Republican Primaries 2008: What if the Delegates Were All Assigned Proportionally?
As Americans, we love to tout our democracy as a bastion of letting the people
decide. But is it really the people who decide? Or do arcane rules and backroom decisions really determine our choices and,
ultimately, our presidents?
Certainly our initial ("viable") choices of who to vote for in any given cycle are pretty limited. But do the rules that
govern how we narrow those choices themselves skew the process?
This is what I was hoping to investigate when undertaking the process of calculating what would have happened in this year's
Republican race had all the delegates been assigned proportionally from each primary or caucus. I actually initially assumed
someone had already crunched these numbers, but an exhaustive Google search proved fruitless. If you want political
hypotheses explored, you have to do it yourself...
Actually, you won't have to do it yourself, because it's below. I didn't include the percentages, but they are based on the
wonderfully extensive page at
Wikipedia. Thanks to everyone who's helped compile that, because it made this project much easier. I should also note that
this is not as perfectly scientific as it could be, because I had to round numbers here and there, but it should be within a
delegate or two of perfect proportionality for all candidates.
Away we go...
| IOWA | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MHuckabee | 17 | 13 | -4 |
| MRomney | 12 | 9 | -3 |
| FThompson | 3 | 5 | 2 |
| JMcCain | 3 | 5 | 2 |
| RPaul | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| RGiuliani | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Running Total | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MHuckabee | 17 | 13 | -4 |
| MRomney | 12 | 9 | -3 |
| FThompson | 3 | 5 | 2 |
| JMcCain | 3 | 5 | 2 |
| RPaul | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| RGiuliani | 0 | 1 | 1 |
So far, no major changes in the order. Huckabee was a big surprise in Iowa, and
the story probably isn't really about the delegate count at this stage in the game anyway.
| WYOMING | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MRomney | 8 | 8 | 0 |
| FThompson | 3 | 3 | 0 |
| DHunter | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| Running Total | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MRomney | 20 | 17 | -3 |
| MHuckabee | 17 | 13 | -4 |
| FThompson | 6 | 8 | 2 |
| JMcCain | 3 | 5 | 2 |
| RPaul | 2 | 4 | 2 |
| RGiuliani | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| DHunter | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Was anyone even paying attention in Wyoming? And look, Wyoming was perfectly
proportional already! No changes.
| NH | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| JMcCain | 7 | 5 | -2 |
| MRomney | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| MHuckabee | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| RGiuliani | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| RPaul | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Running Total | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MRomney | 24 | 21 | -3 |
| MHuckabee | 18 | 14 | -4 |
| JMcCain | 10 | 10 | 0 |
| FThompson | 6 | 8 | 2 |
| RPaul | 2 | 5 | 3 |
| RGiuliani | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| DHunter | 1 | 1 | 0 |
Again, a partial proportionality is already in play. So far in our standings,
front-runners Romney & Huckabee are losing a little ground to the bottom-feeders. Maybe Fred Thompson looks slightly more
viable, but the big story is still that McCain won New Hampshire.
| MICHIGAN | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MRomney | 24 | 12 | -12 |
| JMcCain | 5 | 9 | 4 |
| MHuckabee | 1 | 5 | 4 |
| RPaul | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| FThompson | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| RGiuliani | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Running Total | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MRomney | 48 | 33 | -15 |
| JMcCain | 15 | 19 | 4 |
| MHuckabee | 19 | 19 | 0 |
| FThompson | 6 | 9 | 3 |
| RPaul | 2 | 7 | 5 |
| RGiuliani | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| DHunter | 1 | 1 | 0 |
The big story is still favorite son Romney taking his home state, but it looks a
lot less resounding from proportional assignment. McCain catches Huckabee for the first time if he gets a proportional share
of Michigan delegates.
