Jumping on the bandwagon. With so many stories/diaries about the delegate numbers and who is going to win where with how much margin, most of the stories (authors) seem to forget the fundamental mathematics of fair and proportional allocation of delegates. I thought I would add a quick summary of numbers involved and how much margin will give how many delegates.
Commonly forgotten feature of delegate allocation is that they happen in stages. For most part margin ranges are virtually pointless. Performance (in terms of percentage of votes) does not seamlessly transition into or reflect delegate acquisition.
They affect at certain threshold/triggers. Delegate awarding triggers are dependent on how many delegates are awarded by each district (or allocating unit). These are completely known details unlike votes people will actually cast.
For those interested in boundaries and performance levels specific to particular state, I have previously covered specific states in detail: All-Links-Collection-Delegate-Mathematics-Series-2016-Democratic-Primary
15th March specific states are here: Florida-Delegate-Mathematics-214-Dels and Illinois-Delegate-Mathematics-156-Dels and Missouri-Delegate-Mathematics-71Dels and North-Carolina-Delegate-Mathematics-107-Dels and Ohio-Delegate-Mathematics-143-Dels.
The mathematics presented below is based on, working through a simple model of applying a uniform performance on a state across all delegate allocation units (each congressional district, Party Leaders and Elected Officials, At-Large). This will result in a better estimate than simple multiplying delegate numbers available in a state by decimal vote share in the state. This does not account for any polls, projections, path calculations, demographics, voter affiliations, pockets of support etc etc etc. This is bare bones mathematics.
This is written as an indiscriminate encouragement to all Kossacks to campaign for their preferred candidates. This is just a rudimentary attempt to facilitate and provide some quick reference numbers and data at hand so that Kossacks can see for themselves without having to glaze over complicated statistics( including various demographic and pattern models) and be able to form their own better models/estimates. Most importantly to help Kossacks decide where to focus extra effort that might make a difference for preferred candidate.
Please make all the efforts but also know where that effort is better made And do not get tricked by mathematical charlatans and snake oil salesmen who deliberately attempt to hide behind purposefully faulty or badly presented mathematics.
{And for some Kossacks to have a little better idea when people just throw random or incompletely described mathematics. There are other far superior mathematics and models around somewhere. But I opted for this simplistic model especially since it has been an opportune and interesting aspect of application of mathematics for selection of President of USA. This has vaguely contributed to getting a few more students interested in mathematics. And for me it is always a plus where there might be more mathematics taught or even just a few more mathematicians gaining employment as teachers.}
For anyone who wants to verify the numbers:
Step by step, for each state, for each allocation unit ( each district, PLEO, at-large),
delegates_acquired = rounded value of (total_delegates_available x (decimal_vote_share))
where, decimal_vote_share = votes_for_candidate/total_valid_votes
Viablity_threshold = higher value of {100/(2 x total_delegates_available) or 15}
For details of each state as mentioned before I suggest perusing through: All-Links-Collection-Delegate-Mathematics-Series-2016-Democratic-Primary for whichever state interests you most. The bits are simplistic enough that the level of mathematical skills and details involved should be adequately addressed by 8 year olds for most part and 12 year olds for the long division decimals. (If the 8 year olds or 12 year olds around you cannot help you verify the mathematics, blame your states department of education)
Quick summary (As At 14th march 2016 : Source thegreenpapers.com):
Total Pledged Delegates: 4051 (Majority At 2026)
Total Delegates Currently Allocated: 1327 (Still To Be Allocated: 2724)
Results so far: Clinton 774 — Sanders 553
Clinton Shortage 1252 — Sanders Shortage 1473
Clinton gap: 46% of remaining — Sander gap: 54% of remaining
Delegate numbers are discrete (Not the secret kind instead the kind that come in unitary chunks).
Ohio (143 Delegates): 46% ~ 66 — 54% ~ 78 (delegate shares)
Except for 1 district all districts even number of delegates. Minor delegate movement at 56.3%. Major delegate movements happen at 62.5%.
Just scraping above 50%, uniformly distributed translates to (47+10+16) with overall results 73 vs 70.
54% Uniformly distributed votes translates to (47+10+17) with overall result = 74 vs 69. This is difference of just 5 delegates while still being 4 delegates short of straight delegate calculation based on vote share.
