Bill Clinton's "Vote per Delegate" Metric Nonsense

Yesterday Bill Clinton made a specious, and rather Clintonian, argument that caucuses are somehow unfair because they reward more delegate votes on a per voter basis than do primaries. This argument is central to the Clintonian 'debate' that somehow a caucus is less democratic than a primary, and therefore Obama's delegate lead is a false representation of the ever-elusive "will of the people", whatever that means. (Democrats only? Independents?)

"And the party will have to decide whether they believe the caucuses --
where you get about one delegate for 2000 votes -- are more important than the primaries where you get one for 12,000"
--Bill Clinton

FLAW #1:

Slippery slope: If caucuses are less democratic than a closed primary, then is a closed primary less democratic than a semi-open primary? How about an open primary?

In Clintonian logic, closed primaries are less democratic than non-closed primaries, so therefore non-closed primaries should be given more weight.

I did the math on this one.

For closed primaries, Senator Clinton received 4,266,983 votes to Senator Obama's 3,854,032, for a Clinton margin of +412,951.

For non-closed primaries, (more democratic than caucuses for Clintonian logic), Senator Obama received 13,022,161 votes to Senator Clinton's 12,755,691, for an Obama margin of +266,470.

For purely open primaries, the most democratic possible primary of all according to the Clintons, Senator Obama received 3,601,593 votes to Senator Clinton's 2,984,625, for an Obama margin of +616,968.

According to this Clintonian logic, Senator Obama suffered in closed primaries, and even a bit in non-closed/non-open primaries, because they were simply not democratic enough, so those primaries should be thrown out and only the truest forms of democratic contests in these non-closed primary states should count.

FLAW #2:

The Clinton campaign wants to make the argument that Senator Clinton has received more votes in the primaries than Senator Obama, thus trying to make the argument that in more democratic election systems, she is the more popular candidate, and that Obama's wins in caucuses are therefore suspect and invalid.

Senator Clinton has received more votes in primaries, but as the above analysis shows, her margin of victory comes entirely from closed primaries. Senator Obama has beaten her in semi-closed/semi-open primaries and open primaries, which means that in all non-closed primaries, Senator Obama beat Senator Clinton as well.

Senator Clinton's argument about some forms of primary being more valid than other only applies to a closed primary system, which is the only form of primary that she has won so far (besides invalidated primaries).

Normally you don't make this type of argument where your position is not open-ended, but instead is flanked and undermined by just a slight bit more analysis.

So, let's get this straight for the record:

Based on results on each contest, from "least democratic" to "most democratic"...

CAUCUSES: Senator Obama wins

CLOSED PRIMARIES: Senator Clinton wins

SEMI-CLOSED/SEMI-OPEN PRIMARIES: Senator Obama wins

OPEN PRIMARIES: Senator Obama wins


It's rather funny how the Clintons don't qualify their argument that they mean only closed primaries, when an open primary better approximates a national election and the whole point of her argument is that she is more electable nationally. She is basing this argument off the notion that Obama only wins caucuses, but she wins primaries. Yet the more democratic a primary gets, the better Obama does. This information completely blows this premise out of the water.


FLAW #3:

President Clinton contends that it is unfair that a caucus grants a delegate per 2,000 votes, and a primary grants a delegate per 12,000 votes.

However, even within the same set of primaries--for example, open primaries--there still are major discrepancies in terms of delegate allocation per vote.

Let's take three of the open primaries: Indiana, Missouri and Alabama.

Indiana was awarded 72 delegates, Missouri 72, and Alabama 52.

Turnout? Indiana had 1,278,268 votes case, Missouri 825,208 and Alabama 536,279.

Votes per delegate awarded? Indiana = 17,754 v/d, Missouri 11,461 v/d, and Alabama 10,313 v/d.

Indiana had the same amount of delegates to award as Missouri, ran the same exact system of primary, and yet there was about a 6,300 vote per delegate difference between these two states with such similar set-ups. Indiana had over 7,400 more votes needed per delegate in contrast to Alabama, using the same open primary system.

Does this mean that Indiana's open primary was more democratic than Alabama's? Does this mean that Indiana's 72 delegates are worth more than Missouri's?

Interestingly enough, Indiana only contributed a 14,198 vote advantage for Clinton but gave her four more pledged delegates. Missouri only contributed a 11,732 vote advantage for Obama but he tied Clinton in pledged delegates from this contest. Alabama, however, went for Obama by about 67,000 votes and netted him two pledged delegates.

So a 14,198 vote margin for Clinton in Indiana gains her four delegates, but a 63,000 vote margin for Obama in Alabama gains him two delegates?

This might be crazy to consider, if one actually tries to make perfect sense of not only how each state contest is run, but also how delegates are awarded within each state based on performance by district and statewide. I posted a story earlier about this very detail in Indiana on how the vote there broke down into delegates.

The point here is simple. The attempt to link votes to delegates is insane, because even within the same form of primary contest, there will be major differences in the ratio between votes and delegates, based on all sorts of things like turnout, timing in the primary calendar, etc.

The seemingly simple argument by Clinton that a votes per delegate metric is important to consider is surprisingly complex to the point where the suggestion of such a ratio is illogical and unsuited for the primary contests.

This argument fails under its own weight when scrutinized.

FLAW #4:

The most egregious logical error is that the Clinton campaign's argument on this matter is purely a non-starter.

Each state chose the best form of primary system for its residents according to their democratically elected officials and party leaders. In order to accommodate the unique aspects of each state's primary elections, the DNC created the delegate system to create a common denominator by which each state could have an ordinal sense of rank based on population but a unique form of primary within its borders.

DailyKos and JedReport have featured articles on this before, but the logic is clear. Why on earth would the states of Missouri and Minnesota, both granted 72 delegates by the DNC, choose an open primary and an open caucus (respectively) for its method of allocating those delegates if in the end the popular vote would be reinserted as a weight by which to measure electability?

By virtue of the DNC allowing each state to select its own system of preference for divvying up the delegates it is awarded to the National Convention, each state's choice is inherently democratic and a reflection of the will of the people of that state through representative democracy. To backtrack and try to reconstitute the principles of the primary race in this manner is absurd on its face, even with the seeming clarion call to "democratic principles" of every vote should count ex post facto.

This argument after the rules were set and agreed upon, and the contest began, is as silly as arguing at the end of a basketball game that layups are only worth half a point, but three pointers are now worth five points, so I should have won because I only shot outside jumpers while you drove by me all game.

Strategy is based upon rules, and to change the rules after the fact is to undermine the very logic and strategy of winning the primary.

Sort of reminds me of this movie...