Clinton supporters-The popular vote is a meaningless metric that tells NOTHING about popular support

[Yotun]

If I see another thread claiming that the value of democracy is to count every vote, I'll go crazy.

Once again- the popular vote is MEANINGLESS. The ONLY metric that counts ACTUAL popular support is the pledged delegates.

This is nothing similar to the 2000 election, because here we have both caucus and primary states.

Let's expain this again in an easy to understand manner:

Say you have 2 states. They both have equal sizes, and the same population. One has a primary, the other a caucus.
One candidate wins the primary state by 46-54. The other wins the caucus state 15-85.
Due to the nature of caucuses and primaries, the candidate who won the primary nets 25000 popular votes lead.
The candidate who won the caucus nets 2500 popular votes. Even though BOTH states are the same size.

The candidate who won the primary CLEARLY has the popular vote lead, even though the candidate who won the caucus state is clearly the most popular in the overall electorate of the two states combined. Popular vote does NOT reflect the will of the people.

What you need is a system which delegates representation of support to each candidate according to the size of the state and the way the state has voted, whether in primary or caucus. Something like... pledged delegates.

Pledged delegates are the ONLY metric which accurately reflects the popular support of the people in a contest with BOTH primaries and caucuses. The popular vote is completely, absolutely, totally, meaningless and insignificant.

Let's say this again. The popular vote is a completely MEANINGLESS metric.

This is NOT similar to 2000, because a general election does NOT have caucuses, and all states vote in a prety similar fashion. There are no states with caucuses where the popular vote metric becomes meaningless due to the very nature of the process.

Even so, Hillary is NOT winning the popular vote even as is, unless you include 2 elections which were NOT carried out for the nomination of the democratic candidate for the GE, since the voters and people in those two states voted under different assumptions, that their votes would not count- you cannot say that the results of an elections for A are representative of what would come out in an election for B. And unless you do not count a number of caucus states.

So lets bury this popular vote argument once and for all, or AT LEAST, aknowledge when you are making it that you are using it as a logical argument, but as a political technicality to force your candidate on the ticket, even though she lost the popular support of the electoratate. Because there is no logical basis for the argument to stand on.

[DanTex]

1. Exactly.

A "vote" in a caucus is not the same thing as a "vote" in a primary. You don't just add numbers together blindly.

You need to convert the numbers from every state to comparable units (i.e. pledged delegates) so that they can be meaningfully added.

Here's an analogy.

Say I run 5 miles in the morning. Then I run 200 yards in the afternoon. How far did I run today?
200 + 5 = 205? I ran 205 today!


And then there's the MI and FL thing...

[LSparkle]

2. THANK YOU! And states that decide to hold caucuses HAVE that right

After all, we are the United STATES of America, and if a state's party
decides to select its delegates via caucus -- instead of holding a
primary -- their voters should not be DISENFRANCHISED just because
a candidate considers their selection process as "illegitimate."

[Yotun]

6. Of course. There are many arguments to be made that caucuses are a better way to select candidates

-the people who caucus are likely vote in the GE, to be more informed, more passionate, more likely to engage in an argument or be active for the campaign, less likely to defect or not vote, more likely to fund the campaign or go out and attempt to convert others, while at the same time nobody is actually barred from participating if he/she wants, and the process is open to anybody.

Does it mean that is enough to say caucuses are worse than primaries- perhaps not, but each can have their own interpretation, of what process is better for selecting a nominee. The fact is states have the right to select in any way they want.

[RUMMYisFROSTED]

20. Caucuses are superior to primaries.

Every time.

[Kittycat]

3. Hillary likes to confuse her LIV base.

It makes it easier for her to pretend she won a metric.

[noel711]

4. Too many bogus arguments from shrill voices...

We do not live in a democracy, no matter what others claim.
We live in a republic which offers some democratic features:
The founders were hesitant to allow the 'mindless rabble' to select the government,
and thus put into place safeguards for 'proper' elections.
You may argue with this, but it is as it is.

We never have direct elections:
We live in a republic; that's why we vote for representational government..
We vote for delegates who pick our presidential candidates...
we do not have direct presidential elections either:
it's the electoral college that votes for us.

