Proposed rules for an NFL Auction Draft

I propose the NFL change its annual amateur draft into an auction draft.

The benefit would be that teams would not need trading partners to move up or down in the draft; they could do so on their own by governing how many points they choose to spend when it comes time for them to make their selections.

The NFL was the first major sports league in North America to institute an amateur draft. It was created as a mechanism to steer the league toward parity by giving lesser teams first chance at the best amateur players. Converting to an auction draft does not detract from this purpose of the draft. In fact, I could make the case that it strengthens it. When it's a struggling team's turn to pick in the draft, they may have identified their position of highest need to be different from the position played by the best-available yet-undrafted player. The team would be free to try to acquire the best player at their position of need and attempt to use fewer draft points that would be required to gain the rights of the best available player overall.

What follows is a description of how an NFL auction draft might manifest itself.

How Auction Draft Points Would Be Distributed

After the NFL sets the draft order (following a given Super Bowl and the distribution of compensatory picks), teams would be awarded points corresponding to the picks for which they hold the rights. A proposed point distribution list is shown below.

To the extent selections in each round are allocated to teams based on the regular season record of the original owner of the draft pick plus a tie-breaker, the total points associated with those different picks would be averaged with each team receiving an equal share of such points. I've listed each teams total Auction Points here.

Winter & Spring Transaction Period Following the Auction Draft Point Distribution

Once the draft order is set and points are distributed, teams may use these draft picks and draft points when making trades. Teams may trade picks and points as separate assets.

Auction Draft Process

Auction Draft begins with the team with the rights to the first pick in the first round of the draft. The team with the rights to the pick shall be known as the Primary Bidder (PB).  For the purpose of this pick, other teams would be treated as potential Secondary Bidders (SBs). 

Opening Bid Options

The Primary Bidder selects a player whose rights they want to claim through the payment of auction points... selects an Opening Bid... and enters those items on a computer screen on a private network of the NFL and an auditor of its choice. The PB's submission of the name and bid notifies the potential SBs and a league official, who instructs all teams and the media "Bids now open for the first pick in the first round of this year's NFL Auction Draft. Teams have ____ minutes to submit their final bids."  The league official will not yet know the name of the player nor the amount of the Opening Bid.

Bidding Period

The PB may only choose one of two amounts for their Opening Bid... a Regular Amount (RA), equal to 100% of the draft point value of that pick... or a Minimum Amount (MA), equal to 65% of the draft point value of the pick.

Why can't they bid whatever they want? 
1) Having a minimum bid that declines with each pick ensures that the better players are selected earlier than the lesser ones. It steers the teams that pick early in a round (i.e. weaker teams) to pick generally-better players than would be available later in the round (i.e. to stronger teams). It's also in fairness to the televised draft where many of the players projected to go in the early rounds have traveled to the draft site; you don't want to keep Myles Garrett waiting until Day 2.
2) Keeping opening bids to two amounts gives other potential secondary bidders only a vague idea of the actual value the PB places on the player. You might conclude that an MA bid = "I like him" and an RA bid = "I love him"... but no more. As they say in poker games... it allows GMs to keep their cards close to the vest. 

What follows is a sealed-bid auction. Each team in the league will see on their screen the name of the player selected by the PB and the opening bid amount. SBs may "pass" on that player or submit a higher Final Bid. Apart from knowing the Opening Bid and the PB, no other team will know each other's Final Bids while bidding is still open. The PB must also submit a Final Bid greater than or equal to their Opening Bid.

Based on the suggested RA/MA bid values below, First Round bids must be made in increments of 10 points, Second Round bids must be made in increments of 4 points, Picks 65-100 (the regular 3rd round plus the first 4 compensatory picks of the 3rd round) must be made in increments of 2 points. Bids for all other picks must be in increments of 1 point each.

The Winner Is...

After the bidding is closed... the rights to the player are conveyed to the team with the highest bid.  A tie involving the PB goes to the PB. For a tie not involving the PB, the player's rights are awarded to the team with the soonest-due selection.  A league official is notified of the player selected and the winning team and announces to the league, the media and other draft attendees: "With the _nth_ selection in the _xth__ round of the _year_ NFL Auction Draft, _team_ is awarded the rights to _player_, _position_, _school_. _next primary bidder_ is on the clock."

The winning team is locked out of bidding for other players until one of two things happen... a) eight additional players have been selected or b) the winning team itself becomes 8th in line to pick.

The Price

The price paid by the winning bidder depends upon whether they're a SB or the PB.

If a SB wins the bid it's simple: they pay the amount of their final bid.

If a PB wins the bid, it depends upon the type of opening bid they made and what other bids were made.

If the PB is the only bidder for a player, they win with their Opening Bid.

