Obama delegates cost 10251 votes, Clinton's cost 11152.

[Buve]

Is this something we as democrats can stand for? Doesn't one vote = one vote?

Please, discuss.



(poo, forgot to source: www.realclearpolitics.com. Votes over delgates.)

[ingac70]

1. No...

and if you will recall the GE doesn't equal one vote=one vote either.

[Buve]

2. Florida Florida Florida

And we as democrats should remember what thinking like that cost us in 2000.

Shouldn't our processes implement the ideal. 1 vote = 1 vote.

[ingac70]

5. Perhaps, but it never has...

and probably never will.

[LulaMay]

3. It stinks.....and caucuses should be stopped.

[BzaDem]

4. It gets even worse.

An Idaho delegate is worth 1140 votes. A Texas delegate is worth 21226 votes. Should that be something we stand for? NO.

(To calculate those numbers, just take the total number of votes / total number of delegates from cnn.com.)

[Buve]

6. that makes me sick

I should move to Iowa or NH so that my vote counts....

[ingac70]

7. Individual state parties....

figure out their delegate selection

[PseudoIntellect]

10. The thing is, Idaho wasn't close.

Texas was. If Texas wasn't going to be a nail-biter, less people would have shown up. Thus, their delegates would become "less valuable." But the total delegates for the population are already known; it doesn't matter how many people show up on election day.

[BzaDem]

12. Exactly. That's the problem.

It should be one person, one vote. The winner of the most votes nationwide should get the nomination. What a concept.

[lapfog_1]

14. Right now, that would be Senator Obama. - n/t

[BzaDem]

15. Yup. I totally support democracy, even if my candidate doesn't win. n/t

[MonkeyFunk]

38. Not if you count FL and MI

then Clinton leads.

[joshcryer]

41. And even if you don't count FL and MI, she still gets less delegates per vote.

[lapfog_1]

43. But does she have the lead in the popular vote?

or the lead in delegates?

BTW, how many delegates did she gain on Obama yesterday, what with her "big" wins and all?

[joshcryer]

44. Even if she did she could have less delegates, don't ya get that?

She has to earn 500-1k more votes per delegate.

And it all depends on how you count, if you say FL and MI don't count, then obviously she has less popular vote, if you say it does (ie, that they voted, and yaknow, that their votes matter), then she does.

The point is that the system still manages to be biased against women. It's amazing.

[joshcryer]

46. Perspective: she has to have almost 1.4 million *more* votes than him to *tie* in delegates.

Isn't that fucked up?

[lapfog_1]

52. No, she could have won in those places that Obama won

He didn't set up the rules.

It is a level playing field.

Let me put it another way... if Obama had won the "big" states and lost a whole bunch of little states, but STILL had the delegate lead... would YOU be making the same case that it's unfair that he had to win MORE votes to get his delegates?

I think not.

I think you would be extolling the virtues of small state representation and how wise it is that the democratic party still values those voters not in NY and LA.

[joshcryer]

53. The math doesn't lie.

She's being discriminated against by the system.

This isn't "small state representation." This is tyranny.

[lapfog_1]

54. No...

SHE isn't being discriminated against.

It's not aimed at HER.

For it to be discrimination, it must be unfair AND targeted. Not simply unfair.

It's unfair to anyone that wins big states... but that's not discrimination! (because it's unfair to EVERYONE that wins big states).

You want to change the rules, I'm sure you can find a democratic office near you. Walk in and volunteer for something... attend a few meetings, offer yourself up for the rules committee...
and then change the rules.

But the rules are equally unfair to everyone as they stand right now.

Quit playing the victim card. There isn't any victim here EXCEPT MAYBE the big state voter (who's vote doesn't count as much as the small state voter)... but not the candidates, they can choose which voters to compete for.

[joshcryer]

55. I expect the rules to be changed after this DNC.

In the meanwhile they can make up their mind whether or not they want to vote for the person with the disproportionate and unfair delegate "lead" or the person with the majority democratic vote. Thanks to the DNC.

[lapfog_1]

56. That will not be a consideration

nor is it likely that they will change the rules now for next time.

