[EL] Finding a "winner" out of the Iowa caucuses

[Lonna Atkeson]

This is about small d democracy—if who wins in that scenario is different from who wins the delegates then the system is unfair/rigged.

This isn’t about the rules of the process per se, it’s about the fairness of those rules. This is, in part, why Sanders folks insisted on this info after 2016.

What is the distortion is an interesting and relevant question.   Who got the most votes and whether it is fair seems particularly relevant to Democrats  who are advocating the elimination of the electoral college and pushing for more democracy.

Lonna
On Feb 7, 2020, at 4:55 PM, Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu> wrote:


  UNM-IT Warning: This message was sent from outside of the LoboMail system. Do not click on links or open attachments unless you are sure the content is safe. (2.3)
The formula for awarding delegates in the Iowa caucus is unquestionably complex (and I’m no fan, for that and other reasons), but it’s my understanding that that process turns on proportional levels of support precinct by precinct, and later county by county, but not statewide.  If I’m mistaken about that, I’d welcome the correction.  But if it’s true that delegates are awarded based on local results, is there any point to branding a statewide “winner” of the Iowa caucuses beyond the need to fill in the blanks on an artificial narrative?

Put differently: assume that Buttigieg won either 12 or 13 delegates to the national convention, and Sanders won either 12 or 13 delegates to the national convention, and that we eventually know for sure whether the answer for each candidate is 12 or 13.  Real question: why does it matter whether the AP is able to tell us who “won,” beyond widespread public misunderstanding of the significance of what it means to “win” in this context?  Imagine it was a precise tie, and each candidate got the same number of delegates, so that neither “won.”  I understand full well why that matters in the perceptions horserace … but the lack of a “winner” would have zero significance in terms of progress toward picking a nominee.  Is the inability to “call” a winner the problem, or is it our need to have a clearly branded “winner”?

Justin

AP Unable to Call Winner in Iowa Democratic Caucus Due to Closeness and “Irregularities”<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109388>
Posted on February 6, 2020 3:51 pm<https://electionlawblog.org/?p=109388> by Rick Hasen<https://electionlawblog.org/?author=3>

Wow<https://apnews.com/4f9044fe46f551d397d48dd8ca3d58db?utm_medium=AP_Politics&utm_campaign=SocialFlow&utm_source=Twitter>, it’s this bad:

“The Associated Press calls a race when there is a clear indication of a winner. Because of a tight margin between former Mayor Pete Buttigieg and Sen. Bernie Sanders and the irregularities in this year’s caucus process, it is not possible to determine a winner at this point,” said Sally Buzbee, AP’s senior vice president and executive editor.
<https://www.addtoany.com/share#url=https%3A%2F%2Felectionlawblog.org%2F%3Fp%3D109388&title=AP%20Unable%20to%20Call%20Winner%20in%20Iowa%20Democratic%20Caucus%20Due%20to%20Closeness%20and%20%E2%80%9CIrregularities%E2%80%9D>
Posted in Uncategorized<https://electionlawblog.org/?cat=1>

_______________________________________________
Law-election mailing list
Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200208/471dcf3e/attachment.html>