A Primer on the All-Important Role of Delegates

Fight disinformation: Sign up for the free Mother Jones Daily newsletter and follow the news that matters.


obama-clinton-happy250.jpg In the early states such as Iowa and New Hampshire, the presidential candidates pushed hard for victories that would yield few delegates but garner them momentum and media buzz, and separate them from the rest of the pack. But now that Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton have reached February 5’s almost-nationwide primary, they’ve adopted a new strategy: pushing for “close enough.”

It’s a product of the all-powerful but little-understood role of delegates in deciding primary elections. In this historic and unique election, the technical details of how delegates are awarded may have more to do with choosing a Democratic nominee than all the media buys, GOTV operations, and newspaper endorsements put together.

Under Democratic Party rules, states divide their delegates proportionally according to vote totals at the state and district level. The rules for awarding delegates are very complex and vary from state to state (which will make figuring out the true results of Super Duper Tuesday a challenging task for the media). But in most places, the system works like this: say four delegates are up for grabs in a congressional district; if one candidate wins 30,000 votes in that district and the other wins 20,000, both will take home two delegates.

In the example, one candidate won 60 percent to 40 percent—a very substantial victory. But in order to give three delegates to the winner and a single delegate to the loser, the final vote would have had to be closer to 75/25. The less unfair but still imperfect way to divide the district’s four delegates is to give two to the winner and two to the loser.

This creates a focus on districts that have an odd number of delegates. Districts which, through the quirks of state party rules, have five delegates will give three to the winner and two to the loser in even a 51/49 split of the popular vote.

This also creates a powerful incentive for the candidates to do what they can to come close even in states and districts they expect to lose. Consequently, Obama is running ads in New York and campaigning in the tri-state area, Hillary Clinton’s backyard, and Bill Clinton is campaigning in Illinois, where Obama should win big. As a general rule of thumb, the second-place candidate only has to draw a meager 30-40 percent of the vote in a state to be guaranteed roughly half the state’s delegates.

This means that if there is no blowout on February 5, and no one is currently expecting one, all of these state contests could produce a close delegate count that propels the race into late February and March—if not beyond. In fact, it is possible that Hillary Clinton could win the popular vote by small margins across the country (and have what looks like a sweep on Wolf Blitzer’s giant electronic map) and yet be tied in or behind in the delegate count.

“The reality is we really are in a delegate-by-delegate battle,” Guy Cecil, Clinton’s national political and field director, has said. “At the end of the day, this is a delegate contest,” says David Plouffe, Obama’s campaign manager.

For Obama, who is trailing in the polls in most February 5 states, this means he does not have to come out the winner. He need only survive. After February 5, the primary schedule returns to normal—that is, it stretches out—and candidates will have the opportunity to focus on individual states and work voters thoroughly before they go to the polls.

This is a format that benefits Obama. The early states all showed the same pattern: Obama trailed Clinton in the polls for months, presumably due to “low-information voters” identifying their preference to pollsters based primarily on name recognition and loyalty to the Clinton brand. But when Obama had weeks to campaign in a state (sometimes just days), he closed the gap rather quickly, either winning the state or finishing a close second. Moreover, Obama has been tallying endorsements and building on-the-ground machines recently that match or surpass Clinton’s impressive operation.

After February 5, Obama will have four days to campaign in Louisiana and Nebraska. (Delegate-poor Maine, voting a day later, will likely receive only token interest.) Then he’ll have three days to devote to the Potomac Primary of Maryland, Virginia, and the District of Columbia. Next, he’ll have five days to campaign in Washington and Wisconsin (Hawaii, voting the same day, is where Obama grew up and likely won’t require much of his face time). After that, if Obama still has a fighting chance at the nomination, he has two weeks before the bonanza primaries on March 4 in Ohio and Texas (Rhode Island and Vermont also vote that day). For the rest of March, only Wyoming and Mississippi hold primaries, meaning the April 22 Pennsylvania primary could be decisive.

