The Rules of the Game
The most important classes I ever took in my decade long stint in graduate school were the ones on game theory and in particular one called Policy-Making Procedures. Recognizing how different electoral rules provide different electoral results is of the utmost importance.
Look at the differences in Iowa and Nevada. Iowa and Nevada are both caucuses but they have slightly different rules. A brief example and I will show you why John Edwards got over 30% of the precinct delegates in Iowa and only 4% in Nevada. Both states have threshold/viability rules, so a second choice matters. In Iowa, candidates that fail to meet the 15% threshold can try to persuade others to join their camp. One key difference is that in Nevada, only supporters of non-viable candidates are allowed to switch to a different corner during the realignment period. That does cut down on the gamesmanship whereby precinct captains of viable candidates can direct a small number of people to a rival corner in order to change the delegate count in each precinct. So Edwards supporters in Nevada where they failed to meet the viability test could not bring others in only go out nor could the Clinton or Obama camps throw any of their surplus voters over to Edwards. If they did not meet the viability test in any precinct, Edwards supporters could only join either Clinton or Obama in the second round. That one variation in the rules between Iowa and Nevada accounts for the wide discrepancy in the tallies of Edwards in those two contests.
The rules of the game matter. One reason that Obama is doing well is because he appeals to independents who by the virtue of being “independents” are more apt to buy the unity message among other reasons. To date all primaries (except Florida) and caucuses have been open ones in which independents can vote in either primary or caucus. Iowa and Michigan even allow on the spot registration changes allowing voters to switch parties up to the last second. But there are 13 closed contests coming up, only open to registered Democrats or registered Republicans. The biggest are New York, Pennsylvania, Arizona, Ohio, Massachusetts, New Mexico and Georgia. That one change of the rule erases at least some of Obama’s support. The biggest impact is likely in Massachusetts where the Kennedy’s recent endorsement might sway independents to come out in droves for Obama but unless they have changed their registration they are ineligible to vote (I was unable to reach the Massachusetts Democratic State Party to learn when the cut-off was or is).
To really change the rules of the games in the United States means one thing. The real fight is in the state legislatures. That is where most of the power actually is because that is where the Founding Fathers put it. I miss Molly Ivins because I learned so much from her by reading her columns. There was a reason why she paid attention to Austin. It mattered. I have always wondered why state capitals are tucked away in out-of-the-way places: Harrisburg, Tallahassee, Baton Rouge, Austin, Sacramento, Ann Arbor, Springfield, Frankfort, Columbia, Sacramento, Olympia, Salem, Topeka, Albany, Columbus and Juneau to name the most egregious examples. Imagine the difference if it were Los Angeles or San Francisco versus Sacramento or New York City versus Albany . Or Philadelphia and not Harrisburg or Chicago and not Springfield. The original historical reason was not to concentrate power in any one place but now I suspect that is as much so people cannot or do not pay attention.
There is a scandal brewing in Juneau that threatens to blow Ted Stevens out of the Senate but because it is in Juneau it is nicely hidden and tucked away. With luck, the whole episode of the pervasive corruption up in Alaska and the Rich Bastard’s Club (I kid you not, that is what call they themselves) will come out in the open and end the career of Ted Stevens. But back to the state legislatures, The Constitution in Article One Section X delimits the authority of the states, largely it does not allow them an independent foreign, monetary or trade policy. Article Four lays out the powers of the states and the rights of citizens from one state to another. But the Tenth Amendment to the Constitution, the last in the Bill of Rights, also grants that any power not expressly stated in The Constitution remains with the people and with the states.
That is why the Tenth Amendment is one of the most important and perhaps its most overlooked. One of the successes of the evangelical movement is that they began targeting the state legislatures after Roe v Wade in 1973. Decisions such as that ultimately led to the rise of people like Newt Gingrich and Tom Delay to Congress. And it must be remembered that it is the state legislatures that decide how to reapportion the Congressional delegation of each state every decade. That makes every election after a US Census doubly important. As the state legislatures became more conservative, they carved out increasingly conservative districts and that led directly to Gingrich Revolution . And when coupled with the first past the post electoral system, an extremist like Tom Delay who can win a safe district could find a home in Congress. The downfall of Delay was a direct result of trying to game the rules to the advantage of the GOP. He won the battle but lost the war.
Now let us begin to look at Super Tuesday where again the rules of each game vary and of course matter. How you play a game is determined by them and they can determine outcomes in unexpected ways. And every campaign is aware of the rules even if the voters by and large are not. Let’s look at California which has the richest treasure trove of delegates for both the GOP and the Democratic Party. Until 1996 California was a closed primary but Proposition 198 and state law changed that. California now runs a modified closed primary. What that means is that California has implemented a "modified" closed primary system that permits unaffiliated ("decline to state") voters to participate in a primary election if authorized by an individual party's rules and duly noticed by the Secretary of State. So each party can decide who they allow to participate in their contest and both the GOP and Democratic Party have chosen to hold open primaries where independents (voters who decline to state an affiliation) can vote in either contest. They request one of three ballots when they reach their polling place: a Republican ballot, a Democratic one or one with all the candidates. That independents can participate in either but not both of California’s primaries should favor McCain and Obama. However, the race in California is not a state wide race. Rather there is a race in each of California’s 53 Congressional Districts because delegates are awarded by the popular vote proportionally on the Democratic side and by winner-take-all on the GOP side in each and every Congressional District. So whoever wins the popular vote in California may not necessarily win the most delegates.
