The System Isn’t ‘Rigged’ Against Sanders Clinton’s winning because more Democrats want her to be the nominee.

A week ago, New York Daily News columnist and Bernie Sanders supporter Shaun King tweeted the following about the Democratic caucuses in Washington, which took place in late March:

Washington State has 7.2 million people. @BernieSanders won 71% of the votes. NONE of those votes count in the "popular vote totals". — Shaun King (@ShaunKing) May 19, 2016

Whether King intended it or not, he implied that caucuses — which often require hours of participation and mean lower turnout — are representative of what would happen if a larger electorate had its say. Well, a funny thing happened in Washington on Tuesday: The state held a mail-in, beauty-contest primary — so voting was easy, but no delegates were at stake. (The Associated Press has declared Hillary Clinton the winner.) The results are still being finalized, but Clinton leads by about 6 percentage points with more than 700,000 votes counted. Sanders won the Washington caucuses, which had 230,000 participants, by 46 percentage points.

So, turnout was much higher in the Washington primary than in the caucuses, and Clinton did much better. Something similar happened in Nebraska, where Clinton lost the early March caucuses by 14 percentage points and won the early May primary, in which no delegates were awarded, by 7 points.

Nebraska and Washington are part of a pattern. As Sanders fans claim that the Democratic primary system is rigged against their candidate and that Sanders wins when turnout is higher, they fail to point out that Sanders has benefited tremendously from low-turnout caucuses. Indeed, if all the caucuses were primaries, Clinton would be winning the Democratic nomination by an even wider margin than she is now.

Let’s start out with the real-world numbers. Here are the delegate and vote totals by contest, including caucuses and primaries, so far:

POPULAR VOTE (THOUSANDS) PLEDGED DELEGATES STATE CAUCUS CLOSED WINNER CLINTON SANDERS CLINTON SANDERS Iowa ✓ Clinton +0 85 85 23 21 N.H. Sanders +22 95 152 9 15 Nevada ✓ ✓ Clinton +5 44 40 20 15 South Carolina Clinton +47 272 96 39 14 Alabama Clinton +59 309 76 44 9 Am. Samoa ✓ Clinton +43 <1 <1 4 2 Arkansas Clinton +36 146 66 22 10 Georgia Clinton +43 546 216 73 29 Massachusetts Clinton +1 607 590 46 45 Oklahoma Sanders +10 139 174 17 21 Tennessee Clinton +34 246 121 44 23 Texas Clinton +32 936 477 147 75 Vermont Sanders +72 18 116 0 16 Virginia Clinton +29 505 276 62 33 Colorado ✓ ✓ Sanders +19 50 73 25 41 Minnesota ✓ Sanders +23 78 126 31 46 Louisiana ✓ Clinton +48 222 72 37 14 Nebraska ✓ ✓ Sanders +14 14 19 10 15 Kansas ✓ ✓ Sanders +35 13 26 10 23 Maine ✓ ✓ Sanders +29 16 30 8 17 Michigan Sanders +1 582 599 63 67 Mississippi Clinton +66 187 38 31 5 N. Marianas ✓ ✓ Clinton +20 <1 <1 4 2 Florida ✓ Clinton +31 1,101 569 141 73 Illinois Clinton +2 1,040 999 79 77 Missouri Clinton +0 312 311 36 35 North Carolina Clinton +14 623 467 60 47 Ohio Clinton +13 697 535 81 62 Dems abroad Sanders +38 11 24 4 9 Arizona ✓ Clinton +15 262 193 42 33 Utah ✓ Sanders +59 15 60 6 27 Idaho ✓ Sanders +57 5 19 5 18 Hawaii ✓ Sanders +40 10 24 8 17 Washington ✓ Sanders +46 62 167 27 74 Alaska ✓ ✓ Sanders +59 2 8 3 13 Wisconsin Sanders +14 434 570 38 48 Wyoming ✓ ✓ Sanders +11 3 4 7 7 New York ✓ Clinton +16 1,134 820 139 108 Pennsylvania ✓ Clinton +12 922 722 106 83 Rhode Island Sanders +12 53 67 11 13 Connecticut ✓ Clinton +5 170 152 28 27 Delaware ✓ Clinton +21 56 37 12 9 Maryland ✓ Clinton +29 573 310 61 34 Indiana Sanders +5 303 335 39 44 Guam ✓ ✓ Clinton +19 1 1 4 3 West Virginia Sanders +16 86 123 11 18 Kentucky ✓ Clinton +0 213 211 28 27 Oregon ✓ Sanders +13 264 347 26 35 Total Clinton +12 13,463 10,544 1,771 1,499 Democratic votes and delegates based on actual results Popular vote in Iowa, Nevada, Maine, Washington and Wyoming is estimated based on overall turnout. Sources: Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections, The Green Papers, U.S. Elections Project