If the PB opens with an MA bid and wins the Final Bid, the PB is charged exactly the amount of the highest Final Bid by a SB. In effect, when making an MA bid, the PB's Final Bid expresses the PB's desire to match any other team's Final Bid up to a certain amount.

If the PB opens with an RA bid, a "6% rule - Part A" applies. A SB cannot not secure the winning bid and win the rights to the player unless their bid is the highest Final Bid AND exceeds the PB's Final Bid by at least 6% of the RA bid amount. If no Final Bid of a SB exceeds the PB's Final Bid by this margin, the PB will be charged the amount of the next-highest Final Bid minus 6% of the RA bid, but not less than their original RA bid.

Why these considerations for the Primary Bidder? 
By giving the team with the pick these advantages, it makes the pick a real asset... one with tangible value to its owner.

Keeping The Primary Bidder Honest

In order to encourage Primary Bidders to open the bidding with an RA bid and to discourage PBs from trying to conserve points while picking one of the best 2-3 players available in order to stockpile points for later in the draft, there would be two rules that apply to the PB.

The first is the "6% rule - Part B": PBs who open the bidding with an MA bid would not be allowed to make a Final Bid in excess of 6% of the RA bid.

The second is the "6% rule - Part C" and applies only in the first two rounds: if a PB opens the bid with an MA bid, wins the bid, and the highest bid among SBs is within 6% of the RA bid amount for the pick, the PB will be charged the RA bid amount for winning the pick.

Is anything magical about 6%?
Given the proposed point scale below, once you get past the first 20 picks or so, 6% is roughly the difference between the RA amount of the current pick and the RA amount of three picks before that. A team willing to pay at least 6% more than the RA amount for a player is effectively asserting "OK, NFL... this guy has 'slipped' at least 3 picks from where his talent says he should have been taken. I would have been willing to pay this price 3 or more picks ago... and it's worth it to me to pay this premium for him."

Replacement Picks

If the PB did not win the auction for the player they put up for auction, they will be awarded a replacement pick.

If the PB lost after submitting a RA bid, that team gets an Immediate Replacement Pick (IRP). It occurs right away under the same terms as the pick for which they were outbid (same RA & MA amounts) and before the next team in line to draft gets to be the PB.

If the PB lost after submitting a MA bid, a Deferred Replacement Pick (DRP) will be scheduled after three more picks have been made. The terms of the DRP will be equivalent to the terms of the pick made just before the DRP. In the event that the pick made prior to a scheduled DRP results in the awarding of an IRP, the IRP is executed before the DRP.

Forfeited Picks

If, at any point in the draft, the team that is due to be the PB does not have enough points left to afford to make both a) an MA bid on their current pick AND b) an RA bid on all the rest of their picks in the draft, they forfeit their current pick. (This often happens when a team wins an auction for a player that came up for bid just a few picks before their own scheduled pick.)

For the purpose of counting picks to determine placement of DRPs and the ending of bid lockouts, a Forefeited Pick counts as a made pick.

Picks, Points And Player Compensation

The NFL creates salary slots for rookies. As the rules stand for a standard draft, First Round picks (the first 32 players selected) can be signed to 5-year contracts. Players taken in other rounds are to be signed for less money and to shorter contracts. In an auction draft, it is conceivable that players selected early Round "X" might have cost their teams more auction points than players picked late in Round "X-1."

Thus, any player selected before the 33rd regular pick of the auction draft PLUS any player picked later and for a Final Bid amount greater than or equal to the RA amount for the 32nd regular pick of the draft would be deemed a "First Round Pick" for the purpose of contract amount and duration. Similarly, players not deemed "First Round Picks" and selected before the 65th regular pick of the auction draft PLUS any player picked later and for a Final Bid amount greater than or equal to the RA amount of the 64th regular pick of the draft would be deemed a "Second Round Pick."  Secondary Bidders would need to make a Final Bid in excess of the given point threshhold to qualify that player for the treatment as a higher-round selection. Primary Bidders (who normally are charged points equal to the second-highest bid) could elect to be charged more to trigger higher-round terms for the player.

Auction Draft Scenarios

The following auction draft scenarios are based on the NFL Draft Order for the 2017 draft known as of April 17, 2017. Team point totals for the auction draft (based on the point chart and the rules for averaging draft points of teams with the same regular season record) are shown in the table below.

It's not meant to predict who will pick whom or when... but to describe what would happen if they did.