The GOP is easier to tackle because it has a first past the post system winner take all in each Congressional District. The rules for the GOP forces candidates to defend each candidate’s core constituency and to compete in districts that are toss ups and to forego vast expenditures in Districts where they don’t stand a chance. For example, Huckabee will concentrate his efforts in California’s Central Valley, especially in Kern County, and in Orange, Riverside, San Bernardino, Palm Desert and San Diego counties (really in the Districts that cover those regions) where there are large number of Christian social conservatives. McCain and Romney will also compete in those areas as they also boast large numbers of military personnel and economic conservatives. Romney will largely win Northern California (the really northern part of California that begins above Napa and Sonoma, not the Bay Area though he will do well enough in Silicon Valley) by default though Ron Paul will also do well there but it is unlikely to win delegates. If Paul wins any delegates, they will ironically come from Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco District that covers two-thirds of the city and parts of Marin.
The Democratic contest is even more convoluted because it is proportional by Congressional District with one caveat, if you win 60% or more you will all the delegates. However fail to achieve that magic number and the delegates are split proportionately though not exactly on a very strict basis. It is thus possible, however unlikely a scenario, that Clinton wins 50% of the vote state wide and yet not accrue many more delegates than Obama. The biggest factor in each race is preventing another candidate from reaching that magic 60% plateau. For example, if a district has for the sake of ease has 10 delegates and Clinton wins 62% of the vote in that district she wins all ten. On the other hand say she wins only 55% of the vote and Obama wins 45%, they both get five delegates apiece. An ten point margin, by definition a landslide, does little difference in the delegate tally. I might add that both Ted Kennedy and Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg will be campaigning California this week in Districts where Hillary has a wide lead but where they might be able to bring her under that magic 60% number. The state wide popular vote is effectively a beauty contest but not insignificant because it is perception that matters to voters in states down the line. But to the candidates themselves it is winning delegates that matter. I might also add that a small percentage of the California delegation is allocated state-wide by the California Democratic Party and, of course, the Democratic Party has superdelegates while the GOP does not. The rules of the game matter.
In a future post, I will try to elaborate on the rules of other state contests. New Mexico should be interesting as that it is a caucus and Massachusetts might also provide other insights given the Kennedy endorsements. If you are interested in learning about the rules of the game in any particular state, the best place to start with either GOP State Party or the Democratic State Party. The rules not only vary by state but also by each respective Party. The GOP has a few first past the post winner take all contests, the Democratic Party is entirely proportional. The former helps in determining a front runner and the latter can delay that process. For John Edwards in particular the rules of the game are helping to keep him a viable alternative. If you are interested in learning more about game theory, this website at Stanford, my alma mater, is a good place to start.
Comments
Another important rule difference between Iowa and NV is that Iowa does not release vote counts. Which is why Nevada was scored as a victory for Hillary even though Obama took more delegates in the state.
As of this election year the Republican Party in California is not allowing any decline to state voters access to its ballot. The Democrats still allow it and the smaller parties are all on the omnibus ballot.
Thanks Charles, it's also important to note that after many of these races are over and done with the Democrats may need to worry about the super delegate count as well. It's never been an issue that I know of, but things could stay close through to the convention.
"The biggest impact is likely in Massachusetts where the Kennedy’s recent endorsement might sway independents to come out in droves for Obama"
First I have heard the Kennedy endorsement helps with independents. The liberal lion as he is called in every article in the past two days is to shore up liberals and hard-core Dems.
Also, I think you lump together "independents" and the NEW voters voting for Obama. New voters, who might not be registered Dems are being brought into the party. This election can be won by Hillary by scraping up every party faithful(like me), or by Obama bringing new voters into the party along with the faithful with a mandate. Yeah, that logic didn't work before...but this skeptic sees a real difference in people this time.
Just a quick Welcome note for you Charles. i was worried you'd have a hard time with most of the comments following your first post, but after reading your bio, i see you must have one thick skin. Thank you Norm too for inviting a slightly discordant voice on your great blog. And may we all benefit!
Looks like your boyfriend John Edwards dropped out of the race. No surprise there. Now let's leave it up to the practical, qualified, and energizing candidates to win.
Ideally the one who voted against the war since the beginning, has been a strong critic of Bush's policies, and been a consistent Democrat all his life.
In other words: Not John Edwards.
I was unable to reach the Massachusetts Democratic State Party to learn when the cut-off was or is.
The cut-off for registration in MA was January 16th, so it was indeed too late for those suddenly looking to throw weight behind Obama.
