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

Sun Feb 9 19:29:49 PST 2020

According to multiple articles today about the Iowa Democratic Party's
legal opinion that they cannot correct the mistakes, the simple math errors
in the precinct reports cost Mayor Pete at least one delegate.

- Doug

On Sun, Feb 9, 2020 at 4:18 PM Hess, Doug <HESSDOUG at grinnell.edu> wrote:

> Justin wrote: “And I guess I’m asking whether this problem is an actual
> problem or a problem of our own making because we need rigid winner/loser
> narratives and misunderstand what the Iowa caucuses are designed to do. “
>
>
>
> Yes. The press should know better by now that the Caucuses are not
> designed to produce a winner; they are designed to assign delegates. Very
> frustrating the NY Times and AP furthered this misunderstanding with a
> focus on predicting and announcing “winners” in a crowded and close race.
>
>
>
> Also frustrating, although perhaps more understandable, that many
> commentators don’t understand that a system that awards delegates based on
> jurisdictions (precincts) can explain why total votes (alignments,
> actually) in the state will not predict the delegate counts.
>
>
>
> I would prefer to see IA, NH, SC, and NV hold same-day, state-wide
> primaries in mid-February using a ranked-choice or approval voting system.
> The “retail politics” of small states is a real value and the information
> gains from alternative voting systems would be valuable, too. It might take
> longer to announce winners of those systems, but if the voting is on a
> Monday or Tuesday, and no other primaries are held for a couple of weeks,
> results could be held until Thursday or Friday by all states.
>
>
>
> -----------------------
>
> Douglas R Hess
> Assistant Professor
>
> Dept. of Political Science
>
> Grinnell College
>
> 1115 8th Avenue
> Grinnell, IA 50112
>
> phone: 641-269-4383
>
> [Room S2346; 2nd floor of southern wing of new building]
>
> http://www.douglasrhess.com
>
> -----------------------
>
>
>
> *From:* Chambers, Hank <hchamber at richmond.edu>
> *Sent:* Sunday, February 9, 2020 9:27 AM
> *To:* 'Levitt, Justin' <justin.levitt at lls.edu>; Lonna Atkeson <
> atkeson at unm.edu>
> *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Finding a "winner" out of the Iowa caucuses
>
>
>
> I agree, but will add three quick points.
>
>
>
>    1. I use the following analogy in my Voting Rights Seminar.  Venus
>    beats Serena in a tennis match: 6-4, 0-6, 6-4.  Venus won two sets to one,
>    and won the match.  Serena won more games (14 to 12) and may have played a
>    better match than Venus, but she lost.  We may listen to Serena complain
>    about line calls and we may listen to her suggestion that total games won
>    should determine the winner of future matches.  We will ignore Serena’s
>    suggestion that total games won should have determined the winner of the
>    match she and Venus just played.
>    2. The Iowa caucus results may not be about fairness or democracy.
>    The barriers to participate in the caucus, e.g., time, are not
>    insubstantial. The caucus results may reflect what occurred that night at
>    the caucuses given who could participate in the caucuses, but who “won” the
>    caucus may not reflect the preferences of the Iowa Democratic electorate.
>    Nonetheless, the results determine how delegates to the convention are
>    selected.
>    3. In my seminar, the tenor of the discussion of the Iowa caucus
>    changed somewhat when we focused on the fact that the Iowa caucus is
>    technically solely about how to allocate a certain number of delegates to
>    the party convention.  The students still thought Iowa had made a hash of
>    the caucus, but they were far less concerned that Iowa’s mistakes mattered
>    in the grand scheme of the Democratic primary process.  Note: We covered
>    the white primary cases that day, so they were primed to think about how
>    important primaries and the rules that govern them are.
>
>
>
> -Hank
>
>
>
> Henry L. Chambers, Jr.
>
> Austin E. Owen Research Scholar and Professor of Law
>
> University of Richmond School of Law
>
> 203 Richmond Way
>
> Richmond, Va. 23173
>
> (804) 289-8199
>
> hchamber at richmond.edu
>
>
>
> *From:* Law-election <law-election-bounces at department-lists.uci.edu> *On
> Behalf Of *Levitt, Justin
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 8, 2020 3:43 PM
> *To:* Lonna Atkeson <atkeson at unm.edu>
> *Cc:* Election Law Listserv <law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Finding a "winner" out of the Iowa caucuses
>
>
>
> I can see the point when it comes to naming a single occupant of a
> particular office.  If one person gets the most overall votes and somebody
> else is given the office, that’s fruit for a discussion about whether the
> system is operating as we want.
>
>
>
> (Though there’s another big caveat: strategies change based on the rules
> of the contest, and I wouldn’t expect the person who wins the most votes
> when that’s not the metric for awarding the office to *necessarily* be
> the person who wins the most votes when it is.  In Super Bowl 52, the