Round 1, Pick 1, Primary Bidder CLE

Cleveland makes a Minimum Amount Bid for Myles Garrett
The Opening Bid is 6,500 (65% of 10,000)
Final Bids are as follows
* CLE 10,600 (maximum bid following a Minimum Bid)
* TEN 9,800
* SF  9,600
* NO  9,200
Cleveland (PB) wins. Pays 10,000 (PB had high bid, runner up bid 9,800 and within 6% of the RA amount, so the PB pays the RA amount); 15,049 points remaining. 

Round 1, Pick 2, Primary Bidder SF

San Francisco makes a Regular Amount Bid for Malik Hooker
The Opening Bid is 8,740.
No other bids come forward.
San Francisco wins. Pays 8,740; 7,588 remaining.

Round 1, Pick 5, Primary Bidder TEN

Cleveland has only sat out 4 picks, but free to bid here because they're 8th in line to pick at #12.

Round 1, Pick 6, Primary Bidder NYJ

The Jets make a Minimum Amount Bid for Deshaun Watson
The Opening Bid is 4,330 (65% of 6,660)
Final Bids are as follows
* NO 6,570
* BUF 6,350
* NYJ 5,860
* CLE 5,450
New Orleans wins. Pays 6,570 (High Bid amount); 7,453 remaining. 
New York Jets will get a DRP after Round 1, Pick 9 (i.e. after picks 7, 8, and 9 have been made).

Round 1, Pick 9A, Primary Bidder NYJ

The Jets make a Regular Amount Bid for Mitch Trubisky
The Opening Bid is 5,850
Final Bids are as follows
* CLE 6,550
* BUF 6,350
* NYJ 6,250
New York Jets win (6% of RA bid amount {rounded to nearest 10} = 350. No SB's Final Bid exceeded the PB's final bid by 350). Jets pay 6,200 (High SB of 6,550 - 350 {the credit the PB gets toward a Final Bid after making an RA Opening Bid}); 6,443 remaining.

Round 1, Pick 10, Primary Bidder BUF

San Francisco is free to bid here because 8 picks have elapsed since Round 1, Pick 2 (Picks 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 9A).

Round 1, Pick 11, Primary Bidder NO

NO forfeits the pick. They have 7,453; they needed 12,113 (3,450 to make an MA bid here AND 8,573 to make RA bids on picks #32, 42, 76, 103, 196, and 229).

Round 1, Pick 13, Primary Bidder ARI

The Cardinals make a Minimum Amount Bid for John Ross
The Opening Bid is 3,320
Final Bids are
* TB 4,900
* DET 4,900
* PHI 4,800
* WAS 4,750
* ARI 3,400 (i.e. didn't care if they lost the bid)
Tampa Bay wins (tied with DET. TB wins because they were due to pick soonest {#19 overall vs #21}); pays 4,900; 4,293 remaining.
Arizona awarded a DRP after Round 1, Pick 16.

Round 1, Pick 16, Primary Bidder BAL

The Ravens make a Regular Amount bid for Cam Robinson
The Opening Bid is 4,810
The Final Bids are
* DEN 5,110
* BAL 4,810
Denver wins (6% of RA amount is 290, DEN outbid BAL by 300). Pays 5,110; 5,131 remaining.
Baltimore gets an IRP right away.

Round 1, Pick 16A, Primary Bidder BAL

(Arizona was due a pick after Round 1, Pick 16... but because Pick 1-16 resulted in an IRP, Arizona's DRP gets pushed back)
The Ravens make a Regular Amount bid for Ryan Ramczyk
The Opening Bid (and Final Bid) is 4,810
There are no other bidders. Baltimore wins, paying 4,810; 6,658 remaining.

Round 1, Pick 16B, Primary Bidder ARI

The Cardinals make a Minimum Amount Bid for Marlon Humphrey.
The Opening Bid is 3,130
The Final Bids are
* WAS 4,600
* ARI 4,300
* OAK 3,800
Washington wins. Pays 4,600; 6,148 remaining.
Arizona awarded a DRP after Round 1, Pick 19.

Round 1, Pick 17

Washington forfeits. Needed 9,158 to bid; had 6,148.

Round 1, Pick 19

Tampa Bay forfeits. Needed 7,683 to bid; had 4,293.

Round 1, Pick 19A, Primary Bidder ARI

The Cardinals make a Minimum Amount Bid for Patrick Mahomes.
The Opening Bid is 2,800
The Final Bids are
* HOU 4,430
* ARI 4,310
Houston wins. Pays 4,430; 4,071 remaining.
Arizona awarded a DRP after Round 1, Pick 22.

Round 1, Pick 20

Denver forfeits. Needs 8,731; has 5,131.

Round 1, Pick 22A, Primary Bidder ARI

The Cardinals make a Regular Amount Bid for Deshone Kizer
The Opening Bid is 4,000 points.
There are no other bidders. Arizona wins & pays 4,000; 6,794 remaining.

