Will Hillary Clinton be awarded delegates from Florida and Michigan?

Now that redo's are a major possibility...could this question be clarified a bit? The way the questions says "with or without a lawsuit, with or without new caucuses" is pretty ambiguous. I originally assumed it would be settled as Yes only if she was awarded delegates based on the results of the first go-round of primaries (I think both states do primaries, not caucuses). If they redo them, she will obviously get some but the phrasing and especially the word "awarded" seems to imply that it would count only if she were given delegates that she originally was not going to get at the time of the primary. Clarification would be great, thanks.

The background makes it sound that the market is on the basis of the votes from the past which were made (Feb. 13). So this will be settled as a yes if the votes from Michigan and Florida are counted and used towards delegates.

Ryan
Hubdub US Politics Content Editor

So this will be settled as a yes if the votes from Michigan and Florida are counted and used towards delegates.

OK - I'm in, based on Ryan's clarification -- my understanding of which is "if the votes from Michigan's January 15, 2008, primary (which did not include Obama on the ballot), AND the votes from Florida's January 29, 2008 primary are counted, and used to award delegates to the convention. Whether or not there is any form of a "do-over" has no effect on settling this market."

Have I understood that correctly?

Yep you've caught exactly what I was attempting to say :-)

Ryan
Hubdub US Politics Content Editor

That's what I understand from Ryan's comment (although not how I originally interperted the question). I promptly cashed in my yes'es before they started falling :)

(apparently i took too long to hit the 'add comment' button... ryan you're quick!)

:-)

I'm sorry, i am a little dense. Will someone tell me this: If either of the new states have a new primary and subsequently have their delegates sent to the convention, which way will this market be settled? what if both do? thanks.

i think he means it will be settled as no....the original delegates must be able to go vote in the same way as the original votes, which won't ever happen i think...i figured a new vote would happen in each state and hillary would get some delegates so i voted yes-the whole "with or without new caucuses" part made me think a new vote would be included in this Q-then saw ryan's post the next day and cashed out after losing 2grand...u can even see where i placed my bet-the big jump in yes and then when i cashed out after someone else bet big on no...my advise would be to stay away from this question if you haven't already bet on it.

oh wow it was 4k that i lost...that sux

I'm confused guys? Whats the raucous all about? The question and the background point to a market regarding the past primaries. If you read just the market question text, then it seems the market is asking about whether any new primaries or caucuses will be held in Michigan or Florida, which would have delegates from the mentioned states vote at the convention.

Something to bring out of this maybe the fact that as a category editor should we read the background and question to understand what it means or just
the question. In this case doing one or the other leads to different interpretations.

Ryan
Hubdub US Politics Content Editor

my issue is that it says with or without new caucuses which i interpret to mean primaries....i read the question to be will hillary get any votes from delegates in michigan and florida at the convention by any means...why would the questioner put in the new caucuses part if that was not to be included?....while i dont believe any of the delegates from the old votes will be allowed at the convention, i do think they'll have revotes and allow those delegates at the convention....as such i placed a 2k bet, and then an 8k one when i started hearing more about the revote issue because i really don't see the democrats not letting them be at the convention if they can help it and with a revote clinton should win at least one delegate in each state....i mean, they're not going to let michiganers go to the convention and vote when obama wasn't even on the ballot and it's this close of a vote...if that's what i had interpreted the question to be (ie will only the old votes count and still receive delegates) i wouldn't have wagered on it...however, i have now lost over 4k on this Q and will not be rejoining the wagering, so i think you should just leave it as it is....i think the background should be read when deciding on how to settle questions because these are written when the question is posed and therefore even the first bettor can see it

yeah, thats what i thought also. but i would like to know what you think ryan because that counts more than what i think around these parts

Ryan, i think you should DEFINITELY look at both question and background, as sometimes the background clarifies ambiguities that could arise from the question. Furthermore, bidders should critically consider the question before staking their money, and if there are any questions ask them or flag for review BEFORE bidding.

Also, things that seem too good to be true usually are, so if you come across a question where the current market percents make you say WTF? Sweet, let me bid a ton on it cause i KNOW everyone else is wrong, you should definitely take a moment to reconsider.