The schedule might well help Obama, but it probably helps the Republican nominee more than anyone. That’s because the Republican Party has winner-take-all rules in many large February 5 states. So if John McCain beats Mitt Romney by 1 percent in New York state (though he is expected to win by much more than that there), he gets all of New York’s 101 delegates. In all likelihood, the Republican race will be decided by February 6 or shortly thereafter. The Republican nominee will then have weeks, if not months, to hone his message, raise money, and rest up before the Democratic nominee emerges.

These rules put Romney at a severe disadvantage, primarily because Mike Huckabee is expected to contend strongly in the South. If Romney takes a close second to McCain in New York and New Jersey and takes a close second to Huckabee in Missouri and West Virginia, he will get zero delegates. Under the Democratic rules, he’d still be very much in the game.

In the Democratic race, there is a possibility that the delegate count will be so close going into the convention that super delegates will matter. Super delegates are Democratic governors, members of Congress, and other party luminaries who each have single vote. There are 796 of these super delegates, and they compose about 20 percent of the total delegates. Exact counts vary, but Hillary Clinton has the support of roughly 200 super delegates, and Barack Obama has the support of about 100. Super delegates are not technically bound to vote for anyone, and can switch their support at any time, including at the convention.

If the Democrats reach that point, they’ll be entering uncharted territory. John Edwards will be under intense pressure to instruct his small handful of delegates to support a candidate, and the delegates will be under intense pressure from the campaign that doesn’t get Edwards’ endorsement to disregard the former Senator’s instructions (which they are allowed to do). Clinton will likely make a major push for seating the delegates she won in Michigan, where her only competition was “uncommitted,” and in Florida, where campaigning was banned.

And delegates pledged for Obama and Clinton will come under pressure to defect. When an individual seeks to become a delegate, he or she is usually a very active member of a candidate’s campaign at the state or local level. The candidates essentially hand-pick their delegates. But once the delegates get to the convention, they are only required, under Democratic Party rules, to “in good conscience reflect the sentiments of those who elected them.” That means they can cast a ballot for any candidate they choose. In this year’s Democratic convention, they may actually have more than one option.

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

WE'LL BE BLUNT

It is astonishingly hard keeping a newsroom afloat these days, and we need to raise $253,000 in online donations quickly, by October 7.

The short of it: Last year, we had to cut $1 million from our budget so we could have any chance of breaking even by the time our fiscal year ended in June. And despite a huge rally from so many of you leading up to the deadline, we still came up a bit short on the whole. We canā€™t let that happen again. We have no wiggle room to begin with, and now we have a hole to dig out of.

Readers also told us to just give it to you straight when we need to ask for your support, and seeing how matter-of-factly explaining our inner workings, our challenges and finances, can bring more of you in has been a real silver lining. So our online membership lead, Brian, lays it all out for you in his personal, insider account (that literally puts his skin in the game!) of how urgent things are right now.

The upshot: Being able to rally $253,000 in donations over these next few weeks is vitally important simply because it is the number that keeps us right on track, helping make sure we don't end up with a bigger gap than can be filled again, helping us avoid any significant (and knowable) cash-flow crunches for now. We used to be more nonchalant about coming up short this time of year, thinking we can make it by the time June rolls around. Not anymore.

Because the in-depth journalism on underreported beats and unique perspectives on the daily news you turn to Mother Jones for is only possible because readers fund us. Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism we exist to do. The only investors who wonā€™t let independent, investigative journalism down are the people who actually care about its futureā€”you.

And we need readers to show up for us big timeā€”again.

Getting just 10 percent of the people who care enough about our work to be reading this blurb to part with a few bucks would be utterly transformative for us, and that's very much what we need to keep charging hard in this financially uncertain, high-stakes year.

If you can right now, please support the journalism you get from Mother Jones with a donation at whatever amount works for you. And please do it now, before you move on to whatever you're about to do next and think maybe you'll get to it later, because every gift matters and we really need to see a strong response if we're going to raise the $253,000 we need in less than three weeks.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate