Republican Primary Structure Distorted McCain's Popularity

[JEROME DA GNOME]

When I heard Romney had dropped out, I was stunned, but I came up with a theory to explain it. It was one of those theories that flashed into your head for about 12 seconds until you realize how ridiculous it is.

Now I'm seeing the results of today's contests, and it doesn't look so ridiculous. It has morphed all the way to far fetched.

Here's the theory:

On Super Tuesday, McCain racked up a huge, presumably undefeatable, delegate margin. However, he didn't win a majority in any state. It was obvious that there were two conservatives and McCain, and the two conservatives were going to keep splitting votes. Between Huckabee and Romney, Huckabee was going to win where there were huge numbers of Baptists who weren't going to vote for a Mormon as long at least as long as there was a Baptist in the race. Romney would win in elsewhere. However, in the three way race, McCain would win a lot of states, including almost all the big ones, because the conservative votes were split.

If Romney could have talked Huckabee out of the race, it was clear Romney would win the nomination, but Huckabee wasn't going to get out. Instead, Romney quits. Why? The crackpot theory that occurred to me was that by quitting, Romney could throw an awful lot of states to Huckabee, because the Limbaugh wing wasn't going to vote for McCain as long as there was an alternative. Maybe there would be enough states that went for the sole remaining conservative that McCain could actually be denied a majority.

Then, in a brokered convention, Romney gets picked.

OK, it's a crackpot idea. I put it out of my mind until today. Then today, after everyone said, "With Romney out, McCain is the nominee," as of this moment McCain has lost two out of three contests, and is "leading" in Washington with 26% of the vote.

You have to ask whether McCain can win a two way contest with Huckabee, and if it's obvious that he can't, would it make sense for him to be the nominee? Of course, maybe what happened is that the McCain voters just got complacent today, while the Huckabee, Romney, and Paul folks still felt like they had something to prove. Perhaps John will rally the troops a little more seriously on Tuesday when he sees that the nomination isn't really in the bag just yet.

It's kind of weird. I've never voted for a Republican for President, but I was thinking about it with McCain. I like him, and I don't like Clinton or Obama very much. If I were sure the Dems would keep at least one house of Congress, McCain would give us divided government, which I think is a great thing.

Well, there's plenty of room for weirdness between now and August. I guess we'll see where this goes.

ETA: And there has to be a better way to pick a President.

Interesting thoughts. Something that moves down the path you have presented is the fact that Romney has not quit, he has only "suspended" his campaign.

 

[suicidesamurai]

On Super Tuesday, McCain racked up a huge, presumably undefeatable, delegate margin. However, he didn't win a majority in any state. It was obvious that there were two conservatives and McCain, and the two conservatives were going to keep splitting votes.

Huckabee isn't a conservative. As governor of Arkansas he raised taxes more than Bill Clinton. Evangelicals vote for him because he is one of them and because they aren't that conservative in the first place. They just hate gay people and evolution which is socially conservative. They don't understand political philosophy anymore than porn stars understand modesty.

 

[Kerberos]

And you call yourself a conservative? One of the bedrock principles of conservatism is that we believe in fairness when it comes to opportunity, but not fairness when it comes to outcomes.

Which would be a valid point of not for the fact that having identical voting systems in the differant states would enchance equality of opportunity.

See how hard it is when you try to ensure a fair outcome?

That's not very hard at all. At least if it's done on a national basis. You could simply have a pool of reserve delegates to make up for fractional delegates.

 

[ZenFountain]

Are you unaware of the Dems and the Super-delegates?

I'm quite aware of what superdelegates are and I've written a few rundowns on them. The chance of superdelegates altering the results remains open but given Dean's candor on preventing a brokered convention I believe he'll do everything he can to prevent it. There's nothing intrinsically democratic about political parties, they are private organizations and nominate any way they choose. What say have I in the Libertarian, Reform or Green party nominations this year? Maybe you should start complaining about them because they're really undemocratic.

Once again it appears as though you've just had a revelation and rather than read about it you're just going to gadfly it.

 

[mrbaracuda]

[...]

Thanks for the post.

 

[SezMe]

I think the latter. It is marginally better to stay in the headlines than to avoid disparaging remarks. In truth though, it doesn't make a ton of difference. There is plenty of time between the primaries and the general election for our ADD voters in the US to forget any rancor as long as the losers come down strongly in favor of the nominee.

I disagree on two counts. First, as the campaign continues, battle lines will get drawn on ever harder bases. The campaigns become more pitched and the need for victory more intense. But one has to lose and when that happens, there will be rancor and, worse, the partisan divide will linger on. Folks on the losing side won't go to McCain, but might be more likely to just sit it out. Bad news.

Second, there is only about two months between the convention and the election. That is not near enough time to rebuild coffers, plan strategy, make and place ads, etc. All the while, McCain will have plenty of time for this.

I think Dean has to firgure out a way to cut the Gordian knot during spring or the Dems will be shooting themselves in the foot once again.

 

[Meadmaker]

Huckabee isn't a conservative.

The words "conservative" and "liberal" have become so warped in American politics that, linguistically, they are almost useless. Call Huckabee and/or Romney whatever you want, they are splitting the votes of Republicans who didn't vote for John McCain.

If yesterday's results are any indication, it seems that most of the party doesn't want McCain to be the nominee. We shall see if that's true in upcoming weeks.

 

[Meadmaker]

That's not very hard at all. At least if it's done on a national basis. You could simply have a pool of reserve delegates to make up for fractional delegates.

I stumbled upon an interesting mathematical theorem a couple of years ago. It basically said that if there are more than two choices, there is no possible way to devise an election method that will guarantee the "best" choice ends up winning. You can tweak the rules all you want, but there is no way to make it so that the "correct" candidate actually gets elected.