Also, when creating questions, getting facts right, such as the fact that both states hold primaries and not caucuses, is very important.

i didn't think it was ambiguous at all...nowhere does it say that only the old votes counts, in fact it explicitly states with or without new votes...this is a common problem here, where betting has been open for awhile and then one person comes in and reads something into the question(such as windchill being a part of temperature) that isn't there and asks about it, then the question gets changed without any discussion...as to the point of the odds being too good to be true, as a former member of mensa i find that i have alot of different beliefs from most other people and it has worked quite well for me...for instance i just got in on the question of who will win more delegates on feb 5, hillary or obama....someone had driven up hillary to like 98% even tho obama is ahead by more votes than are still out so there's no way that hillary can come out with more votes(and that's from multiple sources, not just one)...or the one about there being a contested convention for the democrats...no one seems to realize that they are not enough delegates left for either candidate to win outright because all the news stories take into account superdelegates and everyone is betting someone will win beforehand....it's simply not possible...does that mean the percentages are too good to be true? no, it simply means people don't really think about what they are being told...people just don't read enough and make too many inferences (as in this case as well)

I would be interested in a vote with more choices than just the simple yes or no we currently have. For example, I think Clinton will get some delegates from Michigan and Florida, but I very much doubt that it will be a straightforward sample of the full complement of delegates those two states would normally receive. I suspect it might be half as many as that if they actually do have do-over elections, but it certainly should be less than that if the two states do not have do-overs. So possible answers could look something like this: a) Clinton and Obama will receive proportional representation of full normal complement of delegates, b) Clinton and Obama will receive proportional representation of some percentage of the full normal complement (51-99%) of delegates from the two states, c) same as b with a smaller percentage (1-50%), d) only "super-delegates" from Michigan and Florida will vote at the Democratic National Convention, and e) no delegates from Michigan and Florida will be allowed to vote.

Just wondering pics4d, why did Mensa kick you out?

Just to clarify, is the question asking if ANY delegates will be awarded or if ALL delegates will be utilized?

Hi mrperfkt,

The market settles as a yes if the votes from Michigan and Florida are counted and used towards delegates. That means any number of delegates just as long as they are utilized.

Regards,

Ryan
Hubdub Category Editor

Thanks Ryan.

The key to this, as I understand it (see comments 2, 3 and 4 above) is in order for this to settle as "Yes", the votes from Michigan's January 15, 2008, primary (which did not include Obama on the ballot), AND the votes from Florida's January 29, 2008 primary have to be counted, and based on that count, delegates are awarded to the convention.

If the Rules Committee allocates (any number of) delegates from Florida and/or Michigan based on anything other than the counted votes from those two primaries, this settles as "No".

Ryan, have I (still) got that right?

http://apnews.excite.com/article/20080528/D90URBP00.html

(from Destry's linked article)

"... Democratic National Committee rules require that the two states lose at least half of their convention delegates ... the party's legal experts wrote in a 38-page memo."

Hey -- only 38 pages! ... there's room for them deciding markets at HD ;-)

Yep your right on the money newswrangler.

Regards,

Ryan
Hubdub Category Editor

Man, you people know how to complicate a question. ryan nowhere in the question does it say based on that count. It just says if the votes are counted and used towards delegates. That could be a split or whatever if not based on actual numbers and still be a yes. To complex for me though I'm out.

@owl:
i agree 100%, it says "delegates" not "THE delegates", it seems we about to spitzer this innocent question to death... i'd like a refund, since obviously, "Hillary Clinton..." WILL "... be awarded delegates from Florida and Michigan" after Saturday's meeting... that is what i read, i question about the delegates from michigan and florida counting for something in this election....

hey ryanj, let me quote you on this:

"Hi mrperfkt,

The market settles as a yes if the votes from Michigan and Florida are counted and used towards delegates. That means any number of delegates just as long as they are utilized.

Regards,

Ryan
Hubdub Category Editor "

any number of delegates, just as long as they are utilized....

we need a clarification of the clarification's clarification...

I know that was an old comment Melmel, but I needed to respond. If you are goint to complain that a question writer does not have the facts, then make sure you have your own facts straight first. Both parties do not have primaries rather than caucuses. Florida held a primary, Michigan held a caucus. There was a period of time (before the proposed mail-in primary idea) that it was being said that there would not be the time or money for a new primary in Florida, and the idea of a causus was being thrown around. I suspect that this is probably why the writer chose the word caucus.

good one michael on #29

Here the clarification of the clarifications clarification.

