The incoherence of the state delegate numbers

Apparently a previous article calling into question the third-world nature of the GOP nomination process has touched a nerve.

The simple fact is that the path is absurd, and this can be picked apart in a series of analyses.

As a start, we can begin with how the GOP assigns the number of delegates per state, which looks to be entirely incoherent.

The following graph shows the ratio of the number of delegates each state (+DC) actually received as a percentage of all awarded delegates compared to the number of delegates each state would receive as a percentage of all delegates based on total population in 2015.

In short, we have massively over-represented states such as Wyoming, Alaska, the Dakotas, Montana, and Vermont, and on the list goes down to Connecticut, offset by under-represented states starting with California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Texas, and on this list goes back up to Georgia – which appears to be the only appropriately represented state in the Union.

How to explain this nonsense?  Who knows, and who cares?

There are only two rational ways to apportion state delegates: (1) equally (i.e., 10 per state regardless of respective populations) or (2) based on total population.  The current process has some bizarre hybrid between the two that – to the best of my knowledge – cannot be explained using rational means.

As a first step towards a 21st-century presidential nomination procedure, the GOP can start by assigning state delegates using either method (1) or (2).

Apparently a previous article calling into question the third-world nature of the GOP nomination process has touched a nerve.

The simple fact is that the path is absurd, and this can be picked apart in a series of analyses.

As a start, we can begin with how the GOP assigns the number of delegates per state, which looks to be entirely incoherent.

The following graph shows the ratio of the number of delegates each state (+DC) actually received as a percentage of all awarded delegates compared to the number of delegates each state would receive as a percentage of all delegates based on total population in 2015.

In short, we have massively over-represented states such as Wyoming, Alaska, the Dakotas, Montana, and Vermont, and on the list goes down to Connecticut, offset by under-represented states starting with California, New York, Florida, Illinois, Pennsylvania, and Texas, and on this list goes back up to Georgia – which appears to be the only appropriately represented state in the Union.

How to explain this nonsense?  Who knows, and who cares?

There are only two rational ways to apportion state delegates: (1) equally (i.e., 10 per state regardless of respective populations) or (2) based on total population.  The current process has some bizarre hybrid between the two that – to the best of my knowledge – cannot be explained using rational means.

As a first step towards a 21st-century presidential nomination procedure, the GOP can start by assigning state delegates using either method (1) or (2).