Sorry, but Bernie didn’t win Nevada. And, he didn’t win Missouri. But, you wouldn’t know it from places like Occupy White House or Twitter, or reddit, or diaries here that keep getting deleted.
So much work is going into these convoluted mathematical digressions. And, it is so obviously wrong! Look at that chart that Occupy White House puts up there — the flow-chart of how delegates are selected. One of the first paragraphs — the one right next to the first box — pretty much explains why this is a pointless exercise:
Vote for your candidate! The primary results determine how delegates are allocated to the presidential candidate(s).
Something similar should have short-circuited the whole “Bernie won Nevada!” nonsense that happened before this. Here’s what the Nevada Democratic Party said about the caucus system:
The 23 national delegates and two alternates awarded from Nevada’s four Congressional Districts are allocated to each candidate based on the percentage of the precinct caucus vote on February 20.
Jon Ralston, and almost every media outlet I saw, tried nobly to explain this to the obsessed Bernie fans. 23 of the delegates were fixed. They could not change. Only the smaller set of 12 At-Large and Pledged Party Leaders and Elected Officials could have their allocation fixed at later events. So, it was 18-17 Clinton.
Now, one could delve into the rules and find exactly where the various delegates are apportioned between the candidates — in Nevada, it’s A.7.a, which says of the 23 District Level Delegates:
Nevada is a caucus/convention state. Accordingly, delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated so as to fairly reflect the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the caucus participants in each district.
And, that language can be compared to the language for At-Large delegates (D.4.a):
At-large delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated among presidential preferences according to division of preferences among convention participants
Caucus participants versus convention participants. This should be easy stuff. Especially since that’s exactly how the Nevada Democratic Party — and every media outlet described how it works!
Missouri is similar. But, the rules for primaries are also pretty strict coming down from the DNC. Rule 13.A:
Delegates shall be allocated in a fashion that fairly reflects the expressed presidential preference or uncommitted status of the primary voters or, if there is no binding primary, the convention and/or caucus participants.
How does Missouri define it’s primary? Maybe it’s not a “binding” primary? Puh-leeze! If states want to have a non-binding primary, they have to be absolutely clear to voters that their vote is worthless. Think that’s harsh language? See rule 13.H in the DNC selection plan:
State parties must take steps to educate the public that a nonbinding presidential preference event is meaningless, and state parties and presidential candidates should take all steps possible not to participate.
And, of course, Missouri knows they have a binding primary. Here’s their language about delegate allocation:
The Missouri’s presidential primary election is a “binding” primary. Accordingly, delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated so as to fairly reflect the expressed presidential (or uncommitted) preference of the primary voters in each district. The National Convention delegates and alternates selected at the district level shall be allocated in proportion to the percentage of the primary vote won in that district by each preference, except that preferences falling below a 15% threshold shall not be awarded any delegates or alternates.
Rule B.6.a, p. 15. And, the “At-Large” and alternate delegates? Rule D.4.a:
At-large delegate and alternate positions shall be allocated among presidential preferences according to the state-wide primary vote.
Okay, but how about the Pledged Party Leaders and Elected Officials? We’re only talking about one delegate switched — maybe they’re allocated at some later date? C’mon! Rule C.4.a:
The pledged PLEO slots shall be allocated among presidential preferences on the same basis as the at-large delegates.
Missouri was a binding primary. Its District Level Delegates are allocated according to the state-wide vote (B.6.a). Its “At-Large” delegates are allocated according to the state-wide vote (D.4.a). And its P-PLEO delegates are allocated the same way as the “At-Large Delegates” (C.4.a). Add it all up, and it’s exactly like Green Papers said, “Tuesday 15 March 2016: 71 of 84 delegates to the Democratic National Convention are pledged to presidential contenders based on the results of the voting in today's Missouri Presidential Primary.”
I know emotions are high. I know that you really want Bernie to win. I know that you don’t trust the mainstream media, and you think the DNC is out to get your guy. But, please don’t let this drive you out of the reality-based community. Instead of spending however long it takes to “unskew” the primaries, leave it to the actual candidate and his staff. When they tweet that they are proud to have brought the delegate count to within one in Nevada — believe them that they didn’t really win the state. When they decide not to contest Missouri because they know it’s only one delegate — don’t spend hours unskewing the primary by ignoring all the rules to declare your candidate the one true winner.