Delegates
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!
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!
Labels: delegates, presidential primaries
posted by MSS at 2:03 PM
3 Comments:
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.
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
Jessica, you can be sure NZ will be covered! And there have been posts on the 2005 NZ election and since then at the main site, or more precisely, at one of the subdomains of the main site:
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.
Post a Comment
<< Home