Democratic Nomination: WTF Is Going On?

"Where are fava beans and a nice Chianti when you need them?"

Today Barack Obama won what's come to be known in the US media as the Potomac Primary, namely simultaneous primaries held in Virginia, Maryland, and Washington DC. That's all very well, Hans, you say, but what does it mean? Who's in front? Will they stay in front? And what's their chance of going all the way and getting their own blowjob in the Oval Office? (And BTW, what the fuck is a superdelegate?)

All good questions, Grasshopper. But before we pull out the magnifying glass and start examining the pubic region of the American electoral system, let's review the nuts-and-bolts of the campaign so far. What's happened to date:

Obama wins: Iowa, South Carolina, Alabama, Alaska, Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Georgia, Idaho, Illinois, Kansas, Minnesota, Missouri, North Dakota, Utah, Louisiana, Nebraska, US Virgin Islands, Washington (state), Maine, Washington DC, Maryland, Virginia.

Clinton wins: New Hampshire, Michigan*, Nevada, Florida*, American Samoa, Arizona, Arkansas, California, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New Mexico**, New York, Oklahoma, Tennessee,

Obama has won more states and has earned a greater number of overall votes. He's also widened his pledged delegate lead to 135, and even when unpledged delegates are factored in, he still leads the delegate count.

PLEDGED DELEGATES
Obama: 1137
Clinton: 1002

UNPLEDGED DELEGATES (SUPERDELEGATES)
For reasons I explain below, don't worry about them yet.

Yeah, about that whole delegate thang... WTF?

Uh-huh. Nothing about elections in the US is simple. In fact, it's ludicrously complicated. It's a crazy way to elect anyone, much less the president of the United States. But anyway...

Candidates vie against each other in a series of (mostly) state-based caucuses and primaries. Each state has a number of delegates up for grabs. The number of delegates pretty much corresponds to the population of the state, so a populous state such as California has 370 pledged delegates on offer, while Alaska has only 13.

These delegates are divvied up proportionally. So if Obama wins 60% of the vote in a caucus or primary, he ought to get (roughly) 60% of that state's pledged delegates. The precise method of delegate allocation can get pretty arcane and can vary between states, but the important point is that in Democratic contests delegates are divvied up proportionally, ie it's not winner-takes-all as it often is on the Republican side.

The delegates won in caucuses and primaries are called pledged delegates, and they go to the Democratic Convention in August, where they'll vote for the candidate they're pledged to. (Pledged delegates are vetted by the candidate to make sure that they will actually vote for the person they're pledged to.) The candidate who achieves a delegate majority at the convention wins the nomination and contests the general election in November.

Well, that's pretty simple...

Don't speak too soon... There are 4049 delegates on offer, which means that the winning Democratic candidate needs 2025 delegates to take the nomination. However, only 3253 of these are pledged delegates that a candidate earns via primaries or caucuses. The remaining 796# delegates are unpledged (aka superdelegates). About 50% of these superdelegates are party officials in the Democratic National Council (DNC). The remaining 50% are elected officials, namely Democratic governors and Democratic members of Congress. These superdelegates can decide to vote for whoever they like at the convention -- they're not bound by anything except their own preferences.

Isn't that undemocratic?

Pretty much. Basically, superdelegates allow the party establishment to retain, in theory, a degree of control over the nominating process. But they're not quite the independent operators they at first seem to be. For example, those superdelegates who are governors or members of Congress may face the prospect of an electoral backlash if their vote is at odds with the wishes of their constituents. Also, because a manifestly unfair outcome engineered via superdelegate votes at the convention would tear the party apart, there's a strong motivation for superdelegates to keep their votes in line with the majority of the voters. No one benefits from an internal bloodbath -- except the Republicans.

Fair enough. Now explain what a caucus is.

A caucus is basically a gathering that takes place on election day. Usually, it's at a town hall or a school, or similar. Take Iowa, for example. It's a caucus state. On election day, voters gather at a bunch of different caucus sites. At a designated time, the doors are shut and those in attendance form groups that reflect their voting intention. Hillary supporters gather together in a group, as do supporters of Obama, Edwards, Richardson, and Biden. Let's say Hillary has 30% of the vote, Obama 25%, Edwards 25%, Richardson 10%, and Biden 10%. Richardson and Biden supporters are in trouble because there's a 15% viability threshold. If they don't meet it, they must either sit out further voting or disperse to their second choice. Alternatively, if Richardson supporters can persuade at least 5% of Biden supporters to join them, their man, Richardson, can meet the viability threshold.

For the purpose of the exercise, let's imagine that Richardson and Biden supporters disperse to one of the three main candidates, and that the final wash-up is Obama 40%, Edwards 30%, Clinton 30%. Thus, Hillary despite having more first preferences, crashes and burns because, after much cajoling and redistributing, Obama and Edwards were the second choice of the Richardson and Biden voters. (And the vote tallies arrived at by the caucuses are then reflected in a proportional distribution of delegates.)

This shouldn't seem that strange to Australian voters, because a caucus works a little bit like the preferential voting Aust uses for the House of Reps.

How come when I open the newspaper or flick on CNN or Fox, I keep seeing conflicting delegate tallies?

There are a few different reasons for this.

