Nevada specific discussion of vote share and mathematics behind impact on delegate allocation of its 35 Delegates. This is part of mathematics of delegate allocation notes in the series of Delegate Mathematics stories. Nevada has mostly even number of delegates. Thus advantage is acccrued only by breaking through the next level threshholds.
Basic Data: Nevada has 35 delegates available. There are 4 Congressional Districts. So including state-wide allocations, there are 6 different delegate allocation units. The delegates are mostly 6 with one district at 5. Number of delegates available in each are as follows: 5 from CD1; 6 from CD2 CD3 CD4; and 5 PLEOs and 7 state-wide.
Nevada operates a closed caucus. Participation is open to all Democrats and anyone else who switches their registered affilitian to Democrats. Initial stage 1 Caucus takes place on 20th Feb 2016.
The general format of caucus (listed here only as a reminder to myself, and lest I forget. Ocasionally this is referred to as three-tier caucus because there are three stages of the process)
First stage (aka first determining stage): held at precint level, elects delegates to county convention. Usual rules of viability threshholds and triggers apply.
Second stage (aka county convention): held on 2nd of April, elects delegates to Congressional District/State conventions. Again usual rules of viability and threshholds apply here too.
Third stage (aka State convention): held on 14/15th May. This operates in two specifc segment elections but at the same time/place. First the delegates within each Congressional District hold a sort of closed district only part of convention. This elects Congressional District based allocation of delegates to DNC. Second the whole lot together elect State-wide allocation of delegates including normal delegates and pledged party leaders and elected officials (PLEO). Once again the threshholds and triggers apply here too.
Nevada has a series of range of precint delegate quota based on number of registered democrats and corresponding divider to calculate allocations. Nevada gives a guarentee of one delegate to every precint where there is a registered democrat. Preferential treatment which effectively weighs in favour of precints with smaller number of registered Democrats. This has an effect of awarding disproportionately larger share of delegates to precints falling under rural , under registered or sparsely populated precints. {I guess this is to encourage wider participation. This also has an effect of rewarding candidates who have wider organizational presence}. Additionally Nevada is union and shift worker friendly thus has allocated extra caucuses and arrangements to accomodate shift worker.
This being caucus the final numbers of delegates from districts and state-wide awarded while can be estimated are they are estimates only. usually they might go up or down by upto 15% on county levels and 7.5% on district/state level. Usually means the actual DNC delegate numbers might go up or down by 1 delegate than estimated.
I have grouped the Congressional districts which have same available delegates together since the same thresholds and triggers apply to them. The threshholds %s are relative to eachother. Forx example, this means that a vote results of 49-48-2 is effectively, 50.5 — 49.5. This is derived from 49/(49+48) vs 48/(49+48).
Delegates Acquired
out of Available
|
5 del
cd1
|
6 del
cd2 cd3 cd4
|
Delegate Allocation Threshholds/Triggers
1 del |
15 |
15 |
2 del |
30 |
25 |
3 del |
50 |
41.7 |
4 del |
70 |
58.3 |
5 del |
85 |
75 |
For 5 Delegates at CD1: First delegate acquird at 15%, second delegate at 30.%. Third delegate trigger is precariously balanced at 50%. Fourth delegate costs a whopping 70%. This 70% votes are needed to get a 4-1 split seems a bit too much of a demand on any campaign. This district very crucial as they break in favour with just with small % hovering at 50%, a whole delegate is available. A campaign that wants to maintain parity needs to achieve at least 30% support needed for 2 delegates. Goal for both Campaign is to cross the 50% and obtain a 3-2 split in their favour.
For 6 Delegates at CD2 CD3 and CD4: First two delegates are achieved at 15% and 25% respectively. Within the whole range of 41.7 — 58.3 the delegate split will be straight 3-3. The vote advantage of 16% is not going to make any difference. Interesting points are at 41.7%. and 58.3%, if candidates are hovering around either of these mark, then some extra effort would break the district 4-2 split. To get a 5-1 split is going to take a 75% support level. Even in candidates home states and districts we have not yet seen this kind of support. For an advantage a candidate has all the incentive to break it 4-2split. with 58.3% votes. To maintain parity only 41.7% is needed giving 3-3 split.
Delegate Allocations Based On State-Wide Results: State-wide results work towards two different category of delegates; 7 At-Large delegates and 5 pledged PLEO delegates. While it is the same vote share, the odd number allocations would reward state-wide winner with overall at least two delegate advantages.
Delegates |
1 |
2 |
3 |
4 |
5 |
6 |
State-wide Delegate Allocation Triggers
%Vote 5 PLEO |
15 |
30 |
50 |
70 |
85 |
|
%Vote 7 State-wide |
15 |
21.4 |
35.7 |
50 |
64.3 |
78.6 |
For 5 State-wide (At-Large) Delegates: First delegate acquired at 15%, second delegate at 30.%. Third delegate trigger is precariously balanced at 50%. Fourth delegate costs a whopping 70%. available. Both campaigns probably have that 30% support needed for 2 delegates. Goal for both Campaign is to cross the 50% and obtain a 3-2 split in their favour. One again the state-wide winner gets an extra delegate advantage in this category.
For 7 State-wide (At-Large) Delegates: First two delegates are cheap at 15% and 21.3% votes. Within the range of 35.7% — 50% the 3 delegates each will be allocated. The fight for the 7th delegate is again precariously balanced at 50% marker to make the overall break 4-3 split. To achieve a 5-2 split votes need to be at 64.3% or higher. Once again state-wide results award an extra delegate advantage in this category too.
Next bit is my personal opinion: Most of the contest is likely to be at 58.3% trigger region for those advantageous 4-2 splits. I suspect every delegate break will go on Clinton favour. Making 3-2 and 4-2 and 3-2 and 4-3 delegate splits in applicable areas. Resulting total (22-13) in favour of Clinton
Previously covered states: Arkansas and Alabama and South-Carolina and Virginia and Massachusetts and New-Hampshire and Vermont and Georgia and Oklahoma and Tennessee and Texas
Enjoy and hopefully you will have spotted where you might tip the balance personally and like to campaign or make that extra push for your preferred candidate.
Previously covered states are all listed with the individual state links in this single document. I will be updating it as and when new states get done: All-Links-Collection-Delegate-Mathematics-Series-2016-Democratic-Primary
Currently I am running through the list of states. If anyone would like to see the mathematics for a your particular state faster let me know and I will queue it up.
Todays shout outs are for Kossacks Denver11 and family farmer and cardinal and Featheredsprite and tom 47 .
Read More