For the market to settle as a yes the votes from Michigan and Florida (From the primaries) are counted and used towards delegates. Those delegates are then used in the convention. For example the 50/50 split idea would have some delegates "used" for Obama and others for Clinton. Hope this sorts all the confusion out?

Regards,

Ryan
Hubdub Category Editor

ehhhhh ... well... I followed your clarification of the clarification's clarification until I got to the "example" :-|

As I understand the current 50/50 split scheme, all of the available delegates for Florida would be evenly divided between Obama and Clinton, and all of the available delegates for Michigan would be evenly divided between Obama and Clinton.

This proposed 50/50 split would be done without any regard for the ballots/votes cast in both Florida and Michigan -- said differently: the votes from those two states wouldn't be counted, and the resulting allocation of delegates to the convention would not be based on the counted votes.

Other proposed split schemes of 60/40, 55/45, etc., would also be done without using the votes cast as any form of reference.

If this "split" scenario were played out, would this market settle as "no"?

(sorry for the additional request ... but I heard Spitzer used to vacation in Florida ;-)

well, since the background says "with or without" a new vote of some kind, and votes are not referenced in the question at all, i think it should be settled yes if the delegates from Michigan AND Florida are awarded, and counted at the convention.... if only half of them are awarded, it would settle as no!

@Ryan, can you clarify the latest clarification of the clarification's clarification?

actually, one more point: it doesn't say anything about obama in the question, so if she receives at least one delegate from both states, then this should settle as yes....

we need some clarification to clarify the latest clarification of the clarification's clarification in light of this newset point, for clarity's sake!

(the background, if read alone, basically asks if any of the delegates will be awarded, regardless of method, to Hillary Clinton based on her request that they be rewarded, that much is clear.... then the question begs that delegates, at least one from EACH state be awarded....at the time of creation, this question addressed, among other queries, the widely pundit-ed notion that delegates from florida might be awarded, but, because obama's name was not on the ballot, michigan's couldn't or wouldn't be awarded) -that much is clear...

Ok, ok let me try another clarification.

If Clinton is awarded delegates from either Fl. or Michigan or both the market settles as yes. The method used or what the method is based on does not matter. If she gets Fl. delegates or Mi. delegates the markets settles.

I'm gonna go clarify myself :-)

Regards,

Ryan
Hubdub Category Editor

Thanks for your clearly written clarification of your latest clarification of the clarification's clarification! Clearly, this is crystal clear, as far as clarifications go...clarity on hubdub can never be clear enough, and subsequent clarifications usual clear things up, but clearly in circumstances such as this one, further clarifications are necessary in order to clarify previous clarifications. Clearly, this clarification process is necessary to clearly demonstrate grounds for settlement, and avoid any arguments at settlement time over details that at first are not so clear.

@tocm - clearly.

I regret the underlining formatting error.

SO DO WE, it affected EVERYTHING!!!

In my view, a Spitzer has now been created.

Ryan, you now say [emphasis added]: If Clinton is awarded delegates from either Fl. or Michigan or both the market settles as yes. The method used or what the method is based on does not matter. If she gets Fl. delegates or Mi. delegates the markets settles.

Eleven weeks ago you said:
"The background makes it sound that the market is on the basis of the votes from the past which were made (Feb. 13). So this will be settled as a yes if the votes from Michigan and Florida are counted and used towards delegates."

I then repeated that [Message 3]: OK - I'm in, based on Ryan's clarification -- my understanding of which is "if the votes from Michigan's January 15, 2008, primary (which did not include Obama on the ballot), AND the votes from Florida's January 29, 2008 primary are counted, and used to award delegates to the convention. ...

Have I understood that correctly?

You confirmed [Message 4]: "Yep you've caught exactly what I was attempting to say :-) "

Yet, now you say "The method used or what the method is based on does not matter."

jenniandboys confirmed the understanding in Message 5: "That's what I understand from Ryan's comment (although not how I originally interperted the question). I promptly cashed in my yes'es before they started falling :) "

Had she stayed in, she would have avoided a loss, and potentially won a tidy amount of H$.

pics4d (remember him), commented ten weeks ago [Msg 9] "i think he means it will be settled as no....the original delegates must be able to go vote in the same way as the original votes, which won't ever happen i think...