[bunnies]

5. K&R. A much needed post! Nice job. nt

[Bicoastal]

7. Also kindly remember that the GE election is less than 24 hours. The primary is FIVE MONTHS!

In our case, the proportional system of delagates-per-voting bloc is used to insure the overall blessings of the Democratic electorate, even after people change their minds, have buyer's remorse, or their candidate drops out in the months after their state's turn comes up.

[DanTex]

8. Another thing that is annoying is that...

... there actually is logic to the way the primary process is designed.

The logic isn't all that complicated either. Briefly, it goes like this.

Each state is assigned a number of PDs roughly proportional to its population. Within certain constraints, each state is allowed to decide how to allocate those PDs via an election of some kind.

Having just one big "primary day" would be impractical and would give the wealthiest candidates a huge advantage. So the first few states are small, in order to emphasize in-person campaigning and let candidates develop name recognition.

The first four states are chosen to reflect a certain cross-section of the population: based on geography, ethnicity, income, etc. But they are small states, so it's feasible to campaign in them without huge budgets.

It's not a perfect system, but it does make some sense.

And then Hillary comes along a just takes a big dump on the whole system by yelling POPULAR VOTE at the top of her lungs.

That's not in keeping with progressive ideals. That's the way the Iraq war was sold. WMDs WMDS!!!! We're supposed to be the ones who are capable of thinking beyond the slogans, and accepting subtleties.

[rinsd]

9. The of course ignores bonus pledged delegates and proportional rep in even numbered districts.

Quite a few states award bonus delegates.

Also in district with say 5 delegates, you can win quite handily (60%) and only get a 1 delegate lead for your troubles. Its even worse if you have an even number odf delegates as one has to get 75% to not tie.

[Ravy]

10. Pledged delegates are one of the worst measures.

It is like playing a basketball game where 2 point shots give 2 to you, and 1 to your opponent, and 3 point shots give three to you and two to your opponent.

If you don't like the popular vote, then just use the same metric the contestants will play under in November... where 3 pointers are 3 pointers and 2 pointers are 2 pointers.

Put the states won on an Electoral College map, and if you are an Obama supporter, you will learn why I think some superdelegates are holding out. But do that only if you want to cry.

[Yotun]

17. An electoral college map is meaningless since its based on projections of something that hasn't

happened. The pledged delegate and popular vote metrics are based on election that have occured and have a solid result. This post shows that the popular vote metric is logically incapable of telling us anything about the popularity of a candidate- you could win 10 huge blowout caucus states, and the other candidate could win a single primary in a much tighter race, and cover all the popular votes you got in the previous 10 states- even though you are clearly the most popular candidate overall.The pledged delegate metric is the only one with an internal logic to it.

The electoral college map is not based on actual solid results of elections that have occured and voter preferences expressed- we do not decide the nominee on projections, we decide the nominee after actual electoral events.

[Ravy]

18. What I am saying is that the pledged delegate metric is also flawed.

It is the one that they play with, however, that and the super delegates.

There are lots of ways to measure the "will of the people". The current method used by the Democratic party is one of the poorest, IMHO. Most states won, as often used by Obama and the media, is about the only one I consider poorer.

Maybe we should look at the total number of Democrats registered in states won, or Democrats plus half the independents or something like that for those that believe people other than Democrats should pick the Democratic nominee.

The formula is half the delegates. Changing that to a majority of pledged delegates is moving the goalposts just as much as Clinton does in suggesting other metrics. The only difference is the media seems to be promoting that movement and has been for months.

[Yotun]

23. It is not perfect, yes, but it has a certain logic to it. Popular vote does not.

You could win 10 blowout, large, caucus states, and your opponent one fairly tight primary, and your opponent could still net more popular votes even though clearly you are the most popular.

The popular vote is as bad a metric as counting the states won. Yes pledged delegates are not perfectly apportioned, but they are the only ones with a logical basis for measuring support. Yes the metric for success is half of all delegates, not winning a majority of the pledged delegates, and yes Hillary could still theoretically have the supers come to her, BUT the reason for them doing so will NOT be that she has won the popular support. Once a candidate has the majority of the pledged delegates, he has won the majority of the democratic support of the electorate based on the ONLY metric which has a logical basis for measuring that support.

