Chris Putt

Math 1030
Voting Theory Project

PARTS I:

There are a few differences between a primary and caucus. The first being that in a
primary, public voters are able to cast there ballots in order to decide the winner. A caucus is run
by party officials who arrange a time and place for people to come together and cast votes, so
to say, to decide who is the preferred candidate. Primaries are much more direct and statewide
just like the general election that decides the President. Primaries and caucus’ serve a very
similar purpose but do differ quite a bit.
The Iowa caucus plays a big role during every Presidential candidates campaign and
their efforts to win a arty nomination. It is the first chance that any of the states get to show their
support for one candidate over the others. It is the first true test for any candidate and can
make or break there campaigns hopes. The first time that the Iowa caucus played such a
significant impact was back in 1968, when Jimmy Carter used it to launch his campaign, win the
nomination, and then go on to take the Presidential election. The Iowa caucus has since had a
reputation for being a predictor of the winner of not only their parties nomination, but also the
future President. The most current election was no predictor of the election, but it did predict
Clintons nomination and boost Rubios chances by a significant amount. To conclude, The Iowa
caucus is significant for many reasons and has made and broken many campaign trails.

PART III

When choosing which candidate I believed should be the winner of this election I had a
bit of a hard time choosing because there were multiple winners throughout the course of Part 2
of this assignment. After much thought I concluded that Candidate R, Rubio, should be the
overall winner. I came to this conclusion due to the fact that candidate R was the sole
Condorcet candidate as well as the winner of other voting methods. I believed the Copeland
method to be the fairest test because it compared each candidate on a one on one basis. In the
end Candidate R was the overall winner in the Copeland method by a good margin, making him
the best of the bunch.
Candidate R didn't just win the Copeland method, he also took the win in the Borda
count. His tally in the Borda count was 34 votes higher then his nearest rival, a convincing win
by anyones standard. Having won two of the four voting methods he won 50 percent of the
methods and was the sole candidate to win more then one of the voting methods. For all these
reason I deemed it only fitting that Candidate R be the winner of the election.