"-then saw ryan's post the next day and cashed out after losing 2grand...u can even see where i placed my bet-the big jump in yes and then when i cashed out after someone else bet big on no..."

pics4d words were telling: "my advise would be to stay away from this question if you haven't already bet on it."

pics4d later commented that he lost H$4k, not H$2k when he cashed out, based on your clarification.

Ten weeks ago, you commented [Msg 11]: "I'm confused guys? Whats the raucous all about? The question and the background point to a market regarding the past primaries. If you read just the market question text, then it seems the market is asking about whether any new primaries or caucuses will be held in Michigan or Florida, which would have delegates from the mentioned states vote at the convention."

There were several follow on replies to that trying to figure out what that meant ...

Yesterday, you said, "The market settles as a yes if the votes from Michigan and Florida are counted and used towards delegates. That means any number of delegates just as long as they are utilized.

Now you say it doesn't matter if the votes are counted or not. ("The method used or what the method is based on does not matter.")

Yesterday, asking for clarification and confirmation, I asked:
"The key to this, as I understand it (see comments 2, 3 and 4 above) is in order for this to settle as "Yes", the votes from Michigan's January 15, 2008, primary (which did not include Obama on the ballot), AND the votes from Florida's January 29, 2008 primary have to be counted, and based on that count, delegates are awarded to the convention.

"If the Rules Committee allocates (any number of) delegates from Florida and/or Michigan based on anything other than the counted votes from those two primaries, this settles as "No".

Ryan, have I (still) got that right? "

You replied: "Yep your right on the money newswrangler. "

Yet today, you say it doesn't matter if the votes are counted or not. ("The method used or what the method is based on does not matter.")

Four hours ago, you said, "For the market to settle as a yes the votes from Michigan and Florida (From the primaries) are counted and used towards delegates."

Four hours later you say it doesn't matter if the votes are counted or not. ("The method used or what the method is based on does not matter.")

This market has gone on for almost 3 months. Several HD users placed predictions, and lost money when you clarified and defined this market.

Some four hours ago you said, again, that "For the market to settle as a yes the votes from Michigan and Florida (From the primaries) are counted and used towards delegates." You have repeatedly stated that.

Now you say it doesn't matter. ("If Clinton is awarded delegates from either Fl. or Michigan or both the market settles as yes. The method used or what the method is based on does not matter."

The market has, of course, now wildly swung the other way based 100% on your reversal.

In my view, you have mishandled this market with your last post, and I ask that you correct it, or attempt to explain how I have misinterpreted your repeated statements ... how I can be "right on the money", consistently, from 12 weeks ago up until yesterday, and now am not.

well, i am on the otherside.. i feel this market was misrepresented by some of the earlier calls for CLARIFICATION... taken in whole, i wouldn't mind giving refunds or voiding... we have all had a part in "spitering" this question... and i think the original question was fine! but the developments to this story have changed over time, and now we all seek to protect our prospective "fortunes".... I think the author had specific goals in mind, and has not really been involved in the clafification issues.... Ryan has a lot on his plate...so i don't blame him,,, but taken as a whole, i think his most recent clarification is not correct, he goes too far.,. the question clearly dictates that at least one delegate from BOTH michigan and florida be awarded to clinton for this question to be settled fairly... and i understand your position, but that is my reading of the question.... nonetheless, i yield to Hubdub admins, and i like my toys here... but i continue to argue my point... and, in the end, we will have a settlement or a void.... either way, i am fine... but i think a clearly written question/background/settlement source/settlement details would be preferred going forward, and a consultation by the admins with the question creator ASAP, would do us all good....

Okay I have read, and re-read, and then re-read what I just had re-read, waited 5 minutes and re-read the whole re-read again and now am going to offer my 2cents.