First, delegate allocation can be an arcane procedure, so the number of delegates won by each candidate on election day isn't always immediately obvious -- sometimes a fair bit of number-crunching is required. Some media outlets are gung-ho with their predictions; others tend to wait for official tallies. This accounts for some minor differences in delegate tallies.

Second, some media outlets (like CNN) confuse the hell out of casual observers by adding superdelegate endorsements to the number of pledged delegates won in primaries and caucuses. That is, say candidate Clinton has won 500 pledged delegates. CNN then contact superdelegates and ask them to confirm whether or not they've endorsed Hillary. If they get an affirmative, CNN add that superdelegate to Clinton's delegate tally.

This is stoopid.

Because superdelegates are unpledged, they can change their mind at any time. The relevant tally at this point in the campaign is clearly the pledged delegate tally. Fact is, Obama has been ahead in pledged delegates since he won South Carolina weeks ago. He even won more pledged delegates on Super Tuesday. But many major media outlets have been slow to realise the strength of Obama's position. That's because Hillary has, at present, more superdelegate endorsements than Obama, and many media outlets have been artificially inflating Clinton's delegate tally by including superdelegates. And superdelegate endorsements this early in the process are, by their very nature, unreliable. Capiche?

You're my hero, Hans.

Hold on, there's a third reason why delegate counts might vary, and that's Michigan and Florida, which I've asterisked above. Some media outlets/blogs/websites, either because they're biased, don't know any better, or are anticipating, add Florida and Michigan to the delegate tallies.

What wrong with Florida and Michigan? Are they kinda like Tasmania and South Australia?

Long story short -- Michigan and Florida defied the DNC by scheduling their primaries much earlier in the campaign calendar than they were supposed to. The DNC threatened to bar Michigan and Florida delegates from the convention if they insisted on holding their primaries early. Michigan and Florida basically said to Howard Dean, the head of the DNC, "You're bluffing." To which Howard Dean said: "Lick my balls. I warned you -- go ahead and your delegates won't count."

Prior to the campaign, Clinton, Edwards, and agreed to support the DNC decision. Consequently, they did not campaign in either state, and in Michigan, Edwards and Obama went so far to remove their names from the ballot paper. Cannily, Clinton did not. In the primaries Clinton won Florida handsomely. In Michigan Clinton received 55% of the Michigan vote and, because neither Obama or Edwards were on the ballot, 'Uncommitted' received 40%.

In a move that surprises absolutely no one, the Clinton camp has begun wringing its hands over the prospect of 'disenfranchising' the voters of Michigan and Florida. The fact that Clinton has the most to gain from Michigan and Florida delegates being seated at the convention is, of course, just coincidence...

How dastardly! Do you mean that evil harridan Hillary Clinton might steal the election from Barack J Christ Obama?

Well, Hillary ain't evil and Barack ain't the messiah. As for the seating the delegates, there are persuasive arguments on both sides. On the one hand, the candidates all agreed to abide by the DNC's decision. On the other hand, it was always possible that the DNC's decision would be overruled by something called the Credentials Committee at the Democratic Convention. It's more complicated that that, but this post is already too long, so that'll do...

OK, now I'm just getting confused.

Let me put it this way. At this stage, I can't get too worked up about Michigan and Florida. That's because I think there's merit on both sides of the argument, and because I don't think Michigan and Florida will change the course of the Democratic nomation for three reasons:

1. The candidate who goes into the convention with the most (non-Michigan and non-Florida) pledged delegates will, under my understanding, control the Credentials Committee. That means Hillary will only be able to seat Michigan and Florida delegate through the Credentials Committee if she already has a delegate majority. And if she already has a majority, well, she doesn't need delegates from Michigan and Florida.

2. Even if, through some sleight of hand, Michigan and Florida delegates are seated, Obama won't come away empty-handed. He was on the ballot in Florida, so he will get quite a few delegates. If the Michigan delegates are seated, he will probably get most, perhaps even all, of the 'Uncommitted' delegates.

3. I doubt the delegate race will be close enough for Florida and Michigan to make the diff.

Really? Does that mean you're gonna predict a winner?

I predicted Obama would be the next president of the United States way back in October. I'm more confident than ever that I got that prediction right. He has more delegates, money, momentum and positive media than Hillary, plus The Force is clearly strong in him. He will win both Hawaii and Wisconsin on Feb 19. From there, to stand a chance, Hillary has to win Iowa and Texas on March 4 and Pennsylvania on April 22 and hope that they are the catalyst for more victories. None of this is impossible, but frankly, IMO it's unlikely. Obama has one hand round the chalice already.

While Obama won't win enough pledged delegates to reach the 2025 delegate majority, he WILL win enough pledged delegates to establish a clear pledged-delegate lead. What will then happen is that superdelegates will swing behind Obama en masse -- because they're all terrified by the prospect of a bloodbath at the convention over delegates. No one wants to see Democrat pitted against Democrat at the convention. To forestall that, superdelegates will swing behind the candidate that has a clear lead among pledged delegates. That candidate will be Obama.

I expect him to be the presumptive nominee by late April, and by November I expect him to be president elect.

** Votes are still being counted in New Mexico, but it appears as if Hillary will win a tight one.

# I've amended these figures using CNN's delegate counts as a guide.