The problem with representative democracies (in general) is that should you get elected to something (pick an office, any office), it is not in your best interest to change the rules that elected you to that office.

Which is why election reform is just so damned difficult.

[joshcryer]

57. Why wouldn't it be a "consideration"? Do you know the DNC process? Anything can be tabled.

They can table to vote on having a karoke contest between Obama and Hillary if they wanted to, as absurd as it sounds, there's nothing that prevents them from making persuasive arguments. It's called democracy.

Hillary undoubtedly does not have the delegate lead (and it will be impossible for her to get that lead because as I pointed out she needs to have 1.4 million more votes than Obama to simply tie). However, she may in fact have the popular vote lead, she will have the big states we need for Nov.

I find it unlikely that the party would support a disproportionate and disenfranchising system over the will of the majority.

Whatever happens it will have to be seen as fair, and Obama needs both the majority of the votes and the delegates to be able to pull away from it.

There are no "rules" the way you put it at the DNC, except for how votes are cast. That's it.

[lapfog_1]

59. It won't be a consideration because Hillary won't win the majority

of votes. The MI and FL primaries will NOT count because they were not sanctioned by the same DNC you now appeal to for the "unfairness".

Obama will have the pledged delegate lead, the overall delegate lead, and the popular vote of sanctioned primaries and caucuses.

The math just doesn't work for Hillary on any of these.

The reason you bring up popular vote now is that is the ONLY one of the three measures that Hillary could possibly pull even with Obama. But we don't live in a direct democracy, we live in a representative democracy... just as we didn't have President Al Gore in 2000 (he won the popular vote too), nor will we have Presidential Nominee Hillary Clinton in 2008.

After all the hoopla from yesterday (3 state "wins" and a double digit win in Ohio), Hillary gained, at most, 5 delegates more than Obama... and, at worst, actually lost ground to him again.

[lapfog_1]

42. And how do you count the popular vote from Michigan

where Obama wasn't on the ballot?

Oh right, I remember now, YOU said just to count Hillary's vote and leave the uncommitted as uncommitted.

How very kind and just of you... :sarcasm:

Go back to your cage now.

[joshcryer]

45. Exit polling, obviously.

[MonkeyFunk]

47. Obama got no votes in Michigan

entirely through his own doing. He took his name off the ballot of his own free will - no one forced him to, no one even asked him to. He chose to.

It's hard to say he should get votes when he deliberately decided not to be on the ballot.

[joshcryer]

49. Well they can table a vote at the DNC to seat them for him, so yeah.

Obviously he and the other candidates were political opportunists by chosing not to be represented in those states.

[lapfog_1]

51. See, I knew that would be your answer.

and it was bullshit the first time around, and it's bullshit now.

No wonder you support Hillary... you have NO sense of doing the right thing or fair play or any of those concepts. For you, it's win by any means.

He kept his name off the ballot because of an agreement he made with the other candidates, one that Hillary sort of agreed to and then backtracked when it came time.

Oh well, no use talking to a wall.

Say anything, do anything.

[MonkeyFunk]

58. And if Clinton was in Obama's spot

I'm sure you'd be saying tough-titties on her.

Obama removed his name. Nobody made him do it. Nobody even asked him to do it. He didn't have to do it. He chose to pander to Iowa and New Hampshire.

I don't care how much you all bitch and cry, there's no way we're disenfranchising Florida and Michigan at the convention. It's just not going to happen. The whole situation is blindingly stupid, and we never should've gotten to this point. But we are here now, and smart people will resolve it.

[PseudoIntellect]

16. Well, in that case,

they should not decide how many delegates to send from each state before the elections take place. It should all be determined based on the popular vote on election day, with no delegates of any kind. It doesn't look like anything like that would happen soon.

[lapfog_1]

13. Oh, and worse than that...

Wyoming gets two Senators out of 100.

That's one Senate vote for every 257,000 people.

California gets two Senators out of 100.

That's one Senate vote for every 18,228,774 people.

Our democracy isn't very, ummm, democratic, is it?