[Ravy]

29. You and I will have to disagree on what constitutes logical basis.

If it was me, I would apportion the "value" of the states won on something less flat than what they do with pledged delegates in the Democratic convention. People complain that the Electoral College unfairly favors the small states, and by using that system, she overwhelmed Obama's total, which was based largely on the smaller states...not even close.

And I would consider any result coming from a state where they don't even keep track of how many people voted or who they voted for, to be highly suspect. I like elections where people vote, and those votes count and are announced for all to see...and my vote counts no more or no less than anyone else's.

I am not complaining about Obama's domination of the pledged delegates this season. It is the method, as poor as it is, that we use... I think the system needs to be changed *next time* so it is a bit more democratic.

[PATRICK]

11. Interesting

in that trying to win both ways the campaign merely finds another way to lose. it is simply, GOP-like, balancing out one losing scheme with another that the consequences magically get put off and the campaign survives.

Yes, they know about the delegates and certainly have been active in literally trying to peel pledged and un pledged delegates away from Obama by any argument or pressure available. Of course they are losing that battle automatically too without such grasping needed in the Obama camp- only the counter reaction to the Clinton pressure. This sort of thing works, in a nasty way, for the GOP with media support and actual power. It is very good to see the Dems failing in any way to imitate that rule by blatant illogic and hypocrisy. Not wicked enough, never will be and the "pragmatism" and toughness" has been stretched to very educational limits to benefit the future of politics in our party.

Popular votes, delegate choice, rules, no rules. The juggling act is about to let all those balls simply drop in embarrassing fashion all over the stage. Time to close the tired act if not the campaign.

[paulk]

12. pledged delegates is a meaningless metric

when it comes to determining the will of the voters.

Yoiu don't need to look any further than the results in Texas to see this. Hillary got, what - 100k more votes than Obama? Yet Obama, because of the Texas system ended up with more pledged delegates. How is that remotely an indication of "popular support"?

Your argument is bogus. And that's without even getting into WA, NV, or the difference between NE primary and caucus results.

[Yotun]

14. And how does that make the popular vote meaningful in any way as a metric?

Pledged delegates may not reflect exactly the majority- The Texas result reflects that Obama can draw in more active supporters more likely to vote and support the nominee actively till November- you may not like it, but that is how the state of Texas chose to judge how to allocate its support and what to value more.

This does not change the fact in any way that the popular vote is meaningless as a metric. Pledged delegates may not be a perfect metric. But it has an internal logic to it. The popular vote has no logic to it to build a case for it as a metric for who the nominee should be..

Nobody says the system is perfect- but the popular vote is completely and utterly a useless metric given the huge number of states which have caucuses, and which become completely meaningless if the popular vote decided the contest. Why should it be that the people of all the states that had caucuses should in effect have their will be completely ignored, which is what will happen if the popular vote decides the nominee- the caucus states, which allocate many times less popular votes than the primary states, have next to no say to who the nominee is.

The popular vote argument is bogus, plain, and simple. It means nothing, it can decide nothing. There is no, logic, whatsoever in it, and it tells us nothing- it tells us nothing about electability, about popular support- pledged delegates at least tell us that according to what the states value more, who is the most prefered candidate. The popular vote tells. Us. Nothing.

[paulk]

21. well, winning the popular vote means that more people voted

for you than the other guy... some people would find that significant, others not. It's certainly a more straight up way to measure support than through the uneven and unequal apportionment of our "pledged delegate" set up.

In our current system the caucus states have an overstated effect on the nomination, since they favor activists, and activists very rarely are an accurate reflection of the will of the people. Look at Nebraska - Obama won the caucus there by a more than 2 to 1 margin. Yet in their primary, with five times the turnout, he won by 51-49. Clearly the caucus didn't show what the Democrats of that state felt - it only showed what the activists felt. You're going to say - but that's the system! That's fine - but if we lose this November because the system helped the weaker GE candidate win the nomination, we'll know what to blame. And your defense of our system will ring pretty hollow.