Counting only caucuses, Sanders has won 63 percent of the vote, 64 percent of the delegates and 11 of the 16 contests. In doing so, he has earned 341 elected delegates, compared with Clinton’s 195 delegates, for a margin of 146 delegates. These caucuses have had approximately 1.1 million participants. As a point of comparison, turnout in the caucuses has been only about 13 percent of the total number of votes President Obama got in the 2012 presidential election in these states.

Sanders has done far worse in the states that have held primaries. Counting just primaries, including Tuesday’s in Washington, Sanders has won only 42 percent of the vote, 42 percent of delegates and 10 of the 34 statewide contests. Clinton earned 1,576 elected delegates, compared with Sanders’s 1,158, for a margin of 418. The turnout in these contests has been far higher than in the caucuses, with a little more than 24 million votes cast. That’s about 49 percent of the total number of votes Obama got in the 2012 election in these states.

Now, it is fair to point out that the caucuses have taken place in states that are demographically different than the primary states. Caucus states in 2016 are overwhelmingly white and overwhelmingly rural compared with primary states. Still, these differences don’t come close to explaining the differences in results between the caucuses and primaries so far. We can look to Nebraska and Washington as two examples of the disparity. Of course, one could argue that because no delegates were up for grabs in those states’ primaries, the campaigns didn’t really compete for residents’ votes and therefore those contests aren’t representative of what a truly competitive primary would look like there. Fortunately, because the vote in the Democratic primary has largely broken down along demographic lines, we can use statistical models to approximate what would happen if states that held caucuses had held primaries instead.

At various times, we’ve tried using demographics to model the vote in the Democratic nomination contest so far. The model considers each 2016 contest and controls for (i) the black and Hispanic share of the Democratic vote in that state in the 2008 general election, (ii) whether that primary or caucus is “open” to independent voters unaffiliated with a political party, and (iii) the margin in national primary polls at the time the contest is held. This model estimates that holding caucuses instead of primaries is a massive advantage for Sanders. In fact, Clinton would do about 20 to 25 percentage points better relative to Sanders if a state changed from a caucus to a primary, the model estimates.

Here’s how we project each caucus would have gone if a primary had been held instead:

POPULAR VOTE (THOUSANDS) PLEDGED DELEGATES STATE CLOSED WINNER CLINTON SANDERS CLINTON SANDERS Iowa Clinton +24 301 182 27 17 Nevada ✓ Clinton +29 185 101 23 12 Am. Samoa Clinton +60 4 1 5 1 Colorado ✓ Clinton +6 331 295 35 31 Minnesota Clinton +1 402 394 39 38 Nebraska ✓ Clinton +7 79 70 13 12 Kansas ✓ Sanders +12 91 116 15 18 Maine ✓ Sanders +5 92 102 12 13 N. Marianas ✓ Clinton +39 3 1 4 2 Utah Sanders +39 52 120 10 23 Idaho Sanders +37 33 72 7 16 Hawaii Sanders +17 63 88 10 15 Washington Clinton +6 471 418 53 48 Alaska ✓ Sanders +40 17 40 5 11 Wyoming ✓ Clinton +13 19 15 8 6 Guam ✓ Clinton +42 10 4 5 2 Current primary states Clinton +14 13,064 9,861 1,576 1,158 Total Clinton +12 15,216 11,880 1,847 1,423 Projected Democratic results if caucus states had held primaries

Sanders fans have claimed that because caucuses have lower turnout the current national caucus and primary vote underrates how well Sanders is doing. In fact, the opposite is true. When we switch all caucuses over to primaries, Sanders actually does worse. Clinton’s lead in the popular vote would grow from 2.9 to 3.3 million votes. Moreover, her edge in elected delegates would expand significantly. Instead of her current lead of 272 elected delegates, Clinton would be ahead by 424. Some states that were won by Sanders in caucuses, including Colorado and Minnesota, would be won by Clinton in primaries, according to our calculations.

