The tyranny of odd and even numbers

Slate's Trailhead explains why only certain congressional districts matter in the Democratic primaries -- specifically, the districts with an odd number of delegates. The even-numbered districts are meaningless (except as a small part of the statewide at-large allocation, of course), barring a massive landslide for either candidate... which is possible for Obama in some heavily black districts, but otherwise very unlikely.

This, incidentally, is why proportional allocation of electoral votes within each state -- a "reform" that gets kicked around now and then -- is a terrible idea. It would render entire states meaningless based on the wholly arbitrary criterion of whether they have an even or odd number of congressmen. (Whereas at least now, states are made meaningful or meaningless by whether they're competitive, which is at least a rational criterion.)

In other Pooper Scooper Eve news, Kos has a sensible post about what lies ahead in the Democratic race, and why Obama supporters need to avoid "irrational exuberance" about tomorrow's big vote.

Comments

[Condor]

Haha! That's a great observation in the slate article.

[David K.]

So there is something wrong with rendering some states less meaningful in primaries, but doing the same in the general election is preferred by sticking with the electoral college...

[Brendan Loy]

David, first of all, we're not talking about states here, we're talking about congressional districts. Secondly, I said my principal objection is to the total arbitrariness of the criteria for determining meaningfulness vs. meaninglessness, not necessarily to the mere fact that certain jurisdictions are sometimes more or less meaningful than others. Hence, as I said, I would oppose modifying the Electoral College to create a similarly arbitrary set of criteria for it, making whole states meaningless on the basis of odd vs. even numbers the way that districts are now in primaries.

As for eliminating the Electoral College entirely, my reasons for opposing that are entirely different, and are based on the idea that keeping the E.C. is the "lesser of two evils" when you actually seriously consider the problems with a popular-vote system. But I've gone into a whole lot of detail with that before, and don't particularly feel like rehashing it here.

In any event, whereas there are profoundly important constitutional arguments to be made in favor of the E.C., no such arguments exist with regard to this inane delegate allocation system. And surely you'd agree that the continued existence of one flawed system is hardly a good reason to maintain another flawed system that can be more easily fixed...

[Joe Loy]

"...whereas there are profoundly important constitutional arguments to be made in favor of the E.C., no such arguments exist with regard to this inane delegate allocation system...hardly a good reason to maintain another flawed system that can be more easily fixed..."

(1) Actually, it's probably even Less easily Fixed. (So to Speak :) Granted, it's pretty Tough to persuade 2/3 of the Congress plus 3/4 of the sovereign States to agree to replace the EC with, well, SEGOKEW (Something Else, God Only Knows Exactly What :). And, perhaps Tougher still to get states Holding at least 270 EVs to Sign On to a procedurally Dysfunctional & arguably Unconstitutional interstate Compact which purports to extraconstitutionally Invent a Popular Vote Presidency without addressing, let alone Solving, the puzzles inherent in trying to Do so. /// BUT: up against any attempt to move the Dimmycratic Party ~ a Free Association of private Individuals, the pickypicky Weeds :} in the Outback of whose Nommynation process are not subject to Gummint Regulation except in the most Egregious of circumstances ~ to abandon either [a] the underdogfriendly Inclusiveness of their Share-the-delegate-wealth Rules OR [b] the iron mathematical Principles which Underpin them, the Challenge of enacting either the constitutional Amendment, or the interstate Compact, pales in Comparison. (OKOK: so, re-read that. / Once should Do it, though. :)

(2) AAAND: more importantly, how Dare you Dis the Living Memory of our First Pacifist President, Saint George McGovern? "Inane", indeed! "Flawed", my Eye! We shall Take on wings of Eagles. We shall Run & not be Weary. (Nevermind about Eagleton. :) For such heresy, The People shall arise & Smite ye down ;}

[Brian Foster]

For the record, let me state at the outset that I favor winner-takes-all over proportional allocation.

But this argument that proportional allocation is bad because it renders states/districts with even numbers of electors/delegates irrelevant is simply wrong. In a winner-takes-all scenario, a candidate won't consider a state/district competitive if he isn't pulling, say, 40% or more statewide. But in a proportional scenario, if it turns out that he's getting 55% in one district and 25% in the other, you've just made the 55% district competitive, whereas before, that district would get written off because it wouldn't make a difference statewide.

And therein lies the rub. The argument that even-numbered districts/states don't matter only means anything if you're considered about the overall delegate/elector total within the state/country. This is obviously true for the electoral college -- there's no further authority beyond the Electoral College* -- but for state-by-state nomination contests, the statewide delegate total means virtually nothing in and of itself. So it is absolutely relevant that a candidate picks up delegates in a given district, even if the other candidate also picks up the same number from that district. Because the alternatives -- abandoning the district and allowing the other candidate to get more than half, or going to winner-takes-all -- leave the "losing" candidate in far worse position.

*Well, occasionally the Supreme Court, I guess. :)