The winner of the Iowa Democratic caucus might come down to one not-so-simple question: How many state delegate equivalents does a satellite caucus get?
The Iowa Democratic Party’s answer, first evident when it released the results of satellite caucuses Wednesday night, differs from what was expected by at least one Democratic campaign and here at The Upshot, based on the state party’s official delegate selection plan.
The difference between the two interpretations is a net 3.8 state delegates — small in just about any contest except one separated by 3.42 state delegates, as the Iowa race is right now.
Under the Iowa Democratic Party’s interpretation, Bernie Sanders gains. He scratches out three extra delegates and Pete Buttigieg loses one, compared with the alternative interpretation.
The difference turns on whether a satellite caucus is awarded state delegate equivalents based on the total turnout at the caucus, or based on the number of county delegates awarded to a caucus. These state delegate equivalents are the estimated number of delegates each candidate will get at the state convention, and they’re the measure used to determine the winner in Iowa.
Widespread use of satellite caucuses are a new feature of the 2020 race. The Iowa Democratic Party, responding to calls to make the process more accessible, allowed people to apply to hold them wherever there were groups of Democrats who wished to participate but otherwise couldn’t, such as at universities, hospitals, out-of-state military installations or overseas. It was a mystery then who might stand to benefit.
It’s now clear that Mr. Sanders has benefited. In the final preference vote in satellite caucuses, he defeated Mr. Buttigieg by a staggering margin of 47 to 7 percent.
But what is not clear is how many state delegates that’s worth. And since this was the first time the Iowa Democratic Party released Iowa satellite caucus results with tabulated vote tallies, it was not even known until Wednesday night that it could be unclear.
The Iowa Democratic Party appears to have allotted state delegates by caucus in direct proportion to the turnout of each satellite caucus. So, if there are two caucuses and one has 60 caucusgoers and one has 10, the former will have six times as many state delegate equivalents as the latter. This is reasonable enough, and it appears to be the way it’s described on the satellite caucus FAQ:
“Each congressional district will have one additional satellite caucus county, where the results from each satellite caucus within that congressional district will be reported, weighted by the number of participants in the satellite caucuses.”
It does not specify how one weights by participants, but the most straightforward interpretation is that the number of state delegate equivalents per satellite caucus is in exact proportion to the turnout.
In this approach, Mr. Sanders wins a smashing victory in the satellite caucuses reporting so far. He wins 21.8 state delegates to a mere 1.2 for Mr. Buttigieg, narrowing Mr. Buttigieg’s lead by a full percentage point.
But the Iowa Delegate Selection Plan to the Democratic National Committee, the exhaustive and official 78-page rule book that The New York Times used for its election night forecasting model, appears to allot state delegates by satellite caucus differently.
The delegate selection plan first awards state delegates to the satellite caucuses as a whole, but does not apportion them to individual precincts. In a subsequent section, it then appears to allocate state delegates to individual precincts based on county delegates:
“The relative strength of each viable preference group within an in-person satellite caucus will be used to determine the allocation of in-person satellite caucus delegates to the district and state conventions. To determine relative strength, each satellite caucus will be allocated county delegate equivalents. These are not elected delegate positions, but rather used to determine the allocation of district/state delegates.”
This passage is not especially clear on its own. One could interpret it to affect only the number of state delegates per candidate at a caucus, and has no bearing on how many state delegates a caucus has to award. But the most straightforward interpretation is that the number of state delegates per caucus is based on the number of county convention delegates. It is worth noting that this is the way it works in typical (nonsatellite) precincts: The number of state delegate equivalents is directly proportionate to county delegates.
And while the number of county convention delegates at each satellite caucus is based on the turnout, it is not directly proportionate. For instance, a satellite precinct with 1 to 20 people gets four delegates, while a caucus with 21 to 40 caucusgoers gets five delegates. Most important, it limits the influence of any one precinct: A caucus can’t get more than nine county delegates, regardless of how many caucusgoers attend.
The appendix of the delegate selection plan appears to confirm this interpretation. In the example given, the number of state delegate equivalents awarded to each satellite caucus is directly proportional to the number of county convention delegates, even though they have varying turnout. In the example, a nursing home with 37 people receives five delegate equivalents; a group home has 12 people, and it receives four delegate equivalents. A subsequent table shows the number of state delegate equivalents is directly proportional to county delegates, regardless of turnout by satellite caucus.
Mr. Sanders’s lead narrows with this method. He excelled in the largest satellite caucuses, which get proportionately fewer delegates. His state delegate tally falls to 18.5 from 21.8, while Mr. Buttigieg’s increases to 1.88 from 1.2.
At the largest satellite caucus site, at the University of Iowa, Mr. Sanders and Elizabeth Warren tied for the vote lead on final alignment, while Mr. Buttigieg was not viable (less than 15 percent of the vote). The total turnout was 318 people; under this interpretation of the rules, this satellite caucus would be worth just nine county delegates — less than twice the number of a caucus with a mere 21 caucusgoers. Under the Iowa Democratic Party’s interpretation of the rules, it would be worth more than 15 times as many state delegate equivalents.
In ordinary circumstances, this ambiguity would not be a big deal. The difference is fairly small in the scheme of all the state delegates at stake. These are not ordinary circumstances.
At the moment, the Iowa race is exceptionally close. If the results are otherwise accurate — and they may not be — with 97 percent of precincts reporting, Mr. Buttigieg leads by 3.42 state delegate equivalents. And one congressional district worth of satellite caucuses is yet to report. Those satellite caucuses, alone, could give Mr. Sanders a lead if he does as well as he has in the other congressional districts. But Mr. Buttigieg probably holds an edge in the remaining nonsatellite precincts, which very easily could bring Mr. Sanders’s lead back within the margin of the net 3.8 delegates he currently gains under the Iowa Democratic Party’s interpretation of the rules.
What’s the right answer? There might not be an undisputed one. And with so many other irregularities in the results, one wonders whether the Iowa caucuses will have a definitive winner at all.
"how" - Google News
February 07, 2020 at 05:29AM
https://ift.tt/2UvBgna
New Doubts From Iowa Caucuses: How ‘Satellite’ Votes Are Being Measured - The New York Times
"how" - Google News
https://ift.tt/2MfXd3I
Bagikan Berita Ini
0 Response to "New Doubts From Iowa Caucuses: How ‘Satellite’ Votes Are Being Measured - The New York Times"
Post a Comment