Letters to the Editor
-
Hillary has done her homework: Why Michigan and Florida Matter
Recent reports indicate that the Clinton campaign has begun to make noise about seating both the Michigan and Florida delegates that the national party has refused to seat at the national convention later this year.
"After Florida moved its primary up to Tuesday in an attempt to play a bigger role in choosing the presidential nominees, the Democratic National Committee said it would refuse to seat the state's delegation at the national convention in late August. But it is expected that the eventual nominee will try to reverse that decision because of Florida's crucial role in the general election. Clinton already is on record favoring that step."
"I will try to persuade my delegates to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida," said Clinton. "Democrats have to win Michigan and have to try to win Florida and I intend to do that. The people of Florida deserve to be represented in the process of picking a candidate for president of the United States."
http://talkingpointsmemo.com/news/2008/01/clinton_brings_campaign_to_flo.php.
I believe that someone in the Clinton campaign has consulted a mathematician who has advised them that getting these rules changed represents the best chance for Hillary Clinton to win the nomination. First, let me say that math-phobic politicians and press have been slow to grasp what the Clintons seem to have finally figured out; this race is very likely to go down to the wire before any Democratic candidate reaches the magic number of 2025 delegates. In fact, the battle over whether to seat Michigan and Florida delegates will almost certainly determine whether Clinton can win the nomination prior to the convention.
What has not been widely reported or discussed is how this decision by the Democratic Party changes the dynamics of the nomination process. They have reduced the total number of available delegates by 341 from 4049 to 3708. If they keep the required magic number of delegates to win the nomination at 2025 (50% +1), they have effectively required a successful candidate to garner 55% of the available delegates to win the nomination (2025/3708).
The first thing to realize is that there has been a misleadingly portrayal in the press that the top vote getter is a big winner in a particular primary in spite of a delegate distribution that would indicate otherwise. A candidate needs to average a minimum of 50% of delegates in each state to reach the magic number. If a candidate receives less, despite winning the most delegates, he or she must make up the delegates by getting more than fifty percent in another state. In theory, a candidate could win all 50 primaries and still not garner the magic number of 2025.
Because this time round there are strong third and sometimes fourth place candidates taking significant delegates in the early rounds. Regardless of the reason, the result is that no single candidate is getting much above 40% of the primary vote consistently in either party. Since the nomination requires the candidate to obtain the support of a majority (50%+1) and not just a plurality (the greatest number) as long as the lower tier candidates continue to total between 10 to 15% of the delegates it remains mathematically difficult for either one of the top two front runners to reach the magic threshold.
The media has largely ignored this influence of a strong third candidate on election math. Simply put, whenever candidate #3 approaches 15% of the delegates in a state primary it is unlikely that the primary process will result in the selection of a candidate. Because if the third place candidate siphons off 15%, that leaves only 85% split between the top two. For one of them to approach the 50% level the other must drop below 35%. Usually, the early primaries sort this business out when one candidate gets the upper hand and the third place one quickly drops out. However, when there are evenly matched top contenders, number three has increased incentive to hang tough and hope for a dark horse candidacy or a “kingmaker” (or queenmaker) role at the convention. As I write the delegate distribution of the 443 delegates awarded to date puts Clinton right on the bubble of obtaining the major number, Clinton at 51%, Obama at 34%, and Edwards at 14%. (Data from the latest CNN tally at http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries/results/scorecard/). If Obama continues to makes headway and closes the delegate gap by even one or two percentage points, Clinton cannot possibly get enough delegates to win the nomination outright.
As explained above, in the democratic race, Edwards is siphoning off enough delegates to prevent either Barack or Clinton to sew up the nomination. The 341 unseated delegates from Michigan and Florida (8% of the total delegates) strengthen this effect considerably. The combined total of Edwards and the unseated delegates from Michigan and Florida is roughly 22% of all delegates leaving only 78% for Clinton and Obama to split. The loser will have to fall to 28% to leave 50% remaining for the winner. This means Clinton would have to increase her share significantly to reach the magic number if Edwards stays in.
Even without Edwards, the decision not to seat these delegates probably insures that this race goes to the convention. The candidates are currently competing for only 92% of the total delegates. To win a candidate must have 50% +1. This leaves 42% -1 for the losers. However the 50%+1 (2025 delegates) must be obtained from the remaining 3708 available delegates (4049-341=3708). This requires the winner to take 2025 out of 3708 or 55% to the opponents 45%. With these two closely matched candidates, this appears unlikely to happen.
Currently, if the ratio of delegate distribution stays constant for the rest of the campaign, Clinton will have 1925 delegates. If Clinton’s 55 Michigan delegates are included, that brings her total to 1980. Then Clinton would then need only get 45 delegates out of Florida’s 185 (24%) to reach the magic number. Under this scenario, the 70 undecided Michigan delegates would also presumably be free to commit to a delegate as well. It is hard to imagine that Clinton would not receive a share of these as well.