It seems clear that Ryan has changed the way this question will be decided. I have always thought that if delegates were awarded lets start with Michigan, where Hillary would get delegates based on her number of votes, and obama would get the delegates from all other votes (since his name wasn't on ballot) then that would settle Michigan as a YES. If they chose to divide the Michigan delegates using a sliding scale, 50-50, 60-40 or some other way in which the votes were not part of formula this would be settled in Michigan as NO. And since both states are required to be YES then question would be NO. Now looking at Florida, I was under the impression that if the delegates (regardless of percentage selected which appears to be 50%) were awarded to Hillary based on a formula that included the votes then would settle as YES.
For me the simple way to look at this was would the votes from the respective votes be used in a formula to divide the delegates, if that was a YES then question was YES. If that was a NO then question was a NO.

I am not sure what to do with this market since there seems to be such confusion. I hope in the future when we see a problem like this occurring we can escalate to GetSatisfaction or Flag for a super user to suspend until a clear direction is chosen.

BTW, I have requested, via "Contact Us", that the offending formatting message (currently #40) be removed.

The removal will eliminate the continued underscoring of future messages in this market thread.

The "repost" (currently #43) has all of the html tags, and is word-for-word identical to Msg #40.

whazzup with the underlining on this ???

test

</font>
</body>
</html>

test

Ok, I see it as: if Billary... erm Hillary gets 1+ from Michigan, and 1+ from Florida, it is settled as YES; however Ryan has changed his position multiple times, and I feel this market has been mishandled and should be voided... voided....

@Destry

I am not sure what to do with this market since there seems to be such confusion. I hope in the future when we see a problem like this occurring we can escalate to GetSatisfaction or Flag for a super user to suspend until a clear direction is chosen.

Msg #1 in this thread asked for clarification, nearly three months ago.

Ryan clarified it in Msg #2.

I posted Msg #3.

For 11+ weeks I have followed this market comment thread, and whenever there was the slightest doubt in my mind, I asked for, and received, consistent confirmation.

In my view, that is taking a very pro-active approach to "when we see a problem like this occurring ... ".

In Msg #33 I even referenced "Spitzer" -- "(sorry for the additional request ... but I heard Spitzer used to vacation in Florida ;-) "

Even though I am a SuperUser, I'm not comfortable suspending a market over a Category Editor/Admin.

The change in the market occurred within minutes of Ryan's reversal -- just as it did with the Spitzer market. There was no time to escalate this to Get Satisfaction.

@newswrangler
that's why I think we should void it

obviously, only one choice: string ryan up and tickle him until he pees his pants, voids the question, or makes a definitive clarification....

@theonecalledmichael

Why even get a definitive clarification after all of this lost money, etc; it should have been voided the second Ryan changed his position; the question should be voided, and people who lost money because of Ryan changing his mind multiple times should be refunded their money, that is the only fair way

i vote for "pees his pants" since this money is not real.... its the only REAL satisfaction...

OK here it is: the final solution:

We suspend now, let the thing play out, then leave it to all the admins to duke it out over what is the best solution... put it in their court... and let's live with the outcome, thinking about what we do in the future... the meeting IS tommorrow! Let's FORCE the admins to face the situation, and comeup with a solution to this "spitzering".... i will not complain, although i made my bets on what i read in the question and settlement decisions made by ryan... and i'm not singling him out... but we need to make sure we clarify the clarification' clarificatio n in a wise mannor.... Agreed?

@Skipper --

... if Billary... erm Hillary gets 1+ from Michigan, and 1+ from Florida, it is settled as YES; ...

No, what has been consistently stated by Ryan for 11 weeks, minus 4 hours, is that any delegates awarded must be the result of the votes in both states being counted, and based on that count, delegates are awarded to the convention. [See Msg 21 from yesterday.]

"... however Ryan has changed his position multiple times ... "

I don't believe that is the case. He has stated a consistent position, and I have asked for, and received, confirmation of that position for 11 weeks, minus 4 hours.

His last post was a reversal, and inconsistent with the prior eleven weeks.

"that's why I think we should void it"

Well ... I dunno. Just as it did in the Spitzer market, with all this discussion in the comments about voiding, the market has swung back the other way. Perhaps those who made predictions based on Ryan's reversal have cashed out at a profit ... perhaps sensing a void.

I'm not stating (as fact) that anyone has done that -- nor do I think that is in anyway "wrong" if anyone has. I feel it is the result of a Spitzed market.

Participating in "Politics" extensively, and in this particular market for nearly 3 months, I am beyond disappointment that on the eve of a historic, televised, Rules Committee meeting, that this market would take this turn.