Winning with 50.01% or 54% has almost no discernible effect. {The almost there because there is 2 delegate difference.}.
Illinois (156 Delegates): 46% ~ 72 — 54% ~ 85 (delegate shares for the percentages)
Except for 11 districts with odd delegate numbers. Major delegate movement happens at 50%. Minor delegate movement happen at 58.4%.
Just scraping above 50%, uniformly distributed translates to (56+10+17) with overall results 83 vs 73. Here because of the boundary/trigger effect difference of 10 delegates.
54% Uniformly distributed votes translates to (56+11+18) with overall result = 85 vs 71. Again very minor change from 50% results.
Florida (214 Delegates): 46% ~ 99 — 54% ~ 116 (delegate shares for the percentages)
There are 12 districts with odd delegate numbers. Major delegate movement happens at 50% and at 58.4% and 62.5%. Minor delegate movement happen at 56.3%.
Just scraping above 50%, uniformly distributed translates to (76+14+23) with overall results 113 vs 99. Here because of the boundary/trigger effect difference of 14 delegates.
54% Uniformly distributed votes translates to (76+15+25) with overall result = 116 vs 96. Again very minor change from 50% results.
Missouri (71 Delegates): 46% ~ 33 — 54% ~ 39 (delegate shares for the percentages)
There are 5 districts with odd delegate numbers. Major delegate movement happens at 50% and at 70%. Sporadic single delegate movements in between.
Just scraping above 50%, uniformly distributed translates to (26+5+8) with overall results 39 vs 32. Here because of the boundary/trigger effect difference of 7 delegates.
54% Uniformly distributed votes translates to (26+5+8) with overall result = 39 vs 32. In this particular instance no change from 50% results.
North Carolina (107 Delegates): 46% ~ 50 — 54% ~ 58 (delegate shares for the percentages)
There are 4 districts with odd delegate numbers. Major delegate movement happens at 50% and at 56.3% and at 62.5%. Sporadic single delegate movements in between.
Just scraping above 50%, uniformly distributed translates to (37+7+12) with overall results 56 vs 51. Here because of the boundary/trigger effect difference of 5 delegates.
54% Uniformly distributed votes translates to (37+8+12) with overall result = 57 vs 50. In this particular instance minimal change from 50% results. (Delegate difference of 2 delegates added)
Whether Hillary Clinton or Bernie Sanders perform according to your expectations (or not as the case might be) the local elections and candidates matter a lot more. When the Republicans cancel funding for Planned Parenthood, they are doing it on a state by state basis, locally. When the Republicans try to sabotage the education curriculum, again they are doing it on an individual local education district/jurisdiction. During this race, the preparations for 2017 and 2018 local elections should be taking place. Build your profile and networks even if you are not running for an office your influence might just get your friend elected.
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.
Meanwhile, a big yay to → http://www.dailykos.com/blogs/Crowdsourcing-the-50-State-Strategy
This thing could not be praised and promoted enough http://www.dailykos.com/blogs/Nuts-and-Bolts for activists, candidates, supporters and even casual interests
Tuesday, Mar 15, 2016 · 1:31:39 PM +00:00
·
Torilahure
Update Added as per floridageorge request:
Florida: Big Change at 58.4,
so looking at just below 58.4% uniformly distributed translates to (77+16+27) with overall results 117 vs 95.
Taking 58.4% 58.4% Uniformly distributed votes translates to (85+16+27) with overall result = 128 vs 84. Big Jolt from those 6 delegate districts
Taking 62.5% Uniformly distributed votes translates to (91+18+29) with overall result = 138 vs 74. Big Jolt from those 4 delegate districts
North Carolina: Big change at 56.3%
so looking at just below 56.3%, Uniformly distributed votes translates to (37+8+13) with overall result = 58 vs 49.
Taking 56.3% Uniformly distributed votes translates to (40+8+13) with overall result = 61 vs 46.
Taking 62.5% Uniformly distributed votes translates to (46+9+14) with overall result = 69 vs 38.
Taking 68.8% Uniformly distributed votes translates to (49+10+16) with overall result = 75 vs 32.
Taking 70% Uniformly distributed votes translates to (53+10+16) with overall result = 79 vs 28.