The Real New Math

When I was a child, I recall a debate among the adults over what was called "the new math" that was being taught in the schools.

Being a child, I didn't understand most of what the adults were saying. And, to me, the "new" math didn't appear to be any different from the "old" math. I still had to learn to add, subtract, multiply and divide numbers -- just as my parents did a generation before.

So my assumption -- which, in hindsight, appears to have been correct -- was that what was different was not what we were being taught but how we were being taught.

I must say, though, that the adults who were in charge of things when I was 6 or 7 years old didn't always seem to make the most logical decisions.

For example, when we were put through the emergency drills in school, we were instructed to crouch beneath our wooden desks in the event of a nuclear attack. It was essentially the same posture we were told to take in the event of a tornado -- which was a far more frequent threat in central Arkansas than a Russian nuclear attack.

But hiding under a big (and unsecured) hunk of wood to avoid either a violent storm or a thermonuclear fireball didn't seem like a good idea to me.

There's a different kind of "new math" out there these days.

Call it "delegate math." It doesn't start with delegates, it ends with them.

This math originates with Hillary Clinton -- and it doesn't really seem to be any more logical than the old "duck and cover" posture my teachers told me to take if a tornado or a nuclear missile was spotted heading towards my elementary school.

Just after her win in Pennsylvania, Clinton proclaimed that she was leading in the total popular vote. This, apparently, qualifies her for a nomination that she isn't getting by way of the delegates.

If this isn't "new math," then it's "new rules for math."

Journalists who double-checked the calculations found that the numbers included votes Clinton received in the Florida and Michigan primaries. Those primaries were held before Democratic Party rules permitted them to be held, and the party stripped the states of their delegations to the convention.

So, in terms of delegates, the states meant nothing. But Clinton's name was placed on the ballot in both states, and Obama's name was placed on the ballot of only one of those states. So Clinton received votes in both states and was credited with "winning" both primaries. Obama received votes in only one of those states.

Clinton piled up a big margin in popular votes in those two primaries -- as one would expect. And, when those votes are included in the national total, it puts Clinton in first place. Without those votes, she is running second.

Lame duck North Carolina Gov. Mike Easley, who has endorsed Clinton, seems to be buying into the new Hillary math. Easley says that, if Clinton can win North Carolina, she will win the nomination -- and the general election.

I wonder if that means the Clinton campaign won't continue to focus on the bogus lead it claims to have in the popular vote if Clinton wins the North Carolina primary. Clinton would need to win North Carolina (and Indiana) by really substantial margins two days from now for her to have a legitimate lead in the popular vote without including her vote totals in Michigan and Florida.

Of course, that wouldn't stop people from wanting to know which candidate leads in the popular vote, even though it's almost impossible to get an accurate figure.

"News audiences -- and superdelegates -- want to know the popular vote, a simple number that in almost any other election cuts through the intermediation and lets you know who’s winning," writes Clint Hendler in the Columbia Journalism Review. "The Democratic Party’s nominating process is a kaleidoscope of caucuses, conventions and primaries, sometimes all in the same state. And there’s no obvious best way to estimate a popular vote from it all."

The popular vote is skewed in a number of ways in the presidential primary season. Primaries tend to draw more participants than caucuses because the process of participating in caucuses is more tedious and time-consuming than going to a neighborhood polling place and spending a few minutes in the voting booth.

For that reason, caucus-goers tend to be more committed to their candidates than primary voters are. How do you measure the intensity of one's commitment and assign it a relative value in an election equation?

The best way to predict the outcome in a state in the general election is to study how that state has voted in previous presidential elections. If a state has voted for the same party for the last 40 years -- as some states have -- that state is likely to vote for that party again this year.

A few states have earned the status of "bellwether" -- which means such a state always or almost always votes for the party that wins the election. Such states are Missouri, Nevada, Tennessee, Ohio, Kentucky, Delaware, New Mexico. Those are the states to keep an eye on when the ballots are being counted in the general election.

And then there are the states that hold the so-called "open" primaries. In these states, you may identify more with one party but you may choose, for any of several reasons, to vote in the other party's primary.

In my adult life, I have lived in three different states. In one of those states, I had to declare my party affiliation when I registered to vote (it was possible for me to register as an independent, but, since there were never independent primaries, registering as an independent would have meant that I would not be voting in primaries).

In the other two states, all I had to do was register to vote. I declared my party preference when I went in to vote in a primary. It didn't have to be the same party every time. I could alternate between parties in the primaries in each election cycle, if I wished.

The only real restriction was that I could not vote in one party's primary and then vote in the other party's runoff. If I voted with the Democrats in the original primary, and the Republicans had a more interesting (or perhaps the only) runoff, I was out of luck.

With the nomination not yet settled, it's the open primaries in the remaining states that could cause some havoc in the Democratic race this year. I've heard rumors of Republicans who might participate in the Democratic primaries in some of the remaining states. Anti-Clinton forces may vote for Clinton, believing that she would be the easiest foe for McCain to defeat. And some anti-Obama forces are rumored to be considering voting for Obama in the belief that he would be easier for McCain to defeat.

Popular vote totals in the presidential primaries really won't tell you anything. At this point, it's all about the delegates. And, however they were selected, by the party's true believers or Republican "cross-overs" or the super-delegate party bigshots, the delegates are the ones who will be going to Denver in August and will cast the votes that will nominate the presidential candidate.

In the delegate math, the advantage remains with Obama. And it's an advantage that will be hard for Clinton to overcome.

"Colby College political scientist and delegate selection expert Anthony Corrado estimates that Clinton would need to win about 69% of the remaining delegates, a virtual impossibility given proportional representation of the nominating contests," says Charlie Cook in the National Journal.

That's the math that matters.