[BzaDem]

18. Yeah, and I never said that was fair either.

The Senate was created because of states-rights interests in the late 1700s that aren't applicable today.

In many other countries, there is none of that. The winner of the election should win the election. I think there are many undemocratic elements to our electoral system, and they should be fixed. I think the Senate is so much a part of our tradition that it is unlikely to go away (and there are much better arguments for it than for a wildly unfair nomination process), but I think democratic nominating processes and the abolition of the electoral college is a good start.

[Levgreee]

8. Those delegates are determined by individual votes.... 1000 people vote, 1 delegate

So the popular vote determines how many "points" the candidates get, with some small fluctuations.

I don't know what exactly your gripe is.

[BzaDem]

11. The problem is that delegates are worth more in different states.

Approximately 1000 people vote in Idaho per delegate. But approximately 24,000 people vote in Texas per delegate. Please tell me how that is fair.

[Levgreee]

21. It's the same in the General Election, where we have an Electoral system.

It gives more weight towards states with lower populations, so the selection process isn't dominated by the the bigger states like California.

Fair or not fair, that depends on where your priorities are, creating equality between states, or between individuals. But it's the system we've followed in the GE for many many decades, now.

[BzaDem]

24. Yeah, and I think the electoral college should be abolished. So do many, many others. n/t

[joshcryer]

30. DU was *created* because 2000 wasn't based on popular vote.

*Most* people here who *know* what one vote = one count means *understand* how our democratic system is fucked up beyond belief.

This means, in the end, that in fact most people here who went through 2000 and agreed that Gore was shafted, would agree that the Electoral College, and Caucusing/Delegate system needs to be *abolished*.

[Buve]

34. Good cause

What a great reason to start a site!!

[joshcryer]

37. 2000 was the worst time of my life.

I can honestly say it disillusioned me in the process completely. I am completely blown away by the numbers that are turning out in the *primaries*! Maybe there's hope for the system yet.

If we can count the votes equtibly.

[lapfog_1]

9. You are talking about the Texas primary rules?

Those have been the rules for a long time.

They reward districts that have a history of voting democratic (a reward to the base).

The reward is to have a disproportionate say in the state delegation.

I don't think it's fair, but on the other hand, it's quite common (to more than Texas).

And those are the rules. Want to change the rules, I suggest you take it up with the Texas Democratic Party... and, oh, while you are there, talk to them about this primary / caucus vote twice thing too.

Read up on the history of political parties a little... it's a *lot* more democratic now than it was even 40 or 50 years ago. Never mind 100 years ago.

Life, love, and politics are NOT fair.

Oh, btw, just in case you think this always falls in Obama's favor... when he was having those 65 - 35 blowouts just a little while ago... you think he got 65 percent of the delegates from those states?

[Buve]

19. nothing to do with Texas

I don't even want to get into how f*ed up Texas' system is. How is it that in the state people's votes count different based on vote returns from OLD ELECTIONS.


1 person = 1 vote, and i really don't care how shapes the election.


Even though i'm bitter now i'm sure i'll come around before the general.

[Beregond2]

17. Caucuses

I would remind you all that this isn't an election. It is a process whereby the parties choose their candidates. They can do that through any procedures they choose. If you don't like it, get involved in the party of your choice, and work to change things. But consider: might it not be better for candidates to be chosen by those people most involved in politics and committed to their parties than by voters from the general public? I mean, there is an arguement to be made for that I think. And caucuses are just about the only time most people can be bothered to give any time to their party at all. Do we want to eliminate even that?

When I was young, the general public wasn't involved in choosing the candidates at all. That was entirely decided at the convention. And no one thought that was undemocratic. It was understood that the choice of candidate was the business of the parties, and the general public shouldn't weigh-in until it was time to choose between them. That may sound too "inside" to modern ears, but it seems to me it was a lot better than this endless primary process, with it's insane costs and infinite opportunities to destroy every candidate's reputation. It used to be that people voted for the party, more than the candidates. And I think that was a lot better. It put the focus on issues, not personalities.

