PoliBlog: A Rough Draft of my Thoughts


RSS feed for comments on this post.

  1. Ugh. What is “convoluted” about the delegates being allocated in proportion to the votes?

    Sure, one can’t know just what the percentage is going to be in each district, or statewide. But one can know, with great precision, what the cut points are–the vote spreads at which, in any given district (and statewide for the 35% of delegates so allocated), one candidate will earn an additional delegate. I mean, really, with only two candidates, this is elementary arithmetic.

    The only uncertainty is the votes themselves. That–and not any “convoluted” or “complex” procedures–is why it can be only a projection, and not a prediction.

    UGH. Stoooopid press corps.

    Comment by MSS — Wednesday, April 30, 2008 @ 11:52 am

  2. I take the point about PR not being at all convoluted.

    However, I will defend the press corps a bit, in that the allocation of delegates to specific districts based on the previous election’s voter turnout is, in my mind, convoluted–indeed, I believe that that is what is being referred to there.

    Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, April 30, 2008 @ 11:59 am

  3. With apologies in advance to dead equines everywhere, CQ said: “because of the convoluted way in which the delegates will be distributed can produce some unpredictable results.”

    That sure seems to refer to the allocation method itself, and not to projecting the votes.

    There is nothing unpredictable about the allocation process, given a known input (i.e. the votes distribution). It is the input that can’t be predicted with precision.

    That’s what I was getting at.

    Anyway, let the horses rest.

    Comment by MSS — Wednesday, April 30, 2008 @ 2:35 pm

  4. Poor horsies.

    Comment by Dr. Steven Taylor — Wednesday, April 30, 2008 @ 3:25 pm

Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.

Close this window.

0.172 Powered by Wordpress