#### Comment Preferences

• ##### Ok, that's fair. But...(0+ / 0-)

...the weight of those rural delegates must then be incredibly high relative to the larger counties in order for Obama to have been given the national delegate tally.

As I said, I could very well be wrong in the exact calculus. But, the point still stands: there is no way Clinton lost the popular vote. It doesn't make any mathematical sense, regardless of any technical points -- and they are important -- made to the contrary.

This is why news agencies are reporting she won (well, those that didn't fall into the '51 vs 45' trap) the popular vote. Somebody with math/states probably told them she did win the pop. vote w/o going over the intricacies.

Thanks for telling me that, and stopping by.

:)

Nevada's Vote, Explained - (1.20.08 Diary) & [I am not able to rec]

[ Parent ]

• ##### It's not at all fair, and it's totally wrong(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
ge0rge

The issue is the number of registered democrats.

http://www.nvdemscaucus.com/...

The number of delegates from each voting precinct in each county to the county
convention of any major political party for that county must be in proportion to the
number of registered voters of that party residing in the precinct as follows:
a. In the counties in which the total number of registered voters of that party
has not exceeded 400, each precinct is entitled to one delegate for each 5
registered voters.
b. In counties in which the total number of registered voters of that party has
exceeded 400 but has not exceeded 600, each precinct is entitled to one
delegate for each 8 registered voters.
c. In counties in which the total number of registered voters of that party has
exceeded 600 but has not exceeded 800, each precinct is entitled to one
delegate for each 10 registered voters.
d. In counties in which the total number of registered voters of that party has
exceeded 800 but has not exceeded 1,400, each precinct is entitled to one
delegate for each 15 registered voters.
e. In counties in which the total number of registered voters of that party has
exceeded 1,400 but has not exceeded 2,000, each precinct is entitled to
one delegate for each 20 registered voters or major fraction thereof.
f. In counties in which the total number of registered voters of that party has
exceeded 2,000 but has not exceeded 3,000, each precinct is entitled to
one delegate for each 30 registered voters or major fraction thereof.
g. In counties in which the total number of registered voters of that party has
exceeded 3,000 but has not exceeded 4,000, each precinct is entitled to
one delegate for each 35 registered voters or major fraction thereof.
h. In counties in which the total number of registered voters of that party has
exceeded 4,000, each precinct is entitled to one delegate for each 50
registered voters or major fraction thereof.

Yes, folks, I'm still for Edwards.

[ Parent ]

• ##### This is factoring in the point in the lawsuit(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
JedReport

that the common denominator differed in the casino districts, where it was not total number of registered Dems -- since they were casinos, not counties :-) -- but total turnout at those caucuses?

Factoring in that, your bottom line stands?

"Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

[ Parent ]

• ##### Not sure I follow(0+ / 0-)

If what you're saying is that the addition of the at large precincts (ALPs) means that clark gets weighted a little more heavily than what would have been the case without the ALPs, then I think I agree.

I don't know off hand how many new delegates they added because of the ALPs, but it could have been enough to counteract the relatively higher level of representation offered to rural areas.

Is that what you were trying to say?

Yes, folks, I'm still for Edwards.

[ Parent ]

• ##### Not more weight to Clark, exactly; equal status (0+ / 0-)

with counties for casino at-larges, given same status as counties -- i.e., as districts allocating delegates.  That could be more weight for Clark if all casino caucusgoers were Clark County residents.  I don't know.

As for countering rural districts' weight, I don't know.  The suit made the point that the formula could give casino districts more weight dependent upon turnout, by allowing them to consider turnout as the common denominator, not total registered Dems who turned out or didn't, as in the counties.  I'm not sure of the turnout of each of the casino districts.

Anyway -- 17 counties plus 9 casino districts equals 26 districts (in terms of state Dem terms for allocating delegates).  Clinton won 6 counties plus 7 ALDs for total of half of districts.

"Let all the dreamers wake the nation." -- Carly Simon

[ Parent ]

• ##### This is HIGHLY misleading!(1+ / 0-)
Recommended by:
JedReport

The formula listed above is for delegates to the COUNTY convention, not the state convention, and the reason for it is clear:  You'd either have a very big Clark County convention, or very tiny county conventions in some of the rural counties.  This is clearly set forth at page 50 of the document to which you link.

This has nothing to do with how much say voters in each county have in selecting delegates to the national convention.  In fact, the formula for selecting delegates to the national convention actually gives Clark County MORE weight than it would have based on population alone.  In the 2000 Census, Nevada had a total population of 1,998,257, which was divided as follows between the counties:

Clark: 1,375,765 (68.85%)
Washoe: 339,486 (16.99%)
Everything else: 283,006 (14.16%)

The 16 delegates specifically awarded to counties, however, are divided as follows:

Clark: 12 (75.00%)
Washoe: 3 (18.75%)
Everything else: 1 (6.25%)

"Those who would sacrifice liberty for security deserve neither liberty nor security." -Ben Franklin

[ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.