The Bush administration and the media have at least one thing in common. They bandy the words “winner” and “victory” without thinking about the implications. Take for example, the simplistic notion of “winning” the war in Iraq. Many elected officials and a few presidential candidates want nothing short of a “victory” in Iraq. But does that make any sense at all? The military conflict or “war” in Iraq was won three years back – what needs to happen now is to secure the “peace” by finding a political solution to the conflict. I have yet to read a definition of what “victory in Iraq” means and I have yet to see a reporter ask this question of an administrator.
This same notion of “winner” and “victory” is now being bandied about by the media in the political process to select presidential nominees. Consider the “winners” of the Iowa caucus and the New Hampshire primary. The media extolled the winners to such an extent that audiences in other countries thought that the nominations were all locked up by counting the votes of less than one half of one percent of the population! It was a relief to see that there was still one smart person left in the media – Lou Dobbs of CNN News offered the lone sobering minority opinion by noticing that the emperor’s clothes were missing.
The facts are as follows. In both the races, what matters is the number of national delegates that a candidate gets after all the states have voted. This year, with the penalties enforced by the Republican and Democratic National Committees, a Republican candidate needs 1,191 delegates to be nominated and a Democratic candidate needs 2,026 delegates to be nominated. In the Iowa caucus which Obama “won”, the Democrats selected 45 national delegates based on the caucus results. Of these Obama picked up 16, Clinton got 15, and Edwards got 14. An additional 12 delegates are currently unpledged and will be selected later. In the New Hampshire primary which Clinton “won,” she and Obama picked up nine delegates each, and Edwards got four. These numbers hardly merit phrases like “momentum” and “victory.” In the Republican race, Romney currently has 66 delegates (28 more than McCain), and yet McCain is being touted as the front runner and “winner.”
The other implication by these self-ordained infotainment pundits is that if you are not a “winner” in enough states, then you cannot get the Presidential nomination. Again, these pundits are not entirely correct in their analyses.
The process of awarding delegates to candidates is not uniform across states and across the two parties. In many Republican primaries, the winner takes all the delegates. In most Democratic primaries, however, delegates are awarded based on the proportion of votes cast for a candidate. In addition, each state has a few “superdelegates” in both parties who can vote for a candidate of their choice and are not bound by the election results of that state’s primary or caucus.
Hence, if a candidate consistently gets second place with for example, slightly more than a third of the votes, and the first and third place candidates trade places in a few states, it is possible at the end of the process, at least on the Democratic side, for the second place “loser” to muster enough national delegates to “win” the nomination. On the Republican side, with a “winner takes all” method of awarding delegates in many states, it may not be possible to get the nomination without a few first place finishes.
When the whole world watches and reads about elections in the United States, it is important for journalists to give a knowledgeable and accurate coverage of the process. When the “best political minds” fail to do that, they portray a very poor opinion of not only the public but also of themselves. We must follow the lead of Lou Dobbs and demand that the media not insult the public’s intelligence by engaging in such simplistic and inaccurate analyses.
8 comments:
Hurray for you, G.M. Brilliant and timely.
Kudos!
i don't understand the delegates and rest; so this was helpful;
Bestest!
I find the debates quite useless. Nothing of substance is ever debated. In addition to not defining what "victory" means, they all have no economic policy at all. All of them subscribe to giving away tax $ for people to spend on imports and thus it will only stimulate other economies. I also cannot understand this "stimulus" concept of taking money from the deep part of a pond and putting it in the shallow part of the same pond. I would much rather these $ are used to say subsidize changing home and office heating to geothermal, usage of a-Si roofs etc, which will cause not only local industry to thrive, but save outflow of $ by saving on gas. Sorry to be ranting about this but I think our leaders are bereft of ideas.
Amrity: Here is a short response to your excellent "rant": Amen.
P.S. With this kind of a stance, you are hurting your chances of a cushy administrative job in your hometown of D.C!
One of the many classes I taught in high school was one simply called "Semantics". If I were teaching today I would use the following articles to shed light on the perverse US/World government.
1. "Politics and the English Language" by George Orwell
2. "The Language of War" by Aldous Huxley.
3. "How Words Change Our Lives" by S.I. Hayakawa
The fact that so many people do see "spin" for what it is appalls me.
It is not clear to me of what happens to the delegates of candidates that drop out of the race. Any info on this is most welcome.
Right on Rye Catcher - I have posted a new blog on "spin" and the Uncertainty principle!
Amrity: Delegates who are elected in a state do not "belong" to a candidate until the actual voting takes place at the respective convention. But rules are different for the two main parties.
For Republicans, all delegates must pledge a vote for a chosen candidate unless the candidate has dropped out and he or she may then "release" his or her delegates to another. If that candidate does not get enough votes to win the nomination, then the delegates can vote for anyone and it becomes an "open convention."
For Democrats, elected delegates for candidates who drop out after the primary can vote for anyone at the convention. But elected delegates for candidates who drop out before a primary are disqualified from voting at the national convention. So, if a delegate for John Edwards gets elected in a district on Super Tuesday, then that delegate may not vote at the convention. For example, there could be many people who may cast a sort of "protest" write-in vote for Edwards because they really liked his ideas - and so he is entitled to the state delegates as a result of the voting. But these delegates may not vote at the national convention. Superdelegates, however, are free to vote as they please.
The number for the Democratic majority is one off in my article- it should be 2,025 instead of 2,026. There are many who believe that there will be "brokered" conventions this year and more excitement for the public. I wait with bated breath for the Summer Infotainment Soaps.
Time to bring out the good old slide rule for calculations:)
Post a Comment