Does anyone know the name of the theorem?

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

I'm quite aware of what superdelegates are and I've written a few rundowns on them. The chance of superdelegates altering the results remains open but given Dean's candor on preventing a brokered convention I believe he'll do everything he can to prevent it. There's nothing intrinsically democratic about political parties, they are private organizations and nominate any way they choose. What say have I in the Libertarian, Reform or Green party nominations this year? Maybe you should start complaining about them because they're really undemocratic.

Once again it appears as though you've just had a revelation and rather than read about it you're just going to gadfly it.

If you understand that the national Democratic party is choosing the candidate, why did you make the comment which belies this fact?

 

[Kerberos]

I stumbled upon an interesting mathematical theorem a couple of years ago. It basically said that if there are more than two choices, there is no possible way to devise an election method that will guarantee the "best" choice ends up winning. You can tweak the rules all you want, but there is no way to make it so that the "correct" candidate actually gets elected.

Does anyone know the name of the theorem?

Arrow's impossibility theorem.

Of cause that doesn't entail that there aren't some voting systems that are better or fairer than others.

 

[Meadmaker]

Arrow's impossibility theorem.

Of cause that doesn't entail that there aren't some voting systems that are better or fairer than others.

Thanks. That's it. The paradox is that you can't achieve both better and fairer at the same time. At least, you can't achieve best and fairest.

 

[UserGoogol]

Arrow's impossibility theorem.

Of cause that doesn't entail that there aren't some voting systems that are better or fairer than others.

Note: Arrow's Impossibility Theorem only applies to voting systems which consist of relativing ranking candidates. Range voting, which consists of each person giving candidates a numerical score and the winner being whoever gets the highest average score, satisfies all those criteria (which is not particularly difficult to verify) although there are still some properties that some people find annoying about it. (Although I think those people are wrong.)

 

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Because the system is rigged. It's a contrived system that makes people think they have a say in our 'democratic' process.

Between the electoral college and the 'super delegates' another elitist is on his or her way to the White House.

Translation: The Libertarians are on the road to 0% again, and they don't like it.

 

[Kerberos]

Note: Arrow's Impossibility Theorem only applies to voting systems which consist of relativing ranking candidates. Range voting, which consists of each person giving candidates a numerical score and the winner being whoever gets the highest average score, satisfies all those criteria (which is not particularly difficult to verify) although there are still some properties that some people find annoying about it. (Although I think those people are wrong.)

That's probably because the theorem assumes rational voters. For rational voters range voting colapses into tolerance voting for which Arrow's theorem IIRC does apply.

 

[Kerberos]

Thanks. That's it. The paradox is that you can't achieve both better and fairer at the same time. At least, you can't achieve best and fairest.

I study Political Science so I have a certain headstart when it comes to political theory.

 

[Meadmaker]

Note: Arrow's Impossibility Theorem only applies to voting systems which consist of relativing ranking candidates. Range voting, which consists of each person giving candidates a numerical score and the winner being whoever gets the highest average score, satisfies all those criteria (which is not particularly difficult to verify) although there are still some properties that some people find annoying about it. (Although I think those people are wrong.)

You would have to come up with a precise definition of how to run an election using range voting, but if you did so, I think you would find that the impossibility theorem works there, too.

 

[ZenFountain]

If you understand that the national Democratic party is choosing the candidate, why did you make the comment which belies this fact?

Because I was wearing a green hat.

 

[JEROME DA GNOME]

Because I was wearing a green hat.

That was my assumption.

 

[HereticHulk]

Then why the heck do you even vote if it's rigged? I bet this is another case of Ron Paul losing = system rigged. However if Ron Paul won it would be the sheeple waking up.

If you don't vote, you have no right to complain.

BTW, I'm flattered that you'd include me in your sig.

I do have a crush on the M$M!

 

[Brainster]

On Super Tuesday, McCain racked up a huge, presumably undefeatable, delegate margin. However, he didn't win a majority in any state.

First mistake. McCain got 55% of the vote in New Jersey, 51% in New York, and 52% in Connecticut.

It was obvious that there were two conservatives and McCain, and the two conservatives were going to keep splitting votes. Between Huckabee and Romney, Huckabee was going to win where there were huge numbers of Baptists who weren't going to vote for a Mormon as long at least as long as there was a Baptist in the race. Romney would win in elsewhere. However, in the three way race, McCain would win a lot of states, including almost all the big ones, because the conservative votes were split.

Although a lot of people floated this theory during the primaries, it doesn't work. Florida exit polls showed that among Huckabee supporters, McCain was their second choice, as he was among Romney supporters.

If Romney could have talked Huckabee out of the race, it was clear Romney would win the nomination, but Huckabee wasn't going to get out. Instead, Romney quits. Why? The crackpot theory that occurred to me was that by quitting, Romney could throw an awful lot of states to Huckabee, because the Limbaugh wing wasn't going to vote for McCain as long as there was an alternative. Maybe there would be enough states that went for the sole remaining conservative that McCain could actually be denied a majority.

No. The people who oppose John McCain are not going to find Mike Huckabee an acceptable substitute. Huckabee has shown no real ability to win outside the Bible Belt, and got ridiculously low totals in the North.

Then, in a brokered convention, Romney gets picked.

OK, it's a crackpot idea. I put it out of my mind until today. Then today, after everyone said, "With Romney out, McCain is the nominee," as of this moment McCain has lost two out of three contests, and is "leading" in Washington with 26% of the vote.

McCain will win primaries; caucuses may be a bit tougher. But there's not going to be a brokered convention.