Round 1, Pick 32, Primary Bidder NO

New Orleans has barely enough points to avoid forfeiting the pick.
The Saints make a Minimum Amount Bid for Tre'Davious White
The Opening Bid is 2,090.
The Final Bids are
* ARI 2,510
* NO 2,400
* BAL 2,400
Arizona wins and pays 2,510 points; 4,284 points remaining; needs 4,822 to keep #45 overall pick (1,620 for an MA bid at #45, 3,202 for RA bids at #77, 119, 157, 179, 197 and 231).

Early in Round 2

Arizona trades Jaron Brown and a 2018 3rd Round Pick to the Tennessee Titans their #100 overall pick and 1,450 points (400 points more than the #100 pick is worth). ARI has 5,684 points... but as a result of adding the #100 overall pick, now needs 5,822 (4,822 plus 1,000 to make an RA bid at #100) to keep the #45 pick.
Tennessee, having spent the Regular Amount with their #5 & #18 overall picks, now has 2,162 points... enough to NOT forfeit their #83 overall pick (the need 2,154... 850 for #83... 1,304 for #124, 164, 214, and 236)  

Before Round 2, Pick 13, Primary Bidder ARI

Arizona trades John Wetzel to Indianapolis for 150 points... but no picks. ARI now has 5,834 points... enough points NOT to forfeit this pick.

Proposed Point Chart and Why I Like It

First, some background. There are 2 principal NFL draft point value charts in circulation... the so-called Jimmy Johnson chart and the Harvard Chart.  The Johnson chart values the #1 overall pick to be 30x as valuable as the #100 pick (middle of the compensatory picks of the 3rd round); the Harvard chart values #1 overall to be 5x as valuable as the #100 pick.
The chart below is in the middle... 10-to-1 ratio of #1 overall to #100.  This ratio is better than the other two for two reasons.

A 5-1 ratio makes it too easy for stronger teams to afford to bid against the weaker ones for top players (especially in the first round).  The draft is supposed to give the league a chance at parity; giving strong teams too easy a shot at the best from the college ranks is not good for that. 

A 30-1 ratio makes it too easy for teams at the top of draft to pay something less than the Regular Amount of points for their picks... then to use those points in later rounds to be a more-dominant force in the draft than would be fair to the rest of the league. Having a tighter ratio makes the rest of the league more of a threat to outbid a PB... or to bid enough to keep the PB honest.

Also, the Johnson and the Harvard charts have decimals; my chart has only whole numbers and each pick is worth at least one point less than the pick before.

Proposed Point Values

Each group of 3 columns from left-to-right represents two rounds of the NFL Draft as configured in 2017 (except the right column, which is just round 7). The rows where Rounds 1 and 2 don't have picks represent Compensatory Picks.

