Reply #28: Actually it is quite simple [View All]

look at the plaintiffs TRO with the concrete example that they came up with.. which they claim shows a 10 to 1 influence advantage by the Casino caucus goers, not 5 to 1 as the Clinton's (direct quote from Bill) stated.

I posted the plaintiffs TRO motion in another reply in this thread... or you can google it for yourself.

But they are comparing apples to oranges. Registered voters in a Precinct to voters that SHOW UP at the At-Large.

And they picked (in their example) a very low turn out (only 260 out of 2500 registered) for the At-Large and then their example precinct had 261 REGISTERED voters (only they never say how many turn up). Note the use of 260 showing up and 261 registered.

That wasn't just lucky... they choose those numbers in their flawed apples to oranges example JUST SO they could show the vaunted 10 to 1 advantage. Like this...

261 / 50 = 5 delegates for the home precinct.
2500 / 50 = 50 delegates for the at large.

But voter influence is calculated like this.

number of delegates divided by number of registered voters in home precinct = 5 / 261 or 0.019

number of delegates divided by number that showed up to vote for the At-Large = 50 / 260 or 0.19

0.19 is ten times bigger than 0.019! See what happens when you pick the numbers carefully and compare apples to oranges!

How clever. Well, not really. It's very simple to understand once you know they are comparing apples (registered voters) to oranges (voters that showed up to vote).