTuesday wins would be an end of the campaign.
Seed planted by Alan — 24 February 2008 @ 22:23
Well this is quite an interesting blog especially for an IR/PS grad and expat.
I for one am glad that this is something of a ‘national primary’ that didn’t end on Super Tuesday.
And I would like to echo the sentiment that this is an election of firsts. For me, it was my first vote by fax (I was dubious at first, but it worked) and, perhaps more importantly, the first time I ever gave money to a candidate.
In any case I am really enjoying this blog. I would also like to put in a request for future posts on another election also expected to happen in late 2008 which is geographically closer to me… the New Zealand election, in which NZ Labour will attempt to win a fourth term. We’ll see if they can hang on to the coalition this time, or if ‘no, I insist, I really don’t want to be kingmaker’ Winston Peters (aka he with no interest in ‘baubles’) will be swayed by those of the opposition.
Hope all is well in San Diego!
Jessica
Seed planted by Jessica — 24 February 2008 @ 22:23
Jessica, you can be sure NZ will be covered! And there have been posts on the 2005 NZ election and since then at:
http://nz.fruitsandvotes.com
Regarding Alan’s point, maybe so. But, of course, even on 5 Feb, Clinton’s win was not so big. In votes (while recognizing that your point is they were not looking at aggregate votes and the PR delegates that come from them), she “won” that day’s contests only 48.17% to 47.81%. And that only allowed her to close his then-existing lead to 47.08-46.55.*
I certainly agree with Jessica that it is great to have something like a ‘national primary’ for the first time ever. And Alan is certainly right that Obama has exploited that process in a way that Clinton apparently was not prepared for. I take Alan’s point about the “big wins” to mean the “natural” advantages she has from name recognition and institutional support in populous states like California, Massachusetts, and New York (though the latter inevitably was going to be discounted by it being “her” state; it did not help her that Obama did vastly better in his state than she in hers).
____
* not counting Michigan or Florida, because the DNC said they did not count, or Iowa and Nevada, because no actual human beings casting votes get reported.
Seed planted by MSS — 24 February 2008 @ 22:24
“Hillary’s problem has been campaign advisers that could not get their heads around a PR election, thinking, for example that the big SuperTuesday wins would be an end of the campaign”
Indeed, as per our host’s comments about the media’s obsession with “carrying” States, when with DemPR this may mean you win only 101 delegates out of 200, or even 98 or 99 if the districts go against you.
Obviously, an endorsement/ selection process should “mimic” the eventual election process… up to a point. There’s be no point, eg, selecting a party list of candidates for the House of Reps if it’s elected by single-seat districts. Or electing convention delegates from districts that cross State lines. Of course, against this are other considerations. As some have noted, the Dems included superdelegates (more accurately, “general-purpose” delegates) in part because primary/ caucus turnout was so low and the “elected” (more accurately, “single-purpose”) delegates were not always representative even of Democrat voters, let alone of the whole electorate.
(And also because, even if primary/ caucus turnout were high, delegates elected therein are often intensely focused on getting their own candidate the nomination, rather than getting the party’s eventual ticket elected… so intensely that many may sulk and sit out the general if their “leader” doesn’t get the nomination. In which case having superdelegates *might*, over time, actually hurt the Dems, if their intervention as a bloc creates the perception among aggrieved party activists that a strong “outsider” candidate who polled well in the primaries/ caucuses “was robbed” at convention by the successors of Mayor Daley).
Seed planted by Tom Round — 25 February 2008 @ 17:06