What is voided is the fun.

@newswrangler - I understand that this market is already beyond repair. I was speaking in the purpose that in the future we can learn from this example and find other ways to solve potential problems.
I agree that I am hesitant to suspend a market over a category editor admin, but this one seems to be spiraling out of control quickly. As soon as I post this comment I will flag and suspend this market. I believe that question should be voided, and Ryan should make sure every user who lost money on this market is refunded that money. We can not have markets like this on Hubdub or we will never move past the current stage and onto bigger and better things.
Please feel free to email me directly for further communication on this issue.

Destry

@Destry, if anyone does contact you about this, would you share with the rest of us supers, thanks :D

well i didnt have money on this market originally as i have learned by now how these will often end up.just as it is now but i did cash out at a small profit after ryans last post because i think the void has to be the next step..i feel this site has the potential to be better but it cant grow when the same problems continue to occur..changing the entire meaning of a market after people have wagered with one way of thinking just cant happen whether the admin think its right or not..and this isnt even close to being the first time..peoples money have been tied up here and now they get a void wont make them feel better because they could have made money with their tied up money..i and others have tried to point this out in the past..my personal view is if it says "and" how can it turn into only needing one..i admit i dont know much about political delegate stuff but if im betting on this i have to assume i need both or am i missing something?

@Destry -- In my view this should not be voided until there is the opportunity for further discussion, or unless Ryan wishes to vacate his last comment in this thread.

A Get Satisfaction thread ought be opened,

/u

well news that wouldnt be fair to the people who bet based on his last comment..they may have felt that she will get some from one of the states..or people cashed out and bet the other way or whatever..that is the problem now..i dont think you can just say forget what i said and put the market back to the way it was..my bad..people continue to try to protect their interests which i understand but i think it is sometimes too ez to influence the admins to change something that wasnt broke due to someone feeling they r going to lose their bet

@newswrangler - You have the power to open that GetSatisfaction thread. I think that is the best way to get the other admins up to speed on this market.

- Destry

i say after the mulitiple clarifactions that it needs voided. people read one and make a bet, then 3 days later it gets changed is that their fault? should HD'S have to check every question they bet on to make sure it hasn't been changed? i orginally had money on yes. then after the news about the up coming meeting and ryan's clarifaction if any delegates are awarded it would settle as yes, and yes was easy money wagered more. now i see all this, and figure i'm screwed. either void or let people have their money returned, and anybody who wants to risk betting can get back in.

I have escalated this issue to the Get Satisfaction forum. The thread can be found here:
<http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/topics/clinton_delegate_market_escalation>

If you haven't used the Get Satisfaction forum before, you will be asked to register with a user-name and password. You can use the same name and pw that you have on Hubdub ... just that it's a separate site.

I cast a vote for voiding but I'm really just entering this to see if it underlines.

Cool.

Hi everyone,

Last Comment: "If Clinton is awarded delegates from either Fl. or Michigan or both the market settles as yes. The method used or what the method is based on does not matter. If she gets Fl. delegates or Mi. delegates the markets settles."

I think many people have misinterpreted what I've said. When I made this comment I was speaking in the context of the 50/50 delegate splits referenced by newswrangler. When I said "whatever method" I was saying it doesn't matter if it's a 50/50 or 30/70 split, I wasn't referring to the past votes from the primaries as per my earlier clarifications. I regret the users took my comments out of context and I certainly see how that could've happened. But I won't be voiding the market I will unsuspend the market and let it go on.

I apologize for the confusion that this has caused. If anyone ever needs clarification of what I'm saying please email me so I can respond directly.

Regards,

Ryan
Hubdub Category Editor

So, as clearly as possible, if hillary gets even one single delegate from either state, this is a yes settlement?

That is how I am now reading the settlement. I made my prediction based on that clarification.

As i read Ryan's last message, currently #71 (I'm hoping the admins will delete the offending html message) ... in order for this market to settle as "yes", the votes for *BOTH* states must count (be counted) and *BASED ON THAT COUNT* delegates are awarded to the convention. .

So.... TheOneCalledMichael, in my view, if Hillary gets even one vote, based on the counted votes in both states being used to determine the formula, then this would settle as yes. If the Rules Committee uses ANY OTHER FORMULA NOT BASED ON THE COUNTED VOTES IN BOTH STATES to award delegates, this market, to my understanding of all the posts, clarifications, and confirmations in this thread, would settle as "no".

