what's happening: Iowa's Party has allocated SDEs to satellites (relatively) straightforwardly: proportionally based on raw turnout
DNC is interpreting the rules in a way that'd somewhat (not entirely) flatten that distribution, making it less directly linked to raw turnout.
DNC is interpreting the rules in a way that'd somewhat (not entirely) flatten that distribution, making it less directly linked to raw turnout.
And, in my view, the mere existence of this question is the final nail in the coffin of thinking the SDEs are the best metri here.
to be clear: These *rules* are rules of the IDP (not DNC rules). If you want to look yourself, relevant bits are pages 8 & 68 of rulebook; & ID's own FAQ explanation. Links if you follow thread on top. My quick reading is those are not fully consistent but I'm also exasperated.
more: IDP reported satellites from IA2/3/4 in quick succession; there was no indication of what they'd do before. If there was confusion over rules, it's logical it's only after that it'd have emerged.
BUT that's not real issue. Issue is that SDE count is bound to be a mess.
BUT that's not real issue. Issue is that SDE count is bound to be a mess.
Here's my tweet about @spinons's thread on the issue last night. You can find links to the material I'm alluding to in response to me; and to him.
Here's @Nate_Cohn on this same issue:
Here's @Nate_Cohn on this same issue:
@spinons @Nate_Cohn update: rule dispute was reportedly raised by a campaign (Buttigieg's) this morning, before Perez's.
Again, please read whole thread, it's logical for dispute to have only emerged when it did. Bigger issue is IDP has designed incomprehensibe SDE system.
Again, please read whole thread, it's logical for dispute to have only emerged when it did. Bigger issue is IDP has designed incomprehensibe SDE system.
