NV Lawsuit Fallacy #2

NV Lawsuit Fallacy #2: The casino votes count ten times as much as mine!

This idea comes from the fact that NV allocates delegates at a rate of 5 for every registered Democrat in a given caucus area but allocates them at a rate of 50 for every *voter* in the at-large caucus sites.
----
Edit: just realized that 5/50 delegates for each registered Dem/voter adds up to a lot of delegates. I'm guessing it's 5/50 delegates for each 1000 registered Dem/voters or something
----

All people seem to be missing here is that the rate of 50 delegates is based on the number of voters that actually turn up. Meanwhile the 5 delegate rate is based upon the population of Democrats in a given area, regardless of how many turn up.

So basically they are assuming about a 10% turnout, so to compensate (since the casino workers could come from any of a number of districts) they give ten times the allocation so that the votes should be roughly even.

The only real criticism is if 10% is a realistic turnout. If 100% of the Democrats across the state turned out then the at-large sites would indeed hold 10 times the value. But historically in NV 10% turnout isn't a terribly unlikely turnout, caucusing is new here and voters aren't accustomed to their vote mattering in the primary.

Regardless, it doesn't seem it matters, as the lawsuit was dismissed today.

----
Edit: ...and conventional wisdom takes another knock. There was low turnout at the at-large caucuses and high-turnout statewide, the one scenario where the difference in vote weighting would matter. The result? *Hillary* ends up with a big boost, winning the at-large caucuses despite predictions, while Obama does well around the state, basically the opposite of expectations. Surprisingly the Clinton campaign is suddenly no longer critical of the caucus setup... interesting.
----