The significant portion of Ryan's latest post is "When I made this comment I was speaking in the context of the 50/50 delegate splits referenced by newswrangler. When I said "whatever method" I was saying it doesn't matter if it's a 50/50 or 30/70 split, I wasn't referring to the past votes from the primaries as per my earlier clarifications. "

@newswrangler - I am reading Ryan's comment #71 as different than you. He states "If Clinton is awarded delegates from either Fl. or Michigan or both the market settles as yes". I take that to mean that if she is awarded delegates in Florida but not in Michigan it would settle as Yes. If she was awarded delegates in Michigan but not Florida it would settle as Yes. If she was awarded delegates from both states would settle as Yes. The only way settle as NO is if she doesn't receive any delegates from either state.
He then goes on to further say " The method used or what the method is based on does not matter". So from that I am taking from that to mean regardless of what method they use to award the delegates it will settle as yes.
I don't see but one outcome for settling as a NO and that is if she is awarded NO delegates from Florida or Michigan.

And one last thing can we agree not to use html tags anymore, so this underlining issue never arises again.

@ newswrangler...
just so i understand YOU clearly, you're saying that it will settle as yes if the delegates are awarded in some fashion with respect to the primary vote, like hillary gets more delegates in florida because she got more of the popular vote.... but not the exact number of delegates as figured by the popular votes cast in the primary?

Yes. In my earlier clarifications this is how I clarified the market. Actually newswrangler clarified this best very early on so go by this descriptions which I think is very clear and seeing as my clarification are just making things worse this should do it.

So this will be settled as a yes if the votes from Michigan and Florida are counted and used towards delegates.

"if the votes from Michigan's January 15, 2008, primary (which did not include Obama on the ballot), AND the votes from Florida's January 29, 2008 primary are counted, and used to award delegates to the convention. Whether or not there is any form of a "do-over" has no effect on settling this market."

Regards,

Ryan
Hubdub Category Editor

@Destry

I think Ryan's latest explanation could have been clearer.

That said, you wrote
"The method used or what the method is based on does not matter". So from that I am taking from that to mean regardless of what method they use to award the delegates it will settle as yes."

What Ryan said in his last post, relevant to your comment, in my view, was:

"I wasn't referring to the past votes from the primaries as per my earlier clarifications." -- which is to say, what Ryan was, in my view, attempting to clarify was that THE SPLIT didn't matter ... i.e. it could be 50/50, 60/40, 90/10.

In my view, Ryan was interchanging the term "method" with "split" referring to "scheme" -- that it doesn't matter if the Rules Committee uses a "split" scheme (method), or uses a "scheme/method" based, say, on population, or "which way the wind is blowing that day". The "scheme/method" of what the Rules Committee comes up with "doesn't matter" -- *BUT* *whatever scheme* is devised, in order for this market to be settled as "Yes" -- it MUST be *BASED* on the counted votes of BOTH Florida and Michigan.

Again, Ryan's earlier clarifications on this point, in my view, still stand... "I wasn't referring to the past votes from the primaries as per my earlier clarifications."

Ryan's latest comment came in while I was typing...

@Destry
"And one last thing can we agree not to use html tags anymore, so this underlining issue never arises again."

No one regrets the glitch more than I do. Fortunately the comments can be read in the "recent comments" tab.

That said, the missing html tag in one message, affecting every subsequent post is a bug in the HD software.

Many threads have been malformed in HD over the past many months, and this bug has reported several times to HD, but as of yet, no fix. Said differently, a missing html tag ought not affect an entire thread, and many other forums contain software that will alert a user to a missing tag before it is posted... some programs will enter the missing tag automatically before the post is made (albeit not always in the "correct place").

That said, I will be extra careful when using html tags in the future ;-)

(It would be great if after HD fixes the bug, they would post a "styles" box of what html is allowed -- or, better yet ;-) put icons above the "post comment box" enabling users to format messages effortlessly.)

@TheOneCalledMichael

Thanks for asking "what it is that I understand" ("just so i understand YOU clearly) ... and while Ryan's latest post answers that (I think) ... it was great that you asked!

@newswrangler - Offending comment deleted.