| NEVADA | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MRomney | 18 | 16 | -2 |
| RPaul | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| JMcCain | 4 | 4 | 0 |
| MHuckabee | 2 | 3 | 1 |
| FThompson | 2 | 2 | 0 |
| RGiuliani | 1 | 1 | 0 |
| DHunter | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| SC | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| JMcCain | 19 | 8 | -11 |
| MHuckabee | 5 | 7 | 2 |
| FThompson | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| MRomney | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| RPaul | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Running Total | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MRomney | 66 | 53 | -13 |
| JMcCain | 38 | 31 | -7 |
| MHuckabee | 26 | 29 | 3 |
| FThompson | 8 | 15 | 7 |
| RPaul | 6 | 12 | 6 |
| RGiuliani | 1 | 4 | 3 |
| DHunter | 1 | 2 | 1 |
The first two-vote day on the Republican calendar was, in real life, seen as a
resounding death-knell to the Huckabee campaign. Not only was the historic weight of South Carolina crowning McCain, but
Huckabee couldn't hold a Southern state. But does this story look the same with a razor thin 8-7 delegate win for McCain as
opposed to the 19-5 win he actually received? And does Fred Thompson immediately drop out of the race with this steady
pick-up of delegates? Already our story is starting to diverge, but let's assume that Fred still drops out since he didn't
get his top two finish in South Carolina. So we can keep using actual '08 vote totals...
| FLORIDA | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| JMcCain | 57 | 21 | -36 |
| MRomney | 0 | 18 | 18 |
| RGiuliani | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| MHuckabee | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| RPaul | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| Running Total | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MRomney | 66 | 71 | 5 |
| JMcCain | 95 | 52 | -43 |
| MHuckabee | 26 | 37 | 11 |
| FThompson | 8 | 15 | 7 |
| RPaul | 6 | 14 | 8 |
| RGiuliani | 1 | 12 | 11 |
| DHunter | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Florida being winner-take-all may be the turning point in the whole primary
season. Look at those differentials! Yes, McCain still picks up momentum and a win, but this is looking a lot more like the
see-saw battle the Democrats are having. Florida was billed as a huge turning point heading into Super Tuesday, and right
now the delegate count actually swings from a 29-delegate McCain lead to a 19-delegate Romney lead! Giuliani probably
still gets out, although with this kind of a mix, it's not as clear. And who does he endorse? If he exits, he probably sits
on the fence and courts endorsements. Or maybe he hangs around for Super Tuesday anyway. But let's assume he still gets out
and endorses McCain, just like he did...
| MAINE | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MRomney | 18 | 10 | -8 |
| JMcCain | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| RPaul | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| MHuckabee | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Running Total | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MRomney | 84 | 81 | -3 |
| JMcCain | 95 | 56 | -39 |
| MHuckabee | 26 | 38 | 12 |
| RPaul | 6 | 17 | 11 |
| FThompson | 8 | 15 | 7 |
| RGiuliani | 1 | 12 | 11 |
| DHunter | 1 | 2 | 1 |
Maine is an afterthought in Romney's New England territory. And proportionality
actually diminishes his win here. But keep in mind that, going into Super Tuesday, the top of the delegate boards is Romney
by 25 instead of McCain by 11. There's no telling how much that fact alone could've altered the race, especially with Romney
here breaking McCain's winning streak. But again, we have to assume that exactly the voting that did happen happened. So,
Super Tuesday...?
| ALABAMA | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MHuckabee | 20 | 15 | -5 |
| JMcCain | 16 | 13 | -3 |
| MRomney | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| RPaul | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| ALASKA | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MRomney | 12 | 12 | 0 |
| MHuckabee | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| RPaul | 5 | 4 | -1 |
| JMcCain | 3 | 4 | 1 |
| ARIZONA | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| JMcCain | 50 | 25 | -25 |
| MRomney | 0 | 17 | 17 |
| MHuckabee | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| RPaul | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| RGiuliani | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| ARKANSAS | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MHuckabee | 29 | 19 | -10 |
| JMcCain | 1 | 6 | 5 |
| MRomney | 1 | 4 | 3 |
| RPaul | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| CALIFORNIA | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| JMcCain | 158 | 76 | -82 |
| MRomney | 12 | 58 | 46 |
| MHuckabee | 0 | 20 | 20 |
| RGiuliani | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| RPaul | 0 | 7 | 7 |
| COLORADO | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MRomney | 22 | 13 | -9 |
| JMcCain | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| MHuckabee | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| RPaul | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| CONN | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| JMcCain | 27 | 15 | -12 |
