The California Democratic Primary Rules – a Vote Bulldozer or Enhancer
California has the largest number of Democratic delegates, 548, and they may finally come into play in this primary election on June 7, 2016. But most of the delegates, 317, are district delegates, and we show how the rules for proportionately splitting the district vote will erase or enhance most of actual split between the candidates, Clinton and Sanders. Clearly, after district polling, the candidates and delegate quants are going to be targeting districts where differences are close to being magnified, and neglecting districts where the differences will be wiped out.
Out of the 2,383 delegates needed to win the nomination, California’’s 548 could be 23%. Out of the total 4,765 delegates, California’s are 11.5%.
First we start with the distinctive classes of delegates.
548 Total delegates:
317 district delegates for 53 districts, allocated by district vote; and
105 at large delegates and 53 pledged PLEOs (Party Leaders and Elected Officials) allocated proportionally on the state-wide vote. The above total 475 delegates are determined by the primary vote.
There are also 73 delegates unpledged PLEOs, called Superdelegates. These are broken down as follows:
31 are DNC (Democratic National Committee) members;
2 are our Democratic Senators; Barbara Boxer and Diane Feinstein.
39 are our Democratic Representatives; and
1 is our Democratic Governor, Jerry Brown.
Of the Superdelegates, 47 have pledged for Clinton, and 26 are available, but of course they are free to change their pledge at any time.
The 105 at large delegates and 53 pledged PLEOs are awarded on a proportional basis, provided a candidate get more than 15% overall, which is certain to be achieved.
Taking the 317 district delegates over 53 districts gives an average of 5.98 = 6 per district. The districts are awarded delegates depending how many Democratic voters that they have. Most get 5, 6, or 7 delegates. One gets 4, one gets 9, and three get 8. (I should comment that awarding delegates to districts roughly based on the number of Democrats there seems to provide a more democratically representative primary.)
The allocation of a few delegates to proportionally split them should apply to all states. How do you proportionately split 5, 6, or 7 delegates, and how accurate a representation of the district vote does this leave you with? This should be called the Pizza problem, for two people with a six slice pizza to split. Let’s say the candidates are close, as the current poll has Clinton at 47% and Sanders at 41%. I will call the district leader Clinton just to make it easier.
Let’s start with the districts with 6 delegates. If the candidates are close, the split will be 3-3, erasing any evidence of the split. At which point do the rules determine the split to be 4-2? The 4-2 split will occur when Clinton gets a 3.501 share, and Sanders gets a 2.499 share of the 6 votes. For the proportion, 3.5/6 = 0.583, or 58.3%, and 2.5/6 = 0.417 or 41.7%. The difference required is 16.6%. Since this is probably too large for most districts in this primary, this large difference is going to be erased and the delegates split as 3-3 as if the vote was 50%-50%. That is a real mathematical bulldozer built into the district delegate system. The other side of this is that a 4-2 split registers in delegates as 66.7% versus 33.3%, or a 2 to 1 ratio, or a 33.4% difference, even when the difference is only 16.6%, or a 58.3/41.7 = 1.4 to 1 ratio.
Just for completeness, we will figure out the district popular vote split requiring a 5-1 split. The proportion for this is 4.501/6 = 0.750 or 75%, and 1.499/6 = 0.250 or 25%. So this 3-1 popular vote ratio gets replaced by the much steeper 5-1 delegate ratio.
The lesson is that the reasonable sounding proportional split applied on a set of only 6 delegates erases differences all the way up to 16.6%, but enhances differences beyond that.
The fact that the wifi doesn’t have limits and my blog storage is free requires me to complete the analysis for 5 or 7 delegates, but the bored reader should quit here, if they have lasted this long. (As a retired Professor, I am supposed to say that I am driven by curiosity, but it really is my compulsiveness.). The timing for this examination of the California primary is that candidates have started visiting California to set up offices and to raise money, and the LA Times has started covering our primary.
For the case of 5 delegates in a district, the minimal split has to be 3-2, even if the vote is very close. So even if there is almost a 50%-50% vote split, the delegate split is 60%-40%. When does the split reach 4-1? When the vote ratio becomes 3.501/5 = 0.7 = 70% to 1.499/5 = 0.3 = 30%. The vote ratio of 7/3 = 2.33 becomes a 4-1 split or a ratio of 4/1 = 4.0, almost double. But the requirement that a candidate must get 15% in a district to split eliminates them at 10%, and when the split should be 4-1, it becomes 5-0. Think of this, for a 5 delegate district, the only two results are 3-2
For the case of 7 delegates, an near even vote split ends up as a 4-3 split or 57% to 43%. When does the split become 5-2? When the vote reaches 4.501/7 = 0.643 or 64.3% to 2.499/7 = 0.357 = 35.7%. At that point the vote ratio will be 64.3%/35.7% = 1.80. But Clinton gets a delegate ratio of 5/2 = 2.50, an enhancement. When does the split become 6-1? When Clinton reaches 5.501/7 = 0.786 = 78.6%, and Sanders slips to 1.499/7 = 0.214 = 21.4%. Then the vote ratio of 78.6%/21.4% = 3.67 gets magnified to 6/1 = 6, almost double.
In summary, 5 and 7 delegates create inequality and magnify it. 6 delegates erases differences, all the way up to 16.6%, and then magnifies larger differences. These cases remind me of those old fun house distorting mirrors.
Let’s give an illustration of this where say Clinton is ahead of Sanders in every district by just a smidgen. How do the rules amplify this split. The districts with an even number of delegates erase the difference in giving an even split, but the odd number of delegate districts lean to Clinton by one delegate, like 5 gets split 3 for Clinton and 2 for Sanders. Of the 53 districts, there is one 4, 22 6s, and 3 8s, for a total of 26 even splits. The odd number districts are 17 5s, 9 7s, and one 9 for a total of 27 districts that will give Clinton a total of 27 extra delegates over Sanders, where no excess should really be deserved. Thus of the 317 district delegates, 145 would go to Sanders, and 172 would go to Clinton. The 158 pledged delegates would split evenly if the vote difference was only a smidgen. So of the 475 pledged delegates, 224 would go to Sanders and 251 would go to Clinton. Of course if Sanders led Clinton everywhere by a smidgen, the numbers would be reversed. Of the 475 delegates, the lead by 27 is 27/475 = 5.7%.
A similar analysis of the New York Democratic primary of almost equal votes everywhere, leaves an excess of only 9 delegates from districts with 5 or 7 delegates, which out of 247 pledged delegates gives an smaller excess of 3.6%.