Yea! The malformed message in this thread has been removed.

The thread is readable again, even if not understandable.

Ryan said:
" So this will be settled as a yes if the votes from Michigan and Florida are counted and used towards delegates.

"if the votes from Michigan's January 15, 2008, primary (which did not include Obama on the ballot), AND the votes from Florida's January 29, 2008 primary are counted, and used to award delegates to the convention. Whether or not there is any form of a "do-over" has no effect on settling this market." "

This contradicts itself by saying "If the votes from Michigans ... AND the votes from Florida's January 29, 2008 primary are counted", but then saying "Whether or not there is any form of a "do-over" has no effect". How can this be? This says the votes from the original primaries must count; if there is a do-over the original votes would not count!

PLEASE void this question and stop this hilarious discussions.

Make up your mind and bring up a new, clearly worded question.

There will be no peaceful end to this.

I agree with Krujis, at this point, because we will still be arguing over this for months after the settlement.... i think the term that will be associated with this question, ie. "spitzered", will be "Clarification" or"Clarified" or "as clarified by ryan"....an example would be: "Ryan, please don't CLARIFY this question, too.", or "This question has Clearly been over Clarified for concise clarification" or "settled as _______, as CLARIFIED BY RYAN" or even "This question has been newswrangled, as clarified by ryan"

After all this clarification, we should be left with a crystal clear consomme...instead, we have created a muddy gumbo from the back swamps of the atchafalaya basin.....

more proposed coined terms stemming from this question:

"...ryan made another gumbo out of this one...."
"...the raft in ryan's consomme just broke....it needs to be re-clarified..."
"...get the windex, this question just hit the fan!"

The many YES clarifications above seem ambiguous and/or contradictory to me.

Destry's NO clarification is very precise and solid. Is Destry's NO definition in accordance with how this will settle?

Destry: "The only way settle as NO is if she doesn't receive any delegates from either state."
"I don't see but one outcome for settling as a NO and that is if she is awarded NO delegates from Florida or Michigan."

Please, no more YES clarifications, I'm trying to enjoy my weekend ;-)
Is Destry's definition of a NO settlement correct?

Based on the comments by Ryan in comment #37 and then again in comment #71, as well as his post in the get satisfaction thread which is word for word the same as comment #71, I wagered $5000 on Yes, because it was my understanding that if delegates from EITHER state were awarded to her regardless of the amount, and regardless of the method, this would settle as a Yes. It now appears from the comment number #77 that now BOTH states must award her delegates and MUST use a formula that included the original votes for this to be settled as a YES. Which mean there are tons of different ways for this to settle as NO and the question I assumed I was wagering on, is no longer the question I thought it was. I had read in his post #71 that it would be his last comment on this, but after reading #77, I see he was referring to his post #37 in that post.
I will be the first to admit that this question seems to have drastically flip-flopped in meaning with each clarification and reclarification, I would like to see those people who are uncomfortable with this new meaning email Ryan and ask for their wager to be voided. Those that have already cashed out because of this back and forth should contact him as well and ask for thier wagers to be made whole. It is not the users of Hubdub's fault that this question has gotten this out of control. In order to make as many people whole, we should go out of our way to leave them with a good feeling rather than another "spitzering".
- Destry

I'm now reviewing this question so I have suspended it. I've read all the comments here and emails from users and super users. I still need to fully discuss it with Ryan however I think we will probably have to void this one. This should be resolved by 9pm this evening (UK time).

After discussions with Nigel we've come to the decision that the market will need to be voided. The clarifications that were made although with the intent to makes things better only compounded the problems with the market. We'll have to move on from this and learn from the situation which developed. If anyone has suggestion please reply to the Help Forum thread here: http://getsatisfaction.com/hubdub/topics/clinton_delegate_market_escalation?utm_content=topic_link&utm_medium=email&utm_source=reply_notification

We don't currently have a system to reimburse everyone in markets which are voided and I apologize for that.

Apologies,

Ryan Hubdub Category Editor

Good decision, i think, although in light of the meetings on seating Florida this morning, i think it would have settled as yes even by newswrangler's understanding....oh well, easy come, easy go.... thanks for the clarity of the void....at least that is clear now...

and thanks for cleaning up the mess this question made when it hit the fan!