So it doesn’t scan like the original. Sue me… after we talk about why it’s a magic number.
(Numbers via The Green Papers)
We start with the number 4,322, which is the total number of delegates showing up for the Democratic Convention this summer. Somebody’s got to get 2,162 – half of the total, plus 1 – of them voting for him (alas, it’s unlikely to be any her this year) to win the nomination. Remember that number: 2,162. However, of that 4,322, 802 delegates are superdelegates that are not chosen through the primary process. So, let’s get rid of them for right now: that leaves us with 3,520 delegates who are chosen as per procedures and are pledged to vote for whatever candidate they represent for at least the first vote. Let’s repeat that number, too: 3,520.
So, let’s say that you’re a candidate that wants to make sure of the nomination. The only absolutely certain way to do that is to get at least your half-plus-one from the pool of the delegates obligated to vote a specific way on the first ballot. That’s 2,162 of 3,520, or 61% (rounded off) of the total. 61 is thus your magic number: as long as you are consistently getting at least that many of the delegates, success is assured, with no compromises or deals necessary.
This is where it gets complicated.
Now, this hasn’t been too much of a problem in the past because the primary races very quickly turned into two-man contests, and once one candidate was clearly winning the opposition would concede gracefully, rather than face a long, drawn-out primary season… yup, two problems so far: the primary season’s been compressed and of the seven remaining candidates, at least four (Kerry, Edwards, Clark & Dean) can be said to have actual shots at this thing and two (Sharpton & Kuchinich) either have their own reasons that require them to stay in until the end or else are just too fragging insane to know when to go away. Beats me why the Ninja hasn’t dropped yet: I suspect that he’s waiting until after New Hampshire, more’s the pity. That’s two issues… but there’s also a third: the 15% rule. Simply put, if you want delegates, you had better get at least 15% of the vote.
Now let’s see why these three factors are feeding off of each other.
In Scenario 1 (obviously, these are artificial scenarios) there are five candidates competing for 80 delegates: two ‘real’ candidates and three ‘fringe’. The vote totals are as follows:
Candidate 1: 50%
Candidate 2: 30%
Candidate 3: 10%
Candidate 4: 5%
Candidate 5: 5%
Candidates 1 and 2 make the cut and divide the delegates between them. Proportionally, Candidate 1 has 62.5% of the eligible votes, so he gets 62.5% of the delegates, or 50; Candidate 2 gets the other 37.5%, or 30. Candidate 1 is well on his way to a smooth convention, if all goes well. Why not? If he wins every state like this, success is assured, because he’ll end up with 2,220 candidates – assuming that his opponent doesn’t eventually just give up.
However, consider Scenario 2, with three real candidates and two fringe candidates, same number of delegates:
Candidate 1: 50%
Candidate 2: 25%
Candidate 3: 15%
Candidate 4: 5%
Candidate 5: 5%
Candidates 1, 2 & 3 all make the cut. Candidate 1 gets (50/90)% (56%) of the delegates, or 45. Candidate 2 gets (25/90)% (28%), or 22. Candidate 3 gets (15/90)% (17%), or 13. If this ratio keeps up, Candidate 1 is only going to get 1,971 delegates – which means that he had better start making some calls and deals.
Now, the above are extremely artificial scenarios, and it’s still the safe bet to make that the Democratic Convention is going to simply put the official seal of approval on a victory already won. However, it should be remembered that it is indeed possible to ‘win’ (that is to say, get 50% or more of the vote) every primary and still not be assured of the nomination on the first ballot. The scenario requires at least three qualifying candidates per primary (not always the same three!), a short primary season and a willingness by the Democratic establishment to be cagey with their support. All of these factors happen to be present in this election cycle.
Dean supporters, I believe, speak of a Perfect Storm when referring to this election. They may indeed be accurate in this, albeit not in the way that they meant.
If it gets drawn out, which looks like it might, it’s gonna favor the candidate with the most money, i.e., Dean, barring future meltdowns.
The idea that it could actually go to the convention is intriguing, isn’t it. There hasn’t been a disputed convention since 1980, when Teddy K. slashed Jimmy C.’s tires more or less out of spite. A convention hasn’t chosen a presidential candidate since… what… 1952? And there hasn’t been a seriously disputed convention since, oh, 1940 or so.
The age of knock-down drag-out floor fights and multiple votes dragging on, ballot after ballot, for hours or days, is probably gone for good. It lives now as a fading memory, along with the five-cent cigar, the corner drugstore with the soda fountain, and the floor-length raccoon skin coat as a must-have accessory for the college-bound freshman.
And there are reasons for that. There are several pretty powerful dynamics operating to prevent an apocalyptic floor war. Most notably, it’s not actually in anyone’s interest; taking six more months to choose a candidate will burn tremendous amounts of money, energy and goodwill, and leave the survivor almost certainly fatally crippled going into the general election.
Mind you, it would be really cool to watch.
Doug M.
Upon further thought, let me spin a worst-case scenario.
Let’s say that the primary season wraps up with no clear winner. At least two candidates have won major states, and at least two candidates have collected lots o’delegates. One guy will have a plurality, but nobody has a majority. The superdelegates are in play bigtime (which is itself a Bad Thing, but put that aside for now.)
The worst-case scenario would be for this to then be resolved by back-room discussion, negotiation, and pressure being put on one candidate or another to withdraw. (Not talking about the #1 or #2 guys here. More like heavy pressure on #3, #4 and #5 to give up, throw their delegates to #1, and so create the big Mo.)
See, that would give the worst of both worlds: a long primary season costing huge amounts of money and getting the various wings of the party riled at each other… followed by an un-democratic, un-dramatic denouement leaving lots of people feeling they never had their day or their say.
In other words: in the unlikely event that April comes around and there’s still no anointed Crown Prince? Then you /want/ to have a disputed convention, complete with floor fights and (perhaps) multiple ballots. It’ll be an expensive PITA, but at least it’ll be democratic, and cathartic, and will provide tons of fascinating TV time and a dramatic contrast to The Other Side’s hyper-choreographed patriotic love-in. Still not a good scenario, but less bad.
As noted, I think both these will be moot — I fully expect we’ll see a candidate by the end of March. But if there isn’t one by Tax Day, it’s time to rethink priorities.
Doug M.
Final thought: why having superdelegates in play is Bad.
Superdelegates include the Democratic Party’s U.S. senators, congressmen/women, governors, state party chairmen and members of the Democratic National Committee. (They also include former presidents, former Democratic leaders in the U.S. House and Senate and ex-chairmen of the Democratic National Committee, but never mind them just now.)
So: 209 congressmen, 46 Senators, 42 governors, 51 state party chairmen, and 440(!) members of the DNC.
If these folks are in play, they’re going to be seriously lobbied by the various candidates. Promises will be made. This means that the candidate will be nailed down to all sorts of commitments many months before the election. This is bad.
Further: in the unlikely event that the candidate wins, he’ll have to deal with dozens if not hundreds of congressmen, senators, governors and DNC heavy-lifters who voted _against_ him at the convention. History shows this can produce lasting bad feelings.
And the ones who voted for him will be nearly as big a nuisance; their support will actually have mattered, so they’ll be demanding payment in kind. They won’t be like — say — Iowa caucus voters, who can be promised ethanol subsidies and corn price supports every fourth January and ignored the other 47 months; they’ll be governors, congressmen and senators who have to be dealt with.
Having superdelegates is a nice idea. But having to actually /use/ them should be a very alarming prospect.
Doug M.