P
Peter Principle
Guest
For the first time ever, the Texas Democratic primary is important. With
Clinton and Obama running nearly neck and neck in delegates, Texas' 228
delegates is the largest prize remaining on the primary calendar.
The punditry has been busy telling us why Obama can't win in Texas. They
tell us this is due mainly to the strong support Hillary Clinton enjoys
among Hispanic voters.
That's probably accurate, in terms of raw votes, but, as usual, the
punditry isn't telling the whole story. Odds are they don't know the
whole story.
The fact is that in the Texas it's two part system. Well, three part,
actually. Raw votes mean nothing. No delegates whatsoever will be
awarded as a result of state-wide voting. None.
It's the delegates that count, not the raw votes. And in the Democratic
primaries and caucuses, it's not winner taker all. Delegates are
apportioned to each candidate based on the percentage of popular vote
that candidate receives. More or less. Except in Texas. We'll get to
that in a minute.
Theoretically, this kind of apportionment would mean a candidate that
receives 50% of the vote in a given primary would get 50% of the
delegates. A candidate receiving 20% in the same primary would get 20%
of the delegates, and so on. But not in Texas.
As befits a state that describes itself as, "Texas: It's Like A Whole
Other Country," (yeah, I know it doesn't make sense, but this is Texas,
after all, where men are men and grammar is for sissies) we have
probably THE most bizarre, arcane system of delegate apportionment one
could possibly think up.
In Texas, delegates are assigned by district, not at large, as in most
other primaries. The number of delegates in each district is arbitrarily
based on number of votes cast for Kerry in 2004 and Chris Bell in 2006
in each district, not on population or number of registered voters, as
it is everywhere else.
This means districts with high turnout in these previous cycles will
have more delegates, proportionally, than districts with lower turnout.
The result is it is quite possible for a smaller district to have more
delegates than a larger district. It also means much of Hillary's
perceived advantage among Hispanic voters is neutralized.
Why is that, you ask? In 2004 and 2006, the two elections used to assign
delegates to each district, the turnout was lower in heavily Hispanic
districts than it was in heavily African-American and urban districts.
Proportionally, turnout for Kerry and Bell was much lower in the valley
districts than in urban the urban areas of Dallas, Houston and Austin.
The result is it is possible for Obama to lose the raw vote by as much
as 20% and still break even on delegates. If he can keep the margin
below 20% he will very likely get MORE delegates than Clinton would with
a win. Should he lose by only 10%, he will probably win significantly
more delegates than Clinton. Go figure.
But that's not the whole story, either. Only 126 delegates of the 228
total will be awarded based on the district by district voting. 35 more
delegates are "superdelegates" who remain officially uncommitted until
the convention, but in practice can back whomever they choose. The
remaining 67 delegates will be awarded by state caucus in June.
Each district will send representatives to the June caucus based on the
number of delegates apportioned to that district and the result of the
district by district caucuses to be held at 7:15 PM March 4 in each
district, or just after the polls close.
My guess is the vast majority of those planning to vote in the Texas
"primary" have no idea these caucuses even exist, much less how to
participate. And yet 30% of the available delegates will be awarded
through these caucuses.
The bottom line is any Democratic voter can attend the caucus in their
district. For the location of the caucus in your district, Austin voters
need to check with the Travis County Clerk's office. Other voters need
to check with their respective county clerk.
These caucuses are important. Representatives will be chosen for the
state caucuses at these local caucuses. some local caucus goers might
even end up as delegates in Minneapolis.
Confused, yet? As is so often the case in Texas, nothing is as it seems.
The primary isn't really a primary and the votes aren't really votes.
Not only that, the winner probably isn't really going to be the winner,
loser won't be the loser and if you don't vote twice, your vote counts a
third less.
Yeah, boy, Texas. It's like a whole other country, all right...
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
Clinton and Obama running nearly neck and neck in delegates, Texas' 228
delegates is the largest prize remaining on the primary calendar.
The punditry has been busy telling us why Obama can't win in Texas. They
tell us this is due mainly to the strong support Hillary Clinton enjoys
among Hispanic voters.
That's probably accurate, in terms of raw votes, but, as usual, the
punditry isn't telling the whole story. Odds are they don't know the
whole story.
The fact is that in the Texas it's two part system. Well, three part,
actually. Raw votes mean nothing. No delegates whatsoever will be
awarded as a result of state-wide voting. None.
It's the delegates that count, not the raw votes. And in the Democratic
primaries and caucuses, it's not winner taker all. Delegates are
apportioned to each candidate based on the percentage of popular vote
that candidate receives. More or less. Except in Texas. We'll get to
that in a minute.
Theoretically, this kind of apportionment would mean a candidate that
receives 50% of the vote in a given primary would get 50% of the
delegates. A candidate receiving 20% in the same primary would get 20%
of the delegates, and so on. But not in Texas.
As befits a state that describes itself as, "Texas: It's Like A Whole
Other Country," (yeah, I know it doesn't make sense, but this is Texas,
after all, where men are men and grammar is for sissies) we have
probably THE most bizarre, arcane system of delegate apportionment one
could possibly think up.
In Texas, delegates are assigned by district, not at large, as in most
other primaries. The number of delegates in each district is arbitrarily
based on number of votes cast for Kerry in 2004 and Chris Bell in 2006
in each district, not on population or number of registered voters, as
it is everywhere else.
This means districts with high turnout in these previous cycles will
have more delegates, proportionally, than districts with lower turnout.
The result is it is quite possible for a smaller district to have more
delegates than a larger district. It also means much of Hillary's
perceived advantage among Hispanic voters is neutralized.
Why is that, you ask? In 2004 and 2006, the two elections used to assign
delegates to each district, the turnout was lower in heavily Hispanic
districts than it was in heavily African-American and urban districts.
Proportionally, turnout for Kerry and Bell was much lower in the valley
districts than in urban the urban areas of Dallas, Houston and Austin.
The result is it is possible for Obama to lose the raw vote by as much
as 20% and still break even on delegates. If he can keep the margin
below 20% he will very likely get MORE delegates than Clinton would with
a win. Should he lose by only 10%, he will probably win significantly
more delegates than Clinton. Go figure.
But that's not the whole story, either. Only 126 delegates of the 228
total will be awarded based on the district by district voting. 35 more
delegates are "superdelegates" who remain officially uncommitted until
the convention, but in practice can back whomever they choose. The
remaining 67 delegates will be awarded by state caucus in June.
Each district will send representatives to the June caucus based on the
number of delegates apportioned to that district and the result of the
district by district caucuses to be held at 7:15 PM March 4 in each
district, or just after the polls close.
My guess is the vast majority of those planning to vote in the Texas
"primary" have no idea these caucuses even exist, much less how to
participate. And yet 30% of the available delegates will be awarded
through these caucuses.
The bottom line is any Democratic voter can attend the caucus in their
district. For the location of the caucus in your district, Austin voters
need to check with the Travis County Clerk's office. Other voters need
to check with their respective county clerk.
These caucuses are important. Representatives will be chosen for the
state caucuses at these local caucuses. some local caucus goers might
even end up as delegates in Minneapolis.
Confused, yet? As is so often the case in Texas, nothing is as it seems.
The primary isn't really a primary and the votes aren't really votes.
Not only that, the winner probably isn't really going to be the winner,
loser won't be the loser and if you don't vote twice, your vote counts a
third less.
Yeah, boy, Texas. It's like a whole other country, all right...
---
Welcome to reality. Enjoy your visit. Slow thinkers keep right.
------
Why are so many not smart enough to know they're not smart enough?
http://www.apa.org/journals/features/psp7761121.pdf