Charles,
Unfortunately for us (Edwards supporters), it appears it may all be over today. An announcement is expected at 1PM EST. My daughter was at the rally in St. Paul, MN yesterday and said the turnout was tremendous but that he didn't stay long at all and seemed weary (she thought he may just have been exhausted but now with this announcement ... I fear Elizabeth may not be doing well - she was not with him in MN).
For you Utahns, an Independant can vote republican if they register republican when they vote. Independants can vote democratic and stay unaffiliated. It's an interesting caveat.
thanks for the interesting and informative piece here, and now we get to have you sans the bombastics of that first post now that Edwards has ended his bid. I liked Edwards; somehow it just didn't resonate with enough people. I hope he will be appointed to some fitting high post once we get this election wrapped up with a Dem in office. Hopefully voters will wise up to the ongoing B-rated soap opera tactics that the media seems bent on turning this into.Cheers, Charles, and I hope to read more from you!
Well I am still voting for him on Tuesday. I won't hide my disappointment. I've just spoken to the Edwards campaign and they were tight-lipped as to why. I asked if cash was the problem. They said no. I had been noticing that Elizabeth had not really been as active as in earlier during the campaign. So I'm guessing because I do not know, but it might be Elizabeth's health which only makes me want to cry.
As to what happens from here on out in terms of my support, I honestly can't say. Edwards' endorsement holds no sway. I think for myself. Obama is not an option for me apart from the reasons already stated I actually have many more. Clinton is not exactly a dream come true either. The Green Party gets a new look and before I get accused of Naderism, I live in California. The chance of California going Republican is slim. Leaving the United States is also a possibility. I've lived in Asia, Europe, and Latin America. That leaves Africa yet to do and since I spend two months a year there anyway I can conceivably move there and still do what I do with the major exception of fund-raising. But I also will work for campaign finance reform because the way we select presidents borders on the insane.
For now, I will drink heavily which for me might mean two or three drinks of single malt Scotch or Drambuie on the rocks. Or maybe some rare Kentucky Bourbon to keep it American. Certainly not Southern Comfort.
Forgot to thank those who added some more the rules. The Utah rule does show a profound philosophical difference between the two parties.
And thanks to Moose-achusetts for the Massachusetts update. That does take a bit of the steam out of the Kennedy endorsement. Personally, I think the Caroline Kennedy Schlossberg one carried more weight.
And to Nikolai, while I think you funny. My real boyfriend, actually partner, doesn't. For months he has been neglected and he's already accused me of such. So he's kinda sick of hearing about John Edwards.
Massachusetts doesn't let independents vote in the primary? Is that a new law? Years ago, Independents would fill out a form to switch to a party, vote, then fill out another form to switch back to Independent, or more accurately, "undeclared". In recent years, the process was more 'automated' and not such a paperwork hassle.
"I have always wondered why state capitals are tucked away in out-of-the-way places: Harrisburg, Tallahassee, Baton Rouge, Austin, Sacramento, Ann Arbor, Springfield, Frankfort, Columbia, Sacramento, Olympia, Salem, Topeka, Albany, Columbus and Juneau to name the most egregious examples." Not that this is the most significant part of that post, but -- Lansing is the capital of Michigan, not Ann Arbor. And Columbus is the 15th most populous city in the country, largest in Ohio, and it's in the center of the state. What, nobody else on here is from the Midwest?
Silly me, you're right about Lansing. Back to geography 101. Must be senility setting in.
Columbus has grown into a very respectable city, that is true but it wasn't always the case. It is a recent development.
Thanks for the correction.
Charles Lemos
Have fun continuing to support the homophobic Democrat, then! I'll continue to support the one who has stood up for gay rights.
As a registered democrat in Massachusetts I fully intend to exercise my privilege to vote for John Edwards in the Super Tuesday primary.
If John got 15% he still could conceivably pick up some delegates, but this seems less likely now that his candidacy is suspended. I think he could have done well here because we are pretty dammed lefty. The Kerry and then the Kennedy endorsements were quite a blow though.
I think the Kennedy endorsement is making quite an impact here. I am getting emails from Kennedy and the Obama camp and they are pretty well organized and seem to be gaining on the Clinton camp. It feels kinda odd not to be rooting for either one of them. Of course I probably will support whoever wins the democratic nomination for the general... though if its not John I might be tempted to go green, (unless its really close enough to matter)
As far as independent voter status in MA, I believe Charles is correct in that although there is a small percentage of people truly registered in an independent party the vast majority who claim that moniker are actually technically considered registered as "unenrolled" which allows them to choose any ballot in the primary. The paperwork is not much of a big deal anymore. The percentage of voters with this designation has been increasing over the years to where this is actually the majority.
I expect this will bring out a lot more to vote in the democratic race, although there may be quite a few motivated to vote against Mitt. He wasn't very popular as the governor here. And adding to the hoopla here the big superbowl rally is going to be on Tuesday. Politics and sports are big deals here... and both on the same day!!!
I'm doing what I can to urge people to still vote for John. I just recently discovered this blog and particularly enjoy Charles' insights as well the positive Edwards support.
Thanks for being here!
Post a comment