In fact, counting the 537 superdelegates The Associated Press currently gives Clinton, she would likely have 2,384 total delegates if every state had held a primary. That’s one more than necessary to clinch the nomination.

But what would happen if every state held a primary that was open to independent voters? Independent voters, after all, have been among Sanders’s strongest groups, and Sanders supporters have consistently cited closed contests as evidence the game is rigged. We can rerun the same regression as above but estimate what would happen if all the primaries are open to unaffiliated voters.

POPULAR VOTE (THOUSANDS) PLEDGED DELEGATES STATE WINNER CLINTON SANDERS CLINTON SANDERS Iowa Clinton +24 301 182 27 17 Nevada Clinton +18 188 130 21 14 Am. Samoa Clinton +60 4 1 5 1 Colorado Sanders +6 331 373 31 35 Minnesota Clinton +1 402 394 39 38 Louisiana Clinton +39 240 100 36 15 Nebraska Sanders +5 79 88 12 13 Kansas Sanders +23 90 144 13 20 Maine Sanders +16 91 127 10 15 N. Marianas Clinton +30 3 2 4 2 Florida Clinton +20 1,159 760 129 85 Arizona Clinton +4 267 248 39 36 Utah Sanders +39 52 120 10 23 Idaho Sanders +37 33 72 7 16 Hawaii Sanders +17 63 88 10 15 Washington Clinton +6 471 418 53 48 Alaska Sanders +50 16 48 4 12 Wyoming Clinton +2 19 19 7 7 New York Clinton +4 1,146 1,049 129 118 Pennsylvania Clinton +0 915 907 95 94 Connecticut Sanders +6 176 200 26 29 Delaware Clinton +9 58 49 11 10 Maryland Clinton +18 581 399 56 39 Guam Clinton +31 11 6 5 2 Kentucky Sanders +10 205 256 24 31 Oregon Sanders +25 251 418 23 38 Current open primary states Clinton +12 8,146 6,429 956 715 Total Clinton +8 15,298 13,024 1,782 1,488 Projected results if every state had held an open primary An “open” primary allows the participation of voters not registered with either major political party.

Clinton’s margin in the national popular vote shrinks to about 8 percentage points (from 12). That’s because opening a primary to independent voters shrinks Clinton’s margin in a state by about 10 percentage points on average, according to the model. Sanders would also project to win Connecticut and Kentucky, which he lost in the real world when they held closed primaries.

Still, this wouldn’t make all that much difference. Just 11 states held closed primaries, so the national vote is mostly reflective of a process open to unaffiliated voters. Indeed, Clinton has won 14 primaries open to independent voters, while Sanders has won nine.

In fact, if all states held primaries open to independents — instead of closed primaries, or caucuses of any kind — Clinton might have a larger lead in elected delegates than she does now. The model indicates that Clinton would have a lead of 294 elected delegates, compared with the 272 she holds now. That’s not a huge difference, but it means that Clinton has been hurt at least as much by caucuses as Sanders has been hurt by closed primaries.

Listen to the latest episode of the FiveThirtyEight politics podcast.

What would happen if the primary system conformed to each candidate’s best-case scenario? (All closed primaries for Clinton and all caucuses open to independent voters for Sanders.) If every state held a closed primary, Clinton would beat Sanders by 19 percentage points and have a 654 elected delegate advantage, we estimate. If, however, each state held an open caucus, Sanders would beat Clinton by 22 percentage points nationwide and have a 496 elected delegate lead. Of course, neither of those scenarios would happen.

Realistically, if you throw everything together, the math suggests that Sanders doesn’t have much to complain about. If the Democratic nomination were open to as many Democrats as possible — through closed primaries — Clinton would be dominating Sanders. And if the nomination were open to as many voters as possible — through open primaries — she’d still be winning.