| MRomney | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| MHuckabee | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| RPaul | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| DELAWARE | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| JMcCain | 18 | 8 | -10 |
| MRomney | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| MHuckabee | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| RPaul | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| GEORGIA | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MHuckabee | 54 | 25 | -29 |
| JMcCain | 9 | 23 | 14 |
| MRomney | 9 | 22 | 13 |
| RPaul | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| ILLINOIS | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| JMcCain | 54 | 28 | -26 |
| MRomney | 3 | 16 | 13 |
| MHuckabee | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| RPaul | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| RGiuliani | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| MASS | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MRomney | 22 | 21 | -1 |
| JMcCain | 18 | 16 | -2 |
| MHuckabee | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| RPaul | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| MINNESOTA | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MRomney | 38 | 15 | -23 |
| JMcCain | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| MHuckabee | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| RPaul | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| MISSOURI | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| JMcCain | 58 | 20 | -38 |
| MHuckabee | 0 | 18 | 18 |
| MRomney | 0 | 17 | 17 |
| RPaul | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| MONTANA | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MRomney | 25 | 10 | -15 |
| RPaul | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| JMcCain | 0 | 5 | 5 |
| MHuckabee | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| NJ | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| JMcCain | 52 | 29 | -23 |
| MRomney | 0 | 15 | 15 |
| MHuckabee | 0 | 4 | 4 |
| RPaul | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| RGiuliani | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| NY | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| JMcCain | 87 | 45 | -42 |
| MRomney | 0 | 24 | 24 |
| MHuckabee | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| RPaul | 0 | 6 | 6 |
| RGiuliani | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| ND | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MRomney | 9 | 9 | 0 |
| JMcCain | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| RPaul | 6 | 6 | 0 |
| MHuckabee | 5 | 5 | 0 |
| OKLAHOMA | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| JMcCain | 32 | 15 | -17 |
| MHuckabee | 6 | 13 | 7 |
| MRomney | 0 | 9 | 9 |
| RPaul | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| TENNESSEE | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MHuckabee | 25 | 19 | -6 |
| JMcCain | 19 | 17 | -2 |
| MRomney | 8 | 12 | 4 |
| RPaul | 0 | 3 | 3 |
| FThompson | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| UTAH | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MRomney | 36 | 33 | -3 |
| JMcCain | 0 | 2 | 2 |
| RPaul | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| WV | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| MHuckabee | 18 | 10 | -8 |
| MRomney | 0 | 8 | 8 |
| SUPER TUE | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| JMcCain | 608 | 366 | -242 |
| MRomney | 197 | 337 | 140 |
| MHuckabee | 163 | 199 | 36 |
| RPaul | 11 | 61 | 50 |
| RGiuliani | 0 | 15 | 15 |
| FThompson | 0 | 1 | 1 |
| Running Total | Actual | Proportional | Difference |
| JMcCain | 703 | 422 | -281 |
| MRomney | 281 | 418 | 137 |
| MHuckabee | 189 | 237 | 48 |
| RPaul | 17 | 78 | 61 |
| RGiuliani | 1 | 27 | 26 |
| FThompson | 8 | 16 | 8 |
| DHunter | 1 | 2 | 1 |
And there you have it. An absolutely mind-blowing 418-delegate swing in the gap
between Romney and McCain, based purely and solely on calculating delegates proportionally from the exact same vote
tallies. Leaving an incalculably close 4-delegate margin in the wake of the deluge of Super Tuesday, making things
impossibly too close to call. Suddenly, the Republican race exactly mirrors the Obama-Clinton struggle on the other side. And
we all know how much Huckabee likes to stick around, and he has 25% more reason to do so. Even the Ron Paul Revolution is
making enough noise in the delegate count that it could matter by the time the Convention rolls around.
The entire reason that John McCain has been the presumptive nominee for weeks instead of being in a heated struggle for his
political life with Mitt Romney is the basic rule of how to count the exact same votes.
Though we have additional primary and caucus results since, it's obvious that Romney would stay in the race and things would
look very different indeed. So using votes without his ballot presence do little to fulfill this simulation after Super
Tuesday.
Much of the talk this year has been about the role of superdelegates on the Democratic side and whether the party elders will
interfere with democracy. But democracy itself depends on who is making the rules and how one is defining how a vote gets
counted. Obviously our current system is a mix of all sorts of arcane rules and traditions, including the much-maligned
electoral college (which functions much like a winner-take-all primary).
Something to consider next time you're feeling certain that only in America can the voice of the voter truly prevail...