While I have long understood the basics of the Democratic Party's delegate selection process, I had not fully appreciated the insane complexity of it until I started to fix the errors in my own delegate count analysis from yesterday. I now understand why different news sources have different counts such as is listed here.
The bottom line is: it is rather difficult to get a perfectly accurate count, given that it is unclear where the news organizations are getting their data (such as WI, which shows an incomplete delegate allocation on the WI-specific page (which show 67 of the state's 72 pledged delegates allocated) and their main grid, which indicates that 69 of the 72 pledged delegates have been allocated).
As another CNN story notes, rather correctly,
If you think federal income tax forms are complex, try understanding the presidential delegate selection process.
The precise manner in which the Democrats will choose their 2024 presidential nominee will be a logistical maze, with many twists and turns.
For example, check out the rules here (warning: PDF).
The bottom line is that at this point the any delegate count one sees is a estimate-an informed one, but an estimate nonetheless. I now better understand why the networks used to not report delegate counts early on in the primary process.
I do intend to re-do my analysis of the delegates, but it is a trickier proposition than I thought it was.
The mechanics of delegate allotment must have been invented by people who grew up solving those damn jigsaw puzzles where all the pieces were the same shape. I recommend a judicious amount of drinking and an uncritical willingness to utter the phrase "plus or minus 10 percent" when necessary. :)
Moe "Fellow Sufferer" Lane
Posted by: Moe Lane at February 19, 2024 12:46 PMIt makes sense that the people who love the idea of the IRS would have a nomination system of comparable complexity.