> Patriots had 613 total yards while the Eagles had 538.  The Eagles ended up
> with more points, and won.  If it were clear from the outset that the team
> with the most yards would have won, I don’t know that either team would
> have played the same game, and I don’t know that the Patriots would have
> ended up with more yards.  In Iowa, if the popular vote mattered more than
> the delegate apportionment, I don’t know that the candidates would have run
> the same campaigns or used the same organizing strategies.)
>
>
>
> But my point is a little different.  It appears that the popular vote and
> delegate count were both quite close for Buttigieg and Sanders.  And we can
> have plentiful discussions about whether the system for awarding the
> delegates makes sense.   But we’re not choosing the nominee based on the
> Iowa caucuses, and the difference between the delegates awarded to
> Buttigieg or Sanders in Iowa (or any lingering uncertainty over the exact
> number awarded to each) is *exceedingly* unlikely to affect the outcome
> of the Democratic nomination by the time we get to July.  It seems there
> are a lot of people exercised about who “won” Iowa – and in particular, I
> was reacting to the story about the AP’s inability to “call” the race.  And
> I guess I’m asking whether this problem is an actual problem or a problem
> of our own making because we need rigid winner/loser narratives and
> misunderstand what the Iowa caucuses are designed to do.
>
>
>
> To return to the football metaphor, I think the rough equivalent may be
> trying to assess who “won” the first six minutes of the Super Bowl.  I can
> fully understand the effort put into deciding the accuracy of ruling on
> every incremental opportunity to accrue points, and even in debating the
> individual rules deciding when points can be accrued and under what
> conditions.  But asking who “won” the first six minutes seems like a
> question that’s entirely beside the point of the Super Bowl itself, and
> only relevant to a prop bet that might itself be destructive if allowed to
> become more important in the popular mindset than the actual rules for the
> contest.
>
> Justin
>
>
>
> *From:* Lonna Atkeson <atkeson at unm.edu>
> *Sent:* Saturday, February 08, 2020 12:17 PM
> *To:* Levitt, Justin <justin.levitt at lls.edu>
> *Cc:* Rick Hasen <rhasen at law.uci.edu>; Election Law Listserv <
> law-election at uci.edu>
> *Subject:* Re: [EL] Finding a "winner" out of the Iowa caucuses
>
>
>
> 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://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fp-3D109388&d=DwMGaQ&c=HUrdOLg_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRFzk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=ZJVa4mBq8kuymi8RGPihQnEdNb60lgxsQ9ujDhjLWy0&s=U2Ia-UaLKPmW9J3zqX-Y01u0zTjT5SEhZ19GPuovunA&e=>
>
> Posted on February 6, 2020 3:51 pm
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fp-3D109388&d=DwMGaQ&c=HUrdOLg_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRFzk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=ZJVa4mBq8kuymi8RGPihQnEdNb60lgxsQ9ujDhjLWy0&s=U2Ia-UaLKPmW9J3zqX-Y01u0zTjT5SEhZ19GPuovunA&e=>
>  by *Rick Hasen*
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fauthor-3D3&d=DwMGaQ&c=HUrdOLg_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRFzk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=ZJVa4mBq8kuymi8RGPihQnEdNb60lgxsQ9ujDhjLWy0&s=DcZ4lLNK_4AbddsnQxfgJVOwlS34mzXx8GWUWO4QZ4M&e=>
>
> Wow
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__apnews.com_4f9044fe46f551d397d48dd8ca3d58db-3Futm-5Fmedium-3DAP-5FPolitics-26utm-5Fcampaign-3DSocialFlow-26utm-5Fsource-3DTwitter&d=DwMGaQ&c=HUrdOLg_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRFzk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=ZJVa4mBq8kuymi8RGPihQnEdNb60lgxsQ9ujDhjLWy0&s=-08mlh8dpjRdVCMWEj-gd1RZfJjNfNh0fmfOy3oHSyY&e=>,
> 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.*
>
> Posted in Uncategorized
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__electionlawblog.org_-3Fcat-3D1&d=DwMGaQ&c=HUrdOLg_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRFzk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=ZJVa4mBq8kuymi8RGPihQnEdNb60lgxsQ9ujDhjLWy0&s=ZCasItoz3aX5fq_s6y7G51RU91G_a8W3T20FM5RaFfA&e=>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election
> <https://urldefense.proofpoint.com/v2/url?u=https-3A__department-2Dlists.uci.edu_mailman_listinfo_law-2Delection&d=DwMGaQ&c=HUrdOLg_tCr0UMeDjWLBOM9lLDRpsndbROGxEKQRFzk&r=xr_OjwGHtP-zw6I-DJj_MQ4cusLbiVT1bScGa0c8ZJo&m=ZJVa4mBq8kuymi8RGPihQnEdNb60lgxsQ9ujDhjLWy0&s=qYgGORLlrp-397QOadi69tEpD8blmZc0tqLh98PgH_o&e=>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Law-election mailing list
> Law-election at department-lists.uci.edu
> https://department-lists.uci.edu/mailman/listinfo/law-election

-- 
- Doug

Douglas Johnson
National Demographics Corporation
djohnson at NDCresearch.com
phone 310-200-2058
fax 818-254-1221
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://webshare.law.ucla.edu/Listservs/law-election/attachments/20200209/dbb9b425/attachment.html>