Pick #	Pts Earned	MA Bid	Pick #	Pts Earned	MA Bid	Pick #	Pts Earned	MA Bid	Pick #	Pts Earned	MA Bid
1	10,000	6,500	65	1,756	1,142	145	495	322	219	141	92
2	8,740	5,680	66	1,726	1,122	146	487	317	220	139	90
3	7,980	5,190	67	1,698	1,104	147	480	312	221	136	88
4	7,440	4,840	68	1,670	1,086	148	472	307	222	133	86
5	7,010	4,560	69	1,644	1,068	149	465	302	223	131	85
6	6,660	4,330	70	1,616	1,050	150	457	297	224	128	83
7	6,350	4,130	71	1,590	1,034	151	450	293	225	126	82
8	6,090	3,960	72	1,564	1,016	152	443	288	226	123	80
9	5,850	3,800	73	1,538	1,000	153	436	283	227	121	79
10	5,640	3,670	74	1,514	984	154	429	279	228	119	77
11	5,450	3,540	75	1,490	968	155	422	274	229	116	75
12	5,270	3,430	76	1,466	952	156	416	270	230	114	74
13	5,100	3,320	77	1,442	938	157	409	266	231	112	73
14	4,950	3,220	78	1,418	922	158	403	262	232	109	71
15	4,810	3,130	79	1,396	908	159	396	257	233	107	70
16	4,670	3,040	80	1,374	894	160	390	254	234	105	68
17	4,540	2,950	81	1,352	878	161	384	250	235	103	67
18	4,420	2,870	82	1,330	864	162	378	246	236	101	66
19	4,310	2,800	83	1,308	850	163	372	242	237	99	64
20	4,200	2,730	84	1,288	838	164	366	238	238	97	63
21	4,100	2,670	85	1,268	824	165	360	234	239	95	62
22	4,000	2,600	86	1,248	812	166	354	230	240	93	60
23	3,910	2,540	87	1,228	798	167	348	226	241	91	60
24	3,820	2,480	88	1,208	786	168	343	223	242	89	60
25	3,730	2,420	89	1,190	774	169	337	219	243	87	60
26	3,650	2,370	90	1,170	760	170	332	216	244	85	60
27	3,570	2,320	91	1,152	748	171	326	212	245	83	60
28	3,490	2,270	92	1,134	738	172	321	209	246	81	60
29	3,410	2,220	93	1,116	726	173	316	205	247	80	60
30	3,340	2,170	94	1,098	714	174	311	202	248	78	60
31	3,270	2,130	95	1,082	704	175	306	199	249	76	60
32	3,210	2,090	96	1,064	692	176	301	196	250	74	60
			97	1,048	682	177	296	192	251	73	60
			98	1,032	670	178	291	189	252	71	60
			99	1,016	660	179	286	186	253	69	60
			100	1,000	650	180	281	183	254	68	60
			101	984	640	181	277	180	255	66	60
			102	970	631	182	272	177	256	65	60
			103	954	620	183	267	174
			104	940	611	184	263	171
			105	924	601
			106	910	592
			107	896	582
33	3,140	2,040	108	882	573	185	259	168
34	3,076	2,000	109	869	565	186	254	165
35	3,016	1,960	110	855	556	187	250	163
36	2,956	1,920	111	842	547	188	246	160
37	2,900	1,884	112	829	539	189	242	157
38	2,844	1,848	113	816	530	190	238	155
39	2,788	1,812	114	804	523	191	234	152
40	2,736	1,780	115	791	514	192	230	150
41	2,684	1,744	116	779	506	193	226	147
42	2,632	1,712	117	767	499	194	222	144
43	2,584	1,680	118	755	491	195	218	142
44	2,536	1,648	119	743	483	196	214	139
45	2,492	1,620	120	732	476	197	210	137
46	2,444	1,588	121	721	469	198	207	135
47	2,400	1,560	122	710	462	199	203	132
48	2,356	1,532	123	699	454	200	200	130
49	2,316	1,504	124	688	447	201	196	127
50	2,276	1,480	125	677	440	202	193	125
51	2,236	1,452	126	667	434	203	189	123
52	2,196	1,428	127	656	426	204	186	121
53	2,156	1,400	128	646	420	205	183	119
54	2,120	1,380	129	636	413	206	179	116
55	2,084	1,356	130	626	407	207	176	114
56	2,048	1,332	131	617	401	208	173	112
57	2,012	1,308	132	607	395	209	170	111
58	1,976	1,284	133	598	389	210	167	109
59	1,944	1,264	134	588	382	211	164	107
60	1,912	1,244	135	579	376	212	161	105
61	1,880	1,224	136	570	371	213	158	103
62	1,848	1,200	137	561	365	214	155	101
63	1,816	1,180	138	553	359	215	152	99
64	1,784	1,160	139	544	354	216	149	97
			140	536	348	217	147	96
			141	527	343	218	144	94
			142	519	337
			143	511	332
			144	503	327

Here would be each team's 2017 Auction Draft point total given the point schedule above.

TM	Pt Total
CLE	25,049
SF	16,328
TEN	14,932
CHI	14,603
JAX	14,183
NO	14,023
CAR	13,213
CIN	12,708
NYJ	12,643
LAC	12,557
BAL	11,468
ARI	10,794
IND	10,788
WAS	10,748
BUF	10,491
PHI	10,473
DEN	10,241
KC	9,202
TB	9,193
SEA	8,966
DET	8,949
HOU	8,501
OAK	8,402
MIA	8,386
NYG	8,373
PIT	8,341
GB	7,828
DAL	7,496
ATL	7,125
MIN	7,119
LAR	6,714
NE	4,183

The Case For Range Voting: Democratic Primaries

Ian Kerr, November 20, 2016

In a recent post, I mentioned the notion of Range Voting in Democratic Primaries.

For full details on the mechanics of it, see rangevoting.org. The process in brief: it's the same process by which they judge figure skating or gymnastics in the Olympics. Each judge (voter) gives each contestant (candidate) a numeric score (not just the contestant/candidate they like the most); highest average score is the winner.

First, I'll provide an example that starts with real Primary Election results and theorizes how Range Voting might have changed the outcome.

Hypothetical Example - Arizona Democratic Primary 2012

By the time Arizona held its Primary, there were only two active candidates in the race, Hillary Rodham Clinton and Bernie Sanders. The actual vote totals had Clinton winning by 15%:

Candidate	Votes	Pct.
CLINTON	262,459	56.3%
SANDERS	192,962	41.4%
OTHERS	10,600	2.3%
	466,021

What the raw vote totals do NOT tell us is the level of affinity for each candidate among voters for whom that candidate was NOT their first preference.

