Political Delegate percentages

[iSuckReallyBadAtMath]

Just let me preface this by saying that I'm not a student or anything, I'm just really bad at math. I also don't really remember much of it from back when I was in school (and I was bad at it then too lol)...

I don't know if any of you reading this are following the US Democratic Primary (it's mostly irrelevant for the question), but it's Bernie Sanders running against Hillary Clinton. Only counting the pledged delegates earned from the states that have voted so far Bernie Sanders should have 349 and Hillary Clinton should have 544. NYT reports a different figure but that may be including US Territories or something, but it's not important as it pertains. Out of the states so far there should be a total of 1015 delegates that were up for grabs. 349+544 is only 893 so I assume the remainder went to third party candidates. That doesn't really matter.

What I'm trying to figure out is how far Bernie Sanders is behind Hillary Clinton. I've been using this because let's face it... you don't have to be able to do math to be able to use a tool like that. Or so I thought...

The way I figured it was that 349 is 64% of 544 (which doesn't seem to matter, I don't think?), but 349 is 34% of 1015 and 544 is 54% of 1015... so 54-34 should be 20% behind. It seems to "relatively" check out since 349 + (20% of 1015) = 552.

I've had someone else tell me that I'm doing it completely wrong though (which I don't doubt to be perfectly honest) but they said that I should take 544-349=195 and then do 195/544 = ~36% (0.35845588235294117647058823529412). But 349 + (36% of 1015) = 714.4 which seems wrong. I guess 195 + (36% of 1015) = 560.4 which makes somewhat more sense... but I really don't understand this entire method at all.

 

[stapel]

This has nothing to do with math. This has to do with the internal rules for the "superdelegates" (here) who are appointed by functionaries of the national Democratic Party convention. Since (I'm given to understand) nearly all of these superdelegates are already appointed to the Clinton camp (so primary voting doesn't matter for them), that candidate has an almost insurmountable lead.

I suspect the other major party is kinda wishing now that they'd set up something similar... :razz:

 

[iSuckReallyBadAtMath]

This has nothing to do with math. This has to do with the internal rules for the "superdelegates" (here) who are appointed by functionaries of the national Democratic Party convention. Since (I'm given to understand) nearly all of these superdelegates are already appointed to the Clinton camp (so primary voting doesn't matter for them), that candidate has an almost insurmountable lead.

I suspect the other major party is kinda wishing now that they'd set up something similar... :razz:

Well, the media has certainly been trying their hardest to make it seem that way. But what they've been reporting is in fact quite disingenuous. For all intents and purposes, you can forget that superdelegates even exist. They should not be reported alongside pledged delegates. The number and composition of superdelegates have the potential to change right up to the start of the Democratic National Convention. All superdelegates are officially uncommitted until the convention, regardless of saying they support or are committing to a candidate.You should also keep in mind that only 15 out of 50 states have even voted - "an almost insurmountable lead" is about the furthest from the truth that the situation could possibly be presented as. Let's just say that the media establishment happens to prefer one of the candidates over the other. Their reporting isn't exactly what you'd call unbiased.

But I don't want to start some kind of political debate. I'm only concerned with the unpledged delegates and the math that I've indicated.

 

[ksdhart]

For what it's worth, I don't understand what the secondary method (allegedly the correct one according to this other person) is supposed to be doing either. If you really want to know, the best way seems to be just to ask them what their rationale was behind their method. Hopefully, they can justify it moreso than just giving a cop-out excuse of "Well, that's just how the math works." or something similar.

As for how much of lead one candidate has over another, you need only compare their votes. You say that Clinton has 544 votes, and Sanders 349, out of a total 1015 possible. So, then Clinton is ahead by (544-349)/1015 = 195/1015 = 39/203 ~= 19.2%

 

[Ishuda]

...
The way I figured it was that 349 is 64% of 544 (which doesn't seem to matter, I don't think?), but 349 is 34% of 1015 and 544 is 54% of 1015... so 54-34 should be 20% behind. It seems to "relatively" check out since 349 + (20% of 1015) = 552.
...

You are being eaten by round off.
As stated:
Pledged: Total 1015
Clinton 544 53.6%
Sanders 349 34.4%
Difference 195 19.2%
Clinton = 349 + 0.192*1015 = 544 [rounded]



Taking into account only Clinton & Sanders
As stated:
Pledged: Total 893
Clinton 544 60.9%
Sanders 349 39.1%
Difference 195 21.8%
Clinton = 349 + 0.218*893 = 544 [rounded]


What I've seen as of March 4, 2016
Super (leaning): Clinton 457; Sanders 22
Pledged: Total 1010
Clinton 601 59.5%
Sanders 409 40.5%
Difference 192 19.0%
Clinton = 409 + 0.190*1010 = 601 [rounded]