Obama picked up 14 delegates in Idaho, for crissakes - more than Hillary got for winning PA, a state that's far more important in the GE. That's not to mention the number of people who voted for her in PA compared to the number that voted for Obama in Idaho. The average Idaho Democrat is way over represented in our current setup.



------------

"The popular vote argument is bogus, plain, and simple. It means nothing, it can decide nothing. There is no, logic, whatsoever in it, and it tells us nothing- it tells us nothing about electability, about popular support- pledged delegates at least tell us that according to what the states value more, who is the most prefered candidate. The popular vote tells. Us. Nothing."

This is just hyperbole.

[Yotun]

24. That more people voted means NOTHING

The Nebraska primary also reflects that once the caucus was done and people voted for it, and it was obvious that the primary wouldn't mean much in the greatest scheme of things given the large lead with which Obama won, many supporters couldn't bother to vote. The results of a primary after a caucus are non-representative of that state.

But again- in an election with both primaries and caucuses, that more people voted for you means nothing- you could win 10 caucuses in blowouts, and lose one tight primary, and lose the popular vote, simply due to the nature of primaries. The popular vote metric renders all states that had caucuses as basically meaningless.

When an election has BOTH primaries AND caucuses, the popular vote becomes COMPLETELY irrelevant and meaningless. It is not hyperbole, at all! you can argue that the pledged delegate metric is imperfect and caucuses are not representative of the population- BUT the popular vote means nothing at all, since it basically ignores every-single-one of the caucus states. Its like adding apples and oranges, and saying you've ended up with bananas.

[paulk]

27. of course it means something

standing on a soapbox and shouting at the top of your lungs doesn't make something true...

Five times as many people voted in the Nebraska primary as voted in the caucus. Even if the "activists" had shown up for the primary (and you don't know that they didn't), that still wouldn't have upped Obama's margin in the primary by very much when measured against the larger turnout. What Nebraska showed is that if all those caucus states had been primaries, the results would have been very different and Obama likely wouldn't be in the lead right now.

What it really means is that the pledged delegate metric is just as much of a farce when it comes to showing the will of the people as the popular vote is. Perhaps even more of a farce.

[Beregond2]

13. Thank you so much for laying this out so clearly.

I'm going to make a copy and hand it to anyone who tries to argue this way with me.

[Yotun]

16. Please do, and please feel free to copy, and use it in any other discussions anywhere else.

The pop.vote argument should be shown for what it is, illogical, and the reasoning behind it should spread out and become better understood.

[QC]

15. And the popular vote means absolutely nothing in the general election.

As the Republicans so thoughtfully explained to us back in 2000, the only meaningful number is that of the electoral votes.

[Writer]

19. ... that is, except to Al Gore in 2000. n/t

[Zynx]

22. Though I believe Obama to be the legitimate nominee I will never concede that caucuses

are representative of their states. They aren't.

[Yotun]

25. You can certainly argue that.

And you could certainly come up with good arguments for it. Some may argue that it is important to value the opinion of those more active in the party, less likely to defect, more likely to work and donate, more likely to be politically informed, and more likely to vote. The caucus does that- but at the same time is not undemocratic in the sense that ANYBODY who wishes to attent can.

Of course you could give counter-arguments to that.

BUT.

You cannot argue that the popular vote is a meaningful representative metric when you have both primaries and caucuses. It IS a meaningful metric if you have ONLY caucuses and ONLY primaries- not a combination of the two.

[AZ Criminal JD]

26. If every state had a primary Hillary would have won this long ago.

[BzaDem]

28. That is such crap. YOUR argument has no logical basis to stand on.

Wyoming voters should not have 24 times the voting power as Texas voters. You say they should, since there is such a small turnout in Wyoming. Bullshit. If people want to vote in Wyoming, they can vote in Wyoming. If they don't, then they don't count. If people can't get off their ass and vote, too bad for them. Stop pretending that the tiny turnout in caucus states actually represents the entire democratic population in those states. In your scenario, the net popular vote difference is 25000 - 2500 = 22500. If you don't like it, that's too bad for you. We don't weight the 2500 caucus votes 10 times what they are just because you are crying about the low turnout.