[BzaDem]

20. When party activists have the only say

you end up with a McGovern, who lost 49/50 states. Primary elections allow for candidates to rise and fall, and that is great: it means we don't end up with candidates who will lose the GE for sure.

One can certainly argue that party activists in one state should have 25 times the say as other democrats in another state. I disagree though. I think the more democratic it is, the better. Both for the parties interest (in electing a candidate that can actually win the GE) and in democracy's interest.

[anigbrowl]

25. Let's take away Hawii's senators too and give them to California.

If you guys seriously want to reform the system, fine, but carry it through to its logical conclusion.

[Buve]

35. the constitution is not the democratic party

pointing out something else broken about our democracy doesn't mean that our party needs to continue that problem.

We CAN do better than that, we CHOOSE not to.

why?

[joshcryer]

40. The DNC is where the nomination happens, those are the rules.

Anything can happen at the DNC.

And the OP pointed out a very astute observation. Hillary, like most women in this country, is being unfairly by a process of disenfranchisement. This will be noted at the DNC come August, you can bank on it.

[Buve]

22. teh internets

Doesn't the interent really change the old rules? There are alot of extrodinarly active people who are getting the "shaft" this election. Heck, with internet phone I've been able to make free phone calls to primary states from my house for goodness sake. Or I can organize on facebook, etc.

My concern about this is if a demographic core to the democratic party isn't getting represented in our primary choice, or even worse two BATTLEGROUND states, we are doomed to seed resentment in that demographic.

Why vote for the Democrats, they don't want to hear my vote. F' them. <-- this will become their sentiment.

[anigbrowl]

26. Doesn't the same apply to republicans?

Methinks you are suffering from a degree of tunnel vision.

[Buve]

32. sure

But i'm not a member of that party... and if they want to promote a un-democratic process it just gives us another thing to HIT them with.

anacdotal: I get hit with "haha 'democratic' party with its 'super-delegates'" at work by my repug friends all the time

[lapfog_1]

23. Yes, I was pointing that out in another post

even 40 years ago the process was much different... and 100 years ago...

Actually, one of the benefits of the "smoked filled rooms" of the old conventions is that party platforms were MUCH more important than they are today. Candidates were often selected on the basis of what planks were thought to be the most important that year in the platform.

I, personally, would love to get away from the two party system.

Sigh.

[Buve]

28. Parliment

Lack of the parlimentary system is the problem. Until we elect proportional representation that in turn can form coalitions to elect the executive we will never have a viable 3rd party. The stakes are simply to high with a winner take all presidential. Possibly instant run-off could make this better.

Hell if a VERY popular ex-president who was shot during the campaign can't do it (TR) nobody can.

[joshcryer]

27. This will be one of the many arguments tabled at the DNC. Who will be the most persuasive, is...

...anyones guess. It does look slightly in Hillary's favor, though. The caucusing process is going to be quite scrutinized come the convention.

And yes, that's part of the democratic process.

No, it's not bad.

[Buve]

29. 2012

at least we need to get this stuff fixed in our resective caucus states come 2012.

Hell in Washington the state ALREADY PAYS for the primary that has no meaning.

(and moderate/right talk radio drags us through the mud for wasting state money for doing it, and that kind of waste resonates in the suburbs)


I hates you dori!!

[joshcryer]

31. Yeah, 2012 I expect caucuses to be done away with. Perhaps even the Electoral College.

It's high time these problems are fixed. They're old and archaic forms of power elitism.

[joshcryer]

33. BTW, isn't it somewhat amusing that the woman, in the end, gets less reward for equal effort?

It's pretty ironic I think. A man yet again gets the better deal.

[Buve]

36. wow... just wow

that is injustice truly brought full circle...


/lol

/cry

[joshcryer]

39. I made that my sig. It's worth noting everywhere.

[LSdemocrat]

48. In terms of delegate cost: Rudy Guiliani's 1 delegate for $50 million takes the cake

[joshcryer]

50. Transvestites even get a more raw deal than women!

:evilgrin:

Please, please, please, I mean this in gest. I'd never insult those people!