Since I detailed the Texas delegate selection process last Tuesday night, there's been a slow awakening to the facts on the ground here. The WPost reports this morning that the Clinton campaign is raising concerns that the process is tilted against her expected (and unproven) advantage among Hispanic voters.
At issue is the apportionment of delegates. They are apportioned by state senate district, based upon turnout in the two previous election cycles. Because Hispanic turnout in 2004 and 2006 was way down, a costly turn of events for Democrats, Hispanic-heavy senate districts don't get as many delegates. The system is intended to reward participation in elections.
It has taken a very unusual and unexpected turn of events to make these rules -- in effect now for a couple of decades -- controversial. As it turns out, turnout in 2004 and 2006 was highest in areas where Barack Obama is expected to do well. So those areas have more delegates than areas with poor turnout records. Hence, the controversy. If Obama is doing well where there are more voters, well, there's not much for his opponents to complain about in that, beyond saying they wish it wasn't so.
Before anyone gets too outraged over this, they should examine the issue all the way down.
The Texas delegate formula disproportionately rewards areas where there have been more Democratic voters participating in general elections. The primary election goes to where the voters are.
Because the Clinton campaign apparently believes their candidate will end the campaign closer to Obama in the popular vote than in the delegate count, they have begun to question the fairness of pledged delegates, period. This is a smart public relations strategy, but it's a little situational.
The Clinton argument is aimed at persuading the superdelegates, whom they hope will ignore the pledged delegate count. But how do you make an ethical case against the voter-selected pledged delegates, whatever the process, if you are going to rely on delegates chosen by no voters whatsoever?
There is a case to be made that delegates should be apportioned without regard to previous elections. But even this has deep structural and mathematical problems. I won't rehearse all those problems here, but read William Poundstone's new book, Gaming the Vote: Why Elections Aren't Fair. Plurality voting is the least fair voting arrangement we could devise, says Poundstone, basing his conclusion on the famous Arrow Impossibility theorem and decades of voting research.
Whatever the outcome, the news is good for Texas. The massive increase in turnout for the Democratic primary is a boon to Texas progressives, no matter which way you cut it. The record is 1.8 million, achieved 20 years ago. Some say we may have 3 million voters this year.
But the good news is that Texas democrats, with discipline and commitment, have been busy building a new infrastructure from the ground up. This time, we are positioned to capitalize on the enthusiasm for both Clinton and Obama. From a state-of-the-art voter file, to a sophisticated and energetic state blogosphere, to the recruitment of highly qualified and attractive candidates at all levels, to the building of a research and message infrastructure that benefits all progressives, to the cooperation among traditional constituent groups and new, vital grassroots and fundraising organizations -- we are ready.
Ten years ago a unique Democratic turnout event would have paid no dividends much beyond the year in which it happened. Ann Richards win in 1990 paid no long term benefit because no one believed in building and sustaining an ongoing grassroots organization.
The Democratic nominee for president should take a lesson from this. If you make it to the White House, don't let the enthusiasm among the voters of your party dissipate.
Ask not what your party can do for you, but what you can do for your party.
Right now, the enthusiasm level is high among both Clinton and Obama supporters. Not only that, but I see little of the rancor that we see nationally. For the most part, we're all just advocating for and working for the candidate we support. No blog fights or shouting matches. I don't think anyone's signs have been stolen yet. It is all very civil.
There are still no solid, reliable public polls. This election is close. The popular vote could go either way. Accurately modeling the turnout is all but impossible. For instance, responsible estimates of the Hispanic turnout range from 25 percent of the electorate to 40 percent of the electorate. That's a big range.
|
|
|
Permalink :: 60 Comments :: Post a Comment
|
In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.
If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.