Suppose ...

A) these voters could have cast their ballot by Range Voting -- allowing them to rate each candidate on a scale of 0-to-9 (9 best).

B) each vote from the actual Primary (above) were worth the maximum 9 points to the candidate for whom the vote was cast. That would leave the following number of voters the opportunity to further rate each candidate:

Candidate	Additonal Ratings*
CLINTON	203,562
SANDERS	273,059
OTHERS	455,421

*Total ballots cast minus number of actual votes received.

C) Clinton supporters had a generally more-favorable view of Sanders than Sanders supporters had of Clinton... such that the table below describes the frequency with which each candidate received each possible additional rating:

Additional		Candidate
Rating	CLINTON	SANDERS	OTHERS
9**	5.0%	7.0%	5.0%
8	5.0%	15.0%	13.0%
7	5.0%	15.0%	13.0%
6	5.0%	15.0%	13.0%
5	15.0%	11.0%	13.0%
4	15.0%	11.0%	13.0%
3	15.0%	11.0%	13.0%
2	15.0%	11.0%	13.0%
1	10.0%	2.0%	2.0%
0	10.0%	2.0%	2.0%

**there would be no rule against giving two or more candidates the same rating, including the highest rating.

D) THEN the final result would give Sanders the win:

RATING	CLINTON	SANDERS	OTHERS
9	272,637	212,076	33,371
8	10,178	40,959	59,205
7	10,178	40,959	59,205
6	10,178	40,959	59,205
5	30,534	30,036	59,205
4	30,534	30,036	59,205
3	30,534	30,036	59,205
2	30,534	30,036	59,205
1	20,356	5,461	9,108
0	20,356	5,461	9,108
AVERAGE	6.68	6.86	5.11

Also relevant... the total number of "enthusiastic" supporters (voters who gave each candidate a 7, 8, or 9) and "detractors" (voters who gave each candidate a 1 or 0).

Candidate	Enthusiastic	Detractors
CLINTON	292,993	40,712
SANDERS	293,994	10,922
OTHERS	151,781	18,216

What does this illustrate?

1) Someone with as much as a 15-point margin in a "check one box" vote might NOT be the most popular candidate in the race. Only Range Voting could illustrate this.

2) The most popular candidate almost always has to be the one with the most "enthusiastic" votes. 

3) The candidate with the most "detractors" almost always will NOT win. 

#2 & #3 are especially important in a Primary election... because there's a General Election to be won thereafter. The enthusiastic voters are the ones who will knock doors, make phone calls, put up yard signs, give people rides to the polls, talk up the candidate with friends... they're the foot soldiers in a successful ground game. The detractors will entertain the thought of voting for a different candidate in the General Election... and some will actually do so.

Again the breakdowns above are not based on any scientific study of Arizona's Democratic Primary voters... but I don't think it's unrealistic. This example raises the possibility of 40,000+ Clinton detractors having voted in this Primary (more than 1 in 12 Primary votes). Third-party candidates garnered more than 140,000 Arizona votes in the General Election. It's totally possible that 3-in-10 of the 3rd party votes came from Clinton detractors who voted in the Democratic Primary.

What do you think?

Circular Firing Squad: Cease Fire!

Ian Kerr, November 20, 2016

A dozen days following an election that stunned the 48% of America (at last count) that voted for Hillary Clinton and many of the 5.3% who voted for someone else. Social media remains fertile ground for the blame game.

Instead of wasting keystrokes and LIKE buttons on blaming each other, can we come to agreement on the following things?

1. The Democratic National Committee needs to be led by a new chairman who 
• will be able to work the job full-time
• has not held high public office in the last two years
• will not endorse or oppose any candidate vying to be the party's Presidential nominee in 2020 until the conclusion of the primaries and caucuses.
• will work for the Party to be more of a reflection of the aspirations of its voters rather than the wants of its donors or other highly-influential individuals.
2. The DNC should scrap the concept of Superdelegates.
3. The concerns of working-class and middle-class whites hold much in common with those working-class and middle-class minorities. The Democratic Party has not stressed that enough.
4. When turnout is high in-general, it favors Democrats. The advantages Democrats have with respect to the voting tendencies of diverse voters do not accrue to Democrats if diverse voters do not turn out.
5. If it would be hard very soon to abolish the Electoral College, we should work in the various states to pass state laws that would require the Electoral Votes of that state to accrue to the winner of the national popular vote.
6. Polling. Trump won states despite the polls saying he was behind in those states by more than a normal polling error. Clinton made campaign decisions based on those poll numbers. Either get better polling or treat "5 points ahead" as "tied."

And can we consider the following:

7. Democrats should select their nominees for public office via Range Voting.
   For a technical explanation, see http://rangevoting.org/
   I'll offer a strategic explanation in a later blog post. 

How To Watch Coverage of the 2016 Presidential Election Returns

Ian Kerr
November 6, 2016 (Updated 7am MST - November 8)

Before you turn on your TV set Tuesday, you need to ask yourself three things:

1) Are you an eligible voter or can you become one via same-day registration?
2) Have you yet to vote?
3) Are the polls open in your jurisdiction?

If the answer to all three of those questions is YES, then get off this website and go vote.
-----
The following is meant to help Election-Night (or, if you’re watching from the Eastern Hemisphere, Election-Morning) viewers interpret the Electoral Vote scoreboard as it unfolds. If you’re not familiar with the workings of the U.S. Electoral College system, consider reading https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_College_(United_States).

The table below reflects an approximation of the Electoral Vote scoreboard at various times of the night (and early morning, with reference to U.S. Eastern Standard Time).

TABLE 1 – Approximate Electoral Vote Count at various Time Points

My data – 

A) Poll-closing times for each state

B) The state’s electoral vote counts, and

C) The odds for given candidates to carry each states (treating parts of Maine and Nebraska as “states” in their own right) per http://fivethirtyeight.com as of 6am Eastern Standard Time, Monday November 8. Consult that website for its methodology of developing their odds.

The following table indicates which candidates are most likely to be declared projected winners and the various states and approximately when.

TABLE 2 – Approximate Times At Which States Would Be Projected For Various Candidates

Note – Maine {ME} and Nebraska {NE} award two EVs for their states At Large (AL), then one for each Congressional District; ME has 2, NE has 3. Numbers in parenthesis that follow these state codes represent the number of the Congressional District(s) encompassed in a particular projection; "(AL)" means "At Large".

My methodology –

1) Whichever candidate the odds indicated to have the best chance of winning each state, I eventually credit that candidate with the requisite number of electoral votes.

2) In the Clinton and Trump columns of the table above, you will see postal codes of certain states appearing BEFORE the forward slash {/} and some appearing AFTER.

3) If the odds data indicated any candidate to have better than an 86% chance of carrying a particular state, I believe the networks will declare that candidate to be the projected winner of that state within 5 minutes of the poll-closing time of that state. These are the states in the Trump and Clinton columns with postal codes placed BEFORE the forward slash.

4) To the extent the odds are not as good as 86% for a candidate, I believe the networks may wait for more data to declare projected winners there (they may not wait so long; I’m being conservative). Those states initially appear, at their poll-closing times, in the Too Close column.

5) At the approximate time when the media will make projections for these initially-Too-Close states, the postal code for that state will appear in two places: a) in the Clinton or Trump column, but AFTER the forward slash AND b) in the appropriate “Shift: 'Too Close' to _____” column.

6) I have chosen to vary the time interval between the poll-closing time and the approximate time the projection would occur according to these variables: a) how close the odds are {closer = longer}, b) recent history of long queues of voters in line at poll-closing time, especially in urban areas {i.e. Ohio}, c) varying degrees of difficulty in vote-counting {i.e. Virginia has 95 counties and 38 cities doing vote-counting}, and d) past experience {i.e. 2012} of how long it takes projections to occur when there is a close result (I used this article, which described some of the 2012 timeline of when networks projected winners of various states: http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/nbc-news-declares-obama-winner-387191).

How I plan to use this data

Again, this is an approximation of the Electoral Vote counts for each candidate at various times of the night based on 1) a respected oddsmaker’s calculation of the probable outcomes and 2) my not-terribly-scientific view of how those outcomes will manifest themselves during Election Night coverage.

When I watch election coverage Tuesday, this table should help frame the answers to questions like:

A) “Who’s ahead or who’s behind right now?”
The answer isn’t just the raw electoral vote total – it’s the total relative to what might be expected at a point in time. If Trump is ahead by a count of 160 EV to 120 EV for Clinton at 9:05 pm EST on Tuesday, it may be a mistake to say Trump is “ahead.” It's more truthful to say he’s “performing as the oddsmakers expect.”


B) “What are the surprises? And what do the surprises mean?”
The vote count will differ from the tables above for two general reasons – 1) one candidate bucked the odds and won a state unexpectedly or 2) the media projected a winner in a state earlier or later than the approximation called for. The first surprise is more consequential than the second.

NATURE OF 11/7 UPDATES -- Due to changes in odds:
Moved FL, NC and NV to Clinton from Trump
Changed projection times for AK, CO, IA, ME(AL), ME(2), NE(2) & WI.
NATURE OF 11/8 UPDATES -- Due to changes in odds:
Moved ME(2) to Clinton from Trump
Changed projection times for AZ, GA, ME(AL), MN, NE(2) & VA.  

I am an Arizonan. I am angry.

I am Ian Kerr. I’m in my late 40s. I live in Phoenix, Arizona, with my wife, Birgit, and twin children, Max and Anna. Each is in 4th grade and attends the same public school in North Phoenix.

I was not born in Arizona, but my mother was. My family (mom, dad, brother and myself) moved to Arizona when I was 9, and apart from 6 years in the mid-1990s, I have lived in the state ever since. I attended nothing but public schools while growing up in Arizona and elsewhere. I have a Bachelors Degree from the University of Arizona, and a Postbaccalaureate Certificate from Arizona State University. All of the other college courses I’ve ever taken (apart from 3 online courses) were through the Maricopa Community College system.

My mother attended public schools in Arizona throughout her childhood. When she enrolled in what is now Northern Arizona University, she became the first member of her family to do so. She became her family’s first college graduate. Within a decade, her sister and mother also earned college degrees from NAU. All became teachers, serving in Arizona’s public schools for, collectively, about 80 years. At times, my mother’s income from teaching was the vast majority of the income supporting our family of four. My brother, an ASU graduate, teaches in a public school in Arizona, as does my best friend in the world. My father taught on-and-off at the community college level in Arizona. I attend a medium-small church in north Phoenix with less than 150 member families. There are at least 8 members who work in public schools, six being teachers.

Few people owe so much of who they are to Arizona’s public primary, secondary, and post-secondary schools than I. I would not be who, what, and where I am professionally and personally without those institutions.

I am angry because the institutions so important to my formation are being financially abandoned to the detriment of a state that, more than ever, needs them to be strong.

By every credible measure, Arizona’s public schools are underfunded relative to how other states see fit to fund theirs… to dire consequences.

Primary and secondary schools are having a hard time recruiting and retaining teachers. Many haven’t seen a pay raise since 2008. My son’s teachers for gifted math, gifted language arts, and his home room teacher all changed in the middle of the current school year. A friend who will be a principal at a new school next year spent much of this year flying around the country to recruit teachers.The district in which I live is relatively affluent, yet a standard class size for 4th grade in our district is 28 students.

Things are just as bleak at the post-secondary level. Arizona State University (all of its campuses put together), in the fiscal year just ended, received about 10% less support from Arizona taxpayers than just the Main campus of the University of New Mexico did from New Mexico’s taxpayers. ASU, all-told, is 3 times as big as UNM-Main.

The principal consequence – in-state tuition so high (twice as high in AZ as NM) many well-qualified Arizonans can’t take advantage of the strong universities close to home. In the three decades since my freshman year at the University of Arizona, general inflation has caused consumer prices to be about 2.2 times higher. U of A in-state tuition is 11 times higher than it was 30 years ago.

Year after year, proponents of education beg and plead with the legislature and the governor of the day to do right by our schools to little avail – and they’ve found ways to sidestep various school-funding ballot measures.   

I’m angry and I need to do something about this… for the sake of my children, my extended family, my friends in education, and for a state I care for a lot.

I have decided to start a group, which I hope will become a movement, called Citizens of Arizona for the Reform of Public Education Finance – C.A.R.P.E. Finance (pronounced CAR-pay as in the latin carpe diem – seize the day).

Its sole purpose is working for increased funding for all levels of public education in Arizona – adequate, sustainable, equitable long-term funding for all public schools, colleges and universities done in such a way that elected officials would have a hard time undoing it.

C.A.R.P.E. Finance is not yet mature enough or robust enough to take any action – for now, it will be a group that agrees schools need more funding (the “how” will come later, at the discretion of the group members).

Such a change would be great. I am under no illusion that it will be easy. Great things seldom are easily created and rarely created without the persistent optimism of many of their creators. On this topic, I choose persistent optimism. I choose to believe a large enough number of Arizonans believe as I do on this topic to make a difference.

Now, I ask you:

Do you want public education in Arizona to be adequately, sustainably, and equitably funded for the long-term? Are you willing to join a a grassroots movement committed to working toward that one goal and willing to participate in a little bit work from time to time to make it happen?

If so, C.A.R.P.E. Finance would be glad to have you. Message me and I’ll include you in our Facebook group (which is a Closed group). It’s free to join the Facebook group. At the moment, the group is not big enough to

Even if you like the goal and want to join the group and want to get others to join the group… there is a very specific reason I do NOT want you to LIKE and SHARE a link to this on Facebook or other Social Media. That reason will become clear once I reply to your request to join C.A.R.P.E. Finance.